Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?

[Enai de a lukal]

Wow, and I was taking you seriously there for a while.

In other words, you disagree, but can't say why. You have a negative emotional reaction to what I'm saying, but are unable to point out what is wrong with it. That about right?

 

[Quagmire]

The lack of evidence that you are NOT a fraud is evidence that it is possible that you are.

You don't work for the NSA by any chance, do you?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Chances are there was. If that were in any way the topic (and if we didn't already have half a zillion threads that go into that topic in great length), I would expand on it.

That's nice, but I've heard pretty much all the arguments for it. I doubt you'd have anything new to add, so color me not convinced.

Here's a tip: if you have to start playing dirty in order to make your point, maybe you should re-examine your point.

"Playing dirty"? How so? He has no reason to believe that other than bias. Otherwise, he needs to present some.

 

[outhouse]

A teacher with 5000 would have been arrested by Herod's goon squad.

Similar to the ones that arrest JtB for having just small crowds.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

You don't work for the NSA by any chance, do you?

Why, are the NSA the only people capable of grasping a patently and painfully obvious point?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Its actually really simple-

If we're asking whether X is possible, we're asking whether X is consistent with the evidence; is there any evidence which contradicts it? If we want to know whether "Christ was a fraud" is possible, then we want to know if there is any evidence that contradicts this- namely, evidence that he was NOT a fraud. If there is no such evidence, then there is no evidence that contradicts the hypothesis that he was a fraud; but then, "Christ was a fraud" is consistent with the evidence, and the hypothesis is possible- it has a non-zero probability.

 

[lunamoth]

Simple.

After study of the socioeconomic cultural anthropology, it would be almost impossible for that many people to have gathered.


Oppressed Jews just could not stop work and take off and travel large distances to hear a teacher tell a lesson.

Many of these villages were small, its not like they would send out notice to all Galilee that a great teacher was going to speak and expect a great turn out.


Jesus was a traveling teacher, this wasn't some Jewish holiday where people could have free time.



Not only that , most scholars view this as parallels to the Emperors divinity as he used to speak to large crowds. remember he carried the title of "son of god" before Jesus was even born. When these scripture were written they were trying to steal gentiles who worshipped the Emperor. They had to parallel his divinity to some extent.



Its the same as the "Sermon on the mount" two books cant make up their minds where it happened. And if you look at these parables, they were ment to be read one at a time so that they could be digested. They were important and took some time to think about.

The authors had a collection of parables and so that's how they created it. I guarantee if you read them off to quickly they loose all meaning as written.



Also 5000 Jews gathering would have been perceived as a threat and some kind of military action would have taken place.

Good post! I appreciate your approach to this, although of course a lot of it is conjecture. I also think the feeding of the 5000 is a myth, or hyperbole regarding some kind of event around Jesus.

 

[outhouse]

Yet you still zealously cling to this notion that there had to be a real person behind all of that.

Because there is every reason for a real Galilean martyred at Passover.


And no replacement hypothesis exist that explains the scripture we have.

All those who have tried failed miserably. I doubt your ability to try.

"I personally like it, so they must be genuine sayings of Jesus!"

Your purposely taking me out of context. I never stated or implied such.

As a matter of fact I was quite clear and said something exactly the opposite.

Is that a sign of desperation?

 

[Quagmire]

That's nice, but I've heard pretty much all the arguments for it.

I see. So, off the top of your head, what do you think of the argument in favor of the legitimacy of Antiquities of the Jews Book 20, Chapter 9 ?

Just curious.

I doubt you'd have anything new to add, so color me not convinced.

I guess I won't waste my time by giving you some links to the afore mentioned threads then.

"Playing dirty"? How so? He has no reason to believe that other than bias. Otherwise, he needs to present some.

By completely twisting someone else's point.

 

[Quagmire]

Why, are the NSA the only people capable of grasping a patently and painfully obvious point?

I'm sure they think they are.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I see. So, off the top of your head, what do you think of the argument in favor of the legitimacy of Antiquities of the Jews Book 20, Chapter 9 ?

Just curious.

Those are disputed, too:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ#Josephus_Flavius

I guess I won't waste my time by giving you some links to the afore mentioned threads then.

I've seen them before.

By completely twisting someone else's point.

Well, let's see him present his evidence.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I'm sure they think they are.

The only thing better than thinking you're right is also being right. Of course, if I've gone wrong somewhere I'd love for someone to point it out to me; so far nobody has been willing, and by this I can only surmise that there isn't anything wrong with it. So... care to take a whack at what I've said, or are you fortunate enough to understand basic logical terminology like "possible", "evidence", so that you can see its hardly controversial?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Of course, you can always just make snarky cop-out comments, implying you disagree but nevertheless refraining from actually putting yourself out there by saying what, if anything, is mistaken. After all, better to mock the game than play and lose, yes?

 

[Quagmire]

The only thing better than thinking you're right is also being right.

How do you know the difference?

Of course, if I've gone wrong somewhere I'd love for someone to point it out to me;

Really? Because so far you've been acting like you had a serious aversion to just that very thing.

(psst, since you've started quoting fragments of my posts and ignoring the rest I figured it would be OK with you if I went along with the same program)

 

[Quagmire]

Of course, you can always just make snarky cop-out comments,

I give people what they can handle.

implying you disagree but nevertheless refraining from actually putting yourself out there by saying what, if anything, is mistaken.

I've already tried that with you, and it was just a lot of wasted wear and tear on my keyboard.

After all, better to mock the game than play and lose, yes?

I'm not mocking the game.

 

[outhouse]

Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ - RationalWiki

.

Ya that's is credible :biglaugh:

 

[Enai de a lukal]

How do you know the difference?

Well, people being unable to find a flaw is always a good sign.

Really? Because so far you've been acting like you had a serious aversion to just that very thing.

Not really, but I can appreciate the emotive content of this statement. In any case, you could try me, starting right here-

If we're asking whether X is possible, we're asking whether X is consistent with the evidence; is there any evidence which contradicts it? If we want to know whether "Christ was a fraud" is possible, then we want to know if there is any evidence that contradicts this- namely, evidence that he was NOT a fraud. If there is no such evidence, then there is no evidence that contradicts the hypothesis that he was a fraud; but then, "Christ was a fraud" is consistent with the evidence, and the hypothesis is possible- it has a non-zero probability.

I won't hold my breath, but maybe you'll surprise me.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Ya that's is credible :biglaugh:

Don't you have some more Wikipedia links to spam and act all high and mighty about? You're too predictable.

 

[Quagmire]

Those are disputed, too:
Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ - RationalWiki

Now was that really off the top of your head?

I've seen them before.

I've seen Chinese characters before. Doesn't mean I know what they mean.

Well, let's see him present his evidence.

Some people will see it, some won't.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I've already tried that with you, and it was just a lot of wasted wear and tear on my keyboard.

Ah, how convenient. You've got cop-outs on tap don't you? Well, maybe next time?

#AllSmokeNoFire.