• 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!

Was Jesus Only Human?

JJ50

Well-Known Member
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.:D 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.
 

Phaedrus

Active Member
I thought the same thing at one point, that perhaps a figure named Jesus existed and said a few wise things that made people think he was some sort of prophet of a higher being. Of course, when you do the research, there is no credible evidence that such a man ever existed.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
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.:D 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.

We all have someone worthy of our worship and adoration
We all have a creation myth.
We all come to some conclusion about why we are here
We all work out a moral code
We all have some story of what happens after death.
And if not God then we hold ourselves as the highest form of things

Christianity has had its day in the West. This was foretold in the New Testament,
(at a time before it barely had begun its ascendancy.) The thing that terrifies me
is what Jesus said about the Jewish nation. He said that because the Jews had
not known the time of their visitation they would be exiled and their city trampled
under the feet of the Gentiles - until the Gentiles are finished. Jesus didn't explain
what he meant by this, but the return of the Jews to their homeland suggests to
me that the Gentile time is finished now - as to what that means I cannot tell. But
if it means the Gentile will suffer as the Jew suffered then we are going to be in
for interesting times.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Of course, when you do the research, there is no credible evidence that such a man ever existed.
Of course, when one respects the distinction between evidence and proof one realizes that the credibility of the evidence is, in part, a function of the credibility of the investigation and discernment of the person evaluating it.
 

JJ50

Well-Known Member
We all have someone worthy of our worship and adoration
We all have a creation myth.
We all come to some conclusion about why we are here
We all work out a moral code
We all have some story of what happens after death.
And if not God then we hold ourselves as the highest form of things

Christianity has had its day in the West. This was foretold in the New Testament,
(at a time before it barely had begun its ascendancy.) The thing that terrifies me
is what Jesus said about the Jewish nation. He said that because the Jews had
not known the time of their visitation they would be exiled and their city trampled
under the feet of the Gentiles - until the Gentiles are finished. Jesus didn't explain
what he meant by this, but the return of the Jews to their homeland suggests to
me that the Gentile time is finished now - as to what that means I cannot tell. But
if it means the Gentile will suffer as the Jew suffered then we are going to be in
for interesting times.

I have never worshipped or adored anyone, even when I was a Christian.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
I have never worshipped or adored anyone, even when I was a Christian.

So you hold yourself to that standard, or do you believe in Nothing?

To the theological and historic claims of the bible lays a parallel
story - that of the Jew. This story is one all can see.
The bible holds that the Jews will reject the coming Messiah and
lose their land for a second time (before it was lost the first time)
The Jew will be outcast, persecuted and enslaved. But they would
remain a people for the long ages to come, and though a small
remnant they would come out of the nations that were their "graves"
and take back their land with the sword.

The bible's story of the Promise Land, God's people, Captivity
through sin, Redemption and Exile - all these are themes of God
- mirrored in the real story of the Jews.

How do YOU explain this? Or you don't?
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
Christianity has had its day in the West. This was foretold in the New Testament,
(at a time before it barely had begun its ascendancy.) The thing that terrifies me
is what Jesus said about the Jewish nation. He said that because the Jews had
not known the time of their visitation they would be exiled and their city trampled
under the feet of the Gentiles - until the Gentiles are finished. Jesus didn't explain
what he meant by this, but the return of the Jews to their homeland suggests to
me that the Gentile time is finished now - as to what that means I cannot tell. But
if it means the Gentile will suffer as the Jew suffered then we are going to be in
for interesting times.

Two time spans concerning the Gentiles. 'Time of the Gentiles' (Luke 21:24 and 'Fullness of the Gentiles' (Rom. 11:25)

'Times of the Gentiles' began when Babylon took over Jerusalem and Israel in 586 B.C. It will end with the ending of the Tribulation Period, which is yet future.

'Fullnes of the Gentiles' began at Pentecost, and concerns the number of Gentiles being brought into the Church. When that number is reached, known only to God, it will end. That day is yet future also. I believe it to be the Rapture of the Church.

My point is we are still in the time of the Gentiles. But it certainly does look like it is coming to a close.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Two time spans concerning the Gentiles. 'Time of the Gentiles' (Luke 21:24 and 'Fullness of the Gentiles' (Rom. 11:25)

'Times of the Gentiles' began when Babylon took over Jerusalem and Israel in 586 B.C. It will end with the ending of the Tribulation Period, which is yet future.

