Was Jesus just a moral Teacher, and nothing more?

[BigChrisfilm]

"I am trying here to prevent anyone from saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him [Jesus Christ]: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. 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 a 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 or something worse .... You can shut him up for 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 up with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that option open to us. He did not intend to.” - C.S. Lewis

[1213]

...John 8:58, where JESUS declares to the Jewish religious leaders, “Before Abraham was born, I AM!” Here, JESUS assumes the name GOD had assigned HIMSELF in Exodus 3:14, “I AM who I AM. This what you are to say to the Israelites: I AM has sent me to you.” The Jewish religious leaders understood that JESUS was claiming to be GOD, and it is evidenced by the fact that they attempted to stone HIM to death for “blasphemy.”

If we think the word "I am" means in that "God", then it would read: “Before Abraham was born, God!”. How can anyone twist that to: “Before Abraham was born, I am God!”, I never know.

Second, the Old Testament in Jeremiah 23:6 assigns the name YHWH (I AM) to the righteous Branch, the King, who will come from the lineage of David. JESUS in several places in the gospel claims to be this righteous Branch and King.

That is interesting. For example Young's literal translation says in that:
"In his days is Judah saved, and Israel dwelleth confidently, And this his name that Jehovah proclaimeth him, `Our Righteousness.'". In other words, God declared that his name is "our righteousness".

And King James says:
"In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS."

If one name of Jesus is "The Lord our righteouness", I don't think it means Jesus is the God, especially because Jesus himself says that there is only one true God who is greater than him.

How can you believe, who receive glory from one another, and you don't seek the glory that comes from the only God?
John 5:44
This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
John 17:3
Jesus said to her, "Don't touch me, for I haven't yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers, and tell them, 'I am ascend-ing to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"
John 20:17
the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28

I simply can't reject the words of Jesus and replace them with own doctrine.

Third, JESUS is making a special theological point about HIS deity in calling HIMSELF the Son of man in the gospels. This point becomes clear examining the New Testament. For every New Testament passage referring to JESUS CHRIST that happened chronologically after the first day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1–41), JESUS is always referred to as the Son of God and never as the Son of man. Conversely, in the gospels, JESUS consistently calls HIMSELF the Son of man and never the Son of GOD.

Even if Jesus doesn't call himself son of God, others do so, before the day of Pentecost:

Behold, you will conceive in your womb and give birth to a son, and shall name him ‘Jesus.’ He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever. There will be no end to his Kingdom.” Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, seeing I am a virgin?" The angel an-swered her, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore also the holy one who is born from you will be called the Son of God.
Luke 1:31-33
And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.
Luke 9:35

But, maybe God's words means nothing to you.

Also, Jesus calls God his father, which implies he is the son.

the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28

The theological point here is as follows: it's not until JESUS of Nazareth dies on the cross to atone for the sins of all humanity, is raised bodily from the dead, and sends the HOLY SPIRIT to permanently indwell and spiritually baptize HIS followers, does HE complete HIS role as the Son of GOD, the second person of GOD. Likewise, not until JESUS’ followers receive the baptism of the HOLY SPIRIT do they become Sons of GOD.

I don't think that is true, because:

But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to be-come God’s children, to those who believe in his name: who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 1:12-13

And to be children of God means:

He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. To this end the Son of God was revealed: that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever is born of God doesn’t commit sin, because his seed remains in him, and he can’t sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn’t do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn’t love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

This theological point is affirmed by the observation that NOWHERE in the Old Testament is a human follower of GOD referred to as a Son of GOD. Even Daniel, as “highly esteemed” (Daniel 10:11, 19) as he was for his righteousness before GOD was called “son of man” (Daniel 8:17). The one Old Testament exception is Hosea 1:10 where GOD promises that a time will come in the future when some of the Israelites will become “children of the living GOD.” This prophecy was fulfilled on the first day of Pentecost described in Acts 2.

And you shall speak to Pharaoh, So says Jehovah, My son, My first-born is Israel.
Ex. 4:22
I shall be a Father to him, and he shall be a son to Me; and I will not take My mercy away from him, as I took it away from him who was before you;
1 Chr. 17:13

Interestingly, in OT, Moses is also called God:

Yahweh said to Moses, “Behold, I have made you as God to Pharaoh; and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet.
Exod. 7:1

[oldbadger]

...John 8:58, where JESUS declares to the Jewish religious leaders, “Before Abraham was born, I AM!” Here, JESUS assumes the name GOD had assigned HIMSELF in Exodus 3:14, “I AM who I AM. This what you are to say to the Israelites: I AM has sent me to you.” The Jewish religious leaders understood that JESUS was claiming to be GOD, and it is evidenced by the fact that they attempted to stone HIM to death for “blasphemy.”

If we think the word "I am" means in that "God", then it would read: “Before Abraham was born, God!”. How can anyone twist that to: “Before Abraham was born, I am God!”, I never know.

Second, the Old Testament in Jeremiah 23:6 assigns the name YHWH (I AM) to the righteous Branch, the King, who will come from the lineage of David. JESUS in several places in the gospel claims to be this righteous Branch and King.

