Theists Only: Who was/is Jesus, in your opinion?

[fallingblood]

During His ministry the people He fed, sought to put a crown on His head.
He wanted no part of it and left them quickly to be alone.
So yes, He drew large crowds, and they favored Him.

Even if this would be true, it means nothing. There is a character that Josephus mentions (who also makes an appearance in the Bible, or at least the idea of him does) called the "Egyptian." By all accounts, he had a large following; Josephus saying about thirty thousands. Rome sent out troops and massacred them. Rome had no problem killing large gatherings of people. They would not have feared a group of Jews who were connected to Jesus.

When He went to the Temple, He chastised the entire crowd driving all of them from the Temple.
This would be disturbing the peace.
A charge worthy of a beating....not crucifixion.

It would have been a charge worth of crucifixion. The key point is that it occurred during the Passover. Passover being the time in the Jews celebrated the Exodus from Egypt, or their freedom from Egypt. Making this a touchy holiday as Jews were celebrating the freedom they once had, and dearly wanted again.

Jerusalem would have been a tinderbox; one in which any spark could set things ablaze. Pilate, as with all large holidays, would have been in Jerusalem in order to make sure peace remained. Most likely, he would have had standing orders to the affect that anyone causing issues would be killed.

Now, when Jesus went into the Temple, he did more than chastise the crowd. He over turned the money changers tables. Now, something must be understood about the money changers. They had a very specific reason, which was needed for the Temple. In the Temple, no one could buy sacrificial animals with money that had idols or anything of the sort on. This ruled out the money that was used in the majority of the Roman empire because it had the face of a ruler on it. So the money changers took that money, and switched for a currency that was acceptable so that they could buy the proper sacrificial animals as was part of the tradition of Passover.

So Jesus over turning the money changers tables was a big deal. What Jesus did was symbolically destroy the Temple. It upset people, and could have been that spark that was needed in order to start a revolt. It was not something that could be tolerated, and was a sign of insurrection. Thus, Rome had to deal with him as a criminal, and executed him, as they had executed thousands before him.

But the pharisees wanted Him dead. His message reduced them publicly.
It is noted they plotted to that end.
However, speaking well of God and His kingdom is not a crime in Rome.

Being called King of the Jews...is.

Pharisees had little power. They would have had no power in order to have him killed. Actually, their teachings weren't even very different from what Jesus was teaching. There is even some evidence that the writer of Matthew may have been part of the Pharisees, or had at one time. Really, they had no power.

Being called the King of the Jews was not technically a crime. Especially if one never accepted that title. It may get some attention, but in itself was not a crime. However, going into the Temple, causing a disruption that could potentially lead to something larger, while preaching that God was going to overthrow the Kingdom of Rome and replace it with the Kingdom of God was definitely a sign of treason, and a crime worthy of death.

 

[Thief]

Even if this would be true, it means nothing. There is a character that Josephus mentions (who also makes an appearance in the Bible, or at least the idea of him does) called the "Egyptian." By all accounts, he had a large following; Josephus saying about thirty thousands. Rome sent out troops and massacred them. Rome had no problem killing large gatherings of people. They would not have feared a group of Jews who were connected to Jesus.
It would have been a charge worth of crucifixion. The key point is that it occurred during the Passover. Passover being the time in the Jews celebrated the Exodus from Egypt, or their freedom from Egypt. Making this a touchy holiday as Jews were celebrating the freedom they once had, and dearly wanted again.

Jerusalem would have been a tinderbox; one in which any spark could set things ablaze. Pilate, as with all large holidays, would have been in Jerusalem in order to make sure peace remained. Most likely, he would have had standing orders to the affect that anyone causing issues would be killed.

