What people think about Jesus Christ

[Daniel50]

Is there a difference between claiming to be the Son of God and claiming to be God?

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

Luke 10:22 All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth
who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son,
and he to whom the Son will reveal him.

 

[Mr Jack]

That renders just about every book ever written useless as a source of knowledge.

I don't follow your reasoning? Why should rejecting the New Testament as an accurate document mean all books are inaccurate?

 

[Mr Jack]

Deluded to the point of accepting death on a Cross? All He had to do was say 'no, I am not the Messiah', and his life would have been saved.

If that is indeed what happened.

Thousands of people from a vast multitude of faiths have given up their lives for what they believe - the Tibetan monks who practiced self-mummification being a far more extreme example. You don't accredit their beliefs with truth on the basis of their martyrdom so why should I accredit Jesus's on the basis of his.

 

[0000]

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

Is this referring to communal unity or substance?

For example, I can be one with a friend in thought (doctrine) and deed (priorities). But we are not the same person. We are one in a context of unity.

 

[Aimiel]

The first time I was presented with this question, I was about 12 years old, and when I thought about the answer, I knew in my heart that Jesus is The Christ, The Son of The Living God. I don't know that because anyone taught it to me or because I read it somewhere. I had never heard it or been told it. I knew because my Father had revealed it to me inside of me. That knowledge: revelation knowledge from God is 'The Rock' upon which Jesus is building His Church. I always love to hear the stories of how people came to realize Who Jesus is: God in The Flesh. It is the most interesting part of Chrisitanity to me: hearing about others' faith and what God has done for them or how He dealt with problems for them. The Lord is Good. :thumb:

 

[Nick M]

Considering the unverified supernatural claims,

So, who rolled away the stone?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Jesus can only be one of three things: a delusional human being who believed himself to be the Messiah; a fraud who used myth to gain power and influence but ran afoul of the establishment and was overcome; or the Son of God and Redeemer of man.

He cannot be a great teacher and moralist. To reduce him to that assumes the absence of divinity. If Jesus was not divine then he was a liar or unstable and either would argue against that stature. He must then be divine, loved and honored as God should be, or reviled and dismissed as a man must be who makes that claim in error or deceit.

But if he was a fraud he was among the worst such of his or any other generation, choosing to do that which could only bring him into conflict with the powers of his time. He clearly had the ability to astound crowds of the common man and trouble the pious, the educated elite as well. He was viewed as a sufficient threat to the latter that they devised a plan to end his influence. Such a man could and should have known how to play the system to his benefit. This Jesus runs contrary to his own nature and desire. And why would his disciples not disband the undone hoax thereafter, seeing that the tide had turned and the consequences were dire? No, this is not our Jesus.

Then if not liar he must have been unhinged, delusional. But if deluded then how to explain the consistent and undisputed wisdom of his teaching, the quality of reason and the depth of insight into the minds and hearts of men? And why would most of those closest to him suffer humiliation and death in his name, apparently believing in the truth of his claim more strongly than they feared the ending of their lives? Perhaps then the best argument against this case is most strongly evidenced in the lives of those who continued his work. This is not our Jesus.

Then we are left with the Jesus who walked among us humbly, who demonstrated love in its perfection by giving his life in payment for our debt and who stands and calls us still, bearing the insult and rebuke of a generation that claims the chains of its sin like a badge of honor. This is the Jesus who healed the sick and raised the dead, whose deeds and words were such that no man who understood them could deny him. This is our Jesus and this is the Christ.

TH offers the proper rebuttals to the justification for the veracity of the God-Man, Christ's own claims. C.S. Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity:

"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg - or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us."
​

The existence of such a large body of historical and archeological evidence, including from those who were openly hostile to the existence of Christ, supporting descriptions from Scripture lends weight to the book's authenticity. That this book contains numerous descriptions casting many prophets and disciples in a very poor light suggests that the book is not a whitewash or false legend-making attempt. No one questions the works of Plato, Aristotle, Herodotus, or Tacitus, yet the number of copies of these works that survive dates many hundreds of years after their assumed original authorship, and even then, only few copies exist. Compare that to the thousands of complete manuscripts of books of the Scripture that exist, some dated to within 50 years of Christ's death.

