• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Jesus: who was he?

SBu

SBu

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,523
Reaction score
636
Location
Washington State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
(Posted here vice religious discussion forum because it sounds quite restrictive)
Something that I've been interested in for a while. Who was he?

We actually know very little about Jesus. Born Bethlehem sometime around 2010 +/- 10yrs ago, the circumstances around which are vague, a mention or two of his early years, then suddenly the narrative skips the extremely important formative years of his youth from around 12 yrs to 30 yrs, then re-emerges as a follower of John the Baptist (one of the first references to a historical time and place), goes on to minister for a few years, is crucified by Romans for subversion, and after three days emerges from death to continue his ministry reborn. (or some general version thereof)

Interesting things we don't know:

Name: Jesus...really? Actually a form of Joshua roughly meaning salvation in Hebrew.

No historical record for Jesus during his ministry

No historical record for Jesus during his absence of 18 years between the temple and baptism by John

How accurate is any of the information offered in the gospels about Jesus' years before adulthood and the first mentions of his ministry?

No written accounts from Jesus himself which is surprising because the Bible suggests he could read and write, and if not, surely in the movement inspired by him, someone would have written something down directly attributed to Jesus during the time he lived. Everything written is from decades or centuries following his death.

No idea how he developed his unique ideas (Essenes? Traveling? ) It's difficult to imagine he would have developed advanced religious philosophy to the point of evangelism if he had been a simple carpenter in a small village during his formative years.

The details of his final days and death are fairly concise with a few variations in the accepted gospels of the Bible. However, it is quite clear that there were many different views of his divinity and the meaning of his message. The disciples and followers dispersed and espoused essentially their own versions of what Jesus was and what his message meant throughout the Roman empire and region.

It's fair to say that the early Christian world was chaotic in its interpretations and stories about Jesus. That is until Emperor Constantine began to really push for a more coherent ideology among the different views which eventually led to canonization of the 4 gospels that we identify with the Bible today and other general issues agreed upon by various bishops etc. It is clear, after finding many old texts and noting that not all of the sects were represented, that these were not the only versions and therefore calls the official version of who Jesus was, what he said, and what he meant into question.

I find myself wondering if any of us understand what Jesus' message actually was, who he actually was beyond what has been organized by men over hundreds of years following his ministry for political, power, or consolidation purposes. I find myself thinking that we've missed something very important, that this telephone game of pass down and power has distorted some central ideas that have been lost to time.
 
SBu said:
No historical record for Jesus during his ministry

No historical record for Jesus during his absence of 18 years between the temple and baptism by John
Click to expand...

Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD. Factor that into the analysis.

How accurate is any of the information offered in the gospels about Jesus' years before adulthood and the first mentions of his ministry?
Click to expand...

If you're going to question that you might as well question all of it.

No written accounts from Jesus himself which is surprising because the Bible suggests he could read and write, and if not, surely in the movement inspired by him, someone would have written something down directly attributed to Jesus during the time he lived. Everything written is from decades or centuries following his death.
Click to expand...

What would have survived the destruction of Jerusalem? And His followers did write, in the decades following His death and resurrection.

No idea how he developed his unique ideas (Essenes? Traveling? ) It's difficult to imagine he would have developed advanced religious philosophy to the point of evangelism if he had been a simple carpenter in a small village during his formative years.
Click to expand...

Probably being the Son of God had something to do with it.

The details of his final days and death are fairly concise with a few variations in the accepted gospels of the Bible. However, it is quite clear that there were many different views of his divinity and the meaning of his message. The disciples and followers dispersed and espoused essentially their own versions of what Jesus was and what his message meant throughout the Roman empire and region.
Click to expand...

Vague and unfounded.

It's fair to say that the early Christian world was chaotic in its interpretations and stories about Jesus. That is until Emperor Constantine began to really push for a more coherent ideology among the different views which eventually led to canonization of the 4 gospels that we identify with the Bible today and other general issues agreed upon by various bishops etc. It is clear, after finding many old texts and noting that not all of the sects were represented, that these were not the only versions and therefore calls the official version of who Jesus was, what he said, and what he meant into question.
Click to expand...

The canon was not decided at the time of Constantine. It was definitely settled, yes, but the canon was read during Mass even before it was officially set down.
 
I am Jesus. Behold, for I am came quickly.
 
SBu said:
(Posted here vice religious discussion forum because it sounds quite restrictive)
Something that I've been interested in for a while. Who was he?

