bacht

The problem is this:
We start with a Galilean prophet who attracts followers. Then he is executed and allegedly rises from the dead. At this point he is proclaimed to be Son of God & Messiah, and his followers anxiously await his return at the Parousia.

For the next 40-100 years no-one outside of the circle of believers takes any notice of either Christ or his followers. The Second Coming never occurs, and the world continues on as it alway has. By the middle of the 2nd C we have written material about all these points which is contradictory but still conveniently answers all heretical challenges.

- First of all, we are knee-deep here in supernaturalism, mysticism etc: God? has a child by a human woman? who performs miracles? and rises from the dead? to deliver immortality to believers?
- Second, this messiah doesn't seem to resemble the OT models, and in fact is rejected by Judaism and adopted by non-Jews in the 2nd century
- Third, the kingdom of heaven never appears, unless one interprets the Church as its manifestation.
- Fourth, there is no corroboration of any of the early stories other than Catholics insisting that they're true, which means we really don't know what happened.

What we end up with is a salvation movement promising eternal life, mixing pagan and Jewish ideas into a theology that can be institutionalized. It eventually becomes a fundamental European institution, with powers approaching the ancient emperors. The impact of this institution is reason enough to study its development, whether or not one believes the teachings.

Personally I'm interested in de-bunking any superstition, whether it's UFOs or weeping statues. Why should I believe that any of the NT stories really happened? Historians and skeptics are supposed to ask hard questions and demand real evidence. Gullibility is not defensible.

spamandham

Right. That bit of Exodus isn't anti-Jewish, it's anti-things-non-Jewish. Jesus is anti-Jewish (or at least anti-the-Jewish-of-his-day). Mark 2:23-28, Jesus willfully and unrepentantly breaks the Sabbath.

Jesus broke the Sabbath, and then coyly announced himself to be the Messiah. The reaction of the Jews is a very Jewish reaction, not a pagan reaction. It's Jews doing things Jewish which are being attacked in Mark. This is why I said Mark is anti-Jewish.

I think the last 2000 years of anti-semitism among Christians backs me up on this one Ben.

Compared to the historical Pilate, the Pilate of the Gospels is practically a saint, showing restraint and wisdom where the real Pilate would have just had the whole damn crowd crucified. He practically begs the crowd to let Jesus go, argues in defence of Jesus' innocence, tries to pursuade them to take Jesus instead of the Barabbas, and when it's all done, he washes his hands to indicate he had nothing to do with it.

Come on Ben, this is absurdly pro-Roman.

The story serves dual purposes as I see it; one is to demonstrate how clever Jesus is, and the other is a moral imperative to pay your taxes.

If you had something else in mind, please explain.

That's fine. I'm sure they were Roman demons.

I haven't read it.

Sorry, "your", not "our" 11:25{-26}

spamandham

I have assumed no such thing. You're either not reading carefully, or your constructing a strawman. I'm not sure which.

spamandham

I didn't say everything.

spamandham

Do you understand what a myth is? A myth is a story that someone invents, that later on people come to believe to be true.

In regard to christianity, a mythicist (such as Doherty) would argue that Paul's Jesus was a spiritual figure to Paul, rather than a flesh and blood human being. The first Gospel writer came later, when people were starting to misunderstand Paul, and wrote a hero biography because he didn't realize Paul's Jesus wasn't human. From there it just continues.

Where's the conspiracy in this scenario?

andrewcriddle

a/ It is not immediately obvious that plucking ears of grain is prohibited Sabbath labour. The Pharisees, (historically plausibly), think it is and their position would prevail in later Judaism. It is less clear that there would have been a consensus on the point among Jews in early 1st century Galilee.
b/ Jesus' response to the claim of Sabbath breaking is very Jewish, seeking a justification of his behaviour in the Hebrew Scriptures.
c/ Whatever the reference to the "son of man" means, it is not a straightforward claim to be the Messiah.

Andrew Criddle

No Robots

The fact that there is no testimony whatsoever about anyone before the 18th century holding that Christ was merely a myth is frequently explained away by mythicists as due to a conspiracy by the orthodox.

spamandham

For there to be a conspiracy, the orthodox would have to know it was a myth. Is there reason to suspect they knew that?

Kapyong

Gday,

Why?
Why does multiple sources require a conspiracy ?

Do the multiple sources for the myths of Hercules require a "conspiracy" ?

Do the multiple sources for the legend of Luke Skywalker require a "conspiracy" ?

There is simply no reason what-so-ever for a conspiracy, and you have given no reason for it, just repeated your assertion.


Anyway -
we don't have "many independent sources" at all.

Paul
wrote about a divine Iesous Christos - but he gives no historical date/time or place, doesn't mention Mary, Joseph, Pilate etc., fails to mention Jesus' healings or miracles or speeches. No conspiracy required there.

Later,
Mark wrote a book based on Paul's writings - no conspiracy required.

Later still,
others wrote book based on G.Mark - no conspiracy required.

Many then came to believe these books and wrote about Jesus - no conspiracy required.

There simply is not any requirement for a conspiracy.
The Jesus Myth theory is not based on a conspiracy.

And you have not given any reason, or evidence for a conspiracy.


Kapyong

spamandham

Jesus goes on to declare himself Lord of the Sabbath. The claim that he is the Messiah comes up during his trial, when he does not deny being king of the Jews, but affirms it instead.

This particular Sabbath violation at the end of chapter 2 and the one that follows immediately at the start of chapter 3, are what led to the plot to get him killed....I should have spelled that out.