Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?

[steeltoes]

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.

What makes you think that Paul's Christ is the same as the Jesus of Nazareth? We don't know who the gospel writers were and didn't Paul warn of false Christs?

 

[oldbadger]

What makes you think that Paul's Christ is the same as the Jesus of Nazareth?

That's the question. Nothing would please me more if it could be discovered that the Yeshua of Galilee was a different person to the Jesus Christ of Paul's religion. In any event, Yeshua was not the Jesus Christ that Paul and others built up; at most Paul used Yeshua's oral tradition and reversed his religion into it, or vice versa.

We don't know who the gospel writers were and didn't Paul warn of false Christs?

No......after all the shouting and posturing, we don't know who they were. Yes, Paul wanted his religion to be his religion, untainted by other folks' inputs. To repeat, if Yeshua's life got mixed up with other's, the mix producing Paul's religion, and if that could be shown as a strong contender on the balance of probabilities, then that would be good, because Yeshua's last year as described in G-Mark could be left in peace. I think he would like that.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

And so, my answer is that Paul and others wanted the foci of the faith where they wanted them......

Any good?

Sure. It's a good go at it. How about James, the supposed brother of Jesus. Do you believe there was such a person in 35CE Jerusalem?

If so, wouldn't he have marked the tomb?

If not, well... Brother James is the best evidence I've ever seen for the HJ, so be careful about denying him!

Really, though, if Jesus had been claimed to have arisen, wouldn't just regular people know all about the location of such an event?

 

[oldbadger]

Sure. It's a good go at it. How about James, the supposed brother of Jesus. Do you believe there was such a person in 35CE Jerusalem?

No. I think that's bullsh-t. Both James and Jude were reported to have, with their mother and brothers, thought that Yeshua was off his head and quite a lot of trouble. And then, after Yeshua's death, these two are all over his mission and tenets? Collywobblers. I supppose it's possible that the fisherman, JamesbarZebedee might have been that person, but we will never know. Nor do I have great interest, because my interest ends with Yeshua's crucifixion.

If so, wouldn't he have marked the tomb?

....if he was real.
Also, in G-Mark, only Magdalene, Salome and Joseph (and a young unknown person) could have identified it.

If not, well... Brother James is the best evidence I've ever seen for the HJ, so be careful about denying him!

I gotta deny him. And Brother James is all about Jesus the Christ, not Yeshua the healer, so I'll deny the one and hold fast to the other.

Really, though, if Jesus had been claimed to have arisen, wouldn't just regular people know all about the location of such an event?

Yes......... The report of Jesus's laying to rest, the tomb, the stone..... being left for a period of time (12-16hrs?), and then the return of Magdalene to find....... gone! If anybody tried telling that to a Court ...... oh dear.

Like I say, I'm a HYer, really.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Yes......... The report of Jesus's laying to rest, the tomb, the stone..... being left for a period of time (12-16hrs?), and then the return of Magdalene to find....... gone! If anybody tried telling that to a Court ...... oh dear.

Like I say, I'm a HYer, really.

OK. So do you have an opinion about roughly when the resurrection stories began to be told about Jesus? I mean, how long prior to gMark were people claiming an empty tomb?

 

[steeltoes]

No. I think that's bullsh-t. Both James and Jude were reported to have, with their mother and brothers, thought that Yeshua was off his head and quite a lot of trouble. And then, after Yeshua's death, these two are all over his mission and tenets? Collywobblers. I supppose it's possible that the fisherman, JamesbarZebedee might have been that person, but we will never know. Nor do I have great interest, because my interest ends with Yeshua's crucifixion.




I gotta deny him. And Brother James is all about Jesus the Christ, not Yeshua the healer, so I'll deny the one and hold fast to the other.

I have to agree with you about this James, I think you nailed it.

 

[oldbadger]

OK. So do you have an opinion about roughly when the resurrection stories began to be told about Jesus? I mean, how long prior to gMark were people claiming an empty tomb?

Right! ...... Here we go...... Firstly G-Mark did not report any empty tomb. For me, G-Mark ends with chapter 15.

I believe that Chapter 16 is an evangelical edit. (See? I can be diplomatic! ).
So G-Mark reports a burial, and that Magdalene and her friend Mary saw the tomb.

So....... For me, it looks as if the 'empty tomb' report could be later than G-Mark. And so my answer to the above is:- I do not believe in any empty tomb, unless Joseph used it as a refuge for a day.

 

[oldbadger]

I have to agree with you about this James, I think you nailed it.

Ok......... cool. But I want to nudge you towards identifying with this man.......

Your answer diplomatically distanced itself from this man, who was a wood, stone and bone worker, who had an affinity with and ability to heal, who really did get baptised, who really did (sadly) decide to pick up JtB's mission, and who tried, failed, and died because of it. Who got talked about.....

.....and this official, Saul, who was still after the 'pods' of JtB followers picked up on the healer's reputation and, 'click' realised how he could manipulate the whole package into......... the Pauline religion.

Now don't tell me that you don't know! We know that we don't know! But archaeologists and historians use a lovely phrase...... 'a basis of opinion formed from the balance of probabilities'....

..... and if you can't go with that, how about changing 'probabilities' for 'possibilities'?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Right! ...... Here we go...... Firstly G-Mark did not report any empty tomb. For me, G-Mark ends with chapter 15.

What are your reasons for discounting the first part of Chapter 16? I mean, is it based on scholarly work or on your sense of story?

