Personal Jesus

[Mad Dog]

Since it is Christmas, I thought that this thread would be appropriate. What do you think of the man Jesus of Nazareth? Was he a kook or was he God? Did he actually walk on water or was he a fraud? How about the virgin birth? His "resurrection " from the dead? Bring it guys. This could, in fact be the touchiest subject ever.

[Rock Monster]

Since it is Christmas, I thought that this thread would be appropriate. What do you think of the man Jesus of Nazareth? Was he a kook or was he God? Did he actually walk on water or was he a fraud? How about the virgin birth? His "resurrection " from the dead? Bring it guys. This could, in fact be the touchiest subject ever.

Just a side note - I don't think anyone believes he is a god, just the Son of God.

[Mad Dog]

Thats right, bring it. Some people believe He is part of the Trinity. Which is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirt.

[Allyson]

I don't think he was either. I definitely don't think he was God, but I don't doubt he was a great man. I'm sure he was a saint but those who told stories of his greatness exaggerated just a little. And that's how the Bible was written.

My boyfriend, who has a Bachelor's and Master's in religion and teaches high school religion, has an explanation for every miracle.

Jesus made a blind man see? There was a condition back then where a thick mucous would cover the eyes so much that it would make a man blind. The cure for this was getting rid of that mucous - Jesus took a handful of sand and rubbed it into the man's eyes, wiping away the mucous and giving the man sight again.

Jesus turned water into wine? At Jesus' wedding Mary told him that they needed more wine, so Jesus got more wine and boom there was the wine.

So no, I don't think he's a kook I just think he's a normal guy who did nice things. It's the storytellers that make him God.

[lt]

You forget an important question: Did this so called Jesus character actually exist?

No historical accounts were written in the time of his supposed existence that mention this man or of natural events claimed (Luke 23:44-45 mentions a 3 hour eclipse and Matthew 27:51-54 mentions a major earthquake, both of which were not recorded by anyone who lived in that period).

You would think that some credible historians would have "of the fame of Jesus" (Matt 14:1), assuming the gospels are true: "there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jersulaem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordon." (Matt 4:25).

All claimed "historical" accounts were written by men who lived after the suppose crucifixion.

[Rock Monster]

You forget an important question: Did this so called Jesus character actually exist?

I believe he did, yes. And I think this pretty much sums up how I feel too:

So no, I don't think he's a kook I just think he's a normal guy who did nice things. It's the storytellers that make him God.

[Biff]

So no, I don't think he's a kook I just think he's a normal guy who did nice things.

If you went to the mall and saw a guy standing near the fountain proclaiming that he was God would you think he isn't a kook?

I have never got the "he wasn't who he says he was but he was a great prophet". Sorry, "great prophets" don't claim to be God. Lunatics do.

[plungerhand]

Thats right, bring it. Some people believe He is part of the Trinity. Which is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirt.

The Holy Spirit has got it made in that band. No bad press, but still has all the perks...

[Mad Dog]

Some Jewish people have been eagerly awaiting their Messiah since Babylon enslaved Israel. There have been a lot of men over the ages that have claimed to be the Jewish Messiah. A lot of men were also crucified under the Romans.

Why did Jesus stand out so much? The crucified Messiah. Sometimes I feel that his contemporaries were so shocked by the fact that such a good and holy man, could be so cruelly executed by means of crucification, that mythology sprang up around the event as a result. Either that or he is the real deal.

[fbhw17]

You forget an important question: Did this so called Jesus character actually exist?

No historical accounts were written in the time of his supposed existence that mention this man or of natural events claimed (Luke 23:44-45 mentions a 3 hour eclipse and Matthew 27:51-54 mentions a major earthquake, both of which were not recorded by anyone who lived in that period).

You would think that some credible historians would have "of the fame of Jesus" (Matt 14:1), assuming the gospels are true: "there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jersulaem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordon." (Matt 4:25).

All claimed "historical" accounts were written by men who lived after the suppose crucifixion.

This is simply not true. Check Flavius Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus or Suetonius. All of these people lived within a few years of Jesus and mentioned him in their writing. Also, until a 1961 discovery the only historical evidence of Pontius Pilate was in the Bible. If there is basically no evidence from Roman historians of one of their own governors why is it so hard to believe that there would not be too many mentions of Jesus who held nowhere near the same status as Pilate in Roman society.

