Was Jesus Only Human?

[shunyadragon]

Jerusalem was back in Jewish hands in 1967.
This, incidentally, was the time for tremendous foment in
Western societies, a time of challenging the "old" moral
order. Many of the social issues/problems we face today
had their genesis in the 1960's.

ps how hard is it in America to buy a rebel flag?
My family had plantations in the south and fought in the
Civil War. But get a flag? Found one, eventually, in a
Gettysburg tourist shop.

Rebel flags are available on line and all over the South.

 

[shunyadragon]

Jesus claimed to be more than human

Yes, that is the traditional belief of Christianity. The OT still endorsed slavery for foreigners, slavery for life time, and the buying and selling of slaves.

 

[PruePhillip]

Yes, that is the traditional belief of Christianity. The OT still endorsed slavery for foreigners, slavery for life time, and the buying and selling of slaves.

When it speaks of the Messiah in the OT is was also clear He was more than a man.
He was sinless
He came from God
He looked back after His death and was satisfied that He had redeemed His people.

Again, this is in the Old Testament - parts the Jews never read.

 

[shunyadragon]

When it speaks of the Messiah in the OT is was also clear He was more than a man.
He was sinless
He came from God
He looked back after His death and was satisfied that He had redeemed His people.

Again, this is in the Old Testament - parts the Jews never read.

Yes, that is the traditional belief of Christianity. The OT still endorsed slavery for foreigners, slavery for life time, and the buying and selling of slaves.

Ask the Jews, they know the Hebrew, and disagree with you strongly. The read the whole Torah and the Tanakh.

 

[blü 2]

I am of the opinion that a man called 'Jesus' existed, he was probably intelligent with a commanding personality, which made him stand out from the crowd

Given an historical Jesus existed, he was totally unnoticed in his lifetime. For example, the gospel fracas between the Sanhedrin and a Jewish preacher that got the Roman Prefect personally involved could scarcely have happened in history without leaving some or other reference to it (let alone the miracles claimed at Jesus' crucifixion) but the cupboard's completely bare.

but like the rest of us was a mixture of good and not so good. The gospels writers used Jesus as their figurehead when creating the character of the promised messiah. I believe much of what they attributed to Jesus was either highly exaggerated or untrue, like the virgin birth and the resurrection myths.

Only the Jesus of Mark is an ordinary human, born in the normal way and without annunciations to standard Jewish parents, and denying he's of the line of David. He doesn't become 'son of God' till his baptism by JtB. (The Jesuses of Paul and of John pre-existed in heaven with God; the Jesuses of Matthew and of Luke didn't pre-exist, but were the product of divine insemination, an idea from Greek culture.)

Jesus could have been a clever magician, the so called miracles were possibly nothing more than magic tricks, which took in the gullible.

That's not impossible, but at least as likely is the attribution of miracles to Jesus by the author of Mark in devising his biography, and the authors of Matthew, Luke and John in revising Mark to their own taste ─ not least fitting the miracles to passages in the Tanakh which could then be claimed as prophesies of him.[/QUOTE]

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Jesus claimed to be more than human

No. People composing and redacting narratives many decades later write of Jesus making such a claim.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Jesus teaching is not consistent at all with Jesus being a mere man

"Jesus teaching" second hand narrative.

 

[PruePhillip]

Yes, that is the traditional belief of Christianity. The OT still endorsed slavery for foreigners, slavery for life time, and the buying and selling of slaves.

Ask the Jews, they know the Hebrew, and disagree with you strongly. The read the whole Torah and the Tanakh.

Yes, the OT is not what Christians follow, otherwise we couldn't eat shellfish or pork.
Many things in the OT were done "for the father's sake" as Jesus put it. That is, God
suffered the Jews to do as they wished, otherwise the whole message of the bible
would be lost. So we got divorce, ten commandments, rule of Kings and even a temple.
It's complicated.

