Identity of Jesus; Christ or Just brainwashed genius

[Manifold Dream]

I opened up this topic to talk about the identity of Jesus. I dont think we need to debate his existence just the question of whether or not he is Christ. My theory (and I could be wrong) is that Jesus was not Christ but a genius in human relations and whos life to preach gods word was greatly influence in the early years of his life. (Ive read that your brain is programed at the age of seven and can only be changed with deep thought and logical reasoning.) I believe Jesus was told numerous times during his childhood that he was the son of god and after the first couple of times he probably truely believed it. Who would truthfully want to reject a statement like that in later years if it was programed in your head while a child. I would love to hear other thoughts on the idea.

[Awaken4e1]

Originally posted by Manifold Dream I opened up this topic to talk about the identity of Jesus. I dont think we need to debate his existence just the question of whether or not he is Christ. I think that first and foremost is, that the understanding of a “spiritual awakening” must be discerned by the spirit, and that an impersonal external observation of a spiritual being is by nature incapable of grasping the required information to see the true nature of that spiritual being, be it God or otherwise. And, with that in mind, there must be a reversal of understanding in the view of the hued-mans nature. Jesus could not have walk in a mere dilution of grander because in order to fulfill the path which he is on, one of a true spiritual being. One must understand that: “One is NOT a human having a spiritual experience, “but a spirit having a human experience”. With all things at his disposal, be they seen and unseen. The Rev.

[dreamtamer007]

He always had an answer. To answer your debate he would say, if you don’t believe in me believe in my words.

[Cole5250]

Guess he could have been just a brainwashed genius, if you ignore all the historical proophecies he fufilled.

[AirRick101]

Let's hope he didn't always talk like an impenetrable enigmatic riddler. Any human who speaks like that is deemed a psycho. However he was brainwashed, he gave hope for much of the world. I don't just see him as a human genius. He does not speak like an intellectual. He does not preach as if he studied. Nor do I feel he preaches sentiments from the human heart. He's giving us messages disguised in metaphors and parables so we are forced to think about them in order to get what he was saying.

[Placebo]

He was such a genius that he changed a lot of water into wine, with no known catalysts, on improvisation, and without any prior record of miracles. And he was such a genius that he walked on water, calmed a stormy sea and healed the blind. Not to mention resurrecting people. That's quite some genius. I'd love to know more about THAT stuff. So the question really comes down to how much of the gospels and Acts, etc can be known to be 100% true. And if true, what it means. If it's all true, it would have taken more than a genius to raise the dead in those days. There's more to it. If it's not, then Jesus could have just been a public relations troublemaker for the Jews. Personally I find it hard to believe that all the juicy bits in the gospels are rubbish - I believe he did perform miracles. The source of his powers may not have been God, as he believed them to be. Or perhaps they were? How can we possibly know?

[Awaken4e1]

Just a little note: If (He) is not who he claimed, then why are we still talking about (Him) 2000 years later? The fact that some are "still" trying to debunk Him, should be a clue that it is "all" true, to have a life that invokes such deep conversation for all time to come! The Rev.

[AirRick101]

yes, he had a presence influential enough to make him the most famous man of all time. And it is interesting why people are still "interested" in him, it shows just by when someone talks about him, even if it's negative.

[Manifold Dream]

[quote]So the question really comes down to how much of the gospels and Acts, etc can be known to be 100% true. And if true, what it means. This is what I base my theory on is that the bible is not a very reliable reference. For one it was written by man and who knows how many times it has been translated back and forth and onto different mediums.

[Placebo]

Actually, as I understand, when they found the latest scrolls which were older than we had before, and compared them to what we have ... they were suprisingly accurate. They were unbelievably meticulous in their transcriptions. If any major errors cropped in to some versions, I'd guess they were either: (1) Recent, for political or personal reasons (2) That some areas of the bible are more difficult to determine if they belong, and are true. But yes, Jesus is certainly the greatest man on history ... nobody else has lived so long and still attributed so much.

[dreamtamer007]

Originally posted by AirRick101 Let's hope he didn't always talk like an impenetrable enigmatic riddler. *Any human who speaks like that is deemed a psycho. . What you are probably referring to AirRick101 is the King James Bible that was written in Kings English.

