who was jesus?

[Icefrisco]

who was he? i wondering what people think from a non-religious point of view.there is one roman text that says jesus was crucified but other then that every other "eyewitness" accout was written 100-200 years after his death.

[William the Bastard]

An interesting bloke I suppose. Must have been very charismatic to get disciples to follow him but only one of many. Heres a list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Messiah_claimants
I personally think Saint Paul was more interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus
Jesus just happened to be the one who won thanks to others later twisting and advertising his teachings into a doctrine.

If not the messiah he was at least a "very naughty boy"!

[AngryTitusPullo]

"Behold! the angels said, 'Oh Mary! God gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him. His name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter, and in (the company of) those nearest to God. He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. He shall be (in the company) of the righteous... And God will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel'" (3:45-48).

"He [Jesus] said: 'I am indeed a servant of God. He has given me revelation and made me a prophet; He has made me blessed wheresoever I be; and He has enjoined on me prayer and charity as long as I live. He has made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable. So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)!' Such was Jesus the son of Mary. It is a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute. It is not befitting to (the majesty of) God that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter, He only says to it, 'Be,' and it is" (19:30-35).

"When Jesus came with Clear Signs, he said: 'Now I have come to you with Wisdom, and in order to make clear to you some of the (points) on which you dispute. Therefore, fear God and obey me. God, He is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him -- this is a Straight Way.' But sects from among themselves fell into disagreement. So woe to the wrongdoers, from the penalty of a Grievous Day!" (43:63-65)

"And behold! God will say [i.e. on the Day of Judgment]: 'Oh Jesus, the son of Mary! Did you say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of God?' He will say: 'Glory to Thee! Never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, You would indeed have known it. You know what is in my heart, though I know not what is in Yours. For You know in full all that is hidden. Never did I say to them anything except what You commanded me to say: 'Worship God, my Lord and your Lord.' And I was a witness over them while I lived among them. When You took me up, You were the Watcher over them, and You are a witness to all things'" (5:116-117).

"Christ, the son of Mary, was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how God makes His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!" (5:75).

[Mikelus Trento]

"Behold! the angels said, 'Oh Mary! God gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him. His name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter, and in (the company of) those nearest to God. He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. He shall be (in the company) of the righteous... And God will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel'" (3:45-48).

"He [Jesus] said: 'I am indeed a servant of God. He has given me revelation and made me a prophet; He has made me blessed wheresoever I be; and He has enjoined on me prayer and charity as long as I live. He has made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable. So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)!' Such was Jesus the son of Mary. It is a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute. It is not befitting to (the majesty of) God that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter, He only says to it, 'Be,' and it is" (19:30-35).

"When Jesus came with Clear Signs, he said: 'Now I have come to you with Wisdom, and in order to make clear to you some of the (points) on which you dispute. Therefore, fear God and obey me. God, He is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him -- this is a Straight Way.' But sects from among themselves fell into disagreement. So woe to the wrongdoers, from the penalty of a Grievous Day!" (43:63-65)

"And behold! God will say [i.e. on the Day of Judgment]: 'Oh Jesus, the son of Mary! Did you say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of God?' He will say: 'Glory to Thee! Never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, You would indeed have known it. You know what is in my heart, though I know not what is in Yours. For You know in full all that is hidden. Never did I say to them anything except what You commanded me to say: 'Worship God, my Lord and your Lord.' And I was a witness over them while I lived among them. When You took me up, You were the Watcher over them, and You are a witness to all things'" (5:116-117).

"Christ, the son of Mary, was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how God makes His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!" (5:75).

Titus,

The way you have those referenced makes me have to ask.....are all those quotes from the Koran?

[AngryTitusPullo]

Titus,

The way you have those referenced makes me have to ask.....are all those quotes from the Koran?

Yes.

[Ummon]

Yes.

Nominal acceptance, coupled with distortion of Jesus's teaching.

If you aren't being sarcastic, since when was that the case? Political power has everything to do with God and religion, and use thereof.

No. God has nothing to do with political power.

My Kingdom is not of this world, infact.

Because Gospel have been through changes, tampered, and we do not even have the original anymore.

It doesn't matter if people claimed that the bible is written 50 years after Jesus died when the fact is the current version is 50 years ago.

The Qu'ran has been translated from aramaic, verses have been expunged, and there are no two figures stating its length, which are the same.

[AngryTitusPullo]

Nominal acceptance, coupled with distortion of Jesus's teaching.

Nope. It was the correction of the suppose apostles teachings, not Jesus.

The Qu'ran has been translated from aramaic, verses have been expunged, and there are no two figures stating its length, which are the same.

I know men have the tendencies to re-write history to suit their purposes but you're hallunicating to much to claim that Meccan Quraishy in Arabia spooke Aramaic.

