Demystifying Jesus

[Aussiescribbler]

Assuming that Jesus was a real man, is it possible to give a real world interpretation to his life and philosophy?

Central to that philosophy is saving us from sin.

What is meant by the term “sin”? Leaving aside any examples which require reference to God, let’s look at gluttony as an example. Gluttony is being selfish regarding food. If we look at other things which are considered “sinful”, they always come down to some form of selfishness. Even in the contentious matters which can’t be interpreted on a purely inter-human level but refer to thoughts or actions which are contrary to the wishes of “God”, we can still see that selfishness is the essence of the matter because putting one’s own desires before those of a deity in which you believe can reasonably be defined as a form of selfishness.

Selfishness is clearly a major problem for the human race. If we were not selfish, would there be war, poverty, rape…? If we were to solve the problem of human selfishness, it is unlikely that there is any other problem facing us which we could not solve.

So the problem of “sin” is the key problem.

How did it begin?

The Old Testament gives us the myth of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

I won’t go into paleo-anthropology because it isn’t something I understand well enough. Let’s just say that there is the possibility that our ape-like ancestors might have lived relatively peaceful cooperative erotically-uninhibited lives like the bonobos.

In the story of Adam and Eve, a dangerous predatory animal - a snake - causes a woman - Eve - to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. A man - Adam - follows suit. This leads to a curse from “God”. Adam and Eve notice that they are naked and clothe themselves out of shame.

If our ancestors were loving and cooperative, they would have had no example within their society of what would later come to be known as “evil”. If a predatory animal such as a leopard ate one of their babies, however, this would stand in stark contrast to their own behaviour. And it would be a threat they needed to address. Since the women were the primary nurturers, the job of protecting against leopards, and trying to understand them, fell to men. Fighting leopards requires the cultivation of talents which run counter to those of the nurturers. The competitive and generally rowdy behaviour of the male hunters was bound to cause friction back in the village where it clashed with the nurturing priority. So morality began with the women’s insistence that men moderate their behaviour.

So we can see that predatory animals (the snake) caused women (Eve) to see the need for some system of morality (eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil) and impress that need on men (Adam) also.

Why did this lead to a curse?

This system of morality gave birth to idealism - i.e. characterising some forms of behaviour as “good” and other kinds of behaviour as “evil” and then using forms of self-discipline or social discipline to encourage the former and discourage the latter.

On the surface this doesn’t seem unreasonable, but the problem is that, over time, idealism undermines self-acceptance. The more insecure we become in ourselves as a result of accumulated feelings of guilt, the harder it is for us to behave in a cooperative loving way. As a result we are open to more criticism and more guilt. It is a negative feedback loop. An unjust sense of condemnation from idealism makes us angry. The more insecure we feel the more egotistical, i.e. ego-embattled or selfish, we become. And the more insecure we become the harder it is for us to think truthfully.

The story of Adam and Eve recognising that they were naked and clothing themselves out of shame symbolises the origins of lying. Nakedness is a symbol for honesty. In the absence of idealism we were comfortable to be seen as we were - warts and all - but once we were exposed to the unforgiving gaze of idealism, we felt ashamed and adopted a false persona to try to hide our imperfections.

What came to be known as “God” was a false amalgam of nature with idealism. We are products of nature. Our ancestors no doubt experienced themselves as an integral part of that system, but the corrosive effects of idealism must have undermined this sense of identification, leading eventually to a paranoid relationship to nature. First would come fear of being punished by nature, and the need for some kind of appeasement rituals. But nature does not reflect idealism, so in time the embodiment of idealism would have to become otherworldly. Thus supernatural religion came into being - a collective paranoid psychosis complete with “magical thinking”.

It is into a world completely dominated by this psychosis that Jesus is born. Telling people that they are all nuts is not going to get him anywhere. If he is going to save them, he has to find a way to free them from their underlying selfishness problem while accommodating the fact that they are living within a collective psychosis. Because such delusions are fear-driven, the last thing you want to do is to attack them directly. This makes the psychotic person more frightened and thus more desperate to cling to the delusion.

So - while showing his knowledge of scripture, using terms like “your Father in Heaven”, etc. - he expressed a philosophy aimed at repairing the damage which had been done by idealism and returning people to the natural capacity for loving cooperation characteristic of life in “the Garden of Eden”.

Selfishness is the natural self-directedness of the insecure or suffering individual. The insecurity arises from guilt. Hence the emphasis on “judge not that thou be not judged” and that “God” forgives “sins” which are “confessed”, i.e admitted. Releasing people from feelings of guilt is necessary if they are to become less selfish.

Encouraging honesty is also important - “The truth will set you free” - because the maintenance of lies requires self-directedness and lies do not provide a commonly acknowledged framework of reality for us to come together.

The idea that those who believe him “won’t die” doesn’t refer to physical death, which comes to us all, but the spiritual death which selfishness entails. I use the term “spiritual” not in a supernatural sense but as a way of referring to the emotional experiencing of having meaning. Meaning arises through relationship. Think of a letter of the alphabet. It may have no specific meaning on its own, but meaning arises when we place it with other letters in a word. In the same way our own lives have no meaning except the meaning which arises out of our relationship with others. Selfishness excludes us from experiencing the rich emotions which can accompany that meaning.

In many ways, selfishness is self denial. We deny ourselves the true pleasure of life itself - we turn away from life to nurture our feelings of idealism-inflicted self-hatred. The irony is that what we need to heal that canker lies all around us.

I could go into more detail, as I have on my blog : How to Be Free - the blog

 

[wizanda]

Central to that philosophy is saving us from sin.

Yeshua doesn't save us from sin; that is all the made up stuff that came after from the Pharisees John, Paul and Simon the stone (petros).

 

[Aussiescribbler]

I'm not talking about any concept of being magically saved from sin by believing in him. I'm simply suggesting that he saw it as his mission to break the spell that selfishness (i.e. "sin") holds over us by giving us practical advice on non-judgement, forgiveness and love.

