C.S. Lewis said, "...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 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 the 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 patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

Who would you say that He is?

GOD in human form.

Yes, many authors wish to try and destroy God, though their writings, but in the end, what S LEWIS though or would like to make us accepts means nothing. The truth to who Christ was and still is, is found in the only writing that really matters, the Bible,

He is the Lord of all, even those who deny him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by veritas

C.S. Lewis said, "...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 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 the 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 patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

Who would you say that He is?

---

Love incarnate.

Savior, Master, Friend, LORD, Truth, Sword... there are many names that I am coming to know Him by.

At the name of Jesus, every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is LORD.

A comforting myth.

Try asking JESUS Himself who He really is. He IS REAL and will answer you if you sincerely seek the TRUTH.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by veritas

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 the 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 patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

---

Well, the choices aren't quite so limited as you imply. For one thing, you can notice that Jesus didn't write any books, and apparently didn't encourage any of his immediate associates to do it either. Why do you suppose that is? It certainly wasn't because he didn't know how to write. My own opinion is that the reason he didn't was that, growing up in the book-worshiping culture of his place and time, he realized all too well how the written words attributed to great teachers get distorted and turned into a weapon to enforce orthodoxy and subservience to the religious hierarchy that grows up in their wake.

The truth is, we don't really know what Jesus said or claimed to be. We know what some people who wrote many years after his disappearance say that he said.

If I believed (as I suspect you do) that God inspired every word these writers wrote, and that it wasn't possible for them to be mistaken, or to remember incorrectly, or to write in the service of an agenda that they came up with later, then of course your argument would carry more weight, but I don't believe that.

So yes, I can believe that he was a great human teacher who was neither more nor less Divine in origin than you or me.

I have tried to explain this to many people and they reply similar to ordinaryguy implying things like that the Bible isn't consistent with what Jesus actually said so you can't make that deduction. But it all does boil down to either you believe he is the son of God 0R his words (according to the Bible's accuracy) IF N0T true mean Jesus' claims make him a liar or lunatic if his claims aren't true.
Like if I ran around claiming to be a monkey I would be a lunatic or a liar unless I actually was a monkey.
What other choices would there possibly be??

It all does boil down to apples or oranges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

Well, the choices aren't quite so limited as you imply.

---

They are if you got your information about Jesus from the Bible. CS Lewis, to which the OP refers was obviously referring to what Jesus said in the Bible. In fact, the Bible says that Jesus was accused of claiming to be God and was sentenced to death for claiming to be God.

So where do you get the other option?

Quote:

---

For one thing, you can notice that Jesus didn't write any books,

---

That is beside the point. Especially because Jesus established a Church which He gave authority to teach all that He taught.

Quote:

---

and apparently didn't encourage any of his immediate associates to do it either. Why do you suppose that is?

---

Because He gave them authority to write or not as they wished.

Quote:

---

It certainly wasn't because he didn't know how to write. My own opinion is that the reason he didn't was that, growing up in the book-worshiping culture of his place and time, he realized all too well how the written words attributed to great teachers get distorted and turned into a weapon to enforce orthodoxy and subservience to the religious hierarchy that grows up in their wake.

---

My opinion is that Jesus knew they would eventually write.

Quote:

---

The truth is, we don't really know what Jesus said or claimed to be. We know what some people who wrote many years after his disappearance say that he said.

---

You might not. But we believe we know exactly what Jesus taught. It has been brought to us by Scripture and Tradition.

Quote:

---

If I believed (as I suspect you do) that God inspired every word these writers wrote, and that it wasn't possible for them to be mistaken, or to remember incorrectly, or to write in the service of an agenda that they came up with later, then of course your argument would carry more weight, but I don't believe that.

---

As is your right.

Quote:

---

So yes, I can believe that he was a great human teacher who was neither more nor less Divine in origin than you or me.

---

But you can't claim to get that belief from anything He said in the Canonical Gospels or from the Church.

So from whom did you get that belief?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0help4u

Like if I ran around claiming to be a monkey I would be a lunatic or a liar unless I actually was a monkey.
What other choices would there possibly be???

---

Fifty or a hundred years from now somebody could write that you ran around claiming to be a monkey. The fact that they wrote it wouldn't necessarily mean that you did it, it would just mean that they wrote something about you that wasn't true.

Guess it is hard for us to understand because by faith we believe that Jesus is who the Bible says he says he is (according to the Bible) and if you believe somebody is who they say they are then for it to be otherwise it makes them have to be a lunatic or a liar.
So I guess to us the Bible saying he is the Son of God and our faith to believe it it is hard to understand anything outside of the three choices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0help4u

guess it is hard for us to understand because by faith

---

Well yes, but not blind faith.

Quote:

---

we believe that Jesus is who the Bible says he says he is (according to the Bible)

---

Is it just the Bible for you?

