Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?

[technomage]

Hi guys, this looks like a fun thread ! With over 500 posts it is now hard to go through the whole thread, but preliminary inspection reveals no citations to high quality references.

So lets start with a low quality reference, Wiki:

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This Wiki article tends to lean toward the existence of Jesus. Can anyone post a more reliable source ?

Bart Ehrman gives a good synopsis of the consensus of scholarship in his _Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium_. Pay special attention to the works he cites. Starting with a survey piece such as Ehrman's can be a chase down a rabbit hole as far as finding the sources he works from, but if historical research is your idea of fun, it can be a blast.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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.

Yeah, it's problematic for me that you ignore the evidence and arguments and instead latch onto a figure of speech like 'you'll never convince me' to try and win a debate.

Yep. It's a behavior which is a problem for me but allows me to recognize your attitude toward this issue.

I still find it so curious that the cultural assumption about an historical Jesus has such power, even over non-Christians. It intrigues me.

I mean that few modern people would argue with such intensity for the historical Robin Hood or the historical Beowulf... but Jesus? Different piece of business for many moderns. Cultural assumptions are powerful, really hard to escape.

 

[technomage]

Yeah, it's problematic for me that you ignore the evidence and arguments and instead latch onto a figure of speech like 'you'll never convince me' to try and win a debate.

It's because you're not presenting any evidence. All you're presenting is arguments of why you reject the evidence that is available.

C'mon, even Celsus didn't argue that Jesus didn't exist. Celsus simply assumed he was a ******* of a Roman soldier, and was thus the son of a prostitute.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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.

I'm sorry, but that's the most convoluted argument I've seen in a long time.

People claimed that Jesus didn't come in the flesh.

The simplest interpretation of that is: Jesus didn't exist as a human.

Not: Jesus was more of a spiritual guy than a carnal guy.

Let the evidence lead you, outhouse. Don't lead the evidence.

 

[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.

And further more, do the gospels support Jesus brother James as being an apostle? How about the Acts of the Apostles which don't name the brothers of Jesus? What actually supports your interpretation of "brother of the Lord?" I ask because written Christian tradition does not support you view, in fact, it contradicts your view.

John 7:5 For even his own brothers did not believe in him.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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

I'm afraid I doubt you. His historicity seems intensely important to you.

 

[technomage]

And further more, do the gospels support Jesus brother James as being an apostle? How about the Acts of the Apostles which don't name the brothers of Jesus? What actually supports your interpretation of "brother of the Lord?"

Galatians 1:18-19.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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.

So you deny that Paul lived at the same time as Jesus did?

Or you deny that Paul visited with Peter and had the opportunity to learn many details of Jesus' earthly life?

 

[Avi1001]

Bart Ehrman gives a good synopsis of the consensus of scholarship in his _Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium_. Pay special attention to the works he cites. Starting with a survey piece such as Ehrman's can be a chase down a rabbit hole as far as finding the sources he works from, but if historical research is your idea of fun, it can be a blast.

Thanks. Is there a consensus here that Ehrman is a reliable source ?

From wiki:

"In 2012, Ehrman published "Did Jesus Exist?", defending the thesis that Jesus of Nazareth existed in contrast to the mythicist theory that Jesus is an entirely mythical or fictitious being woven whole-cloth out of legendary material. He states he expects the book to be criticized both by some atheists as well as fundamentalist Christians. In response, Richard Carrier published a lengthy criticism of the book in April 2012, particularly questioning both Ehrman's facts and methodology.[12] Ehrman replied to Carrier's criticisms on his website, primarily defending himself against Carrier's allegations of factual errors.[13]"

Bart D. Ehrman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are there more reliable sources that can be cited ? Is Richard Carrier reliable ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Mark states Jesus was 100% mythology? No

Mary Shelley never states that Frankenstein is 100% mythology.

What are we to conclude from that? The monster was historical?

 

[outhouse]

Or you deny that Paul visited with Peter and had the opportunity to learn many details of Jesus' earthly life?

Did Paul ever meet some guy named Peter? sure.

Was it Jesus Galilean follower? doubt it.

We dont kow the Galilean could speak Greek, we dont know if Paul knew Aramaic


If Paul had stated he went to Galilee to talk with the real followers, I would agree. But he doesnt.

 

[steeltoes]

Thanks. Is there a consensus here that Ehrman is a reliable source ?

