The Jesus to whom atheists and others often refer

[Eloi]

Many times when the teachings of Jesus and his person are discussed, reference is made to a particular interpretation of what his words may be indicating. For example, I have read a discussion about a Jesus who denies or contradicts the Law of Moses. But that is an incorrect way of understanding Jesus, just like a political Jesus is or one who does not admit rich people among his followers, as if honest possessions were sin.

Can those who debate the teachings of Jesus at least begin to ascertain that the Jesus they suppose is the one that Scripture shows us and not an imaginary Jesus?

This topic is to analyze the need to be serious in the use of terms and premises, so that the debates adjust to the truth, and the conclusions are more accurate.

What is the Jesus you have in mind? Does it correspond to the Jesus of the Bible? Can you really know what Jesus was like?

[oldbadger]

Given the source of the story who I find to be a chronic science denier, I'm not fussed about looking for any truth in it anyway.

If you don't look then you won't find anything, either way.

[oldbadger]

Dunno...... But since this kind of situation occurs all the time I can't see why it wouldn't be a true story.

Over the years I have encountered many concocted stories aimed at promoting Christianity. So I am now very cynical.

In my opinion......
Cautious investigation is good,
Skeptical investigation is safe,
Cynical 'investigation' is not so secure for finding what truths there might be.

Given the source of the story who I find to be a chronic science denier, I'm not fussed about looking for any truth in it anyway.

That's ok...... but I'm interested in @Eloi 's questions, such as:-
What is the Jesus you have in mind? Does it correspond to the Jesus of the Bible? Can you really know what Jesus was like?

My thoughts:-
In Mind?........... Social Justice through return of the Laws, esp Poor Laws.
As in the Bible? Well, in G-Mark, if you pick out and bin the Christian fiddlings.
Can you know? A bit, from his enemies' as well as his friend's words.

Everybody seems to forget what the enemies wrote about Jesus.

[TRANSPONDER]

While our badgering pal is presenting a story we could chew over, we are fortunate in having the Jesus story in 4 conflicting versions. The 'courtroom' analogy is often proposed: for some reason, Bible apologists seem to think that the story would stand up in court. My view is that the Judge would rule the witness testimony unsafe and stricken from the record or a reasonably competent lawyer could demonstrate that the stories conflict so much they are best disregarded.

Yes, but what was the charge? Charges are tried, not stories.
Would the charge be that the account was true, or a deception?
That's the thing......... in either charge there would be an acquittal, or in Scottish law that excellent and sensible third verdict of 'not proven'.

I reckon it's even better (for us) with the Gospels; we can show that some parts cannot be credible; the nativities fail on history, let alone conflicting stories. The omission of important elements tends to add to the doubts. I know that apologists try to appeal to 'witness error' but an account of a car crash or a street mugging by 4 witnesses, one of whom relates an appearance by a flying saucer pilot who beams the accused up, is going to have one story discounted, not because of the ET pilot so much as none of the other three having mentioned it. The Apologists really strawman this by having futile debates about 'one angel or two' and thus drawing a kipper across the trail that leads to real and problematical contradictions.

Yes....
Some parts are absolute deceptions.
Some are Christian fiddlings. (Less intention maybe)
Some are innocuous reports without any agenda, points made 'on the side' and hardly intended to help or hinder the account.
Some are true, have been supported by both arch enemies and supporters of Christianity.

So all we have to do is research and investigate with open mind...... The Christian Jesus evaporates, but the Social Justice Jesus survives, methinks.

Moreover, we can hear a common story that the witnesses are telling; not just the same tale but the same text, even the same connecting passages. We can begin to see 'collusion' as the apologists (trying a heads we win, tails you lose' ploy) say, in the synoptics; and then contradictions as the kind that we'd get by calling in the witnesses separately and they start making stuff up when grilled separately.

Rake through it all and bin the rubbish, but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater!

Yes, the courtroom analogy works well for Bible critics and I am only left with the usual last question: Do those who claim that the Jesus- story would stand up in a court of Law really believe that or do they just hope that we'll swallow it?

The Jesus story could stand up...... The Christian one would crash and burn.

