What was Jesus Christ like?

[lpetrich]

I'll be creating a poll on that; it'll include possibilities ranging from god-human hybrid to mythical, and the Gospels being accurate to them being fictional.

Since many of the possibilities are not mutually exclusive, I'll make this poll multiple-choice. I'll also be making the voting public, so people can state summaries of their positions by voting in this poll.

[Monad]

I'm pretty sure he was Jewish.

Checks list...:

Male
"Virgin" (yeah but his mother said that too lol)

[Preno]

I think Jesus Christ was a pretty cool guy, eh got crucified and doesn't afraid of anything.

[Matty]

shouldnt there be an an amalgamation of the stories of multiple local religious or political figures with some old school pagan twists added to his "life story" to make it more palatable to the heathens ?

[David B]

I don't see a 'cult leader' option.

David

[BioBeing]

shouldnt there be an an amalgamation of the stories of multiple local religious or political figures with some old school pagan twists added to his "life story" to make it more palatable to the heathens ?

This is basically what I think too, so I checked "It is difficult to tell". There might have been one Jesus, or many Jesuses. I don't think he/they were a god or anything, of course, but I'm not going to say that Jesus was totally mythical either.

[Lanakila]

I love the magical brownies choice and have missed it from IIDB's lounge threads.

[Nohweh]

"Jesus Christ" is not in the gospels. He was invented by Paul of Tarsus. I believe it's likely there was a preacher named Yeshua who made a big impact among his people, and who was subsequently legendized (even deified!) by others.

[DMB]

I voted for revolutionary anti-Roman leader and Gospels too tangled to tell.

[Berthold]

I voted, apocalyptic prophet (at least, much of what he allegedly said is characteristic for this), and, myth and fact difficult (or impossible) to disentangle.

[Ray Moscow]

I think he's mostly myth and midrash, but there could still be an HJ, or several, in there somewhere.

[VoxRat]

I'm going with "difficult to tell". But I don't see that as mutually exclusive with at least the "myth" option. I'm certain that a guy walking on water, turning water into wine, revivifying the corpses of others, and revivifying his own is myth; but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that these myths were collected around someone named Jesus (or Yeshua, or whatever it really is) after the fact.

[Joykins]

I'll be creating a poll on that; it'll include possibilities ranging from god-human hybrid to mythical, and the Gospels being accurate to them being fictional.

Since many of the possibilities are not mutually exclusive, I'll make this poll multiple-choice. I'll also be making the voting public, so people can state summaries of their positions by voting in this poll.

The god-human hybrid option is officially heretical to orthodox Christians ;)

Sage and apocalyptic prophet are accurate but not complete.

[lpetrich]

The god-human hybrid option is officially heretical to orthodox Christians ;)
How is that heretical? That seems like a good short description of the orthodox version of his parentage, which is that his biological father was God and that his biological mother was Mary.

[dug_down_deep]

God-human hybrid makes it sound like YHWH slipped Mary the High hard one, so I didn't go for that one. But according to the stories he was an apocalyptic prophet and a holy man. You left out the son of god bit, I think.

Also, the character Jesus is entirely fictional. There may have been a man that inspired the stories, but that has nothing to do with the character Jesus we all know and love.

[David B]

OK, I voted for the three things that seem to me to be most in keeping with what I think, but they don't fit exactly.

Cult leader seems to me to fit best.

David

[Gooch's Dad]

I voted for revolutionary leader, and apocalyptic prophet. I think there is almost certainly a HJ behind the Christian stories, although it is obviously difficult to filter out the historical details. I think the case for "entirely mythical" isn't justified. There isn't much evidence there, but there isn't much evidence needed to simply show that a man existed.

Of course, I think that the hagiography part of the gospels is entirely fictional, and if Jesus existed, he wasn't anything more than a man.

