What Jesus Claimed about Himself
by BilboFor people who want to discuss the question of what Jesus claimed about himself. I changed the title from "Open Thread" to the above, to avoid confusion with Joy's "Open Thread."
For people who want to discuss the question of what Jesus claimed about himself. I changed the title from "Open Thread" to the above, to avoid confusion with Joy's "Open Thread."
July 29th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Thank You Bilbo and I'm sorry for continuing the off topic subject in the other thread.
I have a habit of looking up biblical snippets that other people think are significant to get a feel for what was being said in context.
Since I made the effort, I thought I would share what I found.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 29, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
July 29th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Personally I expected people to jump in with some John 10:30, I always felt John 8:58 was a pretty weak justification for dreaming up the bizarre notion of the holy trinity. From John 8:58 you might conclude that Jesus was simply like Dick Clark, older than dirt but still looked like he was under fifty.
Still, seems weird to me that Jesus was very clear that he's the Son of God but very vague on whether he's actually god.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 29, 2008 @ 3:45 pm
July 29th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
This is the extent of your exegesis?
I didn't know being like Dick Clark was a stoneable offense in the first century.
Comment by chunkdz — July 29, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
July 29th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
The trinity is not the main focus of that passage. The OT Jews knew God by several descriptive phrases including I am. Conjoined with before Abraham and the implication is clear to all but atheists determined to close their minds to the most reasonable deduction.
That's better evidence for the trinity than your previous citation. A virgin birth, by the power of the Holy Spirit, is aptly portrayed by the Son of God title.
Comment by Bradford — July 29, 2008 @ 5:54 pm
July 29th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
The best evidence for how the idea of the trinity got started can be found by studying history starting around 325 AD paying particular attention to the towns of Nicea, Alexandria and, of course, Rome.
From How the Council of Nicea Changed the World…
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 29, 2008 @ 6:53 pm
July 29th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
TP, the idea of a multiple faceted God is found in the first chapter of Genesis. It is also found throughout the NT. The idea was around centuries before the CoN. But if you are into spin, articles like the one you linked to are good fodder.
Comment by Bradford — July 29, 2008 @ 7:06 pm
July 29th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Multiple faceted, eh? I would have said schizophrenic, but I guess multi-faceted works too.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 29, 2008 @ 8:01 pm
July 29th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Hi Bradford,
By all means, provide your quotes, including biblical ones.
Surely you can best this poor, ignorant heretic in a religious discussion.
After all, I'm just a simpleton who believes Jesus was a divinely inspired man preaching about love because God is love.
1st John, 4:7-8
There is a scene in Monty Python's The Life of Brian where Brian's misguided followers were convinced Brian was the messiah because Brian denies being the messiah. The brings to mind Mark 10:17-18…
And when you get done with that, you may want to explain why adding the filioque ("and the son") was so controversial if the biblical support of the trinity was unquestionably compelling.
Come to think of it, if all early Christians agreed on the divine nature of the man called Jesus, where did all the heretics come from and how did they become significant leaders of Christian churches?
Could your view of history be colored by how the victors have tried to spin history to cover up the unchristian-like method they used to consolidate their power starting around 325AD?
Love thy neighbor as thyself unless he offends thee then burn his CHRISTIAN churches and rend his flesh from his body to inflict as much pain as possible.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 29, 2008 @ 8:05 pm
July 29th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Well, I sure as heck don't know if there's a God (I believe so, but I could be wrong). I do believe there was once a Jewish man with a legitimate claim to Messiah-hood, named Jesus. And he in all likelihood had a Jewish mother.
But I've never been big on the whole Incarnation/Avatar thing. You know, the Krishnas of the Eastern world, distinguished primarily by blue skin and more wives than anybody needs, as well as a propensity to play with goats and kill people with feathers for being rude. I don't have a problem with there being a single deity, never born and everlasting, not of material substance yet speaking through spirit (and mind).
Just not inclined toward polytheism, I guess. Too much trouble to keep 'em straight. And I've always thought the whole trinity add-on was just another of those early Pagan pay-offs (like Easter and Winter Solstice). They needed more gods (and a goddess or two) than just one. And an avatar would be nice too. It's not like any real god worth his salt would mind a few doctrinal give-aways for the sake of social unity and international peace…
…at least, until they started slaughtering people for holding to the original scripture and tradition. At that point political power (and earthly wealth) killed revelation with dogmatic corruption and "saving the world" became an insider euphemism for "robbing the world." They've been really, really successful at it.
Now, that's just me. I feel no overwhelming need to become a bitter jerk like PZ Myers or a charming cad like Richard Dawkins. Nobody's going to pay me money to either insult them or tell them what to believe. Everybody's got to have their act, something they can do to get paid. If being an overgrown juvenile delinquent pays (and it does, or Ozzie Osborn and Gene Simmons wouldn't have their own reality TV shows), go for it. Lots of people these days who can do honest, useful work can't get decent jobs. But if I've got a soul (and I hope I do, since it's hard to be me), I don't want to sell it for mammon. Caesar's coins are shiny, but you can't eat them, wear them or live in them. Mostly good for holding your eyes closed when you're dead.
I'm not an "orthodox" Christian. I don't belong to a church, or a denomination. I've never been baptized, can't take communion. Tend to have bonfires for the solstices and equinoxes, like Easter eggs and decorated fir trees. Christianity as "Pagan Lite," which it (quite honestly) *is*. I've more Bibles in more versions than some preachers I know. Also have collected works of some of the most interesting theologians. Also have the Mormon version, all the Upanishads and works of the great Buddhist masters, some guru-stuff from my brother-in-law the Sikh, and two translations of the Koran. Lao Tsu, a bunch of Native African and American traditions, and the entire Celtic collection. Not to mention Carlos Castenada and Baba Ram Das.
They've all got something true to say (enmeshed in a sea of culturally irrelevant horseradish), some pearls of wisdom that can be useful in life.
I don't know if God is One, or if God is Many-In-One. It's okay for God to be who s/he/them/it is, I don't mind. I think any particular version of that question isn't worth dying for, since I'll die of something soon enough, sure as I'm born. I'm in no hurry, and I've never been fond of violence.
The one thing atheists have right is that if there is a God, and s/he/they/it are all-powerful, we could all know it very surely and not be fighting about it all the time. If God wanted us to know it very surely. Obviously, that's not what's real here on planet Earth. Unlike atheists, I don't begrudge God any invisibility cloak s/he/they/it wishes to use to keep us all confused. I'm just a measly human, not a god, I've no desire to *be* a god (especially not to dumb-struck acolytes).
Nor do I have any desire whatsoever to 'convert' anybody into my own state of non-surety. Bah, humbug! I don't need no bazillion star-struck hippies camping in the yard, don't even like company that much when I'm related to 'em! But I do suppose this type of argument keeps evangelicals on both sides of the fence interested and engaged. It's not going to change anybody's mind, and it's not going to answer perennial questions humans have about spiritual things.
…but whatever floats your boat. Carry on!
Comment by Joy — July 29, 2008 @ 8:38 pm
July 29th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Now this is my kind of thread to bad I'm going to miss it.
TP I would sugest you look into the Jewish belief in two powers in heaven
I also would hope you would look into the early church fathers who wrote shortly after the NT to see what they thought about the divinity of Christ.
The best thing to do is read The NT itself. The Trinity drips from every page if you have an open mind.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 29, 2008 @ 9:09 pm
July 29th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
TP:
TP, Jesus' references to his Father in heaven and references to the Holy Spirit are multiple and are included in the epistles as well as the Gospels. The belief in the trinity was widespread prior to the Council and church fathers are numbered among those believing in it.
What interests me more is the obsession atheists have with trying to debunk Christianity. It stands in stark contrast to the eagerness of Westerners to show their tolerance and respect for diversity which manifests itself in the different way other religious groups are spoken of. Among the mainstream media it is taboo to speak of Muslim Fundamentalists although it is OK to use the same term with respect to Christianity. What's that about TP? I have some idea as to what drives this. Do you?
Comment by Bradford — July 29, 2008 @ 9:27 pm
July 29th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Hi Joy,
I liked what you wrote. A lot.
Do you want to join forces and start a new religious movement?
(Just kidding).
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 29, 2008 @ 9:34 pm
July 29th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
I had hoped you would show up. I was extremely doubtful anyone else could or would provide significant counter balance.
But alas, it is not to be. Maybe later.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 29, 2008 @ 9:37 pm
July 29th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Hi Bradford,
I realize I am just a slave to reality-based thinking.
But just saying something doesn't make it true.
And trying to change the subject to general stone throwing at the typical right-wing strawmen isn't impressive either.
Let me know when you find an opinion you are ready to back up with something more than just your opinion.
Job 38:1-3
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 29, 2008 @ 9:51 pm
July 29th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
But that's your self-delusion TP. You are as subjective as anyone else.
That goes for you too.
Comment by Bradford — July 29, 2008 @ 9:58 pm
July 29th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
TP quoting God:
LOL. Let me know when you acquire divine powers TP.
Comment by Bradford — July 29, 2008 @ 10:22 pm
July 29th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Hi TP,
Counter balance to what?
Did you tell the truth here?
Comment by Pez — July 29, 2008 @ 10:23 pm
July 29th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
There's nothing right wing about asking why reporters are under instruction to avoid the term Muslim Fundamentalist but not Christian Fundamentalist. Anyone with concern for freedom of the press should find that repugnant.
Comment by Bradford — July 29, 2008 @ 10:24 pm
July 29th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Todd:
Below are some of Jesus Christ’s Divinity claims as recorded in the Bible:
John 5:17-23 - Jesus makes claims about His unique relationship to the Father and the Jews clearly understood His meaning and wanted to kill Him for His blasphemy… He also claims to be able to give life to whomever He wishes (and someone besides God can do this you think?)… and He claims the He must be honored just as the Father is honored…. If you have read any of the Old Testament it is quite clear that God shares glory with no one… for Jesus to claim that He must be Honored like God is an unmistakable reference to Divinity.
John 10:17-18 He claims to have both authority and power to lay down His life AND take it back up again (again, you think someone besides God has this power?)
John 10:28-39 He claims to give eternal life to all who follow Him and claims that He and the Father are one, to which the Jews want to stone Him [i.e. for blasphemy]. He does not lessen the tension but reiterates it in verses 34-36 by saying the prophets in the OT were called sons of God (because they received revelatory words from God) how much more appropriate is it then for He to be know as Son of God since he IS the one sanctified and sent into the world by God (refer to Jn 1 or Heb 1 to see references of God speaking the 'Word'). An traditional Christian understanding of the relationship between the Father and the Son is that the Father has been speaking the fullness of His Being from all eternity and what He has spoken is the eternal Word (what both Jn and Heb 1 allude to, i.e. the speaking forth of the Word from God). Thus Jesus is underscoring that it is right for Him to say He is both one with the Father and the Son of God (or more to the point in this text, the actual INCARNATION of the word of God). It is clear from the passage that the implication is not lost on the listeners. If it is lost on us it is because we are looking at the text with 21st century-colored glasses.
John 11:25 He claims not just that He can resurrect Lazarus but that He IS the Resurrection and the Life and that He who believes in Him will live even if he dies. (once again, you think this applies to someone else besides God?) Seriously, He is either rather deluded, a deceiver, or making some rather extraordinary claims about Himself…. I believe the latter.
Matt 9:1-8 Jesus heals a paralytic but before He does He claims the power to be able to forgive his sins… the scribes said to themselves that He was blaspheming… He challenges them to believe He that He really does have such authority and then heals the paralytic… The text clearly indicates that Jesus can forgive sins (finally, whom but God do you think has this authority?)
Matt 26:63-66 And many other references to the title “Son of Man” throughout the Gospels. But, here He is directly charged by the high priest and He claims the title for Himself and says that He will be sitting at the right hand of God. The high preist rips his garments and charges Him with Blasphemy (as indeed he should if Jesus is mistaken in any way). To sit at the right had of God is no small thing… it means that you are at sitting in the place of worship and being worshipped by created beings… again, remember that this is not an honor that God bestows to any created thing, yet Jesus claims it for Himself.
…I could go on… but I’ll end by simply saying that one reason why His claims may seem unclear to us is that we are not 1st century Jews. To them His claims carry a clear meaning. And keep in mind in the Matt 26 chapter (which I cited) that the charge brought against Him which led to His crucifixion was blasphemy… the only charge they could make stick. Quite ironic indeed if your trying to make the claim that He never claimed Divinity.
Here’s a decent link if you are interested in a scholarly treatment of Scriptural teaching on Jesus Divinity
http://www.tektonics.org/jesus...
