So here's a question about a religious paradox.

[Thrifty]

Non-christians will often say "I believe in the existence of Jesus, but not his divine status as Christ.  I acknowledge him as a wise man, a teacher, a philosopher at best."

Christians will sometimes say "But Jesus claimed to be the divine Christ.  If he was not, then he was either a liar or a lunatic.  If he was one of those, he could not have been a great teacher."

I always feel backed into a corner when this comes up.  Christians want me to either worship or denigrate Jesus.  There's no middle ground.  I can't figure out a hole in the logic, so it sounds like I just have to go with "lunatic".  I believe in the existence of the historical Jesus, but not in his divine status.  I like the philosophical message.  But apparently those two things are incompatible.  Is there any actual way to respect Jesus without calling him Christ?

Just something that's been on my mind recently.

[RVR II]

Not another 'Religion' thread..

[Thrifty]

Not another 'Religion' thread..

Well, I had a question, and I'm not allowed in the other one.  I'm open to any other suggestion.

[RVR II]

Not another 'Religion' thread..

Well, I had a question, and I'm not allowed in the other one.  I'm open to any other suggestion.

Hmm.. Fair enough. Carry on then ..

[poobah103]

 "We can all understand how a man forgives offenses against himself. You tread on my toes, and I forgive you, you steal my money and I forgive you. But what should we make of a man, himself unrobbed and untrodden-on, who announced that he forgave you for treading on other men's toes and stealing other men's money? Asinine fatuity is the kindest description we should give of his conduct. Yet this is what Jesus did. He told people their sins were forgiven, and never waited to consult all the other people whom their sins had undoubtedly injured. He unhesitatingly behaved as if He was the party chiefly concerned, the person chiefly offended in all offenses. This makes sense only if he really was the God whose laws are broken and whose love is wounded in every sin. In the mouth of any speaker who is not God, these words would imply what I can only regard as a silliness and conceit unrivalled by any other character in history." - CS Lewis

 "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 a 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 and 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 patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." - CS Lewis

 Two quotes by the Narnia guy. He was trying to prove why Jesus *was* divine, but personally I think he just unintentionally proved that Jesus was a lunatic. Anyway, I think they address the paradox you brought up pretty well.

 (By the way, I nabbed those two quotes from Christopher Hitchens' book, "God Is Not Great", which I definitely recommend to anyone with any interest in religious debate, regardless of what side of the fence they're on.)

[D.B. Barnes]

Not another 'Religion' thread..

Well, I had a question, and I'm not allowed in the other one.  I'm open to any other suggestion.

You could persuade someone who isn't banned to post your thoughts in the thread...HINT HINT.  

[Thrifty]

"We can all understand how a man forgives offenses against himself. You tread on my toes, and I forgive you, you steal my money and I forgive you. But should we make of a man, himself unrobbed and untrodden-on, who announced that he forgave you for treading on other men's toes and stealing other men's money? Asinine fatuity is the kindest description we should give of his conduct. Yet this is what Jesus did. He told people their sins were forgiven, and never waited to consult all the other people whom their sins had undoubtedly injured. He unhesitatingly behaved as if He was the party chiefly concerned, the person chiefly offended in all offenses. This makes sense only if he really was the God whose laws are broken and whose love is wounded in every sin. In the mouth of any speaker who is not God, these words would imply what I can only regard as a silliness and conceit unrivalled by any other character in history." - CS Lewis

 "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 a 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 and 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 patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." - CS Lewis

 Two quotes by the Narnia guy. He was trying to prove why Jesus *was* divine, but personally I think he just unintentionally proved that Jesus was a lunatic. Anyway, I think they address the paradox you brought up pretty well.

Lewis was the guy I was thinking of, who originally posited this trichotomy (if that's even a real word).  That has an internal logic to it that makes sense.  The first quote though, he seems to be saying "Jesus was saying revolutionary things, that makes him either a god or a crazy man", which is just an absurd assertion.

[poobah103]

"We can all understand how a man forgives offenses against himself. You tread on my toes, and I forgive you, you steal my money and I forgive you. But should we make of a man, himself unrobbed and untrodden-on, who announced that he forgave you for treading on other men's toes and stealing other men's money? Asinine fatuity is the kindest description we should give of his conduct. Yet this is what Jesus did. He told people their sins were forgiven, and never waited to consult all the other people whom their sins had undoubtedly injured. He unhesitatingly behaved as if He was the party chiefly concerned, the person chiefly offended in all offenses. This makes sense only if he really was the God whose laws are broken and whose love is wounded in every sin. In the mouth of any speaker who is not God, these words would imply what I can only regard as a silliness and conceit unrivalled by any other character in history." - CS Lewis

 "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 a 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 and 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 patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." - CS Lewis

 Two quotes by the Narnia guy. He was trying to prove why Jesus *was* divine, but personally I think he just unintentionally proved that Jesus was a lunatic. Anyway, I think they address the paradox you brought up pretty well.

Lewis was the guy I was thinking of, who originally posited this trichotomy (if that's even a real word).  That has an internal logic to it that makes sense.  The first quote though, he seems to be saying "Jesus was saying revolutionary things, that makes him either a god or a crazy man", which is just an absurd assertion.

