Jesus Christ: Liar, Lunatic, or Lord?

Please read the post before voting!

First off, let me start off this thread by stating this is intended to be an educated debate on Jesus Christ. The topic of the discussion is whether he was a liar, a lunatic, or Lord.

Before we get started, let me go over a few "Do Nots".

• Do not paraphrase statements that should be quoted (specifically with regards to the Bible). This mainly is directed to those who choose to take Bible verses out of context/misinterpret their meaning.
• Do not use any arguements that use the Church's words/actions as what is represented in the Bible.
• Do not come here looking to flame.
• Do not post slanderous words directed towards Christian, athiests, or anything in between unless you can back up your claims.
  
• And most importantly, DO NOT come here with a closed mind.

Now, let's get started.

Jesus Christ, estimated to have been born around 4 B.C. and have died around 33 A.D., has been historically proven to have walked this Earth and be crucified by Pontius Pilate. This, whether you like it or not, is documented as historical fact.

See the Annals XV,44 written by Cornelius Tacitus.

 

I have serious doubts that when Jesus applied the term son of god to himself, his intent was to elevate himself to divine or semi-divine status; rather, it seems the more obvious conclusion to draw is that Jesus, a charismatic Jewish rabbi, applied this title to himself because of his belief that he was the messiah. Your focus on the term "son of God" is, then, misplaced, for we can all be considered, according to this line of thought, God's children.

 

I cannot personally conclude that Jesus was a liar or a lunatic. The only other alternative is that He was the Christ, the Son of God, as He claimed.

 

Bravo!

What about rationally? Personal choices may prohibit you from saying differently, but if you were to deny self, you may find a different answer?


I don't believe he was any... I believe the depictions are wrong and the scholars are going about it from a definitely biased point of view. The Romans were a strong, and hateful people, I don't want to find the articles, but there's speculation that Jesus was actually just a rebel leader, of sorts.

Religion back in the day was viewed vastly different than we view it now. It wasn't seen as so much the ultimate answer, but more so a way to ultimate salvation. The same as buddhism and paganism, it all comes down to enlightenment. Jesus enlightened his people to his cause, to rebel against suppressors, and turned himself into the greatest of martyrs. He died for his cause.

No great artist's work is truly recognized until after they've died.

I believe, after his death, his rebel party (disciples) went forth to spread the news of insurrection. But then the chain affect started where you tell one person a story, they tell the next, by the end of a long line, the story is very different than when it started.

Interpret the messages as you see fit, but ultimately it comes down to rationality. Do you believe a man out of nowhere claimed to be the son of a made up deity for no reason? Or do you believe he had a cause, and attempted to change the world for the better?

 

While I agree to varying degrees with most of your points this point I kind of have a problem with. Christianity in the Roman era was a Mystery Cult and these mystery cults linked themselves to one God and through the cult you were guaranteed a personal walk with that god. It is likened to the Cult of Isis or the Cult of Mithras, where the practicioneers would do certain rituals and believe certain things to be accepted in as a child of that God. This would serve to form a bond between themselves and that God and it was supposed to be the Ultimate Answer. The people at the time were becoming more distraught at the loose base of Pantheonism of Rome wanted a more personal connection to their Gods.

 

Biblically, Jesus' claim to be the Son of God was different than stating that he was merely a Child of God, which, according to the Christian belief, we all are.

Just look at John 8:58

"I am" refers to Jesus claiming to be Yahweh, or, in Hebrew, the Sacred Name Yhvh.

Here is another example: Matthew 17:5

The Bible clearly teaches of the Trinity: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Three Gods in one. This is God referencing Jesus as his Son, he is equal with God.

And finally, John 1:14.

The Bible clearly states that Jesus is God, Jesus claimed to be God, and God claimed Jesus to be his one and only son, who is God. The belief in the validity of the Bible is up to you; however, to state that Jesus never claimed to be God is to be misinformed.

 

tl;dr

didnt vote. because i dont not know. that is my simple answer. i just don't know.

 

And to Deacon Frost

I would just like to point out that atheism is a biased point of view just as much as Christianity or any other religion. The speculation was probably biased towards those who do not believe in Christ. Also, Jesus was a rebel leader, no Biblically-founded Christian will argue with you about that.

Jesus' cause was to inform the Earth that he, God and the Son of God, had claim to redeem them. He came to take the punishment of their sins on the cross. He did die for his cause. Either he claimed to be the God even though he knew he was not (liar), he claimed to be the God and truly believed he was, however was actually just delusional (lunatic), or he believed he was God, claimed he was God, and was God (Lord).

If I interpreted this correct, you are calling Jesus a "great artist". It truly baffles me how someone can praise Jesus' moral teachings, call him a great moral teacher, and still be an atheist. If you believe in any other Worldview than Christianity, Jesus' teachings were immoral. How is leading millions upon millions of souls astray moral? That is like taking financial advice from someone whom you consider to be a great adviser who has repeatedly lost money on their own stocks. Maybe a bad analogy, but hopefully you get the point.

