Beat me to it
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Who is Jesus to Non-Christians?
- Thread starter Jacob Samuelson
- Start date
To me Jesus was just a reasonable example for His time of someone who had acquired the virtues.
Depends what you mean by "Jesus:" the character in the Bible or a purported actual historical figure.
The character in the Bible seems to me to be the son of God (at least in the context of the Bible) but not God himself. I don't think the Gospels really support a Trinitarian interpretation.
I see the historical Jesus as someone (or possibly an amalgam of characteristics of multiple someones) that Christianity glommed all sorts of claims onto over the years. I don't think that much can be known about him, but the idea that there was an itinerant preacher in Judea before the fall of the Second Temple who ran afoul of the Sanhedrin and the Roman authorities? Sure - sounds plausible enough; this seems to be a common enough thing. Christianity had to start somehow; why not that way?
I expect that none of the sermons that Jesus gave in the Gospels reflect any actual real-life sermon. If we're lucky, they might be cobbled together from collections of preserved "sayings" of Jesus; if we're not, they're simply made up. I assume the quotes from Jesus in the Gospels are a mixture of these two possibilities.
To be frank, the Jesus of the Bible is mostly a yardstick for me to judge the hypocrisy of modern Christianity against.
That aside, I live in a society where a lot of its history and culture was derived from Christianity, so I'm sure that there are plenty of ways that the Bible (including Jesus) influences things. For instance, last week, I caught myself using the expression "good and faithful servant" in a conversation.
The historical Jesus is basically irrelevant to me. I see him (them?) as a historical curiosity that has very little to do with the Jesus of the Bible, and basically nothing to do with the Jesus of modern Christianity.
The historical Jesus has about as much relevance to my life as the historical King Arthur.
Although i don't believe in Jesus as depicted in the bible i am pretty sure he existed as a man. There are external references to him being the illigitimate son of a roman soldier. (The soldiers gravestone exists to lend a little credence to the story).
Given Roman rule and its opposition in some places it is hypothesised by some historians that Jesus became a member of the fourth philosophy,. (possibly even the sicarii). Was captured and executed for his crimes against the state, i.e. terrorism. Do i believe this, not really, there is just as much evidence for it as there is for him walking on water.
As to his influence, given his ubiquitousness in the west i don't think anyone can say he has not influenced them for good or bad.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
How do you then explain the miraculous Virgin Mary conception and the latter dead, resurrection and ascension?
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
I see Jesus as a symbol or model for understanding mystical aspects of our experience as conscious beings.
Jesus suffers and through that suffering arrives at the crossroads between self and god, life and death (that other tree in the Garden). He become aware of his relationship with all of Creation--one with the creator--and is reborn.
Jesus suffers and through that suffering arrives at the crossroads between self and god, life and death (that other tree in the Garden). He become aware of his relationship with all of Creation--one with the creator--and is reborn.
Myths.
That, or the root of the shidduch crisis began with him...
Only in Christianity could virginity run in a family.
Secret Chief
Vetted Member
For me, Jesus has no relevance. I can't therefore think that there is any influence on me. Also, any beliefs that I may currently have, as far as I am aware, no connection with Jesus.
I think Sanders and Ehrman are basically right about him being an apocalypticist (not, however, in the sense of our modern notion of "it's the end of the universe" cataclysm, but rather in the first century Jewish expectation of a radical intervention of God in history that would result in an age of peace and divine rule).
Sanders corrects Ehrman in being too much influenced by Schweitzer's "end of the world" hypothesis, which doesn't stand up to scrutiny and takes apocalyptic symbology far too literally.
As Sanders explains in relation to Jesus:
In Quest of the Historical Jesus
Jesus was a prophet who preached the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God. This expectation of a dramatic end of the current age is called “eschatological” or “apocalyptic.”
“The End” in first-century Judaism was not the dissolution of the universe but a decisive change in the world, ushering in a new era and establishing God’s reign throughout the world, peace on earth, and plenty of food and drink for all.
Jesus taught ethical perfectionism, that is, behavior that is appropriate to the Kingdom of God.
“The End” in first-century Judaism was not the dissolution of the universe but a decisive change in the world, ushering in a new era and establishing God’s reign throughout the world, peace on earth, and plenty of food and drink for all.
Jesus taught ethical perfectionism, that is, behavior that is appropriate to the Kingdom of God.
I often question the usefulness of modern scholars referring to Jesus, and other Jewish prophets of his era, as "apocalypticists" because while technically accurate, contemporary usage of the term just doesn't mean what those ancient Jews meant. We aren't talking Seventh Day Adventism here.
