Mythical Christ vs Historical Jesus

[uumckk16]

:thud:
Oh gosh, I think this is a semantic thing. If something is oldest, isn't it the earliest? But yes, I did mean that Mark is the earliest. It is interesting what is not in Mark that is in later Gospels. Mark's Jesus, for instance, says "don't call me good" and so on.

--des

WOW looks like McKenna needs some sleep...Oh my goodness. Just kidding! We were both right. I misread your post. Haha, poor des :hug:

 

[des]

I could be wrong, but I think that it The Gospel of Thomas only that does not have a crucifixion in it. Also I dont' know at all about the Q writings.
I don't know why crucifixion is so difficult to imagine. They didn't seem to happy with anyone who rocked the boat.

However it is also possible that the crucifixion was not a real event. I am perfectly willing to think of this as mythos, as I am of the whole Jesus story.

--des

There may have been thousands, but I don't think there is any reason to believe this story is about any one in particular. The Q sayings and teachings that are common to both Matthew and Luke say nothing of a crucifixion, nor do they mention a Christ, and they are the only writings we have that might link us to a preacher type community in Galilee other than the Gospel of Thomas, but it also has nothing to say of a crucifixion or a Christ.

 

[logician]

The whole cruciFICTION story is an obvious fable for a number of reasons. ONe, there was no tradition where Pilate would have release one prisoner (Barrabus). Two, crucifixions were done on a stake, not a cross. Three, Roman authorities would have no qualms about putting the supposed Jesus or anyone else to death, and certainly wouldn't have "washed their hands" of the affair.

Of course, rising from the the dead is an obvious impossibility. The many conflicts between the gospels concerning the death of the supposed Jesus make it any obvious myth.

 

[des]

I believe that the story of Pilate is that which doesn't ring very true.
I believe the real purpose of Pilate washing his hands of Jesus was to make the Romans a little less guilty, "see we didnt' really want to do this". This is, of course, ridiculous since Jews did not use crucifixion. This story is in Matthew. Matthew has the most anti-Jewish elements. The idea would be that the Roman guy is kind of a good guy at heart and really wants to let Jesus go. The whole story of Pilate is told in the omniscient person as all the disciples had scattered. Of course, if you believe God is relating this all, which I don't, this would make sense, but otherwise it is rather inexplicable. There is a supposed crowd so perhaps someone in the crowd is the teller? The idea of one person getting freed supposedly goes to a Passover tradition. This doesn't really make that much sense, I agree.
BTW, Pilate may have been a historical figure, but he certainly was no good guy-- was supposedly recalled to Rome as he was so harsh.


The Christian version of the "cross" is not really what was used for crucifixion. The shape probably is a little borrowed from pagan traditions.
I have heard it described as a t-shape, but it certainly wasn't the "cross" shape.

I don't think the resurrection was literal, but I think the crucifixion is more likely. Many rebels and so on were/are sent to death. But the details of it, if they occurred are entirely unknown, having no first hand witnesses.



--des

The whole cruciFICTION story is an obvious fable for a number of reasons. ONe, there was no tradition where Pilate would have release one prisoner (Barrabus). Two, crucifixions were done on a stake, not a cross. Three, Roman authorities would have no qualms about putting the supposed Jesus or anyone else to death, and certainly wouldn't have "washed their hands" of the affair.

Of course, rising from the the dead is an obvious impossibility. The many conflicts between the gospels concerning the death of the supposed Jesus make it any obvious myth.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

The idea would be that the Roman guy is kind of a good guy at heart and really wants to let Jesus go.

That's funny. More likely he was a loser who was sent to Judea as a punishment. Being governor of Judea was the Roman equivelent of being sent to Siberia.