-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?
- Thread starter The Sum of Awe
- Start date
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
outhouse, outhouse, outhouse....
There is more richness in language than you may know.
No such things as atheists exist, though many atheists are the holiest of folk.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Curious world, I sometimes think.
Perhaps you should attempt to use language to convey a claim and its support rather than derision than?
Richness should allow that much, ya think? Cause you just said you did ... so I assumed that you would? But then I read your last line there ... and now I think maybe no thinking is happening at all.
And that must be why Jesus is a Myth? Just don't think! BELIEVE!
Well, I'm sending a note to Michael Grant based on THAT one.
I am sure he'll be impressed.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
If he's your pastor, tell him that Jesus was not actually an historical person. If it makes him cry, tell him I'm sorry... but tough love and all.
outhouse
Atheistically
Michael Grant, as explained repeatedly to you (at your demand), is a New Testament scholar who happens to be atheist. He just happens to have published works, with peer review, that lay the case for a historical Jesus.
He also happens to dismiss people like you as bizarre, conspiracy theorists. People devoid of any kind of intellect, enraptured in their religious biases and convictions, having long ago eschewed academics or intellectualism, and to be dismissed as the same kind of intellectually broken wonks like those who believe the moon landing was fake.
And you've had, at least between us, 24 hours or so to make a relevant point. Your claims instead:
#1 - You are a bigot because you blast GA Wells (I doubt you even know who he is, and have certainly not addressed the criticisms against him), even though the basis of the criticism is born of three atheist period scholars, and the larger period rebuttal of his work that caused him to retract the claims of the 'Jesus Myth'.
Any explanation for this fallacious and clearly prejudiced claim? Of course not.
#2 - You are in open warfare against a fellow atheist who is attempting to show you what the facts are.
#3 - You've demanded, in defiance of simple logic, that others come up with alternate solutions and prove them for you, as if hyper laziness is virtue rather than proof positive of the bankrupt position you hold.
#4 - You've resorted to 'jokes' at others expense, but got all potty pants when jokes were made in rebuttal at your expense - jokes, as with all conspiracy theorists, only funny when aimed at others :-(
#5 - You claimed you seek truth as if this vacuous appeal to virtue alone means that whatever pops into the bubble of your head MUST be the truth. Never mind simple logic, wherein a claim must be made and supported. Never mind peer review. Never mind any other tool of objectivity. All tools of intellect and academics pale in comparison to the divine truths you emend others take on blind faith in your virtue.
And that is why Jesus was OBVIOUSLY fabricated? Eh?
And now? So bereft of education on the subject you apparently know more about than Ph.D experts by default on, that you cannot even remember, after a half dozen explanations no less, who the atheist experts on the subject are - so brazen and conspiratorial, that you would allow this ignorance to expose you completely?
If deliberately seeking out authors whose religion might provide a dissenting opinion is my 'pastor', then I am OK with that.
Its a far better criticism than simply relying on my own divine insight, deliberate ignorance, and a giant chip on my shoulder.
But thank you for providing a close look at the tin foil hat wearing antics that must be for anyone of any faith to actually maintain the conviction of Jesus Mythery.
Its a conclusion held not on faith, but on blind delusion and the deliberate avoidance of evidence. Its conspiracy at its finest. An anti-intellectual fest of emotion and avoidance, and has correctly been dismissed by those with even slight knowledge of the history and evidence as utterly bizarre.
I thank you for affording this audience an opportunity to examine a specimen of the cult of Jesus Mythery. You've done an excellent job demonstrating why no one with even the slightest pretense of rationalism should agree with you.
However, if you are already half way down the insanity slide, then Jesus Mythery just might be what you are looking for! :yes:
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Hello again...... plx let me put my case for your scutiny....
Jesus never lived.
A wood, stone and bone craftsman called Yeshua lived, whose story was reversed into the Jesus Myth.
Yeshua = True. Real
Jesus = False. Probably part-Pauline invention.
No, they are not.... well, not the ones in G-Mark. They have a solid basis of truth, exaggerated upon in the telling.
Yeshua never lied about himself. He was a brilliant healer.
Those who wrote some of G-Matthew, the end of G-Mark, much of G-John and some of G-Luke wrote the untruths.
