Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?

[Enai de a lukal]

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

Perhaps, but absent any evidence that the accounts are accurate, it follows that it is possible that they are not accurate. So far as it goes, the evidence does point to the inaccuracy owing largely to the authors of the Gospels, but this doesn't really affect the answer to the question posed by the OP.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

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, if 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. 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.

It's like what Ambiguous Guy and I were saying earlier about it really being a moot point. If there was someone behind all the mythological layers, they're lost to history forever. The only version(s) of Christ we know of are in religious writings by sect members. So it doesn't really matter if we go the whole nine and say there was no real human who inspired those writings. If you reject the religious fantasies about him, you're rejecting Jesus period. So non-believers bickering back and forth about it is a stupid waste of time and makes no sense. We're really all in the same boat.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

It's like what Ambiguous Guy and I were saying earlier about it really being a moot point. If there was someone behind all the mythological layers, they're lost to history forever. The only version(s) of Christ we know of are in religious writings by sect members. So it doesn't really matter if we go the whole nine and say there was no real human who inspired those writings. If you reject the religious fantasies about him, you're rejecting Jesus period. So non-believers bickering back and forth about it is a stupid waste of time and makes no sense. We're really all in the same boat.

I agree with this, to an extent; we likely will never be able to conclusively verify the matter, just like many questions regarding ancient history. Informed speculation is basically the best we can do. That said, given my academic background, I would hesitate to make too much of this point, because it would seem to imply that further scholarly investigation into the matter is pointless; a sentiment with which I vehemently disagree. So long as there is something that can be done, I feel that scholarly investigation is ALWAYS desirable. Even if we cannot conclusively settle the matter, knowing more is always better than knowing less. Unfortunately, as you point out, this is a fairly sensitive subject, and people on EITHER side are usually pretty invested in the matter- so it makes objectivity difficult, and discussions tend to get messy. That said, the only way out is through, as they say.

 

[outhouse]

Perhaps, but absent any evidence that the accounts are accurate, it follows that it is possible that they are not accurate. So far as it goes, the evidence does point to the inaccuracy owing largely to the authors of the Gospels, but this doesn't really affect the answer to the question posed by the OP.

Due to the date of the writings, it cannot be the man in question.

We also have different versions, which takes all the possible blame, on said man.

Does it not?


What could the Galilean said or done that could even make him fraudulent?



Greek writing from a Aramaic is more evidence of no fraud

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I agree with this, to an extent; we likely will never be able to conclusively verify the matter, just like many questions regarding ancient history. Informed speculation is basically the best we can do. That said, given my academic background, I would hesitate to make too much of this point, because it would seem to imply that further scholarly investigation into the matter is pointless; a sentiment with which I vehemently disagree. So long as there is something that can be done, I feel that scholarly investigation is ALWAYS desirable. Even if we cannot conclusively settle the matter, knowing more is always better than knowing less. Unfortunately, as you point out, this is a fairly sensitive subject, and people on EITHER side are usually pretty invested in the matter- so it makes objectivity difficult, and discussions tend to get messy. That said, the only way out is through, as they say.

No, you're right, too. We certainly shouldn't give up investigating it. The case certainly isn't closed. I just don't have any hope for it. Lol.

 

[outhouse]

As it stands, the Galilean has historicity by all historical standards. "IF" that's the case, he is innocent.


One would have to prove the Galilean mythical to make a fraudulent claim by a unknown person. Which will be hard because we have a widespread movement of people who thought the opposite.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

No, you're right, too. We certainly shouldn't give up investigating it. The case certainly isn't closed. I just don't have any hope for it. Lol.

One useful skill you learn while studying philosophy is how to give up on any hope of ever solving anything, and be content with simply understanding the problem better.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

One useful skill you learn while studying philosophy is how to give up on any hope of ever solving anything, and be content with simply understanding the problem better.

Hahaha. Very good point.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Due to the date of the writings, it cannot be the man in question.

We also have different versions, which takes all the possible blame, on said man.

Does it not?

Does it make it less likely? Sure. Does it make it impossible? I don't see how that is so.

 

[outhouse]

Does it make it less likely? Sure. Does it make it impossible? I don't see how that is so.

If its fraud, it wouldn't be the Galilean now would it?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

If its fraud, it wouldn't be the Galilean now would it?

As I said, the date of the writings and other factors make it less likely, but hardly an impossibility. How do you figure it would rule that out entirely?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I think he was merely pointing out that, for this particular question, whether you believe he actually existed or not is irrelevant. The question is, SUPPOSING/GRANTING that Christ existed... blah blah blah.

I don't sit up nights wondering whether Paul Bunyon might have been a hypochondriac, so it's hard for me to speculate whether Jesus might have been a fraudster.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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.

Um....

Umm....

You might want to review that message (#217). Sometimes we lose track of who's who.

 

[steeltoes]

One useful skill you learn while studying philosophy is how to give up on any hope of ever solving anything, and be content with simply understanding the problem better.

Exactly. One can entertain the idea that Jesus was historical in some capacity and one can also entertain the idea that Christianity began with a mythical figure, however embracing those ideas is best left to the believers that pretend to know.

 

[Thief]

Exactly. One can entertain the idea that Jesus was historical in some capacity and one can also entertain the idea that Christianity began with a mythical figure, however embracing those ideas is best left to the believers that pretend to know.

Well....SOMEBODY put those parables together.

If you don't want to credit the Carpenter....that's up to the non-believer.

 

[steeltoes]

Well....SOMEBODY put those parables together.

If you don't want to credit the Carpenter....that's up to the non-believer.

Those parables got tossed into a gospel story along with some teachings and sayings, that in itself does not mean that the creator of those parables necessarily founded a religion, although it can't be ruled out either. We can entertain any idea we wish to, but only a fool knows the truth of things that can't be known.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Well....SOMEBODY put those parables together.

If you don't want to credit the Carpenter....that's up to the non-believer.

I'm guessing that the parables were part of the 'oral tradition' which our scholars so love to proclaim. Also the sayings.

But I'm sure that later theological types also added them to the NT as it was compiled.

Do you think that every saying and every parable came from the mouth of Jesus?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Um....

Umm....

You might want to review that message (#217). Sometimes we lose track of who's who.

Fixed, thanks.

 

[outhouse]

As I said, the date of the writings and other factors make it less likely, but hardly an impossibility. How do you figure it would rule that out entirely?

As it stands a galilean Jew did not write the greek scriptures which was written for non Jews in the Diaspora.

We also have different versions and descriptions of a galilean.

It sort of rules out a galilean Jewish teacher.


And if it was fraud, the galilean is also innocent because Hellenist authors committed the fraud.

 

[steeltoes]

I'm guessing that the parables were part of the 'oral tradition' which our scholars so love to proclaim. Also the sayings.

I love 'oral tradition,' it allows me to know what people were saying in the first century Holy land.