You do know that his "rebel party" were the ones who wrote the story right? I'm confused as to how they would have forgotten what they thought happened through the action of telling the stories to others.

I am still attempting to see your argument. You believe that Jesus lied in his claim to be God to change the world for the better? He would still be a liar.

 

Biblically, yes. Historically, I'm not so sure.

The Gospel of John was composed far too late to be of any historical value; its Christology is significantly more developed than that of the synoptics.

I see nothing there which indicates a pre-existing Christ.

Orthodox Christianity hotly contests the notion that the Trinity represents three gods in one, but rather teach that it is three persons in one God.

What the Bible claims about Jesus, and what Jesus actually did are two very distinct categories of information.

Or he didn't claim to be God, but his later followers believed that he did.

Millions of souls astray from what? He criticized the hypocrisy of the religious leaders of his day, interpreted the Torah liberally with emphasis on human well-being, and brought hope to all the Jews who felt oppressed under the rule of Rome.

Because the original members of his group didn't write the story; it was done decades later after they had been embellished and Christ had become somewhat deified.

 

Ok. I know there is secular evidence that Jesus lived, and was crucified; however, based on my limited research I cannot find evidence that states that he claimed to be God.

At the same time, we know that 10 out of the 12 disciples died a similarly excruciatingly painful death (Peter was even crucified upside down).

My question for you would be what would they all die for if not for Jesus' claims to be God?

 

They did so because of their deep-seated religious convictions that prevented them from recognizing Rome's authority. Why did the members of the Bar Kokhba revolt risk their lives fighting against the Romans? I don't follow why one's willingness to die for a cause necessitates their belief in the divinity of their former leader.

 

The followers of Simon Bar Kokhba waged a war against Rome to seperate from them.

The followers of Jesus Christ were persecuted and murdered for their belief that their Lord was God.

Yes, they both may have died for a lie; however, it was much easier for the disciples to go back on their belief. All they had to do was say that Jesus was still dead and they would not have been Murdered! On the otherhand, the followers of Simon were waging a war, they were the initiators of the combat.

 

I've actually had this debate with a baptist, who drastically changed their point of view of the bible. While they didn't stop believing that he was God, if anything, they worshiped him more for his boldness in facing tyranny.

See, that's what I meant when I feel the scholars were incorrect in their interpretations. I don't mean the atheist scholars, I mean biblical scholars. A story NEVER remains consistent, it changes day by day. The only way for me to accept that the story did not change one bit is to believe in God. I do not, therefore I have to rationalize that these men changed their story over time. Not only that, but the original testaments are not what is in the bible, and probably have not been read in hundreds of years.

The problem is to not believe in corruption is to be naive. To believe that we are told exactly what happened without any changes is... simply ludicrous. It happened far too long ago for human error to not have an impact on the accuracy of events. I accept your perspective of this thread, and will say that I am indeed off-topic, as you're assuming the bible is in fact correct in part. Sorry, but I cannot remain fully on topic, as I cannot assume that, rationally.

I never called him a great moral teacher. While I do enjoy his work in the way that I envision him, a great artist doesn't make his viewpoints great. I myself am fascinated with revolutions, rebellions, and anything that is generally against the common census. I find the rebellious Jesus who led a people against a corrupt immoral empire that killed innocents and then died because he refused to bow down before those who called themselves gods... well that's just hilariously awesome. Do I believe he was a God? No, I believe he was as our forefathers were in America, people who envision a better, brighter future for all the world, and will not take no for an answer.

Jesus as a Christian leader would be great without the God aspect. His moral teachings are on par with a lot of what people should be listening to. The main problem is, people don't listen, and times change. You can't expect a leader over 2000 years ago to be able to instruct you how to face the impending Iranian war, or solve the economical crisis... but you can learn a thing or two about manners, and standing up for what you believe in.

I believe that Jesus never claimed to be God, and that the story is misinterpreted and poorly communicated. I believe the story of Jesus would be far better without the God aspect, as it speaks loads about how we should all be fearless and take responsibility for our actions, and ask others for forgiveness when we do wrong. It is a great world if we lived in it that way. With the God aspect, you remove the attempt to create a better world... and you instead focus people towards having a better afterlife.

The right purpose, the wrong execution.

They weren't murdered, they became martyrs for a cause.

“Immortality is the genius to move others long after you yourself have stopped moving” - Frank Rooney

They raged their own war by following their leaders example and not caving their beliefs.

