[QUOTE=Uzi]
So, his followers were sitting around the campfire 30-40 years later, reminiscing about the good times when they were kids back in the commune, when one of them slaps his head and says, “Hey, you know that long haired dude? What was his name again? Yeah, Jesus. Yeah, I think he was god, man!”. “Hey, Dude! Don’t be a hog, pass it over here” Is that what you figure?
[/QUOTE]
I’m just waiting for the “arguing from incredulity” counter! 
[QUOTE=Uzi]
So, his followers were sitting around the campfire 30-40 years later, reminiscing about the good times when they were kids back in the commune, when one of them slaps his head and says, “Hey, you know that long haired dude? What was his name again? Yeah, Jesus. Yeah, I think he was god, man!”. “Hey, Dude! Don’t be a hog, pass it over here” Is that what you figure?
[/QUOTE]
No, dumbass. I said he was “a crazy person or a heretic to most people”. Obviously, his followers are unlikely to have classified him as either.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
No, dumbass. I said he was “a crazy person or a heretic to most people”. Obviously, his followers are unlikely to have classified him as either.
[/QUOTE]
Which leads me back to what I said earlier. No one thought it was worth writing down what their prophet/god had told them at the time he was doing it?
[QUOTE=Uzi]
Lifespan
Given good nutrition and luck a person back then would live as long as any other person today. Do you think the people the mythological Jesus preached to were these types, or more likely, the poor and downtrodden? He wasn’t too keen on the rich and wealthy, iirc (those most likely to have good nutrition, btw).
[/QUOTE]
Well, we know of a few that he got on with. Joseph of Arimathea
Zacchaeus
Luke disclaims first-hand acquaintance with Jesus, but seems to have been associated with eye-witnesses from quite early on.
I’m not saying everyone Jesus knew lived to a ripe old age, but it doesn’t preclude there being a few about the place when the time comes for hunting up eye-witness accounts, does it?
[QUOTE=Malacandra]
Well, we know of a few that he got on with. Joseph of Arimathea
Zacchaeus
Luke disclaims first-hand acquaintance with Jesus, but seems to have been associated with eye-witnesses from quite early on.
I’m not saying everyone Jesus knew lived to a ripe old age, but it doesn’t preclude there being a few about the place when the time comes for hunting up eye-witness accounts, does it?
[/QUOTE]
But I think the point is, the time for rounding up eye-witness accounts is during and immediately after his life. If he was really so important. What needs to be explained is why nobody did anything until 40 years later.
[QUOTE=Uzi]
Which leads me back to what I said earlier. No one thought it was worth writing down what their prophet/god had told them at the time he was doing it?
[/QUOTE]
Arguably not that hard to believe; I understand that at that time there was a considerable focus in Judaism towards the oral tradition. It’s not like we have the Leafleting of the Mount, after all; I don’t see an incongruency with followers electing to continue on as Jesus himself is supposed to have done; speaking and telling stories in person.
[QUOTE=Uzi]
Which leads me back to what I said earlier. No one thought it was worth writing down what their prophet/god had told them at the time he was doing it?
[/QUOTE]
During the first century no-one thought much of anything was worth writing down other than tax ledgers and property manifests and so on. History, where recorded, was usually recorded on a macro scale - Julius Caesar’s Commentaries on the Gallic Wars, for example, which hardly mention anyone by name except for Caesar himself.
Moreover, most of the apostles (with the likely exception of Matthew, whose profession would have required him to read and write) were probably illiterate.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Arguably not that hard to believe; I understand that at that time there was a considerable focus in Judaism towards the oral tradition. It’s not like we have the Leafleting of the Mount, after all; I don’t see an incongruency with followers electing to continue on as Jesus himself is supposed to have done; speaking and telling stories in person.
[/QUOTE]
Moreover there is the question of survival of written accounts. There may well have been ealier accounts than those found in the Gospels, but in such small numbers that they did not survive to be copied and copied again - the “official” gospels are the ones we know about because they survived. There were lots of others we know about, once popular, that did not make it and in some cases were only re-discovered relatively recently (like the Gospel of Thomas).
Maybe there were eye-witness accounts that shared the same fate.
[QUOTE=Don’t Call Me Shirley]
But I think the point is, the time for rounding up eye-witness accounts is during and immediately after his life. If he was really so important. What needs to be explained is why nobody did anything until 40 years later.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, is that the point? I thought the point was that there wouldn’t be any living witnesses, thus proving it was all made up.
One reason often advanced for your question is that the early Christians were expecting Jesus back at any time, so there was no great urgency about getting things written down.
(Could’ve mentioned Nicodemus as well, I guess.)
[QUOTE=Malacandra]
Oh, is that the point? I thought the point was that there wouldn’t be any living witnesses, thus proving it was all made up.
[/quote]
That may have been Uzi’s point, but it wasn’t mine.
I’ve heard that, but there is actually quite a bit in the New Testament that talks about how the second coming is just around the corner.
The more rich, literate people you mention, the more I wonder why nobody bothered to write down (or preserve, if you prefer) their first-hand accounts.
I think it’s also interesting that Paul didn’t seem to think he was writing about a real person that had lived and died just a few years before. While not conclusive, it is an interesting piece of the puzzle.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
… It’s not like we have the Leafleting of the Mount, after all…
[/QUOTE]
Funny.
[QUOTE=ivan astikov]
I’m just waiting for the “arguing from incredulity” counter!
[/QUOTE]
What, when Poisoning The Well is doing so nicely? 
[QUOTE=Don’t Call Me Shirley]
I think it’s also interesting that Paul didn’t seem to think he was writing about a real person that had lived and died just a few years before. While not conclusive, it is an interesting piece of the puzzle.
[/QUOTE]
I guess Paul’s view of Christ would be much more influenced by the blinding light he met on the road to Damascus, rather than just this troublesome wandering teacher he’d heard of at second hand. 
[QUOTE=Malacandra]
I guess Paul’s view of Christ would be much more influenced by the blinding light he met on the road to Damascus, rather than just this troublesome wandering teacher he’d heard of at second hand.
[/QUOTE]
You find Paul writing about a ghost he met on the road to be a more credible story than if he had written about a teacher he had heard about?
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
You find Paul writing about a ghost he met on the road to be a more credible story than if he had written about a teacher he had heard about?
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps not as credible to the audience, but I’m thinking probably more motivating to the author, which I think was Malacandra’s point.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
You find Paul writing about a ghost he met on the road to be a more credible story than if he had written about a teacher he had heard about?
[/QUOTE]
Well, more consistent with this: “I think it’s also interesting that Paul didn’t seem to think he was writing about a real person that had lived and died just a few years before”. And not quite a “ghost” as we’d usually understand the term, either.
Neither now nor at any other time do I or have I suggested that *you * ought to believe it if you don’t want to.