Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?

[technomage]

What evidence?

Evidence for the existence of a person? The letters of Paul (the genuine ones, not the pseudepigraphic ones), and the various Gospels (canonical and non-canonical). Of course, this evidence must be handled with care and with a critical evaluation as to what reflects actual historical occurrences, and what consists of later doctrinal or theological additions.

 

[Thief]

Evidence for the existence of a person? The letters of Paul (the genuine ones, not the pseudepigraphic ones), and the various Gospels (canonical and non-canonical). Of course, this evidence must be handled with care and with a critical evaluation as to what reflects actual historical occurrences, and what consists of later doctrinal or theological additions.

So....Paul knew Jesus?

and the account of John (thought events differ from the other gospels) is as good as any other?

 

[technomage]

So....Paul knew Jesus?

Paul spoke to Peter, who knew Jesus, and Paul states that he got some of his information from Peter. Of course, to my mind, he also added a considerable amount, due to his theological preferences.

and the account of John (thought events differ from the other gospels) is as good as any other?

As I said, this is why care must be taken in evaluating these books.

ETA: Oh, and I think he spoke to James. But it's late, by brain is sleepy, and my memory is turning into mush. Even worse than usual.

 

[Thief]

Paul spoke to Peter, who knew Jesus, and Paul states that he got some of his information from Peter. Of course, to my mind, he also added a considerable amount, due to his theological preferences.


As I said, this is why care must be taken in evaluating these books.

The story I got.....Paul was on a journey to persecute more believers....
was taken off of is horse by a blinding light.....
lost his sight for several days....
and had a complete change of heart.....

Sounds like a stroke to me.

Care to say why John's gospel is so different?

 

[Sees]

What part of this movement was a mystery?

Tiny glimpse of characteristics of a mystery cult

"In ancient Rome, cults were certain elements of eastern religions were combined with elements of Greek and Roman religions. Well-known examples are the mystery cults of Isis, Cybele, and Attis (Phrygia) and of the old-Iranian Mithra. All these cult forms offer their adepts secret knowledge and rebirth through initiation. This initiation consists of cleansing rites, fasting, and the consecration itself. Sometimes it is accompanied by orgiastic rites, such as wild dances, self-mutilation, or castration like the priests in the cult of Cybele. The sacral meal is often also a part of the initiation."

- Micha Lindemans

 

[technomage]

The story I got.....Paul was on a journey to persecute more believers....
was taken off of is horse by a blinding light.....
lost his sight for several days....
and had a complete change of heart.....

That is his account, yes. However, in one of his letters, he also discussed dpeaking with the folks who had seen Jesus in person.

Sounds like a stroke to me.

A stroke doesn't usually involve hallucinations. It could have been any number of things. From the perspective of naturalism, it could have been a psychotic break, or heatstroke (perhaps this is what you meant?), or hallucination from some other source. While I do not necessarily rule out the possibility of a miraculous vision, I have strong doubts of such.

Care to say why John's gospel is so different?

The Gospel of John came from a different sub-sect within nascent Christianity, one with different theological views and theological arguments that the group wished to present. Yes, they may have still borrowed from the overall Christian oral tradition (especially for the Crucifixion), but they went in some different directions, especially with their claims for the deity of Jesus.

 

[Thief]

That is his account, yes. However, in one of his letters, he also discussed dpeaking with the folks who had seen Jesus in person.



A stroke doesn't usually involve hallucinations. It could have been any number of things. From the perspective of naturalism, it could have been a psychotic break, or heatstroke (perhaps this is what you meant?), or hallucination from some other source. While I do not necessarily rule out the possibility of a miraculous vision, I have strong doubts of such.


The Gospel of John came from a different sub-sect within nascent Christianity, one with different theological views and theological arguments that the group wished to present. Yes, they may have still borrowed from the overall Christian oral tradition (especially for the Crucifixion), but they went in some different directions, especially with their claims for the deity of Jesus.

I suspect tampering on all accounts.....as well as the failed condition of Paul.
What I do believe.....in spite of tampering and health problems....
Man is capable of believing in Something Greater than himself.

But how you believe makes all the difference.
Because someone told you so?.....that would be shallow.
Because you want to go to heaven?....everyone does.

I do use caution what I take unto myself.
It will be all that I have to present.......
see the book of Job.

 

[technomage]

I suspect tampering on all accounts.....

I would not call it "tampering," in that the intent was not to deceive, but to teach something that they considered extremely important.

 

[steeltoes]

Paul spoke to Peter, who knew Jesus, and Paul states that he got some of his information from Peter. Of course, to my mind, he also added a considerable amount, due to his theological preferences.

As I said, this is why care must be taken in evaluating these books.

ETA: Oh, and I think he spoke to James. But it's late, by brain is sleepy, and my memory is turning into mush. Even worse than usual.

"Paul spoke to Peter, who knew Jesus"

Really? Maybe you're just reading the gospels into Paul.

 

[technomage]

"Paul spoke to Peter, who knew Jesus"

Really? Maybe you're just reading the gospels into Paul.

I would say not. With the exception of the Gospel of Mark (which is almost adoptionist in its Christology), Paul has quite a different view to the question of "Who was Jesus" from the authors of the Gospels.

When Paul was writing his letters, Jesus was still seen as a prophet on whom the spirit of God had dwelt, not as God incarnate. We can see the doctrine evolve through Matthew and Luke, but John is the first explicit claim that Jesus and God incarnate were one and the same being.

Watching the doctrine develop over time is fascinating for those who are interested. For those who are not interested, it's probably almost as exciting as watching paint dry.

 

[columbus]

Watching doctrine develop over time is a cool aspect of reading the Bible.

