Jesus: liar, lunatic, or savior

[The Walrus]

One of the 'common reasons' i hear of "why" you should believe Jesus was the messiah is that if he was a liar or lunatic, there is a slim margin people would have followed him.

Also someone was trying to tell me that more people saw Jesus after his resurrection than saw George Washington O_o (something like that)

Thoughts?

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

One of the 'common reasons' i hear of "why" you should believe Jesus was the messiah is that if he was a liar or lunatic, there is a slim margin people would have followed him.

That argument is hopelessly flawed. Firstly, people follow lunatics all the time: Charlie Manson, David Koresh, Jim Jones and many others all had loyal followings despite the fact they were clearly unhinged. People also follow liars all the time, since most cult leaders and charlatans are liars. So the idea that he can't have been a lunatic or a liar and so had to be what Christianity claims he was is false.

Secondly, this argument tries to load the dice by restricting the viable choices to just three. Lord, liar or lunatic? How about "mistaken"? "Misunderstood"? "Misquoted"? "Misrepresented"? All of these are equally viable possibilities, given the nature of our sources.

Also someone was trying to tell me that more people saw Jesus after his resurrection than saw George Washington O_o (something like that)

Thoughts?

This is based on Paul's claim that over 500 people saw him after he rose from the dead. This may well be evidence that Paul believed this happened, but it's not good evidence that it did, since Paul wasn't there. Paul also follows it by including his own encounter with Jesus amongst those who "saw" Jesus. But Paul saw a vision, not a risen flesh and blood man. Which raises the question of who or what exactly these "500 people" are supposed to have seen.

[Thanatos]

That doesn't quite work as a promotion for Jesus' divinity, since all you have to do is look at Scientology, and realize that lying can actually get you pretty dang far, as long as you promote it as a religion.

[Cluny the Scourge]

Jesus had very good reasons to lie - the "noble lie" motivation.

He wanted to help put right what he saw as what had gone wrong in his religious community - to shame corrupt priestly groups into reforming themselves, and to discourage useless waste of life in civil violence against foreign occupiers who obviously could not be defeated by conventional rebellions. Unfortunately it isn't in the nature of people to listen to what you have to say simply because it makes sense.

So how to persuade them to pay attention to him?

Masquerade - never directly, but always through strong nudge-nudge wink-wink hints and suggestions - as the prophesied Messiah of the Jews. This had the advantage that the people he was trying to talk to actually wanted it to be true - they yearned for the Messiah to have come. So they bought into it and he was able to achieve something.

And Jesus knew he was taking serious risks - that he would make enemies. It's a testament to his commitment to what he was doing that he went ahead anyway. What is a life, after all? At least this way he could try to do some good. He had balls.

He was short-sighted, however. I suspect that if someone could have travelled back 2000 years in time and explained what was going to happen afterward in his name, he would have been freaking appalled.

Of course, as Thiudareik also points out, it might alternatively be that he never really said anything of the sort, and that he was misquoted by his followers after he'd died. They wanted a way to perpetuate their master's teachings, but he was dead - so they got creative. All we know of Jesus, after all, comes from men who had very good reasons to lie themselves.

[Garrigan]

I'm with TG. Its much more likely to me that Jesus was indeed one of the many Preachers in the Holy Land at this time (as shown in the Life of Brian) and was deified some time after his death...

[MaximiIian]

Nah. He was a bit of a loon. Claimed he was a messianic, god-sent saviour of the Jewish people; and later in his ministry, he claimed the same relationship to all people. Claimed that anyone who didn't follow him and his beliefs would endure a horrific punishment in the afterlife; etc, etc.

Bit crazy, though not directly dangerous. At least he wasn't a violent loony like Koresh or Manson.

[IronBlood]

Nah. He was a bit of a loon. Claimed he was a messianic, god-sent saviour of the Jewish people; and later in his ministry, he claimed the same relationship to all people.

First Jesus was no loon, liar, lunatic, or even savior but instead a sort of social reformer.

As part of my belief, Jesus indeed believe and proclaim he was the Messiah but as for claiming divinity..... Is it not curious that Jesus is called "The Son of God" only once in the Acts of Apostles by no other then the man who never met or heard Jesus, Paul. Also the Sanhedrin, Sadducees, Pharisees would probably have a fit if someone was proclaiming to be and related to the "Living God". In other words, it looks like Paul and other disciples penned in Jesus' divinity in order to strength his Messianic claims.

Claimed that anyone who didn't follow him and his beliefs would endure a horrific punishment in the afterlife; etc, etc.

I must detest on this, Jesus supposedly said 'No one comes before the Father except through Me.' Meaning that one will only be granted Eternal life by following him and his word. No visions of fiery pits of hell from this Jew.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

First Jesus was no loon, liar, lunatic, or even savior but instead a sort of social reformer.

He's rather religious for a "social reformer". And rather obsessed with the end of the world. Sounds like you're constructing the Jesus you'd like rather than looking for the Jesus who existed.

As part of my belief, Jesus indeed believe and proclaim he was the Messiah but as for claiming divinity..... Is it not curious that Jesus is called "The Son of God" only once in the Acts of Apostles by no other then the man who never met or heard Jesus, Paul.

Try reading the texts before commenting - the title "Son of God" is used about him in the gospels repeatedly. Whether "Son of God" meant to Jews what it means to Christians now, on the other hand, is another question entirely ...

In other words, it looks like Paul and other disciples penned in Jesus' divinity in order to strength his Messianic claims.

No, because "Son of God" didn't mean what you think it means. And Paul's Christology didn't equate Jesus with God anyway.

