Who identified Jesus for us?

[marco]

Many believe Jesus was chosen by God to wander around and say nice things. Many believe Jesus was God himself. The question is, on whose authority do people take Jesus to be anything other than a bachelor who lived till he as thirty, with his parents, then spouted the Scripture he'd been fed on?

Who says Jesus was special and what is their qualification for saying so?

And who said Jesus is God and on what basis did they make this claim? In this case, why didn't the claimants explain the problem of two Gods rolled into one?

[marco]

Who says Jesus was special and what is their qualification for saying so?

And who said Jesus is God and on what basis did they make this claim? In this case, why didn't the claimants explain the problem of two Gods rolled into one?

It might just boil down to "Paul said so." Paul also said he fell down and was shouted at by God.

Or maybe it was the anonymous Luke, legendary physician, companion of Theophilus and recorder of angelic dialogue. Do we believe him?

It would seem that we have to move to the miracles as proof of someone exceptional. Of course if Jesus cast out demons, he was special just as people today who have definitely been kidnapped by aliens are special.

I wonder why we are happy to renounce 21st century claims by eccentrics and yet accept the claims of fisherfolk and fallen horsemen from a dark past.

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 2 by marco]

As an ex Christian, I can tell you that Jesus himself claimed to be God, making himself the only authority needed. According to the book of John, while speaking to the Jews in the temple, he made the statement that before Abraham was born he existed and he used the words "I am." These are the same words used by God when he spoke to Moses. In the following passage, after Jesus spoke those words the Jews took up stones to stone him because he claimed to be God.

Jhn 8:56

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 3 by amortalman]

John is considered the least reliable Gospel according to historical Jesus scholars. It is highly doubtful that the real Jesus ever claimed to be God, no matter what words the Evangelist John put on Jesus lips.

Think about it this way. If Jesus actually claimed to be God, that would have been an extremely important and revolutionary claim, right?

How is it then, that Matthew, Mark and Luke all missed such an important claim? (or more accurately, how did their sources miss the claim?)

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 3 by amortalman]

John is considered the least reliable Gospel according to historical Jesus scholars.

Could it be that these particular scholars are the least reliable? Just saying.

It is highly doubtful that the real Jesus ever claimed to be God, no matter what words the Evangelist John put on Jesus lips.

The same scholars?

Think about it this way. If Jesus actually claimed to be God, that would have been an extremely important and revolutionary claim, right?

Billions of Christians agree with that statement.

How is it then, that Matthew, Mark and Luke all missed such an important claim? (or more accurately, how did their sources miss the claim?)

Actually they didn't. Peter confessed that Jesus was the son of God. Matt. 16:16

[JehovahsWitness]

How is it then, that Matthew, Mark and Luke all missed such an important claim? (or more accurately, how did their sources miss the claim?)

Actually they didn't. Peter confessed that Jesus was the son of God. Matt. 16:16

Emphasis MINE

Wouldn't Peters statement support the conclusion that Jesus is the the son of God?

[SallyF]

How is it then, that Matthew, Mark and Luke all missed such an important claim? (or more accurately, how did their sources miss the claim?)

Actually they didn't. Peter confessed that Jesus was the son of God. Matt. 16:16

Emphasis MINE

Wouldn't Peters statement support the conclusion that Jesus is the the son of God?

Many sincere admirers of Christ may well feel disturbed at this plain assertion that his great Apostle Paul knew nothing of the Doctrine of the Trinity!

How then did it arise?
To answer this question we need to know when it arose. The answer is: not till 300-400 years after the days of Jesus and his apostles. It is a striking fact that the "early Church Fathers" -- the theologians who wrote in the period 100-300 A.D. -- knew nothing of it, and frequently uttered opinions which contradict it. For the majority of them there was no question of Jesus' being "co-equal and co-eternal with the Father". He was subordinate to God his Father, and was regarded as a "created Being". The teachings which now make up the Doctrine of the Trinity were the decisions of a number of general Church Councils. These are the most significant:
325 A.D. First General Council at Nicea, declared that the Son was from the beginning of the same nature as the Father.
381 A.D. Second General Council at Constantinople, declared that the Holy Spirit was to be worshipped with the Father and the Son.
431 A.D. Third General Council at Ephesus, decreed that Jesus had two natures, a human and a divine; also that Mary was the "mother of God", in opposition to those who maintained that she was the "mother of Christ".
451 A.D.

Fifth General Council at Chalcedon, decreed that the two natures in Christ constituted only one Person and one will.
The progressive formulation of the Doctrine of the Trinity over a considerable period of time, is clearly shown when the major creeds of the Church are compared: http://www.christadelphia.org/pamphlet/jesus.htm

Which demonstrates that we've had nearly 2,000 years of people "just makin' stuff up".

Who identified Jesus ...?

God only knows.

Because, like "God", the Jesus character can be pretty much what anyone and everyone imagines him to be and WANTS him to be.

[marco]

As an ex Christian, I can tell you that Jesus himself claimed to be God, making himself the only authority needed. According to the book of John, while speaking to the Jews in the temple, he made the statement that before Abraham was born he existed and he used the words "I am." These are the same words used by God when he spoke to Moses. In the following passage, after Jesus spoke those words the Jews took up stones to stone him because he claimed to be God.

Jesus loved figurative, provocative language. He also said: "I am the Word." Before Abraham, there was of course God's word, God's truth. So in his guise as word and truth, he was there before Abraham. He seems to be claiming precedence over an important prophet which presumably did not go down well with his audience, as he must have anticipated.

Or his words might mean simply: "Before Abraham came Jehovah" but by using the code phrase "I am" for God's name he is playfully using language.

Or his words can mean that he lived before Abraham, but that being an absurdity, we can ignore it in favour of the more sensible options. Had Christ wished to make the all-important statement of his divinity he would have said so unequivocally, unless his mission was just to irritate, annoy and puzzle, which seems a fatuous occupation for a God. I don't believe the man who asked: "Who do men say that I am?" and who counselled that we pray to God in heaven had the slightest intention - or pretension - to usurp the Father.

[marco]

Think about it this way. If Jesus actually claimed to be God, that would have been an extremely important and revolutionary claim, right?

How is it then, that Matthew, Mark and Luke all missed such an important claim? (or more accurately, how did their sources miss the claim?)

From John we learn:

"I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you."

Had they for a moment taken this man as a God equal to the Father then half the New Testament would be filled with questions. How is this possible, Lord? And then would follow an explanation not just of dual Godhead, but triple. And there is not a whisper of this massive piece of theology. The apostles knew what they were told and it did not involve walking around with God. To them he was God's beloved son and Jesus acknowledged he got his information and his power from God, not from his own divine status.

[marco]

Billions of Christians agree with that statement.

In matters of the greatest importance it is a curiosity that many prefer a lie where one man supports a truth and sometimes died saying so.


But if a billion makes for truth we can accept that Muhammad (PBUH) was God's final prophet.