To Non-Christians: What are your thoughts on Jesus and Early Christianity?

[Erebus]

This is asking what do you think really happened (as opposed to just what you don't believe).

I mean opinions like Jesus never existed; existed but got distorted; existed but a fraud/hoaxer; had miraculous events; had no miraculous events, not enough information to judge, etcetera.

Also what are your thoughts on the earliest Christians including the apostles and eyewitnesses like St. Peter? Hoaxed? Hoaxers? Errant well-meaning? Got it right to the best of their abilities? Under the influence of a charismatic leader? What?

I think that 2000 years of Chinese whispers, superstition and politicking have created a very different Jesus to the man who may or may not have existed. As to my opinion of the historical figure... honestly I'm relatively apathetic. He may have existed, he might not (I haven't read enough about this topic to decide for myself which is more likely) but I don't believe he was the son of an all-powerful interventionist deity.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't doubt that Jesus existed, although I don't think that he was anything like what is described in the Christian Bible.

I believe was a preacher and the leader of a doomsday cult. I believe that when he died and the end of world didn't come his followers latched onto the idea that he couldn't really be dead and that all of his prophecies would still come true. Over time, and with the integration of Roman and other pagan religious ideas, the basic tenets of Christianity were born.

The term "doomsday cult" might be a bit excessive but, otherwise, ...

 

[George-ananda]

You're saying that jesus existed throughout the first and second centuries?

I needn't respond; your own words betray your case.

 

[George-ananda]

You mentioned deeper and more satisfying teachings that exist in the eastern/Indian tradition. Can you please cite them and provide a brief description of each of them for us?

Sure. I believe the saints/sages of India have delved deeper into the nature of reality than other religious traditions. From a starting point I was an avid student of paranormal phenomena of various types. I became convinced beyond reasonable doubt that something interesting is going on. I learned things like Theosophy and other esoteric knowledge sources (all based or in-line with Vedic/Indian science) understand and explain the details of how these things are just part and parcel of an expanded worldview with many planes and sub-planes. Western thinking (including religious thinking) has no model to understand such things and usually employs denial or odd explanations. Furthermore, at the highest level the sages/masters of this tradition show how this is all Consciousness and provide a non-dual (God and creation are not-two) philosophy that satisfies the intellect in ways superior to the dualistic schools which provide paradoxes and challenging to believe dogma.

 

[George-ananda]

Jesus never existed as a literal human being but is a force acting within the human body. "God" in the flesh as in literally "God" inside of a human body made of flesh and blood.

The 12 disciples are the 12 cranial nerves/branches. Being taught wisdom, knowledge, truth, understanding, love, peace, humility, charity, mercy, compassion from within.

The tomb of this force is the solar plexus. It is hidden and buried and needs unleashed/resurrected within someone's heart.

"The Christ" is a substance flowing through the human body. It goes from in and out, back and forth through every human beings temple(mind). In and out of certain levels of consciousness. Most ignore the thoughts, ideas, etc. this force creates in their conscious minds.

"Jesus" and "the Christ" have different names all throughout different religious texts. It's been made about an outward messenger and not the message. It's been made to seek externally rather than internally.

The eye witnesses are the ones who have made the eye of the mind whole(holy) and single(one.) They have seen the light and resurrection from within. They have understood the work that was being done within them because they took the leap of faith to begin working on themselves from within. They picked up their inner cross (consciousness within the physical plane/physical body) and have humbled themselves by taking responsibility, have had enough self created suffering(conscious state of hell) and have set out to gradually crucify their ego/pysche at the place of the skull. Denying their animal minded nature. The ones who stop making excuses and rid of the "well I can't do that's." What they come to realize on the other side, the blind faith that there was another side... is the most precious and surreal bliss.

The miracles are making the blind(lacking awareness) to see(awakening-aware). The deaf(ones who don't hear/listen/understand) to remove the cobwebs from their ears to hear and listen and understand.

"Jesus said" is another way of conveying that "the higher mind" of an individual said.... "The Christ conscious" of an individual said....

"The higher mind" said, because of your traditions and your own ways, I will reject you. Because you are seeking externally, I will reject you. Because you are prideful, bitter, blameful, egotistical... I will reject you.

Very interesting but I have to think all these symbolic things were not in the minds of the writers of the New Testament. I would guess someone created a symbolic way of looking at these things after the fact of them being written. That is not to say these symbolic meanings are not a useful and helpful way of looking at things.

 

[George-ananda]

I don't doubt that Jesus existed, although I don't think that he was anything like what is described in the Christian Bible.

