gixxer750

Hi All,

I am teaching a Sunday School class on Christian Apologetics to the Senior Youth in my church, and we are currently looking at the person of Jesus, specifically his resurrection. I am curious to know what "free-thinkers" (nice term, by-the-way) think about Jesus. Let me explain a little. Jesus of Nazareth was the single most influential man ever to walk the earth. He has split history into two parts, he has dominated the thoughts of countless people in the last 2000 years, and he continues today to influence more lives than any other single human being (even yours, if you are reading this!) Two things more than anything else about this man must be considered: First is his claim to be the Son of God. If it was not true, then no one has ever made a more preposterous, lunatic statement before. Second is the fact of the empty tomb on the third day after his crucifixion. Christianity would never have spread past Jesus' death if his body could have been produced by the Jewish/Roman authorities.

So what is it? Was the whole story about Jesus a myth, "made up by the church to control people"? Was he a liar, or a lunatic? Was he a good man that was made into something else by the church? Or was he truly who he said he was? I would like very much to know what your thoughts are on Jesus.

Thanks!

Queen of Swords

Hi, gixxer750, and welcome to the board. Hope your stay will be pleasant.

Now, on to your post...

Unless you are omniscient, you have no way of knowing that "no one" has made such a statement. Also, there have been people in history who have claimed to be gods.

Besides, we only have the word of the bible that Jesus claimed to be the son of god.

I don't know about other churches, but the Catholic one has made up plenty of stories/myths. And these days, we have the face of Jesus appearing in tree bark. People are still gullible.

I'm not convinced that the man actually existed, but it's no big deal to me either way. If he existed, I think his impact on the world would be much like the one depicted in The Last Temptation of Christ, where a bewildered Jesus realizes that Paul's had a much greater influence on the religion than he has.

There are many reasons I don't believe the Jesus portrayed in the bible was perfect (his racism, his irrational actions and his unfulfilled promises being a few of them). I also don't consider him to be a good teacher. And since I don't believe in a god to begin with, I don't believe Jesus was his son. Jesus is like any other deity/prophet/holyman, except that he has better media coverage.

Kaina

Lord, Liar, Lunatic -- or simply mistaken? Or a figment exagerated by the church to lure the gullible. Why would anybody believe the "son of god, lord of creation" option when all the others are so much more reasonable?

Has the story of Jesus been such an influence in the world? Most of the world is NOT Christian. Many would argue that Muhammed or even Confusius had more impact. Take a look at your own Christian-centric point of view.

Muad'Dib

This seems like a serious question, so I'm sending it over to Miscellaneous Religion Discussion.

Ford Prefect

If it was not true, then no one has ever made a more preposterous, lunatic statement before.

Not so, Emperor Caligula of Rome believed himself to be a god. Later he extended it to being an entire pantheon of gods. He was multiple gods both male and female. This odd split in personality led to this wonderful description by Suetonius:

“Often he affected a golden beard and carried a thunderbolt, trident, or serpent-twined staff in his hand. He even dressed up as Venus”

Caligula even cut open his sister/wife and ate his own child. He also believed he also believed he was the Jewish messiah. Which is strange because he wasn't Jewish. Now are telling me that declaring ones self to be god is the worst lunacy can get?

Also if Jesus was a lunatic he wasn't even that creative. Jesus and Caligula were just two of the many who claimed to be the messiah.

Was the whole story about Jesus a myth, "made up by the church to control people"?

Mostly myth, a bit of real history thrown in, but mostly myth. I do believed that Jesus existed for the reason stated above, that it was not uncommon for people at the time to claim being the messiah.

Was he a liar, or a lunatic?

I think there is a case for either. As there are no reliable sources for his life we will never know.

Was he a good man that was made into something else by the church?

Don’t know

Christianity would never have spread past Jesus' death if his body could have been produced by the Jewish/Roman authorities.

Grave robbery, Exaggeration, and Christ didn’t die. These are a few of the theory's put out. A empty tomb does not necessarily imply divinity.

he has dominated the thoughts of countless people in the last 2000 years, and he continues today to influence more lives than any other single human being

Not so, Buddha has more influence then Christ. I can’t remember whether Muhammad came in 2nd or third in influence, I’m thinking probably third after Jesus.

Kosh

While I don't believe your stated motive for
posting the question (I think you're probably
just trying to evangelize here...too bad that
Josh McDowells "Liar, Lunatic, Lord" approach
is so inept).....

I disagree with your statement (above). Jesus
was the not the most unfluential man ever. The
IMAGE of Jesus, as built up and presented to
people, after Paul hijacked the movement,is what has been influential.

