It's been an oft asked question, but I shall ask it here, and try to gain a measure by offering out some broad options. Options to follow...
After some thought, I went for 'A sort of allegory in man form, to reflect a feeling of the time?' The Romans were THOROUGH record keepers. OCD they were. They were esp OCD enough to log the details of those that they crucified, yet there is not one piece of documented evidence to supports the crucifixtion of Jesus, thus, the most likely explaination is that he probably did not exist, least not in the form of a single man, but maybe more as a focal point story, for an idea. My next best thought would be that he possibly tried to establish a religion or movement that was simply seen as a threat to the ancient Hebrews of the day, and we all know how those religous people just love a spot of torture, lest someone dare contradict them, or go one further, and do their own thing. I suppose it could also be argued that he may have merely been what today we would call a high profile political activist, of a sort, with a clearly defined philosophy that was quite a nusiance to the rich and to the ancient Hebrews. The Romans were more or less like a police force in that region, of the time, in all truth, they probably would not have bothered much with Jesus at all, unless action had been demanded and influenced. Of course, none of us can say for sure, I think the least probable is that he was the spawn of a terrestrial women and a supernatural entity. I think that bit has been made up, to be honest. It's possible that his own followers believed it, maybe not, but even if they did, this would not evidence that was he was. Just that they believed it.
I would say Jesus was a Jewish teacher who followed Jewish customs and had Jewish followers, but whose words were distorted and invented by different sects of those who claimed to be his original followers after his death.
This is pretty much what I believe to, but I'm willing to change my mind if someone has more info. I just wasn't sure where it'd go, 2, 4 or 6.
'Other' Jesus was just an ordinary guy, who was good to his neighbors and who had compassion, and tried to right the wrongs in the world. He was someone everyone looked up to because he was wise and worldly. He was greatly respected among his peers. But then someone went wrong because he started insisting he was King of the Jews or something. I don't know what option I would have picked for that, so I just selected the 'Other' option.
So, why do you think Jews conspired and essentially manipulated the Romans to have him crucified, if in fact, that did happen of course? There is also this, which I will chuck out there, for discussion.. Benjamin H. Freedman, Jewish Historian - Researcher - Scholar. From "Common Sense", p. 2-1-53 and 5-1-59 JESUS WAS NOT A Jew Jesus was a 'Judean', not a Jew. During His lifetime, no persons were described as "Jews" anywhere. That fact is supported by theology, history and science. When Jesus was in Judea, it was not the "homeland" of the ancestors of those who today style themselves "Jews". Their ancestors never set a foot in Judea. They existed at that time in Asia, their "homeland", and were known as Khazars. In none of the manuscripts of the original Old or New Testament was Jesus described or referred to as a "Jew". The term originated in the late eighteenth century as an abbreviation of the term Judean and refers to a resident of Judea without regard to race or religion, just as the term "Texan" signifies a person living in Texas. In spite of the powerful propaganda effort of the so-called "Jews", they have been unable to prove in recorded history that there is one record, prior to that period, of a race religion or nationality, referred to as "Jew". The religious sect in Judea, in the time of Jesus, to which self-styled "Jews" today refer to as "Jews", were known as "Pharisees". "Judaism" today and "Pharisaism" in the time of Jesus are the same. Jesus abhorred and denounced "Pharisaism"; hence the words, "Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites, Ye Serpents, Ye Generation of Vipers". (Exert) http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jesusjew.htm
The answer to this is simple: it was the Romans who had the power of state execution and who were the ones who crucified Jesus. The Gospel accounts of the execution are erroneous and make little sense in light of other historical sources. Pontius Pilate, in fact, was known to be a particularly brutal man who would execute people for anything that caused too much of a stir. Jesus' apocalyptic interpretation's of traditional Jewish texts and his claim that God was the "King of Kings" landed him into the tyrannical hands of Pontius Pilate. The entire story of the Sanhedrin who decided that Jesus was to be crucified is probably an invention of tradition. ...except Jesus is exactly what we would consider a modern day Jewish man! He frequently quoted the Torah, admonished his followers using the Hebrew scriptures, and died a Jew. He referred to the God of the Torah as his "father" and prayed to him frequently. Now, is it very possible that Jesus interpreted the Jewish scriptures differently than many in his time? Yes. But the way he did was no unheard of, he was not the first to use the Jewish scriptures in a way to pit supernatural forces of good and evil against one another; the Dead Sea Scrolls also hold this interpretation. Though there are many Roman, and perhaps Zoroastrian, elements to the stories about Jesus; don't be mistaken, Jesus was a devout Jewish teacher.