I believe was a preacher and the leader of a doomsday cult. I believe that when he died and the end of world didn't come his followers latched onto the idea that he couldn't really be dead and that all of his prophecies would still come true. Over time, and with the integration of Roman and other pagan religious ideas, the basic tenets of Christianity were born.

This makes some sense but I still have to believe the early followers did experience something beyond the normal during His life and after His death. You are kind of suggesting someone like St. Peter was either creating his own reality with his mind or was knowingly propagating falsehoods (mentally attributing it to serving some higher good). He was willing to die unrepentant and unwilling to disavow his beliefs. We will never know I guess, but I think that Jesus did possess beyond the normal abilities and did appear in some manner to His disciples after death is the more likely history from all I've heard.

Though I must say that the many followers looking for an apocalyptic end of the world in a fairly short time after Jesus' death is a puzzling and troubling part of Christianity to me.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This makes some sense but I still have to believe the early followers did experience something beyond the normal during His life and after His death.

You confuse "have to" with "want to" ...

You also presume to know the experiences of "the early followers" based on 2nd-hand testimony evolved decades later.

 

[Tarheeler]

This makes some sense but I still have to believe the early followers did experience something beyond the normal during His life and after His death.

You're free to believe whatever you wish.

You are kind of suggesting someone like St. Peter was either creating his own reality with his mind or was knowingly propagating falsehoods (mentally attributing it to serving some higher good).

I didn't suggest anything. You asked for opinions concerning the existance of Jesus, and I gave mine. Anything you choose to infer after that is on you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This makes some sense but I still have to believe the early followers did experience something beyond the normal during His life and after His death.

I see no more reason to assume this for the followers of Jesus than I do for the followers of, say, L. Ron Hubbard.

 

[George-ananda]

I see no more reason to assume this for the followers of Jesus than I do for the followers of, say, L. Ron Hubbard.

I didn't 'assume' either. I am just considering all the evidence and argumentation and determining what I feel is the most likely scenario.

 

[JoStories]

I'll go first as a non-Christian myself.

I think Jesus was a highly advanced soul that came to earth with a mission to teach. He likely performed miracles and made post-mortem appearances to His disciples. He studied in the Himalayan region during His 'missing years' and probably had deeper knowledge than the masses could rightly grasp but probably held deeper teachings with a select few. I think the early Church was lead by well-meaning (but not inerrant) followers who were galvanized by experiences of love and the miraculous.

I am not Christian but pro- sensible Christianity. I think deeper and more satisfying teachings exist in the eastern/Indian tradition and those are the teachings I identify with.

As an eastern path follower myself, this is what I would have said as well George. Jesus, IMO, was much like The Buddha in that he was an advanced soul who might have been like the Tibetan monks that taught Helena Blavatsky, the founder of Theosophy.

 

[wizanda]

Though I must say that the many followers looking for an apocalyptic end of the world in a fairly short time after Jesus' death is a puzzling and troubling part of Christianity to me.

If Yeshua was of an Essene background, who also had Messianic Age prophetic beliefs, its not so much apocalyptic; yet the same as we find in the end of Kali Yuga... That we will come to a new age of enlightenment, and Godliness.

This is still to happen, people misconstrued some of the prophetic texts to think it was all happening at once....Yet clearly many parts are still to be fulfilled.

Yeshua's part as the suffering servant was to divorce Israel, which clearly happened with the 2nd temple destruction. His role was to help shorten the days of ungodliness; which will happen when the fire comes (as prophesied globally in many traditions).

 

[JoStories]

But what about first century sources like the apostles and St. Peter and other eyewitnesses. The resurrection claims go back to the very earliest extant writings about Christianity for example.

There is no absolute proof of Peter or these other witnesses. And most of the story, as has been pointed out in other threads, was borrowed from older stories and sources. To imagine it as truth is simply too far fetched, or at least for me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I didn't 'assume' either. I am just considering all the evidence and argumentation and determining what I feel is the most likely scenario.

Sure you are.

... but for the sake of semantics, when you look at the followers of Jesus vs. the followers of L. Ron Hubbard, what reason do you have to conclude that the followers of Jesus were more likely to have experienced "something beyond the normal"?

 

[Angel1]

Sure. I believe the saints/sages of India have delved deeper into the nature of reality than other religious traditions. From a starting point I was an avid student of paranormal phenomena of various types. I became convinced beyond reasonable doubt that something interesting is going on. I learned things like Theosophy and other esoteric knowledge sources (all based or in-line with Vedic/Indian science) understand and explain the details of how these things are just part and parcel of an expanded worldview with many planes and sub-planes. Western thinking (including religious thinking) has no model to understand such things and usually employs denial or odd explanations. Furthermore, at the highest level the sages/masters of this tradition show how this is all Consciousness and provide a non-dual (God and creation are not-two) philosophy that satisfies the intellect in ways superior to the dualistic schools which provide paradoxes and challenging to believe dogma.

