Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?

[Saint Frankenstein]

I know, I know; easier said than done.

Exactly.

Indeed. Not to mention that so many of these feats were reportedly performed in front of crowds. (now, before someone says "maybe these documents were lost to history" or "many people were illiterate", we would still nevertheless expect later sources to mention this abundance of reports, even if they are no longer extant)

Not only that, but there were a number of historians, both Jew and Gentile, who documented the happenings in that area during Jesus' supposed lifetime. Not one word from them is said about Jesus. So I believe that we can safely conclude that "Jesus the wonder-worker" didn't exist.

 

[outhouse]

Indeed. Not to mention that so many of these feats were reportedly performed in front of crowds. (now, before someone says "maybe these documents were lost to history" or "many people were illiterate", we would still nevertheless expect later sources to mention this abundance of reports, even if they are no longer extant)

Jesus was not famous while alive. While alive he was one of thousands of teachers.

Supposedly, only by his selfless acts in the temple fighting for the common man against the known crooked temple, was he murdered and martyred for it.

Only after his death do we see mythology grow in the Diaspora by Hellenist who found importance in these details enough to worship him, and then write about him and what they knew about his movement and teachings.

Paul is writing a little over a decade after his death. Mark a few more decades but it is a compilation of pre existing material. Written and oral traditions.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Jesus was not famous while alive. While alive he was one of thousands of teachers.

Supposedly, only by his selfless acts in the temple fighting for the common man against the known crooked temple, was he murdered and martyred for it.

Only after his death do we see mythology grow in the Diaspora by Hellenist who found importance in these details enough to worship him, and then write about him and what they knew about his movement and teachings.

Paul is writing a little over a decade after his death. Mark a few more decades but it is a compilation of pre existing material. Written and oral traditions.

None of this really has anything to do with what I said.

 

[Quagmire]

To understand that we need to understand the real man from Galilee.


I don't think any early writings even claim he called himself a deity.

True. If we're just talking about the Gospels, John, written last, is the only one that has Jesus claiming Godhood outright. In Mathew and Luke, divinity of some sort is claimed for him but never by him.

In Mark, the earliest of the four, he's presented as fully human (no virgin birth and, originally, no resurrection).

It does seem to be a story that grew in the telling.

I don't think it's unreasonable to surmise that if we could go back even further, we'd find him even more distanced from any claims of divinity.

I think it is very obvious that the unknown authors had the artistic freedom here, since their versions differ on his actual life.

I agree, although I think it's also probable that by the time of composition, the authors had themselves been exposed to differing accounts.

 

[Quagmire]

That boils down to a matter of opinion. Is the substance of Jesus's teachings working for people and getting results?

I think Jesus, or the persona created as Jesus, can be construed as being fraudulent in light that his existence is still open to confirmation, which is probably why it was brought up. In a practical sense, Jesus certainly is fraudulent in absence of empirical evidences and truths concerning the substance that was written by way of his sayings and such.

That would make him a hoax, not a fraud.

 

[lunamoth]

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.

A fraud is someone who is not what he presents him/herself to be. In what way would Jesus qualify for this?

Follow-up, if someone does not claim to be something, but others decide that he/she is, how does that make a person a fraud?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

A fraud is someone who is not what he presents him/herself to be. In what way would Jesus qualify for this?

Well, its hardly an abuse of language to call someone a fraud if it turns out they are not what most everyone says about them- in this case, the writers of the Gospels, and Christians throughout the centuries. If Christ did not perform the feats reported in the Gospels, did not rise from the dead, was not in some sense divine, and so on, then there is a legitimate sense in which Christ is a fraud- maybe not he himself, but the picture of Christ we've been presented with certainly is fraudulent.

 

[lunamoth]

Well, its hardly an abuse of language to call someone a fraud if it turns out they are not what most everyone says about them- in this case, the writers of the Gospels, and Christians throughout the centuries. If Christ did not perform the feats reported in the Gospels, did not rise from the dead, was not in some sense divine, and so on, then there is a legitimate sense in which Christ is a fraud- maybe not he himself, but the picture of Christ we've been presented with certainly is fraudulent.

What did Jesus claim that was fraudulent?

As to your other point, if someone else is making fraudulent claims about another, then that person is a fraud, and you can rightly decide that Christianity is, or might be fraudulent.

