Could Jesus have been an Alien

timetogetfit

I suppose for atheists its a more plausible explanation if he did perform those miracles

smellslikeshoes

Slightly more plausible maybe, but still pretty fcking ludicrous.

CrazyBiscuit

A more plausible explanation is that people make stuff up. Especially when writing in a book decades after he is claimed to have died.

Turtwig

First interpretation of the question.

Yep - He was the Son of an entity* that isn't actually from this planet.

*And of course that entity was also the Son.

Second interpretation.

You would have to question the mind of an alien willing to get himself so brutally tortured, then again I suppose he thought it would be worth it just to see how extreme idolising him would become. Maybe he was a mad alien scientist conducting an experiment on the gullibility of homo sapiens?

bad2dabone

timetogetfit wrote: »

I suppose for atheists its a more plausible explanation if he did perform those miracles

nope he was just a cult leader who made it to the bigtime!

Section 8

timetogetfit wrote: »

I suppose for atheists its a more plausible explanation if he did perform those miracles

I'm not rightly able to comprehend such confusion of ideas that could provoke such a statement.

x in the city

timetogetfit wrote: »

I suppose for atheists its a more plausible explanation if he did perform those miracles

good nite ya?

portumnadaz

Who u callin an alien ya paddy ****

philologos

Malty T: Just to clarify the Son according to Christian thought existed before He became flesh. As such Christ's birth into the world was merely the transition to become man. God was a Trinity, before Christ was born.

Of course, Christ could be argued to be an alien in the strict sense of being an outsider. Likewise, Christians according to their own definition could be also. (2 Corinthians 5 being one example amongst many about how Christians are said to be called to live differently to those in the world).

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

Of course, Christ could be argued to be an alien in the strict sense of being an outsider. Likewise, Christians according to their own definition could be also. (2 Corinthians 5 being one example amongst many about how Christians are said to be called to live differently to those in the world).

I though the point was that he was a man, not anything else.

Aliens from another planet could not be considered human by any stretch, let alone look like one.

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

I though the point was that he was a man, not anything else.

In most Christian understandings of Jesus (commonly referred to as Christology) Christ is understood to be God and man simultaneously. In Hebrews 4:15 for example, it suggests that since Christ lived like we did, and went through the same temptations as we did yet remained without sin, this is a perfect reason why we can seek Him as an example. The argument from being God and man also is crucial in arguing that Christ was actually the mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5), as He had both divine and human natures.

King Mob wrote: »

Aliens from another planet could not be considered human by any stretch, let alone look like one.

It depends on the context by which one refers to as alien. I would use the term "not of this world". According to the New Testament, which you can dismiss as you will, Jesus clearly was different, and alien in comparison to the world. Most New Testament epistles and all Gospels will call Christians to be alien in comparison to the world. It's a key concept in Christianity.

A lot of philosophers such as Hannah Arendt disagree very strongly with it. For example in one of her books The Human Condition, she argues that the Christians and the Jews from the Talmudic literature have made a form of category mistake by asking people to withdraw from the world, because precisely it is by being and acting in the world that we are who we are.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

In most Christian understandings of Jesus (commonly referred to as Christology) Christ is understood to be God and man simultaneously. In Hebrews 4:15 for example, it suggests that since Christ lived like we did, and went through the same temptations as we did yet remained without sin, this is a perfect reason why we can seek Him as an example. The argument from being God and man also is crucial in arguing that Christ was actually the mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5), as He had both divine and human natures.



It depends on the context by which one refers to as alien. I would use the term "not of this world". According to the New Testament, which you can dismiss as you will, Jesus clearly was different, and alien in comparison to the world. Most New Testament epistles and all Gospels will call Christians to be alien in comparison to the world. It's a key concept in Christianity.

A lot of philosophers such as Hannah Arendt disagree very strongly with it. For example in one of her books The Human Condition, she argues that the Christians and the Jews from the Talmudic literature have made a form of category mistake by asking people to withdraw from the world, because precisely it is by being and acting in the world that we are who we are.

Well the context of alien, as in space alien, implies not human.
Unless you subscribe to the idea that human are also on other planets, which would imply that God would have had to force the exact same line of evolution on two or more independent planets.

