Posted by Mike O on: 06.12.2008 /
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Christians talk ad nauseam about who/what we think Jesus is. But I’m curious as to what non-believers say abut the historical man, Jesus of Nazareth. Who do you say that he was?
Do you think he existed? If so, who/what do you think he claimed to be, and who/what do you think he really was?
What kind of person do you think followed him in his day? What kind of person opposed him?
If you were to compare the man Jesus to the man Muhammad (for example), do you see similarities? Differences?
Leave a Reply
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
1 06/12/08 7:44 AM | Comment Link |I don’t know.
Since as you mentioned Christians like to talk about him ad nauseam, I join in with ideas and speculations of my own. Why should they have all the fun? :)
Comment by: Jason
2 06/12/08 8:41 AM | Comment Link |Bear in mind that this isn’t a response from an expert but I’ve read several responses to ideas about who the historical Jesus was and I base my opinions on them.
What do we know about Jesus? He was great to have at parties with his wine trick. Anything else?
Christopher Hitchens indicates that he believes that there was an individual called Jesus who travelled about preaching and teaching and making a general nuisance of himself with the rabbis. He bases this on several passages that just come across as every day events like arguments with his mother.
I’m not so sure. There were a great many prophets and wandering preachers at the time of Jesus. It is my own belief that that the stories of these many prophets have been brought together to form the story of one man. Jesus is the conglomeration of many argumentative Jews. This accounts for the geographical disparities in the bible and the large number of miracles attributed to him.
One man is unlikely to accumulate so many but a few unusual events for a dozen men might not be that strange. Exaggerate and embellish each one and change the miracle worker to Jesus and you have a neatly packaged messiah who can do no wrong. That seems more probable to me. It also accounts for the lack of evidence for the existence of the individual man.
Peter, the author of parts of the bible comes across as the sort of person who would take a holy figure and try to build a church on it. My favourite disciple is the much maligned Judas who did everything that he was told to and got nothing but grief and exploding guts for his trouble. The sort of person who genuinely followed Jesus (whether an individual or several people) would be obedient and well meaning men. Men seeking a leader who wanted action to provoke change. If you view the old temples as corrupt then a religious person would rebel against them and look to a prophet or catalyst for reform. Not a Henry VIII reform but a laying down of wealth and influence over people’s pockets in favour of spiritual well being.
I’d say that there is significantly more evidence for Muhammad than for Jesus but Muhammad was a details man while Jesus was more the big picture guy. Or really Jesus’ message was broad while the Quran was very specific.
Comment by: Mike O
3 06/12/08 8:54 AM | Comment Link |Awesome! Do you mind if I use that one?
Comment by: Jason
4 06/12/08 9:08 AM | Comment Link |Of course Mike.
I also want to add that I don’t think that it’s important if Jesus was a real man, a fiction, or the honest to goodness son of God. The important thing is the lesson of compassion to others that the stories tell us. As an atheist I get to appreciate something like the Good Samaritan story as a moral lesson. The fact that it’s a story told by a man who might only be a story himself doesn’t change the importance of the lesson.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
5 06/12/08 12:31 PM | Comment Link |Jason - that’s pretty much my view - I look for the lessons I can learn rather than trying to figure out who Jesus was (since I don’t think I’ll never know for sure anyway).
Comment by: Mike O
6 06/12/08 1:06 PM | Comment Link |But you still do think something, right? I mean, as far as understanding why Christians exist is concerned, you must have some opinion regarding who he was.
Or do you really not care? I just think it’s interesting to see what people’s notions of him are.
Comment by: Karen
7 06/12/08 1:09 PM | Comment Link |I agree that we’ll never know who Jesus the man actually was or if indeed such an historical figure ever existed. Of course, that doesn’t stop us speculating or investigating to see what we can find out!
I heard biblical scholar Burton Mack give his theory about Jesus one time and it made some sense to me. He thinks it most likely that there was indeed a man called Jesus who was one of a number of rabble-rousing amateur philosophers common in the ancient world at that time who traveled with groups of followers in tow.
Given the NT verses that date back the furthest (the so-called “Q source”) and looking at them in their earliest fragments, this Jesus was something of a “cynic” philosopher (not the same definition as the modern use of the word). This would be someone who challenged the authorities, called out unfairness and attracted crowds by speaking provocatively in a repressive society - something that could also get him locked up or worse.
He gave some of the verse fragments that he believes are most likely attributable to this Jesus and it’s really interesting to hear them. They echo the familiar “red letter” verses in the NT, but they’re more blunt and not “prettified” as we know them today. Some of them were humorous, others ironic and even some with scatalogical or sexual allusions.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
8 06/12/08 2:54 PM | Comment Link |Mike wrote:
I don’t think I do. Where I’m at is “I don’t know”. Is that an opinion?
