Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?

[Saint Frankenstein]

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

Disregarding the irony that you're using Wikipedia as your source after I teased you about that in other posts (lol)...what is their evidence that Jesus was baptized and crucified?

 

[outhouse]

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.

Agreed.

But the problem here is Paul never met or knew or even heard Jesus. Very few people did.

Mark first written, was still decades after his death by people that were very far removed from the actual events in question.

There is very little that can be attributed with any degree of certainty beyond the foundation surrounding his existence.

Like Galilean, lived in Nazareth and Capernaum, caused trouble at the temple, crucified while Pilate was at Passover and Caiaphas running the temple. And his death on a cross.

 

[outhouse]

Disregarding the irony that you're using Wikipedia as your source after I teased you about that in other posts (lol)...what is their evidence that Jesus was baptized and crucified?

Sure

When you can explain a replacement hypothesis that is reasonable, for all the scripture we have regarding Pauls epistles and Mark, Luke, Matthew and John.

So far the brightest professors that I would call geniuses, have failed miserably. Price and Carrier.


But you go ahead and take a crack at it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Sure

When you can explain a replacement hypothesis that is reasonable, for all the scripture we have regarding Pauls epistles and Mark, Luke, Matthew and John.

So far the brightest professors that I would call geniuses, have failed miserably. Price and Carrier.


But you go ahead and take a crack at it.

That's not an answer and you can't use the Bible to prove itself. :slap:

 

[Enai de a lukal]

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

Yeah, it was pretty clearly hyperbole; but concocting numbers isn't a very good way to support a claim.

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

Um... Ok... Good for James Dunn?

 

[gilligan8914]

None of the books of the new testament have an author who can be named historically. The 7 epistles of Paul accredited to him are only known historically to have been written by the same person, only guessed to be Paul. There is no historical evidence as to the existence of someone named Saul or Paul of Tarsus.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

None of the books of the new testament have an author who can be named historically. The 7 epistles of Paul accredited to him are only known historically to have been written by the same person, only guessed to be Paul. There is no historical evidence as to the existence of someone named Saul or Paul of Tarsus.

Indeed. We don't really know who wrote ANY book of the Bible. The people who wrote them wrote pseudepigraphically. Paul (or whoever was using that name) never claimed to have met Jesus in person and doesn't speak of Jesus as if he was a flesh and blood person, anyway. So you can't use him as proof of Jesus' existence.

 

[Quagmire]

Whether or not Jesus existed is another topic. The OP is asking if, taking his historicity as a given, he might have been a fraud.

 

[gilligan8914]

The name that Jesus gives to himself more times than any other, if you believe the NT is "Son of Man". If you are a man then "Son of Man" would be an accurate description of him. No fraud there. Maybe the fraud comes from others adding to his resume in the years after he died.

 

[psychoslice]

Whether or not Jesus existed is another topic. The OP is asking if, taking his historicity as a given, he might have been a fraud.

In that light I would say it wasn't him but the ones who made a belief system out of him that are the true frauds, it would have kept the people at that time under their thumbs, as it also does today.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Whether or not Jesus existed is another topic. The OP is asking if, taking his historicity as a given, he might have been a fraud.

Well, since I have no reason to believe he existed, the fraud is the fault of others.

 

[Objective Qualia]

Possible, except that according to Irenaeus: "After their departure [of Peter and Paul from earth], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter."
This implies that the Pauline epistles may predate the Gospels so if anyone began the fiction project it would have likely been the well-educated Saul/Paul, rather than the author of Mark. But who really knows. You're point about Jesus being wart-free because he is fictional is a good one except that Jesus isn't wart-free: he was an inveterate sinner according to Jewish law.

Ireneaeus lived in the second century and died in 202. He couldn't have possibly witnessed what the disciples did unless they died after the year 150.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Well, since I have no reason to believe he existed, the fraud is the fault of others.

Well sure, but the point is, is it possible, given how things stand, to suppose (i.e. hypothetically) that Christ was real, but was a fraud in some sense? It is not only possible but probable- IF Christ existed, there is an overwhelming probability that he was "a fraud", in the sense that what was subsequently said of him by the authors of the Gospels (or possibly himself), Church fathers, and so on, was not true (he did not perform miracles, was not born of a virgin, did not rise from the dead, was not of one substance with God, etc.)

 

[outhouse]

Yeah, it was pretty clearly hyperbole; but concocting numbers isn't a very good way to support a claim.


Um... Ok... Good for James Dunn?

Those who choose to attack modern scholarships, most often do so from a point of ignorance on the historical methods.

It is on these so called mythicist to try and prove their hypothesis. Every real argument has been refuted over a hundred years ago, as well as every modern attempt.


Only attacking scholarships does not detract from the historicity given. A replacement hypothesis has to be put forth to overturn the current understanding. Too date, it has not been done with credibility.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well sure, but the point is, is it possible, given how things stand, to suppose (i.e. hypothetically) that Christ was real, but was a fraud in some sense? It is not only possible but probable- IF Christ existed, there is an overwhelming probability that he was "a fraud", in the sense that what was subsequently said of him by the authors of the Gospels (or possibly himself), Church fathers, and so on, was not true (he did not perform miracles, was not born of a virgin, did not rise from the dead, was not of one substance with God, etc.)

It's possible, but I have no reason to believe that he existed. Whoever he may have been, if he existed, is forever lost to history under the tons of mythology and fanciful imaginings heaped atop of him over the centuries. So if he did exist and made any similar claims to the Bible Jesus, then he was a fraud. There certainly were no miracles or anything like that.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

It's possible, but I have no reason to believe that he existed.

I think he was merely pointing out that, for this particular question, whether you believe he actually existed or not is irrelevant. The question is, SUPPOSING/GRANTING that Christ existed... blah blah blah.

There certainly were no miracles or anything like that.

Certainly? I don't know. Is there any reason whatsoever for supposing there were miracles or violations of the natural order? No. I don't know if that makes it certain, but its enough for me.

 

[outhouse]

Whether or not Jesus existed is another topic. The OP is asking if, taking his historicity as a given, he might have been a fraud.

To understand that we need to understand the real man from Galilee.


I don't think any early writings even claim he called himself a deity.


I think it is very obvious that the unknown authors had the artistic freedom here, since their versions differ on his actual life.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Whether or not Jesus existed is another topic. The OP is asking if, taking his historicity as a given, he might have been a fraud.

That boils down to a matter of opinion. Is the substance of Jesus's teachings working for people and getting results?

I think Jesus, or the persona created as Jesus, can be construed as being fraudulent in light that his existence is still open to confirmation, which is probably why it was brought up. In a practical sense, Jesus certainly is fraudulent in absence of empirical evidences and truths concerning the substance that was written by way of his sayings and such.

On the other hand, there are those who find Jesus as being truthful and genuine by way of ones own personal experiences in light of his teachings.

Fraud seems to be best left in the eye of the beholder I think.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I think he was merely pointing out that, for this particular question, whether you believe he actually existed or not is irrelevant. The question is, SUPPOSING/GRANTING that Christ existed... blah blah blah.

Yeah, I get it. I'm trying to suspend my disbelief for a second here.

Certainly? I don't know. Is there any reason whatsoever for supposing there were miracles or violations of the natural order? No. I don't know if that makes it certain, but its enough for me.

I would think that if a person was performing the incredible, reality bending feats of the Bible's Jesus that he would've been the most talked about, documented person in human history. Instead? Nada.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Yeah, I get it. I'm trying to suspend my disbelief for a second here.

I know, I know; easier said than done.

I would think that if a person was performing the incredible, reality bending feats of the Bible's Jesus that he would've been the most talked about, documented person in human history. Instead? Nada.

Indeed. Not to mention that so many of these feats were reportedly performed in front of crowds. (now, before someone says "maybe these documents were lost to history" or "many people were illiterate", we would still nevertheless expect later sources to mention this abundance of reports, even if they are no longer extant)