Switch89

Okay, then, if you think you know literal history from myth, then tell me if the following gospel stories are history or allegory, and why:

1. Jesus took a spear to the side, and bled blood and water.
2. The temple curtain was torn in two after Jesus' death.

show_no_mercy

It's really no point trying to argue against magic. With magic, anything is possible and nothing is falsifiable.

Pilate didn't seem to care about causing a riot or not. According to Philo (Pilate's contemporary) he cared more about his standing with the Emperor than the concerns of some Jews. He almost caused a rebellion by bringing in blasphemous imagery into Jerusalem and only reversed his decision once he saw that the Jews would rather die than have their traditions trampled on. Again, this is a contemporary's account of Pilate.

There's no indication in the supposed trial of Jesus that the Jews had weapons or were about to cause a massive rebellion or were willing to die for their supposed "hatred" of Jesus - especially given the fact that Jesus was supposed to have been an insanely popular person. Not only that, but the trial scene wasn't even written by someone who was a contemporary to the events.

I'm pretty sure the Jews had a more visceral reaction to blasphemous imagery than the supposed unpopularity of Jesus. And it took a couple of days of deliberation to settle the issues over the blasphemous imagery!

And besides... how would Pilate's releasing of an insurrectionist be seen to his superiors? That alone would be grounds for his own crucifixion.

The whole trial scene is nonsense if you try to fit it into it's supposed historical and sociological context. No, the author of this trial scene is trying to show that the Jews chose rebellion (represented by "son of the father") over peace and trying to show that Christianity has no problem with Roman authority. It's another line of evidence pointing to a post 70 CE writing of this gospel.

renassault

History. Anyone knows a 45 degree angle stab through the ribs into the heart is the quickest way to kill someone. Most likely the preferred method.

Symbollic but historical. Why? Why must it be fictional just because it has a symbollism?

PhilosopherJay

Actually, to prove a universal statement false, you just need one counterexample. For example, if I say that all Persian Cats are white, you would just have to produce one Persian cat that is not white, to show that the statement is false. However, if I said that Most Persons Cats are White, then producing a Persian cat that is not white, would not refute it.

However to prove something true, it is rare to find one case that refutes all other possibilities. For example, even if you find me in a room with a dead body and a smoking gun, it does not mean that I shot the person. It is possible that I was out shooting and brought the smoking gun with me, or that I arrived on the scene and just happened to pick it up where the killer dropped it.

The quoted passage may prove that the writer believed in an historical Jesus, but it just as well may have been a writer creating a fictional story about a character named Jesus on Earth.

The hypothesis that Jesus was a heavenly or spiritual character for many writers of the Second century is conceded by everybody. Gnostic texts are pretty clear about this. The question is whether the NT epistles and other works like the Didache and epistle of Barnabus also treat him as an exclusively heavenly or spiritual character.

I really haven't heard anybody argue that the gospels do not treat Jesus as a physically existing person on Earth. William Shakespeare, in writing Hamlet certainly treated him as a physically existing person on Earth, but that does not mean Hamlet was historical.

In other words, even when we grant that it is the gospel's writer's intention to show Jesus as physically existing on Earth, it is difficult to know if the writers are treating him as historical or fictional character on Earth. My guess would be that the main writers of John, Mark and Matthew are treating him as fictional, while the writer of Luke is trying to prove he existed historically.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

cgordon

Mostly wrong. Try again. Dawkins did identify and name something that we've known about for a long time.

renassault

The thing is, the historical method can confirm or deny what was likely invented by followers of Christ. In this case I haven't really read much, but the fact is John refers to Barabbas as a robber, which is odd since the rest of the Gospels depict him as a revolutionist, but this only shows that the original author of that section (assuming there wasn't one author as per the skeptical theory) must have been a Jew from that region since Josephus uses much the same term.

How did you decide he didn't seem to care about causing a riot or not? All governors prefer peace over riots, ones which could even potentially kill them. That he brought in an image in the Temple is due to his hatred of Jews or perhaps insistance on Roman domination, but you yourself admit he ended it when he saw he couldn't subdue the Jews, and he had brought many soldiers with him at that time. So obviously he knew he didn't need a riot.

As you mentioned above, obviously they had means to revolt as all people of a city do.

He was popular everywhere but his hometown: the physical: Nazareth (Luke 4), and the spiritual, Jerusalem (Luke 18).

That's up to you to prove.

They equated Jesus' claims with blasphemy, so they would have been fairly outraged, especially when you have their reaction against Paul (Acts 21), or if you don't think that's historical, just note Josephus' mention of signs warning foreigners not to enter the inner sanctuary on pain of death (Josephus War 5, 6.124-126). So they would have had a visceral reaction to someone they deemed a blasphemer.

Pilate releasing someone who started a revolt? Well seeing how Barabbas hadn't been executed by then as were the leaders of the serious revolts (see Josephus), he probably wasn't a serious threat.

This certainly hasn't been proven by your comments above.

That it shows the Jews preferred a murderer over Jesus is evident, but that it was created to do this has not been shown at all. Roman authority and Christian peace would have been long abandoned after Nero by a Christian author, not to mention that the only Gospel that seems to do this is John, and one would wonder why the rest are not so favorable to Pilate if that's what they want to show (Luke comes sort of close, yet against this is the clear evidence of Luke 13:1-4). But what use would an author have for writing a whole history of Jesus just to point out that Rome wasn't an enemy in such a brief section? This was pointed out by Kuemmel against suppositions that Luke-Acts was written as a defence for Paul. Not only this, but the inferences could have been made much clearer, so there was no attempt at inventing for versimilitude of pro-Roman authorities/audiences.

Baalazel

The first post in our exchange ends with this quote from me:

You replied with:

As I said, scripture has weight in these discussions. Acts 9:1,2 makes it clear that Paul had the backing of the Sadducee faction in Jerusalem. Let me quote the passage again.

Acts 9:1,2 "And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest, and desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them to Jerusalem."

You replied. I retain my rejoinder.

I will take the time to point out again the weight of scripture. You have stated that as Paul was a Pharisee he could have not had the backing of the Sadducees. Scripture proves you wrong on that count.

You then claim the quote of Acts 9:1,2 has nothing to do with what you said. You said Paul did not have the backing of the Sadducees. I quoted scripture which proves Paul did have the backing of the Sadducees. You are wrong.

I suggest you read the letters of Paul and The Acts of the Apostles before you try this again. I also suggest you make a study of the veracity of the Apostle Paul. You might learn something.

Baal

Baalazel

Once again we are offered absolute non-sense as proof of scripture. Peter must have existed because the Catholic Church says he was cruicified upside down? Peter was the first pope? I suppose you think they just found the bones of the Apostle Paul.

You can claim all the pseudo-historical events you want in defense of scripture but none of it brings you one iota closer to history. All the childhood stories you learned in Vacation Bible School do not contribute to the truth of scripture.

Self- Mutation your entire apologitic amounts to "so and so said this about Jesus." Or Peter. Or Paul. None of it can move you toward the truth of the situation.

Your defense of your religion is too narrow and shallow to be convincing. There is no depth to it. We have heard so many permutations of "So and so said this about Jesus and he wouldn't have said it if it weren't true" it's difficult not to giggle when you try it again.

Gain some depth to your apologetics. It would make it no more effective but the debates might be more interesting.

Baal

Baalazel

Oh, here's a question that has been on my mind for years. Was Peter crucified upside down before or after he became the first Pope?

Baal

renassault

That the faction in the priesthood were Sadducees is evidenced by Josephus, but he also says that they quickly became Pharisees due to popular pressure. The dispute between them that Paul caused over resurrection quickly dispells any backing of a Pharisee who would have ardently believed in it, of starting a new religion (one which believes in an already risen person!). This is a small error that you chose not to silence over but insist on it.

What would that achieve? The simple fact that Paul was a zealous Pharisee is proven from Philippians which no one disputes as having been written by the Apostle Paul. Obviously I've read enough of Paul's letters and the Acts to know what I'm talking about. What would knowing about the 'veracity' whatever that vague expression means, of the Apostle do? His travels, his authentic letters? That has no play since no one denies Philippians, and that's the only source I'm using in disputing your idea that Paul decided to fake-persecute and then start a new religion. He obviously didn't even start a new religion since he was already persecuting it, thus meaning it existed. If you mean he wanted to hijack it, then why send them to jail run by the high priest which would have alienated these followers and no one would trust him save through Barnabbas backing. It is just a little too impossible, especially seeing how he was willing to be even stoned for this (1 Corinthians).