It doesn't matter, since courtroom witness credibility is the point, not what the charge was or whether the witnesses are for or against it. The point is that conflicting stories discredit witness testimony, which is why the Gospel accounts do not cut the mustard as eyewitness accounts. Of course, apologists may try to excuse or explain these contradictions, and the debate is really whether they can do that convincingly.

I have a couple of times seen deconverts mention that they got a cold shock when they first saw the contradiction over Judas' death. But apologists regularly try to explain that away, However there are worse contradictions than that.

[oldbadger]

It doesn't matter, since courtroom witness credibility is the point, not what the charge was or whether the witnesses are for or against it. The point is that conflicting stories discredit witness testimony, which is why the Gospel accounts do not cut the mustard as eyewitness accounts. Of course, apologists may try to excuse or explain these contradictions, and the debate is really whether they can do that convincingly.

A perjured witness doesn't destroy an honest witness's testimony.
G-John? Absolutely not a witness. the author/s didn't have a clue about where to place the bundle of stories which they had gathered, didn't have any idea about that last week..... or any of it. Shocking Anti-Semitism, ignoring healings that they thought were beneath their God and conjuring up stuff which they thought more suitable.
Matthew? Not a witness....needed to copy his material from others, so..... nah!
Luke? Luke admits he wasn't a witness, and anyway, he copied the lot.
Mark? The author of Mark did present a deposition about the experiences of Cephas, imo, but he DID witness the arrest, I feel sure about that, and may well have been around to see other situations.

I have a couple of times seen deconverts mention that they got a cold shock when they first saw the contradiction over Judas' death. But apologists regularly try to explain that away, However there are worse contradictions than that.

Masses of contradictions. But since I do trust G-Mark (once the Christian stuff is binned) I tend to compare the rest with that. In any case it doesn't matter because Christianity is a total concoction, and since Jesus was a man with a shortlived mission then my presentation contests Christianity.

Point:- When determined enemies of the cross support the existence of the man Jesus and his close friends, this would make a difference to that jury if the trial was just for 'Jesus the man'. imo

[Goat]

It doesn't matter, since courtroom witness credibility is the point, not what the charge was or whether the witnesses are for or against it. The point is that conflicting stories discredit witness testimony, which is why the Gospel accounts do not cut the mustard as eyewitness accounts. Of course, apologists may try to excuse or explain these contradictions, and the debate is really whether they can do that convincingly.

A perjured witness doesn't destroy an honest witness's testimony.
G-John? Absolutely not a witness. the author/s didn't have a clue about where to place the bundle of stories which they had gathered, didn't have any idea about that last week..... or any of it. Shocking Anti-Semitism, ignoring healings that they thought were beneath their God and conjuring up stuff which they thought more suitable.
Matthew? Not a witness....needed to copy his material from others, so..... nah!
Luke? Luke admits he wasn't a witness, and anyway, he copied the lot.
Mark? The author of Mark did present a deposition about the experiences of Cephas, imo, but he DID witness the arrest, I feel sure about that, and may well have been around to see other situations.

I have a couple of times seen deconverts mention that they got a cold shock when they first saw the contradiction over Judas' death. But apologists regularly try to explain that away, However there are worse contradictions than that.

Masses of contradictions. But since I do trust G-Mark (once the Christian stuff is binned) I tend to compare the rest with that. In any case it doesn't matter because Christianity is a total concoction, and since Jesus was a man with a shortlived mission then my presentation contests Christianity.

Point:- When determined enemies of the cross support the existence of the man Jesus and his close friends, this would make a difference to that jury if the trial was just for 'Jesus the man'. imo

THere are a number of reasons not to trust that the author of the Mark was not an eye witness. First, tradition. The tradition has him being a disciple of Peter, writing in Rome. Next, the lack of knowledge of the geography around jerusalum.

[TRANSPONDER]

It doesn't matter, since courtroom witness credibility is the point, not what the charge was or whether the witnesses are for or against it. The point is that conflicting stories discredit witness testimony, which is why the Gospel accounts do not cut the mustard as eyewitness accounts. Of course, apologists may try to excuse or explain these contradictions, and the debate is really whether they can do that convincingly.