I am a Theosophist, so I assure that we are on the same page. I am also a Spiritist and a New Ager. There is no disconnect between the Eastern and Western teachings. Each school or religion simply takes up different aspects of the same eternal truths. But they are all working together to lead us to the One God and one Truth.

Theosophical studies cover Cosmogony which deals with everything about the Cosmos and Anthropogenesis which takes up the development of man from its beginning to its end. Jesus did not tell us everything he knew or all that are but he foretold the coming of the time when all divine instruction will be upgraded.

He said: "I have used proverbs to tell you these things, but the time is coming when the truth shall not be so veiled and I will speak to you plainly about the Father." (JN 16)

"If you adhere to my teaching, you will really be my disciples; and you shall know the Truth and the Truth shall make you free." (JN 8)

"Oh, there is so much more I want to tell you, but you cannot understand it now. When the Spirit of Holiness and Truth comes, he will guide you into all truth." (JN 16)

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (JN 14)

These are the bases of Spiritism or Guidance by the Holy Spirits. They are here, now, guiding all those who are receptive to the higher teachings. The Holy Spirits or the angels and archangels are the Devas of Theosophy. They outrank humans in the spirit hierarchy.

That said, everyone must start over from where he ended in his past life and work forward. This is the New Age. There will be a general upgrading of all previous divine instruction.

 

[George-ananda]

If Yeshua was of an Essene background, who also had Messianic Age prophetic beliefs, its not so much apocalyptic; yet the same as we find in the end of Kali Yuga... That we will come to a new age of enlightenment, and Godliness.

This is still to happen, people misconstrued some of the prophetic texts to think it was all happening at once....Yet clearly many parts are still to be fulfilled.

Yeshua's part as the suffering servant was to divorce Israel, which clearly happened with the 2nd temple destruction. His role was to help shorten the days of ungodliness; which will happen when the fire comes (as prophesied globally in many traditions).

It seems to me though that the New Testament writers where expecting some world changing event with Jesus returning to earth and some kind of dramatic judgment day. And they seemed to be expecting this rather soon. Is that what Jesus taught? or how could things have gone so incorrect in such a short time?

This is what I meant was confusing and troubling to me.

 

[George-ananda]

There is no absolute proof of Peter or these other witnesses. And most of the story, as has been pointed out in other threads, was borrowed from older stories and sources. To imagine it as truth is simply too far fetched, or at least for me.

Scholars seem to think the letters of the Apostles (like Peter) were legitimately written by them in the first century. Even if the testimony occurred, of course you are correct that no testimony can be regarded as 'absolute proof' as you put it. If I say I witnessed something, that can never be 'absolute proof'.

As to the farfetched part, I can believe the higher beings may well have felt a powerful sign was needed to foster this new fledgling faith of the brotherhood of man and the fatherhood of God.

 

[Akivah]

I needn't respond; your own words betray your case.

My case?

Your OP said

This is asking what do you think really happened (as opposed to just what you don't believe).

I presumed you were looking for our opinions. Your attitude betrays your true motivations.

 

[George-ananda]

Sure you are.

... but for the sake of semantics, when you look at the followers of Jesus vs. the followers of L. Ron Hubbard, what reason do you have to conclude that the followers of Jesus were more likely to have experienced "something beyond the normal"?

Sorry, I am always one for debate but the followers of Hubbard are not something I have studied to form an opinion on. But the Jesus followers we have all given thought to, and wondered what motivated them and if we think they observed paranormal signs of Jesus' beyond the normal nature versus not observing paranormal signs (or being tricked or misinterpreting normal phenomena). I think Peter wanted to clearly tell us he saw Jesus after His death (which is not proof but a testimony to consider in the overall analysis).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sorry, I am always one for debate but the followers of Hubbard are not something I have studied to form an opinion on. But the Jesus followers we have all given thought to, and wondered what motivated them and if we think they observed paranormal signs of Jesus' beyond the normal nature versus not observing paranormal signs (or being tricked or misinterpreting normal phenomena). I think Peter wanted to clearly tell us he saw Jesus after His death (which is not proof but a testimony to consider in the overall analysis).

Why do you keep on talking about Peter as if you have reliable information about what he thought? What's your source for this?

I was under the impression that the only two books of the Bible attributed to him (1 and 2 Peter) are now generally considered by scholars to have been written by someone else.