Serious Query Regarding Jesus

[Doubting Thomas]

I'm not fully convinced that Jesus as a person actually existed. There are no contemporary accounts of him existing anywhere. And the bible stories were written 70-100 years after he supposedly died, so it's likely that the gospels are just an agglomeration of different stories or legends.

[Minimalist]

I'd like to deal with this one.

3. Jesus studied scripture to such an extent he was able to offer plausible reinterpretations of the old testament consistent with his own moral observations of the real world.

Studied where? "Jesus" if he ever existed (which I doubt) was referred to as a "tekton" which pious xtians have tried to translate as "carpenter" but which really seems to mean "builder." Here is a photo of Sepphoris, a city re-built during jesus' alleged lifetime and just a few kilometers from the purported site of "Nazareth."

http://wakeforestpilgrimage.files.wordpr...l4-018.jpg

See a lot of trees that would be suitable for "carpentry?" People built houses out of stone. Calling jesus a carpenter soothes xtian vanity by putting their godboy into a whole other social class of tradesmen rather than a common worker...no "prosperity gospel" for this fellow! The absence of any obvious "city" for Nazareth in the early first century is another nail in the coffin of this myth. There might have been some books in a city but a miserable agricultural hamlet? No way. Books were exceedingly expensive and some shlepper would not be found with one nor, given the general illiteracy rates of ancient societies, would he have been able to read it.

I'm afraid this image of jesus the great torah scholar was stolen from Josephus' "Life" in which he made similar claims for himself. The obvious difference is that Josephus was from a wealthy family and WAS literate.

[Orion3T]

Thanks to everyone who's been constructive.

I agree the evidence for existence is dubious, but I'm willing to grant it and the hypothesis goes on from there. Since I'm willing to grant his existence 'for the sake of argument' being told the hypothesis is bad because he didn't exist is pretty pointless.

I'm not interested in the views of anyone who thinks he was divine. When you remove the presupposition of god, divinity is removed from the picture.

I was only curious whether the hypothesis fits as well with scripture as any other non-divine hypothesis which grants his existence. At no point did I mean to claim Christianity was brilliant, but I believe the NT contains generally improved moral content than the old testament, at least enough of an improvement that he might sacrifice himself.

Interesting point in the post above - you seem to be suggesting that if he existed at all he wouldn't have had access to scriptures to study? Though that wouldn't really be necessary for the hypothesis - it would just have made him more convincing if he did know scripture. Though actually it works just as well if they were added at any point during writing.

Maybe I should just go read the NT properly and remind myself what's actually in it...

[Minimalist]

Took me a few moments to find it, Orion, but here is the reference from Josephus.

http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/autobiog.htm

2. Now, my father Matthias was not only eminent on account of is nobility, but had a higher commendation on account of his righteousness, and was in great reputation in Jerusalem, the greatest city we have. I was myself brought up with my brother, whose name was Matthias, for he was my own brother, by both father and mother; and I made mighty proficiency in the improvements of my learning, and appeared to have both a great memory and understanding. Moreover, when I was a child, and about fourteen years of age, I was commended by all for the love I had to learning; on which account the high priests and principal men of the city came then frequently to me together, in order to know my opinion about the accurate understanding of points of the law

[Godscreated]

---

Hi all,

I'd like to address this to those who are familiar with New Testament scripture, but are non-believers or, ideally, ex-believers.

Are there any serious considerations of the hypothesis as follows:

1. Jesus was a mortal man who read the bible for what it was, saw the world for what it was, and realised there were things rotten in society of the time.

2. Jesus was a perceptive, loving and highly moral individual who sought to change the world and people's attitudes for the benefit of humankind. Effectively a humanist.

3. Jesus studied scripture to such an extent he was able to offer plausible reinterpretations of the old testament consistent with his own moral observations of the real world.

4. Jesus learned basic but convincing trickery much like those practised on a daily basis all over the world today by faith healers, gurus and magicians worldwide.

5. Jesus was able either to convince his disciples he was God incarnate, or more likely actually submitted to some of them his grand plan to promote moral advancement. Some of them may even have assisted in some of his supposed miracles.

6. Jesus believed so strongly that moral evolution was required, that he was prepared to suffer and die for his humanistic beliefs, like so many people do to this day.

7. Jesus had to profess faith in order not to be disregarded as a heretic. It would never have been enough to simply say 'Religion is false and we should all start being nicer to each other'. I think it would be most consistent to think he did not even believe in God.

8. After Jesus sacrificed himself most brutally, his disciples felt morally obliged and inspired to do the same. Some accounts may have been mistaken, some disciples may have been genuinely convinced of Jesus' divine nature, others were conscious allies in his gambit for moral advancement.



To me this approach seems to fit what vague facts we have, while actually elevating Jesus as a historical figure of great humanity.

Such a view on Jesus may at least be useful when debating Christians whose faith is already floundering but feel such a personal bond they cannot bring themselves to believe he was a liar. This way his moral stature is maintained, I would argue it is even enhanced, which may sit better with ex-believers.


This explanation makes very good humanistic sense to me. No magicks required, yet Jesus and his disciples remains a figure of admirable moral stature, if ultimately deceptive. I think most people would agree that the moral values endorsed by Jesus in the New Testament were a significant improvement on those from Old Testament, to say nothing of how those views may have been misrepresented and abused by organised religion of the time.

Just a hypothesis, but it makes a lot more sense to me than many I have heard. But then I'm really not familiar with scripture, I'm basing this on my own rather limited knowledge.


Thanks for reading, I'd appreciate your serious thoughts.

---

You have many problems with your theory, I'm going to address just one, Jesus loyal followers would not have suffered the way they did unless they knew for certain He was who He claimed to be. To get twelve men to die for the same lie, especially the way they died, is an impossibility at least one would have spilled the beans and come clean about the lie.

[Minimalist]

And the lunatic fringe pops in from the peanut gallery with a little jesus bullshit to sprinkle.

To get twelve men to die for the same lie

So I guess Osama bin Laden's 9-11 hijackers are getting it on with 72 virgins because WHO WOULD DIE FOR A FUCKING LIE, right, moron?

[Orion3T]

What's with the unnecessary diatribe?

I'm an atheist who has asking a sincere question about non-christian interpretations of scripture which grant his existence.

[houseofcantor]

Jesus was a hypothetical construct of Paul to promote evangelical Judaism.

Godschild is an extraterrestrial fungus that will devour your mind without vigilance.

Anything else?

[Minimalist]

G-C is the skidmark on the underwear of life. Pay him no mind.

He's a batshit crazy fundie.

[NoMoreFaith]

Despite the joking about, people are pointing out a substantial issue.

If you are taking a position that accepts the majority of the scripture, not in an effort to understand truth but an effort to convince others you are placing yourself on a debate platform built on conjecture rather than evidence, and as dismissible as any other conjecture on the 'meaning' of the bible stories.

You may as well claim Jesus was a time traveler like doctor who, or an alien in human disguise. Even with scripture not contradicting your claim, is not the same as supporting your claim.

If you want to convince, you need logic and evidence. There is no compromise. He's either divine or irrelevant.

A theist who deconverts on a flimsy platform may well reconvert once the flaws are laid bare, and it will be next to impossible to bring them back.
Most of all, if they are relaxed about it....it shouldn't harm your relationship.
Changing a core belief based on a slight deception may very well be harmful.