Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?

[gree0232]

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


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

And that is why GA Wells was actually correct when he got a basic fact about the documentary narrative of Christianity incorrect, as demonstrated by evidence. :clap:

 

[steeltoes]

And that is why GA Wells was actually correct when he got a basic fact about the documentary narrative of Christianity incorrect, as demonstrated by evidence. :clap:

As demonstrated by evidence, in your dreams. I read the article, now point out the evidence apart from the baseless speculation for the early dating of the Passion.

 

[gree0232]

As demonstrated by evidence, in your dreams. I read the article, now point out the evidence apart from the baseless speculation for the early dating of the Passion.

The date.

Apparently you didn't read it after all.

Your baseless peculation that its wrong? Well, I think we have ignore number two. I have little desire to be abused by the ignorant.

 

[Nakosis]

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?

Well since we have no writings from Jesus what basis exists to make such a determination? All we have is hearsay... Pretty difficult to convict someone on hearsay.

 

[steeltoes]

Well since we have no writings from Jesus what basis exists to make such a determination? All we have is hearsay... Pretty difficult to convict someone on hearsay.

Not on this board.

 

[gree0232]

Well since we have no writings from Jesus what basis exists to make such a determination? All we have is hearsay... Pretty difficult to convict someone on hearsay.

Unfortunately, much of the documentation in history would be considered hearsay in a court. The profession of history has created standards fro evaluating these documents, which would include almost never using a single document to draw any conclusions from. Authorship, biases, etc. are part of the evaluation process.

So when there is unanimous scholarly opinion on a subject, particularly with multiple ideological view points, that would be considered an exceptionally STRONG historical case.

When the alternative has zero support, and has been dismissed as bizarre by the unanimous opinion of period scholars, that would be a pretty sound indication of a WEAK case.

So, the side that is attempting to over turn the STRONG historical cases, must have some basis from which to make the case ... and, as we see, there is none being presented.

And do we convict people without evidence?

Do we form conclusions without evidence?

Do we ignore conclusions based on evidence for no reason?

 

[outhouse]

Unfortunately, much of the documentation in history would be considered hearsay in a court. The profession of history has created standards fro evaluating these documents, which would include almost never using a single document to draw any conclusions from. Authorship, biases, etc. are part of the evaluation process.

So when there is unanimous scholarly opinion on a subject, particularly with multiple ideological view points, that would be considered an exceptionally STRONG historical case.

When the alternative has zero support, and has been dismissed as bizarre by the unanimous opinion of period scholars, that would be a pretty sound indication of a WEAK case.

So, the side that is attempting to over turn the STRONG historical cases, must have some basis from which to make the case ... and, as we see, there is none being presented.

And do we convict people without evidence?

Do we form conclusions without evidence?

Do we ignore conclusions based on evidence for no reason?

We don't know what Jesus may have written or preached, only later Hellenistic reflections. The gospels reflect one later tradition. Paul reflects one particular early glimpse into the past.

But we can never recreate the past accurately, only with different degrees of plausibility, correct?

 

[outhouse]

I have little desire to be abused by the ignorant.

LOL

I have had him on ignore for a very long time. [in this forum]

 

[steeltoes]

LOL

I have had him on ignore for a very long time. [in this forum]

Except to provide insults. Of course I don't expect otherwise, this is an internet forum after all, and Jesus is an emotionally charged subject for some which in turn leaves little to no room for reasonable debate, so build a case on insults if you must.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Except to provide insults. Of course I don't expect otherwise, this is an internet forum after all, and Jesus is an emotionally charged subject for some which in turn leaves little to no room for reasonable debate, so build a case on insults if you must.

Really, it's extraordinary how this subject affects most people who try to engage it here. To disagree even slightly with the other guy's Favorite Jesus is to poke a hornet's nest with a stick. Casus belli.

Curious.

 

[steeltoes]

Really, it's extraordinary how this subject affects most people who try to engage it here. To disagree even slightly with the other guy's Favorite Jesus is to poke a hornet's nest with a stick. Casus belli.

Curious.

Very curious.

 

[oldbadger]

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

Source please.....?

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

So how could you then write:-

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.

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

Authors knew him and wrote about him? Who?

 

[oldbadger]

Really, it's extraordinary how this subject affects most people who try to engage it here. To disagree even slightly with the other guy's Favorite Jesus is to poke a hornet's nest with a stick. Casus belli.

Curious.

We all should be wired up to the mains electricity, and if anybody clicks on a lightning logo at the top of each post, that member gets it. ....... several seconds of mains voltage. But the frubal logo should be well separated from the lightning one because my eyesight is a bit poor now.