Now, when Jesus went into the Temple, he did more than chastise the crowd. He over turned the money changers tables. Now, something must be understood about the money changers. They had a very specific reason, which was needed for the Temple. In the Temple, no one could buy sacrificial animals with money that had idols or anything of the sort on. This ruled out the money that was used in the majority of the Roman empire because it had the face of a ruler on it. So the money changers took that money, and switched for a currency that was acceptable so that they could buy the proper sacrificial animals as was part of the tradition of Passover.

So Jesus over turning the money changers tables was a big deal. What Jesus did was symbolically destroy the Temple. It upset people, and could have been that spark that was needed in order to start a revolt. It was not something that could be tolerated, and was a sign of insurrection. Thus, Rome had to deal with him as a criminal, and executed him, as they had executed thousands before him.
Pharisees had little power. They would have had no power in order to have him killed. Actually, their teachings weren't even very different from what Jesus was teaching. There is even some evidence that the writer of Matthew may have been part of the Pharisees, or had at one time. Really, they had no power.

Being called the King of the Jews was not technically a crime. Especially if one never accepted that title. It may get some attention, but in itself was not a crime. However, going into the Temple, causing a disruption that could potentially lead to something larger, while preaching that God was going to overthrow the Kingdom of Rome and replace it with the Kingdom of God was definitely a sign of treason, and a crime worthy of death.

Pilate was not interested what Jesus thought of Himself.
(though he did ask)
He was concerned what the people thought of Him.

And the pharisees had enough influence...they had to be dealt with.

And turning over the tables was not a symbolic gesture of destroying the Temple.
Jesus taught the Temple to be a house of prayer, and did not approve of the practice He did see.

As for the Romans fearing Jesus...probably not....however....
He was rumored to feed several thousand at a moment's notice...without apparent provisions.
Storms dissipated at His say so.
Lame men walk...blind men see....sickened limbs restored....the dead return.

Whether you believe such things or not...such a man in lead of even a small army would be a force to be reckoned with.

Shall we continue with what the Romans thought?
Or perhaps you prefer to talk about Jesus?

 

[fallingblood]

Pilate was not interested what Jesus thought of Himself.
(though he did ask)
He was concerned what the people thought of Him.

If that is true, it still would support that he would execute Jesus without question. Either way, Jesus was executed as criminal and Pilate would not have had a problem doing so.

And the pharisees had enough influence...they had to be dealt with.

Historically speaking, not really. There were a sect of Judaism. They held no real power.

And turning over the tables was not a symbolic gesture of destroying the Temple.
Jesus taught the Temple to be a house of prayer, and did not approve of the practice He did see.

In Mark, it certainly is. The Temple was serving it's intended function. Jesus may not have approved, but it really didn't matter. The fact that he went in their and disrupted the practices of the Temple was a very big deal. It was something that could have started a revolt.

As for the Romans fearing Jesus...probably not....however....
He was rumored to feed several thousand at a moment's notice...without apparent provisions.
Storms dissipated at His say so.
Lame men walk...blind men see....sickened limbs restored....the dead return.

Whether you believe such things or not...such a man in lead of even a small army would be a force to be reckoned with.

Isn't thirty thousand people considered a small army? Rome had no problem slaughtering them in regards to the person called the "Egyptian." Rome was very good in stopping uprisings as they had quite a bit of experience.

And Jesus was not the only miracle worker in the first century. He was nothing wholly unique.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I have a few theories... some of them involve him being a metaphor or a symbol... for example I have compared him to the golden calf. Or there is the Joseph Atwill approach, where Jesus is just a literary figure representing Emperor Titus.

One among the theories of mine which involve the idea that a historical Jesus existed put him as a sort of fellow like Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda. He preaches, has followers, makes outrageous claims which some people believe and other people scoff. And when I hear stories about Miranda, I say to myself "Jesus was no different".


I haven't picked one... because honestly, as a non-Christian, I don't really care.

Do I believe he was a great philosopher? No.
Do I believe he was a Rabbi? No.
Do I believe he was a sage? No.
Do I believe he was a prophet? No.

