Do Liberal Christians still believe in an historical Jesus?

[Finder]

I have noticed in the last week many posts by those who call themselves liberal Christians, an almost literalist view of Christianity and an obsession with doctrine and dogma. Is the term "Liberal Christian" just a label adopted by the cafeteria crowd? In this day and age of access to information and education and access to books, are there still progressives who believe in a historical basis rather than mythical basis of the philosophy/religion known as Christianity?

I would love to hear from Christians on DU that still hold this view. In particular, why they believe the philosophy is based on fact. For now I will assume they never had the opportunity or found the need to research the religion passed to them from their families. One can not be tolerant of others unless they understand the roots of the other's beliefs and of their own. It appears spirituality and religion are used interchangeably on here and it is causing undue misunderstandings.

[BeyondThePale]

1. Jesus Christ...

Why is the world (especially America) so obsessed with fairy tales and mythology when their are real problems in the world?

Flame away...

[hfojvt]

4. and your post/ thread on one of these problems is where? n/t

[Anarcho-Socialist]

2. I am technically not a Christian (I'm a Unitarian Universalist)

I do believe that there was a historical figure called Jesus who lived in Palestine in 0-35 CE.

Where my views differ from Christians is that I don't happen to believe that Jesus was God incarnate or God's actual son, or that he came back to life a couple of days after his execution.

I certainly respect those who are true Christians though. Jesus had a lot of great things to say, especially about access to religion and social justice.

[Finder]

7. Why do you believe he existed at that time?

That said, I am sure there were tons of men named Jesus in that area and era.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

53. There are accounts written a generation or so after his

death that do seem to point to someone called Jesus in Palestine at the time that was making the local Roman and Jewish oligarchies very uncomfortable. I see Jesus as an activist figure (in a similar sense as what Ghandi was). Indeed, Jesus was a common name and could have been a composite of many different people or just that one remarkable man. I believe there is enough for me to believe that there was this historical figure there.

[CoffeeCat]

9. Questions for you...

Thanks for laying out your views.

You seem to have put a great deal of thought into your religious beliefs and I was wondering...

You said that you believe Jesus existed, but that he was not the son of God.

The Bible says that Jesus is the Son of God, and also that Jesus proclaimed that he was the Son of God. Do you believe that Jesus said this, and that he was wrong/mistaken/lying? Or, do you believe that Jesus probably never claimed he was the son of God in the first place?

I'm working all of this out in my own head, and I'd like to hear your thoughts...(thoughts from anyone welcome!) :)

[Finder]

Son of Man is what I read...

although I am not the poster you are asking to answer.

[magnussun]

25. Son of Man

The Son of Man is Jesus when he was here, since He was born of a woman. The Son of God is Jesus resurrected.

M

[LostinVA]

42. I think only the Johnian lit has him saying he's the Son of God

And the Johnian lit is very suspect for a number of reasons. Any theologians here want to help out my aging brain cells?

[H2O Man]

78. "Son of Man"

actually has a very literal meaning that is important to know when discussing Jesus. It meant mankind's representative to God. Thus, Jesus was not saying he was "a God," and surely not "thee God." Rather, in calling himself the Son of Man, he was using a term that meant he was modeling behaviors for other humans. Jesus taught in terms of guidelines to help people reach their best potential, not as an angry patriarch laying down strict rules.

There is another post that quotes a conversation between Jesus and a few of the disciples, and which uses the word "Christ." Of course none of those fellows used the word Christ, as it was not part of their language. It reminds me of the early colonials speaking about woodland Indian "kings." It's not a concept that fits.

[mmonk]

121. This is a style of writing call midras

which is a way of looking back in the Bible to give meaning to something that followed it.

[leanin_green]

39. Son of Man, yes, however. . .

when Jesus asked the diciples, ". . .Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, some say that you are John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
And Jesus ansered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." Matt. 16:13-17

If you hold to scripture for the facts, then he was the Son of God. However, so are we. "For know ye not that ye are little gods?" In every culture before the time of Jesus are the hero stories of the "god come to earth." Odin, nailed upon the tree of sorrows, is one example of many. This was a collective yearning and unconscious motif of the entire race of humantiy. The need for a hero of divine origin who became man and overcame/fulfilled life on earth and paved the way for to humanity to follow. That is why Jesus' story has resonated with so many cultures around the globe. It's a story they all somehow know. Jesus embodied this myth in the flesh and more. We can debate whether he was a historical figure all day, but the fact remains, history has changed even unto the calendar, ie., BC/AD. Whether or not he was historical or not is irrelevant. Either way, we have to deal with the results of his story on the rest of humanity, if you believe it to be true or not.

[Maraya1969]

27. My particular religion believes that we are all children of God

So, in that respect Jesus would the the son of God although he has billions of brothers and sisters.

I truly think that was what Jesus meant in the first place. Jesus told people NOT to worship him. Some Christians seem to forget that. The whole idea of being "Saved" by believing in Jesus is a negation of what he said.

[FreedomAngel82]

33. Exactly

He said several times he didn't want to be called teacher or rabbi etc. Of course now days you'd never would've guessed it.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

54. It's about interpreting what Jesus meant...

When Jesus stated that he was the "Son of God", it's hard to tell whether he's saying that he's only the one son of God, or just saying that all humans are "God's children". I can certainly see the second explanation as being viable in a philosophical sense, but the former explanation doesn't make sense to me.

In a basic scientific sense, it's possible that Jesus' claim of being son of God was attributed to him by someone else. It is also possible that Jesus was suffering from Bipolar Affective Disorder and suffered a distorted reality thereby he believed he actually had God-like powers and was the only son of God. It is possible that he really was the Son of God, which I don't happen to believe in but many Christians do (but I'm never going to truly know for sure until I die - unless there is nothingness like atheists suggest).

I suppose you can take your pick from this, but it's hard to define 'right and wrong answers' about Jesus since none of us really know for sure. I'm just looking at the evidence and making the judgment call the best I can.

[FreedomAngel82]

102. With that

we're all God's children through him with baptizing and becoming a Christian. Jesus was the real son of God which means he came directly from him soul wise and was incarnated here.

[Coexist]

77. You are working on the premise that we all accept that the bible is

telling the truth. As a former Christian, my problem is that a translation of a translation of eyewitness and secondhand accounts never cut it for me.

