Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?

[technomage]

I tend to only trust South Park when it comes to politics and human nature. Religion, not so much.

Nah, three words: Jesus Satan Pay-per-view.

Speaking of which: the song has strong language, but if you're OK with that:

Spoiler: strong language

Tom Smith's Sonuva.

 

[Quagmire]

Nah, three words: Jesus Satan Pay-per-view.

Speaking of which: the song has strong language, but if you're OK with that:

Spoiler

Tom Smith's Sonuva.

LOL!

btw, hope you don't mind, I went ahead and spoilered it for you.

 

[technomage]

LOL!

btw, hope you don't mind, I went ahead and spoilered it for you.

Oops--didn't think about that. Thanks.

 

[Sees]

Think about it like this: Once upon a time, the majority of Christians thought of Adam as an historical figure. But as they began to see him mythically, they actually became better Christians.

Or this: Once upon a time, the majority of Christians insisted on Creationism. But as they began to let Creationism go and accept Evolution, they didn't lose their faith. Instead, they became better Christians.

Same with the historical Jesus. There is no necessity of thinking of Jesus as historical. It's exactly the same as people thinking that their faith would be lost if they went with evolution. Nope. Their faith just got better.

A Christian can live without an historical Jesus just as he can live without an historical Adam. (Although, of course, they will tend to resist the changeover.)

I think such a Christianity could exist and does already in very small numbers, don't know if it could be mainstream.

The traditional Christian salvation message goes out the window. People switching focus to living like Jesus will cut into too much free time and stuff.

 

[steeltoes]

Both Paul and Acts speak to the existence of a Jerusalem sect and tension between Paul and the then current leadership of that sect. Do you claim all of this to be an elaborate fabrication?

No, I don't. Acts glosses over the tensions as if they never existed, church propaganda as it were. There is even some evidence in the gospels of tensions between the apostles.

 

[columbus]

Perhaps you'd be surprised by how many Christians actually do operate that way. I have some solid Christian friends who couldn't care less about this discussion. They simply wouldn't care if Jesus existed physically or not. They would find arguing about it on the internet a ridiculous waste of time better spent feeding the hungry and fighting injustice and stuff.
They just don't tend to make much noise.
Tom

 

[steeltoes]

Perhaps you'd be surprised by how many Christians actually do operate that way. I have some solid Christian friends who couldn't care less about this discussion. They simply wouldn't care if Jesus existed physically or not. They would find arguing about it on the internet a ridiculous waste of time better spent feeding the hungry and fighting injustice and stuff.
They just don't tend to make much noise.
Tom

I debate for debate sake, this topic is debatable so that is why I debate it. Jesus may have existed or he may not have, and I don't think it matters either way.

 

[Quagmire]

I debate for debate sake, this topic is debatable so that is why I debate it. Jesus may have existed or he may not have, and I don't think it matters either way.

I think you have debate confused with disagree. It isn't the same thing.

 

[columbus]

I was a little unclear as you slipped a post in while I was typing. I was responding to Sees post just above.

Tom

eta~ People keep slipping in posts while I am typing. I'm rather slow. This was to Steeltoes~

 

[Sees]

Perhaps you'd be surprised by how many Christians actually do operate that way. I have some solid Christian friends who couldn't care less about this discussion. They simply wouldn't care if Jesus existed physically or not. They would find arguing about it on the internet a ridiculous waste of time better spent feeding the hungry and fighting injustice and stuff.
They just don't tend to make much noise.
Tom

Oh I agree, there are many great Christians and they have varying beliefs and care about specifics. It's a special breed of people that enjoy or entertain arguing and picking at details. When I was a kid I would visit all the local churches in walking distance excited to ask the preacher/pastor/whoever about big, difficult questions and probably half didn't seem to care much or worry over specifics.

 

[oldbadger]

I debate for debate sake, this topic is debatable so that is why I debate it. Jesus may have existed or he may not have, and I don't think it matters either way.

Jesus..... the name. I still don't get why 'they' (Paul?) decided on this name and then stapled it to the memory of a Galilean healer. Why would they need to do that?
Any ideas?

 

[outhouse]

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

No.

Through all the study that can be done.

Many unbiased people who have studied in depth as deep as can be, have made these determinations based only of the evidence.

 

[Sees]

Jesus..... the name. I still don't get why 'they' (Paul?) decided on this name and then stapled it to the memory of a Galilean healer. Why would they need to do that?
Any ideas?

It was all the rage those days...supposedly several Jesus running around

 

[outhouse]

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.

Ill take that as a no.

Appealing to ignorance is a personal choice, I choose another path.

 

[outhouse]

Your last two posts to St. Frank were pure ad hominem... nothing about the argument itself, just negative assertions about the arguer.

I'm sorry, but I do see that as substandard debate.

How about let's get back to the historical Jesus -- whether he was a fraud and such.

Are you going to actually start to debate?

 

[steeltoes]

Jesus..... the name. I still don't get why 'they' (Paul?) decided on this name and then stapled it to the memory of a Galilean healer. Why would they need to do that?
Any ideas?

Why the name Jesus is a good question. It has been suggested that the author of Mark merged two religions together, that of the Jerusalem group together with a Galilean Jesus movement. G.A. Wells suggests that the Jesus of Q should not be confused with Paul's Jesus.

 

[outhouse]

There is no necessity of thinking of Jesus as historical.

One we get rid of all the red herrings and straw men posted with this.

Your right, there is no necessity at all.



It just seems 100% plausible a man was martyred at Passover, and people found him so important they wrote about him.

 

[outhouse]

Hmmm, can't think of any Simpson-Jesus episodes off the top of my head.

I know there are a bunch of South Park ones, but I'm not sure how reliable they are.

Family guy does some pretty good ones.

 

[technomage]

It just seems 100% plausible a man was martyred at Passover, and people found him so important they wrote about him.

As vigorously as I argue for the point, and as much as I agree with the historicity of Jesus, I wouldn't say "100% plausible." Yes, I find historicity more plausible than myth (mainly because of the fragility of most conspiracies), but to look at the legends of "the Christ" and not be able to consider that since part of that legend is mythical, ALL may be mythical, is simply not looking at all the evidence.

Part of the reason I accept the historicity of Jesus, even with all the mythic trappings that were piled on top, is the proximity of the writings of Paul to the events described. When Paul was writing, there were still people around who could have called him on it if he were spreading stories out of whole cloth.

 

[outhouse]

As vigorously as I argue for the point, and as much as I agree with the historicity of Jesus, I wouldn't say "100% plausible." Yes, I find historicity more plausible than myth (mainly because of the fragility of most conspiracies), but to look at the legends of "the Christ" and not be able to consider that since part of that legend is mythical, ALL may be mythical, is simply not looking at all the evidence.

Part of the reason I accept the historicity of Jesus, even with all the mythic trappings that were piled on top, is the proximity of the writings of Paul to the events described. When Paul was writing, there were still people around who could have called him on it if he were spreading stories out of whole cloth.

I started out uneducated and viewed Jesus as mythical, it did not last long.

For years I stayed around 55% historical and 45% mythical.

I now follow the crucifixion and baptism as fact.


With all that said, I still take a very minimal view of the historicity we can attribute. Much less then most scholars. I also still cannot ditch my view of Hellenistic Judaism VS a more traditional Judaism as I find the socioeconomic divisions steep. Places like Sepphoris I view as Hellenist who adopted Judaism more so then Hellenism permeating all of Judaism. I still think the level of Hellenistic influence varied by geographic location, with peasant communities in Galilee holding onto the traditional culture within Judaism tighter then suspected.