Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?

[outhouse]

this hucksters play when trying to refute the holy word.

Were not dealing with apologetics so why "holy word" ?

Are you debating history, or would you like to debate religion? Please make up your mind.


Is all of the OT fiction?


Is all of the NT fiction?

 

[VocoInDubium]

Were not dealing with apologetics so why "holy word" ?

Are you debating history, or would you like to debate religion? Please make up your mind.


Is all of the OT fiction?


Is all of the NT fiction?

The best fiction always contains a bit of truth but I don't think Nailed really discusses the OT at all. It is primarily about the NT. As I initially asked I would love to know what you think he got wrong and then take some time to research and reply rather then defending against every ad hom tossed my way. I found the arguments quite convincing and have recently set the book down, why should they not be so convincing?

 

[outhouse]

why should they not be so convincing?

He is a pseudo scholar who carries absolutely no credibility for one.


But I asked you to pick one of his argument's and post it, if you believe it to be true.


You seem to ignore many of the credible answers I have given you.


Sidestep, dodge and ignore, and attacking credible scholarships is the staple of mythicist. Producing credible work, well not so much.

 

[VocoInDubium]

He is a pseudo scholar who carries absolutely no credibility for one.


But I asked you to pick one of his argument's and post it, if you believe it to be true.


You seem to ignore many of the credible answers I have given you.


Sidestep, dodge and ignore, and attacking credible scholarships is the staple of mythicist. Producing credible work, well not so much.

He presents only a few myths in the book. I am not sidestepping them. I started with the first one. I understand you think he is a pseudo scholar but that is just an ad hom so far as I can tell. He presents some myths as he sees them:

The very idea that jesus was myth is just ridiculous... clearly everyone knows jesus was alive and died for our sins and any idea that he didn't and it was just a fairy tale is just ridiculous.

Is it just ridiculous anymore than say Santa or the Easter bunny? (Neither argument was presented in the book but is it a ridiculous line of thought that Jesus may just have been a myth?)

 

[outhouse]

Dewitness, Dejuror, and now null and void.

I kept you on ignore, for years, it doesn't mean I don't recognize your opinion well.

 

[technomage]

I wouldn't call the evidence 100% rock solid, but I'd say the arguments for a historical Jesus are stronger than the arguments for a mythical Jesus.

* We have no eyewitness writings. But we do have second-hand writings (Paul, who spoke to and worked with Peter, who had seen him in life). No, I don't consider Paul to be a reliable witness in all (or even most) of his details, but it's a step towards support.
* We have three separate "gospel" traditions: the Synoptics, John, and Thomas. (everything else is later and derivative.)There's a lot of divergence there, so few reliable facts, but there are still some common elements that aren't likely to remain constant in a constructed myth.
* We can eliminate the "Caesar's Christ" hypothesis, because the assertions made by the Gospel are in line with Hellenized Galilean Judaism, not with Judaic Judaism, not with regular Helenistic culture, and definitely not with Roman culture. You would have had to have not just a Jew to create the myth, but a Galilean Jew. (Judean messianic claimants didn't tend to get miracle stories attributed to them: that was a pretty uniquely Galilean trait.) Josephus is off the hook: his writing style is too good to have written GoMark.
* The earliest Gospel, GoMark, is one of the most horrid examples of Greek literacy extant in First Century writing. Doesn't make for a good conspiracy.


Argumentum vox populi. I don't care how many people across the world say up is down. It ain't.

Yoo-hoo! Did you miss this?

 

[VocoInDubium]

The premise is acceptable. The way Fitzgerald goes about trying to validate it is completely underhanded.

However the NT authors went about telling their tales with only deepest committed desires to the truth and his lord.

 

[oldbadger]

This is an interesting point of view to me. Could you provide some examples of outright dishonest arguments? I would love some ammunition but as stated it seems very convincing that Jesus the man who performed miracles no one wrote about until half a century after he was gone but decided to write about all kinds of other odd subjects to be a very convincing argument.

Hi....... welcome to the hot-house!
You got this wrong, or the author got it wrong. Somebody got it wrong!

Cephas wrote notes about Yeshua's mission year, and these together with others were compiled by Mark in G-Mark. The age of those notes will never be ascertained. Cephas may well have needed to learn to write, or his spoken word may have been written by another.........?

G_Mark is such a clear, concise, chronological report of Yeshua's mission that it cannot be so easily put-down by the critics. Show me a critic of the Yeshua mission, and I will point out how that very persons flits from one NT book to the next, just to divert the reader's attention from the simplicity of G-Mark..... Simplicity always seems to win in public debate or Court.

 

[oldbadger]

The author is stating we have lots of historical documents about what was going on then but really nothing about walking on water and ressurecting the dead or meeting all the saints that were raised and came back to chat with the residents at that time.

......... they always jump on the above miracles, because they think them to be easy 'meat' for a book-fest.
If you think of the works of Yeshua in G-Mark as miraculous, rather than miracles, that would help you a lot. I can't answer for the other books.

