Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?

[oldbadger]

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

OK..... get your point.
But is this thread really about 'Christ'?

Sum headed the thread, ' Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?'
I feel confident that there was a living breathing tradesman who developed some amazing healing abilities, and who slowly reduced his wood and stoneworking skills as his healing circuit increased. Yeshua did not know the names of Jesus or Christ and he never claimed to be a God.

John the Baptist was obviously attracted to Yeshua's ability to wow the crowds, and it was John who was so outraged by the injustice, hypocrisy and dishonesty of the ruling class and the priesthood. Yeshua picked up John's mantle after John's arrest, and carried it for about 11-12 months before he was brought down.

G-Mark details many incidents from that 11-12 month period, and his description of Yeshua's downfall was clear. It's the rest of the NT that varies from exaggerated to fraudulent.

Yeshua was a true and beautiful person. The religions that Paul gathered, adapted and built upon into Christianity is the fable.

 

[outhouse]

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 could never see it that way.

Jesus, fighting Hellenistic corruption in the temple due to Roman oppression.

And you want to say 40 years after Jesus death a 70 ish year old Mark finally decides to write, and when he does, he is writing a religion for Jesus enemies????

Why did it take Mark so long to start writing?


Why is he writing to Romans?


Why are Galilean peasant fishermen literate in Greek?


Did mark ever get to Galilee? Where did he meet Jesus?


Why are there no early Aramaic gospels, or even transliterations one WOULD find if one had translated Aramaic or Hebrew into Koine Greek?

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Whethor or not Jesus was some sort of demigod is irrelevant.
Anyone who is high(mentally) enough to do and say what Jesus did in the four Gospels, would be called a saint or prophet.

St Valentinus said that Jesus new himself as a child of God to do miracles.
The father gives his child whatever he wants.
Most people do not become children of God, but instead remain slaves of fate, slaves of God. & nobody gives their slaves presents.

 

[outhouse]

John the Baptist

You do know that Mark is a compilation of different sources?


If he was witness, we would not need a compilation, would we?



You also might reflect on what we do have for scripture could very well be a majority of JtB teachings that Jesus used.

Not only that what is remembered is oral traditions and teachings from Galilee that JtB was part of.

I wouldn't even want to guess how much material originated with him, since Jesus was his student.

 

[psychoslice]

OK..... get your point.
But is this thread really about 'Christ'?

Sum headed the thread, ' Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?'
I feel confident that there was a living breathing tradesman who developed some amazing healing abilities, and who slowly reduced his wood and stoneworking skills as his healing circuit increased. Yeshua did not know the names of Jesus or Christ and he never claimed to be a God.

John the Baptist was obviously attracted to Yeshua's ability to wow the crowds, and it was John who was so outraged by the injustice, hypocrisy and dishonesty of the ruling class and the priesthood. Yeshua picked up John's mantle after John's arrest, and carried it for about 11-12 months before he was brought down.

G-Mark details many incidents from that 11-12 month period, and his description of Yeshua's downfall was clear. It's the rest of the NT that varies from exaggerated to fraudulent.

Yeshua was a true and beautiful person. The religions that Paul gathered, adapted and built upon into Christianity is the fable.

I don't think there was ever a Jesus, that has been the fraud of the whole story.

 

[steeltoes]

I don't think there was ever a Jesus, that has been the fraud of the whole story.

There may not have been a Jesus, but if that is the case it is not necessarily due to fraud, it could simply be a misunderstanding.

 

[psychoslice]

There may not have been a Jesus, but if that is the case it is not necessarily due to fraud, it could simply be a misunderstanding.

It could yes, but I don't think so myself.

 

[arcanum]

Pretty much. There's too much money to be made, sheep to be fleeced, irrational emotional ties to cling to, etc.

Personally, I don't think there was an actual person it was based on. I think the whole thing grew out of some of the various mystery cults that mixed Hellenic and Judaic concepts. "Jesus" seems to have been a device used by cult leaders to impart spiritual teachings to their followers. Only much later was he given a fleshy body and a life on earth by non-occult/more mundane members of this movement. In this way, "Jesus" is like the Greek Orpheus. His character was used in the same way by his followers but he only exists in myth. It was just stories to pass on teachings and place them in a certain context. But they didn't actually happen and the main characters didn't actually exist. It's simple, really, when you think about it.

I'm guessing here and not necessarily disagreeing with you but did you get this idea in part from the book The Jesus Mysteries by Freke and Gandy? what you mentioned seems to sum up their theory on Jesus. That the Gnostics came first and not the other way around, and that the Gnostics didn't believe in a flesh in blood Jesus but later groups took the the Jesus stories to be a of literal flesh and blood man which is the side which one out.

 

[arcanum]

I believe that Jesus existed because something must have happened over 2,000 years ago for us to start counting from that date.

Jesus also must have been pretty popular to get so many followers during and after his death.

If, in fact, you believe that Jesus preached love and forgiveness....if he made miracles happen, then he certainly was no 'fraud', but that's all a matter of faith.

If you have faith in a 'fraud', then they are not fraudulent - well, they are according to those who do not have faith, but since when do the opinions of the faithless influence those who have it?

At risk of yet another round of debating with my fellow Hindu brethren (which I am really not in the mood for), I see Jesus as another 'holy man' or 'sadhu' like Buddha or Vivekananda. He is the 'guru' for many, and his teachings are in the Bible.

If one believes in the Bible, there's no room to even consider that Jesus was fraudulent. He was just a divinely inspired soul. He may also have had certain social and political ideologies and influence.

I see Jesus as being a 'troublemaker' really...a threat to the status quo of the time. Whether that was deliberate or unintentional though, is unknown...but he died a martyr anyway - and 'religious martyrs' were pretty big in those days.

Even though I am a Hindu, I often get told I would make a good Christian minister. lol

As a Hindu you would probably find more affinity with The Gospel of Thomas were you find a very different Jesus than the one portrayed in the canonical gospels. Here he is not a miracle worker of a god but a teacher of wisdom, one who imparts enlightenment. The Gospel of Thomas may even predate the Gospels and is definitely worth considering in this discussion, as it does concern what did this man(if he did indeed exist) actually teach.

 

[oldbadger]

I could never see it that way.

OK....... I've yet to read about any two scholars who are in total agreement about HJ. You know that I give respect to your opinions.

Jesus, fighting Hellenistic corruption in the temple due to Roman oppression.

That is not accurate, imo. Yeshua was demonstrating and picketing in protest at 'priesthood' and 'government' corruption. He didn't much care about the Roman occupation, methinks. He was a Galilean, so he didn't give a hoot for the Romans.

And you want to say 40 years after Jesus death a 70 ish year old Mark finally decides to write, and when he does, he is writing a religion for Jesus enemies????

Yes, I do. Not against Yeshua...... against Jesus.
I absolutely have always wondered how G-Mark ever survived and was accepted into the bible. Admittedly it was 'doctored', just as Josephus's mentions of Jesus were, but still....... it was almost certainly 'produced' to answer the Pauline (and other) mythical doctrines.

Why did it take Mark so long to start writing?

For some reason this happened after Cephas's death. Maybe Cephas appealed to Mark to produce the truth about what really happened?

Why is he writing to Romans?

He is writing to the people who needed to be put right. The Galileans alkready knew the truth. He was producing this document for the whole world to take notice of.

Why are Galilean peasant fishermen literate in Greek?

You think Mark was a Galilean peasant fisherman? Good! he Galileans carried this forward by word of mouth, they needed no book. Maybe that is why he was soi close to Cephas. He maybe did not learn to write until his later years, or maybe he used an author? lenty of celebrities etc use authors to this day.

Did mark ever get to Galilee? Where did he meet Jesus?

Oh.... forget the deserts of Libya, do! Mark was there all along, imo.

Why are there no early Aramaic gospels, or even transliterations one WOULD find if one had translated Aramaic or Hebrew into Koine Greek?

Why would there be?........ in a district with a strong tradition of spoken word and passed-on memories?

 

[oldbadger]

You do know that Mark is a compilation of different sources?.

Yes. Well...... Cephas's notes for a start, plus his own memories, plus the records of true witnesses, no doubt. So, Yes.

If he was witness, we would not need a compilation, would we?

Wrong. I am a retired Detective trainer. I know that corroboration is not only strong, but an essential requirement in some countries, such as Scotland. Of course he included all the information possible, to fill in the gaps where he himself was not present.
So, Yes, we need a compilation of accounts.

You also might reflect on what we do have for scripture could very well be a majority of JtB teachings that Jesus used.

Yes! Of course! Yeshua (sadly) chose to pick up John's 'challenge' after John's arrest. It was John's message. Yeshua (sadly) decided to carry it forward. He should have cut and run, and had a full and happy life. But then, the world would have been different. How different!

Not only that what is remembered is oral traditions and teachings from Galilee that JtB was part of.

Yes! Bloody Yes! That is exactly what I think. Yeshua took forward JOHN'S MESSAGE. Look, what Paul did with it later is no business or interest of mine.

I wouldn't even want to guess how much material originated with him, since Jesus was his student

Yes! Friggin' Yes!
Look, I think that you have got half of it. The JtB bit.

What d'ya think?

 

[oldbadger]

I don't think there was ever a Jesus, that has been the fraud of the whole story.

Correct! There never was a Jesus. Cool!

But there was a Tradesman working around the Northern Shoreline of Galilee's Lake, who had a phenomenal ability to heal, counsel, cure and affect placebo cures. His name was Yeshua. I reckon his mates would have called him Yesh, or Yosh......

Don't worry about him....... he never created a religion, he was just used.... by others.

I think you would have liked him, but only if you had been a Galilean.

 

[outhouse]

What d'ya think?

There is no way a friend of jesus would betray the original movment working for their oppressors.


he fought the romans corruption in the temple, he didnt create a religion for them

 

[outhouse]

OK....... I've yet to read about any two scholars who are in total agreement about HJ. You know that I give respect to your opinions.


That is not accurate, imo. Yeshua was demonstrating and picketing in protest at 'priesthood' and 'government' corruption. He didn't much care about the Roman occupation, methinks. He was a Galilean, so he didn't give a hoot for the Romans.


Yes, I do. Not against Yeshua...... against Jesus.
I absolutely have always wondered how G-Mark ever survived and was accepted into the bible. Admittedly it was 'doctored', just as Josephus's mentions of Jesus were, but still....... it was almost certainly 'produced' to answer the Pauline (and other) mythical doctrines.


For some reason this happened after Cephas's death. Maybe Cephas appealed to Mark to produce the truth about what really happened?



He is writing to the people who needed to be put right. The Galileans alkready knew the truth. He was producing this document for the whole world to take notice of.



You think Mark was a Galilean peasant fisherman? Good! he Galileans carried this forward by word of mouth, they needed no book. Maybe that is why he was soi close to Cephas. He maybe did not learn to write until his later years, or maybe he used an author? lenty of celebrities etc use authors to this day.



Oh.... forget the deserts of Libya, do! Mark was there all along, imo.



Why would there be?........ in a district with a strong tradition of spoken word and passed-on memories?

Why do the vast majority of scholars claim the author is unknown?

 

[psychoslice]

Correct! There never was a Jesus. Cool!

But there was a Tradesman working around the Northern Shoreline of Galilee's Lake, who had a phenomenal ability to heal, counsel, cure and affect placebo cures. His name was Yeshua. I reckon his mates would have called him Yesh, or Yosh......

Don't worry about him....... he never created a religion, he was just used.... by others.

I think you would have liked him, but only if you had been a Galilean.

That could be true but I don't know, but then again the whole new testement has taken bits and peieces from all other religious mythologies, and strunged them together like a rosery bead.

 

[oldbadger]

There is no way a friend of jesus would betray the original movment working for their oppressors.

He (Mark) was no friend of Jesus. Didn't know anybody by that name. He was setting the record straight for his mentor's great friend. It was no betrayal, it was simply the truth, and it's there for all to read and think about.

he fought the romans corruption in the temple, he didnt create a religion for them

The Romans did not get involved in the Temple if possible. The money-changing profits went to the priesthood. The sacrifices' incomes went to the priesthood. The sacrificial charges went to the priesthood. It all went to a corrupt and hypocritical priesthood. Look at what John said about the priesthood.
Yes, the Romans had their cuts and taxes, but Yeshua and John were against their quisling upper class, priesthood and ruling family.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

He (Mark) was no friend of Jesus. Didn't know anybody by that name. He was setting the record straight for his mentor's great friend. It was no betrayal, it was simply the truth, and it's there for all to read and think about.



The Romans did not get involved in the Temple if possible. The money-changing profits went to the priesthood. The sacrifices' incomes went to the priesthood. The sacrificial charges went to the priesthood. It all went to a corrupt and hypocritical priesthood. Look at what John said about the priesthood.
Yes, the Romans had their cuts and taxes, but Yeshua and John were against their quisling upper class, priesthood and ruling family.

Do you think those who are Jewish today would agree with that assessment of the priesthood?

 

[oldbadger]

Why do the vast majority of scholars claim the author is unknown?

Please stop hiding behind the blooming scholars!
Make a case or not, but please don't wheel a pack of scholars onto the stage that you don't totally believe in. Cherry-picking the scholars is a sieve full of holes.

 

[oldbadger]

That could be true but I don't know, but then again the whole new testement has taken bits and peieces from all other religious mythologies, and strunged them together like a rosery bead.

Yes. Most of the books are unreliable, but G-Mark, although it has no doubt been tampered with, gives a fairly chronological report of what happened during the 11-12 months that Yeshua picked up JtB's challenge to the Semi-Jewish rulers, Quisling priesthood and general upper class.

But Yeshua was not a God, whereas the mythical Jesus was. If I am right, then ..... relax. You were right all along.

 

[oldbadger]

Do you think those who are Jewish today would agree with that assessment of the priesthood?

That's not for me to guess at. It's for them to come forward and put their own opinions. But John the Baptist clearly had no respect for them, and he got a fairly good press from Josephus, .....No?

I am simply gleaning what can be found in G-Mark.


Edit:- What do you think that Christians today think about the Borgia Family history?
2nd EDIT:- What do you think I think about England's record concerning Ireland? I'm English!