This is purely a personal interpretation. I base it on a cursory reading of the four canonical gospels, mainly Matthew.

It is hard to know what else to say without having a better understanding of your personal belief system. Do you share with me the view that Jesus was a human being who is now dead, but whose words we can still find some wisdom in? I suspect that we might agree that the religion that grew up around Jesus's name misrepresented him.

 

[pearl]

Do you share with me the view that Jesus was a human being who is now dead, but whose words we can still find some wisdom in? I suspect that we might agree that the religion that grew up around Jesus's name misrepresented him.

You will find the same sentiment expressed by Thomas Jefferson, ('Jefferson's Bible'). He did not believe in the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, nor the divinity of Jesus, dismissed the religious ritual as 'hocus pocus'. But, he believed that the man Jesus was the 'greatest moral teacher'.

 

[pearl]

In the same way our own lives have no meaning except the meaning which arises out of our relationship with others. Selfishness excludes us from experiencing the rich emotions which can accompany that meaning.

Exactly, humans are meant to live relationally!

 

[pearl]

In the story of Adam and Eve, a dangerous predatory animal - a snake - causes a woman - Eve - to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. A man - Adam - follows suit. This leads to a curse from “God”. Adam and Eve notice that they are naked and clothe themselves out of shame.

It is interesting to know how this 'story' evolved from the 'life situation' of the author(s). The biblical account we have today dates from the Babylonian exile and driven by the fear that the exiles were tempted to leave the God of Israel in favor of the fertility gods of the Babylonians. The fertility rituals were symbolized by the snake, which became for the biblical author the appropriate symbol for temptation.

 

[Riders]

Assuming that Jesus was a real man, is it possible to give a real world interpretation to his life and philosophy?

Central to that philosophy is saving us from sin.

What is meant by the term “sin”? Leaving aside any examples which require reference to God, let’s look at gluttony as an example. Gluttony is being selfish regarding food. If we look at other things which are considered “sinful”, they always come down to some form of selfishness. Even in the contentious matters which can’t be interpreted on a purely inter-human level but refer to thoughts or actions which are contrary to the wishes of “God”, we can still see that selfishness is the essence of the matter because putting one’s own desires before those of a deity in which you believe can reasonably be defined as a form of selfishness.

Selfishness is clearly a major problem for the human race. If we were not selfish, would there be war, poverty, rape…? If we were to solve the problem of human selfishness, it is unlikely that there is any other problem facing us which we could not solve.

So the problem of “sin” is the key problem.

How did it begin?

The Old Testament gives us the myth of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

I won’t go into paleo-anthropology because it isn’t something I understand well enough. Let’s just say that there is the possibility that our ape-like ancestors might have lived relatively peaceful cooperative erotically-uninhibited lives like the bonobos.

In the story of Adam and Eve, a dangerous predatory animal - a snake - causes a woman - Eve - to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. A man - Adam - follows suit. This leads to a curse from “God”. Adam and Eve notice that they are naked and clothe themselves out of shame.

If our ancestors were loving and cooperative, they would have had no example within their society of what would later come to be known as “evil”. If a predatory animal such as a leopard ate one of their babies, however, this would stand in stark contrast to their own behaviour. And it would be a threat they needed to address. Since the women were the primary nurturers, the job of protecting against leopards, and trying to understand them, fell to men. Fighting leopards requires the cultivation of talents which run counter to those of the nurturers. The competitive and generally rowdy behaviour of the male hunters was bound to cause friction back in the village where it clashed with the nurturing priority. So morality began with the women’s insistence that men moderate their behaviour.

So we can see that predatory animals (the snake) caused women (Eve) to see the need for some system of morality (eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil) and impress that need on men (Adam) also.

Why did this lead to a curse?

This system of morality gave birth to idealism - i.e. characterising some forms of behaviour as “good” and other kinds of behaviour as “evil” and then using forms of self-discipline or social discipline to encourage the former and discourage the latter.

On the surface this doesn’t seem unreasonable, but the problem is that, over time, idealism undermines self-acceptance. The more insecure we become in ourselves as a result of accumulated feelings of guilt, the harder it is for us to behave in a cooperative loving way. As a result we are open to more criticism and more guilt. It is a negative feedback loop. An unjust sense of condemnation from idealism makes us angry. The more insecure we feel the more egotistical, i.e. ego-embattled or selfish, we become. And the more insecure we become the harder it is for us to think truthfully.

The story of Adam and Eve recognising that they were naked and clothing themselves out of shame symbolises the origins of lying. Nakedness is a symbol for honesty. In the absence of idealism we were comfortable to be seen as we were - warts and all - but once we were exposed to the unforgiving gaze of idealism, we felt ashamed and adopted a false persona to try to hide our imperfections.

What came to be known as “God” was a false amalgam of nature with idealism. We are products of nature. Our ancestors no doubt experienced themselves as an integral part of that system, but the corrosive effects of idealism must have undermined this sense of identification, leading eventually to a paranoid relationship to nature. First would come fear of being punished by nature, and the need for some kind of appeasement rituals. But nature does not reflect idealism, so in time the embodiment of idealism would have to become otherworldly. Thus supernatural religion came into being - a collective paranoid psychosis complete with “magical thinking”.

It is into a world completely dominated by this psychosis that Jesus is born. Telling people that they are all nuts is not going to get him anywhere. If he is going to save them, he has to find a way to free them from their underlying selfishness problem while accommodating the fact that they are living within a collective psychosis. Because such delusions are fear-driven, the last thing you want to do is to attack them directly. This makes the psychotic person more frightened and thus more desperate to cling to the delusion.

So - while showing his knowledge of scripture, using terms like “your Father in Heaven”, etc. - he expressed a philosophy aimed at repairing the damage which had been done by idealism and returning people to the natural capacity for loving cooperation characteristic of life in “the Garden of Eden”.

Selfishness is the natural self-directedness of the insecure or suffering individual. The insecurity arises from guilt. Hence the emphasis on “judge not that thou be not judged” and that “God” forgives “sins” which are “confessed”, i.e admitted. Releasing people from feelings of guilt is necessary if they are to become less selfish.

