Moxie Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 What do you think Jesus was? Was he just a smart guy whose message went haywire through the years? Was he delusional? Did he not exist and it is all made up?? Just curious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsuga Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 A-theist. The pronunciation is misleading. As for me, I believe it is nearly impossible to know who real historical figures were. Even our understanding of people such as Alexander the Great, whose behavior is documented far and wide, is very weak compared to our understanding of more recent historical figures. There is significant debate about the personalities and relationships of people such as Claudius, King Henry VIII, and even Catherine the Great. So I'm pretty agnostic about Jesus as a historical person. Assuming that Jesus was a real historical person, and that he really was the person that the apostles wrote about, which I don't think is too far of a stretch, I don't think the underlying message was necessarily distorted through the years. It's a very common religious message of forgiveness and charity. There are a lot of metaphors open to interpretation in there. The fact that the church was used as an instrument of power seems to me one of the most predictable things ever. It somehow always turns out that way. In fact one of the more surprising things about the story would be that Jesus would not see that coming. 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regentrude Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 I think that Jesus was very likely a real historical figure: a wise person who had deep compassion and love for his fellow humans, strong spiritual beliefs, and who was played as a political pawn by the leaders of his institutionalized religion. It is difficult to form a clear picture of him since his biographers, i.e. the writers of the gospel, did not write contemporary, but in retrospect - so we have only their words to go by. I see no reason NOT to believe that Jesus existed. I can see Jesus as a role model, with commendable traits one should strive to emulate, a person who I can see figuratively as a representative of God - without literally believing in him as the son of God. I do not believe that he actually performed miracles; I consider the stories of his miracles to be parables, intended to explain difficult things to simple people. This (ETA to clarify: the interpretation of the miracles), btw, is the interpretation I was taught in church youth education in my home church, growing up, when I was still Christian. 24 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 What do you think Jesus was? Was he just a smart guy whose message went haywire through the years? Was he delusional? Did he not exist and it is all made up?? Just curious. I think that there were many itinerant preachers in the early years of what we now call the Common Era. It doesn't boggle my mind to imagine that there may have been many who formed a sort of "composite character" that we now call Jesus, along with existing religious beliefs and traditions, a sort of syncretism. There may have even been one guy - however, since none of the writings about Jesus were written when he purportedly lived, they are, at best, inaccurate and at worst outright made-up and wrong. (This doesn't mean that the people writing them had an intent to deceive. I'm sure they were sincere! However, that doesn't make their writings historically accurate.) IF there was a single historical Jesus, I don't believe that he performed supernatural miracles. I'm sure the people writing about those believed they happened, but then, people believe a lot of strange things. IF there really was a historical Jesus, and he performed miracles, and God exists and all that - definitely a long-shot, in my book! - then I don't believe that believing in Christianity is the ticket to heaven, not if God is just. If God exists and is just, then being a good person is what counts. And if God exists and isn't just, then it doesn't matter what the heck you do, because there's nothing stopping him from changing the rules at any time. But I don't think that deities are a high probability. 13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redsquirrel Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 I think that Jesus was very likely a real historical figure: a wise person who had deep compassion and love for his fellow humans, strong spiritual beliefs, and who was played as a political pawn by the leaders of his institutionalized religion. It is difficult to form a clear picture of him since his biographers, i.e. the writers of the gospel, did not write contemporary, but in retrospect - so we have only their words to go by. I see no reason NOT to believe that Jesus existed. I can see Jesus as a role model, with commendable traits one should strive to emulate, a person who I can see figuratively as a representative of God - without literally believing in him as the son of God. I do not believe that he actually performed miracles; I consider the stories of his miracles to be parables, intended to explain difficult things to simple people. This, btw, is the interpretation I was taught in church youth education in my home church, growing up, when I was still Christian. That, pretty much. Only I wasn't taught that in a church. It was what I came to myself. I believe he was a great teacher and I have learned a lot from reading what has been attributed to some of his followers. I'd love to know what it was he really taught, because at this point it is probably a whole lot like that telephone game. I absolutely do not believe in god or gods or santa or the tooth fairy or ghosts. But I do think we have had many great teachers and they all have things to teach us. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparklyUnicorn Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 Some nutty guy. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ipsey Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 I think that there was possibly a Jesus of Nazareth who was an itinerant rabbi--possibly apocalyptic end-of-the-worlder. I don't really think I know much of who he was or what he really did. I used to be an Evangelical and believed the Bible word-for-word as well as that is possible. (The story of Jairus' daughter contained one of those with apparent contradictions I didn't know what do do with.) When I started reading the gnostic gospels (believing they were rot, but interested in them, nonetheless) I started looking at all of the things attributed to him If I believed that Jesus caused a tree to wither and never bear fruit again (for not giving fruit out of season), why was it impossible to believe that he hadn't also caused clay pigeons to come to life*? If he made sure a Cananite woman debased herself calling on the prevailing prejudice of the day before he'd heal her daughter why could he not *curse a boy with death? (*Both stories in the Gospel of Thomas) It became easier when I subjected the Jesus story to the basic standards I held other historical or mythical figures. I don't think Jesus performed any more miracles than did any of our legendary figures. Itinerant rabbi--possibly--is all I've got. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 We know that many of the myths surrounding Jesus predate the timeframe Jesus is said to have lived. I suppose that like Buddha or Mohammed, there could be an actual person, a philosopher of sorts. 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 I don't know whether he existed or not. If he did, he became the focus for some of history's most successful fanfic. It doesn't matter to me one way or another. If you like Jesus and his associated documentation inspires you to be good and feel good. Great. If you like Jesus and his associated documentation regiments your life and makes you fearful, then Bad. 30 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fraidycat Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 A fictional character. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katilac Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 Oh, yeah, this is going to end well . . . *reads raptly nonetheless* 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 Oh, yeah, this is going to end well . . . *reads raptly nonetheless* I never understand why people say this. We have lots of controversial conversations here that go just fine. And, disagreement is allowed as long as there is no name-calling. 16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadrunner Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 If he existed, I think he was a devote Jew who tried to bring changes to his religion, not start a new one. I think if him as a charismatic cult leader both religious and political. Son of God? Well, if you are religious then all people are children of God. I have a hard time digesting a literal son. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HRAAB Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 Not sure that I'm an atheist, but I'm not not sure that I'm not one. Atheistic agnostic. Is there even such a thing? I don't know if Jesus actually existed or not. Even if he was fictional, his story has had great impact,good and bad, on society. Being fictional doesn't reduce his influence, and I can find a deep human truth is fictional stories. Stories and characters created about humans by humans have to have a deep truth in them, such as myths. I've not read much on the subject of whether Jesus actually lived or not. I might be convinced or not. If there was one man, Jesus, he was just a man. But then I do believe humans are capable of great feats. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 Some sayings attributed to him are nice - Love one another. Treat your neighbour as yourself. Those are great pieces of wisdom, which is probably why the ethic of reciprocity is found the world over, frequently by thinkers who predated Jesus* and who often-times would have been known to him and, most probably, his followers, both within his lifetime and after his death. * Assuming Jesus existed, etc. etc. etc. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ipsey Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 Not sure that I'm an atheist, but I'm not not sure that I'm not one. Atheistic agnostic. Is there even such a thing? I don't know if Jesus actually existed or not. Even if he was fictional, his story has had great impact,good and bad, on society. Being fictional doesn't reduce his influence, and I can find a deep human truth is fictional stories. Stories and characters created about humans by humans have to have a deep truth in them, such as myths. I've not read much on the subject of whether Jesus actually lived or not. I might be convinced or not. If there was one man, Jesus, he was just a man. But then I do believe humans are capable of great feats. There absolutely is such a thing as being an agnostic atheist. I'm one. Unless one is claiming certainty in knowing something (gnostic), then one is likely agnostic about any faith claim. Here's a little graphic that I don't know how to show in the post. :D http://papapipi.com/agnostic-vs-gnostic/ 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lang Syne Boardie Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 I'm not an atheist. My favorite atheists in my life, including one of my parents, have all told me that they think he existed and was a good man, possibly a gifted teacher or even a prophet or shaman of some kind, admirable, just not God incarnate. I don't get it. If I ever stop believing that Jesus is the son of God, I'm not going to admire him as a great teacher or a good man or a prophet. I'm going to have to hate him. I'll have to think he's pure evil. Why? Because of what he did, and what he caused, seemingly deliberately if we believe his own press. 1. He claimed to be a deity, on the creator of the universe level. 2. He condemned people to hell for their beliefs and behaviors, sometimes for lifestyles that caused others no harm. 3. He told people to follow him even unto death -- that he would be killed, and that they all must be expected to be persecuted (and many of them murdered) for his sake but that's OK because he'll see them in the afterlife and give them their reward. He brainwashed people into thinking that if they failed to confess him as Lord he'd deny them after death and, again, straight to hell for them. 4. He said his teachings would separate parents from children, friend from friend, but that the divisions were necessary and if you lose everybody you ever loved it's par for the course, just let other of his followers be your new family. 5. He said, "I come not to bring peace, but a sword..." how to interpret that?? 6. He sent his followers, "from now until the end of the earth," to proselytize and baptize the nations. To distract them from their cultural way of life and regional and cultural religious beliefs that are often necessarily entertwined with socio-economic factors, just to change what goes on between their ears. To change their mind. Again with the separation and persecution, but again, to do it means they'd see him in the afterlife while to fail means destruction in hell. So to me, just on a logical level, I have two options: A. I can believe he really is the son of God and therefore had a right to say, do, and instigate all of this, or B. I can believe he is not the son of God and therefore hate him as one of the worst cult leaders and radicals the world has ever known, the destruction he set in motion still following in his wake. I believe that others can accept a middle of the road -- that he was a good man, though just a man, and any evil fallout is due to misinterpretation or political highjacking of his non-offensive words -- but not me. If I can't love him for what he claimed to be then I'll have to hate him for being such a self-serving and grandiose liar. 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ipsey Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 I'm not an atheist. My favorite atheists in my life, including one of my parents, have all told me that they think he existed and was a good man, possibly a gifted teacher or even a prophet or shaman of some kind, admirable, just not God incarnate. I don't get it. If I ever stop believing that Jesus is the son of God, I'm not going to admire him as a great teacher or a good man or a prophet. I'm going to have to hate him. I'll have to think he's pure evil. Why? Because of what he did, and what he caused, seemingly deliberately if we believe his own press. 1. He claimed to be a deity, on the creator of the universe level. 2. He condemned people to hell for their beliefs and behaviors, sometimes for lifestyles that caused others no harm. 3. He told people to follow him even unto death -- that he would be killed, and that they all must be expected to be persecuted (and many of them murdered) for his sake but that's OK because he'll see them in the afterlife and give them their reward. He brainwashed people into thinking that if they failed to confess him as Lord he'd deny them after death and, again, straight to hell for them. 4. He said his teachings would separate parents from children, friend from friend, but that the divisions were necessary and if you lose everybody you ever loved it's par for the course, just let other of his followers be your new family. 5. He said, "I come not to bring peace, but a sword..." how to interpret that?? 6. He sent his followers, "from now until the end of the earth," to proselytize and baptize the nations. To distract them from their cultural way of life and regional and cultural religious beliefs that are often necessarily entertwined with socio-economic factors, just to change what goes on between their ears. To change their mind. Again with the separation and persecution, but again, to do it means they'd see him in the afterlife while to fail means destruction in hell. So to me, just on a logical level, I have two options: A. I can believe he really is the son of God and therefore had a right to say, do, and instigate all of this, or B. I can believe he is not the son of God and therefore hate him as one of the worst cult leaders and radicals the world has ever known, the destruction he set in motion still following in his wake. I believe that others can accept a middle of the road -- that he was a good man, though just a man, and any evil fallout is due to misinterpretation or political highjacking of his non-offensive words -- but not me. If I can't love him for what he claimed to be then I'll have to hate him for being such a self-serving and grandiose liar. Oh, I completely agree with you. If Jesus, in fact, did all the things and said all of the things that is recorded in the books that are collected in what is in the Christian Bible, I would agree that he was evil. As is, I don't believe he really did those things. I have no idea what he did so I can make no claims about whether he was good or bad. I think a lot of things that have been done in his name are really quite evil, though there have been good things done in his name. Based on what he has inspired, I tend to think that his legacy (based on the mythology that has grown around him) is somewhat more negative than positive. As to the man himself, I have no idea. I do not accept the Bible as a reliable accounting of him. It's because I don't believe in the Bible that I don't think he was, necessarily, evil. Those non-Christians you are referring to, who have respect for Jesus, probably don't believe in the literal word-for-word interpretation in the Bible and are culling for the most charitable things about the fellow. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadrunner Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 He is kinder than the Old Testament God at least. I don't have anything nice to say about the latter. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onceuponatime Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 I'm agnostic on the subject of Jesus. I certainly see how some could believe he didn't exist (I've listened to Richard Carrier), but I don't see how they can *know* that. I tend to believe that he may have been a real charismatic preacher, elevated to the status of "Christ" by Paul's personal delusions. I think Paul had a messiah complex himself, considering his belief that he was sent to save the Gentile world. Paul's writings came before the Gospels and even before the fall of Jerusalem. He wrote nothing about the birth and ministry of Jesus, only about his death. The Gospels are where all the mythology surrounding Jesus is. So much of what he taught can be found in other Eastern religions and philosophies (especially in the book of John), that I'm convinced the writers of the gospels incorporated those pervasive ideas into their interpretation of Jesus's life. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Btervet Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I think of Jesus much the same as I think of the Xia dynasty; maybe they existed, maybe not. Maybe they were based on real people, maybe on stories and ideas. Either way, they both were significant foundations to their respective cultures, and later generations believed in them as real figures. It makes little difference to me if there was a real historical person or not, as what is significant is the story and the culture that flourished. On the question of "was he a great guy", well, in terms of the Jesus of the Bible, I have trouble seeing him as a positive. There are far better role models in history from my viewpoint. He was, at the least, a vast improvement over the rest of the role models of the Bible. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redsquirrel Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I'm not an atheist. My favorite atheists in my life, including one of my parents, have all told me that they think he existed and was a good man, possibly a gifted teacher or even a prophet or shaman of some kind, admirable, just not God incarnate. I don't get it. If I ever stop believing that Jesus is the son of God, I'm not going to admire him as a great teacher or a good man or a prophet. I'm going to have to hate him. I'll have to think he's pure evil. Why? Because of what he did, and what he caused, seemingly deliberately if we believe his own press. 1. He claimed to be a deity, on the creator of the universe level. 2. He condemned people to hell for their beliefs and behaviors, sometimes for lifestyles that caused others no harm. 3. He told people to follow him even unto death -- that he would be killed, and that they all must be expected to be persecuted (and many of them murdered) for his sake but that's OK because he'll see them in the afterlife and give them their reward. He brainwashed people into thinking that if they failed to confess him as Lord he'd deny them after death and, again, straight to hell for them. 4. He said his teachings would separate parents from children, friend from friend, but that the divisions were necessary and if you lose everybody you ever loved it's par for the course, just let other of his followers be your new family. 5. He said, "I come not to bring peace, but a sword..." how to interpret that?? 6. He sent his followers, "from now until the end of the earth," to proselytize and baptize the nations. To distract them from their cultural way of life and regional and cultural religious beliefs that are often necessarily entertwined with socio-economic factors, just to change what goes on between their ears. To change their mind. Again with the separation and persecution, but again, to do it means they'd see him in the afterlife while to fail means destruction in hell. So to me, just on a logical level, I have two options: A. I can believe he really is the son of God and therefore had a right to say, do, and instigate all of this, or B. I can believe he is not the son of God and therefore hate him as one of the worst cult leaders and radicals the world has ever known, the destruction he set in motion still following in his wake. I believe that others can accept a middle of the road -- that he was a good man, though just a man, and any evil fallout is due to misinterpretation or political highjacking of his non-offensive words -- but not me. If I can't love him for what he claimed to be then I'll have to hate him for being such a self-serving and grandiose liar. I don't think much if actually anything in the bible is true or accurate or real. Like I said before, if he was a real person I would love to know what he actually said in contrast to what has been attributed to him. I don't believe that what is written in the bible about him was written by anyone who ever knew him or anything like that. Like mentioned above, I am trying to give him and his followers and those who say they follow his teachings the benefit of the doubt. I think we could all use the benefit of the doubt and assumptions of good intention when it comes to these issues. And Tibbie, are you trying to show that anyone, such as myself, who chooses to think something like 'Hey, Jesus may or may not have been real, but the teachings attributed to him seem like they could be sort of groovy" is wrong? To what end? Or in denial of the 'truth of jesus' or something like that? When someone says that I have two choices, to either believe in God or to think the exact opposite of what I think...well...I don't know what to think about that. Are you trying to convert or argue that we should believe in god or are you telling me I am just stupid or haven't spent enough time studying 'truth'? You are correct in that I haven't spend much time studying the bible, I am not christian. I don't feel the need to discover anything in there. I have a passing knowledge mostly based on reading selected passages mostly due to basic cultural literacy. I don't give the bible any authority in my life. But, you think I should think that Jesus was an evil guy, and if I don't then I have to concede that there is some sort of mystical god and Jesus was his son? I am feeling pretty confused by this. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mamaraby Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 What do you think Jesus was? Was he just a smart guy whose message went haywire through the years? Was he delusional? Did he not exist and it is all made up?? Just curious. Gotta love me some lord, liar, lunatic trilemma on a Sunday afternoon. He probably didn't exist, but honestly, it doesn't really matter because there are a whole lot of people who believe that he did which in essence means that he does in practice even if the reality is that he didn't. The existence or non-existence of Jesus isn't really a hill I'm willng to die on because much like Tanaquai, I think there are enough issues to be had aside from questions of historicity. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Tibbie, I have a question about your reasoning. 1. He claimed to be a deity, on the creator of the universe level. 2. He condemned people to hell for their beliefs and behaviors, sometimes for lifestyles that caused others no harm. 3. He told people to follow him even unto death -- that he would be killed, and that they all must be expected to be persecuted (and many of them murdered) for his sake but that's OK because he'll see them in the afterlife and give them their reward. He brainwashed people into thinking that if they failed to confess him as Lord he'd deny them after death and, again, straight to hell for them. 4. He said his teachings would separate parents from children, friend from friend, but that the divisions were necessary and if you lose everybody you ever loved it's par for the course, just let other of his followers be your new family. 5. He said, "I come not to bring peace, but a sword..." how to interpret that?? 6. He sent his followers, "from now until the end of the earth," to proselytize and baptize the nations. To distract them from their cultural way of life and regional and cultural religious beliefs that are often necessarily entertwined with socio-economic factors, just to change what goes on between their ears. To change their mind. Again with the separation and persecution, but again, to do it means they'd see him in the afterlife while to fail means destruction in hell. Some of these things - I bolded the most obvious - you seem to think are bad whether they're true or not. (And I quite agree, by the way.) But then you say.... A. I can believe he really is the son of God and therefore had a right to say, do, and instigate all of this, or Are you saying that God or the son of God has a moral right to do things that are evil? Or that they're not evil if and only if God does them? Or...? 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6packofun Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I am feeling pretty confused by this. There is possibly some confusion, too, about how anyone could label Jesus a "good teacher" when, if he's not the son of God he'd have to be totally full of crap and an egomaniac. I mean, even complete morons, jerks, and those with completely selfish intentions get SOME things right. That doesn't mean we have to let them speak into our lives or call them "good teachers". I totally ignore and have disdain for cult leaders who also sometimes say something nice. Of course, it's possible to believe it's intellectually honest to say that a person like that has a great moral compass, but not everyone would agree. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livetoread Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I don't know whether he actually existed or not. I find him to be a mixed bag as portrayed in the gospels. He generally had some good things to say, but, especially in Matthew, he was too quick to trot out the threats IMO. Feeding the hungry is good. Telling people if they don't you'll cast them into utter darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth is not so good. The rest of the NT is even more mixed, I think, and he's a horror show in the OT. IMO ;) 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HRAAB Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I'm not an atheist. My favorite atheists in my life, including one of my parents, have all told me that they think he existed and was a good man, possibly a gifted teacher or even a prophet or shaman of some kind, admirable, just not God incarnate. I don't get it. If I ever stop believing that Jesus is the son of God, I'm not going to admire him as a great teacher or a good man or a prophet. I'm going to have to hate him. I'll have to think he's pure evil. Why? Because of what he did, and what he caused, seemingly deliberately if we believe his own press. 1. He claimed to be a deity, on the creator of the universe level. 2. He condemned people to hell for their beliefs and behaviors, sometimes for lifestyles that caused others no harm. 3. He told people to follow him even unto death -- that he would be killed, and that they all must be expected to be persecuted (and many of them murdered) for his sake but that's OK because he'll see them in the afterlife and give them their reward. He brainwashed people into thinking that if they failed to confess him as Lord he'd deny them after death and, again, straight to hell for them. 4. He said his teachings would separate parents from children, friend from friend, but that the divisions were necessary and if you lose everybody you ever loved it's par for the course, just let other of his followers be your new family. 