NationStates Jolt Archive

"I am trying to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic * on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg * or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

"If you had gone to Buddha and asked him, "Are you the son of Bramah?" he would have said, "My son, you are still in the value of illusion." If you had gone to Socrates and asked, "Are you Zeus?" he would have laughed at you. If you had gone to Mohammed and asked, "Are you Allah?" he would first have rent his clothes and then cut your head off. If you had asked Confucius, "Are you heaven?" I think he would have probably replied, "Remarks which are not in accordance with nature are in bad taste." The idea of a great moral teacher saying what Christ said is out of the question. In my opinion, the only person who can say that sort of thing is either God or a complete lunatic suffering from that form of delusion which undermines the whole mind of man. If you think you are a poached egg, when you are looking for a piece of toast to suit you, you may be sane, but if you think you are God, there is no change for you. We may note in passing that He was never regarded as a great moral teacher. He did not produce that effect on any of the people who actually met Him. He produce mainly three effects – Hatred – Terror – Adoration. There was no trace of people expressing mild approval."

I was just wondering what people on here would think of the message he is trying to get across

Following this logic it seems sensible to conclude that Jesus was mad - seeing as the other two possibilities require us to embrace ridiculous supernatural notions.

However, the logic is flawed as other possibilities exist; I think it could be argued that someone could both be a great moral leader and also be somewhat mad. Another scenario is that he was a simple liar.

I think Lewis is much like Paul.

He heard a great message, and completely mistinterpereted it.
The Idea that Jesus wasnt a moral teacher is utter nonsense.
What then, if anything, pray tell, was Jesus doing on the mount giving a sermon, in not telling others on how to treat one another?

Was not the majority of what Christ TAUGHT, boiled down to "love one another".

Referencing Plato, or Confucius is silly.
Asking them if they were god...please.
None of them ever claimed to be.

Lewis' logic on that issue boils down to "well if Jesus said it, it must be true."

Foolishness.

We may note in passing that He was never regarded as a great moral teacher. He did not produce that effect on any of the people who actually met Him. He produce mainly three effects – Hatred – Terror – Adoration. There was no trace of people expressing mild approval."

Rubbish.

Lewis presumes to know the mind of anyone who ever met Jesus, or may have heard his sermons?

Insanity.

Lewis is just another nutbag, who tries to rationalize his own religious fervor.

Decent christians should stay away from this kind of brainwashery.

A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher.

I disagree. He was an outstanding moral teacher.

But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher.

I fail to see how such an opinion is patronizing.

I would comment on the rest...but it would either be poorly worded by me, misinterpreted, or both.

Rather than risk pissing people off...I'll just sit back and enjoy the show.

*munches popcorn*

He heard a great message, and completely mistinterpereted it.
The Idea that Jesus wasnt a moral teacher is utter nonsense.


Lewis's point is that he wasnt "just" a moral teacher if he was one

Lewis's point is that he wasnt "just" a moral teacher if he was one


Lewis is saying he cannot be one or the other.
He must be both.

Therefore, if I do not believe him to be the son of God, then he cannot be a great moral teacher.

Rediculous circular logic.

haha, I love that. What that first quote means is "You can't possibly believe that our prophet was merely a religious teacher, because then our cute little "paradox" that forces you to believe that he was the son of God doesn't work."

Lewis's point is that he wasnt "just" a moral teacher if he was one
He was creating an 'all or nothing,' that if you didn't accept the whole 'son of god' deal then you couldn't accept the rest.

But why? Why do I have to accept everything the man said? Why can't I be an athiest who agrees that 'be nice to each other' is a good sentiment? Why is that patronizing?

It's an artificial all or nothing, as if he's pointing out that it's a little nuts to say your the son of god. If you don't believe in god then you already know that-though I suspect that this is aimed at the Jewish population...

If all he's really saying is that Jesus wasn't 'just' a moral teacher, why should we care. Lots of people say that, including some totally batshit mofos down on Pacific Ave-what does that say?

I think the point Lewis is trying to make is that since Jesus claimed to be the Son of God and taught morals according to that belief, you have to consider if you reject the fact that he was the Son of God saying he was a liar it also casts serious doubt on everything else he said. Including his Moral Teaching.

I think the point Lewis is trying to make is that since Jesus claimed to be the Son of God and taught morals according to that belief, you have to consider if you reject the fact that he was the Son of God saying he was a liar it also casts serious doubt on everything else he said. Including his Moral Teaching.

That's if you believe the accounts given in the gospels of the New Testament. Not everyone does. There are other sources of information on Iesus that say different, such as The Qur'an; or some of the apocryphal gospels.

I think the point Lewis is trying to make is that since Jesus claimed to be the Son of God and taught morals according to that belief, you have to consider if you reject the fact that he was the Son of God saying he was a liar it also casts serious doubt on everything else he said. Including his Moral Teaching.
How do you really lie about a moral teaching, though? With the exception of the whole 'riches of heaven,' really it's just a bunch of things one guy thinks would be good if we all took into consideration. I don't know that it could be a lie, per se...

I think the point Lewis is trying to make is that since Jesus claimed to be the Son of God and taught morals according to that belief, you have to consider if you reject the fact that he was the Son of God saying he was a liar it also casts serious doubt on everything else he said. Including his Moral Teaching.

... Or, in more simple terms, that if he is not the Son of God (which I personally believe He is, but that's another thread..) then his advice can only trusted as far as you would trust the next man.

How do you really lie about a moral teaching, though? With the exception of the whole 'riches of heaven,' really it's just a bunch of things one guy thinks would be good if we all took into consideration. I don't know that it could be a lie, per se...

Well, Moral Teachings are typically thought of as an opinion, but Jesus always spoke in absolutes. He never said they were just his opinions he said they were God's Laws. If you don't believe in God how can you take anything he says seriously and in this relativistic age what do you think of his Moral Absolutes? These were not merely suggestions but a code of conduct for his followers.

... Or, in more simple terms, that if he is not the Son of God (which I personally believe He is, but that's another thread..) then his advice can only trusted as far as you would trust the next man.

