Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yeah. What difference does it make? Most people these days understand that no miracle-doing godman actually walked the earth. Most people understand that the teachings of the gospel Jesus were created by theologians. What does it matter if an actual flesh-and-blood man existed to serve as the kernal of the story.

But it seems a terribly important question to lots of people. I think we need our heroes.

Bingo. Even the scholars who think that there might've been a historical man beneath all the mythology can't agree on much of anything pertaining to who this person might've been. All they have is the writings of Christians to form a joke of a "biography" from. Methinks that these scholars are being disingenuous and don't want to proclaim the logical conclusion because we live in a majority Christian society. There would be a huge fallout if the majority of historians, archeologists, etc. gained some intellectual honesty and agreed that Jesus probably didn't exist. Also, they wouldn't be able to make anymore money selling their silly made-up "biographies" of the "historical Jesus", either. There's too much financial and social impetus to continue to peddle the fantasy of a historical Jesus that the Bible Jesus was allegedly based on.

Without Jesus, the whole house of cards collapses and we can't have that now, can we?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

There's too much financial and social impetus to continue to peddle the fantasy of a historical Jesus that the Bible Jesus was allegedly based on.

Without Jesus, the whole house of cards collapses and we can't have that now, can we?

I have to think that without the cultural and financial pressures, very few scholars of the NT would believe him to have walked the streets of Jerusalem in 30 CE. My guess is that someone lived around 70 BCE upon whom the stories and theology grew.

But for now, the Jesus Game continues. Books, movies, religious careers, academic careers, forum debates... we can't stop the Jesus Game anytime soon, I think.

 

[outhouse]

What rubbish.

Your welcome to any opinion, no mater how unsubstantiated it is.

It was one group out of many that imposed the view that he was a historical figure who actually did all the things the canonical gospels say he did.

Sources for that :areyoucra

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I have to think that without the cultural and financial pressures, very few scholars of the NT would believe him to have walked the streets of Jerusalem in 30 CE. My guess is that someone lived around 70 BCE upon whom the stories and theology grew.

But for now, the Jesus Game continues. Books, movies, religious careers, academic careers, forum debates... we can't stop the Jesus Game anytime soon, I think.

Pretty much. There's too much money to be made, sheep to be fleeced, irrational emotional ties to cling to, etc.

Personally, I don't think there was an actual person it was based on. I think the whole thing grew out of some of the various mystery cults that mixed Hellenic and Judaic concepts. "Jesus" seems to have been a device used by cult leaders to impart spiritual teachings to their followers. Only much later was he given a fleshy body and a life on earth by non-occult/more mundane members of this movement. In this way, "Jesus" is like the Greek Orpheus. His character was used in the same way by his followers but he only exists in myth. It was just stories to pass on teachings and place them in a certain context. But they didn't actually happen and the main characters didn't actually exist. It's simple, really, when you think about it.

 

[outhouse]

Oh, because it's not a Wikipedia link? Because it's not an "authority" who agrees with you?

I dont find hat to be true.

99% of all scholars agree with me, it is your opinion that doesnt seem to follow known historical methodology.

So the Bible is a history book when it suits your argument, but not at times when it doesn't?

When you learn how they determine historicity, and follow enough scholars to determine the different opinions on the subject, you would be able to answer your own questions.

Let me guess, you think that "Matthew", "Mark", "Luke" and "John" were all necessarily real people who wrote the books bearing their names, right?

That makes it obvious you dont have a clue what I follow or do not.

They said that Jesus walked on water and raised dead people, so that's true too, correct?

Did I say they did?

You should worry about your own hypothesis, mine is backed by almost every scholar there is.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I dont find hat to be true.

99% of all scholars agree with me, it is your opinion that doesnt seem to follow known historical methodology.




When you learn how they determine historicity, and follow enough scholars to determine the different opinions on the subject, you would be able to answer your own questions.



That makes it obvious you dont have a clue what I follow or do not.





Did I say they did?

You should worry about your own hypothesis, mine is backed by almost every scholar there is.