What you're actually practicing at that church
of yours is "Paulianity", like it or not.

not a theist

I would very much like to discuss this particular issue with you. However, before I do, I want to know whether you'll stick around for the conversation. We have many "hit-n-run" posters here and if that's the case, then I don't want to waste my time formulating a response. If, however, you are interested in discussing this issue, I would welcome the chance to do so.

Briefly, the argument you have presented is known as the Trilemma and was invented by C. S. Lewis and popularized by Josh McDowell. It is a very poor argument in that it can be shown that other alternatives are available. Some that come to mind are that he was mistaken, misunderstood, or misrepresented. If you believe that the Trilemma is a good argument, I would be glad to show you why it isn't. So let me know if you plan on sticking around to discuss this and I'll respond further.

Samhain

Hmmm...I'd just like to point out that I find it almost to the point of offensive for someone to tell me that Jesus had such a great influence upon my life. In my opinion, he has done very little in regard to modern thought except that his teachings seem to ignore it or even, perhaps, restrict it. If you want to praise someone who has actually had true influence upon the world, try Socrates or Plato, the fathers of modern thought; Confucius or Buddha if you look to the East. The only way that Christ has truly had an impact upon my life was to give me endless debates with Christians in which I must defend my own views of atheism. Yea, thanks Jesus.

Ron Garrett

What Jesus' personal influence was is unknowable. Let's face facts. We have only church sources to attest to his existence, until well after his supposed death, and what 2nd century and later sources mention him only do so by interaction with the religious movement founded by Paul. Over the more than one hundred historians actively writing on events in Palestine during the first century, none mention him. We have a clear addition to Josephus intended to remedy this, which only establishes that Christians perceived the lack of historical proof for Jesus as a problem long ago. You are assuming that Jesus or his teachings are actually involved. Before you teach apologetics, you might read up on the ecumenical councils. You will quickly realize that what you believe has nothing to do with Jesus' teachings and everything to do with the political decisions of political appointees in formal alliance with the imperial government, and who won or lost in the battle to influence the rulers. The trilemma reflects not a just an ignorance of comparative religion, but in the case of its propopents like Lewis, who certainly know this statement is a lie, reflects a willful disregard of the enormous amount of evidence of the utter falsity of this statement. Every ruler of Egypt, Rome and Greece for centuries were considered "divine." All the ancient heroes, Hercules as one example, were purported to be the result of divine impregnation by Zeus or one of the many gods. There are all manner of answers to this one if you care to look. Clearly, yes. Learn your history. The church did not gain control of anything until Constantine the Great, but thereafter brought tyranny and oppression to all of its territories. I suspect the church began the ame way as "Miss Cleo" and the "psychic hotlines" and all the other religions of the day, as a scam and a con by men like Paul seeking influence and cash. You are assuming the quotes placed in his mouth by anonymous men after his death are in fact his sayings. If some of the quotes attributed to Jesus are correct he was probably not a very good man, but simply charismatic. There is little reason to trust any of the gospel accounts as they make up events that we can be quite certain never occurred, such as the mythical census during Herod's reign, the mythical slaughter of the first born of Bethlehem that even Herod's detractors like Josephus do not record, meant to make Jesus a Moses figure, along with the flight into Egypt and other details, like Jesus family trees that contradict each other. Why would these things be less mythical than the myths surrounding Krishna, Mohammed, Osiris, etc.? If that's true I suggest you use the library on this website and educate yourself on these issues. It's clear from your questions you know next to nothing about any of this or you wouldn't be posing them in the first place.

Koyaanisqatsi

Well stated, Ron.

I would expand a little on something you touched on, though, in that one isn't reading history when one reads the New Testament; one is reading cult biased reflective mythology regarding what may or may not have been history.

An apt comparison would be to read The Book of Mormon. If you don't believe that to be "true" (i.e., myth) then there is absolutely no reason to believe any of it to be "true," since the authority and claim is identical.

As a teacher, the first question you have to answer is what is the source? If you say, "The source is God," then you are no longer a teacher and all of this--including your question--is moot.

If, however, you seriously wish to educate your students--or at the very least, excite them about wanting to find out what they believe in and why--then you need to discard all of the trappings and investigate the origins of the mythology you follow. Most reputable biblical scholars agree, for example that the passion narrative originated with Mark and that the other authors based their own mythology around this story (which accounts for the similarities, but much more so the contradictory discrepancies).

They also agree that the "wisdom sayings" found in the synoptics come from the Quelle (German for "source"), or what is commonly referred to as the Sayings Gospel Q, a collection of platitudes allegedly spoken by the "true" Jesus long before the passion narratives.

