• 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!

The possibility that Jesus was just a smart man.

Cephus

Relentlessly Rational
I don't know, but you seem to be what I call a myther. :)
I am not a Christian but I feel quite confident that Jesus did exist and did initiate a mission.
There's plenty of evidence for this, really. :)

The Jesus in the Bible is absolutely a myth. Whether or not there was some itinerant Jewish preacher upon whom the mantle of godhood was posthumously draped somewhere down the line remains to be seen. Regardless, if we're going just by the evidence, there simply isn't any. And people are getting upset because reality doesn't support their personal emotional desires for there to be a Jesus.

And if you think there's evidence, present it. Whole lot of claims that it exists, absolutely nobody is presenting it.
 

Brickjectivity

Brickish Brat
Staff member
Premium Member
You've got lots of people who are delusional. Sorry, not impressed with delusion.
Apparently the only thing you can do is derail conversations into insult contests. Everyone but you is delusional, and every conversation is about how delusion everyone else is.
 

Cephus

Relentlessly Rational
Apparently the only thing you can do is derail conversations into insult contests. Everyone but you is delusional, and every conversation is about how delusion everyone else is.

Apparently all I can do is point out how things actually are, without resorting to emotionalism. Nothing I have said is not a fact. And yes, anyone who allows their emotional desires to run away with them, over evidence to the contrary, is delusional. It's the very definition of the word!

A delusion is a belief that is held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary. As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or other effects of perception.
 

Brickjectivity

Brickish Brat
Staff member
Premium Member
Apparently all I can do is point out how things actually are, without resorting to emotionalism. Nothing I have said is not a fact. And yes, anyone who allows their emotional desires to run away with them, over evidence to the contrary, is delusional. It's the very definition of the word!

A delusion is a belief that is held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary. As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or other effects of perception.
Sorry, but I cannot possibly understand as everyone but you is delusional.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
The Jesus in the Bible is absolutely a myth. Whether or not there was some itinerant Jewish preacher upon whom the mantle of godhood was posthumously draped somewhere down the line remains to be seen. Regardless, if we're going just by the evidence, there simply isn't any. And people are getting upset because reality doesn't support their personal emotional desires for there to be a Jesus.

And if you think there's evidence, present it. Whole lot of claims that it exists, absolutely nobody is presenting it.
G-Mark
Flavius Josephus
Celcius

........... ??

:D
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Hi....!
I reckon that the 5000 tale was based upon truth.
Jesus gathered up what was available. He got the crowds attention, held up a morsel and took it to a person, then another. Other people had morsels with them as well and wanted to copy him. This snowballed.
I was actually in the end arguing that Jesus did likely have paranormal/supernatural events surrounding him
as I explained in my post #28.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
None of which are contemporary eyewitnesses, Try again.
The author of G-Mark was a witness. There's good evidence for that in the writings, even though they were 'edited', enlarged and exaggerated later.
Flavius Josephus was the Commander of all Galilean forces, and must have known soldiers and others who personally knew about, possibly even knew Jesus personally.
Celcius is interesting because he was anti-Christian, yet knew details about the disciples not mentioned elswhere.

...try again....... :D
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I was actually in the end arguing that Jesus did likely have paranormal/supernatural events surrounding him
as I explained in my post #28.

OK....... Yes.......
I'm just slightly more inclined to it being a true story, exaggerated later.
I acknowledge your proposal.
I do believe in supernatural events, the obvious one being the self-generation of the entire Universe from a pin-prick of energy. :)
 

Cephus

Relentlessly Rational
The author of G-Mark was a witness. There's good evidence for that in the writings, even though they were 'edited', enlarged and exaggerated later.
Flavius Josephus was the Commander of all Galilean forces, and must have known soldiers and others who personally knew about, possibly even knew Jesus personally.
Celcius is interesting because he was anti-Christian, yet knew details about the disciples not mentioned elswhere.

...try again....... :D

No because all of the gospels are written anonymously, no one in their right mind thinks that they were actually written by the people whose names appear on them.

But you know, reality and all...
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
There isn't any evidence that Jesus ever existed at all. There isn't a single contemporary eyewitness account of Jesus, nor a shred of physical evidence that he left. All you have is a character in a book of mythology. Some of the ideas in that book are passable, I suppose, but a lot are utterly horrific.
The consensus among NT historians regardless of their faith (you know, the group of guys best trained to know) is that these things among many others are historically reliable.

1. That Jesus appeared on the historical scene with an unprecedented sense of divine authority.
2. That he practiced a ministry of exorcism and miracle working.
3. That he was killed by crucifixion by the Romans at the behest of the Jewish authorities.
4. That even his enemies claimed to have spoken with him post mortem.

There is way less certainty for countless events taught as historically viable in colleges around the world.

If you want to close the door on the only possible hope for mankind, then you should find better reasons for doing so.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
No because all of the gospels are written anonymously, no one in their right mind thinks that they were actually written by the people whose names appear on them.

