T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
If I understand your question I would say that it's pretty easy to write prophecy generations after the alleged fact. Considering the destruction of the Temple it also makes sense.
-
Features
Historical Jesus
- Thread starter none
- Start date
Swammerdami
Squadron Leader
I am confused by your comments, which seem to completely miss the point. You DO understand that I do NOT believe the historic Jesus was really resurrected, right?
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Trump pamdered to Christians on the right, and a group of them clamed Trump was an agnet of god sent to help them.
This in our rime of so called education and enlightenment.
A thousand years from now Trump will likely be part of Christian lore for some Christians. He may even become a Chrtian martyr who suffered for the faith.
In a book I read on Islam it was said it was not unheard of for someone or group to spread a prophesy and then have someone show up to fulfill it.
There were multiple Jews claiming to be the messiah.
This in our rime of so called education and enlightenment.
A thousand years from now Trump will likely be part of Christian lore for some Christians. He may even become a Chrtian martyr who suffered for the faith.
In a book I read on Islam it was said it was not unheard of for someone or group to spread a prophesy and then have someone show up to fulfill it.
There were multiple Jews claiming to be the messiah.
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
Considering the religious milieu of the times it's beyond understandable how Mark's story could become historicized. The story is about a man that lived a couple generations ago. The story gets appended with more religious woo in the midst of religious and political calamity. The story becomes more and more popular to the point that it achieves political favor and dominance for centuries and millennia afterwards owing to its stark differences from Pagan ritual. Game theory alone predicts its ascendancy.
It's advocates gain control of political institutions and are able to suppress competing versions at pain of death. It's a no brainer.
Swammerdami
Squadron Leader
Just to be clear:
IF some cabal concocted a fiction, it would likely have been a thoughtfully constructed fiction; and we know resurrection was a key part of that fiction. For the primary fictional account of that character to barely mention a resurrection (and to mention ZERO post-death sightings of the resurrected man) would be quite unusual. (Bilby suggests, I think, that the author of Mark was too incompetent to mention the sightings, even though his account was edited several decades after the alleged resurrection. Given the success of early Christianity it would be odd for the primary biographer to be that incompetent).
But IF Jesus was a real inspirational person, biographies might have been written with little mention of the resurrection fiction. That fiction would have been embellished later.
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Without the resurrection there is no Christianity.
The kids game. Line up a bunch of kids, whisper a story in the first kid's ear and it gets passed along. Invincibly it gets changed.
In the time there was no objective reporting and history, people freely interpreted and invented a narrative from hearsay.
Herodotus the Greek historian was known for turning what he heard into alleged first hand observations of places he never visited.
In the media today we see different interpretations of of events. I watched CNN commentators turning hearsay from the Trump White House into fabricated narratives and interpreting details without first hand knowledge. Not that there wasn't things going on in the WH, but CNN put out an endless stream of hearsay as fact.
Look at a wall map of the refion. today. Israel is a tiny spot. The area where it all would have happened is small. Gossip would be rampant.
The small area and lack of corobortion of the events indicates Jesus whoever he was was not very well known when alive. There are no Roman records.
The kids game. Line up a bunch of kids, whisper a story in the first kid's ear and it gets passed along. Invincibly it gets changed.
In the time there was no objective reporting and history, people freely interpreted and invented a narrative from hearsay.
Herodotus the Greek historian was known for turning what he heard into alleged first hand observations of places he never visited.
In the media today we see different interpretations of of events. I watched CNN commentators turning hearsay from the Trump White House into fabricated narratives and interpreting details without first hand knowledge. Not that there wasn't things going on in the WH, but CNN put out an endless stream of hearsay as fact.
Look at a wall map of the refion. today. Israel is a tiny spot. The area where it all would have happened is small. Gossip would be rampant.
The small area and lack of corobortion of the events indicates Jesus whoever he was was not very well known when alive. There are no Roman records.
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
There is no need for a cabal and a conspiracy, just an attractive story. Remember that we're talking religion here. Is there a cabal and a carefully constructed fiction behind Mormonism? These additions come well after the story. Bigfoot, Cain, you get the idea.
I should add that the original story was no doubt an embellishment of common talk and experience so it was already concocted. But that's precisely what an author does when he writes stories that are fictional.
Swammerdami
Squadron Leader
Are we all debating the same question here? My position is that a man called Jesus of Nazareth probably DID exist who was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate. I am NOT claiming that that Jesus walked on water, turned water into wine, or was resurrected from the dead.
For those judging historicity by the number of early documents which mention the person, note that Pontius Pilate — the most powerful man in Judea during the time of Jesus — is hardly mentioned at all, except in documents which connect him to the Jesus story.
