Christians, would you have saved Jesus, if you had he chance?

[Mr.wizard]

To me it doesn't matter if it was written down at the time of Jesus, someone making it up to further an agenda is still a more plausible explanation than a man rising from the dead and floating to a magic place to become a god.

[robvalue]

Yeah. Almost anything is more plausible than that.

[madog]

 

1) So "no" on the question of cultural-historical criteria for judgment of likelihood? Would a 1st century Jewish fisherman from Galilee who is inventing a mythological god-man think, "I better write this down"? 

Simple, read what I said .... If "Jesus and his father" wanted their message recorded for posterity they would have recorded it or asked for it to be recorded .....

As you point out a 1st century fisherman wouldn't think to write something down ... If there was a "Jesus" he would know that ... if he wanted the message written down he would have asked ....

By your premise the New Testament came about by an afterthought, by a fisherman that fortunately lived long enough to write it down before he died ...

More likely he wanted to impress by claiming to be a disciple of the son of God and to get his novel accepted by his peers ...

[GUBU]

//Your answer makes no sense. You are alleging the perfect being would allow a cack handed hatchet job of his message in order to allow us become better people?//

You may think that if someone has God helping them they will gain knowledge of what the truth is about corrupt Bibles.  I didn't say he doesn't intervene when someone does good.

//Could god not create us as better people, or could he not make it that his message, unaduterated, would suffice?//

You may agree humans have the potential to choose good or evil and may disagree with parts of The Bible and if a person doesn't have enough experience they won't think of how some parts were added or taken out of The Bible maliciously.

//Your answer just raises a larger question, why is your god so small?//

What may you think proves God is so small ?

Constable Dorfl, answers above.

I see a lot of words but no answers. And when you reply to me in future please use the quote function properly. If you want to reply to individual parts separately you can split my post into separate text boxes.

[robvalue]

Anyone can say, "But maybe [convoluted scenario backed by no evidence]". Sure. Maybe. I can't prove it didn't happen, nor do I need to. If you're having to make stuff like this up just to make your result sound plausible, you're showing your inherent bias.

[GUBU]

I wouldn't. But biblical "scholars" reckon about 50s ad, written by a man who never met Yeshua and was supposed (by the writing attributed to him) to be at loggerheads theologically with theJerusalem sect.

Though the biggest reason why I say no crucifixion was that Yeshua was convicted under sanhedric law, which proscribed stoning or hanging not crucifixion, and Rome was unlikely to intervene because a minor theological dispute involving non-citizens wasn't something worth angrying up a very prickly people.

Right. If those same scholars date the Gospel of Mark in the 60's ad (which includes a narrative about the crucifixion), where does your claim that "there was no crucifixion and the story was made up seventy years or more later when the creators of jesusism were trying to codify it" (emphasis mine) come from? Would you like to modify that? If you don't think there was a crucifixion, fair enough. But to claim that it was made up 70 years later cannot be supported by the historical evidence.

At the latest, it would have been "made up" around 30 years after the made-up crucifixion (with Mark's Gospel). <= I am merely challenging your timeline, not your conclusion from the timeline.

The earliest plausible date for Mark is 75 CE, and even at that the 325 CE version which was put into the first canon was radically different than today's version, it contained no resurrection. But ten years isn't going to disprove my reasoning, Mark was still removed from Yeshua by a whole generation, either relying on second hand accounts or the fading memories of geriatrics.

And I see you've no dispute with my pointing out that crucifixion for a jewish religious crime doesn't make sense. You've no evidence for your god killing himself for three days, so you put up a very weak argument that I may (on the very edge of possibility) be ten years out and that defeats my argument because... reasons.

[Angrboda]

Dating the beginning of the oral traditions predating the written text depends on assuming the birth narratives of Jesus and those weren't recorded until 4 decades after the supposed ministry and crucifixion of Christ. Anachronisms in the text of the old testament point to it having been largely composed in the 6th and 7th centuries BCE, despite appearing to narrate older events. The older events need not have become legend and stories at the time specified in the later codification of them, just as the beginning of the legends about Jesus need not have occurred in 33 CE. If the legends about Jesus had their beginnings several decades earlier, that gives plenty of time for a church to develop around the legends. The dates of the birth and crucifixion would have been back filled later, decades after the supposed events.

[Ignorant]

Anyone can say, "But maybe [convoluted scenario backed by no evidence]". Sure. Maybe. I can't prove it didn't happen, nor do I need to. If you're having to make stuff like this up just to make your result sound plausible, you're showing your inherent bias.

"I find people making stuff up for their own agenda to be much more plausible..." -You <= How is that essentially different than "But maybe they just made it up for their own agenda"?

I can't prove they didn't make it up, nor do I need to?

[Ignorant]

To me it doesn't matter if it was written down at the time of Jesus, someone making it up to further an agenda is still a more plausible explanation than a man rising from the dead and floating to a magic place to become a god.

Based on what scientific criteria of plausibility?

[Ignorant]

As you point out a 1st century fisherman wouldn't think to write something down ... If there was a "Jesus" he would know that ... if he wanted the message written down he would have asked ...

I don't understand how you know what he would have done...