Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?

[lunamoth]

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.

I understand just fine, ad hominems aside.

If, after your death, people start to claim you were the Son of God, would that make you fraudulent?

Also, how do you know that the descriptions of Christ offered by the Christian faith are not accurate?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I understand just fine, ad hominems aside.

You're either confusing my post with someone elses, or are unclear as to what ad hominem is.

If, after your death, people start to claim you were the Son of God, would that make you fraudulent?

If a religion was founded upon my life and teachings, which portrayed me as performing miracles and being divine (both of which being false), then whether I made fraudulent claims about myself, or my followers made fraudulent claims about me, would amount to pretty much the same thing.

Also, how do you know that the descriptions of Christ offered by the Christian faith are not accurate?

That's not what is being asked; it isn't "do you know if Christ was a fraud", but "could Christ have been a fraud"- is it possible. And it seems relatively clear that it is possible, seeing as there is absolutely no evidence independently corroborating any of the Gospel reports; that the portrayal of Christ offered by Christianity is largely false is consistent with all the evidence we have, regardless of who is to blame for the inaccuracy (i.e. Christ himself or others).

 

[Quagmire]

Not really,

Yes really.

as I said, the end result is precisely the same either way.

In the same way that, either way, cheese still comes from cows.

Doesn't mean we should start talking about cheese now, or that Jesus is somehow responsible for lactose intolerance.

Whether because Christ made claims himself that were false, or subsequent Christians made claims about Christ that are false, we are presented with the possibility that Christ existed, but that either the entirely or some portion of Christian doctrine regarding him is false. Is there a difference?

Yes: the difference is that in the first scenario, Jesus would be a fraud. In the second, he would be the subject of a hoax.

Another difference is that that first scenario would be on topic.

Well, clearly. But is it a difference that amounts to anything of significance in this context? Doesn't look like it.

Are you asking if, accepting for the sake of argument that any false claims were made by anyone, would the origins of said claims matter in the big picture? Probably not.

But that isn't what the OP is asking.

 

[lunamoth]

You're either confusing my post with someone elses, or are unclear as to what ad hominem is.


If a religion was founded upon my life and teachings, which portrayed me as performing miracles and being divine (both of which being false), then whether I made fraudulent claims about myself, or my followers made fraudulent claims about me, would amount to pretty much the same thing.


That's not what is being asked; it isn't "do you know if Christ was a fraud", but "could Christ have been a fraud"- is it possible. And it seems relatively clear that it is possible, seeing as there is absolutely no evidence independently corroborating any of the Gospel reports; that the portrayal of Christ offered by Christianity is largely false is consistent with all the evidence we have, regardless of who is to blame for the inaccuracy (i.e. Christ himself or others).

So what is your evidence that Jesus was a fraud?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

So what is your evidence that Jesus was a fraud?

That's not relevant, is it?

 

[lunamoth]

That's not relevant, is it?

Why not?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Why not?

.....

That's not what is being asked; it isn't "do you know if Christ was a fraud", but "could Christ have been a fraud"- is it possible. And it seems relatively clear that it is possible, seeing as there is absolutely no evidence independently corroborating any of the Gospel reports; that the portrayal of Christ offered by Christianity is largely false is consistent with all the evidence we have, regardless of who is to blame for the inaccuracy (i.e. Christ himself or others).

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Yes really.

Oh, I get it. "I know you are but what am I?"

Now your turn.

In the same way that, either way, cheese still comes from cows.

Um... Ok.

Speaking of off-topic...

Yes: the difference is that in the first scenario, Jesus would be a fraud. In the second, he would be the subject of a hoax.

Another difference is that that first scenario would be on topic.

Only if we... you know, ignore what the topic is.

Are you asking if, accepting for the sake of argument that any false claims were made by anyone, would the origins of said claims matter in the big picture?

Which is more or less the significance of the OP.

:clap:clap:clap

 

[Sees]

So what is your evidence that Jesus was a fraud?

We could say if the gospels are authentic records of his words that the return promise entails him being a bit of a fraud...at minimum.

Of course people will go to great measures to show he and his disciples didn't preach a soon return/second coming.

This is one of the key things that has always bothered me about classic, traditional Christianity - teach people the world and people themselves suck, are controlled and lead by Satan, and Jesus will come to fix things very soon. Creating a disease and a cure that don't exist or happen.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The only way you can say Jesus isn't a fraud but claims about him are fraudulent is if you can separate Jesus from the Bible. You can't. So if you denounce one, you've denounced the other.

 

[lunamoth]

.....

You can accuse anyone you want of fraud, but it is baseless and pointless unless you have evidence.

