jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (59 posts)

Who was the historical Jesus?

  1. BuddiNsense profile image60
    BuddiNsenseposted 4 years ago

    Recently I came across some books that argue that Jesus was a myth and some others that say he was a historical person, I am inclined to go with the latter. My question is,
    'Who was the historical jesus'?
    Was he a nonviolent preacher or was he a violent revolutionary, a prophet of doom? Was he a good man or a fraudster who tricked people by performing "miracles"? Was he one person or several?
    People who say there was no Jesus please use any other thread.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Guesses only, but:

      Nonviolent.  If he were violent (effectively so) I would have expected to see Roman records of it. 

      Good man?  Probably,  Fraudster?  Almost certainly - his "miracles" violate natural laws and trickery is a LOT more probable than actual miracles.

      How many?  Probably one, to start with.  Unlikely that a group of people got together and decided to play "Christ".  Later on the VIP's of the group surrounding Christ began to plan the religion game themselves, albeit without using the name.

      1. BuddiNsense profile image60
        BuddiNsenseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you wilderness.
        When I said several people I didn't mean several people together. Some of the followers of John Baptist became the followers of jesus. So when they write books they can attribute some characteristics of John to jesus. Some say some of the characteristics of jesus was found in an earlier character (?) Judah - the teacher of righteousness.

    2. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Pretty sure he was a myth made up from a lot of different people. There is zero evidence of a real person and absolutely no extra biblical corroboration. None.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Now, now, Mark.  While you are probably correct, we were specifically asked to assume there was at least a single man calling himself Jesus.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Why would I want to do that? I am 99% certain he was not a real person - isn't that what this is all about? Man or Myth?

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            No, it isn't what it is about.  We are asked to define the characteristics of the man in that remaining 1%, or at least what we think the characteristics would likely have been. 

            Come on, now, play the game!  If he was real, what was he like, that itinerant preacher called Jesus.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Liar, charlatan, rabble rouser, opportunist. big_smile

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Well, of course!  Aren't all preachers?

                But was he a womanizer?  Patronize the prostitutes of the times?  A politician, playing the political game for all it was worth?  Was his intent to form a new religion?  Was he power hungry, striving for control of others like modern organized religion or more of the Hindu bent in teaching a philosophy?

                1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  No - if he existed - he was just another preacher man. wink

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    One that created a lasting heritage somehow.  There must have been something different about him, or else the others that took up the cause were responsible.  Was he another Hitler, in the charisma he projected, in the ability to convince others?

              2. BuddiNsense profile image60
                BuddiNsenseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                May be but don't we have to consider that most preachers believe what they preach and most psychics believe they have psychic powers and they are not deceiving deliberately but they themselves are deceived?

                1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  No. They know deep down it is BS. Otherwise you would almost never get a priest molesting a child or putting his hand in the till. See: History. wink

      2. BuddiNsense profile image60
        BuddiNsenseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If I rephrase the question to "who was the mastermind behind christianity", will that satisfy you?

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          A variety of self serving politicians from the current Pope back through the various Roman Emperors all the way back to Saul. wink

    3. Jerami profile image73
      Jeramiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      According to scriptures he came but to save the Lost Sheep of Israel and to fulfill prophesy given to the Hebrew people.

      1. BuddiNsense profile image60
        BuddiNsenseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That makes the whole story a myth.

  2. profile image0
    Emile Rposted 4 years ago

    I think Jesus was a non violent minister whose message was ahead of its time.

    1. BuddiNsense profile image60
      BuddiNsenseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      That means there were not one but two jesus- a non violent one and a violent one who did violence in the temple or may be the latter story was made up.

  3. profile image0
    Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago

    Hey now y'all.   McDonalds is more than just hamburgers.   Their bacon/egg/cheese biscuits are the best!   Even just their biscuits by themselves are awesome.  smile

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Nope.  The sausage/egg/cheese McMuffin beats it hollow.  Add the potato patty and some OJ - great breakfast with lots of greasy stuff!

      1. profile image0
        Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        No sausage!  Ban the sausage, I say!  hahhhaa
        YES to the tater patty and o.j. though!    And even the grease.   Our bodies need some grease!

      2. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I have an ethical and moral problem with eating that stuff. wink

  4. profile image0
    Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago

    Jesus?
    Jesus was....an enigma.   Both man and God,  sinless but merciful, a rebuker of sin but yet the Savior of the world.   He wasn't easy to understand, to the people who saw Him on this earth.   Indeed,  He was different from anyone they'd ever known.   No wonder.   Born of a virgin.   Yep, hard for people to understand what and who He was.   Back then, at least.    Now, of course, we have the whole story,  so it all makes sense.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      We do? And it does? Sorry - maybe you could 'splain it to me then because you just said gibberish. Hard to understand that majick is possible? I guess so - yes. Odd that your Invisible Super Being needs you to accept the impossible as possible and reject using your god-given thinking abilities in order for you to be saved. Wouldn't a lobotomy be easier?