That's what I think.

Tis a narrow corridor in which we tread.

Well, Moral Teachings are typically thought of as an opinion, but Jesus always spoke in absolutes. He never said they were just his opinions he said they were God's Laws. If you don't believe in God how can you take anything he says seriously and in this relativistic age what do you think of his Moral Absolutes? These were not merely suggestions but a code of conduct for his followers.
Cause he didn't follow them up with "well, that's what I think anyway..." I have to dismiss the package?

Look, I know some batshit cats. I don't neccisarily believe them when they say that a dog is giving them the evil eye or whatnot, but if they tell me to not go down a certain alley because it smells like pee-I can pretty much go with that.

It's not hard, really. You take each arguement on it's own. "I'm the son of god." No, that doesn't seem likely. "Be nice to each other." Sounds reasonable. Weigh out the arguments-a bunch of good ideas from a guy who thought he was the son of the sky wizard. That's okay, no one really bats 1000...

What's so difficult and impossible about that?

Cause he didn't follow them up with "well, that's what I think anyway..." I have to dismiss the package?

Look, I know some batshit cats. I don't neccisarily believe them when they say that a dog is giving them the evil eye or whatnot, but if they tell me to not go down a certain alley because it smells like pee-I can pretty much go with that.

It's not hard, really. You take each arguement on it's own. "I'm the son of god." No, that doesn't seem likely. "Be nice to each other." Sounds reasonable. Weigh out the arguments-a bunch of good ideas from a guy who thought he was the son of the sky wizard. That's okay, no one really bats 1000...

What's so difficult and impossible about that?


I'm just saying if you are of the opinion that his fantastic claims he was the Son of God were false. Then you should probably take everything else he says with just as much skepticism. I don't consider David Karesh a great Moral Teacher. Do You?

I'm not saying they aren't great moral guidelines just wondering if you can seriously look at a man as being crazy enough to call himself the Son of God which nowadays would land you in a mental institution, and accept everything else he says. They seem to go hand in hand.

My favourite quote from CS Lewis was his rounding off a lecture on medieval literature at Oxford by saying: "...and then the Renaissance came along and ruined everything."
What a berk.

And we're not in any position to make absolute statements about the nature of Christ's teachings, for the simple reason that these were only recorded at second hand, and there are various conlicts among these accounts. Even leaving aside the possibility that they have been edited since (and it's very likely that they were) they do not represent Christ's words, so this whole argument is based around a false premise.

What's so difficult and impossible about that?

Look at it through this example. Say you are on the tube, and get out at Victoria. A man then delibrately trips you up with his umbrella as you get out, thus causing you to fall on the ground exceptionally hard. Then a young man walks up to you and helps you up and says to the man who triped you up "its all right, I forgive you". What business does he have fogiving this man? That man didnt trip him up, he hadn't done anything to him and no harm had come to him as a result of what just happened. Now consider this. Jesus claimed to forgive sin. Sin is by definition, rebellion against God. Since sin is ultimately against God then if he is not God, by saying he can forgive it then he is lying or mad. Im sure you can see that you can only forgive people if you are the one offended by someone elses actions. And furthermore, if he wasnt God, yet claimed to be able to teach the non-sinful life with more authority than the Jewish law of the time, then even his teachings are questionable since logiclly the only one who can teach the non-sinful life with more authority than those laws at that time must have been God. Again he is either a liar, mad or who he claimed to be

I'm just saying if you are of the opinion that his fantastic claims he was the Son of God were false. Then you should probably take everything else he says with just as much skepticism. I don't consider David Karesh a great Moral Teacher. Do You?

I'm not saying they aren't great moral guidelines just wondering if you can seriously look at a man as being crazy enough to call himself the Son of God which nowadays would land you in a mental institution, and accept everything else he says. They seem to go hand in hand.
Well, you know what an ad hominom is, right?

Why is it a logical phallacy, do you think?

Because it's the argument you should be discussing, not the arguer. Because sometimes even the batshit get one right.

So, I look at the arguments, weigh them out. I don't buy the argument that he is the son of god. I do buy some of the other things not on the merits of who said them but the arguments themselves.

Why is that impossible? It seems downright obvious.

My favourite quote from CS Lewis was his rounding off a lecture on medieval literature at Oxford by saying: "...and then the Renaissance came along and ruined everything."
What a berk.

That sounds like its been taken out of context. I'd be interested to hear the context it was said in.

Look at it through this example. Say you are on the tube, and get out at Victoria. A man then delibrately trips you up with his umbrella as you get out, thus causing you to fall on the ground exceptionally hard. Then a young man walks up to you and helps you up and says to the man who triped you up "its all right, I forgive you". What business does he have fogiving this man? That man didnt trip him up, he hadn't done anything to him and no harm had come to him as a result of what just happened. Now consider this. Jesus claimed to forgive sin. Sin is by definition, rebellion against God. Since sin is ultimately against God then if he is not God, by saying he can forgive it then he is lying or mad. Im sure you can see that you can only forgive people if you are the one offended by someone elses actions. And furthermore, if he wasnt God, yet claimed to be able to teach the non-sinful life with more authority than the Jewish law of the time, then even his teachings are questionable since logiclly the only one who can teach the non-sinful life with more authority than those laws at that time must have been God. Again he is either a liar, mad or who he claimed to be
What does this prove? What am I supposed to be gleaning from this?

Look at it through this example. Say you are on the tube, and get out at Victoria. A man then delibrately trips you up with his umbrella as you get out, thus causing you to fall on the ground exceptionally hard. Then a young man walks up to you and helps you up and says to the man who triped you up "its all right, I forgive you". What business does he have fogiving this man? That man didnt trip him up, he hadn't done anything to him and no harm had come to him as a result of what just happened. Now consider this. Jesus claimed to forgive sin. Sin is by definition, rebellion against God. Since sin is ultimately against God then if he is not God, by saying he can forgive it then he is lying or mad. Im sure you can see that you can only forgive people if you are the one offended by someone elses actions. And furthermore, if he wasnt God, yet claimed to be able to teach the non-sinful life with more authority than the Jewish law of the time, then even his teachings are questionable since logiclly the only one who can teach the non-sinful life with more authority than those laws at that time must have been God. Again he is either a liar, mad or who he claimed to be


Listen to yourself.

