Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?

[Thief]

Exactly.

Because in case you didn't pay attention, the OP wanted to know about history, not theology.

Nay to you....I read the op.....
You're just leaning on your crutch.

 

[outhouse]

I believe that:-
It was during this time that Saul/Paul had a blinding idea....... the manipulation of masses through HIS new religion. He grabbed a compilation of factors and ideas and began to build. He needed concepts from people such as Philo, etc, and he needed a figurehead. Jesus and Christianity sprung up, not from Yeshua or John the Baptist but from Paul. Xianity is 'Pauline'.

One man cannot spread a religion by teaching in a few homes here and there.

The seperation of Hellenist from Judaism was going to happen with or without Paul.


Hellenist for hundreds of years were half converting to Judaism, and they got tired of the strict rules of Judaism as well they did not want to be identified as trouble makers in the roman communities. Jews were viewed as trouble makers by Romans and the Hellenist wanted no part of the persecution, but wanted to reform Judaism their own way.

Jesus death lit the match that started the seperation, not something Paul did.


The movement did not grow in Judaism at all, if it had, we would have Aramaic and Hebrew gospels, instead we have absolutely none, and no transliterations from the Greek text showing a Aramiac or Hebrew origin.

 

[outhouse]

Nay to you....I read the op.....
You're just leaning on your crutch.

This is a historical discussion about the man himself, this is not about your personal faith.

 

[columbus]

This is a mix-up.

The growth of Yeshua's and John-t-B's missions was developing (including in the Diaspora) before Paul came on-scene, in fact Paul was Saul and (somehow) commissioned to put these groups down.


I believe that:-
It was during this time that Saul/Paul had a blinding idea....... the manipulation of masses through HIS new religion. He grabbed a compilation of factors and ideas and began to build. He needed concepts from people such as Philo, etc, and he needed a figurehead. Jesus and Christianity sprung up, not from Yeshua or John the Baptist but from Paul. Xianity is 'Pauline'.

I don't think Paul quite the charlatan you describe. I think he found a good deal of beauty in the part of Jesus' Message that Jesus' followers were willing to share with their persecutors. Paul never knew Jesus' full agenda. So he started a new religion.

Tom

 

[outhouse]

So he started a new religion.

Tom

There is no evidence, he started anything.

He tells us he was not alone, many of his original epistles were co authored.

He also tells us there were many others teaching in the Diaspora.

he also claims he was hunting the sect down in the Diaspora, this means the movement was well under way without him. It was not a Jewish movement in the Diaspora it was a Hellenistic movement.

 

[oldbadger]

one man cannot spread a religion by teaching in a few homes here and there.

The seperation of hellenist from judaism was going to happen with or without paul.


Hellenist for hundreds of years were half converting to judaism, and they got tired of the strict rules of judaism as well they did not want to be identified as trouble makers in the roman communities. Jews were viewed as trouble makers by romans and the hellenist wanted no part of the persecution, but wanted to reform judaism their own way.

Jesus death lit the match that started the seperation, not something paul did.

source...?

 

[oldbadger]

I don't think Paul quite the charlatan you describe. I think he found a good deal of beauty in the part of Jesus' Message that Jesus' followers were willing to share with their persecutors. Paul never knew Jesus' full agenda. So he started a new religion.

Tom

Ok........ Fair enough......
I can moderate to the above.

As you write:- So he started a new religion.......

 

[oldbadger]

Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
Romans were masters of mortal punishment.

I have heard of one person surviving a cross, and thats it.

You've read about a crucifixion survivor from that period?
Where can I read this, plx?

? Any help with the above....?

 

[oldbadger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
600 were stationed at the tower. Ive heard a few thousand came in for Passover.

Quote:
They placed the cross in entrance and exit ways, to really let that example of what not to do soak in.

You mention 'the Tower'. Is this the same building as the Antonia Fortress?


Where have you read this?
Have they found post-holes in these places, or what?

Any help with the above?

 

[outhouse]

? Any help with the above....?

You should know this.