However, Crossan - whilst not replying so much upon a futurist apocalytic paradigm but rather a more immanent, present interpretation of the kingdom - is possibly better at actually teasing out what that vision/theology of history actually implied practically in the here-and-now for his earliest followers - i.e. his work complements that of the other scholars by outlining the kind of lifestyle Jesus expected of his followers, which was to model the kind of life he expected would become universal after God "intervened".
And the basis of this lifestyle was a subversive "social reversal" (or Jewish cynic wisdom), in which last would become first and the first would become the last:
John Dominic Crossan: Jesus the Cynic Philosopher — The Contemplative Life.
For Crossan, John the Baptist preached the "kingdom of God" as an apocalypticist.
The way Crossan uses the term here, he believes that John, as an apocalypticist, expects a Jewish overthrow of Rome. Normal history continues, but Israel achieves independence...
Jesus' vision of the Kingdom was characterized by open table fellowship (Jesus ate and associated with sinners, prostitutes, and outcasts), physical healing, and a radical egalitarian nature. It did not need to be "brokered" by the Temple, but was immediately available to all.
[Crossan writes]:
"The historical Jesus was a peasant Jewish Cynic. His peasant village was close enough to a Greco-Roman city like Sepphoris that sight and knowledge of Cynicism are neither inexplicable nor unlikely. But his work was among the houses and hamlets of Lower Galilee.
His strategy, implicitly for himself and explicitly for his followers, was the combination of free healing and common eating, a religious and economic egalitarianism that negated alike and at once the hierarchical and patronal normalcies of Jewish religion and Roman power."
The way Crossan uses the term here, he believes that John, as an apocalypticist, expects a Jewish overthrow of Rome. Normal history continues, but Israel achieves independence...
Jesus' vision of the Kingdom was characterized by open table fellowship (Jesus ate and associated with sinners, prostitutes, and outcasts), physical healing, and a radical egalitarian nature. It did not need to be "brokered" by the Temple, but was immediately available to all.
[Crossan writes]:
"The historical Jesus was a peasant Jewish Cynic. His peasant village was close enough to a Greco-Roman city like Sepphoris that sight and knowledge of Cynicism are neither inexplicable nor unlikely. But his work was among the houses and hamlets of Lower Galilee.
His strategy, implicitly for himself and explicitly for his followers, was the combination of free healing and common eating, a religious and economic egalitarianism that negated alike and at once the hierarchical and patronal normalcies of Jewish religion and Roman power."
Last edited:
See David Flusser's Judaism of the Second Temple Period - Vol 1: Qumran and Apocalypticism.
And, FWIW, he wasn't taking Seventh Day Adventism either.
I like this:
Flusser’s The Sage from Galilee– an Important Jesus Book
Most striking is Flusser's repudiation of the eschatological analysis of A. Schweitzer and his successors. “Jesus was not wrong when he asserted that before the ‘day of the Son of Man’ the age of the kingdom of heaven will still come. Those who are shown to be wrong are the modern adherents to the ‘acute eschatology’ of John, and not Jesus.” (p. 96). Since the kingdom of heaven was identical with the messianic age it became a dynamic force in history breaking into it at the time of the Baptist, and it is not a statement about God’s supramundane ruling of his universe."
It's where I think Ehrman (but not Sanders) goes somewhat wrong, because his thesis is basically a modernised Schweitzerism.
Thanks for the link.
loveendures
New Member
If and when religious Christians make Jesus as non religious and just become the channel of Love, it spreads like fire
Your welcome, Flusser was an excellent scholar to raise and I thank you for it, as he seems to have really grasped the nuance in Second Temple apocalyptic and therefore in Jesus's teaching, accordingly, as opposed to Schweitzer's much too simplistic "total eschatology".
An excerpt from his “The Kingdom of Heaven,” Chapter 7 of Sage (pp. 80-82), that other readers may find of interest (I certainly did):
"For Jesus and the rabbis, the kingdom of God is both present and future, but their perspectives are different.
When Jesus was asked when the kingdom was to come, he said, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, ‘Lo, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ For behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you” (Luke 17:20-21). Elsewhere he said, “But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Luke 11:20).
According to Jesus, therefore, there are individuals who are already in the kingdom of heaven. This is not exactly the same sense in which the rabbis understood the kingdom.
For them the kingdom had always been an unchanging reality, but for Jesus there was a specific point in time when the kingdom began to break out upon earth. “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven is breaking through, and those who break through, seize it” (Matt. 11:12). According to Luke 16:16, “every one forces his way in.” Both of these dominical sayings reflect an ancient Jewish homily on Micah 2:13.
This, then, is the “realized eschatology” of Jesus. He is the only Jew of ancient times known to us who preached not only that people were on the threshold of the end of time, but that the new age of salvation had already begun….
For Jesus, the kingdom of heaven is not only the eschatological rule of God that has dawned already, but a divinely willed movement that spreads among people throughout the earth.
