Dead Horse
"Who do you claim Jesus Christ to be - Is he a fictional character, did he walk the earth? Was he a prophet, lunatic or a liar?"
This is a common stock question and I thought I'd make my response public for those who like having some stock answers up their sleeve. This is just a personal historical interpretation and is backed only by my own observation. Still, I think it works in the context of answering evangelists who are playing semantic games.
As for the historical Jesus. I'd say it almost certain that there was a Hebrew rabbi in the first centuary who lived a life similar to the one described in the Bible, though slightly less dramatised.
My picture of the historical Jesus, is a man. Certainly prophetic in the sense that he professed. For his time, a very clever man. He seems (when you remove the obviously fabricated mysticism) to have been mostly interested in providing the Jews with a new interpretation of scripture that would be practical for living as an enslaved people and could potentially free them from their bonds, at least psychologically. For non-Jews, he had magic tricks. I've also identified some common hypnosis techniques in the beatitudes.
He called himself the Son of Man. I think this is probably a fair statement. He lived out his life to loosely mirror the history of the nation. Again, a fair observation. His teachings are actually quite effective for destroying the psychology of enslavement within the Roman empire. Serve you masters as though serving God. Treat the people in command as God's apointed leaders. Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's. Walk two miles. Give your shirt as well. The list goes on. You destroy the chains of opression when when change the people's mindset to go beyond what they are required to do by their enslavement. They then have the power over the Romans in their own minds and there is no longer a conflict. It really was a billiant strategy.
He was a man, not a god. Was a prophet but not a fortune teller nor a mouthpeice for a deity. He was no lunatic. He was only a liar in the sense that truth wasn't measured in the way it is these days. He used metaphore to describe higher concepts and even lived his life as a metaphore.
He never wrote a book unfortunately, so the accounts we have of his life are written many years after the fact by people with a vested interest in turning the man into a god.
....
Another common evangelical plattitude is pascals wager. People don't seem to know why they believe what they believe so they rely on these little word tricks.
The wager is as follows: there are two possibilities of reality, either God exists or He doesn't. There are two responses to this reality. Belief on unbelief in God and Co. These variables result in four possible states.
1. Believe in God, He exists.
2. Believe in God, He doesn't exist.
3. Don't believe in God, He exists.
4. Don't believe in God, He doesn't exist.
The arguement is that if god does exist, belief equals eternal bliss; Unbelief results in Hell. If God does not exsit, then it doesn't really matter what you believe because you die at the end regardless.
To quote a greater mind out of context: "God does not play dice"
This wager is flawed on several levels. First, it assumes a binary opposition in the potential states of God. It is the modern Christian Fundementalist interpretation or the fire. Trust me, there are far more views than that and most a lot more credible.
Secondly, it presents a paradox of a God, loving only those who take the safe bet and try to stack the odds in their favour. This God favours the strategically self decieving and liars. A truthful person is morrally obliged to reject this God of lies.
Third, there is a lot to be gained in life by the casting away of the fairytales of our species' infancy. "Now that I am a man, I cast off childish things" (1 Corinthians 13:11)
It is only when we honestly seek the truth, dispite the fear of a wrathful and murderous God, that we can find the true meaning of life, if such a thing does exist. It is the harder path, but definitely a worthy one. It is hardly inconsequencial to be a part of the awakening of humanity.
This is a common stock question and I thought I'd make my response public for those who like having some stock answers up their sleeve. This is just a personal historical interpretation and is backed only by my own observation. Still, I think it works in the context of answering evangelists who are playing semantic games.
As for the historical Jesus. I'd say it almost certain that there was a Hebrew rabbi in the first centuary who lived a life similar to the one described in the Bible, though slightly less dramatised.
My picture of the historical Jesus, is a man. Certainly prophetic in the sense that he professed. For his time, a very clever man. He seems (when you remove the obviously fabricated mysticism) to have been mostly interested in providing the Jews with a new interpretation of scripture that would be practical for living as an enslaved people and could potentially free them from their bonds, at least psychologically. For non-Jews, he had magic tricks. I've also identified some common hypnosis techniques in the beatitudes.
He called himself the Son of Man. I think this is probably a fair statement. He lived out his life to loosely mirror the history of the nation. Again, a fair observation. His teachings are actually quite effective for destroying the psychology of enslavement within the Roman empire. Serve you masters as though serving God. Treat the people in command as God's apointed leaders. Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's. Walk two miles. Give your shirt as well. The list goes on. You destroy the chains of opression when when change the people's mindset to go beyond what they are required to do by their enslavement. They then have the power over the Romans in their own minds and there is no longer a conflict. It really was a billiant strategy.
He was a man, not a god. Was a prophet but not a fortune teller nor a mouthpeice for a deity. He was no lunatic. He was only a liar in the sense that truth wasn't measured in the way it is these days. He used metaphore to describe higher concepts and even lived his life as a metaphore.
He never wrote a book unfortunately, so the accounts we have of his life are written many years after the fact by people with a vested interest in turning the man into a god.
....
Another common evangelical plattitude is pascals wager. People don't seem to know why they believe what they believe so they rely on these little word tricks.
The wager is as follows: there are two possibilities of reality, either God exists or He doesn't. There are two responses to this reality. Belief on unbelief in God and Co. These variables result in four possible states.
1. Believe in God, He exists.
2. Believe in God, He doesn't exist.
3. Don't believe in God, He exists.
4. Don't believe in God, He doesn't exist.
The arguement is that if god does exist, belief equals eternal bliss; Unbelief results in Hell. If God does not exsit, then it doesn't really matter what you believe because you die at the end regardless.
To quote a greater mind out of context: "God does not play dice"
This wager is flawed on several levels. First, it assumes a binary opposition in the potential states of God. It is the modern Christian Fundementalist interpretation or the fire. Trust me, there are far more views than that and most a lot more credible.
Secondly, it presents a paradox of a God, loving only those who take the safe bet and try to stack the odds in their favour. This God favours the strategically self decieving and liars. A truthful person is morrally obliged to reject this God of lies.
Third, there is a lot to be gained in life by the casting away of the fairytales of our species' infancy. "Now that I am a man, I cast off childish things" (1 Corinthians 13:11)
It is only when we honestly seek the truth, dispite the fear of a wrathful and murderous God, that we can find the true meaning of life, if such a thing does exist. It is the harder path, but definitely a worthy one. It is hardly inconsequencial to be a part of the awakening of humanity.