But there are much easier ways to explain his miracles than relying on alien heritage.

Ickle Magoo

timetogetfit wrote: »

I suppose for atheists its a more plausible explanation if he did perform those miracles

Not really...or at least no more plausible than considering we're the pet ant-farm for a giant alien or any other completely unnecessary insertion of entity to attempt to explain something. I don't even know if jesus existed, never mind that any miracles were performed - far less consider that the abrahamic figure depicted in the bible is more plausibly anything...there just no shoe-horn big enough for some theists tho... :pac:

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

Well the context of alien, as in space alien, implies not human.

Agreed. This is why I clarified to Malty T, that in Christian belief, before Jesus was made man by the Virgin Mary there was none the less a Trinity, with the Son in existence.

King Mob wrote: »

But there are much easier ways to explain his miracles than relying on alien heritage.

Absolutely, but the topic certainly gives food for thought if one allows for a bit of license as to what one actually means by alien.

krudler

Jakkass wrote: »

Malty T: Just to clarify the Son according to Christian thought existed before He became flesh. As such Christ's birth into the world was merely the transition to become man. God was a Trinity, before Christ was born.

Of course, Christ could be argued to be an alien in the strict sense of being an outsider. Likewise, Christians according to their own definition could be also. (2 Corinthians 5 being one example amongst many about how Christians are said to be called to live differently to those in the world).

I know christians love to manipulate statements into fitting their ludicrous notions, but that right there takes the cake :pac:

Its highly probable Jesus was an alien, look at E.T, an outsider with some crazy views, could heal the sick, make things float, died and was resurrected before flying back home. :pac:

Dudess

I how this thread is serious.

sensibleken

King Mob wrote: »

Aliens from another planet could not be considered human by any stretch, let alone look like one.

bam!

philologos

krudler wrote: »

I know christians love to manipulate statements into fitting their ludicrous notions, but that right there takes the cake :pac:

Its highly probable Jesus was an alien, look at E.T, an outsider with some crazy views, could heal the sick, make things float, died and was resurrected before flying back home. :pac:

I don't think the question should be rubbished personally. It's actually a better question than people might think initially.

Zombrex

Dudess wrote: »

I how this thread is serious.

I think this thread is an attack at atheists being unreasonable for not simply accept that Jesus was the Son of God.

There is a name on the tip of my tounge for the phenomena where humans think the explanation already given is some how more reasonable simply because it is the explanation given.

Robin might know

Anyway, there is a bias towards explanations that are already circling around the culture, irrespective of whether these explanations are supported or not.

A few years ago when asked what other fantasical thing Jesus could have been I suggested he could have been an alien lying to people.

The response was something a long the line of "Don't be stupid, no one has ever believed Jesus was an alien", as if that some how meant something as to which is more likely, an alien who lies or a god.

Ickle Magoo

Dudess wrote: »

I how this thread is serious.

Awww, personally I was rather looking forward to part III of the timetogetfit hit & run series.

The Mad Hatter

I don't know if "Jesus was an alien" really works as an explanation a whole lot better than "Jesus was the son of God."

Personally, I find it more likely he just learned a handful of cheap conjuring tricks and used them to fool the rubes.

krudler

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I don't know if "Jesus was an alien" really works as an explanation a whole lot better than "Jesus was the son of God."

Personally, I find it more likely he just learned a handful of cheap conjuring tricks and used them to fool the rubes.

Like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMY89jQQqgE

bad2dabone

Hmmmmmmm

strobe

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I don't know if "Jesus was an alien" really works as an explanation a whole lot better than "Jesus was the son of God."

Personally, I find it more likely he just learned a handful of cheap conjuring tricks and used them to fool the rubes.

Now you're on the trolley..

The Mad Hatter

strobe wrote: »

Now you're on the trolley..

Pardon?

Ickle Magoo

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Pardon?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Now%20you%27re%20on%20the%20trolley

The Mad Hatter

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Personally, I find it more likely he just learned a handful of cheap conjuring tricks and used them to fool the rubes.

Conjuring tricks aren't cheap.
I've a few receipts from on-line magic shops that show this.

gbee

timetogetfit wrote: »

I suppose for atheists its a more plausible explanation if he did perform those miracles

Jesus walked the earth as a man and proclaimed his father was in heaven.