[court and spark]

Everyone knows that Jesus was a mellow, peaceful white man with crystal blue eyes and flowing, honey-brown hair, just like every other white blue-eyed Jewish guy living in the Middle East over 2000 years ago.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/137/330486706_4e67fa7fc3.jpg

[VoxRat]

I guess the subtle part of the OP is:
"What was Jesus Christ like?"
See, I don't doubt that there was a "Jesus" (or "Yeshua", or whatever). But "Christ" means "the anointed one". That's the mythological part.

[Joykins]

The god-human hybrid option is officially heretical to orthodox Christians ;)
How is that heretical? That seems like a good short description of the orthodox version of his parentage, which is that his biological father was God and that his biological mother was Mary.

Orthodoxy holds that Jesus was completely human and completely divine. Not a god-man hybrid like Hercules.

[Joykins]

You also forgot "faith healer and exorcist."

[Norrin Radd]

The god-human hybrid option is officially heretical to orthodox Christians ;)
How is that heretical? That seems like a good short description of the orthodox version of his parentage, which is that his biological father was God and that his biological mother was Mary.

Orthodoxy holds that Jesus was completely human and completely divine. Not a god-man hybrid like Hercules.

Which is why I decided not to vote.

[hecaterin]

I don't see a 'cult leader' option.

DavidSure there is: "holy man" :evil:

[Gooch's Dad]

I agree with Voxrat, the "Christ" part is very much a red herring.

[lpetrich]

Joykins and David B, thanx for mentioning "faith healer and exorcist" and "cult leader" as possibilities, though they could be subsets of "sage / holy man".

But I think that "god-human hybrid" fits "Son of God" and "fully God and fully man".

Here is how the word "hybrid" is usually used:

American Heritage Dictionary (http://www.bartleby.com/61/0/H0340000.html):
1. Genetics The offspring of genetically dissimilar parents or stock, especially the offspring produced by breeding plants or animals of different varieties, species, or races. 2a. Something of mixed origin or composition. b. Something, such as a computer or power plant, having two kinds of components that produce the same or similar results. 3. A word whose elements are derived from different languages.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hybrid):
1. an offspring of two animals or plants of different races, breeds, varieties, species, or genera. 2. a person whose background is a blend of two diverse cultures or traditions. 3a. something heterogeneous in origin or composition: composite <hybrids of complementary DNA and RNA strands> <a hybrid of medieval and Renaissance styles>. b. something (as a power plant, vehicle, or electronic circuit) that has two different types of components performing essentially the same function.

So how would "hybrid" be a poor fit?

I note that early Xian apologist Justin Martyr in The First Apology (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm) had implied that that was a good fit in Chapter 21: "Analogies to the history of Christ":
And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.
He continued by listing these sons of Jupiter/Zeus: Hermes, Asclepius, Dionysus, Hercules, the Dioscuri, and Perseus.

[BioBeing]

The god-human hybrid option is officially heretical to orthodox Christians ;)
How is that heretical? That seems like a good short description of the orthodox version of his parentage, which is that his biological father was God and that his biological mother was Mary.

Orthodoxy holds that Jesus was completely human and completely divine. Not a god-man hybrid like Hercules.

So Jesus was a God-man hybrid, not a Man-god hybrid, is that it? :confused:

[Nohweh]

No, Catholic theology claims that Jesus had full humanity and full divinity at the same time. He was not an admixture of the two. Yeah, it's a mind-bender, but this is from the same people who brought you the Principle of Transubstantiation.

[David B]

No, Catholic theology claims that Jesus had full humanity and full divinity at the same time. He was not an admixture of the two. Yeah, it's a mind-bender, but this is from the same people who brought you the Principle of Transubstantiation.

I've long suspected that getting people to contemplate such 'mysteries' at length serves the same function in evoking what is purported to be mystical experience as the contemplation of Zen Koans.

David

[Ray Moscow]

No, Catholic theology claims that Jesus had full humanity and full divinity at the same time. He was not an admixture of the two. Yeah, it's a mind-bender, but this is from the same people who brought you the Principle of Transubstantiation.

I wouldn't call either one so much a "mind bender" as a "mind stopper".

Nonsense, recited in solemn tones and with authority, is still nonsense.

