• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?

Thief

Rogue Theologian
In what sense?

That he rose from the dead and rose others from their otherwise dead state or that there is some tale of a man? I know you asked about Jesus and if he ever lied but did he? What do you think? There are so many odd statements to step around like here: Matthew 18:19-18:20 -

Really if Two people pray and agree than it should be so? That would be insanely bad IMHO and I don't know if a soul would be left on this planet... (It only takes two to mingle)

Your last line is misleading.
The quote you used as reference was a matter of faith in action.

When two or more or gathered in His name....He would be there.
That is not affirmation for non-believers.

It is not a statement of insanity.

His resurrection was observed by others.
Did He lie?......or did they?

As for what He said of Himself......I can find no fraud.
 
Your last line is misleading.
The quote you used as reference was a matter of faith in action.

When two or more or gathered in His name....He would be there.
That is not affirmation for non-believers.

It is not a statement of insanity.

His resurrection was observed by others.
Did He lie?......or did they?

As for what He said of Himself......I can find no fraud.

I'm not sure anything I could say would help at all. There are many passages you could read which again were written long after his death by people who probably never met him but if you can find no fraud then I think that is what you wish.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Paul and the other epistle writers know nothing of the gospel story, the temple action, Pilate, Mary, they were written after Paul was dead. None of the epistle writers mention disciples.

Forget my last post about the above..... it was stupid. I claim tiredness.:D

I scanned through the letters last night, and 1 Cor was most interesting. I don't think that Paul wanted to include (or mention) anybody who could claim to be of more importance in his new religion than himself. This includes Jesus.
Paul actually reduces all the abilities attributed to Jesus through the oral-tradition, and with subtlety promotes some for himself into the minds of readers without actually making any claims. Just in case that does not work he promotes an ability that all can share above the powers of Jesus.
Rather like G-John (and others) not wishing to raise John the Baptist too high (Should not you be baptising me? :D)

See how Paul makes sure that other qualities (such as his own position as 'ordained' apostle) are still popped in before any powers of Jesus. Read and enjoy......

12:28} And God hath set some in the church,
first apostles(like me!:D), secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after
that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments,
diversities of tongues. ..................
He then goes on to promote 'charity' above all of those virtues. But the idea is being settled upon the reader.

He does this often, it seems....... look at his order of importance? There's only two 'things' that Paul wanted out of Yeshua's life, mission and following...... his (Hellenised) name and his (Hellenised) title.

I think that Paul knew the oral tradition and stories about Yeshua's mission, but his blinding idea did not need more than a figurehead already followed by many. Then it just needed to be taken over, developed and merged with his own ideas.

He had to give Cephas recognition, because Cephas would not go away or retreat into the shadows.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
I'm not sure anything I could say would help at all. There are many passages you could read which again were written long after his death by people who probably never met him but if you can find no fraud then I think that is what you wish.

So...you're not willing to label the Man ....a fraud?
 

outhouse

Atheistically
His resurrection was observed by others.
Did He lie?......or did they?

.


There is no historicity to a resurrection or what was so called "observed"


Hallucination, imagination, dreams, and visions can all be observed.


Jesus write nothing, so it could not have been him, only the unknown authors who never witnessed any aspect of the mans life. They only reported the wake he left behind himself.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Oh really?!
Is it not your crutch and confidence that history fails to make theology....credible?

I personally find you to be mistaken.

I have no issue with theology.


Only people who place it before credible known history, usually blindly.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
I personally find you to be mistaken.

I have no issue with theology.


Only people who place it before credible known history, usually blindly.

None so blind as those who will not see.

You claim you don't have a problem with theology.
then why not stop the needless insistence on the history lesson?

This IS theology....btw
 

outhouse

Atheistically
This IS theology....btw


The history of Israelites defined the foundation for the Theology you hold dear.


To place your theology into proper context, one should have a basic understanding of history of its development.

Not run and hide from it.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
The history of Israelites defined the foundation for the Theology you hold dear.


To place your theology into proper context, one should have a basic understanding of history of its development.

Not run and hide from it.

I lean to science for the starting 'point'.

Go hide in your history book.
I have no comfort for you.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Funny I have only seen you twist it.






YOU do not get to tell me what to do.






Who do you think you are? the comfort master? :biglaugh:



If you do not understand history, you cannot understand the theology in context.

Nor can interpret the bible correctly in context.

I deny you.
Theology is not based on history.
It is faith.

Interpretation...by history?......I say nay to that.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I have no issue with theology.


Only people who place it before credible known history, usually blindly.

........... credible known history. ? :shrug:

...........credible history perhaps, but there is not much of that for Jesus.

Birth, Baptism. Temple demonstration and execution... if I remember correctly. That is the average scholar's best guess.

All the rest is creed. Thief has a Creed.

You do realise that credible means believable, of course?
Credo= I believe.
 

steeltoes

Junior member
History is NOT imagination.
it is the diggings of people curious about how we became the creature we are.

Theology deals about the creature we will become.

Some people dig in the dirt....looking for the past.

We are all dust.

Let the dead bury the dead.
Yes, actual history is not imagination, I agree.
 

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
I have a question for anyone reading this thread who supports the HJ position. I got the idea from Copernicus in another thread, but I want to word the question myself and I hope some of you will try to give a good answer:

If there was a Jerusalem Church in 35CE or so -- as virtually all HJers seem to agree -- why was the tomb of Jesus not worshipped as a holy site? Why does no one even know its location except by later guesses?
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I have a question for anyone reading this thread who supports the HJ position. I got the idea from Copernicus in another thread, but I want to word the question myself and I hope some of you will try to give a good answer:

If there was a Jerusalem Church in 35CE or so -- as virtually all HJers seem to agree -- why was the tomb of Jesus not worshipped as a holy site? Why does no one even know its location except by later guesses?

Hi..... again. Let me try............

I am an HJer. Now, to your question.
I don't know which year Jesus died, but in any case I think that the oral traditions concerning his mission and death spread outwards in all directions.
I don't know how or when Historical Jesus became 'Theological Jesus', but I'll bet that Paul and others used Jesus's life, mission and death to build his own idea of a religion upon. Paul only needed the Hellenised name and Hellenised Title of Jesus for that, and definitely pushed his life, actions and sayings into the background. So he wouldn't have been too excited about Jesus shrines. See how he puts his own title of apostle ahead of Jesus's titles of Teacher, Healer etc in 1 Cor 12-18.
And so, my answer is that Paul and others wanted the foci of the faith where they wanted them......

Any good?

Another version is that Jesus never died, and Joseph of Arimathea got him off that cross, wounds and all, alive. You already know of the stories about Gaul, and Cornwall, and Kashmir.
 
Top