His mother was either artificially inseminated or she did the dirty deed with the angel, so he was in fact a son of an angel or alien, absolutely, no question about it.

But, always remember that there were several Jesuses walking around claiming the same thing and also performing miracles, there would be a large bounty for anyone to pass the test of the messiah for the Jews, who were expecting one at that time ~ as you know the Jews don't recognise Jesus as the Son Of God or the Messiah.

So the Jesus that we know and love today, was just one of dozens of con men trying to pull a fast one for prize of being the King Of The Jews. That's a pretty attractive prize.

If you to a bit of study you'll find that miracles were the yardstick and many were performing miracles similar to our own Jesus and some are even in the current RCC Bible showing that some other miracles were in fact greater than what our own Jesus performed.

There were even miracle shoot outs in the streets and for a time there, our Jesus was not doing too well at all at all. In the end he succeed by breaking the legs of his most powerful adversary, thus robbing him of his ability to perform his routine of tricks, erm, I meant miracles, phew!

So there, off you go googling ~ it's all there.

But a more pertinent question would be who is the greatest wizard? Merlin? Harry Potter? Lord Voldemort? I bet in another 2,000 years someone in a forum somewhere will be asking this question too, having forgotten it was all just a story book for kids.

philologos

There's an awful lot of absolute tosh on the internet too. ^^

Nobody denies that there were other Messiah claimants, but none were successful in fulfilling Messianic prophesies, whereas Jesus was. Jesus is the only Messiah claimant to have ever been born in Bethlehem (the prophesied location of the birth of such a Messiah) for example.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

There's an awful lot of absolute tosh on the internet too. ^^

Nobody denies that there were other Messiah claimants, but none were successful in fulfilling Messianic prophesies, whereas Jesus was. Jesus is the only Messiah claimant to have ever been born in Bethlehem (the prophesied location of the birth of such a Messiah) for example.

How do you that he was born there?
How do you know that the "prophecy" was made before his time?

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

There's an awful lot of absolute tosh on the internet too. ^^

Nobody denies that there were other Messiah claimants, but none were successful in fulfilling Messianic prophesies, whereas Jesus was. Jesus is the only Messiah claimant to have ever been born in Bethlehem (the prophesied location of the birth of such a Messiah) for example.

Victors write the history books

alex73

CrazyBiscuit wrote: »

A more plausible explanation is that people make stuff up. Especially when writing in a book decades after he is claimed to have died.

Atheists are quiet happy to quote Socrates Aristotle or Archimedes from texts that are not original.

So are we to take it that books written decades after are fiction?

Improbable

alex73 wrote: »

Atheists are quiet happy to quote Socrates Aristotle or Archimedes from texts that are not original.

So are we to take it that books written decades after are fiction?

No, but you have to be aware that they may have any number of inaccuracies or falsehoods.

Ickle Magoo

alex73 wrote: »

Atheists are quiet happy to quote Socrates Aristotle or Archimedes from texts that are not original.

So are we to take it that books written decades after are fiction?

Are we to take from that, that you can't see the major difference between biblical references to the supernatural and work by or about greek philosophers?

Improbable

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Are we to take from that, that you can't see the major difference between biblical references to the supernatural and work by or about greek philosophers?

In fairness, I don't think it was about the content so much as it was about the fact that the event beign written about and the actual writing about it are separated in time.

philologos

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Are we to take from that, that you can't see the major difference between biblical references to the supernatural and work by or about greek philosophers?

Actually. Greek philosophers do a whole lot of talking about the concept of God and metaphysics concerning morality and a wide range of other things. They should be equally objectionable for the most part.

The difference is that Christians claim that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and the Greek philosophers didn't, which is pretty crucial I guess.

Admittedly, I appreciate a lot of Greek philosophy, particularly Plato's Apology which accounts for the trial of Socrates.

Ickle Magoo

Improbable wrote: »

In fairness, I don't think it was about the content so much as it was about the fact that the event beign written about and the actual writing about it are separated in time.

They are interlinked tho...I mean, writing from or about academic study, plato, pythagorus, is at least something we can all understand or relate to - some of which is even relevant today...claims about the supernatural have nothing, no sphere of reference. If looking for a reason why some writings are given more credence than others then surely content is just as important?

