Why I can't take the Gospels seriously.

[The Grand Nudger]

Interestingly enough, only the drawn out death makes the cut to historical jesus. Not a name, not anything he's said to have said, not the rabbi part.

[Ranjr]

Then there was Jesus' Casteneda summer, when he wandered the dessert alone and hallucinated.  Josephus wrote of a similar experience when he dabbled in the ascetic sect.

[Mister Agenda]

The only historical figure that at least some small part of the Gospels was based on was Jesus ben Ananias, so maybe he was a "historical Jesus"?

I think there are a few more historical figures in the Gospels than that.

[Rev. Rye]

Like Pontus Pilate, whose portrayal by the historical record is almost entirely backwards from his portrayal in the Gospels, morality-wise, especially since, in reality, he was so brutal that even the emperor Tiberius had to recall him to Rome in 37 AD because of it.

[HappySkeptic]

From the Wikipedia

In the Bible, a scapegoat is one of two kid goats. As a pair, one goat was sacrificed (not a scapegoat) and the living “scapegoat” was released into the wilderness, taking with it all sins and impurities. The concept first appears in Leviticus, in which a goat is designated to be cast into the desert to carry away the sins of the community.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat

That is the best explanation I have seen for the story.

[Drich]

To take just one example (out of many), I believe that the story of Barabbas, which is common to all four Gospels, to be pure fiction:

Wikipedia -- Barabbas

I think that what the story tells Us, some 2,000 years later, is that all four Gospels were written post-70 AD, after the future emperor Titus had laid waste to the city of Jerusalem, and the fledgling Christian community wanted to frame its new religion as being friendly to the Romans, the victors, and hostile to the losers, the Jews.  As such, the growing and embellishing tales of the historical Jesus were continuing to evolve, which oddly, included the account of a fictitious individual (more oddly, enough, with the first name "Jesus") whom Pilate pardoned to appease the Jewish mob, who became guilty of the "crime" of deicide for having murdered the Son of God.

ok so, how does barabas change anything in the core teachings of the bible?

[Brian37]

To take just one example (out of many), I believe that the story of Barabbas, which is common to all four Gospels, to be pure fiction:

Wikipedia -- Barabbas

I think that what the story tells Us, some 2,000 years later, is that all four Gospels were written post-70 AD, after the future emperor Titus had laid waste to the city of Jerusalem, and the fledgling Christian community wanted to frame its new religion as being friendly to the Romans, the victors, and hostile to the losers, the Jews.  As such, the growing and embellishing tales of the historical Jesus were continuing to evolve, which oddly, included the account of a fictitious individual (more oddly, enough, with the first name "Jesus") whom Pilate pardoned to appease the Jewish mob, who became guilty of the "crime" of deicide for having murdered the Son of God.

The entire intent of that story is the basically the same intent of the entire book. It is designed as a story to create a hero by creating a scapegoat. It isn't that Barabbas was squeaky clean, but more along the lines of setting oneself up as playing false martyr.

Ultimately the entire crucifixion motif was written to draw the reader into having sympathy for the leader. The problem with this logic, is that ultimately that this allegedly "all powerful" God set everything up in the first place, and knew the outcome regardless. The God of the Bible is no different than a gangster who rigs the games in a Vegas Casino.

I'd go further than this. How is it a "sacrifice" if you don't stay dead? How is it a "sacrifice" if you are only seeking attention? The soldiers of D-day didn't fight the Nazis with the goal of being worshiped as gods. They stayed dead, and were not seeking for a religion to be started in their name.

The story of Barabbas is is nothing but a propaganda ploy.

[Abaddon_ire]

To take just one example (out of many), I believe that the story of Barabbas, which is common to all four Gospels, to be pure fiction:

Wikipedia -- Barabbas

I think that what the story tells Us, some 2,000 years later, is that all four Gospels were written post-70 AD, after the future emperor Titus had laid waste to the city of Jerusalem, and the fledgling Christian community wanted to frame its new religion as being friendly to the Romans, the victors, and hostile to the losers, the Jews.  As such, the growing and embellishing tales of the historical Jesus were continuing to evolve, which oddly, included the account of a fictitious individual (more oddly, enough, with the first name "Jesus") whom Pilate pardoned to appease the Jewish mob, who became guilty of the "crime" of deicide for having murdered the Son of God.

ok so, how does barabas change anything in the core teachings of the bible?

It causes theological problems. That you are unaware of such problems is or should be cause for concern.

[Drich]

ok so, how does barabas change anything in the core teachings of the bible?

It causes theological problems.

what theological problems? specifically?? 

 That you are unaware of such problems is or should be cause for concern.

i'm trying to have a dialog here sport. Is that not the purpose of this website? I am giving the op the opportunity to spell out any theological issues he may have. because as far as any bible based christian is concerned barabas has nothing to do with salvation in any way shape or form. now if you think you have some magical kill switch wired through belief in barabas, then you too are welcome to have this discussion by sharing what ever antiquated bit-o-info you think you have.. otherwise sit down mud duck, if you are not smart enough to contribute to the discussion... then please make room for those who are.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, let's propose that it doesn't cause any issue, so long as you're willing to abandon any belief predicate on the narrative being a set of retold facts rather than a story for theological effect. Maybe you're willing to carve up the text into truth and half truth and outright fabrication. I would understand, pretty much any atheist would undertsand - but if you're willing to do that, what do you imagine will be left after it's all been assessed and studied and exhaustively categorized?

Well, you'll end up with what nt scholars call The Historical Jesus. A nameless man from nazareth who was executed by the romans. Fullstop. What did he say? We don't know, maybe nothing. What did he do? We don't know, maybe something...leading us into our final question, why did they execute him? No idea, but it was probably related to whatever he did. Did he rise from the dead? No. Was he a god? No. Is the religion of christianity founded on his being or person? No.