Who Was Jesus?

[Mort Belfry]

Dammit, closed poll!

Im glad that it doesnt! God isnt about religion. Religion is man made. God is all about relationship.

What kind of relationship?

The relationship between human beings and objective logic - and how these two things must be kept as far apart as possible.

 

[Ivy]

Not that canard. Protestant Christianity might not be ceremonial or ritualistic but it is most definitely a religion.

It's also ceremonial and ritualistic. Communion? Altar calls? Every denomination has its ceremonies & rituals. Heck, even the least ceremonial denominations have weddings and funerals.

My dad says this kind of thing, and I never understood why religion was a dirty word to him.

 

[Judous]

I have hard time believing in God, or Jesus for two reasons.

I consider myself a pretty smart person. So if God is an exponentially wiser being. How could he ask me to jump blindly into a religion when there is no physical evidence, and clear holes in religions.

Also if God is so powerful, I don't understand why he would have to send his son to die for our wrong doings? Couldn't a being that is so powerful that he is able to create something as vast as the universe, be able to wash sins away?

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

I have hard time believing in God, or Jesus for two reasons.

I consider myself a pretty smart person. So if God is an exponentially wiser being. How could he ask me to jump blindly into a religion when there is no physical evidence, and clear holes in religions.

I think that the lack of physical evidence is precisely the point. If the physical evidence of a God were apparent, then there is no particular faith demonstrated by a belief in God. Your concern on this point also makes an assumption that building knowledge based on physical evidence is the highest aspiration/noblest pursuit of humanity, and thus the level on which a God would choose to appeal to us. I'll admit that many would say that this is the case. But it's possible that logic and reasoning are not the defining talent or raison d'etre of humanity; perhaps our greatest talents and insights are more ineffable in nature and we either haven't developed them fully or don't tap into them.

Also if God is so powerful, I don't understand why he would have to send his son to die for our wrong doings? Couldn't a being that is so powerful that he is able to create something as vast as the universe, be able to wash sins away?

I think a being that powerful would in fact be able to wash sins away. But I think that idea is beside the point; all Judeo-Christian religious tradition asserts that God endowed people with free will, so they might choose to follow him or not. In this scenario, washing away of sin is a power that God chooses not to exercise. Think of a parent trying to convince a child to share a toy with his brother. If the parent simply makes the child share, the sharing is without virtue; if the parent allows the child to make the decision and he chooses to share the toy, then the child has demonstrated virtue.

 

[Judous]

I think a being that powerful would in fact be able to wash sins away. But I think that idea is beside the point; all Judeo-Christian religious tradition asserts that God endowed people with free will, so they might choose to follow him or not. In this scenario, washing away of sin is a power that God chooses not to exercise. Think of a parent trying to convince a child to share a toy with his brother. If the parent simply makes the child share, the sharing is without virtue; if the parent allows the child to make the decision and he chooses to share the toy, then the child has demonstrated virtue.

I completely agree with your view on freewill. What I was trying to say is why would he have to send his son to die. If we choose out of our own freewill to believe in him, then could he not forgive us and it would be done?

 

[Owl]

I have hard time believing in God, or Jesus for two reasons.

I consider myself a pretty smart person. So if God is an exponentially wiser being. How could he ask me to jump blindly into a religion when there is no physical evidence, and clear holes in religions.

If belief in God is morally obligatory, then there must be evidence that God exists. If the consequence for unbelief is maximal punishment, then God's existence must be maximally clear--those guilty of unbelief must be without excuse. If God were to punish you for something you couldn't know, then God would be unjust, (indeed, God would be infinitely unjust), but historical theism maintains that God is just.

Also if God is so powerful, I don't understand why he would have to send his son to die for our wrong doings? Couldn't a being that is so powerful that he is able to create something as vast as the universe, be able to wash sins away?

An infinitely just God could not ignore justice or set it aside--infinite justice requires that there be just consequences for every act, whether they be good or evil. Even if God were merciful, the penalty for evil must be paid; and if the penalty must be paid, then there must be someone capable and willing to pay it.

 

[Totenkindly]

If belief in God is morally obligatory, then there must be evidence that God exists. If the consequence for unbelief is maximal punishment, then God's existence must be maximally clear--those guilty of unbelief must be without excuse. If God were to punish you for something you couldn't know, then God would be unjust, (indeed, God would be infinitely unjust), but historical theism maintains that God is just.

That's why damnation before true awareness (e.g., not having the option to change after death, where we finally ARE able to see) seems false to me.

An infinitely just God could not ignore justice or set it aside--infinite justice requires that there be just consequences for every act, whether they be good or evil. Even if God were merciful, the penalty for evil must be paid; and if the penalty must be paid, then there must be someone capable and willing to pay it.

