# Question for those that don't believe Jesus was the Son of God



## Madsnooker (Jul 19, 2012)

Below is this mornings "A Slice of infinity" from Ravi Zacharias's ministry.

After reading below, my question, for those that don't believe Jesus was the Son of God; was Jesus a Lunatic or a Liar?

"Begin Quote"
Who Was He?

 It would be hard to underestimate the significance of Jesus. No other person has had a greater historical impact. Even those who aren't Christians acknowledge this: Muslims revere Jesus as a prophet. Hindus consider him a holy teacher. Even many atheists are very willing to say they admire Jesus; for example, Christopher Hitchens once said he respects "the virtue of his teachings."



Yet a common skeptical remark you hear is that we can't really know anything about who Jesus actually was. He was probably a great guy, but the early Christians invented so many stories about him that we have no way of separating what's true in the Bible from what's false. Most skeptics don't realize, however, that academic historians take Jesus very seriously. We're talking historians, not theologians; not least, because we have so many historical sources for Jesus. Many people don't realize the New Testament is a collection of books, for example, and represents multiple  sources about Jesus. Many are very early—for example, Paul's letters date to the 40s and 50s AD and some of the material he quotes is dated even earlier, to within months of Jesus's death.



Literary studies of the gospels have also shown that their authors were intentionally setting out to write biography—not fiction or hagiography. Where we can test them against archaeology or other historians of the period, they're shown to be reliable. Thus, historians take Jesus seriously. No credentialed academic historian in a university ancient history department would suggest that Jesus never existed, for instance. Throw out Jesus and you would have to throw out a wealth of other historical figures for whom less evidence exists, such as Julius Caesar.



In recent decades, there has been a renewed interest in the study of the "historical Jesus," by which we mean what we can say about Jesus using the methods and tools of the historian. There are a wide number of facts upon which  historians agree. To list just a few, it is generally agreed that Jesus was raised in Nazareth. That he was baptized by John. That he had twelve disciples. That he had a reputation as a healer and miracle worker. That he taught in parables and stories. That he clashed with the religious authorities of his day. That he spent time with social outcasts. That he had an extremely high view of his own identity and his relationship to God. That at the end of his ministry he rode into Jerusalem, was hailed by many as the Messiah, performed some kind of prophetic action in the Temple for which he was arrested, tried, and executed. It's simply not the case, in other words, that Jesus's life was invented decades after his death by well meaning Christians. And that means we are forced to take the life of Jesus very seriously—at the very least, we need to read the gospels as we would other ancient literature and weigh them accordingly.



And that brings us face to face with Jesus himself:
 a Jesus who made astonishing claims about himself. C S Lewis once famously said that Jesus left us only three options. Either he was mad—utterly insane. Or he was bad—a cynical liar. Or else Jesus was who he claimed to be. Whilst this threefold choice may slightly over simplify things, the broad thrust is right. Jesus forces all of us to answer the same question he asked Peter in the Gospels: "Who do you say I am?" One thing is certain: Jesus has left a powerful footprint on history, too great to ignore. "Who do you say that I am?" The answer each of us gives to that question matters profoundly. "End quote"


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 19, 2012)

How do we see the hundreds of people who have claimed to be Jesus the son of god since then? Not all are horrible people, but I am sure you even think they are lunatics.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 19, 2012)

C. S. Lewsis said that he was either Liar, lunatic or who he claimed to be. The "Who he claimed to be" of Lewis is interpreted as claiming to be God. This is not the only option. So Lewis was incomplete. What is in question is who did Jesus claim to be? God come down to earth or forordained by God to be the messiah who is a man that so pleased God that God raised him from the dead and gave him a name above all others, the only name by which we may be saved, also giving him all authority in heaven and on earth. The question we are faced with is what does "Son of God" mean? Does it mean he is God? Or does it mean he was the first to be born again from his human nature to receiving the promised Holy Spirit, making him the firstborn of many brothers??? The scriptures are ambigious to a small degree. So it is up to each of us to decide which side on which we take our stand.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 19, 2012)

TripleXBullies said:


> How do we see the hundreds of people who have claimed to be Jesus the son of god since then? Not all are horrible people, but I am sure you even think they are lunatics.



Or liars... either is more likely than that they are as advertised. And as 1gr8bldr points out it isn't even settled among historians what he actually claimed. If someone claims to be a god I think we would all agree the least likely of all possibilities is that they are telling the truth.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 19, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Or liars... either is more likely than that they are as advertised. And as 1gr8bldr points out it isn't even settled among historians what he actually claimed. If someone claims to be a god I think we would all agree the least likely of all possibilities is that they are telling the truth.