Josephus told Titus 3 of his friends were on a cross. TItus ordered their removal.

2 did not survive, one did.

 

[Mycroft]

The first question is: Did a man named Jesus exist in the first century?

The answer, based on evidence, leans towards yes.

The next questions, then, are as follows?

1) Was he simply a man with a few ideas, executed due to subversion against the Roman Empire?

2) Was he a terrorist against the Roman Empire and was executed thusly?

3) Did he claim to be the Son of God and executed for fraud?

In the case of 3, how would it come about? How do you get people to believe you're the Son of God?

Well, to get people to believe things - no matter how wacky they may be - is surprisingly simple. You target a specific group of people (in this case a group of isolated, poorly read and educated people under the oppression of the Roman Empire) and tailor your claims to cater to their cognitive bias.

We can see evidence of people doing this in our own recent history. L. Ron Hubbard with Scientology managed to start a 'religion', though many claim it simply to be a cult (me included).

Joseph Smith is a particularly interesting case. The man who started Mormonism. Here was a man who had been on trial several times for fraud. And yet he managed to start a religion (whatever you believe about it, starting a religion is no mean feat). And he managed to do this even though the claims he made were very closely based on claims he had made previously that had got him on trial for fraud (previous charges of fraud were based on him being a 'treasure hunter' and being able to 'find gold' using a 'scrying orb', which loosely resonates with 'finding golden' tablets 'beneath a rock'). His religion gained popularity by targeting vulnerable single women, usually single women who had recently had a death in the family.

I can imagine that two thousand or so years ago, with the absence of science, reason and technology, it would have been even easier to get people to believe you're the Son of God.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The first question is: Did a man named Jesus exist in the first century?

The answer, based on evidence, leans towards yes.

Not in my view. The evidence leans toward No.

 

[Mycroft]

Not in my view. The evidence leans toward No.

That's the great thing about empirical evidence, one's view is irrelevant.

 

[outhouse]

Any help with the above?

The Gospel of Peter: from Jesus the Zealot to Jesus Christ - Tom Rogers - Eclectica Magazine v7n3

It was at Passover then, when religious and nationalistic fervor ran high and hot, that trouble would start. What made the Roman apprehension all the greater was that the milling multitude included tens of thousands of the rough, tough Gallileans who were mostly Zealots and ardent Messianists. Expected to control the myriad's was a force consisting of the Jewish Temple Police—amounting to no more than a probable two hundred—and one cohort of Roman troops, normally five hundred men. When Pontius Pilate made his customary Passover visit from his palace in Caesarea, he brought another cohort of seasoned troops to stiffen the Temple Guard in the riot season, as would Herod Antipas, with an additional cohort.

 

[outhouse]

I can imagine that two thousand or so years ago, with the absence of science, reason and technology, it would have been even easier to get people to believe you're the Son of God.


.

The son of god, was a term given to mortal men, the Emperor was viewed as the son of god.

There is no evdience while jesus was alive he was compared with he Emperor, only after death in mythology

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That's the great thing about empirical evidence, one's view is irrelevant.

Right. Everyone whose view differs from mine is irrelevant.

Still, I find it interesting to hear them argue for their flawed views sometimes.

 

[outhouse]

Right. Everyone whose view differs from mine is irrelevant.

Still, I find it interesting to hear them argue for their flawed views sometimes.

Only your stating flaws though. And not building a credible case for or against, just shooting comments out from the hip that you dont like the current state of scholarships.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Only your stating flaws though. And not building a credible case for or against, just shooting comments out from the hip that you dont like the current state of scholarships.

Nonsense. I can outargue anyone on the subject, of course.

 

[Mycroft]

Right. Everyone whose view differs from mine is irrelevant.

Still, I find it interesting to hear them argue for their flawed views sometimes.

It's really not about differing views. It's about evidence.

 

[steeltoes]

It's really not about differing views. It's about evidence.

It's about opinions, there is no evidence for an historical Jesus, just the NT and opinions. If there was evidence one would think that someone would have presented it by now.