Open debate: What does Jesus teach?

[SteveII]

Are you saying that the crucifixion actually happened but it was not sufficiently embarrassing or that it never happened and someone came up with "I know...let's have the Romans kill our mythological savior via crucifixion".

No skeptic that I know of has ever suggested a group of people met in some dark corner of a tavern one day and conspired to make up Jesus or create a false religion.

While it is true that some cults are born of the imagination of a con artist or a group of them, sometimes religions start by a less deliberate process. The "embarrassment" and continuity gaffes are a natural process of this development.

Frankly, it's not up to the skeptic to explain how Christianity came to be. Our burden is simply to cast sufficient doubt on Christian sources. That said, one compelling scenario is that the ancient Jews were chaffing under the rule of one empire after the next. This was a theological crisis for them as some of them must have wondered "what the hell happened to Yahweh's promise regarding the seed of David, that it shall rule for all time."

Under such duress and the mingling of pagan ideas into their culture, some might have decided their "promised kingdom" existed in some higher world. Reading the books of the NT in the order of their publication provides some insight into the process. Jesus was a warlord in Revelation, the first book, who came from Heaven to rule upon earth. Paul wrote his epistles about the sacrifice of Jesus and his role as a divine intercessor, a concept wholly foreign to Judaism. Mark brought him down to earth, perhaps as stories originally intended as parables. Later Gospels fleshed out the story further, adding an account of his birth, though they contradicted each other as fan fics of separate authors are wont to do. John refined the ideas further, in ways more consistent with modern Christianity. The rest is history.

Different early Christians had wildly different ideas about who and what Jesus was and what he preached. Their differences were so great as to make Christianity vs. Islam look like hair-splitting. Echoes of this early struggle can be found even in holy scripture, as 1John and 2John condemned the Docetics.

I made the point about the tomb because people could continue to ask Joseph of Arimathea, his associates and descendants for quite some time if the burial ever happened. I did not mention the tome as evidence that he resurrected from the dead (although an empty tomb would be a necessary precondition).

Mark wasn't written until 70 CE at the earliest.

Regarding your theological crisis hypothesis, I think there are several problems with that.

The Jews have always looked for a political messiah--even to this day. The idea of a spiritual messiah was even confusing to the disciples until after the death and resurrection. Revelation was not first. Mark seems to be followed by Matthew and Luke. Jews were almost uniquely monotheistic. Making up someone who claimed to be God or equal to God was the exact opposite of what they would expect or want.

How did Mark bring Paul down to earth?

Docetics taught that Jesus' body was not real but only seemed real. It does NOT teach that Jesus was a myth. The debate was whether Jesus was indeed human or just appeared to be human. This is a theological question (with theological consequences) and certainly does not call into question any historical facts about Jesus.