A Question for the masses...

Which of the following was Jesus???

  • Liar

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Lunatic

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Lord

    Votes: 15 100.0%
  • Total voters
    15
  • Poll closed .
Wirl

Wirl

on to something new...
One thing that people can agree on about Jesus is that he was a good, moral teacher. Yet, can you really call him that???

So here is the question...

Which of the following was Jesus???
#1: Liar
#2: Lunatic
#3: Lord

Let's see what the voices of the people say.
:D

God bless!!!
 
I would love to have a list of the Messiah's around that time and what things they are purported to have done.

I wonder if Jesus is an omnibus edition of the collected Jewish Messiah's? Sort of a 'best of' show.
 
Eon said:
I would love to have a list of the Messiah's around that time and what things they are purported to have done.

I wonder if Jesus is an omnibus edition of the collected Jewish Messiah's? Sort of a 'best of' show.
Click to expand...

That is precisely why I describe Jesus as Myth.

By myth, I liken him to King Arthur and Robin Hood. There may have been a seed of truth there somehow, but through the years, the truth has been lost amongst various stories and attribute given to him by his followers.

I had m-w.com open, so I looked up myth. As I see it, the definition that I'm referring to is an amalgam of two different entries:

2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society
3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
Click to expand...
 
DV & Eon...

There's no question in scholarly circles that Jesus did exist. So using your definition, neither can apply to Christ.
#2 definition: "belief or tradition," well that doesn't apply because we have a living relationship with Him. Religion has nothing to do with Chirst.
#3 definition: "imaginary or unverifiable existence," well, ask Josephus, a Jewish historian, or the Roman historian Pliny, they can verify his existence for you.

My point in posing this question was to get everyone to think. Like I said in my initial post, it is most commonly agreed that Jesus was a great moral teacher, some circles say he was the greatest (non-Christian point of view). Yet if we can not answer the question I posed then there is an issue with our thinking.
Ok, if Jesus was (is) a great moral teach, that means that we should be able to trust and believe everything that teacher says. If we did not, then that person would not be our teacher, we'd never learn anything from them. So, if Jesus was (is) a teacher, then he can not be a liar. As soon as His first lye was revealed, His statur of teacher would fall apart (it's been way over 2000 years, and nothing has yet proven Him wrong). Ok, one option down, so that must mean He was (is) a lunatic. Well... if he was a lunatic, why would so many peole follow Him, and why would His teachings continue on? (I know your probably thinking that there have been others that have had the same thing happen. Yet, how many of them has been classified as 'mental' and has been dismissed?) Well as of yet no one, including psychologists, has been able to see any mental issues with the life of Christ that has been passed down to us. Ok, second option shot down, so that must leave the last one...

So in the words of Sherlock Holmes, Spock, and Data, the logical explination, when all other possible explinations have been exhausted, and the remaining explination is completely unlikely, must be the logical explination.
So if Jesus wasn't a Liar, Lunatic (or Myth), then He must have been, and still is today, Lord.

So, if you've tried Him in the past and didn't get anything from Him, that must be your problem and not His. He is giving, and loving, and perfect, we are not. So if anything goes wrong with the relationship with Christ, it is on our end.

Be encouraged though, He is still waiting for you, He'll take you back so don't delay, ask for forgiveness and accept His gift again.
:D
 
Pastor, all you've done is created a strawman argument, and not a very good one at that. These weak arguments are no good against those who rely on reason.

You have done nothing to prove that "scholarly circles" absolutely believe that Christ existed. I'd be willing to bet that these "scholarly" circles are undeniably Christian. Would you mind furnishing us with some examples of these "scholars" and the evidence they possess?

Your dismissal of definition 2 has no substance and cannot be explained away by your personal "relationship" with Christ since you aren't to prove this "relationship" to anyone other than yourself. See anecdotal evidence.

Therefore, my second definition stands. Note that the definition does not explain whether that something or someone that belief or tradition has grown up around is real or not. I think you are simply outraged that anyone could think of your God as myth and are not able to create a rational (note that I said RATIONAL) argument to the contrary.

Until you can prove to anyone other than yourself that Christ is verifiable, then you can also not dismiss definition 3.

You claim that, "My point in posing this question was to get everyone to think." If so, then I suggest not posing weak strawman arguments under the guise of logic. I loved your Sherlock Holmes quote. It sounds good when you talk about logic, but you haven't actually used any to formulate this argument. You haven't even begun to postulate LOGICAL explanations, so don't try and trick us into thinking you've exhausted them all.

Since you brought up Data, I don't remember him ever using that quote you attribute to him, but since he would be the embodiment of logic & reason, do you think he would believe in God? Because if you could convince him, then you could convince me.
 
Now if only we'd eliminated the other possibilities. Occam's razor suggests that we not needlessly multiply hypotheses.

By far the least incredible explanation of the Jesus story is that he was one of a group of messianic holy men and that Josephys and Pliny simply copied the same tales from the same source.

I mean - look how reliable they were on other details that we know about!

Josephus records the following out of 28 high priests in the 107 years from Herod to the destruction of Jerusalem: Jesus, son of Phabet; Jesus, son of Damneus; Jesus, son of Gamaliel; Jesus, son of Sapphias; Jesus son of Thebuthus..

And Pliny? Well, he referred to Christian's as "easily led fools".

Always assuming we're discussing Pliny the Younger. Pliny the Elder talked about dragons a lot.
 
DarthDapor said:
So are you saying its wrong to think those "myths" are wrong?
Click to expand...

I'm saying it's wrong to confuse myth with reality.

Take Robin Hood for example. There really was a Robin of Locksley, but to believe he ran around in green tights with his Band of Merry Men, robbing from the rich to give to the poor, thwarting the Sheriff of Nottingham and splitting arrows with his own would be down right WRONG. There's a grain of truth in there, but through the years it has grown to make the original man to be larger than life.

There is simply not enough evidence to show precisely who or what the real Jesus Christ was. There may very well have been an actual person at the center of this story, but over time, his followers have mythicized him into something else. Just like Robin Hood, King Arthur, William Wallace, etc.
 
to believe he ran around in green tights with his Band of Merry Men, robbing from the rich to give to the poor, thwarting the Sheriff of Nottingham and splitting arrows with his own would be down right WRONG
Click to expand...

and how do you know this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top