One of the videos I'm going to make soon will entertain the idea that there was a "historical Jesus", defined as a mortal on whom the myths were based. I'm going to dissect the Book of Mark, focusing on this Gospel because it was the first and all others were clearly based upon it. I'm then going to categorize each episode in the patchwork yarn according to whether anything of that event would be left if we stripped the miracle away. This makes three categories:
1. Miracle central to the story
2. Miracle that embellishes the story
3. Miracle not part of the story
In the first category, nothing would be left if you took the miracle out. For example, if Jesus didn't walk on water, what's left of the walking-on-water story? If he didn't raise a girl from the dead, what's left of that story? For those who insist on a mortal Jesus, these events have to be discarded as later additions.
In the second category, a real event might have happened with some fanciful exaggerations added.
In the third category, we have a mundane event that can be explained with nothing more than natural occurrences. The sermon on the mount might be a good example.
Some events might seem natural but really need to be put under the first category. His temple-tantrum (or cleansing of the temple) is one. As Ken Humphreys pointed out, the temple was a sprawling complex. Even a powerfully strong man would have been wrestled to the ground after tipping the first table.
My guess is that I'll find that once you remove the miracles, there isn't much left. It's kind of like "the historical Superman". Once you take away the super powers, there's no way the "real story" or even real character can be anything like the comic book account, even with the most broad license of "based on a true story".
1. Miracle central to the story
2. Miracle that embellishes the story
3. Miracle not part of the story
In the first category, nothing would be left if you took the miracle out. For example, if Jesus didn't walk on water, what's left of the walking-on-water story? If he didn't raise a girl from the dead, what's left of that story? For those who insist on a mortal Jesus, these events have to be discarded as later additions.
In the second category, a real event might have happened with some fanciful exaggerations added.
In the third category, we have a mundane event that can be explained with nothing more than natural occurrences. The sermon on the mount might be a good example.
Some events might seem natural but really need to be put under the first category. His temple-tantrum (or cleansing of the temple) is one. As Ken Humphreys pointed out, the temple was a sprawling complex. Even a powerfully strong man would have been wrestled to the ground after tipping the first table.
My guess is that I'll find that once you remove the miracles, there isn't much left. It's kind of like "the historical Superman". Once you take away the super powers, there's no way the "real story" or even real character can be anything like the comic book account, even with the most broad license of "based on a true story".
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
