Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?

[oldbadger]

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

Crazy sentence. Badly written. 1/10
Very unintelligent writing....

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

They agree upon his baptism, demonstration in the Temple and execution, as do I.

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

Logics? Logistics!!!! 1/10

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

You appreciate being wrong?

Look..... why don't you bother somebody else?

 

[oldbadger]

Please bear in mind that Jesus was born in 0AD.

No he was not. Please provide your source for this date.

Scholars believe he dies somewhere between 30-36AD.

Scholars believe? You mean they work with beliefs?
Not intelligent.

Some people never learn.

You don't seem to learn.

 

[oldbadger]

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.

So let me get this straight......Bart Ehrman is not the best scholar with regard to HJ. Time to tell us...... who is?

Name your 'best' scholar.

 

[oldbadger]

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

I'm ignoring it, because it waffles on about G-Matthew.
I'm working with G-Mark.

So I ask you- Do you happen to believe in the resurrection of Jesus?
(Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? The Craig-Ehrman Debate | Reasonable Faith)

You do seem to skip about all over the place, mostly within Wiki?

 

[gree0232]

No he was not. Please provide your source for this date.


Scholars believe? You mean they work with beliefs?
Not intelligent.


You don't seem to learn.

Oh look a case entirely of semantics and absurdity.

I love how we need sources, you need ... an opinion ... which is automatically fact - and intelligent despite the complete failure to use basic scholarship.

Gents, I give you the stereotypical argument from absurdity - a common trait with conspiracy theorists.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Oh look a case entirely of semantics and absurdity.

I love how we need sources, you need ... an opinion ... which is automatically fact - and intelligent despite the complete failure to use basic scholarship.

Gents, I give you the stereotypical argument from absurdity - a common trait with conspiracy theorists.

Are you ever going to discuss the historical Jesus with us?

 

[steeltoes]

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.

If you knew anything at all about Wells and chose not to misrepresent him I would be willing to debate you, but you don't know.

 

[outhouse]

Oh look a case entirely of semantics and absurdity.

I love how we need sources, you need ... an opinion ... which is automatically fact - and intelligent despite the complete failure to use basic scholarship.

Gents, I give you the stereotypical argument from absurdity - a common trait with conspiracy theorists.

He is more apologetic ish.

Not really a conspiracy type.

 

[gree0232]

If you knew anything at all about Wells and chose not to misrepresent him I would be willing to debate you, but you don't know.

ROFL!!!

I am the only one of us to actually have read his book. I got more than half way through and then had to toss it. It was a confused manager of conflicting standards and servile excuses whose sole goal was to deny Jesus at any cost: simple conspiracy.

Scholarly rebuttal has annihilated it.

And the larger point? The Passion narrative, both he and you are simply wrong as an easily checked timeline of Christian documents proves - which is par for the course.

So, rather than have evidence to back up our claim ... we will claim others are ignorant from, not just ignorance, but the opposite of evidence to boot.

Typical conspiracy thinking.

Did you know the that the CIA hijacked the planes on 9-11? Totally pretended to be Saudi to cause a spike and oil prices and relieve pressure on finances of American Oil Companies and make the exploration of the Bakkan Oil fields financially tenable.

I'd explain more to you ... but you know nothing about oil .. so ... :run:

 

[gree0232]

He is more apologetic ish.

Not really a conspiracy type.

He is abusive ... agree with me and you are the best ... disagree and you are scum. Such antics are extremely manipulative. (At least attempting to be at any rate).

 

[outhouse]

He is abusive ... agree with me and you are the best ... disagree and you are scum. Such antics are extremely manipulative. (At least attempting to be at any rate).

That is very correct.

Used to be a great guy, its only the last month his teeth have come out.

 

[gree0232]

That is very correct.

Used to be a great guy, its only the last month his teeth have come out.

the larger point being that the antics needed to reach the conclusion of Jesus Mythery are ... unsound.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

the larger point being that the antics needed to reach the conclusion of Jesus Mythery are ... unsound.