 

[steeltoes]

Sure

When you can explain a replacement hypothesis that is reasonable, for all the scripture we have regarding Pauls epistles and Mark, Luke, Matthew and John.

So far the brightest professors that I would call geniuses, have failed miserably. Price and Carrier.


But you go ahead and take a crack at it.

Asking for a replacement hypothesis is ludicrous, it's like asking for a replacement hypothesis for Sherlock Holmes or Harry Potter.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

What did Jesus claim that was fraudulent?

As to your other point, if someone else is making fraudulent claims about another, then that person is a fraud, and you can rightly decide that Christianity is, or might be fraudulent.

Right; and with respect to the OP, I don't think this is a pertinent distinction- I think that Christ being a fraud and Christianity's portrayal of Christ being a fraud are pretty much the same thing, for all practical purposes.

 

[lunamoth]

Right; and with respect to the OP, I don't think this is a pertinent distinction- I think that Christ being a fraud and Christianity's portrayal of Christ being a fraud are pretty much the same thing, for all practical purposes.

So your posts are pretty much a rant against Christianity, then, and not really addressing the point of the OP.

 

[gilligan8914]

What did Jesus claim that was fraudulent?

As to your other point, if someone else is making fraudulent claims about another, then that person is a fraud, and you can rightly decide that Christianity is, or might be fraudulent.

I can find no evidence that Jesus committed fraud. He never wrote anything so all those who wrote "ABOUT" him are the ones to blame.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

So your posts are pretty much a rant against Christianity, then, and not really addressing the point of the OP.

No; maybe you are having trouble reading- for the purposes of the OP, I don't see how the significance of the question changes much if we interpret it as asking whether Christ himself was a fraud, or whether, say, it was the writers of the Gospels who were making fraudulent claims about Christ since, either way, it amounts to pretty much the exact same thing: are the Gospel accounts, and subsequent Christian doctrine, regarding Christ and his life accurate?

 

[lunamoth]

No; maybe you are having trouble reading- for the purposes of the OP, I don't see how the significance of the question changes much if we interpret it as asking whether Christ himself was a fraud, or whether, say, it was the writers of the Gospels who were making fraudulent claims about Christ since, either way, it amounts to pretty much the exact same thing.

But it is not the same thing.

If Jesus was a fraud you need to show how he was a fraud.

If others claim fraudulent things about Jesus, then you need to show how they were fraudulent.

Even if others said fraudulent things about Jesus, that does not make him fraudulent.

Pretty straightforward.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I can find no evidence that Jesus committed fraud. He never wrote anything so all those who wrote "ABOUT" him are the ones to blame.

That would be the truth of the matter as it stands.

 

[steeltoes]

Where are you getting that from? Oh, from the Bible, of course. 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?

Thanks for the article.

 

[Quagmire]

But it is not the same thing.

If Jesus was a fraud you need to show how he was a fraud.

If others claim fraudulent things about Jesus, then you need to show how they were fraudulent.

Even if others said fraudulent things about Jesus, that does not make him fraudulent.

Pretty straightforward.

I agree. The crux of what the OP is asking is this

What if Christianity is an offbrand, created by a beggar who claimed to be God for fortune?

He's asking people to speculate on the possibility that Jesus of Nazareth might have been something along the lines of a first century televangelist.

Any claims made about him later are beside the point.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

But it is not the same thing.

If Jesus was a fraud you need to show how he was a fraud.

If others claim fraudulent things about Jesus, then you need to show how they were fraudulent.

Even if others said fraudulent things about Jesus, that does not make him fraudulent.

Pretty straightforward.

What exactly are you not understanding here? Either way, the result is the same: the descriptions of Christ offered by the Christian faith are not accurate. Thus, this is a difference which makes no difference.

 

[Quagmire]

What exactly are you not understanding here? Either way, the result is the same: the descriptions of Christ offered by the Christian faith are not accurate. Thus, this is a difference which makes no difference.

Except for the fact that it's a completely different topic.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Any claims made about him later are beside the point.

Not really, as I said, the end result is precisely the same either way. Whether because Christ made claims himself that were false, or subsequent Christians made claims about Christ that were false, we are presented with the possibility that Christ existed, but that either the entirety or some portion of Christian doctrine regarding him is false. 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.