Did Jesus Christ Exist as a historical person? If so, who was he?

[Winston]

Even the notion of Jesus being based on a historical person is complex. As the Bible critic Robert Price said: "The creator of Donald Duck had a neighbor who had a duck named Donald. Does that make Donald Duck based on a historical duck?" So you see, the whole notion of any legend being based on a historical person is nebulous. Another possibility is that Jesus is an amalgam based on several different people. Either way, his persona was used by the Catholic Church for political control of people. That much is obvious. I think the Gnostics are probably correct that Jesus may have been a Gnostic teacher who was then turned into a fundamentalist icon.

The key thing Christians forget is that Jesus himself was not a fundamentalist. In the Gospels, he kept interpreting the Old Testament scriptures esoterically and metaphorically, not literally. So he was not into literalist interpretations. What this means is that if the Jesus of the Gospels existed, he would not agree with the modern fundamentalist/evangelical type of Christianity that exists today. That's the funny irony Christians don't get. lol

[MrMan]

Even the notion of Jesus being based on a historical person is complex. As the Bible critic Robert Price said: "The creator of Donald Duck had a neighbor who had a duck named Donald. Does that make Donald Duck based on a historical duck?" So you see, the whole notion of any legend being based on a historical person is nebulous. Another possibility is that Jesus is an amalgam based on several different people. Either way, his persona was used by the Catholic Church for political control of people. That much is obvious. I think the Gnostics are probably correct that Jesus may have been a Gnostic teacher who was then turned into a fundamentalist icon.

There are different approaches to scholarship. Some scholars are 'liberal' and if there is a prophecy of the future in a book of the Bible, they set the date of the book after the prophecy came to pass. But even liberal scholars will accept Pauline authorship of epistles in the 40's through 50's AD, which was within a couple of decades of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ.

Do you know of any scholar that sets any gnostic writing before the second century AD? is that even a scholarly opinion anywhere. As far as political figures using religion to try to control people...I can't disagree with that idea.

The key thing Christians forget is that Jesus himself was not a fundamentalist. In the Gospels, he kept interpreting the Old Testament scriptures esoterically and metaphorically, not literally. So he was not into literalist interpretations. What this means is that if the Jesus of the Gospels existed, he would not agree with the modern fundamentalist/evangelical type of Christianity that exists today. That's the funny irony Christians don't get. lol

What specifically do you think was not 'fundamentalist' about Jesus? He held to a different view of the Sabbath than His Pharisee opponents. But belief in the resurrection was a 'fundamentalist' type understanding of the book of Daniel, and Jesus believed in the resurrection. He told a Jewish audience they should have tithed of mint, anise, and cummin, but not reject the weightier matters of the law-- justice, mercy, and faith. Telling them to keep minute details of the law is kind of 'fundamentalist' isn't it?

'Fundamentalist' is also a kind of anachronistic term to use for first century approaches to scripture.

[Winston]

Great point about Jesus that no one dares to say:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0rbqvsInZA

Anatoly Vizitiu
3 years ago (edited)
What is this obsession with Jesus? I listened to the Gospel of Thomas and based on it and official gospels, Jesus is NOT a nice guy, he demands nothing short of a self sacrifice, which turns people into neurotics. Jesus archetype, helped develop the western civilization, but it brought on it's set of damaging consequences, namely alienated from your own nature and neurosis as a result of waging war with nature. If there is any benefit from Jesus, it's one sided and will not allow for integration of the shadow personality. If you follow Jesus you will remain a split personality and be at never ending war with yourself. Jesus and Lucifer have to make peace and live in harmony for rise of consciousness, and any belief in Jesus will hinder the evolution of consciousness. IMHO

I added:

Happier Abroad: Escape USA & Date Foreign Women!
1 minute ago (edited)
Yeah and don't forget he lost his temper at the temple of money changers, and he cursed a fig tree and killed it too, an innocent fig tree, and in Revelation Chapter 2 he also appeared and said he would kill a church and its children for disobedience of their parents. Why do Christians never address this? There's also no basis to Jesus or God being perfect either. Christians just say that because if God were not perfect no one would want to worship him. But it has no logical basis. I think ultimately people are seeking the Christ within and they project it onto Jesus, whom they never met.