Encouraging honesty is also important - “The truth will set you free” - because the maintenance of lies requires self-directedness and lies do not provide a commonly acknowledged framework of reality for us to come together.

The idea that those who believe him “won’t die” doesn’t refer to physical death, which comes to us all, but the spiritual death which selfishness entails. I use the term “spiritual” not in a supernatural sense but as a way of referring to the emotional experiencing of having meaning. Meaning arises through relationship. Think of a letter of the alphabet. It may have no specific meaning on its own, but meaning arises when we place it with other letters in a word. In the same way our own lives have no meaning except the meaning which arises out of our relationship with others. Selfishness excludes us from experiencing the rich emotions which can accompany that meaning.

In many ways, selfishness is self denial. We deny ourselves the true pleasure of life itself - we turn away from life to nurture our feelings of idealism-inflicted self-hatred. The irony is that what we need to heal that canker lies all around us.

I could go into more detail, as I have on my blog : How to Be Free - the blog

Is it possible for there to be a real world interpretation what do you mean by that? Are you asking if its possible to translate the bible to our world and society? the answer is not. The bible doesn't translate to me at all.

First place its been translated wrong and whatever version your reading is probably wrong in the translation. The sins in the bible aren't sin, sin is partaking in something evil or wrong to do. But many sins in the bible cant be avoided.

The bible refers to prostitutes as evil. But the truth is they were not evil. Most prostitutes were children baby prostitutes kidnapped and forced into it. Sex in the bible isn't the same as today.

Frankly there are so many contradictions so much confusion in the bible that its not translatable for today no. SO the answer is no. Some of the bible I can read some I cant.

Some of it comes from the desciples some were written along time after Jesus wa son the earth.

 

[1robin]

Assuming that Jesus was a real man, is it possible to give a real world interpretation to his life and philosophy?

Central to that philosophy is saving us from sin.

What is meant by the term “sin”? Leaving aside any examples which require reference to God, let’s look at gluttony as an example. Gluttony is being selfish regarding food. If we look at other things which are considered “sinful”, they always come down to some form of selfishness. Even in the contentious matters which can’t be interpreted on a purely inter-human level but refer to thoughts or actions which are contrary to the wishes of “God”, we can still see that selfishness is the essence of the matter because putting one’s own desires before those of a deity in which you believe can reasonably be defined as a form of selfishness.

Selfishness is clearly a major problem for the human race. If we were not selfish, would there be war, poverty, rape…? If we were to solve the problem of human selfishness, it is unlikely that there is any other problem facing us which we could not solve.

So the problem of “sin” is the key problem.

How did it begin?

The Old Testament gives us the myth of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

I won’t go into paleo-anthropology because it isn’t something I understand well enough. Let’s just say that there is the possibility that our ape-like ancestors might have lived relatively peaceful cooperative erotically-uninhibited lives like the bonobos.

In the story of Adam and Eve, a dangerous predatory animal - a snake - causes a woman - Eve - to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. A man - Adam - follows suit. This leads to a curse from “God”. Adam and Eve notice that they are naked and clothe themselves out of shame.

If our ancestors were loving and cooperative, they would have had no example within their society of what would later come to be known as “evil”. If a predatory animal such as a leopard ate one of their babies, however, this would stand in stark contrast to their own behaviour. And it would be a threat they needed to address. Since the women were the primary nurturers, the job of protecting against leopards, and trying to understand them, fell to men. Fighting leopards requires the cultivation of talents which run counter to those of the nurturers. The competitive and generally rowdy behaviour of the male hunters was bound to cause friction back in the village where it clashed with the nurturing priority. So morality began with the women’s insistence that men moderate their behaviour.

So we can see that predatory animals (the snake) caused women (Eve) to see the need for some system of morality (eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil) and impress that need on men (Adam) also.

Why did this lead to a curse?

This system of morality gave birth to idealism - i.e. characterising some forms of behaviour as “good” and other kinds of behaviour as “evil” and then using forms of self-discipline or social discipline to encourage the former and discourage the latter.

On the surface this doesn’t seem unreasonable, but the problem is that, over time, idealism undermines self-acceptance. The more insecure we become in ourselves as a result of accumulated feelings of guilt, the harder it is for us to behave in a cooperative loving way. As a result we are open to more criticism and more guilt. It is a negative feedback loop. An unjust sense of condemnation from idealism makes us angry. The more insecure we feel the more egotistical, i.e. ego-embattled or selfish, we become. And the more insecure we become the harder it is for us to think truthfully.

The story of Adam and Eve recognising that they were naked and clothing themselves out of shame symbolises the origins of lying. Nakedness is a symbol for honesty. In the absence of idealism we were comfortable to be seen as we were - warts and all - but once we were exposed to the unforgiving gaze of idealism, we felt ashamed and adopted a false persona to try to hide our imperfections.

What came to be known as “God” was a false amalgam of nature with idealism. We are products of nature. Our ancestors no doubt experienced themselves as an integral part of that system, but the corrosive effects of idealism must have undermined this sense of identification, leading eventually to a paranoid relationship to nature. First would come fear of being punished by nature, and the need for some kind of appeasement rituals. But nature does not reflect idealism, so in time the embodiment of idealism would have to become otherworldly. Thus supernatural religion came into being - a collective paranoid psychosis complete with “magical thinking”.

It is into a world completely dominated by this psychosis that Jesus is born. Telling people that they are all nuts is not going to get him anywhere. If he is going to save them, he has to find a way to free them from their underlying selfishness problem while accommodating the fact that they are living within a collective psychosis. Because such delusions are fear-driven, the last thing you want to do is to attack them directly. This makes the psychotic person more frightened and thus more desperate to cling to the delusion.

So - while showing his knowledge of scripture, using terms like “your Father in Heaven”, etc. - he expressed a philosophy aimed at repairing the damage which had been done by idealism and returning people to the natural capacity for loving cooperation characteristic of life in “the Garden of Eden”.