The Bible tells us that Jesus lived and that Jesus did a few things which are verifiable. One, He created a Church.
Two, He taught many doctrines which are passed down by this Church.
Three, the Church wrote a book, the New Testament which explains what Jesus did and said.
Four, the Gospels are eyewitness testimonies of Jesus life and deeds.
Five, the people whom Jesus taught and who wrote their testimonies generally died for their beliefs.

So its not as though someone just made up a story and we believe it. There is ample evidence that what they wrote is truth. There is ample evidence of the character of the individuals who wrote the Gospels. And that is ample evidence of Jesus Christ existence and His deeds.

We can compare to any ancient personage of Jesus time and find that Jesus compares very well as far as the amount of evidence which we have to verify His existence.

Quote:

---

and if you believe somebody is who they say they are then for it to be otherwise it makes them have to be a lunatic or a liar.

---

Exactly true.

Quote:

---

So I guess to us the Bible saying he is the Son of God and our faith to believe it it is hard to understand anything outside of the three choices.

---

I guess that is why I am asking what source they refer to which says otherwise. Are they, 2000 years removed of the events deciding in a vacuum whether Jesus is or is not what He says He is? Or did they read anything which they believe is by Jesus contemporaries which contradicts the Bible?

Sure it takes faith. But for me, faith is this way. Lets say that I meet someone and he says he'll do such and such. And he does. And every time he says he'll do something, he keeps his word. Well, I learn to have faith in that person.

On the other hand, if someone lies to me, I soon learn not to have faith in that person.

So, for me, the Church has not lied. So I have faith in what the Church teaches in Her Scriptures and Her Traditions.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Dear Veritas and Forum Members,

I know I probably won't change minds with this answer, and I know many won't like my answer, but this is AskMeHelpDesk.com, somebody asked, and it's all about answers:

There is yet a fourth possibility which Choux referred to and which C.S. Lewis didn't acknowledge--Perhaps the Jesus Christ worshipped by Christianity never existed to even be a Liar, a Lunatic, or a Lord.

Think about it: Not only did Jesus not write anything himself, as OrdinaryGuy rightly pointed out, but also a large chunk of the life of Jesus--from around age 12 to age 32--is left out of the Gospels. This leaves a lot of room for doubt about the life of Jesus as a historical being. (Albeit, singer/songwriter John Prine did do a song called "Jesus: The Missing Years."
]; -{)> )

Also, if the Jesus Christ worshipped by Christianity existed, wouldn't there be tax records to corroborate his existence, since according to the story, Mary and Joseph came to Bethlehem to pay the tax of Caesar Augustus? As pointed out in the movie 'V' for Vendetta no records are more revealing than tax records.

Moreover, if there existed a man who performed all the miracles attributed to Jesus, wouldn't non-religious historians and chroniclers of the time have corroborated the existence of the man and his miracles? A man walking on water, feeding 5000 with a few loaves and fishes, and raising the dead would certainly get my attention and be record-worthy.

Also, according to Bibical scholar Dr. Elliot Lesser, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John weren't put to parchment until about 95 years after the time in which Jesus supposedly died. In the course of that much time, anything could be said about anybody, and any legends could be made about anybody, even non-existent persons.

So, to answer the question "Jesus: Liar, Lunatic, or Lord?" , I would say:

Until somebody has concrete, biological, anthropological, historical, primary-source proof that Jesus Christ even existed, I'll have to say "None of the above."

All right, now get the stones, pitchforks, and bundles of sticks and let the fun commence!

]; -{)>

When I was in middle school I went to a private school and when we had a substitute and we had a conversasion like this and he said if you are a christian and are questioning god and christ think of it as this way if you boleve in him and folow his path you will go to heaven but f u don't u might go to heaven and confront him and be like"oh woops maby i should have boleved in it" but what can it hurt just to boleve in a cause and ule think if only I just boleved in him it would all be OK... I guess it has kind of 2 ways to it but if you think about it you should just boleve in god and christ and that christ is god in human form

There ARE many historical references that Jesus DID exist that are not church or religion related. I looked this up so far but know there are more that give more historical stuff than this

Proving the historic Jesus
And it is by an unbeliever. I would be glad to look for more, got to go right now.

Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus recorded information pertaining to Jesus, thus removing the only supporting source for His existence as being in the New Testament. In 115 A.D. Tactius wrote about the great fire in Rome, "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberious at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths, Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."

It is believed by some scholars that Tactius gained his information about Christ from official records, perhaps actual reports written by Pilate. Tactius also wrote about the burning of the Jerusalem temple by the Romans in 70 A.D. The Christians are mentioned as a group that were connected with these events. "All we can gather from this reference is that Tactius was also aware of the existence of Christians other than in the context of their presence in Rome," states Habermas. Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian, wrote, "Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the City." Chrestus is a variant spelling of Christ. Suetonius refers to a wave of riots that broke out in a large Jewish community in Rome during the year 49 A.D. As a result, the Jews were banished from the city.

Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, a member of a priestly family and who became a Pharisee at the age of 19, became the court historian for Emperor Vespasian. In the Antiquities, he wrote about many persons and events of first century Palestine. He makes two references to Jesus. The first reference is believed associated with the Apostle James. "...he brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." He also wrote, "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive, accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." These historical writings predated the Old Testament. Josephus died in 97 A.D.

Before Tacitus, Suetonius or Josephus, Thallus wrote about the crucifixion of Jesus. His writing date to circa 52 A.D. and the passage on Jesus was contained in Thallus' work on the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to 52 A.D. Thallus noted that darkness fell on the land at the time of the crucifixion. He wrote that such a phenomenon was caused by an eclipse. Though Christ was not proclaimed a deity until the fourth century, Pliny the Younger, a Roman author and administrator who served as the governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, wrote in 112 A.D. two hundred years before the "deity" proclamation, that Christians in Bithynia worshipped Christ.

Two references have been made to a report by Pontius Pilate. The references include Justin Martyr (150 A.. D.) and Tetullian (200 A.D.). Both references correspond with the fact that there was an official document in Rome from Pilate. The Pilate report detailed the crucifixion but also reported acts of miracles. Emperor Tiberius acted on Pilate's report, according to Tertullian, to the Roman Senate. "Tiberius accordingly, in whose days the Christian name made its entry into the world, having himself received intelligence from Palestine of events which had clearly shown the truth of Christ's divinity, brought the matter before the senate, with his own decision in favor of Christ. The senate, because it had not given the approval itself, rejected his proposal. Caesar held to his opinion, threatening wrath against all accusers of the Christians."

The Talmud, which consists of Jewish traditions handed down orally from generation to generation, was organized by Rabbi Akiba before his death in 135 A.D. The writings in the Talmud embrace the legal, ritual and exegetical commentaries that have developed right down to contemporary times. In Sanhedrin 43a, reference to Jesus is found. "On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. But since nothing was brought forward in his favor, he was hanged on the eve of the Passover."If Jesus had been stoned, his death would have been at the hands of the Jews. The fact he was crucified shows that the Romans intervened. The Talmud also speaks of five of Jesus' disciples and recounts their standing before judges who made individual decisions about each one, deciding that they should be executed. No deaths are recorded.

Other Talmud references to Jesus indicated that Jesus was "treated differently from others who led the people astray, for he was connected with royalty." These Talmud accounts were written long before the New Testament was assembled. They provide clear evidence that Jesus did live. The Talmud does not embrace Christ as a deity and would have no reason to sanction his existence. The Talmud also states that Jesus was 33 or 34 years old when he died. The risen Christ is the foundation of Christianity. But Christ would have to have lived and died before His resurrection could become an historical factor.

Toledoth Jesu is also part of Jewish writing, as well. The disputed text states that the disciples of Jesus had planned to steal the fallen body of Christ. However, a gardener named Juda discovered their plans and dug a new grave in his garden. Then he removed Jesus' body from Joseph's tomb and placed it in his own newly dug grave. The disciples came to the original tomb, found Jesus' body gone and proclaimed him risen. The Jewish leaders also proceeded to Joseph's tomb and found it empty. Juda then took them to his grave and dug up the body of Jesus. The Jewish leaders were greatly relieved and wanted to take the body. Juda replied that he would sell them the body of Jesus and did so for thirty pieces of silver. The Jewish priests then dragged Jesus' body through the streets of Jerusalem. Strangely enough, Juda and Judas are similar, in the Talmud Juda receives thirty pieces of silver and in the New Testament Judas receives thirty pieces of silver. Shortly after this time, the Emperor decreed that grave robbing in Palestine would be a capital offense.

These commentaries have been discredited by Jewish and Christian scholars. The anti-Christian commentary was created in the fifth century. The importance of this passage, historically correct or not, is to place Jesus in the tomb of Joseph after crucifixion and to record the consternation of the Jewish Priests. This places historic significance on the fact that Jesus did live and die in history. He was not a myth.

The New Testament speaks of a census at the time of Christ's birth. Historical records indicate that a census was ordered in Syria and Judea between 6 and 5 B.C. and 5 and 6 A.D. Returning to a person's home city was definitely the practice of the time. Luke refers to Quirinius being governor of Syria during the time of the census, again historically correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheUnboundOne

All right, now get the stones, pitchforks, and bundles of sticks and let the fun commence!

---

I'm sure it won't get that bad. But it sounds like you like to debate.

