Was Jesus of Nazareth a religious loon?

[Jehanne]

Massacre of the Innocents
Perhaps it might help if people reviewed the entire thread before posting further. Succubus#2 had stated that the massacre of the innocents was based around Jerusalem (so couldn't have involved few children). It was actually set in Bethlehem, so his argument was invalid. That's the thing.

How do you know this, namely, when the Infancy Gospels were written?

It's the academic consensus. I'm sure there's many learned articles out there which would discuss in further detail.

And, what dates do you ascribe to the canonical Gospels?

I tend to start with where the academic arguments lead to. So they're looking at things like relationship to AD 70, what are the hot topics being given centre stage, solutions to the synoptic problem etc. There's also the complication of Q. The latter half of C1 tends to be the ballpark, depending on which one we're talking about.

More importantly, the Infancy Gospel is more like the script for a horror movie than a kerygmatic or theological writing. It basically illustrates a fascination with the bizarre and a desire for religious entertainment that intentionally contains little history.

The canonical Gospels are written as bios (think biography). They have a series of ideas running through them- how the OT story continues, the arrival of the Kingdom of God, what Jesus did etc.

These do not appear on a blank canvas, but in a thoroughly Jewish context. There are connections, details and structures running through them, some not obvious to the modern eye, which tell us that the author is not trying to entertain, but to tell us about reality.

That's fine; the academic consensus is 35 (for Mark) to 65 (for John) years after the death of Jesus. But, you've conceded the point of modern scholars, namely, that there were legends, fables and embellishments about the life of Jesus that were in wide circulation at least in the 2nd century. Most scholars would also extend those legends, fables and embellishments as being present in the mid 1st century, also.

The main question that I would have for you is why we should take any of the canonical Gospels as being reliable historical sources? Do you, for instance, believe in Matthew's Zombie invasion, where the tombs opened up and the dead walked the streets of Jerusalem after Jesus' death?

[Vicki Q]

I think concede is perhaps not the word here. Even the most immovable of fundies would say anything outside the Bible is fair game for assassination, and that a lot of subsequent writing about Jesus is just not history.

There are a range of tools we can use to support the reliability of different parts of the Gospels. Things like multiple attestation, criteria of coherence, embarrassment (as the OP) etc. We can also use other tools such as the development of theology (just why did a Jewish sect declare the arrival of the Kingdom of God (KoG) when it plainly hadn't arrived? Why was resurrection, a small and debated aspect of the KoG put smack in the centre of belief?)

As for the events of Matthew 27:51-53.

More puzzles than answers. Did Matthew mean to imply that the risen saints were lurking in the tombs between Jesus' death and resurrection? What happened to them afterwards? How many earthquakes over the three days? Could this have been a way of turbocharging the start of the Early Church by getting some key 'witnesses to miracle' to sign up? Why has Matthew written an account of an event full of imagery as the fulfilment of OT texts, when Jesus' resurrection was the fulfilment?

And most crucially- Why is he risking telling a story that would literally steal Jesus' resurrection thunder?

It's one of these things where you say it's just so bizarre it probably didn't happen, but so much about it is odd that it must have.

[The Grand Nudger]

There we have it. The zombie invasion must have happened. I was going to ask about demon pigs - but what's the point after that?

There's a whole lot of odd shit in Dracula, too..........

[Succubus#2]

There are a range of tools we can use to support the reliability of different parts of the Gospels. Things like multiple attestation...

There are no multiple attestations, there is only Mark whoever he was. Matthew and Luke are copies of Mark. And as for John; did you know there are three authors to the gospel of John?

[Jehanne]

It's one of these things where you say it's just so bizarre it probably didn't happen, but so much about it is odd that it must have.

By that logic, Travis Walton was really abducted by aliens:

Travis Walton UFO incident

Okay, you're a literalist, at least with respect to the canonical Gospels -- miracles of Jesus (water into wine), bodily resurrection from the dead, etc.  But, why did the pagan philosopher Seneca never once, in all of his writings (124 letters, plus a bunch of other stuff) never, even once, mention the existence of Jesus:

Seneca the Younger

Why did Josephus, in his The Jewish War never once mention Jesus' existence, but yet, discuss, at length, Pontius Pilate??


Jospehus on Jesus

Do you understand why, as a former believer, now atheist, that I do not take the existence of Jesus as being some first-century miracle worker who traveled about Palestine raising people from the dead and giving sight to the blind as a serious historical possibility??  Instead, is it not far more probable that Jesus was just some early first century apocalyptic loon whom the Romans crucified at the behest of the Jewish authorities who were in Jerusalem after Jesus started an altercation in the Temple on the Day of Passover?

By the way, was Jesus crucified on Friday (as recorded in the Synoptics) or on Passover (a Thursday), as recorded in John's Gospel?  Or, is this explicit contradiction so bizarre that it must be accepted as being historically true??

[Pat Mustard]

Massacre of the Innocents
Perhaps it might help if people reviewed the entire thread before posting further. Succubus#2 had stated that the massacre of the innocents was based around Jerusalem (so couldn't have involved few children). It was actually set in Bethlehem, so his argument was invalid. That's the thing.


It's the academic consensus. I'm sure there's many learned articles out there which would discuss in further detail.

