Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?

[roger1440]

Not possible..Jesus Christ was seen by thousands upon thousands of Jews/Gentiles. His crucifixion was documented in different Roman books by people who never believed he was the Son of God, but merely said it was a fact that he lived and was crucified. The Jews who believe he was a false prophet don't even deny he existed or the fact he performed miracles..his birth and link to King David are documented in their census. The Apostles were beaten, ridiculed, mocked, tortured..and eventually all murdered for spreading the gospel of a man who they knew never existed? Did they not exist too? How deep do we want to bring this? Jesus existed. Now, if you want to discuss how we can be sure he was The Son of God that's a different debate altogether.

Please quote your source.

 

[oldbadger]

Well that is wonderful that after a year or two of forum participation, that you now know more then an encyclopedia, and the majority of all biblical scholarships and professors world wide.

I have been studying the gospels carefully since 1994. Although I didn't hear or read the subject title 'HJ' until I arrived here.

Oh...... and I was very very experienced at both writing and studying other people's statements.

It might give me an edge .... here and there.....

 

[outhouse]

So all the scholars in the world decided upon that? They all disqualified Mark as the author but all don't know who compiled Mark?

To claim that he can't be right because he only looked at it yesterday is irrelevant.... weak.

I don't think all the scholars in the World decided upon that at all...... later in the article a scholar is mentioning Mark as the compiler author.

Bring on your case or not. You haven't got a case. G-Mark was a historical document that got adjusted later, just as Josephus's docs got adjusted. Bartholomew mentions the historical aspect in the article that you posted.


Maybe you should have studied and researched and formed your own opinion? Don't tell me I have to walk your path to find the answers.
Here we go again..... off topic to argue about scholarship. You haven't got a case...... have you?
G-Mark is the most accurate of the Gospels. It is also chronologically more likely to be accurate.



What?
Are you joking?
What scholar told you that?
To say a compiler is unknown is one thing. To say that a particular compiler did not 'do it' is rubbish...... I think G-Mark was compiled by Mark.


And Ireneaus? And others?
You need to do better than that.




No it doesn't.
I stated what I think about G-Mark's compiler.
You haven't stated anything.
I don't have to prove a thing to you, and if I did, you would have forgotten about soon after, maybe?



Ha ha..... trying to wander off subject again? This is about G-Mark.



I didn't bring Papias up.......

Papias is the only evidence to place mark as the author. And Papias credibility regarding accuracy is in question.

 

[outhouse]

I have been studying the gospels carefully since 1994. Although I didn't hear or read the subject title 'HJ' until I arrived here.

Oh...... and I was very very experienced at both writing and studying other people's statements.

It might give me an edge .... here and there.....

An edge over professors and trained scholars?

 

[oldbadger]

So should we appeal to ignorance?

Gospel of Mark

The author of the Gospel of Mark does indeed seem to lack first-hand knowledge of the geography of Palestine. Randel Helms writes concerning Mark 11:1 (Who Wrote the Gospels?, p. 6): "Anyone approaching Jerusalem from Jericho would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage,

This is not true. This is incorrect. Bethpage is not even on the Road to Jerusaelm, but somewhere.....somewhere on the Mount of Olives. Position unknown?
See the map below, folks........ see what it says about the position of Bethpage, which is so close the Bethany that you might even describe as Mark did, Bethpage and Bethany.

This is not scholarship......... any old (retired) detective could appeal on that....

not the reverse. This is one of several passages showing that Mark knew little about Palestine;

..........Two hamlet/villages so close that they could almost be together, one of them not even on the main road to Jerusalem.
..........And this proives that Mark did not know...... PALESTINE!
...who pays these Scholars?

we must assume, Dennis Nineham argues, that 'Mark did not know the relative positions of these two villages on the Jericho road' (1963, 294-295).

............... as already shown, Bethpage is not on the Jerischo-Jerusalem road.

Indeed, Mark knew so little about the area that he described Jesus going from Tyrian territory 'by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the territory of the Ten Towns' (Mark 7:31); this is similar to saying that one goes from London to Paris by way of Edinburgh and Rome. The simplist solution, says Nineham, is that 'the evangelist was not directly acquainted with Palestine' (40)."

......... look at the above.......
Damascus, way to the North of the other Ten 'cities', was classed as one of them, and if Jesus wanted to walk a dogleg to the Lake via this part of the Decapolis territory, so he could. And so he did.

Beware of scholars, folks......... I have spent 18 months reading about how absurd some of their ideas can be.......... By all means take their 'findings' into consideration, you can even have faith in the odd one, but don't bet more on it all.......