How many people have claimed to be God that have made the impact on humankind like Jesus has?


----------



## hunter rich (Jul 19, 2012)

How about the possibility of a "grifter" who did such a good job that people followed him and wrote fantastic fables about him....


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 19, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> How many people have claimed to be God that have made the impact on humankind like Jesus has?



I can answer your question but don't see the relevance. The impact has no bearing on whether or not the claims about him are true.


----------



## hunter rich (Jul 19, 2012)

Hitler made quite an impact on humankind...was he the second coming?  A little revenge on the Jews for what they did?


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 19, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> The question we are faced with is what does "Son of God" mean? Does it mean he is God? Or does it mean he was the first to be born again from his human nature to receiving the promised Holy Spirit, making him the firstborn of many brothers??? The scriptures are ambigious to a small degree. So it is up to each of us to decide which side on which we take our stand.



How do you approach his appearances in the Old Testament?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 19, 2012)

hunter rich said:


> How about the possibility of a "grifter" ...



_grift (grft) Slang 
n.
1. Money made dishonestly, as in a swindle.
2. A swindle or confidence game.
v. grift·ed, grift·ing, grifts 
v.intr.
To engage in swindling or cheating.
v.tr.
To obtain by swindling or cheating._


That doesn't sound like Jesus to me.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 19, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> How do you approach his appearances in the Old Testament?



I know you weren't asking me, but that is one heck of a rabbit to start running.  The appearances you are talking about are assumptions made by modern readers, aren't they?  I am not certain the text ever specifies that Jesus was the 4th guy in the furnace, does it?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 19, 2012)

hunter rich said:


> Hitler made quite an impact on humankind...was he the second coming?  A little revenge on the Jews for what they did?



Jesus healed, Hitler killed.

You're 0 for 2.


----------



## Four (Jul 19, 2012)

First off, i don't necessarily believe in the historical Jesus, let alone the son of god.

He could have existed and was a liar, or lunatic (i don't really care which tbh)

It could have  been multiple people that did multiple things, that were ascribed to a single person.. sort of how the 'typical' story of Paul revere goes.

It could just be a big wacky story filled with hyperbole and misunderstanding... which is believable given the time frame.. sort of like a life of Brian.

Also i think your post grossly exaggerates the historical evidence.


----------



## hunter rich (Jul 19, 2012)

String didn't specify what type of impact...a feather hitting you on the head or a baseball bat hitting you on the head...both are impacts.

Plus didnt he say that vengance was his ({Romans 12:19}for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.)?  what better way to get said vengance?


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 19, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I know you weren't asking me, but that is one heck of a rabbit to start running.  The appearances you are talking about are assumptions made by modern readers, aren't they?  I am not certain the text ever specifies that Jesus was the 4th guy in the furnace, does it?



Study "_the_ angel of the Lord" in the OT and notice that the appearances cease after the incarnation. May want to keep (John 8:58) in mind during your study.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 19, 2012)

hunter rich said:


> String didn't specify what type of impact...a feather hitting you on the head or a baseball bat hitting you on the head...



Which would any rational person prefer?  I think that's obviously what String meant.




hunter rich said:


> Hitler made quite an impact on humankind...was he the second coming? A little revenge on the Jews for what they did?





hunter rich said:


> Plus didnt he say that vengance was his ({Romans 12:19}for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.)?  what better way to get said vengance?



You're saying God used Hitler to extract vengeance on the Jews?

Strike three.  You're out.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 19, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Study "_the_ angel of the Lord" in the OT and notice that the appearances cease after the incarnation. May want to keep (John 8:58) in mind during your study.



In college, I had to take a few classes on this type stuff.  It was a while ago, but I do remember remaining unconvinced.  I would think that Jesus would have been clear about his previous appearances, or I assume he would have been.  I'm no scholar, though.

As far as John 8 goes......that is by far my favorite chapter in the entire Bible.  But, some of the scholars on this board (the Christian side) have told me it was added hundreds of years later.  Which would very much bother me if true.  Have you heard or read much about that?


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 19, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> You're saying God used Hitler to extract vengeance on the Jews?
> 
> Strike three.  You're out.



Yeah no christian or jew would ever suggest such a thing.


----------



## hunter rich (Jul 19, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Which would any rational person prefer?  I think that's obviously what String meant.
> 
> You're saying God used Hitler to extract vengeance on the Jews?
> 
> Strike three.  You're out.



