On the Missing Corpse of Jesus

[JoeyKnothead]

Some'll say Jesus hopped up and left that cave there, after he was dead.

Others'll say the missing corpse of Jesus can be better explained by the actions of the living.

For debate:
Which explanation is best? Why?

[catalyst]

1: Why would the Disciples (and some of their families) die for a lie if they had stolen the body? This is senseless. .

There would be no reason for the apostles to dedicate their lives to what they knew was a lie.

If you deny that the apostles were killed then we can't debate this issue. You are denying reality

Both Fleur16 and Chesterortonrules have claimed that the apostles uniformly died violent deaths for their beliefs. Let's clear this up with a look at what history ACTUALLY tells us about the deaths of the apostles.


(1) Saint Andrew
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Andrew is said to have been martyred by crucifixion at the city of Patras (Patræ) in Achaea, on the northern coast of the Peloponnese. Early texts, such as the Acts of Andrew known to Gregory of Tours,[5] describe Andrew as bound, not nailed, to a Latin cross of the kind on which Jesus is said to have been crucified; yet a tradition developed that Andrew had been crucified on a cross of the form called Crux decussata (X-shaped cross, or "saltire"), now commonly known as a "Saint Andrew's Cross" — supposedly at his own request, as he deemed himself unworthy to be crucified on the same type of cross as Jesus had been (though of course, the privilege of choosing one's own method of execution is a rare privilege, indeed).[6] "The familiar iconography of his martyrdom, showing the apostle bound to an X-shaped cross, does not seem to have been standardized before the later Middle Ages," Judith Calvert concluded after re-examining the materials studied by Louis Réau.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Andrew

***
(2) Bartholomew the Apostle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He is said to have been martyred in Albanopolis in Armenia. According to one account, he was beheaded, but a more popular tradition holds that he was flayed alive and crucified, head downward. He is said to have converted Polymius, the king of Armenia, to Christianity. Astyages, Polymius' brother, consequently ordered Bartholemew's execution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartholomew_the_Apostle

***

(3) James, son of Alphaeus (James the Less)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A tradition holds that Saint James, though strongly clinging to Jewish law, was sentenced to death for having violated the Torah. This however, is highly unlikely as the Jewish authorities did not practice execution, and unless a possible rebellion was at hand, the Roman authority would not involve themselves in Jewish religious affairs. In Christian art he is depicted holding a fuller's club because he was martyred when beaten to death with a fuller's club at Ostrakine in Lower Egypt, where he was preaching the Gospel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James,_son_of_Alphaeus

***

(4) James, son of Zebedee
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Acts of the Apostles records that Agrippa I had James executed by sword.[Acts 12:1-2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James,_son_of_Zebedee

***

(5) John the Apostle (brother of James)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christian tradition holds he was the last surviving of the Twelve Apostles and died around the age of 94—the only apostle to die naturally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_the_Apostle

***

(6) Judas Iscariot
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are several different descriptions of the death of Judas, only two of which are included in the modern Biblical canon:

* The Matthew 27:3-10 says that Judas returned the money to the priests and committed suicide by hanging himself. They used it to buy the potter's field. The Gospel account presents this as a fulfillment of prophecy.[10]
* The Acts of the Apostles says that Judas used the money to buy a field, but fell down headfirst, and burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. This field is called Akeldama or Field Of Blood.[11]
* The non-canonical Gospel of Judas says that the other eleven disciples stoned him to death after they found out about the betrayal.[12]
* Another account was preserved by the early Christian leader, Papias: "Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out."[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_Iscariot

***

(7) Jude (Thaddaeus)the Apostle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to the Armenian tradition, Saint Jude suffered martyrdom about 65 AD in Beirut, Lebanon together with the apostle Simon the Zealot, with whom he is usually connected. Their acts and martyrdom were recorded in an Acts of Simon and Jude that was among the collection of passions and legends traditionally associated with the legendary Abdias, bishop of Babylon, and said to have been translated into Latin by his disciple Tropaeus Africanus, according to the Golden Legend account of the saints.[10][11] Saints Simon and Jude are venerated together in the Roman Catholic Church on October 28.