That "the Jews" were the authors of the OT is not the point. By this logic we need to
ask "Who wrote the New Testament"? Jews.
And the Jews were mystified by the dual Messiahs - Redeemer and King. They couldn't
see the need for a Redeemer, and being more interested in issues of world and time
they loved the Messiah King. That's why some Jewish bibles omit Isaiah 53, for example.

 

[Thief]

I am of the opinion that a man called 'Jesus' existed, he was probably intelligent with a commanding personality, which made him stand out from the crowd, but like the rest of us was a mixture of good and not so good. The gospels writers used Jesus as their figurehead when creating the character of the promised messiah. I believe much of what they attributed to Jesus was either highly exaggerated or untrue, like the virgin birth and the resurrection myths. However, it is possible some things were factual, like him having a high opinion of himself, a very human condition, if not a pleasant one. As a kid he supposedly went off to the Temple to 'impress' the elders with him knowledge, without asking his parents permission, which was very naughty. Maybe they grounded him until he was 30, when he came to public attention. Jesus could have been a clever magician, the so called miracles were possibly nothing more than magic tricks, which took in the gullible. The exorcism nonsense did him no credit at all, as it caused a herd of pigs to fall over a cliff, animal cruelty, and harmful to the pig farmer, who presumably didn't get any compensation. Telling people to leave their responsibilities to follow him was stupid and very wrong. I can see why he angered the religious hierarchy of the day, not that was any excuse for having him crucified.

All in all I think he would have been an interesting person to get to know, but certainly not deserving of worship and adoration.

and now you would stand?...…..greater than Him
before His God and heaven

 

[PruePhillip]

"Jesus teaching" second hand narrative.

That's true. He's not here and He didn't come to write.
So at least seven of His followers wrote about him.

 

[PruePhillip]

No. People composing and redacting narratives many decades later write of Jesus making such a claim.

Where is your evidence for that?

 

[whirlingmerc]

Yes, the OT is not what Christians follow, otherwise we couldn't eat shellfish or pork.
Many things in the OT were done "for the father's sake" as Jesus put it. That is, God
suffered the Jews to do as they wished, otherwise the whole message of the bible
would be lost. So we got divorce, ten commandments, rule of Kings and even a temple.
It's complicated.

That "the Jews" were the authors of the OT is not the point. By this logic we need to
ask "Who wrote the New Testament"? Jews.
And the Jews were mystified by the dual Messiahs - Redeemer and King. They couldn't
see the need for a Redeemer, and being more interested in isses of world and time
they loved the Messiah King. That's why some Jewish bibles omit Isaiah 53, for example.

As per Ezekiel, God was to shepherd his people Israel instead of the bad shepherds
and repeated many times

And then.... God will place David as sheered...

and so 'the David' figure, the messiah, is somehow God

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Yes I was unfortunately.

Only by association through name not belief

 

[lukethethird]

Was Jesus Only Human?

Jesus historical theories and Jesus mythical theories are interesting to view form a distance, but considering the information available to us is there anything to hang a belief on, I don't think so.

 

[firedragon]

A little too simplistic. I do not consider any historical records as 'bogus.' I just consider them insufficient to be used as evidence for even the existence of Jesus Christ.

Actually the writings of Pliny and Josephus have historical value when correlated with archaeology and other sources.

Bottomline is without archeological sources to prove the Jesus that "we" are speaking of didnt exist because there are no archeological evidence to his historical existence. Is that your thesis?

 

[oldbadger]

You may believe this ok, but thre is no historical references at the time that would document this.

There is plenty of circumstantial, secondary and primary evidence.
But you don't seem to want to look for any.
Where to start? OK, so you don't think there's any evidence for the Baptist, so do you identify with the circumstances around his campaign? You have to start with some foundation, so, do you accept that there was a huge Temple which all Jews were expected to visit and donate to? Do you accept that there was Temple currency which was very very upsetting in its impressions for working Jews? etc erc......... tell me where I can start.

Self fulfilling testimony where you find out what you want to believe is only meaningful to those that share your belief.

Historians don'ty believe like that. They don;'t need to fill an agenda. If new evidence emerged next week about an aspect of HJ then real HJ historians would take it in to account.
I guess that you're just not an HJ historian, is all.

