Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?

[outhouse]

Please stop hiding behind the blooming scholars!
.

So should we appeal to ignorance?

Gospel of Mark

The author of the Gospel of Mark does indeed seem to lack first-hand knowledge of the geography of Palestine. Randel Helms writes concerning Mark 11:1 (Who Wrote the Gospels?, p. 6): "Anyone approaching Jerusalem from Jericho would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage, not the reverse. This is one of several passages showing that Mark knew little about Palestine; we must assume, Dennis Nineham argues, that 'Mark did not know the relative positions of these two villages on the Jericho road' (1963, 294-295). Indeed, Mark knew so little about the area that he described Jesus going from Tyrian territory 'by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the territory of the Ten Towns' (Mark 7:31); this is similar to saying that one goes from London to Paris by way of Edinburgh and Rome. The simplist solution, says Nineham, is that 'the evangelist was not directly acquainted with Palestine' (40)."

 

[tpw0307]

Not possible..Jesus Christ was seen by thousands upon thousands of Jews/Gentiles. His crucifixion was documented in different Roman books by people who never believed he was the Son of God, but merely said it was a fact that he lived and was crucified. The Jews who believe he was a false prophet don't even deny he existed or the fact he performed miracles..his birth and link to King David are documented in their census. The Apostles were beaten, ridiculed, mocked, tortured..and eventually all murdered for spreading the gospel of a man who they knew never existed? Did they not exist too? How deep do we want to bring this? Jesus existed. Now, if you want to discuss how we can be sure he was The Son of God that's a different debate altogether.

 

[Tumah]

Not possible..Jesus Christ was seen by thousands upon thousands of Jews/Gentiles. His crucifixion was documented in different Roman books by people who never believed he was the Son of God, but merely said it was a fact that he lived and was crucified. The Jews who believe he was a false prophet don't even deny he existed or the fact he performed miracles..his birth and link to King David are documented in their census. The Apostles were beaten, ridiculed, mocked, tortured..and eventually all murdered for spreading the gospel of a man who they knew never existed? Did they not exist too? How deep do we want to bring this? Jesus existed. Now, if you want to discuss how we can be sure he was The Son of God that's a different debate altogether.

I'm fairly certain the OP wasn't questioning his existence as much as his legitimacy.

Also, there is no Jewish census.

 

[oldbadger]

So should we appeal to ignorance?

You can't help it. You write 'Look at what most of the scholars say', when previously, over the months, you have criticised nearly all of them, and follow no single one. Your sentence 'So we should appeal to ignorance' is horrible rhetoric ..... without a single fact, idea, belief or point.
Such sentences have to be attacked as waffle.
Make your case, or not.

Gospel of Mark

The author of the Gospel of Mark does indeed seem to lack first-hand knowledge of the geography of Palestine. Randel Helms writes concerning Mark 11:1 (Who Wrote the Gospels?, p. 6): "Anyone approaching Jerusalem from Jericho would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage, not the reverse. This is one of several passages showing that Mark knew little about Palestine; we must assume, Dennis Nineham argues, that 'Mark did not know the relative positions of these two villages on the Jericho road' (1963, 294-295). Indeed, Mark knew so little about the area that he described Jesus going from Tyrian territory 'by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the territory of the Ten Towns' (Mark 7:31); this is similar to saying that one goes from London to Paris by way of Edinburgh and Rome. The simplist solution, says Nineham, is that 'the evangelist was not directly acquainted with Palestine' (40)."

What bloody nonsense. And this guy is a scholar?
So because G-Mark (reportedly) cranks two hamlet/villages round this is evidence that he does not know PALESTINE?
Bloody PALESTINE? What a chump that guy must be. Palestine was a word not probably used by Galileans, friend. This guy needs to go back to school.
1. G-Mark might only have gone into JUDEA once, for all we know. (Galileans may not have been quite so observant of the feasts as is believed).
2. G-Mark was/were probably GALILEANS.
3. You come and visit England, and I'll take you to Canterbury and back, and don't you DARE to mix any two hamlet's positions up.
4. What a chump-like proposal from a 'scholar'..


EDIT.......... and THEN he compares this mix-up with getting major European Cities, far far away from each other, wrong...... this guy has an agenda. I won't be buying of his books.

 

[oldbadger]

Not possible..Jesus Christ was seen by thousands upon thousands of Jews/Gentiles.

You think that Gentiles came to the Temple to make sacrifice?
You think that Jerusalem was full of Gentiles that week when Yeshua demonstrated in the Te,mple?

His crucifixion was documented in different Roman books by people who never believed he was the Son of God, but merely said it was a fact that he lived and was crucified.

That is correct. Yeshua did live, did demonstrate in the Temple, was executed and was just a wonderful healer and person.

The Jews who believe he was a false prophet don't even deny he existed or the fact he performed miracles.