Your rationalizing the whole idea into a yes or no scenario.

Youre purposely editing out any other possibilites.

Its possible that Jesus really is the son of God.
Its also just as possible, in fact, more likely, that he was not.
Its possible that he was a great, but misquoted moral teacher.
Its possible that every quoted attributed to him, is exactly, accurate.
Although, the latter, is not likely.

What does this prove? What am I supposed to be gleaning from this?

It proves that if he was lying about what he was saying, he was quite round the bend

Well, you know what an ad hominom is, right?

Why is it a logical phallacy, do you think?

Because it's the argument you should be discussing, not the arguer. Because sometimes even the batshit get one right.

So, I look at the arguments, weigh them out. I don't buy the argument that he is the son of god. I do buy some of the other things not on the merits of who said them but the arguments themselves.

Why is that impossible? It seems downright obvious.

Yes, I know what Ad Hominem is.
And you are right it is a logical fallacy.

The point I am trying to make is why do you think "Be Nice to each other" is a good idea. Don't you think it is because you have been raised in a society that has been influenced by Jesus' teachings. A realist would tell you to "be nice to each other until its not in your best interest anymore." I don't know that sounds pretty selfish but it makes a little bit of sense. I'm just saying what are you basing the belief that Jesus' teachings were Moral. They seem to demand a lot of attention. It seems to go against the Natural Tendancies of Humanity. So why are they good teachings?

That sounds like its been taken out of context. I'd be interested to hear the context it was said in.
He was on about Chaucer before he suffered his brain fart, I believe. His contempt for most modern culture (and this is somebody who considered Shakespeare and Marlowe far too modernistic to be tolerated) is pretty well documented. It might be worth reading some of his criticism if you find this interesting.

It proves that if he was lying about what he was saying, he was quite round the bend
So?

And, not neccisarily. If he was just lying, then he was just kinda weirdo-like that guy at school that told you he built a Lightsaber or a mag cannon in his garage. But if he actually believed it, then he was batshit.

But even in both scenarios, so? Why is it a switch, all or nothing, one or the other?

I was just wondering what people on here would think of the message he is trying to get across

He's giving the old Liar, Lunatic, Lord speel. However, he has overlooked one major thing: The Gospels were not written as first hand accounts, we have little idea what Jesus actually said and what he did not. In addition we see and interesting progression when we put the Gospel in order in the time they were were written (Mark, Mathew, Luke, John): Jesus move away from being human (in the original copies of Mark we do not see the physical resurection but ends with "And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.") and becomes more and more "Godly". In fact it is only in John where he makes the fullout claim that he and God are one. The Gospels are not what Jesus wrote, they are what communities responding to the measage of Jesus years after his death wrote. So to the three 'L' possibilities I add a forth, Legend, and choose that one.

(one more thing, if you said, "I am God" many Hindu cultures, they would say, "What took you so long to figure that out." Maybe Jesus went to India in that 20 years missing in his life and became Hindu. :D )

Yes, I know what Ad Hominem is.
And you are right it is a logical fallacy.

The point I am trying to make is why do you think "Be Nice to each other" is a good idea. Don't you think it is because you have been raised in a society that has been influenced by Jesus' teachings. A realist would tell you to "be nice to each other until its not in your best interest anymore." I don't know that sounds pretty selfish but it makes a little bit of sense. I'm just saying what are you basing the belief that Jesus' teachings were Moral. They seem to demand a lot of attention. It seems to go against the Natural Tendancies of Humanity. So why are they good teachings?
Why do I have to believe in devinity to believe that it'd be great if people where nice and charitable to each other? Why do I need devinity to see a greater whole?

He's giving the old Liar, Lunatic, Lord speel. However, he has overlooked one major thing: The Gospels were not written as first hand accounts, we have little idea what Jesus actually said and what he did not. In addition we see and interesting progression when we put the Gospel in order in the time they were were written (Mark, Mathew, Luke, John): Jesus move away from being human (in the original copies of Mark we do not see the physical resurection but ends with "And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.") and becomes more and more "Godly". In fact it is only in John where he makes the fullout claim that he and God are one. The Gospels are not what Jesus wrote, they are what communities responding to the measage of Jesus years after his death wrote. So to the three 'L' possibilities I add a forth, Legend, and choose that one.
I mentioned that already, and was ignored.
Rather like the evidence for evolution in an American high school science class, I suppose...

He's giving the old Liar, Lunatic, Lord speel. However, he has overlooked one major thing: The Gospels were not written as first hand accounts, we have little idea what Jesus actually said and what he did not. In addition we see and interesting progression when we put the Gospel in order in the time they were were written (Mark, Mathew, Luke, John): Jesus move away from being human (in the original copies of Mark we do not see the physical resurection but ends with "And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.") and becomes more and more "Godly". In fact it is only in John where he makes the fullout claim that he and God are one. The Gospels are not what Jesus wrote, they are what communities responding to the measage of Jesus years after his death wrote. So to the three 'L' possibilities I add a forth, Legend, and choose that one.

Matthew, Mark and John actually traveled with Jesus. Even though they wrote there Gospels later on in life they were there when Jesus was teaching. Also, after Jesus died and was Resurrected they taught what they later wrote down constantly. I would think they are probably trustworthy.

If you had gone to Mohammed and asked, "Are you Allah?" he would first have rent his clothes and then cut your head off.

I don't like his choice of words at all.

That being said, I don't believe in God, and thus I don't believe in a devil.
So I guess Jesus is a poached egg, for I have never followed his teachings with that intent, nor would I be able to tell you what his teachings exactly were.

I prefer Socrates.

Matthew, Mark and John actually traveled with Jesus. Even though they wrote there Gospels later on in life they were there when Jesus was teaching. Also, after Jesus died and was Resurrected they taught what they later wrote down constantly. I would think they are probably trustworthy.
You can remember everything a friend of yours said and did thirty years ago, then? You can transcribe all of their words verbatim?

