Non-Christians - what do you know about Jesus ?

[Babybirdmum]

Atheists, agnostics, maybe raised as a Christian’s but not that into it…
I am just interested to see what ideas you have about Jesus. I was talking about it to my dad the other day and I said that I felt that a lot of people think Jesus is a made up fairytale, they don’t realise he is an actual historical figure.

If you mean to say that Gandhi slept with young women, I agree. No offence taken. People are complex and nobody is black or white. He was a great man in some ways and exceptionally problematic in others.

Another reason why I don't believe in religion or idols. They all have feet of clay.

Ghandi was surely a political and not a religious leader. History shows the divisiveness that religions caused, entrenching tribalism - other obvious examples involve different branches of Christianity.

Prophets* and not profits! Apologies.

I agree morality is something that is innate which is another reason I believe in a “higher power”.
Yes you’re right, he didn’t free the Jews from Rome their oppressors either. He didn’t free anyone from their prisons or oppressors, still today many of us feel trapped in prisons, maybe you hate your job but have to go to earn money, maybe you lived with controlling parents your whole childhood, maybe you have a life limiting condition that means you’re restricted in your day to day life. Jesus gave us some hope, that whilst we may not be able to break free from the chains of this work, one day you will be free to live with him, where there will be no more tears.

Whats interesting was Jesus was progressive for the time in his views on slavery and women. Unfortunately, slavery was part of the worldwide culture, but Paul’s letter to Philemon asking him not to have a slave anymore, it’s quite clear that Slavery has no place in a Christian’s life. It was actually a group of Christians who campaigned and successfully abolished the slave trade in the UK and USA because they felt it against Christian ethics.
in regard to women, compared to the misogyny prevalent in the ancient Greco-Roman world, Christianity was countercultural in its affirmation of women. And women, in turn, flocked to the church in droves. Sociologist Rodney Stark estimates that two-thirds of the church in the first couple of centuries was female. In fact, early pagan critics like Celsus and Lucian derided Christianity for being a religion of women.Jesus used stories of women in his parables to illustrate spiritual truth. He raised the bar on laws concerning marriage, divorce and lust in order to protect women (a lot of men were divorcing wives because they found someone else and leaving them and their children destitute). He cited historical and contemporary examples of women, both powerful and obscure, as models of faith and virtue. And of course, he included women in his ministry team and welcomed them as disciples, to follow and learn from him – actions unheard of for a Jewish rabbi.

my point is that ghandi didn’t love everyone as some have claimed, he had negative views against some groups of people

It's not an 'assumption', it's an observation based on your extreme simple-mindedness on this thread.

Gandhi, OP.

my point is that ghandi didn’t love everyone as some have claimed, he had negative views against some groups of people

So what? (Not that I think anyone has actually claimed Gandhi 'loved everyone'.)
He was one of the few practical exponents of non violent resistance and 'turning the other cheek'.

Do you feel any responsibility to be part of a local body of believers?
As Hebrews 10: 24-25 states-
”And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.”

Also, Matthew 18:19-20

For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.

And was a human being who didn't claim to be a Messiah/the son of God. He was an Indian lawyer, civil rights activist and pioneer of peaceful protest, and someone who synthesised ideas from Hinduism, Biddhism and Jainism. He was also sexist and racist. That's hardly controversial, surely?

No. In Matthew 6:5, Jesus teaches that it's okay to pray to the Father alone.

I don’t know much about Jesus, but I have read a few things about Rome during the period Christianity was taking off in the empire and ultimately became the state religion. I think the view that the ancient Romans were nasty, amoral oppressors and people flocked to Christianity because it was simply better, more virtuous, is too simple and a clear case of history being written by the victors.

It overlooks facts like there being other groups based around religious leaders at the time that had many similarities, Christian ownership of slaves, slaves and women being part of other religious communities, other developments in society and religion that parallel characteristics of Christianity, the destruction of pagan temples and forced conversions of pagans… and the big one, that if the Romans themselves hadn’t bought into it and the empire allowed it to spread, it couldn’t have become what it did. Rome was not something separate from Christianity.

Yes, of course we need to pray alone sometimes. But there’s also a life “together” that the scriptures have much to say about.

