Who was Jesus

[Titan]

Simple question...maybe. What are your takes on it?

Obviously mine is that he was Lord, so that is where 1 of those votes comes from. If you don't mind telling what you put and why I would be thrilled.

[curiosityandthecat]

Trick question. Sort of.

Option 1 would be better if it said, "He never existed as the Bible depicts him". I think most non-Christians will say there was a historical Jesus (or Joshua or whatever you would like to call him). It's fairly obvious that the Jesus profile we have today is heavily taken from Apollonius of Tyana.

The divine Jesus was based on older, mythic "savior figures" - such as Thor, Balder, Deva tat, Dionysus, Mithras, Bacchus and Horus - and argues that these figures shared most of a set of key characteristics with Jesus, including being born of a virgin on December 25, being killed on a cross or tree, being visited by Magi from the East, riding donkeys into the city, being betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, etc. Flemming accuses Christian leaders of being reluctant to teach early church history because it supports, rather than debunks, the idea that Jesus was a mythic figure rather than a historic person.

Jesus's life as a living person can be disproven by the fact that Paul seemed unaware of Jesus's life despite writing shortly after Jesus was supposed to have died, with Jesus's biography first provided by the Gospels of Mark, John, Matthew, and Luke, written around the end of the first century A.D. The film suggests that modern Christians aren't taught about early history of their religion because doing so would call the historicity of Jesus into question. Wiki for The God Who Wasn't There.

[Titan]

That's a good point, I wish I had thought of that before making the poll. Where do I find works by Apollonius of Tyana and the evidence that what he said was true.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Simple question...maybe. What are your takes on it?

Obviously mine is that he was Lord, so that is where 1 of those votes comes from. If you don't mind telling what you put and why I would be thrilled.

Maybe he existed maybe he didn't, Jesus after all would have been a common enough name at the time and it would be arguably easier to assume the myth is based on a real character but there were a number of pre-existing myths with very similar features so it is as likely that he never existed at all. Add to that the fact that there is no hard evidence for his existence and you have my stance on the matter.

Ultimately however I admit I say he never existed because it throws up a problem my theist opponents must defeat or admit before moving on to the claims they want to make (in essence a debate ploy but a valid one IMO).

It will doubtless come as no surprise that I voted "He never existed"

Kyu

[Titan]

Guys, before we continue please know that correlation does not imply causation.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Guys, before we continue please know that correlation does not imply causation.

Assume I'm thick (sorry but I'm no philosopher) ... what relevance does that have?

Kyu

[Titan]

Because Christian doctrine has a similar story to another doctrine does not imply that one brought about the other.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Because Christian doctrine has a similar story to another doctrine does not imply that one brought about the other.

I still don't get it it, what other doctrine?

Kyu

[Titan]

The one curiosity was talking about. For instance, just because the flood story in the Biblical text is similar to the Babylonian one does not mean that the Biblical story evolved FROM the Babylonian one.

[curiosityandthecat]

The one curiosity was talking about. For instance, just because the flood story in the Biblical text is similar to the Babylonian one does not mean that the Biblical story evolved FROM the Babylonian one.

Nor the other way around. That's what all those other wonderful, third-party historical documents are for.  

[Kyuuketsuki]

The one curiosity was talking about. For instance, just because the flood story in the Biblical text is similar to the Babylonian one does not mean that the Biblical story evolved FROM the Babylonian one.

Depends which one came first I suppose ... virgin birth tales pre-dated the bible therefore the claim that the virgin birth is unique and/or whatever is garbage.

Kyu

[karakara]

I'd say, it doesn't matter what you answer. It's entirely plausible that Christ, as depicted in the books of the Apostles, was an amalgam, synthesis of Old Testament prophecy, Greek Mystery Cult figures, such as Orpheus, and so-called 'Savior God'-mythology of which had been in circulation since ancient Egypt, if not earlier. Or, he could have been exactly as the Apostles say he was. There's no way to prove or disprove at this time, but archeological discoveries constantly fill in the missing pieces.

What's important is that whether historical fact or Christian 'Myth', the sage teachings are timeless and priceless. Any group of people who want to call themselves 'Christians' and truly live by the essence of the teachings of Christian doctrine are moral, decent, and righteous people by any standard of any era.  To Christians, it's a matter of Faith. But even if you discount the entire religion as contrived and myth, you can still see the merit in the teachings and value of constructing individual lives, families, communities, nations, and even a larger 'Christendom' around such beliefs and philosophies. I'm talking about the core tenets, not the 'Heaven and Hell', Physical Resurrection, Pentacost, Trinity, etc., etc., etc. Let Christians believe in and practice their core tenets, but I'd say when some go over the line and actively pray for Armageddon, Rapture, and all of that, then I'd take them to task.

[Titan]

Depends which one came first I suppose ... virgin birth tales pre-dated the bible therefore the claim that the virgin birth is unique and/or whatever is garbage.

No, it does not depend on which came first. You have to not only take into account geographical barriers to any possible correlation but you also have to understand the progression of mythological ideas from true events and the divergence of oral recounts and written texts.

Any group of people who want to call themselves 'Christians' and truly live by the essence of the teachings of Christian doctrine are moral, decent, and righteous people by any standard of any era

Well, technically the Roman Empire didn't agree with this. History has that pretty well established. If you want I think I have some quotes by Tacitus and some other Roman authors.

[Improbable]

I will specify what I think of Jesus: He probably existed but he was a mortal, he was not God or our Lord and he couldn't perform miracles. I do not believe miracles are possible at all. He was a good man for the times, but backward for todays times. Since he approved of slavery for example. And there were perhaps ancient Greeks who were more moral than him.  Also Jesus of course did not invent the idea of 'The Golden Rule', many knew of it before he did. Socrates knew of it for example.

[Kevin]

I put he was a good teacher. Whether he existed or not, he did teach people good lessons. Can't specify any as I don't know the Bible, but I know that he did, at least in the story.

I will say, though, that I don't really think that he existed. If he did, I think he was schizophrenic, but that's just my opinion.