ChatterBank2 mins ago
Who Was Jesus?
131 Answers
In response to Nailit’s observation that “It’s gone a bit quiet on here”, in an effort to generate a little discussion that might be of interest to all, ASSUMING THE MAN JESUS EXISTED, who do you think he might have been – and what are your reasons for reaching your conclusion?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Just a last post before bed.
Maybe a bit paranoid, but I am always conscious of the possibility of a few personal digs because of my views.
Without Jesus in our lives, or in our society, we fall into the trap of explaining everything by reasoning.
What is lacking is moral reasoning.
Look at our young people today, victims of atheistic abandonment of any moral reasoning, or a belief in God.
The result? Young people trapped in a caccoon of social media, self harm, self esteem, and loneliness.
They are trapped and need to be set free.
Modern society cannot free them, only burden them with more consumerism, and hedonistic aspirations.
Look at the the loneliest people on the planet. Wealthy celebrities who have exhausted every aspect of pleasure and with nothing left, enter into their own personal hell.
Only Christ has the answers to this mess.
Maybe a bit paranoid, but I am always conscious of the possibility of a few personal digs because of my views.
Without Jesus in our lives, or in our society, we fall into the trap of explaining everything by reasoning.
What is lacking is moral reasoning.
Look at our young people today, victims of atheistic abandonment of any moral reasoning, or a belief in God.
The result? Young people trapped in a caccoon of social media, self harm, self esteem, and loneliness.
They are trapped and need to be set free.
Modern society cannot free them, only burden them with more consumerism, and hedonistic aspirations.
Look at the the loneliest people on the planet. Wealthy celebrities who have exhausted every aspect of pleasure and with nothing left, enter into their own personal hell.
Only Christ has the answers to this mess.
-- answer removed --
Many thanks to those who have attempted to keep this discussion above personal attacks and pettiness.
Benhilton, // If Jesus isn't the son of God how would you explain the resurrection ?//
I don’t believe it happened. Dead people don’t come back to life. As I said, I think Jesus was taken from the cross alive.
//Joseph's lineage pinned Mary to Bethlehem at the time of the census , enabling that part of the scriptures to be fulfilled .//
The census, historically, is a bone of contention. The only census recorded around that time took place in 6AD – several years after the birth of Jesus and the death of Herod. Furthermore, no Roman census required citizens to travel to the place of their birth or of their ancestors to register. I conclude that the unknown authors of the gospels, writing long after the event, used the census to explain the family’s necessary presence in Bethlehem in order to demonstrate that prophecy had been fulfilled. Other prophecies were ‘fulfilled’ in a similar manner.
//The wise men went home by a different route ( instead of returning to Herod - they aren't called wise for nothing ) This gave Mary and Joseph the chance to flee to Egypt ( Why India Naomi? ).//
I’m sorry I didn’t make myself clear. I don’t believe Jesus the new born was taken immediately from his mother. Given the basis of my theory, I think it entirely feasible that the family fled to the safety of Egypt in the early years of Jesus’ life.
Why India? Well, firstly it would have been judicial to remove the child Jesus from a hostile environment, Secondly, bearing in mind the extraordinary presence of the wise men who journeyed to Palestine because a king was about to be born, together with Jesus’ penchant for expounding elements of a philosophy that could well be compared to those of the East, it’s possible that, although he was of course educated as a Jew, he was also versed in Eastern philosophies which he wouldn’t have been exposed in a home environment. That would also explain his absence in the early years and again from age 12 to about 30.
//Jesus did not appear to be anti-Roman ( pay onto Ceasar what is Ceasars...) - //
Expediency. Open hostility towards the Romans would have seen him on the cross sooner.
//he saved most of his ire for the Jewish Hierarchy of the day .//
That does appear to be the case, although I do believe the authors of the gospels made a concerted effort to demonise the Jews. See my comment below.
//Pilate almost bends over backwards to avoid crucifying Jesus , he comes up with a brilliant plan to bring along the thug Barabas and hold a vote......which he then loses...//
The plan was to allow the Jews to choose between prisoners, the reason given that it was a tradition at Passover – but it wasn’t. No such tradition ever existed. However, once again this story, manufactured by the anonymous authors, renders the Romans innocent and the Jews guilty – a perceived guilt they have been burdened with ever since.