Quote:

---

Dear Veritas and Forum Members,

I know I probably won't change minds with this answer, and I know many won't like my answer, but this is AskMeHelpDesk.com, somebody asked, and it's all about answers:

There is yet a fourth possibility which Choux referred to and which C.S. Lewis didn't acknowledge--Perhaps the Jesus Christ worshipped by Christianity never existed to even be a Liar, a Lunatic, or a Lord.

---

Does that seem likely considering that the Apostles died for what they believed? Is there a record of any other group of people suffering persecution and dying for a lie?

Quote:

---

Think about it: Not only did Jesus not write anything himself, as OrdinaryGuy rightly pointed out, but also a large chunk of the life of Jesus--from around age 12 to age 32--is left out of the Gospels. This leaves a lot of room for doubt about the life of Jesus as a historical being. (Albeit, singer/songwriter John Prine did do a song called "Jesus: The Missing Years."
]; -{)> )

---

Apparently He was a child who didn't do anything noteworthy. Do we have the childhood histories of any other personages of Jesus time?

Quote:

---

Also, if the Jesus Christ worshipped by Christianity existed, wouldn't there be tax records to corroborate his existence,

---

Do we have the tax records of any other persons of Jesus time?

Quote:

---

since according to the story, Mary and Joseph came to Bethlehem to pay the tax of Caesar Augustus? As pointed out in the movie 'V' for Vendetta no records are more revealing than tax records.

---

True. But if we have no one else's records from first century Bethlehem or Jerusalem, why would you expect to have Jesus alone?

Quote:

---

Moreover, if there existed a man who performed all the miracles attributed to Jesus, wouldn't non-religious historians and chroniclers of the time have corroborated the existence of the man and his miracles?

---

Not necessarily. Most historians of that era were interested in their own countrymen's accomplishments. And no one seemed interested in Jewish history except Jews. Jesus had four historians who wrote about Him. Apparently, no one else was interested.

Quote:

---

A man walking on water, feeding 5000 with a few loaves and fishes, and raising the dead would certainly get my attention and be record-worthy.

---

Too bad you weren't there.

Quote:

---

Also, according to Bibical scholar Dr. Elliot Lesser, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John weren't put to parchment until about 95 years after the time in which Jesus supposedly died. In the course of that much time, anything could be said about anybody, and any legends could be made about anybody, even non-existent persons.

---

Dr. Elliot is wrong.

When were the gospels written and by whom?
The dates of the Gospels

Quote:

---

So, to answer the question "Jesus: Liar, Lunatic, or Lord?" , I would say:

Until somebody has concrete, biological, anthropological, historical, primary-source proof that Jesus Christ even existed, I'll have to say "None of the above."
]; -{)>

---

You have the right to do so, but it certainly makes it hard to explain the existence of the Church, Her Scriptures and Traditions for the past 2000 years.

I wonder if you hold every 1st century historical figure to the same stringent standards? If you do, which 1st century figure do you believe actually existed?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0help4u

I understand all that but can't figure out how to express it in words that unbelieving can relate to

---

Just put it in your own words. For those who believe, it will fortify their faith. For those who do not believe, it may help them come to the faith or more likely, they won't be moved.

As the old saying goes, "for those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who will not believe, no proof is ever enough."

All we can do is keep trying.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Jesus, our Saviour, salvation and superman
Read the Holy NIV Bible and you will discover the truth
And PROOF that Jesus is real?
Think of how many copies of the bibles there are compared to other religions!

Hallelujah
Merry Christmas-JESUS'S BIRTH
LUNATIC, LIAR?
HAHA! No!

What do I say about Jesus? Jesus IS Lord. He is not a lunatic nor a liar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by veritas

"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.

---

OK, I'm sorry for digressing about the reliability of the biblical account of Jesus' life and teachings. For purposes of this discussion, I'll accept as fact that Jesus actually said every word the Bible attributes to him. As I read the account, he claimed Divine status not only for himself, but for EVERY human being. He referred to God as "My Father and your Father", an in numerous other sayings taught that we are also children of God, not fundamentally different in nature and origin than he was.

Do you believe that Jesus was "more Divine" than you yourself are? If so, why do you not accept your own Divinity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

OK, I'm sorry for digressing about the reliability of the biblical account of Jesus' life and teachings. For purposes of this discussion, I'll accept as fact that Jesus actually said every word the Bible attributes to him. As I read the account, he claimed Divine status not only for himself, but for EVERY human being. He referred to God as "My Father and your Father", an in numerous other sayings taught that we are also children of God, not fundamentally different in nature and origin than he was.

---

Although Jesus did say:

John 20 17 Jesus saith to her: Do not touch me, for I am not yet ascended to my Father. But go to my brethren, and say to them: I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God.

He also said:

John 8 38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and you do the things that you have seen with your father.

So what is the difference?

