Who do you believe Jesus was?
 

Apologies if this was posted before, but I searched and couldnt find... Im just interested in how a cross section of people view Jesus.

I think he was a normal person suffering from schizophrenia.

i don't think the second and third options are mutually exclusive.

my understanding is that the Messiah was supposed to be a human descendant of David?

here is a list of judaic criteria for the messiah that seems to be generally accepted.

while was certain that the messiah was supposed to come from the Davidic line... i haven't found much documentation for the jews requiring that he actually be God and man like Christians believe about Jesus. maybe i was assuming things from my Christian perspective that aren't a part of Jewish theology.

I would state that I believe 2, 3, and 4. Jesus was fully human and fully divine - this is a necessary belief in Christianity.

EDIT: Come to think of it, 6 would apply as well.

Actually, depending on how you define things, I could say all of 1 through 6. (C.S. Lewis, for example, describes Christianity as "true myth".)

Completely forgot about that. Yes, I would agree with that as well.

As far as I understand the prophesies for the mesiah, he was only supposed to create a better physical world. the messiah prophecy had nothing to do with the afterlife or salvation from eternal damnation. The prophecies were changed by the followers of Jesus after his death to try and fit them to him in a effort to make him seem the mesiah. Suddenly instead of the messiah creating a type of heaven on earth(peace and love among all mankind), it was, oh wait, that's not what was really meant, it actually meant that if you believe in Jesus and ask for forgiveness you'll be saved in the AFTERlife.

So I had to vote for something else. I think that Jesus could be better compared to a cult leader, because Christianity was just a cult for the first few hundred years it was around. He gathered a group of followers that radically went against many of the "modern" beliefs, a.k.a. a cult.I do not believe he was the son of God or a true prophet, and I'm pretty sure he wasn't a rabbi, although he was Jewish. As for being a trickster and a fraud, I doubt it, as far as I've heard he wasn't exploiting his followers and mooching off of them for personal gain.

Oh, and 1 and 4 are really the same thing, the Christian god, Jewish god, and Islamic god are all the same god(except for the Christian inclusion of Jesus), and since a true messenger of God is a prophet, if you believe in one, you beleive in the other, because Allah and God are one and the same.

A mortal man who was a true messenger of God

btw- I noticed how you only put that one in italics- how come?

The italics is the indication of the option you voted for.

I believe Jesus is a myth, a fictional figure blown out of proportion. "All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people." I don't believe in any so called prophet for that matter. The whole idea behind prophets is hypocritical and senseless.

AH! lol, silly me...........

and yet those who did write about him were nearly all martyred for their testimony that he was the Son of God. i understand someone being reluctant to ascribe divinity to Jesus, but the case for him being a complete fabrication is tough to make.

I just find it hard to believe considering all accounts of Jesus are hearsay. If such a man existed and in fact did do all the unearthly things that he did, you would think someone would write about it DURING his life, not years after the fact, no?

I refuse to believe Jesus did exist, and I refuse even more so to believe that without accepting him as my savior that I will be turned away from "heaven". This goes for all religions.

hopefully this isn't straying too far from SF's thread purpose... my apologies if it is.

if Jesus were to be born today... i would fully expect some contemporary record of his life to endure two thousand years from now. we're talking about another culture two millenia ago. a time and place where oral transmission of knowledge was the order of the day. a jew from that time reading your last post might respond "why would i need to write it down? i saw it with my own eyes!" literacy was rare, implements for writing were expensive... we're talking about a completely different paradigm for the spread of knowledge.

additionally, those that wrote about Christ probably just didn't have a frickin clue what he was all about during his ministry. there were many people claiming to be the messiah at his time. jesus didn't even fit the mold the theologians of the day thought the messiah would arrive in. they thought he would be an ass-kicking conquerer to free them from roman oppression, not a humble carpenter. it's entirely probable that they just didn't grasp the gravity of the situation till it was over. if a man can appear to do wondrous miracles and charismatically deliver a challenging message, he'll draw crowds... but everything starts hitting the fan when he beats death. if the narrative of Jesus is true, there is a decent chance that his followers wouldn't have considered writing it down for the ages (given their oral culture) till the full impact of his ministry resonated through the region.

one more thing, accounts of Jesus aren't hearsay. many of them are firsthand accounts... but only written years after the actual experience.

In My opinion, Jesus was an Avatar, Much like the Buddah and others.

Absolutely right on...

that would basically be the same thing as really any biography its always done after the fact the new testament or a good part of it is just that a biography of Jesus written after the fact. As irate said writing back in that time period was expensive and rare in the majority of people’s lives. There is an awful lot of written material from that time period you just don’t know about. There are buildings full of writings of that time just verry few can read it and few less know about it.. I have to believe there are 3rd party accts of what he did written in the same week or month that it happened..

i understand it would take someone who is capable of beliving in something to get this.....

I, also, favor the Myth option. I think that if such person really existed, he could very well be a healer or some sort (energy, herbal, manual, etc) but him being the son of god is pretty far fetched.

definitely the son of god, plain and simple

The way in which we know about Jesus is not all that different from the way in which we know about Socrates, yet Socrates is accepted as having been a real person. Like irate said (in an excellent and completely "on" post I might add), I can understand someone choosing to believe that Jesus was simply a nice guy and that stories of him have gotten out of hand, but believing he didn't exist is just something I don't see as a realistic option.

No they aren't. None of the gospels were actually written down by the people they were named after. The earliest manuscripts of the gospels date from well after all the people in them would have died.

That's not entirely true. While I agree that the Gospels were likely not written by the people they are named after, the earliest Gospel if I'm not mistaken was written around 70AD - a time at which the apostles were likely still alive.

Either way I still believe he is a myth. I don't care how anyone puts it, if you want to use literacy or expense or whatnot as an excuse, that is fine, but I don't buy it. Even two thousand years ago, if someone saw a man return from the dead or walk on water, an eye-witness would find some kind of way to get some kind of message down during his life, if they could record other things, they could certainly record something as incredible as Jesus’ supposed miracles.

I will leave it at that as I am out-numbered here and no matter what I say you guys will say that I am wrong because you are Christians yourselves, its a lose lose situation.

But until Christ comes down from above and damns my soul to the depths of hell for not accepting him, I won’t believe he ever existed.

Now if you'll excuse me, half time is over, I need to get back to the game.

Actually, it makes sense they were written somewhat later (I think Mark actually might be 60s); they were written as the eyewitnesses were starting to die, so that there would be a record for the next generation. Before then, people just talked with the eyewitnesses themselves.

I've heard about the whole schizophrenia thing, and it's pretty strange. To think that Jesus was a schizophrenic would make a lot of sense.

Well, just to add my own thoughts. I am certain in myself that Jesus was historically a real person - I find the claims that he was a myth as realistic as someone claiming Augustus was a myth as well. I am open to the idea that Jesus was divine, but I cant be certain. I do believe in God - and I would go along with the fact that all of the major religions do seem to talk about the same God - and I think Jesus preached an ideal of God that I find attractive. My understanding of Jesus was that he he told people Mosiac law was not so important, that no religious authority on earth held the key to the gates of the Kingdom of the Father... but that the Kingdom was with every person, inside them and outside of them, that to know the Kingdom it was not necessary to practive ceremony or obey 1000 year old Jewish social customs, but it was only necessary to do what is good, to not lie to God, to know yourself and open yourself - When you know yourselves you shall be known"...

The fundamentalist Christians who believe homosexuals burn in hell, the fundamentalist Muslims who treat women as third class citizens, the observant Jews who still follow millenia old ceremonies... all of this I think is opposite to what Jesus taught. I think what he really meant was that everyone has a relationship with God internally, that it is not of this world, that the Kingdom is the part of us we do not know... that hell is not a place of Satanic torment, but "hell" is a state of lacking self understanding, of being lost, that the kingdom is open to all who have understanding, from those who do the greatest good to those who do the greatest evil in this world.

For the most part, I would have to say I agree with Strange Famous's assessment. Sure I would alter some wording here and there, but I think he is generally correct.

I find this highly unlikely. We're not talking modern times, most people didnt live untill they were 80-100 in biblical times. Life expetancy back then must have been something around 40 years tops for someone like the apostles.

And one of these apostles actually traced Jesus' bloodline back to king David/Davis and the grandfather (Josef? moses? dont remember) for all the jews. Allthough i doubt these researches were accurate or done in such a manner that they could be called proof of him beeing messiah.

As for the whole thing, Jesus lived, and he died. Lets leave it at that. Any attempt at diving deeper into the whole issue i find destructive, and its probably best to forget all about him and the cruelties he brought into the world.

I believe Jesus Christ is Lord. In that affirmation, i join generations of Christians...dating back to the earliest church.

Dubya is not Lord. John Kerry is not Lord. The UN is not Lord, nor is any creed or belief here on earth.

I think that's what is the greatest moment of Christianity, when it takes you out of your preconcieved notions, and allows you to worship anew...not an idol of power, but real love, goodness and mercy.

For all that to be true...Jesus must be fully of us, humankind. I also follow that in his death, he is made Christ, the chosen one of God, and becomes the second part of the trinity.