I don't believe the bible is a fully accurate historical account - more like a collection of peoples recollections, clouded by what they wished was true.

I can't think that Jesus was half-man half-deity any more that I can think that of Hercules. If most of the stories are true, then sure, they were good people, but not the way the truth and the light for me.

[magnussun]

22. The resurrected Christ is here for those who seek Him

I gave her a donation and got my shirts. They all fit perfectly. Other little things like that happened, and still happen. I have been praying for resolution to an ongoing family crisis (divorce causing friction between a father and daughter (who's my cousin). About a month after asking Jesus for help, my cousin and I, and she and her father, are on the right track. This, after many years of hatred. As stated before, Jesus took the racism out of me, in a matter of a few days! If you've never had racist feelings, you can't possibly understand how hard it is to overcome this destructive thought process. I can still look at racial issues and not blame the white man for everything, but the difference now is that hatred and bigotry plays no part in my thought process. With Jesus this is indeed possible.

Logically I can't explain my faith. I just know it in my heart. It's like any true love. It can't be explained logically. It is based on pure faith. You really have to know the love of God to understand it.

[Bill McBlueState]

47. you gave jesus a donation and got your shirts?

Am I missing something?

[LostinVA]

49. I think the poster left out something n/t

[FreedomAngel82]

32. With me

I do believe in Jesus and everything he was about. I do believe he was the son of God but I don't believe he was God himself in the flesh as some other's do. Why else would he call himself "father"? That doesn't make sense to me. Even though I do believe in everything I am also aware of reality and whatnot. It's my faith and you can't prove something like that because it was so many years ago. I know things have been changed with translations and whatnot but I admire him and think he was a great rabbi and he tried so hard to change things but I think he was unsuccessful which we can see today with the fundie's who obviously don't read their Bible.

[hfojvt]

3. I do believe in spooks, I do believe in spooks

I do, I do, I do believe in spooks.

Thus spoke the cowardly lion. Yes I believe in a historical Jesus, but it is not a core belief. I believe more strongly in the two commandments and the golden rule and find them to be sound moral teaching irregardless of whether there was or was not a historical Jesus.

Same with Socrates. Did he exist or was he a character that Plato made up? A less relevant question than the question "does what he is saying make any sense?"

[Finder]

6. A Philosophy for sure...but....

what do you base your belief that he was actual a historical figure on? That is the part that I find perplexing.

I agree with the comment about what he is purported to say making sense. That is what makes it a viable philosophy.

[magnussun]

16. Divine appointment

"what do you base your belief that he was actual a historical figure on? That is the part that I find perplexing."

I have prayed to many Gods in my life, to no avail. One day I prayed to Jesus, during a really tough time. I prayed that He take the hatred and racism from my heart after having been victimized years before by a black man. The stereotypical wise older black woman popped into my head during this prayer. An hour later, an older, wise black Christian woman (who had been the victim of racism herself) sat next to me on the bus- she cried with me and prayed for me. We poured our hearts out to each other. I know that Jesus arranged this meeting. The hatred left my heart, and so did the fear. She later relayed to me that she was having a difficult time understanding the racism she had experienced, and that my meeting with her helped her too!

This is what I base my faith on. He showed me He really is there and that He loves me.

M

[Maraya1969]

30. How do you know that the two black women weren't God?

Do you really think it matters that you prayed to Jesus and were relieved of you racism rather than another God?

Maybe you were just ready to let go of old worn out beliefs that caused you nothing but pain.

[LostinVA]

44. That's why this Pagan likes "Joan of Arcadia"

"God" (read: whatever deities you believe in) is everywhere and within everyone.

[hfojvt]

28. everything I believe is based on these little black marks

that are made on pieces of paper. I learn these shapes which I learn are called letters, and the letters form words, some of which I memorize to form my vocabulary.

Okay, I am being a smart-ass, but I do not understand the question. Any historical or geographical question is answered by books. Do I believe there is a Russell, Kansas? Yes. Why? Because it is listed in my road atlas. I have never been there, but I read about it.

There are books, thousands of books which say Jesus was a historical figure. I have not seen, nor read any, which claim he was not. Just because Josephus made no mention of him, does not prove anything. So how do you prove that someone wasn't there? If I write a book about my great-great grandfather based on stories my grandfather told me, is there any way to prove that they are not true? He died in 1929 so how are you going to find eyewitnesses who can remember what happened or did not happen a hundred years ago?

Anyway, I consider the question to be not important enough for me to even read a book about it, much less dig deeper.

[Finder]

35. So do you only read one source of news?

Is that not the problem today with society?

YOU SAID: "Anyway, I consider the question to be not important enough for me to even read a book about it, much less dig deeper."

Scary! Is that not the prob we see Freepers have? There is always more than one side to a story.

[hfojvt]

55. what is news?

I did not read any source about Schiavo, Jackson, Blake, Stewart, or BTK. Those stories are not important to me. Neither is the question of whether there was a historical Jesus. Wisdom can come from the mouth or mind of a fictional character. It is no less wise just because the character is fictional, the author and his/her inspiration are not. Since being fictional or historical is not going to make a difference in regard to the teachings of Jesus, why should I study it?

Getting news from once source is not necessarily a problem unless you think that CTJ and CBPP are just as full of crap and partisan spin as the Cato institute and the Heritage foundation are.

[FreedomAngel82]

34. There are

plenty of scrolls that talk about Jesus and people wrote about him and have the same sayings about him. Look at the gospel books for example. They all talked about the same person who did the same things. Just different view points. I think that's why those books were put in there because it's a way for us to know more about him. I remember watching on the history channel a special on the final book we know today and remember one woman saying how Mary Magdelene wrote a book but it didn't make it in. I guess cause she was a woman or something. Since she was close to Jesus I'd love to read that book. I'm sure she had some great things to say.

[hfojvt]

56. I have my doubts about that last part

it is likely that neither Jesus nor Mary Magdalene could write. It was not universally taught like today in the west, and paper and pens were not readily available like now either (much less keyboards, servers, and hard-drives).

[Finder]

58. Just Google Gnostic Gospels...

There are tons of writings from that period using the same characters. There is a good essay about Mary Magdalene being the author of the Gospel of John--good stuff.

