Blackwell said

According to the gospels, “Large” would be the thousands of people who heard Jesus speak, plus the people in Jerusalem who attended his trial and witnessed his crucifixion and others who heard about him second hand.

The hypothesis is that these accounts are valid unless there is evidence to the contrary, not just absence of evidence.    

Why should we trust the gospels? 

“If you want to argue that it is impossible that the gospel accounts are valid…”

Who would argue that? Impossible? That’s a strange standard?   Sort of like the 100% certain apologetic line. Always in the extreme, but historians deal in probabilities not the arbitrarily extreme standards demanded by apologetics. 

But let’s look at impossible, shall we?

A worldwide census in which everyone for no good reason has to return to the home of their ancestors from a thousand years ago.

Blackwell

Reasons why the gospels may not be reliable accounts

1. They are all evangelistic documents written with the purpose of spreading the word.
While their is nothing inherently biased about spreading the word, the authors
have an incentive to exaggerate, if not lie about the strength of their group and the
reputation of their founder.

2.) The authors are anonymous. There’s simply no way of knowing if they had a clue about
the actual events. Here Luke’s census for example is useful in evaluting the athors
credibility. Further, Matthews Gospel reads like prophecy shopping.

3.) If Jesus is as well known as the gospels contend, how can Mark (purportedly just
relaying Peter’s account) present him like no one knows who he is. Mark’s device
is effective precisely because not many people knew anything about him.

Blackwell said

I agree that the gospels may not be reliable accounts but that does not mean that they must be completely disregarded.

Fortunately, no one here has suggested that.

Sarah Palin? 

Sorry Bub your description was, and I quote “It is possible that in the last year of his life, Jesus became well known to thousands of Jews and a politically popular figure who was seen as an outsider who would overthrow the establishment”

Not sure how Trump doesn’t fit there vis some obscure sports figure.

The gospels depict Jesus as an important person rather than an illiterate peasant. Is it possible that this is generally correct?

If not, why not?  If so, then what?   

I don’t see how an important person couldn’t be a  peasant; particularly when he message seemed to favor the poor; that he was purported to be a follower of John the Baptist. 

 

The gospels depict Jesus as an important person rather than an illiterate peasant. Is it possible that this is generally correct?

Woops!  I asked you first, “Why should we trust the gospels? ” and mentioned specifically Luke’s census and the bizarre demand for

them to travel to the hometown of their ancestors from  a thousand years earlier. I also gave you 3 additional reason to take the gospels with a grain of salt which you agreed with but this is a conclusion you admit is possible, to wit, “I agree that the gospels may not be reliable” So you must have a good reason for thinking so unless your just doing a William Lane Craig.

Blackwell said
It might have been clearer if I had said “The gospels depict Jesus as a well-known person rather than as a nonentity”

It might be clearer if you pared this with your earlier point,

“As I said originally, there is undoubtedly a great deal of misunderstanding and complete fiction in the gospels…”

If there is “complete fiction in the gospels” why are the reports of his popularity credible?

Anomolies: You still reach for the apologetic extreme. I’ve argued in this forum that Jesus was a small fish. I’ve never thought he was a non entity.

But your argument is entirely forced. In short, Ehrman has argued that 1.) Jesus claims to being the messiah were something he revealed to his inner circle 2.) That Judas betrayl was probably revealing this to the Romans. 

But your entire argument here relies on the idea that if the Romans didn’t act the way you think they should have, it creates anomolies.

So lets go to the video tape, shall we, 

Consider that the Passover festival was one of the few times the Romans brought in troops.
Why, because it was a politically volitile time: A festival celebrating Israel’s rescue from a conquering power (Egypt). Rome was a conquering power. It wouldn’t take much for the average man to draw the connection. Or as Uncle Buck put it “… Is there a little similarity? Whoa, I think there is!”

Add in either E.P. Sanders theory about the cleansing of the temple (sort of performance art) or even Dale Martins claim about Jesus and his followers armed with swords and you have a volatile situation.  Interestingly Martin’s thesis posits a small band of followers with the belief that they would ignite the end times, if you will. In fact, neither hyppothesis requires a popular Jesus. 

In sum, we have a volatile situation where Jesus and a few of his followers create some kind of disturbance. I’m guessing the Romans were on high alert for just such a thing.  I dont doubt that they either waited till later to quietly arrest him or the Romans had an opportune time to quickly arrest him on the spot.

Now “non entities” get trials all the time. I don’t see how even being even a minor celebrity, would change that.  Consider too that Crucifixion was Rome’s way of dealing with recidivism. 

Why should we trust the gospels? The same question could be asked of newspapers, TV, the internet, etc.

There’s that apologetic logic again. Who says it isn’t asked about those things? Does that point really advance your case?

When exactly have newspapers, TV or the net been described as inerrant? What does their trustworthiness have to do with the question at hand? 

The point about Luke’s census, btw, was in response to your qiestion about whether there was evidence to distrust the gospels. not whether it’s reasonable to belive it.

Then there is the charge that Jesus claimed to be king – ludicrous if he was a nonentity. Could the Jews not have picked something more credible, for example, that he had caused the death of a Roman? And then why advertise such an absurd charge with a sign on his cross? On the other hand, if Jesus was well-known, the authorities might have thought that it would humiliate him.

Greg outlined a number of reasons that the Jewish trial was unlikely. Either way, neither the charge against him nor the manner of punishment was up to them. 

Yes, claiming the status of Caesar is something the Romans would take very seriously; particularly from a trouble maker: A man is arrested for creating a disturbance. One of his close followers comes forward and says this guy has been claiming to be our king; king of the Jews.

According to your take on things, the Romans would just laugh and go, ya got anything else?

Blackwell said
Since nearly all references to Jesus come from the gospels, any argument against the mythicist position that they are entirely fictional trusts that some of the information in them is based on reality.

 WHAT!!?

Why always the apologetic extreme? Mythicist position!? 

If some of their content is based on reality, that’s very far from Jesus was a well-known person. He is “consistently depicted as a well-known person” by people who have an interest in  exaggerating his importance.

Nixon consistently denied involvement in Watergate etc, is it reasonable to think Nixon was innocent?

Regarding the trial and sign on the cross, it is more likely that the Romans would have bothered with them if Jesus was important. They don’t seem to have given the same treatment to those crucified with him.

I already addressed this point. If your going to ignore arguments to the contrary and continue repeating your pet theory, you should go somewhere else to proseltyze.

These are my opinions, and arguments for and against seem to be exhausted.

Your opinions might be exhausted, but you can’t declare arguments exhausted that you haven’t even responded to.

Also, if you want answers to questions, you don’t get to just ignore stuff that is inconvenient for your pet theory. What would Al Gore say!?