[ordinaryguy]

"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?

[De Maria]

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.

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

[ordinaryguy]

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?

[Choux]

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.

[De Maria]

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.

and not an inherent endowment

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

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.

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.

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

It is the same message.

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

[veritas]

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?

[veritas]

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.

[veritas]

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.

[De Maria]

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?

, 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

[ordinaryguy]

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.

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

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:

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.

[ordinaryguy]

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.

[De Maria]

"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?

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."

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.

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

Ok. Just giving my explanation as well.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[De Maria]

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."

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.

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.

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.

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

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

[veritas]

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.

[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.

[TheUnboundOne]

Dear Veritas,

You wrote:

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.

[Fr_Chuck]

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.

[Fr_Chuck]

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

[veritas]

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.

[Fr_Chuck]

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.