Ahhh...so now you are a mind reader?  Obviously String should and im sure, will be in the future, more specific.

Can you prove that god didn't use Hitler?


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 19, 2012)

hunter rich said:


> Ahhh...so now you are a mind reader?  Obviously String should and im sure, will be in the future, more specific.
> 
> Can you prove that god didn't use Hitler?



According to some christians God's will is always what happens. And how could it not be so for an all knowing all powerful being?


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 19, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> According to some christians God's will is always what happens. And how could it not be so for an all knowing all powerful being?



If God controls everything, then man is not free from God. If man is free from God in any sense, then God does not control everything. God's purpose includes Hitler's actions.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 19, 2012)

hunter rich said:


> Ahhh...so now you are a mind reader?  Obviously String should and im sure, will be in the future, more specific.



I'm not a mind reader -- just a reader.  I thought it was plain.




hunter rich said:


> Can you prove that god didn't use Hitler?



To do what?

BTW, this isn't going to devolve into another "Hitler was a Christian" thread, is it?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 19, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Yeah no christian or jew would ever suggest such a thing.



I've never heard it.  People say all kinds of crazy stuff, though.


----------



## hummdaddy (Jul 19, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> How many people have claimed to be God that have made the impact on humankind like Jesus has?



they all get murdered like waco


----------



## coonkilla (Jul 19, 2012)

I don't think god uses people to deal with the jews,god always deals with his people he's self,but did use people to warn or tell them what was coming


----------



## Madsnooker (Jul 19, 2012)

I thought it a simple question.  He was one or the other, if not the Son of God, which he claimed. 

I thought I would get short answers like, Liar or Lunatic. Instead, we go everywhere else including was he really a real person.

I've always found it fascinating that a great deal of Atheists will stop JJUUSSSSTTTT shy of saying Jesus was a Liar or he was a Lunatic.  Thats just my observation and I'm sure one or two will now eagerly answer the question.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 19, 2012)

coonkilla said:


> I don't think god uses people to deal with the jews,god always deals with his people he's self,but did use people to warn or tell them what was coming



Not according to the bible.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 19, 2012)

Madsnooker said:


> I thought it a simple question.  He was one or the other, if not the Son of God, which he claimed.
> 
> I thought I would get short answers like, Liar or Lunatic. Instead, we go everywhere else including was he really a real person.
> 
> I've always found it fascinating that a great deal of Atheists will stop JJUUSSSSTTTT shy of saying Jesus was a Liar or he was a Lunatic.  Thats just my observation and I'm sure one or two will now eagerly answer the question.



I think your question has been answered more than once.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 19, 2012)

Jesus is the Son of God. He was with his Father during the creation. He is with his Father right now in his resurrected body. The same body he was given or born into on Earth. So to answer the OP, yes he is the Son of God, not God.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 19, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Jesus is the Son of God. He was with his Father during the creation. He is with his Father right now in his resurrected body. The same body he was given or born into on Earth. So to answer the OP, yes he is the Son of God, not God.



I would encourage you to an in depth study of "Son of God" and "son of man". If you are confident and steadfast in your above statement, then so be it.


----------



## ross the deer slayer (Jul 19, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Jesus is the Son of God. He was with his Father during the creation. He is with his Father right now in his resurrected body. The same body he was given or born into on Earth. So to answer the OP, yes he is the Son of God, not God.



Do you not agree with the trinity.. The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit being one?


----------



## hunter rich (Jul 19, 2012)

ross the deer slayer said:


> Do you not agree with the trinity.. The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit being one?



^^^ this


----------



## ross the deer slayer (Jul 19, 2012)

hunter rich said:


> ^^^ this



Are the 3 guys in your avatar not part of Rush? Looks to me like they are


----------



## hunter rich (Jul 19, 2012)

ross the deer slayer said:


> Are the 3 guys in your avatar not part of Rush? Looks to me like they are



Yes...but i have just changed avatar from Geddy, Alex, and Neil to the Starman...


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 19, 2012)

ross the deer slayer said:


> Do you not agree with the trinity.. The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit being one?



No I don't believe in the Trinity. There are to many Bible verses where Jesus differentiates himself for God. Example: J.C. when are you coming back to Earth? Beats me, only my Father knows that.
Please don't quote all the verses like, Me and my Father are one, If you have seen me you have seen my Father, etc. because i feel like me and my Father are one.
Various explanations about "the Word" & "I Am" too.

I would like to add, nowhere in the Bible does it say "Thou shalt believe Jesus is God" in order to be a Christian. Just that Jesus is our Savior.  