Why do I have to believe in devinity to believe that it'd be great if people where nice and charitable to each other? Why do I need devinity to see a greater whole?

That's not what I said. I'm just saying why does being nice to everyone seem like a good idea when you just don't like some people. Why should I be nice to them. I'm not saying you have to believe. I'm just wondering what you base your belief that they are good moral teachings on. When as I see it they tend to go against Human Nature.

Matthew, Mark and John actually traveled with Jesus. Even though they wrote there Gospels later on in life they were there when Jesus was teaching. Also, after Jesus died and was Resurrected they taught what they later wrote down constantly. I would think they are probably trustworthy.

Most serious schollars (those reading the Bible in the original Greek and Hebrew) believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were names taken by people writing the Gospels and these people did not meet Jesus but were working with third of fourth hand accounts at best.

You can remember everything a friend of yours said and did thirty years ago, then? You can transcribe all of their words verbatim?

I think you can get the Ideas pretty clearly which are the important part and if you had been constantly retelling the story and teaching on it for the past thirty years. I would say you ave a good chance of getting across the main points.

I think you can get the Ideas pretty clearly which are the important part and if you had been constantly retelling the story and teaching on it for the past thirty years. I would say you ave a good chance of getting across the main points.

And I would think a main point would be that Jesus and God are one and the same. How did the three other Gospel writers (Mark, Mathew, Luke) miss that?

Most serious schollars (those reading the Bible in the original Greek and Hebrew) believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were names taken by people writing the Gospels and these people did not meet Jesus but were working with third of fourth hand accounts at best.

Actually, I would have to say those scholars are on one extreme view as most of the University Professors, I know would not go so far as their is no proof of either view. I know there is no proof that these men worte them but they were definatley written while they were still alive according to most scholars.

That's not what I said. I'm just saying why does being nice to everyone seem like a good idea when you just don't like some people. Why should I be nice to them. I'm not saying you have to believe. I'm just wondering what you base your belief that they are good moral teachings on. When as I see it they tend to go against Human Nature.
I do a lot of things that go against human nature. Hell, wearing clothes is against human nature half the time. What does that have to do with anything?

Do you really want me to go down the list and explain each one? Cut to the chase and just tell me what your getting at. I still don't understand why I need to believe that the dude was the son of god to agree that it would be grand if we where nice and charitable to each other.

People stopped beating each other over the head with a club to satisfy their immediate needs long before Jesus, the social contract was already in place. I don't see where your going with this.

And I would think a main point would be that Jesus and God are one and the same. How did the three other Gospel writers (Mark, Mathew, Luke) miss that?

Actually there are references to Jesus being the Son of God in all three of those books you just have to find it. Read the First verse of Mark.
Mark 1:1
"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God"

Luke 22:70
"Then they all said, “Are You then the Son of God?” So He said to them, “You rightly say that I am.” "

Matthew 27:42-44
"He trusted in God; let Him deliver Him now if He will have Him; for He said, ‘I am the Son of God.’
Even the robbers who were crucified with Him reviled Him with the same thing."

I think you can get the Ideas pretty clearly which are the important part and if you had been constantly retelling the story and teaching on it for the past thirty years. I would say you ave a good chance of getting across the main points.
Or possibly constantly retelling the same anecdotes formalises and simplifies them, casting them into a new light with the process of repetition.

I know there is no proof that these men worte them but they were definatley written while they were still alive according to most scholars.

I'm not sure of that, you have to remember that the average life span was just over 30 then and the agreed upon date for Mark (the oldest) that I have seen is 55-60 while John (between 100-120 and again the only one that makes the claim Jesus is God) is totally out.

I was just wondering what people on here would think of the message he is trying to get across
C. S. Lewis was great. I suspect I've read everything he's written that's still in print. However, in these two quotes, Lewis conveniently ignores the fact that "messiahs" were as common during much of the history of Judaism as demented posters on NS General. Since the Jewish religion taught that someday a savior or messiah would come to deliver the people, it only stands to reason that anyone wanting to become a great Jewish leader would claim to be one.

The central tenet of Christianity has been, and will continue to be, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and spirit, and love your neighbor as yourself." This is what Jesus taught and, man, God or whatever, he expected his followers to adhere to it ... completely!

Actually there are references to Jesus being the Son of God in all three of those books you just have to find it. Read the First verse of Mark.
Mark 1:1
"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God"

Luke 22:70
"Then they all said, “Are You then the Son of God?” So He said to them, “You rightly say that I am.” "

Matthew 27:42-44
"He trusted in God; let Him deliver Him now if He will have Him; for He said, ‘I am the Son of God.’
Even the robbers who were crucified with Him reviled Him with the same thing."

But the term Son of God meant something different to the Hebrews than it does to us (It means to them a rightous person and in later rabbinical literature "sonship to God" was ascribed first to every Israelite and then to every member of the human race ). Remember the synaptic Gospels were written by Jews (most likely). I said John is the only Gospel which makes the clame that Jesus and God are one and the same and I'm sticking to it.

I do a lot of things that go against human nature. Hell, wearing clothes is against human nature half the time. What does that have to do with anything?

Do you really want me to go down the list and explain each one? Cut to the chase and just tell me what your getting at. I still don't understand why I need to believe that the dude was the son of god to agree that it would be grand if we where nice and charitable to each other.

People stopped beating each other over the head with a club to satisfy their immediate needs long before Jesus, the social contract was already in place. I don't see where your going with this.

I'm just trying to say that even you can't say that you follow all of Jesus' Teachings. There are probably a great many you don't think are particularly good. Why take some and reject others? Why take some of Jesus' Teachings and claims and reject the Claim he is the Son of God?

But the term Son of God meant something different to the Hebrews than it does to us. Remember the Gospels synaptic Gospels were written by Jews (most likely).

Well, What did it mean to the Jews then? What did the claim he was the Son of God mean to them other than that he was the actual Son of God?

