Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?

[oldbadger]

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.

You wrote:-

POST 412-
They placed the cross in entrance and exit ways, to really let that example of what not to do soak in.

The claim was all yours.

 

[oldbadger]

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 ?

Yes....... different. Honour bright and no offence intended towards any.......

For me, Yeshua was an amazing Jew, a wood, stone and bone worker who developed the most amazing abilities as a healer, counselor, herbalist, etc, and who slowly dropped off his trade as he increased his tours of villages around the North of the lake as a healer. He was attracted to John's mission, and was tempted to pick it up after John's arrest. Yeshua was a beautiful Jewish guy. He belongs to the Jewish people. He did not found a new religion. He was faithful to the working Jewish people of Galilee. He was simply a beautifiul person.

He had little to do with the Pauline religion which took parts of his reputation, changed his name and called him God. He had no part in that.

That's just my opinion.......... I still respect Christians......

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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

I see you remained confused about what I'm saying, so let me try again:

Some people spend all their time in tedious detail, reading the minutia of particular historians. Other people read summaries of each historian and listen to those historians debate each other. The second people tend to have a well-rounded view of things while the former can become lost in the minutia and overly-influenced by particular historians.

If that's not clear enough, let me know.

Anyway, since I am so easily out-debating you, imagine how you would suffer if I were even MORE well-read!

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

Oh. If you'd said it that way, I might have understood.

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

Despite your protestations, you seem to care way more about the historical Jesus than I do. I've never even heard of those guys. It wouldn't occur to me to read deeply into the historical v. mythical issue.

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've based no arguments on those doubts. That's just you trying to distract from my actual arguments.

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.

Yep, you're an open book.

Eyes aren't the windows into our souls. Words are.

 

[technomage]

Anyway, since I am so easily out-debating you, imagine how you would suffer if I were even MORE well-read!

I believe I'll leave that evaluation open to others. You and I might be a bit biased.

 

[oldbadger]

I believe I'll leave that evaluation open to others. You and I might be a bit biased.

Some RF members are 'confessed' trolls. :yes:

 

[technomage]

Some RF members are 'confessed' trolls. :yes:

I don't mind trolls. They seem to enjoy their hobby.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I don't mind trolls. They seem to enjoy their hobby.

'Troll' is just a cuss word.

Some RF members can't help cussing those who have dominated them in debate.

But that's OK since Jesus loves us all!

 

[technomage]

'Troll' is just a cuss word.

Meh. Sometimes cuss words have appropriate function.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well, that's an unusual position, and one not supported by the scholarship. I disagree, but consider the topic to be somewhat trivial. If you wish to start a new thread to discuss the topic, I will present my evidence for accepting the historicity of Paul, but if the topic is unimportant to you, I am certainly willing to agree to disagree.

The "scholarship" is usually biased and disingenuous when it comes to Christianity, anyway. So that's not a surprise. There's a lot at stake if they say that it's all mythology with no actual historical backing. It's much safer to continue the whole charade. Makes more money, too.

It's called pseudepigrapha. It was all the rage during ancient times. It's when someone writes under the name of someone else. I think we can safely say that all of the Bible, or most of it, is written that way. We have no evidence for any Paul outside of religious writings and people discussing those religious writings. Even if there were a Paul, we'll never know who it was, because his story is so tied up into fanciful myth, as Jesus' is, that we don't know how to separate the myth from the history if there is a historical person to be found.

Sort of. Early Christianity shares _some_, but not all, attributes with Mystery Religions. The largest difference was the lack of a need to pay for initiation, and the lack of secrecy.

It most likely grew out of Gnostic sects.

By the time of Constantine's death, Christianity was a significant percentage of the population--though of course, there is no way to know what percentage that constitutes. Yes, I doubt they were a majority, but we simply do not have the evidence to discern that, one way or another. But even before the "official"persecutions began around 350, Christianity was a popular religion within the Empire.

No one's disputing that.

Saint Frank, you have to have evidence to back that assertion, else it is simply an unfounded assertion. One substantial piece of evidence against your assertion is the presence of the unofficial persecution against non-Christians, even before the Edict: the mobs and the riots had to have a sufficient population to support them. Another indicator is the failure of Paganism to re-assert itself during the reign of Julian, or of the three emperors who followed him.

I already posted my evidence.

The fact that they behaved towards the Pagans exactly as the Pagans had behaved towards them

No, wrong. Much of Christianity's stories of early persecution are later fables. The Romans were a very religiously tolerant people. The only time they suppressed religious groups is if they were causing civil unrest or they were at war with them (such as with the Druids and the Jews). If anything, the pushers of the "Christians were persecuted by Rome" myth were projecting the actions of Christians towards non-Christians onto the Romans.

“The Myth of Persecution”: Early Christians weren’t persecuted - Salon.com

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Meh. Sometimes cuss words have appropriate function.

Oh, sure. It'd be impossible for most people to paint a portrait of AmbigGuy without them.:sad:

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

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.

Evidence, please. Everything is up for debate. Define what you mean by "Hellenistic Judaism". Do you mean Jews who had mostly assimilated into Hellenic culture or...? What do you mean?

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.

Prove your assertions. I already posted a Wikipedia article saying that the situation was much different from how you're presenting it. If they were "weak", then why did it take centuries for the church to finally eradicate the native religions? Besides, we know that the native religions never really died out. Some of it became syncretized into Christianity, some of it survived as folk tales and folk religions.

I find it funny how you non-Christians on here readily believe so much Christian propaganda about the Pagans.

 

[Quagmire]

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.

(Emphasis mine.)

Agree. One of my future projects is to see if we can create a specialized debate forum somewhere in here where any posts completely lacking in substance, ie., posts that say things like, "I could address/refute that if'n I wanted to, but . . ." or " You're just saying that because . . ." or posts that respond to well thought out and fully demonstrated arguments with self-serving speculation about the other guys "feelings" are either deleted on sight, or sent directly to the jokes forum.

And I almost feel like I should apologize to you and a few other people in here because we haven't done that already.

 

[technomage]

The "scholarship" is usually biased and disingenuous when it comes to Christianity, anyway.

It's easy to assert bias. It's actually possible to establish, but takes effort. But the bare assertion, without the evidence, is pretty empty.

We have no evidence for any Paul outside of religious writings and people discussing those religious writings.

The religious writings in and of themselves are evidence. And they provide sufficient evidence to distinguish the actual Pauline epistles from the pseudepigraphic ones.

Even if there were a Paul, we'll never know who it was, because his story is so tied up into fanciful myth, as Jesus' is, that we don't know how to separate the myth from the history if there is a historical person to be found.

Excuse me. YOU may not know how. Others do.

It most likely grew out of Gnostic sects.

Highly unlikely, since Christianity predates gnosticism.

I already posted my evidence.

A link would be appreciated.

Much of Christianity's stories of early persecution are later fables.

To say "much" is an oversimplification. As Prof. Moss notes (and as discussed in the Salon article), you had a lot of Christians who deliberately took their faith and got "in your face" with the Romans. You also had the persecution under Diocletian, and some sporadic and local persecution under Domitian.

I never claimed that the persecution was as extensive as Christians claim. But there is a substantial middle ground between that and your claim that it was "later fables."

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Excuse me. YOU may not know how. Others do.

Yeah. Some are not wise enough to forego finding the truth about historical figures.

But I think Saint Frankenstein is.

 

[outhouse]

Evidence, please. Everything is up for debate. Define what you mean by "Hellenistic Judaism". Do you mean Jews who had mostly assimilated into Hellenic culture or...? What do you mean?.