[AngryTitusPullo]

According to Islamic tradition, the Koran dates back to the 7th century, while the first examples of Arabic literature in the full sense of the phrase are found only two centuries later, at the time of the 'Biography of the Prophet'; that is, of the life of Mohammed as written by Ibn Hisham, who died in 828. We may thus establish that post-Koranic Arabic literature developed by degrees, in the period following the work of al-Khalil bin Ahmad , who died in 786, the founder of Arabic lexicography (kitab al-ayn), and of Sibawayh, who died in 796, to whom the grammar of classical Arabic is due. Now, if we assume that the composition of the Koran was brought to an end in the year of the Prophet Mohammed's death, in 632, we find before us an interval of 150 years, during which there is no trace of Arabic literature worthy of note.

At that time, there were no Arab schools - except, perhaps, for the Christian centers of al-Anbar and al-Hira, in southern Mesopotamia, or what is now Iraq. The Arabs of that region had been Christianized and instructed by Syrian Christians. Their liturgical language was Syro-Aramaic. And this was the vehicle of their culture, and more generally the language of written communication.

You forgot or ignorance of one thing. When the Qur'an was revealed it was recite by Muhammad and memorize or written by the companions. The memorize is more important, even today as muslims pray by reciting the Surah by memory, not by reading a book which people, especially non-muslims think is the Qur'an while Qur'an is actually the recitation, the Words itself and not the writings.

As for the written part by the companions, it is noted that at that time there were non standardize writing of Arabic. It's the equavalent of today's English between honour and honor for example, or center and centre.

After Islam spread out of Arabia and the muslims are no longer only Arab, the diacritical points were added and the writings were standardadize for non-Arabic speaking muslims have it easier to read and memorize the Qur'anic verses which is used daily in prayers.

Even until today muslims anywhere can recite the verses the same way, even without understanding of Arabic thatnks to to added dictations and so on.

That is one thing that Mr Luxenberg didn't consider in his thesis. The Qur'an is not verses that we muslims read when we're free with nothing to do for example, or only to read when we need to consult anything etc. We read it daily in our every prayer.

[jankren]

Anyone ever read 'When Jesus Became God'?

[William the Bastard]

Anyone ever read 'When Jesus Became God'?

No but I will get it looks good. It was in 325ce at Nicaea wasn't it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

[Habelo]

A rebell just like me(if he existed!)
Standing up for what he thinks is right wich is that jews are dumbasses. And not afraid of showing his point even if it took his life.
To bad he had so bad followers
Otherwise i cant ask for a man in that time not to be religious so i cant really call him stupid for believing in some kind of god right?

[Zenith Darksea]

Excuse me, 100-200 years after his death? I think you've plucked this number out of thin air.

This is what good old Wikipedia has to say on the subject:

Irenaeus of Lyons, c. 185, stated that the Gospels of Matthew and Mark were written while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome, which would be in the 60s, and Luke was written some time later. Evangelical and Traditionalist scholars continue to support this dating.

Some other modern critical scholars concur with the dating of the majority of the New Testament, except for the epistles and books that they consider to be pseudepigraphical (i.e., those thought not to be written by their traditional authors). Some do not. For the Gospels they tend to date Mark no earlier than 65, and Matthew some time between 70 and 85. Luke is usually placed in the 80 to 95 time frame. The earliest of the books of the New Testament was First Thessalonians, an epistle of Paul, written probably in 51, or possibly Galatians in 49 according to one of two theories of its writing. Of the pseudepigraphical epistles, Christian scholars tend to place them somewhere between 70 and 150, with Second Peter usually being the latest.

However, John A.T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (1976), proposed that all of the New Testament was completed before 70, the year the temple at Jerusalem was destroyed. Robinson argued that because the destruction of the temple was prophesied by Jesus in Matthew 24:15–21 and Luke 23:28–31, the authors of these and other New Testament books would not have failed to point out the fulfillment of this prophecy. Robinson's position is popular among some Evangelicals.

In the 1830s German scholars of the Tübingen school dated the books as late as the third century, but the discovery of some New Testament manuscripts and fragments, not including some of the later writings, dating as far back as 125 (notably Papyrus 52) has called such late dating into question. Additionally, a letter to the church at Corinth in the name of Clement of Rome in 95 quotes from 10 of the 27 books of the New Testament, and a letter to the church at Philippi in the name of Polycarp in 120 quotes from 16 books. Therefore, some of the books of the New Testament were at least in a first-draft stage, though there is negligible evidence in these quotes or among biblical manuscripts for the existence of different early drafts. Other books were probably not completed until later, if we assume they must have been quoted by Clement or Polycarp. There are many minor discrepancies between manuscripts (largely spelling or grammatical differences).

