Just Starting To Doubt - Question About The Bible

[Dave]

You're purposely missing the point. It's not how I see the facts, it's how historians, and open minded people see the facts, the reality of the situation. When you get past your dishonest position, we can continue.

 

I assert the following:

 

You can assert all you want. It doesn't change the fact that the bible lies.

[Dave]

My training in history leads me to confidently assert that a man named Jesus lived during the timeframe of the first three decades of the first millennium CE.....

 

And that "training" is no different than what any other religious indoctrination would entail. It presents ONLY what it wants you to know and dismisses, without inquiry, anything that goes against the dogma. People have studied, for example, astrology for decades. They read every book they can find that supports the RELIGION of astrology. They automatically dismiss any and all information that does not support what they have already studied. They are experts in every aspect of astrology except for one - it doesn't work.

 

It's called "cherry picking." They select only the material that supports what they want. On the other hand, non believers, at least many of us have, looked at ALL the material and went where the facts, not our training, led. We were able to step outside of training and take an overall, non emotional, look at the whole if the issue.

[currentchristian]

Ahhh...but how can this be? They are the ONLY documents to even discuss these things. They vouch for themselves anonymously? If I strip Melville's name from Moby Dick does it become a historical narrative? Does Ahab become a real person being discussed by an anonymous author? Does he if someone else "borrows" 80% of the novel and integrates it into their own retelling of the story?

As far as I know, no one ever took Moby Dick to be a true story. No one formed a religion around Ahab. Jesus, as far as we know, was taken quite literally as a literal figure. The author of Matthew took him as such. So did the authors of the other canonical and non-canonical gospels. The anonymity of the authors is not troubling to me, if indeed they are anonymous. Who is mwc? Who is Mythra? Antlerman? I have no idea. They are anonymous authors of posts to this forum. Anonymity is not a pro or a con, as I see it. (And for about 1700 years no one thought these documents were anonymous.)

 

If you can see that the story of Moby Dick, anonymous or not, does not place Ahab into the land of the living with the rest of us then certainly you can see the reasoning as to why the anonymous tellings and retelling of a story placed in the first half of the 1st century CE does not make a carpenter and his followers likewise real without further evidence.

 

If we accept that they aren't historical documents but theological and/or political statements containing historical elements then at least we're a little closer to the truth.

I'm sure there's a Church of Ahab somewhere on the planet, but of course Ahab was -- from the first time Melville put pen to paper -- a fictional character. This is known by everyone. There is absolutely no evidence that anyone ever said, "By the way, this guy Jesus in these books is fictional. This is all made up." There is no evidence for this whatsoever. So we have the writings as they are. Then we decide how much is history, how much is theology, how much is myth, how much is religion, how much is true.

 

 

 

There is little reason to assume that Luke, the one who knew Paul, wrote anything. It's really that simple. Paul never claims it. So where is the evidence? As I said before, we're left with Iraneous, who says that Papias said that Luke did it.

 

But there is no reason to assume that Luke, the one who knew Paul, wrote nothing. That assumption is a bigger one than the assumption that the Luke who knew Paul wrote Luke-Acts. That's an easy one. The other one takes lots of if's and lots of wherefore's and lots of mighthavebeen's. Seems to me.

 

And what more did Papias believe? That Judas bloated up to the size of a chariot, was then crushed by a chariot and his guts spilled out. This contradicts Luke in Acts. So who to believe? Luke...who we don't know...or Papias...who we don't know. We're asked to believe both on very weighty matters but they disagree on something very important. So let's look deeper. Papias further believes in the literal existence of the Phoenix bird. He believes it goes through a death cycle every 500 years. Pure nonsense. It shows a lack of research on his part and makes him a bit less trust worthy even for a 1st century man. I could go on and on showing Papias to be quite, let's just say, ignorant. But if he's ignorant then he can't be trusted to name the sources for the authors of these books. If he can't name the authors then he can't name Luke.

How Judas died is not at all, in my view, a "weighty matter." I don't see that it is of importance. The guy died. They both agree on that.

