Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?

[steeltoes]

Thats because it looks like you have to discount evidence, like creationist do to evolution which is now fact.

And they make the same claims you do.

The irony here is that the creationists agree with outhouse.

Outhouse can only offer his opinion yet he claims to offer evidence, none of which is ever provided. If outhouse could offer evidence this could be all over and done with.

 

[steeltoes]

Wow, this is a hardline debate.

What is the "mythicist position"?

Like the missionary position but in reverse.

 

[oldbadger]

Had many great ideas, but is only one opinion of many credible scholars.

At the end of day, you have to decide for yourself.

What we see, is Pailte there to police the event, and to collect and take back the taxes required. .
It was Pilates job to keep the peace and keep the money flowing.

Source............

LOL
Yes, written 40 years later by people that were not even there, writing to a Roman audience. Jesus very enemy.

...............probably using Bephas's and other's notes, plus I think that Mark was there as a youth. He wrote to the world, not to those who already knew the truth....... His book refuted (and still refutes) much of the rest of the NT. I have often wondered how it survived, and there is this angle... this possibility:-
That the Council decided to keep it in simply because it was written be eye witnesses...... including Mark, as supported by significant people such as Papias and Irenaeus.... Please don't repeat all that stuff to refute P.

If Jesus had tipped over a bank tellers stand, he would have been wrestled to the ground by a guard and taken out and hanged with other thiefs caught.

Source......

You dont jus walk into the national treasury and have untold money not guarded and protected from large crowds.

Yeshua is reported to have done so..... I trust in G-Mark's report before others. :yes:

The correct answer is we dont know what kind of disturbance happened, and we dont know how long jesus stayed in the temple afterwards.

If you declare 'no knowledge', why are you saying that you are so sure of the above sentences?

Yet we see Romans controlling all with military presense at the temple to keep peace.

You see? Where did you see this? There were 2000 priests/Levites there to control all, and these persons had senior duties such as military commands, Judges, officials, etc etc... Pilate didn't have that big a force, and their base was on the coast.

Romans also placed their own Hellenist in power to run the temple and control the money.

Well please tell that to another posting member who is refuting that point.
One minute you tell me that Romans controlled, next you tell me that Hellenised Jews were appointed to control...... Mish Mash!

You mean the rich Hellenist who worked hand in hand with the Romans using Roman muscle controlled everything.

There you are..... you admitted it. The Priesthood were the controllers.....



Oh you mean you will debate the unknown authors compilation?

 

[oldbadger]

Sorry, but the above just doesn't add up, imo, especially because you have the cart in front of the horse. The Romans were the ones who were calling the shots that led to Jesus' execution-- not the Jewish leaders.

......... The prefect had to agree to the execution. But the Sanhedrin (Chief Priest) is reported to have ordered the arrest and 'trial'. I'm going with G-Mark on this.

Nor was this incident with Jesus the only one like it, as there were many self-proclaimed "messiahs" running around, but unless they created trouble for the Romans, they were pretty much just ignored.

Each case should be considered individually............ Clumping incidents together can just confuse and misdirect...... wouldn't you say?

We also know from records how the Sanhedrin operated in general vis-a-vis the Romans,

......... Yes... Good!..... the Sanhedrin was running things...... We agree after all....!....?

so we simply don't have to rely just on the gospels to understand the general procedures used.

..... You do not rely on the Gospels.... The priesthood ran the whole operation. And it is reported that the working people thought that they were like 'quislings' (which is my word, but meaning is about right).

So, I guess we have no common ground to work on.

Well that's fair enough. Such clashes of debating swords can sometimes cause sparks of truth, seen by both sides. Debating such subjects is good.

 

[oldbadger]

The irony here is that the creationists agree with outhouse.

Outhouse can only offer his opinion yet he claims to offer evidence, none of which is ever provided. If outhouse could offer evidence this could be all over and done with.

Stop writing this stuff which I agree with.....!
You denialists should not agree with us HJers! It's very upsetting.....

