Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?

[steeltoes]

[/i]

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?

Complete silence.

 

[technomage]

That's a fine opinion, I guess, but I consider it a profound misunderstanding of human nature.

It has nothing to do with human nature, and everything to do with the purpose of the epistles.

You'll never convince me that he would neglect to speak of Jesus' earthly life... if he knew anything about it.

"You'll never convince me" sounds a lot like what Ken Ham said about evolution.

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.

Only about half the letters attributed to Paul are genuine. The rest of the letters (and the ones attributed to other authors, or Hebrews which is not attributed to any author) were written later, when the eyewitnesses were already dead. And again, you're looking at the intent of the letter.

Right. Just like Biblical scholars.

And we're back to "You'll never convince me."

 

[technomage]

[/i]

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?

Neither an interpolation nor a mistranslation. Paul is attempting to establish his authority. Frankly, Paul's claims sound like hogwash to me, but then, I'm used to people like Jimmy Swaggart.

 

[steeltoes]

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



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.


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.

Evidence of what exactly? Religious woo woo existed in the early centuries, that much is obvious, beyond that it is a matter of opinion as to what these texts mean. There is no science involved here, scholars for the most part engage in a subjective exercise when trying to do historical Jesus. Why do they engage in an historical Jesus, to save mankind? Your guess is as good as mine.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

"You'll never convince me" sounds a lot like what Ken Ham said about evolution.

Hehe... thanks for that. I was wondering what you were made of. You make it easy to see.

By the way, why do you ignore steeltoe's quote from Paul where Paul claims to have gotten his teachings from no man?

I'd be most curious to hear you answer that.

Only about half the letters attributed to Paul are genuine. The rest of the letters (and the ones attributed to other authors, or Hebrews which is not attributed to any author) were written later, when the eyewitnesses were already dead.

How does that address my argument? Forgive me saying so, but it strikes me as an attempt at distraction.

So you're claiming that the fake Paulines were written after Paul but before the gospels? And that in that short window, all the eyewitnesses to Jesus up and died?

Or have I misunderstood you?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Neither an interpolation nor a mistranslation. Paul is attempting to establish his authority. Frankly, Paul's claims sound like hogwash to me, but then, I'm used to people like Jimmy Swaggart.

Ah. So we can't trust Paul at all about historical matters? Maybe he didn't really persecute the Christians? Maybe he never met Peter and just made up 'James, the brother of Jesus'?

I'm with you. Why take any of it seriously.

 

[technomage]

Evidence of what exactly?

Evidence that a specific person was alive to be crucified during the reign of Pilate.

One big piece of evidence in that direction is that James's appellation "the brother of the Lord" is not an inherited title. James claimed to be the literal brother of a literal person, and you had people around who could have shut him down by saying "Hey, he wasn't your brother, you're full of it."

Contrary to the claims of the Christians,the Pauline letters and the GOspels are also examples of how quickly a once-living person can have a legendarium build up around him.

 

[outhouse]

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

Because both of those characters were written about placing them a thousand years back inhistory from when they were first written about.

Jesus is real because they wrote about him when people who heard him were still alive and could refute it, if it was mythology. Thats the biggest difference.

We dont have early anyone writing about Jesus as a literary creation.

 

[outhouse]

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.

Its fact. We had many sects of Hellenist who found importance in Judaism and one god.

They just did not like the rules or the stereotype.


Hellensitic Judaism is not up for debate.

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.

Some were forced out. But you wil have a hard time trying to prove they were some kind of majority.

Weak = minority. And that is what they were.

 

[steeltoes]

Because both of those characters were written about placing them a thousand years back inhistory from when they were first written about.

Jesus is real because they wrote about him when people who heard him were still alive and could refute it, if it was mythology. Thats the biggest difference.

We dont have early anyone writing about Jesus as a literary creation.

Obviously by this reasoning of yours the story of Herod killing all the babies born in Bethlehem at the time of Jesus' birth is historically factual because we have no refutation of it occurring.

