Originally posted by Thequ1ckNo. I am not sure when the belief that he was God started but it was probably Paul that got it going and I have no idea what he based it on.
But wasn't the belief that he was God based on his acts of compassion
and self-sacrifice?
Most Christians today believe he was God because:
1. They were told that by someone they respect (parent, priest, important personage etc).
2. They want to believe it because they are afraid of dying.
3. They want to believe it for various other reasons.
Many will attempt to 'justify' their beliefs in various ways, but not one single Christian believes that Jesus was God simply because Jesus supposedly was compassionate or self-sacrificial or noble.
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitOk, perhaps you would like to hear from anther perspective. In fact, it is from someone who did not even consider himself a follower of Christ.
False Dilemma fallacy.
It's just like Josh McDowell's, "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?".
"I know men; and tell you that Jesus Christ is not a man. Superficial minds see a resemblence between Christ and the founders of empires, and the gods of other religions. That resemblence does not exist. There is between Christianity and whatever other religions the distance of infinity...."
-Napoleon Bonaparte
Originally posted by whodeySo madness and Godliness are indistinguishable? Your religion is creepy! đ˛
"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 divil 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 f ...[text shortened]... great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."
-C.S Lewis.
Originally posted by whodeyWhen I read Mere Christianity as a young adolescent, I thought this passage was profound and was quite affected by it. Today, though, I find the argument deeply flawed. My problem with it is that it rests on an unspoken, and in my opinion unwarranted, assumption: that the biblical Jesus and the historical Jesus are one and the same.
"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 divil 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 f ...[text shortened]... great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."
-C.S Lewis.
Lest I be grossly misunderstood, I wish to point out that I am a Christian, but my understanding of Christ is primarily mythological in nature. Incidentally, from this perspective the question of this thread is rather meaningless.
Originally posted by whodeyNot much to discuss here, either. The quote is just a bunch of assertions without the supporting rationale.
Ok, perhaps you would like to hear from anther perspective. In fact, it is from someone who did not even consider himself a follower of Christ.
"I know men; and tell you that Jesus Christ is not a man. Superficial minds see a resemblence between Christ and the founders of empires, and the gods of other religions. That resemblence does not exist. There ...[text shortened]... Christianity and whatever other religions the distance of infinity...."
-Napoleon Bonaparte
Originally posted by SwissGambitSo changing the hearts and minds of men is nothing to discuss? Like it or not Christ stands out from the pack in the hearts and minds of many people and continues to do so throughout the modern era. Therefore, to say that there is nothing special about him is in itself an assertion for which there is no supporting rationale.
Not much to discuss here, either. The quote is just a bunch of assertions without the supporting rationale.
Originally posted by castlerookSo what about Christ do you consider a myth and what do you consider realityl? Do you consider yourself a follower of mythology?
When I read Mere Christianity as a young adolescent, I thought this passage was profound and was quite affected by it. Today, though, I find the argument deeply flawed. My problem with it is that it rests on an unspoken, and in my opinion unwarranted, assumption: that the biblical Jesus and the historical Jesus are one and the same.
Lest I be grossly ...[text shortened]... nature. Incidentally, from this perspective the question of this thread is rather meaningless.
Originally posted by whodeyFirst of all, C. S. Lewis himself stated that the Christ story was a myth. He also believed that it was factual. Note that this is not at all a contradiction, as "myth" in this context means not something false, but "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature." (dictionary.com)
So what about Christ do you consider a myth and what do you consider realityl? Do you consider yourself a follower of mythology?
My point being, of course the Christ story is a myth, which is precisely what is "so special about Jesus": his story was long ago elevated to mythical status, which is why it continues to influence so many people.
Personally, I think much of the Bible (including key parts of the Jesus story) is not factual; however, I have no problem with someone else believing otherwise. For me the question of whether the biblical account of Jesus is factual is far less important than the power that the "Jesus myth" has had and continues to have.
you know, i used to wonder about this myself. all my lfe, i was taught that God gave His only son as a sacrifice for the world. This got me thinking--if giving MY only son's life would save an entire world, wouldn't I do it? Of course, i had to get past the fact that my son's life is not mine to give. But deep down, i felt that I would give MY OWN life, if the stakes were that great--but I am certainly not God-like. All I could come up with is yhe standard "Jesus was a PERFECT sacrifice, sinless in every way." Since I cxannot claim that status (nor can anyone else), this prohibits anyone from being able to reach the goodness and graciousness of our savior, Jesus Christ.
Originally posted by PinkFloydThe idea that such a sacrifice was required by God is the sort of thing that superstitious semi-savages might believe in, but that seems simply bizarre to anyone who examines such a belief with any kind of objectivity.
you know, i used to wonder about this myself. all my lfe, i was taught that God gave His only son as a sacrifice for the world. This got me thinking--if giving MY only son's life would save an entire world, wouldn't I do it? Of course, i had to get past the fact that my son's life is not mine to give. But deep down, i felt that I would give MY OWN life ...[text shortened]... anyone from being able to reach the goodness and graciousness of our savior, Jesus Christ.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou got a better idea? Perhaps you have an feasible alternative for our reconciliation to the perfect and holy God of the Universe.
The idea that such a sacrifice was required by God is the sort of thing that superstitious semi-savages might believe in, but that seems simply bizarre to anyone who examines such a belief with any kind of objectivity.
Originally posted by whodeySo changing the hearts and minds of men is nothing to discuss?
So changing the hearts and minds of men is nothing to discuss? Like it or not Christ stands out from the pack in the hearts and minds of many people and continues to do so throughout the modern era. Therefore, to say that there is nothing special about him is in itself an assertion for which there is no supporting rationale.
I'd love to discuss it. However, I'd prefer to see some sound reasoning, rather than just somebody asserting that Jesus is special, or a count of how many Christians there are in the world, or a "who's who" list of people who give props to Jesus, or shaky apologetics.
Therefore, to say that there is nothing special about him is in itself an assertion for which there is no supporting rationale.
I wouldn't go along with OP on that one. Obviously, there was something special about Jesus. We're all still talking about him 2000 years later. I happen to disagree with much of the philosophy attributed to him, but will continue to discuss his influence, thanks to the large number of Christians that surround me.
Originally posted by castlerookSo how does one go about sorting fact from fiction? Also, what does being a Christian mean to you? For example, do you believe in his sacrifice for us etc?
Personally, I think much of the Bible (including key parts of the Jesus story) is not factual; however, I have no problem with someone else believing otherwise. For me the question of whether the biblical account of Jesus is factual is far less important than the power that the "Jesus myth" has had and continues to have.[/b]