Jesus was a radical. He wasn't a moderate, and he wasn't a

[harrison]

fundamentalist. If Jesus had been a moderate, he would have cut a deal with Pontius Pilate and compromised, and walked away. If he had been a fundamentalist, he would have thrown in with the religious folks who were clamoring for him to take the crown.

He was a radical who stood against religious tyranny, and who tried to change things in a fundamental way. He was considered a sinner and a drunk and blasphemer and for those things he got crucified.

[H2O Man]

1. Jesus was, among many other things,

a reformation prophet. This role occures when a tribal people are held by an empire, and the tribal religion/belief system is in part compromised by the luxuries of that empire. When the empire begins to faulter, the reformation prophet calls for the return to the traditional teachings. This happens throughout history. You may note, for example, that today marks 36 years since Martin Luther King, Jr. was murdered. He fits into the same role.

[wyldwolf]

2. He was certainly written that way...

... like Robin Hood.

[holeinboatoutatsea]

3. The Truth shall set you free

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/holygrail.html


A long, and fascinating read.

[warrior1]

4. that's of course

IF he even existed. That has yet to be proven. No written records of this person outside of the bible.

[H2O Man]

5. Not true.

Jesus is mentioned in a contemporary historian's writings. This is not a question. The interpretation of his life and meaning may be.

[Finch]

6. More evidence of Jesus than Julius Ceaser

[Finch]

7. Look at the writings of the first century Jewish Historian Josephus...

[warrior1]

8. I've read this stuff before

it hasn't been proven in other documents outside of the bible. Historian's of which you speak only refer to the bible. That's my point. Sorry for the confusion.

[H2O Man]

9. Now that would be a miracle!

If a contemporary historian made reference to a book that wasn't even written yet!

[wyldwolf]

10. Josephus wasn't a contemporary of "Jesus" - but some were... here...

We are told Jesus died in or around 30 AD.

Flavius Josephus was born in 37 AD.

Anything he wrote was not eyewitness but hearsay.

However, several writers were contemporaries of Jesus.

Jesus is mentioned in a contemporary historian's writings, but does it mention the so-called divine events that supposedly happenned?

Another who was alive during the time of Jesus was Philo Judaeus. John E. Remsburg, in The Christ, writes: "Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ's miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead took place when Christ himself rose from the dead, and in the presence of many witnesses ascended into heaven. These marvelous events which must have filled the world with amazement, had they really occurred, were unknown to him. It was Philo who developed the doctrine of the Logos, or Word, and although this Word incarnate dwelt in that very land and in the presence of multitudes revealed himself and demonstrated his divine powers, Philo saw it not."

There was a historian named Justus of Tiberius who was a native of Galilee, the homeland of Jesus. He wrote a history covering the time when Christ supposedly lived. This history is now lost, but a ninth-century Christian scholar named Photius had read it and wrote: "He makes not the least mention of the appearance of Christ, of what things happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did." (Photius' Bibliotheca, code 33)

http://www.apatheticagnostic.com/articles/meds/med02/med038d01.html

History. It's inconceivable that during the alleged time of Jesus no one bothered to write down anything about this most extraordinary person, yet we have nothing. Even the earliest Bible reference to Jesus dates to at least A.D. 64, and the first Gospel, the Gospel of Mark, dates to at least A.D. 70 (and probably to A.D. 170).

Comparative Religion shows that the story of Jesus already existed in numerous religions prior to the alleged time of Jesus. Chrishna, Horus, Orpheus, Bacchus, Osiris, Dionysus, Buddha, Apollo, Hercules, Adonis, Ormuzd, Mithras, Indra, Œdipus, Quetzalcoatle, etc. The motif of a Crucified Savior was already extant prior to the alleged time of Jesus.

Solar Mythology shows the story of Jesus is just an allegory for the sun passing through the Zodiac and the passage of the seasons of the year. Jesus travels throughout his one year ministry, and the description of his travels exactly match that of the sun traveling through the Zodiac during the year. Here we have the origin of the Jesus story. This common origin explains why all the stories of crucified saviors are essentially the same.

http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/appendixd.html

[H2O Man]

12. While I did not mention

Josephus, I did use the word comtemporary. Just for the sake of discussion, the word is not limited in meaning to living at the exact time .... although it certainly can mean lives that over-lap .... in a historical context, it also means those who live in the same era. Be that as it may, there are other historians from that period who write about Jesus .... although to be fair, they do not speak of him in the same terms that later "christians" would.
History is also full of villians who play the same cosmic role that george w. bush now plays. Still, he is real.
The interesting thing about the "Christian" Jesus is that all people can project their own beliefs, needs, and fears into their image of him. The historic Jesus, taken off the stained-glass windows, is never-the-less a fascinating figure.

[wyldwolf]

13. so in other words...

It's OK that the Christian Jesus is a gross exaggeration of the real Jesus - if such man ever existed.

[H2O Man]

14. For some time, I have read

admired, and respected your opinions on here. So I'll guess that the gross exaggeration of Jesus is not REALLY okay with you. (grin) And I'm hoping you wouldn't be trying to put those words in my mouth.
The human body is a machine. An organic machine, of course, but with no more conscious thought controlling it than my lawn-mower has. I will take credit for that thought, and am confident that no one here will be able to demonstrate that bush, cheney, etc have any more spiritual consciousness than does my lawn mower.
That being said: those people who pervert the message of Jesus today are not remarkably different that the crowds who didn't "get it" 2000 years ago. Again, take bush .... who recently paid his "respect" to the tomb of MKL (who died 36 years ago today) .... bush didn't "get it" either, or he wouldn't be at the tomb .... right?
I can't say for anyone else .... and I wouldn't say, even if I could, because people need to have the goodness of the truth take root within them! .... but for me, the concept of it being "okay" or not okay (what they do to the message of the Master) is not important. The effect of it is.

