Who knows. I was just being hypothetical.
Mad, bad,or the Son of God
- Thread starter cavalier
- Start date
Who knows. I was just being hypothetical.
DT Strain
Spiritual Naturalist
The argument would indeed logically apply if the words of the gospels were taken literally, as inerrant reports of history, and as one sequential whole. However, many of those who look into the origins of the biblical source material in an archaeological sense, who do not have a predisposed preference of faith in Christianity, tend to come to the conclusion that the bible consists of disparate and contradictory works by different authors at different times, and that the reliability of reports on Jesus' life and what he said - if he even historically existed - are suspect. Therefore, they do not find themselves in that logical corner because if Jesus didn't actually claim to be God in the flesh or other such things, and if those words were simply put into his mouth by Paul and others decades or centuries later, then this leaves open the logical possibility of Jesus as a fully human, sane, well-meaning good person and spiritual teacher. That is a technical matter of logical options and structure in the argument - quite mechanical and unrelated to whether or not one finds that stance on scripture or Jesus agreeable or supportable.
In short, the argument doesn't logically apply to anyone for whom it was probably intended to refute, since those who believe the bible is one sequential inerrant whole would not be claiming any of that false to begin with.
Sorry if I've repeated points of others (I'm sure I must have in such a long thread), and hope that helps
Sincerely,
Daniel
Dondi
Well-Known Member
Penguin said:Er, no! Hitler was a dictator and didn't give people a choice, you follow the movement or die in a concentration camp! His Philosophy (if you can call it that) was eradication. Jesus didn't impose his will on people by force. People accepted or rejected, same then same now. You can't compare Jesus to Dictators. Mein Kampf isn't the best selling book in the world
I'm not talking about the Jews, who were the primary target for the concentration camps, nor necessarily the common German people. I'm talking about the Nazi Party and any ather social fascist group associated with them.
Hitler wrote Mein Kampf while in jail for his part in a failed attempt to elicit a coup in the Beer Hall Putsch in 1923, in which he tried to take over meeting being held by WWI general Erich Ludendorff and other leaders of the Kampfbund in order to gain power. Obviously, a direct forced takeover wasn't a good idea.
So Hitler resorted to propaganda. The idea for the book came from an earlier work, "Gustave Le Bon's 1895 The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, which theorized propaganda as an adequate rational technique to control the seemingly irrational behaviour of crowds." (Wiki, Mein Kampf)
The main thesis in Mein Kampf was '"The Jewish peril", which speaks of an alleged Jewish conspiracy to gain world leadership.' (Wiki). Which led to the idea of eradicating the Jewish population so that they will be prevented from ruining Germany. Hitler had Mein Kampf published, advertised, and distributed so that by the end of the war 10 million copies were sold. It was basically the 'Nazi Bible'.
You don't sell that many copies of a book without an impression on people.
all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.
Yep, an impression of a madman's drivel for hatred and intolerance for non-germanic things and nazism. I don't want to ruin Cavalier's thread by talking about narrow minded nazis.
So, back on track. Everyone who reads the New Testament, in answer to Cavalier's original question, must by guided by their heart and spirit on what they read. That's the crunch.
lunamoth
Episcopalian
Well, it's not an air-tight logical or theological statement, and I think CS Lewis did write in lay terms about this 'analysis' of who Jesus was.
As much as people try to twist it, the Gospels clearly portray Jesus as recognized by the apostles, those closest to him, as the Son of God. Note that to Jews at the time the Messiah was not expected to be more than a human...although he was expected to fulfill certain prophecies.
Jesus set about fulfilling those prophecies in an unexpected manner, and his claims to be one with the Father, and the claims of his disciples that He was God incarnate (John 1), were more than over-the-top.
I don't remember CS Lewis' explanaion of the mad, bad or Son of God question, but it's easy to imagine that someone making the same claims today would be considered crazy (not trustworthy to follow), blasphemous (perilous to follow), or who s/he claims to be.
Now, it would be one thing for someone to say they are called by God to start a food relief program or reach out to the untouchables of society like Mthr. Theresa because they are not claiming to be God with us. The stronger the claim, the greater the trust asked for.
So, even if not a logically sound 'proof' of the divinity of Jesus, it is a common sense way of realizing that if Jesus was not Who he said he was, then why/how would he be considered a great teacher worth following?
