Who/what was Jesus Christ?

You'd be hard pressed to find a more influential person than Jesus Christ. There are several postulations about Jesus. The most popular ones are as follows:

-Christianity says that Jesus is an uncreated being who is the second person of the godhead. He exists alongside the father and holy spirit as the one and only god.

-Islam says that Jesus was not the son of god-- but a prophet who eventually had his teachings distorted.

-The LDS church says that Jesus is one of many gods, and that everyone is a spirit brother/sister of him (this is why you'll often hear mormon apostles referring to him as their elder brother).

-The Watchtower says that he was the first creation of Jehova, and that Jesus lived in heaven as Michael [the archangel] prior to coming to earth.

I'm interested to see where you guys stand. What do you believe he was/is?

From the evidence that I've seen thus far, the general points about Jesus' life that I think are not in particular contention are that he was a Jew, that he was born and raised in Galilee, that he started preaching at around thirty years of age (although the precise reasons why he gave up whatever life he had before that moment will likely remain a mystery), that he pissed off a lot of powerful people during his relatively brief ministry, and that he was executed probably for the immediately preceding point.

I do think that there is a considerable amount of uncertainty regarding precisely what it was that Jesus said and did, though.  While I think that the Bible is certainly not completely useless with respect to one's attempt to determine this, I feel that it ought to be approached with caution, as I think that there is plenty of evidence that Jesus was used essentially as a character in many places made to say something more in agreement with what the writer felt than with what Jesus the man actually said or did.  The Gospel of John is especially like this - if one is really reading it objectively, I don't think that the character of Jesus in that Gospel can possibly be reconciled with those of the other three Gospels; his focus and his choice of language, among other things, are just far too diametrically opposed to the other three for me to take seriously the idea that John is depicting the same person as Matthew, Mark, and Luke.  I feel that it is much more likely that the Gospel of John ought to be read more as evidence of the developing Christian thought than of anything regarding Jesus himself.

Regarding what I believe can be said about Jesus' teachings, I think that it is pretty clear that one of his main points of focus was the Jewish religious establishment and his rather strong displeasure thereof.  There are a number of occasions, such as the parable of the good Samaritan, on which he is said to have openly contradicted the stringent prevailing purity system in the Judaism of that time period, and I think that this is too consistent a narrative across the Gospels to be considered purely an invention of the writers.  I think there is evidence, as well, of perhaps some influence on him by a Jew named Hillel the Elder, a contemporary of Jesus, who said something very similar to Jesus' statement that the Law and the Prophets can be summarized with the Golden Rule.  The way in which this statement would have been extremely contrary to the prevailing religious establishment, again, makes me feel that it is very likely similar to something that Jesus did indeed say, as it is all part of what I see as an encompassing prevailing anti-establishment narrative for Jesus.

On the topic of whom Jesus presented himself as, I tend to fall on the side of those who claim that Jesus did not, in fact, intend to declare himself the Messiah or to found a new religion.  If he had actually claimed to be the Son of God and had amassed crowds sometimes numbering in the thousands in response to these claims, I would find it perplexing that it would take over thirty years after his execution for someone to actually write down a record of his story.  I personally find it much more likely that he found a small but faithful following and that the mythology surrounding him came from his followers - followers who would almost certainly be extremely distraught by the untimely death of their teacher at the hands of the Jewish establishment - and was gradually embellished over the years as his story became effectively one huge game of "Telephone", given that its only method of transmission for a long time would have been orally.  Many of his responses are purposefully evasive - he never liked to talk about himself much in the synoptic Gospels - and it seems likely to me that he would have been a very enigmatic individual (although extremely charismatic as well), even to his closest followers, which would leave many gaps wide open to be filled in.  One should also keep in mind that Paul, the person responsible for almost half of the entire New Testament and thus for a huge amount of Christian doctrine, never actually met Jesus in person nor heard firsthand what Jesus said.