Hellenistic Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The decline of Hellenistic Judaism started in the 2nd century CE, and its causes are still not fully understood. It may be that it was eventually marginalized by, partially absorbed into or became progressively the Koiné-speaking core of "Early Christianity"


I mean, Hellenist who adopted Judaism such as Proselytes

It is also stated that Christianity absorbed all of this group in a few hundred years. While not certain, I see no reason to discount it.

Proselyte - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A "righteous proselyte" is a gentile who has converted to Judaism, is bound to all the doctrines and precepts of the Jewish economy, and is considered a full member of the Jewish people. They are to be circumcised as adults (different from brit milah) and immersed in a mikvah should they wish to eat of the Passover sacrifice.
A "gate proselyte"[5] is a resident alien who lives in the Land of Israel and follows some of the customs. They are not required to be circumcised nor to comply with the whole of the Torah. They are bound only to conform to the Noahide Laws (do not worship idols, do not blaspheme God's name, do not murder, do not commit fornication (immoral sexual acts), do not steal, do not tear the limb from a living animal, and do not fail to establish rule of law) to be assured of a place in the world to come

 

[outhouse]

Even if there were a Paul

Who discounts Pauls existance with credibility and why?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It's easy to assert bias. It's actually possible to establish, but takes effort. But the bare assertion, without the evidence, is pretty empty.

Many if not most of the people working in New Testament studies are Christians. I don't have the stats right off the top of my head, but of course a Christian is going to be biased towards the idea of an historical Jesus, Paul, Mary, Joseph and the rest of them. There's many reasons you can come up with as why they would wish to keep this going. Plus, pretty all Western people have grew up in a culture that presents Christianity's stories as historical fact. So no one entering the discussion has an unbiased point of view on it. This isn't chemistry, where we can perform experiments and the results are repeatable and there for everyone to see. It seems to me that it's almost impossible to be unbiased when researching ancient history, or even modern history.

The religious writings in and of themselves are evidence.

No, they're not. We have no outside sources from this Paul's lifetime to attest to his supposed existence. I would think that if someone was going around and doing all the things attested to him in the NT, historians of the time would've noticed!

And they provide sufficient evidence to distinguish the actual Pauline epistles from the pseudepigraphic ones.

That only shows that one person wrote the epistles that aren't disputed. Doesn't mean it was some Paul.

Excuse me. YOU may not know how. Others do.

Oh, and how do they do that? Strip the miracle parts out of it and create a patchwork biography of who the person might have been?

Highly unlikely, since Christianity predates gnosticism.

Let's see your evidence.

A link would be appreciated.

I already posted this: Decline of Greco-Roman polytheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You'll have to read it from beginning to end.

I never claimed that the persecution was as extensive as Christians claim. But there is a substantial middle ground between that and your claim that it was "later fables."

Yes, you did. You said that the Christians did to the Pagans what the Pagans did the to the Christians. That's false. What squabbles the Christians had with the Roman government were relatively miniscule and short compared to the full-on persecution of the native religions under the Christian era of the Empire.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Who discounts Pauls existance with credibility and why?

Thinking people who are trying to find the truth of the matter. Paul is in the same boat as Jesus until proven otherwise.

 

[columbus]

Dang.
You folks sure have a lot of.... words

Amazing how much can be said on a topic where all the evidence is secondhand hearsay recorded by people with religious agendas.

Tom

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Many if not most of the people working in New Testament studies are Christians. I don't have the stats right off the top of my head, but of course a Christian is going to be biased towards the idea of an historical Jesus, Paul, Mary, Joseph and the rest of them. There's many reasons you can come up with as why they would wish to keep this going. Plus, pretty all Western people have grew up in a culture that presents Christianity's stories as historical fact. So no one entering the discussion has an unbiased point of view on it. This isn't chemistry, where we can perform experiments and the results are repeatable and there for everyone to see. It seems to me that it's almost impossible to be unbiased when researching ancient history, or even modern history.

Well said.

Who goes into biblical studies other than a Christian or Jew? I have a hard time imagining that many non-theists would do it.