In fact, that points to a weakness in some segments of liberal Christianity. Just giving good advice like 'love your neighbor' is not really all that earthshattering...the Jews had that advice for millenia before Christ. It is not the teaching of Jesus that was revolutionary, but His claim and his request that we trust him to be More, a request proven trustworthy by the resurrection. So, if you don't trust the Resurrection, and you don't trust that Jesus was God Incarnate, what are you left with?
The gospels are quite interesting. We take the whole bible as a book, even though it wasn't in book form for centuries. The authors of the Gospels had the letters of Paul which were handed around church to church in pretty much a folded pamphlet form. Shared amongst folks "You done with Corinthians yet, I'll trade you a Gallatians when your ready" So the authors of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were familiar with the letters and the oral stories that were around. But each was writing from a particular perspective and each to a different audience (much as Paul's letters were as well ie attempting to answer a certain question or solve a certain problem on behalf of a certain group)
And each of the gospels was written 10-20 years apart, so after Mark each had another to gospel to build on, and attempt to clarify to their audience. So while one may focus on Son of G!d, another focuses on prophecy, another on the miracles, but literally literarily they have many differences when talking about the same instance, so which is correct if any is up for debate as it has been for 2,000 years, hence the questions and contentions by Lewis and thousands of others.
lunamoth
Episcopalian
You mean which one doesn't mention it? If I remember correctly one has only the empty tomb, another only a spirit Jesus, one with discussion and physical Jesus.
lunamoth
Episcopalian
As Paul's letters, the gospels were an attempt to shore up, to validate the oral stories, to reduce (or enhance) the exageration and mythology surrounding this leader called Jesus.
Like any story today, the written word is an attempt to clarify, codify, quantify that which is currently rumor, innuendo and hyperbole. Watch BBC, ABC, FOX or Al Jazeera (or Pravda or whatever else) on any issue and we'll find folks attempting to state their beliefs events to support their contentions.
On the political side, Georgia, Russia, South Ossetia for example...tough to get at who is the agresssor, differs depending on the paper you read.
On the religious side, Christianity for example the stories and interpretations of events based on these very books varies widely from the catechism to the watchtower...
Namaste EM,
I thought you asked where it was written that he was fulfilling prophecy. I simply quoted one of the texts that is pointed at in that regard. (I didn't write the text.)
M
mee
Guest
Penguin;156820So it's good teacher or son of god? My thoughts.[/quote said:
E
Eclectic Mystic
Guest
Namaste Wil,
There's a difference between fulfilling scripture and going out of the way to fulfill scripture. (Also, I'm glad to know you whether or not you wrote the text.)
There's a difference between fulfilling scripture and going out of the way to fulfill scripture. (Also, I'm glad to know you whether or not you wrote the text.)
Dream
Well-Known Member
Penguin said:
All of that was on page one. Fulfillment of prophecy is a tricky subject. The account says in 19:19 it was Pilate who put a sign over Jesus dying head that said king of the Jews and that it was the priestly order, not Ponchus Pilate, that objected to the wording. This was possibly the first time Pilot had heard about Jesus, although King Herod already knew about him through hearesay about miracles. Jesus certainly didn't court the aristocracy, did he? In that sense, you cannot say he went out of his way to fulfill prophecy. He obeyed God, fulfilling prophecy to his own detriment.
Dream
Well-Known Member
The priestly order was also trying to fulfill prophecy. We know this because the death sentence to which they referred is in Deuteronomy 18:20 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.
John 10:24...39 Often comes up in discussion of this. Its helpful to note that the entire encounter from 24 to 39 was a trap laid by certain men for Jesus to get him to say he was the Christ. Their opening question was "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." Jesus had consistenly avoided making this claim, yet was stirring up trouble by his teachings and baptizing people! The trap was to get him to say 'I am the Christ', but he evaded the question with the father son dialogue. For Christians the term 'Son of God' is equivalent to 'Christ', in my opinion. John's gospel always emphasizes that Jesus is the son of God and that we are to become sons of God. In the midst of the trap the men attempted to stone Jesus on the basis of blasphemy, however he was able to dissuade them by saying "If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and scripture cannot be broken), do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, `You are blaspheming,' because I said, `I am the Son of God'?
