Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?

[lunamoth]

Well, there's the inconvenient bit in Matthew 16...

Which bit do you find inconvenient?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Well, at least you now seem to have it straight that what others said about Jesus is distinct from whether he himself was fraudulent.

Is there a difference? Well, clearly. But is it a difference that amounts to anything of significance in this context? Doesn't look like it.

Do they mean the same thing? Clearly not. But we have no practical way of distinguishing the two, nor is there any clear reason for doing so in this context anyways.

Suffice to say I've had that straight from the get-go. Its others who have been lagging in appreciating the point here.

So, formal possibilities and impossibilities aside, what evidence do you have that he was a fraud? If you have none, and your argument sums up as, 'Yes, he was possibly a fraud.

I didn't say there was none, I said that it isn't relevant. And since the OP is asking whether Christ could have been a fraud, not whether Christ was a fraud, this is a perfectly fair response. Do you see anything wrong with it?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Which bit do you find inconvenient?

The fact that, so far as we know, it never happened?

 

[lunamoth]

The fact that, so far as we know, it never happened?

What never happened?

 

[outhouse]

But we have no practical way of distinguishing the two, nor is there any clear reason for doing so in this context anyways. .

I don't find this to be true in any way.


We have the socioeconomic studies of Galilee, and the temple knowing the political climate and divisions that help us understand what it would be like to have survived this period.


Your saying we cannot separate mythology from reality, when its not all that hard to determine.


We have enough information to piece together things like typical diet from villages like Nazareth and Capernaum, we have found game pieces so we even know how some played. We understand family life and the need for a large family due to high mortality rates.


WE are not surrounded in ignorance about this time period.


There isn't as much of a mystery as you think there is.

 

[lunamoth]

Suffice to say I've had that straight from the get-go. Its others who have been lagging in appreciating the point here.


I didn't say there was none, I said that it isn't relevant. And since the OP is asking whether Christ could have been a fraud, not whether Christ was a fraud, this is a perfectly fair response. Do you see anything wrong with it?

So, to sum, your main points are:

1. Jesus, might have been a fraud (but you have no evidence one way or another).

2. (no other point)

 

[Enai de a lukal]

What never happened?

The whole bit about the Son of Man coming into his kingdom, with angels and trumpets and all sorts of hullabaloo, while some of discipline were still alive...

 

[outhouse]

What never happened?

Feeding the 5000.

 

[Quagmire]

Ah yes, so good of you to spare my feelings in refraining from pursuing your pointless and mistaken line of argument. Such a nice guy. Lol.

It was indeed pointless. Although, that wasn't the argument's fault.

 

[lunamoth]

The whole bit about the Son of Man coming into his kingdom, with angels and trumpets and all sorts of hullabaloo, while some of discipline were still alive...

How do you know it didn't happen?

 

[steeltoes]

I don't find this to be true in any way.


We have the socioeconomic studies of Galilee, and the temple knowing the political climate and divisions that help us understand what it would be like to have survived this period.


Your saying we cannot separate mythology from reality, when its not all that hard to determine.


We have enough information to piece together things like typical diet from villages like Nazareth and Capernaum, we have found game pieces so we even know how some played. We understand family life and the need for a large family due to high mortality rates.


WE are not surrounded in ignorance about this time period.


There isn't as much of a mystery as you think there is.

Yes, Galilee was inhabited, but it doesn't mean we can discern gospel fact from fiction as it concerns Jesus.

 

[lunamoth]

Feeding the 5000.

How do you know?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

So, to sum, your main points are:

1. Jesus, might have been a fraud (but you have no evidence one way or another).

Actually, we do have evidence that he might have been a fraud; the absence of any evidence that he was not. This is precisely what we would expect to see if he was a fraud- this increases the probability of the hypothesis "Christ was a fraud" to some non-zero value.

2. (no other point)

Was I supposed to do something other than answer the question posed by the OP? Tell a joke, or a story, or something?

 

[outhouse]

The whole bit about the Son of Man coming into his kingdom, with angels and trumpets and all sorts of hullabaloo, while some of discipline were still alive...

So you think using mythology while writing theology wasn't common back then?


You don't think this group had to compete against other divine sources for Proselytes :slap: come on. Get with it here. Place yourself not in Jesus time, but in the authors in the context of what was happening and important in the movement at that exact time.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

How do you know it didn't happen?

:sarcastic

 

[outhouse]

How do you know?

read it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't find this to be true in any way.


We have the socioeconomic studies of Galilee, and the temple knowing the political climate and divisions that help us understand what it would be like to have survived this period.


Your saying we cannot separate mythology from reality, when its not all that hard to determine.


We have enough information to piece together things like typical diet from villages like Nazareth and Capernaum, we have found game pieces so we even know how some played. We understand family life and the need for a large family due to high mortality rates.


WE are not surrounded in ignorance about this time period.


There isn't as much of a mystery as you think there is.

You still have nothing to go on for your fabled historical Jesus outside of the Bible, though, and we know that the Bible isn't a history book. Nice try.

 

[outhouse]

You still have nothing to go on for your fabled historical Jesus outside of the Bible, though, and we know that the Bible isn't a history book. Nice try.

Your lost and don't have a clue about my thoughts, views or knowledge.


Post where I have stated the NT is a history book.


And while your at it, post some credible info that it does not contain any history what so ever.

 

[lunamoth]

Actually, we do have evidence that he might have been a fraud; the absence of any evidence that he was not. This is precisely what we would expect to see if he was a fraud- this increases the probability of the hypothesis "Christ was a fraud" to some non-zero value.

Word salad. What does that even mean? Is this a Seinfeld episode?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I don't find this to be true in any way.


We have the socioeconomic studies of Galilee, and the temple knowing the political climate and divisions that help us understand what it would be like to have survived this period.


Your saying we cannot separate mythology from reality, when its not all that hard to determine.


We have enough information to piece together things like typical diet from villages like Nazareth and Capernaum, we have found game pieces so we even know how some played. We understand family life and the need for a large family due to high mortality rates.


WE are not surrounded in ignorance about this time period.


There isn't as much of a mystery as you think there is.

You mistake me. I'm simply pointing out that we don't have any evidence which can distinguish between Christ's claims, and the Gospel's accounts of Christ's claims, because the latter is all we have. We don't really have any external sources by which we can check to see what Christ *really* said, which would be necessary to distinguishing between Christ making fraudulent claims and others making fraudulent claims about him (including attributing to him claims he never made). Even cross-checking the Gospels cannot give us much insight here, seeing as they were likely drawn from the same sources.