The character of Jesus

[Elijah John]

Someone on another thread recommended a book entitled "The Bad Jesus".

For debate, assuming Jesus existed and is accurately portrayed in the New Testament, what is the character of Jesus?

Good?

Bad?

Perfect?

Righteous (good) but flawed and imperfect? i.e., human? (even the best of us are not pefect)

A mix?

Please support your answer, beyond what any NT writer says about him. Do Gospel accounts of Jesus' deeds or own words support what (for example) Paul or the author of Hebrews say about the character of Jesus? {edit to add} or what the Church or other apologiists/theologians/preachers say about Jesus?

Does Jesus himself ever claim to be perfect?

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 6 by Elijah John]

Well, I might get into trouble for "insulting" Jesus if I tell the truth, but just allow me for now to say that if Jesus was real, then he was surely mentally ill suffering from delusions of grandeur.

Gospel evidence please. Also, as I replied JW, the OP is not intrested in claims written in the Epistles about Jesus.

Let's all just stick to what Jesus does and says in the Gospels.

Everything I say is true to the best of my knowledge and judgment. I won't sugar-coat anything.

Anyway, you did ask us what we think of the character of Jesus. As I said he was displaying symptoms of megalomania which is a hyper-inflated sense of ego. We see this behavior in passages like John 14:6:

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

I guarantee that if anybody today seriously talked that way, even most Christians would think he was out of his mind. Even in the gospel tale we are told that Jesus' own family thought he was crazy (Mark 3:21).

So you asked, and that's my answer. Truth, as they say, tends to hurt.

[bjs]

[Replying to Elijah John]

The Gospels are not a biography in the modern sense of the word, so I don’t know if we can answer this question fully.

From what I see, Jesus’ character seems impressive, perhaps flawless. And Jesus did say, “Which of you can truthfully accuse me of sin,� (John 8:46) and he said it in a way which suggests that he believed no one could.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 6 by Elijah John]

Well, I might get into trouble for "insulting" Jesus if I tell the truth, but just allow me for now to say that if Jesus was real, then he was surely mentally ill suffering from delusions of grandeur.

Gospel evidence please. Also, as I replied JW, the OP is not intrested in claims written in the Epistles about Jesus.

Let's all just stick to what Jesus does and says in the Gospels.

Everything I say is true to the best of my knowledge and judgment. I won't sugar-coat anything.

Anyway, you did ask us what we think of the character of Jesus. As I said he was displaying symptoms of megalomania which is a hyper-inflated sense of ego. We see this behavior in passages like John 14:6:

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

I guarantee that if anybody today seriously talked that way, even most Christians would think he was out of his mind. Even in the gospel tale we are told that Jesus' own family thought he was crazy (Mark 3:21).

So you asked, and that's my answer. Truth, as they say, tends to hurt.

I welcome your opinion, just trying to set parameters for the OP. And you make some excellent points. That is evidence, but I doubt the historical Jesus said any such thing. That is John's baby, I am convinced "John" put words on Jesus lips in a bit of theological interpretation. Notice, the "way, the truth and the life bit, and no other way" is not repeated in the Synoptics.

But yes, at face value, that is good evidence for some sort of inflated sense of ego. Unless, of course, it is true.

[Elijah John]

From what I see, Jesus’ character seems impressive, perhaps flawless. And Jesus did say, “Which of you can truthfully accuse me of sin,� (John 8:46) and he said it in a way which suggests that he believed no one could.

Is name calling sin? ("vipers", "the devil is your father", etc). Remember the Sermon on the Mount, seems Jesus was violating his own standards.

Or does Jesus get a pass because he is Jesus?

Is advocating the neglect of the fourth Commandment sin? ("let the dead bury their own dead") and ("who is my mother"?)

Or does Jesus get a pass because his mission as Messiah and gathering followers was more important than the Torah?

And remember, Jesus asked in the Synoptics, "why do you call me good"? So perhaps Jesus didn't see himself as good, let alone as perfect. Or maybe that is just him using the poetic device of hyperbole, once again.

AND Jesus underwent John's "baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins". Seems even righteous prophets and Godly spiritual leaders weren't completely perfect.

[steveb1]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

The four Gospels of course are inconsistent in their portrayal of Jesus because - on the spurious notion that they are historical - Jesus himself may have been mercurial, behaving "normally" at times, fanatically at others, sometimes being judgmental, sometimes being merciful, etc.

Surely, whether or not the Gospels are historically trustworthy, their Jesus is not a person of unmitigated goodness and compassion. He is too judgmental, angry, willing to curse towns that rejected him, etc., to view him as a consistently-reliable "good guy". The "good" Jesus has so infected our culture that people seem to think that they could approach him without fear of reproach. Not likely, if the Gospel portrait of his prejudice against non-Jews, with Jesus protecting himself against "outsiders" by ensconcing himself behind a circle of intimate, trusted disciples.

The Gospel Jesus may, therefore, may not have made the ideal friend or conversation partner. To say the least.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 13 by Elijah John]

That is evidence, but I doubt the historical Jesus said any such thing. That is John's baby, I am convinced "John" put words on Jesus lips in a bit of theological interpretation. Notice, the "way, the truth and the life bit, and no other way" is not repeated in the Synoptics.

