Is The Office For Value For Money Poor...
News2 mins ago
Who was Jesus then, naomi?
19 Answers
naomi, you have often said that you believe that Jesus existed but that he wasn't who his followers thought he was, or words to that effect. I have always had difficulty in understanding this.
Many people called Jesus certainly existed; it was a very common Jewish name. But in talking about 'his followers' you seem to accept that some of the gospel story is true, that there was a very special Jesus who had followers. So where do you draw the line as to what parts of the gospels you accept and what you reject? And on what basis do you draw it?
Many people called Jesus certainly existed; it was a very common Jewish name. But in talking about 'his followers' you seem to accept that some of the gospel story is true, that there was a very special Jesus who had followers. So where do you draw the line as to what parts of the gospels you accept and what you reject? And on what basis do you draw it?
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chakka35. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Chakka, I haven't said he wasn't who his followers thought he was, but who they THINK he was. I refer to his followers today, not his disciples.
Yes, many people called Jesus existed, and still do, but as you know I believe there's often much truth in what is commonly considered fable.
Where do I draw the line? Well, definitely straight through all the miracles, magic and voices booming out of the heavens! And I draw that conclusion on the basis of rationality.
Yes, many people called Jesus existed, and still do, but as you know I believe there's often much truth in what is commonly considered fable.
Where do I draw the line? Well, definitely straight through all the miracles, magic and voices booming out of the heavens! And I draw that conclusion on the basis of rationality.
I you don't mind other input I don't believe anything about the Gospels. What is there to believe?
They are nothing more than a collection of old stories in the popular all powerful, supernatural being genre that had always been a favorite since paleolithic times. They have been mashed together and exaggerated passing down through countelss generations of oral history.
In a time where writing was rare and in some ways miraculous, The Book attained a standing well beyond sensible veracity. The incredible persuits of Jesus and fulfilment of Old Testament prophesies are exactly that - not credible. They were written specifically to fulfill the expectations of those old stories just like modern believers go out of their way to make the future fit the prediction.
As I never tire of reminding all: The Theists want Armageddon and are working towards it.
It is simple as that. Our future as a planet is doomed to fulfil the prophecy if these religious lunatics are allowed to continue to dominate our societies and cultures.
Theist doctine must be confronted. But we do not contront them with swords as they have always won on those terms. Counteless massacres committed in God's name testify to their effectiveness.
We must confront them with words. Question their beliefs in front of as many people as possible. All theistic argument crumbless very easily because it is based on the ridiculous premise that whatever is in the book is eternally correct despite contrary evidence and the fact that it was written by neolithic goat herders!
They are nothing more than a collection of old stories in the popular all powerful, supernatural being genre that had always been a favorite since paleolithic times. They have been mashed together and exaggerated passing down through countelss generations of oral history.
In a time where writing was rare and in some ways miraculous, The Book attained a standing well beyond sensible veracity. The incredible persuits of Jesus and fulfilment of Old Testament prophesies are exactly that - not credible. They were written specifically to fulfill the expectations of those old stories just like modern believers go out of their way to make the future fit the prediction.
As I never tire of reminding all: The Theists want Armageddon and are working towards it.
It is simple as that. Our future as a planet is doomed to fulfil the prophecy if these religious lunatics are allowed to continue to dominate our societies and cultures.
Theist doctine must be confronted. But we do not contront them with swords as they have always won on those terms. Counteless massacres committed in God's name testify to their effectiveness.
We must confront them with words. Question their beliefs in front of as many people as possible. All theistic argument crumbless very easily because it is based on the ridiculous premise that whatever is in the book is eternally correct despite contrary evidence and the fact that it was written by neolithic goat herders!
One thing to bear in mind is that the Gospels were all written a long time after these events were said to have happened, and most of the writers never met Jesus or saw for themselves, it is all reported second- or third-hand. The schools of thought about whether Jesus is/was the Son of God or an exceptional human with powers nobody understood, are still arguing.
naomi, perhaps I'll put it this way: There are two views of the Jesus story that I can understand.
