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.

Jesus, all round good guy, liked to party, probably a pragmatist who utilised faith to engineer a useful following and advocate for the suffering.

Well if we’re having an open honest discussion about our opinions on Jesus - my opinion is that he was a megalomaniac cult leader with narcissistic tendencies and the mass hysteria that followed still occurs today. All religions are cults.

All cult leaders have charisma. All cult leaders would say people were with them voluntarily and their followers would agree. That’s why we have deprogramming.

All faiths are internally diverse and vary over time and place. Jesus being the son of God was not part of all early churches, particularly not literally, and has not been a required part of several church denominations for a while, the Quakers probably being one of the earliest and well-known sects that didn't start off Universalist to shift to that

We are not in the early Church though. There is a very established theology and doctrine in Christianity. Quakers are one of those groups that, in becoming so 'inclusive' have started to lose definition. But even then, the minority of Quakers who don't believe in JC as the Son of God would regard him as a respected Prophet, rather than a deluded man with a mental illness. That's just not a Christian belief by any stretch of 'inclusivity.'

I'm happy to accept that there was a heretical Jewish rabbi around that time called Yeshua who spawned an apocalyptic death cult. I think the stories about what he did and said were heavily embellished, if not outright fabricated.

I don't believe he was a god, the son of a god, and/or one third of a god while simultaneously being the whole god.

While you are correct that Paul does not cover the same ground as the writers of the gospels, I'm not sure it correct to say that Paul only shows knowledge of Jesus as a celestial being not a man.

Paul does mention aspects of Jesus life as a man, for example Philippians 2:5-8

He definitely refers to Jesus as a man (eg: repeatedly in Romans 5)

and refers to Jesus as being born of a woman (Galatians 4:4-5)

He also talks about "the night that Jesus was betrayed and actually quotes words Jesus said at the last supper 1 Corinthians 11: 23-25

Ha speaks about Jesus's death and resurrection and subsequent appearance to his disciples ( 1 Corinthians 15:3-8)

He refers to James, the brother of Jesus too. Galatians 1:19

He also meets with Peter ( and calls him out for treating gentile Christians as second class) without any seeming difference of opinion as to whether Jesus was actually a man

I think most theologians would say that Paul believed that Jesus was actually a man as well as God.

Sorry, nothings 100% guaranteed, the pharmacist or nurse may have tampered with it. The infamous stepping hill nurse/murderer injected insulin into iv bags. My husband works at a pharmaceutical company, any of the people working there could tamper with the drugs.

@Babybirdmum "Sorry, nothings 100% guaranteed, the pharmacist or nurse may have tampered with it"

Of course. I don't understand the point you are making.

That's about the size of it. He'd probably be just one of quite a few apocalyptic Jewish preachers of the era, were it not for the massive PR makeover by Paul and then development of various strands of Christianity over the next few centuries. Today's orthodoxies are just the varieties which won out over what became heresies.

@neverstartingstory Words have meanings though. You can't just change established meanings of words, especially when that word is created and 'owned' by another group of people, and then claim that word as your own. The defining belief of Christians is that Jesus Christ is the son of God, not that he was a deluded man with a mental illness. Your children have created their own belief system, for their own reasons, which they follow But that belief system is not Christianity

Righto. Personally, I couldn’t give two shits. So, they aren’t Christians, but call themselves such (which i can’t see that anyone would have an issue with given you can have a Y chromosome and call yourself female or vice versa, so that’s opened the floodgates somewhat ….). I really do t think they’d lose a wink of sleep knowing your opinion and will still call themselves whatever they like. And they’ll still attend their mainstream churches. And still ‘follow’ Jesus in actions. And, it doesn’t matter if it’s okay with you or not, or indeed what I do or don’t think. But hey, if you want them to start their own religion, point some signs and send some followers over I guess. It was never their intent to start and lead a new religion but if you insist I guess they’ll have to🙄.

Just that we act with faith in everything we do so whilst no one can say the gospels are 100% guaranteed you just have to go with the best evidence and I believe the evidence is strong enough in favour of them being true.

I’m glad you said this! You’re right! The gospels have little details that vary, as you’d expect if written by seperate people. Also, they contain information that’s embarrassing to themselves, such as Peter denying Jesus, it must be a shameful thing for him to include, yet he still included it. Why? Just because he’s writing about events. It’s not embellished to make them look good, it includes their arguments and mistakes. It includes their he fact Jesus appeared to women first who weren’t seen as reliable witnesses at the time, if it was “made up”, wouldn’t they have written he appeared to men, or better yet themselves. If it were made up, Jesus would have been a hero who overthrew Rome like the Jews expected, but instead he was a nobody who was tortured to death by the enemy. Who he told them to love!
this is a true fact - when the titanic sunk, some witnesses said the boat broke in two whereas other witnesses said that it sank in one piece. Do these discrepancies mean the titanic did not sink?

You may believe there is 'evidence', but really your belief is all that's there, the historical evidence for more than 'yet another apocalyptic preacher' is very weak.

@Babybirdmum "Just that we act with faith in everything we do so whilst no one can say the gospels are 100% guaranteed you just have to go with the best evidence and I believe the evidence is strong enough in favour of them being true"

So you think there is enough actual evidence for a non believer to be more than 99% sure that the Gospels are true?