Comment by Jaceppe — July 29, 2008 @ 10:47 pm
July 29th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Hi Bradford,
To my suggestion that an unsupported personal opinons wasn't very convincing, you wrote…
I appreciate the motivation to provide even more quotes from sources you might be compelled to take seriously…
"God is love" so simple, yet so complete.
However, it isn't very helpful to those wishing to control others through organized religions, capital punishment and pre-emptive wars.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 29, 2008 @ 11:10 pm
July 29th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
I agree that its a shame that our media is too afraid to call out Islam for all of its faults. I just wish more people could realize that Christianity is almost as absurd. I'm amazed how some christians can throw stones at Islam from inside their glass houses well not seeing the same weaknesses among their own kind. At least Jesus wasn't a known pedophile like Muhammed, so I guess Christianity is on slightly better footing.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 29, 2008 @ 11:10 pm
July 29th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Hi Pez,
You asked…
I do believe someone called "Yeshua ben Yosef" or something similar was motivated by love of his fellow man to preach what he thought was right.
To me "divinely inspired" means motivated by altruistic love because I believe God is Love.
As for calling myself a "simpleton", I don't take that as much of an insult as others might. I find it often helpful to strive to the K.I.S.S. principle even when exploring complex subjects like Quantum Mechanics. I have often been accused of over simplifying things with some justification.
That being said, I might have been engaging in a little sarcastic flourish with that particular adjective (in the spirit of openness and honesty).
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 29, 2008 @ 11:23 pm
July 29th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Todd, my point was not to bash Islam. Skewed press coverage endangers the reporting of everything including religion and science.
Comment by Bradford — July 29, 2008 @ 11:25 pm
July 29th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Hi TP,
But I was asking whether He was divinely-inspired.
That's a funny definition of "divinely inspired".
So you've removed "liar" from our choices in our trilemma.
It would be disingenuous to claim that you accept that He is God in the sense that God is love and Jesus was motivated by love, so I will presume that in any sense understandable to normal listeners that you also deny that Jesus was God incarnate.
So, was He mad?
When He claimed to have pre-existed the creation of the world, to have been with the Father before descending to Earth, to have been before the patriarchs - was He merely mistaken?
How about when He said that no man may come to the Father but through Him?
Comment by Pez — July 29, 2008 @ 11:42 pm
July 30th, 2008 at 12:30 am
Folks, the point of the Trilemma is not to be a sound argument in itself, but to insist that people engage with what Jesus actually said, rather than sentimental ideas about what we believe and so therefore suppose he probably would have said. But the question of the divinity of Jesus is far more complex than simply stating "Jesus said he was God".
It is true that, in his context of first-century Jewish monotheism, his words and actions were remarkable. To call himself "lord of the Sabbath" is to ascribe to himself the authority of God himself. To forgive sins on his own authority is to do the same. To call himself the Temple is to say that he himself is the place where God and man, heaven and earth, meet. It is this "teaching with authority" that is said to have astonished and scandalized the people - with good reason.
And Todd, for a Jewish person to say "before Abraham was, I AM" is to use the name of God - "I AM". It's no coincidence - that was exactly the subject of conversation. What on Earth this could possibly mean is a deep question indeed. But Lewis is simply right that this is something far beyond good moral platitudes - this is a claim to the highest authority known to man.
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — July 30, 2008 @ 12:30 am
July 30th, 2008 at 12:48 am
Hi Pez,
You wrote…
It fits for someone who thinks God is Love.
I am not material, I am spiritual.
I am who I am. I am not the physical person. I am love.
Love transcends time. The love that makes me who I am comes from before man walked the Earth. It always was and always will be.
Does having such an opinion make me mad or just a heretic that needs to be silenced.
Maybe nailed to a cross?
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 30, 2008 @ 12:48 am
July 30th, 2008 at 1:51 am
Hi TP,
Not really.
It fits better for someone who thinks that love is God.
Are you love, now? I thought you said you were arrogant. Is love arrogant?
I think it makes you an obscurantist and disingenuous dialogue partner.
We'd have to elicit definitions from you for everything you're discussing here, specifically, "spiritual" and "love", to know if you were actually saying anything.
Do you think what you are saying would get you stoned or crucified by Pharisees? Would your testimony withstand their interrogation or would it break down into nothing?
When you say "I am" do you realize you are saying nothing like I AM (ego eimi)?
http://vintage.aomin.org/EGO.h...
As before, these are not the claims of a great human teacher - "inspired" by "love" or not.
And you've already ruled out liar.
Comment by Pez — July 30, 2008 @ 1:51 am
July 30th, 2008 at 9:38 am
When dealing with God and the Trinity, I would like to remind everyone that God is in many ways unknown to us. This is not a way out but to truly know who God and the Trinity truly is, we would be God.
Last time I checked, I couldn't walk on water or bring back the dead so my understanding of God will always be limited by my being a mere mortal man.
Comment by lcd — July 30, 2008 @ 9:38 am
July 30th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Since both Todd Berkebile and Jaceppe suggested John 10:30 was significant I thought it would be helpful to provide it in context.
I suggest this is consistent with other teachings of Jesus. We all are the children of God (Love). We are all at one with God when we love.
Matthew 5:44-48
What I am saying here isn't something I recently dreamed up. It is the foundation of my philosophical outlook that was established over 40 years ago.
The lessons I took away from my religious training was that Jesus was a man and Christ was the ideal. Jesus taught that loving everyone, including your enemies, was the path to being at one with God.
These religious ideas go back a lot longer than 40 years. As far back as 325AD and farther.
It continues to amaze me how people are willing to expend a great deal of energy defending a man (whose real name they aren't even sure of) instead of his ideas.
Reducing the commandment, to love everyone including your enemies, to the status of "good moral platitudes" misses the point. These divine ideas could have been muttered by the lowliest beggar and it wouldn't diminish the idea’s significance in the slightest.
I find it frustrating to watch people who call themselves "good Christians" dismiss concerns about capital punishment, questions about the ethics of denying needs of immigrants and outrage over pre-emptive war. However, let it be known that I doubt Jesus was/is God incarnate who physically ascended to heaven and that instantly condemns me to be "not a Christian" who will forever rot in hell.
God is Love, Love is God.
I offer this not to be antagonistic, but to provoke thought.
I do this because I am spiritual, not physical. My true self is composed out of love (in the image and likeness of God).