    2. BuddiNsense profile image60
      BuddiNsenseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Then that "whole story" becomes mythical not historical.

    3. A Troubled Man profile image61
      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Really? It all makes sense? Virgin births make sense? Someone who is man and god makes sense? The whole story makes sense?

      Sorry, but the entire story is so well beyond fable that other fables make more sense.

      The simple premise that Jesus was a god shows the story to be false, gods can't die, hence Jesus never died, making the entire Resurrection false.

      1. profile image0
        Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, really,  it all makes sense.
        It's the only thing that does make sense.

        1. JMcFarland profile image89
          JMcFarlandposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          it's the only thing that you WANT to make sense, so you don't honestly examine the alternative explanations - at least from my interactions with you.  You just mock them.

          1. profile image0
            Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Wrong.
            I've examined the alternative views enough to know they don't make sense.

            After a while, yes, I'm apt to kinda mock the wild ideas about apes evolving into men and birds developing wings after being chased onto a cliff, and anything "evolving" from "nothing, and any other such nonsense, sure.

            Maybe you remember some of our conversations about "evolution" and all that, during which NO ONE could answer the question of where the first "thing" came from?


            Well,  the Bible answers this about all things except God Himself.    And since no one has the answer to that,  then we simply should accept the explanation offered by God Himself through His word the Bible.
            Believe me,  I understand the confusion people have.    They don't want to admit they don't have the answer to everything.    But I freely admit that I can't pinpoint where God "came from".    No one can!   So we can only believe that He always has "been".    He gives us the history of the earth and how He formed the first man from the dust of it, etc., and etc.,
            If those things are  possible, then Him making a child be born of a virgin is not even a great leap of faith;   it's just simple logic that He would be able to do that.
            So....the "faith" part comes in very early on.....................Genesis 1: 1:   is an awesome verse,  very simple, straightforward,  a declaration of fact.    No wonder so many people balk at it.   They don't want to be seen as believing such a simple explanation because they want to prove their own "intellect",  and find it impossible to believe such a simple explanation could be true.    The reason for their exhaustive and exhausting search would be gone if they only believed the declaration of God..........if indeed they only wanted peace of mind and heart and soul.............

            1. A Troubled Man profile image61
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Virgin births are not possible, yet that makes sense to you?

              Gods dying and coming back to life makes sense to you even though gods can't die?

              Many of the things in the Bible are impossible, yet they all make sense to you?

              Brenda, this would only make sense to someone who was totally insane, we know you're not insane at all so the only conclusion is that you're not being entirely honest with us.



              But Brenda, we all know that isn't true, you have never taken the time to understand what science has to say about the world, we know that for a fact based on your posts here. Those who have taken the time to understand what science says about the world know that it makes sense, because there is a tremendous amount of evidence to support it. But, there is nothing to support virgin births, for example.

              Again, you are not being totally honest with us.

              You really don't need to say these things because they only serve to make you look insane, which is not the case. You can just as easily say that you don't know anything about what science has to say about the world and that you prefer to stick to your beliefs even though they have not been shown to be valid. That at the very least, would be honest, and you would not be seen as insane and would garner a whole lot more respect because you are being honest about it.



              Why would you do that, for spite? There is no reason to do any of that if you simply were honest about your own faith. There would be little to no mocking or ridicule if you were.



              That does not in any way show evolution to be wrong because the answer to that question has nothing to do with evolution.



              Brenda, you are free to believe that, but you need to be honest to the fact that whatever the Bible says about that does not in any way show evolution to be wrong, nor should you use it as a defense to scientific understanding, all you have to say is that you prefer to believe and leave it at that. That would be the honest thing to do.



              Again, all that does is make you look like you're standing on a soap box ranting to a crowd who is just laughing at you because all you say only serves to make you look insane. There is no reason to do that if you truly are confident in your faith. You can be honest about the whole thing and instead not look like someone ranting on a soap box.

              Why wouldn't you want to be honest about this?

  5. Zelkiiro profile image85
    Zelkiiroposted 4 years ago

    He was one of many, many messiah figures of the 1st century AD. The only reason history remembers him is because he was the most popular.

    A better messiah would've been Apollonius of Tyana, if you ask me.

    1. BuddiNsense profile image60
      BuddiNsenseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Was he the most popular?  For the most popular he seems to be the one with the least historical attestation.

      1. Zelkiiro profile image85
        Zelkiiroposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well, more people know about Jesus than they do Apollonius of Tyana...

