Who Do You Think Jesus Was Now?

[LastKing]

Now that you've left Christianity,  what are your views on Jesus now?

[florduh]

He's the central character in a long mythological story. Of course it is possible that some stories were based on one or more real people. It's hard to write any character without a model in mind.

[HymenaeusAlexander]

I lean toward affirming the historicity of Jesus, but I remain open to the mythicist position. I’m completely agnostic on the question of the historical Jesus (historicity of Jesus and historical Jesus are separate issues). If I had to pick from among historical Jesus theories, I’d probably go with apocalyptic prophet/political activist/reformer Jesus or some sort of composite from a handful of Jesus-like figures.

I find myself less and less interested in this question each time I visit it and the more I revisit it with ex-Christian eyes, the more I understand why historians working in ancient history really just don’t seem to care much about it either. Since he apparently didn’t write anything at all or do anything noteworthy, it just doesn’t matter who he actually was, only what his later followers believed about him. It would seem that Paul is a more important figure from the standpoint of history. Besides, the data is so muddled and convoluted it’s damn near impossible to draw any conclusions anyway, which is probably why most historians step back and leave it to Biblical scholars to argue about.

I find the mythicist position in its best representations plausible enough, but I can’t help but think that in much of its current form its methodology is just as ideologically driven as any of the historical Jesus positions out there. It’s hard not to see most mythicists merely as atheists who just want to make debunking the claims of Christianity that much easier. Obviously the ideological drive is there for most on the historical Jesus side as well, even including non-religiously affiliated people like Bart Ehrman who claim to not have a dog in the fight, but clearly have a vested interest if not sentimentality toward the issue.

The whole thing is a non-starter from the standpoint of dialoguing with Christians and, IMO, does more harm than good to bring up. I will nearly always grant an historical Jesus when discussing Christianity. The possibility that Jesus never existed is so foreign a concept to most that I suspect the second it gets brought up the audience has been lost.

[roadrunner]

My theory that I am still studying can easily be overturned by more information(and I am continuing to learn)  but right now IMHO because of the lack of consistency in the jesus story and timeline of REAL events I think that the jesus embraced by christianity never was there. There certainly were more than one person claiming to be the messiah that existed around that time but I think very little attention was paid to him until after the fact and then his life was superimposed back on to history decades later. I think if there was a known messiah who "marveled" people as a child there would be loads of documentation by those who had put their foot in their mouths when he came around and he would be known all over the place. Even by travelers who passed through could take the jesus story to their land, yet this did not happen. We have like 1 sentence about his childhood and once he returned as an adult bible characters were even surprised at who he had supposedly become.

 

Even the timelines of where he supposedly appeared indicate that he had a car or some other form of transportation as he was all over the place. These are multiple stories that have been squeezed together after the fact. Thats why imho the timelines dont add up. its more than one person. 

 

I read and learn about real middle eastern history everyday. so I may run across info that changes my opinion either way he's not the son of god since there is no god. case closed.

[BrotherJosh]

I lean towards the agnostic position in regards to Jesus. We have none of "his" writings so we can't definitively say what or who he was. My own personal opinion is that it was a combination of various apocalyptic preachers that lead various movements during this time, which was later combined into one figurehead around which to rally. From there it snowballed into the figure that would later become the focal point of an entire religion, especially once the Romans picked it up. 

 

In almost every debate I've had with a Christian I usually grant the historicity of Jesus. Christians somehow think this proves their beliefs are true. I often point out that Joseph Smith, Muhammad, and L. Ron Hubbard existed but that doesn't make their claims more true.  

[Lerk]

From the reading I've done, I tend to think it's a combination of 1 and 2.

1. A political activist who Christians turned into a God overtime.
2. A spiritual teacher, but not God, who was turned into the messiah over time.

Reason: The Jews were really looking for someone to come along to get rid of Rome. The Maccabees had actually had some success earlier. But there's a lot of moral teaching attributed to him, as well, in fact it's mostly moral, so it could be that he just took advantage of the political climate to make his moral message.

 

Of course, it's impossible to know what he really said, so we can only make assumptions.

[HoopyFrood42]

I lean toward affirming the historicity of Jesus, but I remain open to the mythicist position. I’m completely agnostic on the question of the historical Jesus (historicity of Jesus and historical Jesus are separate issues). If I had to pick from among historical Jesus theories, I’d probably go with apocalyptic prophet/political activist/reformer Jesus or some sort of composite from a handful of Jesus-like figures.

 

 

This is pretty much my view.  It seems very plausible that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet/political activist and that over time, he was transformed into a god by christians, especially when christianity was established as the primary religion in Rome. 

[kolaida]

Leaning pretty heavy towards mythicist.  But there it always is possibly there really was a teacher by that name that might have inspired some people. I guess it's like already stated, though, that all myths have someone to model after.  