[Mad Dog]

You forget an important question: Did this so called Jesus character actually exist?

No historical accounts were written in the time of his supposed existence that mention this man or of natural events claimed (Luke 23:44-45 mentions a 3 hour eclipse and Matthew 27:51-54 mentions a major earthquake, both of which were not recorded by anyone who lived in that period).

You would think that some credible historians would have "of the fame of Jesus" (Matt 14:1), assuming the gospels are true: "there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jersulaem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordon." (Matt 4:25).

All claimed "historical" accounts were written by men who lived after the suppose crucifixion.

This is simply not true. Check Flavius Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus or Suetonius. All of these people lived within a few years of Jesus and mentioned him in their writing. Also, until a 1961 discovery the only historical evidence of Pontius Pilate was in the Bible. If there is basically no evidence from Roman historians of one of their own governors why is it so hard to believe that there would not be too many mentions of Jesus who held nowhere near the same status as Pilate in Roman society.

Actually, I don't think there is any doubt that the man Jesus of Nazareth actually existed. There are definitely many credible sources out side of the Gospels. Trying to prove Jesus never existed is kind of like trying to prove Armstrong never landed on the moon. Having said that, however, do not imply that I necessarily believe that he was God in Man form. As I said I do not know for sure.

[hotzester]

So wait, Jesus walked on water AND the moon???

[speedbump]

So wait, Jesus walked on water AND the moon???

The second one is currently in dispute.

THE SHADOWS DON'T WORK!!! THE GOVERNMENT USED l33T H4X SKILLS TO FAKE IT ALL!!!!

/crazy

[Mad Dog]

So wait, Jesus walked on water AND the moon???

Yes!!! Thats Exactly what I meant!!

[plungerhand]

So wait, Jesus walked on water AND the moon???

everyone knows the walk on water thing was the advent of water skiing...

[uhohspagettio]

So wait, Jesus walked on water AND the moon???

everyone knows the walk on water thing was the advent of water skiing...

Those disciples sure could row fast.
Seriously though, growing up in a Christian home, I never doubted the existence of Jesus. However, now that I am older and more jaded I look at the Bible differently. Sorry, I can't finish this thought, I have more soul searching to do.

[pgun3]

I don't think he was either. I definitely don't think he was God, but I don't doubt he was a great man. I'm sure he was a saint but those who told stories of his greatness exaggerated just a little. And that's how the Bible was written.

My boyfriend, who has a Bachelor's and Master's in religion and teaches high school religion, has an explanation for every miracle.

Jesus made a blind man see? There was a condition back then where a thick mucous would cover the eyes so much that it would make a man blind. The cure for this was getting rid of that mucous - Jesus took a handful of sand and rubbed it into the man's eyes, wiping away the mucous and giving the man sight again.

Jesus turned water into wine? At Jesus' wedding Mary told him that they needed more wine, so Jesus got more wine and boom there was the wine.

So no, I don't think he's a kook I just think he's a normal guy who did nice things. It's the storytellers that make him God.

Jesus was married???

[speedbump]

I don't think he was either. I definitely don't think he was God, but I don't doubt he was a great man. I'm sure he was a saint but those who told stories of his greatness exaggerated just a little. And that's how the Bible was written.

My boyfriend, who has a Bachelor's and Master's in religion and teaches high school religion, has an explanation for every miracle.

Jesus made a blind man see? There was a condition back then where a thick mucous would cover the eyes so much that it would make a man blind. The cure for this was getting rid of that mucous - Jesus took a handful of sand and rubbed it into the man's eyes, wiping away the mucous and giving the man sight again.

Jesus turned water into wine? At Jesus' wedding Mary told him that they needed more wine, so Jesus got more wine and boom there was the wine.

So no, I don't think he's a kook I just think he's a normal guy who did nice things. It's the storytellers that make him God.

Jesus was married???

I know you're nit picking his sentence structure, and don't actually believe Jesus was married, but what if he was? Would that be a huge deal? The New Testament never specifically mentions him having a wife or not. You would think that when the majority of males did get married and Jesus did not that they would say something, but that is a pretty big assumption. A lot of biblical interpretation IS based on assumptions, though.

[Mad Dog]

Jesus was married???