That so many (thousands) who were actual witnesses to the life of Christ and His ministry coupled with the many who followed Him to their deaths speaks to the fact that He was not just a great teacher or that He was a delusional schizophrenic. To suggest that this was some kind of mass delusion, would mean it was (and continues to be) the greatest example of mass delusion recorded in human history.

That the tomb was indeed found empty speaks to His resurrection, for any reasonable person would conclude that there is no way the local religious and Roman authorities would have allowed an insurgent group of fanatics to sneak in and spirit away Christ's body, given what was at stake. Indeed the authorities would have wanted to parade the body of Christ before the crowds of these so-called 'fanatics' to deride them and prove that He was just a man. Scripture also tells us that hundreds actually saw Christ after His death. Given the variety of circumstances under which these witnesses saw Him, no one can claim that this was some kind of mass hallucination.

That Christianity had spread to nearly five million persons by the time of Paul's death also gives strong evidence that something other than rumor was afoot. Myths and legends take hundreds of years to develop. The ministry of Christ could not have been mere legend given its rapid spread and the formation of Christian creeds within less than ten years after the death of Christ.

History records no example of anyone claiming to be the incarnation of the one and only invisible God come down to earth. All other religions, Hinduism, Buddhism. Confucianism, Shintoism, and Islam, were founded by human beings. They find their basis in man-made philosophies, rules, and societal norms for behavior. Remove the founders of these religions and little would change. Remove Christ from Christianity, and nothing remains. Christianity is not a life philosophy, a religious life of ritual, nor a mere ethical standard of living. Christianity is based upon a knowing, assenting, and trusting relationship with its resurrected Founder. Therefore such a claim by Christ must be taken to be either delusional or factual. It cannot be both. Either Christ was exactly who He claimed to be, or He was mentally disturbed.

The issue with the alternatives TH has responded to is not which is possible, for it should be clear that all three are possible. Instead, the vital question is which are the more probable? Deciding upon the identity of Christ is not just some idle intellectual exercise. To claim He was a great moral teacher is not a logically valid option, given Christ's own claims of who He was. Thus we are left with Christ as either a liar/lunatic, or our Lord.

C.S. Lewis had it correct. Was Christ Liar or Lord? No one who is intellectually honest would opt for the former. Given the above, that leaves only one, obvious, Occam's Razor simple, answer.

 

[Town Heretic]

TH offers the proper rebuttals to the justification for the veracity of the God-Man, Christ's own claims. C.S. Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity:

"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg - or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us."
​

The existence of such a large body of historical and archeological evidence, including from those who were openly hostile to the existence of Christ, supporting descriptions from Scripture lends weight to the book's authenticity. That this book contains numerous descriptions casting many prophets and disciples in a very poor light suggests that the book is not a whitewash or false legend-making attempt. No one questions the works of Plato, Aristotle, Herodotus, or Tacitus, yet the number of copies of these works that survive dates many hundreds of years after their assumed original authorship, and even then, only few copies exist. Compare that to the thousands of complete manuscripts of books of the Scripture that exist, some dated to within 50 years of Christ's death.

That so many (thousands) who were actual witnesses to the life of Christ and His ministry coupled with the many who followed Him to their deaths speaks to the fact that He was not just a great teacher or that He was a delusional schizophrenic. To suggest that this was some kind of mass delusion, would mean it was (and continues to be) the greatest example of mass delusion recorded in human history.

That the tomb was indeed found empty speaks to His resurrection, for any reasonable person would conclude that there is no way the local religious and Roman authorities would have allowed an insurgent group of fanatics to sneak in and spirit away Christ's body, given what was at stake. Indeed the authorities would have wanted to parade the body of Christ before the crowds of these so-called 'fanatics' to deride them and prove that He was just a man. Scripture also tells us that hundreds actually saw Christ after His death. Given the variety of circumstances under which these witnesses saw Him, no one can claim that this was some kind of mass hallucination.

That Christianity had spread to nearly five million persons by the time of Paul's death also gives strong evidence that something other than rumor was afoot. Myths and legends take hundreds of years to develop. The ministry of Christ could not have been mere legend given its rapid spread and the formation of Christian creeds within less than ten years after the death of Christ.