Selfishness is the natural self-directedness of the insecure or suffering individual. The insecurity arises from guilt. Hence the emphasis on “judge not that thou be not judged” and that “God” forgives “sins” which are “confessed”, i.e admitted. Releasing people from feelings of guilt is necessary if they are to become less selfish.

Encouraging honesty is also important - “The truth will set you free” - because the maintenance of lies requires self-directedness and lies do not provide a commonly acknowledged framework of reality for us to come together.

The idea that those who believe him “won’t die” doesn’t refer to physical death, which comes to us all, but the spiritual death which selfishness entails. I use the term “spiritual” not in a supernatural sense but as a way of referring to the emotional experiencing of having meaning. Meaning arises through relationship. Think of a letter of the alphabet. It may have no specific meaning on its own, but meaning arises when we place it with other letters in a word. In the same way our own lives have no meaning except the meaning which arises out of our relationship with others. Selfishness excludes us from experiencing the rich emotions which can accompany that meaning.

In many ways, selfishness is self denial. We deny ourselves the true pleasure of life itself - we turn away from life to nurture our feelings of idealism-inflicted self-hatred. The irony is that what we need to heal that canker lies all around us.

I could go into more detail, as I have on my blog : How to Be Free - the blog

This is too much to bite off at this point but I will respond to a few points. Once I read your responses I can decide if further debate is warranted.

1. Was Jesus a real person? No one can be certain but that is true for every historical event that has ever occurred. However the consensus among NT historians regardless of their faith is that among others the following historical facts are as true as historical evidence can make them:

A. Jesus appeared on the historic stage with an unprecedented sense of divine authority.
B. That he performed a ministry of miracle working and exorcism.
C. That he died by crucifixion at the hands of the Romans but at the instigation of the ruling class of Jewish theologians (or priests).
D. That his tomb was found empty after burial.
E. That even his enemies claimed to have witnessed him alive post mortem.

Keep in mind this is merely the tip of the iceberg and that I am not yet arguing that he actually had divine authority or that he could actually work literal miracles that is what he claimed and attempted.

2. What is meant by sin?

An action which is contradictory to God's nature or desire, or a failure to act in accordance with the same.

I have no problem addressing all of your additional points as well as I can, but I want to see how you respond to these before I decide how much time to invest in the discussion.

 

[Riders]

Most NT Historians all of them who believe what you just said are Christians.I have my doubts as to weather any real historians truly believe Jesus wa s ahistorical

This is too much to bite off at this point but I will respond to a few points. Once I read your responses I can decide if further debate is warranted.

1. Was Jesus a real person? No one can be certain but that is true for every historical event that has ever occurred. However the consensus among NT historians regardless of their faith is that among others the following historical facts are as true as historical evidence can make them:

A. Jesus appeared on the historic stage with an unprecedented sense of divine authority.
B. That he performed a ministry of miracle working and exorcism.
C. That he died by crucifixion at the hands of the Romans but at the instigation of the ruling class of Jewish theologians (or priests).
D. That his tomb was found empty after burial.
E. That even his enemies claimed to have witnessed him alive post mortem.

Keep in mind this is merely the tip of the iceberg and that I am not yet arguing that he actually had divine authority or that he could actually work literal miracles that is what he claimed and attempted.

2. What is meant by sin?

An action which is contradictory to God's nature or desire, or a failure to act in accordance with the same.

I have no problem addressing all of your additional points as well as I can, but I want to see how you respond to these before I decide how much time to invest in the discussion.

Saying all NT Historians believe that is not proof. I don't see any proof of any of that. The bible isn't even translated right, none of what you mentioned about Jesus can be proved from a book that was written by man.
Its not even translated with the right words from the original language and is questioned on its true validity as to the true authors who even wrote it.

I don't believe theres any proof that the story of Jesus was written any time close to the biblical period he was suppose to even lived in.

 

[Riders]

Wheres your proof that everything written in the NT was correct, if it is actually the NT I don't think it is. I don't actually believe the NT is the NT,it wasn't copied right or translated right, its not even the real translation written from the original holy book.

 

[fallingblood]

Assuming that Jesus was a real man, is it possible to give a real world interpretation to his life and philosophy?

I don't think Jesus was focused at all on sin. I think that is reading too much into it. Jesus was a Jew, speaking to Jews, with a Jewish message. Sin wasn't a big deal, not anything like it is in Christianity.

Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher. His message was about the end of the world. One can look at his life and see it as a sacrifice though, much like someone like Martin Luther King Jr. He died for something he believed in. And that thing was a better life for all.

So I think what we can really see in the story of Jesus, for those who aren't religious, more of a meaning in the end of his life.

His philosophy itself was probably pretty similar to that of a Pharisee during that time. He had some good sayings and the like, such as the golden rule, but I think it is his death that has the most meaning.

First place its been translated wrong and whatever version your reading is probably wrong in the translation. The sins in the bible aren't sin, sin is partaking in something evil or wrong to do. But many sins in the bible cant be avoided.

Any work that has been translated has lost part of its meaning. That doesn't mean it was translated wrong. What you are describing here is more in regards to interpretation, not translations.

And yes, many sins can't be avoided, but that's okay.

The bible refers to prostitutes as evil. But the truth is they were not evil. Most prostitutes were children baby prostitutes kidnapped and forced into it. Sex in the bible isn't the same as today.

Has nothing to do with translations though. This has to do with a view of morality, and morality is subjective. You can argue that prostitution or prostitutes aren't evil, but that's subjective. It may be your truth, but truth is also subjective.

Frankly there are so many contradictions so much confusion in the bible that its not translatable for today no. SO the answer is no. Some of the bible I can read some I cant.

I have to disagree. There is confusion, but there is confusion in many books. Largely its because we just don't understand what is being said. We don't have the necessary background to properly interpret it. There are contradictions, but the main problem with that is if one takes the Bible as a monolithic work. It isn't a monolithic work though. It is a collection of works. And at times, they disagree, but that is usually a given. Get two books on WWII, and they will probably contradict each other. That's no problem, unless one takes such a work as infallible.

