Is Jesus Christ a man or a god?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Sorry but no man, especially any man of today, can 'know' what Jesus was or wasn't. I'll only go as far as: some man existed in his time that people called Jesus.

Would I like to travel back in time to shadow him day and night, in his last years, to see for myself what in fact the truth is? Of course, but since that's impossible, I'll not be trusting in any mans book, of the fantastic, written in a time of such scientific ignorance. No I'm not even going to start mentioning any particular 'version,' which can only speak of my case!

But this isn't what I argued. I simply responded to "only Josephus" by pointing to the Gospels as additional historical proof for Jesus' existence.

As for the time machine idea, I'd love to do that too. Then again, I'm willing to admit that such a thing is possible because the historical record provides us with sufficient evidence to believe that a man named Jesus who was born in Nazareth, travelled around preaching, was crucified by the Romans, and had followers who at least believed he was raised from the dead. Don't be so dogmatic in your insistence he didn't exist. There's nothing that says you have to accept the whole kit and caboodle of Christianity just by acknowledging that the Gospels are historical proof for his existence. After all, we accept that other historical figures existed with far less proof.

It seems you missed "of the fantastic," the pivotal objection.

[ReliStuPhD]

It seems you missed "of the fantastic," the pivotal objection.

No, I think I just misunderstood your usage. I gather now you're referring to the "fantastic" events enumerated in the Bible, rather than the Bible itself being "fantastic?" If the former, I can see the objection. It's the latter one I would be pushing back against insofar as there are all sorts of "fantastic" books from the time that we nevertheless consider as reliable historical sources when it comes to establishing the less fantastic claims.

[SpheresOfBalance]

It seems you missed "of the fantastic," the pivotal objection.

No, I think I just misunderstood your usage. I gather now you're referring to the "fantastic" events enumerated in the Bible, rather than the Bible itself being "fantastic?" If the former, I can see the objection. It's the latter one I would be pushing back against insofar as there are all sorts of "fantastic" books from the time that we nevertheless consider as reliable historical sources when it comes to establishing the less fantastic claims.

Lets face it, as to any history book, one can only parrot it's contents. There is absolutely no way to verify any of their details. For instance, at university my professor told me of him being fired by Britannica, because his contracted piece on George Washington, was a bit too honest. They preferred omission! That's today, well the 90's anyway, 2000 plus years ago... I'm sure his beef is only the tip of the iceberg.

[ReliStuPhD]

Lets face it, as to any history book, one can only parrot it's contents. There is absolutely no way to verify any of their details. For instance, at university my professor told me of him being fired by Britannica, because his contracted piece on George Washington, was a bit too honest. They preferred omission! That's today, well the 90's anyway, 2000 plus years ago... I'm sure his beef is only the tip of the iceberg.

I think we're both in agreement here (though I would want to qualify "absolutely no way to verify any of their details" with an "as yet"). So to clarify my position on the Gospels, it goes something like this:

In the absence of time machines, documentary evidence concerning this time period is important. In this respect, at least for the "non-fantastic" claims concerning Jesus, there seems to be little warrant to dismiss the Gospels as being unreliable historical accounts. We may well call into question their historical reliability with respect to those claims that run counter to our understanding of the world around us (e.g. miracles), but to disprove their historical merit concerning the more mundane questions of Jesus' life and death, they can be taken to be reliable in much the same as documentary evidence for the existence of Caesar Augustus is.

(And I don't say this to try and rebut anything you've said, but merely to make sure my own position isn't taken to be more robust than it actually is.)

I've enjoyed the back-and-forth. Thanks.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Lets face it, as to any history book, one can only parrot it's contents. There is absolutely no way to verify any of their details. For instance, at university my professor told me of him being fired by Britannica, because his contracted piece on George Washington, was a bit too honest. They preferred omission! That's today, well the 90's anyway, 2000 plus years ago... I'm sure his beef is only the tip of the iceberg.

I think we're both in agreement here (though I would want to qualify "absolutely no way to verify any of their details" with an "as yet"). So to clarify my position on the Gospels, it goes something like this:

In the absence of time machines, documentary evidence concerning this time period is important. In this respect, at least for the "non-fantastic" claims concerning Jesus, there seems to be little warrant to dismiss the Gospels as being unreliable historical accounts. We may well call into question their historical reliability with respect to those claims that run counter to our understanding of the world around us (e.g. miracles), but to disprove their historical merit concerning the more mundane questions of Jesus' life and death, they can be taken to be reliable in much the same as documentary evidence for the existence of Caesar Augustus is.

