pierneef

I am more than amazed to find a "disbeliever" like me alone in defense of what I believe is a wonderful and significant tradition. It is one I have studied in some depth. The important thing to remember is that a great deal of what was ascribed to Jesus is almost certainly unauthentic. Much was interpolated for political reasons (the subsequent Roman conversion to Christianity after having killed the apparent "founder" of faith); other sayings were invented by the Gospel writers playing the "prophecy fulfilled" game. Many sayings were redacted. Some sayings which scholars regard as high probability authentic, do not exist in any of the four Gospels but are found in books like the Gospel of Thomas and other texts.

For example, the Fellows of the Jesus Seminar (www.westarinstitute.org/ Jesus_Seminar/jesus_seminar.html) who include some of the leading theologians and scholars in the world, have this to say about Matthew 10:34 (which one of you referred to): "Dont get the idea that I come to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword After all, I have come to pit a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, etc..."

"Jesus did not say this; it represents the perspective or content of a later or different tradition..we would not include this item in the primary data base (of likely authentic sayings of Jesus)".

Matthew, playing the "prophecy-fulfilled" game, was putting into Jesus' mouth the words of the prophet Micah (7:5-6) relating to family feuds. "(We conclude)..that these sentences were formulated by the Christian community."

So given the uneven quality and authenticity of the Gospels, and even more of the interpretation given by fallible priests with their own agendas and hang-ups concerning Jesus, it is a collective mish-mash that you are attacking without an effort to understand what Jesus may have been. Maybe that doesnt really matter; I guess its OK to attack an idea; but what you are attacking is not the Jesus that I have worked hard to unearth from the mass of propaganda and misinterpretation in which he has been buried. I, for example, feel pretty well the same way you do about the "Jesus" that is peddled by the extreme fundamentalist right-wing in this country. That "Jesus" would be unrecognisable to the Ethiopians of the Orthodox Church (for example), many of who are close friends of mine. TheJesus of Mel Gibson would be largely unrecognisable to a Quaker; and so it goes.

cajela

I know there's no solid evidence, but I think Jesus probably existed as one of many messianic cult leaders around at the time.

His message is too mixed up to really have an opinion. It has some very nice bits about love and forgiveness, and some very nasty bits about hate and punishment, and some downright whacko bits about fig trees.

As several people have pointed out, the gospels were written later, and fiurther edited even later, with the result that we're working on hearsay and fable about events that were 40 years or more in the past when they were written. And that in an era with very little permanent record. Perfect for urban legend style garbling and conflating and "it actually happened to a friend of a friend".

Think about it. Without looking at *any* recorded history, write me a biography of someone mildly famous who died 40-80 years ago. How accurate will you be? You can talk to people who knew them.

JohNeo

I'm sure I would not be accurate, but the most confounding thing about the gospels is how inconsistent they are; yet the most fervent "witnesses" of Jesus Christ swear that they are the word of their god.

Hell, at least Moses' tablets were inscribed by Yahweh himself as the story goes. Why then did the Son of God not have the same autobiographical ability if he was do damned special? :huh:

JohNeo

French Prometheus

Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels is a schizophrenic character. My overall impression is definitely :down:

pierneef

These are becoming increasingly rare museum pieces (lots in Texas, I imagine)

Asha'man

Actually, when you get rid of the propaganda and misinformation, there appears to be nothing left. Every single piece of information we have about Jesus is suspect. So, the authentic sayings of Jesus could be written on the head of a pin by the sloppiest of scribes.

So, the only thing left to attack is a badly written character in a fictional story. And, as such characters go, I find him unoriginal, predictable, preachy, unethical, and one-dimensional. :down:

Derek2012

I hate to break the news to you, "Skeptic"!!! (But!)... I beg to differ with you, I think there are a lot more people on this earth that have heard of Jesus, (The Jesus! King James Version) than you could ever imagine. Also, it's not necessarily, "Jesus", that's important here, it's the message his name implies: peace on earth, among men, charity to those in need of, etc. So, Phillippe is well within the bounds of clarity... I salute you Philippe, also, maybe you were attacked because you were "French", but I'm American with a french ancestry, I salute you Philippe! Keep on, keepin' on...
Also, to be french is to be in touch with the existentialist self, with ties to the taoist sense... Something of which you know nothing of, and most likely never will, which is ok with us "Frenchy's", you stay in the dark... We are artists and poets, whom "Know the truth", in general. That is in essence why we do not side with western thought, full of greedyness and self-appointedness, you westerners are relics of the past. Get in touch with the new age. It's upon you as we speak, it's just too bad, I have to live here amongst you.

King Rat

He makes kick-ass fish taco, I wish he'd clean out his cold bins more often though.

blink

The people in The Jesus Seminar seem to be saying that all the mean -spirited words attributed to Jesus are false because they aren't in character with the guy who was passionate about love. I am not sure there was this passionate guy, but I do think it's posssible to learn and grow and become better able to love whatever is in you to love. Maybe there are Jesuses everywhere. The Jesus Seminar people say they want to take Jesus off his throne because that's what he would have wanted. They want to think about what Jesus was pointing to, not make an idol out of him. I have not noticed that making an idol of him makes people kinder, truer, wiser, or less afraid, except among the like-minded.

I think you can love your enemy because if you are really centered you are less reactive, less threatened, and can accept your own negative judgements kindly, theirs as well. So an enemy can become no longer an enemy through refusing to make a river into a brick, that is refusing to have a fixed belief about them. Not practical sometimes, but maybe possible other times. I think caring about the truth includes knowing that nobody can know someone else well enough to be objective about them. So "I don't like that guy he's an enemy." is a way of stopping short of the full truth, which is that there's much more to that person that you don't know. To love an enemy is at least to want to know more. But for me the motivation wouldn't be to try to be pure and good, but to tolerate honest expression, and because I want the same freedoms and considerations for myself.
Maybe sometimes its better to have an enemy. I don't know.

Gawen

I met him just this Monday. He's a pretty good brick-layer. Jesus Rodriguez. Young guy. Probably has no green card. Can't speak a lick of English.


What? Oh...

THAT Jesus.

HE never existed. And if he did, I reckon he wasn't as good a brick layer as Mr. Rodriguez is.