Some will agree that Yeshua did exist. Some will say that his miraculous healings were not miracles.

.his birth and link to King David are documented in their census.

No..... The Jews didn't hold a census. The Romans held a census in Judea, possibly Samaria and possibly Idumea, and 'Jesus' (Yeshua)was nothing to do with any of those places. He was Galilean.

The Apostles were beaten, ridiculed, mocked, tortured..and eventually all murdered for spreading the gospel of a man who they knew never existed?

Yeshua existed, but Paul's Jesus was something else.

Did they not exist too? How deep do we want to bring this? Jesus existed.

Yeshua existed.

Now, if you want to discuss how we can be sure he was The Son of God that's a different debate altogether.

OK..... if you want, you could start a thread about this. But that is about folk's 'faith' and 'belief', surely? I would never want to try to attack people's faiths...... this is really about any historical probabilities and certainties to do with 'Jesus', (Yeshua).

Oh...... welcome to the forum! It can get hot in here!

 

[oldbadger]

I'm fairly certain the OP wasn't questioning his existence as much as his legitimacy.

Hi.... I've got this the other way round...... I approached the OP as if it questioned his existence. I think Paul manipulated the other side of things.

Also, there is no Jewish census.

True, and not held in Galilee at that time.

 

[Tumah]

Hi.... I've got this the other way round...... I approached the OP as if it questioned his existence. I think Paul manipulated the other side of things.

Well I could be wrong, but I understood the OP as saying Jesus existed, but that the story was not quite how the NT describes it.

True, and not held in Galilee at that time.

Right. There was a Roman census. But there was not Jewish census that documents Jesus as a descendant of David.

 

[outhouse]

You think that Gentiles came to the Temple to make sacrifice?
You think that Jerusalem was full of Gentiles that week when Yeshua demonstrated in the Te,mple?

Actually it was.

While Passover was a Jewish celibration, many others also came to the party.


It was a big party atmosphere. They had a court of the Gentiles. Not named that in the first century, only after study knowing they had different levels and places for different levels of Judaism and non Judaism.

Many Romans and gentile Hellenistic Proselytes showed up in droves. The numbers would have been massive. It is also this group that would eventually form Chrsitianity due to their love of Judaism, but hatred of its customs and laws viewed as strict.


Hellenist wanted the god of Judaism, just not all of Judaism.

 

[outhouse]

You can't help it. You write 'Look at what most of the scholars say', when previously, over the months, you have criticised nearly all of them, and follow no single one.

Lets deal with this first.


If you follow scholarships you wil find they all have different opinions about certain deatils.


And other areas they do not argue.


It is normal for a scholars to hold a different opinions. It is the class showed when debating these differences, that separates the rookies from the experienced.

 

[outhouse]

Make your case, or not.


.

Can you refute this below?


Gospel of Mark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.[3]

 

[oldbadger]

actually it was.

While passover was a jewish celibration, many others also came to the party.


It was a big party atmosphere. They had a court of the gentiles. Not named that in the first century, only after study knowing they had different levels and places for different levels of judaism and non judaism.

Many romans and gentile hellenistic proselytes showed up in droves. The numbers would have been massive. It is also this group that would eventually form chrsitianity due to their love of judaism, but hatred of its customs and laws viewed as strict.


Hellenist wanted the god of judaism, just not all of judaism.

sources?

 

[oldbadger]

Lets deal with this first.


If you follow scholarships you wil find they all have different opinions about certain deatils.


And other areas they do not argue.


It is normal for a scholars to hold a different opinions. It is the class showed when debating these differences, that separates the rookies from the experienced.

So much for the 'experts'. That is the classic comedy...... fill the room with experts, and watch them disagree. Where is the expertise?

And so...... experts cannot claim 'expertise to win their battles. They have to show their merit, their knowledge, their accuracy...... and I have not seen much of it, honestly.

They have to put cases together, plainly and simply. Nothing else wins.

 

[outhouse]

So much for the 'experts'. That is the classic comedy...... fill the room with experts, and watch them disagree. Where is the expertise?

.

In what they agree on.

 

[oldbadger]

Can you refute this below?

Right, let's have a look at it:-

Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.[3]

Who are these scholars? Can you name them? They disqualify Mark as the collector and compiler of this book, and then continue to say that they don't know who wrote it. Weak....... .

Mark tells of the ministry of Jesus from his baptism by John the Baptist to his death and burial and the discovery of the empty tomb - there is no genealogy or birth narrative, nor, in what is apparently the original version, any post-resurrection appearances. It portrays Jesus as a heroic man of action, an exorcist, healer and miracle worker.

It portrays Jesus as a well known healer who could draw crowds, which is probably why JtB was interested in him. The crucial basis of the compilation is missed here.