But (much of) G-Mark stands up very close to the true, non-fictional testimony.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Hi..... I've been following your posts...... very exciting!
I was interested to read your comments about Michael Grant because I had only just purchased his book 'Jesus'. Still awaiting its arrival. His academic record, esp in Latin, Roman coinage and history is almost unbounded. All that info for a couple of quid...... fantastic!
Now....... all these scholars.....
As you have acknowledged, they (almost) all accept that 'Jesus' did live, was baptised by JtB, did demonstrate in the Temple, and was executed.
Full Stop.
But........
beyond that, their personal opinions range far and wide, which means that most are wrong, beyond the above. Some members will post a scholar's point as a debate-aid, even though they don't believe in that scholar's wider view, and where they have trouble in answering another member's post, they simply rant 'You are not a scholar'. I worked for defence solicitors, and a common tactic amongst prosecution barristers was to infer that testimony from professional police officers just had to be of more value than defence witnesses. My evidence usually denied such barristers because our Crown prosecution service often withdrew cases on disclosure.
That's one reason why I don't treat scholarship as 'gospel'. ----------------------------------------
Question: You are new here so you might have new info. G-Mark reports that Antipas thought 'Jesus' might be John the Baptist resurrected. OK? But..... as Steeltoes has posted, Josephus wrote that JtB died in 36CE.
What's your take on this? Any ideas, because we've got a (circa) six year problem?
And yet, literally every Ph.D NT scholar disagrees ... and has presented published peer reviewed works of evidenced based history is support (with bibliographies that allow amateurs to check their work - and other scholars, who actually do so.)
Yeshua? Guess what not a single NT scholar has found any evidence of whatsoever?
We call this the guilt by association fallacy - wherein you make something up and then present it as if its the same thing as Jesus.
Well, there is ACTUAL evidence for Jesus - enough that it convinced even ATHEIST period experts.
So we already know the opinion, but we'd kind of appreciate something a little less overtly insulting of our intelligence and basic humanity. Something you just made up is not a valid critique of our faith - its a rather needlessly insulting way of stating that you think Jesus is made up ... with absolutely no reasoning as to how you arrived at that conclusion.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I'm using King James....1960.
I've done the exhaustive event comparisons.
Seems John may have been talking about Someone Else.
But otherwise the heave of the dialogue says to me....
The Man lived.
He taught.
The opposition gained a political and social advatage.
He was executed with 'King of the Jews' posted on His cross.
( a false accusation)
Fraud?...not likely.
The miracles would be difficult to affirm.....a matter of faith.
The parables are solid as rock.
Should he be confused with Paul's Christ?
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Your pastor is an atheist NT scholar who lays a case for an HJ?
Yikes. No wonder you are so confused about all of this. Just my personal view, but I think you should probably go with an old-timey congregation. I don't think you are quite ready for such subtle theology as your pastor seems to preach.
People like me. Goodness. You know, if you had a bit of wit about you, you might have said 'people of my ilk'. That would have at least kept me reading past your second graph, if just for quaintness of language.
Wow - yet another poor response to being completely and utterly wrong about something. I am glad that you think atheist historians are pastors though ... makes perfect sense.
And yes, people like you.
People that form opinions with no fact while being rude, condescending, and absolutely conspiratorial about things.
As several have noted, you have yet to make a case in support of anything. That would indeed by you doing that, and, I realize this is a leap in logic, you are not the only poster in the internet who does that - nor indeed are you the only Jesus Myth wonk who demonstrates superbly the criticism leveled by Michael Grant.
But heh, we have arched conspiratorial ACME wherein HJ ... not even a joke ... in poor taste because ... who the hell knows. I will submit that not many people even want to know what drives that kind of uncultured nonsense.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry that your pastor doesn't like me, but thank God he's an atheist and therefore probably will not threaten me with hell.
That's so creepy, when pastors do that.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
I'm sure you're aware that gJohn is thought to have been written long after 30 CE.
It would be like someone sitting down today and writing about a godman who died in 1945.
How much could a modern writer actually know about that godman?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Some things are difficult to cover.
Sure the miracles can't be confirmed.....
but the rest of story seems plausible.
I don't have a problem believing He lived.
and I don't think He lied.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I hear Paul never met the Carpenter.
Visions and second hand testimony was all he had to work with.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
We all make our best guesses.