Most NT Historians all of them who believe what you just said are Christians.I have my doubts as to weather any real historians truly believe Jesus wa s ahistorical

There are virtually no historians who who doubt that Jesus existed. It really is a nonissue. And while most NT historians or scholars are Christian (because Christians study the NT), there are many who are Jewish, atheist, agnostic, etc. as well.

Saying all NT Historians believe that is not proof. I don't see any proof of any of that. The bible isn't even translated right, none of what you mentioned about Jesus can be proved from a book that was written by man.
Its not even translated with the right words from the original language and is questioned on its true validity as to the true authors who even wrote it.

True. An appeal to authority isn't a real argument. And yes, nothing mentioned about Jesus can be proved from a book. However, that is basically true for everything. As I pointed out above though, the fact that the Bible "isn't translated right," and I use fact loosely, really doesn't mean much. Its an empty argument.

However, since history is based on probability, we can look at the story of Jesus, and see that it is most probable that he existed. We can also say some basic things about him. He was a Jew. He was an apocalyptic preacher. He had a group of disciples, who continued after his death. He died by crucifixion and some believed he was resurrected (or that something happened to make his followers continue after his death).

I don't believe theres any proof that the story of Jesus was written any time close to the biblical period he was suppose to even lived in.

That's not really a problem. We can be fairly certain that Mark was written around 70 C.E. However, we are speaking of a time period in which people were largely illiterate, and that the written word wasn't the most popular form of translating information. We are talking about an oral society, where most information as written much later. It really isn't surprising, and it doesn't mean much.

Wheres your proof that everything written in the NT was correct, if it is actually the NT I don't think it is. I don't actually believe the NT is the NT,it wasn't copied right or translated right, its not even the real translation written from the original holy book.

It is the real translation, or a real translation. The NT is a collection of books, not one original holy book. So that it is a moot point. It was translated from a variety of manuscripts, just like any other ancient text.

 

[Thief]

Assuming that Jesus was a real man, is it possible to give a real world interpretation to his life and philosophy?

Central to that philosophy is saving us from sin.

What is meant by the term “sin”? Leaving aside any examples which require reference to God, let’s look at gluttony as an example. Gluttony is being selfish regarding food. If we look at other things which are considered “sinful”, they always come down to some form of selfishness. Even in the contentious matters which can’t be interpreted on a purely inter-human level but refer to thoughts or actions which are contrary to the wishes of “God”, we can still see that selfishness is the essence of the matter because putting one’s own desires before those of a deity in which you believe can reasonably be defined as a form of selfishness.

Selfishness is clearly a major problem for the human race. If we were not selfish, would there be war, poverty, rape…? If we were to solve the problem of human selfishness, it is unlikely that there is any other problem facing us which we could not solve.

So the problem of “sin” is the key problem.

How did it begin?

The Old Testament gives us the myth of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

I won’t go into paleo-anthropology because it isn’t something I understand well enough. Let’s just say that there is the possibility that our ape-like ancestors might have lived relatively peaceful cooperative erotically-uninhibited lives like the bonobos.

In the story of Adam and Eve, a dangerous predatory animal - a snake - causes a woman - Eve - to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. A man - Adam - follows suit. This leads to a curse from “God”. Adam and Eve notice that they are naked and clothe themselves out of shame.

If our ancestors were loving and cooperative, they would have had no example within their society of what would later come to be known as “evil”. If a predatory animal such as a leopard ate one of their babies, however, this would stand in stark contrast to their own behaviour. And it would be a threat they needed to address. Since the women were the primary nurturers, the job of protecting against leopards, and trying to understand them, fell to men. Fighting leopards requires the cultivation of talents which run counter to those of the nurturers. The competitive and generally rowdy behaviour of the male hunters was bound to cause friction back in the village where it clashed with the nurturing priority. So morality began with the women’s insistence that men moderate their behaviour.

So we can see that predatory animals (the snake) caused women (Eve) to see the need for some system of morality (eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil) and impress that need on men (Adam) also.

Why did this lead to a curse?

This system of morality gave birth to idealism - i.e. characterising some forms of behaviour as “good” and other kinds of behaviour as “evil” and then using forms of self-discipline or social discipline to encourage the former and discourage the latter.

On the surface this doesn’t seem unreasonable, but the problem is that, over time, idealism undermines self-acceptance. The more insecure we become in ourselves as a result of accumulated feelings of guilt, the harder it is for us to behave in a cooperative loving way. As a result we are open to more criticism and more guilt. It is a negative feedback loop. An unjust sense of condemnation from idealism makes us angry. The more insecure we feel the more egotistical, i.e. ego-embattled or selfish, we become. And the more insecure we become the harder it is for us to think truthfully.

The story of Adam and Eve recognising that they were naked and clothing themselves out of shame symbolises the origins of lying. Nakedness is a symbol for honesty. In the absence of idealism we were comfortable to be seen as we were - warts and all - but once we were exposed to the unforgiving gaze of idealism, we felt ashamed and adopted a false persona to try to hide our imperfections.

What came to be known as “God” was a false amalgam of nature with idealism. We are products of nature. Our ancestors no doubt experienced themselves as an integral part of that system, but the corrosive effects of idealism must have undermined this sense of identification, leading eventually to a paranoid relationship to nature. First would come fear of being punished by nature, and the need for some kind of appeasement rituals. But nature does not reflect idealism, so in time the embodiment of idealism would have to become otherworldly. Thus supernatural religion came into being - a collective paranoid psychosis complete with “magical thinking”.

It is into a world completely dominated by this psychosis that Jesus is born. Telling people that they are all nuts is not going to get him anywhere. If he is going to save them, he has to find a way to free them from their underlying selfishness problem while accommodating the fact that they are living within a collective psychosis. Because such delusions are fear-driven, the last thing you want to do is to attack them directly. This makes the psychotic person more frightened and thus more desperate to cling to the delusion.

