Who do you think Jesus was

Zombrex

Spinning this off from another thread. The original post from me was

Jakkass wrote: »

Where did Jesus ask them for this?

Who said he asked them for this? If he was doing it right he wouldn't have to ask them for anything. You would make a poor cult leader Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

I suspect they did it from their own hearts rather than being coerced.

That is because you are very naive. Let me guess, you think they really had demons in them that Jesus cured them of as well. Cause sure no one has ever done that trick before.

Jakkass wrote: »

I think your reading is absurd to be honest with you.

Really? Absurd? You would go so far as saying this is absurd?

Jesus and his gang strolls up to a sick (and rich) woman.
Jesus claims that the woman is sick because of demons, but Good News! Jesus is special so can cure individuals of these things!
Jesus then "cures" this woman of these demons.
This woman is so greatful she wants to help Jesus.
Jesus says well come with us and lets help others (by of course funding these missions to help others).

You can swap out "Jesus" with "Jim Jones" or practically any other cult leader from the last 6,000 years and the MO is exactly the same.

Yes, very absurd.

It may be absurd to a Christian, but to me it seems a rather reasonable explanation or narrative for Jesus without the need to invoke any supernatural explanation.

Jesus was a cult leader who manipulated people into worshipping him, following him and providing for him through claims to supernatural ability. Like the thousands of cult leaders before and after him.

He eventually ran a foul of the authorities of the day and ended up being executed.

Unable to deal with the reality that their all powerful cult leader was executed a story that he had rising from the dead developed.

Seems pretty reasonable to me, with some Biblical support (baring in mind that the Bible is an account filtered through Christians so critical information is not likely to be found in it).

Was just wondering what others think of how Jesus actually was, if you think he was actually someone at all.

oldrnwisr

Wicknight wrote: »

Was just wondering what others think of how Jesus actually was, if you think he was actually someone at all.

In the words of Gag Halfrunt:

Jesus is just zis guy, you know.

CerebralCortex

I have no evidence to make a decision myself but Richard Carrier seems to be someone who does. My suspicions are that he is a corruption of some historical figure or a group of historical figures put together.

francois

Probably a sunburnt mystic

Bannasidhe

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I have no evidence to make a decision myself but Richard Carrier seems to be someone who does. My suspicions are that he is a corruption of some historical figure or a group of historical figures put together.

A historical figure who threatened Roman Rule in some political way -hence his execution by crucifixion,a punishment reserved for treason.

We can be sure his name wasn't Jesus - the 'us' on the end making this a Roman name-most likely he was named Joshua. He would also more than likely have been married - he was referred to as 'Rabbi' and it was compulsory for Rabbis to be married. The most likely candidate for his wife is the woman later vilified as a prostitute - Mary Magdalene - naturally her name would not have been Mary but Miriam-as would Jesus' (Joshua's) mother's. M Magdelene's brother - Lazerus -is a documented historical figure, Eleazar ben Ya'ir, he commanded the fort at Masada during the Revolt against Rome in the 1st century.

In order for Paul to sell the idea of Christianity to Rome he had to remove the politics from the story.

gent9662

He was a guy that was preaching a new age idea which was innovative and fresh. Similar to what (and I don't in any way want to draw a direct comparison) Hitler did to the German people after world war 1.

CiaranMT

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I have no evidence to make a decision myself but Richard Carrier seems to be someone who does. My suspicions are that he is a corruption of some historical figure or a group of historical figures put together.

I'm thinking along the same lines. This comparison of Jesus to other historical figures and practices is a pretty handy guide for those interested.

Bannasidhe

dclane wrote: »

He was a guy that was preaching a new age idea which was innovative and fresh. Similar to what (and I don't in any way want to draw a direct comparison) Hitler did to the German people after world war 1.

The message Jesus spread was not actually that dissimilar to the one spread by Siddhartha - it was the polar opposite of Hitler's.

Hookah

After reading Phillip K Dick, I think Jesus was a magic mushroom popping member of the orgy-addled Essene cult.

He was a hippy way before Hippy-ism was even invented.

Peace and love, brothers and sisters.

krudler

The most misquoted man in history probably. Simple guy who preaching getting on with each other, fine , I can buy that, he was basically a biblical John Lennon. The magic tricks and zombie stuff was added in later to spice up the tale. The Life Of Brian got the biblical hysteria and hero worship angle brilliantly. Religion is basically the worlds biggest game of chinese whispers, blessed are the cheesemakers indeed.

MagicMarker

Well, he was a picker, a grinner, a lover and a sinner and he played music in the sun. He was a joker, a smoker, a mid-night toker and got his lovin' on the run. Some people even call him the space cowboy yeah.

philologos

krudler wrote: »

The most misquoted man in history probably. Simple guy who preaching getting on with each other, fine , I can buy that, he was basically a biblical John Lennon. The magic tricks and zombie stuff was added in later to spice up the tale. The Life Of Brian got the biblical hysteria and hero worship angle brilliantly. Religion is basically the worlds biggest game of chinese whispers, blessed are the cheesemakers indeed.

