Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?

[roger1440]

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?

"She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” (Matthew 1:21)​

Jesus is the Greek form of Joshua, which means the Lord saves.

 

[oldbadger]

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

Hi....... I don't think that there were several Jesus..... This name was part Greek part Latin.... No? Cobbled together?

Here's a theory...... it was not a Jewish name, possibly? It certainly had no meaning for Yeshua, just as Peter had no meaning for Cephas.

 

[oldbadger]

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.

....the author of Mark? Can't have been...... There is no religion being born in G-Mark. It's just a compilation of 'memories and notes' which forms a report, the only one that runs true (even with evangelical tampering). G-Mark has J in Jerusalem for about one week in the whole report.

I like the suggestion of the combining of 'sects', but this name came out of 'foreign' languages........ I realise that the upper and ruling classes were Hellenised, but the initial mission was amongst the lay people.

I haven't read G A Wells. I'll go looking...

 

[oldbadger]

"She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” (Matthew 1:21)​

Jesus is the Greek form of Joshua, which means the Lord saves.

Hi....

I can't print sources just now, but the name Jesus is reported to have two parts, only one part being Greek.

But, even so, you have got to ask yourself 'Why would a messenger from God instruct an Aramaic Speaking Galilean Father to name his son with a Greek name.'

Why?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Better ... by whose standards?

By mine, of course. And I think, by theirs. LIberal Christians -- those who accept science wholly and conform the Bible to that -- tend to be 'better' in various ways, but mostly in the reduction of intellectual conflict and turmoil.

Let's for a moment consider the possibility that the Christians who argue for a literal interpretation of their Bibles are correct.

Can't do it. If God is a Trickster God, I can't deal with HIm. I can't even see Him as God.

_If_ the Bible is literally true, abandoning a belief in a literal Adam actually makes them worse Christians, because they move further away from "God's truth."

I think you're still looking at it from the inside out. There is no God's Truth. There is only a single human's view of God's Truth. And a convert is always just as happy or happier on the other side of conversion.

One doesn't lose God's Truth. One only comes to a better view of God's Truth.

The Christians have a passage in their Bible that says something to the effect of "If the resurrection is false, we are the most miserable of people." For them, they can't have Christianity without an actual, living Jesus.

The Bible is a bunch of words. Words don't means things all by themselves. 'The resurrection' can be interpreted at will. So can 'is false.'

To my sensibilities, you seem not to be allowing for interpretation.

Now, that's not why I am persuaded that there was a historical Jesus. That's my best analysis of the evidence. But it is an important point to remember, in my (for once, humble) opinion.

I remember the point. But it's as I said: Once a Christian would have argued with me that God created man and therefore Christians will lose their faith is they accept evolution.

But that's not how it works, in my view. Even now I know Christians who don't believe that Jesus was historical.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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.

You might be right, but I'm uncertain. It amazes me that millions of people, of such diverse beliefs, still think of themselves as Christians, as people who 'follow the Book.'

It's why I get frustrated with those who attack Islam. Don't they know that Muslims will, in time, interpret the Quran to fit their own personalities and beliefs?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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.

Yes, outhouse. 100% plausible to you. We understand that.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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.

But Paul didn't speak of a 30CE, real Jesus. Do you mean the gospels?

Imagine that someone is claiming a man lived on the streets of Chicago in 1975. He was a miracle worker. He could even save us from our sins and give us eternal life.

Could you disprove this guy, even in today's world?

No, I don't think so. The story would be way more powerful than any voice raised against it.

 

[technomage]

Can't do it. If God is a Trickster God, I can't deal with HIm. I can't even see Him as God.

I can see that. I have to admit, if God exists, and that God is deceptive ... no. I could not worship such a God. I could accept a God who uses metaphor as a teaching tool, but outright deception? No.

 

[technomage]

Imagine that someone is claiming a man lived on the streets of Chicago in 1975.

To be truly parallel to Paul's example, it would be some guy living in Chicago around 2000-2003. Yes, that could be tested. However, it would be a lot easier on people today than back then.

 

[arcanum]

Going back to to the original question: If he was just "a fraud" well then hell, if that's so then his influence is the biggest mental virus meme that ever infected the human psyche. Why are we still talking about this man? Why if he was just a fraud, a charlatan, a delusional preacher,....why are you people even still talking about him?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

To be truly parallel to Paul's example, it would be some guy living in Chicago around 2000-2003. Yes, that could be tested. However, it would be a lot easier on people today than back then.

I don't understand. Are you claiming that Paul wrote of a real human being who lived in his own lifetime?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Going back to to the original question: If he was just "a fraud" well then hell, if that's so then his influence is the biggest mental virus meme that ever infected the human psyche. Why are we still talking about this man? Why if he was just a fraud, a charlatan, a delusional preacher,....why are you people even still talking about him?

It's the Jesus Game. Try not to spoil it. People get cranky.