You might want to go a little easier on the Jesus Mythers. According to the Wiki definition, you yourself are one.

 

[steeltoes]

the larger point being that the antics needed to reach the conclusion of Jesus Mythery are ... unsound.

That could be true and if it were one would think that you could back up your rhetoric with something sound to prove your point but you don't appear to be up to the challenge.

I have no idea if Jesus is historical or mythical, but at least I understand Christ Myth Theory and Historical Jesus Theory whereas you obviously claim to be in the know but aren't capable of providing us with anything of substance from any side.

People that cast aspersions towards those that they disagree with don't have anything to offer anyways, if they did there would be no need for the aspersions.

 

[gree0232]

That could be true and if it were one would think that you could back up your rhetoric with something sound to prove your point but you don't appear to be up to the challenge.

I have no idea if Jesus is historical or mythical, but at least I understand Christ Myth Theory and Historical Jesus Theory whereas you obviously claim to be in the know but aren't capable of providing us with anything of substance from any side.

People that cast aspersions towards those that they disagree with don't have anything to offer anyways, if they did there would be no need for the aspersions.

Your claim, that the passion narrative, through Wells, was accurate in its claim that contemporary Christians did not know of it.

The Passion Narrative

As you can see, the dating on the passion narrative is IMMEDIATELY after Jesus is thought to have died.

The claim was false.

Going into an illogical, untenable, and mean spirited diatribe about the knowledge of others, after making a pointedly false and easily disproven claim would be ...

Conspiracy. Exactly as charged.

I am sure that someone who just screwed up a point about the FIRST document in the document list of Christianity, must be a better scholar than me ... and those who hold a Ph.D on the subject ... which Wells does not.

I understand that you are emotional, and see nothing else upon which to frame a logical assessment of what drove you to already discredited mythery. Conspiracy theorists rarely present such analysis.

 

[Thief]

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.

This is not the history lessons.....did Jesus exist?

This is a question of .....fraud.

Several times in this thread I have questioned.....Did He lie?

I don't care if you think He never lived.
Did He lie?

 

[outhouse]

I don't care if you think He never lived.

Can you really read English and comprehend it?


I have not stated such.

Did He lie?

About what?

 

[Thief]

Can you really read English and comprehend it?


I have not stated such.








About what?

so...you're not actually participating.....are you?

Let's just say you're not sarcastic and your question (though late in this thread)......indicates you might be willing to address the words of the Carpenter.

Did He lie?......about anything.
Do you believe what He taught?
and if not....what is your point of objection?

 

[steeltoes]

Your claim,

No, not my claim, which in turn shows a complete lack of comprehension skills on your part.

that the passion narrative, through Wells, was accurate in its claim that contemporary Christians did not know of it.



The Passion Narrative

As you can see, the dating on the passion narrative is IMMEDIATELY after Jesus is thought to have died.

The claim was false.

Going into an illogical, untenable, and mean spirited diatribe about the knowledge of others, after making a pointedly false and easily disproven claim would be ...

Conspiracy. Exactly as charged.

I am sure that someone who just screwed up a point about the FIRST document in the document list of Christianity, must be a better scholar than me ... and those who hold a Ph.D on the subject ... which Wells does not.

I understand that you are emotional, and see nothing else upon which to frame a logical assessment of what drove you to already discredited mythery. Conspiracy theorists rarely present such analysis.

No doubt you see conspiracies, I hope they don't keep you up at night.

 

[outhouse]

words of the Carpenter.

Tekton is not carpenter in Galilean cultural anthropology. It means displaced handworkers who were usually agrarian renters doing odd jobs.

Did He lie?......about anything.

We don't know what he said with any certainty.

We don't know.

He did not write anything, only authors who never knew him did.

Do you believe what He taught?

No

Some of it was completely laughable. he thought the world was coming to an end within a short period of time. I find that ludicrous.

AND we don't know exactly what he taught, the parables are not 100% his nor can we attribute any degree of certainty to those words, as his.