Intelligent Atheists: Who/What Was Jesus?

[ignoramus]

No! Not a drug!

[Homeless Nutter]

and he even announces the apocalypse a few books later. He's behind it! D'oh!

Yup. It's all there in the bible, hiding in plain sight. Of course he announced the apocalypse - he didn't want us to become alarmed when we see the alien forces arrive on Earth and commence destruction. We're supposed to accept the end of the world, believing we're going to another plane of existence, rather than being exterminated, like pubic lice. 

Clever motherf***er - I've got to give him that...

[SofaKingHigh]

His name wasn't Jesus, it was Brian:

[The Grand Nudger]

The narrative device used to tie together disparate strings of a 3rd century set of normative ethics?

[Chad32]

Jesus was likely a compilation of different characters. Like Hercules he's just a legend meant to inspire people. Stories about children of gods born of a virgin who rise from the dead after being killed weren't all that rare back then. We all know how much of a horn dog Zeus was. One of his earliest miracles was just turning water to wine. eventually he's commanding the dead to rise. The legend grows with the telling.

[dyresand]

Hello everyone,

I would like your honest views on who or what you think Jesus really was, with some reasonable justifications please.

I ask this because some say he was a myth, some say he existed, some say he represents a sun god, etcetera...

I am simply unsure and require answers for further discussions.

Thanks!

404 jesus not found.

no historical or archaeological evidence found.
no mention of jesus in roman records. 

So yeah no jesus.

Though jesus or yeshua was a common named used back then, all in all the story of jesus
is more of a metaphorical one than a literal one.

[Longhorn]

Dunno. Not God any more than anyone else is.

[Crossless2.0]

Jesus was a radical apocalyptic rabbi who was mythologized after his death.  Other than that he was Jewish, lived around Nazareth somewhere in the early 30s, preached the coming of a new kingdom, had followers, was believed to do miracles, and was crucified, it's hard to find the historic figure behind the myth.  But whatever it was he was preaching, it doesn't appear to have much to do with Christianity. Christians might as well call themselves Paulites and have done with it.

^This!^

[Aractus]

Jesus was a radical apocalyptic rabbi who was mythologized after his death.  Other than that he was Jewish, lived around Nazareth somewhere in the early 30s, preached the coming of a new kingdom, had followers, was believed to do miracles, and was crucified, it's hard to find the historic figure behind the myth.  But whatever it was he was preaching, it doesn't appear to have much to do with Christianity. Christians might as well call themselves Paulites and have done with it.

That's somewhat close, but not entirely correct. For one thing he was NOT a rabbi (although his disciples did call him that).

The historical Jesus is not a myth; but Moses, Abraham, and many other biblical characters are purely mythological.

Jesus was probably an apocalyptic preacher. What is however clear is that he challenged the interpretations and teachings of the Scribes and Pharisees in relation to the Law of Moses. There are many times he challenges their wisdom, but he does so still within the confines of the Law. Which is a shame, because he has the opportunity to say "women are not property" and give other truly radical teachings - but he doesn't. He simply teaches what the Law of Moses allows him to.

According to Luke he began his ministry in 28-29AD (there's not much reason to doubt that), and no one really knows how long his ministry lasted. It could have lasted just one year, but it's also possible it lasted 2, 3, even 4 or 5 years if his influence in his early teachings wasn't great. He had brothers that included Simon, James, Judas, and Joseph and he probably had sisters as well (although they aren't named). His parents were Mary and Joseph. His brother James later had a very influential role early Christianity, however it isn't clear if he was a follower of his brother before his death or not.

It is certain that Jesus delivered teachings, for example the Sermon on the Mount. James makes I think between 16-20 direct references to the sermon in his epistle which is written before any of the gospels (it's thought his epistle was written in or before 49AD). It is important to note he never quotes it either, he simply uses its teachings in his epistle; and he uses other teachings directly attributed to what Jesus taught in the gospels. As for the Sermon on the Mount, it is impossible that James would have knowledge of such a teaching had it not occurred. He might have had first-hand knowledge (as he was a brother), he might have been told the content of it later, or he might have read it in an early written record.

Scholars can say with varying degrees of confidence what Jesus specifically taught.

It appears that Jesus and his disciples performed healings. Do bare in mind that in this age the Greeks believed that the source of all disease in the world was Pandora's box, and the Jews believed it was in the hand of Jehovah to cause and cure disease. Thus they consequently believed that strict adherence to the Law protected their health. As you can imagine, after several centuries of this not actually working, they had to come up with ways to explain why; and that's where the Pharisees and others who studied the Law came in: they re-interpreted much of the Mosaic Law in a way such as they believed would be in Jehovah's favour. Jesus might have also been motivated by similar reasons for coming up with his teachings of the Law.

Ultimately though Jesus was executed by Roman crucifixion under Pontius Pilate. The Bible claims that this was under pressure from Jewish authorities, but modern critical scholars refute that Pilate could have been pressured by the Jews to execute someone, and this is a fact even the Pope has acknowledged. However it is still probably fair to say he created upset among Jewish leaders and that itself may have been the reasoning for Pilate to execute him.

By the time Matthew and Luke are written (sometime c. 68-80AD) the first century Christians had a belief that he had risen from the dead in a bodily resurrection. This is also mentioned by John; but it is not mentioned by Mark, Paul, Judas, or James. Mark does say Jesus will be raised; however that on its own is indicative of a belief that Jesus will be raised to the celestial realm where Jehovah resides, rather than a belief that he would walk out of his tomb and appear to people.

By 70AD it appears to anyone that all the early leaders of the Christian church before then had died, and the entire church in Jerusalem was destroyed. Therefore what Christians believed about Jesus was then shaped by the non-Jewish Christians who couldn't speak or read Hebrew, and who then were the ones to decide a few decades later in the second century which first century writings to continue circulating; so what we now know about Jesus is also shaped by late-first and second century beliefs about Jesus, and the decisions of church leaders of the time as to what writings to read.

Jesus did have a lot to do with Christianity, however what he taught was different to what Paul taught in a number of ways. All Paul's writings were written after the Jerusalem Council, where they essentially decided that the OT wasn't important. But Jesus on the other hand believed very strongly in the authority of the Hebrew scriptures.

[brewer]

jesus? Good guy version of Charlie Manson.