Jesus' acknowledged purpose was to come and make us His brethren. That is how we are saved.

Matt 12 48 But he answering him that told him, said: Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? 49 And stretching forth his hand towards his disciples, he said: Behold my mother and my brethren. 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father, that is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother.

And if we do the will of His Father, we come to share in the Divine Nature:

2 Peter 1 4 By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature: flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world.

Quote:

---

Do you believe that Jesus was "more Divine" than you yourself are? If so, why do you not accept your own Divinity?

---

Jesus is God. He is Divine. We will share in His nature if we do as He commands.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

Jesus is God. He is Divine. We will share in His nature if we do as He commands.

---

So our Divinity is only a future and contingent possibility, and not an inherent endowment and a present reality during our life in this material world and this physical body? The quotes that you cite from Jesus himself certainly don't say this. The quote you cite that does seem to support it is attributed to the apostle Peter, not Jesus. Are there any recorded words of Jesus himself that contradict the idea that we are inherently and already Divine in origin and nature?

Jesus believed that the Kingdom of Heaven was on earth, and *his* teachings indicate that is the case. Never mind the teachings of Paul and others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

So our Divinity is only a future and contingent possibility,

---

Our share or participation in the Divinity. We will not be divine of our own nature.

How do you define "Divine"? Sounds as though we are talking apples and oranges.

To me, there is only one Divine, that is God. I will, God willing, participate or share in His Divinity. I will not become God.

Quote:

---

and not an inherent endowment

---

Inherent in us? No. It is inherent only in Jesus because He is the Son of God.

Quote:

---

and a present reality

---

No. In this present reality we are endowed with the dignity of a Spiritual Soul which guides us to live of striving for God. But we are not presently Divine.

Quote:

---

during our life in this material world and this physical body? The quotes that you cite from Jesus himself certainly don't say this.

---

John 3:11 13 And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.

Quote:

---

The quote you cite that does seem to support it is attributed to the apostle Peter, not Jesus.

---

It is the same message.

Quote:

---

Are there any recorded words of Jesus himself that contradict the idea that we are inherently and already Divine in origin and nature?

---

Yes.

John 8 23 And he said to them: You are from beneath, I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this world.


John 14 6 Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

Well, the choices aren't quite so limited as you imply. For one thing, you can notice that Jesus didn't write any books, and apparently didn't encourage any of his immediate associates to do it either. Why do you suppose that is? It certainly wasn't because he didn't know how to write. My own opinion is that the reason he didn't was that, growing up in the book-worshiping culture of his place and time, he realized all too well how the written words attributed to great teachers get distorted and turned into a weapon to enforce orthodoxy and subservience to the religious hierarchy that grows up in their wake.

The truth is, we don't really know what Jesus said or claimed to be. We know what some people who wrote many years after his disappearance say that he said.

If I believed (as I suspect you do) that God inspired every word these writers wrote, and that it wasn't possible for them to be mistaken, or to remember incorrectly, or to write in the service of an agenda that they came up with later, then of course your argument would carry more weight, but I don't believe that.

So yes, I can believe that he was a great human teacher who was neither more nor less Divine in origin than you or me.

---

Well that's a great story for which no evidence actually exists. Even if your story is coherent, you must imply some kind of historical evidence to support it. Some evidence that is contrary to what Jesus actually said.

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, am with you always, even to the end of the age. Matt 28:19

Besides, Jesus was a Jew and the Jews had an oral tradition. The Jewish religious leaders had most, if not all, of the Talmud memorized.

"Possible for them to be mistaken, or to remember incorrectly..." Possible? Is it possible that the Chinese actually invented the scientific method? Sure, but there's no evidence for it. Just because you can imagine the disciples being mistaken, or not remembering, or being part of some corrupt conspiracy, doesn't lend it credibility. You have to posit some historical evidence based on the culture and times of Jesus and his disciples. Would you go to your death for the cause of some conspiracy, or some shaky evidence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

Fifty or a hundred years from now somebody could write that you ran around claiming to be a monkey. The fact that they wrote it wouldn't necessarily mean that you did it, it would just mean that they wrote something about you that wasn't true.

---

And people would examine the evidence for it and decide what the truth was based on the historical evidence, eyewitness testimony, other writings about it, etc. That's all anyone asks of the evidence for Jesus claiming to be God. Problem is, we are so intent on a priori dismissing it, that we don't bother to look at the historical evidence for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheUnboundOne

Dear Veritas and Forum Members,

I know I probably won't change minds with this answer, and I know many won't like my answer, but this is AskMeHelpDesk.com, somebody asked, and it's all about answers:

There is yet a fourth possibility which Choux referred to and which C.S. Lewis didn't acknowledge--Perhaps the Jesus Christ worshipped by Christianity never existed to even be a Liar, a Lunatic, or a Lord.