That is interesting. For example Young's literal translation says in that:
"In his days is Judah saved, and Israel dwelleth confidently, And this his name that Jehovah proclaimeth him, `Our Righteousness.'". In other words, God declared that his name is "our righteousness".

And King James says:
"In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS."

If one name of Jesus is "The Lord our righteouness", I don't think it means Jesus is the God, especially because Jesus himself says that there is only one true God who is greater than him.

How can you believe, who receive glory from one another, and you don't seek the glory that comes from the only God?
John 5:44
This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
John 17:3
Jesus said to her, "Don't touch me, for I haven't yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers, and tell them, 'I am ascend-ing to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"
John 20:17
the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28

I simply can't reject the words of Jesus and replace them with own doctrine.

Third, JESUS is making a special theological point about HIS deity in calling HIMSELF the Son of man in the gospels. This point becomes clear examining the New Testament. For every New Testament passage referring to JESUS CHRIST that happened chronologically after the first day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1–41), JESUS is always referred to as the Son of God and never as the Son of man. Conversely, in the gospels, JESUS consistently calls HIMSELF the Son of man and never the Son of GOD.

Even if Jesus doesn't call himself son of God, others do so, before the day of Pentecost:

Behold, you will conceive in your womb and give birth to a son, and shall name him ‘Jesus.’ He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever. There will be no end to his Kingdom.” Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, seeing I am a virgin?" The angel an-swered her, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore also the holy one who is born from you will be called the Son of God.
Luke 1:31-33
And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.
Luke 9:35

But, maybe God's words means nothing to you.

Also, Jesus calls God his father, which implies he is the son.

the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28

The theological point here is as follows: it's not until JESUS of Nazareth dies on the cross to atone for the sins of all humanity, is raised bodily from the dead, and sends the HOLY SPIRIT to permanently indwell and spiritually baptize HIS followers, does HE complete HIS role as the Son of GOD, the second person of GOD. Likewise, not until JESUS’ followers receive the baptism of the HOLY SPIRIT do they become Sons of GOD.

I don't think that is true, because:

But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to be-come God’s children, to those who believe in his name: who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 1:12-13

And to be children of God means:

He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. To this end the Son of God was revealed: that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever is born of God doesn’t commit sin, because his seed remains in him, and he can’t sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn’t do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn’t love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

This theological point is affirmed by the observation that NOWHERE in the Old Testament is a human follower of GOD referred to as a Son of GOD. Even Daniel, as “highly esteemed” (Daniel 10:11, 19) as he was for his righteousness before GOD was called “son of man” (Daniel 8:17). The one Old Testament exception is Hosea 1:10 where GOD promises that a time will come in the future when some of the Israelites will become “children of the living GOD.” This prophecy was fulfilled on the first day of Pentecost described in Acts 2.

And you shall speak to Pharaoh, So says Jehovah, My son, My first-born is Israel.
Ex. 4:22
I shall be a Father to him, and he shall be a son to Me; and I will not take My mercy away from him, as I took it away from him who was before you;
1 Chr. 17:13

Interestingly, in OT, Moses is also called God:

Yahweh said to Moses, “Behold, I have made you as God to Pharaoh; and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet.
Exod. 7:1

You are quoting authors who wrote long after the time of Jesus.
Luke's gospel is charming but he dreamed up so much in his determined attempts to prove that Jesus had the correct birthright, or that he was the son of God rather than simply one of the children of God and a man.
Gospel of John was written so long after Jesus's time that it falls on to the 2nd century!
Even the very first sentence in Mark's gospel was fiddled with!
If you believe that Jesus is God of all the galaxies and more then that's fine, but don't expect to be able to prove it.

[TRANSPONDER]

I find it remarkable that Bible apologists so easily usae the excuse that we can't understand what they meant back then - but only if it reads as something that undermines the Faith.

Otherwise, translations are considered evidence of some doctrinal claim or another, and I think what we are getting in opinions backed up with some Biblequote or other as though that proved something.But if 'We don't understand how they wrote back then',how can we use Biblequotes to validate anything?

[LittleNipper]

...John 8:58, where JESUS declares to the Jewish religious leaders, “Before Abraham was born, I AM!” Here, JESUS assumes the name GOD had assigned HIMSELF in Exodus 3:14, “I AM who I AM. This what you are to say to the Israelites: I AM has sent me to you.” The Jewish religious leaders understood that JESUS was claiming to be GOD, and it is evidenced by the fact that they attempted to stone HIM to death for “blasphemy.”

Interestingly, in OT, Moses is also called God:

Yahweh said to Moses, “Behold, I have made you as God to Pharaoh; and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet.
Exod. 7:1

“Behold, I have made you as God to Pharaoh... "

[TRANSPONDER]

...John 8:58, where JESUS declares to the Jewish religious leaders, “Before Abraham was born, I AM!” Here, JESUS assumes the name GOD had assigned HIMSELF in Exodus 3:14, “I AM who I AM. This what you are to say to the Israelites: I AM has sent me to you.” The Jewish religious leaders understood that JESUS was claiming to be GOD, and it is evidenced by the fact that they attempted to stone HIM to death for “blasphemy.”

