Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?

[technomage]

And they are not even certain if it was Yehoshua

Who is "they"? (And it wasn't "Yehoshua," that's Hebrew. In Galilee, they spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew.)

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

When you actually start answering questions straight and forward manner, it would be my pleasure.

I answer all questions in a 'straight and forward' manner, of course. I love to be questioned. Are you claiming that you've asked a question which I haven't answered? If so, please point to the question.

Recently, you asked me for a 'quote, please.' I provided the quote. Then I asked you for a quote to defend your position. You refused to answer. No quote.

Why not just have a pleasant, straightforward discussion?

=Provide a replacement hypothesis for the one that explains in detail why we have what we have, and im all ears

A replacement hypothesis for one which explains why we have what we have????

What on earth could you be trying to say.

Listen: Can't you just slow down, think carefully about your words, and try to compose a sensible question for me? I would love to answer any question which makes sense, but I have no idea how to make a hypothesis to explain why we have what we have. What do we have exactly? What is the hypothesis which I'd be trying to replace? What are you talking about?

Can you compose some specific question for me? I love to answer questions.

 

[technomage]

Can you compose some specific question for me? I love to answer questions.

What ... is your name?

What ... is your quest?

What ... is your favorite color?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

What ... is your name?

I have many names, just like everyone and everything else. See? Right there I used the name 'I' to label myself. And now I have used 'myself' to label myself. You should hear some of the names my wife uses for me. They aren't true, but they're colorful.

What ... is your quest?

To do the will of God, of course, in a hurried-up way. We never know how much time is left.

What ... is your favorite color?

None. No favorites. I love them all. People say I'm a little kinky, the way I mix them, but there's nothing wrong with kink.

Thank you for caring enough to compose and present these important questions to me!

 

[technomage]

I have many names, just like everyone and everything else. See? Right there I used the name 'I' to label myself. And now I have used 'myself' to label myself. You should hear some of the names my wife uses for me. They aren't true, but they're colorful.



To do the will of God, of course, in a hurried-up way. We never know how much time is left.



None. No favorites. I love them all. People say I'm a little kinky, the way I mix them, but there's nothing wrong with kink.

Thank you for caring enough to compose and present these important questions to me!

At least I didn't ask you about an unladen swallow and its airspeed.

 

[outhouse]

Who is "they"? (And it wasn't "Yehoshua," that's Hebrew. In Galilee, they spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew.)

Good catch, the link used is now gone.


WE only have vague references to what Galilean dialect contains correct?


I know David Flusser states it could be Yeshu.



I always thought the older name was Yehoshua over Yeshua, although I have heard both names were used and around the first century. I have read many articles of one over the other.


Also picked up that Eashoa was his real name.



I don't have a clue now. I have asked this in many post with some pretty bright cats, and so far have not had a decent reply. Probably due to the vagueness of the Galilean dialect.


If you have something to share please do.

 

[outhouse]

I answer all questions in a 'straight and forward' manner, of course. I love to be questioned. Are you claiming that you've asked a question which I haven't answered? If so, please point to the question.

Recently, you asked me for a 'quote, please.' I provided the quote. Then I asked you for a quote to defend your position. You refused to answer. No quote.

Why not just have a pleasant, straightforward discussion?



A replacement hypothesis for one which explains why we have what we have????

What on earth could you be trying to say.

Listen: Can't you just slow down, think carefully about your words, and try to compose a sensible question for me? I would love to answer any question which makes sense, but I have no idea how to make a hypothesis to explain why we have what we have. What do we have exactly? What is the hypothesis which I'd be trying to replace? What are you talking about?

Can you compose some specific question for me? I love to answer questions.

If you do not understand what I am saying, you could never answer the question.

 

[oldbadger]

Verily, am I not all things to all people?

Excuse my humour. Anything to lighten the mood..... occasionally.

You can call me old B if you like!

 

[outhouse]

At least I didn't ask you about an unladen swallow and its airspeed.

I wonder if he gets it now?

 

[outhouse]

What ... is your name?

What ... is your quest?

What ... is your favorite color?

[youtube]pWS8Mg-JWSg[/youtube]
Monty Python and the Holy Grail: 3 Questions - YouTube

 

[technomage]

WE only have vague references to what Galilean dialect contains correct?

We have the Galilean targum (basically, an Aramaic translation/paraphrase/commentary of the Tanach). We have the Jerusalem Talmud, though there are both Galilean and Judean linguistic influences there. That provides a reasonable basis of knowledge of the Galilean dialect of Aramaic.

I know David Flusser states it could be Yeshu.

I'm quite aware of Prof. Flusser's work, and have a great deal of respect for it. His is a minority view within the scholarship, but to my mind he brings up some very interesting arguments.

I always thought the older name was Yehoshua over Yeshua, although I have heard both names were used and around the first century.

Yehoshua was Hebrew, Yeshua was Aramaic. You have both in use, but Yeshua would have been far more common, as Aramaic was used far more commonly than Hebrew.

Also picked up that Eashoa was his real name.

That's Syriac, a later dialect. It had not developed by Jesus' lifetime, nor was it spoken in Galilee.

 

[outhouse]

We have the Galilean targum (basically, an Aramaic translation/paraphrase/commentary of the Tanach). We have the Jerusalem Talmud, though there are both Galilean and Judean linguistic influences there. That provides a reasonable basis of knowledge of the Galilean dialect of Aramaic.





Yehoshua was Hebrew, Yeshua was Aramaic. You have both in use, but Yeshua would have been far more common, as Aramaic was used far more commonly than Hebrew.



That's Syriac, a later dialect. It had not developed by Jesus' lifetime, nor was it spoken in Galilee.

Why thank you

I'm quite aware of Prof. Flusser's work, and have a great deal of respect for it. His is a minority view within the scholarship, but to my mind he brings up some very interesting arguments.

Yes understood.

 

[oldbadger]

You place to much certainty on something being said, and wrote 40 years after his death by people that didn't know him.

They knew him. Can you show that they did not? I can show that Cephas and Mark did, as verified by Paul? True?

How do you know where he worked?

Look atr how he approached the longshoremen of Galilee when he started his mission! You think that he was a stranger?

And who's socioeconomic model are you following?
Johnathon Reeds work?
The late Marvin Meyer?
Lawernce Shiffman?
Marcus Borg?
Crossan?
Or your own? :help:

You missed out several......... you follow none, but cherry pick as you require, I believe, even copying the writings of those unknown to you, as long as they fit your ideas. Why do this? Why not just write what you believe without taking refuge behind this scholar, and then that scholar, even though they might be at odds with each other in the main?

If I am wrong, name the scholar whose work and findings that you accept.

If JtB baptized him, that means JtB was his teacher.

I agreed with this, but you seem to have ignored this pooint.

Why couldn't Jesus learn from John before john's arrest?

Why not indeed? I think John was attracted to Yeshua because he was a crowd 'puller'.

 

[oldbadger]

Who is "they"? (And it wasn't "Yehoshua," that's Hebrew. In Galilee, they spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew.)

:yes:

 

[oldbadger]

We have the Galilean targum (basically, an Aramaic translation/paraphrase/commentary of the Tanach). We have the Jerusalem Talmud, though there are both Galilean and Judean linguistic influences there. That provides a reasonable basis of knowledge of the Galilean dialect of Aramaic.



I'm quite aware of Prof. Flusser's work, and have a great deal of respect for it. His is a minority view within the scholarship, but to my mind he brings up some very interesting arguments.



Yehoshua was Hebrew, Yeshua was Aramaic. You have both in use, but Yeshua would have been far more common, as Aramaic was used far more commonly than Hebrew.



That's Syriac, a later dialect. It had not developed by Jesus' lifetime, nor was it spoken in Galilee.

Great Post! Loads of good info....... excellent.

 

[outhouse]

They knew him. Can you show that they did not? I can show that Cephas and Mark did, as verified by Paul? True?

Not true.

The author/s is still unknown.


You cannot refute this with any credibility. No one can.

You missed out several......... you follow none,

Wrong again, I follow every one of them on their socioeconomic model.

Why not just write what you believe without taking refuge behind this scholar

I did write what I follow.



Maybe you fail to realize that most scholars find different views of Jesus because of the very limited amount of historicity he has.


I do not argue the historical core of modern unbiased non apologetic scholarships, and when I do, I state quite clearly why I go off the beaten track.


I have been told I should not separate Hellenism from Judaism and use two different classes, yet I "think" the Galilean did so I prefer my own methodology here. I try and look/imagine at the whole picture through a Zealots eyes.

 

[karol pereira]

It's not an original thought, but it hit me. What if Christianity is an offbrand, created by a beggar who claimed to be God for fortune? Obviously Jesus did not reveal to want fortune, in fact was very selfless and appeared as wanting to bring fortune to all others.

This simply could be an example of a homeless man expressing communism, not raising his fortune, but taking the small fortune of others altogether, then fractioning it down into equal fortune, and thus him too was given fortune and rose to a common social class.

I am very appreciative of Jesus, but don't view him as the same entity as God or the Holy Spirit (except if you consider my view of the Holy Spirit interconnecting all with God, that Man is Christ blessed with the holy spirit, btw not Christian, my theology includes this too add to its complication). However rude the question may seem, I think God allows me to question with no disrespect, having suddenly getting a more positive and paradigm shifting perspective on Abrahamic (specifically Christian) theology. So, in no way is this meant to disrespect Jesus or spit on his holiness.

hi there understand your skepticism, for a more indepth look at how christianity came into being check out ***staff edit***

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

If you do not understand what I am saying, you could never answer the question.

That's true. When a question makes no sense, it's impossible for me to give an answer which makes sense. As I've said, I think it would be wonderful if you would perhaps spend a little more time in composing your thoughts and words.

Anyway, since you can't provide a replacement hypothesis for the one that explains why we have what we have... therefore my Jesus Theory is nearer the truth than any other and wins the day.

(Not trying to brag or anything, of course.)

 

[oldbadger]

Not true.

The author/s is still unknown.


You cannot refute this with any credibility. No one can.

1. Cephas and Mark both knew Yeshua.
2. Ireneaus and Papias both write of their authorship....
3. Don't try to throw either away......
4. G-Mark shows that the author-compiler had INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE of the very subject matter. Such accuracy and mention about small specifics, that no outsider what have focused upon.
EDIT:- The very fact that G-Mark survived in the NT compilation is corroborative evidence that it had to be compiled using Cephas's notes, with Mark's additions, etc.


Lumps of your hypothesis (or your scholar's) fall down, because their opinions are no stronger than those of the lay. Scholar's have value in what they DO, what they can DISCOVER........ their opinions differ from each other so significantly that their scholarship cannot gain ground through their opinions, unless a greater mass of the public might find them appealing.

 

[oldbadger]

I have been told I should not separate Hellenism from Judaism and use two different classes, yet I "think" the Galilean did so I prefer my own methodology here. I try and look/imagine at the whole picture through a Zealots eyes.

You might do well to read G-Mark one more time, with your 2=class structure in mind, and Yeshua being taken down to meet John, who was so at odds with the upper class and it's disloyalty and dishonesty to the standards required of them.

The whole picture fits together, and G-Mark shows such chronological and historical straightness with your very idea as it's background. Strip away the evangelical addition as you need, and see the most believable account in the NT...... I do not know how it survived........ unless the Church knew that it was the very work of Cephas, Mark and others.