[TahitiNut]

5. Both logos and mythos can convey 'truth.'

That does not mean that we should regard mythos as logos or vice versa.

[G_j]

38. good answer! n/t

[LostinVA]

46. Absolutely correct, Tahitinut

I also think that mythos can have a whole bunch of truth in it, even if it's not the literal truth.

[TahitiNut]

70. Who hasn't heard of Æsop's Fables?

:shrug: Do they really believe that the fox could talk? :dunce:

[LostinVA]

82. Ha! Excellent point! n/t

[Dogmudgeon]

8. Does it matter?

I can still enjoy Christmas music without having to believe in the literal existence of Santa Claus.

This era's rationalists AND religionists have gotten into a very bad habit -- demanding forensic proof for every damn thing they don't take a shine to. And philosophy just doesn't work that way.

--p!

[Finder]

12. Agree, however...

accepting a philosophy on its merits is different than accepting myths and dogma as truth. Does it not bother you that some actually believe in demons and Satan and hell?

[Dogmudgeon]

19. Sure

But we're back to the forensic fallacy again.

Our ideas of belief and disbelief have become legalistic. Many people think they absolutely, positively must not believe anything they can not prove with common forensic techniques. The very idea of absurdity, faith, or "taking a wild-assed guess" becomes a source of dread.

When people believe that things can hurt them that have no effect on them, they suffer as badly as those who are compelled to debate the existence of Jesus within their own head ... over and over ...

--p!

[magnussun]

10. Silly question!

Christ is the head of the Christian church, liberal or not. Of course we believe in a historical Jesus. We believe he died on the cross for our sins and was resurrected. If we didn't, we wouldn't be Christians.

M

[LostinVA]

50. I know several Christians who don't believe this anymore

However, they believe very much in the messages and words attributed to Jesus, and this is enough for them. To them it is a loving, life-affirming belief system. They try to emulate this message. I say, good for them! One ids bizarrely Catholic, two are UU, and one is a Liberal Quaker.

[stray cat]

11. Jesus was a historical figure - no historian doubts that.

You can choose to believe what you want about his deity but no one questions that he lived and his life led to a Jewish sect being formed no as Christians.

[Finder]

14. What historians?

Seriously, there is no proof that the founder of Christianity existed. All accounts are hearsay and from decades after the time he supposedly lived.

[CatholicEdHead]

20. There may be proof

like the tomb Jesus was in before the Resurrection. The poblem is that no non-Christian secular source is allowed on that hollow ground. The Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and one more religion refuse to give permission to enter below that hallow ground for a thorough study.

[Finder]

61. Untrue

Red Herring stuff.

[Dogmudgeon]

24. Such evidence is accepted for many other personages

The main extra-Biblical source of Jesus' existence is Josephus. And, like most other 2000 year old documents, it is easy to say, "well, that's a bogus document" or "that was added later on by the Church trying to prove Jesus' existence." And they're valuable rebuttals.

IIRC, there are a few other mentions of Jesus by historians and writes of the time, too. And these references can also be gainsaid.

The dispute over the existence of Jesus of Nazareth comes from limitations and problems in historical research. It has plagued historians and anthropologists for a long, long time. Many historical accounts are simply taken on faith -- the "good faith" that the historian who recorded the event or person wasn't lying.

In any situation, proof of existence and the power of a mythos are two different things. The "punch line" is that this compulsion for verification comes from the Christian churches themselves. The modern movement to falsify the existence of Jesus comes directly from it.

--p!

[madrchsod]

26. i know i am going to spell this wrong but

the Israeli chronicler Josephus wrote about Christ. one has to study the politics of these times to understand what was happening and why. a modern day example could be Mandela ,Gandhi,and King. in two thousand years they maybe prophets

[jbnow]

113. Who was the founder of Christianity?

Jesus was a Jew, he stayed a Jew.

[kineneb]

115. Paul, who never met Jesus

My favorite book on this topic is "The Mythmaker, Paul and the Invention of Christianity" by Hyam Maccoby. It should be called the "Pauline" church, since he invented a lot. And yes, Jesus was born and died a Jew.

[LostinVA]

48. Actually, many historians do doubt this

I'm not saying that proves anything one way or another, but many historians -- even Christian ones -- do doubt Jesus' literal existence. And, that doesn't make them negate the positive effects believing in Jesus' message has brought to their lives.

Again, if you believe, that is great. To me, this is just a discussion. I have great respect for anyone's faith, as long as they also respect mine. Faith should be a joy and a comfort and love-causing. That's how I wish everyone could be!

[ComerPerro]

13. I chose to believe that Jesus existed as a historical figure

I believe that a man lived during the time period who is as the Bible described Jesus Christ. I believe this because I value his teachings and it just seems likely that the man did exist. I even believe he was crucified as a heritic.

Was he the son of God? Was there a virgin birth? Did he perform miracles? IMO, we will never know.

But some of his values (the ones about helping other people, not about hating gay people and giving money to Pat Robertson) are too important to ignore.

[Finder]

17. I am sure many held the views stated as his.

That is what makes the teachings viable. Except for a few quotes, I agree with most of the teachings in the NT ascribed to him. Not the Pauline stuff though.

[FreedomAngel82]

36. In his language

wasn't his name Yunesha (sp?)? Have people looked under that name or just Jesus? Oh and speaking of gay people Jesus never spoke about gay people. He talked more about divorce which the rightwingers obviously ignore. Even Scarborough talked about that last night on Maher.

[LostinVA]

51. Anglicized, his name is "Joshua"

There is no such name as "Jesus."

[ComerPerro]

97. I know he never talked about gay people

That's why I mentioned it as being a fundie thing. I was just highlighting that I believe in a historical Jesus, and his teachings in the NT. Not the fundie Jesus who loves the rich and hates the poor.

[Dob Bole]

15. First, I'll address your underlying assumption...

"For now I will assume they never had the opportunity or found the need to research the religion passed to them from their families."

That is, in fact, a quite ignorant statement. Christianity was not passed on to me by my family...I was a Christian before others in my family and my beliefs are neither genetic nor imposed upon me despite the defenses of my willpower. I'm sure that countless millions of other Christians would say the same; you have erroneously classified Christians as zombie sheep before any debate has even begun.