The first is that of the Christian, who accepts the story uncritically. He or she is not concerned with whether it has a historical basis, with who wrote the gospels, with why Jesus should have died after such a short time on the cross, with why there are no eye-witnesses, and so on. They accept it through 'faith'.
The other is mine: that once one does give the story such a rigorous analysis it proves as likely to be true as any other story of magic written many years ago by unknown people and unsupported by any sort of evidence.
But you accept Jesus as a man but limit your acceptance of many of the other things alleged about him. But since his very existence and those supernatural tales come from precisely the same source - the gospels - how do you draw the line? Which chapters and verses give you a green light, making them acceptable, and which the red?
Sorry about my absence elsewhere. I'll get back there and explain.
The first is that of the Christian, who accepts the story uncritically. He or she is not concerned with whether it has a historical basis, with who wrote the gospels, with why Jesus should have died after such a short time on the cross, with why there are no eye-witnesses, and so on. They accept it through 'faith'.
The other is mine: that once one does give the story such a rigorous analysis it proves as likely to be true as any other story of magic written many years ago by unknown people and unsupported by any sort of evidence.
But you accept Jesus as a man but limit your acceptance of many of the other things alleged about him. But since his very existence and those supernatural tales come from precisely the same source - the gospels - how do you draw the line? Which chapters and verses give you a green light, making them acceptable, and which the red?
Sorry about my absence elsewhere. I'll get back there and explain.
Chakka, no, there are not two views - there are three. True, false, and don’t know. It’s a huge mistake to dismiss old documents and myths as nonsense when we have no idea whether or not they contain potential grey areas. Troy was considered ‘mythological’ until its location was discovered. It is now a Unesco World Heritage site. Come on, Chakka old chap - it’s unreasonable to expect me to go through it all chapter by chapter and verse by verse. If you can imagine being given the task of creating one complete jigsaw from a great box of a thousand jigsaws each broken into a thousand pieces, you will get some idea of the way in which I have formulated my opinions. I can say though that I view the bible in the same way as I view the ancient literature of other civilisations - much of which also contains stories of gods and magic.
there is a high probability that someone existed during roman times who was generally a pain the side to the establishment, just a blip in the harmonious civilised society that was being roman. but no doubt there would nhave been many 'rebels'.
i agree with beso, in that its just a collection of old fireside stories and that in all likelihood the central character, this jesus bloke, was just a name that someone thought was a good idea as it was a common enough name to demonstrate the humble beginnings (like your typical cinderella story). it could have been anything from hamed, to brian, to mug ruith, but they chose the name jesus, yeshuah, iesios or whatever.
anyhow, the bible in my view is at best an epic fictional tale, like the lord of the ring trilogy, at worst a work of great plagiarism, nicked from the many annals distributed hundreds or thousands of years before. egyptian mostly i think fom horus and isis..
quite why people hold any historical truth in it i’ll never know. with the many great writers of the time, one wonders why there isnt greater reliable evidence if it could ever be proven. the escapades of vercingetorix or boudica are well documented. why didn’t plutarch mention jesus ?
i agree with beso, in that its just a collection of old fireside stories and that in all likelihood the central character, this jesus bloke, was just a name that someone thought was a good idea as it was a common enough name to demonstrate the humble beginnings (like your typical cinderella story). it could have been anything from hamed, to brian, to mug ruith, but they chose the name jesus, yeshuah, iesios or whatever.
anyhow, the bible in my view is at best an epic fictional tale, like the lord of the ring trilogy, at worst a work of great plagiarism, nicked from the many annals distributed hundreds or thousands of years before. egyptian mostly i think fom horus and isis..
quite why people hold any historical truth in it i’ll never know. with the many great writers of the time, one wonders why there isnt greater reliable evidence if it could ever be proven. the escapades of vercingetorix or boudica are well documented. why didn’t plutarch mention jesus ?
It is worth looking at the historical record, about the actual existence of a person who became the item of faith, so look at the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, who writes about these times :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
At the risk of tying my own thoughts on the matter into a fairly substantial pretzel......
I think it not unreasonable to suggest that the Gospels contain many truths; I just don't happen to believe the 'religious' (if you like) aspect to them.