//If jesus was not the son of God how do you explain the fact that his message has survived 2000 years and struck a resonant chord in the heart of billions ?//
An offer of everlasting life is a big carrot.
//Peter and the Apostles and Paul (who converted from high ranking jew) preached Jesus's message under conditions of persecution and threat of death . They were eventually martyred . Would they have done this to promote something which is fiction ?//
I don’t believe Paul (who never met Jesus nor heard him speak) did preach Jesus’ message – and the disciples didn’t believe it either. They argued with him. That said, I don’t doubt their sincerity in their mission. They believed Jesus had risen from the dead because they believed he had died in the cross – but that’s no guarantee that he had. I say again, dead people don’t come back to life.
Finally, if Jesus was the son of God then, rationally, Joseph’s recorded lineage is redundant.
Benhilton, // If Jesus isn't the son of God how would you explain the resurrection ?//
I don’t believe it happened. Dead people don’t come back to life. As I said, I think Jesus was taken from the cross alive.
//Joseph's lineage pinned Mary to Bethlehem at the time of the census , enabling that part of the scriptures to be fulfilled .//
The census, historically, is a bone of contention. The only census recorded around that time took place in 6AD – several years after the birth of Jesus and the death of Herod. Furthermore, no Roman census required citizens to travel to the place of their birth or of their ancestors to register. I conclude that the unknown authors of the gospels, writing long after the event, used the census to explain the family’s necessary presence in Bethlehem in order to demonstrate that prophecy had been fulfilled. Other prophecies were ‘fulfilled’ in a similar manner.
//The wise men went home by a different route ( instead of returning to Herod - they aren't called wise for nothing ) This gave Mary and Joseph the chance to flee to Egypt ( Why India Naomi? ).//
I’m sorry I didn’t make myself clear. I don’t believe Jesus the new born was taken immediately from his mother. Given the basis of my theory, I think it entirely feasible that the family fled to the safety of Egypt in the early years of Jesus’ life.
Why India? Well, firstly it would have been judicial to remove the child Jesus from a hostile environment, Secondly, bearing in mind the extraordinary presence of the wise men who journeyed to Palestine because a king was about to be born, together with Jesus’ penchant for expounding elements of a philosophy that could well be compared to those of the East, it’s possible that, although he was of course educated as a Jew, he was also versed in Eastern philosophies which he wouldn’t have been exposed in a home environment. That would also explain his absence in the early years and again from age 12 to about 30.
//Jesus did not appear to be anti-Roman ( pay onto Ceasar what is Ceasars...) - //
Expediency. Open hostility towards the Romans would have seen him on the cross sooner.
//he saved most of his ire for the Jewish Hierarchy of the day .//
That does appear to be the case, although I do believe the authors of the gospels made a concerted effort to demonise the Jews. See my comment below.
//Pilate almost bends over backwards to avoid crucifying Jesus , he comes up with a brilliant plan to bring along the thug Barabas and hold a vote......which he then loses...//
The plan was to allow the Jews to choose between prisoners, the reason given that it was a tradition at Passover – but it wasn’t. No such tradition ever existed. However, once again this story, manufactured by the anonymous authors, renders the Romans innocent and the Jews guilty – a perceived guilt they have been burdened with ever since.
//If jesus was not the son of God how do you explain the fact that his message has survived 2000 years and struck a resonant chord in the heart of billions ?//
An offer of everlasting life is a big carrot.
//Peter and the Apostles and Paul (who converted from high ranking jew) preached Jesus's message under conditions of persecution and threat of death . They were eventually martyred . Would they have done this to promote something which is fiction ?//
I don’t believe Paul (who never met Jesus nor heard him speak) did preach Jesus’ message – and the disciples didn’t believe it either. They argued with him. That said, I don’t doubt their sincerity in their mission. They believed Jesus had risen from the dead because they believed he had died in the cross – but that’s no guarantee that he had. I say again, dead people don’t come back to life.
Finally, if Jesus was the son of God then, rationally, Joseph’s recorded lineage is redundant.
In response to nailit , the uniqueness of Jesus is the following that he has built . If this is a legend , no other legend has built such a following . The early church fathers risked death to keep his message alive . Many of them were martyred as were many others over the centuries and the following has grown to what it is now .