[Bhim]

I believe that Jesus existed simply because it would be academically poor to say otherwise.  However, my understanding is the experts also agree that the New Testament does not accurately depict his life.  Which gives rise to the question: what does it mean to say that "Jesus" existed?  The name itself was fairly popular in his day.  It's entirely possible that several messianic figures arose who happened to bear that name.  If someone named Jesus lived but didn't do many of the things recorded in the Bible, then can we really say that the figure whom Christians believe in really existed?

 

I suppose the agnostic position best fits my view.  But then, Jesus is now about as important to me as Mohammad, and I'd say the same about the latter figure.

[Guest r3alchild]

I hope I didnt say anything so far, but I really believe jesus was someone who got deified. This happens to alot of leaders.

[qadeshet]

The Gospel Jesus who was born of a Virgin, performed Miracles, walked on water, and raised the dead is a complete Myth. He was probably a composit character, built around several different 1st Century men: Jesus "The Egyptian", Jesus "The Tahib", Jesus ben Ananias, Jesus bar Damneus, and perhaps others. Who knows?

[midniterider]

Seeing as how there are almost no documents independent of the bible to verify his existence, he probably didn't exist.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

He's a composite. He's a possible jewish rebel who then failed. Some held onto his ideas and he became a legend. The church then took him and mixed him with myth to make the Jesus we have today.

[Deva]

I think of him as an entirely human Jewish apocalyptic preacher who was a follower/student of John the Baptist; who people thought could do miricles, who got crucified for causing some disturbance in the Temple and then was elevated after his death into a messiah/God figure.

[Guest r3alchild]

 

He's a composite. He's a possible jewish rebel who then failed. Some held onto his ideas and he became a legend. The church then took him and mixed him with myth to make the Jesus we have today.

Ill add to your post if I may. Think of robin hood, as much as I know theres one document relating to him and the rest is legend. But what if people wrote gospels about him soon after the legend was told. If people will believe a legend only, how much more a written account of the legend.

[Geezer]

He's the central character in a long mythological story. Of course it is possible that some stories were based on one or more real people. It's hard to write any character without a model in mind.

 

 

 

[Blue elephant]

I lean towards the "Jesus never existed" view. The order that the books of the New Testament were written in and the multiple mythological gods that were born of a virgin, crucified and rose from the dead (all before the time of Jesus) makes me think this.

[Galien]

Don't know, wasn't there.

 

When I became a christian at nine, I thought jesus was the most awesome person to walk the earth. What I didn't realise then was that everyone who ever tries to teach people to be honest will be destroyed one way or another. I wish I'd had a reponsible adult around at the time to explain that to me.

 

I don't know if jesus was real or not, but the message he preached sounded pretty good to me. Still does, just no one cares.

[Akheia]

I've never seen evidence that the Jesus of the NT existed in physical form. It seems clear to me that he was a mythical character, but one based on a trend of real apocalyptic prophets. The tradition was very strong in that area at that time of both apocalyptic half-divine prophets and dualistic resurrection mysticism. And there were half a dozen such prophets mentioned in Josephus (most of them named Jesus, weirdly enough). There's no reason to suspect the general idea of Jesus wasn't historical, but the Bible unfortunately makes a number of specific claims about Jesus' life that just don't turn out to be true--either they're riffs on out-of-context Old Testament stories, or they're complete plagiarisms of the Odyssey, or later squabbles over doctrine. That specific representation is what I think is complete mythology.

 

It's like if I invented a superhero named FRATBRO MAN based on all the stereotypes of fratbros and a smattering of half-remembered stories about the dude who invented Facebook, and then sending FRATBRO MAN on a Hero's Journey based on the Die Hard movies.

 

But ultimately it hardly matters if Jesus was historical. It's a neat question to ponder for this history wonk, but even if a flesh-and-blood person named Jesus really existed as the Bible puts forth, that doesn't mean his theology was real or that he himself had any divine blood. Proving the one simply doesn't extend to proofs of the others.

[pox]

Either never existed, or a local preacher who had layers of mythology attached to him over time. I have no way to know which.

[Lilith666]

Probably a mix of 2, 3, and 5. He had some terrible and some decent advice, at least in the bible. If he actually claimed to be god, then he was delusional, insanely egotistical, a liar, or all three. If he did not claim to be god, then he was probably just a cult leader who got exalted to divine status. It's sometimes hard to separate Jeebus (Xian image) from Jesus, the guy who started Xianity.

[HoopyFrood42]

In the books I have read by Bart Ehrman, he touches on the idea that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who didn't claim to be, or think that he was god or god's son.  Ehrman explores this topic more in depth in Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium but I haven't had a chance to read this one yet.  I'm particularly interested in this topic and I was wondering if anyone has read this book and what you thought about it? 

[Akheia]

I haven't seen it, but I'm interested in this as well I generally find a lot of interesting stuff to ponder in Ehrman's writings.

[Overcame Faith]

I think the Gospel of Thomas best describes who Jesus probably was.