Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?

[technomage]

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.

Hmmm... a bit over-simplified. There were certainly elements of Judaism that the Greeks saw as foolish (circumcision being one noted example), but there were also elements that were admired by some within Greek culture. Of course, your typical Greco-Roman had never met a Jew, nor had any familiarity with Judaism.

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.

This is not entirely accurate. Amongst the upper classes, a form of "apathetic atheism" was not uncommon.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Hmmm... a bit over-simplified. There were certainly elements of Judaism that the Greeks saw as foolish (circumcision being one noted example), but there were also elements that were admired by some within Greek culture. Of course, your typical Greco-Roman had never met a Jew, nor had any familiarity with Judaism.

"Admired by some" does not equal an exodus of Hellenic people from their native religion to Judaism.

This is not entirely accurate. Amongst the upper classes, a form of "apathetic atheism" was not uncommon.

So? The masses didn't just all of a sudden run off to the church to be baptized.

Decline of Greco-Roman polytheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[technomage]

"Admired by some" does not equal an exodus of Hellenic people from their native religion to Judaism.

No, to be sure. But the particular sect within early Christianity that Paul preached was not actually a Jewish religion: it was a Greek-style religion with elements of the Mystery Religions that was open to all, slave or free, Greek or Jewish.

So? The masses didn't just all of a sudden run off to the church to be baptized.

Actually, contrary to the article, a significant minority of them did. One of the things that Christianity did was appeal to the slaves, those who were disempowered, those who were outcast. Yeah, you had your upper-class converts, but the bulk of the pre-Constantine converts were the lower classes.

But it's a complex and lengthy topic.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No, to be sure. But the particular sect within early Christianity that Paul preached was not actually a Jewish religion: it was a Greek-style religion with elements of the Mystery Religions that was open to all, slave or free, Greek or Jewish.

Not that I believe that "Paul" was an actual person, but yes, early Christianity was a mystery religion. That's the conclusion I reached from my studies.

Actually, contrary to the article, a significant minority of them did. One of the things that Christianity did was appeal to the slaves, those who were disempowered, those who were outcast. Yeah, you had your upper-class converts, but the bulk of the pre-Constantine converts were the lower classes.

But it's a complex and lengthy topic.

Some people certainly did convert of their own free will. But not most and most certainly not all. It took centuries for them to finally wipe out the indigenous religions of the Hellenes and the Romans. It had to be beaten out of them by government and church forces concluding with each other. The fact that the Hellenic and Roman peoples held onto their native practices for so long is why they kept having to issue anti-pagan decree after anti-pagan decree over the course of about a century with wave after wave of persecution. Even then, pockets of practitioners of the native religions still survived until about the 9th century. The official church version of the conversion of Europe, starting from Classical antiquity, is almost a complete lie. The masses did not gleefully come running into the embrace of the church after Constantine legalized Catholicism.

 

[oldbadger]

You should know this.

A suggestion...... I gained several teacher's qualifications a long time ago, before I could teach and train commercial detectives. I only mention this because I know that you are 'in' to qualifications.

A teacher should never ever berate or criticise a person for asking a question, no matter what....

Reason........ you will deter them from ever asking again, and thus not be a teacher any more.

Josephus told Titus 3 of his friends were on a cross. TItus ordered their removal. 2 did not survive, one did.

Good stuff! And thus, if a member was to suggest that the senior guard (decurion?) at Yeshua's cruicifixion was bribed, possibly by Josephus or one of the women..... to declare him dead, and then recive the order to bust the other's legs.................... this is not beyomnd the bounds of possibility. Crowds would have (possibly) got bored and left long before....

 

[oldbadger]

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

Mostly everybody knows that factions of dissenters were springing up from when John the Baptist presented his mission. This continued after Yeshua's death.... indeed Saul was contracted by some authority to put 'em down.

Then he had this idea, and started to take it forward 'in a new way' in 'his way'. Xianity is Pauline.

 

[oldbadger]

Originally Posted by outhouse View Post

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

Where can I read about this?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Really?

Were these Jesus deniers, or people who claimed the man was just all spirit?

I don't get it. What's the difference between a man who doesn't exist and a man who did not exist in the flesh?

Were they or were they not just debating substance?

Who are you talking about? Who was debating?

Sources please.

2 John 1:7 I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Evidence for the existence of a person? The letters of Paul (the genuine ones, not the pseudepigraphic ones)....

Those letters don't say much, if anything, about an historical Jesus in 30 CE Judea. That's one of the reasons I believe that Mark concocted Jesus a few years later.

... and the various Gospels (canonical and non-canonical).

I don't consider them evidence of Jesus any more than I consider the Book of Mormon to be evidence of Jesus.