 

Regarding Papias's "ignorance." That's true. But reading just about anything from that era you will encounter similiar ignorance. Should we just say actually no one lived then and no one did anything, since so little holds up to modern ideas about historical narratives? Look at Josephus's work, for example. Great history. But you know he took the creation literally and the flood, etc. Do we, therefore, dismiss everything he wrote? I hope not.

 

Now Luke is off the list. Bye, bye Luke. So where's the connection? We'd have to show Luke wrote the text, and was named the author, independent of Papias' influence. Seeing how these early church leaders wrote these letters, and repeated them (noting the quotes nearly a century later), it seems that might prove a difficult task.

 

Gosh, Luke is not off my list. Luke is the best attested to of the four, actually. He'd be the last one off anyone's list.

 

 

And if you were told, at some point, that Eenie, Meenie, Minie and Moe had written the gospels then we'd be arguing that those were the wonderful, or should I say, beautiful, names of the authors. The names are arbitrary until an actual, real, connection can be established. But until that point, the authors are anonymous, and we have no idea who they are or what they were about.

 

mwc

 

The names of the authors are meaningless. What was written is the point. Not who wrote it. We don't even know if Shakespeare wrote Shapkespeare and that was just 400 years ago.

 

Good "talking" to you, mwc.

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

You can assert all you want. It doesn't change the fact that the bible lies.

 

That raises an interesting question, Dave.

 

According to Merriam-Webster, to lie is to "make an untrue statement with intent to deceive"

 

Do you believe that the Bible's "lies" were written "with intent to decieve"?

 

Or did the authors themselves actually believe the "lies" they were writing?

 

Curious to know your view.

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

And that "training" is no different than what any other religious indoctrination would entail. It presents ONLY what it wants you to know and dismisses, without inquiry, anything that goes against the dogma. People have studied, for example, astrology for decades. They read every book they can find that supports the RELIGION of astrology. They automatically dismiss any and all information that does not support what they have already studied. They are experts in every aspect of astrology except for one - it doesn't work.

 

It's called "cherry picking." They select only the material that supports what they want. On the other hand, non believers, at least many of us have, looked at ALL the material and went where the facts, not our training, led. We were able to step outside of training and take an overall, non emotional, look at the whole if the issue.

 

If you were born an Atheist (as you once wrote) and were expelled from Catholic school for same when 8 or 9 (forgot which age) when exactly did you actually look at "all the material" about existence/non-existence of a deity and go where the facts led you? Seems to me you have always been an Atheist and, therefore, I wonder if you were ever able to look at the whole picture objectively? Quite likely not. No one is entirely objective. You and I, Dave, share this frailty. I keep telling you we are quite alike, one and all.

 

-CC in MA

[Dave]

.....The names of the authors are meaningless....

 

Nice rationalization, as was the rest of your post. The problem is that you're basing your whole life on the writings of some unknown person. If these writings were so important, so valuable, why aren't the authors known? Just because the authors actually believed what they were writing about, doesn't make it true and it is certainly no reason to base your life on it.

[Dave]

You can assert all you want. It doesn't change the fact that the bible lies.

 

That raises an interesting question, Dave.

 

But not the one you'll ask, or answer; why believe in a book that lies? How can you separate the lies from what truths may be there? With "feelings"? That ain't gonna work. With historical knowledge? History doesn't back up the bible. With faith? That's all you got, so why not just admit it instead of using rational fallacies and rationalizations to support your beliefs?

[Dave]

If you were born an Atheist (as you once wrote) and were expelled from Catholic school for same when 8 or 9 (forgot which age) when exactly did you actually look at "all the material" about existence/non-existence of a deity and go where the facts led you?

 

Why would you make the extremely biased assumption that all my learning about religions stopped when I left that catholic school? Oh, that's right, you had to build a strawman argument with it. I see now. I'm over 50. I've had plenty of time to read up on the topic.

 

Seems to me you have always been an Atheist and, therefore, I wonder if you were ever able to look at the whole picture objectively? Quite likely not. No one is entirely objective. You and I, Dave, share this frailty. I keep telling you we are quite alike, one and all.

 

We share nothing. I'm able to look at the whole picture, from the outside. That gives me a completely different perspective than one would have being stuck on the inside.