[Pixel--Dude]

"I wanted to analyse the significance of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and ask what you guys think to the reflection.

Sacrifice of animals was common before the times of Jesus Christ, because as Paul said "The wages of sin are death!" People today value different things, but back then people would have valued animals for their food, clothing and financial security. So someone committing a sin would sacrifice one of their valued animals to God to atone for their sin.

The reason Christians don't sacrifice animals anymore is because of the substitutional sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Both were means to the same end, which was accounting for sin. Here are 5 distinctions between the two forms of sacrifice:

1. The first important distinction is that when an animal is sacrificed it does not come back to life. It is a permanent loss. If among your flock you had an animal that could bring itself back from the dead, how meaningful would it be to sacrifice that particular animal? How would that even be a loss or a sacrifice if the animal just came back to you after you lost it?

2. The second distinction is that animal sacrifice was not retroactive like the sacrifice of Jesus. First came sin and then the sacrifice followed. This is true for everyone before the sacrifice of Jesus Christ but not after. It would be shallow and insincere to kill an animal as an insurance policy just in case you sin in the future, or preemptively performing a sacrifice today so you can sin tomorrow. The sacrifice loses its meaning when you can sin with the knowledge that a sacrifice has already been made on your behalf. With the knowledge of the sacrifice of Jesus people know their sacrifice was already made and this can become a consideration for pretty much any sin.

3. Animals do not choose to be sacrificed is another distinction. They were chosen by their owners. How would the meaning of the sacrifice change if it were the animal that volunteered to be sacrificed? Thusly taking away responsibility from their owners? The focus would shift from it being the owners act to the animals act. This would fundamentally changing the dynamic for atonement, yet this is exactly what can be observed with Christianity. Jesus, unlike the animal, was a willing participant in his own sacrifice.

4. A fourth distinction is that people killed animals they valued, that is why the sacrifice is supposed to have meaning. But the people who killed Jesus did not value him. For whom was Jesus truly sacrificed?

5. Finally, animals were sacrificed to atone for the sin of the person who killed them. A sacrifice must be an intentional act for it to be considered a sacrifice, yet the people who killed Jesus didn't kill him for him to be offered as a sacrifice. When someone offered an animal as a sacrifice they intended that animal to be a sacrifice for their sin, in Christianity however it was God who valued Jesus and God who intentionally offered Jesus as a sacrifice. Given what we know about sacrifice this tells us that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was because God did something wrong and God offered a valued sacrifice to atone for God's wrongdoing. Because sacrificing Jesus would not be a logical way for humans to atone for their sin, but it would be a logical way for God to atone. Jesus never belonged to us, he belonged to God and therefore wasn't ours to sacrifice.

What if Christianity makes more sense if it is God who is asking humanity for forgiveness? And what if that is why the teachings of Jesus were mostly about the value of forgiveness? Yahweh trying to win over humanity with a sacrifice which loses its meaning when that which he offered as a sacrifice would just come back to him.

The sacrifice of Jesus Christ is the foundational principle on which the entire religion is built. But what do the previous considerations tell us about its true meaning?"

Here are some interesting thoughts on Jesus Christ and the meaning of sacrifice which I addressed in the following thread: viewtopic.php?style=11&p=376819#p376819

[Cornfed]

The reason Christians don't sacrifice animals anymore is because of the substitutional sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

The idea that Jesus being executed is the same as animal sacrifice is completely retarded and not the Biblical position. There is no reason that retarded beliefs like this need to arise or be addressed.

What if Christianity makes more sense if it is God who is asking humanity for forgiveness?

Makes no sense and obviously not the Christian position.

[Pixel--Dude]

The idea that Jesus being executed is the same as animal sacrifice is completely retarded and not the Biblical position. There is no reason that retarded beliefs like this need to arise or be addressed.

Were animals not sacrificed for the atonement of sin? If not then why were animals sacrificed to appease Yahweh? Jesus dying for our sins is one of the main points of the biblical position, is it not? His sacrifice is one of the foundational principles upon which the entire religion is built. So how is the comparison in any way retarded? Jesus sacrificed himself to atone for mankind's sin, right? Something people were sacrificing animals for before Jesus made his sacrifice.

