kcdad

Denial is not the simpler solution. To suggest there was no person Jesus is rather naive. There is much too much real human endeavor to understand this person, to suggest he is a total fabrication. (If that is what you are suggesting) The myths of Davey Crockett, The Caesars, Muhammad, Abraham, The Buddah (Siddhartha) and other REAL historical figures are based on different political motives in laying claim on that figure... as are the different interpretations of Jesus.

Roland

Matthew 28:17 completely contradicts John's account. In John we are told that only Thomas doubted and that his doubts were eliminated on Jesus' SECOND appearance to the disciples. Since Jesus' later appearance to the disciples at the Sea of Tiberias in the last chapter of John is identified as the THIRD (21:14), we must assume the appearance in Galillee contained in Matthew was at least the FOURTH. So why are any of the disciples still doubting when they weren't earlier?

Yet another head-scratching contradiction from the gospels.

Julio

My private theory is that Matthew is not the author of those three words "But some doubted". A foreign hand included them in the text as if to destroy the "original" work of Matthew [in some sort of revenge, or so]. Something in those lines.
Besides, to end a gospel in such a negative motion would be atypical. Mark also ends in a negative style, but later was changed.
"But some doubted" is indeed very strange a passage.

spamandham

Ahh yes, "denial", the word of choice these days when we wish to trivialize other positions without the bother of thinking about them.

If you think the theological role played by Jesus is comparable to Davey Crockett myths, I don't think you could have possibly given this any real thought.

aa5874

The criterion of embarrassment is worthless since it can make implausible events appear to be historical.

Based on the NT, Peter, the 1st bishop of Rome, nearly drowned when he attempted to walk to Jesus who walked on the sea during a storm. When the criterion of embarrassment is applied, fiction now becomes history.

Jesus did walk on water during a sea storm and Peter nearly drowned while walking to him since the story appears embarrassing.

There is really no argument now that the criterion of embarrassment produces false results.

neilgodfrey

Precisely, which was the point of my tongue-in-cheek post.

kcdad

Think? Why don't you tell me about Jesus' theological role? In what way... go ahead, just start with one way that you think Jesus was a theologian. I think you will not.

That's it? You pick on Davey Crockett who killed him a bear when he was only three"? Who single handedly held off The Mexican army... What about the myths built up around the others???????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????? I think you actually cemented my point with your response: that irrefutable historical figures have myths built up around them... like Octavian: "the one to be worshiped, son of god, god of gods, savior of the world" ... Was Octavian real or myth... OR POSSIBLY BOTH?????

spamandham

I'm not talking about Jesus being a theologian, I'm talking about his theological *role*. The thing that makes Jesus different than those you listed, is that the stories around him are not there to puff him up, but because they are theologically important. Many of the stories don't even make sense without this perspective.

Take for example the withering of the fig tree. A naive reading of that story might have the point being that Jesus has the power to wither fig trees at will, and that he's emotionally unbalanced. But that isn't what it means at all. It's symbolic rather than legend. Jesus is a theological construction, not a legend.

aa5874

It is not myths that determine historicity.

One does not look for mythical fables about a character to determine if the entity was a figure or history, it is historical facts and not fiction that ultimately helps to decide in favor.

Virtually everything about Jesus is known fiction, implausible or does not appear credible, plus there is NO known external corroborative source even for his disciples.

Solo

But does not Mark explain why the "witness" experience was not considered a proof of resurrection among the inner circle of Jesus disciples ? Isn't that the rationale behind the Transiguration ? Jesus showed Peter and the Zebedees the glory of the risen Lord (this was I believe allegorizing Paul, 2 Cr 3:18 - μεταμορφοσις directly referenced in that verse). Yet they do not associate the witnessed experiential event with resurrection: they do not understand, or better, they deny (as some of Paul's Jesus converts at Corinth) that there is resurrection from the dead. That would be my understanding of the matter, at any rate.

That's odd, isn't it, if they witnessed the physical rising of the Jairus' daughter just a little while back ?

I think Mark wanted to show that the Nazarene missions of Peter did not know resurrection the way Paulines believed in it. They had parallel sayings about rising from dead (derived from Hosea 6:2) but these did not reference actual death and resurrection from that state. There is a host of logia which exhibit traces of this Nazarene resurrection which is dissimilar to Paul's in that it referenced metaphoric death (,or "little death" as A.Maslow put it). Over time the two resurrectional scenarios would have converged to create the dead-man Jesus walking image.

Here are some examples that point to the original Nazarene resurrectional ideas:

Mt 8:22 But Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead." (If this is an authentic dominical saying then Jesus himself did not believe in resurrection from the dead the way the Church came to believe after Paul)

Mt 32:27 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.

Lk 17:21 nor will they say, 'Lo, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you."

Lk 20:34-25 And Jesus said to them, "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage; but those who are accounted worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage

Hbr 6:2 with instruction about ablutions, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

Hbr 11:35 Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life

Rev 2:11 He who conquers shall not be hurt by the second death.'

Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and they shall reign with him a thousand years.

Jiri