 

A good friend of mine, A. J. Mattill, has a Doctorate in Biblical Studies. He's written several books that you should read. He's one of those people that learned so much about the bible that he just couldn't believe in it any more.

[currentchristian]

Nice rationalization, as was the rest of your post. The problem is that you're basing your whole life on the writings of some unknown person. If these writings were so important, so valuable, why aren't the authors known? Just because the authors actually believed what they were writing about, doesn't make it true and it is certainly no reason to base your life on it.

 

We are creatures of rationalization. All of us. You, too, Dave.

 

But I repeat: We know the names of the authors of the gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. And if these aren't the "real" names, we have no way of knowing. And it doesn't matter, anyway. Most of the ancient texts we have are anonymous. No big deal, really.

 

Who said I'm "basing my whole life on the writings of some unknown person"? Where did you get that idea? I'm confused.

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

But not the one you'll ask, or answer; why believe in a book that lies? How can you separate the lies from what truths may be there? With "feelings"? That ain't gonna work. With historical knowledge? History doesn't back up the bible. With faith? That's all you got, so why not just admit it instead of using rational fallacies and rationalizations to support your beliefs?

 

So you don't have an opinion, Dave, about whether the authors of the writings collected in what we call the Bible were knowingly lying. You just know their writings are lies. Is that right?

 

Have I not written that belief in the miracles of Jesus, and his resurrection, is not a matter of science or history, but of faith. I'm not sure that you are not wearing blinders when you read my posts and, therefore, see only what you want to see. Not trying to be a smart-alek, but really thinking you don't read what I write, at least not very carefully.

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

Why would you make the extremely biased assumption that all my learning about religions stopped when I left that catholic school? Oh, that's right, you had to build a strawman argument with it. I see now. I'm over 50. I've had plenty of time to read up on the topic.

 

I was asking a question, wondering. You seem to believe that believers cannot look at things objectively, so I was wondering how a non-believer from birth could ever look at things objectively, either.

 

In fact, no one is entirely objective. It's not possible.

 

We share nothing. I'm able to look at the whole picture, from the outside. That gives me a completely different perspective than one would have being stuck on the inside.

 

But you are on the inside, Dave. The inside of your ideas, your views, your beliefs, your values. We're all on the inside of that which we think, feel and believe.

 

You may believe that you and I share nothing, but I maintain my belief that you and I share more than we don't share!

 

I'll put your friend's book on my "to buy" list at amazon.com. It's a mighty long list, but I love reading views that are the opposite of my own. It's a nice intellectual challenge. Thanks.

 

-CC in MA

[Dave]

We are creatures of rationalization. All of us. You, too, Dave.

 

Drop it. That line of rationalization is not going to work.

[Dave]

I was asking a question, wondering. You seem to believe that believers cannot look at things objectively...

 

They can't. That's why they're still believers.

[currentchristian]

We are creatures of rationalization. All of us. You, too, Dave.

 

Drop it. That line of rationalization is not going to work.

 

OK

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

I was asking a question, wondering. You seem to believe that believers cannot look at things objectively...

 

They can't. That's why they're still believers.

 

That's quite a prejudice, there, but we're all free to believe what we want about each other.

 

-CC in MA

[Dave]

I was asking a question, wondering. You seem to believe that believers cannot look at things objectively...

They can't. That's why they're still believers.

That's quite a prejudice.....

No, just a view from the outside, a view you cannot accept.

[currentchristian]

I was asking a question, wondering. You seem to believe that believers cannot look at things objectively...

They can't. That's why they're still believers.

That's quite a prejudice.....

No, just a view from the outside, a view you cannot accept.

 

I'd call it a view from inside your paradigm. We all speak from within our own paradigm.

 

Seems to me.

 

We shall engage again, Dave -- on another issue another day, I'm sure of it!

 

-CC in MA

[Vigile]

Ahh CC, we seem to be far from seeing eye to eye yet again. But I think this has devolved quite far from kriscmh's op, so our disagreements will have to live on to meet another day.

[Dave]

Ahh CC, we seem to be far from seeing eye to eye yet again. But I think this has devolved quite far from kriscmh's op, so our disagreements will have to live on to meet another day.