  6. JMcFarland profile image89
    JMcFarlandposted 4 years ago

    That whole post just demonstrates that you actually don't know anything about evolution.  And I am more than willing to admit when I don't know something - and then you mock atheists/evolutionists for not knowing.  You can't have it both ways.

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Are you kidding?
      I have no desire to "have it both ways",  whatever you meant by that.  haha.
      I have it the sensible way!
      Nobody knows anything about "evolution"!   It's.........a........theory,  a made-up one at that!    Do you know what a theory is?       People simply have projections,  opinions,  that they put forth,  and then lo and behold someone with less boldness who are more easily led,  latch onto that and call it true without any proof whatsoever.    It's........weird.............how people will believe anything that someone else says.

      1. Zelkiiro profile image85
        Zelkiiroposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/ll145/Zelkiiro/Forum%20Junk/lex-luthor-wrong.jpg

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific … c_theories
        "Biology: cell theory, theory of evolution, germ theory
        Chemistry: collision theory, kinetic theory of gases, Lewis theory, molecular theory, molecular orbital theory, transition state theory, valence bond theory
        Physics: atomic theory, Big Bang theory, Dynamo theory, M-theory, perturbation theory, theory of relativity (successor to classical mechanics), quantum field theory
        Other: climate change theory (from climatology), plate tectonics theory (from geology)"

        If evolution isn't real, then neither are tectonic plates, atoms, relativity, or cells.

        1. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          For sure, the Big Bang theory isn't real science.
          And that theory, and the kinds of theories that are similar to that, are the ones I was referring to.
          There is, of course, a difference from fact-based theory and wild-imagination theory.

          1. Zelkiiro profile image85
            Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            In science, theories are the same. If the official science boards label something a theory, that means it's been tested or observed to such an extent that the only thing preventing it from being a law is that either it won't be true forever (evolution could cease, the Earth could be thrown out of the sun's orbit, etc.) or not everything is known yet (the first few milliseconds of the Big Bang, all the parts of the atom, etc.). What you're talking about are hypotheses, which are simply the ideas put forward before any testing goes on.

            "I think an invisible force pulls us down!" is a hypothesis.
            "Science has shown that a force known as gravity happens because objects have mass and that allows them to pull at other matter around it!" is a theory.
            "Gravity is a constant force, and will always cause mass to pull towards each other!" is a law.

            Get the difference now? Because that's a kindergarten-level explanation right there, and I hope for everyone's sake that you're at least as smart as a kindergartener (though I fear I may be wrong there).

          2. A Troubled Man profile image61
            A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            But, it is real science, Brenda, and you have no reason to say it isn't real science, especially due to the fact we know you have never taken the time to understand it, that is just being downright dishonest.

            Again, all your  comments only serve to make you look insane, which we know you are not, hence the conclusion drawn is one of dishonesty. You have no reason to be dishonest, Jesus would not be happy with his followers if they were dishonest.

            How do you think Jesus would respond to scientific facts and theories? Certainly, He would know if evolution was correct, or the Big Bang were correct if He were shown the facts and evidence.

            If other religious leaders around the world agree that evolution is correct because they have taken the time to understand it, why wouldn't you? They are still religious leaders who have a tremendous amount of confidence in their faith, but they are being honest about what science has to say about the world around them.

            Why can't you?

      2. Paul Wingert profile image78
        Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        A theory is "People simply have projections,  opinions,  that they put forth,  and then lo and behold someone with less boldness who are more easily led,  latch onto that and call it true without any proof whatsoever." ? LMAO! Somebody doesn't know what a theory is! Not surprisingly since most poorly educated people don't.

        Lets look at that statement in a more realistic way:

        "People (your typical poorly educated pasture) simply have projections,  opinions,  that they put forth,  (crap out of the Bible written by nomad sheep herders that never heard of an atom, thought the earth was flat, and had no idea where the sun went every evening) and then lo and behold someone with less boldness who are more easily led ( your typical, poorly educated church goer),  latch onto that and call it true without any proof whatsoever."

        1. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Usually only those who find a "church" that's a cult instead of Biblically-based.
          Sure, there are thoughtless individuals who buy into great error, mostly because they don't read the Bible and test the spirits that are being touted from pulpits.    For instance...........the SDA "church" is predominantly known to go by the writings of Ellen G. White instead of the Holy Bible;   they use her writings to try to confirm the Bible instead of using the Bible to test her theories against the words of God and common sense.

          So don't think you're telling me anything new when you say there are errors in the teachings of many Churches.
          Still doesn't make the atheistic theories valid.

          As far as just "poorly educated churchgoers"..........there are many people who are poorly educated in life, but who are able to understand the Bible better than the most educated scholar!     It doesn't take secular education,  nor much "Church" education,  to have Faith.    Anybody can understand Genesis 1:1.    Yet....so many supposedly-educated atheists have a problem with even that simple verse.    So....the problem is with one's unwillingness to accept Truth,  not just with their inability.    It's a heart matter usually.   Free will.   Stubborness/selfishness vs. Faith/humility before God.