 

Just to make it clear, I worship God for who He is. Not the typical answer of "well, he's going to make me wealthy and happy and I won't burn in Hell." I realize that I am lost without Him, and, as is stated in the Bible, I believe that God chose me, not the other way around.

http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Manuscript.html

This explains the Bible's reliability (not that the Bible is true, just that the stories within it have not changed over time). This can be attributed to the importance of the Book. It was a great tradition to copy the Bible, an honored position of sorts.

When comparing the accuracy in the text of current Bibles to the text of the earliest Bibles, they are over 99% accurate, with the only main differences puncutation and syntax. Also, the earliest records of man New Testament documents were written only 80 years after the events occured. Compared to other historical documents which we consider reliable, this is a short time span.

Author When Written Earliest Copy Still in Existence Today Time Span Between 1st Written and Oldest Copy Number of Ancient Copies in Existence Today

Here is a little chart (hard to copy and paste, here is the link).

http://www.digisys.net/users/ddalton/the_bible_vs__other_ancient_books.htm

The numbers are in order of
Date When Written
Date of the Earliest Copy
Time span between those two dates (when written & earliest copy)
Number of Ancient copies still in existance

Again, I'm not saying this proves the Bible is true; however, the stories have not changed. If the stories initially went in as lies, they are still lies.

Pliny the Younger
A.D. 61-113
850 A.D.
750 yrs
7

Caesar
100- 44 B.C.
900 A.D.
1,000 yrs.
10

Plato
427-347 B.C.
900 A. D.
1,200 yrs.
7

Aristolte
384-322 B.C.
. 1100 A. D.
1,400 yrs.
37

Sophocles
496-406 B.C.
1000 A.D.
1,400 yrs.
193

Euripedes
480-406 B.C.
1100 A.D.
1,500 yrs.
9

Catallus
54 B.C.
1550 A.D.
1,600 yrs.
3

New Testament
48 A. D. (Mark)
130 A.D. (N.T.)
80 yrs.
24,630

I'm going to search for secular evidence on Jesus' claims. It will probably be hard to find; however, it is the missing link to our date.

Again, same as above.

Well, I'd argue with you that differently but I see your point.

You seem to abide by a suprising number of Biblical moral codes for an atheist!

They were saught out, and killed. They refused to back down on their belief that, well my opinion Christ is Lord, your opinion? You probably already answered this but I'm just curious.

I guess technically the early Christians raised their own war, but it must have been for a great cause to hold to it and die the way they did. I think we can both agree on that.

 

Jesus never claimed to be god. Give me one simple, anecdotal statement where Jesus claims to be god, or where he says "worship me." I promise you will never find it. As for the poll, I believe Jesus was one of the mightiest messengers of God. I don't know why you left that out of the poll.

 

^The statement you are looking for cannot come out of the Bible correct? If he was a messanger of God, than you obviously believe what is written about him in the Bible (of his miracles, and teachings). He does claim in the Bible to be God. Read my first post. The Bible verses where he claims to be God are also in the sixth post.

 

I do not believe Jesus the Anointed One is lord.
Jesus Christ was simply the medium of religious spread between the people and God. The Bible has been changed so many times, and it's even been permanently altered by corrupt religious figures because they either did not like the verse(s), believed it didn't belong there, or simply removed it for the sake of progression, in which it caused a much different meaning.

If you only slightly change the angle of a hypotenuse of a triangle adjacent to the base that is theoretically infinite (in relation to time), then you will eventually result(or the present time result in the Bible) with the triangle's height being vastly different if you go farther along the hypotenuse(time).

This opinion is mainly the fact that there should be one option that he was a prophet/messiah, not for argumentative purposes.

 

If you want, I can dissect every single verse you've given. I want the simple, anecdotal statement to come out of the bible. I asked for a simple, anecdotal statement, which you have not given me. Also, his crucifiction never happened, but that's a different subject for a different time. I will REPEAT ONE MORE TIME, HE NEVER CLAIMED TO BE GOD.

That doesn't make him god.

This quote isn't him claiming to be god yet again.

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)

In this chapter, Thomas is asking to see god, about heaven, etc. Jesus' teachings, are the way to eternal life. No one comes to the father except through Jesus and his teachings. I agree with the verse 100% in its context.

20 When Jesus saw their faith, he said, “Friend, your sins are forgiven.”

21 The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, “Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

Jesus later states he is god's authority on Earth. He's seen the man's faith, and his faith will lead him to the straight path. God is most forgiving.

28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.
29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[c]; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.
30 I and the Father are one.”

Surly, you forgot the earlier verses in that citation.

25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me,
26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep.
27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.

The jews would always come up and give riddles to Jesus. They were looking for trouble. This is one large metaphor. Jesus' sheep listen to him, and they follow him. Jesus won't kill his own sheep, and also his father gave them the sheep. No one can take the sheep from his father, aka God. Not literally his father, but ya know. "I and my father are one", yes they are one. One in purpose.

Yet again the Jews looking for trouble.