[bchelmo]

Even Pliny the Younger the Roman Senator in 112 AD reports that the Christians worshiped Jesus as God. The whole idea of the Deity of Jesus and Nicaea is from the Di Vinci Code. Yes the Nicaean Creed was composed by the Bishops at the time to cement in basic Christian doctrine because of the work of Arias who refuted the Deity of Christ. Well all but two of the men who were in attendance signed the belief system. Even in the NT Jesus was seen as worshiped and was called God (John 20:28) and even called himself God in John 8:58 for example. The New Testament was most likely written between 48 and 90-100 AD and this date is confirmed by the letters and notes written by church leaders in the generation after the apostles. They quote the NT often and we can reconstruct the whole NT up to about 11 verses. But who was he really? Yes Christians worshiped Him as God in human flesh (John 1:1-14) but was he just a radical messiah wannabe? Is He a fish story that grew with the years? Or was he the real deal. Jesus has to among one of four L's they are Liar, Lunatic, Legend, or Lord. Among the statements that He made about Himself you have to say He was right or wrong. He said that 1) I am sent from God, 2) God in the flesh, 3) I am the Christ (messiah), 4) I am the Son of God, and 5) I am the only way to God.

Like I wrote before in another post about "God" I said that the resurrection proves to me that Jesus was Lord and not a legend or just a psycho. Here is what I wrote to save on time:
"For me the proof of God rests in the coming of Jesus Christ which was supported by thousands of prophesies and then His resurrection. The Apostles, who were half-hearted believers before hand, were dramatically changed by experiencing the resurrected Jesus along with 500 others or so. The apostles (all but John and Judas) died a martyr's death refusing to recant their beliefs in the Jesus and God. The cool thing is that a number of priests who had Jesus executed also became believers which helps to seal the deal in my mind. This is along my side of thinking which helps me and others to understand God and Jesus."
Thanks for reading and I don't want to shove my beliefs down your throat but just want to give info I think it helpful to make a decision to either follow or fight him. God bless,
Bchelmo <><

[Icefrisco]

[/QUOTE]Standing up for what he thinks is right wich is that jews are dumbasses.[/QUOTE]

do you understand he was religious jewish rabbi? he was just trying to make some changes to the religion, like all rabbis do.no rabbi goes with the status quo.

angrytituspullo, i asked for non-religious sources. if you can find some if really enjoy seeing them.

Excuse me, 100-200 years after his death? I think you've plucked this number out of thin air.

did you see the date that of Irenaeus of Lyons, c. 185. the dates you mentioned were not the ones i had heard. well, i better find my sources!

[AngryTitusPullo]

angrytituspullo, i asked for non-religious sources. if you can find some if really enjoy seeing them. [/QUOTE]

If you't believe in the Qur'an then it became a non-religious resource to you. I believe it is acceptable as a historical source too as eventhough it came out much later than The Bible or even Del Bello Gallicum, it's text is as pure and unaltered from 1400 years ago even until now.

Even common written histories gets written and re-written all the time. So isn't it a better source ?

[Mythos]

The earliest account of Jesus being mentioned as God comes from 115AD from a bishop on Alexandria.

As for who was Jesus, I have read some interesting albeit somewhat extreme suggestions. One of the most believable was that he was an Essene. It would account for his mother's immaculate conception (essene couples could live together and not be married and the woman was considered a "virgin" in this stage even though she might get pregnant), his white garments, the baptism by John, the last supper on thursday (the essenes celebrated passeh earlier). Anyway, the supposition said that Judaea at the time was a mess. Messiahs spung up every other week in opposition to the Romans. Jesus was planning a revolt against the Romans and the Pharisees with the support of the people. And this is why the Romans crusified him which is a punishment for rebellion against the Roman state. I suppose this can be as true as everything other ridiculous proposition, including him being God.

[Sher Khan]

I would imagine that later commentators, such as Paul in his letters, would forge the the idea that Jesus was God, or at least believed in that sometime before and forcefully made that concept the norm to follow.

Jesus was most probably an interesting character, but there's little to no direct claims of divinity from Jesus in the NT, so I'd think the whole Jesus=God thing was his apostles thinking spiritually or logically about what just happened that one summer in Jerusalem.

[Miraj]

- okay that was mean of me POST DELETED -

[Tajir]

Who was Jesus (pbuh)? I believe Jesus was a remarkable peasant; who stayed in doors during riots, turned the other cheek during fights, and slowly rose to become a remarkable human and philosopher.

Jesus, unlike Muhammud (pbuh), was not a statesmen, only a philosopher and a local hero who worked underground to carefully and quietly give the world a message that would save them.

[Sétanta]

Matthew 11:27. "All things have been handed over to Me by my Father: and no one knows the Son, except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father, except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him."

Jesus claimed to be the Son of God in an "exclusive and absolute sense," having a unique and personal relationship with the Father.

Matthew 23:34. "Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes..."

Only God can send forth prophets, so when Jesus says He will send prophets, He is claiming to be God.

Matthew 24:5 "For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ: and shall deceive many."

Christ=Messiah=Divine Title=God

Mark 9:42. "And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin..."

Note the phrase "believe in me." Implying that He is a source of faith, and thus God. Jesus never came out and said "I am God" because, if he did, he would have been executed before He could start his Church.