 

[oldbadger]

Like the missionary position but in reverse.

Can you provide a picture? I'm having difficulty with imagining this...

 

[steeltoes]

Stop writing this stuff which I agree with.....!
You denialists should not agree with us HJers! It's very upsetting.....

What makes me a 'denialist?' I can entertain the idea that Jesus was historical as well as entertaining the idea that Jesus was mythical, do I embrace these ideas? No, we have religious texts and no shortage of opinions offered as to what they mean and that is all we have. What's to embrace, your opinions?

 

[steeltoes]

Can you provide a picture? I'm having difficulty with imagining this...

You are better off leaving it at that.

 

[Mycroft]

A good question to begin with was 'Why Jerusalem'? If Jesus was legitimate, why did God send his son to a relatively isolated, relatively primitive and relatively illiterate part of the world during that time. Why not China? Or Egypt? Or Greece? Who were more advanced and capable of examining evidence?

 

[oldbadger]

What makes me a 'denialist?' I can entertain the idea that Jesus was historical as well as entertaining the idea that Jesus was mythical, do I embrace these ideas? No, we have religious texts and no shortage of opinions offered as to what they mean and that is all we have. What's to embrace, your opinions?

That's getting way too close.....

Do you mean something like:-
1. A man called something like Yehoshua bar Yosef lived and worked around the Capernaum region who was a naturally gifted 'healer' and much impressed with John the Baptist's 'mission'. Was arrested for demonstration in the Temple and executed. Lived circa BCE 4 - circa CE 34. True..... ish?

2. Saul/Paul and others picked up the stories about this man and produced 'Jesus Christ' to create the most amazing religion?

Anywhere even close to your POV?

 

[oldbadger]

You are better off leaving it at that.

:biglaugh:

 

[oldbadger]

........................... it is the accuracy that matters.

OK..... Can we try some accuracy?

How big was the Roman force stationed in Judea, (incl Samaria and Idumea) ?

Apart from Cesarea and the Antonia, what other permanent fortress-garrisons did they have?

What was the size of the Roman military force based at Jerusalem and garrisoned at the Antonia Fortress?

How far into the Temple precincts were Gentiles (incl Romans) allowed to penetrate?.

On what occasions were the Priesthood allowed to execute persons without a Prefect's permission?


Now........ I am going to listen to the scholars on these points, so what can you offer?

 

[sinzzer]

It's not an original thought, but it hit me. What if Christianity is an offbrand, created by a beggar who claimed to be God for fortune? Obviously Jesus did not reveal to want fortune, in fact was very selfless and appeared as wanting to bring fortune to all others.

This simply could be an example of a homeless man expressing communism, not raising his fortune, but taking the small fortune of others altogether, then fractioning it down into equal fortune, and thus him too was given fortune and rose to a common social class.

I am very appreciative of Jesus, but don't view him as the same entity as God or the Holy Spirit (except if you consider my view of the Holy Spirit interconnecting all with God, that Man is Christ blessed with the holy spirit, btw not Christian, my theology includes this too add to its complication). However rude the question may seem, I think God allows me to question with no disrespect, having suddenly getting a more positive and paradigm shifting perspective on Abrahamic (specifically Christian) theology. So, in no way is this meant to disrespect Jesus or spit on his holiness.

Well Jesus is not a fraud, the bible is fraud.
They took his name, and took his teachings litarly and used what they needed for their concept.
You can see it yourself.
Some texts are the same texts as from the gnostic Jesus, the only different is the texs from the bible are taking litarly.
Or there is no teachings in it at al, it only wants people to believe in him and follow the ten commandments and "love" everyone, and also to spread his words. people must believe in Jesus to free them self from the fall of man, original sin.

Like a excample from john 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Wich means believe in Jesus and you wil reach god.
WHile the gnostic words of Jesus said also.

Jesus answered, "I am the true vine”; “I am the way, the truth, and the life."
Wich means his path is the truth, and the only way in life to the source of life.

