Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?

[outhouse]

2 John 1:7


.

And what indicates he was not spiritual ?

Ancient people believed a human being consisted of spirit and flesh.

And we have writings from close to this period showing people like Marcion believed Jesus was all spirit. And Marcions Jesus was not a literary creation, he places Jesus as a spiritual teacher on earth following Paul and Lukes teaching.

 

[oldbadger]

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.

You know that I meant Joseph. A possibility that the guards were bribed to take Yeshua down.... It's possible, and your mention of Titus's 'pardon' proves 'the possibility'

 

[outhouse]

Believe what you wish.

You will find poor methodology as common due to lack of proper education.


Some of these people think you can watch a few Carriers vids and read a few articles by Price, and now have all the tools you need to debate against professors and scholars. :areyoucra

 

[oldbadger]

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.

You mentioned that crosses were erected at all entrances to Jerusalem.
Any Source for this?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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

Yeah, man. You might want to go ahead and assume that I know most of the fancy words.

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

'Within period'?? Did you mistype? What does 'within period' mean?

You're saying that if no one made the 'mythicist accusation' within a certain span of years, that's significant? If so, what span of years?

As I've quoted, the Second John letter makes the accusation. So the Bible itself contains evidence that the accusation was made.

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.

Are you aware that the (perhaps fictional) Celsus lived at least a hundred years after Jesus is claimed to have lived?

Can you refute the existence of any man who was claimed to have lived in 1914?

 

[steeltoes]

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.

It's not the most common usage by Paul or the author/s of Acts of the Apostles. Paul uses adelphos dozens of times when he speaks of brothers as believers.

I could copy hundreds of examples like these:

1. Acts 2:37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”
   
2. Acts 6:3 Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them
   
3. Acts 7:2 To this he replied: “Brothers and fathers, listen to me! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham while he was still in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Harran.
   

Note Acts2:37 that all the apostles are referred to as "brothers." Obviously the author/s of Acts disagree with your interpretation.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

You confuse evidence and proof. Positing the existence of an historical Jesus in simply a case of inference to best explanation.

 

[outhouse]

You know that I meant Joseph. A possibility that the guards were bribed to take Yeshua down.... It's possible, and your mention of Titus's 'pardon' proves 'the possibility'

No.

You had a personal friend begging a favor from the man in charge.

While Jesus probably did not have a trial, a guard would face a death penalty for taking his body down. And there would have been more then one guard posted to keep peasants from taking people off the cross.

We really dont know if his body was taken down or left to rot and let the dogs eat him. That was more common then not.

Had they needed the cross for other killings, then we would see his body thrown in a pit. Crossan follows this.


I only claim we dont know other then he probably died on the cross.

 

[steeltoes]

You mentioned that crosses were erected at all entrances to Jerusalem.
Any Source for this?

Wood from the one real true cross is exibited in hundreds of churches throughout Europe, enough wood to build an Ark it is said.

 

[outhouse]

You mentioned that crosses were erected at all entrances to Jerusalem.
Any Source for this?

No. Other then what was typical. wiki probably covers this.

The city changed so much, there is only speculation as to where the cross may have been, and that is specualtion based on a few hundreds years after the event.

The destruction of the temple makes this difficult to determine.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Believe what you wish.

Thanks. I have no other choice.

 

[steeltoes]

You confuse evidence and proof. Positing the existence of an historical Jesus in simply a case of inference to best explanation.

I am not confusing evidence with proof. Positing the existence of an historical Jesus is simply a case of providing ones opinion. Where there is no evidence, opinions abound as you can see.

 

[technomage]

Yeah, man. You might want to go ahead and assume that I know most of the fancy words.

Cool.

'Within period'?? Did you mistype? What does 'within period' mean?

You know all the fancy words ... but you don't know this?

What the actual charlie-foxtrot?

"Within period" means "Within the time between the alleged events and Celsus' writings."

As I've quoted, the Second John letter makes the accusation. So the Bible itself contains evidence that the accusation was made.

The 2 John statement doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. 2 John is arguing against a "spiritualist only" interpretation of the Resurrection, or of the Incarnation as a whole. The author of this epistle is not reacting to an accusation that Jesus never existed: rather, he is arguing against the doctrine that Jesus was entirely spiritual, either during his life or after his supposed resurrection.

2 John is anti-Gnostic, not anti-mythicist.

Are you aware that the (perhaps fictional) Celsus lived at least a hundred years after Jesus is claimed to have lived?

Can you refute the existence of any man who was claimed to have lived in 1914?

For you to make the claim that Celsus did not exist, you have to support your claim. WHether or not I can refute your claim is irrelevant until it is supported.

 

[oldbadger]

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.

Hi.... again.
All evidence is open to interpretation.
I still feel confident that a significant % of G-Mark was 'eye-witness' testimony, from Cephas and the young Mark, plus (possibly) other accounts compiled within. This book is so 'apart' from the other accounts that I can only assume that it survived because it was the only eyewitness account.

Take out the end addition and you have the best account.

 

[technomage]

It's not the most common usage by Paul or the author/s of Acts of the Apostles. Paul uses adelphos dozens of times when he speaks of brothers as believers.

You cannot compare usage in Acts to the usage in the Pauline epistles. Different authors, different intentions.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

And what indicates he was not spiritual ?

Ancient people believed a human being consisted of spirit and flesh.

Hey, if it makes you happy to dance the two-step, who am I to call you wrong for it.

In my world, if a guy did not come to earth in the flesh, he did not exist as a real (historical) man.

Contemporaries of Jesus denied that he was actually real and historical.

 

[technomage]

Contemporaries of Jesus denied that he was actually real and historical.

If you consider 2 John to be "contemporary," then you undercut the argument about "no contemporary writings."

 

[steeltoes]

Hi.... again.
All evidence is open to interpretation.
I still feel confident that a significant % of G-Mark was 'eye-witness' testimony, from Cephas and the young Mark, plus (possibly) other accounts compiled within. This book is so 'apart' from the other accounts that I can only assume that it survived because it was the only eyewitness account.

Take out the end addition and you have the best account.

Peter is portrayed in the gospel of Mark as a blundering buffoon that just doesn't understand a word Jesus says and ends up abandoning him at his time of need and outright denying him. But if you want to believe that Mark is an eye-witness testimony all I can say is that you are entitled to your opinion, little to no traction that it has.

 

[oldbadger]

No. Other then what was typical. wiki probably covers this.

The city changed so much, there is only speculation as to where the cross may have been, and that is specualtion based on a few hundreds years after the event.

The destruction of the temple makes this difficult to determine.

...... so I can ignore your earlier mention of crosses erected at entrances to Jerusalem as visual deterrents ....

 

[Avi1001]

Hi.... again.
All evidence is open to interpretation.
I still feel confident that a significant % of G-Mark was 'eye-witness' testimony, from Cephas and the young Mark, plus (possibly) other accounts compiled within. This book is so 'apart' from the other accounts that I can only assume that it survived because it was the only eyewitness account.

Take out the end addition and you have the best account.

Hi OB, it seems you are swimming in a pool of "Christ Myth" advocates. Can you explain how you know that Jesus actually existed ? How does one validate "eye-witness" testimony from 2,000 years ago ? DNA evidence ? How do the atheist scientists "know" the universe started 14 billion years ago, with the Big Bang, but we cannot seem to validate that Jesus lived only 2,000 years ago ? Have you personally seen any "hard evidence", that convinced you ? Perhaps a preview to your upcoming book ?

And what about those "Christ Myth" believers ? A bunch of atheists ?