Mormonism was an odd choice of example for your point.
For those judging historicity by the number of early documents which mention the person, note that Pontius Pilate — the most powerful man in Judea during the time of Jesus — is hardly mentioned at all, except in documents which connect him to the Jesus story.
Mormonism was an odd choice of example for your point.
Joseph Smith Jr. and Oliver H. P. Cowdery in March 1830 said:
Copernicus
Industrial Grade Linguist
That's not true. The first record we have of Pilate was by Philon of Alexandria, who characterized him as a very cruel, corrupt governor who had lots of people executed. Josephus later wrote some things about him, very little of which said anything about Jesus. Given Pilate's reputation as a long-serving, cruel Roman governor of Judea, he would have been the ideal candidate for someone who would have ordered the crucifixion of Jesus in a story that someone made up out of whole cloth. It would have lent plausibility to the tale. OTOH, maybe Jesus did exist and the tale was true. How are we to know? Of course, we can ignore the obvious lies that are also contained in those stories.
And TGG Moogly's reference to Mormonism was right on point. Joseph Smith was a known fraudster before he suddenly got visited by the angel Mormoni, who gave him his true calling. Mormonism is a perfect example of how utter bullshit can turn into a major religion in relatively recent times. If you are going to argue for the plausibility of Jesus on the basis of nothing other than popular stories, Josephus Smith has some revelations to sell you. We know this is true, because he was able to translate sacred text into the Book of Mormon with nothing more than a stone in a hat. Now it might seem that his followers were just being gullible, but here is a good explanation of why the stone and the hat actually make the story MORE plausible.
Joseph, the stone and the hat: Why it all matters
It is not at all implausible that the Jesus story attracted a wide cult following in the early years of the Roman Empire, especially if the fantastic tales of miracles contained references to real people and places to lend them credibility. That's just sugar coating to help the bullshit go down.
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Look at Scientology.
Hubbard was a third rate scifi writer who crated a mythology and Dianetics. He borrowed the skin galvanic response meter from lie detectors and called the E-Meter. In a lie detector it measures changes in skin resistance when somebody starts to sweat. Believers think it has some mystical power.
Hubbard was a third rate scifi writer who crated a mythology and Dianetics. He borrowed the skin galvanic response meter from lie detectors and called the E-Meter. In a lie detector it measures changes in skin resistance when somebody starts to sweat. Believers think it has some mystical power.
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
I'm just using the literature we have. I used the Mormon example because it is exactly the same thing happening at a later time and which has received embellishments since its inception.
I think the reason people like to extract a living Jesus from the Jesus tales is because of social pressure and necessity owing to two thousand years of intense and grave selection pressure. After all, Jesus is presented as a real person albeit with godly powers. Joseph Smith gave us Moroni and Moroni magic while James gave us Jesus and Jesus magic, but they're both from the same author's cloth. Should we try to extract the historical Moroni from the Book of Mormon Too? We don't because Moroni isn't invented as a person. That's the difference. That and two thousand years of selection pressure.
"The Historical Jesus" is a modern phenomenon. Up until the age of scientific thinking we were content to have Jesus just as he was. Scientific observation and the scientific method came along and all of a sudden gospel Jesus looks kinda dopey, kinda like believing in Santa. Okay, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a real person from which the tales were spun and embellished. Right? Right? Right? It's still all about Jesus. Right?
Why not just admit that Jesus was the last of a long line of Mediterranean demigods? That makes the most sense. Even though Jesus is a demigod his name doesn't come up as such anywhere. Why is that? Could it be bias? Do a search for famous demigods and you never see Jesus even though he is clearly a demigod. Maybe we shouldn't look for the historical person behind demigods. or maybe we should recognize selection pressure and cultural bias when it's as obvious as our noses.
Last edited:
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 33,970
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
I understand that. But your "evidence" for an historical Jesus is no better than the evidence you (rightly) reject for his resurrection. There's exactly the same evidence for Jesus's existence as there is for his resurrection: Nothing except bad (but hugely and inexplicably popular) fiction. Including a massive amount of fanfic, and squabbling sects of diehard fans who will fight to the death over which minutiae are or are not canon.
You might as well be arguing for the existence of the historical Harry Potter, who wasn't a wizard, but must have been a real person, because there are books.
J K Rowling wouldn't have written anything so awful if Harry wasn't a real person, because that would be terribly embarrassing for her.
Tharmas
Veteran Member
I had promised myself I wouldn't get involved in this perennial topic again, but somehow I can't stop myself.
