I believe in Jesus Some Days

[Landrew]

Some days I think about it, and think there was probably some guy named Jesus, and he was quite a talker, got a lot of followers and a bunch of disciples together, and they went around preaching and such. One day he was captured and hung up on a cross, as they tended to do with rabble-rousers in those days. After awhile he passed out and was considered dead, so he was taken down and given back to his relatives for the funeral. Since they didn't have much in the way of medical science in those days, he wasn't actually dead, and later that night, he woke up, then he drank some water, had a bit of a snack, and then he started to walk around a bit, still mighty sore, but well enough to escape and go into hiding. When the authorities came poking around, and asked where he went, they had some excuse, like "he's already gone to heaven" or "we buried him in a cave" or some such thing, but he was actually hiding from everyone for a week or two. Then he was able to get back with some of his disciples, who thought, "its a miracle!" I'm quite sure, but he knew he couldn't stick around so he took off somewhere, like maybe Spain or France, but who knows where. If the disciples were asked where he was, of course they would say "he's in heaven." As time went by, the events got a bit exaggerated each time the story was told and written down, and by about a century later, he was a freaking god who performed miracles and stuff! but that's what you need to start a religion, otherwise people won't join up.

And then other days, I think, "Naw, there never was a guy named Jesus."

 

[Minarvia]

I think there were many guys named Jesus. There were a plethora of "messiahs" in those days with claimed miracle-healing powers and such. I think Paul (and others) took these stories, mixed in a lot of already passed down stories such as Sidhartha (?) Gautama Buddha and his alleged "virgin" birth, Isis and Osiris, and Hercules, and more, and put them all together and put an "everyman" name in to be the ONE.

There may have been a prophet named Jesus, maybe not. But all the same, it was a common name, same as the Jewish versions of Joseph and Mary. How much more generic can you get? That and the stories being the same as other proclaimed "messiahs" of the time (see Penn and Teller's Biblical ********! for more) plus all the similarities to other cultures' stories (especially assumption and resurrection) make me think it likely that the entire thing was made up. Also, the fact that "Jesus" apparently couldn't write despite being educated is bull. Why would anyone have to write for him years later? Why couldn't he do it himself?

I don't care who all the crucified people were. They were all people. I am sickened by the thought of ANYONE being put to death in that manner. Even one person, named Jesus or not, shouldn't have had to die that way. My 2 cents.

 

[Trent Wray]

I think it's essentially all philosophy and talk, unless someone can prove that a man actually rose from the dead. Whether he was Jewish or Jesus, or Chuck Norris it doesn't matter. Rising from the dead after 3 days is the big deal.

So if someone has risen from the Dead, where are they now?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Landrew, you also have to remember that, whoever that Jesus may have been or what he may have done, we really have no first-hand accounts. Exaggerated or otherwise.

His actual disciples didn't actually leave us anything. The apostle Matthew isn't the guy who wrote the Gospel Of Matthew, and so on. They're people who lived a century or more later, have trouble even agreeing with each other about what Jesus did or what's the actual significance of it all. There are cases of stuff which is blatant fanfic to try to make it sound like some irrelevant prophecy was fulfilled, and just manage to prove that the author was (A) a liar, and (B) pretty ignorant of what those OT verses actually meant. Matthew is probably the best example of that.

The only actual link seems to be through a guy called Saul. You may have heard of him, he later changed his name to Paul.

But he didn't actually meet Jesus, and had massive differences of opinion with the actual disciples. The whole miraculous stuff happened in Paul's hallucinations... err... visions.

So basically it's like this. Let's say I get a sunstroke or a bit of an epileptic seizure, and hallucinate all sorts of miraculous stuff about some guy in Russia called Ivan. (Jesus was _that_ common a name.) The guys who actually knew Ivan think I'm nuts and that's nothing like what Ivan actually did or was like. But I think I know better, so teach a few more people about the miracles of Ivan. Those in turn get their disciples, and tell even taller tales about our Russian messiah.

(And BTW, a common accusation early Christians made towards Judaism and other religions, were that they're not miraculous enough. More miraculous means more true, you know? Kinda sets the frame of mind, and it's not one where they'd refrain from making even more miraculous stuff up. And lo and behold there are more pseudepigraphic gospels, one more miraculous than the other, than you can shake a stick at.)

A couple of generations later, there are dozens of pseudepigraphic fanfic stories detailing the increasingly miraculous and wise acts of Ivan. All from people who not only never knew Ivan first hand, but haven't even heard about my hallucinations first hand. But signed them with the names of Ivan's friends so they sound more authentic and authoritative. (Think: like writing your own Star Wars fanfic and signing it Han Solo, so it sounds more official.) About four of them get chosen as gospels.

At that point, do you think you can actually guess anything about what Ivan was really like or did? How? You only have third hand confabulations, about the hallucinations of someone who never actually knew Ivan.

 

[Bikewer]

As Hansmusterman says. Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman points out that the very earliest Gospel, Mark, did not exist in written form till after 60-75 years of oral tradition. This among a highly disparate group of "Jesus Cults" who had wildly differing notions as to what Jesus had been all about.
Throw the Gnostics into the mix and it's almost incomprehensible. Note that the four Canonical Gospels differ a great deal from each other, the differences in some cases being minor and in others gross and irreconcileable.
And that's just the Canonical gospels. There are over 100 "gospels" known to scholars which did not make the canonical cut as they were too far from what the church had decided as it's path some 300 years after the facts.....

 

[MG1962]

So if someone has risen from the Dead, where are they now?