As for the less presumptuous portions of your post- yes, I believe in that Jesus walked on earth. Is there surviving physical evidence from a 33-year period in a poor, backwater province of the Roman Empire that existed 2,000 years ago? Very little, unless you count things like the Shroud of Turin, which I believe to be a complete hoax.

On the other hand, there is a substantial amount of circumstantial evidence surrounding the life of Jesus and the accounts that were written about it. The first clue that these accounts weren't totally fictional is the presence of a lot of women. At that time, in that place, the word of a woman meant nothing. Women could testify neither in court nor in the Synagogue...yet many of Jesus' closest friends were women, he talked with and ate with "unclean" women, and women reported the news that his body was missing. If you are plotting to manufacture a popular religion, this is not the way to do it...any scribe at that time would know better...unless it were true.

In fact, unlike in other religions, the entire accounts of Jesus were anticlimactic. Jesus was not a mighty warrior-king who would lead people to victory...he advocated peace and subsequently got the shit kicked out of him. He was born a poor, unremarkable laborer. He didn't become an old wise philosopher like a Confucius or Gautama...he taught for 3 years. He hung out with every group of people imaginable, whether it was socially acceptable or not...even people who were ritually or ethnically "unclean."

The physical evidence of his disciples is perhaps stronger. Assuming that we would have greater proof of their existence, since many churches in Iraq, Asia, Rome, etc. claim direct lineage from them, why did they do it? If there were no Jesus, and his story was anticlimactic, why would they excitedly travel around the known world telling that story and getting their heads hacked off?

Because it was true.

[Finder]

29. Evidence of his disciples?

Could you please give me a link?

I don't feel Christians are zombie sheep at all. Literalists aside, many have never studied the enormous mountain of scholarship regarding the foundations and evolution of Christianity.

What you have posted is apologist information and not historical fact. Historical fact is what I am looking for here.

I think most of us realize Christianity came to power(as an orthodox, organized religion)in the 4th Century under Constantine. The many Jewish cults and messiah groups and gnostic cults thrived before that period in disorganized pockets. An empire thriving on pagan goddesses and gods could never have adopted a state religion that didn't have feminine elements or something to relate to widows and other females. Not to mention Constantine's mother was in charge of that side of things...

As far as those who adopt Christianity today, as I stated, I am curious why they did not verify the claims. I do realize that religion is a way to give hope and such(one of the postive attributes)but without researching, it does perplex me why someone would adopt a belief without researching the historical veracity of claims they will be required to defend.

[Dob Bole]

40. Yes.

First, you have moved to the fourth century and Constantine. That is an unnecessary move, since we were talking about the life of Jesus four centuries prior. Many Christians believe that it was the reign of Constantine and Christianity as a state religion, or "Christianity coming to power" as you put it, that began to hurt the religion, previously punishable by death.

Second, anything that I say could be classified as "apologist information," because you framed your questions/charges in such a manner that they inherently will cultivate responses...or "apologist information."

Third, I am a social scientist...but if you're perplexed as to why most people don't transform themselves in to research scientists...that's not very perplexing at all. It's mostly boring, life is short, and I'm sure there are many things that are more fun than what I do, and what you are suggesting that each Christian do. (Or each Christian literalist, though you seem to define literalist very broadly.)

Now on to the physical evidence of the disciples. In 1873, Archaeologist P. Bagatti unearthed ossuaries of early Christians on the Mount of Olives, including those of a "Simon Peter," "Shappira," and several inscriptions paying tribute to Yeshua, or Jesus.

Here are pictures. Not the best source ever, I'll admit...but for an Internet source, it'll do:

http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html

[Finder]

57. A priest...

His name is Bellarmino Bagatti. Don't know what the P is--maybe Padre?

As far as you being a "social scientist", WTF is that? Isn't that the term Fundies use?

Social science as far as sociology?

Again, any historical proof of the existance of Jesus or his disciples would be appreciated.

[Dob Bole]

59. I realize that you've already made up your mind...

However, I'd appreciate it if you addressed the four points in my last post, including the tombs of Simon Peter, Mary, Martha, and other disciples of Jesus.

Historian, third-world studies. And I'm not aware if fundies use the term "social scientist," although the ones who speak english are certainly capable.

[Finder]

68. Address points I cannot verify?

All I have to go on is the Campus Crusade for Christ site you link and no verification of the authenticity of these inscriptions. Surely a find like this in the 1950s would have been announced from the rooftops...

Like the James ossuary, perhaps they were proven forgeries,since I cannot find any archeological sources.

[quaker bill]

111. I found 491 hits on google

Perhaps you didn't try that.

[FreedomAngel82]

37. The same is

with me on choosing. I didn't have to choose. My mother's family weren't involved in the church when she was young and then when she was a pre-teen they started going and my dad's side were involved in the church all his life as far as I know and my brother and I were raised in the church. It was our decision to believe or not and keep going. Oh and also, just to be nitpicky, they believe it's true. Do they have proof it's true? Only they know. But they believe so strongly in it they're willing to die. That, to me, is true faith.

[seabeyond]

18. christ conscious lite

language and song thru son/sun

is my view and feel nowadays

of course much more in htis

[madrchsod]

21. well for what it is worth

christ did exist that is written.what he is credited for saying contain certain universal truths. as a politician he had create a belief that was contrary to both the roman and Israeli "religions" Christ ,Gandhi,King,Mandela,and many others are all prophets who try to lead people on a "righteous path"
several things are repulsive to me.one is that i am not a true christian in many people eyes and others i am some sort of "fanatic".two watching the orgy of the dead pope,seeing huge buildings dedicated not to christ but to those who go inside them and the worst of all the scum who inhabit the air waves.
christ and moses both "said" that the kingdom of heaven is within you,it is surrounding you always. if i am correct this is a universal belief in all "religions" since humans starting questioning their existence. spirituality and religion ,for me ,is the same...i try not to wear my religion on my shirt sleeve.

[Finder]

60. Do you believe the NT was the first time the ideas were written?

The universal truths were around way before the time the NT was written.

[LostinVA]

83. Many are Classical ideas

This doesn't mean the NT "twist" on them isn't viable, just that alot of them were universal truths.

