Erhmans claim of hallucination

[outhouse]

Erhmans claim of hallucination to explain the resurrection mythology.

I think I have put together and iron clad case for holes in his reasoning and logic.

Someone would make less money explaining reality which in this case which is just unknown context and "rhetorical fiction" and no need to fabricate an explanation. ALL of the authors were far removed from his life or any event or even heard a single word from the man. Scholars all afraid to use the word "fiction" and looking for a natural explanation to explain myths. Some people claimed John had resurrected when listening to Jesus because Johns teachings lived. Just because Jesus teachings lived on, we see the same thing with Jesus here.

Mark 6:14New International Version (NIV)

John the Baptist Beheaded

14 King Herod heard about this, for Jesus’ name had become well known. Some were saying,[a] “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.”

To claim Hallucinations narrows the historical context here. Now we have to say the original followers made this claim up, who were close to him and under emotional distress. This cannot be supported by evidence. Jesus was not god to the Aramaic Galileans nor a messiah nor resurrected. Now to the Hellenist in the Diaspora YES Jesus was resurrected and god because these are the only people who found value in the growing theology surrounding his martyrdom regardless of historicity of Jesus. Had his original followers believed in resurrection as Mr Ehrman proposes, they would also think of him as god which would be blasphemy for an Aramaic Jew. Not only that we would expect Aramaic text from real followers which to date we do not even have, nor even transliterations as if Aramaic text ever existed. To date there is no evidence at all of ANY Aramaic books on this topic suggesting real followers ever had anything to do with said Hellenistic text and Hellenistic belief.

[rakovsky]

Erhmans claim of hallucination to explain the resurrection mythology.

I think I have put together and iron clad case for holes in his reasoning and logic.

Someone would make less money explaining reality which in this case which is just unknown context and "rhetorical fiction" and no need to fabricate an explanation. ALL of the authors were far removed from his life or any event or even heard a single word from the man. Scholars all afraid to use the word "fiction" and looking for a natural explanation to explain myths. Some people claimed John had resurrected when listening to Jesus because Johns teachings lived. Just because Jesus teachings lived on, we see the same thing with Jesus here.

Mark 6:14New International Version (NIV)

John the Baptist Beheaded

14 King Herod heard about this, for Jesus’ name had become well known. Some were saying,[a] “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.”

To claim Hallucinations narrows the historical context here. Now we have to say the original followers made this claim up, who were close to him and under emotional distress. This cannot be supported by evidence.

I think hallucination doesn't really explain how the body left the tomb.
One can claim that the story about the body leaving the tomb was made up, but in that case we are already talking about major deliberate non-hallucinatory motivations for the writings and claims about the resurrection. IOW it would mean that the resurrection stories are not simple hallucination, but partly made up too.

I was following along until I got to this:

Jesus was not god to the Aramaic Galileans nor a messiah nor resurrected.

The Aramaic Christians saw Jesus the Nazarene as a Messianic figure, not just an everyday rabbi. The story about Jesus that is in the records, if it has any fundamental relation to what the Aramaic Christians perceived about his story, is run through with Messianic aspects.

Further, we also know that indeed there was a subset of Aramaic speaking Christians in the 1st c. AD, as shown in the Gospels of the Hebrews and Nazarenes, which in general follow the pattern of Matthew's gospel, even if in some important respects there are differences.

In fact, despite finding maybe 15-20 Christian writings from the 1st c.-early 2nd c., I am not aware of any that directly deny that he was Messiah. To claim that the Aramaen Christians didn't see him as Messiah would raise a host of questions. For example, what did Pilate officially kill him for, if not for being a Messianic contender, a "King of the Jews"?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I think hallucination doesn't really explain how the body left the tomb.

There probably was no tomb. The empty tomb story appears to have been invented by Mark. A tomb burial is historically implausible in the first place, Mark is the only source for it (Paul doesn't know about it and the other Gospels got it from Mark), and Mark says nobody else was ever told about it. Any argument regarding an empty tomb requires proof that there ever was any such tomb.

A missing body doesn't mean anything anyway. There are any number of ways a body could go missing withut coming back to life.