What if Christianity makes more sense if it is God who is asking humanity for forgiveness?
Makes no sense and obviously not the Christian position.

But in the context of a given sacrifice to atone and ask for forgiveness this is the ONLY thing that makes any sense. As pointed out in my points made above, given what we know about sacrifice and its meaning any other context makes no sense at all.

[Cornfed]

The idea that Jesus being executed is the same as animal sacrifice is completely retarded and not the Biblical position. There is no reason that retarded beliefs like this need to arise or be addressed.

Were animals not sacrificed for the atonement of sin? If not then why were animals sacrificed to appease Yahweh? Jesus dying for our sins is one of the main points of the biblical position, is it not? His sacrifice is one of the foundational principles upon which the entire religion is built. So how is the comparison in any way retarded? Jesus sacrificed himself to atone for mankind's sin, right? Something people were sacrificing animals for before Jesus made his sacrifice.

There aren't any Biblical passages conflating Jesus' execution with animal sacrifice. You are just making up silly stuff.

[Pixel--Dude]

The idea that Jesus being executed is the same as animal sacrifice is completely retarded and not the Biblical position. There is no reason that retarded beliefs like this need to arise or be addressed.

Were animals not sacrificed for the atonement of sin? If not then why were animals sacrificed to appease Yahweh? Jesus dying for our sins is one of the main points of the biblical position, is it not? His sacrifice is one of the foundational principles upon which the entire religion is built. So how is the comparison in any way retarded? Jesus sacrificed himself to atone for mankind's sin, right? Something people were sacrificing animals for before Jesus made his sacrifice.

There aren't any Biblical passages conflating Jesus' execution with animal sacrifice. You are just making up silly stuff.

So answer me two simple questions:

1. What was the purpose of animal sacrifice?

2. What was the reason for the sacrifice of Jesus Christ?

I think the answer to both questions revolves around the atonement of sin, does it not? So how are you struggling to grasp what I'm saying?

[Cornfed]

1. What was the purpose of animal sacrifice?

Feeding the priests, feeding others, a form of communal worshipful ritual, magical type activity, that sort of thing.

2. What was the reason for the sacrifice of Jesus Christ?

The Bible doesn't say. My best guess was to start the Christian religion by the spectacle and because God needed to have a human experience to set an example to humans in the facets of life that weren't applicable to Him as the Supreme Being.

https://rumble.com/vq2o3y-why-did-jesus-die-for-us.html

[Pixel--Dude]

1. What was the purpose of animal sacrifice?

Feeding the priests, feeding others, a form of communal worshipful ritual, magical type activity, that sort of thing.

2. What was the reason for the sacrifice of Jesus Christ?

The Bible doesn't say. My best guess was to start the Christian religion by the spectacle and because God needed to have a human experience to set an example to humans in the facets of life that weren't applicable to Him as the Supreme Being.

https://rumble.com/vq2o3y-why-did-jesus-die-for-us.html

"In the New Testament, Jesus, God's Son, came to earth to reunite us with God through the ultimate sacrifice: his own life. We could never a life worthy of God on our own. So Jesus lived a life without sin on our behalf. And then he died the painful death our sins deserve." - www.faithward.org.

It's the position of most Christians (to my knowledge) that Jesus Christ died for our sins. Any Christian you ask will affirm this.

What do you guys say
@MrMan
@Outcast9428 and even @Kalinago?

@Lucas88 has studied the Bible also, what do you make of this? Do you get this impression as well? Did many of the Christians you associated with believe Jesus Christ died for our sins?

Most Christian denominations believe that the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ permanently abolished animal sacrifice, primarily based on the teaching in the Epistle to the Hebrews that Jesus was the "Lamb of God" to whom all ancient sacrifices pointed.

"God required animal sacrifices as a way for His people to temporarily atone for their sins and draw nearer to Him."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.christ ... ml%3famp=1

[Cornfed]

"In the New Testament, Jesus, God's Son, came to earth to reunite us with God through the ultimate sacrifice: his own life. We could never a life worthy of God on our own. So Jesus lived a life without sin on our behalf. And then he died the painful death our sins deserve." - www.faithward.org.

It's the position of most Christians (to my knowledge) that Jesus Christ died for our sins. Any Christian you ask will affirm this.