[Inland]

23. Oh, good. More pure, unadulerated debate on the validity of religion.

Go the theology section. Some people can't resist.

[hecate77]

31. I believe he existed, but I don't believe he was 'Christ', just a teacher.

I believe that a person named Jesus existed, and that he was a great teacher (who learned most of what he taught in India), but I do not believe that he is the 'Christ' (or that there is one or will be one). So, I see him as another teacher, skin to Buddha and others. The current Christian churches have very little of his teachings at their core, being mostly concerned with Old Testament stuff, which has nothing at all to do with Jesus and his teachings. His teachings, as best I can determine are very simple. Love everyone, no killing. Now, that is no different than the teachings of other enlightened beings over the millenia, so I see no reason to elevate him over other teachers.

I see most Christian religions missing the point completely, even if they think of him as a special savior, because they hardly preach much of a message of love anymore, with all the exclusions, calling of others evil, trying to control other people's lives, and all that claptrap. I know there are many, many, many Christians, Moslems and Jews who are very good people, who love everyone and do no killing, but I do not believe that the organized churches reflect that. There are, of course, always exceptions to that.

Two that come to mind are the Unitarians and the Quakers, both of whom were very active in the sanctuary movement in the anti-war years of the 60s and early 70s. This is what Christianity ought to be about, not trying to punish gays, or punish women who get pregnant, or thinking war is a good thing, or trying to force others to believe as you do.

If your belief and practice are so good and correct, it will reflect in your life and others will come to you to ask you how you did it. As soon as you feel the need to force your religion on other people, you have already admitted that you have no faith and are not comfortable with your own beliefs.

[LostinVA]

52. If I remember correctly, he never called himself "Christ"

He considered himself a teacher, a uniter, a bringer of universal truths.

[hecate77]

100. Exactly my point. It was others who deified him in that way.

[LostinVA]

41. No -- that's why I had to leave Christianity

I was a very liberal Christian, but the more I read and studied, the more I doubted. First, in the divinity of Joshua/Jesus, then in the actual existence of him.

However, I hold no disdain or contempt for people that DO believe in him. The message attributed to him is great. I only hold disdain and contempt for people that twist and pervert that message.

[bush_is_wacko]

43. Yes, BUT MOST of us have learned to COMBINE science with biblical

"historical" "facts". You have to understand that to combine the two you have to be able to view the world from the point of view of those living in it at the time and their scientific level of knowledge.

Take for instance the recent tsunami. From the scientific perspective a human living 2000 years ago you can clearly see THAT would have been interpreted by them as a sign from God.

The tsunami disaster would have been an event every bit as big as the parting of the red sea, Noah's flood and on and on. They had no knowledge of tectonic plates or gravitational pulls and if they were living in those time it is likely they would have believed the WORLD had been swallowed up. there world WAS swallowed up! It would have taken any survivors months and months to locate or build a sound boat and sail long enough to find other "survivors" of the "great wave."

One bible story I really like to hit fundies with is the story of two brothers. One brother was a "hairy red man" the other was what we would consider ourselves "homosapiens" style man. Not much body hair. The "hairy man" was an excellent hunter and shepherd AND he was the first born son of the man. He was the fathers favorite son. The mans wife dislike the hairy son because he was the result of an adulterous relationship with the mothers servant. Anyway, the father grows old and blind and is on his death bed and wants to hand down his legacy to the HAIRY son. He dislikes the other son because he is lazy and spoiled, so he intends to cast him out. The mother overhears his plans and, realizing her opportunity, at this point dresses her regular white guy son in furs and sends him to his father to receive his blessing. The father gives his blessing to this son because he feels the hair, but then realizes he has given his blessing to the WRONG son when the son accidental thanks him and the father recognizes his voice. However, since the father has already given his blessing and passed down his worldly goods and the hairy son has been kept away. The father casts out the hairy son and dies.

(BTW, this is the most shortened version I can come up with, there are many more details that lend credence to my conclusion)

While reading this bible story, it has ALWAYS occurred to me that this ACTUALLY lends credence to the evolutionist version and nicely fits it in the package of creationism for the creationist. The red hairy son is homoerectus (the monkey our species is said to have evolved from) and the white smooth son is homosapiens. Horses, donkeys, and zebras are related to each other and they can produce offspring if they interbreed. Their offspring is often infertile though. Maybe interbreeding with red hairy man produced enough of those results that the continuation of the species was percieved as a problem. The bible NEVER mentions another red hairy man before or after that story.

Science is also discovering that it is quite likely that these two species, were BOTH human and existed on earth at the same time! Somehow WE emerged as the victors and became "the human race." it may have been because we had the ability to decieve and the "others" did not have that ability. The red hairy son NEVER decieved anyone. He was ALWAYS honest and kind, but never well liked.

MOST fundies don't even KNOW this story and if they do, they certainly have never thought about it enough to realize it CONFIRMS the likelihood of some form of evolution but every time I run across it i think it is the way evolution was explained by those without scientific knowledge to explain things. I find it highly likely the we did intermingle and we have all seen people who resemble "cavemen" more than they resemble us.

I can easily read the bible, believe in it's concepts, bekieve in evolution and science, AND call myself a Christan without ever feeling like I'm compromising any of my beliefs.

Sorry, I rambled too long to correct my spelling and it doesn't matter to the content anyway. I have learned to accept my imperfections. Sorry if it offends anyone.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

65. I've always been intrigued by those early passages in Genesis

"And there were giants in the earth in those days...and the sons of God married the daughters of men."

A couple of years ago, there was an article in the Scientific American or Discover (I subscribe to both) about excavations of Neanderthal sites in the Middle East.

One of the archaeologists figured out that Neanderthals and modern humans must have coexisted in the Middle East for some unknown length of time, because there were relics of both Neanderthals and homo sapiens from roughly the same period.

The Neanderthals had a different musculature than we do and would have seemed to have superhuman strength, according to the article. When I read that, I wondered, "Could those be the 'giants' referred to in Genesis?"

And could "the sons of God marrying the daughters of men" refer to modern homo sapiens capturing and sexually using female Neanderthals? The apparent example of hybridization found in Portugal suggests that there was some interbreeding.

