National Lampoon thought so too:
“Who was Jesus to you?”
He still IS…
Polycarp:
He believed himself to be in communion with God, whom he characterized as a loving Father, not a tyrannical, stern judge…
If burning the fallible beings you created in an eternal lake of fire for matters of disbelief isn’t considered stern judgment, what is? If that’s loving, what do you consider abusive?
I think that all of the above is true, though contradictory…
How could that be?
Since there is so little evidence proving his very existence, I consider him to be a work of fiction.
At most, he was one of many self-proclaimed “prophets” of the time, whose followers were more creative than others in the stories they made up after his death.
If he existed and if he said much that is attributed to him, he most definitely was delusional and narcissistic. Would make for an interesting psychological case study.
Quite simply this is not true. We have tracts of a manuscript of the Gospel of John from around 125 AD and it was a copy of the original. The NT is the single most verifiable document in antiquity. I am not saying that you have to agree with the message but your argument that the original message was corrupted in the early years of the movement is false (and the same one floated by the Muslim world). We have more (by far) early manuscripts of the NT within a shorter time-distance from the original sources than any historical document ever. If we are to simply dismiss the NT because the earliest manuscript is from 90 years after Jesus’ crucifixion then we most dismiss the works of Aristotle and Herodotus and every other document from antiquity. Additionaly, the similarities between the oldest manuscripts are so strong (the only differences you will find are mechanical) that one can only come to the conclusion that they came from an original source and were copied with great accuracy.
That said, I really like your OP. I see Jesus as the most revolutionary figure in human history. He took on the religious leaders of his community and the Roman empire. He faced death completely unafraid. He taught that love was the supreme power in our universe and that the greatest kind of love involves sacrifice for your fellow man. Jesus demonstrated this sacrifice.
He provided a vision of the Messiah that was completely in keeping with the OT prophecies yet completely challenged the prevalent Jewish view of a militant Messiah.
His teachings were remarkable in their simplicity and truth. His every word that is uttered still has an impact today and reveal more and more truths to those who choose to analyze them. He provides a simple guideline for life that, if followed, will have a profound change on that person yet few people can live according to his words even most of the time.
Most remarkably, His life is remembered most because of the time period after his “death.” After he was buried, His followers, who had abandoned Him in His moment of truth, suddenly and with full force came out to claim that this “man” had in fact overcome death and was no longer in His tomb. The Jewish leaders, who knew where the body was buried and had a strong incentive to prove that Jesus was still dead, could never prove that He was still dead.
Aside from Judas and St. John (who died naturally), all of Jesus’ disciples were martyred. These martyrs provided the world some of the greatest ethical teachings and all admitted their initial doubts that Jesus rose from the dead. Peter anyone? Yet these men so believed that Jesus was ressurrected that they all gave their lives rather than deny that belief. Since human instinct is to avoid death, we must come to the conclusion that either all these men were clinically insane or they all truly believed in the resurection.
The most important thing is this: Jesus’ ethical teachings are completely wrapped in His belief and claim that he is God–the Messiah. If one rejects His Ressurection, then one must also reject all His ethical teachings.
What Jack Batty said.
I also put it in my own words here when the question came up once before.
He is the subject of a myth, very similar to Hurcules and other heros the result of gods mating with mortals.
His story tends to include less action and more introspection than the greek myths. But then it is a myth about a teacher. Very little if any of the myth is orignial. Most being borrowed from other, eariler, myths about other gods from peoples in the same geographical area.
To explain who Jesus is to me, I refer you to the Doobie Brothers.
I think in a world where people complained and whined about the temptations of the flesh, and how hard it was to be good and follow the Commandments, I think Jesus was sent to show us it could be done.
He emodied what I think everyone is capable of if they could but find the courage to truly try, and believe it can be done. A tad simplistic I admit…but I always thought Faith was simple, it is Religon that is complicated!!
I’d go with Jack Batty too. Jesus (Joshua) was probably a good, decent guy who thought the system at the time had been corrupted and got into some trouble with the establishment and then died. His followers expanded stories about him and turned him into a mythological character.
Although I’m not an atheist I’ll join the chorus and say I agree with Jack Batty’s assessment of Jesus and with photopat’s comments.
Uh. I didn’t say I dismissed them out of hand. Rather, I felt that the passage of time diluted the words and kept the spirit. ( pardon the pun ).
And I surely stand corrected and apologize for misstating the dates of the first Gospel written after His death.
Despite my misstatements, I am glad I started this thread. I am learning a great deal about points of view, and historical accuracies. Keep on !
I see him as someone who was revolutionary in thought and in deed. Greed and hypocrisy angered him, the sick and the helpless brought out compassion in him, and he didn’t spurn those who lived in degrading circumstances.
Jesus didn’t give a damn about the status quo, and he didn’t shut up when the rich and powerful told him to. When he saw injustice, he spoke out against it.
I think that he would have frightened and confused many of the people who encountered him, and I think that he still would today.
Huh? That’s a bit of a stretch, don’t you think? The only way to believe “love thy neighbor as thyself” is to accept Jesus’ divinity? I don’t think so.
I agree with His4Ever.
With one caveat. I’m not sure if I believe that the only way for man to be redeemed was by the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection. However, I do believe that that’s the way it did come down. (I definitely believe that a redemption was necessary.)
I’m so far from being a Biblical literalist that I’m sure I’m often mistaken for being totally irreligious, but when it comes to Jesus, I believe the Gospel accounts are accurate.
Inconsistent? Don’t call me, I’ll call you. I’m just checking in here.
Did any of the “Jewish leaders” at the time actually try and fail to prove he was dead? I’ve never read anything along these lines.
NOt necessarily. Even today people believe things that can’t be proven, while still being quite sane by any regular standards. You yourself appear to believe in Jesus as a messiah, but I’m sure that you would be regarded as sane by most people. Considering the time period you’re talking about believe in a “magic” resurrection is hardly surprising. Plus, how do you know all those people were truly martyred? What evidence exists to corroborate those claims? Besides, haven’t other people been willing to die in the name of somebody they hold in high esteem even without believing that person was messianic?
To me, it doesn’t matter.
If Jesus of Nazareth had not said what he said in the Sermon on the Plains & Sermon on the Mount or otherwise delivered a message about how we should live, but had walked on water, done the miracle with the fishies and loaf of bread, raised Lazarus from the dead, and then come back physically resurrected after his own death on the cross, he would not be a figure of any religious importance. He’d just be a real-life comic-book character who can do some really snazzy magic stuff. If Vladimir Dracula turns out to be real rather than legendary or fictional, his coming back from the dead doesn’t make him God, either.
If, on the other hand, he was a regular mortal who never did anything that violated the laws of nature, but did what I understand him to have done strategically, and taught what he taught, then…well, I do not worship him as God Incarnate as the Christians do, but I do at least hero-worship him quite a bit. And his message was phenomenal and awe-inspiring.