[Monad]

There were probably lots of blokes called Jesus back then so it could well be that the legend of Jesus has some basis in non supernatural acts performed by real people (but not necessarily all one person or all called Jesus) but I also think some of what is attributed to him is just basic tapping into whatever local mythologies were knocking around at the time.

Don't know if any of that corresponds with a vote option so I haven't ticked one.

[sohy]

I couldn't choose any of the poll choices. I tend to think that Jesus was either a mythical being or mostly a mythical being based on a composite of real or fictional characters from the era.

Since the being named Jesus never wrote down any of his own teachings and the books that Xians attribute to him were written decades after his death, ( assuming he was real in the first place ) it's pretty hard to determine who or what he was.

If there was a Jesus that actually lived and eventually generated the Gospel myths, I'd say he was probably a revolutionary that attempted to change his society to one based on principles of social justice. All that supernatural stuff was added later. I like the revolutionary Jesus. He was pretty cool.

[Hevvin Machine]

I voted for every option that did NOT include the word "entirely".

I realize that the hybrid option is technically heresy, but I don't think that using it in this context counts. It's the best word to use in that sentence.

Hev

[dug_down_deep]

I guess the subtle part of the OP is:
"What was Jesus Christ like?"
See, I don't doubt that there was a "Jesus" (or "Yeshua", or whatever). But "Christ" means "the anointed one". That's the mythological part.
Yeah, that's the thing. Just imagine someone wrote a story about Billy Graham, but they called him Holy Billy and had him walking on water and coming back to life after dying. That story would be entirely fiction. It doesn't matter that there was a Billy Graham.

[Joykins]

Joykins and David B, thanx for mentioning "faith healer and exorcist" and "cult leader" as possibilities, though they could be subsets of "sage / holy man".

But I think that "god-human hybrid" fits "Son of God" and "fully God and fully man".

Here is how the word "hybrid" is usually used:

American Heritage Dictionary (http://www.bartleby.com/61/0/H0340000.html):
1. Genetics The offspring of genetically dissimilar parents or stock, especially the offspring produced by breeding plants or animals of different varieties, species, or races. 2a. Something of mixed origin or composition. b. Something, such as a computer or power plant, having two kinds of components that produce the same or similar results. 3. A word whose elements are derived from different languages.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hybrid):
1. an offspring of two animals or plants of different races, breeds, varieties, species, or genera. 2. a person whose background is a blend of two diverse cultures or traditions. 3a. something heterogeneous in origin or composition: composite <hybrids of complementary DNA and RNA strands> <a hybrid of medieval and Renaissance styles>. b. something (as a power plant, vehicle, or electronic circuit) that has two different types of components performing essentially the same function.

So how would "hybrid" be a poor fit?

I note that early Xian apologist Justin Martyr in The First Apology (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm) had implied that that was a good fit in Chapter 21: "Analogies to the history of Christ":
And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.
He continued by listing these sons of Jupiter/Zeus: Hermes, Asclepius, Dionysus, Hercules, the Dioscuri, and Perseus.

When it comes to Christological heresies, the distinctions are very subtle; too subtle, perhaps. You have probably blundered into something people used to get burned at the stake for saying.

The hybrid position is closest perhaps to Eutychianism (http://www.behindthegrove.org.uk/resources/christology.htm#Eutychianism).

[Barbarian]

Poll needs moar sciency buzz. Like: Jesus was in a linear superposition of human and divine, up to the point when the Romans fixed his position, thus performing a state-vector collapsing measurement.

Otherwise; I think his character is an amalgamation of rebel thug leader (duly disposed of by the Romans) and popular preacher, with many of the sayings of other contemporary sages attributed to him.

[dug_down_deep]

What are his hit points?

[David M]

What are his hit points?

Question is, after the resurrection did they change to d12?

[Jobar]

Everyone knows that Jesus was a mellow, peaceful white man with crystal blue eyes and flowing, honey-brown hair, just like every other white blue-eyed Jewish guy living in the Middle East over 2000 years ago.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/137/330486706_4e67fa7fc3.jpg

Amazing the changes in appearance Jesus has gone through, over the ages.

