Jack the Bodiless

Man, that is seriously screwed up.

OK, we've already covered the fact that 4 does not equal 11, and nobody considers Mark or Luke to be eyewitnesses (they weren't disciples), and the actual authors of "Matthew" and "John" aren't considered to be eyewitnesses either...

...But what did you imagine you were claiming here? There were 12 disciples, not 11. If you think that 11 of them wrote gospels, you must be willing to include a lot of non-canonical stuff. If so: which disciple do you think is without a gospel, and why? Here's a hint: it wasn't Judas. And it wasn't "Doubting Thomas" either. So, who?

Gamera

Did the Sanhedrin keep written records of trials? Was it consistently kept. Are you telling us there's a body of trial records from the 1st century over religious issues? This is a treasure trove. Tell us where to find these mss!

But if there are no such records (there aren't), why do you take the fact that there are no records of a trial of Jesus as evidence that there was no such trial?

Gamera

[QUOTE=TomboyMom]This is pure tendentious reasoning. The fact that there is a Christian movement some 70 or 80 years after the death of Jesus, a movement important enough to be mentioned by Pliny, and the fact that this movement is based on the believe of a certain person called Jesus, and the fact that there are written documents that narrate his life, is in fact probative of the details of Jesus life.

Rhetoric. The fact is there are written documents that narrate Jesus life. That's what history is: written documents. The mythologizers are stuck in the unenviable position of claiming the mss were intended as fiction, but something went horribly wrong and people took them seriously, the first and only time something like this happened.

You've now ventured from historicity to literalism. One can accept the historicity of Jesus without taking the OT literally. The two are unrelated.

Gamera

The Sanhedrin did not have court reporters. Indeed, I believe the first consistent trial records began being kept in the late mediaeval period, and even they are spotty and not word for word but summaries, the purpose being mostly for precedence in dealing with land disputes. There wasn't a real reason to keep records of criminal procedings, except propaganda purposes, since the idea of fair trial in a criminal case is somewhat modern.

In the classic period, important trials were "recorded" by the followers of the person tried, thus Plato provides an account of Socrates' trial. This is totally analogous to the record of Jesus' trial in the gospels. Most people think Socrates actually existed. A similar conclusion could be reached about Jesus based on the account of his trial.

Gullwind

Orsone Welles, War of the Worlds radio broadcast. October 31, 1938.

Celine

Do you man an extra biblical account of the Jesus trial, as per the OP here?

Gamera

There are no contemporary references to Jesus. There are later references by nonChristians. This shouldn't surprise you. It was the pattern of the time. There are no contemporary referenced to most historical figures during the classic period (Aristotle writes about some living athletes tangentially, they being long forgotten). They didn't have newpapers. Historical figures -- unless they were emperors or something analogous -- didn't get written about until later. Hence nobody wrote about Socrates while he was alive. All the references come later. Do you conclude from this that Socrates wasn't an historical figure and Plato made him up?

The fact is more is written about Jesus in a shorter period of time after his death than is written about virtually any historical figure of the time. Indeed, I suspect he was the most written-about single personage of the 1st century. I doubt even emperors got that much ink.

Gamera

I mean the Sanhedrin didn't keep written records of trials, period.

The gospels aren't a trial record, but an account. I believe them to be accurate, but to say that there is no written trial record of Jesus trial, and propose that as evidence there was no trial is absurd, since there are no trial records period.

Gamera

Did that result in a worldwide religious phenomena that lasted 2000 years. I think it lasted about 3 hours.

Gullwind

Because the evidence that it was fiction was readily apparent. The point was that people taking a fictional story as truth has happened other times, contrary to your earlier post. Causing a worldwide religious phenomena lasting 2000 years was not a condition of your assertion.