The idea that people told stories for hundreds of years, hundreds more cobbled together bit of the bible, translation after translation and we have some allegorical story about the supernatural that even the most fervent believers can't agree on is akin to writing on or about greek philosophers being greek philosophers is just odd. In my experience formal reference to quotes by the greats are "attributed to..." anyway, rather than convictions of truth and the personal certainties thrown around by certain theists.

alex73

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Are we to take from that, that you can't see the major difference between biblical references to the supernatural and work by or about greek philosophers?

I believe they are both factual accounts.

philologos

Improbable wrote: »

In fairness, I don't think it was about the content so much as it was about the fact that the event beign written about and the actual writing about it are separated in time.

Again, having studied a bit of Greek philosophy at university. The differences between the manuscripts of the Greek philosophers and the Bible simply don't compare.

There are thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament in Greek and in other languages, which date far far closer to what manuscripts we have of the works of the Greek philosophers.

Much of the Greek philosophy was lost in Europe for centuries. It was brought back by the Islamic occupation of Spain and parts of Italy. The reintroduction of such texts brought about the Renaissance over time. This means that there is a huge gap between the earliest manuscripts of the Greek philosophers (Aristotle mainly) and the original. Such a gap does not exist in the case of the New Testament, where there are fragments still from the 1st century in existence.

Not only that, Aristotle's works that we do have are only his lecture notes, not his original texts which were burned in the Library of Alexandria. There are serious issues of clarity in some of his texts, when I was studying it was a section in De Anima (On the Soul) that was disputed widely.

Just to say, there really isn't a comparison. That said Aristotle's lecture notes alone have been hugely influential in European culture.

Ickle Magoo

alex73 wrote: »

I believe they are both factual accounts.

The difference being there is no argument over the existence of the greek philosophers - why do you think that is?

Ickle Magoo

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The difference being there is no argument over the existence of the greek philosophers - why do you think that is?

I would also think a difference is that we're more concerned with what they said rather than who they are.

philologos

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The difference being there is no argument over the existence of the greek philosophers - why do you think that is?

There is :pac:

People question whether or not Socrates was a figment of Plato's imagination or whether or not he actually existed. Personally I think he did, but there is a case to say that he didn't exist at all.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

There is :pac:

People question whether or not Socrates was a figment of Plato's imagination or whether or not he actually existed. Personally I think he did, but there is a case to say that he didn't exist at all.

Well one is a claim that some old Greek men wrote about philosophy.
And another is that a person was the son of the creator of the universe and had magic powers.

Extraordinary claims and all that....

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

There is :pac:

People question whether or not Socrates was a figment of Plato's imagination or whether or not he actually existed. Personally I think he did, but there is a case to say that he didn't exist at all.

Yes, Jackass - the socratic problem aside - it is generally accepted that greek philosophers existed and that we have a representation of their work, is it not? The same cannot be said of many characters, places and events depicted in the bible, never mind supernatural claims.

bluewolf wrote:

I would also think a difference is that we're more concerned with what they said rather than who they are.

Yeah, it's the work rather than the man and magic trick giving them their place in history. Less shoe-horning too, few people start out with the purpose of desperately wanting to show plato said X or that socrates proposed Y in order to make their personal beliefs seem more rational...

Ickle Magoo

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Yeah, it's the work rather than the man and magic trick giving them their place in history.

Yes. Regardless of whoever said what socrates & co said, the work makes sense or it doesn't, purely on its own merits. It wouldn't matter if some randomer off the street said them if it made sense.
Claims about being the son of god, however, do rest on who said them. Otherwise it's just a story about killing every member of rival nations then turning into love thy neighbour and someone claiming to be the son of god.

So to go back to the original post

ash23 wrote:

Atheists are quiet happy to quote Socrates Aristotle or Archimedes from texts that are not original.

- it doesn't matter if they weren't original. It does matter if claims about jesus were original.

philologos

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Yes, Jackass - the socratic problem aside - it is generally accepted that greek philosophers existed and that we have a representation of their work, is it not? The same cannot be said of many characters, places and events depicted in the bible, never mind supernatural claims.

