I personally don't care who he really was. I am only interested in the overall impression he gave, which to me was one of individuality. The impression I get is that he flew in the face of every ridiculous tradition and prejudice, and for that I admire him, whether he was a real man or a fictional character dreamed up by someone who longed to see those kinds of changes.
Who was Jesus really?
by Spectrum 55 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
tetrapod.sapien
i vote for #4.
TS
-
Spectrum
welcome dreamspinn,
You haven't insulted anyone you'll soon realise why. God the Almighty can do anything but I don't think he would let jews and romans mistreat him and nail him to a pagan cross until he is dead. There is more than one way to skin a cat as far a God is concerned.
Midget-Sasquatch,
"How's about another option? That Jesus was a person like you and me, but who was so attuned to the spiritual side and to divinity, that God chose to interact with humanity through him?"
Then he is just another prophet like the rest of them. This is the kind of person the Jews were actually waiting for but he wrong footed them when he rejected the yolk of the Law. Good on him.
acadian,
What point do you want to make?
atypical,
"I personally don't care who he really was. I am only interested in the overall impression he gave, which to me was one of individuality. The impression I get is that he flew in the face of every ridiculous tradition and prejudice, and for that I admire him, whether he was a real man or a fictional character dreamed up by someone who longed to see those kinds of changes."
I think you hit the nail on the head. I should have qualified option 2 with the reasons behind the path he took, you've just mentioned them.
Tetra,
#4 is he doesn't like white Canadians that try to look like him! -
tetrapod.sapien
#4 is he doesn't like white Canadians that try to look like him!
ya! that one!
-
Narkissos
Did he wear sunglasses? (tetra, I looked a lot like you 20 years ago, hope it doesn't frighten you...)
As MS said:
Option #1? Thats the big .There's so much myth that its near well impossible to get at the historical Jesus, assuming that there actually even was such a figure. Even though I can see the rationale behind several scholars' opinions of what to attribute or not attribute to him, its only conjecture.
All we may know about Jesus comes from some form of # 1 perspective, so any other option is just blind guess. Not that it makes # 1 historically right. -
tetrapod.sapien
(tetra, I looked a lot like you 20 years ago, hope it doesn't frighten you...)
lol! no, not at all. and i hope that in 20 years i live in france too...
-
Spectrum
Narkissos,
If you read between the Gospel lines then #2 is more likely, especially since nothing has happened for 2000 years. We have the benefit of time lasped. And you've really got to be a nutter to put yourself through torture and death to fulfill a prophecy to make yourself look like the Messiah. -
Narkissos
Spectrum,
You formulated option # 2 as:
2. Was he an extremely intelligent man that manipulated people and made himself appear to be fullfilling the prophecies about the Messiah?
The problem I see with this option is that the presentation of Jesus as "fulfilling the prophecies about the Messiah" is comparatively late. Matthew consistently points to such a "fulfillment" while its main narrative source, Mark (or an early form of Mark) didn't. It seems to me that the OT material was first used to create most of the Jesus stories, and then the literary source was pointed to as "prophecy fulfilled". If this is true then all discussion of what Jesus really was is captive of a circular reasoning.
From this perspective, the only sure "historical" Gospel material would be that which cannot be traced back to literary sources (Jewish or Pagan). That makes very little. Perhaps there is some room for representing the "historical Jesus" as a Galilean nationalist as some scholars suggest. But then he has little to do with the Christian "saviour". And this is still the other side of the circular reasoning.
-
Honesty
Well of course non of you are going to believe christ is God!
I don't believe Christ is God. I know He is.
So much for your assumptions. You sounded like a JW when you made your statement... always knowing what people you aren't acquainted with are thinking.
Welcome to the board.
-
Shazard
This is very nice example on how people behave on limited information. 1st. There are several other options 2nd. By Default you do not allow that he can be more then one option at the same time. 3rd. I bet thet we even don't have agreement on what "Son of God" and "God" means. Is it... "Son of Peter" and "Peter" like comparison or "Son of man" and "man" like comparison. So we have to find out if God is nature or title in this case. Coz word "dog" can be nature or it can be title. Or even personal name of something else! And this is where stuff get's messed up. p.s. Most of traditional christianity understands word "God" as word for nature. That's where YHWH comes in... it is the name of this nature meaning - "the one who brings into reality" "the one who creates"... or... plain english - Creator :)