Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?

[oldbadger]

I still don't know if Jesus was real or not, and I still don't know if it makes a difference to anything.

Hi.....
Ok....... but it has made a difference in the past..... I'm sure that we can all agree on that.

I sometimes wonder what the World would have been like if Saul +others had simply crushed the early sects and Christianity had never got a foothold. It may have been a whole lot worse! Anything could have filled that gap..... anything!

I don't know why, but my interest carries me forward on this subject, and I suggest that to some extent, for some reason, it moves you as well, simply because you do frequent these threads.

 

[oldbadger]

Part of post 912................................

But not one source says the gospel of Mark is fiction, nor does anyone claim Jesus did not exist.

......................................................

Ohhhh....... I luv that bit...
Tell it to me again...... go on......

Part of post 912................................

But not one source says the gospel of Mark is fiction, nor does anyone claim Jesus did not exist.

......................................................

............ yeah...... that feels so good.....

Not one source says that G-Mark is fiction.
I'm always going to remember that you posted the above.

Goodnite all....

 

[gree0232]

Ohhhh....... I luv that bit...
Tell it to me again...... go on......



............ yeah...... that feels so good.....

Not one source says that G-Mark is fiction.
I'm always going to remember that you posted the above.

Goodnite all....

You are right, because uncertain authorship and deliberate fraud are two VERY DIFFERENT claims. That no historian makes the later is noteworthy.

Its also why I extended the invitation to begin with an examination of the Pauline Epistles from which we CAN garner the accuracy of documents whose authorship is uncertain but whose claims are nevertheless accurate.

In fact, there are MANY documents from antiquity whose authorship is uncertain and are nevertheless accurate.

This is generally why we understand FIRST before forming an opinion.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Its also why I extended the invitation to begin with an examination of the Pauline Epistles from which we CAN garner the accuracy of documents whose authorship is uncertain but whose claims are nevertheless accurate.

Paul seems oblivious to any 30 CE Jesus. And he should have known, since he supposedly visited with Peter and others. He might even have grown up there, if we can trust anything in Acts.

So his letters are pretty good evidence that there was no Jesus in 30 CE Jerusalem.

 

[outhouse]

...... as do you....!! You disagree with many scholars' findings and opinions. But so far, you haven't named a scholar that you agree entirely with, have you?


Birth, life, baptism, temple rumpus and execution. But you like to add so much to that..... the dogs eating his body in the pit, etc.... and other colourful additions.


.... so you do what I do....... !!!


That's your opinion. I accept most of G-Mark... no bathwater..... no baby to chuck out. Do you?

Your not following me here. I do not discount a bit of the undisputed foundation.

I do not disagree with all scholarships, that state A Galilean traveling teaching who had a few followers made a trip to the temple and was crucified.

When it comes to details, scholars will tell you it is not a certainty, it is a opinion. Thus, there is no disagreement with modern scholarships, only different views.


I dont expect to find a scholar with my exact opinion, BUT a few credible ones are on my Zealot bandwagon so to speak. None really follow your view as your going agianst the consensus I do not,

 

[outhouse]

Paul seems oblivious to any 30 CE Jesus..

That would not be out of the question though.

You hinge it on him speaking to apostles.

They state, I do not believe, that 70 went out plus the original 12, which I find as false.

He probably had 3 or 4 his inner circle, and your also placing faith in the Jeruslam church being ran by real apostles.

To much unknown to prove your point.

You also place faith that if he did talk to real apsotles that they would have accepted Paul and have in depth historical conversations with him, who was basically a headhunter out killing christians in the diaspora.


There is so much wrong with your view, its why you find no other view like it.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You hinge it on him speaking to apostles.

Yeah. Of course, if he was lying about that, I wonder what else he (and the gospelers) were lying about.

He probably had 3 or 4 his inner circle,

Three or four what?

...and your also placing faith in the Jeruslam church being ran by real apostles.

Yeah. If he didn't really visit with anyone in Jerusalem who knew Jesus, then I'm wrong.

But we all have to pick and choose what seems most likely to us.

To much unknown to prove your point.

Too much unknown to prove anyone's point about the HJ.

You also place faith that if he did talk to real apsotles that they would have accepted Paul and have in depth historical conversations with him, who was basically a headhunter out killing christians in the diaspora.

Um... I'm pretty sure he met with the apostles after he converted.

There is so much wrong with your view, its why you find no other view like it.

My view is the best-evidenced and best-reasoned of any view of the historical Jesus.

If it were not so, people would be able to argue effectively against it.

 

[gree0232]

That would not be out of the question though.

You hinge it on him speaking to apostles.

They state, I do not believe, that 70 went out plus the original 12, which I find as false.

He probably had 3 or 4 his inner circle, and your also placing faith in the Jeruslam church being ran by real apostles.

To much unknown to prove your point.

You also place faith that if he did talk to real apsotles that they would have accepted Paul and have in depth historical conversations with him, who was basically a headhunter out killing christians in the diaspora.


There is so much wrong with your view, its why you find no other view like it.

Paul rather openly admits, as do all the period scholars, that he never met Jesus in the flesh. We can however validate and authenticate that he DID live and publish letters. He DID meet the Apostles, and through his letters we CAN validate, and indeed have validated, the writings of (or at least about the experiences of) the Apostles. The Apostles most definitely did meet Jesus in the flesh.

Once again, as we see with mythers, they don;t even understand the process of authentication, and how it works, well enough to be able to accurately criticize it ... instead relying on ignorance of others to make a claim than my five year old nephew in Bible Study knows is wrong.

In antiquity, there are many sources that never met the 'person'. There are functionaries in Rome that never met Caesar and yet offer valuable insight into his policies and how they were implemented ... all without the assumption that because the person never met Caesar that Caesar must not be real.

Mythers pretty much reject history and its processes. Which is why no period scholar supports them, most ignore them, and the few that acknowledge them dismiss them as utterly bizarre.

Its a conclusion driven by blind faith.

the more you examine their claims, when you can get them to make them, it pretty easy to see how ridiculous the claims are - which is why GA Wells's "The Jesus Myth" has been largely retracted ... when you actually explain the reasoning that leads to the conclusion, it is ... bizarre.

Thread like this help to make that clear.

 

[outhouse]

Paul rather openly admits, as do all the period scholars, that he never met Jesus in the flesh. We can however validate and authenticate that he DID live and publish letters. He DID meet the Apostles, and through his letters we CAN validate, and indeed have validated, the writings of (or at least about the experiences of) the Apostles. The Apostles most definitely did meet Jesus in the flesh.
.

Paul use of rhertoic makes some of his statements less then credible.

So I do not agree.

I agree he never met Jesus .


I agree he went to a house in Jerusalem, where followers were there he claimed as apostles.

I doubt they were the Galilean peasants

Once again, as we see with mythers, they don;t even understand the process of authentication, and how it works, well enough to be able to accurately criticize it ... instead relying on ignorance of others to make a claim than my five year old nephew in Bible Study knows is wrong.

In antiquity, there are many sources that never met the 'person'. There are functionaries in Rome that never met Caesar and yet offer valuable insight into his policies and how they were implemented ... all without the assumption that because the person never met Caesar that Caesar must not be real.

Mythers pretty much reject history and its processes. Which is why no period scholar supports them, most ignore them, and the few that acknowledge them dismiss them as utterly bizarre.

Its a conclusion driven by blind faith.

the more you examine their claims, when you can get them to make them, it pretty easy to see how ridiculous the claims are - which is why GA Wells's "The Jesus Myth" has been largely retracted ... when you actually explain the reasoning that leads to the conclusion, it is ... bizarre.

Thread like this help to make that clear

Agreed and understood

 

[Thief]

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.

You can't diffuse a parable with percentiles.

 

[Thief]

,,,,cool....

....ok.....
.
...... 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.

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)


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


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

Excellent discussion ...thank you.

I see you are willing to believe in miracles.
You should have problem at all with the parables.

But then again......some of the parables are in terms....greater than miracles.

 

[steeltoes]

Hi.....
Ok....... but it has made a difference in the past..... I'm sure that we can all agree on that.

I sometimes wonder what the World would have been like if Saul +others had simply crushed the early sects and Christianity had never got a foothold. It may have been a whole lot worse! Anything could have filled that gap..... anything!

I don't know why, but my interest carries me forward on this subject, and I suggest that to some extent, for some reason, it moves you as well, simply because you do frequent these threads.

All we have ever had is this story, some say the Son of God is based on an historical figure, some aren't so sure. Whatever the case makes no difference and never has.

 

[gree0232]

Paul use of rhertoic makes some of his statements less then credible.

So I do not agree.

I agree he never met Jesus .


I agree he went to a house in Jerusalem, where followers were there he claimed as apostles.

I doubt they were the Galilean peasants





Agreed and understood

Nevertheles, Paul's statements when corroborated by other sources are still accurate in many cases. Particularly when they are aimed at proving the people he is talking with are real ... the actual content of the letter is less important in that sense.

Its a bit like using Glen Beck to prove that Fox news exists. We may not like Glen Beck, but he is real, and we can ascertain from his correspondence with Bill O-Reilly, that Fox news was probably real ... even if we detest Glen Beck.

The real problem of Jesus Mythers is that they have allowed their religious biases to undermine their objectivity in a very severe manner. Personal like or dislike of a source is less relevant than what we can objectively confirm from the source.

And it would be a poor man indeed whose biases were so severe that they actively claimed Glen Beck was not real, rather than simply stating that he is so distasteful that we've decided to ignore him to the point where his existence really does;t matter to us.

To be a myther, as you know, you must have crossed that threshold.

 

[steeltoes]

There's nothing like hating those that don't share in your beliefs.

2John1:7

I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The real problem of Jesus Mythers is that they have allowed their religious biases to undermine their objectivity in a very severe manner.

Except when the people who believe Jesus is mythological were/are Christians.

 

[outhouse]

Nevertheles, Paul's statements when corroborated by other sources are still accurate in many cases. Particularly when they are aimed at proving the people he is talking with are real ... the actual content of the letter is less important in that sense.

Its a bit like using Glen Beck to prove that Fox news exists. We may not like Glen Beck, but he is real, and we can ascertain from his correspondence with Bill O-Reilly, that Fox news was probably real ... even if we detest Glen Beck.

The real problem of Jesus Mythers is that they have allowed their religious biases to undermine their objectivity in a very severe manner. Personal like or dislike of a source is less relevant than what we can objectively confirm from the source.

And it would be a poor man indeed whose biases were so severe that they actively claimed Glen Beck was not real, rather than simply stating that he is so distasteful that we've decided to ignore him to the point where his existence really does;t matter to us.

To be a myther, as you know, you must have crossed that threshold.

I have personally debated with Doherty and Godfrey and Huller and Kirby, I like Huller and Kirby.


But my issue is still what Paul claims, and its not a matter of like, it is a matter of him having a pattern of using rhetoric with too much artistic freedom to trust.

He wanted to be a real apostle so bad, his use of persuasion has the possibility to go into fictional accounts. There is no reason for real apostles to trust him or accept him after he goes out and murders Christians possibly for years.

Its like stoners talking to cops in states where it is still a felony.



I do understand its just my opinion, I have not found reason yet to change it is all.

 

[Quagmire]

Except when the people who believe Jesus is mythological were/are Christians.

Actually, especially when the people who believe Jesus is mythological used to be Christians.

 

[outhouse]

You can't diffuse a parable with percentiles.

So you would rather guess? is that what you are saying?



You also denounce history, which means you denounce cultural anthropology, which means im not sure you could ever understand the parables in context.

 

[outhouse]

Yeah. Of course, if he was lying about that, I wonder what else he (and the gospelers) were lying about.

It wasn't lying as much as using rhetoric and artistic liberty too paint the picture they wanted you too see.

Their goal was not to write accurate history, it was to persuade readers to keep following the movement in the direction that their community wanted it to go.


Persuasion means fictional in some cases, but it wasn't really a lie, if you follow.

Three or four what?

Disciples

His inner circle. I view the 12 as fiction.


I view a large following as fiction.

Yeah. If he didn't really visit with anyone in Jerusalem who knew Jesus, then I'm wrong.

I think he did visit a house, a pater familias in Jerusalem.

I think there were followers there that he had argued with about circumcision.


What a better way to get followers to follow a more Gentile movement then stating some real apostles backed me.

What we know about Zealots, is they were not friendly to Hellenist and apposed the rich in Sepphoris as well as the hated temple government. Galilean peasants would have been out of their element.

Too much unknown to prove anyone's point about the HJ.

Im a minimalist. yet I see a historical core clear as day.

Um... I'm pretty sure he met with the apostles after he converted.

He tells us he had a feeling from within himself for a conversion.


If somebody claimed they were a Galilean peasant and that is who Paul talked to, I would have believed him.

We don't even know if these fishermen could speak Koine, or Paul Hebrew.



Pauls Judaism is debated yet he claims he is a Pharisee. I doubt it.




There is some cool pseudopigrapha about Paul with some pretty diverse views on Paul. Paul was hated by many and viewed as a heretic. Im sure he was hated while teaching.


he had quite a bit to overcome and rhetoric was his tool.

 

[gree0232]

I have personally debated with Doherty and Godfrey and Huller and Kirby, I like Huller and Kirby.


But my issue is still what Paul claims, and its not a matter of like, it is a matter of him having a pattern of using rhetoric with too much artistic freedom to trust.

He wanted to be a real apostle so bad, his use of persuasion has the possibility to go into fictional accounts. There is no reason for real apostles to trust him or accept him after he goes out and murders Christians possibly for years.

Its like stoners talking to cops in states where it is still a felony.



I do understand its just my opinion, I have not found reason yet to change it is all.

Well, It would be unobjective in the extreme to say that the narrative of history here is without its weaknesses. There is certainly room for examination, and that is exactly what Bart Erhman did in the early part of his career.

His belief, not without merit, is that many historians either offer deference to theological premises out of fear of offense or out of their own religious biases. His case then is aimed more at the reality that the genesis of Christianity was not, at the time, widely recognized as the important event that we have come to understand it to be now. That the grandiose things we see in hindsight were not all the apparent gems in the rough ... that Jerusalem was not Rome ... and not by a long shot.

He has nevertheless had to correct, as stated earlier with, "Was Jesus Real?", had to make the larger narrative support for Christ into a compelling and cogent explanation - even as he cautions against the tendency to read more into things that is tenable. As an agnostic, favoring neither atheism nor Christianity, he is perhaps best placed to be objective - cuffing Christian who see a manger as a palace that its actually a manger and cuffing atheists who see the genesis of a major world religion as nothing at all.

That is a roundabout way of saying there are things to criticize here. I will say that humans have a tendency to dress things up. Yet dressing up a piece of crap hardly hides that there is a piece of crap underneath (Oh yeah, Al Qaeda really WAS in Iraq hiding the WMD!!!), and that particularly over time people are adept at unwrapping the dressing to see crap clearly for what it is.

Paul was human. He has his biases as we all do.

Humans are humans.

And just as extreme atheists become consumed by their biases to become Mythers, there are Christians who tend to view these historical notes with a same fanaticism in which NOTHING wrong can be found. The inerrent view of religion is, IMHO, just as bad as the only errant view of religion.

Indeed, as one grows in the faith, most ministers are quick to point out that no an, not even Prophets and Apostles, are perfect. That as we study scripture, we will come to see the men of the cloth as the humans that they are. Each of the Synoptic gospels was written for a specific audience for a specific reason.

The one real difference between this narrative is that its ultimate truth isn't the words, its the relationship it inspires - where the truth of the text comes out in unexpected ways.