Who was Jesus?

[surftheiop]

I know many find no reason to believe in the teachings of or follow Jesus, but what do you think about him/his teachings?

C.S. Lewis says: I am trying here 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 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 . . . or else He would be the Devil of Hell.

Any comments/opinions on who he was ?

[surftheiop]

Sorry i didnt see the other topic already written

[J. Stew]

Lunatics rape children, Jesus was not a lunatic, he was a man with a sense of Self.

[surftheiop]

"Lunatics rape children"
Abu Bakr wasnt a muslim - muslims fly airplanes into buildings

[J. Stew]

and? . . .

[wtfsvi]

I think mr. Lewis is mistaking "great moral teacher" for "perfect moral teacher". And he is exaggerating how horrible it is to say/believe one is the son of God without being it.

When I say Jesus was a great moral teacher though, I mean he was great with 2000 years ago as the frame of reference.

[surftheiop]

"how horrible it is to say/believe one is the son of God without being it."
Wouldnt it be pretty terrible to trick millions of people to following a fake cause and even to trick thousands of people to die for this cause?

[madnak]

I've known some deeply schizophrenic people. One of the nicest guys I ever met fully believed he was an incarnation of the archangel Michael.

Lewis was a complete moron.

[surftheiop]

Being nice doesnt make someone a great moral teacher.

[cliff]

so are the daughters of the american revolution involved in some horrible plot to trick us into thinking they were literally born from war? When people say in "god our father" in church, are they all claiming to be the incarnate flesh of a deity? Perhaps he said something something along those lines (if he ever existed and/or said anything like this) but the rest of the story may well have been fleshed out after his death wrt virgin birth, etc. It would have been a lot more convenient if he had written any of the gospels himself. Also, as I mentioned in the other post, if one doesn't believe Jesus was god, all of Paul's gospels can be ignord at once as he never even met him.

Isn't it possible that he was a reasonable, good, and perhaps even devoutly religous man around whom a cult was built after his death? In that case, I

might say he was possibly a good person without being a god. The whole argument here as laid out by C.S Lewis and perhaps people before him seems crude, in my opinion. I guess the point is to make sure no one admires their leader unless willing to fall on their knees and worship him as a god in order to avoid dillution of their religion and keep everything "us against them" (they think our messiah was an evil murderer thus we can harden our hearts against and hate them if the ignore the good news)? But the only reason given for such a stark choice (evil madman or a living god) is to dismiss every other option without reason. I would suspect (hope?) that not every christian sees this issue in such a light, as it seems an obvious attempt to deeply seperate christians and others (yeah, of course the whole you are going to hell and not me is already up there). It sounds similar to the "you either support every action of our government or you hate your country" form of politics we see so much of.

Finally, did Jesus ever ask people to die for him?

[KaneKungFu123]

http://booreview.com/images/the_big_lebowski_jesus.jpg

[madnak]

So what?

The Dalai Llama is a great moral teacher, and he believes he is the reincarnation of a great bodhisattva. So I guess he's a lunatic or a scam artist?

Honestly, there are hundreds of examples. But I don't see why they're necessary since Lewis's original statement is totally devoid of reason in the first place. I have serious trouble understanding why it resonates with anyone. If I say "2+2=5" will that resonate too? Saying "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 . . . or else He would be the Devil of Hell" is such a classic example of a false dichotomy that it boggles my mind. If I didn't know better I'd think it was satire.

So maybe you can fill in Lewis's gaps and turn this into an actual discussion, something impossible in the context of a charlatan like Lewis. Explain to me why it follows logically that if Jesus weren't the son of God he must either have been "a lunatic" (let's define that term, shall we) or "evil" (and let's define that one too, I'm being gracious here using evil but "the Devil of Hell" is obviously a dishonest rhetorical construct).

I can say "either a person has unicorn horns, or he has elephant ears," and act as if the onus is on you to provide counter-examples. And for every example you propose I can say "well, he cut his horn off" or "his ears were well-hidden in photographs." And each time I do it gives my dichotomy more credibility as you keep flinging out futile intelligence to refute me. But the fact is that if I issue a statement as blatant as "people either have unicorn horns or elephant ears," the onus is on me to establish that dichotomy, not on you to refute it.

[surftheiop]

Paul didnt write any of the four gospels

[cliff]

fair enough, although he did record a conversation with jesus into holy scripture? I ask this in ignorance. Any comments on the other points made in this and the other posts?

[surftheiop]

Ill do my best to respond to you post a little bit, im no good at arguing/proving points so im not really going to try but ill see if i can answer some your questions.

About Paul - Paul was originally known as Saul and he travelled around Israel persecuting Christians on the way to Damascus he was blinded and Jesus(from heaven:
4He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"

5"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked.

"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. 6"Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."

Paul then went on to become one of the most influential christians ever.

