• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
Really? :facepalm:
What's funny is, no one back then really even questioned the killing of all those babies ordered by Herod when this Jesus was supposedly born in Bethlehem, even his enemies didn't say this was fiction.

And no one questioned that a bunch of other people rose from their graves at the same time. So it must be so, I guess.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
Paul persecuted them, so we know early on they were hunted.

Where are you getting that from? Oh, from the Bible, of course. :facepalm: By the way, we really can't be sure that Paul even existed since we have no eyewitness accounts of him and all of his amazing exploits, either.

Nero perceuted them 60 CE
Probably not:

Demythologizing Christianity's Most Cherished Moment: Nero and the Christians, Part One

180 we have a diary of a women who would rather die then denounce christ.
Who?
 
Last edited:

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
There were plently like Marcion that claimed he was a spiritual all deity. Not half man.


Which has nothing to do with his non existance at all.

So claiming that Jesus had no physical body isn't the same as claiming that Jesus didn't exist?

Whatever, man.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
Ah. You know it to be a fact since it is factual.

Oh my.

61427-George-Takei-oh-my-gif-Dzvp.gif
 

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
Really?

It is not completely different?

Arguing if he existed OR what he was made of?

If Jesus was made of cloudstuff -- immaterial, spiritural, invisible, untestable -- then I could not possibly argue against his existence.

Same with unicorns. If they have no physical bodies, then I have no time to even engage the debate over their existence.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Where are you getting that from? Oh, from the Bible, of course. :facepalm: By the way, we really can't be sure that Paul even existed since we have no eyewitness accounts of him and all of his amazing exploits, either.

Probably not:

Demythologizing Christianity's Most Cherished Moment: Nero and the Christians, Part One

Who?


The link you supplied carries no credibility regarding Nero.


And Paul tells us himself he persecuted the early sect. And pauls historicity is not in question at all.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
If Jesus was made of cloudstuff -- immaterial, spiritural, invisible, untestable -- then I could not possibly argue against his existence.

Same with unicorns. If they have no physical bodies, then I have no time to even engage the debate over their existence.


Your missing the point. They are still making the claim a man named Jesus walked around and did what was stated in scripture. They only believed he was more god then man. They believed he had walked the earth though.
 

psychoslice

Veteran Member
How can you possibly say anything other than "I just don't know."? How can you feel that he never existed when there's no way for you to know at all? Same with anyone. People like to think they have more answers than they really do.

A fraud? No. Something other than what many people claim? Most likely.

Well that is how I feel, and to me its no big deal if he existed or not, I can be a good person without believing in him, my life is also happy without needing to believe in him, yes I just don't need to believe in him, so if he lived or not I don't really care.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
The link you supplied carries no credibility regarding Nero.

Oh, because it's not a Wikipedia link? Because it's not an "authority" who agrees with you?

And Paul tells us himself he persecuted the early sect. And pauls historicity is not in question at all.

So the Bible is a history book when it suits your argument, but not at times when it doesn't?

Let me guess, you think that "Matthew", "Mark", "Luke" and "John" were all necessarily real people who wrote the books bearing their names, right? They said that Jesus walked on water and raised dead people, so that's true too, correct?
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
Your missing the point. They are still making the claim a man named Jesus walked around and did what was stated in scripture. They only believed he was more god then man. They believed he had walked the earth though.

What rubbish. There were some groups who believed that he didn't have a physical body and thought it was horrible to even suggest such a thing, because they viewed matter as evil. They viewed Jesus as a sort of celestial being akin to an angel and all the drama of his "life" taking place on another realm. It was one group out of many that imposed the view that he was a historical figure who actually did all the things the canonical gospels say he did. They were the ones who won out in the end after centuries of fighting and debate, and they didn't win because they had evidence to back their claims, either. They won because they had political power behind them to enforce their views of orthodoxy on their enemies. So the other groups were persecuted out of existence as the orthodox bishops got their puppet emperors to issue edicts enforcing their views on the public.

Ya you know how illiterate people were always reading to one another.

You have no proof that it was passed down orally. Just like Jews have no proof of an "oral Torah" given to Moses alongside the tablets at Sinai. They just go with what the rabbis tell them same as how you go with the hearsay that your beloved "authorities" tell you. (Oh, yeah - Moses probably didn't exist either. Just sayin'. :rolleyes:)
 
Last edited:

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
Your missing the point. They are still making the claim a man named Jesus walked around and did what was stated in scripture. They only believed he was more god then man. They believed he had walked the earth though.

Who is 'they'? The writer of 2nd John -- who claimed that many people were denying that Jesus lived in the flesh?

What are you talking about?

You claimed that no one denied the physicality of Jesus. I proved you wrong by quoting the verse from 2nd John. Many people back then denied that Jesus existed in the flesh, physically.

Yes? No?
 

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
Ya you know how illiterate people were always reading to one another.

No idea what you are talking about. Why not just address my points clearly and thoroughly?

If your Jesus theory is well-thought, well-researched, you should be able to argue for it.
 

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
Well that is how I feel, and to me its no big deal if he existed or not, I can be a good person without believing in him, my life is also happy without needing to believe in him, yes I just don't need to believe in him, so if he lived or not I don't really care.

Yeah. What difference does it make? Most people these days understand that no miracle-doing godman actually walked the earth. Most people understand that the teachings of the gospel Jesus were created by theologians. What does it matter if an actual flesh-and-blood man existed to serve as the kernal of the story.

But it seems a terribly important question to lots of people. I think we need our heroes.
 
Top