Serious Query Regarding Jesus

[Orion3T]

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.

[NoMoreFaith]

Not entirely unfeasible, although more likely to actually be religious, simply trying to correct things he saw as immoral. He almost certainly had to be religious, especially since he insists you should follow the laws of the Torah (which involves a LOT of killing over minor things).

The only real problem I see, other than the lack of historicity in the biblical new testament of his existence at all, is that his moral values are not as superior to the old testament as is being made out. Without divine reason, a lot of it is just hokum.

He still threatens people with hell if they don't believe in his divinity, not something I would expect if he was just wearing a mask of religion to cover his motives to improve religious law.
Slaying his enemies... stealing donkeys, killing fig trees because it annoyed him.

If we point towards the Golden Rule, that is the most cited part of the teaching of Jesus, it was already a fairly well known moral philosophy for 500 years or so, so its hardly original, OR an improvement.

His teachings do not equate morality with humanistic reasoning, just blind faith, your sins forgiven if you truly repent. Nobody talks more than Jesus when it comes to being tortured.

Even if he WAS piggybacking Judaic cult religion, his teachings did not really exceed what was already considered correct, and has no real claim, without divinity to being a great moral teacher. The best you can do is point out corruption in the Church, but thats a given for any large organisation with power.

[Orion3T]

Ok, thanks for the reply.

What would be the general consensus from non-christian NT Scholars then? That he was deluded and the miracles were fictions of scripture? Or that he just didn't exist? I know the non-biblical references are... hmmm 'scanty at best', but I'm nowhere near qualified to make a truly confident claim either way.

I have to admit I'm asking this because although I am an atheist, my wife is not. 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. I don't mind discussing the details of that but it's probably best not done in this thread.

To me, the idea that he did what he did because he thought he was teaching us important moral truths, and sacrificed himself in a painful manner, seems the most believable to someone coming from a christian belief. In short, it's a far easier 'sell' than just telling her the NT is a load of made-up nonsense and Jesus didn't even exist. It's bad enough nudging her away from the God concept without ripping Jesus away at the same time. But it would be nice to know the hypothesis does have some plausibility in scripture.

Either way it's infinitely more plausible (to me) than the divinity hypothesis. I guess you could say I'm seeking a half-way-house, though I'd be happier doing so with a supportable hypothesis.

---

In fact I will add that this approach for anyone in my position has another advantage - it allows a Christian to lose their belief in the supernatural without undermining their moral basis at the same time. I'd be quite happy for her to keep believing in the teachings of Jesus in exactly the same way she understands them now (she's very liberal anyway, so it makes little difference to me) in the same way someone might base their morality on, say, David Hume. Not because they think they are divine but because their moral teachings make sense. (to them at least)

I don't want to get too off topic but I'm not actually trying to militantly 'de-convert' her. But having recently 'come out' I can see some difficult discussions ahead and it would be good to find common ground.

[NoMoreFaith]

I am wary of any approach that promotes another lie, albeit a more reasonable one, to wean someone off an older one. I'd rather just search for truth in things, whether good or bad.

Looking for methods to make indoctrination or conversion easier, is a game for apologists to play. Without divinity thou, reading the new testament makes Jesus out to be a complete nutjob with delusions of grandeur.

To quote CS Lewis, the noted christian writer, if he existed, there are three options for jesus, he is either Liar, Lunatic, or Lord.
Your version puts him in the Liar bracket, but if your wife believes Lord, then like CS Lewis, you will hold on to Lord for all your life, and no amount of possibility of a good humanist but a liar will likely shift that without conclusive evidence.

I understand what a dilemma you must have, but there is really no reason, assuming she is moderate rather than fundamentalist, for your differences in religion to be a big issue. I imagine there is still general consensus on morality.

[Orion3T]

Thanks, more good food for thought.

I don't think there's any question of my promoting a lie - it's about discussing a more plausible explanation than the one she currently holds. And applying reason to determine what other plausible explanations there might be.

More scholarly folks than I have searched for truth in scripture for many years and failed to find anything they can all agree on - or if they have generally agreed then I'd really like to see that declaration of consensus! I honestly see little point in trying to discern it for myself when so many others have tried and failed.

You're right she's extremely moderate and we do have consensus on morality. She is also very much open to reason and actually has a very strong naturalistic tendency - love of nature, animals and an appreciation for the world around us. She also has a great respect for my judgement and reasoning, and admits that she does have real problems making sense of a lot of aspects of her faith. So I think she may gradually shift her views, but if she does it will take time and I'm not pinning any hopes on it.

It's not a major problem if she doesn't though, heck we've been married for 15 years and it's never been an issue, though because I have been mostly agnostic for that time. I was probably only agnostic because I didn't want to dash her hopes though, and lately I have had more and more trouble living with that concession.

I really don't think it will become an issue, but it would be nice if we could share the same world view. We have 2 young teenage kids, neither goes to church with her but both probably have some level of belief and disbelief. However we have both fostered them towards science and reason and I'm confident that will serve them well.

---

" Without divinity thou, reading the new testament makes Jesus out to be a complete nutjob with delusions of grandeur."

I think it could be reasoned that some of it was exaggerated in order to promote the values he was promoting. And there is still the generally dubious nature of scripture in general.

The less desirable moral aspects of Jesus which you mention presumably have already been dismissed by moderate Christians anyway. Whatever reasons they have for doing so would still stand. Besides which even if he wasn't morally perfect I don't see why that would detract from the hypothesis - it's certainly more in keeping than with the divinity claim which claims he was perfect. Moments of anger are only human and he would have to insist on the Torah just to have any credibility and not be written off as a heretic from the outset.

I'm not trying to claim this is the truth, but it seems as reasonable an interpretation as any other I have heard. Most seem utterly incoherent, including the Divine interpretation (it's hardly a sacrifice at all if he's who he claims to be rendering the whole thing ridiculous). He seemed too well versed in scripture to be totally insane.

---

"Not entirely unfeasible, although more likely to actually be religious, simply trying to correct things he saw as immoral."

Whether he actually believed in god etc isn't all that critical to the overall hypothesis. I suppose there are 2 possibilities:

- He didn't believe in god or the bible, and did everything he did for humanistic reasons to correct things he saw as immoral, and in at least some cases was probably right.
- He did have faith in god but saw better interpretations of the bible and that god had a purpose for him which warranted his sacrifice, but this seems to suggest his miracles were totally fabricated rather than trickery.

So I guess the religious side would depend on whether you consider the miracle reports to be even based on real events or not. Lying to people and then dying for that lie seems justifiable on the humanistic view. It seems less likely he would deliberately fake miracles if he genuinely believed in god, though I certainly don't personally rule out their exaggeration or outright fabrication.

[The Grand Nudger]

1- Things were "rotten" after this time as well. Christianity was not and is not some shining beacon of goodness. Not then, and not now.

2-A humanist who was a vocal supporter of thought crime.

3-Plausible reinterpretations of ghost stories? No dice.

4-Yet we don't actually see very many faith healers elevated to the status of living god.

5-Or maybe they assisted in developing the myth.

6-The romans kept pretty good records, and you'd think that a very specific record would be of such high value to believers that they would endeavor to locate and preserve it, but all we have are forgeries. Why someone would need to manufacture forgeries if there was actually anything of substance to this story is beyond me.

7-You know many atheists that refer to a deity as their father?

8-This entire list ends the same way it began, swallowing the kool-aid in one form or another and for what? To salvage a character we feel extremely familiar with?

Try this, the Jesus written about in the NT is a narrative device, a speak and play that this or that author plugged their own words into in order to garner a measure of authority or credibility that they would have been unable to secure for themselves. There is no game changing moral code that is said to fall from the lips of this device. What we're talking about here is a manufactured hero that espoused social commentary that isn't actually all that remarkable for the time it was said to have been uttered, and can be sourced from any number of other commentators. It may have held water two thousand years ago, today, not so much (and even then, there was a group of people we call "Jews" -not to mention a whole host of other religious groups- that didn't seem to be very impressed by all this Jesus business).

[frankiej]

I'm sorry, but I can't take anything seriously when Jesus is involved.

[Drich]

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.

There was no "bible" at that 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.

His righteousness far exceeded His love for Humanity. His righteousness effectively condemns all of humanity to Hell for being sinners.

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.

Such as? By all accounts his works by completing the scriptures prove it impossible for any "human" to be found acceptable before the Father bythe way of their morality.

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

What is this assertion based on?

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.

Again you misunderstand the basic concept of morality in relation to righteousness. Morality is the term used by the self righteous to deem their actions "good" or acceptable but still allows or incorporates sin into that standard.
Righteousness is the perfect unaltered Expressed will of God. Righteousness dictates that anyone found outside of this standard even once is condemned to eternal Hell.

Christ condemned All of Humanity to Hell. Because In His teachings He made it impossible for anyone to find righteousness in their "moral" works.

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.

No He believed in Absolution or atonement as per His Father's plan. Thus separating man from "morality" as a means to obtain righteousness.

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.

Have you even read the bible or have you cut and pasted your own?
None of this is consistent with what scripture teaches.

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.

Baseless speculation. Otherwise show me where or how any of this could be considered true.

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

Then please show me how it works "Book Chapter and Verse please.

[The Grand Nudger]

Did Drich just use the phrase "baseless speculation"......

[Nine]

There was no "bible" at that time.

Bible comes from the word Biblia the Latin for book's. The torah or old testament was a collection of book's. Therefore a bible. Just not the same as your one.

This is from a dictionary on the basis of the word bible: from Old French, from Medieval Latin biblia books, from Greek, plural of biblion book, diminutive of biblos papyrus, from Bublos Phoenician port from which Greece obtained Egyptian papyrus.

What is this assertion based on?

hehe.. Common sense I would assume.

I can't be bothered to talk about the rest.