Yes, and I do those works in other ways. I regularly volunteer within my community. I try to support people that I see are struggling in life, and I pray for people often. I don't isolate myself from others and avoid my responsibilities to my neighbour, I just don't feel at ease within the church community. I still visit church, I just give the services a swerve.

Which, if one was being uncharitable, also underlines my point about increaing levels of educaction in society tending to lead to moves away from faith as a sensible compass to live by!!

Absolutely. It's no longer needed as a social deterrent or as a pre-scientific explanation of the universe. We're left with the 'be nice to one another', which is absolutely achievable without the allied flummery about not having false gods, monogamy, and attempting to believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent deity.

I accept he existed as there is documented evidence of him, it describes him as a teacher I believe. I don’t believe all the stuff about miracles etc and think he was just a charismatic guy. The virgin birth was a lot of guff. Joseph believed Mary because an Angel in a dream told him to? I’ve had plenty of weird dreams.

The three wise men is probably nonsense as in the Qu’Ran his birth is described much differently.

He is mentioned in other holy texts so he was important but not in the way Christians believe.

Another 'lot of guff' is that there was no census at the time of Jesus' claimed birth. The author of Luke probably wanted a reason to travel to Bethlehem and see prophecy fulfilled.

Chronology
The census of Quirinius, as described by the historian Josephus, took place around AD 6, which is about ten years after Herod the Great is thought to have died. However, the Gospel of Luke places Jesus's birth during the lifetime of Herod the Great.

Roman records
The Romans kept detailed records of such events, but Luke's census does not appear in these records.

Roman economic history
Roman documents show that taxation was done by the various governors at the provincial level.

Roman requirements
Romans required subjects to return to their present homes to be counted, not their ancestral homes.

Even Tacitus’ so called evidence us hearsay of what Christians were saying 60 + years after the fact. It is in no way a contemporary historical account or proof of anything but cultic beliefs about the founder.

An excellent book on the sources for early Christian dogma (not the factual history but the theology) is Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrmann. He is an evangelical scholar who really gets into the history and formation of christian beliefs about Jesus snd that early period by examining the earliest documents and marginalia.

Pedantically I think he's an ex-Evangelical scholar. We've listened to a couple of his lecture series and a few of his podcasts, they're pretty interesting.

I'll just echo something which was touched upon earlier.

My atheism, and my scepticism that Jesus ever existed as a real human being, are in no way linked, and the former is neither dependant upon, nor rendered unsustainable by the reality of the latter.

If someone were to categorically prove beyond any doubt that Jesus Christ walked the earth, then I would happily accept that, and continue on content with atheism absent of any proof of the existence of deities.

Another Bart Ehrmann book is Forged where is explains how Christian monks have not been reliable copyists and have added or removed passages to suit their agenda.

The Annals of Tacitus survives in only two manuscript traditions, one containing the first half, the other the second half, the section in between is missing. There is another gap in the text: two whole years from the middle of 29AD to the middle of 31AD; that the cut is so precise and covers the year 30AD that early Christians regarded as the year of Christ’s ministry is too improbable to posit as a coincidence.

The present text of Tacitus reads:

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Chrestians [sic] by the populace.

Tacitus was describing followers of the Jewish instigator Chrestus first suppressed under Claudius (as reported by Suetonius).

The change to 'Christians' and a following line on Christ being executed by Pilate was added sometimes after the mid-fourth century.

As a Christian I respect Bart Erhmann and his work, although he is just one of many bible scholars, there are many others who contest his views. As with all historians, opinions will differ about certain aspects. In regard to Luke’s census, there are other trains of thought than can explain that, which I won’t bore you all with. But let’s say if it was a mistake…that in itself wouldn’t make me not believe. If anything, it would make it seem more authentic, as the authors are discussing real events. Like I said earlier, some witnesses of the titanic believed the boat broke in two while others believe it sank as a whole. Does that mean the titanic didn’t actually happen? Of course not.

But if something as tangible as the when and how of a census (people would surely remember if they did or didn't have to travel to their 'home town') could be a mistake - how then do you know which other parts you can trust?