Jesus Christ = Liar, Lunatic, or Lord?
-
harpon-1 — 9 years ago(December 27, 2016 07:01 PM)
You left out "God", really. "lord" is something else.
After wanting to believe in him, Jesus is now actually more really a sort of myth to me- an attempt to describe how God in the flesh might relate to the world- an interesting framework, but too often twisted into the needs of people. -
graham-167 — 9 years ago(December 27, 2016 07:16 PM)
Why can he be only one of those things?
Option 4 : Legend. He may never have lived at all. Or if he did, the actual jesus could have been quite different from the person we think of as jesus.
If I could stop a rapist from raping a child I would. That's the difference between me and god. -
PoisonedDragon — 9 years ago(December 29, 2016 07:27 AM)
Option 5: Literary character, a composite of various sources.
"there was one
Jesus, the son of Ananus
, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, began on a sudden to cry aloud,
"A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!"
This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before. Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man,
brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!"
And when Albinus (for he was then our procurator) asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him. Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come. This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, "Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!" And just as he added at the last, "Woe, woe to myself also!" there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost." - Josephus,
Wars of the Jews
6.5.3.
Ȥ -
gladoscake — 9 years ago(December 28, 2016 01:19 AM)
Regular inspirational human being who was made out to be something more. With this logic, you should consider Einstein as Jesus, or any of the most famous physicists who gifted us with knowledge of the World around us!
-
Culfy — 9 years ago(December 28, 2016 11:31 AM)
See The Gospel of John in which Jesus says 'I and the father am one". It's certainly possible the gospel writer made this upbut then since the gospel writers are our only real source of what Jesus actually said or did then you can't really argue anything factual about him if you start arbitrarily rejecting bits.
1 mark deducted for not being Curse of Fenric. Insert 'The' into previous if you are Ant-Mac -
vernuf — 9 years ago(December 28, 2016 12:05 PM)
It's certainly possible the gospel writer made this upbut then since the gospel writers are our only real source of what Jesus actually said or did then you can't really argue anything factual about him if you start arbitrarily rejecting bits.
The problem is that with that as the only source, it's not arbitrarily rejecting bits. There's simply no reason to believe the writer actually was being accurate. For example, the Gospel of John is usually dated to 90-110 BC. That's sixty to eighty years after Jesus supposedly died. -
CODY_Jarrett_jr — 9 years ago(December 28, 2016 04:07 PM)
For example, the Gospel of John is usually dated to 90-110 BC. That's sixty to eighty years after Jesus supposedly died
There is evidence that the Gospel of John was likely written way before that. Most notably the lack of mention of the fulfilment of prophecy of destruction of the Jewish temple which occurred A.D. 70. -
PoisonedDragon — 9 years ago(December 29, 2016 07:11 AM)
There is evidence that the Gospel of John was likely written way before that. Most notably the lack of mention of the fulfilment of prophecy of destruction of the Jewish temple which occurred A.D. 70.
Or it could be a tacit recognition on the part of the authors of GoJ that specifically mentioning such an event, even if framed as a supposed prophecy, is a dead givewaway that the text was written after the event in question.
But the Gospel of John is the last in a succession of canonical gospels, the first of which was written after 135 CE and the Bar Kochba Revolt. It follows the general narrative structure set down by the Synoptics, and its novelties were intended to comment upon them. First Mark, then Matthew, then Luke, and lastly John. Further redaction and editing of John wasn't finished until the 4th century. Sufficiently far past the destruction of Jerusalem, it would no longer be worth citing as relevant to the sectarian Johannine readership.
§«
Ȥ -
PoisonedDragon — 9 years ago(December 29, 2016 07:41 AM)
PD, I'm sure you've probably provided me with something similar before, but do you have a good link about dating the gospels?
I don't have anything that will give you an overall view available as one source, no. I can link you to many different sources that discuss various pertinent issues, such as Markan priority (that Mark was first, and the other gospels copied/embellished/corrected it), or arguments that establish 135 CE as the
terminus a quo
for Mark (per Hermann Detering on the Markan SynApoc, particularly Mk.13:14). The view I expressed above relies on lots of different pieces of critical reasoning.
I'm unsure where to start.
Why I like to be late when dating the gospels (and acts)
Ȥ -
CODY_Jarrett_jr — 9 years ago(December 29, 2016 07:41 AM)
Or it could be a tacit recognition on the part of the authors of GoJ that specifically mentioning such an event, even if framed as a supposed prophecy, is a dead givewaway that the text was written after the event in question
So the gospel writers, who were never shy to make a note of fullfiled prophecies right throughout their accounts just all coincidently decided to skip the rather significant destruction of the temple in order to prevent raising suspicion?.riiiiight!