 I think Lewis had a point with his first quote (though again, I doubt it was the point he was trying to make). Me forgiving you for an old man you cheated out of his money isn't "revolutionary" as much as it's "insane"... it's, in fact, highly immoral. I have no right to forgive you or absolve you of responsibility for the crimes you've committed against another. The only way I would ever have this right is if I had some kind of divine edict that bestowed it upon me... without such an edict, "vicarious redemption" (which is what Jesus offered, both during his life and during his death) is impossible. Only God has the power of absolute forgiveness, because all rules come from Him; a man claiming the same power who is not God (or chosen by God) is blasphemous at worst and insane at best. Either way, I think Lewis is right: you can't have it both ways.

 Personally, I don't think Jesus ever actually existed at all, and because of that I find most of the stories about him morally useful as allegories... but if we're talking about a real, flesh-and-blood person who said and did the things that have been attributed to the Biblical Jesus, then I agree with Lewis: Jesus either had to be the Son of God, or he was bars-on-the-window bonkers. If I believed Jesus was real, I would probably have to conclude the latter.

[Tyrant]

I always feel backed into a corner when this comes up.  Christians want me to either worship or denigrate Jesus.  There's no middle ground.  I can't figure out a hole in the logic, so it sounds like I just have to go with "lunatic".  I believe in the existence of the historical Jesus, but not in his divine status.  I like the philosophical message.  But apparently those two things are incompatible.  Is there any actual way to respect Jesus without calling him Christ?

You may be looking for a logic hole that isn't there.  You could adopt the Jewish outlook of Jesus. It's belief and acknowledgement of Him as a great rabbi, revolutionist and healer empowered and ordained by God, but not the prophesized Messiah or Son of God bit. Most Jewish sects classify Jesus the same way Mohammed is with Christians in this way.

[RoninFox]

The fact that the majority of information on his life comes written from the point of view of people who want to convince you that he is divine is the biggest problem I see in solving this issue. If you claim that I have to choose between son of God and lunatic because he claims to be the son of God, then I tend to ask "when did he, himself, write that down"

I don't claim to know anything here, I don't know if the guy ever existed or what he was, but I don't consider myself Christian though I do happen to like some of the lessons Jesus teaches.

[Thrifty]

The fact that the majority of information on his life comes written from the point of view of people who want to convince you that he is divine is the biggest problem I see in solving this issue. If you claim that I have to choose between son of God and lunatic because he claims to be the son of God, then I tend to ask "when did he, himself, write that down"

That's a good point.  Whether or not Jesus existed, you can't deny that the Gospels were written with a slanted perspective.  I was reading through Matthew recently, and I noticed that there were a couple points where it says something like "This happened in Jesus's life, to fulfill this Messianic prophecy."  There's even a point somewhere... I wish I knew chapter and verse, where it's stated that "Judas betrayed Jesus for 300 pieces of silver, as foretold by the prophet Jeremiah.", when in fact, no such prophecy exists in any of the manuscripts that compose the book of Jeremiah that we have in modern bibles.

Or in particular, Matthew 2:13-18.  Verses 13-16 account Mary, Joseph, and baby Jesus fleeing to Egypt to escape Herod.  Verse 17 says that "...what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled".  Verse 18 is then a verbatim quote of Jeremiah 31:15 to prove a point.  Except Jeremiah 31:15 has nothing to do with what Matthew just told us about.

So you definitely have a point in saying that the only record we have of Jesus claiming to be God and the Messiah are the writings of his others who had a strong interest in presenting Jesus as the divine Messiah.

[Tyrant]

Or in particular, Matthew 2:13-18.  Verses 13-16 account Mary, Joseph, and baby Jesus fleeing to Egypt to escape Herod.  Verse 17 says that "...what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled".  Verse 18 is then a verbatim quote of Jeremiah 31:15 to prove a point.  Except Jeremiah 31:15 has nothing to do with what Matthew just told us about.

The prophesy in Jeremiah 31:15 alludes to a mass slaughter of children and the grief of the mothers (Rachel) of those children. "A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping, Rachel weeping for her children; she refuseth to be comforted for her children, because they are not." If Herod did indeed order the systematic slaughter of all first born males in the region, then the prophecy holds true.

For Judas' betrayal of Jesus, a lot of Bible scholars have admitted there's some confusion attributing the prophecy to Jeremiah when it was more likely a prophecy of Zechariah. This means there was either an error on the part of the person documenting information in the book of Matthew (likely, since Matthew probably had more than one author), or there is a missing scroll or tablet out there somewhere (slightly less likely, but still possible) that fortifies the link. The whole situation involving Judas, actually, is often under debate.

[Insert Coin(s) to Continue]

(By the way, I nabbed those two quotes from Christopher Hitchens' book, "God Is Not Great", which I definitely recommend to anyone with any interest in religious debate, regardless of what side of the fence they're on.)

Those quotes were taken (by Hitchens) from C.S. Lewis' book Mere Christianity, which is also a good book no matter which side of the fence you find yourself on. The entire book is Lewis reasoning out the question of the existence of a God logically. Both he and Hitchens approach the matter in much the same way, but arrive at completely opposite conclusions.

On a side note, whether or not you choose to believe the teachings, there was a man named Jesus who did exist. He traveled around teaching. Roman records and other writings of the time confirm this. His existence isn't in question. It's just the claims made that no one is sure about.

[Tripe H. Redux]

I suppose I can let you back in, just promise to behave.