Considering Jesus independently from the Bible

[Meander_Z]

This is essentially a question about the historical Jesus.

I find that I'm quite fascinated by the figure of Jesus. I adored him when I was Christian, and I still have a lingering affection for him to this day. Jesus was a groovy fellow, and in general I dig him a lot.

Still it's come to my attention that modern scholarship regarding Jesus portrays him in a number of very different ways. Some see him as a political rebel, some as a spiritual mystic, others as a great humanitarian. There are disagreements on how devout he was to the Semitic faith, and some arguments that Jesus would have been deeply disturbed by the directions taken by the early church under the influence of Paul.

Who do you think Jesus was as a person? What were his primary goals and motivations? Was the resurrection an unprecedented miracle or the most elaborate hoax in history, or was this detail added later to give the Christ story more authority?

I've read a bit about this topic, and the resurrection story seems to be one of the earliest aspects of Christian faith, even when individuals in the early church had huge disagreements about what it meant, the resurrection seems to be pretty universally acknowledged in even the oldest sources, but if it didn't actually happen where did this aspect of the story come from?

 

[psychoslice]

I personally like some of the metaphors of the stories of Jesus, but Jesus himself I don't know if he truly existed or not, and this doesn't worry me the least.

 

[Naganami]

In my faith Christ does not exist but historically I think a Jesus did. I have always believed that Jesus Christ is simply (and extremely likely to be) a Thought-Form. I have always thought this growing up Christian and now. I also see him as a figure many positive and negative entities attach themselves to. But if you truly want to know who he or if there was a christ you can simply go back into time astrally.

I believe the resurrection is symbolism that symbolizes one of the Stages of the Magnum Opus (spiritual and physical immortality).

 

[buddhist]

... the resurrection seems to be pretty universally acknowledged in even the oldest sources, but if it didn't actually happen where did this aspect of the story come from?

Dying-and-rising god - Wikipedia

 

[Meander_Z]

Dying-and-rising god - Wikipedia

This is in fact one of the aspects that I find most fascinating about Jesus. The dying and rising god, was not a new concept... but the concept of a literal man acting out this mythological archetype in front of an audience, converting them into true believers and most poignantly doing so for the benefit of an audience belonging to a culture that does not include this motif in their own religious tradition... this is fascinating to me.

Is it your opinion then that the resurrection element was added by a group of Hellenic meddlers who decided to use a Hebrew political martyr as the object to fulfill a mythological motif? Or do you think the resurrection motif was chosen by Jesus prior to crucifixion and carried out by his followers under his instruction? Or was the real mastermind of the Christian faith Paul or some other Hellenic Jew who used the death of Jesus as a way to fulfill personal ambitions of authority and power?

 

[Meander_Z]

In my faith Christ does not exist but historically I think a Jesus did. I have always believed that Jesus Christ is simply (and extremely likely to be) a Thought-Form. I have always thought this growing up Christian and now. I also see him as a figure many positive and negative entities attach themselves to. But if you truly want to know who he or if there was a christ you can simply go back into time astrally.

I believe the resurrection is symbolism that symbolizes one of the Stages of the Magnum Opus (spiritual and physical immortality).

While I do believe to some degree in the possibility of astral time travel, I do not have the discipline to achieve such things. I tried in my younger days, but was never able to have any experience that had enough authenticity to convince me that it was anything more than an active imagination confirming my own preconceived notions.

I appreciate reading history and engaging in conversation about these topics because it opens my mind to new possibilities that I may not have considered before. I'd be far more interested in hearing your perceptions about Jesus from your own astral journey if you've had one. I'm pretty sure that if I went on my own journey that I would only confirm that Jesus was a mystical hippy homosexual, which is of course what I already know him to be.

 

[Meander_Z]

I personally like some of the metaphors of the stories of Jesus, but Jesus himself I don't know if he truly existed or not, and this doesn't worry me the least.