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 30, 2008 @ 8:09 pm
July 30th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Hi TP,
As a devout, traditional Christian, I have much to applaud in what you are saying. In the words of Jesus, "you are not far from the kingdom of God." I daresay such a formulation is far truer to the nature of God and Christ than what many Christians who pay lip service to the divinity of Christ actually believe.
But I think you are missing an important piece of the picture. For these are more than platonic truths about the nature of things - though they are certainly that as well. Yet they are part of a larger story. True as all this is, it does matter that it was Jesus and not someone else who said them. If we are to go by John, we need to take on board the theology of the divine logos - that Jesus was the embodiment of divine love - that to look on him is to see the Father. It is in Jesus himself, not the words that he said, but the life that he lived, the death that he died, and the victory over death that he achieved, that shows us what love is.
This is not in any way to diminish that we are sons of God. Rather, it is in looking at Jesus - THE son of God - that we ourselves are born again (another Johannine term) as sons of God.
Being spiritual in the Christian sense does not mean being non-physical. It means being eternal. In the resurrection of Jesus, we see the affirmation of the goodness of the created order, as well as hope to be free from the bondage to death and decay that plague creation, as well as the hatred and manipulative impulses which enslave our instincts. Our embodied, physical existence has a future.
All this hope we can have because Jesus did more than say what he said. He - as the embodiment of God and therefore the most truly human being that ever lived - fulfilled the vocation of love. He then bids us to "follow him" and "go, and do likewise".
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — July 30, 2008 @ 10:03 pm
July 30th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Thought Provoker,
Clearly, according to Scripture we all are children of God in the sense that we all owe our very existence and being to His creative and sustaining power. However, Jesus had some rather harsh words for the religious leaders of His day and even called them children of the Devil in John 8:44; so, there exists the possibility that we are not ALL children of God in the sense that Jesus is alluding to and we become children of God through Christ; John 14:6. But, I am a bit confused by your comment connecting ‘love’ to John 10:
Well, I don’t actually see Jesus discussing ‘love’ here in John 10; rather He seems to be discussing Himself, things He has said, claims He has made, and dialoging with the religious leaders on these matters. Also, when Jesus discusses love in the Gospels I don’t think there is a single occurrence where people pick up stones in an attempt to kill Him because of that teaching; however, that is exactly the response of the religious leaders here in this passage so I am curious why you think ‘love’ is really the topic being addressed here. I think the passage is fairly clear that they are irritated by the audacity of His Divinity claims.
Additionally, I don’t understand how your focus on ‘love’ and 'we are at one with God when we love' addresses the uniqueness of the claims which Christ makes of Himself (which I attempted to illustrate in the Scriptures I cited in my previous post). Do you think all those same statements He makes of Himself, all those same powers He has in Himself, and all those same authorities He claims for Himself also rest with you? Since you too are a son of God (or love as you say)? Would you stand before the religious leaders of 1st century Judea and make those claims?
There are many extraordinary claims made by Christ throughout the Gospel of John and he talks often about ‘my Father’ and ‘your Father’ there. However, I don’t believe there is a single instance where he uses the phrase ‘our Father’ where He is including both Himself AND His listeners. Instead, He distinctively uses ‘my Father’ when talking about His relationship to the Father and ‘your Father’ when talking about his listeners (us by extension). [I think exceptions to this are in the Lord’s Prayer in Matt 6 and Luke 11… but there He is instructing the disciples how THEY should pray and it is not suggested that He is including Himself. Also, He may point to our oneness with each other and with God in John 17 but the backdrop for this section is the imminent crucifixion He is about to submit Himself to… i.e. the very means by which OUR oneness with God is purchased by HIM.] My point is that He repeatedly makes a distinction between Himself and His listeners. …So…, when WE are given power to become sons of God (as in John 1:12) it is only because of faith in Him as the only Begotten Son and in the power of His life, death, and resurrection on our behalf… and when WE are called children of God (as in 1 John 3:2) it is after the writer has spent the first 2 chapters of 1 John talking about Christ, how He was proclaimed to us, His position of honor with the Father, the reality that forgiveness and that eternal life etc. are in Him, and that our hope rests fully in Him. There is much in this epistle about love, but there is also much about the uniqueness of Christ, and 1 John 5:5 says:
So, he to whom John is speaking in this epistle is he who has embraced the person of Jesus Christ and all that He claims to be.
I guess I would ask you in your philosophical outlook regarding love and God’s children the following:
What do you say of the doctrines of human sin, and the righteousness of Christ, and the necessity and efficacy of the crucifixion (redemption) and the forgiveness available through His shed blood, and His resurrection from the dead? Are these doctrines incorporated into your outlook? And, if so, how?
Comment by Jaceppe — July 30, 2008 @ 10:14 pm
July 30th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Hi TP,
Thanks for your thoughts here.
A few (thought-provoking) opinions of my own:
Jesus was not presenting "ideas". He wasn't merely a thinker but one who taught with His own authority/the authority of the Father. He was neither speculating nor telling us what the great rabbis had thought. He was telling us what the Father said and showing us what the Father was doing.
You seem to have great respect for what Jesus said. What do you do with the fact that He said He came down from Heaven, had existed with the Father before the Creation, was returning to the Father, but would send a Comforter to the disciples, etc.?
You seem to think He was merely telling us how to live. How is it that knowing how to live would give us eternal life? Hadn't the Pharisees already mastered legalistic living and yet were not righteous enough to enter the Kingdom of God?
Why is it that we all fall short of Jesus' example? Then what good is His example given our inevitable failure?
If you are "Love" and made in the image and likeness of God why are you arrogant, boastful, impatient, self-seeking, frequently wrong and contentious?
Why am I an even greater sinner?
Do you have a definition in which these are characteristic traits of "Love"?
Your Dan Brownish repetition of the inuendo of 325 AD does nothing to refute the point, made by Bradford and others, that, before Nicea, Jesus claimed to be God, that the Church Fathers interpreted Him (as did His opponents) and taught Him as saying such, that they found the concept of the Trinity in the Bible, taught the Trinity, used the term Trinity, and that they had a very well established canon of authoritative apostolic writings which supported their teaching.
Jesus' divinity, as such, was not up for grabs at Nicea and addressing Arianism gave the bishops a chance to confirm "this is not what we've been teaching."
That other groups - who did not read or rejected the Holy Scriptures and were also not familiar with the Apostolic writings - interpreted Jesus' life and Resurrection in another manner only shows that there was a life and Resurrection to interpret. That they did so without authority or reference to Jesus' background and intent explains why they got it so wrong.