 

[technomage]

Not that I believe that "Paul" was an actual person

Well, that's an unusual position, and one not supported by the scholarship. I disagree, but consider the topic to be somewhat trivial. If you wish to start a new thread to discuss the topic, I will present my evidence for accepting the historicity of Paul, but if the topic is unimportant to you, I am certainly willing to agree to disagree.

early Christianity was a mystery religion.

Sort of. Early Christianity shares _some_, but not all, attributes with Mystery Religions. The largest difference was the lack of a need to pay for initiation, and the lack of secrecy.

Some people certainly did convert of their own free will. But not most and most certainly not all.

By the time of Constantine's death, Christianity was a significant percentage of the population--though of course, there is no way to know what percentage that constitutes. Yes, I doubt they were a majority, but we simply do not have the evidence to discern that, one way or another. But even before the "official"persecutions began around 350, Christianity was a popular religion within the Empire.

The official church version of the conversion of Europe, starting from Classical antiquity, is almost a complete lie. The masses did not gleefully come running into the embrace of the church after Constantine legalized Catholicism.

Saint Frank, you have to have evidence to back that assertion, else it is simply an unfounded assertion. One substantial piece of evidence against your assertion is the presence of the unofficial persecution against non-Christians, even before the Edict: the mobs and the riots had to have a sufficient population to support them. Another indicator is the failure of Paganism to re-assert itself during the reign of Julian, or of the three emperors who followed him.

By the time of Julian, Christianity had enough of a percentage in the population to survive the lack of preference of the reign of Julian, Jovian, Valentian, and Valens.

To be sure, the Christians behaved in an absolutely vile manner towards those they opposed. The fact that they behaved towards the Pagans exactly as the Pagans had behaved towards them (rather than, as their scriptures command, to respond with submission) is, for me, a good indication that their religion is every bit as false as all the other religions out there. But we cannot discount their numbers: the evidence available forbids such a conclusion.

 

[technomage]

Those letters don't say much, if anything, about an historical Jesus in 30 CE Judea.

Those letters say very little about the historical Jesus. But they do establish that his existence was accepted, and spoken of, before the author of GoMark set pen to paper.

That's one of the reasons I believe that Mark concocted Jesus a few years later.

I don't have evidence to present, but I have the feeling that Mark did not "concoct" Jesus. There are elements that he did concoct, such as the Olivet Discourse--that pericope was in response to the destruction of Jerusalem, and was created to give hope to a despairing community: well intended (from his point of view), but still dealing far more with theology than with history. And there were other non-historical elements in GoMark, which GoMatthew and GoLuke cheerfully expanded upon.

I don't consider them evidence of Jesus any more than I consider the Book of Mormon to be evidence of Jesus.

What you choose to _consider_ is, of course, entirely up to you. I tend to accept the conclusion of the mainstream scholarship on that issue--that there was a historical person named Jesus, but that a lot of the content in the Bible is "theological overlay" on the historical person.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Those letters say very little about the historical Jesus. But they do establish that his existence was accepted, and spoken of, before the author of GoMark set pen to paper.

Sure. I'm guessing some guy existed around 80ish BCE upon whom wild stories attached. If an actual man had lived in 30 CE Jerusalem, the letter writers would have spoken of him in some detail... his earthly life. That's because, as I think you've admitted, they were able to visit with people (disciples) who actually knew of his physical life.

So it seems to me.

I don't have evidence to present, but I have the feeling that Mark did not "concoct" Jesus.

OK. We disagree.

What you choose to _consider_ is, of course, entirely up to you.

Thanks. I extend you the same courtesy. Believe as you want to believe.

I tend to accept the conclusion of the mainstream scholarship on that issue--that there was a historical person named Jesus....

What you choose to _accept_ is of course entirely up to you.

Do you also accept the conclusions of mainstream Book-of-Mormon scholars about Jesus coming to the Americas? Just curious.

 

[technomage]

Sure. I'm guessing some guy existed around 80ish BCE upon whom wild stories attached. If an actual man had lived in 30 CE Jerusalem, the letter writers would have spoken of him in some detail... his earthly life. That's because, as I think you've admitted, they were able to visit with people (disciples) who actually knew of his physical life.

So it seems to me.

Jesus's earthly life was of no interest to Paul. What was of interest to Paul (at least as far as the letters he wrote) were the specific doctrinal questions that had been addressed to him, and the specific problems that he head heard of.

You have to remember: Paul was not doing a complete "These are the teachings of Jesus" in _any_ of the letters he wrote. The priests/teachers/episcopi in the various communities were doing that. Paul was writing about stuff they specifically had questions about, or problems that various local groups had encountered.

Do you also accept the conclusions of mainstream Book-of-Mormon scholars about Jesus coming to the Americas? Just curious.

The Book-of-Mormon scholars are not "mainstream," nor are their arguments defensible.

 

[steeltoes]

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.

No, you are reading the gospels into the epistles, Paul does not mention disciples.

 

[technomage]

No, you are reading the gospels into the epistles, Paul does not mention disciples.

Paul specifically mentions (in Galatians) that he met James, and that he stayed with Peter for fifteen days. Are you going to insist that he uses the word "disciple" to qualify as "mentioning the disciples," or will you accept that by mentioning these two, he mentions the disciples?

 

[steeltoes]

Jesus's earthly life was of no interest to Paul. What was of interest to Paul (at least as far as the letters he wrote) were the specific doctrinal questions that had been addressed to him, and the specific problems that he head heard of.

You have to remember: Paul was not doing a complete "These are the teachings of Jesus" in _any_ of the letters he wrote. The priests/teachers/episcopi in the various communities were doing that.

No they weren't, unless you have evidence for such a thing, and I know you don't.

Paul was writing about stuff they specifically had questions about, or problems that various local groups had encountered.

Then why didn't Paul quote Jesus' teachings and settle these disputes once and for all?

The Book-of-Mormon scholars are not "mainstream," nor are their arguments defensible.

I am not saying Jesus did or did not exist, I am saying that there is no evidence for his existence, we have the NT and nothing but opinions from people that never met the guy, no one that wrote about Jesus ever met him.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Jesus's earthly life was of no interest to Paul. What was of interest to Paul (at least as far as the letters he wrote) were the specific doctrinal questions that had been addressed to him, and the specific problems that he head heard of.

That's a fine opinion, I guess, but I consider it a profound misunderstanding of human nature. Jesus was Paul's lord, his idol, his everything. You'll never convince me that he would neglect to speak of Jesus' earthly life... if he knew anything about it.

Plus, you'd have me believe that ALL the epistle writers were of the same mind as 'Paul.' Different people writing epistles and not one of them mentions that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey or washed the feet of his womenfolk or whatever.

They seem oblivious to any 30 CE Jesus.

You have to remember: Paul was not doing a complete "These are the teachings of Jesus" in _any_ of the letters he wrote. The priests/teachers/episcopi in the various communities were doing that. Paul was writing about stuff they specifically had questions about, or problems that various local groups had encountered.

I'm not talking about teachings. I'm talking about how Jesus spoke, how he looked, what he ate at the Final Supper, etc.

None of that is in the epistles, is it?

The Book-of-Mormon scholars are not "mainstream," nor are their arguments defensible.

Right. Just like Biblical scholars.

 

[steeltoes]

Paul specifically mentions (in Galatians) that he met James, and that he stayed with Peter for fifteen days. Are you going to insist that he uses the word "disciple" to qualify as "mentioning the disciples," or will you accept that by mentioning these two, he mentions the disciples?

Again, you are reading the gospels into the epistles. Paul states that Peter's apostleship was appointed by God so tell me, where is the earthly Jesus in all of this? One good possibility is that the author of Mark portrays these apostles as disciples of an earthly Jesus when he wrote his gospel fiction.

Gal:
11I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.





Where is an earthly Jesus in the above theology?







8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles.






From the above we learn from Paul that apostles were self appointed, Peter included, no Jesus necessary to become an apostle.

 

[technomage]

No they weren't, unless you have evidence for such a thing, and I know you don't.

The writings of Paul, and the writings of the early Christians, provide sufficient evidence for this.

Then why didn't Paul quote Jesus' teachings and settle these disputes once and for all?

Probably because many of the "Jesus said" passages we see in the Gospels are post-Pauline inventions.

We _probably_ have some more-or-less genuine speeches from Jesus in the Gospels ... but it takes better scholarship than I have to parse the genuine from the later additions. The Jesus Seminar attempted to tackle the problem, but I have to admit that I'm a little skeptical about their conclusions. I'm not going to say they're wrong, but I do consider their conclusions somewhat questionable.

I am not saying Jesus did or did not exist, I am saying that there is no evidence for his existence, we have the NT and nothing but opinions from people that never met the guy, no one that wrote about Jesus ever met him.

Steeltoes, the NT _is_ evidence. It's not eyewitness evidence, it's not all that strong in the way of evidence, but it is evidence. Writing off the NT would be like writing off Caesar's _Gallic Wars_ for information about the Gauls. It isn't the best evidence ... it's just the best we've got.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Gal:
11I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Thanks for posting that. An historical-Jesus-killing statement, so it seems to me.

What is the usual counterargument against it? An interpolation? A mistranslation?