TedM

It's just another human definition. Without an absolute then things like morality and sin become relativistic and depend on human agreement. They have no more meaning than what anyone chooses to give them. And, no one is more 'right' about anything in terms of morals than anybody else. Getting of the subject for sure now...

GenesisNemesis

Every definition comes down to "just another human definition". Regardless of whether or not human beings are irrational, you admit that the majority of human beings seek pleasure. Thus, it is likely that human beings will believe in whatever gives them the most pleasure. Also regardless of whether or not amorality is "rational", under that concept of human nature human beings therefore are likely to lie, cheat, steal, etc, whatever they feel is necessary in order to give them the most pleasure.

TedM

Some are. Others derive more pleasure by being 'good'.

outhouse

because the unknown authors who wrote the gospels didnt have a clue about the real jesus, just like paul didnt have a clue about jesus


his family? how would the roman authors ever know about a jewish man, let alone his family


his inner cirlce of fishermen friends I buy, that makes sense for the culture and p[lace.

the 12 is mythology.



I dont think you understand christianity, it is a roman religion written by romans, it started out a jewish movement that failed quickly

GenesisNemesis

You have to admit though, regardless of whether or not human beings are fundamentally "amoral" creatures, the vast majority of human beings do not derive pleasure from being "good" in the sense of acting kindly towards one another. This is a basic fact about human nature. It's the main reason why religions exist. All I'm trying to say is it's not out of the question that someone would have fabricated the story of the resurrection, either for personal gain or some other reason. I'm not saying that it was intentionally fabricated, only that it's plausible, given what we know about human nature, and what we know about human nature, is for the most part, not very nice at all.

Toto

You keep claiming that your sanitized version of the gospel story is plausible, but you have not produced any reasons to think that it actually happened. There is no independent confirmation, no secular sources, nothing. When objections to the story are raised, you brush them off but do not meet them. E.g., you claim that Pilate's actions are plausible, but you ignore the different portrait of Pilate in Josephus and Philo.

It's not clear what this means, since you haven't engaged with any of them in any depth.

sotto voce

Not only that, they could never have written about a theology that imputed to them the perfection of Jesus! Even had they fantasised about a perfect Jesus, they could have had no illusions had non-followers regarded him as seditious or otherwise undesirable. One can imagine such a leader with mild, private peccadilloes, but not with defects known to the public. So defects of Jesus that on the face of it seem possible need to be treated with caution, pending investigation.

One such is Jesus' comment about bearing a sword in Luke 22:35, which on the internet is almost invariably taken quite out of context, and Jesus is doubly misrepresented. Jesus wanted to show his disciples that he was about to fulfil prophecy: "What is written about me is reaching its fulfilment," in this case his being 'numbered with transgressors' in Isaiah 53:12. His disciples then brought him two swords, perhaps supposing that they were at the start of some sort of physical resistance. But these were merely tokens of transgression, reminders of that Isaiah passage that had a totally different import:

'He poured out himself to death, and was numbered with the transgressors;
Yet he himself bore the sin of many, and interceded for the transgressors.'

Isa 53:12

So here was Jesus again telling the disciples what they had great difficulty in understanding, that Jesus was about to take the blame for the sins of all. And this, so that people would not use swords, or even sharp words, against each other.

TedM

And you do? WHy do you say this? There are decent arguments to support a tradition back to the Matthew and Peter (via Mark). And there are decent arguments supporting the author of John as part of the inner circle, so I'm not sure why you have such a strong conviction on this one.


Jews and Christians were in Rome, as were Peter and Paul. What about oral tradition?



I think Jesus may have been a devout JTB follower who started his own cult, and possibly orchestrated his own death as the Suffering Servant. In any case, it is no stretch for him to purposefully have picked 12 disciples--one for each tribe if he saw himself as a religous leader.


No doubt Paul picked up with the beginnings and ran with it, spreading far and wide, but it existed in Rome before Paul got there. But it was first in Judea, resurrection belief and all. Galations, Acts, gospels, others all attest to that. That's what I think, anyway.

TedM

Plausibility is all this thread is about Toto.


I won't defend every objection. I addressed the unreasonably heavy reliance on arguments from silence on the temple issue. Now I'll address your concern about Pilate:

The portrayals are short, and it is two peoples opinions. To begin with that isn't much to go on. I could do a deep analysis, but I don't want to bother. I'll point out two things that are consistent with Pilate's portrayal in the Gospels:

1. Pilate, according to Josephus DID cave in to the peoples wishes, especially when pushed--as was the case with the ensigns. This entirely consistent with the gospel portrayals. The fact is that the people could have killed Pilate if they had so desired and he probably knew it. What did he care about this Jesus, who seemed to be not much of a threat? Let them do what they want..

2. Philo portrays a Pilate who was not concerned with following the law to the letter--again this is entirely consistent with crucifying a man who was basically innocent: So, Pilate caved to strong demands by the Jewish, and he wasn't particularly concerned with following the Roman law. Sounds a lot like the gospel story, doesn't it?

TedM

No, I don't see people this way. I think the vast majority of people do derive pleasure from being 'good', and feel guilty when they aren't. It is the guilt that enables religions to be successful.

I think it could have happened that way but I don't see such a made up story to have caught on with others without some other factors.