The kingdom of heaven is not simply a matter of God’s kingship, but also the domain of his rule, an expanding realm embracing ever more and more people, a realm into which one may enter and find one’s inheritance, a realm where there are both great and small. That is why Jesus called the twelve to be fishers of men [Matt. 4:19] and to heal and preach everywhere. “The kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 10:5-16).
For this reason he demanded of some that they should leave everything behind and follow him. We do not mean to assert that Jesus wanted to found a church or even a single community, but that he wanted to start a movement.
That which Jesus recognized and desired is fulfilled in the message of the kingdom. There God’s unconditional love for all becomes visible, and the barriers between sinner and righteous are shattered. Human dignity becomes null and void, the last become first, and the first become last.
The poor, the hungry, the meek, the mourners, and the persecuted inherit the kingdom of heaven. In Jesus’ message of the kingdom, however, the strictly social factor does not seem to be the decisive thing.
His revolution has to do chiefly with the transvaluation of all the usual moral values, and hence his promise is specially for sinners. “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you” (Matt. 21:31-32). Jesus found resonance among the social outcasts and the despised, just as John the Baptist had done before him...
The germ of revolution in Jesus’ preaching does not emerge from his criticism of Jewish law, but from other premises altogether. These premises did not originate with Jesus...
But Jesus went further and broke the last fetters still restricting the ancient Jewish commandment to love one’s neighbor. We have already seen that Rabbi Hanina believed that one ought to love the righteous and not hate the sinner. Jesus said, “I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matt. 5:44)."
When Jesus was asked when the kingdom was to come, he said, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, ‘Lo, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ For behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you” (Luke 17:20-21). Elsewhere he said, “But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Luke 11:20).
According to Jesus, therefore, there are individuals who are already in the kingdom of heaven. This is not exactly the same sense in which the rabbis understood the kingdom.
For them the kingdom had always been an unchanging reality, but for Jesus there was a specific point in time when the kingdom began to break out upon earth. “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven is breaking through, and those who break through, seize it” (Matt. 11:12). According to Luke 16:16, “every one forces his way in.” Both of these dominical sayings reflect an ancient Jewish homily on Micah 2:13.
This, then, is the “realized eschatology” of Jesus. He is the only Jew of ancient times known to us who preached not only that people were on the threshold of the end of time, but that the new age of salvation had already begun….
For Jesus, the kingdom of heaven is not only the eschatological rule of God that has dawned already, but a divinely willed movement that spreads among people throughout the earth.
The kingdom of heaven is not simply a matter of God’s kingship, but also the domain of his rule, an expanding realm embracing ever more and more people, a realm into which one may enter and find one’s inheritance, a realm where there are both great and small. That is why Jesus called the twelve to be fishers of men [Matt. 4:19] and to heal and preach everywhere. “The kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 10:5-16).
For this reason he demanded of some that they should leave everything behind and follow him. We do not mean to assert that Jesus wanted to found a church or even a single community, but that he wanted to start a movement.
That which Jesus recognized and desired is fulfilled in the message of the kingdom. There God’s unconditional love for all becomes visible, and the barriers between sinner and righteous are shattered. Human dignity becomes null and void, the last become first, and the first become last.
The poor, the hungry, the meek, the mourners, and the persecuted inherit the kingdom of heaven. In Jesus’ message of the kingdom, however, the strictly social factor does not seem to be the decisive thing.
His revolution has to do chiefly with the transvaluation of all the usual moral values, and hence his promise is specially for sinners. “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you” (Matt. 21:31-32). Jesus found resonance among the social outcasts and the despised, just as John the Baptist had done before him...
The germ of revolution in Jesus’ preaching does not emerge from his criticism of Jewish law, but from other premises altogether. These premises did not originate with Jesus...
But Jesus went further and broke the last fetters still restricting the ancient Jewish commandment to love one’s neighbor. We have already seen that Rabbi Hanina believed that one ought to love the righteous and not hate the sinner. Jesus said, “I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matt. 5:44)."
Last edited:
To me, Jesus is a story about equality and acceptance.
Whatever our status in life, consciously we are all equals.
Everyone has faults and there is no reason to judge someone else's faults as being greater than or own.
Unfortunately because of Rome nationalizing it as a religion, I think much of his message has been skewed away from this.
Tambourine
Well-Known Member
I initially mistook David Flusser for Vilém Flusser, and briefly got very confused.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
From the above link: "In Jesus’ view healings and exorcisms implicitly demonstrated who he was and that God’s saving righteousness was breaking into human history."
Is there anything in Tanach that would support this implication? Healings and excorisims don't imply Moshiach in Judaism. If this ^^ is true, doesn't it erode at the idea that Jesus was a "Jewish Rabbi" as is claimed in the video in the OP? This implication isn't very Jewish, imho.