Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?

[Thief]

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.

I only denounce your constant abuse of the 'credible source' routine.

If you can't move to theology....why are you here?

Hoping no historian would do so?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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

There are Christians who believe that a 30CE Jesus probably didn't exist.

Just as there are Christians who believe that evolution is probably true.

But most Christians still resist the former belief while reluctantly giving in to the latter.

Beliefs resist change, especially those rooted in religious tradition.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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.

I dunno, outhouse. I've heard many people justify their lying by claiming that it's for the better good. But 'lying' is only a word, and I'm not much interested in whether Paul was a liar or just a 'persuader'.

Disciples
His inner circle. I view the 12 as fiction.
I view a large following as fiction.

Why do you think so?

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

Yeah. Most people can see an historical core clear as day. Me, I just see fog. People are different.

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

If we believe Acts, Paul was probably raised in Jerusalem, wasn't he?

Which would have made him a contemporary of Jesus, I think.

If so, it would make his ignorance of a 30 CE Jesus especially hard to understand.

 

[gree0232]

I only denounce your constant abuse of the 'credible source' routine.

If you can't move to theology....why are you here?

Hoping no historian would do so?

Peer reviewed scholarship based on evidence, study, and citation is not an abuse of 'credible source'.

Its the definition of it.

Rambling, unsupported theories that rest upon thorough debunked and now officially retracted arguments ... to advocate that would be the abuse of credible sources.

Only in the upside down theory of full on conspiracy like the Jesus Myth is the later considered a more 'credible' source than the former ... that multiple works form multiple author form multiple faiths of the former.

 

[Thief]

Peer reviewed scholarship based on evidence, study, and citation is not an abuse of 'credible source'.

Its the definition of it.

Rambling, unsupported theories that rest upon thorough debunked and now officially retracted arguments ... to advocate that would be the abuse of credible sources.

Only in the upside down theory of full on conspiracy like the Jesus Myth is the later considered a more 'credible' source than the former ... that multiple works form multiple author form multiple faiths of the former.

So all you know is completely dependent on someone having wrote something down?

And you can't know....not having read it somewhere?

That's a mighty heavy crutch you have there!

Can't think for yourself?...and be sure?

 

[gree0232]

So all you know is completely dependent on someone having wrote something down?

And you can't know....not having read it somewhere?

That's a mighty heavy crutch you have there!

Can't think for yourself?...and be sure?

Ihave happily attempted to begin the examination where the standards dictate we begin ... with what we can verify - that would be the Pauline Epistles.

As a trained historian, not specific to this period, I can assure you tat I have delved heavily into the process. That begins with reading the major scholarship, which would include the atheist scholarship like Michael Grant, Will Durant, and Bart Erhman ... It also means I have read, at the very least, the rebuttal ... which would be GA Wells, whose work was a shamble and has been thorough smashed.

I would consider that a finer education on a subject that doing none of that and insisting that I know more than all the Ph.D's on the subject through magic.

Now THAT is a heavy crutch.

And this rejection of reasoning and academic processes just to maintain a faith conclusion? Please don't lecture me about how rational and reasonable, objective and truth seeking, atheists are.

Some are.

This that have blindly adopted something proven false while insisting they have truth - by simply appealing to the emotion of truth - have absolutely no basis from which to lecture anyone.

Its like being lectured by a four year old about what it means to be a grown up.

If you reject scholarship without reading it - that would be the first chink in what is sure to be a weakly supported argument ... which I will remind all the mythers on this thread ... that not a single one of you has actually made an argument fro the FRAUD of Jesus.

We are instead finding petty excuses to reject actual scholarship.

And that line of reasoning provides an excellent example of the flawed silliness that is necessary to even pretend the Jesus Myth is a valid thought process.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

...which I will remind all the mythers on this thread ... that not a single one of you has actually made an argument fro the FRAUD of Jesus.

So you think that 'mythers' argue that Jesus was a fraud?

Well, what sort of fraud? Can you explain how and why they consider him a fraud?

 

[oldbadger]

I see you are willing to believe in miracles.

Ahhhh....!
Can I clarify that? I believe that the miracles as described in G-Mark really happened, and were described accurately.... but I see them as miraculous, that word having a different meaning for me. With the recounting and retelling I think they 'fledged' into the full miracle.

No offence intended. But I don't doubt a single one actually happened.

 

[outhouse]

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.

Understood and agree with all those aspects.


My main problem with most mythicist, is they want to rewrite how history is determined. It is usually from a point of ignorance, appealing to ignorance.

If one avoids reading any scholarships and wont listen to a professor, one really cannot debate properly.

 

[outhouse]

I only denounce your constant abuse of the 'credible source' routine.

If you can't move to theology....why are you here?

Hoping no historian would do so?

Your hoping scholars do not separate apologetics from history?


Again, knowing the history, the cultural anthropology, gives one a much better understanding of the bible, and it makes the interpretation much easier. It reveals more beauty in the REAL light of things.

I don't think you have to worry about this.

 

[outhouse]

I dunno, outhouse. I've heard many people justify their lying by claiming that it's for the better good. But 'lying' is only a word, and I'm not much interested in whether Paul was a liar or just a 'persuader'..

We know he was a persuader, it is how ancient people wrote. Aristotle taught well enough his teachings made it to Paul. I cannot write as well as Paul.

Why do you think so?

Multiple reasons.


One a large crowd would get you killed like JtB. Its not hard to believe Jesus learned from his mistake.

A large following would get you noticed.

A poor group, and a large following would starve, they lived on the hospitality of the homes they visited.


But most of all. The bible is almost silent on the others. But does mention his inner circle over and over again. IT makes sense if living on the road in this time period if you travel light and with few numbers. The people he teaches are poor and could not feed many.

If we believe Acts, Paul was probably raised in Jerusalem, wasn't he?

Acts gets really tricky because the rhetoric was over the top to keep pulling readers to keep flipping pages.

Which would have made him a contemporary of Jesus, I think.

Nope not at all.

He still would have been Jesus enemy, not a contemporary.

Jesus was a Galilean teacher traveling with Zealots, his action in the temple was that of a Zealot.

Judaism was multi cultural. Paul was not like Jesus or his culture in any way shape or form.


Jesus background is coming from a Aramaic peasant life in a poor agrarian community, oppressed by Hellenist.

Paul was a Koine speaking aristocrat, a well educated Hellenist with Roman citizenship.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Nope not at all.

He still would have been Jesus enemy, not a contemporary.

I'm using 'contemporary' in the sense of 'living at the same time.'

If Paul and Jesus had lived at the same time, even if enemies, then I think Paul would have known some things about Jesus.

 

[outhouse]

I'm using 'contemporary' in the sense of 'living at the same time.'

If Paul and Jesus had lived at the same time, even if enemies, then I think Paul would have known some things about Jesus.

Really?

What made Jesus even noticeable before the temple?


If Jesus did not become famous, would have you ever heard a word about JtB?


Paul didn't personally know a thing about Galilee or its culture.


Jesus was unknown before he caused trouble in the temple.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Really?

What made Jesus even noticeable before the temple?

That depends on which Jesus we like best. But even if he were an unknown begger, the dustup at the temple seems to have been noticeable.

If Saul were living in Jerusalem, you don't think he would have heard of it? I thought the Jewish elite had something to do with it.

If Jesus did not become famous, would have you ever heard a word about JtB?

I don't know. Isn't JtB mentioned outside the Bible?

Paul didn't personally know a thing about Galilee or its culture.

Jesus was unknown before he caused trouble in the temple.

OK. Those are fine opinions. I would guess that most Christians disagree, but everyone gets an opinion.

 

[outhouse]

That depends on which Jesus we like best. But even if he were an unknown begger, the dustup at the temple seems to have been noticeable.

If Saul were living in Jerusalem, you don't think he would have heard of it? I thought the Jewish elite had something to do with it.

If he was at the temple, I think he would have told us.

But were not sure if he ever did go to Jerusalem.

Stoning of Stephen isn't even known with certainty.


I visit to a house there decades after? could be.

I don't know. Isn't JtB mentioned outside the Bible?

Yes but without Jesus popularity, he may never have made the radar.

OK. Those are fine opinions. I would guess that most Christians disagree, but everyone gets an opinion.

Apologetics are not followed by modern scholarships.

 

[gree0232]

If he was at the temple, I think he would have told us.

But were not sure if he ever did go to Jerusalem.

Stoning of Stephen isn't even known with certainty.


I visit to a house there decades after? could be.






Yes but without Jesus popularity, he may never have made the radar.





Apologetics are not followed by modern scholarships.

Agh, there is only one Jesus ... even historical Jesus. That ONE Jesus would have been in the temple and everywhere else. Not even sure why you rebutted the 'version' of Jesus?

Again, it why scholars piece together the evidence and create a narrative. And there are not exactly scholars who disagree about the 'versions' of Jesus.

There is no scholar claiming Jesus V1 may have been in the Temple, but Jesus V2 may have ben carving wood.

That is just not happening.

Its yet another demonstration of the sheer ignorance behind Jesus Mythery. Its literally just creative writing, and why series scholars, or even informed amateurs, dismiss the myth as bizarre.

I mean, at least most creative writers have the decency to correctly call their works fiction. Not so with the Jesus Myth, which has had to be exposed as such. And even after its been exposed? To have some continue to try and parlay it as if its still valid is ... sad.

 

[outhouse]

Agh, there is only one Jesus ... even historical Jesus.
.

Did I say there were two?

There is no scholar claiming Jesus V1 may have been in the Temple, but Jesus V2 may have ben carving wood.

You missed something along the way bud.

I never stated such.

 

[outhouse]

When he stated which it may have been "which" type of Jesus [singular] a scholar is creating.

You know, rich vs poor. Hellenistic vs peasant, sage, teacher, cynic ect ect ect

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

When he stated which it may have been "which" type of Jesus [singular] a scholar is creating.

It's like people who believe in God. They can get a little upset if you say, "My God is not the same as your God."

They want there to exist only one God.

 

[steeltoes]

Apparently there is evidence for an historical Jesus, at least the word has been tossed around a lot, and apparently a mythical Jesus has been debunked. Is anyone willing to actually provide us with some evidence and also, could someone please provide an argument for a mythical Jesus that has been debunked? I have read books by scholars as it concerns the history of Jesus and I would be interested to read what it was that clinched an historical Jesus for anyone out there that cares to respond.