This is compatible with my position. We are a defective crop but capable of redemption so Jesus did what he did to help us out. Neither the Bible nor the "Christians" you are talking about offer anything to contradict this.

[Cornfed]

"God required animal sacrifices as a way for His people to temporarily atone for their sins and draw nearer to Him."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.christ ... ml%3famp=1

People say a lot of stupid things. So what? Animal sacrifices are like giving to charity is today. There can be a bunch of reasons, atonement, sometimes court ordered, being one of them.

[Pixel--Dude]

"In the New Testament, Jesus, God's Son, came to earth to reunite us with God through the ultimate sacrifice: his own life. We could never a life worthy of God on our own. So Jesus lived a life without sin on our behalf. And then he died the painful death our sins deserve." - www.faithward.org.

It's the position of most Christians (to my knowledge) that Jesus Christ died for our sins. Any Christian you ask will affirm this.

This is compatible with my position. We are a defective crop but capable of redemption so Jesus did what he did to help us out. Neither the Bible nor the "Christians" you are talking about offer anything to contradict this.

So Jesus Christ dying for our sins and sacrificing his own life is in place of the sacrifice of animals which were made to atone for sin.

"The wages for sin is death." Romans 6:23

Animal sacrifice was commonplace in the old testament as a way to atone for sin and appease God. The practice became unnecessary because of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ who died for all our sins.

[Cornfed]

So Jesus Christ dying for our sins and sacrificing his own life is in place of the sacrifice of animals which were made to atone for sin.

What the hell are you talking about? This whole animal equivalence thing is a completely stupid fantasy. There is no reason to be on this track.

[Kalinago]

1. What was the purpose of animal sacrifice?

Feeding the priests, feeding others, a form of communal worshipful ritual, magical type activity, that sort of thing.

2. What was the reason for the sacrifice of Jesus Christ?

The Bible doesn't say. My best guess was to start the Christian religion by the spectacle and because God needed to have a human experience to set an example to humans in the facets of life that weren't applicable to Him as the Supreme Being.

https://rumble.com/vq2o3y-why-did-jesus-die-for-us.html

"In the New Testament, Jesus, God's Son, came to earth to reunite us with God through the ultimate sacrifice: his own life. We could never a life worthy of God on our own. So Jesus lived a life without sin on our behalf. And then he died the painful death our sins deserve." - www.faithward.org.

It's the position of most Christians (to my knowledge) that Jesus Christ died for our sins. Any Christian you ask will affirm this.

What do you guys say
@MrMan
@Outcast9428 and even @Kalinago?

@Lucas88 has studied the Bible also, what do you make of this? Do you get this impression as well? Did many of the Christians you associated with believe Jesus Christ died for our sins?

Most Christian denominations believe that the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ permanently abolished animal sacrifice, primarily based on the teaching in the Epistle to the Hebrews that Jesus was the "Lamb of God" to whom all ancient sacrifices pointed.

"God required animal sacrifices as a way for His people to temporarily atone for their sins and draw nearer to Him."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.christ ... ml%3famp=1

From What I understand the sacrifice of Jesus christ was not a atonement for sin(well paul says it was but some disagree),but rather a passover-pascha sacrifice as John and Paul say.
No sacrifice in OT times could atone for intentional sins anyway.And incense,gold,charity,a contrite heart and 'the bull of our lips'could atone aswell.

So why was Jesus necessary from a Halachic perspective?

Pascha was not atoning,but rather saved one from death,and Jesus' sacrifice saves christians nfrom eternal death.

What I personally do not understand is that Jesus died for christian's sin,but if they do certain acts (1 coritnhians 6:9-11)they will not inherit the kingdom of heaven without repentance before death.

So did Jesus die for the very possibility of forgiveness?

well hosea 14:2 says the fruit our lips as bulls will atone for sins.

and what about all the verses about Grace through faith over works in the bible but then you have passages like the above in corinthians and galatians that say certain sinners will never enter paradise?
and then the verses of grace by paul contradict James.......

@Outcast9428 and @MrMan what are your ideas on this?

the bible seems to contradict itself on justification,which is why so many differing christian sects sprung up,and why jews don't believe in atoning sacrifice necessary for forgiveness.