Historical Jesus

[TomC]

Anyway, here's my story: Last night I was abducted by ETs. I was so frightened, that I wet my pants. Applying the criterion of embarrassment, this story is likely to be true. I would never make up such a shameful experience.

OK, let me try to explain the difference between your view of the CoE and mine using your story.

I don't see that story as just one claim. It's a batch of different claims, with varying degrees of plausibility. Three individual claims are "I'm a human individual.", "I wet my pants.", and "I was abducted by ET".
The first claim is extremely plausible, although I haven't got much evidence. You could be a software bot or a group sharing one IIDB account. But those last two aren't likely, in my opinion.

The second is also credible. Wetting your pants would be somewhere between awkward and shameful, depending on circumstances. Embarrassing, though, unless you're younger than 5.

The alien abduction is not at all plausible, at least not to me. So implausible that I would wonder why you made the claim.

My guess would be that you got super drunk at a party. So drunk you couldn't operate your pants or dick and peed yourself. That would be shamefully embarrassing. So much so that you invented a story about alien abduction to cover it up. By the time you sobered up you might even believe it.

Here's the thing. I wouldn't believe that part of your story, but some people would. There's a guy in my neighborhood who might.
His name is Brent. He believes in aliens. Aside from that, he's a totally normal dude. Total smallsville redneck who believes that aliens, called the Annunaki, started visiting us thousands of years ago. They taught us stuff like reading and writing and basic math. They also inspired stories about gods. He even believes in Jesus, sorta. He was such a good smart guy that the Annunaki paid Him a personal visit and gave Him some high tech that looked magical back then.


That's what I think the CoE is about. Real people with embarrassing things in their past develop implausible explanations for the more embarrassing truths.

To bring this back to Jesus
I think Jesus was an inspiring figure in the Anti-Roman underground. He got caught and sentenced to death by crucifixion. Somehow, He dodged death on the cross. Maybe His Roman baby daddy pulled strings. Maybe His disciples bribed some soldiers in Pontius Pilate's prison. Maybe they got Him down from the cross before He was quite dead. Whatever happened, He and His disciples couldn't tell anyone about it. He remained a Roman convict, just knowing Him was a capital crime.

To me, the most plausible explanation for the Risen Christ is that Jesus existed, was condemned to crucifixion, beat the rap, but nobody could talk about the reality afterwards. Then the Romans destroyed all the evidence. So Christianity became a pagan religion.
Tom

 

[steve_bank]

When you look at a large map of the region you can get a sense of how small the area is where it all allegedly took place.

Little would happen without Romans knowing about it.

 

[TomC]

When you look at a large map of the region you can get a sense of how small the area is where it all allegedly took place.

Little would happen without Romans knowing about it.

Are you referring to my post, or something else? I can't tell.
Tom

 

[steve_bank]

When you look at a large map of the region you can get a sense of how small the area is where it all allegedly took place.

Little would happen without Romans knowing about it.

Are you referring to my post, or something else? I can't tell.
Tom

Not directly.

 

[TomC]

When you look at a large map of the region you can get a sense of how small the area is where it all allegedly took place.

Little would happen without Romans knowing about it.

By the standards of the day, the Romans were extremely smart, sophisticated, and powerful. But lots happened that they were unaware of, didn't understand, or couldn't deal with.
Lots.

Tom

ETA ~They strongly remind me of the modern USA. Including Jesus's opinion of them both. ~

 

[steve_bank]

There were probably paid informants in Palestine.

The e counter between Jesus and John The Baptist could infer a network. It almost sounds like a scripted planned event.

When I looked at a wall map of the region it struck me how small the area was. Somebody walking on water and raising the dead would probably spread quickly and certainly to the Romans.

It is possible Jesus was a seditionist. Who knows. The Temple was corrupt and Romans were undoubtedly skimming profits .It is what Romans did in occupied regions. Probably collusion between Jewish elites and Rome.

The gospel Jesus went from the pacific Sermon On The Mount to rage and violence in the Temple. Bipolar or schitzophrenic?

An HJ could have been a militant radical. Who knows. There were several.

To me it all points to the gospels as a conflation of multiple events and people.

 

[TomC]

The gospel Jesus went from the pacific Sermon On The Mount to rage and violence in the Temple. Bipolar or schitzophrenic?

An HJ could have been a militant radical. Who knows. There were several.

To me it all points to the gospels as a conflation of multiple events and people.

I agree.

But that has nearly nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
Historical Jesus is one thing. Gospel Jesus is something else.

You're talking about gospel Jesus, I'm talking about historical Jesus. Lemme know if you want to have a conversation.

If not, oh well. I don't much bother posting on IIDB anymore anyways.
Tom

 

[TomC]

There were probably paid informants in Palestine.

Of course there were. Lots of Anti-Roman activists and lots of paid government informants. One was even mentioned in the Gospels. Judas.

Frankly, the way Judas was treated by the Gospel writers is evidence that Jesus wasn't resurrected, much less God. Judas was one of the two most important humans in terms of The Salvation of Humanity. The other was Mother Mary.

If it weren't for Her, Jesus wouldn't have been born. If it weren't for Judas, He wouldn't have died and been Resurrected. If it weren't for Judas there wouldn't be a Risen Christ. God chose Judas for a dirty job. Judas performed it.

According to The Story, Jesus had 40 days after the Resurrection to explain to His followers how crucial Judas was to God's Plan for Salvation. Why He chose Judas. Apparently, either Jesus forgot or His followers ignored Him. I dunno.

I think Jesus just made a big mistake telling Judas where He'd be. Judas sold Him out. Happens quite often when you're a criminal consorting with other criminals.
Tom

 

[steve_bank]

As fiction Judas is the antagonist who initiates the last part of the story. No Judas no trial, no crucifiction, and no ressurectin.

 

[TomC]

As fiction Judas is the antagonist who initiates the last part of the story. No Judas no trial, no crucifiction, and no ressurectin.

But as reality,
Judas still initiates the end of the story. The trial, the sentence, and whatever comes afterwards.

If Gospel Jesus existed, then Judas is a hero. If historical Jesus existed, then Judas is a villain.

If mythical Jesus existed, He could confront Pilate without any help. We're back to the CoE.

Same ending to The Story.

Judas Iscariot is solid evidence, to me, that historical Jesus existed. Mythical Jesus didn't. Gospel Jesus is a character in ancient literature.
Tom

 

[steve_bank]

I read that the gospels are in the form of what we today would call action adventure.

It makes sense as a fictionalized account of a person or group. The gospels are very Greek. There was plenty of Greek literture amd mytholgy to draw on.

Jesus was a Greek demigod. Human mother, god father. Some but not all of the powers of the god. Dies in a heroic act and goes to live with the father on high. It would have resonated with Greeks and Romans. They woud see the symbolism.

To Jews the gospel Jesus would have been heersey and offensive. The idea of a Jew related to god by blood.

Whoever wrotet hem would have been educated and literate at least in the norms of the day. Not likely Jewish.

 

[TomC]

Settle down and look at the facts.

If you want an Abrahamic religion, based on hard evidence, first hand accounts, and miraculous events, you should get familiar with Islam.

Muhammad is rather a combination of Alexander the Great and Jesus. Muhammad built a kingdom that endured and even grew. Still exists! That's hard evidence for his existence.

His followers kept track of his doings, starting almost immediately. Including the miraculous delivery of the Quran, straight from God through an angel.

There're probably more true muslim believers than christians. Hard to say, since nobody really keeps track. According to the Vatican I'm still among the Catholic flock. I was baptized, confirmed, and haven't managed to get myself ex-communicated. Yet.
Don't believe everything Christian leaders tell you. I don't. I apply as much critical thinking as I am able. I'm still a member of the local Catholic church, I do a lot of nodding and smiling. I think that there's a lot of Christians like me.

The fact is, Islam is better evidenced and more coherent than Christianity. This is not just my personal opinion, anyone who compares them side by side can see it.
Tom

 

[Learner]

If you leave out the implausibly miraculous parts the rest of the story is both plausible and inspirational.

How plausible is the trial of Jesus? Do you believe Pilate tolerated a Jewish mob outside of his residence harassing him?

Anyway, here's my story: Last night I was abducted by ETs. I was so frightened, that I wet my pants. Applying the criterion of embarrassment, this story is likely to be true. I would never make up such a shameful experience.

Unfortunately Unknown Soldier.... It's a pity your story lacks the criterion of multiple attestation, like Joseph Smith, Mohammed, and Harry Potter's story. The four Gospels (even without Paul's writings) seems to be an advantage, rather than being problematic, apparently when people try to compare the differences between them, so that they could base some arguments on (leaving out the things in common).

Two or more witnesses, is of major importance, highly emphasized in the bible...that's the difference between the bible and the other stories!

Do you believe Santa Claus lives at the North Pole and delivers toys to kids in a flying sleigh pulled by reindeer?

If not, why not?

The 'why not', should be a little obvious. I would need santa's version of the OT and NT writings, to be influentially persuaded

Would you believe it 2000 years from now based on a few scant wrings from today?

This must be a miracle too! I mean, as you're saying... from the "scant writings" we get a much bigger picture. It seemed that there was a need, some how, to make 'two hour long plus' movies, just to... fit in, the Jesus narrative story - now that's miraculous.

(The ten commandments (Charlton Heston) was nearly 4 hours long? I am in awe )

Anyway... It would be quite interesting mind you - if one was to hear what the textual criticisms are, from any existing historians or scholars; who would be experts in this particular field; the santa goose-pels and scriptures. With the same "what if" line of thought, I'd also be intrigued to read the book "misquoting St Nick".

 

[Learner]

Would you believe it 2000 years from now based on a few scant wrings from today?

2000 years from today.

It will depend on the nature of the story, obviously. Like for example: Would there also be writings from people of the same time-period who would refute these stories as being real? Their reasons could be that, the author doesn't exist in their time, therefore their refutation of the story contradicts it's origin authenticity. Another example could be, where certain events in the story never happened, even when the author is known to have existed; the refutation of the story, and being in the same time-period; they, the refuters, know who the author of the story is (at odds with his own story), so hence the story would be said in their writings, this story was 'made up' - the author of the story, is then portrayed in a 'not so good' light so to speak.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Would you believe it 2000 years from now based on a few scant wrings from today?

2000 years from today.

It will depend on the nature of the story, obviously. Like for example: Would there also be writings from people of the same time-period who would refute these stories as being real?

Where are the refutations of Superman, Batman, Wonderwoman, Supergirl, Paul Bunyan, Spiderman, the Dukes of Hazard and the Beverly Hillbillies, to name a few?

 

[steve_bank]

Frodo Lives!!!!

 

[Elixir]

Where are the refutations of Superman, Batman, Wonderwoman, Supergirl, Paul Bunyan, Spiderman, the Dukes of Hazard and the Beverly Hillbillies, to name a few?

Exactly. We can't even prove the Flintstones weren't real! Didn't Barney Rubble actually win an Oscar?

 

[steve_bank]

The Flintstomns may have been based o historical characters.

 

[bilby]

Where are the refutations of Superman

Oh, not this again. Look, Clark Kent wears glasses. Superman doesn't wear glasses. If Superman was really Clark Kent, he wouldn't be able to see where he was going. He'd keep bumping into stuff.

It's painfully obvious.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

The Flintstomns may have been based o historical characters.

Don't you mean prehistorical characters?