[AirRick101]

Ya, the King James Bible...it's supposedly the most accurate, but I personally find it the least interesting. It's probably because I was required to use it throughout a private Christian school that I was forced into. It's hard for me to honestly say what I think about Jesus. I grew up with unquestioned belief in him, and then after stepping outside the comfortable Christian circle, developed hatred at the very same avatar, being betrayed and lied to, even though I wasn't sure if I was. I have mixed opinion about Christianity, and do my best to not bash it when oppurtunity calls for an objective analysis. Again, mixed feelingss. a whole buncha flesh vs spirit or ego vs beingness conflict.

[dreamtamer007]

Originally posted by AirRick101 Ya, the King James Bible...it's supposedly the most accurate, but I personally find it the least interesting. It's probably because I was required to use it throughout a private Christian school that I was forced into. It's hard for me to honestly say what I think about Jesus. I grew up with unquestioned belief in him, and then after stepping outside the comfortable Christian circle, developed hatred at the very same avatar, being betrayed and lied to, even though I wasn't sure if I was. I have mixed opinion about Christianity, and do my best to not bash it when oppurtunity calls for an objective analysis. Again, mixed feelingss. a whole buncha flesh vs spirit or ego vs beingness conflict. He would say,” I send you into a pack of wolfs, be cunning as a snake but harmless as a lamb"

[Rakkantekimusouka]

Well, Jesus was really -- Wait, bad idea. Ahem, I believe that Jesus was only a fictional character, manifested out of many other myths and stories of the time. Therefore, to address the issue at hand, no, he was not "the Christ".

[Sparky]

Originally posted by Rakkantekimusouka Well, Jesus was really -- Wait, bad idea. Ahem, I believe that Jesus was only a fictional character, manifested out of many other myths and stories of the time. Therefore, to address the issue at hand, no, he was not \"the Christ\". No, for sure he was a real person, wheter he was the son of God, I doubt. I think he was a brainwashed genious, who did some generous things for people. Perhaps things got a little blown out of proportion...

[Placebo]

There's quite a bit of evidence to suggest that Jesus did in fact exist. As mentioned, the question is rather regarding who he really was.

[dragonoverlord]

The non relgious identification about jesus is that he was a wandering preacher who did not fall in favour with the romans the romans disliked what he said and nailed him to a cross. The bible is flawed and not to be taken seriously. Who knows what kind of individuals got its text into t here hands.

[dream-scape]

Originally posted by dragonoverlord The non relgious identification about jesus is that he was a wandering preacher who did not fall in favour with the romans the romans disliked what he said and nailed him to a cross. The Romans nailed many people to the cross. It was a common form of punishment. I think historically, they saw Jesus as a "cult leader" who threatened Rome's power, including the power to tell people what to believe. The Roman's viciously squashed any kind of opposition. If I am not mistaken, Jesus was not the only "leader" to be found a criminal and nailed to a cross. The Roman's tried to suppress several movements they saw as "cults" and killing off the leader was an almost surefire way to kill the movement. In fact it worked in nearly all cases.

[dreamtamer007]

Originally posted by Sparky No, for sure he was a real person, wheter he was the son of God, I doubt. And doubt is what you'll get.

[spoon]

Since the OP didn't want a debate on the existance of christ I wont say anything. But can I just ask one question? To the people who say they are sure that jesus existed, there is lots of evidence, etc - what are you basing that on?

[Ex Nine]

Jesus was one of many rebellious Jews who claimed to be the Messiah. There were Messiahs being nailed to crosses every month. This one had followers who thought they saw him walking around one day and told a few others. They were then inspired to write stories about how he was still alive but in spiritual form or something. And then some lunatic from Tarsus hit is head and started feeling guilty for stoning people, and the rest is history.

[kimpossible]

Performing any of jesus' "miracles" is trivial close-in illusion. And for those that seem to not be - remember how the tales grow in the telling. I do a levitation illusion that is always fun to hear people tell about it afterwards. The descriptions are physically impossible. But the people believe that's what they saw. I would be happy to detail how any of those could be accomplished with another magician. I just want one-for-one. You give me one _original_ illusion, and I'll give you one of those. In fact, give me one difficult ORIGINAL illusion, and I'll give you all of them. This is to pre-qualify you. I can't give up illusion to non-magicians. It's traditionally wrong - and I understand the origin (and agree with it) of that rule.