So the biblical Jesus wants people to believe in Jesus.
They want that you to believe without thinking, "praise him who believe without seeing". They encourage the public to believe without seeing ( thinking). Blind believe.

But the gnostic Jesus want to teach the people by showing them the path to life.
He dont want the people to believe, he wants people to search and investigate and believe when they find.

matthew 7: 8
For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And to everyone who knocks, the door will be opened.

This is doesent mean go to the library and look for the bible and read until you know the book by every letter.
in fact this cant be explain because the bible already say you need to believe, believing a story is accepting it as the truth.
The search for answers stop when you take a concept or answers as the truth.
This means it is a contradiction to ask to believe and to ask to look.
Unless the true meaning of these words were cut out of context.
And ecatly that happend, the gnostic Jesus say the same but the meaning is different.
What he means, look for the truth within yourself, that door is always open because it is the door to your unconscious mind.

Another contradiction is when people say Jesus lives within u, the same people will say you live in sin.
This means while you live in sin Jezus live within u.
And will only support you when you accept Jesus as you redeamer and by believing in him.

but the gnostic Jesus have another message.
Every human is a pure soul, but live in ignorance.
Only by getting knowledge, he can free him self.

But the bible say, believe in me and when you died you wil go to heaven.
While nobody ever came back to say that the bible is correct with there concept.
While on the same time people who are still alive convinced that anyone can free them self while they live, but this theory is fiction.
Its strange how easily it is to accept a illusion as the truth, and then hope for a miracle to change their lifes.
While they could accept the reality by looking at the facts and make choises to be happy in their lifes.

 

[oldbadger]

OK..... Can we try some accuracy?

How big was the Roman force stationed in Judea, (incl Samaria and Idumea) ?

Apart from Cesarea and the Antonia, what other permanent fortress-garrisons did they have?

What was the size of the Roman military force based at Jerusalem and garrisoned at the Antonia Fortress?

How far into the Temple precincts were Gentiles (incl Romans) allowed to penetrate?.

On what occasions were the Priesthood allowed to execute persons without a Prefect's permission?


Now........ I am going to listen to the scholars on these points, so what can you offer?

....... Ahhhh..... I waited...... and I waited....

All to no avail, it seems......

 

[steeltoes]

That's getting way too close.....

Do you mean something like:-
1. A man called something like Yehoshua bar Yosef lived and worked around the Capernaum region who was a naturally gifted 'healer' and much impressed with John the Baptist's 'mission'. Was arrested for demonstration in the Temple and executed. Lived circa BCE 4 - circa CE 34. True..... ish?

2. Saul/Paul and others picked up the stories about this man and produced 'Jesus Christ' to create the most amazing religion?

Anywhere even close to your POV?

I don't know who influenced Paul, perhaps Philo. The epistles writers appear to have no awareness of a Jesus from Nazareth. As far as the gospel story is concerned I have no way of knowing if any of it is true or if all of it is true.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The epistles writers appear to have no awareness of a Jesus from Nazareth.

To me, it seems like a 500-pound gorilla on the living-room sofa.

The epistles writers -- in 50 CE - 60 CE or so -- seem oblivious to a Jesus from Nazareth.

Therefore I must conclude that no such Jesus actually existed at that time but was created later by gMark.

(Just my opinion, everyone. Not actual fact or anything.)

 

[fantome profane]

A good question to begin with was 'Why Jerusalem'? If Jesus was legitimate, why did God send his son to a relatively isolated, relatively primitive and relatively illiterate part of the world during that time. Why not China? Or Egypt? Or Greece? Who were more advanced and capable of examining evidence?

Because "God" is Jewish.

 

[metis]

It's impossible to know the actual size of the Romans that occupied eretz Israel, but there's absolutely no doubt they controlled the region and only allowed us to have limited sovereignty. They called the shots, which is clearly evidence by their extensive use of crucifixion and impalement, neither of which are allowed under Jewish Law. Historians also tell us that Pilate was called to Rome to explain his brutality.