Jesus is also the son of God, adopted by God at his baptism, but he keeps his identity secret, concealing it in parables so that even the disciples fail to understand. All this is in keeping with prophecy, which foretold the fate of the messiah as Suffering Servant. The gospel ends, in its original version, with a promise to meet again in Galilee, the discovery of the empty tomb, and an unheeded instruction to spread the good news of the resurrection.[4]

All the above is junk. All the Jews were children of God.
Jesus kept his identity 'low profile' because he thought he would be taken, murdered or arrested when in the open..... which is why he liked to make speech from a boat just offshore.

The scholars need to rework all this. They miss so much.

 

[oldbadger]

In what they agree on.

You need to present your opinions, your case, and your findings, rather than debate about a load of scholars. If you agree with a scholar's pov, ok, but you need to put a case. This isn't about the niceties of debate.... this is about what we can glean from what there is, and I focus upon G-Mark because I trust it more than the others. There are extracts from the others that interest me, but not as many, and not so well laid out.

Question:- Why did the disciples bother to collect scraps of food in baskets? What do which scholars say about this?

 

[oldbadger]

Gospel of Mark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark_the_Evangelist"

.......... in the same article:-

Buckingham Professor of New Testament Criticism and Interpretation at Yale Divinity School, has argued that the author intended to write history

....... Good....! Excellent finding!

More fundamentally, some scholars believe Mark's reason for writing was to counter believers who saw Jesus in a Greek way, as wonder-worker (the Greek term is "divine man");

......Er?...... What?....... Some scholar's believe Mark's reason writing.....?
I thought they all disqualified Mark from writing anything?

No consistency in that article at all....

 

[fantome profane]

Jesus kept his identity 'low profile' because he thought he would be taken, murdered or arrested when in the open..... which is why he liked to make speech from a boat just offshore.

But why did he need the boat? Couldn't he just walk away?

(just kidding):sorry1:

 

[outhouse]

They disqualify Mark as the collector and compiler of this book, and then continue to say that they don't know who wrote it. Weak.......
.

Well that is wonderful that after a year or two of forum participation, that you now know more then an encyclopedia, and the majority of all biblical scholarships and professors world wide.

Nice!!! Me, I have to spend countless hours listening to professors, and taking test, and recording what I learned so I don't forget..


Saying the author is unknown, is not weak. Its normal when a piece is not signed and we don't know who wrote it



How could Papias writing in the first third of the second century, know first hand who wrote the gospel attributed to Mark?


The burden of proof now fall on you to build a case for authorship based on Papias credibility.


Why did Papias call Matthew a book of sayings when it was clearly a narrative?


None of Papias material exist. We only have fragments of later writers regarding what he ever said. None of his original work exist. Yet you think we should follow this blindly im sure.

 

[oldbadger]

But why did he need the boat? Couldn't he just walk away?

(just kidding):sorry1:

You guessed...!
I can get carried away on this subject...... floated away....

 

[oldbadger]

Well that is wonderful that after a year or two of forum participation, that you now know more then an encyclopedia, and the majority of all biblical scholarships and professors world wide.

So all the scholars in the world decided upon that? They all disqualified Mark as the author but all don't know who compiled Mark?

To claim that he can't be right because he only looked at it yesterday is irrelevant.... weak.

I don't think all the scholars in the World decided upon that at all...... later in the article a scholar is mentioning Mark as the compiler author.

Bring on your case or not. You haven't got a case. G-Mark was a historical document that got adjusted later, just as Josephus's docs got adjusted. Bartholomew mentions the historical aspect in the article that you posted.

Nice!!! Me, I have to spend countless hours listening to professors, and taking test, and recording what I learned so I don't forget..

Maybe you should have studied and researched and formed your own opinion? Don't tell me I have to walk your path to find the answers.
Here we go again..... off topic to argue about scholarship. You haven't got a case...... have you?
G-Mark is the most accurate of the Gospels. It is also chronologically more likely to be accurate.

Saying the author is unknown, is not weak. Its normal when a piece is not signed and we don't know who wrote it

What?
Are you joking?
What scholar told you that?
To say a compiler is unknown is one thing. To say that a particular compiler did not 'do it' is rubbish...... I think G-Mark was compiled by Mark.

How could Papias writing in the first third of the second century, know first hand who wrote the gospel attributed to Mark?

And Ireneaus? And others?
You need to do better than that.

The burden of proof now fall on you to build a case for authorship based on Papias credibility.

No it doesn't.
I stated what I think about G-Mark's compiler.
You haven't stated anything.
I don't have to prove a thing to you, and if I did, you would have forgotten about soon after, maybe?

Why did Papias call Matthew a book of sayings when it was clearly a narrative?

Ha ha..... trying to wander off subject again? This is about G-Mark.

None of Papias material exist. We only have fragments of later writers regarding what he ever said. None of his original work exist. Yet you think we should follow this blindly im sure.

I didn't bring Papias up.......