Christians, would you have saved Jesus, if you had he chance?

[Ignorant]

When would you date 1 Thessalonians?

I wouldn't. But biblical "scholars" reckon about 50s ad, written by a man who never met Yeshua and was supposed (by the writing attributed to him) to be at loggerheads theologically with theJerusalem sect.

Though the biggest reason why I say no crucifixion was that Yeshua was convicted under sanhedric law, which proscribed stoning or hanging not crucifixion, and Rome was unlikely to intervene because a minor theological dispute involving non-citizens wasn't something worth angrying up a very prickly people.

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.

[Ignorant]

The thing that bugs me the most is why anyone would wait decades to write anything down about this. Of course, if they hadn't been born yet, that's a suitable excuse.

Or maybe what actually happened was written down and has been lost/destroyed.

I think it more likely a new church was formed and then they created the myth .... [1]

Considering the similarities to previous mythologies, I think that's highly likely. [2] The story was just plausible enough so that there was bound to be plenty of people who would have actually been alive who it "could have been". Once you remove all the stuff that obviously didn't happen, of course. Not a problem back then though I imagine. [3]

By what criteria and evidence to you judge this likelihood?

1) Is that something the historical evidence about 1st century Palestinian Jews would lead you to believe likely? Are Jewish people of the 1st century the sort of people you would expect to create a myth? Are they the sort of people you would expect to accept the myth to the degree they actually did? If not, what leads you to believe it likely?

2) Same questions as #1, for you Rob.

3) Not even a problem for the Jews of 1st century Palestine?

[robvalue]

I find people making stuff up for their own agenda to be much more plausible than the most important man who ever lived not being written about for decades or noticed by any other parties.

Of course, even if they were trying to write about him, there's every reason to believe the story bears little resemblance to any actual events.

[madog]

I think it more likely a new church was formed and then they created the myth .... [1]

Considering the similarities to previous mythologies, I think that's highly likely. [2] The story was just plausible enough so that there was bound to be plenty of people who would have actually been alive who it "could have been". Once you remove all the stuff that obviously didn't happen, of course. Not a problem back then though I imagine. [3]

By what criteria and evidence to you judge this likelihood?

1) Is that something the historical evidence about 1st century Palestinian Jews would lead you to believe likely? Are Jewish people of the 1st century the sort of people you would expect to create a myth? Are they the sort of people you would expect to accept the myth to the degree they actually did? If not, what leads you to believe it likely?

2) Same questions as #1, for you Rob.

3) Not even a problem for the Jews of 1st century Palestine?

Trying to get a consistent story from several witnesses a week after an event is hard enough, never mind a whole period of time, with multiple events decades later ....

If there was an illiterate or plain lazy Jesus that wanted his message communicated down the ages in writing he would have asked his disciples to do so .....

That they didn't do it for decades after the alleged event/s  is very strong evidence that they weren't asked to by a Jesus character ... I doubt they would have been so dismissive of a request from an apparent "Son of God" and just put the writing off for decades ... Apparently they thought this guy was God, and thus I would expect any request to be done with the utmost urgency, not I'll do it mañana, (Spanish for a tomorrow that is sometime in the future) a mañana that apparently was decades in the future .. 

Think about it, you appear to be an intelligent person ...

[robvalue]

If they were eye witnesses, they were suspiciously old by the time they wrote it, and their memory was going to be unreliable.

If they were not, they were going by stories being passed down. Similarly unreliable.

The fact that obviously made-up stuff is included is a giveaway that we're dealing with deluded people, or ones happy to make shit up. Either way, we can't take too seriously what they have written.

[Ignorant]

I find people making stuff up for their own agenda to be much more plausible than the most important man who ever lived not being written about for decades or noticed by any other parties. [1]

Of course, even if they were trying to write about him, there's every reason to believe the story bears little resemblance to any actual events. [2]

1) Based on what criteria of plausibility? Does your criteria take cultural-historical context into account?

2) Can you name a few of those reasons?

[responding to your next post now...]

---

If they were eye witnesses, they were suspiciously old by the time they wrote it, and their memory was going to be unreliable. [1]

If they were not, they were going by stories being passed down. Similarly unreliable. [2]

The fact that obviously made-up stuff is included is a giveaway that we're dealing with deluded people,or ones happy to make shit up.  [3] Either way, we can't take too seriously what they have written. [4]

1) Fair enough

2) Sure, but multiple attestation may balance the singular unreliability.

3) See #1 from my response above this one.

4) Fair enough

[Ignorant]

Trying to get a consistent story from several witnesses a week after an event is hard enough, never mind a whole period of time, with multiple events decades later .... [1]

If there was an illiterate or plain lazy Jesus that wanted his message communicated down the ages in writing he would have asked his disciples to do so ..... [2]

That they didn't do it for decades after the alleged event/s  is very strong evidence that they weren't asked to by a Jesus character ...  I doubt they would have been so dismissive of a request from an apparent "Son of God" and just put the writing off for decades ... Apparently they thought this guy was God, and thus I would expect any request to be done with the utmost urgency, not I'll do it mañana, (Spanish for a tomorrow that is sometime in the future) a mañana that apparently was decades in the future [3] . 

Think about it, you appear to be an intelligent person ... [4]

1) So "no" on the question of cultural-historical criteria for judgment of likelihood? Would a 1st century Jewish fisherman from Galilee who is inventing a mythological god-man think, "I better write this down"? Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't. I am just wondering if that factors into your judgment, and so far I don't think it has.

2) I don't think that conclusion follows from the premise.

3) Seguro, estoy de acuerdo. Los evangelios registran que Jesús ordenó a sus apostoles a predicar el evangelio a todas las naciones, pero ellos non registran que Jesús les ordenó a escribir el evangelio.

4) That is kind of you to say, and I am certainly not all that intelligent. I have, however, thought about this a lot.

[robvalue]

These aren't multiple independent accounts. There is one account (Mark) from which the rest drew much of their material. They weren't all written at the same time.

As for the last one, John, it's fiction within fiction.

I don't think culture accounts for not writing down earth shattering things, or for earth shattering things to have gone entirely unnoticed by the powers at the time.

This is my opinion. It requires making a huge load of unfounded assumptions to get to even the non-made up stuff; and you simply can't get anywhere near the made up stuff. (Angels, miracles, resurrections etc.)

But then I doubt there are very many people who believe any of this based solely on the evidence. They would have a hard time convincing me Lord of the Rings didn't happen, using such flimsy criteria.

[Mr.wizard]

These aren't multiple independent accounts. There is one account (Mark) from which the rest drew much of their material. They weren't all written at the same time.

As for the last one, John, it's fiction within fiction.

I don't think culture accounts for not writing down earth shattering things, or for earth shattering things to have gone entirely unnoticed by the powers at the time.

This is my opinion. It requires making a huge load of unfounded assumptions to get to even the non-made up stuff; and you simply can't get anywhere near the made up stuff. (Angels, miracles, resurrections etc.)

But then I doubt there are very many people who believe any of this based solely on the evidence. They would have a hard time convincing me Lord of the Rings didn't happen, using such flimsy criteria.

No, the culture absolutely does not account for them not writing it down. The Romans where very detailed record keepers, they kept records of births, deaths, marriages, executions, and yet the account of a man who was executed, rose from the dead, and ascended to a magical kingdom to become the ruler of all creation, nobody thought to write down.

[robvalue]

"Remember all that magical stuff that happened 50 years ago?"

"Not really."

"Fuck you. I'm writing it down."