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

[Angrboda]

If the Pauline epistles are any indication, letters were being written between the various churches by approximately 50 CE. That we don't have evidence of these other letters makes your expectation an unrealistic one. Also, much of the so to speak expected documents would not exist as the tradition may have been largely oral.

Fair enough. So early Jesus legends and a church developing by 33 CE, you conclude, is the best hypothesis to account for the data?

I'm suggesting that the birth and crucifixion dates aren't necessarily reliable, so the church may have had an earlier start than 33 CE.  Not that it need to have started earlier, 20 years is plenty of time for a religious movement to develop and gain speed.  But if the 33CE date isn't sacrosanct, it leaves the beginnings of the church open ended.

By what means are you dating the crucifixion? As pointed out, the Gospels come too late to bear indisputable evidence of when the 'events' in them actually occurred. They claim that they occurred under Pilate and Tiberius, but that could just be an arbitrarily asserted connection. As you said yourself, people at the time dated events by who was in charge; so if you wanted to place a narrative in a certain time, you would claim the participation of historic figures. That would explain why Pilate is involved in the sentencing of an obscure rabbi; simply put, he wasn't. Inserting Pilate into the story is just a false dating of events.

I take the claim of Pilate and Tiberius to be authentic. An obscure birth in an obscure town is easy to invent and difficult to doubt if you are living at the time. A Roman public execution for religious reasons in Jerusalem during the time of Passover, while perhaps easy to invent, would also be easy to doubt and ignore had it not happened.

If the public execution story hadn't been invented until 30-40 years after the event, it's quite plausible that no one would object.  On what basis would they object?  That they don't remember an event that happened 30-40 years earlier.  I don't remember my high school days well enough to state unequivocally that our hockey team didn't win a state championship.  There's no reason to expect that anyone would have veridical recall that an event didn't happen after that much time. Moreover, the Jews of Jerusalem may have been dead or dispersed by the time of the first Gospel; who would there have been to remember?  What other reason do you have for presuming the Pilate reference to be veridical?

If you read the narrative, Pilate himself doesn't quite understand why he's in the story either. The narrative itself communicates Pilate himself as confused as to why the Jews would seek him out.

Which is entirely consistent with it being a fiction.  There is plenty of evidence that the birth narratives are fiction, that casts doubt on the whole chronology.

If there was no historical obscure rabbi named Jesus crucified in Jerusalem during the Passover, you'd think the Jewish authorities would use that as an argument. "I was there, Paul. Nothing you are preaching even happened. There was no Jesus, no crucifixion during Passover, no empty tomb on the third day." Instead, we have a record of them saying, "The disciples came by at night and stole his body!"

Same objection as above.  Again these are references from the Gospels, which I'm pointing out may have a good deal more fiction in them than Christians are willing to accept.

[Edwardo Piet]

Banned. Whoops wrong thread.

[Mr.wizard]

I'm pretty sure there is no scientific evidence of someone rising from the dead, floating to heaven, and becoming god. [1] There is plenty of evidence of people making stuff up [2] and inaccurately recalling events. [3]

Alright, thank you for adding #3. Compare that with your original:

To me it doesn't matter if it was written down at the time of Jesus, someone making it up to further an agenda [2] is still a more plausible explanation than a man rising from the dead and floating to a magic place to become a god. [1]" (emphasis mine)

Which one is more plausible to you: a conspiracy of mostly illiterate Jews inventing a new pseudo-Jewish religion, or a shared experience of mostly illiterate Jews witnessing something they didn't really understand?

I mean, it is a normal and institutionally accepted psychiatric phenomenon that, after the death of a loved one, the bereaved will experience "seeing" their dead loved one and sometimes even speak with them. If you want to reject the interpretation of events which faith gives (i.e. a man rising from the dead), I think that this phenomenon [i.e. the natural psychosis of "seeing" a recently deceased] is your best way of accounting for the apostolic experience. Assigning intention and deceit  to ancient people long gone seems a very unscientific thing to do. At least to me.

Yes somebody making up the story is a much more plausible explanation than somebody rose from the dead, I'm not sure what you are trying to get at. Why is assigning intention and deceit to "ancient people" unscientific, did they not posses those qualities?

[Edwardo Piet]

Well butter my butt and call me a biscuit.

[chimp3]

Yes. I would save him and use my superior knowledge of the globe to find a safe place for him to hide. Like Missouri! No , wait..

[Ignorant]

I'm suggesting that the birth and crucifixion dates aren't necessarily reliable, so the church may have had an earlier start than 33 CE.  Not that it need to have started earlier, 20 years is plenty of time for a religious movement to develop and gain speed.  But if the 33CE date isn't sacrosanct, it leaves the beginnings of the church open ended.

Oh I see, I misunderstood. Fair enough.

If the public execution story hadn't been invented until 30-40 years after the event, it's quite plausible that no one would object. [1] On what basis would they object?  That they don't remember an event that happened 30-40 years earlier. [2] I don't remember my high school days well enough to state unequivocally that our hockey team didn't win a state championship.  There's no reason to expect that anyone would have veridical recall that an event didn'thappen after that much time. [3] Moreover, the Jews of Jerusalem may have been dead or dispersed by the time of the first Gospel; who would there have been to remember?  [4] What other reason do you have for presuming the Pilate reference to be veridical? [5]

1) Maybe so, but Paul is the first to mention a crucifixion (Galatians), around 20 years after the event. He also claims that there people still living in the Christian community who claim to have witnessed the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15). If there are still Christians alive who claim to have been there themselves, it stands to reason that there would be Romans and Jews alive who could also claim to have been there.