 

[S-word]

I have a few theories... some of them involve him being a metaphor or a symbol... for example I have compared him to the golden calf. Or there is the Joseph Atwill approach, where Jesus is just a literary figure representing Emperor Titus.

One among the theories of mine which involve the idea that a historical Jesus existed put him as a sort of fellow like Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda. He preaches, has followers, makes outrageous claims which some people believe and other people scoff. And when I hear stories about Miranda, I say to myself "Jesus was no different".


I haven't picked one... because honestly, as a non-Christian, I don't really care.

Do I believe he was a great philosopher? No.
Do I believe he was a Rabbi? No.
Do I believe he was a sage? No.
Do I believe he was a prophet? No.

Do you believe the Old Testament, where in Deuteronomy 18: 18; the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, said to Moses, "I will send them a prophet just like you from among their own people; I will tell him what to say, and he will tell the people everything I command. He will speak in my name, Etc?

Do you believe that Peter, who was of the Jewish religion in Acts 3: 22; claims that it was the man Jesus who fulfilled that particular prophecy, and that the people who spread palm leave before him as he entered Jerusalem riding upon a colt, believed also that he was the fulfillment of that prophecy, when they cried out,"Blessed is he, who comes in the name of the Lord"?

 

[Thief]

If that is true, it still would support that he would execute Jesus without question. Either way, Jesus was executed as criminal and Pilate would not have had a problem doing so.

Historically speaking, not really. There were a sect of Judaism. They held no real power.

In Mark, it certainly is. The Temple was serving it's intended function. Jesus may not have approved, but it really didn't matter. The fact that he went in their and disrupted the practices of the Temple was a very big deal. It was something that could have started a revolt.
Isn't thirty thousand people considered a small army? Rome had no problem slaughtering them in regards to the person called the "Egyptian." Rome was very good in stopping uprisings as they had quite a bit of experience.

And Jesus was not the only miracle worker in the first century. He was nothing wholly unique.

I would agree the Carpenter was executed for insurrection.
But there was a problem.
The Carpenter wasn't guilty.
As I stated before Pilate tried several lesser remedies to avoid condemnation of this one man.

And the 'function' of the Temple belonged to the Jews.
The incident at the Temple would not have started a revolt against Rome.
To the Romans, it appeared to be a crazy man had turned against His own people...with a whip.
Pilate simply returned the favor....to restore the peace.
But it was the Jews who insisted upon capital punishment.

As for martial uprisings.

Any general that has control of the weather, refresh his troops, heal their wounds, even beyond death...cannot be stopped.

There was at least one soldier that believed it could be so.
He did ask the Carpenter for the life of his ailing servant.
The soldier returned home to find his servant healed.
And the Carpenter did not even approach the house of the soldier.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Jesus was killed for being a heretic, but the Pharisees lied and said he was a king. It wouldn't be the first time. The Talmud contains tracts that the Sanhedrin had several messiah figures stoned to death because they taught something different. They stoned heretics so frequently in fact, that the Romans took away Judea's right to use the death penalty, as shown in the NT when they took Jesus to Herod.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Do you believe the Old Testament, where in Deuteronomy 18: 18; the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, said to Moses, "I will send them a prophet just like you from among their own people; I will tell him what to say, and he will tell the people everything I command. He will speak in my name, Etc?

Yes, I believe that was a passing of the torch from Moses to Joshua... and indeed to the idea that there would be more prophets in the future.

Do you believe that Peter, who was of the Jewish religion in Acts 3: 22; claims that it was the man Jesus who fulfilled that particular prophecy, and that the people who spread palm leave before him as he entered Jerusalem riding upon a colt, believed also that he was the fulfillment of that prophecy, when they cried out,"Blessed is he, who comes in the name of the Lord"?

No.

 

[fallingblood]

I would agree the Carpenter was executed for insurrection.
But there was a problem.
The Carpenter wasn't guilty.
As I stated before Pilate tried several lesser remedies to avoid condemnation of this one man.