We actually know very little about Jesus. Born Bethlehem sometime around 2010 +/- 10yrs ago, the circumstances around which are vague, a mention or two of his early years, then suddenly the narrative skips the extremely important formative years of his youth from around 12 yrs to 30 yrs, then re-emerges as a follower of John the Baptist (one of the first references to a historical time and place), goes on to minister for a few years, is crucified by Romans for subversion, and after three days emerges from death to continue his ministry reborn. (or some general version thereof)

Interesting things we don't know:

Name: Jesus...really? Actually a form of Joshua roughly meaning salvation in Hebrew.

No historical record for Jesus during his ministry

No historical record for Jesus during his absence of 18 years between the temple and baptism by John

How accurate is any of the information offered in the gospels about Jesus' years before adulthood and the first mentions of his ministry?

No written accounts from Jesus himself which is surprising because the Bible suggests he could read and write, and if not, surely in the movement inspired by him, someone would have written something down directly attributed to Jesus during the time he lived. Everything written is from decades or centuries following his death.

No idea how he developed his unique ideas (Essenes? Traveling? ) It's difficult to imagine he would have developed advanced religious philosophy to the point of evangelism if he had been a simple carpenter in a small village during his formative years.

The details of his final days and death are fairly concise with a few variations in the accepted gospels of the Bible. However, it is quite clear that there were many different views of his divinity and the meaning of his message. The disciples and followers dispersed and espoused essentially their own versions of what Jesus was and what his message meant throughout the Roman empire and region.

It's fair to say that the early Christian world was chaotic in its interpretations and stories about Jesus. That is until Emperor Constantine began to really push for a more coherent ideology among the different views which eventually led to canonization of the 4 gospels that we identify with the Bible today and other general issues agreed upon by various bishops etc. It is clear, after finding many old texts and noting that not all of the sects were represented, that these were not the only versions and therefore calls the official version of who Jesus was, what he said, and what he meant into question.

I find myself wondering if any of us understand what Jesus' message actually was, who he actually was beyond what has been organized by men over hundreds of years following his ministry for political, power, or consolidation purposes. I find myself thinking that we've missed something very important, that this telephone game of pass down and power has distorted some central ideas that have been lost to time.
Click to expand...

You forget one thing about the "Telephone Game": Like in real life, there was always someone around who knew the original story, and corrected the errors of the masses.

Jesus is Risen indeed!
 
Logicman said:
You forget one thing about the "Telephone Game": Like in real life, there was always someone around who knew the original story, and corrected the errors of the masses.

Jesus is Risen indeed!
Click to expand...

It's all very strange, the evolution of the church and Christianity I mean. More time is spent reading about letters the apostles wrote, revelations written by some mystic person having not much to do with Jesus at all, and religious theater (stand up, sit down, kneel, now sing an incredibly somber hymn). Buddhism and Daoism are much more appealing to me. It's not quite watered down from the original message like I think Christianity is. Because of that, it requires less interpretation and construction. What you see is what you get, I guess. Shame too, because I think the original message of Jesus, had it been better documented and less constructed, could have been every bit as appealing.
 
SBu said:
It's all very strange, the evolution of the church and Christianity I mean. More time is spent reading about letters the apostles wrote, revelations written by some mystic person having not much to do with Jesus at all, and religious theater (stand up, sit down, kneel, now sing an incredibly somber hymn). Buddhism and Daoism are much more appealing to me. It's not quite watered down from the original message like I think Christianity is. Because of that, it requires less interpretation and construction. What you see is what you get, I guess. Shame too, because I think the original message of Jesus, had it been better documented and less constructed, could have been every bit as appealing.
Click to expand...

If you ever really dig deep into the Bible it will fascinate you.

Earliest Mention of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ « The Righter Report
 
SBu said:
(Posted here vice religious discussion forum because it sounds quite restrictive)
Something that I've been interested in for a while. Who was he?

We actually know very little about Jesus. Born Bethlehem sometime around 2010 +/- 10yrs ago, the circumstances around which are vague, a mention or two of his early years, then suddenly the narrative skips the extremely important formative years of his youth from around 12 yrs to 30 yrs, then re-emerges as a follower of John the Baptist (one of the first references to a historical time and place), goes on to minister for a few years, is crucified by Romans for subversion, and after three days emerges from death to continue his ministry reborn. (or some general version thereof)

Interesting things we don't know:

Name: Jesus...really? Actually a form of Joshua roughly meaning salvation in Hebrew.

No historical record for Jesus during his ministry

No historical record for Jesus during his absence of 18 years between the temple and baptism by John

How accurate is any of the information offered in the gospels about Jesus' years before adulthood and the first mentions of his ministry?

