There is something about Jesus ?

[NiceCupOfTea]

what is it about Jesus, that 2000 odd years have his death he still matters so much to so many people.

From the Christians to the New Agers to Hindus to muslims. Everybody wants a piece of Jesus many want to claim ownership of Jesus.


What is it about Jesus ?

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

For me, he is a symbol, and symbols have the power people give them.
I'm not saying he isn't the son of God, I'm not saying he's not the prophet. But I think that reason he is an icon is the power of people around us that has grown from just a few disciples. I would like to call it good PR if it didn't sound so dismissive.

 

[pseudonymous]

Certainly early on it was dangerous not to be a believer. These days I think it is a mix of Jesus believers and Biblicans. Biblicans, or followers of the Bible far outnumber actual Jesus followers IMO. Especially here in the states, the 'religious right' are most often described as Jesus freaks, and yet rarely live up to the liberal message he embraced - they tend to cherry pick the Bible itself for more conservative leanings.

I think any discussion about Christianity needs to delineate the difference between followers of Jesus, and followers of the Bible. The two, im my opinion are not compatible in many instances.

I don't think other religions have much of an issue with Jesus as much as with the followers. The Jews see him as a false messiah and the Moslems see him as just another prophet in a line of prophets. Neither group I doubt would dismiss the philosophy attached to him, just the followers' choice of attributes garnered to him.

As an atheist I have no issues with Jesus or his followers if they live up to his message - it is only when they insist there is something lacking in me if I am not a believer that gets a reaction out of me. Personally I do not believe he ever existed - he appears to be that era's man/god myth updated for the times. That does not mean that the message is wasted.

 

[IowaGuy]

Everybody wants a piece of Jesus many want to claim ownership of Jesus.

Except Jews. My sister (Christian) and I (agnostic) debate this point often. If the evidence is so overwhelming that Jesus is the messiah predicted in the old testament (which is her opinion), why don't modern-day Jews jump on board?

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

Except Jews. My sister (Christian) and I (agnostic) debate this point often. If the evidence is so overwhelming that Jesus is the messiah predicted in the old testament (which is her opinion), why don't modern-day Jews jump on board?

well there are the Messianic Jews.

 

[IowaGuy]

Personally I do not believe he ever existed

I am no history expert but there is some historical evidence that Christ existed as a man (Tacitus, Pliny, Josephus, etc). Just no solid evidence that he came from a virgin birth, rose from the dead, etc.

The Romans basically catipulted Christianity out of obscurity for political reasons. From there the growth of Christianity can be attributed more to "Guns, Germs, and Steel" than anything.

After all, here in the Americas we would likely be speaking Native American languages and believing in the "Great Spirit" or Huitzilopochtli had Columbus never sailed over this way; or had he been met with machine guns & tanks when he got here instead of knives and atlatls.

 

[donnann]

what is it about Jesus, that 2000 odd years have his death he still matters so much to so many people.

From the Christians to the New Agers to Hindus to muslims. Everybody wants a piece of Jesus many want to claim ownership of Jesus.


What is it about Jesus ?

Makes me think

 

[wil]

Except Jews. My sister (Christian) and I (agnostic) debate this point often. If the evidence is so overwhelming that Jesus is the messiah predicted in the old testament (which is her opinion), why don't modern-day Jews jump on board?

Most Jews will look at all of the signs, and see how Jesus doesn't fit the Messiah they were/are seeking.

well there are the Messianic Jews.

I really think those are called Christians. As a Jew decides to believe in Jesus as the Messiah...whether now, 200 or 2000 years ago..that sort of defines Christian. imo

I am no history expert but there is some historical evidence that Christ existed as a man (Tacitus, Pliny, Josephus, etc). Just no solid evidence that he came from a virgin birth, rose from the dead, etc.

Actually from what I've read all of the nonbiblical references have either time frame issues, now known to be inserts/forgeries, and or require a stretch of an imagination to concur that they were talking about Jesus.

The Romans basically catipulted Christianity out of obscurity for political reasons. From there the growth of Christianity can be attributed more to "Guns, Germs, and Steel" than anything.

Guess I gotta read that book

After all, here in the Americas we would likely be speaking Native American languages and believing in the "Great Spirit" or Huitzilopochtli had Columbus never sailed over this way; or had he been met with machine guns & tanks when he got here instead of knives and atlatls.

Atlatls....maybe not a historian, but you must have played one whilst watching TV...

 

[donnann]

The name JESUS actually comes from jewish gematria representing 888. 888 represents the oneness of body soul and spirit or last man adam so in prophecy JESUS represents the human body that this happened to. Now whether or not the jewish community believes he was the literal messiah they know he was not the last sent. The last sent doesnt represent one people but all people. For the complete process its not 888 its 101010

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

Most Jews will look at all of the signs, and see how Jesus doesn't fit the Messiah they were/are seeking.