In short, I believe that Jesus was a well-spoken, charismatic, and easily likeable Jewish holy man, one whose primary intentions were to rebel against the mainstream Jewish establishment; to openly and brazenly subvert widely accepted customs, including barriers imposed between Jews and Gentiles; and to spread the message that love, not rote adherence to rules and rituals, is what is truly important in life.  He was eventually executed for his rather extreme manner towards those with religious power, and his image was then likely co-opted by those who wished to continue his opposition to the Jewish establishment and who adopted him as a unifying banner under which they could unite.  And then, slowly but surely, the rebels became the new establishment, and now it falls to people like me to try to rescue Jesus from Christianity. :P

(OK, so that last part was a little theatrical.  But I do believe that modern Christianity does a great man a terrible injustice.)

I'm more or less with the Muslims on this one. I reckon Jesus was a bloke just like any of us, he taught a unique and revolutionary form of Judaism and then got killed for it, later to be deified by his followers and taken as a god. I also suspect, unlike Gabu, that he did probably believe that he was the messiah and that he presented himself as such to his followers.

Btw Gabu what are your views on the resurrection? I've probably read your opinions before but I can't recall what they are for the life of me.

As Thomas Jefferson described him, he was like a Socrates without a Xenophon. And so what he taught was completely distorted. But despite this, I think that the history is clear enough to show that Jesus was a reformer who saw evil in the world, and he tried his best to purge it.   

I'm more or less with the Muslims on this one. I reckon Jesus was a bloke just like any of us, he taught a unique and revolutionary form of Judaism and then got killed for it, later to be deified by his followers and taken as a god. I also suspect, unlike Gabu, that he did probably believe that he was the messiah and that he presented himself as such to his followers.

Btw Gabu what are your views on the resurrection? I've probably read your opinions before but I can't recall what they are for the life of me.

domatron23

Views on what aspect of it?  Regarding whether it happened, or regarding where the story came from?  I imagine that it's fairly obvious that I believe that the resurrection probably did not actually happen, so I'll assume you mean the latter.

It seems fairly clear to me that the resurrection was probably the "original miracle" ascribed to Jesus, given that it seems to be the only one that Paul is aware of in his writings.  Still, his writings do still come some twenty-plus years after Jesus had died, and I think one should keep in mind that scholars today generally believe that no one who contributed to a document in the New Testament actually met Jesus in person, and that the ones who claim to be written by someone who did are very likely pseudographical.  If the other miracles could have been more or less fabricated over time by those who never met or spoke with Jesus, I don't know why that one couldn't have either.  The portions in the synoptic Gospels where Jesus is said to have predicted his death and resurrection (Matthew 16:21-23, Matthew 20:17-19, Mark 8:31-33, Mark 10:32-34, and Luke 18:31-34) seem very tacked on, and to me seem much more likely for that reason to be the invention of the writers than an actual retelling of something Jesus said and did.

In addition to that, I think that one must also keep in mind the relationship between Jesus and John the Baptist.  It is clear that John the Baptist both was an ascetic and predicted an imminent end, and it is likely that his followers did as well.  However, I think that it is less clear that these qualities apply to Jesus as well.  It is rather subtle, but if one looks closely at the various comments about the "kingdom of God" ascribed to Jesus, one will find that they are almost wholly incompatible.  For example, in Mark 1:15, he is said to have said, "The time has come. The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!"  This is a classic "repent; the end is nigh" phrase from a doomsday prophet.  However, look at his response to one of the teachers of the law in Mark 12:32-34:

"'Well said, teacher,' the man replied. 'You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.'

"When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, 'You are not far from the kingdom of God.'"

This point is made even clearer in Luke 17:20-21:

"Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, 'The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you.'"

How can this be?  In Mark 1:15, Jesus clearly describes the kingdom of God as something imminently to come, but then he describes it as something that someone is "not far from" due to his wisdom, and then explicitly declares that it is "within you", and contradicts the Pharisees' implicit assertion that the kingdom of God is something that will come later.  The answer that I feel is most credible is that there are, effectively, two competing messages in the Gospel in many areas: that which Jesus actually said, and that which the followers of John the Baptist - many of whom became followers of Jesus - tried to make Jesus say.