No written accounts from Jesus himself which is surprising because the Bible suggests he could read and write, and if not, surely in the movement inspired by him, someone would have written something down directly attributed to Jesus during the time he lived. Everything written is from decades or centuries following his death.

No idea how he developed his unique ideas (Essenes? Traveling? ) It's difficult to imagine he would have developed advanced religious philosophy to the point of evangelism if he had been a simple carpenter in a small village during his formative years.

The details of his final days and death are fairly concise with a few variations in the accepted gospels of the Bible. However, it is quite clear that there were many different views of his divinity and the meaning of his message. The disciples and followers dispersed and espoused essentially their own versions of what Jesus was and what his message meant throughout the Roman empire and region.

It's fair to say that the early Christian world was chaotic in its interpretations and stories about Jesus. That is until Emperor Constantine began to really push for a more coherent ideology among the different views which eventually led to canonization of the 4 gospels that we identify with the Bible today and other general issues agreed upon by various bishops etc. It is clear, after finding many old texts and noting that not all of the sects were represented, that these were not the only versions and therefore calls the official version of who Jesus was, what he said, and what he meant into question.

I find myself wondering if any of us understand what Jesus' message actually was, who he actually was beyond what has been organized by men over hundreds of years following his ministry for political, power, or consolidation purposes. I find myself thinking that we've missed something very important, that this telephone game of pass down and power has distorted some central ideas that have been lost to time.
Click to expand...

No historical record? Ok .... lets take the very liberal Source theory.

Sources within the first 70 years of Jesus Death ... Q, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Paul, other epistles, (hebrews, James, Johanian Groups, Jude) and so on, the gospel of Thomas, Josephus, Tacitus, .... do you know how many Sources that is compared to other historical figures?

No **** there is no historical record of Jesus 18 years or so, because he was a no body Jewish peasant in Galilee .... he wasn't anything interesting prior to his ministry.

No written accounts from Jesus ... because why would there be? Do you have writen accounts from other Jewish Messiahs? or other leaders of other movements? Much less peasant movements like Jesus'?

Jesus' teachings have nothing to do With Essene teaching, they are totally different, and they arn't that unique perse, they are a type of "liberal" judaism that was apocalyptic and based on Gods Kingdom and the coming of Justice, it's VERY Jewish in it's nature.

You're right that Christianity was farily varied in theology, but no one disagreed on the historicity and the hitorical ministry of Jesus, or what he said and did.

As far as the other sects ... in the apostolic age there were no "sects" of Christianity, Christianity was a "sect" of Judasim. Gnosticism wasn't a sect of christianity was much as it was a seperate religion that took on the iconography of christianity.

Hontestly no historical is giong to look seriosuly outside the NT (other than Josephus and Tacitus ... and MAYBE Thomas) about the historical Jesus, the gospels and some early epistles are the best Sources we have for the historical Jesus.

And the problems People have melt away when you see how much data we have on Jesus, and how early it is, and how early manuscripts we have compared to other historical figures/Works.

Also the "Telephone game" is a terrible terrible analogy, it's not one person telling one person telling one person, its a bunch of People telling a bunch of People, telling each other and other People ... and its' People telling those other People along With eye witnesses .... People didn't have Telephones, they said by Word of mouth, and they mett as congregations, and People would hear it from multiple People who would tell it to multiple People ... this is all in the context of a jewish oral tradition.
 
Someone with a lot more sense and humanity in him than most of the world at that time. Too much for his own good.
 
RGacky3 said:
No historical record? Ok .... lets take the very liberal Source theory.

Sources within the first 70 years of Jesus Death ... Q, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Paul, other epistles, (hebrews, James, Johanian Groups, Jude) and so on, the gospel of Thomas, Josephus, Tacitus, .... do you know how many Sources that is compared to other historical figures?

No **** there is no historical record of Jesus 18 years or so, because he was a no body Jewish peasant in Galilee .... he wasn't anything interesting prior to his ministry.

No written accounts from Jesus ... because why would there be? Do you have writen accounts from other Jewish Messiahs? or other leaders of other movements? Much less peasant movements like Jesus'?

Jesus' teachings have nothing to do With Essene teaching, they are totally different, and they arn't that unique perse, they are a type of "liberal" judaism that was apocalyptic and based on Gods Kingdom and the coming of Justice, it's VERY Jewish in it's nature.

You're right that Christianity was farily varied in theology, but no one disagreed on the historicity and the hitorical ministry of Jesus, or what he said and did.

As far as the other sects ... in the apostolic age there were no "sects" of Christianity, Christianity was a "sect" of Judasim. Gnosticism wasn't a sect of christianity was much as it was a seperate religion that took on the iconography of christianity.

