Vivisector

Thanks for the clarification. I'm with you so far.

I tend not to think Jesus himself was a robber/bandit, even though some of his followers might have been. Who knows - maybe he couldn't completely control them, and they got out of hand at an inopportune moment leading to Jesus being crucified for the deeds of these people? If this had happened, then the reasons for Jesus's crucifixion would have had nothing to do with his movement and he would have been innocent, in a way. But I'm indulging in undisciplined thinking out loud here.

I also think probabilities are very much in Vork's favor regarding the two robbers (a literary device).

If you're suggesting that the remaining members fabricated the resurrection (as opposed to experiencing some kind of personal phenemonon or a particularly vivid remembrance of Jesus), then it seems questions such as the following are important: (a) Who were the remaining members? I.e., were they Jews, Greeks, Galileans, Judeans? (b) Whom did the movement target - Jews, Greeks, both? (c) Would the audience have viewed Jesus's crucifixion as thoroughly discrediting anything he advocated? (seems this depends on the specific reasons for Jesus's crucifixion and the target audience) (d) Why resurrection as opposed to some other tactic? (e) When did this happen?

Here, I'd comment that maybe his original aims didn't require his presence for the movement to continue (e.g., the LDS, who continued after Joseph Smith's assassination). Also, in this situation, it was Jesus's original aims -whatever those were - that brought this group together and kept them together after his death. It seems it would be hard to invent new aims that were just as cohesive.

Interesting and frustrating - it's very difficult for me to find a scenario that's comprehensive enough to explain the diversity of beliefs about this Jesus fellow and how quickly they spread.

Amaleq13

I think we share this approach but differ with regard to what we consider to be "known". I find little in the Gospel stories that can be reliably identified as "history".

What there is, in Paul, is no good reason to assume a ministry. Absent that evidence, I require nothing else to fail to make the assumption.

What does the assumption of a ministry explain?

Do Christian groups today form as the result of Jesus' ministry or because of their belief in the Resurrected Christ? Every attempt to convert me begins with the claim of an atoning sacrifice and is followed up with the claim that the sacrifice was the Son of God.

Belief in a sacrificed/resurrected Messiah.

It seems to me entirely possible that particularly devout Jew (Cephas) found himself confronted with the increasingly apparent disturbing truth that the promised Messiah of his religion was not going to happen. I imagine this fellow studying Jewish Scripture, fasting, and praying to find any answer. He starts seeing a hidden message (see passages referenced throughout the Christian texts) within the text indicating that the Last Messiah would be sacrificed and resurrected by God but also has a vision of this very Being appear to him to declare it a reality. Cephas shares his vision with his equally devout friends and, like so many mass hallucinations, the experience starts to spread among them. The fact that one of his friends is a very prominent and respected man in the Jewish community really helps this new belief to obtain converts even when they haven't had the same experience.

So you just ignore what Paul says? How reasonable is that? I don't consider any hypothesis that fails to account for this belief of Paul's to be sufficiently comprehensive.

The Son of God needs no other justification than being God's Son to be considered a worthy sacrifice.

You are ignoring what Paul says. This appearance is only a disguise of Christ's true nature (ie Son of God) that is necessary since the Son must be sacrificed without that nature being known.

Doherty would have it that this sacrifice took place in a spiritual realm but that requires some significant reinterpretation of what little Paul has to say about the sacrificed Christ. It seems simpler to me to suggest that Paul believed this sacrifice had taken place on earth but didn't care when or where and probably believed that knowledge was truly unknown. Given that the true nature of Christ was disguised, he could easily assume that any of the hundreds (thousands?) of crucifixion victims from the previous two centuries was THE sacrifice.

No, I am suggesting Pilate was a good choice simply because he was well known. That he was well known for brutality isn't actually relevant except that it makes it more obvious that the Gospel depiction is fiction.

Chili

I am not part of the conversation but would like to say the if Jesus was "counted among the wicked" the brutality of Pilate made Pilate a good choice. The point here is that the mythical Jesus reflects a story that could have happened to 'any Jew' but not exactly 'any Jew' or it would happen to 'every Jew.' To say the least, Joseph was a courageous but upright Jew and a wily entrepreneur to get that far in life. Notice here that 'courage' and 'upright' are opposing forces within the mind of one man.

Dave Roberts

The movement of the Galileans


http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity...aeans.html#top

This reminds me of a discusion I had over twenty years ago with an older friend of mine who said he was going to rewrite the Bible.
He was explaining how ridiculous it was to believe that a peaceful Jesus as leader of a group of twelve, also peaceful missionaries could have entered into an area where what could have only been full of some of the regions most successful criminal element.
He figured that the money changers must have had their own security (goons) in order to protect their business. And there would be no way that these people would stand by as Jesus overthrew their tables, unless some greater threat was present.
Being an artist, he planned on illustrating this section with Jesus as leader of a leather-clad biker gang, wielding pipes,chains, baseball bats etc.
His take is probably closer to the truth than the Biblical version.

www.askwhy.co.uk/truth/170ProphecyMessiah.html

Chili

. . . and Mary would be the leader of the gang because she was no angel either. Mary was the big push from behind the scene with Magdalene torn between these two.

Mr. Aardvark

Really fascinating stuff about the Galileans. It does accord w/ the theory I've been sporting w/.

Vorkosigan

The writer of Mark is paralleling the scene where David is being abused by Shimei, and Abishai asks David's permission to take Shimei's head, but David refuses. I have some of the parallels up on my website here. Somehow the line where David/Jesus refuses permission to end the violence is lost in Mark.


Vorkosigan

Dave Roberts

You'd probably spend the better part of a year at Dr Magee' site. He said he sometimes pops in here. He's been pretty sick lately, and as he's getting along in years he may not be around too much longer. He'll answer any questions you email to him.

Mr. Aardvark

Oh, that was his site you linked us to.

I might e-mail him some questions but I won't besiege him w/ questions since he is ill. I bookmarked his site. It does appear to be quite rich.

Thanks again for posting it.

Dave Roberts

No sweat,
I asked him if he minded me linking to his site, and he OK'd it. I've also cleared it somewhat here. He was in the hospital over the summer, still he replied as soon as he got out. I hope the worst has passed.

I take it that he views Jesus as part of a larger, preexisting movement, and one that might have been seen as a possible threat to the Romans and the temple authority.

This falls partially along the same view of my friend who sees Jesus as the leader of a gang of thugs.