Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?

[steeltoes]

Galatians 1:18-19.

I asked you what supports your interpretation of the quote and you in turn provide me with the quote. What's with that?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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

Sure. Whatever you want to believe, you should believe, I guess.

But if I ever opine that Paul Bunyon didn't come to earth in the flesh, please interpret me as claiming that Paul Bunyon did not actually exist as a man.

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.

Of course they were claiming that no man was actually walking around.

He didn't come in the flesh.

It certainly belies your constant claim that no one in the first century denied that Jesus was real.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Over my head. Sorry. No idea what you're trying to mean.

 

[technomage]

I asked you what supports your interpretation of the quote and you in turn provide me with the quote. What's with that?

I consider the quote to be evidence that:
* James was known by reputation to the Galatians;
* James's appellation was known and accepted.

What's to interpret?

 

[technomage]

Over my head. Sorry. No idea what you're trying to mean.

A bit of humor. How exactly is someone supposed to respond to "I don't believe what you state about your motivations"?

(I was going to respond with a gif of Obama's reaction to the heckler last week, but I couldn't find a good pick.)

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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

Do you reckon that Lewis concocted Screwtape so he could more easily go about his apologetic business? I do.

Anyway, even if Celsus actually existed, why would his opinion about an historical Jesus have the least weight with anyone? He was writing a hundred years after Jesus supposedly existed. Why would he know anything about the historical Jesus?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

A bit of humor. How exactly is someone supposed to respond to "I don't believe what you state about your motivations"?

By taking a closer look at your motivations, I would say. We should always be wary of letting our minds fool us, I think.

Ask yourself why you are so positive about the historical Jesus. Then ask yourself whether someone questioning the historical Robin Hood or Beowulf would have the same effect on you.

 

[Avi1001]

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.

Hi AG, I agree there is no final authority. I am interested in reading the arguments that are most logical and supported by fact.

You seem to be a supporter of the "Christ Myth" school.

I would like to see how reliable the "experts" on the other side are too.

Also, it seems to me that quoting more recent "experts" on both sides provides better potential for reliability.

 

[outhouse]

But if I ever opine that Paul Bunyon didn't come to earth in the flesh, please interpret me as claiming that Paul Bunyon did not actually exist as a man.

Straw man.

Typical weak responce of mythicist when faced with no rebuttle to weak arguements they propose.

Of course they were claiming that no man was actually walking around.

Quote please.

Looks like sme kind of weak attempt to steer the debate away from you having to supply credible evidence.

They claimed a man was walking around, youy just quote mined out of context.

Like usual

It certainly belies your constant claim that no one in the first century denied that Jesus was real.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Hi AG, I agree there is no final authority. I am interested in reading the arguments that are most logical and supported by fact.

Then you've come to the right place. (Watch my messages in particular!!)

You seem to be a supporter of the "Christ Myth" school.

I'm afraid I really don't know what that means. I do have an opinion about the historicity of Jesus, but I didn't get it from any school.

I would like to see how reliable the "experts" on the other side are too.

I doubt that any of us here would be considered experts on this question. But we are debaters, and I think that watching a debate is more informative than reading the books of experts.

 

[technomage]

Do you reckon that Lewis concocted Screwtape so he could more easily go about his apologetic business? I do.

It sounds very much like you assume that anything dealing with early Christianity was either fictional, forged, or false ... and it sounds like your assumption is a priori. Is that assessment accurate?

Anyway, even if Celsus actually existed, why would his opinion about an historical Jesus have the least weight with anyone? He was writing a hundred years after Jesus supposedly existed. Why would he know anything about the historical Jesus?

I don't expect Celsus knew anything historical about Jesus--just what he had heard from believers. I expect he came up with the nastiest accusations he could--common rhetorical exercise. But even at that, he didn't offer "Jesus never existed" as one of his counter-accusations.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Straw man.

Typical weak responce of mythicist when faced with no rebuttle to weak arguements they propose.

Oh, Irony, thy name does surely rhyme with troutspouse.

Quote please.

2 John 1:7

They claimed a man was walking around, youy just quote mined out of context.

Quote please.

 

[technomage]

By taking a closer look at your motivations, I would say. We should always be wary of letting our minds fool us, I think.

Ask yourself why you are so positive about the historical Jesus. Then ask yourself whether someone questioning the historical Robin Hood or Beowulf would have the same effect on you.

I'm fairly positive of the existence of a historical Jesus because of the evidence. It's not something I consider personally significant one way or the other--whether there was a historical Jesus or not neither (to steal a phrase) "picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

 

[steeltoes]

I consider the quote to be evidence that:
* James was known by reputation to the Galatians;
* James's appellation was known and accepted.

What's to interpret?

Accepted as what? The actual brother (as in blood sibling), of Jesus?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It sounds very much like you assume that anything dealing with early Christianity was either fictional, forged, or false ... and it sounds like your assumption is a priori. Is that assessment accurate?

If by 'a priori', you mean 'after studying the evidence in honest good faith and coming to the most reasonable and logical conclusion'... then yes.

How about you? All your assumptions about the historical Jesus are a priori?

I don't expect Celsus knew anything historical about Jesus--just what he had heard from believers.

So then why did you bring up Celsus regarding the historical-Jesus question?

I expect he came up with the nastiest accusations he could--common rhetorical exercise. But even at that, he didn't offer "Jesus never existed" as one of his counter-accusations.

You're making no sense. Even some modern anti-Christians don't bring up "Jesus never existed" as a counter accusation. They labor under the cultural assumption that Jesus really existed... just like Celsus apparently did.

So why do you find it remarkable that Celsus didn't make that particular counter accusation?

Really... you're not making logical sense to me.

 

[technomage]

Accepted as what? The actual brother (as in blood sibling), of Jesus?

That's the most common meaning of the word adelphos. And you'll note that even though Peter is an important disciple, he is NOT addressed as such.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I'm fairly positive of the existence of a historical Jesus because of the evidence. It's not something I consider personally significant one way or the other...

So you claim. But I find your behavior to be saying something entirely opposite.

 

[steeltoes]

I'm fairly positive of the existence of a historical Jesus because of the evidence. It's not something I consider personally significant one way or the other--whether there was a historical Jesus or not neither (to steal a phrase) "picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Again, you can only provide your opinion. I am not trying to convince you that Jesus did not exist, or that he did for that matter, I am merely stating that you have no way of knowing because you have not provided evidence for anything other than for the existence of religious texts which are in turn left to interpretation.

 

[technomage]

If by 'a priori', you mean 'after studying the evidence in honest good faith and coming to the most reasonable and logical conclusion'... then yes.

No, that would be "a posteriori." Cool either way.

How about you? All your assumptions about the historical Jesus are a priori?

None of them are.

So then why did you bring up Celsus regarding the historical-Jesus question?

To illustrate that the "mythicist" accusation was not made within period.

You're making no sense. Even some modern anti-Christians don't bring up "Jesus never existed" as a counter accusation. They labor under the cultural assumption that Jesus really existed... just like Celsus apparently did.

So why do you find it remarkable that Celsus didn't make that particular counter accusation?

Really... you're not making logical sense to me.

To my mind, it makes sense that if Celsus really wanted to shoot Christianity in the foot, he'd have exposed any question of Jesus's existence.

 

[technomage]

So you claim. But I find your behavior to be saying something entirely opposite.

Believe what you wish.