So - while showing his knowledge of scripture, using terms like “your Father in Heaven”, etc. - he expressed a philosophy aimed at repairing the damage which had been done by idealism and returning people to the natural capacity for loving cooperation characteristic of life in “the Garden of Eden”.

Selfishness is the natural self-directedness of the insecure or suffering individual. The insecurity arises from guilt. Hence the emphasis on “judge not that thou be not judged” and that “God” forgives “sins” which are “confessed”, i.e admitted. Releasing people from feelings of guilt is necessary if they are to become less selfish.

Encouraging honesty is also important - “The truth will set you free” - because the maintenance of lies requires self-directedness and lies do not provide a commonly acknowledged framework of reality for us to come together.

The idea that those who believe him “won’t die” doesn’t refer to physical death, which comes to us all, but the spiritual death which selfishness entails. I use the term “spiritual” not in a supernatural sense but as a way of referring to the emotional experiencing of having meaning. Meaning arises through relationship. Think of a letter of the alphabet. It may have no specific meaning on its own, but meaning arises when we place it with other letters in a word. In the same way our own lives have no meaning except the meaning which arises out of our relationship with others. Selfishness excludes us from experiencing the rich emotions which can accompany that meaning.

In many ways, selfishness is self denial. We deny ourselves the true pleasure of life itself - we turn away from life to nurture our feelings of idealism-inflicted self-hatred. The irony is that what we need to heal that canker lies all around us.

I could go into more detail, as I have on my blog : How to Be Free - the blog

I find it notable .....sin.....means 'without' (in Spanish)

it would be your frame of mind and heart that could leave you standing.....without God

as for demystifying the Carpenter.....
you could dismiss the miracles and focus on the parables

 

[Riders]

I don't think Jesus was focused at all on sin. I think that is reading too much into it. Jesus was a Jew, speaking to Jews, with a Jewish message. Sin wasn't a big deal, not anything like it is in Christianity.

Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher. His message was about the end of the world. One can look at his life and see it as a sacrifice though, much like someone like Martin Luther King Jr. He died for something he believed in. And that thing was a better life for all.

So I think what we can really see in the story of Jesus, for those who aren't religious, more of a meaning in the end of his life.

His philosophy itself was probably pretty similar to that of a Pharisee during that time. He had some good sayings and the like, such as the golden rule, but I think it is his death that has the most meaning.

Any work that has been translated has lost part of its meaning. That doesn't mean it was translated wrong. What you are describing here is more in regards to interpretation, not translations.

And yes, many sins can't be avoided, but that's okay.
Has nothing to do with translations though. This has to do with a view of morality, and morality is subjective. You can argue that prostitution or prostitutes aren't evil, but that's subjective. It may be your truth, but truth is also subjective.
I have to disagree. There is confusion, but there is confusion in many books. Largely its because we just don't understand what is being said. We don't have the necessary background to properly interpret it. There are contradictions, but the main problem with that is if one takes the Bible as a monolithic work. It isn't a monolithic work though. It is a collection of works. And at times, they disagree, but that is usually a given. Get two books on WWII, and they will probably contradict each other. That's no problem, unless one takes such a work as infallible.


There are virtually no historians who who doubt that Jesus existed. It really is a nonissue. And while most NT historians or scholars are Christian (because Christians study the NT), there are many who are Jewish, atheist, agnostic, etc. as well.
True. An appeal to authority isn't a real argument. And yes, nothing mentioned about Jesus can be proved from a book. However, that is basically true for everything. As I pointed out above though, the fact that the Bible "isn't translated right," and I use fact loosely, really doesn't mean much. Its an empty argument.

However, since history is based on probability, we can look at the story of Jesus, and see that it is most probable that he existed. We can also say some basic things about him. He was a Jew. He was an apocalyptic preacher. He had a group of disciples, who continued after his death. He died by crucifixion and some believed he was resurrected (or that something happened to make his followers continue after his death).
That's not really a problem. We can be fairly certain that Mark was written around 70 C.E. However, we are speaking of a time period in which people were largely illiterate, and that the written word wasn't the most popular form of translating information. We are talking about an oral society, where most information as written much later. It really isn't surprising, and it doesn't mean much.

It is the real translation, or a real translation. The NT is a collection of books, not one original holy book. So that it is a moot point. It was translated from a variety of manuscripts, just like any other ancient text.

There are a whole bunch of historians who say Jesus did not exist, and Ive read quite abit about it this last year on the internet infact.


As a matter of fact when you say someone like Jesus who would've lived over 200 thousand years ago, that there is proof that he lived and all historians believe it that's not near about, thats nothing.

That's a huge claim and you need to back it up with proof, There was an article and thread on it at Beliefnet last year. The only written proof that existed witnesses of jesus all except one were proven to not be reliable.

Infact not only that but I found an article in Wikipedia that I can provide , that actually says there were not accurate witnesses written material about Jesus that was proven reliable as real.

I've read article by Historians on the net who say he did not exist, I researched it last year so actually the exact opposite is true. All Historians do not back up the actual existence of Jesus.


You cant speak for 100 percent of all historians anyway, that's not reasonable. But it was written in WIki, that the written testimonys about Jesus are not reliable and theres no actual written proof he lived.


You need to back that claim up, you've provided no proof what so ever, saying all historians believe is not any proof what so ever.

Give me written material not biblical passages but written examples written in the time of Jesus and Ill research to see if they;re true.

 

[Riders]

I don't think Jesus was focused at all on sin. I think that is reading too much into it. Jesus was a Jew, speaking to Jews, with a Jewish message. Sin wasn't a big deal, not anything like it is in Christianity.

Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher. His message was about the end of the world. One can look at his life and see it as a sacrifice though, much like someone like Martin Luther King Jr. He died for something he believed in. And that thing was a better life for all.

So I think what we can really see in the story of Jesus, for those who aren't religious, more of a meaning in the end of his life.

His philosophy itself was probably pretty similar to that of a Pharisee during that time. He had some good sayings and the like, such as the golden rule, but I think it is his death that has the most meaning.

