When People Imagine Jesus Had Existence Do They Really Think He Would Have Relevance Today?

[Secret Alias]

I (unfortunately) stumbled across this on the internet:

First, it must be evident to everyone that Jesus had existence — that He lived and worked — before He was born in the flesh upon the earth. But what kind of existence was this pre-existence? It was an existence in the spirit state. And the spirit body of Jesus is in form and shape just like the mortal body; so that, when Jesus helped to form man, He formed him after the image of His own body. This is the second great truth we learn from the remarkable vision. And a third is, that Jesus was appointed "from the foundation of the world" to redeem mankind. [John Osborne, What Jesus Taught p. 49]

But it made me think. Those who argue for Jesus's historical 'existence' surely can't believe in a Jesus that had any real power or insight, profundity and the like at least with respect to 'how to live in the modern world' which is how he and the religion of him is usually positioned in this country. I mean, assuming he was a Galilean fisherman or revolutionary or magician he surely wouldn't have had a clue how to use the internet or a remote control for the television. How do really and sincerely develop a religion around a guy who would have been scared of the ice-maker on the refrigerator? He's either a God come from heaven or someone who would occupy a position between a child and your pet dog in terms of coping with the modern world. I can't believe that there are religious scholars who think that there was a historical Jesus and don't come to the conclusion that this historical Jesus is the last person who deserves the kind of reverence heaped upon him in the churches.

[andrewcriddle]

Does this argument imply that we should not revere any pre-modern figures (e.g. Socrates or St Francis), or is it more specifically about Jesus ?

Andrew Criddle

[iskander]

Jesus was a genius : he was the Galileo, Newton and Einstein of religion.

Salvation is the commodity that all religions sell; it comes in a comprehensive package that includes eternal bliss. Sometimes salvation from disaster is emphasised and in other occasions eternal bliss is the selling point.

Some religions offer salvation from hell, rebirth, others offer havens, nirvana, and so forth.

All religions have written texts inspired by god, allah, hashem, brahman informing humans what they should do in order to be eternally happy after death, and so on and on.

So, how does Christianity fit into all that?

Salvation is very easy in Christianity and very few Christians are worried by it.
Catholics confess their sins to a priest and they are forgiven.
Normal Protestants go directly to god and know that the grace of god is theirs

The Christian god requires very little from Christians.
The new testament is only about 12 pages in four very similar versions saying the same, It means they can dress as they like, eat the food they like and so on.

The Christian Gospels may appear contradictory or repetitive but all scriptures suffer from the same defects.. Christians do not pay lip service to their god, but they are grateful for their social, moral and political freedom and expect to be forgiven as a gift from the merciful god.

Mark 10:46 ff
46 They came to Jericho. As he and his disciples and a large crowd were leaving Jericho, Bartimaeus son of Timaeus, a blind beggar, was sitting by the roadside. 47When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout out and say, ‘Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!’ 48Many sternly ordered him to be quiet, but he cried out even more loudly, ‘Son of David, have mercy on me!’ 49Jesus stood still and said, ‘Call him here.’ And they called the blind man, saying to him, ‘Take heart; get up, he is calling you.’ 50So throwing off his cloak, he sprang up and came to Jesus. 51Then Jesus said to him, ‘What do you want me to do for you?’.

[Secret Alias]

Does this argument imply that we should not revere any pre-modern figures (e.g. Socrates or St Francis), or is it more specifically about Jesus ?

Well any figure revered as a god, yes. I am not sure Moses would fare well under such scrutiny either.

[DCHindley]

of course^TM Jesus would not be relevant or today, unless you were an ISIL devotee. They would put out a announcement to claim that Jesus was actually one of their fighters.

Seriously, though, utopian beliefs of a "new world coming" type don't get the traction they used to. Any real-life Jesus would be quickly marginalized, I think. Besides, there might be a bit of a chance he'd say "I have never known you!"

That doesn't mean that those who follow his "image," dangled in front of them by folks who want to manipulate them, don't want to cram their agenda down my throat! Oh, they do! And their cramming is all-pervasive in western society, WAY WAY more than any humanistic and non-Christian agenda has ever done in reverse. I just want to undermine their attempts to cram even more down my throat. I'm fat enough as it is (235 lbs, for those who care).

DCH

[Peter Kirby]

I (unfortunately) stumbled across this on the internet:

First, it must be evident to everyone that Jesus had existence — that He lived and worked — before He was born in the flesh upon the earth. But what kind of existence was this pre-existence? It was an existence in the spirit state. And the spirit body of Jesus is in form and shape just like the mortal body; so that, when Jesus helped to form man, He formed him after the image of His own body. This is the second great truth we learn from the remarkable vision. And a third is, that Jesus was appointed "from the foundation of the world" to redeem mankind. [John Osborne, What Jesus Taught p. 49]

But it made me think. Those who argue for Jesus's historical 'existence' surely can't believe in a Jesus that had any real power or insight, profundity and the like at least with respect to 'how to live in the modern world' which is how he and the religion of him is usually positioned in this country. I mean, assuming he was a Galilean fisherman or revolutionary or magician he surely wouldn't have had a clue how to use the internet or a remote control for the television. How do really and sincerely develop a religion around a guy who would have been scared of the ice-maker on the refrigerator? He's either a God come from heaven or someone who would occupy a position between a child and your pet dog in terms of coping with the modern world. I can't believe that there are religious scholars who think that there was a historical Jesus and don't come to the conclusion that this historical Jesus is the last person who deserves the kind of reverence heaped upon him in the churches.

Most people in the "it is stupid/insane/paranoid" to question the historicity of Jesus camp do believe that a historical Jesus has "insight" and "profundity." This is why they quest.

[Bernard Muller]

Most people in the "it is stupid/insane/paranoid" to question the historicity of Jesus camp do believe that a historical Jesus has "insight" and "profundity." This is why they quest.

For the record, I am not among these "most people". For me, the historical Jesus has no "insight" and "profundity".

Cordially, Bernard

[Ulan]

I can't believe that there are religious scholars who think that there was a historical Jesus and don't come to the conclusion that this historical Jesus is the last person who deserves the kind of reverence heaped upon him in the churches.

I'm not even sure Jesus had any relevance when he lived. Whether you believe Jesus existed or not, I don't think he is the actual cause of the phenomenon we know as Christianity. Even if he was historical, it's what the next generations made of him what had this staying power.

[MrMacSon]

... Whether you believe Jesus existed or not, I don't think he is the actual cause of the phenomenon we know as Christianity. Even if he was historical, it's what the next generations made of him what had this staying power.

I agree. And the fact that the basis for Christianity was essentially legends about him (or the development of legends about him) is a key aspect of any mythicist argument.

[iskander]

How could any religious leader, long after his/her death, still be relevant to men/women ?