The fallacy of the "newspaper reporter's" Jesus

[mlinssen]

I suppose I am saying that Paul is conspiratorially obscuring the the historical Jesus. What motivates me is a sense of justice, I'm not sure how it matters much whether there was a historical Jesus, I just don't see why not. An obscured figure isn't much different from one that never existed, but I think he did and the stories are garbled accounts of him. It seems to me it is a matter of preference, do you like plain yoghurt or one with bits of fruit in? It isn't a big difference but I think a historical figure has the advantage of having a historical movement, however small which then explains more of the evidence. Like, who said the words of the gospel of Thomas

I am thoroughly convinced that no one did - Thomas made it all up so it would amplify the story that he intended to tell

Unfortunately, it did, and buried it all under tons of debris and centuries of cover-ups
The dramatic irony of Thomas is truly unbearable, it would make even the ancient Greeks weep for centuries

[maryhelena]

The pertinent question that arises once one recognizes that the Gospels are entirely fictional, is: Why would the life or death of any real person have inspired this worship?

The Gospel stories explained why Jesus was worshiped. He was worshiped because he performed miracles, gathered a great number of followers through his teachings, was crucified in a spectacle and rose from the dead as witnessed by his devout followers.

But all of that is made up. None of that actually happened. So if none of that happened, then why would anyone have been worshiping this person?

Crucifixion? According to Josephus thousands upon thousands of Jews were crucified in the first century, by both Jews and Romans. Why would this person stand out? Teachings? Why do none of the pre-Gospel claims about Jesus give even the slightest indicate that Jesus was known for teachings?

Pre-Gospel writings are fixated only on divine aspects of the Lord Jesus Christ. He is in heaven, he will judge the world, he has conquered death, he will create a new paradise, he is the agent of Creation, etc. None of those things are attributed to a real person. Why would anyone ascribe those attributes to a real person? Again, the answer for the church fathers was that those attributes were ascribed to Jesus because of the things the Gospels tell us he did. He performed miracles and fulfilled prophecies, therefore godly powers were ascribed to him.

But as we can see, it didn't happen like that. The miracles and prophecy fulfillment are all the invention of writers. So we are left again with the question: Why would anyone ascribe purely godly powers to a real person, who did not perform miracles, fulfill prophecies or rise from the dead? The answer is simple. They wouldn't! The godly powers were ascribed to a god, not a person. The god was later personified via stories.

We know for sure that this happened all the time in the ancient world. We have countless examples of this happening over and over again!

So it's a story. But to assume that the story is an end in itself... that all it ever was is a flight of pure imagination.... is to impose one's own thinking upon the creators of that story. A simple story written by simple people with nothing better to do than daydream away their hard lives with utopian fantasies.

If that is one's perception of the story why waste one's time talking about it.? Unless of course one has some sort of messiah complex and want to save the world from its Jesus delusion.

On the other hand. Rather than assume its a simple story for simple minds one could look beyond the story to the historical time in which it is set. The first thing one would then see is that that time was far from simple. Roman occupation. Foreign occupation is not a time for daydreaming. It could be a time to take up arms or it could be a time for recording the events of that occupation. The Irish often recorded events of British occupation in song. The Jews wrote stories about their history. Pharaoh in 609 b.c and Nebuchadnezzar in 586 b.c Under the long years of Roman occupation we have the Jesus story. Was Isaiah a historical figure, was Jeremiah - or were they, like Jesus, literary figures created to retell historical events from within a salvation theology or philosophy ?

I would suggest that such an approach to the gospel Jesus story has more going for it than simplicity.

[dbz]

Was Isaiah a historical figure, was Jeremiah - or were they, like Jesus, literary figures created to retell historical events from within a salvation theology or philosophy ?

I would suggest that such an approach to the gospel Jesus story has more going for it than simplicity.

A possible historical persona for the literary figures of Isaiah & Jeremiah is not comparable to the Marcionite heresy school's second-god and the reactionary gMark Carrier-euhemerisation of said god in Palestine c. 30CE.

[lclapshaw]

The pertinent question that arises once one recognizes that the Gospels are entirely fictional, is: Why would the life or death of any real person have inspired this worship?

The Gospel stories explained why Jesus was worshiped. He was worshiped because he performed miracles, gathered a great number of followers through his teachings, was crucified in a spectacle and rose from the dead as witnessed by his devout followers.

But all of that is made up. None of that actually happened. So if none of that happened, then why would anyone have been worshiping this person?

Crucifixion? According to Josephus thousands upon thousands of Jews were crucified in the first century, by both Jews and Romans. Why would this person stand out? Teachings? Why do none of the pre-Gospel claims about Jesus give even the slightest indicate that Jesus was known for teachings?

Pre-Gospel writings are fixated only on divine aspects of the Lord Jesus Christ. He is in heaven, he will judge the world, he has conquered death, he will create a new paradise, he is the agent of Creation, etc. None of those things are attributed to a real person. Why would anyone ascribe those attributes to a real person? Again, the answer for the church fathers was that those attributes were ascribed to Jesus because of the things the Gospels tell us he did. He performed miracles and fulfilled prophecies, therefore godly powers were ascribed to him.