I really think those are called Christians. As a Jew decides to believe in Jesus as the Messiah...whether now, 200 or 2000 years ago..that sort of defines Christian. imo
Atlatls....maybe not a historian, but you must have played one whilst watching TV...

Messianic Jews is a term that they apply to themselves for whatever reason they choose not to call themselves Christians.

 

[Saltmeister]

Messianic Jews is a term that they apply to themselves for whatever reason they choose not to call themselves Christians.

Messianic Jews are a modern innovation that came from Protestant Christianity. They used to be called the Hebrew Christians Association of America. Now they call themselves the Messianic Judaism Association of America.

 

[Saltmeister]

what is it about Jesus, that 2000 odd years have his death he still matters so much to so many people.

From the Christians to the New Agers to Hindus to muslims. Everybody wants a piece of Jesus many want to claim ownership of Jesus.

What is it about Jesus ?

Jesus was a hybrid spiritual leader. He is supposed to be the bridge to all the world's religions. He was the bridge between Judaism and Hellenism in the first century. Christianity came out of the melting pot of Jewish and Greek culture and thought. Christianity today is deeply influenced by Greek ideas in the first century and it probably has a lot to do with Paul's epistles and the Gentile Gospel of John. But Jesus isn't just a bridge between the Jewish and the Greek. He is supposed to be the bridge to other cultures and thought systems as well. Why do we have to exclude the Indian and Arabic?

So-called "Christians," which I prefer to call "Hellenistic Christians" do not own Jesus either. They do not own Jesus any more than Hindus, New Agers and Muslims. He is for all. Greek ideas are not superior to Indian or Arabic ideas. To think that is to harbour a spiritual racism. What we call "Christianity" today is really the Greek or "Hellenistic" variant of Christianity.

Hindus, New Agers and Muslims can be "Christians" too, if only people would allow it.

Will syncretism compromise Christianity's purpose and mission? No, it will not. Christianity isn't supposed to be "pure." It doesn't need to be pure to fulfil its purpose. Many people are afraid that without a "narrow definition" of what Christianity is, Christianity will cease to be "Christianity." They are afraid that Christianity will be overtaken or "hijacked" by outsiders.

But let us not forget that "Christianity" itself was hijacked by the Greeks and Romans. Christianity started as a Jewish sect, but the people who have defined Christianity in the last 2,000 years are people influenced more by the Greek ideas in the NT than the Jewish ones. Now Christians must allow "Christianity" to be influenced by even more foreign ideas, so that all "foreigners" will be equal. Greeks and Romans and their ideas are not superior to that of Indians and Arabs.

This will not be a hijacking of Christianity. Christianity has already been hijacked. It was hijacked 1,700 years ago by the ancient Greeks and Romans. Today's Christians are spiritual descendants of the Greek and Roman Christians. They have inherited the habits and attitudes of the Greek and Roman Christians. They have coveted Christianity as their own rather than sharing it with others. If you consider yourself Christian today, you are likely to be a "hijacker" following the tradition of the Greeks and Romans.

"Christians" don't need to define Christianity because back in the first century it wasn't Christians who defined Christianity, but the Jerusalem church!!! Until there is a resurrection of the Jerusalem church, nobody gets to define Christianity. They should instead follow whatever the Jerusalem church decreed and wait for further instructions.

I am talking about the Apostolic Decree.

 

[bananabrain]

I really think those ["messianic jews"]are called Christians

exactly.

Messianic Jews is a term that they apply to themselves for whatever reason they choose not to call themselves Christians.

so that jews will be conned into converting by thinking that they can have their cake and eat it. it is total intellectual dishonesty.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

exactly.


so that jews will be conned into converting by thinking that they can have their cake and eat it. it is total intellectual dishonesty.

b'shalom

bananabrain

if some Jews want to call themselves Messianic Jews, then why shouldnt they. Its not dishonest for them if its a label that they are comfortable with.

 

[Saltmeister]

Except Jews. My sister (Christian) and I (agnostic) debate this point often. If the evidence is so overwhelming that Jesus is the messiah predicted in the old testament (which is her opinion), why don't modern-day Jews jump on board?

The first century is Christianity's link with Judaism. The New Testament does not tell us what actually happened in the first century. Jews brought up with the Torah and Talmud probably study first century religious politics. They probably know what happened and they know what Jesus really meant in that world.

It is not likely for the rest of us to know what happened because it is not our business to know, so if we ever asked a Jew, he would probably answer only the question and not tell us the context. The trouble is, when a Jew answers our questions, he knows the context and the answer is one that would satisfy him. The context comes from years of studying the Torah and Talmud. He's got the knowledge, we don't. This leaves us just as unsatisfied as before because we don't have the knowledge to understand why that answer makes sense.

Jews don't jump on board because knowing and understanding Jesus doesn't change anything for them. Most Christians only use the "New Testament" as the source of information about Jesus. But Jesus was more than what the Gospel and Epistle-writers wrote about him. A person is not a person without the world in which he interacts and Jews have better knowledge of the world in which Jesus lived. Jesus probably echoed the words of many of the "sages." He was a miracle worker, but his revelation was probably much less of a miracle.