 

[technomage]

Hehe... thanks for that. I was wondering what you were made of. You make it easy to see.

I place evidence a lot higher than "You'll never convince me." If that's problematic to you, own the issue. Don't attempt to project the issue onto me.

By the way, why do you ignore steeltoe's quote from Paul where Paul claims to have gotten his teachings from no man?

Post 503. Yeah, I know--when you had posted this, you hadn't seen that post. Now you have, and you've responded to that. Crossed posts ... they happen.

How does that address my argument?

By pointing out what epistles we could actually expect such a mention from, and what posts we can't reasonably expect such a mention from.

So you're claiming that the fake Paulines were written after Paul but before the gospels? And that in that short window, all the eyewitnesses to Jesus up and died?

Or have I misunderstood you?

Nah, the pseudo-Paulines were written after the Gospels (well, at least after most of them--John may have been written later than some of the pseudo-paulines). And then you have the non-canonicals, many of which were written later. But we have no evidence that the authors of the pseudo-Pauline epistles had access to the Gospels. Unlike today, of course, books weren't mass-produced, and did not spread quickly.

 

[outhouse]

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....

A lot of unsubstantiated speculation. Josephus was not there.


Im happy with we dont know.

Other then, they put him on a cross, he died and thrown into a pit.

 

[outhouse]

Where can I read about this?

Crucifixion was a form of punishment designed to be humiliating and despicable way to be put to death as a example of what not to do.

I think the wiki link covers this.

 

[outhouse]

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?





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.

The difference is they place a man on earth walking around, you just had people like Marcion who claimed he was more holy and spiritual then others who claimed he was all human.

None of them knew or met him, and thus they debated his substance, not his existance.

 

[technomage]

Ah. So we can't trust Paul at all about historical matters?

I'd say we can within very loose limits. Paul is certainly not above spinning events in his favor, and for him, doctrine takes precedence to historicity (which was a common view of the time, both for Christians and for Pagans).

Bring a large shaker of salt.

I'm with you. Why take any of it seriously.

Ah, I like historical trivia. And for me, the question of a historical Jesus is trivial, but it is interesting.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

We dont have early anyone writing about Jesus as a literary creation.

Well, except for the writer of Mark.

 

[steeltoes]

Evidence that a specific person was alive to be crucified during the reign of Pilate.

One big piece of evidence in that direction is that James's appellation "the brother of the Lord" is not an inherited title. James claimed to be the literal brother of a literal person, and you had people around who could have shut him down by saying "Hey, he wasn't your brother, you're full of it."

Contrary to the claims of the Christians,the Pauline letters and the GOspels are also examples of how quickly a once-living person can have a legendarium build up around him.

One man's big piece of evidence is another man's opinion. "The brother of the Lord" contains two metaphors, and you appear to have an opinion as to what they mean. Maybe you could look to the James Epistle for support of your interpretation, although I already know it doesn't help you at all.

 

[outhouse]

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.



.

WE have Romans and Hellenist authors writing from the Diaspora long after he was dead.

They were to far removed from his death to know any details.

The details many were also that of a typical Galilean Jew. These aspects were not important to the Hellenist theology, and it would have made the movement fit the Jewish stereotype, the movement was trying to get away from writing to a Roman audience hoping for acceptance.

They were not going to focuss on Zealots opinions now would they?

 

[outhouse]

Well, except for the writer of Mark.

Mark states Jesus was 100% mythology? No

He was writing a form of history in theology, in which a martyed man was killed at Passover and died.

 

[technomage]

One man's big piece of evidence is another man's opinion. "The brother of the Lord" contains two metaphors, and you appear to have an opinion as to what they mean.

A metaphorical title is far more likely to be inherited. James's appellation is not a title: it's an identifier.

Maybe you could look to the James Epistle for support of your interpretation, although I already know it doesn't help you at all.

Of course it doesn't help me: the James epistle is pseudonymous.