Is Jesus who he claims to be?

[Robban]

Did you mean to write, "politically correct"?

Though he followed the customs and traditions,
he cannot be said as one who, "goes with the flow"

Going by what is written about him.

No not really. Jesus was a political upset.

Yep, looks that way.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Lewis's trilemma (liar, lunatic, or Lord) misses a lot of more plausible options.

Misrepresented: We don't have a single word written by Jesus directly, and our only sources are second- or third-hand sources written roughly one generation later. With a devout cult springing up in his wake, it's not that far-fetched to see a tale growing in the telling, until we've got Jesus proclaiming his divinity from the rooftops in the gospel of John, roughly 70 years later. (Contrast this with the gospel of Mark, where Jesus constantly admonishes people not to give away his "secret identity", so to speak.)

Misunderstood: Being the messiah had a specific meaning in the cultural context that Jesus preached in, and "god incarnate come to earth to sacrifice himself to himself" was not it. So, even if Jesus believed that he was the messiah, and went around telling people thus, this does not necessarily mean he (and others) understood it the way Christians do.

Myth: While it's unlikely that there wasn't a historical Jesus, it *is* possible that virtually nothing factual about him is left in the account we find in the new testament.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Lewis's trilemma (liar, lunatic, or Lord) misses a lot of more plausible options.

Misrepresented: We don't have a single word written by Jesus directly, and our only sources are second- or third-hand sources written roughly one generation later. With a devout cult springing up in his wake, it's not that far-fetched to see a tale growing in the telling, until we've got Jesus proclaiming his divinity from the rooftops in the gospel of John, roughly 70 years later. (Contrast this with the gospel of Mark, where Jesus constantly admonishes people not to give away his "secret identity", so to speak.)

Misunderstood: Being the messiah had a specific meaning in the cultural context that Jesus preached in, and "god incarnate come to earth to sacrifice himself to himself" was not it. So, even if Jesus believed that he was the messiah, and went around telling people thus, this does not necessarily mean he (and others) understood it the way Christians do.

Myth: While it's unlikely that there wasn't a historical Jesus, it *is* possible that virtually nothing factual about him is left in the account we find in the new testament.

This is inaccurate. Lewis' trilemma is specifically stated as "Jesus as presented to us in the Gospels".

Fact of the matter is that the only evidence we have of Jesus all agree on these points. To the Gospel accounts and Paul, this clearly applies. The non-Christian sources all say the Christians see Jesus as God and that he had been a man. So on grounds of our available sources, these are our only options. For in depth knowledge on the teaching of an historic person, our best sources are his immediate followers close to his time. For Socrates, we trust Xenophon and the early dialogues of Plato, not an amorphous simulcrum of what we think a philosopher should have been like at that time - for we could make a similar type of remarks on Socrates, or any historic figure, but this just borders on the silly.

Sure, we can invent other narratives, we can even partially ground them on the time period, but any application of them to Jesus is purely speculation with a distinct lack of sources in support.

This is the equivalent of saying Julius Caesar was either populist Tyrant or he truly was working for the people, the populares. But then you could say "maybe he was planning to implement an Athenian Democracy" or "perhaps he was to declare himself a Hellenistic God-King" or "perhaps he was planning to retire like Sulla once he set the Republic right". The latter three are possibilities based on the time period, but no one would take them seriously as historical presentations of Caesar, as they have absolutely no textual support at all. This is the same position you are taking with regards to Jesus.

 

[Aiden236]

Lewis's trilemma (liar, lunatic, or Lord) misses a lot of more plausible options.

Misrepresented: We don't have a single word written by Jesus directly, and our only sources are second- or third-hand sources written roughly one generation later. With a devout cult springing up in his wake, it's not that far-fetched to see a tale growing in the telling, until we've got Jesus proclaiming his divinity from the rooftops in the gospel of John, roughly 70 years later. (Contrast this with the gospel of Mark, where Jesus constantly admonishes people not to give away his "secret identity", so to speak.)

Misunderstood: Being the messiah had a specific meaning in the cultural context that Jesus preached in, and "god incarnate come to earth to sacrifice himself to himself" was not it. So, even if Jesus believed that he was the messiah, and went around telling people thus, this does not necessarily mean he (and others) understood it the way Christians do.

Myth: While it's unlikely that there wasn't a historical Jesus, it *is* possible that virtually nothing factual about him is left in the account we find in the new testament.

Good points Jane_the_Bane but I think there are a few things to consider.

I think all the plausible options fit under the bigger categories of liar, lunatic, or Lord. If you think about it he can really only be on of the three. He could lie about who he is, he can be a lunatic and think he is lord when he isn't, or he is Lord. All the rest fit in.

