Why is Jesus not a "madman"?

[naimless]

Given what I've read, I'm inclined to conclude that Jesus never existed (in the way portrayed in the Gospels; if a person upon whose life the accounts were based existed, that doesn't make 'Jesus' any more real, because the character of Jesus is these legends, not that other man).

Good point.

If they 'honestly did' then why was your first response to dodge the question and difer to wiki?

I didn't feel I was dodging the question. There are multiple narratives of Jesus. I mentioned the bible and Quran as two examples, then provided a link to all of the examples when you asked which one contained the narrative of his life. I don't feel there is one that does.

I don't know. Top sportsmen and sportswomen have superstitions. It's as if a part of the mind needs to be settled in order for them to perceive a 100% positive outcome, because a positive outcome isn't realistic and it could equally be negative.

Yet the blind belief in that positivity scientifically makes it more probable to happen because of visualisation. I think it is the same for some people believing in Jesus.

It isn't logically true. But, if that part of the brain has it settled that it is true then it makes a shitload of life a lot easier.

That is true, but no matter how hard you believe in god, it won't make him real. Also, there is a considerable difference between superstitions about sports and the unshakeable belief that someone is divinity on earth.

I watch professional sports on a regular basis. I'd say 90% of the top sports people that I watch believe in god. I think saying a prayer before a match starts is similar to putting the left boot on before the right one. For the rest of the match they will understand that cause and effect is what determines the result. But before and after it their mind needs to go to another place.

[Violet]

Bitch please... Jesus doesn't have the style of a 'madman'.

[Confused Ape]

We've only know what the Christians believed Jesus said about himself. Christianity started in the Roman Empire so the first Christians could have been influenced by Roman religion.

Roman Imperial Cult

Another element in the Roman state religion was what is generally referred to as the imperial cult. This cult regarded emperors and members of their families as gods.

While worship of a living emperor was culturally acceptable in some parts of the empire, in Rome itself and in Italy it was not. There an emperor was usually declared a 'divus' only on his death, and was subsequently worshipped (especially on anniversaries, like that of his accession) with sacrifice like any other gods.

Emperor-worship was a unifying factor in the Roman world, practiced not only by army units spread throughout the empire but also by individuals in the provinces, where there were collective imperial cult centres at places such as Lyons (Gaul), Pergamon (Asia) and (probably) Colchester (Britain).

Julius Caesar And Judea

Julius Caesar, for one, granted the Jews privileges, including freedom of worship, exemption from army service and emperor worship

Things went downhill in Judea after Julius's time but the Jews obviously knew about Roman emperors being worshipped as gods. Christianity started as a Jewish movement - as Judaism only allows for one deity, claiming that Jesus was the son of the Jewish God would have been their only way around regarding Jesus as divine.

[Zone]

He would have been a madman if he literally claimed to be God and wasn't, but I'm not sure if he ever claimed that. Muslims don't think he did.

[WinterHold]

The records are the problem ; not Jesus himself.
Many people think that Jesus didn't even exist.

Humans -especially in the medieval period- had a hobby of adding a mythical atmosphere to anything related to recording.
I personally think it's a historical problem ; the writers in that era used to add their own unique flavor on the events.

[Drich]

I didn't feel I was dodging the question. There are multiple narratives of Jesus. I mentioned the bible and Quran as two examples, then provided a link to all of the examples when you asked which one contained the narrative of his life. I don't feel there is one that does.

Just so we are clear..

When you orginally asked which of these two books we should believe when it came to Christ, and I answered with in the context of the question you framed. But somehow You believe that your reply (in listing a third unmentioned reference) was not dogging the question i ask? Further more when the Question was restated, you said "both books give a narrative." But now you saying "neither give a narritive..."

Maybe you Can try to answer me this without differing to all of the above and none of the above at the same time.

Are you a Poe? Or just really really bad at playing the Evasive intlectual?

[Mister Agenda]

False trilemma. In alphabetical order, I get at least Legend, Liar, Lord, Lunatic, Misquoted, and Mistaken.

[Anomalocaris]

He would have been a madman if he literally claimed to be God and wasn't, but I'm not sure if he ever claimed that. Muslims don't think he did.

It seems to me that in modern social context, he would have been considered a nut case for any one of the other words and action attributed to him, besides the claim to be god.

All in all, he came across as a greasy, disturbed character with psychological complexes that would disqualify him for any number of modern employments with young and vulnerable people.

I think historic examples of people with similarly disaggreable personalities starting large and lasting cults is quite numerous. God to India and they are a dime a dozen. Of course each one of these cults think sgreasy self-aggrandizement and messianic complex is a totally bad thing, except where it was menifested by the guru at the origin of their own cult, where it is of course proof of the divine.

[naimless]

I didn't feel I was dodging the question. There are multiple narratives of Jesus. I mentioned the bible and Quran as two examples, then provided a link to all of the examples when you asked which one contained the narrative of his life. I don't feel there is one that does.

Just so we are clear..

When you orginally asked which of these two books we should believe when it came to Christ, and I answered with in the context of the question you framed. But somehow You believe that your reply (in listing a third unmentioned reference) was not dogging the question i ask? Further more when the Question was restated, you said "both books give a narrative." But now you saying "neither give a narritive..."

Maybe you Can try to answer me this without differing to all of the above and none of the above at the same time.

Are you a Poe? Or just really really bad at playing the Evasive intlectual?

You asked, "Which source carries the narrative of Christ's life?".

I gave you multiple sources because none of them do. I said I don't feel one source source has the narrative of his life. They both have a narrative.

I do not claim to be a Poe or an evasive intellectual.

[ThomM]

[
I found this interesting. Lewis understands the latter choice and chooses the former. Why is Jesus not a "madman", as Lewis puts it? The Quran believes in Jesus as a messiah and yet not the son of god. Only the bible refers to Jesus as the son of god. Why would one of these books lie about that and, furthermore, how does one know which book is a more reliable source of what Jesus said or is or was?
[/quote]

Since the christ is a MYTH and both mentioned books are books of religious MYTHS and LEGENDS - there is NO reliable source of information regarding a person who never actually lived.

THE inconsistencies in the story of the christ and the actual Jewish religion - would have the christ branded as a heretic and a madman - and he would have been stoned to death long before the storied execution.

In fact - the christ could NEVER have been the jewish messiah - who is supposed to rebuild the temple of Jerusalem for the third time - the second temple still existed for the entire supposed time of the life of the christ. THe jews would never have accepted a "New Covenant" as anything but heresy as well. THe idea that the ONE GOD of judaism would change its mind and go back on its word simply would not have been accepted.

In the story of the money changers at the temple of Jerusalem - the christ would NEVER have been allowed to speak there. WE are talking about the high temple - the Vatican - Of judaism - and the christ was NOT and could not have been a learned teacher of the religion.

An intelligent person can spend days showing how the fiction of the christ cannot be true