We can't always discount ancient stories as pure invention. When white settlers first came to Oregon, the local Indians told them that Crater Lake had been formed by a mountain exploding. The settlers laughed at the story, but years later, geologists proved that local tribes had preserved the memory of that cataclysm for 7,000 years.

Even more striking is the origin myth of the Delaware tribe. They say that they came from a land where it was always winter, south, across some mountains where the snow never melts. Now considering that the Delaware were in...Delaware and Pennsylvania (four seasons and no snow-capped mountains) when the first Europeans arrived, and considering the prevailing theory that the Native Americans came from Siberia thousands of years ago, that origin myth is verrrrry interesting.

[bush_is_wacko]

69. See how easy it is for me to reconcile biblical "mythology" if you will

to scientific evidence? If you think long enough and hard enough the bible makes PERFECT sense!

[entanglement]

116. Can't help pointing something out

"...modern homo sapiens capturing and sexually using female Neanderthals..."

Whether or not such events actually occurred, this shows just how important the perspective of the historian is. I wonder if a male historian would ever investigate events with such a perspective. I can't help but think historians are missing important chunks of history because they're not even looking for them. This is why diversity in history is so important, IMHO.

[Cleita]

45. This question can't be answered.

Many liberals do and many don't. It really is a religious not a political matter and neither should infringe upon the other.

[quaker bill]

62. yes many of us do

Faith is not a philosophy. To call it such is condescending.

I am a Christian and a scientist well trained in evolutionary biology, one does not conflict with the other.

By the way, I became a scientist first and became a Christian later, and do not follow the faith passed on to me by my parents.

[Finder]

75. Not condescending...

The doctrine(according to the fundies) says you must believe the bible is literally true. Evolutionary biology and the bible do in fact conflict.

Why in hell would a scientist become a Christian? Unless you are Catholic(which does allow evolution to be taught).

[MollyStark]

99. Only Catholics allow evolition to be taught?

Where did you get that idea?

[quaker bill]

108. The world of faith is broader than you imagine.

As the handle suggests, I am a Quaker.

We have a 350 year Christian based tradition and biblical literalism is not a part of it.

Quakers have no problem with evolution, physics or any other field of intellectual endeavor for that matter.

We hold the Bible to be a source of truth, but by no means the only one. We understand the primary source to be the experience of the spirit working in our lives everyday. This is the standard of truth against which all others are measured.

I became a Christian because it made sense empirically.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

63. Yes, there is no reason not to believe in a historical Jesus

He is at least as well documented as Socrates (who is known only from Plato's writings) or any other historical figure who wasn't a king or public official.

People who say that there's no independent proof of the existence of a real person behind the stories of Jesus are correct in one sense, but almost nobody from that era can be proven to have existed with the exception of Romans like Pontius Pilate and rulers like Herod. The lives of ancient people were not as documented as ours are, and Jerusalem has gone through so many episodes of destruction and changed hands so many times that the survival of any documentation of anything at all is a mere coincidence.

Anyone who says that there should be contemporary eyewitness documentation of Jesus aside from the Gospels is projecting our times back to ancient times. Most people weren't educated, Jesus was not the only itinerant preacher around (cf. John the Baptist), and nobody had the faintest idea that Jesus' disciples were going to found one of the world religions.

I've seen skeptics on DU say that there should be records' of Jesus' trial and crucifixion. I'd like to ask them whether there are records of the trial of anyone who was crucified at Pilate's orders. (We know from Roman records that he was recalled from Judaea for excessive cruelty, which, given the way the Romans were, means that he must have been extraordinarily savage.)

This is hard for modern people to get through their heads, but the same is true of medieval Japan: documentation that we THINK should be there just isn't, simply because rival samurai armies were constantly trashing everything.

So, in sum, I see no reason not to believe in a historical Jesus.

[LostinVA]

66. There were most certainly extensive records kept by Pilate's gov't

The Romans were meticulous record keepers. That's how we know so much about things. However, a large fire burned most of Pilate's archives. I've read several good books the last few years about Pilate, and what little is known of his reign. Apparently, he was a pretty bad bureaucrat -- Rome recalled him, which was basically a sacking.

[Finder]

79. No reason?

It escapes me how anyone can worship someone they see no reason in verifying.

Trials were documented. The fact that historical figures were used to boost the credibility of the character should at least lend a hint. The Roman Empire was not a backwater tribal village.

There were census taken of, taxes paid by, and documentation on all citizens.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

90. Records were kept--as they were in medieval Japan

but they did not survive.

Jerusalem (which is where any such records would have been kept) was sacked and burned in 70AD, just as Kyoto was many times through Japanese history.

If Pilate sent copies of his records of proceedings to Rome (they would have had to be copied by hand in those days) and if they survived (iffy, since Rome was sacked and burned a couple of times, too), then we have proof positive. However, I assume that Pilate's records remained in Jerusalem (for the sake of the next procurator) and that they were lost.

Really, if you haven't tried to find out the truth about some distant historical event, then you have no idea how much information ISN'T there.

[LostinVA]

94. I said this in two posts

That Pilate's records were destroyed. That's what makes this kind of questions o frustrating for everyone. Ancient historians wrote about Atlantis, too. Did it exist? Didn't it? ARRGGH! It would be cool to know!

[quaker bill]

110. There are records at least 1600 years old that suggest he existed

Are you suggesting that there is a complete and accurate Roman record from 2000 years ago that successfully rebutts the argument?

While you are free to suspect otherwise, I don't believe you can ever prove your assertion of non-existence. The lack of proof that something existed is just that, it is not proof of non-existence. A scientific mind would understand this.

I need no further proof to satisfy my curiosity and have no interest in disuading you of your opinion.

[LostinVA]

85. By this argument, King Arthur existed, and I don't think he existed

I do, however, personally believe there is a much better chance of the Historical Jesus having existed.

I took a class in college taught by Barnes Tatum, who wrote a book on the search for the historical Jesus. I'm giving him a plug, because it was an interesting book and class. Basically, he proved that there was very little proof of him having lived, but that the truths he was said to have taught were everlasting and life-fulfilling. I think that if you believe in these truths, and believe Jesus is the one that brought you to them, then you are a Christian. Whether or not Jesus ever actually walked the Earth.