The question of who Jesus was doesn't worry me in the least. On the contrary I find these questions deeply fascinating... something of a passionate interest. You could say that I really love collecting different perspectives on the topic. I keep them on my mantle. Sometimes I walk by and give one of them a shake just to see what happens... like an intellectual/spiritual snow globe.

 

[buddhist]

This is in fact one of the aspects that I find most fascinating about Jesus. The dying and rising god, was not a new concept... but the concept of a literal man acting out this mythological archetype in front of an audience, converting them into true believers and most poignantly doing so for the benefit of an audience belonging to a culture that does not include this motif in their own religious tradition... this is fascinating to me.

Is it your opinion then that the resurrection element was added by a group of Hellenic meddlers who decided to use a Hebrew political martyr as the object to fulfill a mythological motif? Or do you think the resurrection motif was chosen by Jesus prior to crucifixion and carried out by his followers under his instruction? Or was the real mastermind of the Christian faith Paul or some other Hellenic Jew who used the death of Jesus as a way to fulfill personal ambitions of authority and power?

I cannot know for sure who Jesus was or wasn't. I suspect, however, that the Roman government seized an opportunity to gain control over an endlessly rebellious Israel through the writings of "Paul" speaking on behalf of Israel's savior; afterwards, as with any hero figure, the mythologies surrounding the human Jesus needed to be - and were - fleshed out in the form of the various gospels.

 

[psychoslice]

I cannot know for sure who Jesus was or wasn't. I suspect, however, that the Roman government seized an opportunity to gain control over an endlessly rebellious Israel through the writings of "Paul" speaking on behalf of Israel's savior; afterwards, as with any hero figure, the mythologies surrounding the human Jesus needed to be - and were - fleshed out in the form of the various gospels.

Well said.

 

[danieldemol]

...Or was the real mastermind of the Christian faith Paul or some other Hellenic Jew who used the death of Jesus as a way to fulfill personal ambitions of authority and power?

Paul already had a safe leadership position amongst the Jews which didn't require him to face the bitter opposition of people from his own culture prior to adopting Christianity, and the numbers of Christians were relatively small in his lifetime.
It seems weak to attribute lust for leadership as Paul's motive for conversion.

 

[Augustus]

Is it your opinion then that the resurrection element was added by a group of Hellenic meddlers who decided to use a Hebrew political martyr as the object to fulfill a mythological motif? Or do you think the resurrection motif was chosen by Jesus prior to crucifixion and carried out by his followers under his instruction? Or was the real mastermind of the Christian faith Paul or some other Hellenic Jew who used the death of Jesus as a way to fulfill personal ambitions of authority and power?

None of the above. Jesus was likely a preacher who expected the eschaton to occur in his lifetime. When he was crucified, his followers were met with a serious problem to be overcome. People did not evolve to be rational though (all of us btw, not just them) and often don't change beliefs to conform with reality but change reality to conform with beliefs, especially when they are emotionally invested in the issue at stake.

To use a more modern parallel:

A striking falsification can be found in a classic of social psychology, When Prophecy Fails (1956), a study of a UFO cult in the early 1950s. Written by a team led by Leon Festinger, the psychologist who developed the idea of cognitive dissonance, the book recounts how a Michigan woman claimed to have received messages in automatic writing from alien intelligences on another planet announcing the end of the world, which would be inundated by a great flood in the hours before dawn on 21 December 1954. The woman and her disciples had left their homes, jobs and partners and given away their possessions, in order to be ready for the arrival of a flying saucer that would rescue them from the doomed planet. For Festinger and his colleagues, this was an opportunity to test the theory of cognitive dissonance. According to the theory, human beings do not deal with conflicting beliefs and perceptions by testing them against facts. They reduce the conflict by reinterpreting facts that challenge the beliefs to which they are most attached. As T. S. Eliot wrote in Burnt Norton, human kind cannot bear very much reality. In order to test the theory, the psychologists infiltrated themselves into the cult and observed the reaction when the apocalypse failed to occur. Just as the theory predicted, the cultists refused to accept that their system of beliefs was mistaken. Instead, they interpreted the failure of doomsday to arrive as evidence that by waiting and praying throughout the night they had succeeded in preventing it. The confounding of all their expectations only led them to cling more tightly to their faith, and they went on to proselytize for their beliefs all the more fervently.