2) On the basis of being alive and present at the time and place the narrative claims, they would object to the wild and radical historical claim that an obscure rabbi was executed on a Roman cross in Jerusalem at the beginning of the Passover with the tacit approval of Pilate due to the insistence of the Jewish crowd and authorities. Those are historically relevant claims. Instead, the only recorded objection we hear to the claims which the narrative respond to is "they stole his body", not "none of that happened".

3) Well sure. However, suppose one Christmas or Easter, the neighboring town's beloved high school janitor was arrested, tried, sentenced, marched through the streets and publicly executed by your town's governor because the local Christian pastors said he claimed he was God. Seems like it would be more memorable than a hockey  championship.

4) See #1. Paul's letters predate the destruction of Jerusalem, so the Jews of Jerusalem have yet to be dispersed. Some of those Jews who lived during the supposed events would be dead, and others living. See #2.

5) When I was studying this topic, I remember this to be well supported by the evidence. So my reasons would be based on the authority and large consensus of trained historians (which I am not). Even Bart Ehrman thinks that it is beyond doubt. If you want me to dig up a list of historians who conclude the same thing (and their reasons), I will, but it will take time.

[Pilate's confusion as to why the Jews brought Jesus to him] is entirely consistent with it being a fiction.  There is plenty of evidence that the birth narratives are fiction, that casts doubt on the whole chronology.

Consistent? Sure. Evidence of fiction? Hardly. And this is a clear shift from your claim to which I objected:

"That would explain why Pilate is involved in the sentencing of an obscure rabbi; simply put, he wasn't. Inserting Pilate into the story is just a false dating of events." -You HERE (emphasis mine)

How can consistency with fiction lead to the conclusion that it is, in fact, fictional?

Same objection as above.  Again these are references from the Gospels, which I'm pointing out may have a good deal more fiction in them than Christians are willing to accept.

I do accept that there is some fictional aspects of the gospels. Based on the evidence and its evaluation by historians, the crucifixion of Jesus under Pilate isn't one of those fictional aspects. this one about Pilate and the crucifixion of Jesus simply aren't those fictional aspects See #5 above.

[Ignorant]

Yes somebody making up the story is a much more plausible explanation than somebody rose from the dead, I'm not sure what you are trying to get at. [1] Why is assigning intention and deceit to "ancient people" unscientific, did they not posses those qualities? [2]

1) I am getting at the fact that |a misinterpretation of a misunderstood experience of normal psychiatric phenomena which follow after the death of a loved one| is more plausible than somebody making up the story. I'm trying to give you a more defensible position with which to deny the claims of the apostles as a demonstration that your criteria for judging plausibility are inadequate/incomplete.

2) Of course they had intentions and were capable of deceit. It IS unscientific, however, to assign to them the intention to deceive/invent based on the events being extraordinary which they record. There are other hypotheses which stand up to more scientific scrutiny than does the invention hypothesis, but which also deny the theological nature of the narrative and letters. Your dichotomy "either its true OR they made it up", is a false one. In other words, is a bunch of ancient illiterate Jews making up a fantastical theological story more plausible than a bunch of ancient illiterate Jews accurately recording true fantastical theological events which they witnessed? Maybe so. BUT THEN there are ALSO more plausible non-Christian/non-theist explanations than "they made it up".

[madog]

[Mr.wizard]

Yes somebody making up the story is a much more plausible explanation than somebody rose from the dead, I'm not sure what you are trying to get at. [1] Why is assigning intention and deceit to "ancient people" unscientific, did they not posses those qualities? [2]

1) I am getting at the fact that |a misinterpretation of a misunderstood experience of normal psychiatric phenomena which follow after the death of a loved one| is more plausible than somebody making up the story. I'm trying to give you a more defensible position with which to deny the claims of the apostles as a demonstration that your criteria for judging plausibility are inadequate/incomplete.

2) Of course they had intentions and were capable of deceit. It IS unscientific, however, to assign to them the intention to deceive/invent based on the events being extraordinary which they record. There are other hypotheses which stand up to more scientific scrutiny than does the invention hypothesis, but which also deny the theological nature of the narrative and letters. Your dichotomy "either its true OR they made it up", is a false one. In other words, is a bunch of ancient illiterate Jews making up a fantastical theological story more plausible than a bunch of ancient illiterate Jews accurately recording true fantastical theological events which they witnessed? Maybe so. BUT THEN there are ALSO more plausible non-Christian/non-theist explanations than "they made it up".

All I said was someone making up a resurrection story is more plausible than someone actually rising from the dead. Im not sure that someone hallucinating a resurrection would be more plausible than someone making up a resurrection, it would depend on the circumstances. A hallucination would however be more plausible than an actual resurrection, since hallucinations, just like lies, are known to also occur.

[The Grand Nudger]

How can consistency with fiction lead to the conclusion that it is, in fact, fictional?

-and this is why it's pointless, lol.