Sometime after his death, Saint Jude's body was brought from Beirut, Lebanon to Rome and placed in a crypt in St. Peter's Basilica which is visited by many devotees. According to popular tradition, the remains of St. Jude were preserved in an Armenian monastery on an island in the northern part of Issyk-Kul Lake in Kyrgyzstan at least until the mid-15th century. Later legends either deny that the remains are preserved there or claim that they were moved to a yet more desolate stronghold in the Pamir mountains. Recent discovery of the ruins of what could be that monastery may put an end to the dispute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jude_the_Apostle

***

(8) Saint Matthew
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He is said to have died a natural death either in Ethiopia or in Macedonia. However, the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church each hold the tradition that Matthew died as a martyr.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_the_Evangelist

***

(9) Saint Peter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The mention in the New Testament of the death of Peter says that Jesus indicated its form by saying: "You will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go."[29] Early church tradition (as indicated below) says Peter probably died by crucifixion (with arms outstretched) at the time of the Great Fire of Rome of the year 64. Margherita Guarducci, who led the research leading to the rediscovery of Peter’s tomb in its last stages (1963–1968), concludes Peter died on 13 October AD 64 during the festivities on the occasion of the “dies imperii� of Emperor Nero. This took place three months after the disastrous fire that destroyed Rome for which the emperor wished to blame the Christians. This “dies imperii� (regnal day anniversary) was an important one, exactly ten years after Nero ascended to the throne, and it was ‘as usual’ accompanied by much bloodshed. Traditionally, Roman authorities sentenced him to death by crucifixion. According to the apocryphal Acts of Peter, he was crucified head down. Tradition also locates his burial place where the Basilica of Saint Peter was later built, directly beneath the Basilica's high altar.

Clement of Rome, in his Letter to the Corinthians (Chapter 5), written c. 80–98, speaks of Peter's martyrdom in the following terms: "Let us take the noble examples of our own generation. Through jealousy and envy the greatest and most just pillars of the Church were persecuted, and came even unto death… Peter, through unjust envy, endured not one or two but many labours, and at last, having delivered his testimony, departed unto the place of glory due to him."

The apocryphal Acts of Peter is also thought to be the source for the tradition about the famous phrase "Quo vadis, Domine?" (or "Pou Hupageis, Kurie?" which means, "Whither goest Thou, Master?"). According to the story, Peter, fleeing Rome to avoid execution, asked the question of a vision of Jesus, to which Jesus allegedly responded that he was "going to Rome to be crucified again." On hearing this, Peter decided to return to the city to accept martyrdom. This story is commemorated in an Annibale Carracci painting. The Church of Quo Vadis, near the Catacombs of Saint Callistus, contains a stone in which Jesus' footprints from this event are supposedly preserved, though this was apparently an ex-voto from a pilgrim, and indeed a copy of the original, housed in the Basilica of St Sebastian.

The ancient historian Josephus describes how Roman soldiers would amuse themselves by crucifying criminals in different positions, and it is likely that this would have been known to the author of the Acts of Peter. The position attributed to Peter's crucifixion is thus plausible, either as having happened historically or as being an invention by the author of the Acts of Peter. Death, after crucifixion head down, is unlikely to be caused by suffocation, the usual cause of death in ordinary crucifixion[citation needed].

A medieval tradition[citation needed] was that the Mamertine Prison in Rome is the place where Peter was imprisoned before his execution.

In 1950, human bones were found buried underneath the altar of St. Peter's Basilica. The bones have been claimed by many to have been those of Peter.[30] An attempt to contradict these claims was made in 1953 by the excavation of what some believe to be St Peter's tomb in Jerusalem.[31] However along with supposed tomb of Peter bearing his previous name Simon, tombs bearing the names of Jesus, Mary, James, John, and the rest of the apostles were also found at the same excavation—though all these names were very common among Jews at the time.

