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

[Ignorant]

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, [1] 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. [2] But ten years isn't going to disprove my reasoning, [3] 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. [4] 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. [5]

1) Which is 40 years, not 70. Also, many scholars date Mark in the 60's. And if the Q source is an actual document, that source precedes that dating as well.

2) The account of the crucifixion is more or less identical to today's version. Today's version does, however, add an account of a resurrected Jesus appearing to his disciples, that much is true.

3) Maybe not, but at least we're using more accurate numbers.

4) You may have noticed that I am discussing this topic with more than just you. But since you insist. The gospel narrative gives an account of Pilate's equally confused response to the Jewish authorities. Even in the narrative, Pilate is quite confused as to why the Jews are bringing someone before him for a religious crime.

5) Did I propose the dating error as evidence that the narrative gives a historically accurate account of a truly divine man being executed? Can you cite that argument of mine?

[Ignorant]

...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. [1] 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. [2] The dates of the birth and crucifixion would have been back filled later, decades after the supposed events. [3]

1) True. It is also apparent that those texts, as we have them today, are largely the result of multiple redactions and combinations of smaller, older texts into a whole (e.g. The single unity of the ancient Throne-Succession Narrative split and redacted into 2 Sam 9-20 and 1 Kgs 1-2). So while it is true that the texts began to be compiled into a unity in the 6th and 7th century BCE, the compiled texts (e.g. the succession narrative) have been found to precede the redaction by centuries.

2) True. And you might expect to find evidence of such legends dating from those decades. As far as I know, there is no such evidence, and the only non-Christian attestation of any sort of Jesus character comes decades afterward, not before. 

Also, Justin Martyr (100-165 AD), when writing to the Emperor about the Christian religion, assures the Emperor that he can verify that a Jesus of Nazareth was crucified under pilate in a document called "The Acts of Pilate" (which is to be distinguished from the 4th century apocryphal texts). did such a document exist? That is unclear, but it is clear the Justin thought it was a simple enough claim to tell the Emperor "You can check Pilate's notes, all of it is in there".

3) Maybe, but like the rest of the ancient world, authors measured time by who was in charge. In this case: Pontius Pilate and Tiberius in the case of the crucifixion. I also recognize the difficulties in dating the birth of Jesus. His crucifixion is much easier to date.

[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.

Based on what scientific criteria of plausibility?

I'm pretty sure there is no scientific evidence of someone rising from the dead, floating to heaven, and becoming god. There is plenty of evidence of people making stuff up and inaccurately recalling events.

[Angrboda]

...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. [1] 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. [2] The dates of the birth and crucifixion would have been back filled later, decades after the supposed events. [3]

1) True. It is also apparent that those texts, as we have them today, are largely the result of multiple redactions and combinations of smaller, older texts into a whole (e.g. The single unity of the ancient Throne-Succession Narrative split and redacted into 2 Sam 9-20 and 1 Kgs 1-2). So while it is true that the texts began to be compiled into a unity in the 6th and 7th century BCE, the compiled texts (e.g. the succession narrative) have been found to precede the redaction by centuries.

The point however is that these redacted texts need not represent the actual chronology of the events they describe as they weren't necessarily written contemporaneous with the events they describe.

2) True. And you might expect to find evidence of such legends dating from those decades. As far as I know, there is no such evidence, and the only non-Christian attestation of any sort of Jesus character comes decades afterward, not before. 

If the Pauline epistles are any indication, letters were being written between the various churches by approximately 50 CE. That we don't have evidence of these other letters makes your expectation an unrealistic one. Also, much of the so to speak expected documents would not exist as the tradition may have been largely oral.

Also, Justin Martyr (100-165 AD), when writing to the Emperor about the Christian religion, assures the Emperor that he can verify that a Jesus of Nazareth was crucified under pilate in a document called "The Acts of Pilate" (which is to be distinguished from the 4th century apocryphal texts). did such a document exist? That is unclear, but it is clear the Justin thought it was a simple enough claim to tell the Emperor "You can check Pilate's notes, all of it is in there".

What Justin Martyr may have thought during the second century is little evidence of what transpired a century earlier.

3) Maybe, but like the rest of the ancient world, authors measured time by who was in charge. In this case: Pontius Pilate and Tiberius in the case of the crucifixion. I also recognize the difficulties in dating the birth of Jesus. His crucifixion is much easier to date.

By what means are you dating the crucifixion? As pointed out, the Gospels come too late to bear indisputable evidence of when the 'events' in them actually occurred. They claim that they occurred under Pilate and Tiberius, but that could just be an arbitrarily asserted connection. As you said yourself, people at the time dated events by who was in charge; so if you wanted to place a narrative in a certain time, you would claim the participation of historic figures. That would explain why Pilate is involved in the sentencing of an obscure rabbi; simply put, he wasn't. Inserting Pilate into the story is just a false dating of events.

[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.

"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?

People making stuff up is not a convoluted scenario. It's incredibly simple. It requires absolutely no assumptions, other than they were prepared to make stuff up. Also, the accounts contain obviously made up stuff already. So we know they were in the habit of doing so. If someone hands you a report containing magical events, I'd have thought you would agree the most likely scenario is they made it up (or hallucinated). At best you'd simply reserve judgement. If you would by default assume the events actually happened, I wouldn't know how to proceed.

I'm not saying for sure that's what happened, but I am saying it's more likely (in my opinion) than a long whinded explanation that accounts for the 50+ year gap and tries to maintain accuracy as well. And even after that, all you have is a preacher spouting off and being executed. No one is arguing that such things went on.

[Ignorant]

Based on what scientific criteria of plausibility?

