Serious Query Regarding Jesus

[mediamogul]

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.

This is an excellent point about deconversion and reconversion. I have known a couple of people who bounced back and forth between "atheism" and belief in god. I put atheism in quotations to describe them because they were in reality people who believed in the existence of god but were simply mad at the god they believed in. I put myself into the group of believing that god does not exist and being bound by that understanding. For instance when i tried to believe in Christianity I was unable because I could not force myself to believe in god and particularly in the Christian system. It was simply not a "live option" for me as William James so astutely put it. People who are at the highest risk of reconversion are people who believe in god and are simply "angry with" or not at peace with that belief. C.S. Lewis claimed that he was an atheist at one point in his life and said that he didn't believe in god but was very mad at god for not existing. I remember thinking two things: 1) that's silly because if you genuinely didn't believe in god's existence how could you be angry with something that didn't exist? 2) of course this guy became a Christian again thinking this way, he always had one foot in the door.

[Orion3T]

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.

I'm not doing this just to convince others - I just want to know, if we grant the existence of Jesus for the sake of argument, what is the most popular non-christian interpretation of Jesus?

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

I have plenty of both but my NT knowledge is by far my weakest area and I'd pefer to have an idea what explanations other than non-existence fit the evidence we do have. Is the majority opinion of non-christian scholars really that he never existed?

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.

I appreciate the advice but there's really no question of this being based on a flimsy platform. I'm not just trying to disprove Jesus's divinity I really do want to know what genuine explanations there are. I thought my hypothesis seemed to fit what I knew.

Changing a core belief based on a slight deception may very well be harmful.

There's really no question of my trying to convince anyone this is anything more than a 'possible explanation'. I don't see anything wrong with that.

[NoMoreFaith]

I'm not doing this just to convince others - I just want to know, if we grant the existence of Jesus for the sake of argument, what is the most popular non-christian interpretation of Jesus?

I was under the impression you were looking for a gentle way to allow your wife to give up the supernatural without destroying her adoration of Jesus.

To me this hypothesis seems a very plausible way to reason with her regarding Jesus's divinity whilst not destroying her adoration of him as a human.

My apologies if I misinterpreted this as trying to deconvert gently using this idea. Its private and I do not mean to pry.

I appreciate the advice but there's really no question of this being based on a flimsy platform. I'm not just trying to disprove Jesus's divinity I really do want to know what genuine explanations there are. I thought my hypothesis seemed to fit what I knew.

Again, unless you also claim he was massively misquoted in which case anything he said is irrelevant, or he is Liar or Lunatic according to the NT. Neither are gentle and speculation that he is rational and not divine does not seem to be supported by NT.
(Thats not to say its improbable, merely using the NT as a basis for criticism or support is unhelpful).

There's really no question of my trying to convince anyone this is anything more than a 'possible explanation'. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Absolutely not, but its speculation, and the bible, being as inconsistent as it is, is open to a myriad of possible speculations. Hence the thousands of denominations.

[Orion3T]

I'm thinking I'll just go read Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

It would be an easy start at least....

[NoMoreFaith]

You might as well look at "Swoon Theory" as well. Kinda shows why showing Jesus as a man in the new testament comes out vaguely ridiculous (in my eyes) but may be of interest to you.

EDIT:

Early proponents of this theory include German Karl Friedrich Bahrdt, who suggested in around 1780, that Jesus deliberately feigned his death, using drugs provided by the physician Luke to appear as a spiritual messiah and get Israel to abandon the idea of a political messiah. In this interpretation of the events described in the Gospels, Jesus was resuscitated by Joseph of Arimathea, with whom he shared a connection through a secret order of the Essenes—a group that appear in many of the "swoon" theories.

[Minimalist]

if we grant the existence of Jesus for the sake of argument

I'm not willing to grant that. Give the jesus freaks that much and there is no stopping their wild leaps of logic.

When you are finished with Wiki, try this.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/index.html

[Orion3T]

I was under the impression you were looking for a gentle way to allow your wife to give up the supernatural without destroying her adoration of Jesus.

Not on this basis... I'd think of it as being the most useful and still plausible and reasonably rational explanation. Technically this is the easy part - if god is taken out of the picture this falls away by itself, though having some semblance of the Jesus she thought she knew might at least supply a pillow to land on.

My apologies if I misinterpreted this as trying to deconvert gently using this idea. Its private and I do not mean to pry.

It's probably the least important point of discussion, and definitely not the basis for anything.

The basis is my plethora of scientific awareness; I'm a physicist, so the teleological and cosmological arguments are pretty easy to explain, she's always had problems with the evidential evidence of evil, she realises there are logical inconsistencies in how god could operate (free will yet knowing the future, for example) and she's been gradually introduced to critical thinking and skeptical (but non-religious) science podcasts so she does understand how many crazy beliefs are out there, and how to spot them. After that there's really nothing left to go on, it's just an emotional inertia which will take a lot of time, patience and understanding from me.