I'm just trying to say that even you can't say that you follow all of Jesus' Teachings. There are probably a great many you don't think are particularly good. Why take some and reject others? Why take some of Jesus' Teachings and claims and reject the Claim he is the Son of God?
'Not even me'? That's putting the bar pretty low. I would never say that I follow his teachings. Some good ideas in there, but...

And I already addressed why I could agree with some and yet not believe in the whole son of god thing. What part of that didn't you get?

I'm just trying to say that even you can't say that you follow all of Jesus' Teachings. There are probably a great many you don't think are particularly good. Why take some and reject others? Why take some of Jesus' Teachings and claims and reject the Claim he is the Son of God?



Why take some books of Jesus, and not others?

Why the gospel of Mark, and not Thomas, or Mary?

The same reason.

Well, What did it mean to the Jews then? What did the claim he was the Son of God mean to them other than that he was the actual Son of God?

Sorry edited it after you were done quoting:



But the term Son of God meant something different to the Hebrews than it does to us (It means to them a rightous person in the Hebrew Bible and in later rabbinical literature "sonship to God" was ascribed first to every Israelite and then to every member of the human race ). Remember the synaptic Gospels were written by Jews (most likely). I said John is the only Gospel which makes the claim that Jesus and God are one and the same and I'm sticking to it.

'Not even me'? That's putting the bar pretty low. I would never say that I follow his teachings. Some good ideas in there, but...

And I already addressed why I could follow some and yet not believe in the whole son of god thing. What part of that didn't you get?

Well, They are good ideas but Jesus set them up as a Moral Standard not as Good Ideas. He meant for them to be followed not to be Good Ideas but I'm not gonna do what they say. I'm just saying how can you call him a great moral teacher if you don't adhere to his morals.

Sorry edited it after you were done quoting:



But the term Son of God meant something different to the Hebrews than it does to us (It means to them a rightous person in the Hebrew Bible and in later rabbinical literature "sonship to God" was ascribed first to every Israelite and then to every member of the human race ). Remember the synaptic Gospels were written by Jews (most likely). I said John is the only Gospel which makes the clame that Jesus and God are one and the same and I'm sticking to it.

It may have meant that in Hebrew but in Greek which these books were written in it meant and the Writers meant that he was the actual Son Of God.

Tis a narrow corridor in which we tread.
"Straight is the gate and narrow is the way, and few there be who find it."

It may have meant that in Hebrew but in Greek which these books were written in it meant and the Writers meant that he was the actual Son Of God.

Really? How are you certain of that?

As a Theology 2nd Year student (and thus on the forefront of this whole arguement) I can say that the academic concensus is that the Gospels where either written in the order Mark Matthew Luke John or Luke Matthew Mark John.

Matthew, Mark and John actually traveled with Jesus. Even though they wrote there Gospels later on in life they were there when Jesus was teaching. Also, after Jesus died and was Resurrected they taught what they later wrote down constantly. I would think they are probably trustworthy.

I'm not sure of that, you have to remember that the average life span was just over 30 then and the agreed upon date for Mark (the oldest) that I have seen is 55-60 while John (between 100-120 and again the only one that makes the claim Jesus is God) is totally out.

Also, UnitarianUniversalists is right here (the second quote) the academic concensus is that there is no chance that the original Matthew, Mark, Luke & John could possibly have written the books, as they were written at least 40-50 years after the documented death of Jesus (and thus MMLJ would be roughly middle aged.)

There is no rational or Theological reason that, given that you do not accept that Jesus is the Son of God, you cannot accept the rest of his techings. Infact, it is entirely possible that the Jesus of history never even claimed to have been the SoG, and thus any arguement using the 'he must be a madman' approach is virtually doomed to failure. It is undeniable, however, that the main precepts of the teachings of 'Jesus' whomever he might have been, have been maintained, but the words in which these precepts are described and wrapped are undoubtedly not the words of this 'Jesus' or his dsiciples, but instead a scholarly elite who sought to promote a certain view of the man (Middle Aged Man).

Anathar

Really? How are you certain of that?

Read the Mark Verse

The Gospel of Jesus Christ, THE Son of God not one of many sons of God. He is THE Son of God.

Well, They are good ideas but Jesus set them up as a Moral Standard not as Good Ideas. He meant for them to be followed not to be Good Ideas but I'm not gonna do what they say. I'm just saying how can you call him a great moral teacher if you don't adhere to his morals.
I'm still not getting this all or nothing thing. If, in the balance, he had a lot of good ideas mixed in with all the sky wizardry, why can't I be able to say "There's a cat with a lot of good ideas that happened to be a little too fixated on being the son of a sky wizard?" Why can't I recognize that good and charitable has a benefit to the collective of society that has nothing to do with harps and streets of gold?

Again, because I still don't understand what's missing, why why why why why why why can't I rate each argument individually on the merits of the arguement on not on the arguer? Why do I have to take the whole?

Read the Mark Verse

The Gospel of Jesus Christ, THE Son of God not one of many sons of God. He is THE Son of God.

The word "the" and "a" are the same in ancient Greek. (Is anyone else reminded of Bill Clinton? We're arguing the deffinition of 'the' instead of 'is', but sill :D )

I'm still not getting this all or nothing thing. If, in the balance, he had a lot of good ideas mixed in with all the sky wizardry, why can't I be able to say "There's a cat with a lot of good ideas that happened to be a little too fixated on being the son of a sky wizard?" Why can't I recognize that good and charitable has a benefit to the collective of society that has nothing to do with harps and streets of gold?

Again, because I still don't understand what's missing, why why why why why why why can't I rate each argument individually on the merits of the arguement on not on the arguer? Why do I have to take the whole?

I'm not talking about him being the Son of God. I'm saying that if you do not follow his good ideas. Why are they good ideas? Why are they not good enough for you to follow?

The word "the" and "a" are the same in ancient Greek. (Is anyone else reminded of Bill Clinton? We're arguing the deffinition of 'the' instead of 'is', but sill :D )

I know there is no Definite Article in Koine Greek which they used. But, some of the Word Endings imply a Definite meaning and would translate into a definite article.