From wiki:

"In 2012, Ehrman published "Did Jesus Exist?", defending the thesis that Jesus of Nazareth existed in contrast to the mythicist theory that Jesus is an entirely mythical or fictitious being woven whole-cloth out of legendary material. He states he expects the book to be criticized both by some atheists as well as fundamentalist Christians. In response, Richard Carrier published a lengthy criticism of the book in April 2012, particularly questioning both Ehrman's facts and methodology.[12] Ehrman replied to Carrier's criticisms on his website, primarily defending himself against Carrier's allegations of factual errors.[13]"

Bart D. Ehrman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are there more reliable sources that can be cited ? Is Richard Carrier reliable ?

Richard Carrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did Jesus Exist is a sad and pathetic little book that provides us with the insights of a true believer. It does nothing but lend support to those that care to doubt Jesus' existence as an historical figure.

 

[outhouse]

I'm sorry, but that's the most convoluted argument I've seen in a long time.

.

Thats your opinion, and I think its just due to you not liking the evidence at hand.


People claimed a man was walking around, and his substance was like god spiritual.

If you cannot see that as different from a literary creation thats your fault. No one is saying he was a ghost and see through, or there was no man walking around.

Either way, they are not sayinmg he was a mythical creation.

 

[Avi1001]

Did Jesus Exist is a sad and pathetic little book that provides us with the insights of a true believer. It does nothing but lend support to those that care to doubt Jesus' existence as an historical figure.

Do you agree with Carrier's positions ? Are there other important recent references that you can cite ?

It seems like the "Christ Myth Theory" also has some proponents. What about the reliability of this wiki article ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It's because you're not presenting any evidence. All you're presenting is arguments of why you reject the evidence that is available.

Nonsense. I've simply shown the most reasonable, intelligent, wise, unbiased, well-rounded interpretation of that evidence.

Why do you reject reason, intelligence, wisdom, etc.? (Cheap lick, just for fun, like you latching onto the you'll-never-convince-me business.)

C'mon, even Celsus didn't argue that Jesus didn't exist. Celsus simply assumed he was a ******* of a Roman soldier, and was thus the son of a prostitute.

Oh, boy. You really want to believe in an historical Jesus, don't you.

Anyway, can you post some of Celsus' writings from me to study?

 

[technomage]

I'm afraid I doubt you. His historicity seems intensely important to you.

 

[steeltoes]

Do you agree with Carrier's positions ? Are there other important recent references that you can cite ?

I am going by my own reading of the book. It's a major disappointment and will probably be remembered as the death knell for the third quest of an historical Jesus.

 

[technomage]

Thanks. Is there a consensus here that Ehrman is a reliable source ?

From wiki:

"In 2012, Ehrman published "Did Jesus Exist?", defending the thesis that Jesus of Nazareth existed in contrast to the mythicist theory that Jesus is an entirely mythical or fictitious being woven whole-cloth out of legendary material. He states he expects the book to be criticized both by some atheists as well as fundamentalist Christians. In response, Richard Carrier published a lengthy criticism of the book in April 2012, particularly questioning both Ehrman's facts and methodology.[12] Ehrman replied to Carrier's criticisms on his website, primarily defending himself against Carrier's allegations of factual errors.[13]"

Bart D. Ehrman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are there more reliable sources that can be cited ? Is Richard Carrier reliable ?

Richard Carrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Looks like you'll have to read the books and decide for yourself, eh?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Are there more reliable sources that can be cited ? Is Richard Carrier reliable ?

Hi, Avi. I'm somewhat confused by your question.

By "source" do you mean "expert opinion about Jesus' historicity"?

Or do you mean something else?

We all study the evidence, we argue, and we each reach our conclusion. I don't accept anyone as being a final authority on the question.

 

[technomage]

Nonsense. I've simply shown the most reasonable, intelligent, wise, unbiased, well-rounded interpretation of that evidence.

Why do you reject reason, intelligence, wisdom, etc.? (Cheap lick, just for fun, like you latching onto the you'll-never-convince-me business.)

I don't reject reason. I do reject that you're being reasonable. (And no, mine is no more serious than yours.)

Oh, boy. You really want to believe in an historical Jesus, don't you.

Anyway, can you post some of Celsus' writings from me to study?

I can point you to what Origen quoted. Or are you of the opinion that Origen made it up?