Jesus - good or evil?

[Ciel_Rouge]

In the novel Master and Margarita Mikhail Bulgakov addressed the issue in an interesting way by suggesting that Jesus was basically a philosopher with somewhat anarchist views, sentenced to death since he was perceived as a threat to the rule of the emperor.

On the other hand, I watched some guy on youtube quoting a book which implied that Jesus was in fact insane and his cult focused on self-torture based upon hate towards one's body as well as shocking negligence of personal hygiene resulting directly from that philosophy. His followers supposedly caused epidemic outbreaks and they were repressed and rightly so.

One has to note that some time after Christianity became the state religion of Roman Empire the entire empire collapsed. This does not surprise me as the religion itself assumes some kind of letargy of the mind combined with self-destruction and submission to "others" whomever they might be - in this case the barbarians

Regardless, I am curious about your views on that.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Can't vote


There may or may not have been an historical Jesus. So far, I have not seen any evidence that that Jesus of the New Testament is anything other than myth. However, I do not have the proof to make any truth claims.

At a remove of 2000 years, I would argue that there is insufficient credible evidence to make ANY judgements about Jesus. The New Testament has little if any credibility with actual scholars as a reliable prime source.

[Gambit]

I have no idea if Jesus existed or not. When it comes to historical figures, all we have are written accounts. Some accounts are more complete than others; with more likelihood of being true. In the case of Jesus we have the gospels and some rather dubious hearsay. As much as that causes me to suspect that Jesus may not have existed, I cannot prove that he didn't.

From what I do know of the Jesus character, I think I would have liked him if we ever met. By all accounts he was at least a rebel in a time where rebellion meant certain torture, followed by a slow and excruciating death. Maybe I don't know enough about him but, to me, Jesus always stood out as the only redeeming character in all of Christianity.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, no, no. We have a great deal more than written accounts for many historical figures. That this particular figure has only written accounts, so very few written accounts, and that these accounts are from such transparently biased sources is precisely the problem. The character of christ as told in the NT is a mash-up, sometimes he's the friendly niceguy, other times he's force choking fig trees. He has as many personalities as there were storytellers that went into his creation.

[Ryantology]

I think the ideal proto-hippie Jesus would have been awesome (if not for his being inspired by murderous old myths), but I believe that persona of Jesus is as real as his fairy tale dad.

[Gambit]

No, no, no. We have a great deal more than written accounts for many historical figures. That this particular figure has only written accounts, so very few written accounts, and that these accounts are from such transparently biased sources is precisely the problem. The character of christ as told in the NT is a mash-up, sometimes he's the friendly niceguy, other times he's force choking fig trees. He has as many personalities as there were storytellers that went into his creation.

I have nothing other to say than the bold text made me laugh for about 5 minutes solid. Seriously, I couldn't even drink my beer - and I'm Irish.

[Angrboda]

Can't vote


There may or may not have been an historical Jesus. So far, I have not seen any evidence that that Jesus of the New Testament is anything other than myth. However, I do not have the proof to make any truth claims.

At a remove of 2000 years, I would argue that there is insufficient credible evidence to make ANY judgements about Jesus. The New Testament has little if any credibility with actual scholars as a reliable prime source.

I'll have what he's having.

(With a few exceptions. Textual analysis and errors argues strongly that the Gospels aren't historical narrative. Similar analysis of the Epistles indicates that many common claims of Paul's knowledge of Jesus are without textual foundation.)

---

Oh, and only the western half of the Roman Empire collapsed, and largely due to issues not related to the religious changes. (In general, the detrimental effects of Christianity on Europe during the middle ages are considered by most mainstream historians to be exaggerated and somewhat mythical.) The eastern half of the Empire continued along for another 1,000 years, likely thanks in no small part in not having to deal with successive waves of barbarian invaders. (Not to mention that Constantinople was much more secure against invasion than Rome. There's some interesting history involving the Danes, the Rus, and Constantinople related to this, but the pieces aren't coming to mind atm.)

[Anomalocaris]

I think the evidence points to the probable existence of one primary person at the origin of the various Jesus stories. Some of the stories about him was probably based on real events. But those stories sketch out an individual that does not rise to good or evil, but are instead deluded, unhinged, an maglomanically masochistic in a pitiful way.

---

One has to note that some time after Christianity became the state religion of Roman Empire the entire empire collapsed. This does not surprise me as the religion itself assumes some kind of letargy of the mind combined with self-destruction and submission to "others" whomever they might be - in this case the barbarians

Regardless, I am curious about your views on that.

As said above, that "some time" involved ~1070 years.

BTW, christianity did not become a legal religion in the Roman empire until the empire had suffered several plagues while practically torn itself apart with almost 80 years of virtually unbroken civil war. Christianity didn't become the official until after the defeat at Adrianople that arguably broke the back of the Roman system of active defense against Barbarian inroad.

While one might argue christianity is symptomatic of the flaws in the imperial system and its societies, it's harder to argue it is the cause of those flaws.

Basically, the empire in the west collapsed due to an uncertain system of imperial succession, an inability to rationalize the layout of the frontier, a failure to maintain reliable central control over elements of the army, and a mismatch between political center and the center of real wealth. The real wealth of the empire was in the east, eventhough its capital was in the west.

[Lion IRC]

No, no, no. We have a great deal more than written accounts for many historical figures. That this particular figure has only written accounts, so very few written accounts, and that these accounts are from such transparently biased sources is precisely the problem. The character of christ as told in the NT is a mash-up, sometimes he's the friendly niceguy, other times he's force choking fig trees. He has as many personalities as there were storytellers that went into his creation.

Historical records for the existence of other figures in history.

Gauis Julius Caesar 100-44 B.C
(Manuscript evidence 900 A.D. 1000 years later)

Homer 900 B.C.
(Manuscript evidence 400 B.C. 500 years later)

Plato 427-347 B.C.
(Manuscript evidence 900 A.D. 1200 years later)

Jesus of Nazareth 4 B.C. - 33 A.D.
(Manuscript evidence 50-100 A.D. < 100 years later)

What an embarrassing poll result showing so many Jesus mythers.

[Gambit]

No, no, no. We have a great deal more than written accounts for many historical figures. That this particular figure has only written accounts, so very few written accounts, and that these accounts are from such transparently biased sources is precisely the problem. The character of christ as told in the NT is a mash-up, sometimes he's the friendly niceguy, other times he's force choking fig trees. He has as many personalities as there were storytellers that went into his creation.

Historical records for the existence of other figures in history.

Gauis Julius Caesar 100-44 B.C
(Manuscript evidence 900 A.D. 1000 years later)

Homer 900 B.C.
(Manuscript evidence 400 B.C. 500 years later)

Plato 427-347 B.C.
(Manuscript evidence 900 A.D. 1200 years later)

Jesus of Nazareth 4 B.C. - 33 A.D.
(Manuscript evidence 50-100 A.D. < 100 years later)

What an embarrassing poll result showing so many Jesus mythers.

Yip, 'cause I remember all those people claiming to be the son of God too... oh wait, they made no such extraordinary claim... it's a wonder we even care whether they existed or not.