History records no example of anyone claiming to be the incarnation of the one and only invisible God come down to earth. All other religions, Hinduism, Buddhism. Confucianism, Shintoism, and Islam, were founded by human beings. They find their basis in man-made philosophies, rules, and societal norms for behavior. Remove the founders of these religions and little would change. Remove Christ from Christianity, and nothing remains. Christianity is not a life philosophy, a religious life of ritual, nor a mere ethical standard of living. Christianity is based upon a knowing, assenting, and trusting relationship with its resurrected Founder. Therefore such a claim by Christ must be taken to be either delusional or factual. It cannot be both. Either Christ was exactly who He claimed to be, or He was mentally disturbed.

The issue with the alternatives TH has responded to is not which is possible, for it should be clear that all three are possible. Instead, the vital question is which are the more probable? Deciding upon the identity of Christ is not just some idle intellectual exercise. To claim He was a great moral teacher is not a logically valid option, given Christ's own claims of who He was. Thus we are left with Christ as either a liar/lunatic, or our Lord.

C.S. Lewis had it correct. Was Christ Liar or Lord? No one who is intellectually honest would opt for the former. Given the above, that leaves only one, obvious, Occam's Razor simple, answer.

:thumb: Excellently and amicably done. Huzzah!

Kudos as well to ANVerb, for saving me a great deal of trouble. I had similar reservations concerning the length of a reply on your fourth L grounds, but the solution you arrived at seems a reasonable invitation. :e4e:

 

[mighty_duck]

As I've written elsewhere, there is little serious debate on the historical existence of Jesus, remarked on by at least one Roman historian of note, if in passing, and verified by the spread of his religion, which met no counter claims concerning his existence (the most obvious and easy rebuke imaginable). The weight of scholarly opinion is solidly behind the existence of Jesus, however one views the divinity of the Christ.

Notice that I only mentioned that the words attributed to Jesus were not necessarily his own. I grant that it is more likely than unlikely that there was a real person at the heart of the myth.

One can only imagine what would suffice for verification short of a video...

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You would not accept that my great grandfather could fly based on the testimony a couple of his closest disciples. For a man God, such extraordinary evidence should be easy to produce. Instead, we get what we would expect from a mythological figure or from my flying grandpa.

We would at least expect thorough extra-biblical support. All we have are a couple of scribbles, which are mostly believed to be added later under the church's influence.

C.S. Lewis has a fine answer to this (along with Tolkien) regarding the True Myth of Christianity and its foreshadow and echo in those who could not apprehend it. If I can remember the name of the work I will post it later...at the moment it eludes me.

This whole thread is very C.S Lewis-ish. I was not aware the Tolkien also dabbled in theology.

None of the Gospels mention the destruction of the Temple which Christ foretold and which occurred around 70 A.D. It would have behooved them to have placed the reality of this on his side of the ledger. That they do not argues that the original transcription occurred before that date. This would mean the earliest Gospels were dictated within the living memory of Christ's death. Similarly, Acts, written after Luke, makes no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem and fails to note the deaths of James, Paul and Peter, all occurring closer to sixty years following Christ's death.

The Gospel passes itself as the testimony of Jesus's disciples. Even an editor with half a brain would remove any mention of future events. Is this really proof of their authenticity?

Paul never met Jesus in life, and we have to take his word that he met him. Luke (or should that be plural?), Paul's companion, is even further removed from the actual events. These two make up most of the NT.

They all describe the time frame of Jesus's life. Why would you expect them to chronicle events outside of that time frame?

Questionable authorage? Perhaps questionable translation might be more accurate. As to the divinity of Christ, it is no more unlikely than a reality that is its own cause of being, but every man has some article of faith.

I'll beg to differ. What isn't questionable is that the divinity of Christ is more unlikely than a non-divine Christ, at least according to Occam.

Actually, Christianity is a fairly unique religion. It teaches that salvation and the attainment of heaven are the result of God's desire and sacrifice and aren't owed to our effort or intent. These are important distinctions in and of themselves but they are not alone.

Atonement is hardly unique, nor is an eternal life with God (or gods). Nor is martyrdom, sons of gods walking among us, etc. The idea that God had to sacrifice Himself to Himself so He could forgive us because one of our ancestors ate some fruit may be unique simply because no one in his right mind would think of such a scenario. I'll give Paul props for an excellent marketing job.

Assumptive if applied to Christ. According to the Gospels he accomplished everything that he said he would and was who he claimed to be.

