Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?

[oldbadger]

Are you saying Ireneaus and Papias authenticates the Gospel of Mark?

Hi......
No. But their testaments could be regarded as corroboration.

The Gospel of Mark can stand by itself as a genuine report, even if it has had some fiddling, here and there, plus that addition at the end. Simply put, I trust it as the best report of Yeshua's last year and his death.

What do you think about G-Mark?

 

[oldbadger]

For me this whole discussion is not about whether or not Jesus existed, it is about the amazing logic that people use to arrive at their conclusions. For example, it's been claimed that people believed the gospel story to be true right from the onset of its publication because we have no one saying it wasn't true. It's comforting to know that we can know this, I mean really, first century middle east is an open book, we can somehow know that they all believed and that should be good enough for us, so therefore Jesus existed and we can know this with confidence. Truly amazing.

Hi....

Your example (above) could be viewed as moderate and reasonable when compared with some other 'irrefutable proofs'.

But there is enough secondary, tertiary and indirect evidence to make a proposal. So let me make that proposal (2 proposals) to you, without listing it all (plx spare me from that task), because I know you've read it all, and chewed on it all, and mulled it all over countless years.

1. Given the available evidence, I propose that it is possible that Yeshua did live, and did pick up John the Baptist's mission.

2. Given the available evidence, I propose that it is probable that Yeshua did live, and did pick up John the Baptist's mission.

Me? I think it's probable, but I can't build any religion from that.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

For me this whole discussion is not about whether or not Jesus existed, it is about the amazing logic that people use to arrive at their conclusions. For example, it's been claimed that people believed the gospel story to be true right from the onset of its publication because we have no one saying it wasn't true. It's comforting to know that we can know this, I mean really, first century middle east is an open book, we can somehow know that they all believed and that should be good enough for us, so therefore Jesus existed and we can know this with confidence. Truly amazing.

I was thinking about this missing jetliner business. Already there are people who are choosing sides, quite certain that it 1) went down at its last pinged location, 2) flew to N. Korea where all the passengers are being enslaved, or 3) was hit by a meteorite and vaporized.

It is extremely unpopular to acknowledge -- to any of these people -- that we just can't know what happened to the jetliner.

It's easy for some people to know stuff. They just know it. Easy.

 

[Quagmire]

So now this is the , "Lets whine, moan, and deliver sanctimonious mini-sermons about things that aren't actually going on" thread.

I would just go ahead and change the title but I'm sure that three days from now the thread will be about something else.

 

[steeltoes]

Hi....

Your example (above) could be viewed as moderate and reasonable when compared with some other 'irrefutable proofs'.

But there is enough secondary, tertiary and indirect evidence to make a proposal. So let me make that proposal (2 proposals) to you, without listing it all (plx spare me from that task), because I know you've read it all, and chewed on it all, and mulled it all over countless years.

1. Given the available evidence, I propose that it is possible that Yeshua did live, and did pick up John the Baptist's mission.

2. Given the available evidence, I propose that it is probable that Yeshua did live, and did pick up John the Baptist's mission.

Me? I think it's probable, but I can't build any religion from that.

Apparently JtB died in the year 36 according to Josephus, so it's tough to say if Jesus took over his ministry.

 

[outhouse]

The Gospel of Mark can stand by itself as a genuine report,

It has done anything but that.

Simply put, I trust it as the best report of Yeshua's last year and his death.

Best, does not always mean accurate.

 

[outhouse]

No matter how many times we declare a false thing to be true... it is still false.

Which is exactly where mythcism is, and it looks like it will always be false.


No one can provide a credible replacement hypothesis that makes any sense at all.

 

[oldbadger]

It has done anything but that.

G-Mark?

Few researchers would claim that it is made up.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

No one can provide a credible replacement hypothesis that makes any sense at all.

Right. Therefore my hypothesis wins the day.

But you can keep trying to provide a credible replacement hypothesis. I don't mind. Nothing wrong with trying.

 

[oldbadger]

Apparently JtB died in the year 36 according to Josephus, so it's tough to say if Jesus took over his ministry.

Steeltoes! I've left the original post down below, but..... of course! Yeshua started his mission (and his last year of life) just after John's arrest..... OK? At least one of the gospels explains that Antipas liked John, and spoke with him, enjoying his company. It is possible that John could have survived in prison for a number of years, and so was still imprisoned when Yeshua died. There's quite a lot to study up on here. Here follows my original suggestion:-

-----------------------------------

So we have a 6-7 year variation in accounts?

I believe that Yeshua's death year is in doubt, and varied by historians.

Apparently Josephus was born circa 37CE, and is said to have written about JtB's death circa 93-94 CE. I wonder how Josephus timelined this date in with others, or if it just stands alone. I would need to study up to find out, but you might appreciate the difficulty this. Is there a date for Antipas's coupling with Salome's Mum? More searching for me to do.

G-Mark was probably written circa 70CE (ish) and can be argued to have been compiled by Mark using Cephas's (and other's) notes. Of course, Mark is reputed to have been present at Yeshua's arrest, and interestingly describes a young follower nearly apprehended, but who pulled out of his clothing (which must have been grasped by officers) and ran free.

 

[steeltoes]

Steeltoes! I've left the original post down below, but..... of course! Yeshua started his mission (and his last year of life) just after John's arrest..... OK? At least one of the gospels explains that Antipas liked John, and spoke with him, enjoying his company. It is possible that John could have survived in prison for a number of years, and so was still imprisoned when Yeshua died. There's quite a lot to study up on here. Here follows my original suggestion:-

-----------------------------------

So we have a 6-7 year variation in accounts?

I believe that Yeshua's death year is in doubt, and varied by historians.

Apparently Josephus was born circa 37CE, and is said to have written about JtB's death circa 93-94 CE. I wonder how Josephus timelined this date in with others, or if it just stands alone. I would need to study up to find out, but you might appreciate the difficulty this. Is there a date for Antipas's coupling with Salome's Mum? More searching for me to do.

G-Mark was probably written circa 70CE (ish) and can be argued to have been compiled by Mark using Cephas's (and other's) notes. Of course, Mark is reputed to have been present at Yeshua's arrest, and interestingly describes a young follower nearly apprehended, but who pulled out of his clothing (which must have been grasped by officers) and ran free.

According to Acts Paul was in Jerusalem when Herod Agrippa died in 44CE. It was during Paul's second visit, and Paul himself claims he visited Jerusalem twice, 14 years apart. That would put Paul's first trip to Jerusalem in the year 30CE.

 

[outhouse]

G-Mark?

Few researchers would claim that it is made up.

There is a difference made up, and artistic freedom to meet theological needs.


It is a known compilation of previous sources written for a Roman audience.


BY a unknown author.


A witness would not need to compile anything as he could have wrote what he viewed.

 

[oldbadger]

According to Acts Paul was in Jerusalem when Herod Agrippa died in 44CE. It was during Paul's second visit, and Paul himself claims he visited Jerusalem twice, 14 years apart. That would put Paul's first trip to Jerusalem in the year 30CE.

OK....... so Yeshua's death could have been 29CE? It could have been 30 CE, in the spring, and Paul might have visited later that year? I still wonder who contracted Paul to put down the Christian groups.

I wonder how long JtB was in prison before he was executed. I have read that Antipas did not want to kill him.

For me, this is one huge hole which needs to get sorted out. Any more that you can offer would be appreciated.

 

[oldbadger]

There is a difference made up, and artistic freedom to meet theological needs.

So you could not find any to refute G-Mark.... ? Good.
G-Mark does not fill theological needs, it tried to put the story right. There was no doubt some later 'tidying up', but the reason that this book survived can only be because it was special....... the council believed that it was Cephas's, Mark's and other disciples testimony?

It is a known compilation of previous sources written for a Roman audience.

Boring...... boring....... we know why, don't we? It was written to tell the Gentiles the REAL story. The Galilean Jews already KNEW the story!

BY a unknown author.

Nope. Wrong.

A witness would not need to compile anything as he could have wrote what he viewed.

Wrong. ........ Nope....... Here is my account....... I include my deceased friend's account...... and other true friend's accounts..... because we were not always all together in the same place, doing the same things.

It is easy to refute your opinion on this.

 

[oldbadger]

According to Acts Paul was in Jerusalem when Herod Agrippa died in 44CE. It was during Paul's second visit, and Paul himself claims he visited Jerusalem twice, 14 years apart. That would put Paul's first trip to Jerusalem in the year 30CE.

...... again...... I can't figure this out.....
G-Mark:-
]{6:14} And king Herod heard [of him;] for
his name was spread abroad and he said, That John the
Baptist was risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works
do shew forth themselves in him.........

..... so obviously G-Mark has JtB deceased before Yeshua.

Any ideas...? Anybody?

 

[outhouse]

G-Mark does not fill theological needs, it tried to put the story right. .

Possibly.

But only in relationship to Pauls epistles, AND other types of scripture floating around. There was many different versions. YOU only see what became orthodox, NOT what was accurate.

There was no doubt some later 'tidying up', but the reason that this book survived can only be because it was special.......

Special to who? Certain communities found it special. Special does not mean accurate.

the council believed that it was Cephas's, Mark's and other disciples testimony?

It doesn't look like that.

How do you even know a council every viewed it?
which council?

And how do you know they knew the unnamed scripture was Marks?

Nope. Wrong.

Then prove your guess.


Your not a professor, nor a scholar and are making these guesses from a standpoint of what looks like a case of not having studied enough.


If you want to go against the grain of most all credible scholars, make a decent case that will stand up to their work. Thinking your winning a debate against me means absolutely nothing. I error all the time.

Difference is, I will admit it.

Wrong. ........ Nope....... Here is my account.......

Oh professor I would only ask.

Doesn't this methodology then give credibility to Matthew and Luke as both being accurate because they are just different people giving their different accounts.

And how using thus methodology guarantees any sort of accuracy.

 

[outhouse]

G-Mark?

Few researchers would claim that it is made up.

I believe most do.


Most Claim he was a unknown author writing about past events he knew nothing about.


Why Scholars Doubt the Traditional Authors of the Gospels |

“Neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith (Lk 1.4; Jn 20.31). Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings.”


This is talking about the people you trust, who claimed it was marks work



The mainstream scholarly view is that the Gospels are anonymous works, written in a different language than that of Jesus, in distant lands, after a substantial gap of time, by unknown persons, compiling, redacting, and inventing various traditions in order to provide a narrative of Christianity’s central figure, Jesus Christ, to confirm the faith of their communities.


Right now this happens to stand as the knowledge taught in every credible university around the world as common knowledge.

And you have failed miserably to refute it

 

[outhouse]

.

..... so obviously G-Mark has JtB deceased before Yeshua.

No he does not


It is told in time just not in detailed time. As we would expect from someone not witness to anything.

Jesus took over JtB teaching, Jesus did not teach until JtB was dead is the expected reality here.

Herod was surprised that someone was teaching so similar to JtB he thought JtB had risen.


What cant you wrap your head around exactly?


The NT is not going to go into detail about Jesus being JtB student, because it lessens jesus divinity. The NT goes into great deal to hide this embarrassment.

 

[steeltoes]

Finding your Jesus is wholly a subjective exercise, everyone has their own opinion, and it is easy to see the various Jesus' in the examples below, but which one is the real Jesus is anyone's guess,

so,

Find your Jesus:


Jesus the Myth: Heavenly Christ

• Earl Doherty
• Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy

Jesus the Myth: Man of the Indefinite Past

• Alvar Ellegård
• G. A. Wells

Jesus the Hellenistic Hero

• Gregory Riley

Jesus the Revolutionary

• Robert Eisenman

Jesus the Wisdom Sage

• John Dominic Crossan
• Robert Funk
• Burton Mack
• Stephen J. Patterson

Jesus the Man of the Spirit

• Marcus Borg
• Stevan Davies
• Geza Vermes

Jesus the Prophet of Social Change

• Richard Horsley
• Hyam Maccoby
• Gerd Theissen

Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet

• Bart Ehrman
• Paula Fredriksen
• Gerd Lüdemann
• John P. Meier
• E. P. Sanders

Jesus the Savior

• Luke Timothy Johnson
• Robert H. Stein
• N. T. Wright

 

[oldbadger]

Possibly.

But only in relationship to Pauls epistles, AND other types of scripture floating around......................

Only? That is why I believe that G-Mark was compiled..... to reply to the above. And it needed to be addressed to .... the gentiles.

How do you even know a council every viewed it?
which council?

.....even know? Do you doubt that a council of Bishops decided upon the canon, and selected the bibles books? Possibly Nicaea?

And how do you know they knew the unnamed scripture was Marks?

....know? You make a proposal into a 'know'? I believe that they knew it was Mark's compilation and included Cephas's notes + others because people had written about this a couple of hundreds of years earlier.

Then prove your guess.

Prove my guess? No! You prove my guess is wrong.

Your not a professor, nor a scholar and are making these guesses from a standpoint of what looks like a case of not having studied enough.

...... what a sad attitude. If you know more, or have studied more, then produce that knowledge as evidence to guide readers towards your position. Throwing sarcastic comments at me doesn't help you one jot.

If you want to go against the grain of most all credible scholars, make a decent case that will stand up to their work. Thinking your winning a debate against me means absolutely nothing. I error all the time.

..... all credible scholars...? So you do judge scholars? Good.

Difference is, I will admit it.

You think I do not admit my need to know more? I have asked questions on RF for well over a year. These questions stand as evidence to my need to know more.

Oh professor I would only ask.

This is a cheap and sarcastic comment.... does not help the debate at all.

Doesn't this methodology then give credibility to Matthew and Luke as both being accurate because they are just different people giving their different accounts.

No.... it does not. Each book must stand alone, be judged on its own merits. To accept one could not automatically qualify others.