One need not rely merely on the gospels themselves as the historical basis for the life and execution of Jesus. I’m not aware of any reputable historian of the era that disputes those facts, are you?
Maybe you haven’t been reading other posts, or whatever, but the point is that Josephus, Eusebius, the Gospels, etc,
are disputed, save by the pious or the invested.
The rub, of course, is the resurrection accounts. Unlike pretty much any other religion’s origins, the resurrection defies reasonable alternate explanations. A few have been tried, but none are viable.
Aye, that’s the rub. Again, none are viable to the pious. It is good to remember that faith or belief does not equal knowledge.
- Jesus wasn’t really dead, just unconscious. He revived and sneaked out of the tomb and slunk away.
- His disciples stole the body so that they could claim he was resurrected and gain power and prestige as result.
- Wild animals came and ate the remains.
These are honestly the best explanations that have been offered, but none hold up to scrutiny. Professional authors have already examined each of these far better than my poor writing skills are up to and I refer you to them for the details. But if resurrection really IS the most likely explanation for the facts in the historical record, then THAT fact is what suddenly lends the gospel accounts their historical and spiritual authority. If Jesus is someone able to rise from the dead and he selected 12 people to teach authoritatively in his name, it’s probably a rather good idea to have a listen!
The use of the word “honestly” here is not appropriate, as far as I can tell. Also the list is incomplete. The first alternative, as you spell it out, would appear to a psychometrist of being loaded with foregone conclusions. The second belies planning that is worthy of a conspiracy theorist, but probably not within the demeanor of the disciples. The third one is simple, but unlikely.
The one that is conspicuously left out is the one based on the human propensities for story telling, embellishment, poor witnessing, misinterpretation, poor translation, ignorance of idioms and actual premises, (Mark 4 33,34, eg) etc, etc, etc. My favorite is that there may have been a historical Jesus. Likely was. And as TE Lawrence wrote about that part of the world, there was/is a pretty steady stream of prophets coming out of one desert or another. Some of them were genuine seers and clear. Inevitably, one got (in)famous for a number of reasons and actually clicked with many. But the unfortunate part was, that while he was a fabulously skilled and charismatic individual, he was also misunderstood as to the actual premise of his work. Maybe less at his time, but very certainly through his apostles.
So, to cut it short, he was a fabulous metaphysician, most likely a proponent of non dualism, that being the most easily misunderstood teaching of
any time, and also the most consistently even teaching under any circumstance in the history of the world, in any part of it, however it arises. Given that, it is no wonder that what he had to offer was completely turned on him by well meaning but uncomprehending individuals. And that is how religions are formed from what is originally a direct transmittal. Like CS Lewis said in
The Screwtape Letters, when the student devil became alarmed at his client picking up a fragment of Truth: “Don’t worry, We’ll just let him organize it.”
So what was intended as transformative symbology became litralized. Have you read
this? It might help. There are other such wonderfully instructional works aimed at allowing the layman to think more critically and comprehensively about the phenomenon of religion, even their own. Such examination is highly beneficial and very rewarding. Unfortunately, because it is also rather disturbing to ordinary mass religious conviction and convention, it is not a popular pursuit.