A perjured witness doesn't destroy an honest witness's testimony.
G-John? Absolutely not a witness. the author/s didn't have a clue about where to place the bundle of stories which they had gathered, didn't have any idea about that last week..... or any of it. Shocking Anti-Semitism, ignoring healings that they thought were beneath their God and conjuring up stuff which they thought more suitable.
Matthew? Not a witness....needed to copy his material from others, so..... nah!
Luke? Luke admits he wasn't a witness, and anyway, he copied the lot.
Mark? The author of Mark did present a deposition about the experiences of Cephas, imo, but he DID witness the arrest, I feel sure about that, and may well have been around to see other situations.

I have a couple of times seen deconverts mention that they got a cold shock when they first saw the contradiction over Judas' death. But apologists regularly try to explain that away, However there are worse contradictions than that.

Masses of contradictions. But since I do trust G-Mark (once the Christian stuff is binned) I tend to compare the rest with that. In any case it doesn't matter because Christianity is a total concoction, and since Jesus was a man with a shortlived mission then my presentation contests Christianity.

Point:- When determined enemies of the cross support the existence of the man Jesus and his close friends, this would make a difference to that jury if the trial was just for 'Jesus the man'. imo

I try to be fair, rather than dismissive. Luke (as any Christian apologist will argue) was collating and presenting reports he had verified. He doesn't have to be eyewitness. Not that many historians are. Matthew is supposed to be an eyewitness though, as you say, he appears to copy from Mark. In fact it isn't hard to discredit both Luke and Matthew, Luke because he uses the Synoptic material, Q (Luke/Matthew) material Josephus and Paul as his material and a lot of invented stuff. And Matthew because he gets it all wrong because he does not understand the scriptures; he has to use the Septuagint Greek translation which he misreads.

Which leaves Mark and John. I agree that John writes reams of dubious stuff, but the basic story is not unlike Mark. Mark has (evidently) added in material of his own, though it isn't so obvious as in Matthew and Luke. But there is a common original story there. Common to all four, and it could be true, especially as I believe that Paul was real (you could not make that dude up) and thus the disciples he talks about were real and I suspect that means that Jesus was real, too.

But the problem is that even the common story is dubious. Just an example, John is depicted as grovelling to Jesus who might well have simply taken on the mission after John was arrested. John denies the transfiguration (which I recall you noted) the Sanhedrin trial and the angelic message at the tomb. Even the basic story is open to question, and paints a rather different picture from the one the Christian editors wanted to tell. For example, the Four Miracles work better as fakes to impress the followers than as actual miracles. The resurrection works better as the disciples stealing the body. So I don't mind whether Jesus is based on a real person or is a total myth; neither actually help Christianity as much as the believers would like.

[oldbadger]

Which leaves Mark and John. I agree that John writes reams of dubious stuff, but the basic story is not unlike Mark. Mark has (evidently) added in material of his own, though it isn't so obvious as in Matthew and Luke. But there is a common original story there. Common to all four, and it could be true, especially as I believe that Paul was real (you could not make that dude up) and thus the disciples he talks about were real and I suspect that means that Jesus was real, too.

Yes....I think that Jesus and disciples were real. Even Celcus believed in a Jesus and disciples.

But the problem is that even the common story is dubious. Just an example, John is depicted as grovelling to Jesus who might well have simply taken on the mission after John was arrested. John denies the transfiguration (which I recall you noted) the Sanhedrin trial and the angelic message at the tomb. Even the basic story is open to question, and paints a rather different picture from the one the Christian editors wanted to tell. For example, the Four Miracles work better as fakes to impress the followers than as actual miracles. The resurrection works better as the disciples stealing the body. So I don't mind whether Jesus is based on a real person or is a total myth; neither actually help Christianity as much as the believers would like.

