How would your account be different?

[Inigo Montoya]

I've been tossing around the question as to why it is we believe written accounts of officers or soldiers in past wars, or why we believe the stories of famous men and women throughout history prior to the advent of cameras and film.


For the sake of argument, I'd ask you -- IF you were witness to the life and death of Jesus in the first century, and we assume the miracles and resurrection are true, how do YOU record your accounting of it in such a way it is believed in future generations?

Is this possible? Do we believe the events of the War of 1812 took place the way they did because there's no mention of supernatural occurrences?

If we assume for discussion the events in the gospels actually occurred, how would you have captured them in such a way as to stand up to future scrutiny?

[McCulloch]

If we assume for discussion the events in the gospels actually occurred, how would you have captured them in such a way as to stand up to future scrutiny?

For one thing, I would have assumed future skepticism. To that end, I would have named as many witnesses as I could. I would have encouraged as much writing, by those not in the society of believers to record the miracles, the huge following, and the wonders.

[Mithrae]

If we assume for discussion the events in the gospels actually occurred, how would you have captured them in such a way as to stand up to future scrutiny?

For one thing, I would have assumed future skepticism. To that end, I would have named as many witnesses as I could.

At least three of the canonical gospels were written anonymously and some events depicted (such as the ear-slicer and nudist in Mark 14:47-52) likewise leave names unspecified. Can you imagine why this might be so?

On the other hand, do you believe that having more than the 15-20 named witnesses already found in the NT would be more persuasive to anyone? More names equals more plausible?

I would have encouraged as much writing, by those not in the society of believers to record the miracles, the huge following, and the wonders.

If someone had seen the miracles, wonders and modest following, do you think they would not be in the society of believers yet still willing to write about them?

I wonder if any 'future sceptics' would consider such accounts genuine in any case, when there's a substantial number who argue against the authenticity of Josephus' neutral reference to James or even Tacitus' comments on Nero's persecution? Anything about miracles would certainly be Christian forgery!

-------

If we assume for discussion the events in the gospels actually occurred, how would you have captured them in such a way as to stand up to future scrutiny?

Buggered if I know. The earliest gospel, alleged to have been written by Peter's interpretor rather than Peter himself (which in itself is quite persuasive)
- has no miraculous birth stories about virgins or Bethlehem;
- portrays Jesus as a breaker of the Sabbath laws (ch 2/3) and associate of sinners and tax collectors;
- portrays his disciples as a little slow on the uptake and lacking in faith;
- implicitly questions that Jesus was even descended from David (12:35ff);
- and the extant original ending doesn't even have any witnesses to his resurrection!

How could anyone write an account of such incredible events, yet still seem objective and credible?

Good question

[Divine Insight]

If we assume for discussion the events in the gospels actually occurred, how would you have captured them in such a way as to stand up to future scrutiny?

IMHO, this is a totally moot question.

If Jesus truly was "the word made flesh", then to be perfectly honest with you I would expect HIM to write everything up. Who could do it better than "The Word" himself?

Jesus should have been able to write up documents that would knock the socks off any and all literary scholars who might read it. His writings should have been so profound and clear and unambiguous that there could be absolutely no mistake concerning his message.

The very idea, that Jesus as "The WORD made flesh" wouldn't even bother writing down a single solitary WORD and just leave the whole thing up to totally undependable hearsay rumors by other people whose writings actually conflict with one another is, IMHO, so utterly absurd that this for me is proof positive that Jesus was not a divine being purposefully sent to earth through a virgin birth, etc.

What kind of a God would send such an important message to the objects of his creation and just leave it up to totally ambiguous and self-conflicting hearsay rumors?

IMHO, that makes absolutely no sense at all.

The fact that Jesus never wrote down a single solitary thing is proof positive that he could not possibly have been "The Word made flesh".

[Inigo Montoya]

Lovely answers so far.

Divine, I've often wondered myself why Jesus never saw fit to write anything down.


If he HAD, would you be more persuaded reading his autobiography, as it were, than biographies about him by another hand?

[assisigirl]

Inigo: Very clever, you have sane people discussing the ludicrous.

I would bang my head on the table in front of me and try and figure out why Mel Gibson got the part of Jesus.