The details in the Bible makes it very clear that he committed a crime. He was guilty. Going into the Temple, causing a large scene and doing something that could possibly start riot, was a crime, and he was guilty of such.

What we know of Pilate does not agree with the Biblical account. The evidence would suggest that Pilate, who had no problem getting rid of Jewish people, executed Jesus without a second thought. The lesser remedies, such as offering to free Jesus, would not have happened, and was never a tradition.

And the 'function' of the Temple belonged to the Jews.
The incident at the Temple would not have started a revolt against Rome.
To the Romans, it appeared to be a crazy man had turned against His own people...with a whip.
Pilate simply returned the favor....to restore the peace.
But it was the Jews who insisted upon capital punishment.

The incident at the Temple could have easily started a revolt. The holiday of Passover would have been shaky to begin with as the Jewish people were celebrating their freedom from Egypt.

At the time, Jerusalem was under direct Roman control, (as opposed to Galilee which was under a client ruler) and that was definitely something the Jews were not happy with (as is seen with the major revolts a few decades later). The Jewish people were trying to regain their freedom, as is clear with the various "messiahs" that were issuing smaller revolts. Rome was very ready to squash these movements, and had done quite a few times.

So when a Jewish man comes into the Temple, one who had been preaching the fall of Rome, and the coming of the Kingdom of God, and then causes a major scene, disrupting Passover, yes, a riot could have ensued. Riots ensued for less.

As for martial uprisings.

Any general that has control of the weather, refresh his troops, heal their wounds, even beyond death...cannot be stopped.

There was at least one soldier that believed it could be so.
He did ask the Carpenter for the life of his ailing servant.
The soldier returned home to find his servant healed.
And the Carpenter did not even approach the house of the soldier.

How many miracle workers could do the same, or were claimed to do the same as Jesus? Jesus was not unique in these accords. Even if they are true, which I highly doubt, it would have been nothing wholly unique.

 

[Thief]

The details in the Bible makes it very clear that he committed a crime. He was guilty. Going into the Temple, causing a large scene and doing something that could possibly start riot, was a crime, and he was guilty of such.

What we know of Pilate does not agree with the Biblical account. The evidence would suggest that Pilate, who had no problem getting rid of Jewish people, executed Jesus without a second thought. The lesser remedies, such as offering to free Jesus, would not have happened, and was never a tradition.
The incident at the Temple could have easily started a revolt. The holiday of Passover would have been shaky to begin with as the Jewish people were celebrating their freedom from Egypt.

At the time, Jerusalem was under direct Roman control, (as opposed to Galilee which was under a client ruler) and that was definitely something the Jews were not happy with (as is seen with the major revolts a few decades later). The Jewish people were trying to regain their freedom, as is clear with the various "messiahs" that were issuing smaller revolts. Rome was very ready to squash these movements, and had done quite a few times.

So when a Jewish man comes into the Temple, one who had been preaching the fall of Rome, and the coming of the Kingdom of God, and then causes a major scene, disrupting Passover, yes, a riot could have ensued. Riots ensued for less.

How many miracle workers could do the same, or were claimed to do the same as Jesus? Jesus was not unique in these accords. Even if they are true, which I highly doubt, it would have been nothing wholly unique.

You side step rather poorly.
I have made a faithful report.

 

[fallingblood]

Jesus was killed for being a heretic, but the Pharisees lied and said he was a king. It wouldn't be the first time. The Talmud contains tracts that the Sanhedrin had several messiah figures stoned to death because they taught something different. They stoned heretics so frequently in fact, that the Romans took away Judea's right to use the death penalty, as shown in the NT when they took Jesus to Herod.

Heretic according to what? Judaism was very diverse. They didn't just kill heretics as the idea of a heretic is a matter of perspective. Again, Judaism was very diverse. Truly, the Pharisees could have even been considered heretics by the modern sense. They in no way had much power.

Also, the Pharisees were not powerful over the Sanhedrin. But to suggest that they frequently stoned heretics in the first century isn't really true. Again, the idea of heretic is subjective. And as Judaism, for the most part, accepted other sects, I'm not sure if one could really label many as heretics.

 

[fallingblood]

You side step rather poorly.
I have made a faithful report.

Show me where I side stepped and I will issue a response to the part as soon as I get a chance.

 

[S-word]

Yes, I believe that was a passing of the torch from Moses to Joshua... and indeed to the idea that there would be more prophets in the future.
No.

What a pity. Ah well, But it's your choice whether to believe or not, and it's your loss.

 

[Poisonshady313]

What a pity. Ah well, But it's your choice whether to believe or not, and it's your loss.

It's neither a pity nor a loss. But I get the fact that you've got good intentions, and so I'll leave it at that.

 

[S-word]

It's neither a pity nor a loss. But I get the fact that you've got good intentions, and so I'll leave it at that.

We both have good intentions, as we both wish that others should come to the realisation of the truth, the only difference between the two of us, is seen in the fact that my version of the truth is correct and as your version of the truth is in opposition to mine, this means that your version of the truth is flawed, but knowing that your intentions are good, I'll leave it at that.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

S-word how can anyone's versions of truth be flawed if God be one and within all? And their religion leads them to connecting with God and being benevolent towards others? How can anyone's perception of truth be flawed? Truth is, regardless of what ideas or labels we apply to it. Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. are just words.

 

[S-word]

S-word how can anyone's versions of truth be flawed if God be one and within all? And their religion leads them to connecting with God and being benevolent towards others? How can anyone's perception of truth be flawed? Truth is, regardless of what ideas or labels we apply to it. Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. are just words.

And what pray tell is your version of the truth, as I have had many people give to me their versions of the truth and not two of them are the same. Tell me, does your truth include the eternal torture of sinful souls in the fire of hell, which is the truth according to some, or does your truth proclaim that the sinners will suffer the second death, which is when, after the first death, the mind/spirit is separated from the eternal universal soul/life-force that pervades the entire universal body and all therein. The first death is that of the body, in which "You" the mind/spirit develops from the experiences and information that is taken in through the senses of that body, and which spirit is imprinted upon the eternal evolving universal soul, before the body in which "You" developed was returned to the universal elements from which it was formed?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

You have to see beyond petty things that people call truth to what real truth is. What did Jesus mean by: whatever a person has done to the least of these, they did it to me? We are all one in Christ, and whatever religious title a person professes, it doesn't change it. Any good deed they do is accepted by God, and in fact, Buddha, Krishna, Tao, etc. are just different words for the same thing.

 

[S-word]

You have to see beyond petty things that people call truth to what real truth is. What did Jesus mean by: whatever a person has done to the least of these, they did it to me? We are all one in Christ, and whatever religious title a person professes, it doesn't change it. Any good deed they do is accepted by God, and in fact, Buddha, Krishna, Tao, etc. are just different words for the same thing.

He who sheds man's blood, BY MAN must his blood be shed. He who lives by the sword, must die by the sword. is this included in your truth?

 

[Thief]

Show me where I side stepped and I will issue a response to the part as soon as I get a chance.

With each rebuttal.
As in insisting the Carpenter was guilty.
Sure...He whipped His own people and drove them out of the Temple.
But that's not ...'king of the Jews'...the offense posted over His head.

Guilty of chastising a people for misusing the Temple...yes.
Is that a crime...or the act of a zealous prophet?
Is being a prophet a crime?

And yes Pilate had a problem with it.
Using the Roman penal code in response to a prophets handiwork?
Inappropriate.

The accusation that put the Carpenter on the cross...was false.

And anything else I've said about the Carpenter is supported by the Gospels.
If need be I could send you to each and every occasion.
But that would be your homework...not mine.