I think CS Lewis put it best:
"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg--or else he would be the devil of hell. You must make your choice. Either he was and is the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to"

I voted for Son of God. After reading the New Testament many times I can't see a case for His being a lunatic, his statements and insights just don't add up to insanity. I can't vote for the devil option because His teachings don't add up to that either.

Remember His claim of being the Son of God, The Judge of mankind, the only way to heaven etc. Those are the claims that need explaining. His miracles are secondary, because they are explained by the answer to the first question. If He was the Son of God, they happened. If He was insane, they are fabricated. If he was the devil, they could have happened as well.

I have to say though, that people who think they can reasonably argue for or against anything, without having seriously investigated it, don't have a foot to stand on.

man, if i had a dime for everytime i've thought that...

Lewis's idea of what lunacy is...might have benifited from a modern understanding of mental illness. frankly, it's completely bullshit argument.
Even if you do attest to the authority of scripture, and even if you agree to Lewis's very selective reading of scripture...you're still left with the fact that Lewis is pulling things out of his ass when he talks about what it would mean for someone to claim diety because of mental instability.

In simple terms. I believe that Jesus was a real person. He probably had a dynamic personality, one of those guys that people naturally take a liking to and want to follow (maybe like Charles Manson but in a positive way, LOL). The story of his life and teachings were greatly embellished by writers after his death, claiming him to be the son of the Jewish tribal god.

I believe he was an enlightened human being, that is to say, a Buddha, a great healer and teacher, a very good man devoted to what he believed to be divine truth. That much is fairly certain. The various versions of the Christian Bible are all retouched translations of Greek versions of writings made after Jeheshua Bar Joseph's death, sometimes many years after, and heavily edited or censored for political purposes, and so their accuracy cannot be verified. Suffice it to say that he appears to have been a great spiritual teacher and healer, which should be enough for anyone. Was he God? Well, in my view, he was no more or less God than you or I. You can take that any way you wish.
_______________________________________________________________________

Gimme That Old Time Religion - PAGAN FOR LIFE!

There could be some truth and some lies within the writtings concerning Jesus. But Jesus was indeed a real person. He wasnt God nor a messanger of God. But he told things concerning God. He, back then, became the General of the 1st Day.

Wow, I believe that he was the Son of God and part of the Holy Trinity and I honestly thought that I would be in the minority. Howerer, at the time of posting, that's in the lead. Very interesting poll.

Yes, but you are in the minority, almost 70% of the respondents said they believe he isn't. Based on other threads on this board, that's about what I would have expected.

I voted for something else. Here's my uneducated elaboration...

I think it's likely that Jesus was a man, an extraordinarily enlightened man with a great clarity of vision, a strong sense of simple ethics, and a belief that people in general were for the most part lost and needed some help. I think it's likely that he was capable of doing some extraordinary things by virtue of his enlightened state, but the record of the exact nature of his deeds is suspect due to misinterpretation and mistranslation and good old-fashioned embellishment by the observers and scribes of the time.

I think he was literally the son of God if and only if one accepts the premise that we are all equally sons and daughters of God, but for the most part don't realize it. I believe quite literally the line "greater things than this shall you do". I think it's unlikely that he physically arose from the dead though.

He was alot like Hitler, except his ideas were more extravegant.

I think he was a philosiphor of sorts...and his philosophy has both done great good for people, and has been bastardized by some to do evil.

I dont for a minute want to devalue your opinion, but you dont really say anything to support it. Clearly claiming that Jesus was a lot like Hitler (specifically) is quite a controversial statement - I'm not sure if you are just saying it for shock value or you really mean it. If it is how you feel, I would be interested in your rationale. Personally, I dont agree and find it very hard to see how such a statement can be supported - but I am interested in what your agument is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wicked4182
He was alot like Hitler, except his ideas were more extravegant.

1. They were both human beings who recognized that humanity as a whole consists of the weak majority and the powerful few.

2.They both had very powerful ideas which they imposed on 'the weak' (PROPOGANDA!, 'I am your sheperd').

