ApostateAbe

Contrary to Earl Doherty and the growing popularity of his opinions among the respected good old boys on the boards, I suspect that Jesus was a real human being who started the Christian religion. His character may have evolved, but his beginnings were real and part of it still remains in the New Testament.

My view is based on the false prophecy of Jesus. This is expressed in Matthew 16:28, "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." It is also in Mark 9:1.

Now read 2 Peter 3:3-4, 8.

First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation."
...
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

So the author of 2 Peter corrects the false prophecy the same way today's apologists do: by modifying the idea of time.

If Jesus never existed, that means the idea of Jesus originated from tricksters. And it means the tricksters taught that he was alive either in the distant past or recently.

If Christians were told that Jesus was alive in the distant past, then the prophecy would seem to be false. Why would the tricksters fabricate a prophecy of Jesus that can only be defended by changing the idea of time?

But I also find it unlikely that the tricksters behind the character of Jesus taught that his life happened in only the recent past. The believers would wonder why they had not heard of Jesus except from the tricksters. It would be much more pragmatic for the tricksters to teach that Jesus lived in the distant past, which, as explained, is unlikely.

So the only remaining practical possibility is that Jesus lived and foretold a return that never happened. Thoughts?

doubtingthomas

I think your assuming though, that the people who wrote the gospels were the ones decievers, when in fact they themselves might have been decieved. For instance the original disciples might have simply taught that Jesus was going to return at an indefinite time. People might have invented or altered certain claims about him as time went on. So the authors of the gospels may not have been recording lies to decieve people, instead they were simply preaching a message that was altered or exaggerated. So in all likelihood there was no deception, only a misunderstanding.

Clivedurdle

I think we must be very careful about using terms like tricksters and deceivers. This is black and white thinking, when we are dealing with mythos. Are your dreams lies? Is it a lie to tell your children about father xmas?

I think it is a misuse of language to assume because someone is expressing a belief about something, especially when gods are involved, that they are lying or deceiving.

It is far better to assume that people are being honest, but mistaken.

So did Jesus exist? It all feels very heroic and mythical!

ichabod crane

Hey, Clivedurdle!

I personally think this argument is a good one. But not everybody on the board agrees. We just had a long debate on exactly this argument: check out the following thread:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...9&page=1&pp=25

I think your argument is mainly dealt with on pages 2-3.

All the best,

Ichabod.

Clivedurdle

I have been reading that, probably why I reacted!

Personally, I used to believe this stuff, and have told others of the Truth of Christ. Was I lying at the time? I think not, I honestly believed it!

I think before we use charges of deception we should assume innocence before proving guilty! Yes there are Macchiavelian influences around, but when dealing with religious people we have to assume a basic honesty - that is why they cannot see the parodies in the Chick and AIG stuff - this is their world view and they think they are telling the truth!

Look at this from a fundy's perspective. They truly believe they are the last balwark before evil overwhelms them but that the saviour is coming to rid the world of evil! Calling them liars is perceived as another attack of satan!

They have suffered some terrible blows last century, evolution, astronomy. science, medicine, John Lennon, rational and critical thinking.

It is very difficult to change one's basic beliefs - it might mean losing your job, your family, your friends, your social networks. It is not easy in some small towns! I remember the arguments I had about letting my hair grow long (it probably was one of the straws..)

So, please don't assume deceit in theist's arguments - I would be very surprised if it was actually there, as it would mean a level of cognitive dissonance that would be very interesting in it's own right!

Gooch's dad

Clivedurdle, I agree with that argument too. That and several other "embarassing" passages in the gospels, such as John 7:42, are very revealing of a human Jesus behind the stories. John 7:42, by the way, is the bit where the crowd says that Jesus cannot be the Messiah, because he is NOT from Bethlehem. There is simply no reason to put this in John's gospel, unless it were based on what Jews of that time were saying about Jesus.

Asha'man

I disagree. Why should theists be exempt from the same level of suspicion that I give to everybody else?

To me, evangalists are salesman. Given that Jesus doesn't seem to have been divine, then they are salesman without a legitimate product: snake-oil salesman.

To selll their product, a salesman will sometimes make statements that are not factual. Sometimes, the salesman honestly believes those statements, other times, he knows his statements are false. In either case, he has strong motivation to make such statements without verifying their accuracy first.

Amaleq13

Unfortunately, there are very few single practical possibilities when it comes to the mass of messy evidence related to Christianity. Here is one take on this issue from a more mythical position:

Belief in an Imminent End is clearly a very early and central tenet of the belief system that came to be called "Christianity".

However, Paul is our earliest evidence of belief in an Imminent End and he associates this belief with the resurrection of Christ, not anything preached by Jesus.

The belief is firmly entrenched by the time Mark is written but the author, unlike Paul, is interested in depicting Jesus in a specific time in history. It only makes sense that the author would place this central belief in the mouth of Jesus and so does choosing to depict the ministry of the living Jesus in the time just before Paul. Jesus is now preaching Paul's gospel just before Paul.

Keep in mind, however, that even sources like Meier and the Catholic Study Bible believe that the author of Mark was writing specifically to his own community. When he has Jesus refer to "this generation", then, the author is addressing his own generation through Jesus. Two of the four uses of the word explicitly condemn "this generation" while a third tells them not to look for a sign. The last is the apparently problematic one where Jesus promises that The End would happen before "this generation" had passed. But this author, as well as the subsequent authors, also add teachings that caution against claiming to know the specific timing and describe a lot of stuff that has to happen first.

Magus55

How are those failed prophecies? They are filled right after they are prophecized.

Clivedurdle

Ashaman

You are using very modern concepts! At the beginning of the American civil war, rifles were made individually by blacksmiths, the idea of standardisation of bullets and rifle bores was introduced then!

Verification and accuracy are modern concepts! Arguments in Roman life for example in the courts had a very large amount of rhetoric - the power of an argument was understood as as important as the facts!

We should not read back modern ways of thinking two thousand years!