I'm pretty sure there is no scientific evidence of someone rising from the dead, floating to heaven, and becoming god. [1] There is plenty of evidence of people making stuff up [2] and inaccurately recalling events. [3]

Alright, thank you for adding #3. Compare that with your original:

To me it doesn't matter if it was written down at the time of Jesus, someone making it up to further an agenda [2] is still a more plausible explanation than a man rising from the dead and floating to a magic place to become a god. [1]" (emphasis mine)

Which one is more plausible to you: a conspiracy of mostly illiterate Jews inventing a new pseudo-Jewish religion, or a shared experience of mostly illiterate Jews witnessing something they didn't really understand?

I mean, it is a normal and institutionally accepted psychiatric phenomenon that, after the death of a loved one, the bereaved will experience "seeing" their dead loved one and sometimes even speak with them. If you want to reject the interpretation of events which faith gives (i.e. a man rising from the dead), I think that this phenomenon [i.e. the natural psychosis of "seeing" a recently deceased] is your best way of accounting for the apostolic experience. Assigning intention and deceit  to ancient people long gone seems a very unscientific thing to do. At least to me.

[Ignorant]

People making stuff up is not a convoluted scenario. It's incredibly simple. It requires absolutely no assumptions, other than they were prepared to make stuff up. [1] Also, the accounts contain obviously made up stuff already. So we know they were in the habit of doing so. [2] If someone hands you a report containing magical events, I'd have thought you would agree the most likely scenario is they made it up (or hallucinated). [3] At best you'd simply reserve judgement. If you would by default assume the events actually happened, I wouldn't know how to proceed. [4]

I'm not saying for sure that's what happened, but I am saying it's more likely (in my opinion) than a long whinded explanation that accounts for the 50+ year gap and tries to maintain accuracy as well. [5] And even after that, all you have is a preacher spouting off and being executed. No one is arguing that such things went on. [6]

1) I think it is more convoluted that than give credit. Going about inventing a mythology which is more or less consistent within a rigid Jewish context is trickier than I think you give credit. Not only are you assuming that they were prepared to make stuff you, you are also assuming that they actually did. That assumption is what helps you make sense of the data. A more simple and less convoluted assumption would be none. They could have experienced something which they thought was a resurrected Jesus, something they didn't understand, and that they were wrong about the nature of that experience and the interpretation they gave.

2) Yes, the ways ancient Jews recorded events is not exactly like reading a modern history text.

3) See #1. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, and I would place false interpretation of misunderstood phenomena above hallucination, and hallucination above "made it up" on my differential list of hypotheses.

4) No. Context plays into this as well. In general, if someone tells me they saw an 800 m tall Jesus with pink hair riding a unicorn, my first thought is doubt, but also a "well, maybe they thought they saw an 800 m tall Jesus, but I'm gonna need to know more". I don't immediately assume someone is lying to me, unless of course I can tell from their body language/facial expressions or tone of voice or responses to follow-up questions.

5) Which long winded explanation are you referring to?

6) If that is the case, why go with, "they made it up" over, "they misunderstood what they witnessed"?

[Ignorant]

The point however is that these redacted texts need not represent the actual chronology of the events they describe as they weren't necessarily written contemporaneous with the events they describe.

Sure, that's fine. The Church isn't all bent out of shape because the Synoptics record Jesus beating people up at the Temple right before is passion while John records it at the beginning of his ministry. I'm with ya.

If the Pauline epistles are any indication, letters were being written between the various churches by approximately 50 CE. That we don't have evidence of these other letters makes your expectation an unrealistic one. Also, much of the so to speak expected documents would not exist as the tradition may have been largely oral.

Fair enough. So early Jesus legends and a church developing by 33 CE, you conclude, is the best hypothesis to account for the data?

What Justin Martyr may have thought during the second century is little evidence of what transpired a century earlier.

I didn't offer Justin Martyr as evidence of the events which transpired nearly a century before. I offered his reference to "The Acts of Pilate" as evidence that ADDITIONAL Roman documents existed which attested to Jesus's crucifixion under Pilate, which someone like the Roman emperor could consult for himself.

By what means are you dating the crucifixion? As pointed out, the Gospels come too late to bear indisputable evidence of when the 'events' in them actually occurred. They claim that they occurred under Pilate and Tiberius, but that could just be an arbitrarily asserted connection. As you said yourself, people at the time dated events by who was in charge; so if you wanted to place a narrative in a certain time, you would claim the participation of historic figures. That would explain why Pilate is involved in the sentencing of an obscure rabbi; simply put, he wasn't. Inserting Pilate into the story is just a false dating of events.

I take the claim of Pilate and Tiberius to be authentic. An obscure birth in an obscure town is easy to invent and difficult to doubt if you are living at the time. A Roman public execution for religious reasons in Jerusalem during the time of Passover, while perhaps easy to invent, would also be easy to doubt and ignore had it not happened. If you read the narrative, Pilate himself doesn't quite understand why he's in the story either. The narrative itself communicates Pilate himself as confused as to why the Jews would seek him out.

If there was no historical obscure rabbi named Jesus crucified in Jerusalem during the Passover, you'd think the Jewish authorities would use that as an argument. "I was there, Paul. Nothing you are preaching even happened. There was no Jesus, no crucifixion during Passover, no empty tomb on the third day." Instead, we have a record of them saying, "The disciples came by at night and stole his body!"

[vorlon13]

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

A related topic; considering the success David Koresh and Jim Jones had with finding sexual partners, I wonder how many followers of Christ would have sex with him (assuming the lice and overpowering BO were alleviated) if he took a fancy to them ??

[Edwardo Piet]

Lol it's funny, my least favorite part of AF is talking about atheism and religion.