Do you disagree that Mark's Jesus intended to be resurrected... that it was foreshadowed?

 

[InChrist]

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?

Believers worship God not "holy sites" and Jesus did not remain in the tomb. Why should a physical place be worshiped by anyone who knew Christ?

 

[oldbadger]

What are your reasons for discounting the first part of Chapter 16? I mean, is it based on scholarly work or on your sense of story?

...All of chapter 16.... early copies of the book have been found without the last verses..... let's wipe chapter 16 out of the book. I cannot 'source' this info just now, but 'Gospel of Mark added verses' entered into the old www should throw up the info.

Do you disagree that Mark's Jesus intended to be resurrected... that it was foreshadowed?

Yes, I do. I reckon that any such mentions in G-Mark are evangelical edits. The book reads straight and true without these frills, imo.

 

[oldbadger]

Believers worship God not "holy sites" and Jesus did not remain in the tomb. Why should a physical place be worshiped by anyone who knew Christ?

Hello InChrist.

There are so many different Christians. Some Christians take great interest in such sites and relics, any material things that might have anything to do with Jesus, his apostles or his earliest followers.

There are so many examples of places and items, but I do not want to write a big post, so, just one......

The Turin Shroud.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Believers worship God not "holy sites" and Jesus did not remain in the tomb. Why should a physical place be worshiped by anyone who knew Christ?

You might want to do an internet search on Christian holy sites. Just do a bit of reading about how many Christians travel to Jerusalem each year to visit holy places there.

I have to say that I find it way beyond everything I know about people, especially religious people, that they wouldn't care about the tomb from which Jesus arose.

For me, that's in the realm of the bizarre.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

...All of chapter 16.... early copies of the book have been found without the last verses..... let's wipe chapter 16 out of the book. I cannot 'source' this info just now, but 'Gospel of Mark added verses' entered into the old www should throw up the info.

I really haven't heard anyone argue that Chapter 16 should be deleted entirely. Are you sure you're not thinking of the final verses of that chapter?

As for Jesus foreshadowing his own resurrection, I haven't heard scholars claim that those verses were added later, but I haven't read deeply into it.

 

[InChrist]

You might want to do an internet search on Christian holy sites. Just do a bit of reading about how many Christians travel to Jerusalem each year to visit holy places there.

I have to say that I find it way beyond everything I know about people, especially religious people, that they wouldn't care about the tomb from which Jesus arose.

For me, that's in the realm of the bizarre.

Yes, many Christians visit Israel because that is where Jesus lived and walked, but when it comes to revering sites as "holy" I think you are confusing Christians with Catholics and "Catholic holy sites".

 

[steeltoes]

Ok......... cool. But I want to nudge you towards identifying with this man.......

Your answer diplomatically distanced itself from this man, who was a wood, stone and bone worker, who had an affinity with and ability to heal, who really did get baptised, who really did (sadly) decide to pick up JtB's mission, and who tried, failed, and died because of it. Who got talked about.....

.....and this official, Saul, who was still after the 'pods' of JtB followers picked up on the healer's reputation and, 'click' realised how he could manipulate the whole package into......... the Pauline religion.

Now don't tell me that you don't know! We know that we don't know! But archaeologists and historians use a lovely phrase...... 'a basis of opinion formed from the balance of probabilities'....

..... and if you can't go with that, how about changing 'probabilities' for 'possibilities'?

It is not known that Paul knew anything of a Jesus of Nazareth because of what Paul writes about where he gets his information from and because Paul gives no clues as to when his Christ would have lived on earth or if he ever did live on earth for that matter. The gospels were not written until after Paul's death, but apparently according to some scholars the author of GMark may have known of Paul and the Jerusalem group and/or had Paul's writings before him when he wrote his gospel fiction. There may have been a Jesus of Nazareth or at least a preacher type behind Q, but he is lost to history and according to Wells and Doherty he is not to be conflated with Paul's Christ.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Yes, many Christians visit Israel because that is where Jesus lived and walked, but when it comes to revering sites as "holy" I think you are confusing Christians with Catholics and "Catholic holy sites".

Ah. Catholics are not really Christians. I see.

Well, can you tell me who is a real Christian so I can find examples of them going to Jerusalem's holy sites? I've known several protestant Christians who have travelled to Jerusalem on pilgrimage. I remember one friend of mine almost shuddering as he told me of walking on the same streets as Jesus did.

 

[Thief]

Ah. Catholics are not really Christians. I see.

Well, can you tell me who is a real Christian so I can find examples of them going to Jerusalem's holy sites? I've known several protestant Christians who have travelled to Jerusalem on pilgrimage. I remember one friend of mine almost shuddering as he told me of walking on the same streets as Jesus did.

I heard word we should take up the cross and follow.

Now THAT makes even me!....shudder!

 

[oldbadger]

I really haven't heard anyone argue that Chapter 16 should be deleted entirely. Are you sure you're not thinking of the final verses of that chapter?

Maybe I am wrong about dismissing the whole last chapter. I need to read it again..... today.

As for Jesus foreshadowing his own resurrection, I haven't heard scholars claim that those verses were added later, but I haven't read deeply into it.

I'll get reviewing........

 

[oldbadger]

Yes, many Christians visit Israel because that is where Jesus lived and walked, but when it comes to revering sites as "holy" I think you are confusing Christians with Catholics and "Catholic holy sites".

Did you read my post? It started thus:-

There are so many different Christians. Some Christians take great interest in such sites and relics,

Most of the people in the World would accept that Catholics are Christians....