But as we can see, it didn't happen like that. The miracles and prophecy fulfillment are all the invention of writers. So we are left again with the question: Why would anyone ascribe purely godly powers to a real person, who did not perform miracles, fulfill prophecies or rise from the dead? The answer is simple. They wouldn't! The godly powers were ascribed to a god, not a person. The god was later personified via stories.

We know for sure that this happened all the time in the ancient world. We have countless examples of this happening over and over again!

So it's a story. But to assume that the story is an end in itself... that all it ever was is a flight of pure imagination.... is to impose one's own thinking upon the creators of that story. A simple story written by simple people with nothing better to do than daydream away their hard lives with utopian fantasies.

If that is one's perception of the story why waste one's time talking about it.? Unless of course one has some sort of messiah complex and want to save the world from its Jesus delusion.

On the other hand. Rather than assume its a simple story for simple minds one could look beyond the story to the historical time in which it is set. The first thing one would then see is that that time was far from simple. Roman occupation. Foreign occupation is not a time for daydreaming. It could be a time to take up arms or it could be a time for recording the events of that occupation. The Irish often recorded events of British occupation in song. The Jews wrote stories about their history. Pharaoh in 609 b.c and Nebuchadnezzar in 586 b.c Under the long years of Roman occupation we have the Jesus story. Was Isaiah a historical figure, was Jeremiah - or were they, like Jesus, literary figures created to retell historical events from within a salvation theology or philosophy ?

I would suggest that such an approach to the gospel Jesus story has more going for it than simplicity.

The only problem with this view is that ground zero for XCanity is obviously not in the Levant but rather in Greece and Rome.

[maryhelena]

The pertinent question that arises once one recognizes that the Gospels are entirely fictional, is: Why would the life or death of any real person have inspired this worship?

The Gospel stories explained why Jesus was worshiped. He was worshiped because he performed miracles, gathered a great number of followers through his teachings, was crucified in a spectacle and rose from the dead as witnessed by his devout followers.

But all of that is made up. None of that actually happened. So if none of that happened, then why would anyone have been worshiping this person?

Crucifixion? According to Josephus thousands upon thousands of Jews were crucified in the first century, by both Jews and Romans. Why would this person stand out? Teachings? Why do none of the pre-Gospel claims about Jesus give even the slightest indicate that Jesus was known for teachings?

Pre-Gospel writings are fixated only on divine aspects of the Lord Jesus Christ. He is in heaven, he will judge the world, he has conquered death, he will create a new paradise, he is the agent of Creation, etc. None of those things are attributed to a real person. Why would anyone ascribe those attributes to a real person? Again, the answer for the church fathers was that those attributes were ascribed to Jesus because of the things the Gospels tell us he did. He performed miracles and fulfilled prophecies, therefore godly powers were ascribed to him.

But as we can see, it didn't happen like that. The miracles and prophecy fulfillment are all the invention of writers. So we are left again with the question: Why would anyone ascribe purely godly powers to a real person, who did not perform miracles, fulfill prophecies or rise from the dead? The answer is simple. They wouldn't! The godly powers were ascribed to a god, not a person. The god was later personified via stories.

We know for sure that this happened all the time in the ancient world. We have countless examples of this happening over and over again!

So it's a story. But to assume that the story is an end in itself... that all it ever was is a flight of pure imagination.... is to impose one's own thinking upon the creators of that story. A simple story written by simple people with nothing better to do than daydream away their hard lives with utopian fantasies.

If that is one's perception of the story why waste one's time talking about it.? Unless of course one has some sort of messiah complex and want to save the world from its Jesus delusion.

On the other hand. Rather than assume its a simple story for simple minds one could look beyond the story to the historical time in which it is set. The first thing one would then see is that that time was far from simple. Roman occupation. Foreign occupation is not a time for daydreaming. It could be a time to take up arms or it could be a time for recording the events of that occupation. The Irish often recorded events of British occupation in song. The Jews wrote stories about their history. Pharaoh in 609 b.c and Nebuchadnezzar in 586 b.c Under the long years of Roman occupation we have the Jesus story. Was Isaiah a historical figure, was Jeremiah - or were they, like Jesus, literary figures created to retell historical events from within a salvation theology or philosophy ?

I would suggest that such an approach to the gospel Jesus story has more going for it than simplicity.

The only problem with this view is that ground zero for XCanity is obviously not in the Levant but rather in Greece and Rome.

Think I might take a bet on Alexandria.

[MrMacSon]

... Thomas has nothing to do with any Jesus that we know, certainly not with any form of Christianity, not even Chrestianity.

Thomas is a deeply psychological text about Ego and Self, and when John took it into a narrative the Chrestian origins were fixated in history

I abundantly demonstrate Thomasine priority via redaction criticism: the text of Thomas precedes that of the canonicals, and that is embraced by quite a few of 'the brass'. So there's nothing to prove anymore, but for those who disagree the task is to disprove what has been proven.

