Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?

[columbus]

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

I see Paul's historicity as much stronger. He strikes me as rather like Alexander the great. Even if there were no reference to him at all, his impact on history is so large we'd have to theorize his existence to explain what is known.

Tom

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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.

Written in dead languages, from primitive dead cultures, in distant hole-in-the-wall lands.

Translated again and again and again, from scraps, by ideological scribes.

With other scraps and inconvenient commentaries doubtlessly destroyed by ideological enemies.

Oh, but what fun it is to do battle over Jesus!

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I see Paul's historicity as much stronger. He strikes me as rather like Alexander the great. Even if there were no reference to him at all, his impact on history is so large we'd have to theorize his existence to explain what is known.

Tom

Having an impact on history due to someone using you as a literary device to speak through, doesn't cause someone to materialize as an historical figure.

 

[technomage]

It seems to me that it's almost impossible to be unbiased when researching ancient history, or even modern history.

You might want to contact Jaques Berlinerblau. He's an atheist: more than that, he's probably in touch with every atheist, agnostic, and religious moderate in modern academia.

No, they're not. We have no outside sources from this Paul's lifetime to attest to his supposed existence.

"Outside sources" are not required to establish the existence of someone who has written a surviving book (even if, in Paul's case, the books are brief).

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

If you wish to assert that Paul did not exist, go right ahead. But it's your assertion: you have to back it.

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?

Nothing so simplistic. One methodology was used by the Jesus Seminar.

Let's see your evidence.

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

First, let's dig into yours a bit more. Before I start with a counterclaim, let's make certain your claim is actually established. Considering that Wikipedia is decent for very basic information, but usually too imprecise for a full understanding of large and complex topics, I'd like to see more support for your claim that "The masses didn't just all of a sudden run off to the church to be baptized."

Yes, you did. You said that the Christians did to the Pagans what the Pagans did the to the Christians. That's false.

Not false: my claim is not as simplistic as you state. Yes, there was pagan persecution of christians. No, it was not as widespread nor as vehement as many Christians claim. Again, there is a considerable grey area between the two claims that you are ignoring.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

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.

Yeah, I wouldn't think there's that many non-religious people involved in that area of study.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Having an impact on history due to someone using you as a literary device to speak through, doesn't cause someone to materialize as an historical figure.

I hope not. That Screwtape guy was creepy. I don't like thinking he might be historical.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You might want to contact Jaques Berlinerblau. He's an atheist: more than that, he's probably in touch with every atheist, agnostic, and religious moderate in modern academia.

He's one person. Has he written anything about Biblical history studies or related topics? If not, I don't see how he's relevant to the discussion.

"Outside sources" are not required to establish the existence of someone who has written a surviving book (even if, in Paul's case, the books are brief).

Er, yes it is. Especially if there's no proof of that person existing outside of the books that we can't even be sure were written by the person they're attested to in the first place.

If you wish to assert that Paul did not exist, go right ahead. But it's your assertion: you have to back it.

I think I've done that pretty well. You guys have to present evidence of his existence. You're claiming that he was real and I and some others aren't convinced. So where's your convincing evidence?

Nothing so simplistic. One methodology was used by the Jesus Seminar.

Yes, it's called guesswork. They actually had to vote on what they thought were likely to be historical sayings of Jesus! How rigorous and scholarly!

First, let's dig into yours a bit more. Before I start with a counterclaim, let's make certain your claim is actually established. Considering that Wikipedia is decent for very basic information, but usually too imprecise for a full understanding of large and complex topics, I'd like to see more support for your claim that "The masses didn't just all of a sudden run off to the church to be baptized."

Is there a reason for me to believe otherwise? I see no evidence that huge amounts of people were converting to Christianity. The numbers that I have seen were that about 10% of the Empire were Christian by the year 300.

Not false: my claim is not as simplistic as you state. Yes, there was pagan persecution of christians. No, it was not as widespread nor as vehement as many Christians claim. Again, there is a considerable grey area between the two claims that you are ignoring.

Perhaps you should word your arguments better, then.

 

[technomage]

He's one person. Has he written anything about Biblical history studies or related topics?

It helps if you actually _read_ the article I linked you to. The article discusses his academic contributions, and his discussions of the difficulties that an atheist in the field of Bible scholarship can face.

C'mon, Franky, WORK with me on this!

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It helps if you actually _read_ the article I linked you to. The article discusses his academic contributions, and his discussions of the difficulties that an atheist in the field of Bible scholarship can face.

C'mon, Franky, WORK with me on this!

Actually, it doesn't. Maybe you gave me the wrong link.

 

[technomage]

Actually, it doesn't. Maybe you gave me the wrong link.

Or maybe you didn't see the subsection where it talks about "Books"?

Sheesh. Kids these days. :lol:

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Or maybe you didn't see the subsection where it talks about "Books"?

Sheesh. Kids these days. :lol:

So you expect him to search through the site to try and find another link which will take him to whatever point you're trying to make?

C'mon. Let's play right. The game has rules.

 

[oldbadger]

C'mon. Let's play right. The game has rules.

:biglaugh:
Since when did you ever acknowledge playing right?

 

[technomage]

So you expect him to search through the site to try and find another link which will take him to whatever point you're trying to make?

C'mon. Let's play right. The game has rules.

I'm far more interested in actual discussion than game-playing. If I wanted to play games, my computer has several different versions of solitaire.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Or maybe you didn't see the subsection where it talks about "Books"?

Sheesh. Kids these days. :lol:

I'm not sure what you're getting at:

Books

• Heresy in the University: The Black Athena Controversy and the Responsibilities of American Intellectuals (1999, Rutgers University Press) ISBN 0-8135-2588-8
• The Secular Bible: Why Nonbelievers Must Take Religion Seriously (2005, Cambridge University Press) ISBN 0-521-61824-X
• The Vow and the 'Popular Religious Groups' of Ancient Israel: A Philological & Sociological Inquiry (1996, Sheffield Academic Press) ISBN 1-85075-578-7
• Thumpin’ It: The Use and Abuse of the Bible in Today’s Presidential Politics (2008, Westminster John Knox) ISBN 978-0-664-23173-6
• How to be Secular: A Field Guide for Religious Moderates, Atheists and Agnostics (2012, Houghton-Mifflin Harcourt) ISBN 978-0-547-47334-5

What are you talking about? If you meant to show me something else, why didn't you?

 

[Quagmire]

I'm far more interested in actual discussion than game-playing. If I wanted to play games, my computer has several different versions of solitaire.

Welcome to the forums, technomage.

Sorry about all the buzzing. I'm hoping to get the go-ahead to put some new screens up on the windows.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

:biglaugh:
Since when did you ever acknowledge playing right?

If all you have are personal insults, consider leaving them in the Insult Box at the front door and I'll check them later.

No need to interrupt serious debate with them.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I'm far more interested in actual discussion than game-playing. If I wanted to play games, my computer has several different versions of solitaire.

So why not point out whatever it is that you're trying to have Franky look at?

Why be shy about it?

 

[outhouse]

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

Both Jesus and Paul have historicity right now, until proven otherwise.

Sorry you dont like the state of current scholarships.

Ever listened to a real professor teach a class on the NT or Paul?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Ever listened to a real professor teach a class on the NT or Paul?

Bring one here. I dare you.

You have my permission to tell him that I said Nanny Nanny Boo Boo in his specific direction and spoke disparangingly of his mama's footwear.

I dare you to bring one of your professors here, real or otherwise.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Both Jesus and Paul have historicity right now, until proven otherwise.

It's because they assume their historicity and nothing more.