3. I consider the philosophy of each to be absurd and harmful to society, today as well as throughout history.

4. They both worked to play the part of God (an all powerful being, in other words).

5. The Jews.

In comparison Jesus has been much more significant an individual than Hitler. Because of the bastardized version of what he may or may not have said, Christianity, human society has been rotted to its roots in ways that are difficult to understand (morality, life after death, glorification of weakness, etc...). Hitlers perfection of propoganda has had similar negative effects, just turn on your TV and you'll see, he is alive and stronger than ever.

Anyways, sheep will be sheep. The true nature of our lives in this universe is difficult to face, and the truth is not meant for everyone. Neither of these individuals has been successfull in creating a way of life that fits the needs of the human race.

I think hes a human, Son of God. Bible, I trust that.

I don't trust the Bible, and I believe Jesus is just as made up as Greek gods.

I think that Jesus was one of many prophets from higher life forms (dimensional or interplanetary). He spent time with the druids and in the beginning of the passion you see this by some of the things he does.

I'm in the process of learning Wicca and druidism so it's interesting to see the references in the movie.

Interesting point of view, here's how I feel:


Originally Posted by wicked4182
He was alot like Hitler, except his ideas were more extravegant.

1. They were both human beings who recognized that humanity as a whole consists of the weak majority and the powerful few.

Beliveing Jesus to be human is totally valid, if not a universally accepted view, I do not read Jesus' words in this way though. Jesus preached against the rich and powerful, and his teachings undermined their power - ie saying that forexample obeying Jewish religious law really wasnt so important, and that God was there for everyone, not through priests. While Hitler believed in authoritarianism (bad sic!) as a moral good and a necessity, Jesus seems to me to be a popularist, and his claim is different from Hitlers. Hitler believed in the triumph of will and genius, Jesus seems to have believed that everyone was equal before God

2.They both had very powerful ideas which they imposed on 'the weak' (PROPOGANDA!, 'I am your sheperd').

I am not sure that Hitler really was an original thinker, to me his whole politics was the triumph of will over logic (the end point being when he had lost his mind and believed he could still defeat Russia in the Great Patriotic War with sheer will power, even when the Red Army was swarming over his troops and the US poised to invade through France) - Hitler really did not preach anything that was original or radical - his political view was a sham of cheap racism and boom and bust economics, together with internal policies of terror and external policies of pillage and murder... Jesus was not a warlord, he did not preach racial divsions - but the opposite - extending the covenant between God and the Jews to all gentiles as well. But the fundamental difference again was that Jesus at least claimed to stand above worldly concerns, to be "not of this world", all people were weak before God, or death, or the universe... on the whole, Jesus was talking about rather bigger issues, but lacked the violence and hatrid that laced Hitlers thought


3. I consider the philosophy of each to be absurd and harmful to society, today as well as throughout history.


I would agree that Hitlers philosphy was absurd, intellectually bankrupt, and harmful, but I could not say so for Jesus. First of all, if you believe as you say, Jesus was a man, and probably a rather radical rabbi, then it is difficult to know what he really believed, because everyuthing we know of him is at least third hand. But to me Jesus basic philosphy, from my understanding, third hand as it is, of what he said - was inclusive and peaceful. He told people that, for example, eating kosher food really wasnt that important, but to do good, to not lie before God, to love your brother, to seek understanding and self knowledge. To me, this is not harmful, or absurd. I think it is very important to differentiate between what certain radicals today claim Jesus said (I know people who ascribe to Jesus all of the Old Testament as well, which to me does not make any sense at all) and what - to the best of our understanding - Jesus really did seem to say.


4. They both worked to play the part of God (an all powerful being, in other words).

I am uncertain if the historical Jesus was a part of God, or the son of God, or a prophet or just an enlightened man. That uncertainty would also extend to just what Jesus claimed to be as well. Most of Jesus' sayings could be read in numerous ways, but I do not believe he ever claimed to be a God himself, but rather he did claim - through whatever means, to have a true and complete understanding of God


5. The Jews.

quite abig difference, insofar as Hitler pathologically hated Jews, and lead a monsterous campaign of murder against the Jewish people; while Jesus was, and lived and died, as an observant Jew.

In comparison Jesus has been much more significant an individual than Hitler. Because of the bastardized version of what he may or may not have said, Christianity, human society has been rotted to its roots in ways that are difficult to understand (morality, life after death, glorification of weakness, etc...). Hitlers perfection of propoganda has had similar negative effects, just turn on your TV and you'll see, he is alive and stronger than ever.