I'm not talking about him being the Son of God. I'm saying that if you do not follow his good ideas. Why are they good ideas? Why are they not good enough for you to follow?
What?????????????????????

I think we need a reset, because I don't even know what your talking about at this point.

What?????????????????????

I think we need a reset, because I don't even know what your talking about at this point.

All I am asking now is if they are such great moral teachings as you say Jesus is a great Moral Teacher. Why are they not good enough for you to base your life around?

All I am asking now is if they are such great moral teachings as you say Jesus is a great Moral Teacher. Why are they not good enough for you to base your life around?
Who's saying I don't follow the ones I agree with? How did we get to this point?

Who's saying I don't follow the ones I agree with? How did we get to this point?

Well, if you do follow some and maybe you do I don't know. I think that you should take his Moral Teaching's as a block regardless if you think he was the Son of God or not.

Well, if you do follow some and maybe you do I don't know. I think that you should take his Moral Teaching's as a block regardless if you think he was the Son of God or not.
I think you should wear more hats, but that doesn't mean you have to. Or even should. Just means I like hats.

Back to the core of the argument, because seriously, I don't understand how we got here, why do I have to take the whole son of god thing or throw the whole bundle out? Wouldn't that seem more ridiculous? That if there was some good in there we threw out the whole deal because of the sky wizard thing? That seems detrimentally rigid.

Would someone please comment on my post number 43?

I think you should wear more hats, but that doesn't mean you have to. Or even should. Just means I like hats.

Back to the core of the argument, because seriously, I don't understand how we got here, why do I have to take the whole son of god thing or throw the whole bundle out? Wouldn't that seem more ridiculous? That if there was some good in there we threw out the whole deal because of the sky wizard thing? That seems detrimentally rigid.

I'm not saying throw the whole thing out I'm just saying if you are going to be skeptical about part. And that part is a fantastic claim. Shouldn't you take the rest of what Jesus says with a grain of salt?

I'm not saying throw the whole thing out I'm just saying if you are going to be skeptical about part. And that part is a fantastic claim. Shouldn't you take the rest of what Jesus says with a grain of salt?
Oh man, are we back to that again? Can't you just re-read the whole hominim deal? I've already answered this like a dozen times.

C. S. Lewis was great. I suspect I've read everything he's written that's still in print. However, in these two quotes, Lewis conveniently ignores the fact that "messiahs" were as common during much of the history of Judaism as demented posters on NS General. Since the Jewish religion taught that someday a savior or messiah would come to deliver the people, it only stands to reason that anyone wanting to become a great Jewish leader would claim to be one.

The central tenet of Christianity has been, and will continue to be, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and spirit, and love your neighbor as yourself." This is what Jesus taught and, man, God or whatever, he expected his followers to adhere to it ... completely!

Although Messiah's were common most of the Time they didn't claim they were the Messiah other people thought oh he might be the Messiah. Jeish tradtion in that time believed that the Messiah was going to be a Military Leader who was going to deliver them from there conquerors. That is why Jesus is different.

Oh man, are we back to that again? Can't you just re-read the whole hominim deal? I've already answered this like a dozen times.

I'm not saying reject it all. I'm just saying think about it use critical thought and if he truly believed he was Son of God and If I believed he wasn'tt he Son of God I would have serious doubts about his sanity and the rest of what he is saying. Who cares if it is a Logical Fallacy not everything especially Mental Illness is Logical.

You either accept that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and everything that follows or you don't. He didn't claim to be a great moral teacher, you don't base your opinion on what somebody else said about Him, or at least you shouldn't.Yours to believe or not, Your choice, your life.

I'm not saying reject it all. I'm just saying think about it use critical thought and if he truly believed he was Son of God and If I believed he wasn'tt he Son of God I would have serious doubts about his sanity and the rest of what he is saying. Who cares if it is a Logical Fallacy not everything especially Mental Illness is Logical.
That's quite a block you have there. I don't know what I can say to make it any clearer.

Critical thought addresses the argument and not the arguer. If the argument stands then I don't care if the arguer spoons feces on himself while singing Row Your Boat backwards. It's not relivant to the argument.

That's quite a block you have there. I don't know what I can say to make it any clearer.

Critical thought addresses the argument and not the arguer. If the argument stands then I don't care if the arguer spoons feces on himself while singing Row Your Boat backwards. It's not relivant to the argument.

In a perfect world that would not matter but in reality it makes a big difference.

In a perfect world that would not matter but in reality it makes a big difference.
Why? Why does it make a difference? Is be nice to each other suddenly a bad idea if you find out that it was said by the backwards song feces spooner? Why is it only a good idea if said by a certain person?

Why? Why does it make a difference? Is be nice to each other suddenly a bad idea if you find out that it was said by the backwards song feces spooner? Why is it only a good idea if said by a certain person?

Be Nice to each other is not original to Jesus. There are some teachings that make it hard to believe that he was sane. And so I think it calls into question what he was saying.

"I am trying to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic * on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg * or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

"If you had gone to Buddha and asked him, "Are you the son of Bramah?" he would have said, "My son, you are still in the value of illusion." If you had gone to Socrates and asked, "Are you Zeus?" he would have laughed at you. If you had gone to Mohammed and asked, "Are you Allah?" he would first have rent his clothes and then cut your head off. If you had asked Confucius, "Are you heaven?" I think he would have probably replied, "Remarks which are not in accordance with nature are in bad taste." The idea of a great moral teacher saying what Christ said is out of the question. In my opinion, the only person who can say that sort of thing is either God or a complete lunatic suffering from that form of delusion which undermines the whole mind of man. If you think you are a poached egg, when you are looking for a piece of toast to suit you, you may be sane, but if you think you are God, there is no change for you. We may note in passing that He was never regarded as a great moral teacher. He did not produce that effect on any of the people who actually met Him. He produce mainly three effects – Hatred – Terror – Adoration. There was no trace of people expressing mild approval."
I was just wondering what people on here would think of the message he is trying to get across
He was so on the right track, just his conclusion went off-track.