 

[outhouse]

This is not true. This is incorrect. Bethpage is not even on the Road to Jerusaelm, but somewhere.....somewhere on the Mount of Olives. Position unknown?
See the map below, folks........ see what it says about the position of Bethpage, which is so close the Bethany that you might even describe as Mark did, Bethpage and Bethany.

This is not scholarship......... any old (retired) detective could appeal on that....


..........Two hamlet/villages so close that they could almost be together, one of them not even on the main road to Jerusalem.
..........And this proives that Mark did not know...... PALESTINE!
...who pays these Scholars?


............... as already shown, Bethpage is not on the Jerischo-Jerusalem road.


......... look at the above.......
Damascus, way to the North of the other Ten 'cities', was classed as one of them, and if Jesus wanted to walk a dogleg to the Lake via this part of the Decapolis territory, so he could. And so he did.

Beware of scholars, folks......... I have spent 18 months reading about how absurd some of their ideas can be.......... By all means take their 'findings' into consideration, you can even have faith in the odd one, but don't bet more on it all.......

The geography question has been refuted by many apologist, just not with any credibility.

 

[oldbadger]

An edge over professors and trained scholars?

You're never going to be your own student whilst you are prejudiced against the lay people.

I have read you ripping professors and scholars to pieces.

You need to break free to do something for yourself.

 

[oldbadger]

The geography question has been refuted by many apologist, just not with any credibility.

No no...... The position of Bethpage, like so many other villages and even larger centres, is in doubt..... and argued amongst........ the scholars.

By all means read the scholars, but you must be yourself, to decide what is more or less likely.... for yourself. And then you have to build your case..... and then, for goodness sake.... stand by it!

No more dodging about. No more wheeling scholars on to stage to show some tiny morself of their findings and declare this as of more value than, say, all the others....... cherry picking the scholars.

So..... make your own case, or not.

 

[columbus]

Many many years ago I heard a theory about Jesus I dismissed at the time. It just seemed to calculated to cause offense. But then I read something by Isaac Asimov fleshing out the theory and it started to make sense. The more I learned the more sense it made.

Suppose Jesus were a terrorist? Or a freedom-fighter, if you oppose the Roman occupation of Judea. I don't claim to have any special information, just going by what's in the NT and the situation in 1st century Judea. Judea was rife with violence and intrigue, rather like Baghdad under the second Bush administration. An occupying empire and a puppet government against weak but determined Jewish resistance, with the majority of people just trying to get along in difficult and confusing times.

This explains all sorts of otherwise confusing things, from the noticeable lack of personal history to Pilate executing Jesus with a method usually reserved for rebel slaves and traitors to the Empire. It explains the lack of writing for the first few decades after Jesus' death, as His followers were expecting God to deliver them the victory they were striving to achieve. Then along came Paul, who for some reason picked up Christianity as useful. The original Apostles were hardly going to tell Paul the truth, what with his background in suppressing dissent. So Paul wound up creating a whole new religion based on a garbled version of what Jesus said in public. As Paul's fame grew the Apostles had works written that pointedly did not include Paul. Voila, the synoptic Gospels.

Imagine if the "Kingdom of Heaven" were code for "Sovereign Judea". But obviously things didn't work out to well for Jesus actual followers. And Paul goes on to found a polytheistic Jeudaism, without Mosaic Law
Jesus must be spinning in His grave!

Tom

 

[outhouse]

Many many years ago I heard a theory about Jesus I dismissed at the time. It just seemed to calculated to cause offense. But then I read something by Isaac Asimov fleshing out the theory and it started to make sense. The more I learned the more sense it made.

Suppose Jesus were a terrorist? Or a freedom-fighter, if you oppose the Roman occupation of Judea. I don't claim to have any special information, just going by what's in the NT and the situation in 1st century Judea. Judea was rife with violence and intrigue, rather like Baghdad under the second Bush administration. An occupying empire and a puppet government against weak but determined Jewish resistance, with the majority of people just trying to get along in difficult and confusing times.

This explains all sorts of otherwise confusing things, from the noticeable lack of personal history to Pilate executing Jesus with a method usually reserved for rebel slaves and traitors to the Empire. It explains the lack of writing for the first few decades after Jesus' death, as His followers were expecting God to deliver them the victory they were striving to achieve. Then along came Paul, who for some reason picked up Christianity as useful. The original Apostles were hardly going to tell Paul the truth, what with his background in suppressing dissent. So Paul wound up creating a whole new religion based on a garbled version of what Jesus said in public. As Paul's fame grew the Apostles had works written that pointedly did not include Paul. Voila, the synoptic Gospels.

Imagine if the "Kingdom of Heaven" were code for "Sovereign Judea". But obviously things didn't work out to well for Jesus actual followers. And Paul goes on to found a polytheistic Jeudaism, without Mosaic Law
Jesus must be spinning in His grave!

Tom

That close to what I find the truth.