Jesus did not teach that there was a path to being with God. Jesus taught that He came that we all might have eternal life, that He was that way, the truth and the life, and that He was going to prepare a place for us. He did not teach a method. He did not impart secret knowledge. He did not give us rules or a path to follow to enlightenment. He took our sins on Himself, took us into His Holy body, made us branches of His vine, justified us before the Father and gave us the promised access.
Otherwise I appreciate your points and agree with you. Jesus certainly told us that the greatest commandment is to love. The brilliant Jewish pharisee, Saul of Tarsus, confirmed this and told us that all of the Law was wrapped up in this kind of love.
So how do we get that kind of love in our hearts? What happens when we fail to live up to it? How is it even possible that we, being composed of Love, fail to love perfectly in the first place?
edit:
Oh, in light of WFO's and Jaceppe's comments you can ignore my questions if you like. Their posts are so much better.
Comment by Pez — July 30, 2008 @ 10:29 pm
July 31st, 2008 at 12:32 am
It's late, I will try to answer your questions tomorrow.
Meanwhile, here is something I learned as a child…
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 31, 2008 @ 12:32 am
July 31st, 2008 at 12:44 am
TP - great stuff.
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — July 31, 2008 @ 12:44 am
July 31st, 2008 at 1:17 am
TP,
I think, despite your aversion to the trinity, it is perhaps the most powerful theological expression of what it means that "God is love". Love poured out, received, and returned is something that defines God's very being. God is love, in his divine nature, before all worlds.
John's gospel is particularly trinitarian - the Father loves the Son, having life in himself, and giving the Son life in himself. The Spirit proceeds from the Father through the work of the Son, and his role is to bring all of mankind to Christ in the love of the Father and the Son before all worlds. This is all straight out of the gospel of John.
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — July 31, 2008 @ 1:17 am
July 31st, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Thought Provoker,
Like both Wonders For Oyarsa and Pez, I too appreciate your focus on love and I agree with you that love emanates from God and is in His very essence. And, as Jesus has told his followers, fulfilling the law is to love God and to love our neighbors. Additionally in John 17, he said that love would be the mark of those who follow Him. Where Christians have been poor examples of this (and 2000 years of history gives quite a # of these I might add; including my own regular gaffaws [sins]) we are missing the mark of His high calling. However, let me ask you to consider what the very phrase:
actually means from an ontological standpoint. Love expresses itself in action; in treating other persons as one desires to be treated (at least this is how Jesus explains it to us in our human relationships). In other words, for it even to be expressed (possibly even to exist at all) there must be entities capable of being in relationship with one another in order for love to be in operation. Wonders For Oyarsa speaks to this fact in his recent post regarding the Trinity. If God is not a Being consisting of more than one person how then IS He Love? It is not just that you say above that God acts lovingly, it is that He actually IS Love (and Scripture agrees with your very accurate rendering). That is, in His very nature (ontological essence) Love is defined, in operation, and being expressed. It’s not just that He wants to express it, it is that Love is actully being expressed IN God. If there are no other Persons for the Father to express love towards, then how was it expressed prior to the creation of the universe (or more specifically, the creation of relational beings such as angels or us)? Did it go unexpressed until we were created (if “until” is a proper means of expressing this question)? Does this mean that God lacked something? That He “needed” creation to exist for His own essence to be fully expressed? That would be tantamount to saying that God wanted to express it and couldn't, or at least couldn't yet since there was nothing to express it towards. I think honestly that you will search the Scriptures in vain to find verses which say that God lacks anything at all. Alternatively, maybe He didn't want to express it until He created proper receptacles of love; by implication then it didn't exist IN Him 'til the angels or we came along (whatever "'til" means there). How then, again, IS He Love?; 'cause such an understanding would suggest that at some point in eternity He wasn't. Scripture describes God as a Being whose essential essence does not change and of Jesus it says in Hebrews that He is the same yesterday today and forever. So, the idea that God wasn't something and then became that something is difficult (if not impossible) to support from Scripture. I think the doctrine of the Trinity answers these questions by explaining how God can actually BE Love. Because, the relationship among the Persons of the Godhead allows Love to exist and be expressed apart from any created thing. God is complete in His own perfections. He does not need us for Love to be expressed and He has been expressing Love in His own Being from eternity past. If you are able to see that there are ample places in Scripture that testify to Jesus Divinity (including Jesus on words) contrasted with the fact that Scripture does not define us as Divinity, then the Trinity is not far removed and the idea that God IS love makes sense. The fact that He created us and allows us to experience and participate in His Love is quite marvelous. I’m just glad that He did…
Comment by Jaceppe — July 31, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
July 31st, 2008 at 7:20 pm
I think you can go too far with this "God is love" business, as if "agape" is some kind of timeless substance. Firstly, there's that little statement about "God is a consuming fire", and "Yahweh is a man of war", sending Israel to kill Midianites, etc. Obvious, the God of the Bible is willing to kick some royal butt and take no prisoners, under certain circumstances. Secondly, agape in Greek refers to something on the order of "self-less caretaking", that is, taking care of the needs of others without regarding how you will be compensated. A statement like "God is love" means something akin "God is in the business of taking care of others without concern for how he will be 'paid back'" Jesus insisted that we as humans live the same way, "be, therefore, perfect, i.e, complete, as your Father is in this agape lifestyle. Then you will really be his sons. Just being descendants of old Abraham isn't going to cut it." Jesus is far away from any ontological philosophy here. It's boots to the road lifestyle he's concerned with that any eight year old can understand.
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 31, 2008 @ 7:20 pm
July 31st, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Hi Jaceppe,
I really liked your last comment. It shows a lot of depth and touches on some of the ways I see "God is Love" is more involved than some might have thought.
Thank you for sharing it.
I will point out that I believe Love is timeless. Which means Love didn't (and doesn't) require humans to exist. A minor example is that animals express love. I suggest the origin of life came about because of love. IOW, God (Love) created life.
Meanwhile, I promised to answer questions so, here goes…
You asked…
I generally consider the idea of original sin and other religiously motivated guilt trips to be mostly one of the ways religious leaders throughout history controlled the masses. And, before you start quoting Jesus on this, yes I consider him to have been a less than perfect religious leader too. He was divinely inspired (altruist Love), he had the best of intentions, but Jesus (or whatever name he went by) was still a man. Christ was the ideal. At least this is my belief.