Anyways, sheep will be sheep. The true nature of our lives in this universe is difficult to face, and the truth is not meant for everyone. Neither of these individuals has been successfull in creating a way of life that fits the needs of the human race.

The main difference between my feelings and yours, first of all, is I have not yet made myself certain of the true nature of our universe - I remain open, and I am still thinking and searching. As for people being sheep - all societies that I know have had some concept of God or divinity - for myself I prefer the Savage of Brave New World's explanation. Hitler, in the sense you mean may not be dead yet, but he is buried, and year by year I truly believe the films and TV shots grow fainter, more distant. He was a very powerful personality, but ultimately we must understand him for what he was - a man who rode a terrible wave of history, to very short term and ghastly results - a man who whiel initially believed to be a brilliant commander, untlimately proved himself to be a hopelessly inept and foolish military tactician, a man who lead his 1000 year reich to total defeat, a pervert and possible paedophile, a degenerate racist and murderer.

:hmm:

I've heard a lot of interesting ideas in my 40+ years, but this one I've never heard before.

Qui nobis est natus sumo deo datus. Et de virgineon ventre procreatus !

Can't get any older than that... that who he was...

erm... what does it mean though???

I think he was a man, just like any other. I think he became a figurehead for a movement. People immortalized him after his death for thier cause. He became a popular figure, an icon, a lengend, and all we have now is a pretty myth.

Also, because it's one of my pet peeves:
Jesus was not white. Please stop thinking he was. Stop perpetuating the madness. Teach your children that there are, in fact, other cultures, and other skin tones.

he beat me to what I was going to say

so I will quote then add some filler text at the bottom of the post.

Move along

Something else.

I think he was either Bill or Ted (not sure which) who traveled back in time to spread the message of "Be righteous to eachother" - humans just elaborated and built on this message immensely.

Seriously - I think he was just an ordinary guy who really "got it". All the religious hoo haw that's been added to that fundamental message is from mankind...

I voted for 2, but believe He was 2 and 3. As a result of being 2 and 3 He was also a 4. He was, is and always will be fully man yet fully God.

shouldn't we be able to choose more than one answer?

i think he was a politician.

I think the concept of Jesus is combination of a number of minor religious leaders and philosophers of that period. I'm sure there was a Jesus of Nazareth, but I think that his story has been vastly exaggerated since his demise.

now, in response I must ask the question. How many true politicians were matyrs?

I was just wondering, what are your sources for stating that later Christians went in and edited Josephus' writings? Since he was a Roman historian and the Roman empire was anti-christian for many years, it seems unlikely his writings were even accessible to Christians.

That's from Encyclopædia Britannica.

And wasn't Josephus Jewish, not Roman?

yes...he appears to be a Pharisaic Jew, born in Jerusalem.

but...during the war, he's captured after he avoid martyrdom. he tells his compadres that its a sin to suicide, so they draw lots to see who kills who. Josephus rigs the draw so he goes last. he then flees to surrender to the romans. he toadys up to vespasian and takes his family name, flavius. his histories are mostly self-defense and to further the cause of the now emperor vespasian.

later christians read his sources, and do some editing/invention to make it look like a confirmation of their beliefs. it's pretty transparent when you read the original text...the stuff is put in very obvious asides that don't further Josephus' point at all...very much out of character with the rest of the text.

Are you saying though that Josephus makes no references to Jesus that should be considered genuine?

I stand corrected. Thanks for the info.

i choose secret ninth option - the devil

No, I think some of the references to Jesus are considered valid, just not the stuff about him being the Messiah and/or Son of God.

word. Josephus calls him a criminal, executed as a traitor to Rome. i see no possible reason to doubt that reference. it fits with Gospel accounts and fits with Josephus' theme and style.

a failed politician who was also possibly a practicioner of reiki (mebbe)

right now Im reading a book called "james, brother of Jesus" - which basically argues that "whoever James was, so was Jesus" - and basically James was observant, xenophobic, intolerant... but instead Paul rewrote the story of Jesus in his own name.

That doesn't seem to fit much of the historical evidence about Jesus. Paul altering the story isn't unlikely - in fact, it's likely true, but I've never heard of anything pointing toward Jesus being a bad person. I'd recommend the writings of Marcus Borg.