I believe that Jesus the man may well have existed. I don't believe the incredible stories that grew up around him. By the time the New Testament was cobbled together, the series of 'Chinese Whispers' upon which it was based, had gathered a momentum and force (which only the incredible 'can' do) which benefited none so much as those compiling it.
I think Jesus, the pacifist agitator, would have been quite surprised to see what has gone on in his name.....
I think it not unreasonable to suggest that the Gospels contain many truths; I just don't happen to believe the 'religious' (if you like) aspect to them.
I believe that Jesus the man may well have existed. I don't believe the incredible stories that grew up around him. By the time the New Testament was cobbled together, the series of 'Chinese Whispers' upon which it was based, had gathered a momentum and force (which only the incredible 'can' do) which benefited none so much as those compiling it.
I think Jesus, the pacifist agitator, would have been quite surprised to see what has gone on in his name.....
naomi, there are not thousands of pieces of a jigsaw.
There are the epistles of a known man, Paul, who tells us out of the blue, without any evidence or previous mentions of the matter, that there was once a man called Jesus, etc etc. The etc etc. consists mainly of Jesus the divine and little about Jesus the man.
Then we have the four gospels which have no historical value because their authors are unknown and which also supply no evidence and no eyewitnesses.
That's all. Since Jesus the man and Jesus the miracle-man both derive from these writings and nothing else, I ask you again:
When going through Paul and the gospels how do decide which parts to believe and which not? That doesn't require deep analysis, merely an explanation of which verses you mark in green to believe and which in red to reject, and why. Other, subsequent, writings are irrelevant.
There are the epistles of a known man, Paul, who tells us out of the blue, without any evidence or previous mentions of the matter, that there was once a man called Jesus, etc etc. The etc etc. consists mainly of Jesus the divine and little about Jesus the man.
Then we have the four gospels which have no historical value because their authors are unknown and which also supply no evidence and no eyewitnesses.
That's all. Since Jesus the man and Jesus the miracle-man both derive from these writings and nothing else, I ask you again:
When going through Paul and the gospels how do decide which parts to believe and which not? That doesn't require deep analysis, merely an explanation of which verses you mark in green to believe and which in red to reject, and why. Other, subsequent, writings are irrelevant.
Chakka, I beg to differ. There are thousands of pieces of the jigsaw, and apart from the magic, none of it should be deemed irrelevant without investigation. It's impossible for me to give you 'green' and 'red' verses. For one thing I'd never find the time, and for another, we have to look at the individual pieces to see which, if any, of them fit other pieces, and whether or not history holds any verification. For example, the New Testament tells us Jesus died on the cross, but investigate the story in the light of our current knowledge of human physiology, and you'll find there's a very good chance he didn't. What verse do you expect me to find that in? Likewise, it's highly unlikely that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, or at the time stated, but without comparing the information given with historical records, it would be impossible to reach that conclusion.
You are clearly aware that the New Testament is not the only source of information, but I don't agree that anything written subsequent to that is automatically irrelevant because, like the New Testament, we have no idea where the information contained therein originated. For all we know, it may have come from earlier and, as yet, undiscovered documents. If we all do as you do and dismiss the whole lot as fiction, we're never going to discover anything near the truth. Just as well for us that Heinrich Schliemann had a fascination for the Iliad! The fact is you, like the rest of us, have no idea what happened - or indeed if anything happened at all. None of us can possibly claim to know, but in my opinion it's a mistake not to attempt to find out.
You are clearly aware that the New Testament is not the only source of information, but I don't agree that anything written subsequent to that is automatically irrelevant because, like the New Testament, we have no idea where the information contained therein originated. For all we know, it may have come from earlier and, as yet, undiscovered documents. If we all do as you do and dismiss the whole lot as fiction, we're never going to discover anything near the truth. Just as well for us that Heinrich Schliemann had a fascination for the Iliad! The fact is you, like the rest of us, have no idea what happened - or indeed if anything happened at all. None of us can possibly claim to know, but in my opinion it's a mistake not to attempt to find out.
1 to 19 of 19
Latest Posts
Society & Culture6 mins ago
ChatterBank7 mins ago
And As Expected Down Goes The Market
News8 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
News9 mins ago
