Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?

[Truth_Faith13]

It's not really a direct answer to the OP and apologies if this has been mentioned before but have you heard of the following?

Lewis's trilemma is an argument intended to prove the divinity of Jesus. It was the proposal of a trilemma (mentioned by others the previous century) that was popularised by C. S. Lewis in a BBC radio talk and in his writings. It is sometimes summarized either as "Lunatic, Liar, or Lord", or as "Mad, Bad, or God".

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I haven't heard of it, would you like to go in depth?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It's not really a direct answer to the OP and apologies if this has been mentioned before but have you heard of the following?

Lewis's trilemma is an argument intended to prove the divinity of Jesus. It was the proposal of a trilemma (mentioned by others the previous century) that was popularised by C. S. Lewis in a BBC radio talk and in his writings. It is sometimes summarized either as "Lunatic, Liar, or Lord", or as "Mad, Bad, or God".

Yeah. Many of us have discussed it in detail.

Bottom line: Why only three choices? Maybe Jesus was simply a peasant preacher who never claimed anything about his own godhood. Not a lunatic; not a liar; not a lord.

Just another preacher.

Personally I don't believe Jesus existed in 30 CE Jerusalem.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Yeah. Many of us have discussed it in detail.

I'm embarrassed.

Bottom line: Why only three choices? Maybe Jesus was simply a peasant preacher who never claimed anything about his own godhood. Not a lunatic; not a liar; not a lord.

Just another preacher.

Personally I don't believe Jesus existed in 30 CE Jerusalem.

Interesting. But while he didn't claim divinity, he did claim prophethood at least, right? That means he did claim that he had some sort of connection with God.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

It is sometimes summarized either as "Lunatic, Liar, or Lord", or as "Mad, Bad, or God".

Aw, it would've sounded so much better as "Mad, Bad, or Dad".

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Interesting. But while he didn't claim divinity, he did claim prophethood at least, right?

Who knows. Are you wanting to accept the gospels as historically accurate? Even if there was a man behind the stories and even if he said everything in RED in the gospels, I'm still unsure what that means. I'm of the opinion that meaning can't exist without the culture in which the language is used to try and express it.

In other words, I think it's silly for people to believe that they can reliably translate the gospels into modern American English.

That means he did claim that he had some sort of connection with God.

I have a special connection to God myself. But I don't think of myself as a lunatic, a liar, or a lord.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Yeah. Many of us have discussed it in detail.

Bottom line: Why only three choices? Maybe Jesus was simply a peasant preacher who never claimed anything about his own godhood. Not a lunatic; not a liar; not a lord.

Just another preacher.

Personally I don't believe Jesus existed in 30 CE Jerusalem.

I don't know if I agree with this but the argument for why there isn't that option is because all the apostles died/were killed in horrible ways, if Jesus never claimed to be the son of God or God...why didn't they just deny him to save their lives?

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Aw, it would've sounded so much better as "Mad, Bad, or Dad".

that would have been good

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I don't know if I agree with this but the argument for why there isn't that option is because all the apostles died/were killed in horrible ways, if Jesus never claimed to be the son of God or God...why didn't they just deny him to save their lives?

First, we don't know how any of the apostles died. Keep in mind how we skeptics think about various stories written 2000 years ago, with obvious theological intent, in a now-dead language, from a now-dead culture, with no secular corroboration, and copied and recopied for hundreds of years by scribes with their own biases.

Second, do you know anything about the history of Mormonism? Smith's followers died in horrible ways rather than abandon him. But I don't think he ever claimed to be the son of God or God.

People are willing to die for all sorts of beliefs.

 

[Quagmire]

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.

So that would be a "yes".

 

[outhouse]

Interesting. But while he didn't claim divinity, he did claim prophethood at least, right? .

Nope.


Only the unknown authors made ths claim.

That means he did claim that he had some sort of connection with God

No.


Only the authors who wrote diferent versions of him and what he said did this.




Remember, the authors are writing decades after the fact, the never knew, met or heard a word pass his lips.

They wrote from a different part of the world and "they" were a different culture and knew very little of Gailean life.

Mark our better and earliest account, doesnt even know the geography correctly he is so far out of the loop.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't know if I agree with this but the argument for why there isn't that option is because all the apostles died/were killed in horrible ways, if Jesus never claimed to be the son of God or God...why didn't they just deny him to save their lives?

*edit* Regardless, cult members die (and kill) for their beliefs all the time. Jonestown, Heaven's Gate, Order of the Solar Temple, etc. So that argument is bunk.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

So that would be a "yes".

Still smokin', and still no fire. Seriously, am I mistaken about there being a "jokes and nonsense" sub-forum for precisely this type of post? I mean, you hardly are obligated to participate in the religious debates sub-forum, but if you choose to do so, what's the point of these types of posts?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Remember, the authors are writing decades after the fact, the never knew, met or heard a word pass his lips.

They wrote from a different part of the world and "they" were a different culture and knew very little of Gailean life.

Mark our better and earliest account, doesnt even know the geography correctly he is so far out of the loop.

But this doesn't make it impossible for him to have made these claims, or roughly similar ones- I mean, even if we're supposing the authors of the Gospels were not operating with ANY reliable information concerning Christ's teachings and actions, its still possible Christ made similar claims, just as a matter of coincidence. This is why I don't find this distinction between Christ being a fraud and later writers making fraudulent claims RE Christ- so far as the evidence goes, we aren't able to distinguish the two since all we have are the reports of subsequent writers; for the purposes of this question, its not a fruitful distinction.

 

[oldbadger]

Mark our better and earliest account, doesnt even know the geography correctly he is so far out of the loop.

Please could you explain the above?
I've only ever noticed one 'oddity' in G-Mark to do with the Eastern shoreline of the Lake...... so..... what have you got?

 

[oldbadger]

Remember, the authors are writing decades after the fact, the never knew, met or heard a word pass his lips.

They wrote from a different part of the world and "they" were a different culture and knew very little of Gailean life.

I reckon that Mark knew Yeshua. And i reckon that he wrote gmark from Cephas,s notes and his own experiences. If a second world war vet wrote about his experiences today, would you discount them as decades too late?

 

[Sees]

I reckon that Mark knew Yeshua. And i reckon that he wrote gmark from Cephas,s notes and his own experiences. If a second world war vet wrote about his experiences today, would you discount them as decades too late?

I wouldn't count it as 100% fact without evidence and/or additional testimony, depending on the claim, especially 70 years later. There are embellishments within a few days of returning home, let alone a few years or a few decades. The embellisment will get further exaggerated and memory loss creeps in over time = further away from the real truthful events. Take this into account with supernatural, religious, spiritual, etc. tales and it is much more so.

 

[oldbadger]

I wouldn't count it as 100% fact without evidence and/or additional testimony, depending on the claim, especially 70 years later. There are embellishments within a few days of returning home, let alone a few years or a few decades. The embellisment will get further exaggerated and memory loss creeps in over time = further away from the real truthful events. Take this into account with supernatural, religious, spiritual, etc. tales and it is much more so.

I remember incidents from 60 years ago, and they seem as clear as day. Equally, accounts of a car crash from unbiaised viewers can be totally different.
Gmark was probably written 35...40 years after Yeshuas execution.
I accept that miraculous events turned quickly into miracles, etc, bit if you strip away the hyperbole and bull you get a very reasonable account out of gmark. I don't try to support any other new testament book.

 

[Quagmire]

Still smokin', and still no fire. Seriously, am I mistaken about there being a "jokes and nonsense" sub-forum for precisely this type of post?

You have a strange sense of humor.

 

[psychoslice]

"What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us!" Pope Leo X.