Christians and others read the Gospels and think "wow." A Jew reads the same thing and thinks, "ok, fair enough."

The more I read about the Second Temple world, the less surprised I become. Well, actually I'm still surprised, but in a different way now.

 

[Saltmeister]

if some Jews want to call themselves Messianic Jews, then why shouldnt they. Its not dishonest for them if its a label that they are comfortable with.

What about Islamic Christians? Hindu Christians? New Age Christians? Isn't that what this thread is about?

I actually wonder why people don't use these labels more often. They know they can, but why don't they? That is sure to create a storm. I think it would be an interesting social experiment.

 

[pseudonymous]

I am no history expert but there is some historical evidence that Christ existed as a man (Tacitus, Pliny, Josephus, etc). Just no solid evidence that he came from a virgin birth, rose from the dead, etc.

Tacitus was not a contemporary of Jesus, and his annals are suspect at best: "the passage is likely a forgery perpetuated by Church not for the purpose of providing evidence for the historicity of Jesus, but to promote the idea that Nero persecuted Christians for burning Rome"

"Pliny was born 30 years after, and wrote 50 –70 years after the date Jesus is believed by Christians to have died, so he is not a contemporary, nor does he claim to be an eyewitness" & "His mention is not of Jesus as a person, but of the group of Christians living in Bithynia" & "Many historians have dismissed this letter as a later Christian forgery, as it was not quoted by any of the church fathers. The actual text was purportedly discovered by a 15th century monk, Joannes Iucundus of Verona, then lost again a few years later. The texts used today claim to be copies made from his manuscript."

Josephus (c.37 – 100) is again not a contemporary, and scholars seem quite split on whether his writing were forgeries or not - the apologist scholars saying 'neigh' and other scholars saying 'yeah'.

Proof of a historical Jesus would require more than the writings of 'church' associated apologists or historians, given their track record of deceit and death to non believers of the times.

Truth is there are no contemporaries of Jesus in time and place in the Galilea that report of such a wonderously miraculous man. I know it is not liked by the supporters of Christianity that 'proof' is required, but I do tend to base my beliefs on what is known, or can be known. In Jesus' case it would seem there will be no evidence and thus it is left up to faith/belief rather than fact/evidence. Personally, I have no problem with a Christian's faith...whether or not they respect mine, so long as they do not trespass upon me.

And I know Iowa Guy you were not defending really one way or the other - and this is not a debate directed at you...just a minor correction given the mountain of information out there regarding this subject. Peace.

 

[william b]

People are fascinated with power. The church still has some power, though not as much as it once did. And Jesus is perceived as the center of God's power on earth. The church says Jesus has control over weather, disease, forgiveness of sins, who gets into heaven, death itself. People who say Jesus' teachings aren't that extraordinary are kind of right. They are malleable enough that people can claim he would be a gun toting republican or an environmental liberal when he probably wouldn't identify with either group.
Plus, it's nice that Jesus didn't behead anyone like Mohamed did. He's just peaceful enough to encourage civility, but just vague enough that people can believe in him and still hold onto some prejudice.
If it wasn't Jesus, Rome probably would have found a way to make Plato into some kind of Messiah figure.

 

[ciel_perdy]

What is it about Jesus?

Well, personally for me the reason why he has had such a profound effect on the world is because he really did live the way, the truth and the life, in a way that no other person has done.

He spoke about an invisible Kingdom, one that all people could be a part of regardless of religion, he simply taught people to look for truth and keep following it. He taught people who had faith in God to live by that faith, to not worry where their food and clothes were to come from. He taught love for everyone, including our worst enemies. He taught the paradox of loosing in order to win, that the greatest would be the servant of all. All through his teachings we see him pointing to another world, a Kingdom that is in our hearts, a Kingdom that no man can destroy.

His life was such a testimony to the truth that he was hated by people to the point of being killed. His love for us to show us, to show us the truth, knowing that all he said and did would lead to his death, is incredible, and it can't help but touch our hearts, if only we would let it.

What is it about Jesus? IMO he was the Son of God, but if people don't like that, it's that he showed us the way to be free from fear, greed, pride, selfishness, by calling on us to let go of our lives and live in love for others and God, and he did all this knowing that he would be rejected by pretty much everybody, and have to die for what he wanted to share.

I did like what an earlier poster posted, which was basically that what passes as Christianity today (basically Judaism with a new coat of paint) is not at all what Jesus taught. The world is not different now than the one that crucified him. If christians actually did what Jesus said, we truly would turn the world upside down, and we truly would be hated and killed, because the principles and ways of the Kingdom of Heaven are so diametrically opposed to that of our world/system.

There really are just two religions (paths) in the world for us to follow and base our actions on:

1- Truth/Love
2- Lies/Greed

Anyway, them's me thoughts.

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

just been thinking. in many ways Jesus resembled a witch, he had a coven he did magick etc he even came back from the dead.