Just because he did not write anything himself does not prove anything. Jesus could have just not written anything. What is the cult that sprung up, Christianity? If so give me some points on how its a cult. Can you show me where he proclaimed his name from the rooftops? I know he told his disciples to proclaim what they had heard from the rooftops (Matthew 10:27). I think you may misunderstand whats going on in mark. In the beginning of mark John the baptist is telling the people who Jesus is and he doesn't tell him to stop. but if you look a littler further into chapter one of mark he commands the demons that were possessing a man to be silent (Mark 1:26). Reason for that is because he didn't want people to think that he was the master of the demons and lying to say he was the messiah. What ever the demon said the people would turn it against Jesus. So he thought it best to make them silent. Later on people from the tribe of Sanhedri accused him of consorting with the demons (Matthew 12:24). He refuted those claims, of course, but they kept coming up, so it's likely that at least some people believed them.

You are right people thought that the messiah was going to free them from Romain occupation not a messiah that would free them from sin. He wouldn't allow the people to make him a political king. He came to be a sacrifice not an earthly ruler.
A debt had to be paid. the Bible says the wages of sin are death (Romans 6:23). So where there is sin it has to be paid for with death. So basically Jesus wrote a check with the amount of death and signed it and is offering to give it to you if you would take it. Or you can sign your own check to pay for your sin with death. Imagine you are on trial for murder (or what ever), and the judge decides he would pay the price to set you free out of his own pocket. That would be crazy right!? Almost unbelievable. In that circumstance would you not take that offer from the judge? Well thats what God did. So on judgment day christ stands in your place and says judge me.

Thank you

 

[Arthra]

I would like for you all to list reasons why Jesus is and isnt historically correct. If he is then how do we know he is who he says he is. I am writing a paper on the matter. Thank you!

Well a couple of things come to mind...

I would suggest that the kind of evidence we have suggests there really was a "historical" Jesus... as there are a variety of sources that suggest He was a personage in history. I think the Jesus Seminar has provided sufficient evidence. Review the Jesus Seminar here:

The Jesus Seminar - Westar Institute

One of the conclusions of the Seminar was the following:

Among the findings is that, in the judgment of the Jesus Seminar Fellows, about 18 percent of the sayings and 16 percent of the deeds attributed to Jesus in the gospels are authentic.

 

[stevenfrancis]

I grew up an atheist but I gave my life to christ when I was 16. Im not asking for my personal curiosity. The holy spirt has solidified that for me in my heart. I am asking basically for help on research. I am writing this basically so I can learn from it ( for evangelizing and help with my mission in Taiwan) and so I can hand it over to my pagan mother which I have been talking to about the subject ever since I became a christian.
Her main struggle now is Christ. I do pray that christ would captivate her in his love.

Thank you Steven

Thank you Aiden. I don't think you'll end up with a "list" here in a forum thread, but for talking to your Mother and others, I can definitely recommend a few really good books:

I'd probably start with "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. I understand this has been recently made into a movie, (but I haven't seen it). I've read the book a couple times. It's as close as you're likely to come to getting a bullet point list of important points on his investigative journey into both the very existence of, and the claims of Jesus Christ.

I also think that "Mere Christianity" and "Miracles" by C.S. Lewis are very important books.

G.K. Chesterton's "The Everlasting Man" was cited by C.S. Lewis as the book that led to his own conversion. It's excellent, but quite deep.

"Jesus Shock" and "The Philosophy of Jesus" are two very short, easy to read companion books by Dr. Peter Kreeft, who is a modern Thomist/Aristotelian Christian Philosopher. They cover most of the bases, and are quick easy reads, and fun too.

With these books and your Bible you're probably set for pretty much any conversation, but if you love to read, I'd be happy to send you the whole bibliography that led to my reading my way into Christianity (accompanied by prayer).
Blessings,

Steve

 

[Tayla]

Being the messiah had a specific meaning in the cultural context that Jesus preached in, and "god incarnate come to earth to sacrifice himself to himself" was not it.

Why don't Christians know this stuff?

 

[Tayla]

The strongest evidence I see for the existence of Jesus as a historical person is the existence of the Christian church. The new religion of Christianity suddenly appeared in the first century AD. Where did the ideas of this new religion come from? It makes sense that there was, in fact, a teacher who taught the ideas of the new religion.

There are YouTube videos by professor of Philosophy Tim McGrew in which he convincingly demonstrates the gospel accounts are historically trustworthy.

 

[Aiden236]

Why don't Christians know this stuff?

I mean I know it I was hoping for answers I didn't know. See what people had to say.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Why don't Christians know this stuff?

Plenty of us do. It's not a secret that Christian messianism about Jesus was very distinct and in many ways a significant departure from the more "ordinary" messianism of ancient Judaism. The Gospels themselves, along with much of the New Testament, indirectly talks about this. When St. Paul says that "Christ crucified" is a "stumbling block to the Jews" this is an admission that the idea that the Messiah could suffer death on the cross by the hands of the Romans and still be the Messiah was something difficult, or even basically impossible, to accept in Judaism. A crucified messiah is a false messiah, by conventional wisdom. Hence St. Paul's followup, that God has chosen that which is foolish, foolish to both Jew and Gentile.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Tayla]

Plenty of us do.