John Gray - The Silence of Animals: On Progress and Other Modern Myths

 

[Dawnofhope]

Is it your opinion then that the resurrection element was added

It was most likely a result of Paul and others needing to adapt there style preaching to suit a Greco-Roman audience after they struggled in their efforts to teach their fellow Jews. Its a powerful and beautiful metaphor for the spiritual reality of Christ.

 

[allfoak]

The resurrection was always an essential part of most religions.
Which means that the historical figure of Jesus who probably existed was turned into a god and worshiped.
The writings attributed to Paul were never meant to be taken literally.
While it is probable that a man named Jesus lived and overcame the Law, it is also likely that a physical crucifixion and resurrection never happened either.
The virgin birth, the Crucifixion, the resurrection, the miracles, etc. are all metaphors.
The greatest story ever told is not about the historical figure called Jesus but rather about mankind.
The story was written down for us.
The story is a guide.
It is the way, the truth and the life.
It is through the knowledge of this story that we ourselves can learn who we are and overcome just like Jesus and others have done.
All of the metaphors are to be applied to our own lives.
We are to become the virgin bride prepared and waiting for the arrival of the bridegroom.
The resurrection is the transformation of the body mind and spirit allowing one to be raised up to the level of the Father
And on and on the metaphors go.
The entire Bible along with many other texts are guides to how we ourselves can receive the resurrection while still in the body.
In fact, the gospel of Philip says that the resurrection can only happen while still in the body and cannot even happen after death.

This is essentially a question about the historical Jesus.

I find that I'm quite fascinated by the figure of Jesus. I adored him when I was Christian, and I still have a lingering affection for him to this day. Jesus was a groovy fellow, and in general I dig him a lot.

Still it's come to my attention that modern scholarship regarding Jesus portrays him in a number of very different ways. Some see him as a political rebel, some as a spiritual mystic, others as a great humanitarian. There are disagreements on how devout he was to the Semitic faith, and some arguments that Jesus would have been deeply disturbed by the directions taken by the early church under the influence of Paul.

Who do you think Jesus was as a person? What were his primary goals and motivations? Was the resurrection an unprecedented miracle or the most elaborate hoax in history, or was this detail added later to give the Christ story more authority?

I've read a bit about this topic, and the resurrection story seems to be one of the earliest aspects of Christian faith, even when individuals in the early church had huge disagreements about what it meant, the resurrection seems to be pretty universally acknowledged in even the oldest sources, but if it didn't actually happen where did this aspect of the story come from?

 

[omega2xx]

This is essentially a question about the historical Jesus.

I find that I'm quite fascinated by the figure of Jesus. I adored him when I was Christian, and I still have a lingering affection for him to this day. Jesus was a groovy fellow, and in general I dig him a lot.

If you were ever a Christians, you still are. You are now a prodigal son who will return one day.

Still it's come to my attention that modern scholarship regarding Jesus portrays him in a number of very different ways. Some see him as a political rebel, some as a spiritual mystic, others as a great humanitarian. There are disagreements on how devout he was to the Semitic faith, and some arguments that Jesus would have been deeply disturbed by the directions taken by the early church under the influence of Paul.

Only liberal so-called scholars doubt the gospel records. When Paul died and went to heaven, God said to him, "well done good and faithful servant.

Who do you think Jesus was as a person? What were his primary goals and motivations? Was the resurrection an unprecedented miracle or the most elaborate hoax in history, or was this detail added later to give the Christ story more authority?

