it was perfectly obvious to everyone that a) pissing off the jews (Yahweh’s Son loves me) and b) pissing off the romans (Caesar answers to someone greater) was going to end with violence being done to them. everyone was familiar with Caesar’s enemies being executed via crucifixion and the gospels (regardless of who you think wrote them) assume everyone is familiar with the Jews summarily executing blasphemers by stoning
the “apostles as forgers” theory assumes the following without being able to show any of it:
Peter, James, and John collude to write a fiction that all know will give the Romans and Jews cause to execute them - why?
They start a literary tradition in which they are dumb, hot-headed imbeciles with faltering faith - why?
They live in poverty and suffering, taking care of the poor and the permanently disabled, for something they know to be a lie - as documented by an independent witness Paul - why?
Why would forgers invent entirely an entirely selfless doctrine that they know to be founded on nothing - no riches, no multiple wives, no permission to wage war etc
Why would forgers invent really unhelpful details such as Jesus’ baptism, temple clearance, carrying of swords at his arrest, his crucifixion. When these render the basic gospel unbelievable to Jews and Greeks. A crucified Messiah? Actually physically crucified by the Roman state? was a nonsense. Why not invent a spiritual priest who sacrifices in the heavenly temple and renders the earthly one obsolete? (like is seen in Hebrews) Why involve any physical details whatsoever? Why invent embarrassment, shame and humiliation at cost to ones self? How on earth to keep this conspiracy pact together in the face of persecution, physical violence and death? And for what motivation?
Apostolic forgery is a nonsense really
It is far far simpler to allow that Jesus of Nazareth had a physical historical reality. That he preached a spiritual Torah, self-denial, and ideals controversial to both Jews and Greeks (because these are among the least likely things to have been invented). That he was popular with crowds and was crucified after causing a riot at the temple at Passover. His subsequent followers became convinced they had experienced him resurrected. Everything else easily follows from that. People who wrote, did so believing what they were writing. People Paul met (and persecuted) believed what they said. Peter and James believed what they said, to the point of being martyred.
None of this requires any spiritual belief. It’s purely naturalistic.
You are combining the argument from embarrassment with your older argument from poverty.
The argument from poverty doesn’t work because it assumes that humans get what they want. As I stated the vast majority of criminals are not successful people. Gallie was poor, a rural backwater of a backwater of an open air prison. James and Peter could do some preaching and make just enough off the suckers to keep going. They did flee Jerusalem which says enough. Literally couldn’t convince people to believe what they had personally witnessed? No one remembers the king of the Jews being killed right during this major holiday? If someone died on the field of the next Superbowl would you remember that?
No. Far more likely they left John the Baptist, setup shop in Jerusalem. We’re told to get lost. Fleed back to Gallie and tried again. Later on Paul comes along and wtf he is taking this seriously.
The argument from embarrassment also doesn’t work because Jews had plenty of leaders who were killed for what they did. Jeremiah and Samson for example. In fact a dead leader killed can be a source of strength. Almost all of religion is telling people that weakness is strength and who is more weak than someone dead? Someone who didn’t even manage to die of old age. Someone who was killed.
Also I never said Paul didn’t buy into it, I think he did. If nothing else the Eucharist. This ritual that must have boiled the blood of every monotheistic person who heard about it.
It’s easy to let your imagination run to whatever it likes. What you’re not doing it showing how your idea reasonably links into the text and traditions that we have from the era.
Can you cite any academic sources that support what you’re saying?
I leave you with (secular) Bart Ehrman:
“He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on certain and clear evidence.” B. Ehrman, 2011
it was perfectly obvious to everyone that a) pissing off the jews (Yahweh’s Son loves me) and b) pissing off the romans (Caesar answers to someone greater) was going to end with violence being done to them. everyone was familiar with Caesar’s enemies being executed via crucifixion and the gospels (regardless of who you think wrote them) assume everyone is familiar with the Jews summarily executing blasphemers by stoning
the “apostles as forgers” theory assumes the following without being able to show any of it:
Peter, James, and John collude to write a fiction that all know will give the Romans and Jews cause to execute them - why?
They start a literary tradition in which they are dumb, hot-headed imbeciles with faltering faith - why?
They live in poverty and suffering, taking care of the poor and the permanently disabled, for something they know to be a lie - as documented by an independent witness Paul - why?
Why would forgers invent entirely an entirely selfless doctrine that they know to be founded on nothing - no riches, no multiple wives, no permission to wage war etc
Why would forgers invent really unhelpful details such as Jesus’ baptism, temple clearance, carrying of swords at his arrest, his crucifixion. When these render the basic gospel unbelievable to Jews and Greeks. A crucified Messiah? Actually physically crucified by the Roman state? was a nonsense. Why not invent a spiritual priest who sacrifices in the heavenly temple and renders the earthly one obsolete? (like is seen in Hebrews) Why involve any physical details whatsoever? Why invent embarrassment, shame and humiliation at cost to ones self? How on earth to keep this conspiracy pact together in the face of persecution, physical violence and death? And for what motivation?
Apostolic forgery is a nonsense really
It is far far simpler to allow that Jesus of Nazareth had a physical historical reality. That he preached a spiritual Torah, self-denial, and ideals controversial to both Jews and Greeks (because these are among the least likely things to have been invented). That he was popular with crowds and was crucified after causing a riot at the temple at Passover. His subsequent followers became convinced they had experienced him resurrected. Everything else easily follows from that. People who wrote, did so believing what they were writing. People Paul met (and persecuted) believed what they said. Peter and James believed what they said, to the point of being martyred.
None of this requires any spiritual belief. It’s purely naturalistic.
You are combining the argument from embarrassment with your older argument from poverty.
The argument from poverty doesn’t work because it assumes that humans get what they want. As I stated the vast majority of criminals are not successful people. Gallie was poor, a rural backwater of a backwater of an open air prison. James and Peter could do some preaching and make just enough off the suckers to keep going. They did flee Jerusalem which says enough. Literally couldn’t convince people to believe what they had personally witnessed? No one remembers the king of the Jews being killed right during this major holiday? If someone died on the field of the next Superbowl would you remember that?
No. Far more likely they left John the Baptist, setup shop in Jerusalem. We’re told to get lost. Fleed back to Gallie and tried again. Later on Paul comes along and wtf he is taking this seriously.
The argument from embarrassment also doesn’t work because Jews had plenty of leaders who were killed for what they did. Jeremiah and Samson for example. In fact a dead leader killed can be a source of strength. Almost all of religion is telling people that weakness is strength and who is more weak than someone dead? Someone who didn’t even manage to die of old age. Someone who was killed.
Also I never said Paul didn’t buy into it, I think he did. If nothing else the Eucharist. This ritual that must have boiled the blood of every monotheistic person who heard about it.
It’s easy to let your imagination run to whatever it likes. What you’re not doing it showing how your idea reasonably links into the text and traditions that we have from the era.
Can you cite any academic sources that support what you’re saying?
I leave you with (secular) Bart Ehrman:
I see. So because a famous person said X it must be X. Statements accuracy is based on whom uttered them and not what the evidence shows.
Can you cite a single Christian authority that support what you are claiming? That Jesus was not supernatural and no one saw a physical resurrection.
Are you new at this? This is too obvious a strawman…
See the 1st century Ebionites
Not interested in discussing with you any further
New to this? What pointing out logical fallacies. Not really no. Maybe don’t make them.