The fabrication of Jesus.

[Elijah John]

Some go beyond the theory that a real, human Jesus existed and was later mythologized into the Divine person of "Christ".

Some hold that Jesus of Nazareth never existed at all, even as a completely human person.

For debate:

-Why would anyone have invented the tale that Jesus existed?

-Who "invented" Jesus, and why?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 29 by bjs]

And of course the best consipiracies are those false flags committed by organizations. Something like the Roman origins of Judaism and Christianity. If you assume Rome and the Roman Catholic Church spread Christianity, well, youd be stupid if you didnt at least consider it wasnt a conspiracy.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 29 by bjs]

Here, I will reveal the conspiracy for what it is:
As Lazarus was resurrected from the dead, he would be the most famous man in the world, after Jesus his resurrector.

He would have been able to tell all, what it was like in Heaven, or at least what being dead was like.

Outside the Bible, Lazarus should have tours, interviews with kings, biographies, dissertations on how it could have occurred, dissertations on his fraudulence; so much literature, and a major shrine at his final burial site.

Instead, what do we have to examine?

Proof of Lazarus

[marco]

What matters is historical criteria; and the "mythic Jesus" ship crashes into it every time.

Well it doesn't exactly crash. Effectively, Jesus was born at the age of thirty, wandered around for a bit, and then suffered crucifixion. History comments on the cult of Christ, as it does on Isis and Zeus, and does not require these figures to be real, though the followers were.

All we can say is it is possible a preacher called Jesus did exist.

[historia]

All we can say is it is possible a preacher called Jesus did exist.

That isn't all we can say. We can also say that the hypothesis that Jesus of Nazareth was an historical figure best explains the available data.

[historia]

First-century Palestine was a pressure cooker ready to explode, and many Jews were looking to the promised Messiah to save them and usher in the Kingdom of God. Jesus was that Messiah sent by God from heaven. He was just what many Jews were looking for in fulfillment of the scriptures

Except Jesus wasn't what many Jews were looking for. He didn't overthrow the pagan rulers and restore the kingdom of Israel. He ran counter to expectations.

One of the most likely inventors of Jesus is Paul of Tarsus.

Except Paul himself tells us that he persecuted the Christian sect before joining it, so he couldn't have invested Jesus.

[marco]

All we can say is it is possible a preacher called Jesus did exist.

That isn't all we can say. We can also say that the hypothesis that Jesus of Nazareth was an historical figure best explains the available data.

Yes, we have the hypothesis and we can say - as I said - it is possible Jesus existed. We have no facts on almost all his life and a psychological picture of the last piece. It is possible that the tales we have are as fictitious as the paintings done by our famous artists. Perhaps he is what we want him to be. There's an interesting bit of speculative research that gives an image of what Christ may have looked like. Today, he'd be arrested on sight, if he made an appearance as shown here .....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... -like.html

[William]

[Replying to post 35 by marco]

from the link;

"tanned complexion"

lol

Is this to say that Jesus was indeed WHITE, but had a great tan?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

A question like this will get, and in fact deserves, a million responses; none of which are any better than any other. There will be as many answers as there are wild imaginations.

What matters is historical criteria; and the "mythic Jesus" ship crashes into it every time.

Begin with the 27 books of the NT. Now add in the other documents concerning Jesus that were written in the early days of the Jesus movement.

1 and 2 Clement
Shepherd of Hermas
Didache
Epistle of Barnabas
Apocalypse of Peter
Third Epistle to the Corinthians
Gospel of Thomas
Oxyrhynchus Gospels
Egerton Gospel
Fayyum Fragment
Dialogue of the Saviour
The Gospel of the Ebionites ("GE") " 7 quotations by Epiphanius.
The Gospel of the Hebrews ("GH") " 1 quotation ascribed to Cyril of Jerusalem, plus GH 2"7 quotations by Clement, Origen, and Jerome.
The Gospel of the Nazarenes
Gospel of the Ebionites
Gospel of the Hebrews
Gospel of the Nazoraeans
Secret Gospel of Mark
Gospel of Marcion
Gospel of Judas
Gospel of Thomas
Gospel of Marcion (mid 2nd century)
Gospel of Mani (3rd century)
Gospel of Apelles (mid-late 2nd century)
Gospel of Bardesanes (late 2nd - early 3rd century)
Gospel of Basilides (mid 2nd century)
Gospel of Peter
Gospel of Nicodemus (also called the "Acts of Pilate")
Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalem, On the Life and the Passion of Christ
Gospel of Bartholomew
Questions of Bartholomew
Resurrection of Jesus
Apocryphon of James (also called the "Secret Book of James")
Book of Thomas the Contender
Dialogue of the Saviour
Gospel of Judas (also called the "Gospel of Judas Iscariot")
Gospel of Mary (also called the "Gospel of Mary Magdalene")
Gospel of Philip
Greek Gospel of the Egyptians (distinct from the Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians)
The Sophia of Jesus Christ
Coptic Apocalypse of Paul (distinct from the Apocalypse of Paul)
Gospel of Truth
Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter (distinct from the Apocalypse of Peter)
Pistis Sophia
Second Treatise of the Great Seth
Apocryphon of John (also called the "Secret Gospel of John")
Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians (distinct from the Greek Gospel of the Egyptians)
Trimorphic Protennoia
Acts of Andrew
Acts of Barnabas
Acts of John
Acts of the Martyrs
Acts of Paul
Acts of Paul and Thecla
Acts of Peter
Acts of Peter and Andrew
Acts of Peter and Paul
Acts of Peter and the Twelve
Acts of Philip
Acts of Pilate
Acts of Thomas
Acts of Timothy
Acts of Xanthippe, Polyxena, and Rebecca
Epistle of Barnabas
Epistles of Clement
Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul
Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans
Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians
Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians
Epistle to Diognetus
Epistle to the Laodiceans (an epistle in the name of Paul)
Epistle to Seneca the Younger (an epistle in the name of Paul)
Third Epistle to the Corinthians - accepted in the past by some in the Armenian Orthodox church.
Apocalypse of Paul (distinct from the Coptic Apocalypse of Paul)
Apocalypse of Peter (distinct from the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter)
Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius
Apocalypse of Thomas (also called the Revelation of Thomas)
Apocalypse of Stephen (also called the Revelation of Stephen)
First Apocalypse of James (also called the First Revelation of James)
Second Apocalypse of James (also called the Second Revelation of James)
The Shepherd of Hermas
The Descent of Mary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha

The historical Yeshua MAY be hidden in this morass of conflicting information.

Or perhaps the historical Jesus has been completely lost to history. Cherry picking the preferred Christ however inevitably leads to myth and legend.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 34 by historia]

Except Paul himself tells us that he persecuted the Christian sect before joining it, so he couldn't have invested Jesus.

And are we to believe Paul simply because he says so? You'll notice that no-one else throughout history corroborates Paul being a persecutor of Christians.

For my official stance on this matter: I don't know for a fact if Paul did indeed invent Jesus, either partly or in whole. If he did, he is my default 'suspect', simply because his is the earliest documentation we have on the matter. I also do not know whether or not Paul really did persecute the Christians.
When it comes to deception, you have to think of these things. Think of how many people in the 20th century claim to have been 'cured of the gay' by 'finding Jesus'. If I were a deceiver, that would be one possible route I would take. Claim I was initially against the movement I'm secretly going to join, join it and then use my previous antipathy towards the movement as 'evidence' that the movement is correct. After all, if they can convince me, who was against it...surely it ought to be true?
Look at Lee Strobel, who claimed to have investigated the 'Case for Christ' with an atheist mindset, and how often Christians promote that very investigation to other actual atheists as a reason why they should join Christianity. 'Look at this atheist!' they say (or words to that effect). 'He found Christ after an honest investigation!'

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 34 by historia]

Except Paul himself tells us that he persecuted the Christian sect before joining it, so he couldn't have invested Jesus.

And are we to believe Paul simply because he says so? You'll notice that no-one else throughout history corroborates Paul being a persecutor of Christians.

For my official stance on this matter: I don't know for a fact if Paul did indeed invent Jesus, either partly or in whole. If he did, he is my default 'suspect', simply because his is the earliest documentation we have on the matter. I also do not know whether or not Paul really did persecute the Christians.
When it comes to deception, you have to think of these things. Think of how many people in the 20th century claim to have been 'cured of the gay' by 'finding Jesus'. If I were a deceiver, that would be one possible route I would take. Claim I was initially against the movement I'm secretly going to join, join it and then use my previous antipathy towards the movement as 'evidence' that the movement is correct. After all, if they can convince me, who was against it...surely it ought to be true?
Look at Lee Strobel, who claimed to have investigated the 'Case for Christ' with an atheist mindset, and how often Christians promote that very investigation to other actual atheists as a reason why they should join Christianity. 'Look at this atheist!' they say (or words to that effect). 'He found Christ after an honest investigation!'

There is as much evidence (circumstantial and otherwise) to support the hypothesis that Paul was a spreader of fake news propaganda and an agent provocateur as there is to support any other hypothesis.