--He was God incarnate---His primary goal was to save that which was lost--His motive wa agape love. The gospels cannot be refuted.

I've read a bit about this topic, and the resurrection story seems to be one of the earliest aspects of Christian faith, even when individuals in the early church had huge disagreements about what it meant, the resurrection seems to be pretty universally acknowledged in even the oldest sources, but if it didn't actually happen where did this aspect of the story come from?[/QUOTE]

It came from the only source that is reliable---ALL Scripture is inspired by God.

 

[BSM1]

This is essentially a question about the historical Jesus.

I find that I'm quite fascinated by the figure of Jesus. I adored him when I was Christian, and I still have a lingering affection for him to this day. Jesus was a groovy fellow, and in general I dig him a lot.

Still it's come to my attention that modern scholarship regarding Jesus portrays him in a number of very different ways. Some see him as a political rebel, some as a spiritual mystic, others as a great humanitarian. There are disagreements on how devout he was to the Semitic faith, and some arguments that Jesus would have been deeply disturbed by the directions taken by the early church under the influence of Paul.

Who do you think Jesus was as a person? What were his primary goals and motivations? Was the resurrection an unprecedented miracle or the most elaborate hoax in history, or was this detail added later to give the Christ story more authority?

I've read a bit about this topic, and the resurrection story seems to be one of the earliest aspects of Christian faith, even when individuals in the early church had huge disagreements about what it meant, the resurrection seems to be pretty universally acknowledged in even the oldest sources, but if it didn't actually happen where did this aspect of the story come from?

You should read the section of the Urantia Book that gives a different over view of the life and death of Jesus. Granted, all speculative test should be taken with a grain of salt, but this book seems to fill in the holes without asking the reader to disavow any previous concepts or beliefs.

 

[omega2xx]

It was most likely a result of Paul and others needing to adapt there style preaching to suit a Greco-Roman audience after they struggled in their efforts to teach their fellow Jews. Its a powerful and beautiful metaphor for the spiritual reality of Christ.

How do you know it s a metaphor? If anything it is an allegory, but all Biblical allegories are based on a literal event, making it literal.

 

[omega2xx]

The resurrection was always an essential part of most religions.
Which means that the historical figure of Jesus who probably existed was turned into a god and worshiped.
The writings attributed to Paul were never meant to be taken literally.
While it is probable that a man named Jesus lived and overcame the Law, it is also likely that a physical crucification and resurrection never happened either. The virgin birth, the crucifiction, the resurrection, the miracles, etc. are all metaphors.
The greatest story ever told is not about the historical figure called Jesus but rather about mankind.
The story was written down for us.
The story is a guide.
It is the way, the truth and the life.
It is through the knowledge of this story that we ourselves can learn who we are and overcome just like Jesus and others have done.
All of the metaphors are to be applied tknour own lives.
We are to become the virgin bride prepared and waiting for the arrival of the bridegroom.
The resurrection is the transformation of the body mind and spirit allowing one to be raised upnto the level of the Father
And on and on the metaphors go.
The entire Bible along with many other texts are guides to how we ourselves can receive the resurrection while still in the body. In fact, the gospil of Philip says that the resurrection can only happen while still in the body and cannot even happen after death.

The story is literal, unless you have something besides your biased opinion.

You do not understand what a metaphor is.

 

[omega2xx]

You should read the section of the Urantia Book that gives a different over view of the life and death of Jesus. Granted, all speculative test should be taken with a grain of salt, but this book seems to fill in the holes without asking the reader to disavow any previous concepts or beliefs.

If it is different that the gospels, it is false.

 

[Rival]

Jesus probably existed; but if he was claiming to be God, teaching his disciples to eat treif foods and breaking the Sabbath, then he probably deserved his punishment.

 

[allfoak]

The story is literal, unless you have something besides your biased opinion.

You do not understand what a metaphor is.

Such an angry fellow.