Hontestly no historical is giong to look seriosuly outside the NT (other than Josephus and Tacitus ... and MAYBE Thomas) about the historical Jesus, the gospels and some early epistles are the best Sources we have for the historical Jesus.

And the problems People have melt away when you see how much data we have on Jesus, and how early it is, and how early manuscripts we have compared to other historical figures/Works.

Also the "Telephone game" is a terrible terrible analogy, it's not one person telling one person telling one person, its a bunch of People telling a bunch of People, telling each other and other People ... and its' People telling those other People along With eye witnesses .... People didn't have Telephones, they said by Word of mouth, and they mett as congregations, and People would hear it from multiple People who would tell it to multiple People ... this is all in the context of a jewish oral tradition.
Click to expand...

I guess I should have made it clear that the intention of the thread was not to challenge whether or not Jesus existed, or that the basics of the narrative are true. The intention was to point out that we really don't know much about the man.

Without knowing much about the man, it is difficult to put his words and actions into prospective. The lack of historical record relating to that is non-existent other than the gospels which were included in the Bible via consensus by men, not divine selection and we know other versions exist. I would think that if there were miracles flying around all over the place and crowds in the thousands, that someone would have profiled Jesus, or that at least there would be better consensus about his life. The only reason I can think that nothing is mentioned of his 18 years absent from the gospels is that these are years they don't want you to know about for some reason. Skipping those 18 years, during which Jesus would have formed his ideologies, is suspect. If all he was going was living in a small village carving wood, then why isn't that specifically mentioned? How does that explain Jesus suddenly becoming a philosopher (assuming he was already invested with divinity)?

I would be interested to see your source about Jesus' teachings not being all that uncommon among contemporary Jewish views. I just haven't heard that before.

I think the telephone game analogy works fairly well. You're just saying that there were many telephone games going on at the same time which underscores my point that the real version has been distorted many times simultaneously by many people. I'm aware that answering the question of who Jesus was is difficult if not impossible to answer unless we find more sources, but I think it is valid to point out that we don't really know who he was and that the information we have is heavily stylized.
 
SBu said:
Nice. I'll look into those books mentioned. Never thought that I would read another christian book in my life following Catholic school, but this question approached from a philosophical and historical view is pretty fascinating.
Click to expand...

When you discount the supernatural claims about Jesus, the philosophical and historically information is quite interesting.
 
SBu said:
I guess I should have made it clear that the intention of the thread was not to challenge whether or not Jesus existed, or that the basics of the narrative are true. The intention was to point out that we really don't know much about the man.

Without knowing much about the man, it is difficult to put his words and actions into prospective. The lack of historical record relating to that is non-existent other than the gospels which were included in the Bible via consensus by men, not divine selection and we know other versions exist. I would think that if there were miracles flying around all over the place and crowds in the thousands, that someone would have profiled Jesus, or that at least there would be better consensus about his life. The only reason I can think that nothing is mentioned of his 18 years absent from the gospels is that these are years they don't want you to know about for some reason. Skipping those 18 years, during which Jesus would have formed his ideologies, is suspect. If all he was going was living in a small village carving wood, then why isn't that specifically mentioned? How does that explain Jesus suddenly becoming a philosopher (assuming he was already invested with divinity)?

I would be interested to see your source about Jesus' teachings not being all that uncommon among contemporary Jewish views. I just haven't heard that before.

I think the telephone game analogy works fairly well. You're just saying that there were many telephone games going on at the same time which underscores my point that the real version has been distorted many times simultaneously by many people. I'm aware that answering the question of who Jesus was is difficult if not impossible to answer unless we find more sources, but I think it is valid to point out that we don't really know who he was and that the information we have is heavily stylized.
Click to expand...

Oh sure, but that is'nt really a problem, and InFact given the silence we can learn some Things.

For example chances are he had a pretty ordinary upbrining, given the silence (had something Extreme happened they would have said it), given Our historical knowledge of life for a peasant in Galilee during that time we can basically figure out what his upbringing was like.

The Gospels are FILLED With Tanakh References, as well as his actions, so we can take those as a referance, as well as References to ordinary peasent life in parables.

As far as the consensus by men, that is total nonsense, the gospels were written early, taken from multiple Sources, and if you read the gospels they don't always agree, there is no consensus, thats why you have different accounts of the same event (different in details), also the gospels that were included are THE ONLY EARLY GOSPELS THAT EXIST .... (other than Thomas which is still later than John according to most scholars), the gospels were chosen because they were early, apostolic and used widely, not because of some consensus.

