Who is Jesus?

[Murray]

I am new to this message board, but it seems to me that much of the discussion here concerning Christianity focuses on the peripheral issues of the faith. I am interested to see what those on this board would say to the foundational question of Christianity: Who is Jesus?

Please explain how you reached your conclusions.

[AthenaAwakened]

The flippant answer: The guy down the street living in the green house.

The religious answer: the only begotten son of god

My answer: An amalgamation of various mystery cult leaders living and preaching in the Galilee region around the turn of the first millennium BCE combined with various myths, legends and socio-religious movements influencing the Judaism of the day.

Why is that my answer? Because that theory fits the meager facts at my disposal.

[Thomas II]

I am new to this message board, but it seems to me that much of the discussion here concerning Christianity focuses on the peripheral issues of the faith. I am interested to see what those on this board would say to the foundational question of Christianity: Who is Jesus?

Please explain how you reached your conclusions.

Jesus is God,...for Christians.
How do I reach that conclusion? It's in their dogma.

[Biff the unclean]

I don’t see any parts to the story, Athena, that suggest cult leaders from Galilee. I do see a very strong resemblance to Apollonius of Tyana but he was in the city of Rome. Other than that Jesus is all warmed over God. Something like half a dozen Gods though mostly he’s made out of Dionysus.
Since the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea felt the pressing need to forbid self-castration (you wouldn’t have to ask me twice) I guess we can assume that the original Jesus was made of more than a little Attis. But he doesn’t seem to have lasted past the first editorial meetings.

[gurugeorge]

I am new to this message board, but it seems to me that much of the discussion here concerning Christianity focuses on the peripheral issues of the faith. I am interested to see what those on this board would say to the foundational question of Christianity: Who is Jesus?

Please explain how you reached your conclusions.

"Jesus Christ" was originally a personification of the light of consciousness. That is to say, it's a personification of the "Divine Spark" within us all, that which "lights up" existence and brings it into knowledge. This "lighting up" of stuff, this Primal Awareness, doesn't "belong" exclusively to you the human animal in which it occurs, it also "belongs" to God. It is God's Eye wherewith He canvasses some of His infinite possibilities.

i.e. the true Christian message is "Christ in you", and the original forms of Christianity were more or less like Quakerism or some of the other engaged, non-heirarchical forms of Protestantism: people would gather and honour this Inner Light in ritual, visionary experience, and mystical experience, and there were many different ways of doing this, with many different "takes" on the same concept. There was no priestly heirarchy as such, although of course some Christians were more respected and honoured than others because of their inspirational writings and insights.

The movement started in Judea, as a clever melding of the Jewish Messiah concept with the pagan dying/rising God concept, plus some Platonism. The original inventors of the idea were those represented by the NT "Peter" and "James" (the "Jerusalem" church), then "Paul" (originally the Simon Magus of Acts, the "apostle of the heretics"), then others including all sorts of proto-Gnostics, Gnostics, Marcionites, etc., etc.

In general, in this context, crucifixion (or entombment) was a symbol of this Light's "imprisonment" in the suffering flesh (i.e. when you think that you are merely you, a limited being, with a lifespan, etc.). Resurrection meant what in the East is meant by "enlightenment" - this Divine Spark's coming to know itself in its true nature, in and through you.

What we now know as Catholic Christianity was at first a minority sect within this broad movement, which eventually took an over-literal view of the myth that there was a real, historical person of this name living in Judea roundabout 0-30 CE. The myth had at first been intended as a literary trope, a good story (myth) to emotionally engage and entice the common people, but some took it more literally than others. Eventually this historicisation of an essentially spiritual, mystical concept, became corruputed into the hideous blasphemy that God appeared in the flesh once and once only in Palestine roundabout that time. The sole purpose of this deliberate distortion (which became finalised as the official Roman Church's view roundabout Constantine) was to give the "bishops" of Rome and Alexandria psychological, political and organisational ascendancy over other Christians by the invention of the concept of "apostolic succession".

