Originally Posted by Didymus

What "real historical writers" are you talking about? The bible does not have eyewitness accounts of the crucixion, the resurrection, or any other event in which Jesus is said to have participated. Read the beginning of Luke's gospel, where he tells you straight out that he was NOT an eyewitness.

Originally Posted by Didymus

Was Christianity started by a single event – a notoriously unjust crucifixion? Was Jesus a "one trick pony"?

There's been some discussion of this "virtual mythical Jesus" or "physical Jesus" idea beginning with #686 on the "Jesus Myth Turning Point" thread.

Here's a summary of the hypothesis:

The unjust crucifixion of an enigmatic but saintly Jew named Jesus, most likely in Jerusalem, precipitated rumors that spread like wildfire. (One could imagine a deranged man wandering into the city, shouting in the streets, striking people in the Temple precinct, preaching the apocalypse, etc. But we have no way of ascertaining what actually happened.) Nothing was known of this stranger but his name, but his crucifixion was viewed by some as the fulfillment of expectations of a Wisdom-like rejected messiah, and a "church of God" formed, consisting of small study groups. Rituals began. Messianic fantasists in the Diaspora searched scripture and mythology to formulate a theology around this crucified man (Paul), and, as time went on, a fictional biography of the man himself (Mark).

I think it's a pretty efficient scenario, i.e., it explains the data without requiring us to accept page after page of conjecture. Or preposterous apologetics like "Paul didn't mention the 'details' of Jesus' life because he had other concerns." It doesn't ask us to rule in elements simply because they can't be ruled out, nor does it require that we posit interpolations to make the text fit the hypothesis. It succinctly explains why Paul knew nothing about the life of Jesus, the reason MJ was formulated in the first place.

Because it hypothesizes a crucifee without a known biography, it frees both Paul and Mark of any historical burden, thus allowing Paul to introduce both a rudimentary biography and mystical elements like 2 Cor 12, and Mark to construct a pseudohistorical, scripture-based biography (to which other pseudohistorical elements were added, of course, by ML&J and the writers of the apocryphals).

Of all the allegedly historical elements in the NT that serve as major pivot points, the crucifixion is the most likely to have a historical origin – it was a fact of life in the first-century Roman Empire - and the least likely to have been either derived from Hebrew scripture or thought of as taking place in a spiritual/sublunar dimension. And, best of all :wave: it meets my personal "criterion of motivational sufficiency" test: Unlike the mere writing of an epistle, or one man's report of his visions, it had enough "juice" to capture the imagination of an (admittedly credulous) public. Something had to light that fire, and a notoriously unjust crucifixion would have done the job.

Your thoughts?

Didymus

Originally Posted by Didymus

it explains the data without requiring us to accept page after page of conjecture.

Originally Posted by miniverchivi

True, but the word "Sheol" (which means grave) wasn't interprated as "Hell" (eternal lake of fire) until the King James Version of the Bible, and other followed suit. Using the word grave to make people think that they will burn forever sounds like a pretty good scare tactic...

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

For my intellectual taste, whatever it might gain in parsimony it loses in plausibility.

Originally Posted by Didymus

Trips off the tongue, but what are you referring to?

Originally Posted by Didymus

way more plausible than him [Paul] knowing about the gospel Jesus but leaving all those gaps because he had other fish to fry.

Originally Posted by Didymus

To me, it seems more plausible than Paul's believing that Jesus lived and was crucified in a spiritual realm

Originally Posted by Didymus

I think Doherty's close to 100% right except for the non-earthly Jesus scenario.

Originally Posted by miniverchivi

I do feel the crucifixion happened, but I feel even that story was elaborated on to sell the idea of Christianity...

Other historical writers have written about the whole event, but the bible is the only book that suggests that Jesus rose from the dead,....How odd

I also think its funny that the real historical writers also mention John and Peter being the only two apostles at the event, yet the bible has eyewitness accounts from Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

I think that a man was unjustly crucified, notice I said 'man'. In fact, I think that Jesus was probably a pretty cool guy, but then King James had to go and screw it up for everyone.