Think about it: Not only did Jesus not write anything himself, as OrdinaryGuy rightly pointed out, but also a large chunk of the life of Jesus--from around age 12 to age 32--is left out of the Gospels. This leaves a lot of room for doubt about the life of Jesus as a historical being. (Albeit, singer/songwriter John Prine did do a song called "Jesus: The Missing Years."
]; -{)> )

Also, if the Jesus Christ worshipped by Christianity existed, wouldn't there be tax records to corroborate his existence, since according to the story, Mary and Joseph came to Bethlehem to pay the tax of Caesar Augustus? As pointed out in the movie 'V' for Vendetta no records are more revealing than tax records.

Moreover, if there existed a man who performed all the miracles attributed to Jesus, wouldn't non-religious historians and chroniclers of the time have corroborated the existence of the man and his miracles? A man walking on water, feeding 5000 with a few loaves and fishes, and raising the dead would certainly get my attention and be record-worthy.

Also, according to Bibical scholar Dr. Elliot Lesser, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John weren't put to parchment until about 95 years after the time in which Jesus supposedly died. In the course of that much time, anything could be said about anybody, and any legends could be made about anybody, even non-existent persons.

So, to answer the question "Jesus: Liar, Lunatic, or Lord?" , I would say:

Until somebody has concrete, biological, anthropological, historical, primary-source proof that Jesus Christ even existed, I'll have to say "None of the above."

Alright, now get the stones, pitchforks, and bundles of sticks and let the fun commence!

]; -{)>

---

Absolutely, I WELCOME all discussions, answers, objections, whatever!

The problem with your assertions is that not even the radical Jesus Seminar denies that Jesus actually existed. There are no serious, New Testament scholars that deny the existence of Jesus. Zero! The Jewish historian Josephus (extra-biblical source) wrote about Him. As did the Roman historian (extra-biblical source), Tacitus. What's more, the Gospels and the writings of Paul are primary source documents!

Your standard of evidence is quite irrational. By your standard of evidence, we could pretty much deny most of history. Let's come back down to reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Choux

Jesus believed that the Kingdom of Heaven was on earth

---

Jesus said we must be just to enter the Kingdom of Heaven:

Matthew 5 20 For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

And not everyone would enter the Kingdom of Heaven:

Matthew 7 21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

And He taught us to pray for the Kingdom:
Matthew 6 10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

When did He teach that the Kingdom of Heaven was on earth?

Quote:

---

, and *his* teachings indicate that is the case. Never mind the teachings of Paul and others.

---

The Apostles and St Paul all taught the Gospel of Jesus Christ:

Galatians 1 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

Matthew 28 18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

How do you define "Divine"? Sounds as though we are talking apples and oranges.

---

"Of, relating to, emanating from, or being the expression of a deity". Neither apples nor oranges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

To me, there is only one Divine, that is God. I will, God willing, participate or share in His Divinity. I will not become God.

---

You toe an orthodox line, I'm sure:
Divinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

---

Even the Christian faith, which holds Christ to be identical to God, distinguishes between God the father and Christ the begotten son.[4]

---

I'm more inclined to the following:

Quote:

---

There are, however, certain esoteric and mystical schools of thought, present in many faiths — Sufis in Islam, Gnostics in Christianity, Advaitan Hindus, Zen Buddhists, as well as several non-specific perspectives developed in new age philosophy — which hold that all humans are in essence divine, or unified with the Divine in a non-trivial way.

---

Nothing in the Biblical account persuades me that Jesus taught or believed otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by veritas

Well that's a great story for which no evidence actually exists. Even if your story is coherent, you must imply some kind of historical evidence to support it. Some evidence that is contrary to what Jesus actually said.

---

My point was just that since I don't believe that the exact words of the Bible are perfectly inerrant Divine revelation, I have no way of knowing "what Jesus actually said".

But never mind. What he is reported to have said seems to me consistent with the view that our Divine nature and origin is not fundamentally different from his.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

"Of, relating to, emanating from, or being the expression of a deity". Neither apples nor oranges.

---

Yet, you seemed to be equating humanity with God. As though we are all Gods? Are you saying that we are all expressions of God? That is to say, His creatures?

Quote:

---

You toe an orthodox line, I'm sure:
Divinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Even the Christian faith, which holds Christ to be identical to God, distinguishes between God the father and Christ the begotten son.[4]

---

I do my best to preach orthodox Catholicism.

My source is not the Wikipedia but the Catholic Catechism.
CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 460
460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":"For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."

Quote:

---

I'm more inclined to the following:

There are, however, certain esoteric and mystical schools of thought, present in many faiths — Sufis in Islam, Gnostics in Christianity, Advaitan Hindus, Zen Buddhists, as well as several non-specific perspectives developed in new age philosophy — which hold that all humans are in essence divine, or unified with the Divine in a non-trivial way.

