What people think about Jesus Christ

[Nathon Detroit]

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.

 

[Ktoyou]

Jesus is the Son of God and God. He is the light of the world, through Jesus Christ we come to God, as Jesus is the word of God who became flesh to teach us. I do not care what other people think, Jesus is my savior.

 

[Town Heretic]

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.

 

[mighty_duck]

You are assuming that it is a given there was first century Jew walking around doing and saying everything that is attributed to Him.

Considering the unverified supernatural claims, the similarity to other similar myths making the rounds at the time, lack of historical coroboration, the fact that most of NT was written by men who never even claim to have met Jesus (in the flesh) and the rest are of questionable authorage - that assumption is misplaced. Was there a historical Jesus in one form or another? quite possibly. Did he walk on water, or claim to be the son of God? Not as likely.

Jesus is also hardly unique. Most religions include men making crazy claims peppered in with words of wisdom. The explanations for them are also similar - either myths, myths attached to real men, or men making both true and false claims.

The black and white vision of false dillemas can leave you blind to the truth.

 

[Town Heretic]

You are assuming that it is a given there was first century Jew walking around doing and saying everything that is attributed to Him.

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.

Considering the unverified supernatural claims,

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

the similarity to other similar myths making the rounds at the time,

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.

lack of historical coroboration,

Speculative, unsupported by the weight of serious examination and repetitious. Other than that it's fine...

the fact that most of NT was written by men who never even claim to have met Jesus (in the flesh)

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.

and the rest are of questionable authorage - that assumption is misplaced. Was there a historical Jesus in one form or another? quite possibly. Did he walk on water, or claim to be the son of God? Not as likely.

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.

Jesus is also hardly unique.

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.

Most religions include men making crazy claims peppered in with words of wisdom.

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

The explanations for them are also similar - either myths, myths attached to real men, or men making both true and false claims.

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 black and white vision of false dillemas can leave you blind to the truth.

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

 

[chair]

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.

This isn't the case. Claims of Messianic status were and are not uncommon in Jewish circles. They range from Bar Kochba to Shabbetai Tzvi and most recently the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Were these guys or their followers deliberately fraudulent, crazy, or actually the Messiah? In most cases, the answer is "non of the above".

The most peculiar example is that of The Lubavitcher Rebbe, who is being turned into the Messiah by some of his followers right now. The fact that he is dead and buried makes no difference at all to these people, and there are those who even think of him as God in some sense.

Knight, if you are not aware of the false Messiahs I listed above, it is a severe lack in your study of religion in general and Christianity in particular.

The claims about Jesus are not as unique as you like them to be. Humans are hungry for some kind of divine intervention in their lives, and are open to believing in things that are not necessarily true.

There is no real difference between Muslims claiming that Muhammad was a prophet and Christians claiming that Jesus was the Messiah and Son of God. If you say that Muhammad was a fraud or crazy, you can equally say the same thing about Jesus.

 

[Town Heretic]

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. This isn't the case.

I disagree. Rather, in every case when a man claims to be God he is either a fraud, deluded, or who he claims to be. The rest is verification.

Claims of Messianic status were and are not uncommon in Jewish circles. They range from Bar Kochba to Shabbetai Tzvi and most recently the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Were these guys or their followers deliberately fraudulent, crazy, or actually the Messiah? In most cases, the answer is "non of the above".

That's just not rational. Either a man is or he is not God. The only question is how do we answer the question. What is the measure of that sort of claim?

The most peculiar example is that of The Lubavitcher Rebbe, who is being turned into the Messiah by some of his followers right now. The fact that he is dead and buried makes no difference at all to these people, and there are those who even think of him as God in some sense.

And their claims can be examined and rejected or accepted as truth.

Knight, if you are not aware of the false Messiahs I listed above, it is a severe lack in your study of religion in general and Christianity in particular.

Well, I can't speak for Knight, but I would be surprised if he is as ignorant as you seem to assume the larger portion of Christianity is regarding the subject...And were you aware that at one time there were several Popes running around Europe? The French even built a marvelous little place for theirs...remarkable that a non Catholic would know that...

