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

[Mae von H]

CHRIST was the fulfillment of the WORD. The very SON of the LIVING GOD, which in fact makes HIM --- GOD.

Can you explain that rationally, please

Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. That makes Him God’s son.

[LittleNipper]

CHRIST was the fulfillment of the WORD. The very SON of the LIVING GOD, which in fact makes HIM --- GOD.

Can you explain that rationally, please

Absolutely to rational people.

[TRANSPONDER]

CHRIST was the fulfillment of the WORD. The very SON of the LIVING GOD, which in fact makes HIM --- GOD.

Can you explain that rationally, please

Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. That makes Him God’s son.

Sorry.Miracle claims do not cut it. Especially when they are contradictory. The way the original narrative looks (both from Mark and John) is that the Spirit that made Jesus the messiah and 'God's son' was at the baptism. It doesn't matter that Christian doctrine believes otherwise, because the narratives of Matthew and Luke to argue that Jesus was divine in Galilee before even going to Judea are without credibility.

If they were invented stories to fill a doctrinal gap in the original story, then the whole claim fails.

To any rational person with their minds still open.

CHRIST was the fulfillment of the WORD. The very SON of the LIVING GOD, which in fact makes HIM --- GOD.

Can you explain that rationally, please

Absolutely to rational people.

Well, let us hear or see the Rational explanation for the benefit of those who are rational.

Or in fact, no. This is a faithclaim and requires a miracle, which puts it beyond Rational explanation.

As with the resurrection, indeed, the problem is not that 'miracles don't happen' (they don'tr which is why if one did happen, it is a miracle) but that there is no good reason to credit the story.

It's just like JW trying to explain why the 'Ascension' is yet another claim missing from the other gospels and apparently playing 'they forgot'. Which even if it was true would mean we couldn't trust anything in the gospels anyway. The claim fails not because waving a magic wand is 'impossible' but because, not only does appeal to a miracle have no explanatory weight, but the contradictions in the narrative means (to any rational person) that the strory is without credibility.

[1213]

CHRIST was the fulfillment of the WORD. The very SON of the LIVING GOD, which in fact makes HIM --- GOD.

If Jesus is the God, how can you call him the son?

[TRANSPONDER]

CHRIST was the fulfillment of the WORD. The very SON of the LIVING GOD, which in fact makes HIM --- GOD.

If Jesus is the God, how can you call him the son?

That is the whole doctrine of the trinity. If the son of the father is also occupied the the spirit of the father, then Jesus is the son and his spirit is the father. I can only suppose Jesus was made without spirit, simply to be occupied by God's spirit, but I'll leave that to the theologians.

[Mae von H]

CHRIST was the fulfillment of the WORD. The very SON of the LIVING GOD, which in fact makes HIM --- GOD.

Can you explain that rationally, please

Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. That makes Him God’s son.

Sorry.Miracle claims do not cut it. Especially when they are contradictory. The way the original narrative looks (both from Mark and John) is that the Spirit that made Jesus the messiah and 'God's son' was at the baptism. It doesn't matter that Christian doctrine believes otherwise, because the narratives of Matthew and Luke to argue that Jesus was divine in Galilee before even going to Judea are without credibility.

That’s irrational. A “son” is an offspring of the Father. It has to happen at conception. That’s biology. That makes Jesus Gods sin and all Gospels agree on this. Your reading the of the Gospels is off.

If they were invented stories to fill a doctrinal gap in the original story, then the whole claim fails.

To any rational person with their minds still open.

Ah yes, the “true Scotsman” argument. Shows weakness as well as intolerance. Agree with you or you’re not a rational person. Intolerance!

[TRANSPONDER]

CHRIST was the fulfillment of the WORD. The very SON of the LIVING GOD, which in fact makes HIM --- GOD.

Can you explain that rationally, please

Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. That makes Him God’s son.