That’s really interesting! Do you believe in any sort of higher power? Are you more of a believer that the universe was an accident?
Im not a physicist but I once heard a quote from a Physicist that everything in the universe exists within time, matter and space, and time matter and space all have a beginning. Therefore, there must be something that exists outside of time matter and space that began them, since they all need to have a beginning.

They didn’t leave them behind.

We know this because Paul mentions in his first letter to the church at Corinth that the Apostles lived and travelled with their wives.
“Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas ?”
1 Corinthians 9:5

I love that! He likes to party! Well he did turn water into wine after all 🤣
I don’t think he has much to gain from his mission though, he didn’t get any money or sex and ultimately he died a gruesome death. So I agree his motives were purely for others wellbeing rather than his own.

Sorry, nothings 100% guaranteed, the pharmacist or nurse may have tampered with it. The infamous stepping hill nurse/murderer injected insulin into iv bags. My husband works at a pharmaceutical company, any of the people working there could tamper with the drugs

Can be done anywhere in a supply chain. The Tylenol murders in the States, from memory some random was emptying capsules, replacing contents with poison, putting them back into bottles and then went and put the bottles back on pharmacy or supermarket shelves for people to buy.

I worked at a hospital where someone was stealing narcotics BUT was refilling them (guessing plain water) and doing a superb job of glueing the top of the amp back on and putting them back. They must have been doing it at home as it wasn’t a rush job. Only detected by the pharma company after the hospital sent a complaint that many of the amps weren’t breaking open as they were meant to and sending stock back.

So, yep, nothing can be guaranteed there. People just have to have faith that things are what they are meant to be really when they take it/are given it with medicines. Extends to everything we eat and drink as well really.

Of course it’s not.And of course you get psychopaths doing crazy things all of the world. But for the most part, and at least with medicine, that has been researched, developed and extensively tested, using defined and proven scientific and medical, peer reviewed procedures. Then it is kept in secure locations until it’s required use. So for the most part, that medicine will be safe to use and hopefully be effective. As for god, there is not one shred of real empirical evidence that this being exits. The bible, in its self, can not be considered an accurate historical document or source , as proof of gods existence, and no self respecting academic or scholar with ever make that claim. At least with medicine you can clearly see the documented process and subsequent testing involved in producing that medication. You can get your hands on actual verified scientific research that can prove what that particular medicine can do, and that it will most probably be safe to use.

Yes I actually do. There was a book written by a skeptic lawyer/attorney turned christian called ‘Jesus on trial’ who examined the gospels as if they were part of a court trial and whether they would stand up to the process and they did. Theres also the Old Testament prophecies that have come true, the ones about Jesus himself which he fulfilled.

theres also nasa eclipse data -
Jesus' preaching began around AD 30 and lasted three years. They calculate the death of Jesus as having taken place 33AD. The Geological Society of America, GSA, has confirmed April 3*, 33 AD as the date the crucifixion of Jesus Christ took place (Austin, 2012). Jesus most likely crucified on April 3rd 33AD because there is evidence of an 2hr50min partial eclipse on that day according to NASA NASA - Lunar Eclipses of History and an earthquake Quake reveals day of Jesus' crucifixion, researchers believe which is what is described in the New Testament. . historians reported that Tiberius Caesar took over the Roman Empire in AD 14 (Levick, 1999). Historian Luke, on the other hand, reported that John the Baptist started his ministry in the 15" year of Tiberius' reign (Luke 3:1). Therefore the baptism of the Lord Jesus Christ must have been around 29 or 30 AD. In John's Gospel, Jesus attended three or four annual Passover feasts (John 2:13; 6:4; 11:55-57) Thus, the date of the Cross must have been in 33 AD.

Well, its the fact that no, you can't have a Y chromosome and call yourself female and people shouldn't go along with this bonkers idea, that is rather my point that words have meanings that matter. Words become meaningless if people just redefine them as they wish and that can have very real world negative consequences, as in the example you gave.

You are strangely aggressive about this. I wouldn't expect your kids to give a shit about what I think but if you put their views on a discussion thread, its more than a little unreasonable to get your rage on about people discussing them.

I totally agree - that’s my point exactly. We base our lives on evidence, so I am happy to take a tablet because although there’s no 100% guarantee I still think it’s pretty good evidence. That’s why I am a Christian for the same reason. I disagree on your point about scholars not agreeing there is evidence for the bible, why would national geographic make programmes called bible archeology which show that archeology and historical data from numerous stories back up the bible writings? The Old Testament is basically a history of the Jewish people which is historically accurate.

Out of curiosity what sort of evidence would you need to believe Jesus was real?

I grew up with the only Christianity being a few hymns and reciting The Lord's Prayer in assembly in junior school. My mother was a rabid atheist. I tried hard to be a Christian several times during my adult life, but could never feel the passion that others' felt for Christ and I couldn't accept The Trinity. I then began attending an Eastern Orthodox Church because ds had started going and I was transformed and everything fell into place and suddenly made sense. It's like nothing else I've ever experienced.

But OP you are Christian because of your faith, not because of evidence. Either you have been misinformed or under informed about evidence or you aren’t being truthful about your beliefs being based on faith. I think it’s probably a bit of both. Maybe you are embarrassed about believing in things that are aren’t historically accurate snd unscientific, or are you worried about the consequences of accepting that the Bible isn’t a historic text? Either way you won’t be able to convince posters on here that black is white simply because you believe it.