Stories about coming back from the dead was certainly not unique to only one of many cults that sprung up just prior to the Jewish rebellion that resulted in the destruction of their Temple. Did the man now known as "Jesus" physically come back from the dead? Maybe, but chances are that it was part of the myth fed by his best intentioned followers. If Yeshua Ben Yosef’s intent was actually to show the world (including future generations) that he had risen, he could have simply appeared before Pontius Pilate and asked “care to try again?”. I suggest this would have resulted in something more than just a minor footnote in official records.
Being prepared to die so others may live is generally very noble. Being prepared to die to relieve the guilt (original sin) of others is a gray area for me. I think Yeshua Ben Yosef was one of many people who died as a direct result of sticking to principles.
My "outlook" on all of this is that it makes me rather sad that Yeshua Ben Yosef's sacrifice resulted in having religious leaders get an even firmer control of a larger group of people (Gentiles) by making him an icon to be worshipped instead of a man to be emulated.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 31, 2008 @ 8:45 pm
July 31st, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Hi Pez,
As always, I enjoy our back and forth discussions. However, I am a little uncertain whether or not you want me to respond to your questions based on your post script. I will play it by ear.
I quote Jesus and the bible because you and others have "great respect" of these as authoritative sources. Like I said, the words would still have the same significance if spoken by a beggar in the street. It is my opinion that the bible is fallible and contains a lot of fiction. It has its uses as a historical reference, but it's most significant value is in provoking thoughts about larger subjects. It doesn't need to be the literal truth to do that. In fact, it would probably diminish its effectiveness if it was.
I believe Jesus (or whatever he called himself) was a man. Christ was the ideal. We can trade biblical quotes if you want, but I somehow I think you would be more uncomfortable with the inconsistencies presented than I would.
Isn't knowing how to live reward enough?
Why do religious leaders insist that we all MUST "…fall short of Jesus' example?"
I disagree with the premise.
I don't feel that love is passive and weak. Quite the opposite.
Your efforts show that you love me even as you struggle to deny the feeling's existence.
I love you.
Why is there darkness and shadows even in the presence of light?
The existence of matter is a strong illusion. We live, we love, we try.
All we can do is try our best to think and understanding for ourselves.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 31, 2008 @ 9:23 pm
July 31st, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Hi Wonders For Oyarsa,
You didn't directly ask me any questions, but I wanted to respond to you.
You wrote…
When it comes to philosophy and religion, I don't know the Truth.
If I knew it, I couldn't tell you. Even the ancient Chinese knew "the way" named isn't the way.
To some, the name of the way is "Trinity". If it helps you find your true path to thinking and understanding for yourself, then I'm not going to argue.
However, my love of others compels me to interfere with attempts to force conformance of thought, thus my moniker and "hidden" agenda of provoking independent thinking.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 31, 2008 @ 9:41 pm
July 31st, 2008 at 10:43 pm
That's a rather cynical way of approaching the issue, don't you think? What about looking at sin and guilt through the lens of love? Have you ever read The Brothers Karamazov?
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — July 31, 2008 @ 10:43 pm
July 31st, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Hi Wonders For Oyarsa,
You asked…
How is thinking people are fundamentally full of love and goodness being cynical?
Thinking people are fundamentally full of love and goodness IS looking through the lens of love. Encouraging people them to trust themselves enough to think for themselves is also looking through the lens of love.
Sin is the absence of Love. Through the lens of love there is nothing to see because sin and evil are as darkness is to light.
Imposed guilt is almost always a mechanism for manipulation. A way to take advantage of the love inherent in all of God's children.
No, I haven't. Have you read Fathers and Sons?
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 31, 2008 @ 11:21 pm
July 31st, 2008 at 11:36 pm
I haven't read Fathers and Sons, I admit. But what I'm getting at is the human solidarity found in love. For the truest deepest love has a character of defiance to it - looking at all the darkness and evil in the world and choosing to love anyway. It is love that says "I am guilty of all, on behalf of all". It is the delusional isolationism of sin that acts as if we are the beginning and end of all things in ourselves, and are only responsible for ourselves - it is love that asks forgiveness for the sins of our fathers.
It is cynical to assume that Christian concern about inherited guilt is only a ruse to control people - in it's most radically distorted form, yes, it could be that, but at it's heart it is setting its sights on a far higher love.
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — July 31, 2008 @ 11:36 pm
July 31st, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Hi TP,
Thanks for your answers.
Yes, I enjoy our round-abouts as well.
As I thought.
You quote Jesus when His words accommodate your point of view and wave them away as fiction when they don't.
Of course you'll now want to pull out a quote, a "command" of Jesus', to show that we are all hypocrites and can't/don't/choose not to follow all of His commands, but that will be rather beside the point.
The first point, the issue being addressed, is the C.S. Lewis trilemma.
Intrinsic to the question of this trilemma is the statement that we are taking Jesus seriously. When we examine Jesus and His claims we find that we have to take Him as divine, as an evil liar, or as being deluded.
He is not a great moral teacher if He is deluded or evil.
So you can deny that He said what He said, but then you are left with no reason to believe He said the things you want Him to have said - you've cut off the legs of the "great teacher" argument.
Another example of your unfounded bravado. If you've got quotes you want to discuss let's see them. I prefer actually to read the entire Bible and the entire New Testament for continuity and message rather than just quotes. Since I'm sure you'll call off the dogs and leave me a modicum of my ignorant faith, out of love, sure, let's see your complaints about blind men and fig trees.
It would contradict what you claimed previously. You provided a long quote of Jesus' (John 10), providing us with context, and said that it was consistent with His other teachings (I should hope so) and with your views. In it Jesus said He came to bring us eternal life. He didn't say "I come to show you how to live, and that ought to be enough." So is the part about eternal life just another of those fictions? And you say this fiction is consistent with His other teachings?
I'm not a religious leader and I didn't say you MUST fall short. I said you DO. But you are Love, made by God out of Love, so you should act like Love.
Then again, it appears you think you do…
I don't think love is passive or weak, either. Neither do I think it is arrogant, boastful, etc.
Apparently you do.
When you say that Jesus was divinely inspired all you really mean is that he is speaking out of love.
When I said this was an odd way to apply "divine inspiration" you said that it wasn't odd if one thought of God as Love.
So I expressed wonder about what you meant by love. I'm still wondering. There's a famous passage in Corinthians describing what love is. WfO alos gave us a description above.