That and 41 cents will buy you a postage stamp, unless you wait until May.

Of course, if you don't believe the various accounts of his life collected in the New Testament (forgetting your suspicion that he may not have existed to begin with) then calling him crazy is itself suspiciously irrational.

Fair enough. If he didn't claim to be the son of God, then he wasn't delusional, which breaks out of your false dilemma.

But even if he did claim to be the son of God, there is no conflict between calling him delusional and accepting many of his teachings. In other news, was Siddhartha Gautama Batty, Beguiling or Buddha?

Or the one is true and the others, lacking historical documentation on the order of the New Testament, are shades of the previously referenced True Myth.

The NT origins are much more dubious than the Quran's, which has remained in it's current form and is unaltered. No one knows exactly who wrote many of the books, how they were manipulated over the years, how other books were rejected based on a vote some 300 years later etc.

Did I mention questionable?

So can pride, vanity and a hardened or carnal heart and mind. But let's not quibble.

Lack of quibbling will take half the fun out of this exchange

 

[PlastikBuddha]

C.S. Lewis had it correct. Was Christ Liar or Lord? No one who is intellectually honest would opt for the former. Given the above, that leaves only one, obvious, Occam's Razor simple, answer.

The liar, lunatic, lord argument is oversimplified. Jesus could also be mistaken, misquoted, or misunderstood.

 

[Aimiel]

The liar, lunatic, lord argument is oversimplified. Jesus could also be mistaken, misquoted, or misunderstood.

No, The Scriptures are clear, and corrobberated by one another.

 

[WizardofOz]

Christians somehow think that the claims about Jesus (as a non-Christian, I do not accept the claims of the New Testament as being accurate) are unique or special in some way, and therefore the claims must either be fraudulent, crazy - or true.

Just curious what makes you believe the OT is accurate, but the NT is not? Any specifics?

 

[rexlunae]

Why don't non-believers say things like, Jesus was a liar, Jesus was a lunatic, or Jesus was a fraud? You almost never hear those things. So what is it about Jesus that makes people respect Him in light of His amazing claims? After all these are the same people who vehemently reject the claims that Jesus made about Himself and the claims that others have made about Jesus.

I don't know that Jesus existed in the first place.
Even if I assume that he did, I don't know which parts of the gospels are fiction and which are not, so I have no way of knowing what parts of his life to judge him on.

So, I have no basis for forming an opinion about Jesus one way or another. The Bible attributes statements to him which are very noble, and a few things which are ignoble, but I don't have any way of knowing if any of it actually occurred. The only way you can really say that Jesus was a great teacher or something like that is if you pick a few things that he supposedly says to focus on. So, I guess I agree with you. I don't see the rational behind the 'Atheists for Jesus' movement.

 

[macguy]

I don't know that Jesus existed in the first place.

The fact that most scholars believe in His existence should lend a lot of credibility contrary to the skeptic coloring book. If you don't know then I suggest you look at the various evidence in support of such a being as Jesus in that time. You're skepticism towards what parts of the gospel are true is a better reason... I just have never found any good reason to deny Jesus's existence unless you've come across something that you could share for which scholars are not aware of.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I don't know that Jesus existed in the first place.

Then you just as well must deny Socrates existed, too.

It is only when belief in someone in history is considered a test of a person's character that we find these same persons irrationally denying said existence.

Any intelligent discussion about Christ with a non-believer must begin with the fact that He existed. Those that deny His historicity are unworthy of further discourse, for they have shown themselves to be so far removed from rationality that no useful communication can take place.

 

[mighty_duck]

It is only when belief in someone in history is considered a test of a person's character that we find these same persons irrationally denying said existence.

It has nothing to do with a test of one's character, but of the nature of the claim. If the only records of Socrates had him being 20 foot tall, or with the ability to turn water in to grape juice (go Mormons!), then the records themsleves would be in question, and so would his very existence.

Another key difference is that the actual existence of Socrates doesn't matter much. Even if he never existed, and (for example) his works were some kind of compilation of other's work, it wouldn't change the value of his work. With Jesus, if he didn't exist, or didn't perform certain miracles (like the resurrection), then most Christians would cease to follow his word.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

It has nothing to do with a test of one's character, but of the nature of the claim.