I have come to this conclusion from studying (as best as I am able to, as an amateur without a lot of spare time! :) ) biblical criticism and history in general, the modern "Mythical Jesus" stuff (e.g. Earl Doherty, Robert M. Price, Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy), some respected modern biblical scholars with slightly "fringe" views, like Walter Bauer, Bart Ehrman, Herman Detering, and the older "Radical Critics" of the late 19th century. I also have had some mystical experiences that make this view very plausible to me (although of course that means nothing to someone else unless they've had the same kinds of experiences).

[Doug Shaver]

Who is Jesus?
A figment of the gospel authors' imaginations.

Please explain how you reached your conclusions.
I read this: http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/home.htm

[funinspace]

I am new to this message board, but it seems to me that much of the discussion here concerning Christianity focuses on the peripheral issues of the faith. I am interested to see what those on this board would say to the foundational question of Christianity: Who is Jesus?

Please explain how you reached your conclusions.
Well you sure don't ask small questions :D Well, since the word Jesus is Greek, maybe we should assume he's Greek… ok, ok, I realize you are using a transliteration of Y(J)eshua, the famed person from Galilee. I'll work over that in the next few paragraphs. However, I am always curious as to why Christians would avoid his more proper name, when they worship him? If you respected President George Bush, would you call him Jorge? Why not, it's his name, right?

My view is that he was most probably a heretical Jewish sage, with some level of cult following. I doubt very much that he arose out of any leadership position in the Pharisees or Sadducees. He was probably put to death by the Romans for various charges including treason and generally a rabble rouser. What ever he actually taught, has been dramatically morphed within the NT. I would guess that part of what he taught was apocalyptic. Now what I write in following is from my conclusions, so it will be written in that form, and not so much as an argumentative form. I grew up mainstream Protestant, and in my early 20's moved right to semi-fundy for a dozen years.

Since this Yeshua, is claimed to be not just a man, but a god, I think one has to evaluate who he was in the context of the Yahweh faith from which it is claimed he sprung. This also speaks to the beginning of my downfall in faith. I recognized after much research, that the Deluge, Joshua's solar object demands, and probably most of the Exodus were fairy tales. Once I accepted that I could not trust the Bible to be God-breathed, lots of other snippets that I picked up while looking into what I call the grand miracles of the Hebrew Canon (HC), started pushing me to look further. All this took place during a several year ever growing faith crisis. You can read more here about that part:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1911585#post1911585

I realized that most of the prophecies could not be clearly dated to prior to said events; Daniel for example. I realized that most of the passages that are used as predictive of Yeshua, either have their context stretched immensely (ex: Isaiah 7:14) or could have easily been added later as the Yeshua tale grew (ex: born in Bethlehem). The invasion of Canaan has many questions regarding accuracy. The United Kingdom and leaders seams widely overstated/hyperbole. The Gospels do not harmonize in many details no matter the mental gymnastics proffered (ex: Ma vs. Luke on the details of the first couple years of Yeshua's life). The NT few tidbits that do intersect with history, rarely match up other than dates and places. And even then, the dates are often off from the details. Pilot is somewhat known within the Roman Empire and is considered a brutal man who was recalled for his brutality. Doesn't really jive with the Gospels. Paul, strangely almost says nothing regarding the life of Yeshua; like it wouldn't have been a topic of discussion between him and the Apostles.

As we get to writing and collating Canon, we see people willing to revise texts. We see Christians willing to alter other texts, like Flavious' History of the Jews. We see deceptive Apostolic succession claims from various churches, probably to augment their particular views. We see a Christian history that becomes just like anyone else as they gained power. We see many differing canons emerging. God was guiding this? 1100 years after the west settled on 1 canon, it got changed again. We see Christians swept up in superstition just like everyone else. Sickness is from sin; lightening comes from daemons; and the Church of Rome felt the need for 52 exorcists in 250 AD, more than any other leadership grouping.