---

It sounds nice. But then, I would think if we were more than simply expressions of the divine, we could do more than we can do. But as it is, we can hardly control our own passions.

So for me, it is evident that we are expressions that is creations of the Divine. And we seek union with the Divine. And Jesus came to give us union with the Divine. He clearly says that He give eternal life. Not that we already possess it. And I would think divine beings would already possess eternal life.

John 17 2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he may give eternal life to all whom thou hast given him.

Therefore, Catholic doctrine fits what I perceive very well.

Quote:

---

Nothing in the Biblical account persuades me that Jesus taught or believed otherwise.

---

Ok. Just giving my explanation as well.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desidario

The problem with getting your information from the Bible is the simple fact that NO ONE has ever offered valid proof that the Bible is the INERRANT, INSPIRED word of any God.

---

If you are willing to go over a detailed discussion of each item you believe is false. Otherwise, I am forced to respond with the general, "that isn't true."

Quote:

---

Not one single original document (from the Bible) has been preserved...

---

The fact is, we don't know. We know we have many ancient manuscripts. We assume they are copies. The Syriacs believe they have an original in the Pesshta text. But most scholars disagree.

Quote:

---

What we have are copies of copies of copies of translations of translations of translations, that have been edited over a couple centuries to reflect the specific beliefs of who ever is doing the editing.

---

If you can obtain a Bible which is significantly different from any other let me know. All the Bibles I've seen give the same message. Differences I've noted are only grammatical but the meaning remains the same.

Quote:

---

We have no certain proof that any of the AUTHORS whose names appear on the books of the bible are actually their authors...

---

The Church can verify all the authors historically.

Quote:

---

In the case of the New Testament, the names of the Apostles were not added to the Gospels until the beginning of the Second Century. For a full study, read: "WHO WROTE THE BIBLE" by Richard Freedman... or "Understanding the Bible" by Stephen Harris.

---

For the other side of the story, read these online documents:
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Gospel of Mark
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Gospel of St. Matthew
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Gospel of Saint Luke
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Gospel of Saint John

Quote:

---

There is, therefore, no way to determine whether the Jesus of the bible WAS a liar, a lunatic or Lord. It is entirely up to the individual to believe or reject.

---

Ultimately, it is up to the individual.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desidario

The problem with getting your information from the Bible is the simple fact that NO ONE has ever offered valid proof that the Bible is the INERRANT, INSPIRED word of any God. Not one single original document (from the Bible) has been preserved....What we have are copies of copies of copies of translations of translations of translations, that have been edited over a couple centuries to reflect the specific beliefs of who ever is doing the editing. We have no certain proof that any of the AUTHORS whose names appear on the books of the bible are actually their authors.....In the case of the New Testament, the names of the Apostles were not added to the Gospels until the beginning of the Second Century. For a full study, read: "WHO WROTE THE BIBLE" by Richard Freedman....or "Understanding the Bible" by Stephen Harris.

There is, therefore, no way to determine whether the Jesus of the bible WAS a liar, a lunatic or Lord. It is entirely up to the individual to believe or reject.

---

The original New Testament manuscripts were written in Greek. Every New Testament translation that is in existence today was derived from the 5,000 original Greek manuscripts. So, we don't have copies of copies of copies of translations of translations... if you hold an English Bible, say the King James version, in your hand, that is one copy - one translation.

Please, it is not helpful to write about things for which you have little or no knowledge. Try reading up on some New Testament scholars like, N.T. Wright, Gary Habermans, Craig Evans, or William Lane Craig. Freedman and Harris are not New Testament scholars and their materials are nice theories without much support from the New Testament community, both liberal and orthodox.

Dear NoHelp4U,

Howdy, NoHelp4U! Good to meet you on this forum.

This article below, complete with scholarly references and external links, calls into question the citations of Jesus Christ's existence attributed to Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius, as well as questions the identity of Thalus:

Historicity of Jesus
Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To address citations of Jesus in Talmudic writings, Josephus also pointed out that the ancient Jewish writers exaggerated the actual height of Goliath of Gath. According to Josephus, Goliath was more like 7' 8" instead of over 9' as mentioned in the Bible story.

If a Josephus can point up to errors of fact in Jewish holy works, this also holds out the possibility that these works can be in error about the existence of Jesus Christ as well.

I am open to other sources of Jesus' existence if I am in error here. However, even if the existence of Jesus Christ was independently corroborated by non-Christian sources, it still does not mean that the supernatural miracles and resurrection attributed to him are true and it still wouldn't establish him as a deity incarnate.

I might add, if Jesus did exist and didn't perform miracles and wasn't divine, it wouldn't necessarily make him a liar or a lunatic either. Hey, a man can't always help his publicity. Jesus simply could have been another "Jack The Giant-Killer" that people spun tall tales about throughout the Holy Land.

