This weeks question is a little more specific 2/7...

[lemlern]

He was a man who believed God was his father. He declared himself a prophet and travelled all over the land trying to deliver his message. Not sure what exactly his message what, but it sounded like he was trying to convert people to believe in him. He seemed like a really vain man IMHO, and he really wanted to be worshipped.

[millmuff]

Apparently he was a hell of a carpenter....oh and he had a pretty sweet mop for a head of hair too.

[voyd]

Who knows? I have heard dozens of theories ranging from a political rebel against Rome who knocked up a hooker to an alien entity incarnated into a human body...

But at the end of the day, everything is speculation and I have yet to see any real proof for anything.

All I really do know is that from his own words he's been quoted as saying...that I'm not particularly impressed. Judging from his words alone, he does not appear to have enlightened knowledge, just a little common sense and sense of unproven grandeur. Certainly, I've heard much deeper thoughts from a variety of other sources.

If the proof is in the puddin', I'm not sure JC is the 'puddin. The only parts of the Bible I like are Genesis and Revelations...neither of which was written by JC.

And btw, there were many "sons of god" according to Genesis...

[micdans]

Originally Posted by TheJake

A reminder of where I came from and a possible hope for the future, should people figure out how he meant for them to really live.


It's a tough question for me to answer considering my current stand on faith, having just started walking away I mean...
awake.

Good convo last night man.

[marc873]

Glad to hear that my thoughts didn't alienate me!!! I was worried Big E, but its all about trying to understand each other and individual beliefs, thus the beauty of travelers and our understandings. I personally left christianity when I was 15, now 33 I still feel the same. I am spiritual, but I do not believe in organized religion. Remember the sheep. Don't be one

[juliagulia]

Well. I don't know.

I don't know if he's the son of God. But, from my years of attending several churches due to my uber religious upbringing (which is still technically going on), I've learned that Jesus never really said he was the Son of God. If he did, I'm pretty sure it was when he said, "Father, father, why have you forsaken me?" but the prayer thousands of children around the world utter before sleeping starts off "Our father..."

So I don't know. I don't think he was tooting his own horn.

Whether he was real or myth, mystical or human, selfish or genuine, you have to admit that he's had impact.

I don't know whether I believe in him (I'm not sure what to believe in, these days), but I find myself thinking "What would Jesus do?" despite my pseudo-unreligiousness. Because the idea of a "perfect human" is a role model.

This reminds me of that bumper sticker: "Jesus, please save me from your followers" (or something like that). Your run of the mill hypocritical Christian just uses his name in support of things that seem OOC for him (or at least how he's perceived in the Bible).

I don't know. The idea of Jesus is a beautiful thing. Hell, religion is a beautiful thing. We're just too messed up to make these things work out. I think people who "represent" Jesus make him seem like an uncaring, bigoted, old-fashioned, "I'm gonna shove my religion down your throat" type person.

I... admire him, even if he's not real.

[Joker]

Hi Voyd! Where ya been?

From a purely secular viewpoint, Roman historians wrote of a man called Jesus of Nazareth who was executed in Jerusalem. They do not attribute miracles, etc. but they do recognize the man Himself. If you take that into consideration and choose to believe that He didn't actually exist, might as well take everything the Romans wrote about as falsehood.

Beyond that, even Muslims and Jews recognize Him as a prophet. Nowhere in the New Testament, however, does He lay claim to being the Messiah or a prophet. As a purely historical figure, He did in fact exist.

This being said, there are interesting theories, specifically laid in literature that attribute similar qualities to Him as the Buddha and other prominent religious icons.

Modern literature tends to take a harder look at His life. The Davinci Code specifically created a huge stir about Him and His possible relationship with Mary Magdelene. Remember that?

I've got 8 years of parochial school and 4 years of Jesuit high school in which I became enlightened to Zen and other mysticisms. Though I'm not by any means a theologian, I do have a good background in it. Crammed down your throat by Penguins for 8 years will give you a different outlook on it.

There are common correlaries that exist within all relgions. Fundamental to them all is the ability to have faith. Faith allows one to believe in something without seeing. Without having a tangible or physical ability to see as it would be, we have to be able to suspend a disbelief and be willing to follow blindly at times. This manifests itself for different people. Some are very religious, others not. Some choose to reject their upbringing, as I did, and attempt to follow other routes.

Eventually a person will either completely abandon their "forced" beliefs or eventually come back around to them. Personally, I have begun to turn back to it, though I don't go to church often (i haven't been since my grandfather died in the fall), but I have faith. At the very end of it, its all I have. I'm not trying to go off on a religious harangue, but faith means different things to everyone, and mine is more a personal matter than any thing else.

got it?

