(June 25, 2015 at 3:52 pm)msavard Wrote:

(June 24, 2015 at 9:55 pm)msavard Wrote: Hey everyone,

I'm doing a research project and I'm trying to get a sense of who people think Jesus is. Do you think he's fictional? That Christians made him into something he wasn't? A Prophet? God? Would you mind taking an anonymous 2 question survey to give me your thoughts? Thanks!

{snip}

Please read the rules.  No posting of outside links until you've been a member for thirty days and contributed 30 posts.

Ooh, dang, sorry guys, I didn't read the rules before I posted. The link was just to a google form I created but you can't be too careful. Good rule.

Thanks for answering here though, that works just as well. The more answers the better.

Thanks.

Yeah... we're a discussion forum; not a place where people can just post surveys. Get in on the discussions, pay your 30/30 dues, and then we'll let you post as many surveys as you want. Also, it's a good method of attack to read the rules before agreeing to them when you sign up anywhere.

Have fun

(June 25, 2015 at 3:55 pm)Tonus Wrote: As the w'ist noted, you can create polls on the site.

I think that Jesus (the guy who preached and was crucified for it) may well have existed.

I think that Jesus (the guy who was god in disguise and killed himself in order to blame himself for the bad things we do) is fictional.  And that Christians did indeed make him (the first Jesus I described) into something he wasn't (the second one).

More or less the same for me.

I think there was a person, or several people, may have existed at the time that fit the bill of being a/several prophet(s) in that area of the world.  I think that a cult of personality rose up in the aftermath as their local legend status grew, and, after borrowing liberally from other prophetic stories, they created a fictional Jesus Christ figure from the combination thereof.  It would help explain why the story of the resurrection, perhaps the most important part of the entire Bible, has conflicting accounts in the gospels themselves.  It's my belief that they were referring to different people and circumstances, and everything was mushed together into an ill-fitting amalgamation.

From what some scholars say. Or Ehrman atleast.

An apocalyptic person, gets himself in trouble and gets crucified.

Atleast thats the most basic way i can describe it. But there are good reasons among sceptics that the whole Jesus story might be just made up. Because

1: There are no historians who write before after the gospels are written, which would be 70 AD with Gospel of Mark. (Atleast the common ones i've checked like Tacitus and Josephus).
2: The people who wrote those, wherent even there to witness the event. They where borned somewhat after Jesus's death. So the only source they base this from is simply christian sources.
3: The earliest christian sources simply are from Epistles of Paul. 1 thessalonians 50 AD being the earliest. And even so Jesus is not presented as a being who walks on earth, he talks nothing about Jesus life and miracles. Its all "Sky deity" talk etc.

So i can see why some sceptics have issues accepting it.

My own personal issues concern the ideology, not the historicity.  If jesus were an entirely fictional character, and could have been whomever the authors wanted him to be....I see it as a shame that they imagined such a terrible character.  If jesus were an entirely historical character, I see it as a shame that people continue to cling to and extoll the virtues of...you guessed it, a terrible character.

But, but... Love thy neighbour? That's earth shattering right? I mean, you can't just think stuff up like that up. Not in those times.

Oh of course, you don't have to love their slaves. But don't hit them too hard, like.

(June 25, 2015 at 4:20 pm)robvalue Wrote: But, but... Love thy neighbour? That's earth shattering right? I mean, you can't just think stuff up like that up. Not in those times.

Oh of course, you don't have to love their slaves. But don't hit them too hard, like.

Blessed are the poor for staying poor. While the god fearing person gets all the wealth for keeping his flock obedient

Jesus was probably a Jewish bastard (literal bastard not an insult) born in or around Galille, and baptized by John the Baptist. He most likely preached around Galillee. What he preached was most likely an apoplectic message of the imminent kingdom of god on earth. He probably did not preach that he was god on earth. He was almost certainly crucified by the Romans in Jerusalem (probably for sedition, not blasphemy as the Romans wouldn't have cared about blaspheming the Jewish god).

Everything else traditionally ascribed to him is unsubstantiated legend and much of that demonstrably false. For example, the Bethlehem story did not happen because the census that required it did not happen. No Roman census ever required everyone to return to the place on their ancestors for obvious practical reasons. There was no empty tomb because people who were crucified were not given proper burials. Jesus could not have brought the Temple at Jerusalem to a stand still by over turning the money changers tables as the Temple was way, way, too large for that. He was not born of a virgin, as Mary thought he was nuts when he started preaching. And so on and so on.

(June 25, 2015 at 3:56 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: Also, it's a good method of attack to read the rules before agreeing to them when you sign up anywhere.

Bill Maher said that "To most Christians, the Bible is like a software license. Nobody actually reads it. They just scroll to the bottom and click "I agree"." Whether that's what happened here, I echo m'colleague's statement above.