Did Jesus want to create a poli-theism religion?

[The Grand Nudger]

What happened is

-or, that's not historical, it's literary.  Part and parcel with the long dark night of the soul.  The doubt that all faithful people have when confronted with adversity and sideways expectation.

That no Hanged Man was crying out words which might give us a glimpse into his own psychology, rather, that the author was speaking directly and to great effect, to his audience.

[Silver]

The difference between literary and literally can be both semantically and neurologically surmised.

[Jehanne]

What happened is

-or, that's not historical, it's literary.  Part and parcel with the long dark night of the soul.  The doubt that all faithful people have when confronted with adversity and sideways expectation.

I would disagree. Both Josephus & Tacitus mention Jesus, both in passing, and I don't believe that either would have been duped by a mythological individual. No doubt Josephus, being in Rome for over two decades, was able to network and no doubt got his facts from the Roman officials and records. As for the Gospels, they contain some historicity and are not completely mythical, which would make them literary writings only. Even the Iliad & Odyssey contain some historical facts.

[The Grand Nudger]

Neither mention him crying out about abandonment. Just assume jesus was a real boy, and it will still be the case that authors have been known to put words in the mouths of real men for effect.

There's no actual line between literary and historic traditions, where, if something is history, that means we can't possibly be dealing with a literary effect. We have literary traditions about historic events that most certainly did occur. Consider the myths and legends of the creation of the us. Did George Washington ever say he could not tell a lie, and admit to chopping down a cherry tree? Did Paul Revere tear ass through Concord on horseback yelling "The British are coming!"?

Both real boys, and still...the answer is no..and no. It's worth considering if your idea of the real boy is in any way based on such supposed or asserted utterances. That one, fwiw, is waaaaaay too on the nose. The name Israel literally means "he who struggles with god". The mythical or legendary history of his chosen people not a tale of folks who make it by privileged or unscathed on account of their aqcauintance with the same. Its thought to be a callback to psalm 22. Matthew and Mark, where we find this claim, are believed to have been the two jewish authors of the texts - as opposed to luke the gentile greek and john the full on (allegedly converted) christian.

Make of that what you will.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think Jesus is fictional, or at best, a composite.

Once someone can convince me that a virgin birth was possible, I might rethink the whole thing.

This is a position called mythicism. I reject it because in the wake of this fellow's execution there were suddenly a number of diverse Jesus movements (Ebionites, gnostics, Marcionites, Yohanan's school, proto-Orthodox).   It's hard to imagine all those groups suddenly forming without the existence of a traveling magician/teacher who stepped on his dick and got on the bad side of the Romans.

There were multiple cults of various pagan gods which also exploded out of nowhere.  Is it hard to imagine there being no real freya or thor? Or, a personal favorite of mine....the multiple jesus cults of native americans in contact. Did they all know the guy too....? He actually did come back and all the white christians missed it? I guess that is what John Smith was riffing off of, but hey. We explain these cults and events as a consequence of socio-economic circumstance, but appraise jesus shit under a different light...for reasons...

As far as the OPQ, and going back to something boru mentioned and I commented on, jesus wanted whatever jesus various authors wanted. It just is as it is according to them at some level, just as god in general is a puppet for believers which likes what they like, hates what they hate. Did jesus want a polytheistic religion? Well, he certainly did when gentile polytheists were writing his lines. Or when later missionaries saw the practical utility of religious syncretism and cultural appropriation.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I wasn’t talking about the two criticisms as areas of study. I was pointing out what strikes me as a flaw in the story as a story. There is no hair-splitting taking place.

I think you’re being deliberately obtuse.

Boru

You claimed that it "was not a historical conclusion", and my point in response is that, sometimes, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Funny, I can't find a post where I said what you quoted me as saying...

Boru

[Anomalocaris]

Excellent.  Then who was there near the cross to hear what Jesus said?  Certainly not some rando Roman writing four decades later, later assumed to be Mark because another forgery (1 Peter) mentioned the name.

He probably screamed it multiple times over the course of an hour or more, which is why the women nearby heard and remembered it.  The author of Mark, decades later, condensed things down to a single statement.

The mechanism by which crucifixion brings about death would seem to make it unlikely that he could have  screamed multiple times to be heard from a good distance away a short time before death.    He would barely be able to draw breath and would struggle just to wheeze.

[Jehanne]

You claimed that it "was not a historical conclusion", and my point in response is that, sometimes, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Funny, I can't find a post where I said what you quoted me as saying...

Boru

You stated, "It’s a literary criticism, not an historic one." All the canonical Gospels, along with the Gospel of Thomas, are historical documents, in that they contain historical truths about Jesus of Nazareth, a human being. The mid 2nd-century non-canonical Gospels are literary documents, in that they do not contain historical information about Jesus.

[Jehanne]

He probably screamed it multiple times over the course of an hour or more, which is why the women nearby heard and remembered it.  The author of Mark, decades later, condensed things down to a single statement.

The mechanism by which crucifixion brings about death would seem to make it unlikely that he could have  screamed multiple times to be heard from a good distance away a short time before death.    He would barely be able to draw breath and would struggle just to wheeze.

This is false. The Romans arranged things to allow victims of crucifixion to linger for hours, sometimes days on a cross. If you can breath, you can scream; that was the whole point of it.

[Silver]

Reminds me of the apologetics Free spews over at AD.