Blah blah blah. More argumentum ad populum. Come back to me when you have a real, non-fallacious argument.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Personally, I don't think there was a person it was based on. I think the whole thing grew out of some of the various mystery cults that mixed Hellenic and Judaic concepts. "Jesus" seems to have been a device used by cult leaders to impart spiritual teachings to their followers. Only much later was he given a fleshy body and a life on earth by non-occult/more mundane members of this movement. In this way, "Jesus" is like the Greek Orpheus. His character was used in the same way by his followers but he only exists in myth. It was just stories to pass on teachings and place them in a certain context. But they didn't actually happen and the main characters didn't actually exist. It's simply, really, when you think about it.

Your guess is as good as mine, of course. I write a little fiction, so I think of everything as interconnected. When I write some character, I draw from various real people and their characters and behaviors and activities. (I also draw from fictional characters.) So the question of whether there was really a Jesus just doesn't make good sense to me. Obviously the gospel Jesus didn't 'really' exist. Virtually eveyone agrees with that except the most conservative Christians. So the question isn't whether Jesus existed, but whether we can know anything about the person who might have been the inspiration for the gospel Jesus.

Not me.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Your guess is as good as mine, of course. I write a little fiction, so I think of everything as interconnected. When I write some character, I draw from various real people and their characters and behaviors and activities. (I also draw from fictional characters.) So the question of whether there was really a Jesus just doesn't make good sense to me. Obviously the gospel Jesus didn't 'really' exist. Virtually eveyone agrees with that except the most conservative Christians. So the question isn't whether Jesus existed, but whether we can know anything about the person who might have been the inspiration for the gospel Jesus.

Not me.

Well, yes, there could've been someone (eve multiple someones) this Jesus character might've been based on. But, as you said, it's all moot at the end of the day since there is absolutely no way to ever know who that someone or someones was. They have been permanently lost to history. That's why I don't even bother with it. It's just more to the point, imo, to say that he didn't exist and was just a rhetorical device in the beginning used by mystery cults.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

99% of all scholars agree with me, it is your opinion that doesnt seem to follow known historical methodology.

I don't know what the claim in question is here, but this has me immediately suspicious because it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for "99% of all scholars" to agree about anything. So... what is this remarkable subject of agreement? What do 99% of all scholars agree about?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Your welcome to any opinion, no mater how unsubstantiated it is.

Funny, the same can be said about your opinion.

Sources for that :areyoucra

Why bother? You'll just dismiss them out of hand because they aren't people you're a sycophant towards.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't know what the claim in question is here, but this has me immediately suspicious because it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for "99% of all scholars" to agree about anything. So... what is this remarkable subject of agreement? What do 99% of all scholars agree about?

We're arguing over whether Jesus existed or not. The figure is certainly not at 99%, that's for sure. The only argument that our friend outhouse has to fall back on is argumentum ad populum. Apparently he believes we're easily dazzled by Wikipedia links.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

We're arguing over whether Jesus existed or not. The figure is certainly not at 99%, that's for sure. The only argument that our friend outhouse has to fall back on is argumentum ad populum. Apparently he believes we're easily dazzled by Wikipedia links.

Well, its not quite that simple, but you're absolutely right that this 99% number is completely bogus. I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of Biblical scholars believed that, I'd be a bit more surprised if any sizable majority of ancient historians believed it. In any case, what experts think is always pertinent, and an expert consensus isn't to be taken lightly, but numbers alone never settle a dispute, what matters is the quality of the arguments and evidence. Maybe 100% of scholars agree about some topic, but if their agreement is based on ad hoc arguments and manufactured evidence (I'm not saying this is true of the present case), then this consensus isn't very compelling. However, if an expert consensus exists, this usually means that there is some pretty decisive evidence or arguments on the matter- but then, cite the evidence or arguments, don't just point and say "so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so agree with me", that is certainly a fallacious appeal.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I don't know what the claim in question is here, but this has me immediately suspicious because it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for "99% of all scholars" to agree about anything. So... what is this remarkable subject of agreement? What do 99% of all scholars agree about?

The rightness of outhouse's opinions regarding historical truth.

I'm skeptical.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well, its not quite that simple, but you're absolutely right that this 99% number is completely bogus. I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of Biblical scholars believed that, I'd be a bit more surprised if any sizable majority of ancient historians believed it. In any case, what experts think is always pertinent, and an expert consensus isn't to be taken lightly, but numbers alone never settle a dispute, what matters is the quality of the arguments and evidence. Maybe 100% of scholars agree about some topic, but if their agreement is based on ad hoc arguments and manufactured evidence (I'm not saying this is true of the present case), then this consensus isn't very compelling. However, if an expert consensus exists, this usually means that there is some pretty decisive evidence or arguments on the matter- but then, cite the evidence or arguments, don't just point and say "so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so agree with me", that is certainly a fallacious appeal.

Certainly we should pay attention to what expert consensus is. However, this specific issue is an extremely sensitive one, fraught with social, financial and religious dimensions. There is certainly a big impetus for an expert in these fields to claim one thing, even if there's not solid evidence to back it up. This is a sad case of the shortcomings of historical studies due to bias, personal and cultural. Unfortunate.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Well, yes, there could've been someone (eve multiple someones) this Jesus character might've been based on. But, as you said, it's all moot at the end of the day since there is absolutely no way to ever know who that someone or someones was. They have been permanently lost to history. That's why I don't even bother with it. It's just more to the point, imo, to say that he didn't exist and was just a rhetorical device in the beginning used by mystery cults.

I pity historians, especially those who study 'ancient' history. I've mentioned that I once read a Book On Tape about Alexander, read by its author. She was an elderly British woman, and you could hear in her voice the certainty of this or that truth -- and the outrage at those historians who saw Alexander's behavior and character differently than she did. I remember special vehemence for any historian who claimed that Alexander cut the Gordian Knot rather than figuring out how to untie it.

So even though we know very little about Alexander the Great, our passion for certainty makes us build our pictures and then believe them real.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I pity historians, especially those who study 'ancient' history. I've mentioned that I once read a Book On Tape about Alexander, read by its author. She was an elderly British woman, and you could hear in her voice the certainty of this or that truth -- and the outrage at those historians who saw Alexander's behavior and character differently than she did. I remember special vehemence for any historian who claimed that Alexander cut the Gordian Knot rather than figuring out how to untie it.

So even though we know very little about Alexander the Great, our passion for certainty makes us build our pictures and then believe them real.

Excellent example. I feel bad for them, too. Far too easy for historians to be overcome by their personal biases. It's not like the "hard" sciences where you can perform an experiment and it's repeatable, so the results are there for all to see. There's a lot of guess work and interpretation that goes on with ancient history studies. Hell, even with modern history to an extent.

 

[nilsz]

I am confident in the academic consensus that there was a historical person on which the Biblical Jesus is based.

I am not sure if you can call it fraud if you genuinely believe in what you preach, even though it is wrong. We have seen it plenty of times with modern miracle men.

 

[psychoslice]

Yeah. What difference does it make? Most people these days understand that no miracle-doing godman actually walked the earth. Most people understand that the teachings of the gospel Jesus were created by theologians. What does it matter if an actual flesh-and-blood man existed to serve as the kernal of the story.

But it seems a terribly important question to lots of people. I think we need our heroes.

Yes I do think most people need their hero's, they say god or Jesus loves them, but the reason they think that is because something you cannot see, or something that doesn't exist cannot hurt you, where as real people can, hence the belief in a myth.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I am confident in the academic consensus that there was a historical person on which the Biblical Jesus is based.

Why? Have you investigated it... or do you just accept their consensus opinion without looking into it?

Until a few years ago I assumed Jesus was historical but when I began to debate the issue, my opinion began to change. I came to suspect that much of the certainty about Jesus' historicity was just cultural assumption.

Maybe you'd like to investigate it now, with us? (It can be an emotionally-violent subject, I should warn you.)

 

[outhouse]

I don't know what the claim in question is here, but this has me immediately suspicious because it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for "99% of all scholars" to agree about anything. So... what is this remarkable subject of agreement? What do 99% of all scholars agree about?

That he existed. And 99% was very generous on my part.

And that there are two facts about his existence.

His crucifixion.

And baptism by JtB.

Historical Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Despite divergent scholarly opinions on the construction of portraits of the historical Jesus, almost all modern scholars consider his baptism and crucifixion to be historical facts.[11][46]

James Dunn states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts" that they are often the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus