Who Was Jesus?

[naomi24]

In response to Nailit’s observation that “It’s gone a bit quiet on here”, in an effort to generate a little discussion that might be of interest to all, ASSUMING THE MAN JESUS EXISTED, who do you think he might have been – and what are your reasons for reaching your conclusion?

[Theland]

Then take it up with Naomi.

[Zacs-Master]

Oh, I’m sure she’ll be on my case. Just as soon as she deigns to look in on her own thread.

[Calicogirl]

Are we not all entitled to answer as we see fit though Theland. I have stuck up for your rights to do so many times in the past.
Like Zacs, my partner's away so I'm not doing anything particular today and am a slightly looser end, should I not answer then because the tone or style of my answer my irritate someone?

[gulliver1]

Think Jesus would have been a Remainer ?.

[Mamyalynne]

I don't think there's anything wrong with a discussion with opposing or different views are shared - it is the 'Brothel' Tapas' 'Fairy Story' types gibes that make it an ugly thread.

Still, if there's nowt on the box and it's too cold and wet to go and find a Church open to heckle in, why not.

That's how it seems anyway.

[Muntin]

I think it was Linda Smith who said that Jesus could not have been English because he was always represented as not wearing socks with his sandals.

[Muntin]

But on a more serious note I have long found it curious that the New Testament takes great pains to give the ancestry of Joseph, Mary's husband, son of X, son of Y, way back to was it King David? And then tells us the father was the holy spirit, not Joseph at all.

[Baldric]

/// it is the 'Brothel' Tapas' 'Fairy Story' types gibes that make it an ugly thread ///

Mamya, I believe I was the one who metioned Fairy Story, that's not a jibe and is not ugly, it is an honestly held opinion to which I am as entitled to hold and express as you are to your opinions.

[nailit]

benhilton
//If Jesus isn't the son of God how would you explain the resurrection ?//
C.S.Lewis proposed in his 'trilema' that Jesus was either Lord, Liar, or Lunatic and based on the 'evidence' concluded that he must have been Lord. However he missed out a 4th option. Legend. The entire resurrection story (indeed the entire Gospel story) reads as myth and legend. There is no source outside of the Gospels that attest to the resurrection of Jesus. In addition if you accept the resurrection of Jesus as been a unique event then why do you not also accept the stories of other dying and resurrecting Gods?

[naomi24]

//Oh, I’m sure she’ll [me] be on my case. Just as soon as she deigns to look in on her own thread.//

I’m here when it suits me to be here and I’ve no intention of getting on anyone’s case. However, there are one or two historical inaccuracies I’d like to address but it’s too late tonight so tomorrow will be time enough.

May I say that the only smidgeon of aggression, anger, frustration here – whatever you want to call it - appears to have come from Christians who, contrary to their apparent belief, do not have a monopoly on a perceived identity of the historical Jesus. This discussion is open to everyone and all opinions are welcome so please keep it pleasant. Night night.

[Mamyalynne]

Resignation on my part, that's what I call it - I see it in Law and B&S too.

Sleep well.

[Theland]

I think I have tried to respectfully post, and maybe robustly responded to the posts that mock and ridicule.
I don't mind an exchange of opinions, but not when responses are unfriendly.
See you tomorrow.

[Calicogirl]

I really don't think I saw any aggressive or unfriendly comments here. There were a few tongue in cheek ones, a few light hearted ones but none that mocked that I saw.
I'm certainly not in the habit of doing that and I can't place which remarks people are upset about. Baldrics 'Fairytale' remark is an opinion held by many and therefore a genuine opinion even if the religious don't agree. x

[Khandro]

naomi; Why do you start such a thread?

[Khandro]

This is what is a 'Stoning' is - (which is still taking place today.)

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/06/witness-to-a-stoning/

In the lesson, 'Jesus and the woman taken in adultery', Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."

A pretty cool answer, would you not say?
Could you have thought or said that?

That's who Jesus was.

[maggiebee]

Khandro, think Naomi is a bit of a stirrer who likes to dazzle with her in depth knowledge on every subject??

[ladybirder]

That's a nasty comment about another contributor mb.
And not true either in my opinion.

[Mamyalynne]

I don't think there's anything wrong with the thread- it was made clear in the OP we were to assume Jesus (the man) existed and then give opinions.

Obviously things don't go to plan, there were some very interesting replies all the same.

[nailit]

Maggiebee, why the ad hominem on naomi ? Uncalled for.
Khandro //naomi; Why do you start such a thread?//
Think that she made it clear why in the OP //in an effort to generate a little discussion that might be of interest to all//. Seems clear enough to me!

[vetuste_ennemi]

//There is no source outside of the Gospels that attest to the resurrection of Jesus//

Paul "attests" to the resurrection in Corinthians, Nailit.