5. He said, "I come not to bring peace, but a sword..." how to interpret that?? 6. He sent his followers, "from now until the end of the earth," to proselytize and baptize the nations. To distract them from their cultural way of life and regional and cultural religious beliefs that are often necessarily entertwined with socio-economic factors, just to change what goes on between their ears. To change their mind. Again with the separation and persecution, but again, to do it means they'd see him in the afterlife while to fail means destruction in hell. So to me, just on a logical level, I have two options: A. I can believe he really is the son of God and therefore had a right to say, do, and instigate all of this, or B. I can believe he is not the son of God and therefore hate him as one of the worst cult leaders and radicals the world has ever known, the destruction he set in motion still following in his wake. I believe that others can accept a middle of the road -- that he was a good man, though just a man, and any evil fallout is due to misinterpretation or political highjacking of his non-offensive words -- but not me. If I can't love him for what he claimed to be then I'll have to hate him for being such a self-serving and grandiose liar. Since I don't know exactly what Jesus said or taught, if he did exist, I can give him the benefit of the doubt and view him as a man of his time. He was speaking to a different culture and in a different time. His words could be understood differently by the people of his time - whatever those words actually might have been. I find it rather unfair to condemn him as evil based on stories written about him well after his death. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ipsey Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 There is possibly some confusion, too, about how anyone could label Jesus a "good teacher" when, if he's not the son of God he'd have to be totally full of crap and an egomaniac. I mean, even complete morons, jerks, and those with completely selfish intentions get SOME things right. That doesn't mean we have to let them speak into our lives or call them "good teachers". I totally ignore and have disdain for cult leaders who also sometimes say something nice. Of course, it's possible to believe it's intellectually honest to say that a person like that has a great moral compass, but not everyone would agree. :) It's also true that if he is the son of God he could also be an egomaniac ;) I have friend who is a very passionate Evangelical Christian. She has a lovely husband and young kids. 2 years ago she got a terrible form of cancer and had to have a total pelvic exenteration. That is, she had her uterus, fallopian tubes, cervix, vagina, rectum, bladder and all externals removed and has 2 ostomies. (You might try to avoid "images" if you're Googling this). She had a year of recovery and has PTSD on top of it and has maintained her religious fervency throughout. It was recently discovered that her cancer has returned in other places that are likely untreatable. She is much loved and many people post encouraging words and religious posts to her which seem to buoy her. At the same time, the number of posts that say she is surely blessed and a special gift of God and that she is suffering in this horrible way is because God know she will give him the most glory in all of her trials, takes my breath away. Making a person suffer so horrifically in order that people worship me harder would be possibly one of the most egomaniacal things I can imagine. At the same time, it's probably the way I would have viewed it when I was still a Christian. It just takes a totally different mindset. God's glory is the most important thing--no matter how he gets it. 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb_ Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I think Jesus has had too large an impact on history to have been fictional. He obviously whipped up some real frenzy among his followers and had some of the best PR in written memory. If Reza Aslan is to be believed, he is but one treasonist among many executed for attempting to lead a Jewish insurrection, except that he had the most dedicated and vocal followers. Many, including Jesus apparently, saw John the Baptist as the true prophet when Jesus was a young man. If he lived there no reason to believe he didn't have the full complement of siblings or that he was celibate. He was a living, breathing human being. The book Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazereth by the above mentioned author went a long way toward explaining a lot of the confusion I've experienced since Catholic school about the historical Jesus. http://www.amazon.com/Zealot-Life-Times-Jesus-Nazareth/dp/140006922X 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparklyUnicorn Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I'm not an atheist. My favorite atheists in my life, including one of my parents, have all told me that they think he existed and was a good man, possibly a gifted teacher or even a prophet or shaman of some kind, admirable, just not God incarnate. Yeah what I don't get is why so many people buy this. I feel like I should say this, but then I'm really only saying it because I've heard other people say it. I don't know very much beyond what random strangers have said. And if you think about all the history stuff we barely know about...there is so much conflicting information, exaggeration, filling in huge blanks to tell a story, etc. I wonder what people would think of such a figure today. Probably they'd think he was crazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 It's hard to answer this and stay on the Jesus part. Jesus?I lean towards believing he was an ancient archetype or constellation of traits. I believe, primarily, he was a *literary* character just like Zeus, Odysseus, Romulus and Remus. I believe the literary genre of parable was a way to capture life lessons. If an actual person, the capturing of him in the canon was inaccurate, and has been embellished, politically driven and decided, and culturally twisted far beyond actual history. His message has its points, but the way he was said to talk was often passive/aggressive and in riddles. Like other major figures in history, he had some good points but some flawed as well. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs. Tharp Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I believe that Jesus was a real person and am a wholehearted convert to the ideas about his life as described in The Jesus Dynasty by James Tabor. http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Dynasty-Hidden-History-Christianity/dp/074328724X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1424654786&sr=8-1&keywords=the+jesus+dynasty I adored this book. It made the New Testament actually make sense for the first time. I don't believe Jesus is God but now love him as a historical figure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redsquirrel Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 There is possibly some confusion, too, about how anyone could label Jesus a "good teacher" when, if he's not the son of God he'd have to be totally full of crap and an egomaniac. I mean, even complete morons, jerks, and those with completely selfish intentions get SOME things right. That doesn't mean we have to let them speak into our lives or call them "good teachers". I totally ignore and have disdain for cult leaders who also sometimes say something nice. Of course, it's possible to believe it's intellectually honest to say that a person like that has a great moral compass, but not everyone would agree. :) So, If I say Jesus is teacher, but not divine, I am showing intellectual dishonesty? Again, not understanding your point either. I did fall down the stairs today and I did hit my head pretty badly. It is entirely possible that is the problem here. Could you restate this more clearly? I feel like you are making an argument here trying to establish something...but I cannot figure out what it is. What exactly are you trying to convince me to do or not do or believe or not believe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 And Tibbie, are you trying to show that anyone, such as myself, who chooses to think something like 'Hey, Jesus may or may not have been real, but the teachings attributed to him seem like they could be sort of groovy" is wrong? To what end? Or in denial of the 'truth of jesus' or something like that? When someone says that I have two choices, to either believe in God or to think the exact opposite of what I think...well...I don't know what to think about that. Are you trying to convert or argue that we should believe in god or are you telling me I am just stupid or haven't spent enough time studying 'truth'? Tibbie didn't say anything about you having those two choices. She said she did. You did read her last sentence, didn't you? Here it is again: I believe that others can accept a middle of the road -- that he was a good man, though just a man, and any evil fallout is due to misinterpretation or political highjacking of his non-offensive words -- but not me. If I can't love him for what he claimed to be then I'll have to hate him for being such a self-serving and grandiose liar. She hasn't called you stupid, in denial or tried to convert you. Her post was not personally directed towards anyone outside her own head. You seem to be taking posts in this thread personally when they aren't. This might not be the best place to be if you've had a nasty bump on the head. :grouphug: 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparklyUnicorn Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I did fall down the stairs today and I did hit my head pretty badly. It is entirely possible that is the problem here. Oh dear...hope you are ok! Ouch! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparklyUnicorn Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 And it's a bit difficult to take the pictures of Jesus seriously. Why is he almost always portrayed as a white man? What is the likelihood he was white? 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I'm not an atheist. My favorite atheists in my life, including one of my parents, have all told me that they think he existed and was a good man, possibly a gifted teacher or even a prophet or shaman of some kind, admirable, just not God incarnate. I don't get it. If I ever stop believing that Jesus is the son of God, I'm not going to admire him as a great teacher or a good man or a prophet. I'm going to have to hate him. I'll have to think he's pure evil. Why? Because of what he did, and what he caused, seemingly deliberately if we believe his own press. 1. He claimed to be a deity, on the creator of the universe level. 2. He condemned people to hell for their beliefs and behaviors, sometimes for lifestyles that caused others no harm. 3. He told people to follow him even unto death -- that he would be killed, and that they all must be expected to be persecuted (and many of them murdered) for his sake but that's OK because he'll see them in the afterlife and give them their reward. He brainwashed people into thinking that if they failed to confess him as Lord he'd deny them after death and, again, straight to hell for them. 4. He said his teachings would separate parents from children, friend from friend, but that the divisions were necessary and if you lose everybody you ever loved it's par for the course, just let other of his followers be your new family. 5. He said, "I come not to bring peace, but a sword..." how to interpret that?? 6. He sent his followers, "from now until the end of the earth," to proselytize and baptize the nations. To distract them from their cultural way of life and regional and cultural religious beliefs that are often necessarily entertwined with socio-economic factors, just to change what goes on between their ears. To change their mind. Again with the separation and persecution, but again, to do it means they'd see him in the afterlife while to fail means destruction in hell. So to me, just on a logical level, I have two options: A. I can believe he really is the son of God and therefore had a right to say, do, and instigate all of this, or B. I can believe he is not the son of God and therefore hate him as one of the worst cult leaders and radicals the world has ever known, the destruction he set in motion still following in his wake. I believe that others can accept a middle of the road -- that he was a good man, though just a man, and any evil fallout is due to misinterpretation or political highjacking of his non-offensive words -- but not me. If I can't love him for what he claimed to be then I'll have to hate him for being such a self-serving and grandiose liar. Or option C: that you realize he's just a piece of fiction and you can lay the blame for all the nastiness on the human beings who decided to do the crappy things and make a piece of fiction into a war cry and justification for being rotten examples of human beings. 17 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regentrude Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 And it's a bit difficult to take the pictures of Jesus seriously. Why is he almost always portrayed as a white man? What is the likelihood he was white? He is portrayed as a white man by artists who are white men. It is unlikely that he, if he existed, had light skin; the common assumption, based on the people populating the region, is that he would have had a darker, olive complexion. The ethnicity of Jesus is still a topic of research and much debate. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparklyUnicorn Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 He is portrayed as a white man by artists who are white men. It is unlikely that he, if he existed, had light skin; the common assumption, based on the people populating the region, is that he would have had a darker, olive complexion. The ethnicity of Jesus is still a topic of research and much debate. I think there is more to it than that. I'm a white woman, but I would not paint Jesus to look like a white woman just for that reason. Seems rather dishonest to me. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb_ Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I think there is more to it than that. I'm a white woman, but I would not paint Jesus to look like a white woman just for that reason. Seems rather dishonest to me. Paintings of Jesus originated in Europe during the Middle Ages. They painted holy figures to look like themselves. They were first and they created the archetype. I don't think it's more involved than that. 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparklyUnicorn Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Paintings of Jesus originated in Europe during the Middle Ages. They painted holy figures to look like themselves. They were first and they created the archetype. I don't think it's more involved than that. Ok that makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiguirre Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I wonder what people would think of such a figure today. Probably they'd think he was crazy. Well, if someone walked into a church bingo or Christmas fair and started knocking over the shelves and yelling that they were desecrating his father's house, I'd guess he's going to spend some time in psych eval. The Romans didn't do that, they proceeded directly to crucifixion for any rabble rouser who started a riot in a public place. I can totally believe that part of the gospels because it doesn't benefit either church or civil authorities to lionize that behavior. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I don't know whether he actually existed or not. I find him to be a mixed bag as portrayed in the gospels. He generally had some good things to say, but, especially in Matthew, he was too quick to trot out the threats IMO. Feeding the hungry is good. Telling people if they don't you'll cast them into utter darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth is not so good. The rest of the NT is even more mixed, I think, and he's a horror show in the OT. IMO ;) Jesus is in the OT? Really? Can I ask where? That's interesting. ... maybe let the Jews know that. ;-) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HRAAB Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Jesus is in the OT? Really? Can I ask where? That's interesting. ... maybe let the Jews know that. ;-) I took her to mean the triune God, father, son, holy spirit. If Jesus is God, he was there, right? As god, I mean. 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 And it's a bit difficult to take the pictures of Jesus seriously. Why is he almost always portrayed as a white man? What is the likelihood he was white? That's why we shouldn't make images of him, as they aren't accurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mamaraby Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Jesus is in the OT? Really? Can I ask where? That's interesting. ... maybe let the Jews know that. ;-) I took what she posted to mean the Christian triune god, not the person of Jesus specifically. Because after all...that's what the vast majority of Christianity teaches. ETA: Ishki totally beat me to it, but yeah...since the two of us understood what livetoread meant...fairly clear. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I took what she posted to mean the Christian triune god, not the person of Jesus specifically. Because after all...that's what the vast majority of Christianity teaches. But you are talking about the *man* and if he was a historical figure or not etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 What do you think Jesus was? Was he just a smart guy whose message went haywire through the years? Was he delusional? Did he not exist and it is all made up?? Just curious. This ↑↑↑ Not talking about God in general, unless, I missed something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mamaraby Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 But you are talking about the *man* and if was a historical figure or not etc... And that's not necessarily something one can separate from the entirety of Christian teaching. Ya know...since it's their god. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HRAAB Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 But you are talking about the *man* and if was a historical figure or not etc... Is that *man* God or is he not? Or is Jesus a different god than the one in the OT? 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.