(And I don't say this to try and rebut anything you've said, but merely to make sure my own position isn't taken to be more robust than it actually is.)

I've enjoyed the back-and-forth. Thanks.

Don't get me wrong, there is much historical significance associated with the bibles that have been printed. I see them as sorts of philosophies. But as with all philosophy, or any words of any man for that matter, they should be taken with a grain of salt. Nothing should be taken verbatim, unless of course, all evidence, from everywhere, lends to it.

You're welcome, and likewise thank you!

[Blaggard]

The only historicity of Jesus is in Josephus, look it up, and that was written a long time after he was dead like the Gospel attributed to authors that never wrote it, presumably to lend credence to hear say.

To be fair, the Gospels count towards historical proof for the existence of a man known as Jesus. We might debate whether they serve as historical proof for his divinity (I'd argue they don't), but as far as serving as evidence for his human existence, they're acceptable.

No sadly they don't as all of them were written after Jesus died. So not a single one of them was anything but hear say. Their authors also are not as mentioned, it was in fact the Nicene council that decided Jesus lived, not any man and certainly not any church.

"Many imposters will come after me, to know them you must know yourself."

Jesus H Corbett.

I know it's a movie but dogma probably came as close to any movie that other was into revealing the manhood or divinity of Christ:

"Move a rock turn a stone, there will ye find me."

The Gospel of St Thomas.

http://gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html



From the Nag Hammadi collections of Gnostic texts.

Jesus if he was a man and a mortal one at that is suspiciously hard to find in history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDLWpIOm2yE

I know no one watches videos but this is basically it.

"And so remeber I am Jesus and all that am allowing this woman of sinful life to kiss my foot."

The Gospel of Mary Magdellene.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q-DO6Bav4I

"Once there was a good man..."

[ReliStuPhD]

No sadly they don't as all of them were written after Jesus died. So not a single one of them was anything but hear say. Their authors also are not as mentioned, it was in fact the Nicene council that decided Jesus lived, not any man and certainly not any church

First, an account written after the death of a figure does not automatically exclude that account from being a historically reliable indicator of the life of a person. If it did, all of my genealogical research would be rendered null and void on the spot, especially the interviews with my grandfather who told me the details of his mother's death at the hands of his father (he was cleaning a shotgun and didn't know it was loaded and it went off). 2,000 years from now, those accounts will serve as historically-reliable attestation to the existence of that particular great-grandmother. One need not accept every detail of an account (e.g. that Augustus Ceasar was divine) to accept its reliability on matters of general life and death (Augustus Ceasar lived and died).

Second, with respect to the First Council of Nicaea, you have your details wrong. There was no debate concerning the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, unless you have evidence to the contrary (and not any accounts written after the fact ). There was certainly debate about whether and how that man was God.

[Immanuel Can]

There is a good point, though, in the fact that one can argue selectively from history, ignoring some incidents and taking others; yet the problem is what to take and what to leave -- and clearly, using one's existing prejudices, whether for or against, is not an intellectually credible way to go.

So what about more objective means?

Go see. Take one of the accounts of the life of Jesus Christ. Something brief, like Josephus's account, might be insufficient. The longest and most detailed account, to say nothing of the most widely accepted account, that is, of the Gospels. So we ought to begin there.

Just read. If there is any truth to the account, then even if we overlook some elements, we ought to find certain features, as below:

Firstly, if He is God, He ought to act like it. We ought to find certain qualities of character that must far transcend what we would expect from any ordinary person -- such as exceptional grace of character or the ability to speak perfect truth. Secondly, we would expect Him to live an exemplary life, to take the very longest view possible of things like happiness, and fulfillment, or suffering and death, since God would have the total view of their place in the universe. Thirdly, we would expect Him to claim it: calling Himself something like "The Eternal One" or in Hebrew, the "I AM" would do, and we would expect at least some of the people who actually met him to find the claim credible. Moreover, we would expect Him to teach with unrivalled wisdom, since He would have a very broad perspective indeed, and in a way that corrects all we find wrong with the world. Fourthly, if we believe in any such thing as morality, we would expect Him to be morally unparalleled. And fourthly, if He were really God, we'd expect that even the natural world...things like the composition of matter, the surface tension of water, the intractability of disease and the finality of death would be subject to His control....and so on.