Have you ever tried to hold on to a hag fish? You can't. They can put out a gallon of slime in seconds. Have you ever tried to get a straight answer from a politician? You can't. Same reason. Believers? Same thing.

[currentchristian]

Have you ever tried to hold on to a hag fish? You can't. They can put out a gallon of slime in seconds. Have you ever tried to get a straight answer from a politician? You can't. Same reason. Believers? Same thing.

 

Well, I neeeeever...

 

...would have thought I was like a hagfish. In fact, I never heard of one before. Looking one up here, I don't think I like the analogy. Maybe a bass, but a hagfish!

 

So Believers = Hagfish = Politicians. Hmmm....what can I say back??

 

-CC in MA

[mwc]

As far as I know, no one ever took Moby Dick to be a true story. No one formed a religion around Ahab. Jesus, as far as we know, was taken quite literally as a literal figure. The author of Matthew took him as such. So did the authors of the other canonical and non-canonical gospels. The anonymity of the authors is not troubling to me, if indeed they are anonymous. Who is mwc? Who is Mythra? Antlerman? I have no idea. They are anonymous authors of posts to this forum. Anonymity is not a pro or a con, as I see it. (And for about 1700 years no one thought these documents were anonymous.)

No one took Moby Dick to be a true story, I would imagine, because no one sold it as such. But, stripped of its author, long ago, it would have taken little effort to convince anyone this was a true story of a captain and his whale. Even today, to the uninitiated I am quite sure you could convince them of this.

 

However, if these same exact people knew who Melville was, an author of fiction, also wrote this whale story, then they might doubt its validity. It only makes sense.

 

So without knowing WHO wrote a document we can't be sure WHY that document exists. Is this is historical narrative or is it a historical fiction? The WHO in the WHO AUTHORED it could help answer that very question.

 

Again, Moby Dick is a great example because, on the surface, it's the story of the captain and his whale. But, everyone knows (okay, maybe not everyone) that it has deeper many as well (that people still argue about today). If you were to pick up the anonymous story it would read as the story of the whale and you may, or may not, get some of the deeper meaning.

 

The xians of old picked up an anonymous copy of "Todd: The amazing healer god-man" that someone left on a rock somewhere and have missed the point for the past 2000 years (they changed the name to jesus so the original author wouldn't notice they ripped him off).

 

I'm sure there's a Church of Ahab somewhere on the planet, but of course Ahab was -- from the first time Melville put pen to paper -- a fictional character. This is known by everyone. There is absolutely no evidence that anyone ever said, "By the way, this guy Jesus in these books is fictional. This is all made up." There is no evidence for this whatsoever. So we have the writings as they are. Then we decide how much is history, how much is theology, how much is myth, how much is religion, how much is true.

Again, it's not about starting churches or religions. It's about how an anonymous work has no accountability. If we truly knew who the author(s) were we might have some insight into what their intent for writing these documents were...beyond the biased theology aspect. They simply don't read like "true" histories even though they borrow the style.

 

Also, the only reason people assumed Moby Dick was a fiction is because it was never sold as anything else. Had it been anonymous, and for some reason they wanted to do it, they could have taken the manuscript and waved it around saying "Look at what happened to these real people!" and gave them away. This isn't a one to one comparison. They weren't looking to do this so it's no surprise none of this happened.

 

As for your last bit (how much is true, etc.) we'll hit that in the next sections I suppose...

 

But there is no reason to assume that Luke, the one who knew Paul, wrote nothing. That assumption is a bigger one than the assumption that the Luke who knew Paul wrote Luke-Acts. That's an easy one. The other one takes lots of if's and lots of wherefore's and lots of mighthavebeen's. Seems to me.

Now who's jumping to conclusions? Even the "scholars" (I hate invoking that) I've read rarely rarely do this anymore. They back away from the Luke, as in Paul-Luke, being the author of these texts. There's just no reason to make this connection beyond tradition.

 

How Judas died is not at all, in my view, a "weighty matter." I don't see that it is of importance. The guy died. They both agree on that.

Cute. But it is important. He was supposedly around the presbyters and rumored more (the original disciples) if my memory is working correctly just now. He should know these things. The question isn't so much "Who cares how Judas died?" but "How accurate is the information from one member of the community to another?" The answer is that it varied considerably. So with THREE versions out there that WE know of how many versions of ANY of the stories existed and which of them finally got written down for us to view?