1. What exactly is good and what exactly is evil? We know that good/bad often varies on the perspective of the viewer vs the viewee, yet people still would insist on overlaying their own labels of sin on particular behaviors and then saying the scales "need to be balanced."

2. There is no literal punishment in many relationships that must be manifestly carried out, due to the nature of forgiveness. Often people will forgive -- spouses, their partner, or parents, their children -- without bringing their suffering to light. Because to do so would ruin the nature of the forgiveness.

In this sense, there IS a punishment -- the forgiver is relinquishing the rights to have the other person offer recompense and they absorb emotional pain -- but it is not overt.

So if good parents and people who love us can do that for us, why must there be "overt" justice on God's part for humanity's generic "sin nature," where He had to kill his own son as part of somehow balancing the scales?

And would God be unjust for forgiving us for offensive choices we make out of a lack of understanding?

 

[Mole]

Our Shared Home

There has never been a civilization not based on a religion.

And our civilization is based on Christianity.

And Christ is the central figure of our Christian mythos.

And our mythos is the meaning of our civilization.

That is why our mythos is sacred.

Our mythos is our shared home.

Victor.

 

[Judous]

If belief in God is morally obligatory, then there must be evidence that God exists. If the consequence for unbelief is maximal punishment, then God's existence must be maximally clear--those guilty of unbelief must be without excuse.

Right. What evidence do you see makes God's existence maximally clear? So far we have seen that both God and the theory of Evolution ultimately cannot be proven is disproved. They are two separate but parallel lines of belief, and I found myself standing between the two

 

[Butterfly]

What about the concept of Jesus in other religions such as Judaism and Islam???

I dont know what Jews think of Jesus?

I know Islam considers Jesus as a Prophet and not son of God. Muslims say Jesus will return again, and he was neither crucified nor is he dead, but is still alive and will return.

 

[Mole]

God and Evolution

Right. What evidence do you see makes God's existence maximally clear? So far we have seen that both God and the theory of Evolution ultimately cannot be proven is disproved. They are two separate but parallel lines of belief, and I found myself standing between the two

God and Evolution are in two separate categories.

Evolution can be approached through evidence while God can be approached through belief.

And Evolution can be falsified by evidence while God cannot be falsified by evidence.

And God can be believed while Evolution doesn't depend on belief.

Victor.

 

[Judous]

God and Evolution are in two separate categories.

Evolution can be approached through evidence while God can be approached through belief.

And Evolution can be falsified by evidence while God cannot be falsified by evidence.

And God can be believed while Evolution doesn't depend on belief.

Victor.

The theory of Evolution vs. Creationism are the same category. Evolution is a theory based on the evidence around us. But this evidence can be used in ways to explain both sides.

The science of things going on around us can be from an incalcuable number of perfect events. Or can be the grand design of a higher being.

Both take the same amount of faith to believe

 

[Seanan]

They are not mutually exclusive.

Didn't read the whole thread as I've been here before.. but what does that have to do with "Who Jesus Was?"

 

[Owl]

That's why damnation before true awareness (e.g., not having the option to change after death, where we finally ARE able to see) seems false to me.

It seems false because it is false!

1. What exactly is good and what exactly is evil? We know that good/bad often varies on the perspective of the viewer vs the viewee, yet people still would insist on overlaying their own labels of sin on particular behaviors and then saying the scales "need to be balanced."

Good question. Brief answer: it is good for a being to act according to its nature and it is evil for a being to act contrary to its nature.

2. There is no literal punishment in many relationships that must be manifestly carried out, due to the nature of forgiveness. Often people will forgive -- spouses, their partner, or parents, their children -- without bringing their suffering to light. Because to do so would ruin the nature of the forgiveness.

In this sense, there IS a punishment -- the forgiver is relinquishing the rights to have the other person offer recompense and they absorb emotional pain -- but it is not overt.

So if good parents and people who love us can do that for us, why must there be "overt" justice on God's part for humanity's generic "sin nature," where He had to kill his own son as part of somehow balancing the scales?

Justice is often flexible; justice assumes equality, and there are often many ways to restore equality to an unjust situation.

Did God have to kill his own son? What if only Eve had eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Had Adam not sinned, would he not be able to die to save his wife?

What is the nature of sin anyway?

And would God be unjust for forgiving us for offensive choices we make out of a lack of understanding?

What if not understanding is a sin? Would we be any better off if our outward choices were forgiven, but our inward, sinful condition was left unforgiven and unchanged?