It doesn't matter if Jesus was real or a myth, son of God or wandering schizo, or anything else. His message to us was clear: Love your fellow man, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you. To me, that's the only part that matters. I wish more people would agree with that, it seems like we would have a better world if they did.

There are plenty of theologians who do not take the "bloodline" in the Bible as literal truth. To be honest, it doesn't matter. As for the apostles lifespans, they were likely quite young when they started following Jesus - between 16 and 20 - which would make them about 45-60 when the Gospels were written. Either way, that also doesn't matter since I never said they wrote the Gospels. Their followers did, applying their names to the works much like was done with kings in the middle ages.

As for cruelties "he" brought into the world - I won't even bother to address that since the cruelties were brought into the world be people NOT following him rather than following him. It's about on par with saying Islam is a hateful religion.

Just for reiteration.

Personally, I view Christ as a literary figure more than anything. But that aside...

Jesus has 'empiricle' evidence about his existence. A well renowned Jewish historian by the name of Josephus (sp) wrote a few blurbs about Jesus proclaiming himself messiah. Josephus in no way supported/knew personally Jesus. He was just the historian of the time.

I think that it is most fruitful to percieve Jesus as both a literary figure and as a thelogical-philosopher. Even Nietzsche, who wrote a book called The Antichrist, who hated Christianity and proclaimed aetheisim eventually found an immeanse respect for Jesus. love him or hate him, he is one of the great genius of the world. And we all owe him a lot in our culture.

Not to undercut my own position, but using Josephus is deeply problematic, since it seems later Christians went in and "edited" him. So the blurbs you mention may or may not have been written by Josephus.

Where's the option: "IT WAS ME!" :)

I believe that Jesus existed.
I believe that Jesus inspired at least 13 people to worship his beliefs during his lifetime.
I believe that he was an extremely devout Jew; albeit one who held some inflammatory beliefs.
I believe that he amassed enough power & influence during his lifetime to be seen as a danger by the oppressive ruling class of the day.
I believe he was betrayed by one of his apostles.
I believe he was crucified as a criminal.
I believe that his message was a good one.
I believe that many of his stories have been twisted & exaggerated by nominally pious people across the two thousand years since his birth.

I am doubtful that he actually died on the cross.
I am doubtful that he "rose from the dead" on the third day.
I am doubtful that he was the Son of God.

I am impressed that his apostles used the story of his life (and death) to start an entirely new powerbase...and in essence a revolution against the powers that were at the time.

I also believe that his message has been used to spur Evil as well as Good in this world since his death.

i don't have the text out in front of me ATM, but i seem to recall it goes something like this...

"Jesus of Nazareth, who happened to be the Lord and the Son of God, was executed by Pilate for causing a motherf$cking ruckus.

I'll have to find my copy of antiquities, but i seem to recall that he verifies a person named Jesus being killed by the romans for treason. the add-ons are pretty glaring...

When it comes to to pre-modern medicine times, life expectancy figures can be very misleading. In Roman times the life expectancy may have been around forty, but that doesn't mean that most people lived until forty and then croaked, it means that many people died very young, during their early childhood from diseases and accidents. So even in Roman times, if you made it to adulthood, you had about the same chances of living to be 80-100 as you do today. The life expectancy is the average not the mode.

Example: There is a group of 1000 people, 400 of them die between 1 and 5, 100 of them die between 6 and 15, the rest die at 70 to 90. Average life expectancy, around 42 years.(Calculated using the middle of the age ranges as the life time of the age group).

So the Apostles could all have lived to see 80 or more, but I just don't buy that they were able to write down word for word conversations and sayings that they had decades before. I can't even remember the exact words of a conversation I had ten minutes ago, much less 40 years.

Perhaps not word for word, but you might remember that the culture was more of an oral culture than ours is now, so they undoubtedly had better memories for this sort of thing than we do. And certainly you're going to remember what your mentor says to you alot better than some random conversation. Do I remember what me and my friends talked about at the bar last night? Not really. But do I remember what Alasdair MacIntyre said to me two years ago? Absolutely. The exact words? No, probably not. But the meaning of the conversation is still clear to me, and undoubtedly will remain clear to me.

On that point, Mage, you are right. It is precisely why there is a growing emergence of historically critical theology. In fact, I have read some very convincing things regarding the purposes behind a lot of Biblical language, and most of it not being related to literal meaning, or related to false truths for that matter. Simply put, the truth and message of Jesus does not necessarily rely on the idea that he actually performed "miracles" when considered in the context of the originally intended audience of the Bible. It is a very interesting take on theology and one I have been very interested in learning more about since I was exposed to it - through the writings of current priests no less.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I will have to look him up. Thank you.

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!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

...
 

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

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

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.

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.

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....

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