It's impossible to know what Jesus really said if he said anything at all (he may be a creation of the early Christians). So all we have to go on are those documents we collectively call "sacred Christian writings." So when I say "Jesus" (if I'm not swearing). I'm referring to that figure. Those early Christians wanted a war-god to take revenge on their enemies which were primarily the Romans. That's why Jesus is portrayed with such an attitude of pain an violence.

And yes, John was a bit different in that he granted to the world a "Jesus on steroids." This was a kick-butt Jesus who didn't waste his time saying how blessed some people are but rather told the Jews that their father was not Abraham but the Devil. So ultimately it was John who invented Christian hatred for Jews rather than Jesus.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 15 by steveb1]

The "good" Jesus has so infected our culture that people seem to think that they could approach him without fear of reproach. Not likely, if the Gospel portrait of his prejudice against non-Jews, with Jesus protecting himself against "outsiders" by ensconcing himself behind a circle of intimate, trusted disciples.

I was just thinking about how this "sweet guy" image of Jesus has developed recently. We see this white-washed image in modern culture in movies like Godspell in which Jesus is a happy, smiling young man who wouldn't hurt a fly. He even goes against the gospel-Jesus and has "the goats" go to heaven along with "the sheep."

The Gospel Jesus may, therefore, may not have made the ideal friend or conversation partner. To say the least.

That's why Jesus has been reinvented. He doesn't live up to modern, moral sensibilities. So we have the ultimate irony in that to "insult" him is so terrible while those who protest insulting him are oblivious to the gospel Jesus essentially insulting all of us.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 14 by Elijah John]




QUESTION: Was Jesus guilty of name-calling?

Name-calling as defined by Meriam-Webster (above) embodies several elements, namely using names that are considered "offensive" to (a) win an argument (b) induce rejection or condemnation {quote} "without objective consideration of the facts" {end quote}. There is little doubt that the religious leaders were "offended" by what Jesus called them, but the issue is, did Jesus use names instead of sound and rational argumentation? Did his statements reflect the facts?

Jesus clearly explained why he condemned the religious leaders of his day, often refering to Hebrew scripture or establish facts. For example when he called them "white washed graves" he was using a metaphor which he explained, supporting his view with reference to the Hebrew bible (see Mat 23: 27-28). Indeed whenever he used an expression of this kind he explained what the basis was for his conclusion. So Jesus never simply used an "insulting" or "offensive" term to win an argument, he used solid argumentation and scripture to win arguments, so as such he was not guilty of "name-calling"

Teacher, in saying these things you insult us also.� - Luke 11:45

QUESTION: Is it a sin to say the truth?

In discussing the issue of name calling one does well to ask if calling a "spade a spade" is right or wrong. Although socially we may rightly judge it inappropriate to state obvious or not so obvious truths, Jesus in the context of his position and mission was fully justified in his frank statement of religious truth. In short, it is not a sin to call a snake a snake... if it is indeed a snake. Since he spoke the truth there was, in fact, no legitimate reason for those he spoke of to be offended and if they were, that represented no shortcoming on Jesus part. Religiously speaking when Jesus said that certain religious leaders of his day were metaphorically speaking "snakes" "vipers" and "sons of the Devil" that is exactly what they were and thus rather than "name-calling", which implies using insulting language just for the purpose of insulting and shutting down objective analysis, Jesus was exposing religious corruption and theological lies. Jesus usually reserved his condemnations for those that acted as a class in a certain way rarely speaking specifically of individuals. He never retaliated to unjust criticism in like, and never spoke with the sole purpose of hurting people's feelings. Jesus simply exposed hard truths for the purpose of warning his community of the dangers and setting them free from religious lies.

CONCLUSION Jesus was not guilty of "name-calling" as defined by most dictionaries, he used solid argumentation and facts to expose the hypocrisy of the religious leaders of his time and condemning them in no uncertain terms using direct and/or metaphoric language. As the Messiah he had both the authority and the responsibility to do so and certainly committed no sin.

JW




Further Reading: Qualities of Jesus to imitate
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/book ... -of-jesus/


RELATED POSTS

Did Jesus sin when he threw the money-changers out of the temple?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 99#p976999

Did Jesus condemn all anger [Mat 5:22a]?
viewtopic.php?p=1044172#p1044172

Was Jesus guilty of name-calling?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 42#p926542

Would Jesus be banned from most internet forums?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 31#p756231

Did Jesus promote violence?
viewtopic.php?p=839068#p839068

To learn more please go to other posts related to

GEHENNA , VIOLENCE and ... "BAD JESUS"

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 18 by JehovahsWitness]

Not saying that Jesus adversaries were not evil or that humanly speaking that Jesus was not justified in calling them those things, but by his own standards as set forth in the Sermon on the Mount, name calling is wrong.

"Vipers", that is what he called them. Is that or is it not an event recorded by the Gospels that Jesus called the Pharisees "Vipers"? Were they really reptiles in religous robes? Did they really have scales? Were they hatched from eggs in nests? If they were not literally reptiles, then what Jesus said to them IS name calling.

But to admit this would call into question your organization's whole sacrificial ransom theology, for that it is required that the offering be "perfect" and "unblemished" by any sin, including-name calling or hurling epithets.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 18 by JehovahsWitness]

"Vipers", that is what he called them. Is that or is it not an event recorded by the Gospels that Jesus called the Pharisees "Vipers"? Were they really reptiles in religous robes? Did they really have scales? Were they hatched from eggs in nests? If they were not literally reptiles, then what Jesus said to them IS name calling.

Do you know what a metaphor is?