Interestingly, in OT, Moses is also called God:

Yahweh said to Moses, “Behold, I have made you as God to Pharaoh; and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet.
Exod. 7:1

“Behold, I have made you as God to Pharaoh... "

It's a case where I'd be happy to Interpret a bit, the context being that Moses is of course a man, but is given God's powers, so as to manipulate Pharaoh...according the story, which I do not really credit. But I'll look at the context, of course.

I can't help thinking back to a discussion I had on my Other forum where it was suggested that Jesus giving his New Laws on a mountain (and other clues) showed that Matthew at least saw Jesus as the New Moses, giving the New Law to supplant...(call it "Fulfil") the old, which is the whole Pauline message.

Yes well, the context is clear. Moses does not become a god, but merely transmits his messages, and is given power (like Jesus) to work miracles.

[1213]

....
Gospel of John was written so long after Jesus's time that it falls on to the 2nd century!

Can you offer any good reason to believe that claim?

Even the very first sentence in Mark's gospel was fiddled with!

Should we expect you to prove your baseless claims?

If you believe that Jesus is God of all the galaxies and more then that's fine, but don't expect to be able to prove it.

I believe what is said in the Bible. I don't think Bible says Jesus is the one and only true God.

[oldbadger]

Can you offer any good reason to believe that claim?

Yes, John's gospel, which clearly was written by two or more authors, changrs it's writing style, and includes the dogmas and spun beliefs that were developed long after Jesus, probably between 100-110CE.
And I don't think many Galilean peasants lived much beyong their mid 40s, so the boatman John was probably dead for half a century by the time is was written.

You can go research all this for yourself
Why haven't you,?

Should we expect you to prove your baseless claims?

Of you read the small print and links in more open bibles, such as the NIV bible, you will discover that verse 1 of Marks gospel did not include, 'the Son of God' in earliest known manuscripts. That was added by some devout fanatic later on.

I believe what is said in the Bible. I don't think Bible says Jesus is the one and only true God.

Which bits do you believe?
There's so much variation and contradiction.

But since there are hundreds of different Christian creeds, churches and beliefs, then that is easy to demonstrate to you.

I believe the parts that tell me things that you may not take any notice of.

[TRANSPONDER]

"I am trying here to prevent anyone from saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him [Jesus Christ]: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. 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 -- .............

Jesus was not a great teacher. Even his close friends found it difficult to understand his lessons.

Jesus was a man in the earliest available reports about him, but later reports raised him up to lord and then to God.

He did want social justice but he wasn't good at raising a successful movement in Galilee and so took his actions right to the temple.

The stories of his resurrection were just that........stories.

I don't even think he was a moral teacher at all. The conclusion that one must come to (if they can shed denial and 'Really read the Bible' (as distinct from mentally rewriting it to match the beliefs in the head) is that there may haved ben a real Jesus (I thin there probably was) but most of what is reported about him is Christian propaganda.

Evidence? Matthew's Nativity makes no sense as regards Herod running to scripture to find out where Jesus was, other than as back engineered scriptural prophecy from a Gentile Christian point of view.

The same with the Sanhedrin trial (John of course doesn't have one) where the Blasphemy charge makes no sense other than from the point of Gentile Christian doctrine. The Centurion's 'Faith' in Jesus makes no sense other than from a Christian point of view and Luke saw the problem, since he had a bunch of Jews scuttle along to assure Jesus that said Centurion was a good guy and had built a synagogue for them. And the Centurion recognising Jesus as 'son of God' is changes to 'surely this man was innocent'.

I recall that, but I'll check.. yes, but in my Bible Luke has 'a righteous man'. So much weaker, but Luke at least realised ot made no sense for a Roman soldier to talk like the Christian the writers wanted to see Romans as, even Pilate.

If I proffer a Belief it is this - the gospels were written by Roman Christians who did not like Judaism, to make Romans (Gentiles) look good and to make Jews and Judaism look bad. Even the disciples (and they could not deny that they were stuck with them as transmitters of the Message) had to be made to look clunks and inadequates.

[1213]

Yes, John's gospel, which clearly was written by two or more authors, changrs it's writing style, and includes the dogmas and spun beliefs that were developed long after Jesus, probably between 100-110CE.

Sorry, I can't accept such a claim without anything substantial supporting it.

There's so much variation and contradiction.

I have not seen any intelligent reason to think that is true.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes, John's gospel, which clearly was written by two or more authors, changrs it's writing style, and includes the dogmas and spun beliefs that were developed long after Jesus, probably between 100-110CE.

Sorry, I can't accept such a claim without anything substantial supporting it.

There's so much variation and contradiction.

I have not seen any intelligent reason to think that is true.

You never do; you deny even what the Bible plainly says.

But yes, the dating and orderof the gospels is somewhat debatable. I have to put Matthew (some claim his as the First gospel) as the third, John as the second, because Mark has no nativity. John has none, but at least is aware that Jesus ought to have been born in Bethlehem, but wasn't, and Matthew and Luke invent contradictory stories to put the word of God right.