gracebkr

Do you think it could have been such great multitudes if he sat on a boat and preached, if there was that many, he would have needed a stadium of sorts to get His vocals out there. He spoke and the people heard Him, He did not scream. For a poor guy from a humble backround, one hundred people would be considered great multitudes. Either way, He was not huge, if He was, there would be more information from outside sources.

Of course, I already explained this. This was after the war between Jews and Romans. Printing it was the Romans who did this would have caused problems, Jews were the fall back. We know from extra biblical sources that Pilate killed people without trials and did so often. Do you really think the great Romans would have asked the Jews what they wanted Jesus or Barabbas, or do you think the Romans prided on their power? King of the Jews was a mock. Pilate asked are you the King of the Jews and then put it over His head for the crucifixion to be nice?


When did I say that. I am saying it is not impossible to come back. Science is currently trying to do this is it not? Even if science hasn't figured it out and freezes people to preserve them so when they do figure it out. There is reason to believe that someone can come back when the know how is figured out. But assuming it is ridiculous for whom I believe created life which would be further advanced then us currently just shows how naive we must be. If God is smart enough to put life on this planet I am sure He is smarter then any scientist today. Surely He can raise up the dead since science today can't say it is impossible, it is just unknown and certain things are required for this that they don't fully understand yet. There are certain laws of the universe that are either not understood or unknown, if the God I believe in created the universe, surely He knows the laws better then us. Just because we don't understand it, means we are not that advanced.

spamandham

Since when did someone writing a work of fiction become a conspiracy?

It isn't a change of subject. The passion narrative either really is the fulfillment of prophecy, or it is strong evidence that the story is fictional, composed primarily from Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22. I don't see mythmaking as a viable alternative, since the story fits so perfectly with Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22.

It reads like a fictional work, so why would we assume it's anything but that?

Who is this 'they' that you think wrote the story? What in the following sequence requires a conspiracy:

- someone sits down to write a mystical interpretation of the Jewish scriptures, and composes a story.

- the story has widespread appeal and people start repeating it

- eventually people forget it was a work of fiction (in the same way scientologists can't remember that Dianetics was a work of fiction, even though it really wasn't that long ago)

- due to limited communication, versions proliferate, resulting in the gospels of the Bible (plus the nonBiblical gospels)

Where's the conspiracy?

gracebkr

So you think everything is fiction and the Bible mistakeningly took this work of fiction as fact giving us the NT?


So what do you mean, if you are able to see that Jesus existed and the people in the Bible are real you would accept the prophesy as true?
I don't think it reads like a fiction, why do you think that? Please explain. I think the opposite.


I don't know.

Sorry, I assumed you thought it was entirely a lie on purpose. Wasn't the Bible compiled of letters, by various figures. How could one write a book and so many authors be a part of it? Next, have you read the lost books of the Bible? There are plenty more.

spamandham

No. I'm saying the original gospel story, upon which the 4 Gospels are based, could be a work of actual fiction. This is somewhat independent of the rest of the NT. Keep in mind that the Bible is a compilation of works by different authors, not a single book.

Not hardly. Although I think it's more parsimonious to posit Jesus as nonhistorical, the idea that there is a historical figure who is intertwined with the story is not outlandish. In no way does that imply the fulfillment of any prophecy though.

In other words, there could have been a historical Jesus, with some number of disciples, to possibly include Peter, John, and James, and yet no prophecies fulfilled. In that case, the gospels as we know them are fictionalized, rather than fiction.

From your perspective, as someone who accepts the existence of god, miracles, etc., sure, you don't see the claims about god, miracles, etc. as evidence of fiction.

For someone who does not accept these things a priori, they are assumed fictional until proven otherwise.

The direct answer then, is that the stories contain reports of the dead being raised, men walking on water, talking with demons, etc. These things don't happen.

The four Gospels are derived from a prior common work according to the scholarly concensus. The complete picture looks like this:

- there is a mystical Jewish messiah movement. The Christ of this movement is based on Hellenistic Jewish pagan ideas of the Messiah being a spiritual being rather than an earthly being. It is modelled on the books of Enoch combined with significance derived from the new age of Pisces, which conicides with the first century. This movement introduces some of the symbolism adopted later by the gospel story, such as the symbolism of the cross (a pre-existing solar symbol), and the idea of the death of god (derived from sun worship), the name Jesus (which means 'YHWH saves'). Paul is a member of this movement.

- inspired by the fall of the temple combined with the dawn of the new age of Pisces, someone from this group decides to write a fictional story derived from the Jewish scriptures, folding in the ideas of groups such as Paul's, as a way of arguing the end of the old age that led to all the violence of the Jewish wars, and the dawn of a new age.

- the rest proceeds as explained before. Those who came later didn't know the story was fiction/fictionalized, and simply wrote down myths that had developed around it, or filled in the blanks as they thought likely.

The sequence is:

Paul -> pre-Gospel work of fiction -> gospels as we know them (+the brief mention in Antiquities?) -> pseudo Pauline letters early church fathers writings -> gnostic letters + the remainder of the NT + later church fathers

...though it is possible some of this is out of order, I think it demonstrates how all the data can be explained with no extraordinary leap required.