Sorry.Miracle claims do not cut it. Especially when they are contradictory. The way the original narrative looks (both from Mark and John) is that the Spirit that made Jesus the messiah and 'God's son' was at the baptism. It doesn't matter that Christian doctrine believes otherwise, because the narratives of Matthew and Luke to argue that Jesus was divine in Galilee before even going to Judea are without credibility.

That’s irrational. A “son” is an offspring of the Father. It has to happen at conception. That’s biology. That makes Jesus Gods sin and all Gospels agree on this. Your reading the of the Gospels is off.

yes. It is irrational. The whole story had to replace what I propose was the original idea - the spirit descended on Jesus at baptism) to a claim that Jeses was created human and spirit from the start and neither Mary nor Joseph were asked about it but told, but for two thousand years the religion has acted like God was doing them a great favour.

If they were invented stories to fill a doctrinal gap in the original story, then the whole claim fails.

To any rational person with their minds still open.

Ah yes, the “true Scotsman” argument. Shows weakness as well as intolerance. Agree with you or you’re not a rational person. Intolerance!

[TRANSPONDER]

CHRIST was the fulfillment of the WORD. The very SON of the LIVING GOD, which in fact makes HIM --- GOD.

Can you explain that rationally, please

Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. That makes Him God’s son.

Sorry.Miracle claims do not cut it. Especially when they are contradictory. The way the original narrative looks (both from Mark and John) is that the Spirit that made Jesus the messiah and 'God's son' was at the baptism. It doesn't matter that Christian doctrine believes otherwise, because the narratives of Matthew and Luke to argue that Jesus was divine in Galilee before even going to Judea are without credibility.

That’s irrational. A “son” is an offspring of the Father. It has to happen at conception. That’s biology. That makes Jesus Gods sin and all Gospels agree on this. Your reading the of the Gospels is off.

yes. It is irrational. The whole story had to replace what I propose was the original idea - the spirit descended on Jesus at baptism) to a claim that Jeses was created human and spirit from the start and neither Mary nor Joseph were asked about it but told, but for two thousand years the religion has acted like God was doing them a great favour.

If they were invented stories to fill a doctrinal gap in the original story, then the whole claim fails.

To any rational person with their minds still open.

Ah yes, the “true Scotsman” argument. Shows weakness as well as intolerance. Agree with you or you’re not a rational person. Intolerance!

again isn't that what the religious apologists do? Claim that the ones who argue against the Bibleclaims using reason and evidence are the irrational ones. But what do we find? That it is the believers who have to deny the evidence, reasoning and even what the Bible says, and prefer faith in their beliefs, which appear to be in their own opinions. You see, Science and the rules of logic and even what the Bible says do not admit of the 'scotsman' fallacy, but they stand on their own. Any 'scientist' who denies science is indeed no true scientist. That was shown very well when Behe,posing as a scientists, was exposed as nothing like one at the Dover trial. That is how it works. It is the Religious apologist who has to end up dismissing the rules of reason, like the reversal of burden of proof, or rejection of probability (occam's razor) when it doesn't suit them, and as we have seen even denying what the Bible actually says - put together of course and the implications shown, and the apologists have to fin a silly escape like "It does not actually say in the Bible that Jesus did not die on the cross" Reason is abandoned for fiddling the Bible to mean whatever is wanted, including slavery denial.

Not that I recall you doing that but we have seen plenty who do and that is the apologetics mehods of Bible apologists.

[LittleNipper]

CHRIST was the fulfillment of the WORD. The very SON of the LIVING GOD, which in fact makes HIM --- GOD.

If Jesus is the God, how can you call him the son?

It's HIS relationship in the TRINITY. First, JESUS in the gospels almost always referred to himself as the “son of man,” there is at least one occasion where HE explicitly claims to be GOD. The gospel text is 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.”

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.

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.

JESUS’ followers before Pentecost are always called sons of men or children of men and never sons of GOD. JESUS' followers after the first day of Pentecost are always called Sons of God and never as sons of men.

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.

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.

[oldbadger]

"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.