Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?

[steeltoes]

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

It's the same word, it means brother both figuratively as in believer, or as a blood sibling. Whether it is used in Acts or Paul or anywhere else it has its meanings and you cannot deny them to suit your little ideas about what "the brother of the Lord" means. "The brother if the Lord" is up to interpretation and nothing coming from Christian written tradition supports your little theory that the James that Paul met was Jesus' blood sibling. You can jump up and down all you like but you haven't provided a single thing because you can't.

 

[oldbadger]

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.

........... yes, he was....... and that's my point. The fact that the account includes all the trips and slips, all the mistakes and falls....... it has credibility way beyond the other accounts.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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."

Oh, no. I rarely read historians and particularly not biblical historians. (Bad for one's straight-thinking. Much better to read reviews and watch historians debate.) You're saying that 'within period' is a term of art for historians? If so, thanks for teaching it to me.

If I'm right about that, your earlier claim was that 'the mythicist accusation was not made between Jesus and Celsus'?

If so, I'm still confused. Just because Celsus didn't make the accusation, that means that no one made it?

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.

How very convoluted. So you're claiming that 'entirely spiritual, during his life' doesn't mean the same as 'didn't exist in the flesh'?

If so, it is as convoluted a justification as I can imagine. Anything but face the obvious meaning, when one is protecting one's a priori jewels, I guess.

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.

Oh boy. I've really made you uncomfortable. Rather than addressing my question, you're trying to distract from it by bringing up a claim I never made.

I'm learning more and more about you. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if you have quite a bit more invested in the historical Jesus than your 'agnostic' label would imply.

 

[technomage]

It's the same word

Different author, different message, different intent.

 

[outhouse]

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

You can.

You ignore quite a bit of common knowledge on the subject, so why stop now?


Can you refute this was a punishment ment to humiliate and torture someone to set an example?

No you cannot.

 

[outhouse]

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

Why would they place this cross in a obscure hidden location, if you were trying to set an example of what NOT to do?

 

[outhouse]

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

No they did not.

What contemporaries wrote about him? None.

You quote mined a passage out of context, and fail to even debate that context due to the weakness of your own arguement :areyoucra

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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

You've lost me. What do you mean?

 

[steeltoes]

Why would they place this cross in a obscure hidden location, if you were trying to set an example of what NOT to do?

Yes, because outhouse's logic dictates what took place historically. It is outhouse logic that they placed crosses at the entrances to Jerusalem so it must have been so.

Outhouse logic, :help:

 

[oldbadger]

Hi OB, it seems you are swimming in a pool of "Christ Myth" advocates. Can you explain how you know that Jesus actually existed ?

I wrote that I 'feel confident'. You are asking how I 'know'. Can you see the difference in terms? I know nothing.

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 ?

No validation.
Little evidence.
No....... I see no hard-evidence.
Reading the NT over decades, thinking and reading RF debates has caused me to have a 'feeling'. I am not Christian, as you can see, but I am very interested in the life of Yeshua.

Perhaps a preview to your upcoming book ?

Ha ha.. I would like to publish it through Amazon, but first I have to format it and prepare it to Amazon standards.......... Tomorrow. And tomorrow.....

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

I give respect to both atheists, agnostics and believers. I respect them all.

 

[outhouse]

You've lost me. What do you mean?

It means you dont understand the context of is arguement.

No surprise.

Your surely cannot grasp gnostic beliefs nor doceticm

Second Epistle of John - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The doctrines of Doceticm and Gnosticism had made inroads among the followers of Jesus in the latter half of the First Century. Some said that Jesus never assumed human flesh, but only had the appearance of flesh, because they were scandalized that Divinity would soil itself by associating so closely with matter. Others said that Christ was raised as a spirit only, and did not experience a bodily resurrection. In this epistle John condemns such doctrines in no uncertain terms with the statement that such persons were antichrist

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You quote mined a passage out of context, and fail to even debate that context due to the weakness of your own arguement :areyoucra

I asked you for a quote on this and you've answered with silence.

Next time you ask me for a quote, I won't be providing you the quote.

Treat others as you would be treated, outhouse.

 

[outhouse]

I asked you for a quote on this and you've answered with silence.

Next time you ask me for a quote, I won't be providing you the quote.

Treat others as you would be treated, outhouse.