[voyd]

I've been busy, ack! :D

Originally Posted by Joker

From a purely secular viewpoint, Roman historians wrote of a man called Jesus of Nazareth who was executed in Jerusalem. They do not attribute miracles, etc. but they do recognize the man Himself. If you take that into consideration and choose to believe that He didn't actually exist, might as well take everything the Romans wrote about as falsehood.

So, if some Roman historians did write about Jesus (which I neither denied nor confirmed)...and even that he got executed...why would they then not also write about his alleged miracles...much less supposed RESURRECTION???

Seems a pretty HUGE thing to leave out? Or maybe it just didn't happen?

Speaking of which...why were the 18 most formative years of Jesus's life (12-29) OMITTED from the NT? Odd thing to leave out of a "biography?" And, and...well nm.

This horse has already been pulverized to death a million times into tiny horse molecules...so I really don't want to hang this pinata up yet again. Ultimately, it becomes an argument over a blurry inkblot test - which is a pretty pointless exercise in subjective futility...

Bottomline is that there may be some archaeological evidence that a "Jesus" did exist - but no independent evidence whatsoever that he did anything the Bible claimed he did. Based upon your years of study, would that be a correct statement?

And as far as faith, in a court of law that's called speculation. If you have hard evidence or really know something, then you don't need faith. You only need "faith" when you lack all of the above. Now, I don't have a problem with speculation or faith...just when it's purported as more credible than it is.

[ßeta]

Originally Posted by Joker

Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Nietzsche has made his appearance!

"how shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers?"

Nietzsche had his own ideas, I suppose.

[florencia9699]

Voyd, just a tiny fact, the Bible is not in fact a biographical book, nor a history book nor a science book.

[TheJake]

Just for the record btw...
Josephus was the only roman to document Jesus having lived and he was a Jew. Josephus was a skeptic when it came to messiahs since there had been several spouting off around the time of Jesus. Josephus mentions Jesus and his brother James and even John the Baptist. These references are highly disputed however and every historian worth his salt thinks that much of the account was doctored by the Roman Catholic Church.
http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu...hus-jesus.html

And flo... the bible becomes different things to different people. It's a story, whether that story is true or not is to made up in the mind of the reader, though my father would say it is objective and not subjective....

[MeTurk]

Originally Posted by Voyd

why would they then not also write about his alleged miracles...much less supposed RESURRECTION???

I don't think they cared, he was just a misfit in their eyes.

just a little common sense and sense of unproven grandeur. Certainly, I've heard much deeper thoughts from a variety of other sources.

Ya but for the time and place what he said was probably a fairly new concept, even if he did nick it from the east.

[florencia9699]

Originally Posted by TheJake

And flo... the bible becomes different things to different people. It's a story, whether that story is true or not is to made up in the mind of the reader, though my father would say it is objective and not subjective....

Yes Jake, what i meant was that the Bible is not to be taken as a book of facts... or a science book, etc. It is a sacred book, inspired by God and written by men. Each book inside the Bible is written in different styles (things explained through poetry, epic stories... not sure about the correct translation of these styles) and each book has to be interpreted considering who the author of the book is and what was his intention in writing what he was writiing.

I know that to understand this you have to have faith... so I'm not saying that everyone should think the way I do... but the Bible is not to be taken literaly, but more metaphoricaly, once you know what the author meant. We had a great book to study this in school... I wish hadn't sold it. I have loads of free time now and I'd like to read it again (now that I'm not in HS anymore). It was written by a Catholic priest and a Protestant priest, and it was really really interesting. I think it was called "How to read the Bible", if anyone should be interested.

[BigE]

The Catholic Church (not very popular in the West these days) dogmatically defines Divine Revelation as having two parts: Sacred Scripture (the Bible) and Apostolic Tradition (teachings handed down through the ages from the Apostles to the Holy Father and all of the Bishops in union with him). Therefore, the Church establishes the perimeters in which the sensus fidei (the faithful) may examine and explore the bible. The Church does not make definitive statements unless there has been much discussion and controversy. Dogma is not a tactic to oppress (our pig-headed culture is much more oppressive than the Church).

Anyway, the Bible is not a book with scientific facts. It was written, not to convey how the world works, rather, it tells the truth about God and humanity's relationship with God. It tells theological truths, not scientific truths.

I could write about this all day, but whatever. If you have questions or want a friendly debate, I am around.

Cheers!