*Whew!* So far so good. No stones, no pitchforks, and no bundles of sticks!

]; -{)>

Seriously, I'm glad we can have this discussion without rancor and with mutual respect, even if we may never agree. This thread may make for a fine example to show the Islamic world that words aren't worth the taking of innocent lives.

Dear Veritas,

You wrote:

Quote:

---

Your standard of evidence is quite irrational. By your standard of evidence, we could pretty much deny most of history. Let's come back down to reality.

---

Greetings, Veritas!

In addition to primary sources of documentation, I would also be open to actual physical artifacts that were demonstrably made by or belonged to Jesus Christ as proof of his existence. Living human beings, after all, leave behind artifacts.

Alas, those are nowhere to be found either, and Jesus was supposed to have been a carpenter's son and to have known a thing or two about boating and fishing.

There are no "JC" engraved or monogrammed tools, no signs in the Holy Land saying "This Deck Made By Joseph & Son Carpentry"... not even an autographed fishing lure or a *ahem!* Christ-ened sailboat.

Moreover, the fragments of wood supposedly belonging to his cross have been found to be fakes, And 23 years ago, I read that the so-called "Shroud of Turin" was found to have been a 13th Century forgery made with red ocre and vermilion.

No hard feelings, but somebody has to come correct somewhere to get me to know for sure.

Actually our own posts prove Jesus more real, since Josephus ( if he did) point out issues of the height of Goliath ( of which I see no way he would have had facts to that) but if he did write on such a minor issue, one would also see that he did support Jesus and would have written he was ot real if he had not been, the fact is his writings support Christ.

Thanks for mentioning it, it really only proves the point he was real, not twisting it around to make it sound unreal.

And of course since Jesus was considered a criminal by the Romans It is not surprising, but yes, there are evidence of him all over the holy land, like a tomb sort of like jesus slept here.

You know the facts but for some reason wish to try and make them say something you know they don't ( or should if you are studied in the least as you say you are) It is far different than to cut and past anti christian material than to really know it

And of course few believe in the real pieces of the cross, there would be 100 tons if all those pieces were put together. Parts of the real cross may exist but where and who has them?

And you do know about the study and the material put on the back that was determined to cause that reading, of course you do if you studied the shoud writings

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheUnboundOne

Dear NoHelp4U,

Howdy, NoHelp4U! Good to meet you on this forum.

This article below, complete with scholarly references and external links, calls into question the citations of Jesus Christ's existence attributed to Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius, as well as questions the identity of Thalus:

Historicity of Jesus
Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To address citations of Jesus in Talmudic writings, Josephus also pointed out that the ancient Jewish writers exaggerated the actual height of Goliath of Gath. According to Josephus, Goliath was more like 7' 8" instead of over 9' as mentioned in the Bible story.

If a Josephus can point up to errors of fact in Jewish holy works, this also holds out the possibility that these works can be in error about the existence of Jesus Christ as well.

I am open to other sources of Jesus' existence if I am in error here. However, even if the existence of Jesus Christ was independently corroborated by non-Christian sources, it still does not mean that the supernatural miracles and resurrection attributed to him are true and it still wouldn't establish him as a deity incarnate.

I might add, if Jesus did exist and didn't perform miracles and wasn't divine, it wouldn't necessarily make him a liar or a lunatic either. Hey, a man can't always help his publicity. Jesus simply could have been another "Jack The Giant-Killer" that people spun tall tales about throughout the Holy Land.

*Whew!* So far so good. No stones, no pitchforks, and no bundles of sticks!

]; -{)>

Seriously, I'm glad we can have this discussion without rancor and with mutual respect, even if we may never agree. This thread may make for a fine example to show the Islamic world that words aren't worth the taking of innocent lives.

---

Again, how hard must we try to explain away the existence of Jesus? Please, hunt down the serious New Testament scholars and you'll see that to deny His existence is to take such a far-fetched position as to really separate yourself from serious consideration. Even the radical Jesus Seminar affirms Jesus' existence AND His crucifixion. Save yourself the embarrassment of denying such things and at least grant His existence.

Secondly, I honestly enjoy hearing everyone's thoughts on who they think Jesus was. But remember, if you posit a position, it must be grounded in historical evidence. Our imaginations can lead us to all sorts of conclusions but to simply imagine something, however logical it might sound, does not make it a plausible option to consider.

Finally, one must examine the Gospels and the writings of Paul as historical writings. These documents should be treated as any other historical document.

Great string of thoughts and debates. I'm officially unsubscribing. Thanks for the civilized discussion.

Did not notice that someone actually refereced WIKI as a scholarly reference.
Still laughting everyone knows it has not true reference value for true facts, since it is easily alters and written to fit a writers belief.