The claims about Jesus are not as unique as you like them to be. Humans are hungry for some kind of divine intervention in their lives, and are open to believing in things that are not necessarily true.

The uniqueness, rather, is in their truth. And that is as unique as they need be. Who would argue against the fact that men frequently believe that which is untrue? This is no argument against truth, or even the particular truth of a particular man. It is nothing more than a declaration that men can err and a suggestion that the errant man in this case is a Christian. Or if not, why say what is obvious to everyone who isn't perfect in contemplation and conclusion?

There is no real difference between Muslims claiming that Muhammad was a prophet and Christians claiming that Jesus was the Messiah and Son of God. If you say that Muhammad was a fraud or crazy, you can equally say the same thing about Jesus.

Muhammad spoke to his own validity as a messenger of God. I am unaware of the signs and miracles that were performed by Muhammad. Further, there is a vast difference between the claims of Christ and the declarations of Muhammad, unless you meant nothing more than a qualification as proposition. That is, they are both claims made by adherents. Certainly. But the test of their validity shouldn't end with declaration.

 

[DoogieTalons]

I imagine a man getting a little carried away with his own press, and became bolder as his influence grew, culminating in thowing over the money changer's tables. A rather brave thing to do back then, directly challenging authodox religion especially where money's involved.

He may well have been a humanatarian or great teacher as you say, but this is not negated by his claims to be divine, his claims could have just been human weakness kicking in, look a the ego's of some of the leaders of superchurches.

They start of as regular pastors spreading the word, get a bit carried away with the power popular religion brings and before you know it you have them knocking people over with a tap on the head.

It's not hard to imagine most of Jesus's myth was perpetuated just by his followers.

I'm a magician, once I have fooled somebody and they "Bought" the trick, to stop themselves looking silly they make all kinds of claims about me..."He didn't even touch the deck" I did, "His hands were by his side the whole time" nope one was behind my back for a good two minutes, "I only thought of a card"... yeah after I had made you pick it out.... ect ect.

It's like they don't want to look like I fooled them so they imbue me with powers that I don't have and they didn't actually see.

I think this could be like the life of Christ, as more and more people followed him it's hard to suddenly step back and say well actually... who did see him walk on the water ?

 

[DoogieTalons]

Are we excused from appearing blasphemous in this thread ? It seems to ask this question to everyone and not just in the ECT section could illicit some hard responses for some people to take.

 

[Mr Jack]

I think you will find Knight that most people who don't believe in Christ's divinity also don't take the New Testament record as having much resemblance to the truth of the matter. There's no need to brand Jesus as a liar or a lunatic as we have no idea what he actually said. If he existed, and some of what he said is accurate, I'd say he's probably just deluded like the majority of religious leaders and followers today.

 

[Mr Jack]

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, ...

Which Roman historian is that? The only two I can think of are Tacitus and Josephus - and in both cases, the passages mentioning Jesus are widely accepted to be later fraudulent additions.

...and verified by the spread of his religion, which met no counter claims concerning his existence (the most obvious and easy rebuke imaginable).

The spread of religions has nothing to do with their truth or the existence and nature of their leading figures. Studies of religions that have emerged in modern times should be sufficient to determine this - q.v. John Fume.

The weight of scholarly opinion is solidly behind the existence of Jesus, however one views the divinity of the Christ.

This is true. However there is still no direct evidence of his existence, and it is simply not true to say that the majority of scholarly opinion holds that he existed and the Gospel accounts are accurate descriptions of him, his life and his teachings.

 

[ANVerb]

As many have probably noticed, this thread is essentially a take on C.S. Lewis’ “Lord, Liar, Lunatic” argument set forth in his work Mere Christianity. While it is certainly worth valid consideration, as we have seen in the first handful of posts, it was written for an audience that would have generally accepted the Christian Bible as truthful and accurate. To make this argument applicable to a more post-modern culture, one might add another “L”: legend. It would be possible to deduce that Jesus is neither Lord, Lunatic, or Liar if he never made the claims of the New Testament or never existed in the first place.