To focus though you are saying we have just one writing of failed messiahs in first century judea? I'm not an expert but are you stating there is just one recorded? (Judas? Even maybe Jesus? I could research this but I am remembering two without referencing the footnotes)

G-Mark was a writing about a failed activist in first century Judea. So there's a second book, but probably not one that a critic would identify as useful...... isn't that strange?

The disagreements and additions to the new testament are also very interesting. (So much so I started to read the new testament again to see if I can come up with some contradictions)

Of course they disagree.... They are different reports.
If three people watch a vehicle crash, all within sight of each other, their statements will all disagree, even though they were all written on the same day.

 

[oldbadger]

Josephus is off the hook: his writing style is too good to have written GoMark.
* The earliest Gospel, GoMark, is one of the most horrid examples of Greek literacy extant in First Century writing. Doesn't make for a good conspiracy.

New info for me..... yet again.

So GoMark is badly written? How much more can you tell? Was GoMark written by an untrained youth, or an adult who learned literacy later in life, or a peasant layman, or.....

.....can you expand on this?

 

[oldbadger]

This sounds fun. (I have church in 6 days and have some time to discuss matters) So lets start at the beginning: The very idea that jesus was myth is just ridiculous... clearly everyone knows jesus was alive and died for our sins and any idea that he didn't and it was just a fairy tale is just ridiculous. Is it just ridiculous anymore than say Santa or the Easter bunny? (Neither argument was presented in the book but is it a ridiculous line of thought that Jesus may just have been a myth?)

Hi Voco..... The guy you are writing to is an Atheist. I am not a Christian. And so, amongst the Christians who debate on this type of thread there are folks who do not have any religious agenda for having an interest in the historicity of Jesus.

OK? We rant and rage at each other furiously, probably in attempts to gather one tiny extra morsel of info, screamed from an adversary.

But Easter Bunny rants don't hack it here.

 

[Thief]

Just the opposite.

We see a martyred man at Passover and mythology developing in theology within a few decades after his death.

His fame came after his death, his last week is what is remembered by Hellenist more then anything.

While alive he was a traveling peasant teacher, teaching in illiterate villages for the most part, dealing with the poor and lower classes of life.

You left out the word fraud.

Did He lie?

 

[Thief]

Were not dealing with apologetics so why "holy word" ?

Are you debating history, or would you like to debate religion? Please make up your mind.


Is all of the OT fiction?


Is all of the NT fiction?

We are in the religious debate section.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Do you think known mythicist who have been kicked out of most forums for poor methodology gives any credibility to Fitgerald.

People get kicked out of forums for using poor methodology?

Boy, I need to start reporting people!

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

He is a pseudo scholar who carries absolutely no credibility for one.


But I asked you to pick one of his argument's and post it, if you believe it to be true.


You seem to ignore many of the credible answers I have given you.


Sidestep, dodge and ignore, and attacking credible scholarships is the staple of mythicist. Producing credible work, well not so much.

Really, outhouse, have you ever considered what the word 'credible' means?

It means 'convincing to outhouse personally.'

Really. That's what it means.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Yoo-hoo! Did you miss this?

Hey, techno. I would be happy to address your points but I get so tired of the usual consequences of that. It seems to me that almost no one can debate the historical Jesus without being sidetracked by emotion and descending into personal insult.

I'd love to see two computerish types actually pointing and counterpointing on the issue. I'd enjoy being one of those debaters, even though I probably know less about the details of the issue than most others here. Let me know if you or anyone else would like to try it with me.

 

[technomage]

Hey, techno. I would be happy to address your points but I get so tired of the usual consequences of that. It seems to me that almost no one can debate the historical Jesus without being sidetracked by emotion and descending into personal insult.

Awww, but AG, if I don't descend into emotion and personal insult, you'd feel unloved!

I'd love to see two computerish types actually pointing and counterpointing on the issue. I'd enjoy being one of those debaters, even though I probably know less about the details of the issue than most others here. Let me know if you or anyone else would like to try it with me.

If you want, we could talk to the mods about seeing if we could arrange a one-on-one or formal debate? No other posters--maybe a separate commentary thread could be set up for the posters, or something like that.

I'm game if you think you've got the time.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Awww, but AG, if I don't descend into emotion and personal insult, you'd feel unloved!

Yeah, but love can hurt like a ***** sometimes!

If you want, we could talk to the mods about seeing if we could arrange a one-on-one or formal debate? No other posters--maybe a separate commentary thread could be set up for the posters, or something like that.

I'm game if you think you've got the time.

Sure. Since I'm lazy, I can just rewrite an opening which I've used before for such a debate. We don't have to coordinate with the mods, I think. Just give me the nod and I'll post it in the One-on-One Debate Forum.

 

[outhouse]

People get kicked out of forums for using poor methodology?

Dewittnes/Dejuror was warned in Peter Kirby's forum and continued his inane methodology.

 

[outhouse]

Really, outhouse, have you ever considered what the word 'credible' means?

It means 'convincing to outhouse personally.'

Really. That's what it means.

Im sorry you appeal to ignorance.

I do appeal to authority. Knowledge is gained by quality professors and scholars. Not pseudo scholars.


Really it is not up for debate.