But you know, reality and all...
Simon Greenleaf and Lord Lyndhurst two of (if not the) greatest experts on testimony and evidence in human history believed so, so did most of those who led the way during the modern scientific revolution, as do more than 80% of all Nobel Laureates, and billions more. Are they all out of their mind?
 

Cephus

Relentlessly Rational
The consensus among NT historians regardless of their faith (you know, the group of guys best trained to know) is that these things among many others are historically reliable.

1. That Jesus appeared on the historical scene with an unprecedented sense of divine authority.
2. That he practiced a ministry of exorcism and miracle working.
3. That he was killed by crucifixion by the Romans at the behest of the Jewish authorities.
4. That even his enemies claimed to have spoken with him post mortem.

There is way less certainty for countless events taught as historically viable in colleges around the world.

If you want to close the door on the only possible hope for mankind, then you should find better reasons for doing so.

I'm not asking about consensus, I'm asking about actual evidence. Where is it? Nobody manages to present any of it when asked. Why is that?
 

Cephus

Relentlessly Rational
Simon Greenleaf and Lord Lyndhurst two of (if not the) greatest experts on testimony and evidence in human history believed so, so did most of those who led the way during the modern scientific revolution, as do more than 80% of all Nobel Laureates, and billions more. Are they all out of their mind?

Or they are simply buying into the dominant cultural delusion.
 

meghanwaterlillies

Well-Known Member
From another thread the op was complaining that all Jesus's miracles where myths. After thinking on it all Jesus's miracles where very possible for a smart man of the time.

The first time we see Jesus as special in the Bible he is debating gospel as a boy with the rabbis and they are impressed with him. This show's us that Jesus was either god or very educated boy as the rabbis at that time were some of the most educated men.

If He continued his education he may well have been as smart as Aristotle.

The next time we see Jesus he is turning water into wine. He has all the stewards collect the wine carafes and fill them with water. Those carafes had probably been used for years to store wine. The water would have easily gotten color and slight flavor from the carafe. He instructs them to take it to the Head steward only. It probably was the Head stewards job to make sure there was enough wine. If I was the Head steward I would sell the water as wine to the drunks.

Healing the sick. First we know it is possible to heal yourself. We also know the placebo effect is a real thing. The more susceptible you are to belief the better the placebo effect. Belief was high is Jesus's time. He would cure people after first asking if they believed and telling them their belief saved them. Perhaps he realized or learned this in his studies.

Bringing back the dead. They always state that he layed hands on them but never explained what the hands did. Perhaps he taught himself CPR.

Bringing to life a corpse. Even today people are missed diagnosed as dead only to a wake and surprise everyone. In Jesus's time it was far more common. We know people were buried alive at that time. He may have been able to see certain things which others didn't that indicated the person was still alive and he was able to revive them. In the cases I heard he went in alone with the deceased so no one would know what he actually did.

Walking on water and the loaves and fishes could be misinterpretation of things he did. We know magicians today can walk on water and make things appear that weren't there. We don't interpret it as supernatural today but in Jesus's time we would.
Tricks and miracles don't mix.
However I do believe that Jesus did real miracles but 9/10ths of the time He told them to keep it to themselves it was for them that was after the blind man stuff mostly and they basically didn't believe it anyways so.
 

2X4

Member
From another thread the op was complaining that all Jesus's miracles where myths. After thinking on it all Jesus's miracles where very possible for a smart man of the time.

The first time we see Jesus as special in the Bible he is debating gospel as a boy with the rabbis and they are impressed with him. This show's us that Jesus was either god or very educated boy as the rabbis at that time were some of the most educated men.

If He continued his education he may well have been as smart as Aristotle.

The next time we see Jesus he is turning water into wine. He has all the stewards collect the wine carafes and fill them with water. Those carafes had probably been used for years to store wine. The water would have easily gotten color and slight flavor from the carafe. He instructs them to take it to the Head steward only. It probably was the Head stewards job to make sure there was enough wine. If I was the Head steward I would sell the water as wine to the drunks.

Healing the sick. First we know it is possible to heal yourself. We also know the placebo effect is a real thing. The more susceptible you are to belief the better the placebo effect. Belief was high is Jesus's time. He would cure people after first asking if they believed and telling them their belief saved them. Perhaps he realized or learned this in his studies.

Bringing back the dead. They always state that he layed hands on them but never explained what the hands did. Perhaps he taught himself CPR.

Bringing to life a corpse. Even today people are missed diagnosed as dead only to a wake and surprise everyone. In Jesus's time it was far more common. We know people were buried alive at that time. He may have been able to see certain things which others didn't that indicated the person was still alive and he was able to revive them. In the cases I heard he went in alone with the deceased so no one would know what he actually did.

Walking on water and the loaves and fishes could be misinterpretation of things he did. We know magicians today can walk on water and make things appear that weren't there. We don't interpret it as supernatural today but in Jesus's time we would.