[outhouse]

In fact, despite finding maybe 15-20 Christian writings from the 1st c.-early 2nd c., I am not aware of any that directly deny that he was Messiah. To claim that the Aramaen Christians didn't see him as Messiah would raise a host of questions. For example, what did Pilate officially kill him for, if not for being a Messianic contender, a "King of the Jews"?

We know little to nothing of any first century Aramaic Jews, and Aramaic Christians even less. Since Christianity evolved from many different centers in the Diaspora makes me think you might be confusing Aramaic Jews who were Jesus oppressed followers, with Aramaic speaking proselytes or Jews who were not Israelites but belonged to another vulture altogether.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Well, presumably Paul was an Aramaic speaking Jew in touch with the Jerusalem Church and he calls Jesus Christos routinely.

If Jesus was crucified for claiming (or at least accused of claiming) to be the King of the Jews, then that ipso facto is a Messianic claim.

[rakovsky]

I think hallucination doesn't really explain how the body left the tomb.

There probably was no tomb. The empty tomb story appears to have been invented by Mark.

The point I was making by saying that is that If hallucination doesn't explain the body leaving the tomb And your explanation is that the missing body story was made up, Then it suggests that a big aspect of the resurrection stories was made up, And Therefore hallucination is an insufficient explanation of the Resurrection stories.

Now where was there actually a tomb for Jesus? I guess so. He had some very influential or well off friends and followers, the tax collectors included. He had a treasury for his small community of which he was the centerpiece. Wealthy people and families had tombs, so it's reasonable to think he got buried in one too. Typically they left the body rot and then put the bones in an ossuary, so that would have been the normal expected plan for Jesus' body. The story about a tomb is a piece of evidence too.

A tomb burial is historically implausible in the first place,

A don't know why a tomb burial is historically implausible. Archeologists have found bones from a crucified corpse in a 1st c. tomb.

There are any number of ways a body could go missing withut coming back to life.

Yes. Like a sympathizer taking the body. That is my best guess for what happened other than the resurrection story. I think it's the most likely non-miraculous explanation.

[outhouse]

Well, presumably Paul was an Aramaic speaking Jew in touch with the Jerusalem Church and he calls Jesus Christos routinely.

.

I thought we did not know if Paul was Aramaic speaking, we know factually he was Koine as primary. But we do know he was not an oppressed Israelite jew. We know he was squarely a Hellenistic Jew who's Judaism is still debated.

If Jesus was crucified for claiming (or at least accused of claiming) to be the King of the Jews, then that ipso facto is a Messianic claim

I have always doubted this. Its my opinion he was labeled this during crucifixion.

With half a million people at Passover, with many different kinds of teachers in the thousands, theology would not get you killed, he would have been invisible. causing any trouble in the temple would get you noticed without question, and killed.

[outhouse]

He had some very influential or well off friends and followers, the tax collectors included.
.

No, that is just what the authors sated who were building divinity and competing against the Emperors divinity

He had a treasury for his small community

Also unknown.

We have a parable of having no place to lay his head, and we have him telling his followers in one book to not take their staffs for protection, as well as giving up their beggar bowls.

These were low life oppressed peasants, not people with a treasury, that would be authority building rhetoric

[rakovsky]

The other thing to notice is the Jewish expectations of Messiah in the 1st c.

Jewish prophecies of Messiah's arrival for circa 1st c. AD
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2823&start=190

60 Scholars On Messianic Expectation At The Turn Of The Era
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2932

With all those expectations, a figure like Jesus teaching "new commandments", performing healings, forgiving sins, proclaiming the "Kingdom of Heaven", and otherwise starting to build together a new house with 12 disciples (hints of the 12 sons of Jacob and the 12 tribes) and snowball a movement would have fit into a version of those common Jewish hopes for Messianic redemption.

[outhouse]

Further, we also know that indeed there was a subset of Aramaic speaking Christians in the 1st c. AD, as shown in the Gospels of the Hebrews and Nazarenes,

These text are far to late to be of any value here, so I would say non sequitur here.

Christianity developed in Hellenism is my point, and Aramaic speaking Hellenist who were Roma citizens in the Diaspora or even in Israel, were not culturally oppressed Israelite peasants.