I tend to start with where the academic arguments lead to. So they're looking at things like relationship to AD 70, what are the hot topics being given centre stage, solutions to the synoptic problem etc. There's also the complication of Q. The latter half of C1 tends to be the ballpark, depending on which one we're talking about.

More importantly, the Infancy Gospel is more like the script for a horror movie than a kerygmatic or theological writing. It basically illustrates a fascination with the bizarre and a desire for religious entertainment that intentionally contains little history.

The canonical Gospels are written as bios (think biography). They have a series of ideas running through them- how the OT story continues, the arrival of the Kingdom of God, what Jesus did etc.

These do not appear on a blank canvas, but in a thoroughly Jewish context. There are connections, details and structures running through them, some not obvious to the modern eye, which tell us that the author is not trying to entertain, but to tell us about reality.

That's fine; the academic consensus is 35 (for Mark) to 65 (for John) years after the death of Jesus.  But, you've conceded the point of modern scholars, namely, that there were legends, fables and embellishments about the life of Jesus that were in wide circulation at least in the 2nd century.  Most scholars would also extend those legends, fables and embellishments as being present in the mid 1st century, also.

The main question that I would have for you is why we should take any of the canonical Gospels as being reliable historical sources?  Do you, for instance, believe in Matthew's Zombie invasion, where the tombs opened up and the dead walked the streets of Jerusalem after Jesus' death?

And we've also got to remember that academic consensus is for earliest date (and is biased to some extent by the fact that most "biblical scholarship" is christians using confirmation bias). While I'm satisfied that wrting dates of c75 CE to 100-125 CE for John are good estimates, the physical evidence is that we've nothing of them before the late 2nd century CE, and nothing that is more than small fragments before the lae 3rd century CE.

So we can't even say for definite how close to the originals the current versions are. Their standing for accuracy is severely compromised, as evidenced by the stuff we can check like archaeology and geography which both show the gospels sadly lacking.

[Abaddon_ire]

I think concede is perhaps not the word here. Even the most immovable of fundies would say anything outside the Bible is fair game for assassination, and that a lot of subsequent writing about Jesus is just not history.

The holey babble is not history either.

There are a range of tools we can use to support the reliability of different parts of the Gospels.

Are there? The holey babble mentions Jerusalem. Sure. The Spiderman comics mention New York. Therefore Spiderman must be real.

Things like multiple attestation,

There is none. Even the gospels don't agree among themselves.

criteria of coherence,

What? if it is written in some language it is evidence of truth?

embarrassment (as the OP) etc.

Oh. "Everyone in my community is going with it so I shall pay lip service in return for a quiet life" is evidence to you?

We can also use other tools such as the development of theology (just why did a Jewish sect declare the arrival of the Kingdom of God (KoG) when it plainly hadn't arrived?

Are you unaware of the volume of religious fruitloops wandering the levant at that time? Are you unaware that we have solid evidence for all of them except jebus? Why have we solid evidence for Kochba, or Ben Yair or any of gaggles of others, but none for your jebus?

Why was resurrection, a small and debated aspect of the KoG put smack in the centre of belief?)

Competition with established deities. My god is better than yours.

As for the events of Matthew 27:51-53.

More puzzles than answers. Did Matthew mean to imply that the risen saints were lurking in the tombs between Jesus' death and resurrection? What happened to them afterwards?  How many earthquakes over the  three days? Could this have been a way of turbocharging the start of the Early Church by getting some key 'witnesses to miracle' to sign up? Why has Matthew written an account of an event full of imagery as the fulfilment of OT texts, when Jesus' resurrection was the fulfilment?

No. There were no such earthquakes, the zombie apocalypse never happened, Saul/Paul's fit of epilepsy started it off, why does Matt disagree with the other three gospels, why does matt intentionally bend the truth to square with OT prophecy (and we know he was hurling porkies) and how the fuck do you think you know that any ressurection happened at all?

And most crucially- Why is he risking telling a story that would literally steal Jesus' resurrection thunder?

Because Matthew was not written by Matthew, nobody knows who wrote it and you don't either. Furthermore, parts of it are known to be the anonymous author bending the jebus story to fit with OT prophecies. To concoct a legend.

It's one of these things where you say it's just so bizarre it probably didn't happen, but so much about it is odd that it must have.

No. It isn't. It is one of those things that one is forced to the conclusion that it is utterly stupid.

[The Grand Nudger]

There's an easy way to see how committed any christian is to the scholarly consensus. The scholarly consensus is that the character in new magic book is not the historical jesus.

[Jehanne]

There's an easy way to see how committed any christian is to the scholarly consensus.  The scholarly consensus is that the character in new magic book is not the historical jesus.

What is damning, in my opinion, to evangelical Christian apologetics (Josh McDowell, Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig), is the complete lack of any contemporary mention by pagan or Jewish authors who were contemporaneous with Jesus about his existence.  While some will take this as evidence that Jesus never existed, I believe that he did exist, but the reason why individuals such as Seneca never mention him is because he was not worth mentioning; in other words, they knew a first century religious loon when they saw or heard about one.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's an interesting discussion..but the consensus of academia is that the character in new magic book did not exist, regardless of whether some guy named jesus did - and who knows which guy, they disagree on just the few details that they're willing to certify as possible......

You aren't having a discussion about any historical person with Vicki, or anyone like Vicki, though. Vicki is talking about tree cursing demon pig zombie apocalypse risen from the dead Christ - which is a myth even if jesus is legendary.