Reading a comic book called Superman can make a child believe he can be a Superman by tying on a red cape and run around the yard pretending he's Superman. Some of us learn we're Superman for real so we don't have to believe in words in a book.
 

roger1440

I do stuff
The first time we see Jesus as special in the Bible he is debating gospel as a boy with the rabbis and they are impressed with him. This show's us that Jesus was either god or very educated boy as the rabbis at that time were some of the most educated men.
“I made mighty proficiency in the improvements of my learning, and appeared to have both a great memory and understanding. Moreover, when I was a child, and about fourteen years of age, I was commended by all for the love I had to learning; on which account the high priests and principal men of the city came then frequently to me together, in order to know my opinion about the accurate understanding of points of the law.” (The Life Of Flavius Josephus, paragraph 2) http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/autobiog.htm
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
No because all of the gospels are written anonymously, no one in their right mind thinks that they were actually written by the people whose names appear on them.

But you know, reality and all...

Now come on. Be real.... :)
I don't give a fig about the name of the witness accounts that caused G-Mark to be written. Names mean little, for instance Jesus never knew the name Jesus, or 'Christ', he spoke an Eastern Aramaic dialect with a Galilean accent!
Simon 'Cephas' never knew the name /'Peter'. Big Simon (the Caananite?) was probably a tough bloke, buit never got called 'Zealot'. Judas Iscariot was more likely Judah BarSimon, The Zebedee brothers were more likely (imo) sons of violence rather than sons of thunder.... etc etc

So stop worrying about names and start looking at available evidence that supports the most reasonable proposal.... that Jesus (Yeshua BarYosef) and his disciples were real folks.

You just haven't studied the subject matter thoroughly enough, is my guess.

:D
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
The first time we see Jesus as special in the Bible he is debating gospel as a boy with the rabbis and they are impressed with him. This show's us that Jesus was either god or very educated boy as the rabbis at that time were some of the most educated men.
I'd honestly be more impressed if we knew what was said, though. He could've been singing the abc's and we'd never know.

The next time we see Jesus he is turning water into wine. He has all the stewards collect the wine carafes and fill them with water. Those carafes had probably been used for years to store wine. The water would have easily gotten color and slight flavor from the carafe. He instructs them to take it to the Head steward only. It probably was the Head stewards job to make sure there was enough wine. If I was the Head steward I would sell the water as wine to the drunks.
LOL. That'd be hilarious if true.

Bringing back the dead. They always state that he layed hands on them but never explained what the hands did. Perhaps he taught himself CPR.
There's also the problem that they didn't have something called "clinical death" at that time, so it's hard to see if they were really dead or just comatose. I am a nurse, so I tend to go with the "primitive CPR" idea too. Still, no sense in using CPR on someone who's not truly dead ...

While I guess there could theoretically be Christians who don't actually follow Christ, I mean there was an Episcopalian bishop that didn't believe in God, but those people are few and far between. It's pretty hard to follow someone you don't believe existed.
If people can call themselves Jedi and be serious, then this shouldn't be that hard. :)

Walking on water and the loaves and fish are tales told by others not by Jesus. It is possible that he was a showman and he used tricks to get into places he was needed. He did not tell the tales he allowed the tales to be told. The stories also could of gotten big before he heard them and there was no advantage or easy way to correct them. He may have tried and just given up.
They could also simply be literary tropes, common to the genre.

Now it all makes sense to me.
This character called Jesus was a mere clever magician hoping
he'd get nailed to a stick and die a horrific death just for giggles and grins.
You act like that's impossible, but wasn't there some dude named Simon who was precisely this?

A smart man can't just calm the wind and waves, multiply a handful of loaves and fishes to feed thousands or raise the dead

That takes more than smarts
You're right, of course. It also takes people who don't know how things work and just assume magic.

Mohamed was only 500 years after the death of Jesus, it is reasonable to believe he had facts.
Do you have facts about the existence of some random Pacific Islander who is currently living? If not, why is it reasonable to suggest Mohammad would have any better knowledge about Jesus? Hell, even while Jesus was alive, people were going "who is this", LOL.

It is hard to see people accepting death over recanting a pure myth though.
Imagine you've been taught all your life it's literal historical fact. THAT'S how you die for myths.

A merely smart man would not come up with many eyewitnesses who would die rather than admit the story was spoofed.
When the authors of Captain America comics can get death threats for a particular plot line, I lose my ability to have faith in the smarts of people regarding literary characters.

They would not have endured that if it weren't true. Watergate embroiled 12 of the most powerful men in the world-and they couldn't keep a lie for three weeks. You're telling me 12 apostles could keep a lie for 40 years? Absolutely impossible.”
The ancient Middle East had detectives and forensics to bust the myth quickly?

1. That Jesus appeared on the historical scene with an unprecedented sense of divine authority.
We have posters on this site that think they have divine authority. So what?

2. That he practiced a ministry of exorcism and miracle working.
As did lots of others. It's a popular con job/show.

3. That he was killed by crucifixion by the Romans at the behest of the Jewish authorities.
Don't see the need for Jewish opinion. Jesus was executed for treason by the Romans.

4. That even his enemies claimed to have spoken with him post mortem.
So, like Elvis, then.
 
Top