I think we can all agree he most likely wasn't the son of God.
I'm reading C.S. Lewis now, and his claim that Jesus was "Lord, Liar or Lunatic" seems like a false dilemma. Couldn't he be deluded, and honestly think he was because his followers insisted? Is there historical evidence he ever claimed to be God in the first place?

Posts about your opinion on Jesus's legitimacy/character as well as reading material on the subject would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance :)

Tags: c.s., dilemma, false, jesus, lewis, liar, lord, lunatic, trichotomy

Views: 1344

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

According to biblical scholars (non-christians included) historical Jesus existed. Details/sources/evidence on his life and actions and character are sketchy and will always be extremely vague and almost meaningless. It's probably a waste of time to research just what kind of guy Jesus was.

However it is not at all a waste of time to watch "The life of Brian" which paints an extremely speculative (and absurd) portrait of Jesus ... only a million times more believable than St. Johns gospel.

Depends on if you want to assign any essential historical accuracy to the gospels. If you do, then fabrication and exaggeration are ruled out, and Lewis also makes a pretty good case that liar and lunatic should be ruled out as well. So he's either the Son of God or someone who really shouldn't be all that noteworthy, in which case, why is everyone on this planet so curious about him?

Jesus was a Jewish Zealot who lived under Roman occupation.  He opposed Roman rule and those Jews who sympathized and colluded with them like the priests and money changers at the temple.  He was executed by Rome for sedition. I think that much is clear from all the evidence that we have.  I would recommend the book Zealot by Reza Aslan. It's a great read.

Richard Carrier answers your question:

good video

Philip Jose Farmer suggested in the novella "Riverworld" that 'Son Of God' is like 'Daughter Of The Revolution' ie he could have been a Son Of God but not the Son of God.

Personally I don't believe he existed based on the lack of credible evidence, plus the fact there are no records of him in the Roman record... no documentation, nothing. This at a time when he was supposed to be the talk of the town. Add to this the fact that Nazareth never existed at the supposed time of Jesus and the whole thing smells of bullshit.

This is a good video on it.


(Not having watched the video).  Your argument doesn't take into account the possibility that a perfectly ordinary street corner preacher got his ass executed, and then after his death a huge legend got built up around him.  The records wouldn't show him existing because he'd be too small potatoes to be worth recording, at the time they nailed him up.

I know the prevailing opinion is that a historical Jesus existed. Historian Richard Carrier makes a very interesting case for why he does not believe this. (Edit: I realize this has already been posted.) I recommend watching the whole lecture, I found it extremely interesting.

Carrier says that around the alleged time of Jesus, there was a trend of new religions which would mix Greek philosophy with some other culture. He states that the story of Jesus is a mix of Greek and Jewish thought in a way that is very similar to other mixing of Greek and Egyptian, Greek and . There was also a trend of dying and rising gods who gave salvation by being resurrected. (At about 13 minutes.)

Hey Renee,

As much as I've searched I've never been able to find any evidence that he existed. What I did find was shown to be forgeries. Anybody out there know of some solid evidence that this guy actually existed? I think it's an interesting question.

- kk

Hey Kir Komrik,

It seems to me that it'd be strange to invent a person with such purposeless detail. Maybe if he'd been said to live a few millennia earlier, like Gilgamesh, I could believe there was no man. But just 2000 years ago? We might as well speculate that Spartacus wasn't real. I just feel I'd need more evidence to believe that. If I were going to create the life of a character to build a cult around, I wouldn't have put verifiable factors in there. A very public execution, under a public figure like Pilate? If they'd said he was killed by the Jews in private, would it have taken from the required sacrifice? Was there something to be gained from including the Romans' role (passive authoritarian oppression perhaps)? I just don't see a group of people hatching out such a perfect scheme without any sort of focal piece to use as an anchor.

It seems far more likely to me that there was a man, who was essentially killed for running his mouth, and then the storytellers took it from there, cult, church, mental illness.


© 2015   Created by umar.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service