Religion , truth and exclusivity

If someone was pretending to be me or taking my identity you would quite rightly expect me to stand up for myself. You would not expect me to say something like " I am knightmeister but he could also be knightmeister , oh and he could be sort of knightmeister" . You WOULD however expect me to say " I am knightmeister and these other guys are fakes , there is only one knightmeister and I'm it".

Now you might already see where I'm going with this.If Jesus really was who he said he was we shouldn't be too surprised to hear lots of definite , exclusive statements from him like "I am the truth , the life and the way" or " no-one comes to God except through me". We would also expect him to warn harshly against false christs and deceivers (" and when they say 'I am the christ' do not follow them"😉. So we may find Christ's claim to be the only way to the truth hard and arrogant but if he is the living God incarnate then it would not be right for him to say anything else , he has no choice if he is to be true to himself.

This is why I personally find Christianity to be 'repulsively' compelling. On one hand it repulses me when this guy sounds so arrogant but on the other hand it's compelling because at least it's congruent. The Buddha might have said " all ways lead to God" , Islam respects Jesus as a great Prophet (which is highly misleading and patronising). No such woolly fudging nonsense from Christ though. He calmly proclaims that the judgement of the whole world will be given over for him to perform and no-one else. What! ?You might say , but this is exactly the kind of shocking arrogance you would expect from the real God. It's his very exclusivity that makes him convincing. Inclusivity may be nice and cuddly but it muddies the water as well. So next time you find yourself thinking "what right has this guy to say these sorts of things" then remember that it's probably a healthy thought. He's put you on the spot as only the real deal can. You have to dismiss him or accept him , which is how the truth should be.

Originally posted by knightmeister
If someone was pretending to be me or taking my identity you would quite rightly expect me to stand up for myself. You would not expect me to say something like " I am knightmeister but he could also be knightmeister , oh and he could be sort of knightmeister" . You WOULD however expect me to say " I am knightmeister and these other guys are fakes , th ...[text shortened]... have to dismiss him or accept him , which is how the truth should be.

How do you know Jesus actually said any of the things the bible attributes to him?

Originally posted by knightmeister
If someone was pretending to be me or taking my identity you would quite rightly expect me to stand up for myself. You would not expect me to say something like " I am knightmeister but he could also be knightmeister , oh and he could be sort of knightmeister" . You WOULD however expect me to say " I am knightmeister and these other guys are fakes , th ...[text shortened]... have to dismiss him or accept him , which is how the truth should be.

You would also expect a clever charlatan, who arrived at the same conclusions by following the same logic, to say precisely the same.

It's a conspiracy, I tells ya ...... 😛

Originally posted by knightmeister
If someone was pretending to be me or taking my identity you would quite rightly expect me to stand up for myself. You would not expect me to say something like " I am knightmeister but he could also be knightmeister , oh and he could be sort of knightmeister" . You WOULD however expect me to say " I am knightmeister and these other guys are fakes , th ...[text shortened]... have to dismiss him or accept him , which is how the truth should be.

exactly the kind of shocking arrogance you would expect from the real God

It's exactly the kind of shocking arrogance I'd expect from your god.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
It's a conspiracy, I tells ya ...... 😛

Not necessarily. But if someone tells me he's the son of god, I'd expect a little more proof than "shocking arrogance" and a pretty way with words.

Originally posted by dottewell
Not necessarily. But if someone tells me he's the son of god, I'd expect a little more proof than "shocking arrogance" and a pretty way with words.

Mat 12:38 Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
Mat 12:39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonah:
Mat 12:40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Mat 12:41 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and, behold, a greater than Jonah is here.
Mat 12:42 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.

Edit: Emphasis is mine. The crux lies in His death and resurrection.

Originally posted by dottewell
Not necessarily. But if someone tells me he's the son of god, I'd expect a little more proof than "shocking arrogance" and a pretty way with words.

How about healing the sick, raising the dead, fulfilling Old Testament prophecies, and dying and being raised from the dead for starters?