In response to Naomi ( I have posted this link before ) :
https:/
In response to Naomi ( I have posted this link before ) :
https:/
benhilton, // CrossExamined.org is an evangelical, inter-denominational Christian ministry. We seek to present evidence that the Bible is true.//
I’m always dubious of organisations that set out with the specific purpose of either confirming or debunking anything because that doesn’t bode well for unbiased critical examination. However, I’m willing to give everything a chance and having read a little of that very soon discovered that the ‘evidence’ presented isn’t evidence at all. The census that Quirinius conducted is a matter of historical record – your man concedes that – and then goes on to say, “At first glance, these objections …may seem insurmountable and quite difficult to answer, but an honest appraisal of the historical and archaeological evidence suggests that they are not.” But this is not an honest appraisal. It’s chock full of ‘may have been’ and ‘might have been’ – even to suggesting that the recorded census could have been the second conducted by Quirinius. Sorry benhilton – but this is not ‘evidence’. The author, along with his illustrious cohorts, is making it up. Wanting it to be so doesn’t make it so.
I’m always dubious of organisations that set out with the specific purpose of either confirming or debunking anything because that doesn’t bode well for unbiased critical examination. However, I’m willing to give everything a chance and having read a little of that very soon discovered that the ‘evidence’ presented isn’t evidence at all. The census that Quirinius conducted is a matter of historical record – your man concedes that – and then goes on to say, “At first glance, these objections …may seem insurmountable and quite difficult to answer, but an honest appraisal of the historical and archaeological evidence suggests that they are not.” But this is not an honest appraisal. It’s chock full of ‘may have been’ and ‘might have been’ – even to suggesting that the recorded census could have been the second conducted by Quirinius. Sorry benhilton – but this is not ‘evidence’. The author, along with his illustrious cohorts, is making it up. Wanting it to be so doesn’t make it so.
I can't believe Luke made the bit about the census up thinking Theophilus wouldn't know .
This is the New Catholic Encyclopedia's take on the gospel of Luke - the bit about the census is towards the end of a long page:
http://
This is the New Catholic Encyclopedia's take on the gospel of Luke - the bit about the census is towards the end of a long page:
http://
benhilton, //I can't believe Luke made the bit about the census up thinking Theophilus wouldn't know .//
But ‘Luke’ wasn’t there. He was an anonymous author writing on hearsay long after the event – and the identity of Theophilus isn’t known either so it really isn’t rational to claim that Theophilus ‘knew’.
If you’re seeking truth offering the Catholic Encyclopedia as a serious source of information isn’t the best move.
Tilly, I’m pleased you’re enjoying it. It's a fascinating subject ... well to me, at least.
But ‘Luke’ wasn’t there. He was an anonymous author writing on hearsay long after the event – and the identity of Theophilus isn’t known either so it really isn’t rational to claim that Theophilus ‘knew’.
If you’re seeking truth offering the Catholic Encyclopedia as a serious source of information isn’t the best move.
Tilly, I’m pleased you’re enjoying it. It's a fascinating subject ... well to me, at least.
Yes a good thread and respectful posts.
Sadly Naomi, your opinions seem to be based on your pre conceived bias against Jesus, and you appear to root out obscure so called evidence to back up your claims.
I have not yet come across the so called evidence you cite, which all seems to fall into the same obscure category as Eric Von Daniken and other fringe authors.
Sadly Naomi, your opinions seem to be based on your pre conceived bias against Jesus, and you appear to root out obscure so called evidence to back up your claims.
I have not yet come across the so called evidence you cite, which all seems to fall into the same obscure category as Eric Von Daniken and other fringe authors.
Naomi - If your views have any credence, then you should also articulate the world view that you hold, your explanation for good and evil, or like Dawkins, maybe you believe in no such thing, but an indifferent cosmic chaos that benefits some at random, and causes suffering to others, again at random.
And where is the moral absolute?
Some societies love each other, some eat each other, all in accordance with their prevailing moral fashion.
Your shelf full of books have done little to enlighten you I'm afraid.
And where is the moral absolute?
Some societies love each other, some eat each other, all in accordance with their prevailing moral fashion.
Your shelf full of books have done little to enlighten you I'm afraid.