'Fullnes of the Gentiles' began at Pentecost, and concerns the number of Gentiles being brought into the Church. When that number is reached, known only to God, it will end. That day is yet future also. I believe it to be the Rapture of the Church.

My point is we are still in the time of the Gentiles. But it certainly does look like it is coming to a close.

Good-Ole-Rebel

You can argue your "time of the Gentile" but this time was when the Gentiles were brought
into what had been an essentially Jewish experience. But more the point - the end of those
times would be shown, said Jesus, when Jerusalem is back in Jewish hands.
Luke 21:24
"Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I thought the same thing at one point, that perhaps a figure named Jesus existed and said a few wise things that made people think he was some sort of prophet of a higher being. Of course, when you do the research, there is no credible evidence that such a man ever existed.

What do you think about Pliny writing about Christians? On what basis do you reject it?
 

JJ50

Well-Known Member
So you hold yourself to that standard, or do you believe in Nothing?

To the theological and historic claims of the bible lays a parallel
story - that of the Jew. This story is one all can see.
The bible holds that the Jews will reject the coming Messiah and
lose their land for a second time (before it was lost the first time)
The Jew will be outcast, persecuted and enslaved. But they would
remain a people for the long ages to come, and though a small
remnant they would come out of the nations that were their "graves"
and take back their land with the sword.

The bible's story of the Promise Land, God's people, Captivity
through sin, Redemption and Exile - all these are themes of God
- mirrored in the real story of the Jews.

How do YOU explain this? Or you don't?

I believe the all the documents making up the Bible are human creations, with no input from any god.
 
On what basis do you reject it?

Usually it's the preconceived notion that "religions are scams designed to control the gullible masses" therefore it isn't sufficient for the Gospel narrative of Jesus to be untrue, it has to be some kind of devious scam invented by a mendacious actor.

It's not exactly coincidence that most mythicists are strongly anti-theistic after all.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
What is your position.

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),
  • 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.
  • 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.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I thought the same thing at one point, that perhaps a figure named Jesus existed and said a few wise things that made people think he was some sort of prophet of a higher being. Of course, when you do the research, there is no credible evidence that such a man ever existed.

I believe there is evidence Jesus existed, but based on the historical evidence there are a number of possibilities; (1) The Jesus Christ of the NT is a composite Messiah that evolved between ~30 50 AD to the Christian Divine Messiah and Son of God. (2) He is a Messiah of Divine Revelation as a part of Progressive Revelation that was corrupted as a Roman religion. (3) The Messianic leader of failed attempt to rally the Jews in a rebellion against Rome. (4) The Jesus Christ of traditional Christianity is the true Jesus, but I consider this unlikely, because a Roman man God does not remotely fit the Messianic description of the NT and Judaism. (5) Yes it is possible that Jesus never existed and he was a created Messiah after ~ 30 to 50 AD, but I consider this a least likely scenario.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
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),
  • 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.
  • 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.

I asked a specific question from the proponent brother.

But your response I must agree to in many ways.

Peace.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
My position is that there is a difference between the question of historicity and the question of divinity,

Huh?!?!?

that the question of historicity is not an matter of proof but, rather, a matter of abduction (IBE, or Inference to the Best Explanation),

that reading Acts and the Epistles as fact-laced polemic is far more reasonable than reading them as complete fabrications,

Being 'fact laced polemic does not necessarily give the Acts of the Apostles is vary similar the case for the whole Bible.
that it is therefore reasonable to acknowledge the existence of a Jerusalem sect with which (and, to some extent, against which) Paul interacted,

Interact? Yes, so what? Paul was not a witness of the life of Jesus. He very well relied on the testimony of others with an agenda.

that it is likewise reasonable to acknowledge the existence of substantive Christian communities operating in the diaspora within decades of the purported crucifixion,

Decades? Be careful of what you are referring to as decades. Does not remotely represent evidence of the existence of the Biblical Divine Jesus. It remains that there are absolutely no references to Jesus Christ during his lifetime.

that this recognition is supported by Pliny and Tacitus.

that the Josephus reference is more than adequate to provisionally associate this movement with a sect leader named Jesus,

Bluntly no, Josephus references are distinctly third hand, refer more specifically to believers, and represent likely corrupted documents. Neither are the other record like those of Pliny considered reliable and uncorrupted.

Josephus is a source, but most definitely not necessarily a reliable source, unless cross referenced with other sources even for the record of his own life.

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.

The problem with this is that other mythical humans that likely did not exist, or very fallible humans were recreated and glorified as Divine personages shortly after their death in different cultures.
 
Last edited:
Top