Back to the OP, could Jesus have been a fraud - what is the evidence that he was?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

The only way you can say Jesus isn't a fraud but claims about him are fraudulent is if you can separate Jesus from the Bible. You can't. So if you denounce one, you've denounced the other.

Pretty much. And as far as any evidentiary inquiry is concerned, these claims are indistinguishable. Do they mean the same thing? Clearly not. But we have no practical way of distinguishing the two, nor is there any clear reason for doing so in this context anyways. It just looks like people are bored and looking for an excuse to be pedantic about something.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Back to the OP, could Jesus have been a fraud - what is the evidence that he was?

Once more round the merry-go-round I guess. Could Christ have been a fraud? Well, is there any evidence that shows that he was NOT a fraud? If there isn't any evidence that he was not- and we are in possession of no such evidence- then on what basis can we say that it is not possible that he was a fraud?

We aren't talking about whether Christ in fact was a fraud, but whether it is possible that he was. Unless we are in possession of incontrovertible evidence that he was not a fraud, it remains a possibility.

 

[lunamoth]

We could say if the gospels are authentic records of his words that the return promise entails him being a bit of a fraud...at minimum.

The Bible also says that he did return.

Of course people will go to great measures to show he and his disciples didn't preach a soon return/second coming.

A second coming is part of traditional Christian teaching. Where is the conflict?

This is one of the key things that has always bothered me about classic, traditional Christianity - teach people the world and people themselves suck, are controlled and lead by Satan, and Jesus will come to fix things very soon. Creating a disease and a cure that don't exist or happen.

1. We were created good.
2. We often act badly.
3. Jesus coming soon to 'fix' things is open to very wide interpretation.

 

[Quagmire]

Oh, I get it. "I know you are but what am I?"

Now your turn.

Doesn't take much, does it?

Um... Ok.

Speaking of off-topic...


Only if we... you know, ignore what the topic is.


Which is more or less the significance of the OP.

:clap:clap:clap

Wow, admitting that you made a mistake would completely destroy the foundations of your universe, wouldn't it.

Ok, for the sake of not obliterating anyone's personal cosmos:

Yes, enaidealukal. If Christianity were-or-is based on faulty information, who started it doesn't really matter in the final analysis. It would still be what it is and cheese would still come from cows.

Now that that completely unnecessary, irrelevant, and off-topic point has been made, do you mind if the rest of us discuss the topic?

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

I believe that Jesus existed because something must have happened over 2,000 years ago for us to start counting from that date.

Jesus also must have been pretty popular to get so many followers during and after his death.

If, in fact, you believe that Jesus preached love and forgiveness....if he made miracles happen, then he certainly was no 'fraud', but that's all a matter of faith.

If you have faith in a 'fraud', then they are not fraudulent - well, they are according to those who do not have faith, but since when do the opinions of the faithless influence those who have it?

At risk of yet another round of debating with my fellow Hindu brethren (which I am really not in the mood for), I see Jesus as another 'holy man' or 'sadhu' like Buddha or Vivekananda. He is the 'guru' for many, and his teachings are in the Bible.

If one believes in the Bible, there's no room to even consider that Jesus was fraudulent. He was just a divinely inspired soul. He may also have had certain social and political ideologies and influence.

I see Jesus as being a 'troublemaker' really...a threat to the status quo of the time. Whether that was deliberate or unintentional though, is unknown...but he died a martyr anyway - and 'religious martyrs' were pretty big in those days.

Even though I am a Hindu, I often get told I would make a good Christian minister. lol

 

[Enai de a lukal]

The Bible also says that he did return.

A second coming is part of traditional Christian teaching. Where is the conflict?

Well, there's the inconvenient bit in Matthew 16...

 

[lunamoth]

Once more round the merry-go-round I guess. Could Christ have been a fraud? Well, is there any evidence that shows that he was NOT a fraud? If there isn't any evidence that he was not- and we are in possession of no such evidence- then on what basis can we say that it is not possible that he was a fraud?

We aren't talking about whether Christ in fact was a fraud, but whether it is possible that he was. Unless we are in possession of incontrovertible evidence that he was not a fraud, it remains a possibility.

Well, at least you now seem to have it straight that what others said about Jesus is distinct from whether he himself was fraudulent.

So, formal possibilities and impossibilities aside, what evidence do you have that he was a fraud? If you have none, and your argument sums up as, 'Yes, he was possibly a fraud. Or possibly not." then we are pretty much done here.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Wow, admitting that you made a mistake would completely destroy the foundations of your universe, wouldn't it.

Ok, for the sake of not obliterating anyone's personal cosmos:

Ah yes, so good of you to spare my feelings in refraining from pursuing your pointless and mistaken line of argument. Such a nice guy. Lol.

 

[outhouse]

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

That's my take.

They compiled and redacted the version important to their community.