Behold the Trilemma: Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?
- Thread starter §outh§tar
- Start date
Jesus didn't claim to be God????? Oh, I see, you haven't actually read the Gospels. When Jesus said He who has seen me has seen the Father or The Father and I are one... He in me and I in Him or Before Abraham was, I AM or when both man and devils called him the Son of God and he never disputed them, or when he allowed both his disciples and others to worship him and he never stopped them (a cardinal sin under both the first and second commandments - a sin, that is, unless Jesus really was the one true God), or when Peter said Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God and Jesus told him that God had revealed this to him but to be quiet and tell no one, or when the Pharisees came to him and said Tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God? and Jesus saith unto them, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven, he was never claiming to be God? The Jews certainly understood that to be his claim (Matt 27:43 - He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God). The centurion and those who crucified him saw the earthquake, and those thing that were done, and they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God. The Jews knew what we have forgotten in this corrupt age, that a father and his son are one. John 5:18 - Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. Of course Jesus claimed to be God, which leaves you with a choice. Either Jesus was God or Jesus was a crazy, sinner.one_raven said:
Last edited:
I say Lord, but not The Lord, as C.S. Lewis would have us believe, the NT got it wrong, because it was a religion designed by a comittee. Jesus was teaching humans that they are divine, too. Jesus had an experience of unity with the devine, and described it in the only way he knew how, with OT terms. We cannot know for sure, but I think his experience was not substantially different than other great spiritual awakenings. True morality comes from this source, when you realize that between you and others, or God, there are no boundries, to harm another is to harm yourself. When we collectively realize our devine potential, we will bring about the paradise symbolized by the word heaven here on earth. Until then, we suffer in a hell of our own creation.
The authors of Jesus' legacy could not have considered the common folk to be on the same level with the devine, or even with the ruling class, it was politically impossible- so they placed Jesus up on a pedestal, saying, ok, just this once a person was elevated to that level, but IT ENDS RIGHT THERE DAMMIT! The rest of you are vile worms, now repent, (and give us money), oh, and we'll need your nubile young boys, too... ...and we'll only speak in latin so you don't get any funny ideas of your own.
The authors of Jesus' legacy could not have considered the common folk to be on the same level with the devine, or even with the ruling class, it was politically impossible- so they placed Jesus up on a pedestal, saying, ok, just this once a person was elevated to that level, but IT ENDS RIGHT THERE DAMMIT! The rest of you are vile worms, now repent, (and give us money), oh, and we'll need your nubile young boys, too... ...and we'll only speak in latin so you don't get any funny ideas of your own.
No, he didn't.David F. said:
Your assumption is incorrect, without merit and unnecessarily impertinent at best.David F. said:
He was referring to his teachings.David F. said:
If someone says that I am the son of John, I wouldn't dispute it. Does that mean I am John? Of course not, that would be absurd. It means I am Craig, the son of John.David F. said:
Why would people assume I was claiming to be John when I clearly stated that I was his son? That makes no sense at all.
and on and on and on...David F. said:
Yes, he claimed many times that he was THE SON of God.
He also said that all were the children of God.
Did he mean that I am God too? Of course not.
Since when does, "I am his son" mean "I am he"?
Never.
I, obviously, disagree.David F. said:
He never once claimed to be God.
If he did, please, since you obviously
did read the scriptures, point out exactly where.Give me chapter and verse of where Jesus actually said that he was God.
Not the son of God.
Not the way to God.
"I am God", or something effectively similar.
ANY VERSE AT ALL, since you know the scriptures so well, in which he makes this claim.
Last edited:
Oh??? So now you know what the NT authors were thinking? You know what parts of the NT are true and what parts are false? You, 2000 years removed from those events, can tell us truths about what happened and who Jesus was that those who walked and talked with Jesus for years could not tell us?spidergoat said:
Pray tell, how did you receive this enlightenment? Did an angel visit you and give you a golden book?
David F. said:
spidergoat said:
He is obviously not claiming it as fact.spidergoat said:
It is a personal interpretation.
An interpretation coming from someone who backs up his claims and cites more references than anyone else on this forum.
Why are you being such a prick?
My assumptions are correct and this makes perfect sense (although I don't at all claim to BE perfect - just a simple student of scripture). It does not make sense to you because you are a product of Greek philosophy. The bible authors were Jewish and most of their audience was Jewish so some of the things they take for granted are alien to us. To a Jew, a father is one with his son. We might think about something similar when we see John Smith with his son Jim Smith. We would say those are the Smith's. From a Jewish point of view, Jim would be a branch off of the older branch of John. The Branch is the Smith family and Jim is directly connected to John - one brance, one flesh. We might see them as individuals (a very Greek way to look at things) but the Jews would say they are both part of the same branch (the Jews tended to look at all time together while the Greeks tended to look at the present moment). From a Jewish point of view, a man could be immortal (more or less) by having sons. One of the great curses in the OT is to kill all the male offspring of a man - everyone who pisses against the wall. This would not only kill that man but he, his line, would cease to exist. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, which to the Jewish mind made him the same as God (see previous post).one_raven said:No, he didn't....
He never once claimed to be God.
If he did, please, since you obviously
Give me chapter and verse of where Jesus actually said that he was God.
Not the son of God.
Not the way to God.
"I am God", or something effectively similar.
ANY VERSE AT ALL, since you know the scriptures so well, in which he makes this claim
Jesus seemed to avoid telling people he was God because when he did, they went berzerk and wouldn't listen to anything else he said. We do however have one unambiguous verse - Before Abraham was I AM. This is a quote or reference to Exodus where Moses asked the God in the Burning Bush what his name was. God answer back I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. Moses said to Israel that I AM sent him. Jesus said I am I AM. The Hebrew word used here is "hayah" which means "to be" or "I EXIST", not I have existed or I will exist or I exist today, but in the sense of All Time Together - I AM. In this case, Jesus specifically claimed to be the God who spoke from the burning bush - and the Jews understood exactly what he meant and tried to kill him on the spot. John also understood and it is reflected in the first chapter of his gospel.
