Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?

[Saint Frankenstein]

Now was that really off the top of your head?

They're most likely forgeries and probably don't have anything to do with the Bible Jesus. They're also written much too late (later than any of the canonical gospels where supposedly written) to be anything but more hearsay, even if they were talking about the Bible Jesus.

 

[Quagmire]

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

And the next best thing is pretending not to see it when they do. :yes:

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.

Again (since you seemed to have missed the point of the NSA remark), this is just an elaborate version of guilty until proven innocent. Lack of evidence one way or the other doesn't indicate anything except a lack of evidence.

 

[Quagmire]

They're most likely forgeries and probably don't have anything to do with the Bible Jesus. They're also written much too late (later than any of the canonical gospels where supposedly written) to be anything but more hearsay, even if they were talking about the Bible Jesus.

I told you, I'm not going to get into a historicity argument here. I brought that up in response to your claim that you'd "heard all the arguments".

I just wanted to see if you were even familiar (of the top of your head) with one of the more remedial ones.

Since you haven't answered that question, I'll take that as my answer.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I told you, I'm not going to get into a historicity argument here. I brought that up in response to your claim that you'd "heard all the arguments".

I just wanted to see if you were even familiar (of the top of your head) with one of the more remedial ones.

Since you haven't answered that question, I'll take that as my answer.

I haven't argued about this in a long time, so it's not going to be at the forefront of my mind.

 

[Quagmire]

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

#AllSmokeNoFire.

Do you really think that annoying people until they stop trying to reason with you counts as a win.

 

[Quagmire]

I haven't argued about this in a long time, so it's not going to be at the forefront of my mind.

I can see by the description you give here:

They're most likely forgeries and probably don't have anything to do with the Bible Jesus. They're also written much too late (later than any of the canonical gospels where supposedly written) to be anything but more hearsay, even if they were talking about the Bible Jesus.

That you've never had more than a passing familiarity with the material.

 

[Quagmire]

Anyway boys and girls, my rides here.

I just thought I'd mention that in case anyone in here was looking for a reason to say, "How convenient".

Because that doesn't make you look petty at all.


Have a great night guys.

 

[outhouse]

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

That place revolves around Carrier, Price and Doherty.


They take the smallest segment of secular thinking and post it as truth. it is embarrassing that people fall for it.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Again (since you seemed to have missed the point of the NSA remark), this is just an elaborate version of guilty until proven innocent.

Not really (and this is hardly a counter-argument anyways); it is simply spelling out the definitions of the key terms here, and their consequences; which is that, given the evidence we have, there is no available conclusion other than that it is possible that Christ was a fraud.

Lack of evidence one way or the other doesn't indicate anything except a lack of evidence.

Not at all. As I said, if X is possible, this means that X is consistent with the evidence; it is not ruled out. That's basically all that "possible" means. But X is consistent with the evidence if and only if X is not contradicted by any evidence. So if there is no evidence which contradicts X, then X is consistent with the evidence- and if X is consistent with the evidence, then X is possible (so far as we know).

So, unless you are aware of some evidence that Christ was not a fraud, then it follows that it is possible that Christ was a fraud.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well, this thread has certainly been very constructive.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Do you really think that annoying people until they stop trying to reason with you counts as a win.

Please. You never really started, and this "annoying people until they stop trying to reason with you" is just a flimsy cop-out anyways. Stop the smoke and show me the fire, this hand-waving adds nothing to your posts.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Well, this thread has certainly been very constructive.

Yeah, it helps when people are willing to actually put up or shut up.

 

[outhouse]

Yeah, it helps when people are willing to actually put up or shut up.

I keep asking mythicist to do just that.

Quit attacking credible scholarships looking for loopholes.

And try and make their own replacement hypothesis for a martyred man at Passover.

All I ever get is hey dude its fiction so they wrote these books in the second century man and made all this stuff up and junk. ya man.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

And since we've got some basic definitions out of the way, the crucial question is this- is there any credible evidence that Christ was not a fraud? If not, then necessarily, it is possible that he was a fraud.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yeah, it helps when people are willing to actually put up or shut up.

Yup. You're right about that. People play too many games and think that they're clever.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I keep asking mythicist to do just that.

Quit attacking credible scholarships looking for loopholes.

And try and make their own replacement hypothesis for a martyred man at Passover.

All I ever get is hey dude its fiction so they wrote these books in the second century man and made all this stuff up and junk. ya man.

I honestly don't have a firm commitment either way; the evidence seems equivocal, and both sides are so mired in ideology and bias that it's hard to make an honest assessment. And ultimately, the point doesn't amount to much either way- if there was a historical Christ, this in itself provides no presumption of the truth of any of the doctrines or teachings of Christianity. I would not be at all surprised if there was a historical figure loosely corresponding to the Christ of the Gospels, but the evidence strikes me as far from conclusive. But this is outside of the scope of the thread so I'll just leave it at that; as far as the possibility that Christ was a fraud, absent any evidence corroborating any of the claims made by/about him, there really isn't any other tenable conclusion than that it is indeed possible. (for my part, I'd go one further and say that it is not only possible, but probable, but that's just me)

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Yup. You're right about that. People play too many games and think that they're clever.

Indeed; I was under the impression that there is a "jokes and misc" sub-forum if you only want to make cutesy comments and avoid any substantial debate.

 

[outhouse]

I honestly don't have a firm commitment either way; the evidence seems equivocal, and both sides are so mired in ideology and bias that it's hard to make an honest assessment. And ultimately, the point doesn't amount to much either way- if there was a historical Christ, this in itself provides no presumption of the truth of any of the doctrines or teachings of Christianity. I would not be at all surprised if there was a historical figure loosely corresponding to the Christ of the Gospels, but the evidence strikes me as far from conclusive. But this is outside of the scope of the thread so I'll just leave it at that; as far as the possibility that Christ was a fraud, absent any evidence corroborating any of the claims made by/about him, there really isn't any other tenable conclusion than that it is indeed possible. (for my part, I'd go one further and say that it is not only possible, but probable, but that's just me)

I started out with that view.


After years of study and a college class, I think there was a figure that the NT doesn't really portray.


I see a Galilean Zealot traveling teacher that learned not to stay in one spot and have what happened top JtB happen to him. Unfortunately the country boy didn't fair to well in the temple and met his end.

I don't think he had a bit of fame while alive. Only with the mythology surrounding his martyrdom did he ever find fame.

 

[outhouse]

And since we've got some basic definitions out of the way, the crucial question is this- is there any credible evidence that Christ was not a fraud? If not, then necessarily, it is possible that he was a fraud.

I think all the evidence points to the authors doing all the creating here.


Do you see anything at all that points to the teacher as claiming he was god or even son of, or anything else for that matter?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I started out with that view.


After years of study and a college class, I think there was a figure that the NT doesn't really portray.

To be fair, I didn't really "start out" with this view; I was raised Lutheran, and largely took the teachings at face value. Later, when I rejected theism, I probably tended to view it as entirely mythological. My present view is the result of an adequate, but not extensive, familiarity with the literature on the subject; I'm aware of most of the primary pieces of evidence and/or arguments that either side tend to emphasize, but I just don't see the matter as at all conclusive, and I'm less interested in the entire subject than others because it ultimately doesn't have any significant consequences either way. But, as I said, this is a separate can of worms. Regarding the mere possibility of Christ being real but fraudulent, the matter is far more black-and-white, as I've noted.