I know you're nit picking his sentence structure, and don't actually believe Jesus was married, but what if he was? Would that be a huge deal? The New Testament never specifically mentions him having a wife or not. You would think that when the majority of males did get married and Jesus did not that they would say something, but that is a pretty big assumption. A lot of biblical interpretation IS based on assumptions, though.

Actually, If it were proven without a shadow a of a doubt that Jesus was a married man, it would be a huge deal in the theological world. It would make main stream theologists head explode. One of the main tenant's of Catholicism has been no marriage for its priests. Not to mention the fact that the Apostle Paul states that it is better to serve the Lord as a single person and celibate ( If you can) not as a rule but as a choice. Not to mention that every theologist would have to re-think every aspect of all the doctrine that was taught over the last two thousand years to see how everything fits where.

[Biff]

I think it would only matter to Catholics. The Protestants might scratch their heads but it wouldn't mean Jesus sinned or anything.

As to the chastity of priests and nuns, they could still do it as an act of faith but I just don't understand why this outdated practice continues.

[speedbump]

I know you're nit picking his sentence structure, and don't actually believe Jesus was married, but what if he was? Would that be a huge deal? The New Testament never specifically mentions him having a wife or not. You would think that when the majority of males did get married and Jesus did not that they would say something, but that is a pretty big assumption. A lot of biblical interpretation IS based on assumptions, though.

Actually, If it were proven without a shadow a of a doubt that Jesus was a married man, it would be a huge deal in the theological world. It would make main stream theologists head explode. One of the main tenant's of Catholicism has been no marriage for its priests. Not to mention the fact that the Apostle Paul states that it is better to serve the Lord as a single person and celibate ( If you can) not as a rule but as a choice. Not to mention that every theologist would have to re-think every aspect of all the doctrine that was taught over the last two thousand years to see how everything fits where.

Really though all the bullshit about priests not being able to marry didn't come from Jesus. He made Peter the head of the church, and Peter was married. It would challenge the church because of Jesus' significance and certainly make them question that law, but really it shouldn't make a difference in the doctrine considering Jesus himself approved the leaders of his church being married. You're right that it probably would though.

[chevsscamaro67]

I always thought he could have been a badass magician. I agree with what Allyson said. People then were a lot easier fooled than people are today...relatively.

[doktor]

Either A) Nice guy who did nice things or B)An alien who did nice things

*shrug*

[scooterfanatic]

The stuff about priests not marrying came from Paul, a former pharisee who converted after Jesus died, who claimed to have been personally appointed by him.

The vast majority of Christianity actually isn't really Christian, it's what I like to call Paulism. I am very suspicious that he might have actually been gay as well, and his self-loathing culminated into the re-injection of rules and regulations back into Christianity. From my understanding of Jesus, he was a "big picture" kind of person. He was more concerned with the spirit of the law than the letter of the law. Paul came in and made it about hard-and-fast rules again, obviously his Pharisee training asserting itself.

Anyway, I think that even though there is no objective evidence of Jesus actually existing, that doesn't necessarily mean he didn't. But, if he was an actual person, the miracles and other supernatural events were attributed to him later. The gospels weren't written until decades after his supposed death, so that leaves a lot of time for an oral tradition to mutate, especially among the superstitious societies of antiquity.

[krystal]

Does anyone find it weird that Christianity began before the advent of Christ?

I read somewhere that Christianity began sometime around 200 B.C. I wish I could remember what it was I read so I can cite it.

[Mad Dog]

Does anyone find it weird that Christianity began before the advent of Christ?

I read somewhere that Christianity began sometime around 200 B.C. I wish I could remember what it was I read so I can cite it.

I think you are refering to the "Essenes cult". They were a group of jews that felt the Jewish Leaders had become corrupt, so they formed there own splinter group in the desert. Since copies of the Tora (Jewish Bible) were un available, they were allowed to scribe copies of their own, and they are now known as "The Dead Sea Scrolls" They are the ones who began to baptize or emerse in water people who wanted to join their sect. It is beleived that John the Baptist was an Essene and it is suspected but not proven that Jesus was an Essene as well.

[krystal]

Could be, could be. I really wish I could remember where I read it, though. Wait, I think the cult you're talking about was that doomsday cult... I need to stop watching the History Channel because it's confusing my brain.