[wyldwolf]

16. you missed my point...

..I'm asking if the gross exaggeration of Jesus - the version portrayed by Christianity - is ok. OK in general. Is it a good thing that Christianity embraces at most a lie?

[H2O Man]

18. I didn't miss your point.

I think that you raise valid points. When I speak of people who are conscious and those who are not, I do not hesitate to put you in the first group. Hence, my response to your valid point was the equally valid answer that those who distort Jesus are doing only AND exactly what they are capable of doing ... distorting. They have no idea at all WHAT Jesus (or Buddha, Gandhi, King,etc) were talking about. Would either you or I expect dick cheney to be able to translate ancient Greek, Latin, Chinese, or Iroquois teachings? Of course not. He does not speak their language. Would either you or I expect george bush to have a more mature understanding of the teachings of Jesus, than a greedy, bouncing six-year old has of SANTA CLAUS on christmas morning, when that child sees a pile of wrapped presents under a tree? Hardly. Yet, the child's concept of Santa is neither "okay" nor "not okay" ..... it is merely the product of the level of understanding of a child. I will grant that most children are cute and most of the bush administration and "christian" right are repulsive. Further, their incorrect beliefs are responsible for many of the greatest crimes in the history of human beings. This is why the great teachers in history are hesitant to deliver the message. When it falls upon the lower level, it is very dangerous, indeed.
I enjoy conversing with you. You are a sincere and good person.

[Selwynn]

17. That's not exactly correct.

Jesus is mentioned by Flavius Josephus, in passing. Now, historians do think thinks parts that talk about Jesus were been added to. And yet, most historians believe that it was not all additions. Flavious Josephus himself wrote this:

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, for he was a performer of wonderful deeds, a teacher of such men as are happy to accept the truth. He won over many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the leading men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him at the first did not forsake him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."
Antiquities, Book 18, 63-64.

Now most historians agree that Josephus wrote this passage.

Then there is Cornelius Tacticus who also wrote a line or two about Jesus (in answering where Christians got their name from.) However, it is not clear whether this was a later Christian addition or actually writing by Tacticus. When I say its not clear, I mean its not clear. Neither side had been able to prove anything. So this one is worth mentioning but not as clear as the Josephus one is.

[cryofan]

11. Sorry to do this to you, but I feel compelled to do so

No offense, but could you please read this page carefully, and then tell me what you think of it:

http://www.sanfords.net/Pagan_Humor_and_Thoughts/origins_of_christianity.htm

After reading this, I seriously doubt that Christ ever existed, and furthermore, it seems as if all religions are just men grasping at straws.

[FlaGranny]

15. Hmmmm

Will believers say all these people were Jesus, appearing to different peoples, being crucified over and over again? If they believe that, though, then they must concede that all these other religions are just as valid as Christianity. Or is it all just coincidence?

Edit: I do respect the idea of a man of peace (Jesus).

[Selwynn]

19. What I think is this:

I have no problem with that site, and appreciate the points it makes. I personally imagine that someone like "Jesus" actually existed in the flesh back then, but that most of the stories we have about him today have been mythologized, exactly like this site shows.

It's not that hard for me to believe that there was a man in the first century who was an excellent speaker, and a good man, who motivated people and became and outspoken critic of the temple, who became a threatening dissident and was ultimately killed because of it. It is also not hard for me to believe that among the loyal followers he had his life was mythologized and hyperbolized though history.

I also kind of agree with you that all religious are just men (and women!) grasping at straws. But where I disagree with a lot of folks is here: I believe the grasping at straws experience is a good thing. Fundamentalism is what's bad, fanaticism is what's bad, assuming you have the absolute unqualified truth is bad.

A great deal of religious tradition is symbols that have been unfortunately literalized by zealots for too often. That doesn't mean that the things symbolized have no truth value what so ever, but symbols, as German philosopher and theologian Paul Tillich points out, point beyond themselves to something else, but unlike signs participate in that to which they point (I can explain that in more detail later if need be.)

Tillich also has some profound things to say about religion. For example, he defines religious as "asking passionately the questions of the meaning of existence, and being willing to receive answers, even when those answers hurt." He says that such a definition is certainly different from the way institutional religious has traditionally been defined, but it does make religion more of a universally human element, which he believes is more accurate. Tillich is also one of the few or only Christian theologians to be an "atheist." I'm playing with that term a little bit, but it is technically correct, because he argued that philosophically speaking, God could not be said to "exist."

"God cannot be conceived of as a thing or being alongside other beings. God its being-itself." Or the source and ground of all Being. In talking like this, Tillich makes the topic of religion really a discussion of philosophy and ontology, existentialism and epistemology. It is a appealing to people like me who believe that the ultimate truth of religious seeking is in the apprehension that we are related to the larger world around us and the struggle to understand the nature of the apprehension. To me that is at the most basic heart of the religious life. Throughout history, different symbols have come and gone that metaphorically attempt to shed light on these questions. And they have often been literalized by some, usually with tragic results. But these symbols can still be powerful tools to many in thinking about the larger universe in which we participate.

The biggest problem with "religion" is when people take anthropomorphic, metaphorical imagery that could point to real yet abstract (i.e. experiential over substantial) truth and instead try to literalize it and concrete-ize it. That false literalization is at the heart of everything bad thing that happens in the name of "religion."

I tend to believe that the real, more honest, more important personal religious questing is much more likened to trying to describe the color blue to someone who has never seen blue before and never will see blue. Certainly, our experience of "blueness" really happens, but at the same time trying to use words to describe what blue "looks" like to someone who does not see colors is complicated. That doesn't make it unreal, just abstract.

-edited for massive spelling errors!