On Jesus Christ as Messiah. Savior or Redeemer

[gilhooly]

Without regard to any current religious belief you may hold, I am curious about your opinion of Jesus Christ either as a man or a messiah.

Let me start by saying I am not God, His Son or His third cousin 63 times removed. PLease feel free to post any reply without me taking offense. I suspect I am some type of pagan.:p

With that in mind I can think of 4 possible positions regarding the humanity,divinity of Jesus Christ. He is:

1. Both God and man, The Messiah
2. Just a man and a teacher
3. Both man and Messiah
4. Each man must be a messiah to himself

[toomuch45]

number 2 just a man and a teacher

[Wintereis]

5. a fairly good philosopher

[OrphanPip]

Jesus as we understand him is historical construct loosely based on someone who may or may not have been a 1st century rabbi. We have no accurate accounts of Jesus, we can only be moderately sure that he actually existed since we have essentially a single source (multi-authored though it may be). And those accounts were written decades after Jesus' death.

The Biblical accounts of Jesus (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) do not give us completely identical accounts of who Jesus was, and what his ideas were. Moreover, some, like Luke, are clearly written and based off of prior ones, Mark being the basis of Luke. As a character in these works Jesus is many different things, sometimes a simple philosopher, other times a divine prophet.

One should also remember that much of what we have as Christian dogma have been filtered through the mind and works of Saint Paul, who is probably the most significant architect of Christianity. Paul also only claimed to have seen Jesus in a dream and not have met him personally.

I should reread the New Testament one of these days, I far prefer the Old Testament, but I have a habit of missing allusions to the NT. Speaking from an aethestic position of course. I don't believe in either of them as divinely inspired.

[Gpbi]

In my opinion is one of the greatest man in the human history, i cant really tell if the miracles and the revival was true but anyway i just like to read the bible as a history book and to get just the meaning... Which is love each other...
I think Jesus was like Aristotel or Platon really liberate minds for their ages and all of them they kinda change the word and what people seem to believe it was normal for that time and set the bases for human rights.
So defenatly i have a space in my mind which have jesus as son of God but the most logical part of my mind consider him as a great man!

[Cardiganwearer]

Jesus as we understand him is historical construct loosely based on someone who may or may not have been a 1st century rabbi. We have no accurate accounts of Jesus, we can only be moderately sure that he actually existed since we have essentially a single source (multi-authored though it may be). And those accounts were written decades after Jesus' death.

The Biblical accounts of Jesus (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) do not give us completely identical accounts of who Jesus was, and what his ideas were. Moreover, some, like Luke, are clearly written and based off of prior ones, Mark being the basis of Luke. As a character in these works Jesus is many different things, sometimes a simple philosopher, other times a divine prophet.

One should also remember that much of what we have as Christian dogma have been filtered through the mind and works of Saint Paul, who is probably the most significant architect of Christianity. Paul also only claimed to have seen Jesus in a dream and not have met him personally.

I should reread the New Testament one of these days, I far prefer the Old Testament, but I have a habit of missing allusions to the NT. Speaking from an aethestic position of course. I don't believe in either of them as divinely inspired.

This says in four paragraphs pretty much what I would have said in fouteen. I would only add that as well as rereading the new testament it is very enlightening to read Jewish scholarship on the christian distortion of the old testament to make it consistent with the new. In the jewish view Jesus fulfilled practically none of the criteria which would have identified him as the messiah.

For my own part I would add that the notion of vicarious redemption offered by this Jesus figure is one I find morally repugnant and a role not predicted by old testament writings.

So I think I belong to the "Just a very naughty boy" school of thought.

[KnightShade]

Not trying to offend anyone here at all.
I'm not atheist. And yet...

There is more than just that Jesus was a Messiah or Teacher.
He could have been a Messiah, Teacher and also made up.

I find it hard to believe everything printed on paper.
But maybe I'm in the minority here.

[marshlander]

6. An idea.

[Paul1]

I bet he was a nice guy, whether he was just a man or actually a god.

[Wintereis]

Jesus as we understand him is historical construct loosely based on someone who may or may not have been a 1st century rabbi. We have no accurate accounts of Jesus, we can only be moderately sure that he actually existed since we have essentially a single source (multi-authored though it may be). And those accounts were written decades after Jesus' death.

The Biblical accounts of Jesus (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) do not give us completely identical accounts of who Jesus was, and what his ideas were. Moreover, some, like Luke, are clearly written and based off of prior ones, Mark being the basis of Luke. As a character in these works Jesus is many different things, sometimes a simple philosopher, other times a divine prophet.

One should also remember that much of what we have as Christian dogma have been filtered through the mind and works of Saint Paul, who is probably the most significant architect of Christianity. Paul also only claimed to have seen Jesus in a dream and not have met him personally.

I should reread the New Testament one of these days, I far prefer the Old Testament, but I have a habit of missing allusions to the NT. Speaking from an aethestic position of course. I don't believe in either of them as divinely inspired.

How many historical figures can the same be said of, particularly from such an early era . . . just saying. Everyone thought the city of Troy was just an old legend not that long ago and that Pandas were mythological creatures. I would be more wary than you are being in discounting old stories. I'm not saying to believe everything you read, just don't discount everything you don't agree with.