The Baptist being depicted as stooping to Jesus can't smash the story of the Baptist, but Jesus did flee out in to the desert at the arrest, carry on his own campaign in Galilee and eventually try to gain a large following at the Temple (that last week).
Author/s of John didn't deny the transfiguration, just didn't know it was an amazing moment in that disciple's life, just as in Cephas's.
I don't even bother with the resurrection........ Jesus might not have died on that cross after only a few hours. I've seen a tv A/E program where a doctor lanced a kid's lung through the ribs to drain of fluids and blood after he had fallen on to a bmx foot-rest and injured his side.
I acknowledge faiths and religions in others, but if they try to sell it to me then they're going to get told what I think. THat usually ends badly.

[TRANSPONDER]

Which leaves Mark and John. I agree that John writes reams of dubious stuff, but the basic story is not unlike Mark. Mark has (evidently) added in material of his own, though it isn't so obvious as in Matthew and Luke. But there is a common original story there. Common to all four, and it could be true, especially as I believe that Paul was real (you could not make that dude up) and thus the disciples he talks about were real and I suspect that means that Jesus was real, too.

Yes....I think that Jesus and disciples were real. Even Celcus believed in a Jesus and disciples.

But the problem is that even the common story is dubious. Just an example, John is depicted as grovelling to Jesus who might well have simply taken on the mission after John was arrested. John denies the transfiguration (which I recall you noted) the Sanhedrin trial and the angelic message at the tomb. Even the basic story is open to question, and paints a rather different picture from the one the Christian editors wanted to tell. For example, the Four Miracles work better as fakes to impress the followers than as actual miracles. The resurrection works better as the disciples stealing the body. So I don't mind whether Jesus is based on a real person or is a total myth; neither actually help Christianity as much as the believers would like.

The Baptist being depicted as stooping to Jesus can't smash the story of the Baptist, but Jesus did flee out in to the desert at the arrest, carry on his own campaign in Galilee and eventually try to gain a large following at the Temple (that last week).
Author/s of John didn't deny the transfiguration, just didn't know it was an amazing moment in that disciple's life, just as in Cephas's.
I don't even bother with the resurrection........ Jesus might not have died on that cross after only a few hours. I've seen a tv A/E program where a doctor lanced a kid's lung through the ribs to drain of fluids and blood after he had fallen on to a bmx foot-rest and injured his side.
I acknowledge faiths and religions in others, but if they try to sell it to me then they're going to get told what I think. THat usually ends badly.

Yes...it's just that I used to work with the gospels as though they were broadly reliable. The resurrection -scenario happened. the messianic declaration in the Nazareth synagogue happened. The raising of Lazarus happened. I was pretty convinced that the miracles were fakes. The raising of Lazarus could be shown to have been all planned out beforehand. I even thought that John's seamless robe was connected with Jesus at the temple collaring the Priestly vestments. I knew by then that the nativity didn't work and the penitent thief had to be fake, and I was struggling to reconcile John with the synoptics. It was realising that the omission of significant events, like the attempted murder at Nazareth and raising of Lazarus, the transfiguration in John, the intervention of Antipas...and most of the rest of the Book.... meant that a heck of a lot of the story was fabricated, often to make a
'prophecy' work.

I'm still willing to credit that there is a basic story there. Indeed a discussion (on my former board) of the 'James' reference in Josephus 'Antiquities' suggested that priestly power struggles might make the framing of Jesus by the Sanhedrin more credible. Though it might also be an event the Christian borrowed to construct his tall tale. Just as Philo's madman mocked as a king in public sounds uncannily like the mockery of Jesus. Still. If it is true at base, I'm quite sure that Jesus and Barabbas being the same person, the insurrection of Barrabbas being the 'Pilate shedding the blood of the Galileans' event, and that being connected with the temple cleansing and of course Jesus being executed on the charge of insurrection, really, not that absurd blasphemy charge, convinces me that, IF any of it is true, it has to be Jesus (like the Baptist) being on a zealot mission, not the Christian overpainting done after Paul had reinvented the messianic Judaism of the disciples.

I know nobody will buy this, but to me the evidence is clear, compelling and undeniable (except to denialists) and it just requires centuries of being peddled the Gospel narrative being reappraised. And it starts with the Nativity which we still get promoted in a conflated Xmas card scene of two stories set over a year apart and inconvenient things being ignored, like Matthew having the residents of Judea, or Luke having them go 'back' to Nazareth directly after the birth rituals, never mind the totally non astronomical star. Once it is understood that these are two conflicting and concocted stories designed to wangle Jesus (A Galilean) into Bethlehem, the whole tale is set up for the domino effect.