[Inigo Montoya]

I think that was Jim Caviezel or whatever, but I think it IS a good question.


Assuming the gospel accounts are true, I can think of no way they could have been attested to 2000 years ago that would remain persuasive to the skeptics of today without being recorded either in film or photograph.

Short of that, what would remain credible all these centuries later?

[McCulloch]

If someone had seen the miracles, wonders and modest following, do you think they would not be in the society of believers yet still willing to write about them?

[font=Georgia]
The crowds going ahead of Him, and those who followed, were shouting,

“Hosanna to the Son of David;
Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord;
Hosanna in the highest!�

When He had entered Jerusalem, all the city was stirred, saying, “Who is this?� And the crowds were saying, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee.�

[/font]

[font=Georgia]
Jesus came down with them and stood on a level place; and there was a large crowd of His disciples, and a great throng of people from all Judea and Jerusalem and the coastal region of Tyre and Sidon, who had come to hear Him and to be healed of their diseases; and those who were troubled with unclean spirits were being cured.

[/font]

[font=Georgia]
Jesus withdrew to the sea with His disciples; and a great multitude from Galilee followed; and also from Judea, and from Jerusalem, and from Idumea, and beyond the Jordan, and the vicinity of Tyre and Sidon, a great number of people heard of all that He was doing and came to Him. And He told His disciples that a boat should stand ready for Him because of the crowd, so that they would not crowd Him; for He had healed many, with the result that all those who had afflictions pressed around Him in order to touch Him. Whenever the unclean spirits saw Him, they would fall down before Him and shout, “You are the Son of God!� And He earnestly warned them not to tell who He was.

[/font]

I wonder if any 'future sceptics' would consider such accounts genuine in any case, when there's a substantial number who argue against the authenticity of Josephus' neutral reference to James

Really! I do not know of any skeptic who argues against the historical existence of James, who seems to have taken over the leadership of the Christian movement after the death of Jesus, just as Jesus took over the leadership after the death of John the Baptist.

or even Tacitus' comments on Nero's persecution?

Tacitus' comments are historical evidence that there existed a small body of Christian believers in the mid first century.

Anything about miracles would certainly be Christian forgery!

Historians routinely ignore claims of miracles whether from Marco Polo, about Alexander the Great, Constantine or Jesus. They are somewhat evenhanded about this. Or at least they should be. Jesus sometimes gets a free pass.

[Divine Insight]

If he HAD, would you be more persuaded reading his autobiography, as it were, than biographies about him by another hand?

That would depend entirely on what he had to say.

The first thing I would expect is that his writing should appear extremely intelligent as well as unambiguous. After all, if Jesus truly was a divine being and even "The word made flesh" specifically sent by God to give a message too all of humanity, then his writings should be the most immaculate writings ever written, far above what any mere mortal man could write.

I also would expect it to contain contradictions, or self-inconsistencies.

For example, the current hearsay rumors we have about Jesus have Jesus making the following claims:

First he claims:

Matthew 5:
[17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
[18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

There's nothing wrong with this so far. And in this religious context we must assume that the "jots and tittles" he's referring to must be the "Old Testament". What other written laws could he be referring to?

But then these hearsay rumors have Jesus preaching the following:

[38] Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
[39] But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

But wait a minute. Where was it that we have "heard this said"?

Well, it comes from the jots and tittles of the Old Testament, twice over in this case from two different books.

Exodus 21:
[23] And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
[24] Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
[25] Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Leviticus 24:
[19] And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;
[20] Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.

I have no problem with Jesus objecting to these jots and tittles of the Old Testament, but why be inconsistent? Why proclaim that not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law until heaven and earth pass, and then sit around and preach that we should ignore those jots and tittles and do what Jesus says instead?

I would expect that if Jesus is an all-wise divine being (i.e. The WORD made flesh) he could better then this. He could simply have said at the outset that, yes, he has indeed come to change the law and bring forth a new convenient.

Why bother claiming that not one jot not one tittle shall pass from law and then set about doing precisely that?

That is inconsistency. At the very best it's a mixed message, at worst it's someone who can't even keep their story straight.

I would not expect mixed messages coming from "The Divine Word Made Flesh".