 

Maybe the Judas/chariot story is the TRUE story. Maybe the story where jesus lived to be an old man is TRUE. That would be EXTREMELY important. You wouldn't say that "Well, the fact that jesus lived is the important part." You wouldn't hand waive that away like the death of Judas. It's how he lived and how he died that matters for jesus. If he walked around licking ferns and died by hitting his own head with a hammer because he was a moron that WOULD matter. Different versions matter and the fact that one version is "blessed" doesn't make it true. The fact that one version is "easier" doesn't make it true. Papias has a version and he supposedly was "in the know." Do we trust him or not?

 

Regarding Papias's "ignorance." That's true. But reading just about anything from that era you will encounter similiar ignorance. Should we just say actually no one lived then and no one did anything, since so little holds up to modern ideas about historical narratives? Look at Josephus's work, for example. Great history. But you know he took the creation literally and the flood, etc. Do we, therefore, dismiss everything he wrote? I hope not.

I touched on this. I excused him for his "typical" 1st century ideas. But we have to say that he believe a lot of superstitious things. Nearly everything actually. Add to that his new religion. He seemed quick to believe the outrageous and quick to dismiss the reasonable in the form of the philosophers because they didn't offer "easy" answers (like science today). He wasn't a researcher, but he wanted things spoon-fed to him.

 

In this regard he believed rumor and folklore and legend and myth. He's the perfect person to take up the mantle and assert someone existed with every fiber of his being, simply because he was told that this person existed, but he'd never actually check it out. And the "urban legend" would grow and grow. This is how gods are created. And books are named.

 

Gosh, Luke is not off my list. Luke is the best attested to of the four, actually. He'd be the last one off anyone's list.

Luke's just a name. The work is, again, anonymous. You haven't shown otherwise.

 

The names of the authors are meaningless. What was written is the point. Not who wrote it. We don't even know if Shakespeare wrote Shapkespeare and that was just 400 years ago.

 

Good "talking" to you, mwc.

Shakepeare is a different style. It really couldn't be confused for anything but what if they were anonymous? Two arguments could arise. The first could be would the works even have been considered "great?" (some debate this now). Assuming the same status as now, however, they'd argue over who wrote them (more than now) but they'd also want to know why (and more questions I can't even think of). Writing anonymously just adds a lot of the whole issue.

 

Just for one second, imagine if G.Luke was written by someone in the Herod's court (we'll assume Paul was really there via Acts). This "Luke" was a Greek in that court who met Paul while he was in prison waiting to go to Rome and he converted. He gathered all those stories there while talking to the people in Jerusalem. So it's not Luke the doctor but someone who risked their livelyhood in the court of a Jewish king writing this story? That's who should get the credit. Not Luke. But who cares? "Luke" is good enough, right?

 

It really goes all ways from being all fiction to being something like I describe above. If it could be like I describe above, and it could...more so that some "Luke," then they should get the credit. An anonymous book should be presented as such. We don't know who wrote them. We can't say that they're fiction or not.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

I don't know if this has been brought up yet, but I kind of like the idea of a pre-Christian Jesus/Joshua (Messianic) cult that perhaps got its first push forward when a robber was executed (Jesus Barabbas) and was considered the fulfillment of the prophesies. Then Saul persecuted these "heretics", being a pharisee and all, and having this epileptic episode, turning side and making this Jewish cult into a common religion. And later story tellers had to put this mostly fictitious Jesus into a historical situation and wrote the Gospels according to peoples expectations. Something like that. I find it rather interesting that the references to Joshua and Messiah in the Greek version of OT say Jesus and Christ.

 

Here's a a lengthy article about some of these things: http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0190JoshuaCult.php

 

Another interesting view of this is that it would make Christianity a much older religion than it think it is. Christians several 100 years before Jesus birth? If more than just circumstantial evidence was found to completely support this, it would be pretty cool. How can anyone be Christian, even in name and belief, before Christ even lived? I find it intriguing.