Right. What evidence do you see makes God's existence maximally clear? So far we have seen that both God and the theory of Evolution ultimately cannot be proven is disproved. They are two separate but parallel lines of belief, and I found myself standing between the two

I don't see anything. I'm a robot, a philosophy zombie. All I can do is tell you what is and isn't rationally consistent.

 

[marm]

I'm responding to the OP.

I don't know who Jesus was. I've researched it and found historical evidence lacking. So, I rationally conclude that its highly probable that he didn't exist. Personally, it isn't important to me one way or another. As for what I do know, there is immense evidence of mythological comparisons. This either means that early Christians borrowed or were otherwise influenced by other religions, or that there is an archetypal truth behind all such mythologies that early Christians tapped into... or both.

I'm a spiritual person. I'm comfortable with something along the ideas of Mathew Fox's Cosmic Christ. However, specific names such as 'Jesus' and 'Christ' aren't important to me. I'm attracted to some truths I've found in Christianity, but I don't know to what extent that makes me Christian. Its also not important how others consider me. I was raised in New Thought Christianity and according to that I am Christian. But many Christians would consider me a heretic or at least not a true Christian. In fact, the heretic Valentinus is a favorite of mine. Some aspects of the Gnostic view of Jesus makes way more sense to me.

Its interesting that the mythological and the gnostic views of Jesus weren't options in the poll.

 

[Totenkindly]

Its interesting that the mythological and the gnostic views of Jesus weren't options in the poll.

If I missed a few options, it was just an oversight on my part... not intentional.

(Maybe at some point we can do another one, with more options, if people have interest.)

The theory of Evolution vs. Creationism are the same category. Evolution is a theory based on the evidence around us. But this evidence can be used in ways to explain both sides. The science of things going on around us can be from an incalcuable number of perfect events. Or can be the grand design of a higher being. Both take the same amount of faith to believe

I disagree.

Neither is "proven" definitively. But just because two things can't be conclusively proven does not at all mean that both would take the same amount of faith to believe.

Good question. Brief answer: it is good for a being to act according to its nature and it is evil for a being to act contrary to its nature.

Provocative answer.

It leads to a discussion of "what is natural" for someone and what is not... and what if what is natural for one person is destructive to many others?

What if only Eve had eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Had Adam not sinned, would he not be able to die to save his wife?

I don't know. It's fascinating to think about. And it's one thing that leads me to believe the story was created to explain human evil/darkness, rather than being "historical" in nature. It's conveniently shaped to deal with only the points that someone wanted to make.

 

[Journey]

Matt 16:15-17

15 "But what about you?" [Jesus] asked. "Who do you say I am?"

16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by My Father in heaven.
NIV


Jer 29:13-14
13 You will seek Me and find Me when you seek Me with all your heart.
NIV

 

[Fife]

I personally disagree with the idea that a reasoned faith is impossible, or that blind faith is called for by the bible.

1. So many reasons for my faith I'm not sure where to start... Some may of course be inaccurate. I'm human and these are only observations. But overall I've reached the decision that it's more likely than not.

Awe of the numinous, the fact people even think about right or wrong, communication, the themes of blood as sacrifice and death to new life found in ancient religions, the prophecies in the old testament very specifically fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth (not all poetry either ), the types of Jesus in the OT, the huge coherency of the bible despite the time span over which it was written and the different authors, outside texts yes (with an understanding of the bits likely added later), an historical consideration as to the validity of the texts and when they were written, if any changes occured or were likely after the text was produced, examining the gospel accounts and the book of Acts, and the claims of Christ (C.S. Lewis put it that he was either mad, a liar, or was what he cliamed - the Son of God), combined with his life and the lives of his disciples, the change in his discples after the resurrection. etc. etc. etc.

NTs: I do consider ideas for and against different aspects and the whole.

Note I don't think miracles in the gospels are a proof of their hisorical inaccuracy. They could be added later, lies ... etc. Or if it really was God involved there'd be no problem. Either viewpoint comes from a preconception. (There may be other explanations also, just using the most common).

2. In Acts, it's noted that the "Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." (17:11) John's Gospel records Thomas asking for observable and physical proof that Jesus was alive - and he got it. Paul tells the Corinthians that many witnesses "are still living, though some have fallen asleep." (1 Corinthians 15:6).

I believe an earlier post mentioned that evolution will still be true even if people disbelieve in it. Yes, and the same is true of all reality. If a spiritual world exists, it does whether we believe it to or not. And vice-versa.

I do think that examination of the world and of history can point out some clues as to reality however. Of course, peoples opinions vary even if given the same raw data, and history isn't as clear cut as physical sciences. *sigh*

 

[Fife]

Just where I stand on the matter, as that's the thread topic.