We could add other things, of course. And you can pick your own list. But the answer to the question "Is He the Christ" is always the same: "Come and see."

It's also the most scientific route we have. Too bad so few people put in the effort to take it.

[sjeff70]

What is god? We... man created god. What does god mean, by whose standard do we judge what he should be like? If there really was a god wouldn't we have to be a god to have any understanding of him?

What if Jesus was just an ordinary person. So ordinary that he was omniscient. An awareness holder who did not possess the filter of duality in his being. This awareness is everywhere, even under rocks, 'Lift a rock and I am there.' This qualified him to be teacher...to help others find the path of awakening as he did. Such a being would teach individuals according to their spiritual capacity. So he would appear differently to different people (go to their level of morality to teach). And people would judge him not knowing his true motive: helping others realize what he had realized.

The buddha taught the same thing but the buddha scripture is more definitive. Buddha teaches us not to look at the finger, look at the moon! And the bible because of the way it was written (highly esoteric or tantric in places) forces us to look at the finger. The bible is highly convoluted...save yourself some time and check out some Buddha scripture.

[Blaggard]

No sadly they don't as all of them were written after Jesus died. So not a single one of them was anything but hear say. Their authors also are not as mentioned, it was in fact the Nicene council that decided Jesus lived, not any man and certainly not any church

First, an account written after the death of a figure does not automatically exclude that account from being a historically reliable indicator of the life of a person. If it did, all of my genealogical research would be rendered null and void on the spot, especially the interviews with my grandfather who told me the details of his mother's death at the hands of his father (he was cleaning a shotgun and didn't know it was loaded and it went off). 2,000 years from now, those accounts will serve as historically-reliable attestation to the existence of that particular great-grandmother. One need not accept every detail of an account (e.g. that Augustus Ceasar was divine) to accept its reliability on matters of general life and death (Augustus Ceasar lived and died).

Second, with respect to the First Council of Nicaea, you have your details wrong. There was no debate concerning the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, unless you have evidence to the contrary (and not any accounts written after the fact ). There was certainly debate about whether and how that man was God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel

Hold your horses you and the OP are claiming Jesus exists it's up to you to prove the historicity of this claim and don't use the Bible, that old tome has never been honest about anything even The Gospel truth. Everything in history is subject to both elision, confabulation and bias. It's niave that people think The Bible is exempt from this, and springs from a logical cognitive dissonance on actual history.

I'd rather take Herodotus: Histories as historical fact and that had Satyrs and utterly falsifiable accounts in it with geographical and geological evidence as truth that, that dusty old manual.


The fact is outside of the Bible there has never been any proof he even existed.

Development and composition

John Riches states that, "Many scholars doubt that the Gospels were written by eye-witnesses as their attributions seem to suggest: there is too much evidence of reworking oral traditions and of straight borrowing from other Gospels to make this likely."[11] For example, the vast majority of material in Mark is also present in either Luke or Matthew or both, suggesting that Mark was a source for Matthew and Luke.

The four canonical gospels "were probably all written by the end of the first century".[12] But they did not yet at that time have a consistent narrative. "In 170 Tatian sought to find a solution by composing a single narrative out of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, with some additional oral material."[11]

According to Linda Woodhead,

Christian gospels are also propaganda. They tell their readers (or hearers) that Jesus was something special, and they expect them to respond accordingly. No neutral stance is possible in relation to a gospel. Depending on your response, its message will turn out either to be good news for you – or bad.[4]

The gospel passages themselves can be unclear, and some of the messages within are "straightforwardly ambiguous" and intended to be "metaphorical" or "poetic".[13]

Historicity
Main article: Historical reliability of the Gospels

The historicity of the gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four canonical New Testament gospels as historical documents. Historians subject the gospels to critical analysis, attempting to differentiate authentic, reliable information from what they judge to be inventions, exaggerations, and alterations. Some Christian scholars maintain that the gospels are inerrant descriptions of the life of Jesus.[56] E. P. Sanders asserts that all four of the Gospels meet the five criteria for historical reliability,[15][page needed] but Howard Teeple has concluded that the gospels provide no historical information about Jesus's life since the first gospel account (Mark) may have appeared as much as forty years after Jesus's death.[57]