This refutes your arguement but also provides details that show the weakness of your position

It means you dont understand the context of the arguement.

No surprise.


Second Epistle of John - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The doctrines of Doceticm and Gnosticism had made inroads among the followers of Jesus in the latter half of the First Century. Some said that Jesus never assumed human flesh, but only had the appearance of flesh, because they were scandalized that Divinity would soil itself by associating so closely with matter. Others said that Christ was raised as a spirit only, and did not experience a bodily resurrection. In this epistle John condemns such doctrines in no uncertain terms with the statement that such persons were antichrist

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Your surely cannot grasp gnostic beliefs nor doceticm

Second Epistle of John - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The doctrines of Doceticm and Gnosticism had made inroads among the followers of Jesus in the latter half of the First Century. Some said that Jesus never assumed human flesh, but only had the appearance of flesh, because they were scandalized that Divinity would soil itself by associating so closely with matter. Others said that Christ was raised as a spirit only, and did not experience a bodily resurrection. In this epistle John condemns such doctrines in no uncertain terms with the statement that such persons were antichrist

Hehehe... what fun.

Not a stump to stand on that can't be dissolved with a little theological musing.

 

[oldbadger]

You can.

You ignore quite a bit of common knowledge on the subject, so why stop now?


Can you refute this was a punishment ment to humiliate and torture someone to set an example?

No you cannot.

Wriggling! Wriggling again!

I do not refute the punishment.

I just ignore your mention that crosses were erected at the city entrances as a visual deterrent.....! :yes:

 

[outhouse]

Hehehe... what fun.

Not a stump to stand on that can't be dissolved with a little theological musing.

Typical weak mythicist responce due to failure to refute a statment with credibility.

It describes the cultural anthorpology of the time period, and the different beliefs people held.


If you discount all known credible history, you have no place debating it.

There is plenty of evidence that is not disputed about gnostic beliefs.

 

[outhouse]

I just ignore your mention that crosses were erected at the city entrances as a visual deterrent.....! :yes:

That is just wonderful, any chance at all you could provide sources showing I am in error, instead of just making that claim?

My sources exist, im not going to search for them and waist time over common knowledge just because you have questions due to not reading up on the subject.

 

[steeltoes]

That is just wonderful, any chance at all you could provide sources showing I am in error, instead of just making that claim?

My sources exist, im not going to search for them and waist time over common knowledge just because you have questions due to not reading up on the subject.

What is claimed without evidence can be summarily dismissed without evidence.

 

[technomage]

I rarely read historians and particularly not biblical historians.

Yet you feel qualified to comment on their writings, without even reading what you're arguing against?

You're saying that 'within period' is a term of art for historians? If so, thanks for teaching it to me.

More "shorthand" than a term of art. More accurate phrasing would be "within the period under discussion."

If I'm right about that, your earlier claim was that 'the mythicist accusation was not made between Jesus and Celsus'?

If so, I'm still confused. Just because Celsus didn't make the accusation, that means that no one made it?

We have no evidence of the mythicist hypothesis being made before Dupuis or Volney.

How very convoluted. So you're claiming that 'entirely spiritual, during his life' doesn't mean the same as 'didn't exist in the flesh'?

The Gnostics make "convoluted logic" a hobby. Responding to their doctrines gets convoluted in return.

Oh boy. I've really made you uncomfortable. Rather than addressing my question, you're trying to distract from it by bringing up a claim I never made.

It has nothing to do with being "uncomfortable." You've expressed doubt on the existence of Celsus. Establish the reason for your doubts, or stop basing your arguments on those doubts.

I'm learning more and more about you. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if you have quite a bit more invested in the historical Jesus than your 'agnostic' label would imply.

If you're going to make a statement, make it. Subtle hints that you believe I'm being deceptive are nothing more than a coward's way out.

 

[Avi1001]

I wrote that I 'feel confident'. You are asking how I 'know'. Can you see the difference in terms? I know nothing.

No validation.
Little evidence.
No....... I see no hard-evidence.
Reading the NT over decades, thinking and reading RF debates has caused me to have a 'feeling'. I am not Christian, as you can see, but I am very interested in the life of Yeshua.
.....

Not a Christian ? Interesting. What do you think are the main lessons modern society can learn from "Yeshua" ?

Are these different than lessons taught by Christianity ?