[currentchristian]

I don't know if this has been brought up yet, but I kind of like the idea of a pre-Christian Jesus/Joshua (Messianic) cult that perhaps got its first push forward when a robber was executed (Jesus Barabbas) and was considered the fulfillment of the prophesies. Then Saul persecuted these "heretics", being a pharisee and all, and having this epileptic episode, turning side and making this Jewish cult into a common religion. And later story tellers had to put this mostly fictitious Jesus into a historical situation and wrote the Gospels according to peoples expectations. Something like that. I find it rather interesting that the references to Joshua and Messiah in the Greek version of OT say Jesus and Christ.

 

Here's a a lengthy article about some of these things: http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0190JoshuaCult.php

 

Another interesting view of this is that it would make Christianity a much older religion than it think it is. Christians several 100 years before Jesus birth? If more than just circumstantial evidence was found to completely support this, it would be pretty cool. How can anyone be Christian, even in name and belief, before Christ even lived? I find it intriguing.

 

All these theories, and there are hundreds of them, are interesting. But they all require far too many if's and however's and far too many co-conspirators to be so. If this and if this and if this and if that and if the other thing, then Jesus ... was Mythra or Jesus was ... Joshua or Jesus was ... or maybe Jesus didn't even exist or Jesus is ...

 

The story we have is so simple, really. A woman named Miriam (Mary) had a son named Yeshua (Jesus). He was really smart, likely a genius. He sought to reform Judaism. He had what he believed were experiences of the divine so intimate that he came to imagine the divine as his "father." He upset the powers-that-be and was put to death. Around him grew up legend and myth and Paul made him out to be the son of God, the Christ.

 

This in the preceding paragrah any person can agree to (even atheists and ex-Christians) without any claims about miracles or virgin births or resurrections or anointing with Holy Spirit or any other supernatural claims. The supernatural claims are for Christians such as myself.

 

The simple story is so much more likely than the several dozen convulated theories of the last several decades. And my friend agrees with me.

 

-CC in MA

[Ouroboros]

But I like these hypothetical situations, because they actually do make sense.

 

Joshua was translated as Jesus in the ancient greek Torah that Jesus, Paul, Philo etc read from.

 

There was a mistranslation in that "Bible" about the virgin birth (young girl).

 

Messiah was translated Christ in that "Bible".

 

That's what we know.

 

We also know there was Messianic movements, some even zealots.

 

Is it really so hard to think that it is possible that what you say actually goes along with the current flow of belief that already existed at that time? I mean, people expected a Jesus Christ, and Jesus was a popular name, and here was a religious leader that gave himself that name. What are the chances they would follow and support this guy? Pretty high I would assume, and yet, he wasn't a miracle man or the son of God, but rather a son of god like, just like some religions claim we all are. In the light of this, I keep on coming back to the idea that Jesus is a symbol, and the religion that was built originally around this idea, claimed that everyone would become Jesus after the initiation etc. Like a mystery religion. Or maybe the leaders in the sect always were called Jesus Christ?

 

And CC, don't take this a critique or rant against Christianity or your faith. It's for me a matter of finding a better explanation to what people believe and believed before and why. Like you admitted some time ago, Christianity is progressive and changes constantly, so I'm curious to what the early "Christians" really believed, and I suspect they would be considered heretics in today's Church.

[mwc]

All these theories, and there are hundreds of them, are interesting. But they all require far too many if's and however's and far too many co-conspirators to be so. If this and if this and if this and if that and if the other thing, then Jesus ... was Mythra or Jesus was ... Joshua or Jesus was ... or maybe Jesus didn't even exist or Jesus is ...

Now ask yourself WHY those theories exist. Is it because people simply just hate this whole stupid evil monster religion so much that they have to come up with something, anything, to say against it...no matter the cost? Or, were some of them, even ONE of them, believers themselves and they took an honest look and said "Hmmm...something seems...I don't know...a bit off to me. I'll just take a quick look around." I'm not going to say which it was or what amount of some combinations you can come up with along the line between the extremes here. But we both know that the theories exist for a reason and it isn't black or white. That last sentence we will most certainly agree upon given your other responses.