As this thread progresses, I think we will find that the majority of responses from outside the Christian community will tend to fall, more or less, under this fourth “L”. It is a bit odd to consider given the state of contemporary, popular culture, but only within the last century or so has the Christian had to show the validity of Scripture before attempting to share the message of Scripture.

Those of you who have read my posts previously should know that I am certainly not a traditional fundamentalist. I tend to find myself in more arguments with fellow Christians than I do with those of other belief-systems. I have a great respect for knowledge in all its forms. I am not opposed to science. I have a deep respect for academic pursuits. I must say, on this issue, the tables seemed to be turned and atheists are letting their faith cloud their reason.

If you are a student of history or even have the slightest understanding of historical inquiry, you will know that many figures of human history – figures few would debate the existence of – are known through mere paragraphs of crumbling texts. A study of pre-Socratic philosophers alone would show that the majority are known only by a slight allusion in later texts. We do not debate that Thales of Ionia or Anaximander existed. Jesus carries with him a virtual library of supporting evidence.

Now, for the sake of argument, let us throw out the New Testament altogether. This is in itself absurd, as all but the most extremely liberal historians will attest to the wealth of historically valuable information contained in Christian Scripture (Many timelines of ancient Egypt and Assyria were developed with Old Testament support – by secular scholars). Let us look at a list of extra-Biblical, non-Christian sources:
1.) Josephus
2.) Pliny The Younger
3.) Tacitus
4.) Suetonius
5.) Thallus
6.) Phlegon
7.) Mara Bar-Serapion
8.) Lucian
9.) Hadrian

I had hoped to present at least a bit of information on each of these, but in my attempt to do so, realized this would quickly become a ridiculously lengthy post. It should not be hard to research any of the aforementioned sources. I would be more than willing to answer any questions to the best of my ability, as well.

If you want to make an argument against Christ, you may argue His character, you may argue His divinity claims, you may argue the particulars of His life. I would gladly discuss any of these subjects. But if you want to argue His existence, you are placing yourself in the very shoes of the Young Earth Creationists you so readily debate – you are putting more stock in your faith than in science.

 

[Daniel50]

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.

I am convinced by this portion.
Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his
disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
16:14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some,
Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son
of the living God.
16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon
Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my
Father which is in heaven.
:first:

 

[lovemeorhateme]

I think you will find Knight that most people who don't believe in Christ's divinity also don't take the New Testament record as having much resemblance to the truth of the matter. There's no need to brand Jesus as a liar or a lunatic as we have no idea what he actually said. If he existed, and some of what he said is accurate, I'd say he's probably just deluded like the majority of religious leaders and followers today.

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.

 

[chair]

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.

Plenty of people of many faiths have accepted dying as Martyrs, often horrible deaths, rather than admit that they were wrong. Jesus (assuming the story is true) is not unusual in this respect either.

 

[DoogieTalons]

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.

Yes. IF he was a deluded man then why not ? some people really are so totally deluded they actually believe what they believe regardless of out come.

You may believe I am deluded... and I have some very simple steps to take to have everlasting life. One could say I am so deluded to believe what I believe I have staked an everlasting life on it, far more than what Jesus would have gained by recanting.

He could easily have been that deluded and have no problems hanging for his delusion.

 

[DoogieTalons]

Suicide bombers... they are deluded and accept death for God.

 

[Frank Ernest]

I think you will find Knight that most people who don't believe in Christ's divinity also don't take the New Testament record as having much resemblance to the truth of the matter. There's no need to brand Jesus as a liar or a lunatic as we have no idea what he actually said. If he existed, and some of what he said is accurate, I'd say he's probably just deluded like the majority of religious leaders and followers today.

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

 

[0000]

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?

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

 

[Frank Ernest]

Yes. IF he was a deluded man then why not ? some people really are so totally deluded they actually believe what they believe regardless of out come.

You may believe I am deluded... and I have some very simple steps to take to have everlasting life. One could say I am so deluded to believe what I believe I have staked an everlasting life on it, far more than what Jesus would have gained by recanting.

He could easily have been that deluded and have no problems hanging for his delusion.

Here is your solution.