So what claim to a death sentence were some priests making against Jesus before Pilate? "We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he has made himself the Son of God." (John 19:7) A Christ and a Son of God is exactly what Moses became when he went up into Sinai and came down with his face glowing. He later said to the nation of Israel "The LORD your God will raise upfor you aprophet like me from among you, from your brethren -- him you shall heed --" (Deut 18:15), but the end of that statement is "But the prophetwho presumes to speak aword in my name which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophetshall die." (vs 20). This is the basis for the priest's argument against Jesus: that he consistently refused to behave like they thought the Christ should - that he claimed to be Christ but was not. Their real objection was that he behaved erratically, even refusing to call himself Christ -- much less saving the nation from the Romans. It is upon the Christian to prove that he wasn't mad.
John 10:24...39 Often comes up in discussion of this. Its helpful to note that the entire encounter from 24 to 39 was a trap laid by certain men for Jesus to get him to say he was the Christ. Their opening question was "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." Jesus had consistenly avoided making this claim, yet was stirring up trouble by his teachings and baptizing people! The trap was to get him to say 'I am the Christ', but he evaded the question with the father son dialogue. For Christians the term 'Son of God' is equivalent to 'Christ', in my opinion. John's gospel always emphasizes that Jesus is the son of God and that we are to become sons of God. In the midst of the trap the men attempted to stone Jesus on the basis of blasphemy, however he was able to dissuade them by saying "If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and scripture cannot be broken), do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, `You are blaspheming,' because I said, `I am the Son of God'?
So what claim to a death sentence were some priests making against Jesus before Pilate? "We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he has made himself the Son of God." (John 19:7) A Christ and a Son of God is exactly what Moses became when he went up into Sinai and came down with his face glowing. He later said to the nation of Israel "The LORD your God will raise upfor you aprophet like me from among you, from your brethren -- him you shall heed --" (Deut 18:15), but the end of that statement is "But the prophetwho presumes to speak aword in my name which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophetshall die." (vs 20). This is the basis for the priest's argument against Jesus: that he consistently refused to behave like they thought the Christ should - that he claimed to be Christ but was not. Their real objection was that he behaved erratically, even refusing to call himself Christ -- much less saving the nation from the Romans. It is upon the Christian to prove that he wasn't mad.
The Bible makes us aware of what transpired before our time, and introduces us to this God. It set ground rules, tells us there is hope, and encourages us (if not compels us), to seek the higher road. It is a reference, a guide, a set of moral laws, that if taken and consiously followed, would help us to prevent over 90% of the calamities man faces around the world. Unlike the media today, the Bible presents a positive message, and an endearing one, that we are all "special", and should work to that end.
If nothing else, it a book of the school of hard knocks, and advises us on how to get through troubling times, while keeping our dignity and the dignity of others, intact.
It also teaches us to look for God, after our base knowledge of him becomes evident within our own lives.
Genesis set the stage and the ultimate goal...namely God wants to commune with us, and tells us how to do it.
The Brooks and Dunn song "I Saw God Today", says it all. We have the knowledge of the existence of God, we know the "portal" needed to get back to God, now what do we do with that knowledge?
Like a "survival guide" passed down from generation to generation, added to and taken from, and finally put in written form, when we read it, we come away with the knowledge needed to stay alive in the wilderness.
Using that knowledge, is up to us.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Erratic behavior and madness?
Wouldn't killing a person who is causing no harm and is healing people, but is not behaving as one thinks he should be a prime example of erratic behavior and madness?
Dream
Well-Known Member
Sure, but the law specifically states to stone anyone who claims to be a prophet who proves to be a false one. Jesus would not say he was the Christ, but he could do miracles. Nowadays, its still tricky for a Christian to explain why Jesus didn't subdue the Romans, etc. His behavior continues to appear erratic to many people. He undermined the priests' authority, smashed tables in the courtyard and cured a blind man and lepers; but he wouldn't oust the Romans! Gospels say the priests' conclusion was: Take Jesus before the high priest and force him to confess he is the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One.(Matthew 26:64-65). After this its merely a matter of Scripture interpretation for the high priest to conclude Jesus has failed to fulfil the prophecies attributed to the Christ, and then to condemn him to death. (Notice, by-the-way, that the high priest uses the words Son of God and Christ interchangeably.)Seattlegal said:
Matthew 26:63-64 said: