Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?

[outhouse]

So...there was some historian right there on hand writing it all down?
Or was he NOT writing it down because he couldn't believe what he saw?

I think you've giving yourself to the blind.

I believe you think mythology exist in reality.


Of course since you have been posting here, I have never seen you substantiate a word you have posted

No sources equal no credibility

 

[steeltoes]

I believe you think mythology exist in reality.


Of course since you have been posting here, I have never seen you substantiate a word you have posted

No sources equal no credibility

That makes two of you.

 

[outhouse]

I have substantiate what I posit with sources.

You on the other are a pro at attacking the messenger because you cannot attack the current state of scholarships.

 

[outhouse]

This is for the oldbadger

Did you somehow gain more knowledge then Bart Ehrman?

Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? The Craig-Ehrman Debate | Reasonable Faith

. The Gospels were written 35 to 65 years after Jesus’ death—35 or 65 years after his death, not by people who were eyewitnesses, but by people living later. The Gospels were written by highly literate, trained, Greek-speaking Christians of the second and third generation. They’re not written by Jesus’ Aramaic-speaking followers. They’re written by people living 30, 40, 50, 60 years later. Where did these people get their information from? I should point out that the Gospels say they’re written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But that’s just in your English Bible. That’s the title of these Gospels, but whoever wrote the Gospel of Matthew didn’t call it the Gospel of Matthew. Whoever wrote the Gospel of Matthew simply wrote his Gospel, and somebody later said it’s the Gospel according to Matthew. Somebody later is telling you who wrote it. The titles are later additions. These are not eyewitness accounts. So where did they get their stories from?

Read more: Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? The Craig-Ehrman Debate | Reasonable Faith

 

[gree0232]

That makes two of you.

Actually, our side has repeatedly referred to atheists experts on the subject like Michael Grant, Will Durant, and Agnostic Bart Erhman. We have also directed reader to the, "Jesus Myth," by GA Wells, which has been thoroughly rebuked and largely retracted by Wells himself.

GA Wells

I am sure that simply because the Myther side never produces anything that also means that the other side is not as well.

Its a simple and demonstrably false claim.

What we expect from Mythers.

 

[oldbadger]

from the Christ Myth Theory wiki link:

" The only two events subject to almost universal assent among biblical scholars are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate."

Some aren't so sure...

I watched a TV program about Spartacus last night. Same difficulties, contentions, discussions...... amongst historians.

But here we all are, debating about HJ. Same as yesterday...... will be tomorrow.

...and that is all it takes folks for lines to be drawn and aspersions to be flung.

................. I'm done with all that b-ll-cks. In future if anybody flings anything at me in the way of insult or aggravation I'm going to start marking their posts out of ten. Finish.

Who's primitive now?

When a whole race of people is dismissed so easily as in some recent posts I know that I'm reading the views of prejudiced folks. Prejudice gets nowhere, learns nothing...... has no investigative foundation.

In 1974 the Chinese built a huge aqueduct which ran many hundreds of miles across the country. Every village within a certain distance of its route sent mostly everybody, with shovels, barrows and baskets...... to supply the labour for the job. It took a few months or few weeks to finish. I was amazed, but one of my colleagues laughed as he read a newspaper report, and said ,'Ha ha..... how primitive... we'd do it in a few days with JCBs!!' I never forgot what that stupid primitive idiot said.

 

[gree0232]

I watched a TV program about Spartacus last night. Same difficulties, contentions, discussions...... amongst historians.

But here we all are, debating about HJ. Same as yesterday...... will be tomorrow.



................. I'm done with all that b-ll-cks. In future if anybody flings anything at me in the way of insult or aggravation I'm going to start marking their posts out of ten. Finish.



When a whole race of people is dismissed so easily as in some recent posts I know that I'm reading the views of prejudiced folks. Prejudice gets nowhere, learns nothing...... has no investigative foundation.

In 1974 the Chinese built a huge aqueduct which ran many hundreds of miles across the country. Every village within a certain distance of its route sent mostly everybody, with shovels, barrows and baskets...... to supply the labour for the job. It took a few months or few weeks to finish. I was amazed, but one of my colleagues laughed as he read a newspaper report, and said ,'Ha ha..... how primitive... we'd do it in a few days with JCBs!!' I never forgot what that stupid primitive idiot said.

Oh, the scholars were having a discussion about whether or not Spartacus and Roman Servile insurrections were real were they? :no:

Perhaps, instead talking about Chinese aqueducts, you could confine the rambling to at LEAST evidence that would be relevant to Jesus.

Whatever conclusions derived from Chinese aqueducts may be, they are absolutely irrelevant to Jesus and his historicity or lack thereof.

 

[oldbadger]

They were very primitive.
Just because they were not as primitive as cavemen means nothing at all..

............ so..... that's that? You're not interested in Yeshua's own people because they were so....... primitive. You have nothing to learn from them? Ok, so remain ignorant about them. Wishful ignorance about any part of the subject is silly, imo.

Most are, even atheist like me live mythology. I also pass santa for presents, easter for egg hunting, tooth fairy for a buck. ect ect

The difference is, I know it is mythology, not reality.

..... not so simple as you think. What you don't realise is that our obsessions and compulsions are much deeper and much stronger than that....... now..... today.

I don't tell you what you can or cannot afford, so don't start with me. Your wrong going there

........... OK...... I'll put it another way. To dismiss the NT Galileans as not worthy of your attention (for more detail) whilst discussing the HJ subject is...... strange.

 

[oldbadger]

This is for the oldbadger

Did you somehow gain more knowledge then Bart Ehrman?
Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?

I always know when I've got you on the ropes over an issue, because you do everything you can to divert, or redirect the debate.

1. I am not interested in the resurrection debate. :biglaugh:
2. I'm certainly going to gain more knowledge than you about the NT Galilean people, because I'm interested in them and you are not.

Which part of this are you having difficulty in understanding?
OK, so Bart Ehrman is your chosen scholar above the others. Make sure you don not gainsay his work in future, or leave his viewpoints.

 

[oldbadger]

Oh, the scholars were having a discussion about whether or not Spartacus and Roman Servile insurrections were real were they? :no:

....... why do you add rubbish to people's posts? The subject was about the detail of what they know about Spartacus. They know very little. Like HJ.

Perhaps, instead talking about Chinese aqueducts, you could confine the rambling to at LEAST evidence that would be relevant to Jesus.

What I send to other members is nothing to do with you, friend.

Whatever conclusions derived from Chinese aqueducts may be, they are absolutely irrelevant to Jesus and his historicity or lack thereof.

...... not sent to you....... members use many analogies on these threads.

But you are doing better, because your post was short and understandable. That is a vast improvement.
So...... 5/10 Fair.

 

[gree0232]

....... why do you add rubbish to people's posts? The subject was about the detail of what they know about Spartacus. They know very little. Like HJ.


What I send to other members is nothing to do with you, friend.


...... not sent to you....... members use many analogies on these threads.

But you are doing better, because your post was short and understandable. That is a vast improvement.
So...... 5/10 Fair.

Because you sillily claimed that scholars disagree meant about things was somehow relevant to the Jesus Myth. The scholarly disagreement about details of a largely agreed upon narrative is not the stuff of proof.

And indeed, that scholars interpret portions of the Roman Servile differently, hardly mans it did not happen. Much less that this examples something that would be relevant to proving anything at all about Jesus.

And again, there is no scholarly disagreement. ALL period scholars accept the historicity of Jesus. All of them.

Why the hell you are talking about Spartacus and Chinese logics is completely irrelevant.

Thank you for continuing the abuse though ... I appreciate being wrong no matter what master

 

[steeltoes]

Actually, our side has repeatedly referred to atheists experts on the subject like Michael Grant, Will Durant, and Agnostic Bart Erhman. We have also directed reader to the, "Jesus Myth," by GA Wells, which has been thoroughly rebuked and largely retracted by Wells himself.

GA Wells

I am sure that simply because the Myther side never produces anything that also means that the other side is not as well.

Its a simple and demonstrably false claim.

What we expect from Mythers.

Did you read from the link that you provided?


from your link: " There was no passion under Pontius Pilate and the earliest Christians knew of no such thing. The Q source, added to Mark to help compile the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, does, however, reflect the preaching of a real Galilean Jewish prophet of the first half of the first century who was conflated with the earlier Jesus of Paul (Jesus, after all was a common enough name). In other words the Jesus of the later church was an amalgam of two figures linked by a fictitious Jerusalem narrative."


So you would agree with Wells that the gospel Jesus is not to be conflated with Paul's Jesus, that "the Jesus of the later church was an amalgam of two figures linked by a fictitious Jerusalem narrative."


.

 

[Thief]

And at what point do we begin pointing fingers at the Carpenter and yelling....'Fraud!'.....?

Arguing history is pointless.
The story simply will not go away.

Arguing if the Man ever lived is pointless.
The story won't go away.

Perhaps we could be more high brow about the 'point'.
Consider the character....and then the story......and then decide.....

Stand to His face and call Him a fraud?

I don't think would be a good idea.

 

[gree0232]

Did you read from the link that you provided?


from your link: " There was no passion under Pontius Pilate and the earliest Christians knew of no such thing. The Q source, added to Mark to help compile the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, does, however, reflect the preaching of a real Galilean Jewish prophet of the first half of the first century who was conflated with the earlier Jesus of Paul (Jesus, after all was a common enough name). In other words the Jesus of the later church was an amalgam of two figures linked by a fictitious Jerusalem narrative."


So you would agree with Wells that the gospel Jesus is not to be conflated with Paul's Jesus, that "the Jesus of the later church was an amalgam of two figures linked by a fictitious Jerusalem narrative."


.

Yeah.

That would include the part where he OVERTLY acknowledges his fervor for the Jesus Myth was misplaced.

His version is nor more like Bart Erhman's where historical Jesus is certain, but religious excesses read too much into it.

We should also bear in mind, that this is a man who ha flatly admitted his biases, and had to retract his published works because the scathing scholarly reception of his works.

Have YOU read the Jesus Myth by Wells?

Do you even understand how far even THAT admission is for him to have fallen?

I do love the practice of cherry picking quotes though, under the assumption that a single non-contextual quote mean EVERYTHING? Well, read the Jesus Myth and you will see.

The scathing criticism of his work pushed Wells into the least barely tenable view point on Jesus.

Now, prove that this means Jesus is a fraud ... rather than wells.

 

[gree0232]

Did you read from the link that you provided?


from your link: " There was no passion under Pontius Pilate and the earliest Christians knew of no such thing. The Q source, added to Mark to help compile the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, does, however, reflect the preaching of a real Galilean Jewish prophet of the first half of the first century who was conflated with the earlier Jesus of Paul (Jesus, after all was a common enough name). In other words the Jesus of the later church was an amalgam of two figures linked by a fictitious Jerusalem narrative."


So you would agree with Wells that the gospel Jesus is not to be conflated with Paul's Jesus, that "the Jesus of the later church was an amalgam of two figures linked by a fictitious Jerusalem narrative."


.

Yeah.

That would include the part where he OVERTLY acknowledges his fervor for the Jesus Myth was misplaced.

His version is nor more like Bart Erhman's where historical Jesus is certain, but religious excesses read too much into it.

We should also bear in mind, that this is a man who ha flatly admitted his biases, and had to retract his published works because the scathing scholarly reception of his works.

Have YOU read the Jesus Myth by Wells?

Do you even understand how far even THAT admission is for him to have fallen?

I do love the practice of cherry picking quotes though, under the assumption that a single non-contextual quote mean EVERYTHING? Well, read the Jesus Myth and you will see.

The scathing criticism of his work pushed Wells into the least barely tenable view point on Jesus.

Now, prove that this means Jesus is a fraud ... rather than wells.

He is also, once again, provable wrong.

The Passion Narrative

Please bear in mind that Jesus was born in 0AD. Scholars believe he dies somewhere between 30-36AD.

And the dates of the first passion narrative are immediate.

Some people never learn.

 

[outhouse]

And at what point do we begin pointing fingers at the Carpenter and yelling....'Fraud!'.....?

.

No one thinks he is a fraud. That is why the thread is hijacked back to another HJ thread.

Before you can discuss what he might have been, certain people find it important to devote their free time to propose that he didnt exist. Mythicist cannot stand the fact he has historicity and they cant do anything about it but complain in threads like these. It is 3 parts, #1 it is a appealing to ignorane and #2 attacking the messenger and 3# avoiding a replecemnet hypothesis.

 

[outhouse]

OK, so Bart Ehrman is your chosen scholar above the others. .

Not at all.

He is one of the consensus that shows the books authors are unknown.


There was valuable information in that article covering the debate.

 

[outhouse]

Can you refute any part of this, or just ignore it?


Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? The Craig-Ehrman Debate | Reasonable Faith

. The Gospels were written 35 to 65 years after Jesus’ death—35 or 65 years after his death, not by people who were eyewitnesses, but by people living later. The Gospels were written by highly literate, trained, Greek-speaking Christians of the second and third generation. They’re not written by Jesus’ Aramaic-speaking followers. They’re written by people living 30, 40, 50, 60 years later. Where did these people get their information from? I should point out that the Gospels say they’re written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But that’s just in your English Bible. That’s the title of these Gospels, but whoever wrote the Gospel of Matthew didn’t call it the Gospel of Matthew. Whoever wrote the Gospel of Matthew simply wrote his Gospel, and somebody later said it’s the Gospel according to Matthew. Somebody later is telling you who wrote it. The titles are later additions. These are not eyewitness accounts. So where did they get their stories from?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Because you sillily claimed that scholars disagree meant about things was somehow relevant to the Jesus Myth.

You're aware that several people in the forum are finding your messages very difficult to follow?

Would you consider maybe spending a little more time composing them?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Did you somehow gain more knowledge then Bart Ehrman?

I did. There isn't a Jesus Myther around who knows as much as I do.