In the 1960s, some previously discarded debris from the excavations beneath St Peters Basilica were re-examined, and the bones of a male person were identified. A forensic examination found them to be a male of about 61 years of age from the 1st century. This caused Pope Paul VI in 1968 to announce them most likely to be the relics of Apostle Peter.[32]

Further doubt on finding bones in Rome is cast by Pope Vitalian's letter to King Oswy of the Britons (C.E. 665), offering him the remains (then called relics) of the apostle Peter and Paul, along with those of the Holy Martyrs Laurentius, John, Gregory and Pancratius as a reward for the emergence of British faith.[33]

***

(10) Philip the Apostle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Later stories about Saint Philip's life can be found in the anonymous Acts of Philip, probably written by a contemporary of Eusebius.[8] This non-canonical book recounts the preaching and miracles of Philip. Following the resurrection of Jesus, Philip was sent with his sister Mariamne and Bartolomew to preach in Greece, Phrygia, and Syria.[9] Included in the Acts of Philip is an appendix, entitled "Of the Journeyings of Philip the Apostle: From the Fifteenth Act Until the End, and Among Them the Martyrdom." This appendix gives an account of Philip's martyrdom in the city of Hierapolis.[10] According to this account, through a miraculous healing and his preaching Philip converted the wife of the proconsul of the city. This enraged the proconsul, and he had Philip, Bartholomew, and Mariamne all tortured. Philip and Bartholomew were then crucified upside-down, and Philip preached from his cross. As a result of Philip's preaching the crowd released Bartholomew from his cross, but Philip insisted that they not release him, and Philip died on the cross. Another legend is that he was martyred by beheading in the city of Hierapolis. The Catholic Church regards the accounts of his death as legendary. No reputable source describing Philip's death has been found.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_the_Apostle

***

(11) Simon the Zealot
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In later tradition, Simon is often associated with St. Jude as an evangelizing team; they share their feast day on 28 October. The most widespread tradition is that after evangelizing in Egypt, Simon joined Jude in Persia and Armenia, where both were martyred. This version is the one found in the Golden Legend.

One tradition states that he traveled in the Middle East and Africa. Christian Ethiopians claim that he was crucified in Samaria, while Justus Lipsius writes that he was sawn in half at Suanir, Persia.[2] However, Moses of Chorene writes that he was martyred at Weriosphora in Caucasian Iberia.[2] Tradition also claims he died peacefully at Edessa.[5] Another tradition says he visited Britain -- possibly Glastonbury -- and was martyred in Caistor, modern-day Lincolnshire. Another, doubtless inspired by his title "the Zealot", states that he was involved in a Jewish revolt against the Romans, which was brutally suppressed."

"In art, Simon has the identifying attribute of a saw because according to legend, he was put to death by a saw."

***

(12) Thomas the Apostle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

St. Thomas is believed to have sailed to India in 52AD to spread the Christian faith among the Cochin Jews, the Jewish diaspora present in Kerala at the time. He landed at the ancient port of Muziris (which became extinct in 1341 AD due to a massive flood which realigned the coasts) near Kodungalloor. He then went to Palayoor (near present-day Guruvayoor), which was a Hindu priestly community at that time. He left Palayoor in AD 52 for the southern part of what is now Kerala State, where he established the Ezharappallikal, or "Seven and Half Churches". These churches are at Kodungallur, Kollam, Niranam (Niranam St.Marys Orthodox Church , Nilackal (Chayal), Kokkamangalam, Kottakkayal (Paravoor), Palayoor (Chattukulangara) and Thiruvithancode Arappally - the half church. [15][16]

"It was to a land of dark people he was sent, to clothe them by Baptism in white robes. His grateful dawn dispelled India's painful darkness. It was his mission to espouse India to the One-Begotten. The merchant is blessed for having so great a treasure. Edessa thus became the blessed city by possessing the greatest pearl India could yield. Thomas works miracles in India, and at Edessa Thomas is destined to baptize peoples perverse and steeped in darkness, and that in the land of India." - Hymns of St. Ephraem, edited by Lamy (Ephr. Hymni et Sermones, IV).

Eusebius of Caesarea[17] quotes Origen (died mid-3rd century) as having stated that Thomas was the apostle to the Parthians, but Thomas is better known as the missionary to India through the Acts of Thomas, perhaps written as late as ca 200. In Edessa, where his remains were venerated, the poet Ephrem the Syrian (died 373) wrote a hymn in which the Devil cries,

...Into what land shall I fly from the just?

I stirred up Death the Apostles to slay, that by their death I might escape their blows.
But harder still am I now stricken: the Apostle I slew in India has overtaken me in Edessa; here and there he is all himself.
There went I, and there was he: here and there to my grief I find him. —quoted in Medlycott 1905, ch. ii.

St. Ephraem, the great doctor of the Syrian Church, writes in the forty-second of his "Carmina Nisibina" that the Apostle was put to death in India, and that his remains were subsequently buried in Edessa, brought there by an unnamed merchant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_the_Apostle

***


The fact is, outside of James the brother of John, and Judas Iscariot, whose deaths are recorded in the NT, there is NO credible historical record at all concerning the deaths of the other apostles. Only baseless later Christian traditions.

What defines credible for you? Do witnesses not count? And if they're Christians, does their testimony prove empty simply because they were Christians?

But answer this: does someone willingly sacrifice themselves as a lie?

Many a follower of Islam have. Do you think Muslims realise the TRUTH over Christians? If so, I suppose any suicide bombers actions would be justified in your eyes, right?

Also, many people go to war and risk their lives.Wars are not always based on truths, and as such, history has shown that there have been people out there, risking their lives AND losing them ON lies. (IE: IRAQ good example).

The point is, many people have lost their lives or even martyred themselves, based on lies, they personally perceive as truth. Them dying for what they personally believe in however, does not make what they believe in, ACTUALLY true.

Catalyst.

[Fleur16]

Many a follower of Islam have. Do you think Muslims realise the TRUTH over Christians? If so, I suppose any suicide bombers actions would be justified in your eyes, right?

Also, many people go to war and risk their lives.Wars are not always based on truths, and as such, history has shown that there have been people out there, risking their lives AND losing them ON lies. (IE: IRAQ good example).

The point is, many people have lost their lives or even martyred themselves, based on lies, they personally perceive as truth. Them dying for what they personally believe in however, does not make what they believe in, ACTUALLY true.

Catalyst.

Interesting that you would bring that up. But you fail to realize that the disciples were WITNESSES-- direct observers of the truth (and therefore, your argument of the "perceived" is invalid in this situation, as the truth here is absolute). They would have no logical reason to act against it.

[Adamoriens]

Interesting that you would bring that up. But you fail to realize that the disciples were WITNESSES-- direct observers of the truth (and therefore, your argument of the "perceived" is invalid in this situation, as the truth here is absolute). They would have no logical reason to act against it.

I side with the skeptics that we have little evidence that the purported eyewitnesses could have prevented their own deaths by recanting belief in the resurrection of Jesus. However, even given that they were eyewitnesses and that they could've prevented death by apostasizing, we still arrive at another problem. The psychological fact that people will not persevere in deceit when it entails their own death is drawn from the same human experience which establishes that humans do not resurrect after true death. How do we resolve this conflict?

[Starboard Tack]

Perhaps the best evidence for the reality of the resurrection is the absurd lengths critics seem to have to go to come up with alternatives to what is described in the New Testament. If the story was so improbable, why insist it didn't happen on the basis that the Romans, master executioners that they were, failed to actually kill Christ, or that the disciples were subject to mass hallucination, even though hallucinations by definition are never shared but rather individual events, etc. That the resurrection actually happened best fits the facts is evident from any reasonable reading of the record. What we can say in support of the actual resurrection includes:

1. The tomb was empty. Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Sanhedrin, so if the tomb wasn't empty, the ruling authorities would have been able to produce a corpse since they knew and had control over where the corpse was.

2. If the tomb wasn't empty, then why would the Jewish authorities spread the tale that the body had been stolen?

3. Numerous eye witnesses attest to seeing the risen Christ. The concept of an individual rising from the dead was novel in Jewish religious thinking. They were prepared for a general resurrection that occurred at the end of the physical world, but not a resurrection that occurred for one individual within the world. If they were making up a story, they would have made one up that fit the Jewish understanding - not a story that was completely novel to their way of thinking.

4. The earliest reference to the resurrection as an event occurs in 1 Corinthians, and can reasonably be dated to Paul's conversation about the resurrection with Peter within 3 to 5 years of the resurrection. The belief that it happened was therefore at the core of the movement from the very beginning, not something made up afterwards.

5. Jesus appeared to witnesses on multiple occasions. If the story were made up, why create multiple lies that only increases the possibility of the discovery of fraud? Why would Paul refer to over 500 witnesses when if there were no witnesses it would have been obvious? If you're going to lie, come up with one miraculous appearance to the participants in the lie, get your stories straight and run with it, not the complicated account told in the Gospels.

