Your thoughts on Jesus

[ QUOTE ]
The 4 Gospels are named for their authors.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, the four gospels were given names based on guesses of the the second century church. Before around 180 AD every document claiming to quote some teaching of Jesus never claims to quote from the gospel of ____. Around 180 AD a man names Irenaeus writes "Against Heresies" and includes references to named gospels. After this date it suddenly becomes common to quote from the gospel of _____.

[ QUOTE ]
Paul wrote most of the other NT books, his "letters"

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, the only letters that were traditionally attributed to Paul that are still generally accepted by scholars to be his work are:

Rom, Cor I and II, Gal, Philippians, Thes I, and Philemon.

Note: these letters are the ONLY books in the NT whose traditional authors stand up to modern scrutiny.

[ QUOTE ]
...John is generally regarded to have written Revelation

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone named John wrote Revelation (the text is one of the few books that actually names it's author) but nothing in it suggests that it is the same John as is traditionally granted authorship of the Gospel of John (John the son of Zebedee) and modern research has generally concluded that he didn't write that either.

[ QUOTE ]
SA secular historian of that time named Josephus wrote about the life of Jesus and even mentioned his resurrection. Can't remember the title of the collection of his works, something like "The Writings of Josephus." This text is easy to come by...I know a couple people who have one. It's also important to note that the passages about Jesus are contained within a much, MUCH larger secular text...he wasn't the focus by a long shot.

[/ QUOTE ]
Here's the famous quote:

[ QUOTE ]
At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of the people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. He was the Messiah. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wondrous things about him. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Remember, Josephus was not a Christian but a Jew. However, the style is that of a devoted Christian. For this reason this is a very controvertial quote. The copies we have today are not originals but opies made over the centuries - mostly by Christian monks. Some believe it was all inserted wholesale by a transcribing monk in the 3rd century (or so), others claim it was embellished. Very few serious scholars take this quote at face value (basically, only committed fundamentalists do). It is also important to note that this quote only became common in Christian writings after 300 AD. Before then early church fathers wrote of their anguish that no independent accounts of Jesus existed, even though Josephus' work was readily available to them.

It is also the only non-biblical contemporary reference to Jesus. There aren't even any references to lost references. This is it.

[siegfriedandroy]

you seem like a smart guy, but do you really believe the sh*t you just said?? if so, then why do you believe it? it sounds ridiculous. i am continually amazed at how so many intelligent people can believe such silly and foolish ideas in every arena of life.

[siegfriedandroy]

What do you mean by 'not even a footnote'. How can you compare a lunatic on a street corner (who has no followers) with Jesus, who perhaps has more 'followers' than anyone in the history of the world? And how is it irrelevant? If his claims are true, then He is more relevant than anything in the universe.

[ QUOTE ]
If his claims are true, then He is more relevant than anything in the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is also true of the guy on the street corner. He is less likely to get followers now. just like poltogeist fans say cameras cause electrical interference that puts of poltegeists, funny that [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
How can you compare a lunatic on a street corner (who has no followers) with Jesus, who perhaps has more 'followers' than anyone in the history of the world?

[/ QUOTE ]

What would the number of followers have to do with the veracity of claims? That's the "the earth is flat because we all believe it" argument. If jesus was 'true' but he had no followers, would that make him 'untrue'. He had very few followers in 50AD, were his claims only 500/2000000 as true then as now? You won't be able to realize this, but to a non-believer there really is no discernible difference. The fact that one 'caught on', as have other past and current claimants, adds or subtracts nothing from the veracity or similarity of their claims.

[ QUOTE ]
What do you mean by 'not even a footnote'.

[/ QUOTE ]

A fevered follower of any personality cult finds it inconceivable that such an obviously important person may well have been perceived as just another new-ager activist, and have gone virtually not noted in their time. As it refers to jesus - Brutus attracted much more attention in his time, yet has nothing remotely near the influence of jesus today. If we were living while they were, Brutus would be seen as the important figure both immediately and by historians of that time.

luckyme

[J. Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
you seem like a smart guy, but do you really believe the sh*t you just said?? if so, then why do you believe it? it sounds ridiculous. i am continually amazed at how so many intelligent people can believe such silly and foolish ideas in every arena of life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you believe there are higher stages of consciousness? When you compare a 2-year-old having a temper-tantrum, with a college graduate at graduation realizing something deeper about the whole education process and life in general, and then with, say a zen master realizing something total about existence in general, then what is the difference between the three? Is is merely greater intellectualisms? Is a Zen master just better-abled to rationalize things than the 2-year-old, or is there some deeper realization, something that transcends the thought process in general that leads to the difference? Philosophy is good but if you think you are only your thoughts then you are neglecting the thing from which your thoughts come from, which is the basic awareness that everybody intrinsically is, that can't be qualified, that can only be rested in, and from which everything manifests . . . thoughts, emotions, everything contained in this basic awareness. So the consciousness of a two-year-old could be seen as ego-centric, the college-grad could be called ethno or world-centric maybe, and the conciousness of a zen master could be called Universe or cosmic-centric. To see that doesn't require faith, it's direct realization of that which you already are. Yeah these ideas may sound silly, but there ya go, there's a rational way to look at something that can't be qualified in conceptual terms.

[J. Stew]

I don't know enough about Buddhism to say it's a Buddhist interpretation. I think it echoes what Zen practicioners would say but they would probably say their interpretation isn't Zen or Buddhism or anything, it's just what is. Google Ken Wilber?

[pologuy64]

Jesus is the best bestfreind anyone could have, Hands Down!

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
However, the style is that of a devoted Christian. For this reason this is a very controvertial quote.

[/ QUOTE ]

And if not for that reason than another.

[cnfuzzd]

[ QUOTE ]
I have been an atheist for several years but have had problems knowing what to make of the Jesus character everybody seems to like. I am wondering what others of the same ilk think about him and how most of the Western world belives he is the son of god

[/ QUOTE ]

Q. Whats Jesus's least favorite candy?

A. M&Ms. Cause they fall through the holes in his hands.

peace

john nickle