 

[arcanum]

It's the Jesus Game. Try not to spoil it. People get cranky.

Keep pondering....there is much to chew on is there not? It's funny isn't it how this one character in western literature and tradition that has come down to us has become the Rorschach blot of all things. Our bowls of inquiry are never empty, you can always go up for another helping and you will never be full.:yes:

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Keep pondering....there is much to chew on is there not? It's funny isn't it how this one character in western literature and tradition that has come down to us has become the Rorschach blot of all things.

The human mind craves heroes, and a godman is as heroic as it gets.

If we want to explain life to people, let's have our godman say heavy stuff. Let's make that the reason for his visit. He came down here to tell us about the meaning of life and how we should behave and such.

Our bowls of inquiry are never empty, you can always go up for another helping and you will never be full.:yes:

Just so. Jesus is all things to all people. Just peel back another layer and you'll find what you need.

 

[technomage]

I don't understand. Are you claiming that Paul wrote of a real human being who lived in his own lifetime?

That is Paul's assertion in 1 Cor 15:6-8. Paul claims that there were people still alive who saw Jesus. Of course, the explicit mention in v. 6 is to people who "saw" Jesus after he supposedly rose from the dead.

There is also this: until 6 CE, Judea was a client kingdom of Rome, not a directly ruled province. While Judea was a client kingdom, they had the authority to execute criminals: it was only after Judea became a province that crucifixion was used. (Culturally, because of their religious rules, the Jews avoided hanging, impalement, crucifixion, or similar methods of execution. The Herodians were not themselves ethnically Jewish, but according to Josephus they pretty much ruled with sensitivity to Jewish religious customs.)

Now, by the time the Gospels were written (GoMark was probably written within the first three to five years after the destruction of Jerusalem), few if any eyewitnesses survived. By tradition, neither Mark nor Luke were eyewitnesses (which is utterly unimportant if the Gospels attributed to them are misattributed, a question where there is insufficient evidence to establish or refute). So no, the Bible contains no eyewitness accounts. There _may_ be some filtered second-hand accounts in GoMark if the traditional attribution is correct, but if so, Mark added material to suit his didactic purposes, and he flubbed some of the details (such as the geography around Galilee).

AH, as you can see, I can blather on for several paragraphs on this topic.

 

[technomage]

Going back to to the original question: If he was just "a fraud" well then hell, if that's so then his influence is the biggest mental virus meme that ever infected the human psyche. Why are we still talking about this man? Why if he was just a fraud, a charlatan, a delusional preacher,....why are you people even still talking about him?

It's fairly obvious that somebody was wrong, either Jesus or the folks who wrote about him after he died. Fraud? Heck, we have so little of his actual words that it is impossible to discern if he was just shaking people down for their cash.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That is Paul's assertion in 1 Cor 15:6-8. Paul claims that there were people still alive who saw Jesus. Of course, the explicit mention in v. 6 is to people who "saw" Jesus after he supposedly rose from the dead.

There is also this: until 6 CE, Judea was a client kingdom of Rome, not a directly ruled province. While Judea was a client kingdom, they had the authority to execute criminals: it was only after Judea became a province that crucifixion was used. (Culturally, because of their religious rules, the Jews avoided hanging, impalement, crucifixion, or similar methods of execution. The Herodians were not themselves ethnically Jewish, but according to Josephus they pretty much ruled with sensitivity to Jewish religious customs.)

Now, by the time the Gospels were written (GoMark was probably written within the first three to five years after the destruction of Jerusalem), few if any eyewitnesses survived. By tradition, neither Mark nor Luke were eyewitnesses (which is utterly unimportant if the Gospels attributed to them are misattributed, a question where there is insufficient evidence to establish or refute). So no, the Bible contains no eyewitness accounts. There _may_ be some filtered second-hand accounts in GoMark if the traditional attribution is correct, but if so, Mark added material to suit his didactic purposes, and he flubbed some of the details (such as the geography around Galilee).

AH, as you can see, I can blather on for several paragraphs on this topic.

Can I ask why. Why are you so interested in all that?

Just a hobby?

 

[arcanum]

But Paul didn't speak of a 30CE, real Jesus. Do you mean the gospels?

Imagine that someone is claiming a man lived on the streets of Chicago in 1975. He was a miracle worker. He could even save us from our sins and give us eternal life.

Could you disprove this guy, even in today's world?

No, I don't think so. The story would be way more powerful than any voice raised against it.

This is the hole in the Jesus myth theory, and I've read them all. Sorry but Paul does indeed talk of a flesh and blood human in whom he based his teachings upon named Jesus and he references people who are mentioned in the gospels and his letters pre date the gospels.

 

[technomage]

Can I ask why. Why are you so interested in all that?

Just a hobby?

Yup. I grew up Christian (Southern Baptist ... the only problem with Southern Baptists is they don't hold them under the water NEARLY long enough ). For me, diving into the Hebrew and the Greek, and diving into the history, was what broke me away from Christianity.