6. After 3 years of preaching, a lower class Jewish man who attracted a very small number of lower and middle class Jewish followers was executed as a criminal in a manner that in Jewsih eyes placed him squarely under God's curse. There were around 30,000 Jewish men crucified during this period of unrest leading up to the destruction of the Temple, yet after such a brief period of time and with such minimal success while he was alive, this one man's execution resulted in the spread of an entirely new religion so rapidly that the Roman Empire itself was converted with a few hundred years. Something really unusual must have happened for this executed criminal to differentiate so strongly from the thousands of other executed men. The idea that this something were a bunch of lies told by a ragtag group of disciples stretches credulity.

7. If the resurrection story were a myth, why would the purveyors of that myth make themselves look so bad? They are portrayed in the same Gospels that describe the resurrection as cowards who abandoned their master at the first sign of trouble, and in his hour of greatest need. They fell asleep on the night of his arrest - repeatedly. If you're going to make up a story, why not make yourself look courageous?

8. The first witnesses to the resurrected Christ were women, who had no standing or credibility to testify to anything. If you wanted people to believe in a lie, you would not present as first evidence female prostitutes in that particular society.

The argument that the Gospels don't count because they were written "long after' the event is bogus. It was 400 years before Arrian wrote the first biography of Alexander the Great, and no one doubts the existence or exploits of Alexander. The first accounts of the resurrection were written within 25 years of the event, which is far too short a time for legendization to occur.

Non-believers can make up whatever stories they want to try to discredit the resurrection, but until those stories are more believable than the testimony of eye witnesses in the NT, they will remain unconvincing.

[d.thomas]

The argument that the Gospels don't count because they were written "long after' the event is bogus. It was 400 years before Arrian wrote the first biography of Alexander the Great, and no one doubts the existence or exploits of Alexander. The first accounts of the resurrection were written within 25 years of the event, which is far too short a time for legendization to occur.

Non-believers can make up whatever stories they want to try to discredit the resurrection, but until those stories are more believable than the testimony of eye witnesses in the NT, they will remain unconvincing.

I don't believe as you do, I don't read the gospels as if they are historical. The gospels are about a dying and rising Son of God, the stuff of fiction, and the Jesus character never said anything brilliant, so why the fuss?

[Starboard Tack]

The argument that the Gospels don't count because they were written "long after' the event is bogus. It was 400 years before Arrian wrote the first biography of Alexander the Great, and no one doubts the existence or exploits of Alexander. The first accounts of the resurrection were written within 25 years of the event, which is far too short a time for legendization to occur.

Non-believers can make up whatever stories they want to try to discredit the resurrection, but until those stories are more believable than the testimony of eye witnesses in the NT, they will remain unconvincing.

I don't believe as you do, I don't read the gospels as if they are historical. The gospels are about a dying and rising Son of God, the stuff of fiction, and the Jesus character never said anything brilliant, so why the fuss?

Well, to paraphrase Pascal, if you're right, it makes no difference whatsoever. If you're wrong, you're making a terrible mistake with potentially eternal consequences. Up to you clearly, how you sort this out.

The Gospels were carefully written precisely as history. They were written decades after the events because that was the time that eye witnesses who knew what had happened began to die out and those remaining knew they had a responsibility to record precisely what they remembered, and saw. That is why they are full of incovenient details that do no credit to the Apostles, make a pretty poorly constructed fiction, but a compelling tale of truth.

[Adamoriens]

Non-believers can make up whatever stories they want to try to discredit the resurrection, but until those stories are more believable than the testimony of eye witnesses in the NT, they will remain unconvincing.

You're operating on the assumption that the resurrection is the default explanation until we come up with something better or disprove it. I don't see that I have to meet either requirement to remain agnostic about it; given the intrinsic improbability of human resurrection after true death (absent significant theistic presuppositions), it's acceptable to withhold belief even if available naturalistic explanations are unsatisfactory. This isn't an in-principle objection to miracles.

[Starboard Tack]

Non-believers can make up whatever stories they want to try to discredit the resurrection, but until those stories are more believable than the testimony of eye witnesses in the NT, they will remain unconvincing.

