RE: Christians, would you have saved Jesus, if you had he chance?
June 19, 2016 at 3:45 pm
(This post was last modified: June 19, 2016 at 3:49 pm by Ignorant.)
(June 19, 2016 at 2:31 pm)Constable Dorfl Wrote:(June 19, 2016 at 8:28 am)Ignorant Wrote: 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.
Quote: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?
