cellophanedeity

I think that Jesus must have been a guy with either a lot of kooky ideas and a charisma skill level of a thousand, or someone with schizophenia.

Poor man. Schizophrenia is a terrible disease.

__________________
who am I to refuse the universe?
-Leonard Cohen, Beautiful Losers

Hain

I will say what I have been saying fo years. Jesus Christ was the potential that we have. He is what we could be. Excluding that he was the son of God, he was the next stage of the human being.

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

SecretMethod70

This is very similar to the view of one of my favorite theologians - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. It is also something I tend to agree with.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Hain

I will have to look him up. Thank you.

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

Holdem Dvorak

Hi all,

Now as a former catholic my view of Jesus is quite different than everone elses. In catholic school they told us things like "No kids, they didn't put the nail through his hand, they put it through his wrist so he woulden't fall off."
I believe that Jesus was a smooth operator who rolled with his crew and was sold out. I'm sure he was a great baller as well. He could rap too. He probably had some sweet rims.

TuPac was Jesus!

hypnotic4502

i think he was a myth.

there's absolutely no physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people.There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus.There occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either:unknown authors,people who had never met an earthly Jesus,or from fraudulent,mythical or allegorical writings.simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.

__________________
Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.
-Isaac Asimov

Devoid

I threw down something else. I think if he existed at all, he was a guy who took advantage of a very ripe culture and time, and used it to his advantage. He was a political and ideological revolutionary. That doesn't necessarily make him anything more.

__________________
We're here to steal your pornography, and sodomize our vast imaginations. - Inignot

asaris

Much of the following is false.
Same thing with Socrates. Do you think there was a historical Socrates?
How do you define contemporary? The general belief is that Jesus was executed in the 30s. Although this is based on assumptions that aren't entirely valid, it's probably about as good a date as we're going to get. But, IIRC, the earliest epistles were written in the 50s, and the entire NT was written before 100 CE. So all of this is while people who would have been eyewitnesses to Christ's life were still alive. We also have the testimony of Josephus. Admittedly, it seems to have been edited by later Christian writers, but as far as I know, there's no reason to believe that all of his mentions of Jesus were later additions.
First of all, you need to define 'well after'. And what proof do you have that this is the case for the writings of the New Testament? Luke, for example, may not be an eyewitness, but his writings certainly show evidence of having interviewed eyewitnesses.

I might point out that, as I hinted at earlier, we have far more evidence that Jesus was a real person than for just about any other figure of antiquity. If, given the standards you have claimed, you would also have to deny a historical Socrates, a historical Arthur, or any number of any other historical figures. Your 'standards of evidence' would do away with Herodotus and Livy; most of what we say, for example, about the Punic Wars, comes from their accounts, but they are hardly eyewitnesses to those events.

In general, I find the position that there was no historical Jesus to be utter idiocy. Reasonable, intelligent people can disagree with me about whether or not Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. Mind you, I think these people are wrong, but I don't necessarily think they are unreasonable. But how on earth could it come about that a religion like Christianity, which depends so heavily on certain historical truths, be founded by a man who didn't exist?

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

hypnotic4502

to be honest im not sure about Socrates.

many people believe Luke fits in the time frame of 170-180 because the book of Luke wasnt written till nearly 2 hundred years after the supposed event of Jesus's departure.the proof is offered that Theophilus to whom Luke addressed as the bishop of Antioch from 169-177 A.D.

Since Josephus was born in the year 37 CE,it could not have have been an eye-witness account of Jesus,who supposedly was crucified in 30 CE.

In the case of Josephus,whose Antiquities of the Jews was written in 93 CE, about the same time as the gospels,we find him saying some things quite impossible for a good Pharisee to have said:

About this time, there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians,so called after him,has still to this day not disappeared.

no loyal Pharisee would say Jesus had been the Messiah.that Josephus could report that Jesus had been restored to life "on the third day" and not be convinced by this astonishing bit of information is beyond belief.worse is the fact that the story of Jesus is intrusive in Josephus' narrative and can be seen to be an interpolation even in an English translation of the Greek text. Right after the wondrous passage quoted above,Josephus goes on to say, "About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder..." Josephus had previously been talking about awful things Pilate had done to the Jews in general,and one can easily understand why an interpolator would have chosen this particular spot.his not changing the wording of the bordering text left a "literary seam".

there was blatant forgery in the gospel of mark and john something that occured pretty often in the early church

John 7:53 to John 8:11 describes the story of Jesus and the adulteress. It appears to be a forgery that was not part of the Book of John as it was originally written, but was added later by an unknown person:
The New International Version of the Bible states:

"The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53 - 8:11."