Last edited:
I am not... I am telling you the truth and it seems to scare you into personal attacks.one_raven said:
You do not want to hear the truth - you only want to blabber on about what you think is relevent, and since it came from one so inteligent as you, you don't understand how anyone could possibly disagree or dissent.
Guess what, there are those who are not impressed.
and popeye, said I yams what I yam uck uck, uck uck.
sorry for the flip remark, I just saw the funny side of davids I AM THAT I AM:
sorry for the flip remark, I just saw the funny side of davids I AM THAT I AM:
I was referring to your incorrect assumption that I have not read the bible.David F. said:
And when Jesus said we are ALL God's children?David F. said:
I disgaree.David F. said:
That quote is quite ambiguous, in fact.
There is more than one interpretation of it this one, for example.
You are right, Jesus DID avoid telling people he was God.
That's my point.
He never once said it.
Why would he avoid that when so many of the other things he was teaching were so inflamatory?
You really think he was afraid of telling people? If he was in fear of his life, he wouldn't have come forward and started his ministry at all.
The new testament was written AFTER his death (that is even agreed upon by Christian scholars), what did the diciples have to fear then?
The New Testament was supposedly accounts of Jesus' teachings in the diciple's words, right?
Why, then, do you think that he would not have even told his own diciples that he was God if that's what he believed?
If he DID tell them that, what reason would they have to hide that fact?
After his death, they spoke of his miracles; they praised his name, teachings and acts. They spoke of what HE told THEM. Why would they leave out this major detail?
HE was already dead, he didn't have to fear repurcussions anymore.
If anything, his claim to be God would have HELPED their cause.
It's no more outlandish than the rest of what they attributed to him.
John 1 is not about praising Jesus as God, it is about praising Jesus as a preacher of the truth and finding God through his sermons.
It praises him as the SON of God and says that no man has ever seen God, but God sent Jesus (his son) down to teach the world and show man the light and wisdom of God:
18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Simple fact is, Jesus never once claimed to be God.
He claimed to be the son of God.
There is no reason to praise Jesus as God, he did not ask to be praised as God, just listened to as a teacher.
If you won't read the scriptures as they are written, then I certainly cannot quote them... If Jesus is not God, then He cannot be the Savior/Messiah. If you refuse to believe as I have explained, then it doesn't to any good to repeat myself. I suppose you discount virgin birth as well.one_raven said:
Perhaps I should ask you: If the son of a cow, is a cow; and the son of a dog is a dog; and the son of a man is a man; then what is the son of a God?
Jesus was not afraid to tell anyone he was God nor did Jesus (nor I) ever say he was. Although Jesus did not proclaim this himself (other than the one verse I have already mentioned - despite your incorrect explaination in the link), he also never denied when others called him that. If you cannot understand that the Son of God is also part of God (if you cling to Greek philosophical error) then I can't help you. I'm sorry you seem to despise Jesus for being humble and not "tooting his own horn". The most telling thing to me is, as I have already mentioned, the fact that Jesus permitted men to worship him. Only God can be worshipped without sinning (on both the part of the worshipper and him who is worshipped). We could also go into the epistles to prove that Jesus is God - which I have avoided since you wanted a quote from Jesus himself. You discount the verse I gave you, even though you must know that my explaination is taught in every Christian seminary in all of Chistendom. I can't force you to believe.
Last edited:
§outh§tar said:
Southstar, my belief is that what is writtin in Scriptures, that is, Jewish Scriptures, was written not as science texts, but as wisdom texts. Wisdom is the understanding of one's own experiences that one may help to avoid unhappiness in the future, and gain happiness in the future. I do not adjust my interpretations for the sake of science, since interpretation must be held under the eyeglass of moral living. Therefore, whatever similarities with science are held within those texts, I take as having grounding in a historical past, but I do not take as 100% accurate, since our reading of the texts is entirely different from the mentality that wrote it. Right now, evolution is the best explanation for the development of life (not the origin) here on earth. I accept it as the best explanation that we have right now, though, as with any scientific theory, I do not hold it as absolute, since there is much that we do not know.
§outh§tar said:
A book full of thousands of years of human wisdom can be very valuable to us without having any supernatural inspiration whatsoever. I think there is too much moral absolutism on both sides of the debate here. All human morality is subjective therefor Jesus could have been a benevolent liar. His people where enslaved by the Roman Empire and their form of legalistic religion had become ridiculously bureaucratic and sclerotic. They had no hope until he came along and gave them something new to believe in. His ends could have justified the means within limits. Just like when you say to a loved one "You look great", without really meaning it. Claiming he was God simply was supporting the perception of the fulfillment of their own prophecies but it doesn't mean he really believed it. He made quite an effort to be vague about his true nature and at the same time made outrageous claims. Although his nation was destroyed a mere forty years after his death, he succeeded in keeping hope for the new Jerusalem alive for a small band of his followers. Lewis' logic is extemely flawed and biased.
I didn't misconstrue anything.§outh§tar said:
I know you were talking about Lewis' premise.
What I am simply saying is that none of the choces are valid ones at all.
If Jesus never claimed to be a God, then he didn't lie.
If he didn't claim to be a God, then determining whether he was crazy or a fool is pointless because he didn't necessarily have to be one or the other.
Lewis said you have only three options.
That's not true.
He asked a question and falsely limited the options.
Lewis, was apparently the fool, not Jesus.
Answering the challenge would require a fourth option.
Jesus was misunderstood.