If there was no Yahweh, who is Yeshua's father? Who was his Lord? Genesis is a bunch of mashed together fables, that does not match history, geology, archeology, et.al. The rest only gets marginally better towards being historical. The trinity is non-sensical. God sacrificed part of himself, to his other part, for the failure of creation he made and knew from time immortal. Huh? This God seams to have a shifting sense of morals, kind of odd for a omni-*. I find some of the Bible's ideas of morality lacking. It found time to condemn homosexuality clearly, but couldn't do the same for slavery. It was truly odd in the Hebrew canon. People with physical defects couldn't be near God's holy toys. He's pretty sexist. The canon is so muddled that humanity has hundreds of major sects. Revelations is barbaric. The idea that 2/3s of humanity will suffer eternal torment by the choices this God made to share his Truth/message is an obscenity in my POV.

So if Yahweh is a crock, then Yeshua is not a demigod. That leaves the question who was he. I'm not particularly taken by the mythical Yeshua idea, though it does have some points. So I fall back to he must have been someone like Moshe, Mohammad, Joseph Smith, et.al. Well that probably covers most of the major things that come to mind.

[Godless Raven]

My answer: An amalgamation of various mystery cult leaders living and preaching in the Galilee region around the turn of the first millennium BCE combined with various myths, legends and socio-religious movements influencing the Judaism of the day.


Agreed, and I'd add, not so much of any of those parts to equal one actual living human being. In other words...

I believe JC is the most powerful figment of human imagination to ever exist (sorry Santa!)

[AthenaAwakened]

I don’t see any parts to the story, Athena, that suggest cult leaders from Galilee. I do see a very strong resemblance to Apollonius of Tyana but he was in the city of Rome. Other than that Jesus is all warmed over God. Something like half a dozen Gods though mostly he’s made out of Dionysus.
Since the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea felt the pressing need to forbid self-castration (you wouldn’t have to ask me twice) I guess we can assume that the original Jesus was made of more than a little Attis. But he doesn’t seem to have lasted past the first editorial meetings.

I'll tell ya why I included the Mystery cults. According to my professor for "Intro to NT", mystery cults shared certain characteristics:


Messianic Leader
Baptism (in some liquid, not necessarily water)
a Resurrection.


Symbolic communal meal (Transubstantiation) was big too.

Dr. Armstrong then went on to say (and I still find it remarkable that a practicing Baptist minister said this in public) "Christianity is a surviving mystery cult."

Funny you should say what you did about the first editoral meeting. I myself have often said, "The writers of the bible were not the problem, but ohhhhhh the editors!"

Peace ;)

[Alethias]

I am interested to see what those on this board would say to the foundational question of Christianity: Who is Jesus?

Please explain how you reached your conclusions.Jesus is the mythological character that is at the center of the christian myth.

I came to that conclusion because I haven't seen any convincing evidence that would lead me to any other conclusion.

Everyone needs a hero, right? Jesus is the Christian Believer's Hero.

[Gooch's dad]

Who was Jesus?

There, I put the verb in the correct tense for you.

I think he was an itinerant Galilean preacher, who got stoned to death by the Jews, or possibly crucified by the Romans, for blasphemy/insurrection. I tend to go with Crossan's analysis of how the story grew after that.

I definitely think that the whole thing would have died out if it weren't for the marketing genius of Paul.

[Selsaral]

Who is Jesus?


The mythical god at the heart of Christianity.


Please explain how you reached your conclusions.

I don't give a special pass to Christianity. I believe that Zeus, Thor, Hercules, Achilles and thousands more were all mythical gods/half-gods too. There's absolutely no difference between Jesus and Hercules. Both are literary, mythological characters with no external evidence for their existence or the magical powers they were supposed to have.

I am not positive that there wasn't some historical figure at the heart of the myth. After all, even some ridiculous myths like Santa Claus DO have historical cores.