The "Interpreter's One Volume Commentary on the Bible" states:

"7:53-8:11: This passage is omitted or set off in modern editions of the gospel since it does not appear in the oldest and best manuscripts and is apparently a later interpolation. In some manuscripts it occurs after Luke 21:38."

Eusebius an early church father and "historian" stated :
How it maybe lawful and fitting to use falsehood ad medicine,and for the benefit of those that want to be decieved."

as far as a historical proof of a person that existed close to Jesus's supposed time Julius Ceasar is a prime example
We have words written by Caesar himself and words written by both his friends and his enemies.Artifacts confirm his life and death,as do his successors.Caesar established a style of government–and a calendar–which endured for centuries.

you say the bible depends on historical truths?? lol
the town of Nazareth didnt even exist during the supposed time of Jesus.its not mentioned once in the entire old testament.the book of Joshua in what it claims to be the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area records 12 towns and 6 villages yet Nazareth isnt on its list.
the Talmud,although it names 63 Galilean towns knows nothing of Nazareth,neither does any rabbinic literature.
no ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth.its first noted in the begginning of the 4th century.

what gets me about the bible is how these supposedly works inspired directly by god led to the selection of just 4 approved gospels and the rejection of others.after 3 centuries of arguing 23 books were accepted by the Church as divenly inspired,while the rest were declared pious frauds.

__________________
Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.
-Isaac Asimov

Hain

I disagree with Jeus taking advantage of this time of ignorance and mysticism just to introduce another point. Imagine, if you will, that you discovered that you had abilities beyond anyone else. Would people listen to you if you said that you were like everyone else? Or would they artificially enhance everything about you to make fantastic stories? Would they even martyr you or kill you because of their fear and jealously of your talents?

Read the novel Illusions by Richard Bach. It is very short novel, one to read in a sitting. The messiah in this is just like everyone else yet no one listens to his message of everyone is capable His miracles.

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

Arjuna

I was reading your thoughtful monologue on Jesus and I subscribe to every single word of it. Although I am not a Christian in the common sense of "belonging to a relegion", having read and practiced some of his teaching, it is very clear that he lived and walked upon our earth. - Arjuna Seneviratne

mystmarimatt

I can't agree with any of those choices, except for 'something else.' As it were, though, I have to agree, for the most part, with Strange Famous' interpretation of Jesus.

I don't know whether or not he was divine. I don't think I really believe he was, but that doesn't dissuade me from realizing he had some pretty novel, good ideas.

And, it's a shame that what was built around him has become what it has.

__________________
Words of Wisdom:

If you could really get to know someone and know that they weren't lying to you, then you would know the world was real. Because you could agree on things, you could compare notes. That must be why people get married or make Art. So they'll be able to really know something and not go insane.

5757

He is the Son of God. You'll see.

__________________
Hey! Wait! I've got a new complaint, Forever in debt to ((your)) priceless advice. - Nirvana

BLACKAMOOR

I read in the bible with my own eyes that Yeshua bin Yosef's (jesus) ancestral line thru joseph goes back 75 generations to adam. So, he is a mortal man of flesh and blood and is referred to as the son of man many times. I think he was a great historical figure like Martin Luther King, who died fighting corruption and oppression and was then deified as the only son of god. I also read his maternal acestral lineage thru Miriam (mary) as well. I couldn't tell you the exact scriptures but here's a link that may help;
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQ...xian_jesus.htm

analog

I believe that Jesus was the son of God. I also believe that he was what we could be, he was "the next stage of the human being" as Augi put it. I think he was specifically created in this way to show us what we could all one day be- so that when he died for all sin, it would show us all that the next stage is pure goodness, and that's why we are now born pure, without sin, and chose to sin... we have to chose to walk away from being truly great people.

Strange Famous

One thing is that although Jesus is seen (and Im sure saw himself) as a moderniser of Judaism, he was also in some ways more strict than Moses - Moses permitted divorce because of human weakness for example, but Jesus encouraged his followers not to divorce at all.

Partly it could be put down to Jesus background.. after all it should be remembered that for most of his life he avoided urban area's and preached to the kind of rural people he had known and grown up with... so maybe a function of that was his conservatisim on some issues. But of course, if you think Jesus was a divine being, the context of his life on earth becomes less relevant, because he represents then the voice of God, unmoved by any human conditioning.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

pig

I put down something else - although I believe in a sense he could be considered to have been the Son of God, a myth, and similar to what Tecoyah and others have said, that Jesus was most likely an enlightened human being. I am not 100% convinved that Jesus absolutely existed, but I think it's very probable. I do not think that the significance of the type of message that he preached relies upon his divinity or existence, however. I think the essential morals can be derived from a question of the interplay between social stability and individual freedom.

Without writing too much, I would say that I personally believe that spirituality is inherently dynamic, and our perceptions and understanding of spirituality will also be necessarily dynamic. I think that the popular idiom for spiritual expression in the time in which Jesus was supposed to have existed was that of personified deities, and thus he was cast in that light - as the manifested embodiment of a god / demi-god involved in some manner of filial relationship with the God. In that time period, it may have essentially been true, in the sense that the limitations of the current language and culture prevented them from expressing it any other way. The remaining details concerning the miracles he either did or didn't perform, the question of his transubstantiation etc - I personally find fascinating, but ultimately irrelevant. I'll believe in people getting all Thriller and walking around after death when I personally see it.

As an aside, I've enjoyed reading this thread and I would like to think I'll follow up on some of the historical records discussed if I can get the time. Thank y'all.

While I'll admit I've not read nearly as much as I would like to or should have in the field, of what I have read in the area of historical theology, I find it interesting to watch the various religions fighting it out, and the roles of the different genders and personalities of the various gods, and how they changed. For instance, female deities were once very popular and very powerful in many religions, but their role has changed drastically over time. I think we still have Siva in Hinduism...are there other majors I've missed? Or the "vengeful / wrathful" gods -> "loving, compassionate" gods.

Hmmm....

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

silvertiger

I would like to preface this post with the fact that After being religeous to an extent, and seeing other religions through research and exposure, I do not currently believe that what may have been intended with the creators and progenetors of Christianity is that which came to be.

There are many sites that explain similarities of the story of Jesus to that of Hindu, Muslim, Egyptian, Myan, and other religions or diefied beliefs. I have read some fairly convincing sites that explain similarities to beliefs thousands of years older than the time of Jesus. While I do not have the time to explore these here I also question thier arguments as mostly attempting to discredit christianity under some personal guise or vendatta as well.

What I do question is the adherance to documents that were written 2000 years ago, and to believe that any direct translation is accurate, much less the multilingual conversion of the same documents through the melinnia. We can't even keep up with urban language today, much less rely on ancient translations that may or may not appply to the social idiology of the time.

Even as recently as this century there are documents being uncovered that either conincide or predate the current religeous texts that are not accepted as viable sources of information because we already have the "word of god". One thing that astounds me is the fact that many christian religeons currently use and proclaim that they are willing to accept as the word of god the bible as "Edited by King James the 1st" and his political administartion that was based in the 1500's.

I do also attest that if you read the Bible and compare it to other religious texts, they are remarkibly similar (i.e. the Koran). While I dont rule out the possibility that these ideas may have come from a more root source, I Also do not believe that these are the "direct revelations from god".

Jesus may have lived, and if he did He was a remarkable man. Whether the miracles attributed to him are as astounding as recorded, I would say that the tradition of Oral history and written changes affected by later generations make the stories more fanciful than they may have been.

Do I doubt that there once was a man named Josha/Jesus/etc.? In all likelyhood it was very probable. Were ther people of the time that were dreamers that sought a better world? Most definately. Were there Self-proclaimed prophets? Guaranteed.

I just find the likelyhood that the culmination of this person, and his match to "prophecy" and his role in christianity was very much written and re-written by people that truly wanted to believe that he was all these things.

I don't knock religeon, as often it is the bolstering strength behind improvements and positivie change (Commuinity, social and personal growth toward a common good), while in other cases it is the most destructive power in the world (Crusades, Jihad, and Apostacy and/or fighting amongs sects). I just feel that religeon is often embraced by those who need to believe that there is a "higher purpose" or a reason for being, to instill either a sense of self importance, or a sense of being a part of a larger picture.

I am comfortable knowing that I can affect my surroundings, and have a positive influence regardless of my social status, religious beliefs or any other quality that defines me in my culture. While I do not agree with religion, I do agree with the concepts therein. Be a good person, Do what you feel is right, and take the rest of the world with a grain of salt as they will likely not believe what you do.

While this post was not specifically about Jesus, I feel that I have given you my view on teh tpoic

thanks,

Silvertiger