Yours seems to include arrogance, boastfulness, impatience, contentiousness, etc.
It's easy to have spiritual/religious discussions when you treat the matter as subjective opinion and treat words the same way.
Hmmm. What does this mean? You feel arrogant and like to boast when you talk to me?
There are not shadows and darkness in the light. Why do we need to try our best when we are exactly composed of the divine love that is God? I know we do struggle, the question is, how is it that we struggle given your ontology?
You at least acknowledge that there was a person known as Jesus so let me ask you this. Why do you even believe that much? Let's see if we can go anywhere from there.
Comment by Pez — July 31, 2008 @ 11:44 pm
August 1st, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Kornbelt888,
Well, I’m not trying to imply that love (or ‘agape’ as you say in the Greek) is some kind of ethereal, timeless substance. I am simply trying to ground love in God. And, the idea that “God is love” can make sense by the realization that God needs no other created being in order for the attribute of love to be expressed.
Amen to that! Love acts! And when it acts it does things like “walking 2 miles when only being demanded to walk 1” or “loving your enemies and praying for those who mistreat you” (Matt 5). So, I fully agree with you that Love DOES, and what it does is not hard for a child to understand; even though I believe this is impossible for any of us in our own power to do all the time (and even when we do it we still fall short of the purity of God’s love): Hence the need for us to rely daily on Christ to live through us (Gal 2:20). So, my digression into ontology was not to make love into some kind of intangible feeling or an amorphous substance. Rather, it was to ground love in the very Being of God but in a way that allows the “IS” part of “God is Love” to mean something.
Yes, also, God is a consuming fire (Deut 4:24 & Heb 12:29). I think I’ll let Mathew Henry comment on this instead of me…
That he is a consuming fire, a jealous God, v. 24. Take heed of offending him, for, First, He has a jealous eye to discern an affront; he must have your entire affection and adoration, and will by no means endure a rival. God’s jealousy over us is a good reason for our godly jealousy over ourselves. Secondly, He has a heavy hand to punish an affront, especially in his worship, for therein he is in a special manner jealous. He is a consuming fire; his wrath against sinners is so; it is dreadful and destroying, it is a fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries, Heb. 10:27. Fire consumes that only which is fuel for it, so the wrath of God fastens upon those only who, by their own sin, have fitted themselves for destruction, 1. Cor. 3:13; Isa. 27:4. Even in the New Testament we find the same argument urged upon us as a reason why we should serve God with reverence (Heb. 12:28, 29), because though he is our God, and a rejoicing light to those that serve him faithfully, yet he is a consuming fire to those that trifle with him. Mathew Henry Commentary on Deut 4:24
And, yes, He is a man of war. Another from Henry:
The Lord is a man of war, that is, well able to deal with all those that strive with their Maker, and will certainly be too hard for them. Matthew Henry Commentary on Exodus 15:3
Remember that the “man of war” description occurs in a song of victory which the Hebrews are singing after the defeat of the Egyptian army. It is not to be taken as wooden doctrine, rather a declaration that God is capable of defeating those who oppose Him.
As far as the “kill Midianites; etc”. Well, God has spoken to us most supremely in His Son (Heb 1) and all that transpires in the History of Israel is leading up to Christ. Christ is the focal point of history and of the Scriptures (John 5:39). When we look back at Scripture we must look first at what is revealed to us in Christ in order to have a context for understanding the History of Israel. I think there are Old Testament stories which are challenging to understand. But, I interpret what is difficult to understand by what I already understand and when I see God show up on the scene in Christ what I see is a demonstration of love and forgiveness that is matchless in history… the ‘boots to the road lifestyle’ you refer to and indescribable gift of mercy to us. I think the question is “Is God justified to let any of us perish?” I believe Scripture says that He is, YET He chooses not to because of His great love for us and offers to us Salvation in Christ freely of His own volition. We cannot demand it from Him nor call Him unjust if He were to withhold it. I am not an Old Testament historian so I know little about the practices and culture of the various peoples living in the fertile crescent thousands of years ago. But I do believe that God is “just” and the Midianites were not; for no human is (save Christ). The precise details of God’s mercy being extended to people outside of the Israelites in the Old Testament I am not qualified to comment on but we know from Scripture that it does occur: (e.g. Rahab, Ruth)
Comment by Jaceppe — August 1, 2008 @ 5:20 pm
August 1st, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Hi Pez,
Thank you for your response. I think I will start with your last question first since I believe it will help inform other points I will be making.
You asked…
I believe the modern day "Jesus" is a myth. However, like most successful myths, it has some factual history behind it. The reason I think there was a wandering rabbi with a name similar to "Yeshua ben Yosef" is due to some supporting historical evidence and that the basics of Yeshua's life and teachings wasn't that unusual for the time. For example, Rabbi Hillel was very well known and said things like "Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you.” And then there is Saul/Paul. It is really hard to doubt his existence. It is unlikely that a man of his background and training would have chosen a purely fictional person as the basis for his reformation. Paul's decision to include Gentiles into the small Jewish cult was key to making Christianity the phenomenon it is today.
Which is why I said it didn't matter if the words were spoken by a beggar in the street. The idea holds up on its own merit. I believe Yeshua was motivated by altruistic love. While you scoff at me calling this "divinely inspired", that is what falls out of believing God is Love, Love is God.
I see no dilemma or "trilemma" here.
Mark 10:17-18
17: And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
18: And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
Maybe Bartimaeus was schizophrenic and didn't know whether he was coming or going. As I said, chances are you would be more concerned about biblical inconsistencies than I.
This kind of frankness wouldn't be appropriate with all people. There are some that, out of love, I would back away from.
I could be wrong, but I expect and hope these exchanges are doing us both more good than harm.
To my affirmation of loving you, you responded with…
I do onto you as I would have you do onto me.
Through mutual love and respect we both become stronger for it.
We struggle from ignorance of our inherent goodness. We are like the children we are. We must strive to think and comprehend for ourselves. We can try to help each other, but ultimately we must each, individually, find our own path to understanding.
I do not know the Truth, but I believe "the way" named is not the way.
Words and rituals get in the way of understanding.
Ideas are what are important. That and love.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 1, 2008 @ 11:52 pm
August 2nd, 2008 at 1:22 am
Thought Provoker,
More comments to your comments…
Am I one of these religious leaders trying to control you by talking to you about sin and guilt? I am a software engineer with no religious degree whatsoever, no denominational ordination, nothing to be gained, I expect you to send me NO money nor donate to any cause I am involved in … we will most likely never meet in this life.