 

The story we have is so simple, really. A woman named Miriam (Mary) had a son named Yeshua (Jesus). He was really smart, likely a genius. He sought to reform Judaism. He had what he believed were experiences of the divine so intimate that he came to imagine the divine as his "father." He upset the powers-that-be and was put to death. Around him grew up legend and myth and Paul made him out to be the son of God, the Christ.

Ignoring the Jewish names and all (I'm not in the mood today...sorry ) this is an explanation. However, this is also very much a harmony of the story. Jesus, in no way, was a genius. I'm not sure where you get this. The story of him at age 12? Standard fare for other similar stories. Easily dismissed. His ability to "show down" the Pharisees time after time? Again, standard fare for other Jewish literature of the day (Jewish "wise men" would "show down" the same from other cultures with their prowess in little display ala jesus). These things are not impressive when taken in this broader context. Now, I don't have the link handy (I can find it though in my mountain of links given time...I got it from someone here though, so maybe they can help out more quickly), jesus is shown to be mentally unstable when looked at by a mental professional.

 

The story is he did not seek to reform Judaism. He sought to reform the Jews in general. He wanted them to behave differently. Yes, the two are almost indistinguishable back then, but it is an important thing to note. He was explaining (his version of) The Law, and their behavior, and how they didn't match up. Judaism wasn't broken. They were. If they came back into alignment with the true meaning of The Law, then there would be no problems. To reform Judaism would be to rewrite it...which he didn't wish to do in the story. His mission was the same as any other prophet really. To point out that the people had moved away from their god and to get them back on track.

 

Now, as for upsetting the "powers that be, and being put to death. This is the funny part. The stories we have of this happening to the others like him, it's not the Jewish powers that care. It's the Romans. And while, yes, the Romans technically kill off jesus in the story, it's at the urging of the Jewish Temple powers as we all know. The Romans didn't like the insurgents from the Galilean area causing trouble. They killed them. That's the simple truth. The story in the bible is way, way too complicated compared to that reality. If jesus had a following, and was from up North, and was seen as a threat. Pilate would have killed him. No Jews needed. Pilate would have sent troops into the desert and killed jesus, and his followers. All of them. The innocent bystanders as well. All of them. The story as written makes no sense when compared to the other "messiahs" especially if he was the "ultimate" one...the best of the bunch. Plotting to kill him for months and/or years is silly.

 

Paul was an opportunist. Let's see. He is a tent maker by trade. He somehow also has the authority, by the temple, to hunt and persecute xians for some reason. Why? Why does the temple hunt xians? They're Jews. They might even be Romans. The Romans rule that territory. They certainly rule many other places the Temple Jews are accused of persecuting xians. They simply had no authority to do anything other than ask the Romans to go after the xians for some offense. The Romans could care less. Jews are Jews to them. That story makes no sense. Paul, on the other hand, hunting Essenes, PRIOR to the Temple being limited by the Romans makes PLENTY of sense. The Essenes being split from the Temple (Rogue Temple Jews...having their own High Priest) would be a direct threat. SAUL's story as a hunter of these people makes sense...until it's "borrowed."

 

This in the preceding paragrah any person can agree to (even atheists and ex-Christians) without any claims about miracles or virgin births or resurrections or anointing with Holy Spirit or any other supernatural claims. The supernatural claims are for Christians such as myself.

The story that you offered makes sense. I'd hand it to you. If that was what was written. If that what was history said. If that what archaeology supported. If that's what early xians OUTSIDE the bible also reported. However, since these things don't fall in line with your story, I cannot simply give it to you. I wish I could. I could stop talking about it. I could stop reading about it. Other events actually did occur back then and I could read about those, but I am reading trying to figure out what happened around this swirling vortex in the 1st century CE since the story you've offered isn't the one that happened (as simple and popular as it is).

 

The simple story is so much more likely than the several dozen convulated theories of the last several decades. And my friend agrees with me.

Actually, this isn't the case here. We don't have all the information. We know that there is information we don't have prior to G.Mark and that he is almost a compilation (not of Peter's stories) of sorts. If there is a story it starts before the one you've offered. A simpler story. People wanted something to believe in and so they made something up. It snowballed. Done. Two short sentences, it beats yours for simplicity and it fulfills all the requirements.

 

mwc