In Genesis God isn't anything like omnipotent, He's just a guy with superpowers. By Exodus He is barely effable, appearing symbolically but much more powerful and knowing. By Jesus' times God is almost the ineffable omnimax being we've all come to Love.
It is like watching Occidental thought increase in sophistication before your very eyes.

Tom

 

[outhouse]

The story I got.....Paul was on a journey to persecute more believers....
was taken off of is horse by a blinding light.....
lost his sight for several days....
and had a complete change of heart.....

Sounds like a stroke to me.

Care to say why John's gospel is so different?

Why don't you listen to what Paul, has to say about his own conversion, miss it?


He says he had a feeling from within him, a feeling from the heart so to say.

Not the rhetoric from Acts trying to build reader excitement.

 

[psychoslice]

Watching doctrine develop over time is a cool aspect of reading the Bible.

In Genesis God isn't anything like omnipotent, He's just a guy with superpowers. By Exodus He is barely effable, appearing symbolically but much more powerful and knowing. By Jesus' times God is almost the ineffable omnimax being we've all come to Love.
It is like watching Occidental thought increase in sophistication before your very eyes.

Tom

And they say god never changes lol.

 

[outhouse]

Watching doctrine develop over time is a cool aspect of reading the Bible.

In Genesis God isn't anything like omnipotent, He's just a guy with superpowers. By Exodus He is barely effable, appearing symbolically but much more powerful and knowing. By Jesus' times God is almost the ineffable omnimax being we've all come to Love.
It is like watching Occidental thought increase in sophistication before your very eyes.

Tom

Its even better when you take the Canaanite gods and watch how the Israelites compiled two major deities together, edited out their wives [the same woman/deity]

After a while you can pick up the bible and know which deity they are really talking about.


The OT went through major redactions to monotheism after 622 BC, they still could not hide all the polytheism the culture was born from.

 

[outhouse]

Tiny glimpse of characteristics of a mystery cult

"In ancient Rome, cults were certain elements of eastern religions were combined with elements of Greek and Roman religions. Well-known examples are the mystery cults of Isis, Cybele, and Attis (Phrygia) and of the old-Iranian Mithra. All these cult forms offer their adepts secret knowledge and rebirth through initiation. This initiation consists of cleansing rites, fasting, and the consecration itself. Sometimes it is accompanied by orgiastic rites, such as wild dances, self-mutilation, or castration like the priests in the cult of Cybele. The sacral meal is often also a part of the initiation."

- Micha Lindemans

Yet we don't have a mystery religion here.

We had Hellenist tired of weak religions who wanted to follow Judaism.

They did for hundreds of years, and their numbers grew so large they were able to start a new version of Judaism. Jesus just lit the match, and a Hellenistic version took off on its own.

Not any sort of a mystery religion. Just because the movement adapted many other pagan aspects to keep its popularity does not mean it started like the weak religions it mowed over.

 

[steeltoes]

I would say not. With the exception of the Gospel of Mark (which is almost adoptionist in its Christology), Paul has quite a different view to the question of "Who was Jesus" from the authors of the Gospels.

When Paul was writing his letters, Jesus was still seen as a prophet on whom the spirit of God had dwelt, not as God incarnate. We can see the doctrine evolve through Matthew and Luke, but John is the first explicit claim that Jesus and God incarnate were one and the same being.

Watching the doctrine develop over time is fascinating for those who are interested. For those who are not interested, it's probably almost as exciting as watching paint dry.

The gospels were written after Paul died, Paul knows nothing of a Jesus from Galilee, in fact none of the epistle writers mention disciples, Judas, Mary, Joseph, empty tomb, etc, so you have no way of knowing that the Peter that Paul met knew Jesus.

 

[psychoslice]

I also feel that the name Jesus was entered into Pauls writings, he did talk about the Christ Consciousness, which is within all of us, and to realize this is what he's whole writing were about, nothing to do with Jesus.

 

[Sees]

Yet we don't have a mystery religion here.

We had Hellenist tired of weak religions who wanted to follow Judaism.

They did for hundreds of years, and their numbers grew so large they were able to start a new version of Judaism. Jesus just lit the match, and a Hellenistic version took off on its own.

Not any sort of a mystery religion. Just because the movement adapted many other pagan aspects to keep its popularity does not mean it started like the weak religions it mowed over.

One interpretation I guess...in my opinion it is a Jewish flavored mystery cult from inception. The Jewish flavor is what made it take off because Judaism was admired. Still doesn't give reason to think certain parts of the narrative were historical. The problem with all of it is people assuming their guesses and bs'ery is more valid than other guesses and bs'ery.

Mix some gnostic ideas floating around with various mystery cult ideas and practices floating around with some Jewish flavoring and mythology...out pops Christianity.

Every part of Jesus life can be found in other stories aside from a few parables. The historic evidence is no more or less than there being a Lao Tzu or similar.



Why is he more likely to exist than Moses or Abraham?

 

[technomage]

The gospels were written after Paul died, Paul knows nothing of a Jesus from Galilee, in fact none of the epistle writers mention disciples, Judas, Mary, Joseph, empty tomb, etc, so you have no way of knowing that the Peter that Paul met knew Jesus.

The epistles most certainly do mention disciples, though Paul refers to them as apostles. The other elements you mention are later additions to the doctrine from the Gospels.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yet we don't have a mystery religion here.

We had Hellenist tired of weak religions who wanted to follow Judaism.

What makes you so sure of that? Greco-Roman culture viewed Judaism as a backwards, idiotic religion. Doesn't make sense that many Hellenes would be lining up to join.

What do you mean by "weak religions"? You do know that Greco-Roman polytheism was persecuted out of existence, right? People didn't just abandon it. They were forced to join Catholicism on pain of death.