I guess I've been hanging out with the wrong crowd.

 

[LoAmmi]

I think all the plausible options fit under the bigger categories of liar, lunatic, or Lord. If you think about it he can really only be on of the three. He could lie about who he is, he can be a lunatic and think he is lord when he isn't, or he is Lord. All the rest fit in.

Personally, I just like saying lunatic and watch people squirm over it since I'll point out that someone having a mental illness doesn't mean they can't understand things like morality or the Bible. Someone could completely believe they are something they are not but also be able to speak philosophy.

You are right people thought that the messiah was going to free them from Romain occupation not a messiah that would free them from sin. He wouldn't allow the people to make him a political king. He came to be a sacrifice not an earthly ruler.
A debt had to be paid. the Bible says the wages of sin are death (Romans 6:23). So where there is sin it has to be paid for with death. So basically Jesus wrote a check with the amount of death and signed it and is offering to give it to you if you would take it. Or you can sign your own check to pay for your sin with death. Imagine you are on trial for murder (or what ever), and the judge decides he would pay the price to set you free out of his own pocket. That would be crazy right!? Almost unbelievable. In that circumstance would you not take that offer from the judge? Well thats what God did. So on judgment day christ stands in your place and says judge me.

I can agree with you that Christianity see it this way and I can tell you that Judaism would dispute this. Our religions have a lot of differences.

 

[Robban]

Could well be a case of,
"Starts as a feather and ends up as a hen."

What he
claimed and did not claim depends on the one telling the story.

Unless someone one has heard him make these claims.

Example,

At Sinai every man woman and child heard a/the voice,

"I am the Lord your God who brought you up out of the land of Egypt,
out of the house of bondage."

Moses never needed say, "Trust me"

All heard the voice.

So also this day today,

The inner voice.

But there is so much noise, often.

 

[cloudyday2]

Could well be a case of,
"Starts as a feather and ends up as a hen."

That must be a Swedish expression. I couldn't find anything on google. Lots of information on raising chickens though.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Miraculous tales always carry a whiff of the "Chinese whispers"-phenomenon: tales grow in the telling, and venerated figures are especially predisposed to attract all sorts of pious fiction.

Case in point: the Buddha.

What was once just a prince who rejected both riches and a life of ascetic denial to found a new approach to life became something entirely else in the tales spun around his person:
His mother supposedly received a holy vision of an elephant implanting a shining lotus blossom in her body.
The infant Siddharta walks and talks, proclaiming his nature.
Little flowers sprung up wherever the child set foot, etc.

Few would dispute the historicity of Siddharta Gautama as such, yet such tales needn't be taken seriously - and the same applies to the gospels, IMO.

 

[Robban]

That must be a Swedish expression. I couldn't find anything on google. Lots of information on raising chickens though.

Well, you should have seen the one that got away.

Streching out arms, "It was this big."

"That,s not so big."

" That,s between the eyes?"

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

As an addendum to this:

I do not believe such tales are conceived with the explicit intent to deceive. I think the people who conceive these stories honestly believe them. You can find them in relation to virtually any religious founder/leader. The Manichaeans really believed Mani hadn't died, even after the Persian king displayed his corpse on the ramparts. The muslims really believed Mohammed rode on a miracle steed to Jerusalem, and hence jumped into the heavens. The Mormons really believe John Smith found golden tablets and translated them by miraculous means, etc.

It's something about the way religions work.

 

[cloudyday2]

Well, you should have seen the one that got away.

Streching out arms, "It was this big."

"That,s not so big."

" That,s between the eyes?"

If I understand correctly, that is similar to my thoughts on the divinity of Jesus. C.S. Lewis gave only three options (liar, lunatic, or Lord), but there is at least one other possibility - Jesus only claimed to be a human messiah but early Christians exaggerated this claim over the generations.

 

[ananda]

If I understand correctly, that is similar to my thoughts on the divinity of Jesus. C.S. Lewis gave only three options (liar, lunatic, or Lord), but there is at least one other possibility - Jesus only claimed to be a human messiah but early Christians exaggerated this claim over the generations.

... or a complete fabrication.

 

[Robban]

If I understand correctly, that is similar to my thoughts on the divinity of Jesus. C.S. Lewis gave only three options (liar, lunatic, or Lord), but there is at least one other possibility - Jesus only claimed to be a human messiah but early Christians exaggerated this claim over the generations.

Well, in John 4:42,
Then they said to the woman,
"Now we believe because we have heard him ourselves,
not just because of what you told us."
Then it goes on,
"He is indeed the saviour of the world."

Wonder what they put into "world"
more than likely they had not been further than the well.