58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

Jesus was before Abraham was on this earth. He was with God. Let me tell you, I was before Abraham. You were with God before Abraham was. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry was with God before Abraham walked this Earth.

5 While he was still speaking, a bright cloud covered them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!”

Ok, not the literal son of god. We are all children of god speaking metaphorically like this. This was to prove he was sent for real reasons, and that he was not a lunatic.

[COLOR="Red"]

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Jesus preached the word of god.

[quote="T M, post: 10333043"][SIZE="4"][B][COLOR="Red"]The Bible clearly states that Jesus is God, Jesus claimed to be God, and God claimed Jesus to be his one and only son, who is God. The belief in the validity of the Bible is up to you; however, to state that Jesus never claimed to be God is to be misinformed.[/COLOR][/B][/SIZE][/QUOTE][SIZE="4"][B][COLOR="Red"]

Jesus never claimed to be god. He never claimed divinity. He is the son of god, so is every Tom, Dick, and Harry.

[quote="T M, post: 10333043"][SIZE="4"][B][COLOR="Red"]Also, just to tell you a little something about me, yes, I am a Christian. I uphold to belief in the Bible as it was written, not belief in the meaning that humans have injected into it. That being said, I answer questions as best I can from my Biblical worldview. I do not appriciate people flaming me for being a Christian; I do not consider myself to be the stereotypical Christian who considers themselves Jesus followers because they raised their hand in Church one day. I know what I believe, I know why I believe what I believe, I believe the is, at the very least, some evidence for my beliefs; however, as a Christian, I still have faith.

Lastly, I am still a high school student. I'm definitely not the end-all-be-all of Biblical and Christian knowledge.[/COLOR][/B][/SIZE][/QUOTE][SIZE="4"][B][COLOR="Red"]

Then why don't you follow the teachings of Jesus? Why do you follow the Church's word, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Saul's (Paul) word over Jesus himself. Jesus never claimed to be God. He never claimed divinity. He healed the blind with gods permission. All his miracles were done with permission of god, and god gave him that ability. Follow Jesus's teachings, not the Church's.

As for the Trinity, it's not the teachings of Jesus. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, they are not three gods but one god, correct? It continues, The Father is a person, the Son is a person, and the Holy Ghost is a person, not 3 people but one person. What language is this? God is God. He is only one god.

I can give you more attributes of Jesus not being god, but for the sake of argument I'll leave it for later, if you challenge me on it.[/color][/b][/size][/color][/b][/size][/color]

 

Again, our current Bibles match up with Bibles that are known to have been written anywhere from eighty to a few hundred years after their original dates. The only inconsistancies are within word choice, syntax, and punctuation. Please provide proof that the Bible has changed durrastically over the years.

 

I'll get to where you dissect all my verses in a second, but to deny that Jesus was not crucified, although it is clearly laid out in the Bible and in ancient secular historical accounts, is to deny reality.


Also, your first few verses you took from me were just claims, I never stated any of them were Jesus claiming to be God.

"No one comes to the Father excpet thought ME" please tell me where it says "My teachings"?

Again, this is not a verse I used to show Christ claimed to be God.

Again, you are adding your own meaning to the text. "I and the father are one". Please show me where it says "I and the father are one IN PURPOSE."

Let me just go ahead and post the rest of the surrounding verses.

25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[c]; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”

31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[d]? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” 39 Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

Look, John 10:33, the "Jewish Opponents" know what Christ is claiming. They want to stone him "for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." He is claiming to be God's son, he is claiming to be one with God, he is claiming to be God. The Bible teaches of the Trinity, and yes, I misspoke earlier (I said three Gods in one), I meant to say three Persons in one. The Father (God), the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit.

This verse is horribly translated into english. Within this verse, Jesus clarely claims to be God. "before Abraham was born, I am!" I AM does not refer to I was. I am, in Hebrew, is Jesus claiming to be Yahweh, or, in the Hebrew spelling Yvhv (the Sacred name). In this verse, Jesus is CLEARLY claiming to be God. If you do not believe me, you can look it up.

And still, your adding your own meaning into the verses. Jesus was "before... I AM." You then re-wrote the verse as "Let me tell you, I was before Abraham." I am sorry but this is exegesis teaching, and it is incorrect.

Again, "metaphorically". I choose to take the Bible literally. "This is MY Son." Jesus claims to be "THE Son of God." Not "a son of God," but "THE Son of God." Notice the difference, the S is capitalized. "A son" vs. "The Son." His name was capitalized in the Bible because it is Holy.

Yes he did.

Here is why.

John 1:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

I believe Jesus is God, if the Word was God, then Jesus' teachings are not the only part of Christianity. The Word is God, God gave a book to read, and obey. Jesus completes the equation, however, he is only part of the total equation.

I do not claim to understand the Trinity, but I know what the Bible says on it. Three persons, one God.