[LostinVA]

86. Dupe

Crazy browser today.

[realFedUp]

64. I believe in the historical and living Jesus

Maybe you can't wrap your brain around the
resurrection or more, but you might understand that
whatever happened changed history for the
next 2,004 years.

I believe in the living Jesus who transforms
all of us.

I of course believe in the historical Jesus
who protested the occupation of Rome and its
hired minions, the taxation of the poorest
to build temples to the Roman "gods", who
reached out to empower the weakest, men
and women alike (which was quite radical then)
who advocated peaceful means to overturn
Roman empire. There are a lot of similarities
between Roman empire and American empire now...

-widening gap between rich and poor
-dropping levels of literacy (keeping people stupid was way to gain control and religiously fervent)
-taxation paid for bread and circuses (gee, we certainly have those distractions)
-external barbarism (torture camps worldwide)
-regard enemy as "others"
-overextended military and budget
-middle class disappearing
-education not relevant to salvation
-increase in mysticism and belief in knowledge by revelation
-invasions for resources

[LostinVA]

67. Please don't put "gods" in quotes

I was raised a Christian and am now Pagan, and I absolutely respect your beliefs. I would NEVER write "God" or "Christ" or "Saviour." So, please respect those of us on the board who are various traditions of Paganism. They are quite a few of us, and the majority of us respect your beliefs. Even though I don't believe in the Roman deities, I do believe in deities akin to them.

Thanks!

[LostinVA]

71. Also, we don't HAVE to wrap our brains around the Resurrection

They aren't our beliefs. All we should be expected to do are to respect your beliefs, and I personally do. All I ask is for everyone on DU to likewise respect mine.

I don't believe in The Resurrection, and I believe the Historical Jesus may or may not have lived. There is no conclusive proof. However, that doesn't negate the message of salvation attributed to him. It's a GREAT message. That's just my belief. But, I believe my beliefs are just as valid as yours, and for all those who have studies the Gospels (like myself), Jesus would say I was going to Heaven.

[mmonk]

72. I think there was

a Jesus of Nazareth with a later overlay of mythic influences including the god Mithras. I believe the Talmud mentions him (am I not correct?) as well as a pagan source.

[LostinVA]

74. There is a LOT

of Pagan overlay in the whole Biblical story period, not just the Gospel story, and oodles more in the early Church. Again, there may have been an historical Jesus, I honestly don't know, but the Virgin Birth is a classic Pagan archetype. For those who believe in the Virgin Birth: I'm not saying it didn';t happen, I'm just saying it is a Pagan archetype that shares something with Christianity.

[orpupilofnature57]

76. Are parable's pagan?

[LostinVA]

81. Of course!

All Classical writers were Pagan, and many used parables and other type of metaphors. Many of these societies knew of one another, and traded with one another. That trading often included traditions, literature, stories, etc. They borrowed and also plagiarized, just like alot of modern authors and thinkers!

[mmonk]

120. That was put in to elevate his staus (show his greatness)

It wasn't meant to be literal but as time grew and the religion was spread to the pagan world, it took on a different context. If you read about (Augustus Ceasar I believe), his birth account was he was born of a virgin and was the saviour of the world as well. The Bible wasn't meant to be literal in its time, so its funny people in the 21st century take it literally.

[orpupilofnature57]

73. Sure, just not a Hysterical Church!!!

Jesus, constantly warned against those who would use his name, and haughty attitudes.

[funflower]

80. There's little doubt that the man existed

liberal followers of Jesus of Nazareth allow that good people may have differing interpretations of his life and message and alleged miracles.

[supernova]

84. I believe in an Historical Jesus

who protested Roman occupation in the manner of Gandhi. I see no reason not to. Like other xtians here, I'm aware that record keeping in those days was not the best. Besides, even if they were, you are not likely to find records of one obscure carpenter. He was an everyday laborer, not important enough to have a scribe follow him around, recording his "heroic" deeds for the ages as was done for kings and conquerors.

I believe in his message of acceptance, equality, and love for all people. The equality part is borne out in his attention to women and children. Not typical nor even admired behavior in your typical first-century Jewish man.

I'm agnostic on the who Messiah deal. The ideal that God created a world only to trash it save for those who want to be "saved" isn't logical to me. Though I fully honor his sacrifice to the cause. It has given people pause for 2000 years. I think this creation, the one we know, is basically good. It is imperfect though, and it is our job, indeed our duty, to help build creation. That is the task we are given by God.

To sum up, I'm a liberal potically, and a liberal theologically.

[LostinVA]

88. Record keeping WAS the best -- Rome was probably much

better than the US Government is at record-keeping. However, most of Pilate's archives were destroyed in a fire. I always wonder if he was trying to hide the extent of his ineptness, since Rome basically fired him because he was such a bad employee!

[supernova]

92. Well, that's entirely possible

How inept do you have to be to get kicked out of Rome?

Rome was probably much better than the US Government is at record-keeping.

I repeaat, even if they were, some rabble-rouser in the back country hinterlands of the empire, wouldn't have warranted much documentation.

I'm preety sure Pilate had every reason not to let his superiors he was letting some guy on a donkey become more popular than he.

[LostinVA]

95. Probably really inept

The Romans were usually good bureaucrats.

No, there would have been records of his trial and sentence. There were of others similar to Jesus in other areas at the same time. It's a moot argument anyway, and I'm not arguing about this: the records were destroyed, but there would have been records.

[tjdee]

87. I think he was historical.

I believe records from that time, about a Jewish man living outside of Rome who only practiced for three years, would be pretty scarce. I don't know that there is absolute proof, but I believe that if you cobble together the circumstantial evidence from Tacitus, Josephus, Thallus' account of the eclipse (supposedly and which I believe to be the crucifiction)....with all of the writings in the NT, you come up with as much reason to believe he existed as...Homer, say.

[LostinVA]

89. I feel like such a contrarian today: Homer probably didn't exist!

Many historians believe that Homer -- at least Homer of the Iliad --didn't exist as HOMER, but was either someone else or a group of people. One account I read thought Homer was a woman.

Ancient history can be sooo exasperating, eh?

[tjdee]

123. Yeah, it is, LOL.

I mean, scholars aren't 100% on Shakespeare either!