I must detest on this, Jesus supposedly said 'No one comes before the Father except through Me.' Meaning that one will only be granted Eternal life by following him and his word. No visions of fiery pits of hell from this Jew.

More garbage. Please read the gospels. You'll find plenty of references to fiery pits of Hell from Jesus in them. Do you think he was saying God was coming to judge sinners so he could then ... give them a stern talking to?

Try reading the relevant material, please.

[IronBlood]

Try reading the texts before commenting - the title "Son of God" is used about him in the gospels repeatedly.

*sigh* I knew I would see you would show up in this thread sooner or later, and I knew I wasn't going to get a break at all.

First, did I ever make any reference to the Gospels in my post? No, so that is irrevalant. And the fact that Paul was preaching well before the Gospels were written, makes it further irrevalant.

Whether "Son of God" meant to Jews what it means to Christians now, on the other hand, is another question entirely ....

Oh please do go on.

No, because "Son of God" didn't mean what you think it means. And Paul's Christology didn't equate Jesus with God anyway.

See above

More garbage. Please read the gospels. You'll find plenty of references to fiery pits of Hell from Jesus in them. Do you think he was saying God was coming to judge sinners so he could then ... give them a stern talking to?

Try reading the relevant material, please.

You got me there, I guess they (the pasages) may slipped my mind.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

*sigh* I knew I would see you would show up in this thread sooner or later, and I knew I wasn't going to get a break at all.

First, did I ever make any reference to the Gospels in my post? No, so that is irrevalant. And the fact that Paul was preaching well before the Gospels were written, makes it further irrevalant.

Okay, so are you seriously trying to claim that Paul invented the idea of Jesus as God? Because, as I said, (i) "Son of God" didn't mean "God the Son" to Jews, it simply meant "Messiah" and (ii) Paul's Christology indicates he believed Jesus had a heavenly pre-existence but did not believe Jesus was God.

The idea of Jesus as God doesn't seem to have developed until much later in the First Century than Paul.

You got me there, I guess they (the pasages) may slipped my mind.

Clearly.

"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?" (Matthew 23:33)

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matthew 10:28; Luke 12:5)

If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.(Mark 9:43)

In hell, where he was in torment, [the rich man] looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire' " (Luke 16:23-24)

Would it be that Jesus you were referring to?

[motiv-8]

First, did I ever make any reference to the Gospels in my post? No, so that is irrevalant. And the fact that Paul was preaching well before the Gospels were written, makes it further irrevalant.

It's only irrelevant if you really think that the Gospels were entirely made-up. The fact is yes, the earliest written compilations of anything having to do with Jesus are from around 50AD, but of course the Gospel existed in oral form since before Paul ever was converted.

[gambit]

I'm with Cluny on this one. IMO he was just a guy obsessed (almost in a loony way) about trying to better the world around him. He was willing to sacrifice himself, to give it all up, just to see that world become better. He wanted to help teach people to stop being so selfish, cruel, greedy etc etc. Maybe he just believed whole-heartedly in the redemption of the human race, even if he had to "lie" and give someone a false father figure, such as God to look forward too.

He, like Cluny said, knew what risks he was taking and that he'd get many enemies, especially in the higher religous caste. So, after he dies, his apostles can just change words like "I'm probably gonna be hated by alot of people" to "I will be crucified by my own".

Just my two cents.

[Kiljan Arslan]

prophet who thought he was the son of god. So technicly speaking one could say he was a loon.

[MaximiIian]

I never said he claimed divinity. I really think that stuff was added later by Paul and the like. I think that the actual man did have a notion in his head that he was divinely-sanctioned for his "task".
Which, IMO, makes him a bit schizoid.

[MaximiIian]

You'll find plenty of references to fiery pits of Hell from Jesus in them. Do you think he was saying God was coming to judge sinners so he could then ... give them a stern talking to?

QFTrufax. And sigged.

[C-Rob]

crap, if only a certain girl I know could see this thread, so many blashpemies! SHe would probably hunt you guys down with a mob that she would pull together out of her fundementalist friends. "Grab your torches and pitchforks!" lol, i can see it now
I will however agree that a bunhc of stuff was changed and mutated by people and we probably barely know who jesus the person really was.

[John I Tzimisces]

crap, if only a certain girl I know could see this thread, so many blashpemies! SHe would probably hunt you guys down with a mob that she would pull together out of her fundementalist friends. "Grab your torches and pitchforks!" lol, i can see it now
I will however agree that a bunhc of stuff was changed and mutated by people and we probably barely know who jesus the person really was.

I think that's a bit of an overstatement...we have a pretty idea of who he was. As far as ancient jewish rabbis go.

[Jams79]

No, it falls in to the 'assumed' category. An author saying he's quoting oral traditions doesn't atually prove it is true, seeing as you have that Da Vinci Code link in your sig I would have thought you'd known that.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

No, it falls in to the 'assumed' category. An author saying he's quoting oral traditions doesn't atually prove it is true, seeing as you have that Da Vinci Code link in your sig I would have thought you'd known that.

It's not frigging "assumed" - the texts themselves tell us they are based on oral accounts. Unless you can come up with a good reason to explain why this is somehow an impossibility and is somehow unreasonable to accept, this is clear evidence that they were based on an oral tradition. The other internal evidence of oral transmission simply supports this testimony further.

Give up pal.

[Jams79]

I never said it was an impossibility, I'm just saying you can't say it is a definite. Nothing about an oral tradition can ever be proved definitively especially 2000yrs after the fact. Especially when all the proof for that oral tradition comes from one source.

You also might want to calm down a bit, I'm trying to be polite and reasonable in my posts, I'd appreciate it if you could grant me the same courtesy.