The proper term is Zealot, and they fought oppression and corruption and originated in Galilee.

Starting any trouble at Passover was a big no no, and one would not need a trial.


Nothing to do with theology and everything to do with money and politics

 

[outhouse]

You're never going to be your own student whilst you are prejudiced against the lay people.

I have read you ripping professors and scholars to pieces.

You need to break free to do something for yourself.

I only debate errors I see, in certain errors.

I do not throw the baby out with the bath water. That is the difference.



What you propose, doesn't make sense and Is not followed outside apologetic scholars.

Its not cherry picking it is a decision based on the evidence, and intended audience Mark was written for.


If it was mark, he would not need to compile many sources and he would not have made so many errors regarding the events .

 

[outhouse]

You need to break free to do something for yourself.

I am.

I am asking you in all your expertise why a witness to the events would claim there was actually a trial?



Was your author a real Jew?

 

[Sha'irullah]

The most common thought about Jesus is that he may have been a wandering holy man of some sorts or religious promoter. Most likely I would say that the real life Jesus had some affiliation to pre-Gnostic teachings of some sort.

 

[outhouse]

Now if the author was a Galilean Jew like Jesus.

Being a more traditional Galilean Jew

Would he have used the Corrupt Hellenistic version of the OT the Septuagint?

You know the same people Jesus was fighting against in the temple?


Or would he have used the Hebrew version traditional Hebrews found importance and loyalty in?



Then explain why your unknown author was known to use the enemies version.

 

[columbus]

The most common thought about Jesus is that he may have been a wandering holy man of some sorts or religious promoter. Most likely I would say that the real life Jesus had some affiliation to pre-Gnostic teachings of some sort.

That isn't incompatible with the social reformer/anti-empirialist. Quite the contrary, it is what I would expect from Jesus given the place and time.
Life was hard for the majority of people. A legalistic Jewish authority, dependent on a pagan military force, must have been anathema to a good Jewish boy like Jesus. So He developed and preached a cutting edge ethic that the little people loved. The various authorities hated it so they killed Him.

Tom

 

[outhouse]

That isn't incompatible with the social reformer/anti-empirialist. Quite the contrary, it is what I would expect from Jesus given the place and time.
Life was hard for the majority of people. A legalistic Jewish authority, dependent on a pagan military force, must have been anathema to a good Jewish boy like Jesus. So He developed and preached a cutting edge ethic that the little people loved. The various authorities hated it so they killed Him.

Tom

Yet that is not what we see.

Jesus was just another sect of Judaism. Romans left Jews alone to believe what they wanted.


Just don't gather large crowds or you would loose your head.


What we do see, is a Galilean loosing his temper in the temple when tensions were high and peace was flat demanded.

Had he not caused a disturbance in the temple, he would have survived that weekend.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Do ya think Jesus would be the kind of Guy to hold a grudge.
He just lost his temper with the corrupt preists.
Jesus was just some Guy, who was also a spiritual teacher.

It would probably be like a guru walking in on one of those
anti-gay churches and claiming "you have desecrated my fathers house"

Jesus doesn't have to be perfect. He knows That and wants to love everyone, but it just burned him up to see God being used to sate the greed & hate of men.

Read Matthew, trust your heart to interprete what he said.
Screw what people Tell you, even me.. just trust your heart and you know that Jesus has lessons to teach. That's why he did what he did, to create friction in the world

in The gospel of Thomas Jesus says:
people think I have come to bring peace, but I have really come to bring chaos to the world.
(Paraphrase, feel free to look that up)

 

[metis]

Yet that is not what we see.

Jesus was just another sect of Judaism. Romans left Jews alone to believe what they wanted.


Just don't gather large crowds or you would loose your head.


What we do see, is a Galilean loosing his temper in the temple when tensions were high and peace was flat demanded.

Had he not caused a disturbance in the temple, he would have survived that weekend.

Yep, I don't think there should be any doubt that the Romans simply weren't gonna put up with anyone disrupting their money-making operations and causing trouble, That we know they simply didn't put up with, and it appears that Jesus and many others learned this the hard way.

 

[columbus]

Rome didn't care what Jews believed about God. But they cared very much about treasonous teaching.
Strong evidence that Jesus was crucified for opposition to Roman rule, not a theological spat with the Sanhedrin.

Tom

ETA~ I was responding to outhouse, but a few posts appeared while I did so~

 

[outhouse]

Rome didn't care what Jews believed about God. But they cared very much about treasonous teaching.
Strong evidence that Jesus was crucified for opposition to Roman rule, not a theological spat with the Sanhedrin.

Tom

ETA~ I was responding to outhouse, but a few posts appeared while I did so~

Then I would ask.

What treasonous teaching do you think Jesus taught?