But it's obvious that humans invent mythical gods to believe in, and I am sure you and I would both agree on thousands of gods that are obviously mythical. I just don't give a pass to one particular religion.

Also, there's this issue of magic. Jesus is supposed to have performed magical feats, but since magic doesn't exist, either the feats (and the character) were exaggerated or fabricated. Show me that magic actually does exist and I am willing to re-evaluate my entire reasoning process.

[douglas]

I don't think anyone can tell you definitively who Jesus was, but there are countless theories on who he COULD have been, like...

He was a teacher who directly opposed the prevailing Jewish practices of his time (ie. no need to "change" your money at the temple, cripples and prostitutes are worthy of forgiveness, ritualistic cleansing practices are not needed, Samaritan Jews are ok in God's book) which pissed off the Sanhedrin. Also, because of his pacifistic stance and general unwillingness to take on the Roman occupiers ("Give unto caeser that which is caesers.") he pissed off the militant Jews, hence Judas turning him in and the mob choosing "barrabas" over Jesus for release by pontius pilate. Both groups conspired, along with the Romans, to pin the label "King" on him, which would have been treasonous and made him worthy of crucifixion.

Post crucifixion, his follower drummed up stories and rumours about him, combined the stories with common mythology of the time, and created a tale of resurrection fit for the son of God. Along comes Paul who hears these stories, spends some time getting snockered by Peter and the other "Apostles" and sets out to build the foundation of a new religion.

Now, I'm not saying I believe this. I honestly don't know who Jesus is, or if he actually existed. It does show how you can piece bits of circumstantial information into a plausible story.

[Biff the unclean]

I'll tell ya why I included the Mystery cults.
Well the cults, of course. That's why I mentioned Apollonius of Tyana and his worship of Christna. What I don't see are any cult leaders in Galilee at the time that the Jesus character could have been pinned on. If there was Christians would be parading him around as the historic Jesus instead of just demanding that a historic Jesus existed without anyone to point to.

[Malachi151]

You might want to try the forum dedicated basically to this topic:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=60

And, BTW, Jesus is a fiction - a vague spiritual concept in the minds of early "Christians", which became "historicized" by the author of Mark after the destruction of Judea when he wrote his gospel, which is really nothing more than a cutting and pasting of a whole bunch of "Old Testament" stories together into a new story.

The Jesus character of "Mark" was an allegorical figure meant to show how the Jews had become foolish and brought destruction upon themself.

[AthenaAwakened]

Well the cults, of course. That's why I mentioned Apollonius of Tyana and his worship of Christna. What I don't see are any cult leaders in Galilee at the time that the Jesus character could have been pinned on. If there was Christians would be parading him around as the historic Jesus instead of just demanding that a historic Jesus existed without anyone to point to.

That's who the Jesus Seminar is looking for. And I wish them LUCK. They are gonna need it.

I don't think there any ONE historical person that was Jesus of Nazareth. And even if there was, he'd be so far removed from the Christ as to be of no real importance to the faith of Christianity.

[motorhead]

Jesus was a preacher in ancient Israel who preached the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God but it never came. He was wrong. How did I reach my conclusion? Read the canonical Gospels, especially Mark, Matthew and Luke.

[No Robots]

Jesus was a preacher in ancient Israel who preached the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God but it never came. He was wrong. How did I reach my conclusion? Read the canonical Gospels, especially Mark, Matthew and Luke.

You should follow your own advice:

Neither shall they say: Behold here, or behold there. For lo, the kingdom of God is within you. (Lk. 17:21)

[sharon45]

I am interested to see what those on this board would say to the foundational question of Christianity: Who is Jesus?

Please explain how you reached your conclusions.In the bible, jesus was a stumbling block for the Jews.

Deuteronomy 13, 18, and the NT.

[Dean Anderson]

Who is Jesus?

The Christ is Paul's wholly divine saviour-figure, melded from a combination of his Hellenistic (as a Greek-Turk in Tarsus) culture and his Jewish beliefs.