Chinese whispers/telephone game. Since what was written about Jesus was written decades to hundreds of years later who the (*)(*)(*)(*) knows what the truth is. Imagine if all we had to go on Napoleon was written today by people who had kept alive an oral tradition. No one in their right mind would believe any of it.
Wow I didnt think anyone would answer since their name is attached to what they answer Now, people are subject to being tied to something
Nonsense - Jesus couldnt have been a Jew and also son of a god . Go find out what Judaism is about and Jews think. ......
Correct. All we can do is use reason, logical, and critical thinking. And in applying all three, we may conclude that Jesus was not the offspring of a supernatural entity, and a human female, that being Mary. Of all the explainations to his origins, that is logically the least likely. Moreover, if we apply those three core principles, the most likely thing is that he was a terrestrial man, in every sense of the word, and the most likely explaination for the ascention and miracles, are that they were made up. However, as far as I am aware, it is part of Christian doctrine, that those who do not accept Jesus as the son of god, and who do not accept his divinity are 'doomed'. This would include most certainly, all Jews, since by definition, religous Jews absolutely reject Jesus as the son of god, the 100% do not attach any divinity to Jesus. Interestingly enough, and something not often told, is that the Koran does in fact accept Jesus as a prophet, they do in face believe in the whole immaculate conception thing, and they actually mention Jesus positively, on many occasions in the Koran. Jack
Why should people fear voting, and letting people know which way they did? They are not 'subject' to being tied to anything, per se, at most they may be asked to elaborate on their position. After which some may agree or disagree. Jack
You're on the right track ,Jack. Its consistant with much of what I've been reading lately. Consider this : "Jesus being hungry went to a fig-tree to gather figs, though the season of figs was not yet come. Of course there were no figs upon the tree, and Jesus then caused the tree to wither away. - (Ouch ) This is specially interesting as a problem for a true orthodox trinitarian who will believe, first, that Jesus was God, who made the tree, and prevented it from bearing figs; second, that God the all-wise, who is not subject to human passions, being hungry, went to the fig-tree, on which he knew there could be no figs, expecting to find some there; third, that God, the all-just, then punished the tree because it did not bear figs in opposition to God's eternal ordination. Hmmm. Ripleys believe it or Not > ...
Thought. It's a bit of an aside, but let's see where it takes us. Based on facts, as they are in 2012. When 'Israel' declared it's own statehood, so followed the so called 'right of return'. It did not matter if you had never been to the region before (return?), or that you knew nothing about the region, its people, or its culture, it did not matter if you could not speak Hebrew, or knew no one there. As long as you are Jewish you have this immoral 'right of return'. All to do with this notion that all of World Jewry can trace their bloodline back to that region, and that even if it was 3000 years ago, no matter, they have the right to return. Even if they have to steal and kill to do that. Jesus was apparently not much into stealing and killing, but the Hebrew god of the OT loved it, and often engaged in genocidal acts. Anway, I digress. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all were spawned from that region of the world. Does it then follow, using the rationale of the Jewish 'right of return', that Christians across the entire world can also lay claim to a right of return, given that they also originated from this region? I personally don't think Jews who have never been to that region, should have a right to anything there, while a Palestinian who was displaced cannot even come back to visit. However, to run with their rationale, all Christians must also have a moral right to return to that region. Maybe they could displace the Zionists, and rebrand Israel. Zionist could be isolated into tiny pockets surrounding, and be subject to check points and permits, most of which get refused. And, of course, any Zionist disssent would be seen as an obviosu act of terror and Jesus hate.
