Sparrow

I mostly lurk in this forum because there are so many posters here that know so much more than I ever will. I hope I don’t embarrass myself, but if I do, I hope to have the grace to admit my errors.

It seems you’re assuming more than just a crucifixion of someone named Jesus early in the first century. There seems to be an underlying assumption that Jesus is more or less as described in at least one, if not all, of the gospels. I’m not sure we know that. It seems plausible to me that the gospels could be later inventions to rationalize an emerging theology. Perhaps there was an historical person (or persons) at the beginning. But this person was human, had human parents and no supernatural powers. This person gained a following. After this person’s death, however it may have happened, his followers probably dispersed, at least for a time. Some time later, one of the followers has a vision (hallucination , revelation – whatever) of the dead cult leader and begins to preach again. How would he then convince people to join his group? As time goes on, the stories become more fantastic. Enough time passes that there’s no one alive to refute the assertions.

While such a scenario is plausible to me (until someone shows me otherwise), it need not be plausible to you. I do not assert that this is what actually happened. I do not think that the evidence we currently have will ever definitively answer any questions about a real Jesus, as Toto says above.

If we take the gospels at face value, meaning a virgin birth attended by wise men led to the site by a star, miracles (walking on water, healing. loaves and fishes, etc.), a crucifixion complete with earthquakes, a resurrection appearance to hundreds or more, I find it very hard to believe that nothing would have been written of such amazing events during the life of that person. If all these amazing feats are later embellishments or even pure fiction, then the lack of contemporary writing is explainable, but at the expense of atonement.

TedM

Yes, I'm asking for people to derive a naturalistic explanation for Christiainity to have developed from the crucifixion of a real man.

So why didn't this one?



Because your statement didn't say whether the people you said "were very convincing preachers, respected personalities, and/or had an audience that was eager to accept what they were being taught." were the same as those who had loved him enough to pronounce him resurrected. If they were, would you expect them to be such convincing, respected preachers, or do you think the audience was eager to accept, and why? If they weren't, why were convincing, respected preachers so eager to accept the claims of those who did know and love Jesus?



So you think that had Jesus been a nobody who was crucified, that would have been sufficient for others to accept the claims by those who knew and loved him of his resurrection?


By "given the culture" I am referring to a Jewish culture that included groups that did believe in the resurrection, but not typically one of the type attributed to Jesus (whatever that was originally). Something about the claim was unique for a whole religion to have started from it. If that is what happened here was a common occurance, why did it evolve into a religion?

ted

TedM

Ok, by why and how would the followers have 'incorporated his death into the growing mythology'? And, what growing mythology are you referring to?

Julian

They would have to incorporate it or else admit that it was all false. They believed that he was wise/divine/whatever but then, suddenly, he is killed and they are left standing there. They would have had no choice but to build a coherent picture of their founder, and that would have to include his death. Likewise, his death would need to be seen as having significance, much like the traditional greek philosophical stories show the teacher being true to his doctrine even in the face of death, a tradition continued in the concepts of christian martyrdom.
The one that reaches its climax in the gospels.

If there was a historical Jesus then christianity must have had its very first beginnings at that time. The crucifiction would not be the starting point. The crucifiction would mark the end and, hence, the climax. Thus it took on the import it did. The crucifiction would have to be incorporated because of its obvious significance.

Julian

TedM

Thanks, Sparrow, for your reply. You imply that he was a leader of some kind, with followers. Are you saying he would make up fantastic stories to convince people to join his group? If not, how or why would people join his group? And, what was the message being preached by that group? I understand the part about mythology growing over time, but am still not clear on what the mechanism is for the early growth prior to the greater stories of myth.

ted

TedM

Thanks Julian. I tend to see it that way too. I have a hard time seeing the logic of those who think it could have developed without a pre-existing theology taught by or at least followed by the man who was crucified and believed by his followers or those who knew him and agreed with his own philosophy.


What might the earliest story line have been regarding his death, to make belief in his resurrection (in some form) 'catch on' and have significance? How might it have been tied to the meaning people gave to Jesus when he was alive?

ted

Julian

I think the only thing required was to have someone become active in the movement who hadn't known him when he was alive. I suspect that the people who knew him merely saw Jesus as a righteous man wrongly executed. Latecomers, like Paul and others, who didn't know him would be free to ascribe to him whatever mythology they required. Notice the beliefs of the Ebionites (possibly the original followers) versus the budding proto-orthodox. Also, compare with the followers of JBap which is where I believe a historical Jesus would have come from, giving rise to the term Nasorean (not from Nazareth which I believe to be a later misunderstanding, possibly deliberate).

Julian

freigeister

No, there was only one Spinoza; and, yes, he was of Jewish background. He was expelled, however, from the Amsterdam synagogue. He never joined a Christian church. He saw in Christ the highest exemplar of pure, prophetic Judaism. He certainly wasn't the last Jew to speak favorably of Christ.

freigeister

I think that the experience of Christ's followers was that after the crucifixion he continued to dominate their thought just as he had before.

Amaleq13

Yes it did. "If we assume the first apostles knew him, I think we have to assume he was loved by them."

I would have no prior expectations about their ability to be convincing preachers. I added the "respected personalities" factor in consideration of James since the evidence suggests he already had an established reputation among his fellow Jews. With regard to the eagerness of the audience, I can only assume that the message of hope for the hopeless as well as the sense of community that was connected to the claims of resurrection were significant factors.

I should have elaborated on my "No." by suggesting that you avoid asking such complex, multiple-part questions and, instead, separate them out as individual questions.

No. In fact, execution by crucifixion suggests that he did pose some sort of threat.

No. Crucifixion neither requires nor implies a role as teacher in the sense of conveying wisdom.

I think either could have inspired devoted followers to believe their deceased leader had been resurrected but only the former is suggested by a crucifixion execution.

If you don't know what type of resurrection was attributed to Jesus originally, how do you determine it was unlike what already existed in Jewish culture?

Something about the claim or something about the people making the claim or something about the socio-political environment in which the claim was made or some sort of unique interaction of all the relevant factors?

Right place, right time, right people involved.