There are four possible explanations that I can see for why Jesus would say what he said, not two, and probably more:
1. He was telling the literal truth.
2. He was telling a non-literal truth.
3. He was lying.
4. He was insane.

Of them, I think it most likely that he was speaking metaphorical truths.

I know what he said could not have been a literal truth, because I disbelieve in magic (the common definition). I have no reason to assume him a liar, and have only the above-mentioned scriptural evidence that he is insane, which is more readily explained by the symbolic nature of the "Son of God". So non-literal truth wins.

The last line is funny: There was no trace of people expressing mild approval."

There was also no trace of him ever going to the bathroom. (Does that indicate he's divine?? ;))

Be Nice to each other is not original to Jesus. There are some teachings that make it hard to believe that he was sane. And so I think it calls into question what he was saying.
So you look at the argument on it's own to see if it holds up. I really don't understand the hang up here.

And no it didn't. That it is echoed by other cats that don't think they where spawned by the sky wizard really only helps the case.

Since this is the eightieth time 'round this merry-go-round I'm going to have to give up. You have failed to convince me that it's an all or nothing proposal or that I can't weigh an argument made by a guy slightly off his nut on it's own merits. I'd love to give you a few more shots, but I can only give the same answer so many times to the same question...

Read the Mark Verse

The Gospel of Jesus Christ, THE Son of God not one of many sons of God. He is THE Son of God.
Jesus, the Carpenter...

Jesus, the History Teacher...

Jesus, the Sequel...

It's just a title, one that many have held.

I'm not saying reject it all. I'm just saying think about it use critical thought and if he truly believed he was Son of God and If I believed he wasn'tt he Son of God I would have serious doubts about his sanity and the rest of what he is saying. Who cares if it is a Logical Fallacy not everything especially Mental Illness is Logical.
If I may intercede, there are plenty of people online whom I consider to be insane, but if they said something sensible I would take it at face value and discuss it on its own merits. Even if they said they were Jesus.

Why? Why does it make a difference? Is be nice to each other suddenly a bad idea if you find out that it was said by the backwards song feces spooner? Why is it only a good idea if said by a certain person?
What he said.

I think Lewis is much like Paul.
I thought he was more a Ringo myself.

I was just wondering what people on here would think of the message he is trying to get across

I think the message was that he was hungry, and had yet to eat breakfast.

*goes to make some eggs with toast*

I was just wondering what people on here would think of the message he is trying to get across
It's quite possible that Jesus never claimed to be god or to be the son of god. A man named Funk, here's his website http://www.westarinstitute.org/ , spent alot of time analyzing the gospels to try to determine what Jesus actually said, what he may have said, and what he almost certainly didn't say. He used linguistic clues, he tried to match quotes to two or more sources, he used references to events and people who lived in Jesus' time to confirm and references to events and people who lived after Jesus' time to refute some of the quotes attributed to Jesus in the bible. He came to the conclusion that Jesus most likely never claimed to be god. This makes C.S. Lewises arguments worthless.

I'm not saying throw the whole thing out I'm just saying if you are going to be skeptical about part. And that part is a fantastic claim. Shouldn't you take the rest of what Jesus says with a grain of salt?

I’m going to make one desperate attempt to see if I can get the point across.
HECK YES, we should take everything he (or anyone else) says with a fair dose of natrium chloride.
But if we, after doing this, find some parts, but not all of it, agreeable, then what’s wrong with that?

Thank you for those lovely quotes.

I think I DO, indeed, understand as you requested.




Yes indeed, I understand far more clearly why it is that CS Lewis became noted for authoring books of fantasy....

But the term Son of God meant something different to the Hebrews than it does to us (It means to them a rightous person and in later rabbinical literature "sonship to God" was ascribed first to every Israelite and then to every member of the human race ). Remember the synaptic Gospels were written by Jews (most likely)

Never in the entire rest of the Bible does anyone else claim to be a son of God in the fashion you are suggesting. Also when the Pharasees trying to have him executed because they felt threatened by him, the excuse they came up with was that he called himself the son of God. If everyone was a son of God there would be no offence in that.

It's quite possible that Jesus never claimed to be god or to be the son of god. A man named Funk, here's his website http://www.westarinstitute.org/ , spent alot of time analyzing the gospels to try to determine what Jesus actually said, what he may have said, and what he almost certainly didn't say. He used linguistic clues, he tried to match quotes to two or more sources, he used references to events and people who lived in Jesus' time to confirm and references to events and people who lived after Jesus' time to refute some of the quotes attributed to Jesus in the bible. He came to the conclusion that Jesus most likely never claimed to be god. This makes C.S. Lewises arguments worthless.

If thats the case then

A. What excuse did the pharasees actually use to have him executed
B. How was he able to do the things he did
C. How and why did the early church come into existance. If he didnt claim that then with the gospels being writen within the lifetimes of those who lived and saw Jesus, they would have read them and known that the idea that Jesus claimed to be the son of God was false.

If thats the case then

A. What excuse did the pharasees actually use to have him executed

They didn't, according to Josephus the historian, it was the Roman Empire that had him executed under the charge of sedition, which is a crime against teh state.

B. How was he able to do the things he did

What things? Maybe exageration happened. Maybe he was infused by God, but not God. Maybe he was a clever magician (in the term used to apply to people like Edgar Cayce (http://www.edgarcayce.org/)). Maybe he was the only begotten Son of God. I don't know.

C. How and why did the early church come into existance. If he didnt claim that then with the gospels being writen within the lifetimes of those who lived and saw Jesus, they would have read them and known that the idea that Jesus claimed to be the son of God was false.

There were many different churches in the early times, you can't deny that. the Monophysites, those who became the Arians, Gnostics, etc. The earliest church was under Simon and often still worshiping with other Jews, it wasn't until Paul that the word spread to many different areas all worshiping differently. Then we had the council of Nicea in 325 which codified what it meant to be Christian and what heresies were. You think they got it right after nearly 300 years? What about all the other churches where they wrong? What about the other 25 known Gospels including the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary Magdaline, etc? Are they all wrong?