Pre-Socratic philosophy is also doubtful to a degree.

The case for the Bible being authentic (being as it was since the first century) is far better than the case for Greek philosophy due to manuscript evidence. The case for the Bible amongst other ancient texts is unparalleled in this respect, both Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament.

We have thousands upon thousands of manuscripts to examine, whereas in the example of Thales (c. 600BC) who existed around the same time as Isaiah for example we only have scrapings of fragments, and secondary quotations. Nothing of the actual work itself. In terms of Isaiah, we have thousands and thousands of Hebrew manuscripts. The case in terms of authenticity really doesn't come much better than the Bible in terms of ancient texts.

The Mad Hatter

Jakkass wrote: »

Much of the Greek philosophy was lost in Europe for centuries.

What a shame - we threw the wrong one out.

krudler

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

What a shame - we threw the wrong one out.

Its the first century equivalent of someone taping over your copy of The Godfather with an episode of the X Factor.

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

Pre-Socratic philosophy is also doubtful to a degree.

Which would tie into my thoughts regarding much of the bible that often the older the work, the less reliable it is...

Jakkass wrote: »

The case in terms of authenticity really doesn't come much better than the Bible in terms of ancient texts.

The qur'an? I thought it had managed to escape the multiple edits, choice picks of verse and mistranslations of its' christian counterpart?

I suppose if it wasn't for the well known self-driven motivations of those who changed and manipulated the bible for their own ends, the general stories at least would be infinitely more believable. However add the religious motivation, the personal interest and the huge power and money driven by biblical "truth" and you have a much different situation to that of uncovering the work of philosophers regarding their observations of humanity.

philologos

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Which would tie into my thoughts regarding much of the bible that often the older the work, the less reliable it is...

The age doesn't matter in the slightest in determining how faithful it is to the original. What does matter is manuscript evidence. (Edit: The New Testament is at least 99.6% authentic on comparison with other manuscripts according to Bruce Metzger - This means that 40 verses at most are in doubt)

Bear in mind, that I actually am fascinated by Pre-Socratic philosophy. What little tiny bits we do have are very interesting. However, it cannot be guaranteed that we even have the original writing.

This is not true of the Bible. We can be very confident that we have texts that have precision to the original.

You may argue that the writing itself is completely false and a load of hogwash. As to whether or not the writings have been corrupted, or that the books were actually intended to be fiction, the case is incredibly slim.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The qur'an? I thought it had managed to escape the multiple edits, choice picks of verse and mistranslations of its' christian counterpart?

I suggest that you ask in the Islam forum to get their perspective. I've read interesting pieces about the Qur'an, and I've done a bit of research on its origins, but I think it is only fair that you go there and ask.

There hasn't been any major changes in the manuscripts of the Bible since the first century. We have evidence to back this up. For example Isaiah scroll found in 1948 being a direct match to the older manuscripts we had previous.

Translations aren't an issue either, unless you read an English translation. The Greek and Hebrew will not be affected by translation. This is why there are footnotes in the vast majority of Bibles telling you about alternative translation of certain verses. You can go right to the source either by 1) learning ancient languages, or 2) using a concordance. This isn't really much of an argument against the Bible.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I suppose if it wasn't for the well known self-driven motivations of those who changed and manipulated the bible for their own ends, the general stories at least would be infinitely more believable. However add the religious motivation, the personal interest and the huge power and money driven by biblical "truth" and you have a much different situation to that of uncovering the work of philosophers regarding their observations of humanity.

Again, what evidence do you have of alteration / manipulation to the Bible?

Power and money? - You do realise when the New Testament books were written, people were actually put to death for their role in teaching them to their churches, and in evangelising the Gospel.

Likewise Old Testament prophets were sawn in half in some cases for what they taught.

There is no case for power and money in terms of the writing of the Bible.

Ickle Magoo

Lol, Jackass, new testament - that is only half the bible mate. When I look at the desperation some theists here on boards today try to twist and manipulate what's written to their own ends, I can only imagine if given the opportunity to write a version of events to pass on what nonsense they would come out with - and I actually think that isn't too far from what actually happened. Motivation is key when looking at the difference between philosophers musings and religious text.