You're operating on the assumption that the resurrection is the default explanation until we come up with something better or disprove it. I don't see that I have to meet either requirement to remain agnostic about it; given the intrinsic improbability of human resurrection after true death (absent significant theistic presuppositions), it's acceptable to withhold belief even if available naturalistic explanations are unsatisfactory. This isn't an in-principle objection to miracles.

No, I think your position is an a priori rejection of the possibility of miracles, which follows from an a priori disallowance of God just as the existence of God guarantees the possibility of miracles. One can certainly remain agnostic about the resurrection. However, if one feels the need to resolve the issue since it does have the potential to bear on salvation, then the best explanation is not the fantastic theories and reinvention of history deniers rely on but the simpler one that all those people who testified to the same thing were telling the truth.

Legendary stories have characteristics, and the NT accounts don't fit the bill. For legend, look to the Gospel of Peter, which did appear long after the events occurred, with its angels whose heads reached to the sky, with a Christ whose head reached beyond the heavens, all backed up with a talking cross 50 feet tall. Now that's what I call a legend, not an account by an apostle of apostles running for their lives at the first sign of danger.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

So, you quote and believe the bible when it suits you and discard it when it doesn't.

That's what I thought.

The one thing that is clear and above argument is that the cult of the crucified carpenter abruptly arose in what we now count as the first century AD. Unfortunately no records were written by anyone during the lifetime of the man in question. The earliest attestations to the origins of Christian belief begin some quarter of a century later with the letters of Paul, a man who was not himself an eyewitness to any of the events in question. All four Gospels were written anonymously many decades after the time they indicate that the crucified carpenter lived and died. This material represents the only access we have to the origins of what would be come the largest and most diverse religious belief in history. Insofar as the material is cogent and consistent it MAY actually have some relationship to actual events. And in truth much of the story holds together and is not unreasonable. The problem occurs in those parts where reason give way to superstitious myth legends and absurdity. Certainly we have every reason to cast doubt on claims of the various and sundry resurrected corpses contained in the stories, capped of by the resurrected corpse of the carpenter himself flying away up into the sky. A claim which by any normal measure is complete and total nonsense.

Gospel Matthew 27:64 states that the chief priests believe that a plot existed by the disciples of Jesus to remove his body from the tomb and then proclaim that he had been resurrected from the dead. The disciples didn't have to "steal" the body however. The body of Jesus had been granted to his followers by the Roman governor and was theirs to do with as they pleased. If YOU wish to deny what Matthew 27:64 say, then please, go right ahead. And yes, I do intend to quote from sections of the NT, since it is the only possible source of information that exists, and I absolutely do intend to discount those portions which are clearly preposterous. Somewhere within lies the truth. Unfortunately the truth has no obligation to be what anyone might fervently wish it to be.

[d.thomas]

The argument that the Gospels don't count because they were written "long after' the event is bogus. It was 400 years before Arrian wrote the first biography of Alexander the Great, and no one doubts the existence or exploits of Alexander. The first accounts of the resurrection were written within 25 years of the event, which is far too short a time for legendization to occur.

Non-believers can make up whatever stories they want to try to discredit the resurrection, but until those stories are more believable than the testimony of eye witnesses in the NT, they will remain unconvincing.

I don't believe as you do, I don't read the gospels as if they are historical. The gospels are about a dying and rising Son of God, the stuff of fiction, and the Jesus character never said anything brilliant, so why the fuss?

Well, to paraphrase Pascal, if you're right, it makes no difference whatsoever. If you're wrong, you're making a terrible mistake with potentially eternal consequences. Up to you clearly, how you sort this out.

The Gospels were carefully written precisely as history. They were written decades after the events because that was the time that eye witnesses who knew what had happened began to die out and those remaining knew they had a responsibility to record precisely what they remembered, and saw. That is why they are full of incovenient details that do no credit to the Apostles, make a pretty poorly constructed fiction, but a compelling tale of truth.

Who are you trying to convince besides yourself and why should anyone care? What did this Jesus character say that was so brilliant anyways?

A rising and dying Son of God sacrificed himself to save mankind from his sinful self, get your book free, donations accepted. Big deal, a little bit of light entertainment.

You can believe, but please don't mind if I sit this one out.