If Jesus is a genuine divine being with a message from our supreme creator I would expect his message to be immaculate and without ambiguity or contradiction.

The current hearsay rumors of the New Testament also claim that Jesus taught people not to judge others and not to cast the first stone.

Yet the "jots and tittles" of the Old Testament along with the prophets of the Old Testament clearly state that it is the LORD thy God, who commands thee to judge your neighbor and stone sinners and even heathens to death. In some cases these prophets claim that the LORD thy God even commands men to seek out the wife, children, and even the entire village from when the heathen came and kill them all without mercy and burn the village to the ground and never build upon that site again.

This is what the jots and tittles of the Old Testament tell us to do. Read books like Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers, and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Yet, Jesus teaches people not to judge others and not to cast the first stone.

Well, that's in blatant contradiction with the "jots and tittles" and directives of the prophets of old.

So again we see gross inconsistency here and a mixed message. Are we supposed to keep the laws of the "jots and tittles" of the Old Testament until heaven and earth pass, or are we to blatantly refuse to obey those laws and instead do as Jesus teaches which is the exact opposite?

Judge no one, and don't cast the first stone.

You can't do both. You can't obey Jesus and the "jots and tittles" of the prophets of OT at the same time. You are forced to disobey and reject at least one of these.

So why the mixed message? Why the denial that Jesus is going to be changing the laws of the OT and destroying the prophets of old?

I would expect an honest righteous divine being who is supposed to be "The WORD made flesh" to speak honestly and forthright.

If Jesus came to change the laws then just say so, don't beat around the bush or pretend that this isn't the plan.

So the only way I would be impressed if Jesus had written his own documents is if he explained things without any ambiguity or self-contradictions at all. I would not expect the "Divine WORD made flesh" to be beating around the bush sending mixed messages and ambiguity.

~~~~~~

As it is now, my conclusion is rather simple.

Jesus was a mere mortal man. He was trying to reject orthodox Judaism and the immoral teaching of the Old Testament without appearing to be directly rejecting it. So he proclaimed that he didn't come to change the laws, and then sat around trying to change them anyway, all the while pretending like he's not really rejecting the Orthodox Jewish Scriptures.

So for me, it appears that Jesus was indeed guilty of apostasy against the Orthodox Judaism of the Pharisees.

And this is one reason why the New Testament Rumors are filled with so many contradictions and inconsistencies.

I would not expect this to be the case had a genuine divine being been sent into humanity by an actual all-wise supreme being.

But to answer your question, whether Jesus could have persuaded me via his own writings is impossible to say since we have no clue what he might have actually written. If he wrote the same nonsense that we see in the current hearsay rumors of the New Testament, then no, I wouldn't be impressed at all. I would just chalk Jesus up to being a fake.

So it's impossible to say since Jesus never wrote anything down.

The mere fact that he didn't is already "proof positive" to me that he could not possibly have been any divine "Word" made flesh.

So it's a moot question.

I don't buy into the hearsay rumors we have.

And since that's all we have, there simply isn't anything else to go on.

So I see no reason at all to even remotely believe that Jesus was any divine messenger from any supreme being.

[Jax Agnesson]

I would like to have been one of the Temple Priests at the time, in the Matthew account. Imagine; you have reason to think someone might steal the body. (Who do you think might do that? Why?)
But anyway. you have this suspicion. So you go to the Roman big cheese and discuss placing guards on the tomb. This the day after the supposed interment. The Roman big cheese says 'You have the guards', which you take to mean 'The Temple has plenty of its own guards. If you want to detail some of your own men to guard the grave of a criminal, well, it's a bit odd, but go ahead.'
So you detail some guards, and the next morning these guys come flying back gabbling about this guy coming back to life, and angels appearing and rolling back the stone. And you don't think they're just babbling excuses for falling asleep. You believe them. Otherwise why not simply discipline them for dereliction of duty? The fact that the hastily summoned counsel of priests decides not to discipline them means you, the Temple Priests, actually believed the guards' account, angels and all.
If I was in that position, having spent my whole life in the service of the God of Abraham and Moses, hearing and believing that the preacher I had so recently been denigrating had actually risen from the dead in a flurry of angels, I would certainly have written something down. And preserved it.