Your thoughts on Jesus

Wasn't he a terrorist? I thought he was executed for inciting riots and vandalising temples?

A charismatic cult leader can create a mob following on the flisiest of premises.

Jesus had followers, Koresh had followers, Bin Laden has followers. All in the same boat in my book.

(Note. expected response from Xstians, "yeah but we're perfectly reasonable, Bin Laden and his lot are crackers". See the irony. They think the same about you)

Oh, I'm sorry - you wanted a serious response.

[ QUOTE ]
The New Testament has more ancient manuscript evidence than any other work in history. It is also remarkably close from translation to translation- see your goofy comment below.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that's because they're all copied from original works, the first one written a generation after Jesus died.

Simple question - who wrote the various books of the NT? When?

Second simple question - is there a non biblical account of the life of Jesus? Who wrote it?

Third simple question - why did none of the Jewish or Roman historians of the day (many of whom have surviving works) document a man who performed amazing miracles witnessed by hundreds, caused civil unrest, and went on to have a major religious following after his death?

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
I question whether he ever existed. I know that sounds insane in a culture built on the certainty that he did (and Christmas movies presented as fact), but the more you actually look at what historians and Catholic apologists write about the issue, the more you realise the evidence is very scant. Without the bible, there would not be enough evidence for a historian to consider him a real historical character.

As the only evidence, the new testament comes under scrutiny. The first parts of what would become the New Testament were written around 40 years (the absolute minimum according to even religious scholars) after his death. Later parts were added up to 100 years after his death. In a time of myth and superstition, without widespread education/writing, TV, or reliable press, such a story could very well be a complete fabrication. Certainly there were excellent reasons for religious powers to write a story which combined the prominent pagan myths of the day (as the bible suspiciuosly does).

Anyway, the point is that even if he did exist, we can't reliably say anything at all about him or his life, as none other than the religious powers of the day wrote anything historical about him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Surprisingly Phil, I must say well written.

[imported_luckyme]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not relevant whether he existed. The street corner near the Art Gallery has a guy claiming to be the son of god and preaching redemption. If jesus was a real person, there's no reason to think any of the claims he made or that are made about him now are true.

Once a minor personality cult catches on it's hard for followers to accept that at the time the person was not even a footnote. In any case, what would it matter if he existed or not, since it can never be disproved.

If he was real, he seems likely to be a disturbed new-ager (considering the context of the times).

luckyme

[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

[ QUOTE ]
As it refers to jesus - Brutus attracted much more attention in his time, yet has nothing remotely near the influence of jesus today.

[/ QUOTE ]
Better yet, John the Baptist attracted far more attention than Jesus did.

[J. Stew]

Jesus just had a purified ego, which is to say his ego was transcended. When the ego is transcended, the consciousness can be seen for what it is, which is pure empty-awareness. Everyone has a pure consciousness which is the same thing as saying everyone is a child of God. Religions are just like different ways of purifying the ego. The way one purfies the ego doesn't matter, it's just the transcendence of the ego that is important. When the limitations of the ego are trascended, the person sees from a vaster point of view. The increase in vastness is really just more of a connection to that which they already are, which is their pure conscious-awareness. So it's not completely right to say the connection is more so developed because everybody at all times is this basic infinite pure awareness, it's just that the resistance to this basic emptiness is greater in some than in others. Which is to say people have varying degrees of ego-imprisonment.

Jesus as son of God could be called a Christian view, but Jesus is no more a son of God than the Uni-bomber. There are obviously gross distinctions between them in obvious ways but they are the same in that they both have a basic essence to them, which is nothing, that they both are/were/am. They both had an 'Amness' nature about them which is the same amness that is timeless, infinite, pure, and perfect insofar as we can describe the qualities of perfection. Sounds crazy but that's the truth IMO.

This seems like a very Buddhist interpretation. Am I right?