Any work that has been translated has lost part of its meaning. That doesn't mean it was translated wrong. What you are describing here is more in regards to interpretation, not translations.

And yes, many sins can't be avoided, but that's okay.
Has nothing to do with translations though. This has to do with a view of morality, and morality is subjective. You can argue that prostitution or prostitutes aren't evil, but that's subjective. It may be your truth, but truth is also subjective.
I have to disagree. There is confusion, but there is confusion in many books. Largely its because we just don't understand what is being said. We don't have the necessary background to properly interpret it. There are contradictions, but the main problem with that is if one takes the Bible as a monolithic work. It isn't a monolithic work though. It is a collection of works. And at times, they disagree, but that is usually a given. Get two books on WWII, and they will probably contradict each other. That's no problem, unless one takes such a work as infallible.


There are virtually no historians who who doubt that Jesus existed. It really is a nonissue. And while most NT historians or scholars are Christian (because Christians study the NT), there are many who are Jewish, atheist, agnostic, etc. as well.
True. An appeal to authority isn't a real argument. And yes, nothing mentioned about Jesus can be proved from a book. However, that is basically true for everything. As I pointed out above though, the fact that the Bible "isn't translated right," and I use fact loosely, really doesn't mean much. Its an empty argument.

However, since history is based on probability, we can look at the story of Jesus, and see that it is most probable that he existed. We can also say some basic things about him. He was a Jew. He was an apocalyptic preacher. He had a group of disciples, who continued after his death. He died by crucifixion and some believed he was resurrected (or that something happened to make his followers continue after his death).
That's not really a problem. We can be fairly certain that Mark was written around 70 C.E. However, we are speaking of a time period in which people were largely illiterate, and that the written word wasn't the most popular form of translating information. We are talking about an oral society, where most information as written much later. It really isn't surprising, and it doesn't mean much.

It is the real translation, or a real translation. The NT is a collection of books, not one original holy book. So that it is a moot point. It was translated from a variety of manuscripts, just like any other ancient text.

Heres my proof. I just read Wiki. They said because the bible exists and the name Jesus was in old Holy books, most Histprians think someone named Jesus with a teaching existed, but theres no proof that he did any miracles or anything written about him wasn't a myth or made up by the followers. They laso said this, this is a quote froma historian ok..


If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.

What this means is an dit said this, that ALL HISTORIACLE religious holy books have some charectors that are real Messiah types ,none of them can be disproved, so theyre all real. Harri Krishna was real too.

So to say that historians believe on that level, compared to what Christians claim, you might as well say he didn't exist. He probably existed but there no proof that any of the scripture can be proven.

 

[Riders]

Theres no proof he was an apocalyptic preacher or crucified according to WIki ,they said most scriptures were written way after the life of Jesus to late, there no proof of crucifixtion or raising from the dead or miracles.

Theres no more proof of Jesus then any other historical prophet or Crist Messiah, Buddha, Harri Krishna as the historian said, or a group of Pagans that existed.The same thing they say for Jesus is what they can say for any historical messiah God.

 

[fallingblood]

There are a whole bunch of historians who say Jesus did not exist, and Ive read quite abit about it this last year on the internet infact.

There are only two scholars, in the field, and by that I mean with actual degrees, who have undergone actual study in the field, that doubt the existence of Jesus. One is Robert Price, and the other is Richard Carrier. Richard Carrier is the only historian among the two. There are no other actual historians who doubt the existence of Jesus.

As a matter of fact when you say someone like Jesus who would've lived over 200 thousand years ago, that there is proof that he lived and all historians believe it that's not near about, thats nothing.

I'm assuming you mean 2,000 years ago. I'm not sure what you mean by the second part. There is evidence Jesus lived though. The NT is good enough, or should be. If not, Josephus should be good enough.

That's a huge claim and you need to back it up with proof, There was an article and thread on it at Beliefnet last year. The only written proof that existed witnesses of jesus all except one were proven to not be reliable.

Josephus is enough evidence to show that Jesus existed. I have no idea what article you're talking about on Beliefnet, as it was last year, you didn't link to it, and I don't frequent the website.

Infact not only that but I found an article in Wikipedia that I can provide , that actually says there were not accurate witnesses written material about Jesus that was proven reliable as real.

Why not provide the article then. Provide the article, or the specific passages, and I can offer a refutation. Or if we are just throwing out sources, I can list a few dozen sources that say that Jesus did exist.

I've read article by Historians on the net who say he did not exist, I researched it last year so actually the exact opposite is true. All Historians do not back up the actual existence of Jesus.

What historians? As far as I'm aware, there are only two in the field who doubt such. I don't doubt that you read "historians" on the internet, who aren't actual historians, but have a website. Please provide the articles, or some substance, instead of appeals to authority, so we can have an actual debate.

You cant speak for 100 percent of all historians anyway, that's not reasonable. But it was written in WIki, that the written testimonys about Jesus are not reliable and theres no actual written proof he lived.

I've already addressed this. Josephus is actual written proof. And yes, I have surveyed the historical works on Jesus, and there are only 2 actual scholars in the field who deny Jesus existed.

Heres my proof. I just read Wiki. They said because the bible exists and the name Jesus was in old Holy books, most Histprians think someone named Jesus with a teaching existed, but theres no proof that he did any miracles or anything written about him wasn't a myth or made up by the followers. They laso said this, this is a quote froma historian ok..

Provide the link. And stop trying to appeal to authority, and an unknown authority at that.

Second, I don't claim Jesus did miracles. And you're wiki article agrees with my position, Jesus existed.

If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.

So Jesus existed. Great.

What this means is an dit said this, that ALL HISTORIACLE religious holy books have some charectors that are real Messiah types ,none of them can be disproved, so theyre all real. Harri Krishna was real too.

Nope. Not really how the historical method works. I can look at Krishna, who was written about figuratively, and claim that the probability of his existence is basically nil. Why? Because the works about him aren't written as ancient histories. They are written in other genres, and thus shouldn't be treated in the same manner as an ancient history.