I was on a dig just west of Jerusalem in 1998 at a site whereas we tried to hide out in cisterns from the Romans, but the group that was there was finally discovered and the Romans filled it with sand so it couldn't be used again. There we found Jewish pottery shards, so there's no doubt we used that site.

We also know that during Passover tensions ran higher and the Roman presence was greater. The Sanhedrin was allowed to police things to a large extent but that was contingent on us keeping the order. Obviously, the Sanhedrin had no choice but to go along with the demands of the Romans as it was a well-known fact that the Romans would not tolerate anything that threatened their hold on things.

Jesus threatened that order, by all indications, so he was arrested probably by Jewish guards. But what happened after that is somewhat cloaked in mystery. If he was arrested on Passover, the Sanhedrin couldn't meet as a group, so the practice is that one member would make a decision if an emergency arose and then that decision could be revisited after Passover was completed.

If Jesus was arrested on the preparation day just prior to Passover, they could have met, but why such a haste to deal with him since relatively minor things could have had him arrested and tried after Passover was completed days later? If it was done in haste, then the Romans must have been convinced that this wasn't such a minor thing that he did after all. Indeed, since Jesus did have at least somewhat of a following, it would make sense that the Romans would deal with that "problem" quickly to send a message to his followers.

Either way, there's no doubt whatsoever that the Romans were calling the shots in the final analysis, and there were myriads of dead Jews during the Roman occupation to prove that point.

 

[oldbadger]

I don't know who influenced Paul, perhaps Philo. The epistles writers appear to have no awareness of a Jesus from Nazareth. As far as the gospel story is concerned I have no way of knowing if any of it is true or if all of it is true.

Ok..... What of this Philo? Can you tell more?

 

[oldbadger]

It's impossible to know the actual size of the Romans that occupied eretz Israel, but there's absolutely no doubt they controlled the region and only allowed us to have limited sovereignty. They called the shots, which is clearly evidence by their extensive use of crucifixion and impalement, neither of which are allowed under Jewish Law. Historians also tell us that Pilate was called to Rome to explain his brutality.

I was on a dig just west of Jerusalem in 1998 at a site whereas we tried to hide out in cisterns from the Romans, but the group that was there was finally discovered and the Romans filled it with sand so it couldn't be used again. There we found Jewish pottery shards, so there's no doubt we used that site.

We also know that during Passover tensions ran higher and the Roman presence was greater. The Sanhedrin was allowed to police things to a large extent but that was contingent on us keeping the order. Obviously, the Sanhedrin had no choice but to go along with the demands of the Romans as it was a well-known fact that the Romans would not tolerate anything that threatened their hold on things.

Jesus threatened that order, by all indications, so he was arrested probably by Jewish guards. But what happened after that is somewhat cloaked in mystery. If he was arrested on Passover, the Sanhedrin couldn't meet as a group, so the practice is that one member would make a decision if an emergency arose and then that decision could be revisited after Passover was completed.

If Jesus was arrested on the preparation day just prior to Passover, they could have met, but why such a haste to deal with him since relatively minor things could have had him arrested and tried after Passover was completed days later? If it was done in haste, then the Romans must have been convinced that this wasn't such a minor thing that he did after all. Indeed, since Jesus did have at least somewhat of a following, it would make sense that the Romans would deal with that "problem" quickly to send a message to his followers.

Either way, there's no doubt whatsoever that the Romans were calling the shots in the final analysis, and there were myriads of dead Jews during the Roman occupation to prove that point.

Great Post......

This speed or response that was obviously wanted urgently....... They had to flog Yeshua very badly (to increase blood loss?) and crucify him with nails etc in order to reduce the three day death down to a few hours. They obviously wanted as many people to witness or hear that he was definitely dead before the end of that day, and also because the next day was a sabbath (?). ....... all this before people began to leave the area, maybe?

What do you thibnk?


Also, have you any ideas on how many soldiers would have been stationed in Antonia Fortress? For that matter, how many in Cesarea, and all Judea, Samaria and Idumea?