Here's a 4th-century mosaic of Christ.
http://jesusneverexisted.com/IMAGES/jc-constantine.jpg

Here's a bust of the emperor Constantine, who made Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire.

http://jesusneverexisted.com/IMAGES/constantine-icon.jpg

Here's Jesus in his 'good shepherd' guise.

http://jesusneverexisted.com/IMAGES/jesus_4thshepherd.jpg

However, for many centuries Apollo, son of Zeus, was also the god of shepherds.

http://jesusneverexisted.com/IMAGES/apollo-6th-c-athens.jpg

In the time of the emperor Hadrian, his young male lover, Antinous, drowned in the Nile; it's thought he may have been a willing sacrifice in some ritual to extend the life and/or reign of Hadrian. Afterwards, the emperor declared Antinous a god, and his images were inscribed in many temples.
http://jesusneverexisted.com/IMAGES/antin-stele.gif

Here's a 6th/7th century Egyptian Coptic image of Christ.
http://jesusneverexisted.com/IMAGES/jc-coptic-6-7th.gif

In seventh century France, Christ looked remarkably like a Frankish warrior, complete with Woden's headdress.
http://jesusneverexisted.com/IMAGES/jc-7th-Frank-woden-phallus-.jpg

Here's an image of Christ from 1520, by an Italian painter.
http://jesusneverexisted.com/IMAGES/emmaus-christ-melone.jpg

Coincidentally- or maybe not- here's a painting of Cesare Borgia, Pope's son and bad-guy extraordinaire, by the same painter.
http://jesusneverexisted.com/IMAGES/cesare-borgia.jpg

All those images came from here. (http://jesusneverexisted.com/melange.html) That entire site ought to be perused by those with any interest in the history of Jesus Christ.

[Notta]

Poll needs moar sciency buzz. Like: Jesus was in a linear superposition of human and divine, up to the point when the Romans fixed his position, thus performing a state-vector collapsing measurement.Ah, but if they knew his position they couldn't measure his mass.

[Notta]

What are his hit points?

Question is, after the resurrection did they change to d12?I want to know what weapons he possessed. That's more important than hit points when you get to the advanced stage.

[Norrin Radd]

...The hybrid position is closest perhaps to Eutychianism (http://www.behindthegrove.org.uk/resources/christology.htm#Eutychianism).

I'm sympathetic to the version of "Kenotic" Christology espoused by Gerald Hawthorne and at least implicitly endorsed by Walter Martin; and to a lesser extent, to Martin's rejection of "eternal Sonship."

[lpetrich]

When it comes to Christological heresies, the distinctions are very subtle; too subtle, perhaps. You have probably blundered into something people used to get burned at the stake for saying.

The hybrid position is closest perhaps to Eutychianism (http://www.behindthegrove.org.uk/resources/christology.htm#Eutychianism).
However, the word "hybrid" is typically used in a rather broad fashion, unlike the fine-grained and hairsplitting distinctions in the Christology that you linked me to.

So I fail to see how "hybrid" would apply only to a certain concept of Jesus Christ's nature and not to various other concepts that differ very little from it.

[Joykins]

When it comes to Christological heresies, the distinctions are very subtle; too subtle, perhaps. You have probably blundered into something people used to get burned at the stake for saying.

The hybrid position is closest perhaps to Eutychianism (http://www.behindthegrove.org.uk/resources/christology.htm#Eutychianism).
However, the word "hybrid" is typically used in a rather broad fashion, unlike the fine-grained and hairsplitting distinctions in the Christology that you linked me to.

So I fail to see how "hybrid" would apply only to a certain concept of Jesus Christ's nature and not to various other concepts that differ very little from it.

All I'm tryin' to say here, is that if you're going to try to fashion a poll option to be representative of what you think Christians believe, you need to avoid language that will ping our heresy-meter. (I have no idea if you were trying to ping our derision meter or not).