In other words, the first mistake you can make as a legitimate teacher (and not just an inculcator) is to teach your students that the synoptics are to be taken and understood as more or less equivalent pictures of the same event, which is not true. They are, at best, progressive descriptions of an alleged event (that most likely did not happen, but you believe it did, so we'll go from there), which were embellished and expanded upon by each successive author.

This is an important distinction, since none of the anonymous authors of the synoptics actually witnessed any of these alleged events, so you've got one author, "Mark," writing down a story that he never witnessed. From that, you then have other authors writing their version of Mark's story and not their own memoirs of an event. Do you see the distinction?

One author wrote a story; subsequent authors embellished it.

This is crucial because it shows how Jesus went from being a spiritually resurrected mythology (Mark) to a bodily-resurrected one(John) over several decades of cult growth and embellishment.

You'll also note that the first story (Mark) does not say the tomb was empty. There was a "man" sitting in the tomb. Jesus body may not have been there, but the tomb was not empty.

No one questions this man or thinks to ask his name or what he is doing there or what he may have done with the body, etc. You have the first story already suspect on this one "fact" alone, that subsequent authors apparently realized, since they changed this in later versions. It's no longer just some strange man sitting in an open, empty tomb, it's angels, and so on.

The mythical (i.e., fictional) qualities abound in the literary style as well as the progressive retellings of the same story in exactly the same manner all myths progress. Any honest, sincere teacher would know this and teach this.

The fact that most don't, however, betrays (I feel) the biggest lie of all; believers don't really believe. After all, if Jesus were "god" then it matters little whether or not he resurrected or, worse, "died for our sins," which is ludicrous, impossible and unjust for various reasons found on this site; the only thing that matters is whether or not people believe he was the "son of god."

Therefore, to teach anyone anything other than the closest to the truth that we can come--that Jesus was an extraordinary, controversial Rabbi most likely murdered by the Romans for seditious incitement against the Roman occupation--is to remove the most important "message" he was trying to teach, IMO; that conventions are meant to be scrutinized and overturned when they become oppressive and/or compliant with unjust laws; that man was not meant to be subject to man.

It's the opposite equivalent of demonizing someone like Hitler. By removing Hitler's humanity (and by that I mean the fact that he was a human being) and declaring him a "monster" or "evil," etc., is to remove our own overall culpability to being such a monster or evil ourselves. By calling Hitler anything other than "human" is to whitewash what is laying dormant within all of us--or at the very least, what we are capable of--and is what allows for other Hitlers to pop up now and again.

The same is true for teachers like Jesus. Removing his humanity removes his message, which, if you go back to Q is none too revolutionary, just basic. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is what it pretty much boils down to, with an added spiritual element that we are all god and that god is within us all (this is what the Gnostic and Essene movements were largely all about). In other words, we're all one, so to murder one is to murder all, etc.

Those are beautiful, powerful thoughts coming from a man who allegedly believed so strongly in those thoughts and preached them so radically under an oppressive, murderous regime, that he was murdered for them by the oppressive, murderous regime.


They become nothing more than inaccessible platitudes when such a simple story becomes a ludicrous fiction and the man becomes a mystical fairy god king that trifurcates into flesh in order to fulfill prophecy and blah, blah, blah.

The reason Gandhi's story is far more inspiring than any of the warrior-deity nonsense of the NT is because he was just a man and he moved a mountain. To suggest for one second that Gandhi was some form of mystical, magical supernatural being with powers to heal and raise the dead, etc., is the second that Gandhi's incredible life becomes ultimately meaningless to anyone else, since we are not mystical, magical supernatural beings with powers to heal, etc., etc., you see?

I doubt you're capable of actually teaching this to your students, but I hope there is something within you that at least recognizes and understands the difference between teaching and preaching.

You have a choice. Truly apply the alleged high ideals of christianity and tell your children the truth about the mythology they are, in essence, forced to believe in by their parents hoping that they will embrace the man as an example of what mankind can be, or feed them the pabulum lie of the mythology, conditioning them to just be accepting robots, never understanding precisely what it is they believe in.

There's nothing wrong about telling people about an extraordinary man who was murdered by the Romans as a result of teaching love, unity and a higher law than the oppressive regime that crushed their freedoms and killed their brothers and sisters wantonly. That tells your students why they should read about this man and, most importantly, that they can make a difference in the world too.

Tell them about a fairy tale alien from an unknown realm that put on a human suit and came here to commit suicide as a sacrifice to himself to save us all from his wrath, however, and lose all credibility as a teacher as well as destroy that man's message.

What's more important to you? Fostering a myth, or teaching your students that love, unity and active insurrection (not resurrection) against oppression ("good" vs. "evil") is what "god" wants us all to do?

[ March 18, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>