As far as the miracles leading to Jesus being profiled ... he is ... in the gospels, and Josephus, and Tacitus .... do you know how insane it is that a peasant prophet in Galilee is mentioned by Josephus, much less Tacitus? There were tons of Jewish prophets, and others, who had much larger movements and posed much greater threats to the Powers that be ... yet Jesus is mentioned.

You MUST compare Jesus to other figures in ancient history, not to what you think should be the case given modern standards, given standards in ancient history we have way more information than we should have given his status as a first Century Galilean peasant prophet.

As far as the skipping 18 years ... maybe it's because nothing interesting happened those 18 years, he wasn't well known, nor should he have been ... look at comparable famous prophets in ancient times ... who had a much larger impact (in their Lifetime) we know much more about Jesus.

As far as Jesus' ideologies, they arn't unique, they are very Jewish, they are exactly what one would expect given his jewish peasant upbringing infused With the torah, prophets and writings, Jesus was unique in some ways, but all of it can be explained given OT context.

Also it IS mentioned, they said he is the carpenter out of Nazareth, he was known as Jesus of Nazareth, he was known as the carpenters son.

It's not that there were many Telephone gavmes going on at the same time, it's that it was many Conference Calls With many many People. Is not a Telephone game at all, it's oral transmittion, one person tells 10, those ten tell others, that one person hears it again from someone else, who heard it from others, who heard it from multiple People ...

We have 5 or more Sources from the gospels as well as paul ... 6 Sources, including Tacitus and Jospehus we have 8 .... find me another figure in ancient history, much less a peasant from galilee With 8 Sources ... you won't find it.

As far as Jesus teachings not being all the uncommon, just read the OT prophets, read about other messiahs ..... read the macabees, pharisaic literature, Jewish apocalyptic literature he was unique in some senses (commitment to non violence for example), but it all fits in a Tanakh context.
 
RGacky3 said:
The Jesus Seminar is a joke in NT scholarship today, no one takes it seriously anymore. I would stick With serious scholarship, from Richard Bauckman and NT Wright to Bart ehrman and others, but the Jesus seminar is just a clown Group.
Click to expand...

Is the only reason you call them a joke because they disagree with you?
 
RogueWarrior said:
Is the only reason you call them a joke because they disagree with you?
Click to expand...

No, because no one take's them seriously in NT scholarship.

look at what the Jesus Seminar is, it essencailly is a comittee made up of some biblical scholars and many non biblical scholars, why are non biblical scholars there? And look at the criterium? They essencially say Jesus cannot have anything to do With the subsequent christianity or the prior Judaism, as if Christianity had nothing to do With the historical Jesus, or anything to do With Old Testament Judaism, as if Jesus wasn't actually a Jew.

I mean I could go into a long critique of the Jesus Seminar if you want, but it's already been done, this is why they are ignored these days in biblical scholarship. I mean the idiotic view that Jesus was somehow an illiterate Jewish peasant from Nazareth and yet influenced by Cynic philosophy (which wasn't even around in the area for at least 100-200 years) is just one example of the stupidities that the Jesus Seminar came up With.

Bart Erhman disagrees With me, but he's a serious scholar.
 
RGacky3 said:
No, because no one take's them seriously in NT scholarship.

look at what the Jesus Seminar is, it essencailly is a comittee made up of some biblical scholars and many non biblical scholars, why are non biblical scholars there? And look at the criterium? They essencially say Jesus cannot have anything to do With the subsequent christianity or the prior Judaism, as if Christianity had nothing to do With the historical Jesus, or anything to do With Old Testament Judaism, as if Jesus wasn't actually a Jew.

I mean I could go into a long critique of the Jesus Seminar if you want, but it's already been done, this is why they are ignored these days in biblical scholarship. I mean the idiotic view that Jesus was somehow an illiterate Jewish peasant from Nazareth and yet influenced by Cynic philosophy (which wasn't even around in the area for at least 100-200 years) is just one example of the stupidities that the Jesus Seminar came up With.

Bart Erhman disagrees With me, but he's a serious scholar.
Click to expand...

Strange you would assert a critique has been done without linking to it.
Not that I doubt one has been done.
 
Last edited:
RogueWarrior said:
Strange you would assert a critique has been done without linking to it.
Not that I doubt one has been done.
Click to expand...

Because the critiques are not links, they are published books, and scholarly articles, if you want I can track Down the books and link them, or I can find scholarly consensus on the Jesus Seminar findings.

The thing is I have the assumption that if someone talks about the Jesus Seminar that they'd know something about Historical Jesus studies. But if you doubt me I can find links and Sources and so on .... but not even a atheist popularizer like Bart Ehrman takes the Jesus Seminar seriously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom