Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?

[Thief]

We all make our best guesses.

I then guess...the parables are exactly what they should be.

 

[outhouse]

I then guess...the parables are exactly what they should be.

How would you know which are JtH and which are Jesus?

Did Jesus use 20% of JtB parables or 80% ?

How many parables originated in Hellensitic communities adapted to fit the mythology. ?


It very well could be, and I do not claim to know that all apocolyptic teaching could have been attributed to Jesus no matter who the author was. I myslef would not even place a percentage to this one, but do have a open mind and leave it open for answers to questions like these in which we do not know, and cannot answer with certainty.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It very well could be, and I do not claim to know that all apocolyptic teaching could have been attributed to Jesus no matter who the author was. I myslef would not even place a percentage to this one, but do have a open mind and leave it open for answers to questions like these in which we do not know, and cannot answer with certainty.

How about gThomas? Possibly nothing at all in it from the mouth of Jesus?

 

[outhouse]

How about gThomas? Possibly nothing at all in it from the mouth of Jesus?

Is it? I have not stated certainty other then "I hope it is". That and Q would be are best chances to get words from his mouth.

But again, did they originate with JtB? or Hellenistic communities who only thought they were words of Jesus.

 

[outhouse]

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:

Frubals.

I wish I had the talent to write like that.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Frubals.

I wish I had the talent to write like that.

He probably learned it from his pastor... that Grunt guy. Pastor Grint. Whatever

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Is it? I have not stated certainty other then "I hope it is". That and Q would be are best chances to get words from his mouth.

Is it what? I just asked you for your opinion, outhouse. That's all.

 

[oldbadger]

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.

That post was not written to you.....

Insulting your intelligence..... because I made a proposal..... ?

I'll see you around.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That post was not written to you.....

Insulting your intelligence..... because I made a proposal..... ?

I'll see you around.

That didn't take long.

 

[oldbadger]

I'm using King James....1960.

,,,,cool....

I've done the exhaustive event comparisons.

....ok.....

Seems John may have been talking about Someone Else

.
...... that is an interesting proposal. I still think G-John was referring to the same person, but his chronology was massively cranked and some of his miracle stories were hyperbole gone bonkers.

But otherwise the heave of the dialogue says to me....
The Man lived.
He taught.

I differ on the above. I say the man lived. I say he healed, was a healer.
I think his speeches were just that. Let me put it like this, would call a, ummm, union representative making speeches to her/his members to be a speech maker or a teacher? IMO, Yeshua was telling his following how to cope with the coming struggles, but that is different to teaching.... what do you think about that angle?

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.

I agree, Yeshua was no fraud..... but I think that Saul/Paul created Christianity with others, using Yeshua's life as a 'carrier', not even a foundation, because the foundation was a set of beliefs which were not anything to do with Yeshua.

The miracles would be difficult to affirm.....a matter of faith.

The way I see them, the way I read them (in G-Mark) they are 100% real.

The parables are solid as rock.

I need to study his parables in more depth.... not strong on them, probably because my focus is G-Mark, which had less parables.

 

[oldbadger]

Should he be confused with Paul's Christ?

..... there you have it. I believe that there was definitely a Yeshua (humour me ) but no Jesus. I think Jesus was mostly Pauline.

 

[outhouse]

He probably learned it from his pastor... that Grunt guy. Pastor Grint. Whatever

Where he learned it is besides the point.


It showed not only intellect, but a good grasp of the material we are debating about and its current status in unbiased scholarships.


It refuted you to the point of embarrassment IMHO

 

[outhouse]

That post was not written to you.....

Insulting your intelligence..... because I made a proposal..... ?

If your arrow is not pointed the right direction and someone with more knowledge tries to correct you. Do you get upset? or try to get back on track?


And since you have already dismissed those with knowledge a thousand fold over yours [all scholars] I think the answer may be pretty obvious.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It showed not only intellect, but a good grasp of the material we are debating about and its current status in unbiased scholarships.

It was an ugly, dumb, nasty, dishonest personal attack. That you complimented him for it says a lot about your outlook.

Sorry. Just telling it like it actually is.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

If your arrow is not pointed the right direction and someone with more knowledge tries to correct you. Do you get upset? or try to get back on track?

You seem to get upset every time I try to correct you with my superior knowledge.

I wish you would just accept it in the spirit that I offer it. How else can you learn?

 

[outhouse]

You seem to get upset every time I try to correct you with my superior knowledge.

I wish you would just accept it in the spirit that I offer it. How else can you learn?

This thread is not about you.

 

[outhouse]

It was an ugly, dumb, nasty, dishonest personal attack. .

Ugly because the truth stings.

Nasty because the truth is blind

And you will have a hard time refuting its integrity or honesty due to you being prone to ambiguity.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Ugly because the truth stings.

Nasty because the truth is blind

And you will have a hard time refuting its integrity or honesty due to you being prone to ambiguity.

OK, outhouse. I can't say that personal integrity is absolutely moral, that's true. But I can say that I find those without it to be a waste of my time.

 

[gree0232]

It was an ugly, dumb, nasty, dishonest personal attack. That you complimented him for it says a lot about your outlook.

Sorry. Just telling it like it actually is.

ROFL!!!

Its a personal attack to tell you a half dozen times explain who Michael Grant is and have you ignorantly claim that he's my pastor?

So, you being ignorant is fine - but correcting it is a nasty *** personal insult?

So there is no Jesus because correcting wonkish mythers is an insult?

Thank you for providing YET ANOTHER opportunity to display the intellectual bankruptcy to be a myther.

Now, as predicted earlier, are we to the point where you begin running to the mods because you are being 'insulted'? Like every other myther I have engaged?

But throwing out hand job jokes to insult other people's faith is fine?

Such hypocrisy and emotionalism is exactly what is required to be a myther.

Curiously, there is no atheist in this thread ACTUALLY making a case against historical Jesus. Not one.

You are talking about hand jobs and calling atheist historians my pastor. and that proves that ... somehow, you are a victim. Gotcha.

 

[gree0232]

OK, outhouse. I can't say that personal integrity is absolutely moral, that's true. But I can say that I find those without it to be a waste of my time.

That sounds like a definitive personal problem ... how then do you handle the clear lack of integrity required to be a Jesus Myther?

There is no Jesus because ... hand jobs and historians as pastors. Integrity itself!