The text of Thomas gets reused - and utterly repurposed - by the canonicals. Blatantly 'evident to all' really, but the outcome of the conclusion that such would lead to is rather nuclear, namely that all of Christianity is based on a text that says nothing about any of the core, pivotal, quintessential, Christian thingies

You're going to have to get your propositions published in a peer-reviewed journal to engage more than a 'few of the brass' in the bleachers ie. it's gonna have to be presented in 'the field of play'; and then make the newspapers


eta:

Thomas made it all up so it would amplify the story that he intended to tell

Unfortunately, it did, and buried it all under tons of debris and centuries of cover-ups
The dramatic irony of Thomas is truly unbearable, it would make even the ancient Greeks weep for centuries

• That's fallacious 'appeal to consequences'

[MrMacSon]

A possible historical persona for the literary figures of Isaiah & Jeremiah is not comparable to the Marcionite heresy school's second-god and the reactionary gMark 'Carrier-euhemerisation' of said god in Palestine c. 30CE.

The Marcionite community was unlikely to have been engaged in seditious heresy (guerrilla-style or otherwise eg. literary)

('heresy' is derived from the Greek word for a school [of [particular] thought]/sect, haíresis | αἵρεσις ( αἱρέω +‎ -σϊς | hairéō +‎ -sis ), so, while 'heresy-school' is appropriate for the accusation, even it might not be a strictly correct accusation, it's also kind-of a tautology)

[MrMacSon]

... it is much easier to disprove the existence of Jesus with the gospels than with Paul. This is why Paul is used by historicists.
Demonstrating that all of Mark's stories are imitations of some OT narratives, are pesharim of the prophetic books and a rewriting of Paul's letters is very easy. The same for Luke and Matthew.

But taking Paul for what he is, with his problematic verses used by every scholars to defend Jesus' historicity, does not seem to me to be practical or helpful.

rgprice has done a fairly good job demonstrating that Paul also used LXX-OT narratives, as have a few other scholars, albeit only in a more piecemeal way, afaik, ie. in journal articles.

And, as you know, there is increasingly more scholarship that Mark used Paul (as well as more LXX-OT and, albeit less so, a few other tropes and lore of the times eg. accounts of the Jewish War, aspects of Roman emperor worship and politics, and perhaps a bit of Homer (if so, more Iliad than Odessey).

Saying that Marcion is the first narrative gospel - with his Jesus descending from heaven, the Roman plot and rejecting Paul - is even more convenient to demonstrate that Jesus is a fiction.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

KK, sigh, nice try trying to brush me with a persecution complex, lol - it is understandable that a simple theory that goes against a lot of spilt ink would not be taken seriously. I get that.

My impression of your preference for Thomas is that you didn't compare texts with each other and decide on the priority of this or that wording for certain reasons. Rather, it seems to me that over the years and from much reading you have a certain pov about how Christianity began and that the Gospel of Thomas generally fits that beginning better. Is that right?

If so, I think that's legitimate, but of course it can hardly be discussed adequately in a specific case.

[MrMacSon]

The Gospel stories explained why Jesus was worshiped. He was worshiped because he performed miracles, gathered a great number of followers through his teachings, was crucified in a spectacle and rose from the dead as witnessed by his devout followers.

It's fairly likely that the development of Christianity was less than worship in its very early days.

It's likely that, as has Jörg Rüpke proposed in Pantheon, at least, these works were valued for their novel, novelistic value.

And as you said earlier:

The Gospel writers were not "newspaper reporters", they were instead creative novelists!

What all of the evidence shows is not that the Gospels are records of widely held beliefs, but rather the Gospel are invented stories that spawned widely held beliefs!

There isn't a shred of evidence showing that anyone's belief in the "humanity of Jesus" stemmed from any source other than the Gospel stories. Every single defense of the humanity of Jesus relies entirely on the Gospels and/or Jewish scripters. That's it. That is the only source ever used to defend the humanity of Jesus, period.

It has been very important for theologians to make the case that, whatever the Gospels contain, they reflect genuinely held beliefs that existed among 'a population' of followers of Jesus. For them, the greatest "terror" is the idea that, perhaps, the writers themselves were creative inventors. Nothing is worse in biblical scholarship than the idea that the writers themselves invented any line of the works that their hands produced. What cannot be is the claim that anything on the page came from the mind of the writer.

... people who used the Gospels to defend the humanity of Jesus believed that the Gospels were reliable accounts of real events that had effectively been produced by "newspaper reporters". But they aren't. We can prove that they aren't. They are creative literature, invented in the minds of writers, written in reaction to the destruction of the Temple and later modified and expanded upon in reaction to claims that Jesus, as a spiritual heavenly being, had not fulfilled prophecies of Jewish scriptures. That 'Jesus was a real person' was a theological requirement to prove that he had fulfilled prophecy, which was desired to show that the messianic dreams of the Jews had already been fulfilled, much like the oracles of Oedipus, in ways that the Jews had not themselves foreseen.