Again, unless you also claim he was massively misquoted in which case anything he said is irrelevant, or he is Liar or Lunatic according to the NT. Neither are gentle and speculation that he is rational and not divine does not seem to be supported by NT.
(Thats not to say its improbable, merely using the NT as a basis for criticism or support is unhelpful).

I'd be saying he was a liar, but a liar with good intentions and ultimately willing to die for whatever he did believe.

Absolutely not, but its speculation, and the bible, being as inconsistent as it is, is open to a myriad of possible speculations. Hence the thousands of denominations.

I'm well aware of that - nevertheless it exists and since there are competing hypotheses about what really happened 2000 years ago then I might as well run with the most useful one for the time being.

Thanks for the sensible discussion.

[genkaus]

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.

Two big problems with your excuse.

First, OP specifically stated that some of them may have been deceived. So, yes, they certainly did believe for that Jesus was who he claimed to be, when in fact he wasn't.

Second, soldiers, freedom fighters etc die for a cause all the time. These are just 12 men whom Jesus might have chosen because they were willing to give up their lives for what they thought was greater good. If only they knew.

[Orion3T]

This is an excellent point about deconversion and reconversion. I have known a couple of people who bounced back and forth between "atheism" and belief in god. I put atheism in quotations to describe them because they were in reality people who believed in the existence of god but were simply mad at the god they believed in. I put myself into the group of believing that god does not exist and being bound by that understanding. For instance when i tried to believe in Christianity I was unable because I could not force myself to believe in god and particularly in the Christian system. It was simply not a "live option" for me as William James so astutely put it. People who are at the highest risk of reconversion are people who believe in god and are simply "angry with" or not at peace with that belief. C.S. Lewis claimed that he was an atheist at one point in his life and said that he didn't believe in god but was very mad at god for not existing. I remember thinking two things: 1) that's silly because if you genuinely didn't believe in god's existence how could you be angry with something that didn't exist? 2) of course this guy became a Christian again thinking this way, he always had one foot in the door.

I apologise but I overlooked your post until now.

Good point I think.

I think a large part of this, and your C.S.Lewis example illustrates it, is that people misinterpret the human condition as being 'god'. We human beings do get a lot of mixed feelings and these are often misinterpreted.

In your example, it seems to me he was actually angry with himself, which is where god was in the first place.

Wifey says she feels god is a part of her. I told her that I believe that wonderful feeling she thinks is god is actually her. It's her who's wonderful and she should stop letting god take the credit. (I didn't put it quite that bluntly...)

---

First, OP specifically stated that some of them may have been deceived. So, yes, they certainly did believe for that Jesus was who he claimed to be, when in fact he wasn't.

Second, soldiers, freedom fighters etc die for a cause all the time. These are just 12 men whom Jesus might have chosen because they were willing to give up their lives for what they thought was greater good. If only they knew.

Yeah I think you know what I'm getting at.

[mediamogul]

This is an excellent point about deconversion and reconversion. I have known a couple of people who bounced back and forth between "atheism" and belief in god. I put atheism in quotations to describe them because they were in reality people who believed in the existence of god but were simply mad at the god they believed in. I put myself into the group of believing that god does not exist and being bound by that understanding. For instance when i tried to believe in Christianity I was unable because I could not force myself to believe in god and particularly in the Christian system. It was simply not a "live option" for me as William James so astutely put it. People who are at the highest risk of reconversion are people who believe in god and are simply "angry with" or not at peace with that belief. C.S. Lewis claimed that he was an atheist at one point in his life and said that he didn't believe in god but was very mad at god for not existing. I remember thinking two things: 1) that's silly because if you genuinely didn't believe in god's existence how could you be angry with something that didn't exist? 2) of course this guy became a Christian again thinking this way, he always had one foot in the door.

I apologise but I overlooked your post until now.

Good point I think.

I think a large part of this, and your C.S.Lewis example illustrates it, is that people misinterpret the human condition as being 'god'. We human beings do get a lot of mixed feelings and these are often misinterpreted.

In your example, it seems to me he was actually angry with himself, which is where god was in the first place.

Wifey says she feels god is a part of her. I told her that I believe that wonderful feeling she thinks is god is actually her. It's her who's wonderful and she should stop letting god take the credit. (I didn't put it quite that bluntly...)

---

First, OP specifically stated that some of them may have been deceived. So, yes, they certainly did believe for that Jesus was who he claimed to be, when in fact he wasn't.

Second, soldiers, freedom fighters etc die for a cause all the time. These are just 12 men whom Jesus might have chosen because they were willing to give up their lives for what they thought was greater good. If only they knew.

Yeah I think you know what I'm getting at.

The person im talking about was actually mad at his father and had every right to be. I think it was an extension of that relationship but the essential point remains that he was angry at something beside this externalised idea of "god".