So this whole...did Jesus exist question is similar to asking whether Homer did, or Shakespeare, or any person not a major political figure.

If we're going to talk about Homer, or Shakespeare as if they really existed, I'm unsure why Jesus seems to stick in people's craw or whatever. I accept all three, LOL.

[bertha katzenengel]

91. I think a historical Jesus existed a lot more than I think that person was

God.

My thinking Jesus existed isn't based on fact because of course there is no actual evidence that an individual man named Jesus Christ lived & died. I think he existed "because the bible tells me so" -- not as the word of got but as a book that recorded some history.

[Jose Diablo]

93. I am a liberal

And I believe there was a man, we call Jesus, that was also the Word of God, made flesh. God spoke things into existence, thus the Word was also God.

Thus, Jesus was/is God.

[orpupilofnature57]

96. Amen, I believe. and I don't judge.

[MollyStark]

98. I don't see how that is any of your business.

I am liberal and Christian. The fine details are not for you to judge.

.............and your definition of what a liberal Christian is sucks.

[BeyondThePale]

101. He must be real...

I mean the powers-that-be (Church, Governments, etc.) told us he is real! They wouldn't lie to us.

Why, imagine our government trying to tell us that Iraq had WMDs... no chance that people in power would create stories just to control the masses!

[orpupilofnature57]

104. Don't pin Shrub * +* on Jesus.

[QC]

105. What an extraordinarily bad analogy!

It's so egregiously illogical and McCarthyistic that it has a strange sort of beauty about it.

[BeyondThePale]

112. McCarthyistic? Oh, heavens...

Believe or don't believe in whatever you want. But don't tell me that you are so naive that you don't believe that organized religion would manipulate information six-ways-from-Sunday to control the masses. Happens everyday my friend. Whether there was a real Jesus or not is a trivial point compared to the horrors that have been done in his name.

And yes, I respect that many people find comfort in Jesus' teachings. I find inspiration in literature, art, relationships, etc all the time. But I don't need to invoke supernatural and metaphysical dogma to make it relevant in my life.

Do you really believe that you need the supernatural trappings to be a good and moral person, and for the world to have meaning? Yes, love thy neighbor... but do you really need angels and devils and pie in the sky to make it meaningful?

[QC]

114. Yes, McCarthyistic.

Attempting to tie liberal Christians to those who mindlessly repeat the GOP line is nothing if not McCarthyistic.

As for the other stuff, maybe you will find someone who wants to discuss it in the religion forum, which is the proper place for threads like this one.

[orpupilofnature57]

124. Ride on!!! Now, how do we tie Kkkarl in with McCarthy? So the ? %

Wont get fooled again.

[thecai]

103. I Believe in Jesus

aka Yeshua

[DanCa]

106. Jesus Christ existed

And he weeps for those who doesnt practice he first commandment love thy neighbor, supports premeptive warfare, lets sick children suffer without hospital insurance, and wont help the poor. How can anyone support George W and call himself a christian is beyond me after all W bombs the middle east the birthplace of Jesus himself.

[Pepperbelly]

107. Of course there WAS an historical Jesus ...

Roman historians were pretty clear about that.

Google Tacitus for starters. He indicated that Jesus was executed during the reign of Tiberius, while Pontius Pilate was procurator of Judea. He also indicated that there were enough followers of Jesus to be persecuted by Nero in CE 64.

Suetonius tells us similar things. Pliny, a Roman official, also took official note of the movement very early on. Even the Talmud in Sanhedrin 43 refers to the death of Jesus.

The most famous of all ... Josephus ... extensively documented Jesus in Antiquities.

[onager]

117. One mention is "extensively documented?"

Excuse me, but you're spouting absolute nonsense here. It sounds like you're quoting from hurriedly-viewed religious websites and haven't looked at the sources yourself.

There is exactly ONE...count 'em, ONE...alleged mention of Jesus Christ in Josephus. Even my copy of Josephus' Collected Works calls it a forgery...and my copy was edited by those cranky atheists at Fuller Theological Seminary.

Here it is, from "Antiquities of the Jews," Book 18, Chp. 3, Sec.3. It is sandwiched in between a long account of Pontius Pilate provoking a riot over a water pipe, and some juicy gossip about Roman Jews visiting the Temple Of Isis:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call hima man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and manyof the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved himat the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold there and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day."

That's it. ONE paragraph. Josephus wrote a lot more than that about Pontius Pilate.

There are several problems with that passage, which you can find with a google search for "Testimonium Flavinium."

One of the most glaring: the passage didn't appear until the Fourth Century CE, in "Ecclesiastical History" by Eusebius.

The earlier church fathers certainly knew about Josephus, but not one of them bothers to mention that passage for 400 years. Not Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, etc.

Another glaring problem, of course, is that Flavius Josephus was born Jewish and lived most of his life as a Pharasaic Jew, one of the most conservative branches. If he had written that Jesus was the Messiah, he wouldn't have been considered a Jew any longer.

The other "extensive" mentions from Suetonius and Tacitus are not extensive at all and have their own big problems.

[Pepperbelly]

118. Excuse me but ...

I am not spouting nonsense nor does anything I wrote justify the sarcasm dripping from your reply.

Let us break this down quite simply for you. Contemporaneously, to the Roman historians, Jesus was a very minor religious teacher/leader in a backwater province of very little importance to Rome. Yet they did see fit to mention him.

I do not know about you but I suspect that I have not personally been mentioned by any historians, much less those from foreign nations mso no mention at all would not be farfetched. I submit that, except for Popes, the only religious leaders noted by historians in our times have been those responsible for tragedy.

The fact that this Jesus person is mentioned at all is amazing.

[KittyWampus]

109. Read Patanjali's Yoga Aphorisms. There Have Been, Are & Will Be A Few

exceptional humans who will become Masters.

Jesus was one such Master.

[w4rma]

119. Yes. (nt)

[DoYouEverWonder]

122. I believe in an historical Jesus

I just don't believe in a supernatural one.

There are too many documents that have been discovered in the last 50 - 100 years that numerous people wrote about Jesus and his teachings. They are all consistent in that they seem to be referring to one specific person.

All the supernatural stuff came later when Saul became Paul and blended the Jesus story with the story of a pagan god named Mithras.