Transient

I am not so sure that it makes sense for the guy to be a fraud and to have fooled all those around him, including his closest associates.
The gospels are accepted by the church because they are written by those who are close to the events themselves.
I find it hard to believe that a guy could fake so many miracles and actually fool those close to him - more likely he would have needed their help.
The more likely scenario is that they were real miracles and that the guy was indeed "god on earth".
Other than that the whole thing was made up and the guy "Jesus" was nothing like the one in the stories if he existed at all.

rahrens

I'll answer Ameleq13 later, perhaps this evening when I have more time, but in a nutshell, he ignored my last point in that last post of mine.

he has set up a false dichotomy, where he assumes the ONLY scenarios are:


1 Nt Gospels are Ok as written.
2. The miracles didn't happen, but were recorded as if they happened, because people believed they did.

At least, that is how his posts read, correct me if I am wrong. Either way, he says we must take the words seriously, because they prove that the written reason for Jesus' crucifixion is correct, whichever scenario is true.

That is a false dichotomy, because other scenarios are possible.

I would add a third possible scenario to the mix, and that is one where, NO, Jesus didn't FOOL anybody, but he was just an itinerant preacher just like dozens of others in his time that performed no miracles. Perhaps he was more articulate than some of the others, perhaps he threw in some newer theological twists from the Gnostics, but he obviously would have caught a few ears that made him a bit more interesting. That could have been just enough for him to become the core of a new mythology where the miracles were added (and other scenarios that would have logically resulted from those miracles) all of which resulted in the Gospels we know today, after centuries of errors, redactions and additions.

In this scenario, one can safely remove the miracles and resulting scenes and examine the stuff that is left for historical nuggets, whatever may be left. After all, our modern experience is that miracles of the type he is said to have performed just don't happen.

All I am saying is that Joan can now tell us which of these three scenarios she has in mind and we can go on from there to get the thread back on track.

Amaleq13

Good thing that isn't something I've suggested. :huh:

I suggest you become more familiar with the time period because you seem to me to be underestimating their credulity. Alleged miracle workers and folks who believed them were not difficult to find.

You can start here:

Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire

Amaleq13

I didn't ignore it, I identified it as false and confused.

I've been trying but your responses indicate either a complete lack of understanding or that haven't actually read my posts. Or at least not very carefully.

I've never said this or even implied it. You definitely need to read more carefully.

Transient

So for you scenario are we to assume that he had 12 very close helpers or friends or is that part fiction?
If he had those friends don't you think that they would have had to been in on the scam? I do.

Amaleq13

I wouldn't rely on the exact number as historically accurate (ie obvious possible 12 tribes connection + varying disciple lists) but I would think followers are fairly essential to the story.

Your question suggests you really don't understand the "scenario" I've been describing.

What scam? I've never argued or even suggested that Jesus didn't also think he could perform miraculous healings.

In "my scenario", Jesus thinks he can magically heal people.

Jesus' closest followers believe he can magically heal people.

The general public, except in his own home town, believes he can magically heal people.

Nobody was actually magically healed but the story really doesn't have to change as a result. He still gets popular and that still threatens the existing power structure and still results in a conspiracy to get him executed.

I can't be more clear than that, folks. If you still don't follow me, I'm afraid I can't help you.

rahrens

Where? You never dealt with my point that you have set up a false dichotomy. Not at all.

Sure you did, right there.


There are at least three scenarios possible (if not more):

1. Gospels are true as written, miracles and all.
2. Gospels reflect the story as if true, as the writers believed them to be, and bystanders and participants all also believed it to be true, but miracles didn't really happen (somehow).
3. Gospels reflect a story that is largely myth, tacked onto a real framework that included no miracles, nobody thought there were any, but the myths were tacked on later by party or parties unknown.

It is a false dichotomy to assert that only the first two scenarios are possible. The third scenario is one that means that somehow, you must account for why the Romans would have crucified Jesus instead of either leaving him to the tender mercies of a Sanhedren dictated stoning for heresy, or flogging him and sending him on his way for just disturbing the peace.

Again, since Joan of Bark is the one that set this up, she can end this discussion by choosing which of the three she prefers, and the thread can go on from here.

Joan of Bark

Thank-your Amaleq and rahrens, for trying to bring this thread back to the op.

I've already stated that I don't believe 1), as I'm approaching this question as a historian would.

2) and 3) are both possible, but I would say I would favour something in-between; i.e. the non-supernatural elements are largely (but not completely) true, whilst the miracle stories were largely (but not completely) believed by many of His followers and others at the time. Sorry I can't be more specific, but this is after all the Bible, and there's a reason a billion words have been spilled in analyzing it. (And for another look at the miracle stories, I would suggest Nino Ricci's novel Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk), a fun read.)

(And just for the record, I don't believe in Kersten's conclusion. While I think it's possible for a man to survive a crucifixion, I seriously doubt that Jesus' motley group of followers would have the wherewithal to pull off such a slick scheme).

Transient

"magically heal people"?
What about raising people from the dead, turning water into wine, feeding 5000 people with a few fish and loaves?
So you think this "Jesus" is honest and believes he can do miracles?
Really?
Not likely imho at all.
And I hardly think he could fool his "12" closest friends - not really - maybe in a fantasy story maybe not in the real world mate.
I don't think you or Joan has really spelt out your "scenario" very well at all - we have had to drag it out of you kicking and screaming.

spamandham

You may not realize it, but you've applied an analysis of the culture and writers behind this thinking. My guess is it's an ad hoc analysis based on what you *guess* was going on with these writings.

Is that an unfair assessment? If so, then what is your analysis based upon?