          And by the way,  Paul was a stubborn man too.   God practically had to force him to stop and take notice of Jesus.     Good thing for Paul that God desired him in His plan, huh?    And good thing for many people,  people who for subsequent generations have gained much humility and wisdom and compassion from reading Paul's account of his encounter with Christ and his life testimonies later.    People who've realized that God can save even a murderer's soul.    Awesome stuff.

          1. Chris Neal profile image81
            Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Agreed.

        2. bBerean profile image60
          bBereanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "LMAO!" lol

        3. Chris Neal profile image81
          Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry, I think you meant "more argumentative" instead of "more realistic."

      3. BuddiNsense profile image60
        BuddiNsenseposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Especially considering that what they believe was written down by liars two thousand years before!

      4. profile image0
        MysticMoonlightposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Are YOU kidding? You are a Christian, correct? Isn't that whole religion pretty much based on what people wrote down in a book 2000 years ago that tells about what so and so said and so and so did and their version of what happened years after the fact yada yada and yet YOU sit here and talk about how funny it is that other people (who think differently than you) will just easily believe and go along with what people say?.....*blinks in astonishment* No offence, Brenda, but with all due respect, be fair here.

  7. Paul Wingert profile image78
    Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago

    If Jesus did exist, chances are that he was no different from any other man of that time. The one thing that would of made him stand out was his preaching of non-violence toward the Roman occupation. After he died, the spin begins 30 years later by a guy of questionable nature calling himself "Paul". Yes, usernames go back that far. Apparently Paul created "Superman Jesus". Not only could Jesus walk on water and raise the dead, his old man was God! WOW! Good one, Paul! The crazier the story, the more people will eat it up and they sure did! Even Paul knew that if you tell a lie over and over, eventually people will believe you. The nuttier, the better! So 2000 years later people are still buying into this Superman Jesus which was all started by a biographer that never met him.

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with one point----if you say something long enough and loud enough,  people will believe you.    Well, SOME people will believe you.  lol.
      The thing is----whether or not people believe you isn't JUST based on how loud or how long ya holler.   It is also based on whether or not they think about what you're saying and form a logical assessment of it or not.

      And yeah there are SOME people who will believe it when you say Paul wrote the Gospels instead of Matthew, Mark, Luke, etc.   or that they're not valid Gospels.      Some.   Those who are looking for ways to try to debunk Christianity.   
      Those of us who know the Lord have no problem seeing your motives and intent.

  8. s4y g00dby3 profile image78
    s4y g00dby3posted 3 years ago

    Jesus was in fact a real person. There is plenty of non-biblical references to him in history. For one, you can start with all of the gospels that King James had expelled from the bible. Secondly, you can take a look at the gnostic gospels that are out there, where they speak of Jesus and his favoritism towards Mary.

    Was Jesus all that he was cracked up to be? Absolutely not. He was a normal person, who was a terrific public speaker. He was able to have many people begin to follow him and see things his way. Take a look at the time period in which he lived (which is estimated, I'll give you that much). But there was so much unrest at the time, it was easy to manipulate people into believing that you are some sort of messiah, or the son of god.

    Sound familiar? It should, because that's the path that many leaders of cults take as well. They find people who are perturbed about not only in their own life, but with life as a whole. And then they mold them into believing their views, no matter how screwed up they are. I'll leave that research up to you guys, but I will give you one hint - Charles Manson = Jesus of his time.

    I'm the first person to throw religion out the window. However, to deny that the man Jesus Christ actually lived is ignoring the facts that are there. If you dig back far enough and do enough research (and I don't mean read the DaVinci Code), but there is actually some evidence that Jesus had a relationship with and possibly a baby with Mary Magdalene. I think I read somewhere that it was a girl and they named it Sara.

    Long story short - Jesus did live, he was an excellent public speaker which made many disenchanted people putty in his hands, but he was not the son of god. If anyone ever sees god, in person then we'll talk about his children.

    1. Zelkiiro profile image85
      Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Actually, it was during the Council of Nicaea (around 360-ish AD) that many Christian texts were jettisoned from the Bible.

      King James just commissioned a Modern English translation that was more poetic in nature than the first Modern English translation, the Geneva Bible.

      1. Chris Neal profile image81
        Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        +1

      2. s4y g00dby3 profile image78
        s4y g00dby3posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        This is true. I only used the KJV as an example because it's what most people are familiar with. However, I am fairly certain that he did remove some scriptures. I can't recall my sources at the moment, and I apologize for that.

 
working