I have my own belief concerning who and what Jesus Christ was, and it is not the subject of the thread.

Jesus never knew either of those names.
You're still mixing Divinity with History as well.

You start by searching for what those folks called each other.[/QUOTE]

 

[oldbadger]

I am doing no such thing.

Sure you are..... you wrote.....

My position is ...
that there is a difference between the question of historicity and the question of divinity,
that the question of historicity is not an matter of proof but, rather, a matter of abduction (IBE, or Inference to the Best Explanation),

So the above looks like abduction based upon the balance of possibility and probability. That's what archeology seems to do when short of evidence..... so... good.

that reading Acts and the Epistles as fact-laced polemic is far more reasonable than reading them as complete fabrications,
that it is therefore reasonable to acknowledge the existence of a Jerusalem sect with which (and, to some extent, against which) Paul interacted,
that it is likewise reasonable to acknowledge the existence of substantive Christian communities operating in the diaspora within decades of the purported crucifixion,
that this recognition is supported by Pliny and Tacitus.

There you go, doing exactly what I suggested.
You refer to Christian efforts to raise up Christianity, and the lives and campaigns of the Baptist and Jesus hardly get mentioned in these....... For instance, Paul had no interest in either, nor did he ever write any anecdotes or stories about what Jesus really did or said.
So how were you hoping to show anything in the way of evidence about the lives and missions of the Baptist and Jesus with such mentions?

that the Josephus reference is more than adequate to provisionally associate this movement with a sect leader named Jesus,
that there is no evidence of the mythicist argument being raised during this period, and
that historicity therefore stands as the inference to best explanation.

You don't know what Josephus wrote.... all you can be sure of is that Josephus did write about Jesus, but that it got meddled with. But where the paragraph got placed is a good indicator that the entry was once made.

So.... yeah........ you did exactly as I said, you mixed up Christianity's birth with the real man.

 

[JJ50]

If you were once a Christian, why were you not responsible enough to know that Paul’s epistles predate the Gospels, so the gospelers could not have “created the character of the Messiah?” Perhaps you should have learned more of the theology and literary content of the Gospels before you gave them the gate? If your post is any indication of the extent of your exegetical skills, your retreat from Xy was quite possibly ill- informed.

There is no evidence to support the idea that guy Jesus was any sort of messiah. Most of what that unpleasant guy, Paul, who had literary diarrhoea, had to say should be taken with a huge pinch of salt, imo.

 

[Augustus]

You appear to agree concerning the problem of the historicity of the life of Buddha..

I have no opinion on the historical Buddha as I know very little about the evidence for or against.

What I was noting was the great difference between sources for a person's life written down 20 years after their death, and those written down 300-500 years after their death based on a purported oral history.

The Historicity of the first or possibly the second Council is generally accepted even though we do not have the actual writings presented. The historicity of some of participants at the First Council is accepted.

Why do you say the historicity is accepted but also hold the opinion that Buddha was a "mythical human that likely did not exist"?

As with the history and dating of the scripture of Christianity the history is not resolved. There are as many clouds over the history Christian scripture as with the origins of Buddhist scripture. That is the main point of my argument is in other religions have similar problems of historicity as Christianity. Actuall the Pentateuch of Judaism has more problems of provenance and authorship than Christianity, Taoism or Buddhism,

The OT has nothing to do with the historical Jesus though so is pretty much irrelevant.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Jerusalem was back in Jewish hands in 1967.
This, incidentally, was the time for tremendous foment in
Western societies, a time of challenging the "old" moral
order. Many of the social issues/problems we face today
had their genesis in the 1960's.

ps how hard is it in America to buy a rebel flag?
My family had plantations in the south and fought in the
Civil War. But get a flag? Found one, eventually, in a
Gettysburg tourist shop.

Legally, yes, But not really. Israel can't do what it wants to do with Jerusalem without Arabs or the U.N. blocking them. Jews cannot even go to their temple mount and pray.

It is getting harder to find. But you still can. Just makes them more valuable.

Good-Ole-Rebel