There are positions between these extremes. Some biblical scholars consider the synoptic gospels to contain much reliable historical information about the historical Jesus as a Galilean teacher[58][59] and of the religious movement he founded, but not everything contained in the gospels is considered to be historically reliable.[60] Reza Aslan asserts that "the gospels are not, nor were they ever meant to be, a historical documentation of Jesus's life. These are not eyewitness accounts of Jesus's words and deeds recorded by people who knew him. They are testimonies of faith composed by communities of faith written many years after the events they describe. Simply put, the gospels tell us about Jesus the Christ, not Jesus the man."[61]

The baptism of Jesus and the crucifixion of Jesus are events almost universally agreed upon by biblical scholars to be historically authentic.[62][63][64] Elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the nativity of Jesus, as well as certain details about the crucifixion and the resurrection.[65][66][67][68][69][70]

I somehow think that although Jesus might of existed Chinese whispers is a powerful way of obfuscating any truth.

[thedoc]

What is god? We... man created god. What does god mean, by whose standard do we judge what he should be like? If there really was a god wouldn't we have to be a god to have any understanding of him?

What if Jesus was just an ordinary person. So ordinary that he was omniscient. An awareness holder who did not possess the filter of duality in his being. This awareness is everywhere, even under rocks, 'Lift a rock and I am there.' This qualified him to be teacher...to help others find the path of awakening as he did. Such a being would teach individuals according to their spiritual capacity. So he would appear differently to different people (go to their level of morality to teach). And people would judge him not knowing his true motive: helping others realize what he had realized.

The buddha taught the same thing but the buddha scripture is more definitive. Buddha teaches us not to look at the finger, look at the moon! And the bible because of the way it was written (highly esoteric or tantric in places) forces us to look at the finger. The bible is highly convoluted...save yourself some time and check out some Buddha scripture.

Are you suggesting that Buddha found his way to God, as well as all those who also found enlightenment? If so, I agree, even though I haven't found my own way yet. I'm still looking, within the framework of Christianity, and I have read some Zen Buddhism.

[Immanuel Can]

Sjeff70:

You mean The Dhammapada? Read it. Studied it. Highlighted it. And I wouldn't dream of pronouncing on it if I had not.

But you clearly haven't read the Gospels, or you wouldn't misattribute to Jesus Christ the saying you quote. He never said it. It's not in any Gospel, nor anywhere else in the whole Bible. In fact, for Him to do so would be quite contrary to what He taught elsewhere, so that's no surprise.

My advice? Again, go and see. Don't make judgments until after you do. It's not rational.

[sjeff70]

I'm only asserting my understanding of Jesus and the bible. The message, and not who said what is most important to me (look at the moon instead!).
That is why the buddhist scripture is most fullfilling for me, more direct.

thedoc:
Yes, people understand the god in the bible to be a theistic one. That is fine if it helps their faith but for people who question our existence it may not suffice.

The SPIRIT people find or feel in the bible can be sought in buddhist scripture. It's the message that's important, not the words.

[thedoc]

I'm only asserting my understanding of Jesus and the bible. The message, and not who said what is most important to me (look at the moon instead!).
That is why the buddhist scripture is most fullfilling for me, more direct.

thedoc:
Yes, people understand the god in the bible to be a theistic one. That is fine if it helps their faith but for people who question our existence it may not suffice.

The SPIRIT people find or feel in the bible can be sought in buddhist scripture. It's the message that's important, not the words.

I agree, and I quietly (to myself) criticize those who insist on a literal reading of the Bible rather than looking for the meaning in the stories. Judeo-Christian mythology is much the same as other mythology, the message is in the meaning of the story, not the literal details.

[Immanuel Can]

Have either of you read it? This document, which you are so confident is merely mythology, and this Man whom you call ordinary -- have you read the Gospels' account of Him?

As I say, personally I would not speak of The Dhammapada if I had not read it. Reasonableness would prevent me from having *any* opinion until I had looked at the facts and considered the Buddha's teaching on its own terms.