"I guess the point is to make sure no one admires their leader unless willing to fall on their knees and worship him as a god "
Jesus states that we must worship/have faith in him.
5Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?"
6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me......

....How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves

If anyone other than God said this you would have to believe that he was a raving madman.

As for why Jesus never wrote a gospel i really dont know but all 4 Gospels were written by different types of people in different styles (one by a Doctor and another by a Tax collector, i forget the other two) but still share the same accounts of Jesus' life with slight changes in perspective.
As far as claiming Jesus never said this stuff-
Jesus did claim to be God, he was killed because blasphemy was a sin punishable by death and claiming to be God is as blasphemous as you can get.

"Did people ever ask people to die for him" Its not like people going out with the purpose to die for him,but in the course of following his will people may be killed/persecuted which Jesus addresses in several places
"If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you"
"Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake "

Not sure if i answered any of your questions, and as i said before im no good at arguing so if you really feel like arguing this stuff you might wanna find someone with a few more credentials than me

[TomBrooks]

I think Jesus was a guy who was very in touch with his true nature and tried to get other people to be able to experience the same thing.

[surftheiop]

He claimed his true nature was god.
If this wasnt true he wasnt in touch with his true nature.

[pilliwinks]

Clearly Mr Lewis enjoyed the use of rhetoric. This does not necessarily mean he was a charlatan. In my very humble opinion, he was just trying to point out that Jesus did not claim to be a prophet or moral teacher. He claimed to be God.

If you dispute Jesus' claim, there are obviously more than two possible explanations for why an ordinary bloke would do such a thing. Delusions of grandeur certainly occur among mental patients, and this might fit with some of Jesus' more apocalyptic outbursts and socially inappropriate behaviour. He could also have been malicious, though it is unclear why a Devil would make such an effort to encourage people to find God. These days we'd perhaps say he was on an ego trip.

Those are Lewis' two suggestions as to why a regular person might claim to be God. I can think of others: out of a genuine desire to be a powerful influence for good (I think several TV evangelists started out this way). Or a calculated desire for power over the gullible. I'm sure others exist.

The point Lewis was making was not that there are only two reasons why a man might claim to be God. He was trying to point out that claiming to be God is extreme. If you are right, you need to be taken seriously. If you are wrong, everything else you say should be treated with deep suspicion, not respect. This is no news to the atheists.

I think the comment was directed at the many well meaning types who wish to accept 'blessed are the peacemakers' but not John 3:16.

[madnak]

I don't agree with you, but you express your views well. Lewis didn't. He made explicit sweeping statements that were inflammatory and untrue. The fact that you can offer interpretations of these statements that are reasonable doesn't lend them any extra credibility. By using words like "lunatic" and "Devil of Hell," and by spinning deceptive "dichotomies," Lewis made it clear that intellectual honesty wasn't his goal. Propaganda was his goal.

On to the subject at hand...

I believe Jesus is essentially a fictional character, so that will color my view.

How extreme is it really to claim to be God? If God is an independent, personal entity then that's pretty extreme. But most interpretations of God aren't so restrictive. Eastern and polytheistic religions, for example, make it a fairly reasonable claim. Religions like Mahayana Buddhism or Taoism make it very solid.

Obviously a literal interpretation of the published scriptures is going to create some problems, but even many Christians don't accept a literal translation. There are "apocryphal" texts that can offer alternate interpretations, and some of the early Christian sects had beliefs that were far from consistent with current scripture.

I think the essence of what's going on is simple. Jesus said some very insightful things. Many people would (wisely, in my opinion) like to learn from those insights. But that doesn't mean they worship Jesus. It's very simple at its core, and Lewis's attacks seem petty to me. Even if Jesus was a full-blown lunatic, that doesn't mean there's nothing to be learned from his teachings. Moral philosophies of "blessed are the peacemakers" and "turn the other cheek" are powerful and relevant and they make Jesus a great moral teacher independently of his character.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the essence of what's going on is simple. Jesus said some very insightful things. Many people would (wisely, in my opinion) like to learn from those insights. But that doesn't mean they worship Jesus. It's very simple at its core, and Lewis's attacks seem petty to me. Even if Jesus was a full-blown lunatic, that doesn't mean there's nothing to be learned from his teachings. Moral philosophies of "blessed are the peacemakers" and "turn the other cheek" are powerful and relevant and they make Jesus a great moral teacher independently of his character.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd agree with that but like you I'm not a christian.

Suppose Lewis was talking to christians, that is people who do worship christ. Now does it make more sense to say that if christ made claims to be the unique son of god (which is contentious) then either its true or he is a loony in the sense of not being suitable for religous worship.

chez

[madnak]

It does make more sense if he were talking to Christians, but I didn't get that impression from Lewis.

I mean, all of his works were clearly more effective as "preaching to the choir," but they seemed to be intended as persuasive material.