Jesus is the wholly human leader of an itinerant Cynic school of philosophy (to whom the teachings of that school are attributed although they probably came from many teachers in reality, rather than one single leader) which flourished in Jerusalem and which melded Cynic philosophy with Judaism.

Jesus Christ is a wholly mythical character, created by the syncretic combination of the two characters and given an invented biography composed of about 50% Midrash and about 50% Greek philosophy. This invented biography gives the character the traits of both the human travelling philosopher and also the divine saviour, and forms the basis of Christianity as we now know it (as well as many forms of Christianity that are no longer extant).

Please explain how you reached your conclusions.

By spending years reading the Bible and studying what a wide variety of historians, linguists, theologians and so on have to say about it; as well as examining the extra-Biblical historical and textual evidence that we have.

[Thomas II]

You should follow your own advice:

Neither shall they say: Behold here, or behold there. For lo, the kingdom of God is within you. (Lk. 17:21)

Where exactly within ourselves is the "kingdom of God"?

[motorhead]

You should follow your own advice:

Neither shall they say: Behold here, or behold there. For lo, the kingdom of God is within you. (Lk. 17:21)

Big deal, check out the numerous other verses where Jesus predicts the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God.

[Malachi151]

Jesus is the wholly human leader of an itinerant Cynic school of philosophy (to whom the teachings of that school are attributed although they probably came from many teachers in reality, rather than one single leader) which flourished in Jerusalem and which melded Cynic philosophy with Judaism.

Of course you know that there is ZERO evidence for this at all, you're just making stuff up here.

There was no Jesus that has anything to do with the Christian story at all.

As you say, the Christ Jesus of Paul was a divine mystery religion figure, and the Jesus of Mark was an allegorical figure used to make a point about the destruction of Israel.

Jesus is 100% made up, based on "Old Testament" ideas and scriptures. There isn't one single thing written by ANY person about a "real live" Jesus. There was no Jesus at all.

[xaxxat]

Who is Jesus?

A designer god - you can bend him, twist him, shape him into anything you want. One of the current favorites is the prosperity model. Jesus wants you to be rich...

[EarlOfLade]

A dud that makes christians feel good when he is nailed to a cross... Go figure...

[Dean Anderson]

Of course you know that there is ZERO evidence for this at all, you're just making stuff up here.

There was no Jesus that has anything to do with the Christian story at all.

Then who wrote the very Cynic like 'Q' sayings?

Someone must have written them - and this person (and as I said above, it may have been a whole group of people rather than a single leader - but people like to attribute things to a single founder) is as close to an historical Jesus as we will get.

His actual name is unknown to us - so 'Jesus' is as good a name as any, since that is the name that the surviving material incorporated into the Gospels uses for him.

Jesus is 100% made up, based on "Old Testament" ideas and scriptures. There isn't one single thing written by ANY person about a "real live" Jesus. There was no Jesus at all.

Many of the NT ideas have a much more Hellenic base than an OT base - and much of this comes from 'Q' - the sayings of which had a very human author.

Of course, the biography given to this originator of the sayings by the Gospels is complete fiction - and we know nothing about his actual life. That doesn't mean that there was no originator or originators, though.

[Malachi151]

Then who wrote the very Cynic like 'Q' sayings?

There are no Q sayings. "Q" is theoretical, and has never been found or indicated to exist.

Many of the NT ideas have a much more Hellenic base than an OT base - and much of this comes from 'Q' - the sayings of which had a very human author.

Maybe you are talking about the Gospel of Thomas? Yeah, that was written by someone of course, but its just some sayings, it doesn't mean that whoever wrote that was gallivanting around with a following, or that they were crucified, etc.

I also wouldn't say that the gospels are more Hellenistic than Jewish. Virtually 100% of Mark, the first gospel, is direct quotes and paraphrases from what we call the Old Testament. I call it a Jewish story written in Greek format. Who Jesus is, and almost everything that he says and does in Mark comes from the OT.