[oldbadger]

Yes...it's just that I used to work with the gospels as though they were broadly reliable. The resurrection -scenario happened. the messianic declaration in the Nazareth synagogue happened. The raising of Lazarus happened. I was pretty convinced that the miracles were fakes. The raising of Lazarus could be shown to have been all planned out beforehand. I even thought that John's seamless robe was connected with Jesus at the temple collaring the Priestly vestments. I knew by then that the nativity didn't work and the penitent thief had to be fake, and I was struggling to reconcile John with the synoptics. It was realising that the omission of significant events, like the attempted murder at Nazareth and raising of Lazarus, the transfiguration in John, the intervention of Antipas...and most of the rest of the Book.... meant that a heck of a lot of the story was fabricated, often to make a
'prophecy' work.

Ah, those extraordinary fiddlings and manipulations..... anything that proved a prophecy, or increased the healings of G-Mark......bin!
Nazareth, like the Canas (both of them) and other hilltops surrounding Zippori, were communities but tented communities. Tents were very common amongst the itinerant workers like wood/stone workers, labourers, hauliers, etc. I think the attempted murder at Nazareth could well have occurred. Not all of G-John was junk, there are a lot of interesting anecdotes and pieces of info that must have got in to that file, but the main story is hogwash, yet so many Christians rely on it.

I'm still willing to credit that there is a basic story there. Indeed a discussion (on my former board) of the 'James' reference in Josephus 'Antiquities' suggested that priestly power struggles might make the framing of Jesus by the Sanhedrin more credible. Though it might also be an event the Christian borrowed to construct his tall tale. Just as Philo's madman mocked as a king in public sounds uncannily like the mockery of Jesus. Still. If it is true at base, I'm quite sure that Jesus and Barabbas being the same person, the insurrection of Barrabbas being the 'Pilate shedding the blood of the Galileans' event, and that being connected with the temple cleansing and of course Jesus being executed on the charge of insurrection, really, not that absurd blasphemy charge, convinces me that, IF any of it is true, it has to be Jesus (like the Baptist) being on a zealot mission, not the Christian overpainting done after Paul had reinvented the messianic Judaism of the disciples.

Whether Jesus got taken down and lived, like the friend that Josephus saved from a cross, or whether Barabbas did get released by a very worried (wife-bullied) Prefect who didn't want an open rebellion........ I can't figure out which might have happened, but death on a cross after a few hours.... that's not so likely.

I know nobody will buy this, but to me the evidence is clear, compelling and undeniable (except to denialists) and it just requires centuries of being peddled the Gospel narrative being reappraised. And it starts with the Nativity which we still get promoted in a conflated Xmas card scene of two stories set over a year apart and inconvenient things being ignored, like Matthew having the residents of Judea, or Luke having them go 'back' to Nazareth directly after the birth rituals, never mind the totally non astronomical star. Once it is understood that these are two conflicting and concocted stories designed to wangle Jesus (A Galilean) into Bethlehem, the whole tale is set up for the domino effect.

I can't figure out how the gospels scraped past the Nicean cullings without having been adjusted to fit each other. And how did the Barabbas story survive so well? It was blooming unnecessary really..... along with scenes like Jesus calling out to his God just before death, that sure does need some body swerving and fiddling.

The Bethlehem story........ Ouch! How blooming embarrassing! The details fit, like every household around Jerusalem filled full of visitors and charging the earth for any bed 'n' board. Not much later on, Agrippa undertook a kidney count after a major feast and the count was around 500,000 visitors to a major feast. And 'yes', I expect that the locals did make a big fuss of all that money coming in to Jerusalem, the palm leaves and such...... all those trimmings mixed in to an impossible tale.

[Tcg]

Everybody seems to forget what the enemies wrote about Jesus.

Who are these enemies you are referring to and what did they write?


Tcg