So to say that historians believe on that level, compared to what Christians claim, you might as well say he didn't exist. He probably existed but there no proof that any of the scripture can be proven.

You're mixing genres, and ideas, so no, the comparison is false. And the "proof" you seem to be seeking isn't going to be found as it is impossible. We are working on probability, as we are talking about history. Jesus existed, we can be certain of that, like we can be certain that Alexander the Great existed. We can even ignore scripture in the case of Jesus, and just rely on Josephus, and get a basic idea.

Theres no proof he was an apocalyptic preacher or crucified according to WIki ,they said most scriptures were written way after the life of Jesus to late, there no proof of crucifixtion or raising from the dead or miracles.

Josephus. He provides evidence Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher. So yes, there is proof.

And it doesn't matter that it was written after the fact. Again, we are talking about an oral society, one that was largely illiterate. Most everything was written about after the fact, as people couldn't write. Thus they relied on the oral tradition. Oral tradition can be nearly just as accurate as the written tradition, which is why historians also rely on it.

Theres no more proof of Jesus then any other historical prophet or Crist Messiah, Buddha, Harri Krishna as the historian said, or a group of Pagans that existed.The same thing they say for Jesus is what they can say for any historical messiah God.

There were no historical Messiah G-ds. Krishna was written about in different genres than Jesus was. To compare the two would be like comparing Zeus and Augustus. Sure, they were both said to be gods, but they were written about in very different manners.

 

[Riders]

There are only two scholars, in the field, and by that I mean with actual degrees, who have undergone actual study in the field, that doubt the existence of Jesus. One is Robert Price, and the other is Richard Carrier. Richard Carrier is the only historian among the two. There are no other actual historians who doubt the existence of Jesus.
I'm assuming you mean 2,000 years ago. I'm not sure what you mean by the second part. There is evidence Jesus lived though. The NT is good enough, or should be. If not, Josephus should be good enough.
Josephus is enough evidence to show that Jesus existed. I have no idea what article you're talking about on Beliefnet, as it was last year, you didn't link to it, and I don't frequent the website.
Why not provide the article then. Provide the article, or the specific passages, and I can offer a refutation. Or if we are just throwing out sources, I can list a few dozen sources that say that Jesus did exist.
What historians? As far as I'm aware, there are only two in the field who doubt such. I don't doubt that you read "historians" on the internet, who aren't actual historians, but have a website. Please provide the articles, or some substance, instead of appeals to authority, so we can have an actual debate.
I've already addressed this. Josephus is actual written proof. And yes, I have surveyed the historical works on Jesus, and there are only 2 actual scholars in the field who deny Jesus existed.

Provide the link. And stop trying to appeal to authority, and an unknown authority at that.

Second, I don't claim Jesus did miracles. And you're wiki article agrees with my position, Jesus existed.

So Jesus existed. Great.

This was said inr esponse to
If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned

It doesn't say he existed, the exact words are we can't reject he existed, you cant prove he did or didn't, theres no way.

That's not proof he existed, the fact that they compared it to any other group of Pagans existed is a reference to any other spiritual leader in the past or any other messiah.

These historians aren't agreeing he existed theyre just saying they cant prove he did or didn't. Hes not anymore important in hisroty then any other leader. Your trying to make the Christian religion sound like its important. Therefore this is one of other passages. Ive got ore from WIki.

Nope. Not really how the historical method works. I can look at Krishna, who was written about figuratively, and claim that the probability of his existence is basically nil. Why? Because the works about him aren't written as ancient histories. They are written in other genres, and thus shouldn't be treated in the same manner as an ancient history.
You're mixing genres, and ideas, so no, the comparison is false. And the "proof" you seem to be seeking isn't going to be found as it is impossible. We are working on probability, as we are talking about history. Jesus existed, we can be certain of that, like we can be certain that Alexander the Great existed. We can even ignore scripture in the case of Jesus, and just rely on Josephus, and get a basic idea.

Josephus. He provides evidence Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher. So yes, there is proof.

And it doesn't matter that it was written after the fact. Again, we are talking about an oral society, one that was largely illiterate. Most everything was written about after the fact, as people couldn't write. Thus they relied on the oral tradition. Oral tradition can be nearly just as accurate as the written tradition, which is why historians also rely on it.
There were no historical Messiah G-ds. Krishna was written about in different genres than Jesus was. To compare the two would be like comparing Zeus and Augustus. Sure, they were both said to be gods, but they were written about in very different manners.

 

[Riders]

Heres a paragraph that agrees with your statement on him existing.

Most scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[54][55][56][57] but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus.[15]:181 The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and between one to three years later that he was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[13][58][59] Elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the Nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including turning water into wine, walking on water and the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion.[60][61][62][63][64][65]

This one says he existed but the only thing they view as valid the bible says is he was born baptized and crucified like a million other guys in back then. Doesn't prove he was a savior.

 

[Riders]

Heres what Wiki says about Josephus

Scholarly opinion varies on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities, a passage that states that Jesus the Messiah was a wise teacher who was crucified by Pilate, usually called the Testimonium Flavianum.[4][5][1] The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian expansion/alteration.[5][6][7][8][9][10] Although the exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear,[11] there is broad consensus as to what the original text of the Testimonium by Josephus would have looked like


It doesn't say he witnessed Jesus coming back form the tomb or that Jesus was God, he says Jesus was a wise teacher and messiah. SO Josephus can be used as testimony he existed but not for Christian beliefs about Jesus.

 

[Riders]

Heres a wiki article on the existence of Buddha too. Just as many historians believe Buddha lived as Jesus. Don't make Jesus more then he is, many great prophesy and messiahs were believed reliavle as well.

Scholars are hesitant to make unqualified claims about the historical facts of the Buddha's life. Most accept that he lived, taught and founded a monastic order during the Mahajanapada era during the reign of Bimbisara (c. 558 – c. 491 BCE),[8][9] the ruler of the Magadha empire, and died during the early years of the reign of Ajasattu, who was the successor of Bimbisara


There you go, Buddha is just as believed to be real as Jesus was.