1. There is much more said by Jesus in the New Testament than merely getting on with eachother.
2. There is no significant textual evidence of the accounts of miracles being added into the New Testament. In fact the textual evidence points to the vast majority of it (at least 99.6% of it) being as it was when it was first written.

gent9662

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The message Jesus spread was not actually that dissimilar to the one spread by Siddhartha - it was the polar opposite of Hitler's.

Yes I agree with you. The point I was trying to get across is that he was a new voice and idea to a population of people that were being ruled by the Roman empire. Jesus offered a new sort of rule; the kingdom of God as opposed to the Empire of Rome. Hitler was an outspoken voice against the harsh treatment of Germany by the treaty of Versailles. He championed a belief in a new germany for the Germans, Jesus offered a new kingdom of heaven for gods children.

Hitler declared that he would fight and die for a new Germany for the Germans, whilst Jesus was to die for the sins of men to that they could be forgiven and enter the Kingdom of heaven.

Zombrex

Hookah wrote: »

He was a hippy way before Hippy-ism was even invented.

Another thing we can blame on Christianity then

Bannasidhe

dclane wrote: »

Yes I agree with you. The point I was trying to get across is that he was a new voice and idea to a population of people that were being ruled by the Roman empire. Jesus offered a new sort of rule; the kingdom of God as opposed to the Empire of Rome. Hitler was an outspoken voice against the harsh treatment of Germany by the treaty of Versailles. He championed a belief in a new germany for the Germans, Jesus offered a new kingdom of heaven for gods children.

Hitler declared that he would fight and die for a new Germany for the Germans, whilst Jesus was to die for the sins of men to that they could be forgiven and enter the Kingdom of heaven.

I see what you are saying but would argue that Jesus' message wasn't that new, Siddhartha had preached the same radical message of equality,non-materialism and inclusiveness 600 years earlier. Both were a direct threat to the political powers of the day - in particular their advocacy of following your conscience and living in an ethical way. Hitler's message was based on obeying the state at all costs and the destruction of those who did not conform.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

In fact the textual evidence points to the vast majority of it (at least 99.6% of it) being as it was when it was first written.

I don't agree with Krudler, I don't think Jesus was just a nice guy being misquoted, far more likely he was a cult leader trying to gain followers.

But equally what you just said there has no historical evidence for it at all. We don't have the first writings in the Bible, we don't have anything close to them. To say it hasn't been changed since it was first written has no support for it at all beyond supernatural faith.

gent9662

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I see what you are saying but would argue that Jesus' message wasn't that new, Siddhartha had preached the same radical message of equality,non-materialism and inclusiveness 600 years earlier. Both were a direct threat to the political powers of the day - in particular their advocacy of following your conscience and living in an ethical way. Hitler's message was based on obeying the state at all costs and the destruction of those who did not conform.

Yes I see what you mean. What jesus was offering was more or less the same as Siddhartha. I guess it was just that the timing was bang-on for JC.

Bannasidhe

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't agree with Krudler, I don't think Jesus was just a nice guy being misquoted, far more likely he was a cult leader trying to gain followers.

But equally what you just said there has no historical evidence for it at all. We don't have the first writings in the Bible, we don't have anything close to them. To say it hasn't been changed since it was first written has no support for it at all beyond supernatural faith.

Of course it was changed,edited,abridged with those gospels which were 'on message' included in the final version aka The Biblical Canon while those which dissented from the agree message being dismissed as apocryphal.

Bannasidhe

dclane wrote: »

Yes I see what you mean. What jesus was offering was more or less the same as Siddhartha. I guess it was just that the timing was bang-on for JC.

Didn't work out too bad for Siddhartha either - Buddhism is still going strong.

wonderfulname

I have a very romantic idea in my head of him being some kind of failed righteous political revolutionary, I know I got that into my head by colourfully interpreting something of merit but I'm not quite sure what.

I think the BBC or channel 4 did a documentary on the subject a while back, does anyone happen to know what it was called? All Google is giving me is "Did Jesus Die?" but that doesn't fit the profile.

b318isp

What was Jesus up to until he was baptised as an adult? Was he a PITA teenager? Did he join a youth club? If he was the son of God, I would have expected him to have shown many signs of it before his twenty's.

Bannasidhe

b318isp wrote: »

What was Jesus up to until he was baptised as an adult? Was he a PITA teenager? Did he join a youth club? If he was the son of God, I would have expected him to have shown many signs of it before his twenty's.

He was hanging out at the local market wearing an Elmo t-shirt and complaining about how unfair life is.

Always wondered about the Wedding at Cana - if Jesus and his Mam were guests, why were they the ones told the wine was running out and expected to do something about it? Story makes much more sense if Jesus was the groom-then the lack of booze would have been his problem to solve.

Zombrex

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Of course it was changed,edited,abridged with those gospels which were 'on message' included in the final version aka The Biblical Canon while those which dissented from the agree message being dismissed as apocryphal.