No, it is not. The veracity of the existence of Socrates or any number of others is rarely questioned. Only when it comes to Christ do we start hearing the refrain, "if he existed".

It is really a simple question. Do you honestly believe that there is enough evidence available supporting Jesus' existence? That is the starting point. Do you?

 

[freelight]

Jesus as Teacher and more

Jesus as Teacher and more

Jesus Christ claimed to be the Son of God. That in and of itself should cause us to pause and consider the the claim. After all, only a lunatic would make such a claim if it weren't true, right? Many non-believers I talk with say things like.... Jesus was just a great teacher. Or, Jesus was a humanitarian, etc. Yet what kind of great teacher or respectable person would make the false claim that He was the Son of God? What would you think of a guy running around your neighborhood claiming he was God? Would you respect him? Would you think he was a great teacher?

Why don't non-believers say things like, Jesus was a liar, Jesus was a lunatic, or Jesus was a fraud? You almost never hear those things. So what is it about Jesus that makes people respect Him in light of His amazing claims? After all these are the same people who vehemently reject the claims that Jesus made about Himself and the claims that others have made about Jesus.

The life of Jesus. When we examine Jesus life and the things He said and did does He strike you as a lunatic? I am curious about what people think about Jesus Christ. And by that I mean what they REALLY think about Jesus deep down in their heart.

Asides from claims of being the 'Son of God', it appears Jesus more often used the title 'Son of Man' in more of a prophetic/messianic role. That Jesus is a great Teacher is evident thru the actual substance of the teachings attributed to him. The divine Teaching Mission of Jesus cannot be denied in light of what extant records we have of his teaching. Therefore there is merit in esteeming Jesus as a teacher of spiritual truths and/or the greatest teacher of his time.

Also note that Jesus taught more or less that we are all sons of God, children of the Most High (God is our Father). Jesus holds a divine role as the Special and Unique Son of God by revealing the highest most potent truth of divine Sonship thru His unique and special 'bestowal' of divine Presence and Love, via his special dispensation. He fully embodies the 'Christ-Light' and in that sense is truly an 'Avatar' of God or a divine incarnation...our Planetary Prince and Lord.

Truly the life of Jesus as recorded and believed in is highly exemplary and praiseworthy, his contribution to humanity's spiritual progress, as much as they have truly honored his teachings of love and justice, are treasured by those who have experienced their power. Those who have experienced 'Jesus' in a holy, intimate and impressionable way know the truth of his spirit and his action as Savior, friend, teacher, brother, master, Lord, etc. They know the power of His Name.

It is at last our sharing in the Spirit of Christ and its fruit in our lives that verifies its Truth, and such virtue will be manifest in our demeanor, thoughts, words, actions....as we bear the offspring of such union with Spirit. We must also understand that other schools of thought revere the Lord Jesus with equal respect but in a more liberal or unconventional context, with a more universal application.

In mystical experience and metaphysical teaching we recognize the 'Christ' as the 'light of God in Man', that divine spiritual seed and image that is being formed within, 'Christ in us, the hope of glory'. 'Christ' in this context is the 'spiritual generation' or 'divine principle' operating in man awakening him to his divine Sonship, his true creation in God. In our union with God we have the Christ-Mind and thru this medium ascertain and fulfill the purpose of our being in co-creation - serving the Higher Will of Spirit in time and eternity.




paul

 

[mighty_duck]

No, it is not. The veracity of the existence of Socrates or any number of others is rarely questioned. Only when it comes to Christ do we start hearing the refrain, "if he existed".

I have already dealt with two explanations for this in my previous response.

It is really a simple question. Do you honestly believe that there is enough evidence available supporting Jesus' existence? That is the starting point. Do you?

I am currently of the position that it is more likely than not that there was a man at the heart of the myth. It explains the intial movement better than one where he wouldn't have existed at all. It isn't quite as cut-and-dried as you would like us to acknowledge though.

It also doesn't help us to determine what parts of the Gospels are fact or fiction.

 

[Aimiel]

...there is merit in esteeming Jesus as a teacher ...

No, there isn't, because if that is all you esteem Him as: a teacher, you make Him into a liar. He said that He is The One and Only Way to The Father, The One and Only Truth about God and The One and Only Eternal Life. He is The Ressurrection. That 'christ-spirit' you keep talking about doesn't have anything at all to do with light or with God. It is a demon.