Also what do you make of the following Scriptures then regarding the sinlessness of Jesus:
Jesus speaking in John 8:46: “Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?”
And Paul writing in 2 Cor 5:21: For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Paul, whose existence you said is hard to argue against writes that Christ is sinless.
So, what of Paul writing in I Cor 15:3-19
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. 9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them–yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. 11 Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.
12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.
Is he one of these best intentioned followers? … What do you make of his writings here? Were the followers so well-intentioned that they believed what they preached or did they know it was a lie?
What is gray about it?…. And, if you recall from my previous post Matt 26:63-66 states that the crime leading to His crucifixtion which Jesus was accused of was blasphemy… what principle then are you referring to?
And how about this from 1 Peter:
18 knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. 20 He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you 21 who through Him believe in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.
It appears that you and Peter have vastly different ideas about why Christ died… Hmmm… Peter personally knew Christ, you didn’t… hmmm… who am I gonna believe on this? I think I’ll go with Peter
And which religious leaders would those be? A doutber like Thomas? A tax collector like Matthew? Fisherman such as Peter, etc? An outcast rabbi and former persecutor of the church like Saul (Paul)? Just who in that particular group do you think was motivated from a position of religious power?
T.P., if I may be so bold, when you remove the Cross and Resurrection from the Gospel you eviscerate it… it becomes powerless. Scripture is a story of Redemption, but your rendition of it removes both the disease (sin) and the cure (the Cross).
Jesus said in Mark 2:17 “When Jesus heard it, He said to them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance."
If you don't think you are sick you will never come to Christ to be healed… not the "ideal" of Christ of which you speak. Rather, Christ, the God-man, who bore the wrath of God on your behalf. It appears you don't think that person existed nor do you think you need Him.
Comment by Jaceppe — August 2, 2008 @ 1:22 am
August 2nd, 2008 at 2:20 am
Hi TP,
Thanks again for your continuing dialogue on this.
If there is a modern day Jesus that differs from the historical Jesus of the Gospels, Acts and Epistles I would agree that that presentation would be mythological.
I agree, but why do you say so?
This is a very good point. The Gospels are full of such "it is very unlikely they'd invent such and such" evidences (women discovering the tomb, Joseph burying the body, etc.)
While you use Saul/Paul as evidence for the historical Jesus, however, I must ask why you think that Paul existed.
Also, as you refer to Saul's background, just what was his background and training and why do you believe so?
I love that quote. What is your issue with it? Being a free-thinking thought-provoker have you already looked yourself for answers to whatever your issue might be? They are probably easy to find.
But that you won't get angry that I am just posing more and more questions to you, I will discuss this one in terms of what the classic complaint is and presume it is yours as well.
With this example you may realize why your so-called inconsistencies are not going to frighten me. Having read the New Testament many times (dozens?) I am not expecting any surprises.
Here, as in Matthew, Jesus is presenting the young man with the very dilemma we are discussing. He is neither denying His goodness nor His divinity, but asking the young man to examine the implications of his own statement. He is asking him, "are you sure you mean that? Do you know what you are saying?" He is saying that if He is good, then He is God. He was telling the young man that He is either a good God or a bad man - same choices as Lewis presents (save the lunatic option). There is no such thing as a Good Master, as the young man called Him, who isn't also God. Since the young man thought that Jesus was merely a religious teacher this was a mild rebuke and a teaching moment. Since the young man is about to demonstrate that he thinks he, himself, is good, Jesus is nipping this thinking in the bud as well.
Blind Bartimaeus with a split personality? Very subtle. The solutions are many but first let us note that this has nothing to do with your veiled challenge:
As I expected, you are merely dredging for any so-called contradictions in the New Testament (I presume you intend to limit yourself to the NT) rather than what you implied was your target - something vaguely to do with Jesus' claims, what He said of Himself and why you could point to certain of His claims and deny others.
Nonetheless, for as long as this entertains you we can solve these little problems as well. Presuming that I really would feel "uncomfortable" that any of the Gospel writers placed a healing at Jericho as Jesus entered town and another placed that healing at Jericho as Jesus left town let us proceed with the simplest solution (as we proceed through similar challenges, however, we will also find that strict chronology is not a trademark of the writers - as demonstrated without contradiction from one verse to the next in a single author's writings):
Bartimaeus and an unknown companion were healed as Jesus left the Roman city of Jericho (Mark and Matthew) and approached the location of Herod's palace, also called Jericho (Luke). With no affront to logic each author could reference a different Jericho based upon the presumed knowledge of his intended audience. Luke would emphasize the approach to the Herodian city as he was also recording the next event there.
You keep repeating that we have a problem with ignorance and that we need to try our best but you do not address the nature or source of this problem. If we are fashioned out of God-Love whence our problems and our ignorance?
Why would Love itself be ignorant of its own goodness? How is it possible that the same substance that is God would suddenly (a la Hinduism) lose touch with its own Godliness?
The question was:
Which you've answered with more questions and a repetition of the premise. But what is the solution? Why are we now children when we are Love and God is Love?
re: what it means to say you love me:
Well done. Good answer.
Except … does that mean you are denying any objectivity to what Love is?
As long as you would like receiving the action you consider yourself loving in administering it? Does that work for masochists as well?
Comment by Pez — August 2, 2008 @ 2:20 am
August 2nd, 2008 at 2:38 am
Missed this:
So while the question which prompted your providing "context" had to do with the trilemma you deny that question any significance.
You needn't conclude that Jesus was liar, lunatic or God because you can deny He said anything you don't want Him to have said. Actually, you can even deny He said what you do want Him to have said.
So what was the point of providing further context to His words, not once, but at least twice?
Since that context only buried your position if you were to take Jesus seriously (as the trilemma would require) you edit out for your own consumption only those phrases you happen to like and don't even address the Person making the claims, as you can put those phrases in anybody's mouth.
The question becomes a big "so what?" then.
To you,whoever said "love your neighbors as yourself" was divinely inspired. Which means " spoke lovingly" if, as by your definition, love is doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.
So you are not addressing the trilemma, Jesus, His words or claims, the context you provided, or anything otherwise related. You are merely affirming that you like the variations of the Golden Rule.
That didn't really warrant your leaping in and boldly challenging the participants here to provide counter-balance.
Comment by Pez — August 2, 2008 @ 2:38 am