Agree with me and you're the best......... disagree and......screeeccchhhh!

 

[oldbadger]

All this criticism (and support) of G A Wells has caused me to be interested. One of his books , something like 'The Jesus of the early Christians' is offered on ebay. But what I need to know is:- What is the title of his book that is being rubbished (by some) on this thread?

I think I need to read it.

 

[oldbadger]

And that is why GA Wells was actually correct .................

.....why.... I'll bet you don't even know the name of his book!

 

[oldbadger]

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

I've already asked for your source on the above, but .... honestly, I cannot wait.
Your definition is a complete misrepresentation which you seem to have no intention of reconsidering.

You often copy Wiki, so please read the Wiki definition:-
Tekt

The Ancient Greek noun tektōn (τέκτω&#957 is a common term for an artisan/craftsman, in particular a carpenter or wood-worker or builder. The term is frequently contrasted with an iron-worker, or smith (χαλκεύ&#962 and the stone-worker or mason (λιθολόγο&#962,[1]


Your inclusion of the word 'displaced' in your definition serves only to shore up your theory of Jesus the peasant, shuffling from village to village, carrying Crosson's magic for a meal. True?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

All this criticism (and support) of G A Wells has caused me to be interested. One of his books , something like 'The Jesus of the early Christians' is offered on ebay. But what I need to know is:- What is the title of his book that is being rubbished (by some) on this thread?

I think I need to read it.

I think they've been talking about The Jesus Myth.

GA Wells, of course, utterly destroyed the feeble arguments of the HJers. Then he tossed them onto the garbage heap of history's rotted, fetid, worthless theories.

(Sorry. It's de rigueur to bash the other guy's scholar while boasting of your own. I am only trying to follow convention here.)

 

[outhouse]

I've already asked for your source on the above, but .... honestly, I cannot wait.

Too bad, im just getting to work.

The Bible and Interpretation - National Geographic’s “Jesus: the Man” ? A Review


As scholars have recently noted, the word usually translated “carpenter” (tekton) can also mean someone who worked with his hands, or a stone worker. As Joseph may have done stonework and manual labor rather than being a craftsman with wood, this would have put him in the lowest of the lower class. Therefore, the family Jesus grew up in would not have owned land, but they would have been subsistence farmers accustomed to menial labor. According to Stephen Patterson, the family of Jesus was a step below the normal peasant. This being the case, neither Joseph nor Jesus was a carpenter; they were more likely workers with stone and general manual labor.



National Geographic Jesus

We could agree it’s likely that Joseph’s family was low on the social scale. Joseph is called
a tekton in Greek which is usually translated as “carpenter.”

However, Reed says that a tekton is simply a person who works with his hands. While Joseph
and Jesus may at times have worked with wood, they more likely, he claims, to have shaped
stone, repaired houses, or even worked in the fields.

Patterson says that being a tekton means Joseph owned no land and was a step below that
of a normal peasant.

We do know Jesus was born in a very humble abode and lived in poverty as an adult, at least
after starting his ministry. “The Son of Man has no place to lay his head,” Jesus says in
Matthew 8:20.

 

[outhouse]

Source please.....?


So how could you then write:-

Stop being a pain, before you go to ignore.


Just becuase we dont kow exactly what said, DOES NOT mean we dont generally know what he taught.

 

[Nakosis]

Unfortunately, much of the documentation in history would be considered hearsay in a court. The profession of history has created standards fro evaluating these documents, which would include almost never using a single document to draw any conclusions from. Authorship, biases, etc. are part of the evaluation process.

I'm just saying there is little certainty here so why expect undeniable proof for a position which is what the post I responded to seemed to ask.

So when there is unanimous scholarly opinion on a subject, particularly with multiple ideological view points, that would be considered an exceptionally STRONG historical case.

When the alternative has zero support, and has been dismissed as bizarre by the unanimous opinion of period scholars, that would be a pretty sound indication of a WEAK case.

So, the side that is attempting to over turn the STRONG historical cases, must have some basis from which to make the case ... and, as we see, there is none being presented.

While I don't particularly agree with outhouse's position I really can't argue against the justification he is able to bring to the table for having the views he has. Unless you have some personal expertise on the matter I don't think you're going to be able to show his position is unjustified. No harm is trying though...

And do we convict people without evidence?

Do we form conclusions without evidence?

Do we ignore conclusions based on evidence for no reason?

Yeah... "we" as a people do it often it seems. Any evidence or conclusion will inherently contain some degree of reasonable doubt. And we justify that doubt or lack of according to personal preference of one theory or another.

Between two people able to reasonably support their opposing positions it comes down to personal preference.