Lugubert

Do you think it would be terribly wrong trying to start with no assumptions at all?

Joan of Bark

If we did that in this forum, every thread would be a hundred pages long.

The MJ vs HJ debate is covered in other threads. I am using an assumption the majority of scholars accept: that Jesus existed but the miracles associated with him are either outright lies (in which case we can examine the reason for their creation), or have other explanations, which is the starting point of Kersten's examination of the empty tomb.

Joan of Bark

Never said it was. It's just one explanation. And there is supporting evidence; read the OP again.

Because they working from the same source(s)?

Yep, that's another possibility.

aa5874

That scenario may not really be applicable if Jesus is assumed to have actually lived.

Once Jesus is assumed to be a person of history, there would likely be multiple sources with similar stories about Jesus, that is, the people who knew Jesus personally would have similar information about his life on earth.

Transient

If we want to assume that someone called "Jesus - Yeshua" actually lies at the back of all these stories then either it is all true, mainly true or else there were a lot of gullible people that didn't check out the resurrection stories at the time.
If there was a guy like that but he didn't really rise from the dead then how do you explain all the stories arising without someone checking it out and besides the Romans would have swashed it pretty quickly back then.
So either the stories were circulated pretty quickly (most likely true then) or they were invented from spiritual type stories much later and there was no real guy at the start at all.
In the absence of any real evidence that a resurrection took place, (gic=ven - I did not type that ) the strange unlikely tales, I would suggest that there was no-one resurrected back then.

aa5874

I am just assuming Jesus existed for this thread only.

Actually, Jesus was presented as the offspring of the HolyGhost, a mythical creature, but in any event, if it is assumed Jesus lived, it can be assumed he died after he was crucified.

Transient

Yep.
Given that Pilate was ruthless and that the stories say that "Jesus" was causing quite a stir (remember that he did so many miracles that all the books in the world could not hold them all - must have been very busy over a very long time - hmm 3 year ministry, cough) Pilate would then have given strict instructions for his crucifiction - there would have been no escaping death - they even had a notice above his head and put a crown on his head to mock him.
Then of course the guards went home for dinner and forgot about him and pilate just said "oh well not too worry".

Why is it even worth trying to think whether he was dead or not on the cross - it's all garbage unless god fronts up now and shows otherwise.

aa5874

Well, some people think it is worth it, but if Jesus was made human only, he died as a blasphemer, that's all.

spamandham

Why is this more likely than the idea that it's just a story in a book, that probably has very little if anything to do with actual historical events?

premjan

Jesus is a myth constructed out of facts and fantasies.