Probably at the funeral home looking for a refund

 

[CurtC]

I'm with you through the first part, where you talk about how Jesus was probably a real guy, but you lost me here:

After awhile he passed out and was considered dead, so he was taken down and given back to his relatives for the funeral. Since they didn't have much in the way of medical science in those days, he wasn't actually dead, and later that night, he woke up, then he drank some water, had a bit of a snack, and then he started to walk around a bit, still mighty sore, but well enough to escape and go into hiding.

Read some higher criticism, like Ehrman. I haven't read his books yet, but I have been through the Historical Jesus course from Stanford University that's available on iTunes. That whole bit about how Jesus was resurrected bodily, you can see developing through the years as the particular accounts get farther from the actual event of his death. In the earliest sources, such as Paul's writings and the Q source, Jesus's resurrection seemed to be just a spiritual thing, much like someone talks about a deceased loved one nowadays having gone to heaven.

As the stories are written down in later years, the tale is gradually embellished with more supernatural details. The first of the four Gospels, Mark, says very little about the whole event, and by the time Luke and Matthew are written, especially Matthew, the story is obviously meant to convince the reader that Jesus was divine and was magically bodily resurrected.

The way that the tale grew over the decades among his followers is a classic marker for how myths are made.

 

[Iconoclast08]

Landrew, you also have to remember ... <snip> ... hallucinations of someone who never actually knew Ivan.

Great post, thanks for that, Hans. I've been interested in learning more about what the more sober Biblical critics say about the authenticity of Sky Daddy's Guide to Life.

As Hansmusterman says. Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman points out that the very earliest Gospel,...

I actually just ordered a copy of Ehrman's Lost Scriptures, is that where you read about some of this?

Also, looks like he's got a new one out titled Jesus, Interrupted.

 

[MG1962]

The way that the tale grew over the decades among his followers is a classic marker for how myths are made.

Big statement from someone quoting a non existent document (The Q source) as evidence

 

[CurtC]

Also, looks like he's got a new one out titled Jesus, Interrupted.

From what I've heard, Jesus, Interrupted is his best book.

Big statement from someone quoting a non existent document (The Q source) as evidence

That was only a small part of what I based my comment on, but do you have doubts that Q existed or that we generally know what was in it?

 

[Bikewer]

I'm just now reading Jesus Interuppted.... It's concerned with the inconsistencies in Scripture.
Ehrman is pointing out that most folks just sort of conflate all the Gospels into one more-or-less consistent narrative....But that there are gross differences between these accounts which are in many cases irreconcilable.

 

[TraneWreck]

I sort of like an argument I heard from Christopher Hitchens:

He said there probably was an actual dude named Jesus. If was purely made up, they wouldn't have been forced to make up conflicting stories to have the Nazarene born in Bethlehem.

They go through such convoluted lengths to match up his life story with the Old Testament prophecies that there had to be a real guy. Were he purely fictional, it would have been a much smoother process.

That's the MOST compelling argument for a real Jesus I've ever heard.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

1. It was not a smooth process because it evolved by keeping inserting new stuff into the story. That's a bit harder a task than starting clean and having complete control over the characters.

2. Fakes involving one city or another seem to have been actually quite common, to strengthen some claim to glory of the church there.

See for example the "Acts Of Barnabas" which essentially wrote some fiction about an apostle named Barnabas and placed it in the times of Jesus, to give the church of Cyprus an apostle as a founder. And basically used said apostle as a sock-puppet for their opinions on some purely 5'th century matters. (And it even name-drops Mark as the author, _and_ Matthew at that too, to make it even more official sounding.)

3. My point still stands that the whole chain from them to Jesus leads inevitably through a _hallucination_.

Now it seems to me like either you believe there actually was a God who gave Paul a vision, or you don't. That is actually an important point. Roll it in your head.

Because if you believe that it's just a hallucination, there is no point in speculating about what might be a realistic version of it. It's all based on just a hallucination of someone who hadn't witnessed the events, and at that point seems to have had not much clue of what it's all about.

Let's say I tell you that in my vision, prophet Ivan was riding on a dragon and had wings like an archangel and was holding a pale blue lightsaber. It's silly to basically go, "well, maybe it was just a guy riding a horse with a cape and a flashlight." It's a hallucination. There is no real event behind it to reconstruct.

And basically if you decide to believe that there actually was a God/Jesus who gave Paul a real vision and tell him stuff he hadn't witnessed... then, wth, what's the point in making a non-divine version of it? You need a divinity to make this thing work at all, because without it you're back to the "it's just a hallucination" case.

 

[Trent Wray]

Some days I feel like a nut. Some days I don't.

 

[Landrew]

I dunno, it kinda seems like a bit of a tall tale. This guy Jesus was probably a bit of a tough dude, known to knock over tables of the money-lenders and such. Hard to say what that was really about, but Al Capone did a lot of nice and charitable things for his image too, like setting up soup kitchens for the hobos and such, but really he was nobody to really mess with. But I imagine this guy Jesus had his reasons for wanting a lot of good PR about himself too, because as we know the authorities were out to get him, like the IRS went after Al Capone eventually. It's hard to forget a strong leader, so I think a bunch of his guys couldn't really forget how he took a hit for the rest of them, and they told all their sons and so forth, so it's not really surprising that he was like a god 3 generations later.

 

[a3sigma]

The only actual link seems to be through a guy called Saul. You may have heard of him, he later changed his name to Paul.

For more on this I can recommend: The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity by Hyam Maccoby.

It seems to me that it would be more honest for Christians to call themselves Paulists.