We can't say that either, though it is likely. The only complete copies of the Bible we have are dated a 200 years after the first copies would have been written and the earliest fragments are dated 70-100 years after the first copies would have been written.

If religious people want to take it on faith or divinely inspired revelation that these copies are identical to the original versions (themselves divinely inspired) they can, but it is silly to say that this is historically supported.

To the rest of us, for whom the Bible is just another religious book, it would be very surprising if the New Testament has survived editing and other alterations during its early life.

This isn't a shocking claim, if the Bible hadn't gone through this it would be one of the few books in history. And again if you aren't a believe in the supernatural claims of Christians there isn't much reason to assume the New Testament is special among all other books from history.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

But equally what you just said there has no historical evidence for it at all. We don't have the first writings in the Bible, we don't have anything close to them. To say it hasn't been changed since it was first written has no support for it at all beyond supernatural faith.

I'm saying that what Biblical scholarship we have demonstrates that he is more than likely wrong.

Although we don't have the absolute original manuscripts there are thousands of copies of them. All we have to do in order to see if changes are introduced is to compare the manuscripts to each other. What we've found is that there are very very few discrepancies between them. If changes were introduced they would have been caught red handed.

It might be a comfortable thing to believe in, but there is absolutely no evidence that the Bible was altered significantly beyond its original. At the very most there are 40 verses of the New Testament in doubt. Of these 40 verses the vast majority are merely repetitions of what are found in other Gospels which aren't in doubt.

The case is extremely weak at best. krudler is welcome to believe what he likes, but what evidence we have isn't in his favour or indeed in anyones favour if they postulate that the Bible was completely rewritten.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm saying that what Biblical scholarship we have demonstrates that he is more than likely wrong.

So we do or we don't have the original?

oldrnwisr

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm saying that what Biblical scholarship we have demonstrates that he is more than likely wrong.

Although we don't have the absolute original manuscripts there are thousands of copies of them. All we have to do in order to see if changes are introduced is to compare the manuscripts to each other. What we've found is that there are very very few discrepancies between them. If changes were introduced they would have been caught red handed.

It might be a comfortable thing to believe in, but there is absolutely no evidence that the Bible was altered significantly beyond its original. At the very most there are 40 verses of the New Testament in doubt. Of these 40 verses the vast majority are merely repetitions of what are found in other Gospels which aren't in doubt.

The case is extremely weak at best. krudler is welcome to believe what he likes, but what evidence we have isn't in his favour or indeed in anyones favour if they postulate that the Bible was completely rewritten.

I just have one question in relation to your posts. What modern version are you taking as the most accurate and to what "original" text are you comparing it to make the claim that there have been no significant changes?

The KJV, for example contains numerous verses which are ommitted from newer and ostensibly more accurate versions. There are also numerous differences between the Codices Sinaticus and Vaticanus. As for differences between different versions of the Bible these have been estimated at anything from 30,000 according to John Mill to 400,000 according to Bart Ehrmann. There are many examples of translational changes, deliberate alterations and in some cases (Mark 16:9-20) outright forgeries.

c_man

Jakkass wrote: »

1. There is much more said by Jesus in the New Testament than merely getting on with eachother.
2. There is no significant textual evidence of the accounts of miracles being added into the New Testament. In fact the textual evidence points to the vast majority of it (at least 99.6% of it) being as it was when it was first written.

Even if such a claim were true, it doesn't mean that the original stories put to paper weren't full of bs.

philologos

Now we're getting into the difference between translation, and manuscripts in original languages. In mentioning the KJV we are talking about the former and not the latter. Translations are going to differ because there are many ways one can translate one sentence from one language to another. I don't doubt this at all. What I do doubt is that translations become significantly different in meaning from each other on the basis of this translation.

As for Mark 16:9-20 it falls under the 40 verses in doubt that I've mentioned already. I can trust that Mark 16:9-20 nonetheless occurred because it is merely restating what is already in Matthew 28 which isn't in doubt.

c-man: They could be totally nonsense, that isn't what is being argued. What is being argued is that the New Testament manuscripts have been significantly altered, which is false as far as I can see.

c_man

Jakkass wrote: »

c-man: They could be totally nonsense, that isn't what is being argued. What is being argued is that the New Testament manuscripts have been significantly altered, which is false as far as I can see.

It's just the way I picked up on krudler's "The magic tricks and zombie stuff was added in later to spice up the tale."

oldrnwisr

CerebralCortex wrote: »

So we do or we don't have the original?

No, we don't have the original. The oldest extant copy of the new testament is in the Codex Vaticanus which is dated to the 4th century. The earliest manuscript for the new testament is the Rylands Library Papyrus P52 which is a copy of the gospel of John, which is dated between 117 and 138CE. The new testament exists on 25,100 manuscripts in a variety of different languages. Except for small passages, no two agree completely throughout. The Easter Sunday account in the Gospels is a perfect example. None of the four versions are the same. You have two angels outside the tomb in John, two men in Luke, one angel in Matthew and one young man in Mark.

Dave!

False prophet tbh