And I feel that the status of Jesus, as well as the resurrection, may well have been like this as well.  Given the vast number of rather unsavory things throughout history that people have attempted to ascribe Jesus' approval to, it seems rather evident to me that people will always find it easier to try to make their religious figures say and be what they want them to say and be rather than earnestly trying to figure out what they actually said and were.  If Jesus did indeed believe that the kingdom of God was something that one could find even right here on Earth, within oneself, through a righteous life - which I do believe was the case - then it would seem rather strange to me that Jesus would have declared himself to be the son of God, the savior of all whom all must accept, and to have proclaimed an imminent end of days heralded by his second coming.  The conflict between many of Jesus' answers about what one must do (love God and one's neighbor) and what Paul wrote that one must do (believe that Jesus is Lord) makes the idea even more untenable to me that Jesus actually proclaimed himself to be the son of God and to be some sort of savior of humanity.  It just doesn't fit, as far as I'm concerned.

To me, Jesus was the original hippy.:PMetalGear_Ninty

:lol:

I suppose that that would make the Buddha the original emo. He taught that life is full of suffering and that the only way to end the cycle of suffering is to reach enlightenment. He sat under trees and meditated for days at a time to escape from what he percieved as a cruel world, which reminds me of an emo kid locking himself in a room and listening to Linkin Park. :P

i can easily find a more influential person than jesus christ... how about any emperor of the roman empire? the roman empire created and established the western world, and set in stone the culture of HALF the world.chopperdave447

I think one could also easily argue that the people who got together and hammered out official Christian doctrine were much more influential than Jesus himself.

i have two theories. jesus was a man with a mental illness which just made him a crazy and never did any miracles. or he was a man who whole-heartedly believed in his higher power... had exclusive access to that supernatural force... god? ...which enabled him to perform miracles.

apparently he continually brought bread out of a basket and i believe he was only able to do that with this "supernatural force". a force that i also think is beyond our time.

[QUOTE="chopperdave447"]i can easily find a more influential person than jesus christ... how about any emperor of the roman empire? the roman empire created and established the western world, and set in stone the culture of HALF the world.GabuEx

I think one could also easily argue that the people who got together and hammered out official Christian doctrine were much more influential than Jesus himself.

Interesting point. Would that mean that Paul was the founder of the christian religion and not Jesus? Paul was not the first christian, but as far as I know, he introduced the concept of Jesus' new covenant and all that other stuff.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="chopperdave447"]i can easily find a more influential person than jesus christ... how about any emperor of the roman empire? the roman empire created and established the western world, and set in stone the culture of HALF the world.dracula_16

I think one could also easily argue that the people who got together and hammered out official Christian doctrine were much more influential than Jesus himself.

Interesting point. Would that mean that Paul was the founder of the christian religion and not Jesus? Paul was not the first christian, but as far as I know, he introduced the concept of Jesus' new covenant and all that other stuff.

Well, I think it'd be hard to name one particular individual; Paul's writings were certainly influential, but then there are also things like the Nicene Creed and such like.  But really, I just look at your average Christian witnessing to others and ask myself to what extent these people sound like Jesus, and the answer is usually "not much, really".  As I've said numerous times in the past, the similarities between the Christian establishment today and the Jewish establishment in Jesus' days are simultaneously startling and sad.  The more things change...

i have two theories. jesus was a man with a mental illness which just made him a crazy and never did any miracles. or he was a man who whole-heartedly believed in his higher power... had exclusive access to that supernatural force... god? ...which enabled him to perform miracles.

apparently he continually brought bread out of a basket and i believe he was only able to do that with this "supernatural force". a force that i also think is beyond our time.

zarkon9

That sounds an awful lot like C.S. Lewis' trilemma argument, A.K.A. 'Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic or the lord and he wasn't a liar or a lunatic so he must be the lord'.

By far the most attractive answer that C.S. Lewis fails to include in his options is that Jesus was simply wrong. You don't have to be a lunatic to be wrong about matters of the supernatural, hell I think the majority of the human race is.