If thats the case then

A. What excuse did the pharasees actually use to have him executed
B. How was he able to do the things he did
C. How and why did the early church come into existance. If he didnt claim that then with the gospels being writen within the lifetimes of those who lived and saw Jesus, they would have read them and known that the idea that Jesus claimed to be the son of God was false.
A. When asked by the authorities whether he was the messiah he didn't say yes. He said instead "You have said it". Seems to me like he was saying "That's your accusation", not "sure I am".

B. I don't believe he actually performed any miracles that modern day faith healers can't pull off through placebo effect and the effects of adrenalin and endorphins among the faithfull when they're all stirred up.

C. The gospels weren't written in the lifetimes of the people who knew Jesus. Funk proved that to my satisfaction in two of his books. The church started as a way for people to capitalize on the Jesus cult that had arisen and to gain followers, money, and some measure of power.

A. When asked by the authorities whether he was the messiah he didn't say yes. He said instead "You have said it". Seems to me like he was saying "That's your accusation", not "sure I am".

I can see where you would get that misunderstanding from, but that doesnt make sense with the pharasees response included. If he had said that then they wouldnt have been able to do anything, as he wasnt blasphemeing by saying that.


B. I don't believe he actually performed any miracles that modern day faith healers can't pull off through placebo effect and the effects of adrenalin and endorphins among the faithfull when they're all stirred up.

Iv'e never seen a faith healer raise the dead, make those born blind see, make enough food for 5000 people come out of a lunch box ,walk on water or calm storms.


C. The gospels weren't written in the lifetimes of the people who knew Jesus. Funk proved that to my satisfaction in two of his books. The church started as a way for people to capitalize on the Jesus cult that had arisen and to gain followers, money, and some measure of power.

Explain this. Jesus died in aproximately 30AD. In aproximately 70AD the Romans sacked Jerusleum. Yet in John 5:2 it says

"Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades"

And of course by 70 AD there wasnt anymore, because the Romans had destroyed it. There is also the question of Mark's refernce to Pilate without clarification. Mark doesnt explain who Pilate is. Considering he left office in aprox 40 AD, the further from that time you go the more clarification is needed as to who he was.

I can see where you would get that misunderstanding from, but that doesnt make sense with the pharasees response included. If he had said that then they wouldnt have been able to do anything, as he wasnt blasphemeing by saying that.



Iv'e never seen a faith healer raise the dead, make those born blind see, make enough food for 5000 people come out of a lunch box ,walk on water or calm storms.



Explain this. Jesus died in aproximately 30AD. In aproximately 70AD the Romans sacked Jerusleum. Yet in John 5:2 it says

"Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades"

And of course by 70 AD there wasnt anymore, because the Romans had destroyed it. There is also the question of Mark's refernce to Pilate without clarification. Mark doesnt explain who Pilate is. Considering he left office in aprox 40 AD, the further from that time you go the more clarification is needed as to who he was.
1) As a previous poster pointed out, he was executed for sedition, not blasphemy.

2) I don't beleive that he did raise the dead, make the blind see, etc. I think he was just a normal faith healer who's followers passed his story on and it got exaggerated on the way.

3) Because the gospels are written from oral histories of Jesus and because two of the gospels are based on a third source that may have been written but was lost to history. I forget which two, I don't have any reference material with me at work.

1) As a previous poster pointed out, he was executed for sedition, not blasphemy.

2) I don't beleive that he did raise the dead, make the blind see, etc. I think he was just a normal faith healer who's followers passed his story on and it got exaggerated on the way.
My own suspicion was that he was probably more of a religious reformer than a faith healer, but when the Bible was assembled it was decided that a Martin Luther type wouldn't be the most effective religious figurehead so the bulk of this material was left out.

It's quite possible that Jesus never claimed to be god or to be the son of god. A man named Funk, here's his website http://www.westarinstitute.org/ , spent alot of time analyzing the gospels to try to determine what Jesus actually said, what he may have said, and what he almost certainly didn't say. He used linguistic clues, he tried to match quotes to two or more sources, he used references to events and people who lived in Jesus' time to confirm and references to events and people who lived after Jesus' time to refute some of the quotes attributed to Jesus in the bible. He came to the conclusion that Jesus most likely never claimed to be god. This makes C.S. Lewises arguments worthless.
its been a while since i read the new testament

is there a place where jesus says he is GOD?

is there a place where jesus says he is the only begotten son of god? (after all, in jesus' opinion we are all children of god)

is there a place where he claims to be the messiah?

seems to me that there are passages where he denies all 3

is there a place where jesus demands to be worshipped as lewis demands that we worship him?

is there a place where jesus says he is the only begotten son of god? (after all, in jesus' opinion we are all children of god)
The expulsion of the usuerers from the Temple. (I forget the chapter and verse but in one of the Gospels, I think Luke, he kicks off with the line: "You are lending money in my father's temple.")

The expulsion of the usuerers from the Temple. (I forget the chapter and verse but in one of the Gospels, I think Luke, he kicks off with the line: "You are lending money in my father's temple.")
he didnt claim to be the only begotten son of god. just that god was his father.

If thats the case then

A. What excuse did the pharasees actually use to have him executed
B. How was he able to do the things he did
C. How and why did the early church come into existance. If he didnt claim that then with the gospels being writen within the lifetimes of those who lived and saw Jesus, they would have read them and known that the idea that Jesus claimed to be the son of God was false.
A. If Jesus actually existed, it's more likely that the scene in the temple (turnign the tables over and the like) got him executed. The romans didn't take too kindly to civil unrest and the like.
B. Who says that he really did anything extraordinary? Other people attributed things to him that were not true. It happens with myths and legends. Look at the Illiad.
C. Were all the churches founded during his supposed lifetime or well after his death? The gospels weren't written until much later anyways.

They didn't, according to Josephus the historian, it was the Roman Empire that had him executed under the charge of sedition, which is a crime against teh state.
The stuff about Jesus in Josephus's accounts were written in 400 years after the fact by someone claiming to have historical proof of Jesus' existance.