I thought about this and as best I can tell, I really don’t care.
Comment by: Mike O
9 06/12/08 3:14 PM | Comment Link |Fair enough.
Comment by: Jason
10 06/12/08 5:04 PM | Comment Link |Mike, in order to work out who Jesus was I would need to cut through all the mysticism and mythology surrounding the man. That would mean referring to independent texts and historical records. These just don’t exist unlike the records on Muhammad. The figure of Jesus is too bound up within Christianity to ever be separated.
Comment by: Mike O
11 06/12/08 8:23 PM | Comment Link |Maybe in order to solve who Jesus was, that may be true. But not to just say what you think.
Here’s what I’m finding interesting - if we were talking about Muhammad - an actual person - I think we’d get answers like “I think he was this or that.” But for some reason with Jesus, it’s hard to get past the theology he’s cloaked in. I would understand that if we were talking about a fictional figure - like Zeus, for example.
But I think we all pretty much agree that he really existed. If he did, what do you think he was like? Who do you think he really was? Forget the theologies and philosophies surrounding him, what’s your opinion of the man, and/or his followers as historical characters?
Comment by: Jason
12 06/12/08 10:51 PM | Comment Link |I think you’ve hit the problem on the head. Whether or not Jesus, the man, was a real person or an amalgam of several people as I believe the biblical figure of Jesus is a fiction. I know you don’t believe that but for me whatever parts of the man are in the stories are obscured by miracles and wise teachings. Not just wise but irrefutable from one perspective.
However, I take your point, it is perfectly possible to discuss Mohandas Gandhi (a real person) and King Arthur (a fictional character) together. It feels odd to do so but it is possible. Given this then we should be able to discuss Jesus in the same light.
What do we know about Jesus, the man? He was confident, we can see that from the way he argued with temple leaders and stood before crowds of supplicants.
He wasn’t particularly respectful of his living parents. Mary is insulted several times by Jesus and accused of nagging and haranguing her son. Joseph is barely mentioned after the nativity story, in fact I can’t think of a reference at all but I’m sure there must be. Also Jesus says several times that his followers must abandon their families. He took no lovers and never married. So, not a family man.
What was his temper like? We’ve all heard of his legendary tranquility but is this supported in the biblical verses? He rages against his mother, he rages against the temple and the market within it. Tranquil? No, I don’t think so.
Did he abhor violence and embrace peace? There’s the render unto Caesar line that speaks directly for avoiding civil unrest. We’re not talking about mid 20th century India and civil disobedience but Roman rule with a reputation for stamping on any kind of rebellion. I don’t think he was concerned with politics but wanted peace to come from within people.
I’m sure I’ll think of more later.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
13 06/12/08 11:19 PM | Comment Link |Just for balance sake and because you seem to be intellectually honest- Im sure you simply must be not aware of the scripture where Jesus while hanging on the cross asks John to watch over his mother.
and again
Where exactly is this rage against his mom illustrated. I think you might be referring to the story where he ignores his mother and tells people that whoever follows him is his family- is that where you see rage?
But I take your point about the water and wine story- it could be read the way you are recounting it.
Per politics- I have come to understand Jesus as being poltical (for more on this read Everything Must Change by Brian McLaren)but not politicized.
Comment by: Mike O
14 06/13/08 4:47 AM | Comment Link |Thanks, Jason - that was exactly what I meant. Sure, I disagree, but so what? I think articulating our opinions can help to clarify them.
That got me thinking again - if it weren’t for the Bible, what would we actually know about him?
The main extrabiblical reason that I believe he was an actual person is that people who knew him (or who we think knew him) died for him. Perhaps they died for a cause cause rather the man, but I don’t happen to think so. I think they died because one man - and the cause - was worth dying for.
Comment by: Jason
15 06/13/08 2:11 PM | Comment Link |Jim, you’re right, I wasn’t aware that John was asked to look over Mary.
The word “rage” was probably ill used. In the water into wine passage (John 2 2:4) he does seem to be exasperated with the her and calls her “woman”. I take this as an insult like calling a black man “boy” but in all honesty I may be transferring my modern sexual equality bias to post iron age society.
Mike, the people who knew him or thought they knew him apparently died for him. I don’t know if that’s true and where is the evidence that it is? How trustworthy is it? Also people have always been willing to die and to kill for what they believe. I don’t particularly think that these are traits that we should encourage. People die for all kinds of reasons.
I’ve also thought of another characteristic of Jesus. He spoke to people through stories. He didn’t say “Help people because it’s cool”, he told the story of the Good Samaritan. The CEO of my company tells stories. Other than making meetings very long it makes them memorable and keeps us interested. We get to revisit the idea through the retelling and gain an appreciation for it. Stories also imply that a person has listened and paid attention to his surroundings and to other people. There’s something in that, I think.