The fact is a hybrid is a half-this half-that and orthodox Christology IS a hairsplitting kind of business--Jesus is 100% God and 100% man and the "hybrid" language just betrays your lack of understanding of this fine-grained and hairsplitting religion.:p

[SallyAnne]

When it comes to Christological heresies, the distinctions are very subtle; too subtle, perhaps. You have probably blundered into something people used to get burned at the stake for saying.

The hybrid position is closest perhaps to Eutychianism (http://www.behindthegrove.org.uk/resources/christology.htm#Eutychianism).
However, the word "hybrid" is typically used in a rather broad fashion, unlike the fine-grained and hairsplitting distinctions in the Christology that you linked me to.

So I fail to see how "hybrid" would apply only to a certain concept of Jesus Christ's nature and not to various other concepts that differ very little from it.

All I'm tryin' to say here, is that if you're going to try to fashion a poll option to be representative of what you think Christians believe, you need to avoid language that will ping our heresy-meter. (I have no idea if you were trying to ping our derision meter or not).

The fact is a hybrid is a half-this half-that and orthodox Christology IS a hairsplitting kind of business--Jesus is 100% God and 100% man and the "hybrid" language just betrays your lack of understanding of this fine-grained and hairsplitting religion.:p

LOL Joykins.:D

[DMB]

Does any Christian here feel like starting a thread on the doctrine of the Trinity and the various interpretations of it? :evil:

[dug_down_deep]

Amazing the changes in appearance Jesus has gone through, over the ages.

Here's a 4th-century mosaic of Christ.
http://jesusneverexisted.com/IMAGES/jc-constantine.jpg

Here's a bust of the emperor Constantine, who made Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire.

http://jesusneverexisted.com/IMAGES/constantine-icon.jpg

That's hilarious. :D

[lpetrich]

All I'm tryin' to say here, is that if you're going to try to fashion a poll option to be representative of what you think Christians believe, you need to avoid language that will ping our heresy-meter. (I have no idea if you were trying to ping our derision meter or not).
I was trying to think of some very short description. Do you have a better one?

And could it be that you and certain others here don't like the word "hybrid" used in describing Jesus Christ's parentage or nature?

I did find a page whose creators have embraced that word, The hybrid nature of our Lord Jesus Christ (http://www.come2jesus.com.au/hybrid.htm) - it's at http://www.come2jesus.com.au

The fact is a hybrid is a half-this half-that and orthodox Christology IS a hairsplitting kind of business--Jesus is 100% God and 100% man and the "hybrid" language just betrays your lack of understanding of this fine-grained and hairsplitting religion.:p
How about this definition of "hybrid": "mixed or heterogeneous in origin or composition"? "Fully God and fully man" fits this definition very well.

It must also be pointed out that the original definition of "hybrid", "having mixed parentage", fits the orthodox doctrine of Jesus Christ's biological parentage very well.

Does any Christian here feel like starting a thread on the doctrine of the Trinity and the various interpretations of it? :evil:
Good idea. :D Many of the attempts I've seen to explain the Trinity make it seem like the Xian God has three parts, or else is really three gods, or else has a three-way split personality.

[Joykins]

Good idea. :D Many of the attempts I've seen to explain the Trinity make it seem like the Xian God has three parts, or else is really three gods, or else has a three-way split personality.

Yep, that's all heretical too :D

Maybe I'll start one tonight if I have time. It won't be a short post.

[His Noodly Appendage]

My description would be "fucking troll".

He talked at people, not to them.

He didn't engage questions asked of him, but went off on great un-analogous analogies instead - if he even acknowledged them at all.

He was condescending, opinionated, and never once even considered the possibility that he could be wrong, or that there was room for discussion.

He graciously dropped pearls of wisdom before swinish people, and if they weren't gratefully lapped up, he got angry and petulant.

In other words, yguy.

[Joykins]

I started a thread on the Trinity. (http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=1428)

[DMB]

Thanks, Joykins.