Originally posted by whodey
How about healing the sick, raising the dead, fulfilling Old Testament prophecies, and dying and being raised from the dead for starters?

That's my point, not yours.

Originally posted by rwingett
How do you know Jesus actually said any of the things the bible attributes to him?

That's a different argument. Maybe , he did say it , maybe he didn't , but the argument around exclusivity and truth remains. Please do try and have one debate at a time, if you want to start debating the historical truth of the Gospels and whether he said certain things or not then start a new thread.

Originally posted by dottewell
You would also expect a clever charlatan, who arrived at the same conclusions by following the same logic, to say precisely the same.

...and this shows how you can't just 'incorporate' him into some other religious truth. He's either a fraudster or the real thing. If you look at how Islam incorporates him into their faith by claiming him to be a great prophet it's very interesting because he simply doesn't fit. What he said makes him a direct threat and challenge to Mohammed but Islam still tries to fit a square peg into a round hole.

Remember that if he was a charlatan , he was a charlatan who warned us about other charlatans and told us how to spot them. His actions were also inconsistent with charlatan behaviour. He did not make a profit out of it or seek glory or encourage violence. Rather than encourage his followers to kill others he died for them. He also showed great humility in washing the disciples feet and playing with kids (kids flocked to him infact whereas I imagine the likes of David Koresh and other cult leaders would turn kids off). He was also very inclusive and welcomed those on the fringes into the fold whereas cult leaders and charlatans tend to keep things exclusive, rigid and legalistic. Even non Christian religions hold Christ up as a supreme example of compassion , love and humility. If you read all the other things he said and look at how he lived his life then you would have to conclude he was by far the cleverest and most convincing charlatan ever. This is the thing about frauds and the truth , like cash notes , you have to look really , really , closely to see the difference.

So for you it's charlatan or son of God? If this is your position I welcome it because at least it's logically consistent.

Originally posted by dottewell
exactly the kind of shocking arrogance you would expect from the real God

It's exactly the kind of shocking arrogance I'd expect from your god.

A man is being arrogant if he claims something for himself that is beyond him or above his station. If a man pretends to be something he is not out of insecurity he is arrogant. So if Christ wasn't the son of God then his words are utterly arrogant and you could understand the Jewish religious leaders finding him utterly blasphemous and wanting to stone him. However , if he was who he said he was then there is no arrogance whatsoever in what he said. Infact it would be dissnigenuous, false humility for him to not say he was the living God. He would be doing us no favours by patronising us. In any case it would still sound arrogant to us even if it wasn't. So we are either repelled by his arrogance or compelled by the truth. He puts us on the line ,which is what I would expect from a real God.What would you expect , a nice leaflet and a freebie?

Originally posted by dottewell
Not necessarily. But if someone tells me he's the son of god, I'd expect a little more proof than "shocking arrogance" and a pretty way with words.

So what more would you expect?

Originally posted by knightmeister
...and this shows how you can't just 'incorporate' him into some other religious truth. He's either a fraudster or the real thing. If you look at how Islam incorporates him into their faith by claiming him to be a great prophet it's very interesting because he simply doesn't fit. What he said makes him a direct threat and challenge to Mohammed but Isla f God? If this is your position I welcome it because at least it's logically consistent.

No, it's not "charlatan or son of god" for me. I don't know how accurate the Biblical accounts of Jesus are. (Neither do you.)

I merely point out that you cannot judge whether someone is the son of god by whether or not they speak as you would expect the son of god to speak.

Incidentally, this whole thread is a monumental exercise in Christian question begging:

The Buddha might have said "all ways lead to God", Islam respects Jesus as a great Prophet (which is highly misleading and patronising). No such woolly fudging nonsense from Christ though.

It's only "woolly fudging nonsense" if you assume Christianity is broadly correct.

Originally posted by dottewell
I don't know how accurate the Biblical accounts of Jesus are.

I don't know how accurate the NY Times is. Do you?