It seems to me that judging the historicity of Jesus should not be seen as a binary proposition, that is, either the character is totally fiction or on the other hand he existed largely as he is depicted in the Gospels, saving perhaps the miracles, resurrection, etc.
My approach is first to examine our sources, which are primarily the Gospels, but before the Gospels there are the genuine epistles of Paul, perhaps the Revelation of John, and perhaps some other early Christian documents of uncertain provenance. Paul says surprisingly little about the life of Jesus, other than that he was crucified. He does claim to have met the apostles John and Peter. What we learn from Paul and some of the other early documents is that in its early days Christianity consisted of a loose federation of disparate communities which often differed considerably in doctrine.
That leaves the Gospels, and naturally the first question is, what is the nature of the Gospels?. They are narratives, written for the most part in “3rd person omniscient” (as opposed to 1st person or “eyewitness”) in scope. They are in part hagiography. They can be said to be “Lives of Jesus,” but only in the ancient, not the modern, sense. That is, rigorously accurate reporting is not valued as much as conveying an impression. In addition, frequently the author’s purpose in writing is to express his own personal philosophy.
The Gospels display all of those characteristics. In terms of the last mentioned characteristic, expressing the author’s own opinion, it is widely accepted by modern scholars that each of the Gospels displays a particular spin on the story. For instance, Matthew has been said to shape the story to lessen some of the anti-Semitism of earlier versions, and be friendlier to the Jews somewhat.
It should also be noted that the Gospels were somewhat plastic documents, subject to re-writes, additions and subtractions over the course of decades before they were canonized in official versions. For instance, Marcion in the 2nd century heavily edited Luke and Acts to conform to his vision of Christianity. How much of his editing was accurately redacted later is not entirely certain. Or the famous story of the woman taken in adultery was added to John much later that the original version; early Church fathers did not know the story.
But even before the extant gospels was Q, a hypothesized “sayings” Gospel (similar in many ways to the Gospel of Thomas) that leant much of its material to the later Matthew and Luke. This would be the first “layer” of information about the Jesus figure, and he comes across as a wise rabbi and teacher.
This picture forms one part of a mosaic. Other pieces of the mosaic include Jesus as an apocalyptic preacher, Jesus as a miracle worker, Jesus as Messiah, Jesus as a God, and others.
Burton Mack, author of Who Wrote the New Testament, sees these mosaic pieces as expressions of different nascent Christian communities with different “takes” and different reactions to current events.
Enter the author of The Gospel of Mark. He takes many of these elements and combines them into a new kind of narrative, a “life” in the classical sense. Mack says:
Even the Passion story was a complete fabrication.
The conclusion must be that the identity of the man, or men, whatever their name(s), who inspired the Jesus stories, is lost to history.
It seems to me that judging the historicity of Jesus should not be seen as a binary proposition, that is, either the character is totally fiction or on the other hand he existed largely as he is depicted in the Gospels, saving perhaps the miracles, resurrection, etc.
My approach is first to examine our sources, which are primarily the Gospels, but before the Gospels there are the genuine epistles of Paul, perhaps the Revelation of John, and perhaps some other early Christian documents of uncertain provenance. Paul says surprisingly little about the life of Jesus, other than that he was crucified. He does claim to have met the apostles John and Peter. What we learn from Paul and some of the other early documents is that in its early days Christianity consisted of a loose federation of disparate communities which often differed considerably in doctrine.
That leaves the Gospels, and naturally the first question is, what is the nature of the Gospels?. They are narratives, written for the most part in “3rd person omniscient” (as opposed to 1st person or “eyewitness”) in scope. They are in part hagiography. They can be said to be “Lives of Jesus,” but only in the ancient, not the modern, sense. That is, rigorously accurate reporting is not valued as much as conveying an impression. In addition, frequently the author’s purpose in writing is to express his own personal philosophy.
The Gospels display all of those characteristics. In terms of the last mentioned characteristic, expressing the author’s own opinion, it is widely accepted by modern scholars that each of the Gospels displays a particular spin on the story. For instance, Matthew has been said to shape the story to lessen some of the anti-Semitism of earlier versions, and be friendlier to the Jews somewhat.
It should also be noted that the Gospels were somewhat plastic documents, subject to re-writes, additions and subtractions over the course of decades before they were canonized in official versions. For instance, Marcion in the 2nd century heavily edited Luke and Acts to conform to his vision of Christianity. How much of his editing was accurately redacted later is not entirely certain. Or the famous story of the woman taken in adultery was added to John much later that the original version; early Church fathers did not know the story.
But even before the extant gospels was Q, a hypothesized “sayings” Gospel (similar in many ways to the Gospel of Thomas) that leant much of its material to the later Matthew and Luke. This would be the first “layer” of information about the Jesus figure, and he comes across as a wise rabbi and teacher.
This picture forms one part of a mosaic. Other pieces of the mosaic include Jesus as an apocalyptic preacher, Jesus as a miracle worker, Jesus as Messiah, Jesus as a God, and others.
Burton Mack, author of Who Wrote the New Testament, sees these mosaic pieces as expressions of different nascent Christian communities with different “takes” and different reactions to current events.
Enter the author of The Gospel of Mark. He takes many of these elements and combines them into a new kind of narrative, a “life” in the classical sense. Mack says:
Even the Passion story was a complete fabrication.
The conclusion must be that the identity of the man, or men, whatever their name(s), who inspired the Jesus stories, is lost to history.
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
As someone who composed fiction I would not go so far as to say "man or men." Rather I would leave it at "events" because that's how authors write. They collect their experiences into a tale they deem to be attractive. Mark is a piece of art, not history. And like any piece of art it appeals to some people more than others.
Thank-you for the great addition to the thread.
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
This is a point I've tried to make repeatedly. But looking for the real jesus is a bit of a personal treasure hunt, not unlike looking for the Lost Dutchman mine or the real explanation behind the Bermuda Triangle or finding Atlantis on the Bimini Road. The real historical Jesus is the treasure. Problem is it isn't there and never has been. It's an author's creation that piques human desire, aka fantasy. There isn't anything about a dragon that isn't real except the dragon.
The same is true for the Historical Jesus but that's not enough to stop some from believing in the treasure. All those facets of the Jesus Story may in fact be real, and we know that most of them are, just like all those aspects of the dragon. Roman occupation, crucifixion, lots of people named Jesus, cults, Jews, messianic prophecy, rebellion, healers, etc. All this was followed by centuries of selection pressure for orthodox belief in the Jesus Story. So welcome to today.
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
I watched a show on a search for possible locations of Atalanta based on the story. A sea going culture destroyed by a cataclysmic event. One can objectively fit several actual volcanic locations to the story , but it is obviously not proof That is what theists do with Jesus. Any number of narratives are plausible historically.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 33,970
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
I am pretty sure that Atlanta is in Georgia (the US state, not the nation that was formerly a Soviet Republic).
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
When I see the thread title I keep seing Hysterical Jesus.
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
When taking power in history there are two main themes.
1. Establish legitimacy through blood lines.
2. Establish authority from a deity.
If the gospels were about creating a movement it follows the pattern.
1. Jesus is said to be in the line of King David.
2. His father was a deity.
If the historical Jesus was actually more militant and making a power play the narrative makes sense. The Romans crowned him with thorns and put King Of The Jews on his cross.
Yet another possible narrative.
en.wikipedia.org
1. Establish legitimacy through blood lines.
2. Establish authority from a deity.
If the gospels were about creating a movement it follows the pattern.
1. Jesus is said to be in the line of King David.
2. His father was a deity.
If the historical Jesus was actually more militant and making a power play the narrative makes sense. The Romans crowned him with thorns and put King Of The Jews on his cross.
Yet another possible narrative.
Jesus, King of the Jews - Wikipedia
Tharmas
Veteran Member
These are interesting observations, Steve. Thanks.
One can wonder where the author of Mark got the idea of having Jesus executed as “King of the Jews,” and the answer isn’t really hard to find.
In the chaos surrounding the Jewish wars in the late 60s, there were apparently a number of warring factions supporting candidates for High Priest. When Titus entered Jerusalem in 70, he found one of last surviving pretenders, Simon bar Giora, dressed in purple robes and standing in the Temple. Titus laid waste to Jerusalem and the temple, and took Simon back to Rome to be displayed as "King of the Jews" in a triumphal march, and then executed.”
The author of Mark who, as tradition has it, lived and wrote in Rome, would have been very familiar with this episode.
One can wonder where the author of Mark got the idea of having Jesus executed as “King of the Jews,” and the answer isn’t really hard to find.
In the chaos surrounding the Jewish wars in the late 60s, there were apparently a number of warring factions supporting candidates for High Priest. When Titus entered Jerusalem in 70, he found one of last surviving pretenders, Simon bar Giora, dressed in purple robes and standing in the Temple. Titus laid waste to Jerusalem and the temple, and took Simon back to Rome to be displayed as "King of the Jews" in a triumphal march, and then executed.”
The author of Mark who, as tradition has it, lived and wrote in Rome, would have been very familiar with this episode.