Some also, BTW, have suggested that the theoretical "Q" was really a Buddhist text, which are known to have been in the area in Greek form at this time.

[Dean Anderson]

There are no Q sayings. "Q" is theoretical, and has never been found or indicated to exist.

Whether or not they existed as a written document (and I think the textual evidence that they did is quite persuasive), the sayings definitely exist - and were definitely written by someone.

Maybe you are talking about the Gospel of Thomas?

Both that and the Matthew/Luke material not found in Mark.

Yeah, that was written by someone of course, but its just some sayings, it doesn't mean that whoever wrote that was gallivanting around with a following, or that they were crucified, etc.

I never said anything about anyone being crucified - but whoever wrote it obviously had enough of a following for it to be recorded for posterity and incorporated into the Christian Gospels.

I also wouldn't say that the gospels are more Hellenistic than Jewish. Virtually 100% of Mark, the first gospel, is direct quotes and paraphrases from what we call the Old Testament. I call it a Jewish story written in Greek format.

I agree. The Gospels seem to take OT stories and verses and cast them into a more Hellenistic worldview borrowed from Paul. The material is Jewish, but the format is Greek.

Some also, BTW, have suggested that the theoretical "Q" was really a Buddhist text, which are known to have been in the area in Greek form at this time.

From what I've seen, there seems to be some cross-pollination between Buddhism and Stoic/Cynic philosophy. However, I haven't looked at this in any depth, so I wouldn't want to over-egg the significance of any similarities.

[Alethias]

Much as I find it interesting, discussions of 'Q' (unless they are about Star Trek: TNG) and the relevance of ancient Buddhist texts to the development of the NT are straying into an Abrahamic Texts: Criticism & History Topic.

I'm moving this to the appropriate forum

Alethias,
GRD Moderator

[Chili]

I am interested to see what those on this board would say to the foundational question of Christianity: Who is Jesus?

Please explain how you reached your conclusions.

Jesus was the name given to the person unto whom the messiah (later called Christ) was born. This would be Joseph the Jew now reborn and called Jesus.

[fredhsu]

Who is Jesus?
Please explain how you reached your conclusions.

I thought about this question for a long time. One day, I sat down and wrote down my conclusion in the form of a short story. A few years later, someone found it by chance and translated it to English (http://stillwatersca.blogspot.com/2006/09/evolution-of-christianity-short-story.html).

[Didymus]

I don't think there any ONE historical person that was Jesus of Nazareth. And even if there was, he'd be so far removed from the Christ as to be of no real importance to the faith of Christianity.

When you say that Jesus wasn't based on ONE actual person, you imply that this character was based upon a MULTIPLICITY of actual persons. Whom do you have in mind? Can you supply some names?

(Surely a character constructed of such a mulitplicity can't be termed "historical." By definition, a historical figure is a single historical person, not some sort of archetype.)

Do you think he was kludged together from one myth, a set of myths, or a whole bunch of myths?

If so, which myths?

See why I'm so confused?

Didymus

[wordy]

Funinspace, I agree, if Jesus did exists it looks he was a kind of "Joseph Smith" or some other cult leader. The Paul if he existed came and made his interpretation and that one dominated for a while until the Constantine supporters made their take on it the established canon. Luther made his attempt and latest such is the Fundamentalists of early 2000 century around 1910?

Latest attempt maybe is Words of Faith from Tulsa or the Group of Twelve scheme that Mega Churches sets up. A kind of socially tight community building that allows high social control while also allowing 10 to 20 thousands of members while the older style of management only allowed maybe 150 to 3000 members. Religions are like corporations they are inventive in how the do outreach and how they organize.

Why do the religious believer behave like they do. Because they can! It works for them. To them it is the most effective way of getting what they want.

Our ways as atheists is much less satisfying to the believer. Sterile Desert they tells me.