The early Church didn't believe in the Trinity either. If Jesus was God, that would have been such an important teaching that he would have flat told us, I am God the Father reincarnated as a man. There would be no doubt in anyone's interpretations as it would be spelled out verbatim in the Holy Word of God. Jesus said the Father is greater than I. If that is what Jesus said who am I to argue with the Son of God?

I do believe that the "Holy Spirit" is Gods spirit or force, not a separate entity. The three Gods in one has always been a doubt in my mind as being "not just right." 
I also know these beliefs are "way out there" and aren't the norm but aren't unique.


----------



## Four (Jul 20, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> No I don't believe in the Trinity. There are to many Bible verses where Jesus differentiates himself for God. Example: J.C. when are you coming back to Earth? Beats me, only my Father knows that.
> Please don't quote all the verses like, Me and my Father are one, If you have seen me you have seen my Father, etc. because i feel like me and my Father are one.
> Various explanations about "the Word" & "I Am" too.
> 
> ...



Are you Jehovahs witness? Mormon?


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 20, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> The early Church didn't believe in the Trinity either.


Define early church if you will. What is your cutoff date?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 20, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Study "_the_ angel of the Lord" in the OT and notice that the appearances cease after the incarnation. May want to keep (John 8:58) in mind during your study.





gemcgrew said:


> How do you approach his appearances in the Old Testament?


Hello gemcgrew, first off let me say that if Jesus did not appear in the OT, that it does not mean that the trinity is not true. Although I am Unitarian myself. So this is not a deal breaker.

Heb 1:1, "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times in various ways, but in these last days, he has spoken to us by his Son..." So by this, if you take it literal, God did not previously speak through Jesus.

Also, LK 1:11, Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him,..., then see vs 19, "I am Gabriel". 

Usually the Theopany, I think that is the name, has no proof whatsoever. It basically is assumed that since no one could see God and live then by default it must have been Jesus. That is too weak for myself


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 20, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hello gemcgrew, first off let me say that if Jesus did not appear in the OT, that it does not mean that the trinity is not true.


Agree


1gr8bldr said:


> Heb 1:1, "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times in various ways, but in these last days, he has spoken to us by his Son..." So by this, if you take it literal, God did not previously speak through Jesus.


"Various ways" included angels, dreams, visions...
Now the Gospel revelation.


1gr8bldr said:


> Also, LK 1:11, Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him,..., then see vs 19, "I am Gabriel".


Nor did I suggest that "an angel of the Lord" refers to Jesus. "The angel of the Lord" was my suggested study.


1gr8bldr said:


> Usually the Theopany, I think that is the name, has no proof whatsoever. It basically is assumed that since no one could see God and live then by default it must have been Jesus. That is too weak for myself


Or perhaps too strong to overcome.


----------



## Madsnooker (Jul 20, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> I think your question has been answered more than once.



Perhaps, just not the way I asked it to be answered. It was a simple question was it not? 

See, even after my second post reasking the question we find ourselves pigtrailed again about the trinity.

Like I said, I have seen this question posed many times in such settings and rarely do you get the answer of "Liar" or "Lunatic" from the unbeleiver. Fascinating.


----------



## ross the deer slayer (Jul 20, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> No I don't believe in the Trinity. There are to many Bible verses where Jesus differentiates himself for God. Example: J.C. when are you coming back to Earth? Beats me, only my Father knows that.
> Please don't quote all the verses like, Me and my Father are one, If you have seen me you have seen my Father, etc. because i feel like me and my Father are one.
> Various explanations about "the Word" & "I Am" too.
> 
> ...



Do you believe that any other parts of The Bible are false?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 20, 2012)

ross the deer slayer said:


> Do you believe that any other parts of The Bible are false?


I do. Such as Paul/Saul getting letters to go search out the Christians. Rome was not in the business of preserving the Jewish faith. No way they issued Paul the right to do this. It was fabricated by Luke.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 20, 2012)

Madsnooker said:


> Perhaps, just not the way I asked it to be answered. It was a simple question was it not?
> 
> See, even after my second post reasking the question we find ourselves pigtrailed again about the trinity.
> 
> Like I said, I have seen this question posed many times in such settings and rarely do you get the answer of "Liar" or "Lunatic" from the unbeleiver. Fascinating.



I don't know if he was a liar or a lunatic any more than I know which it was with David Koresh. Either is more likely than that he was a god, especially considering he was snuffed out as easily as Koresh was. Another possibility is that he was none of the above and never claimed to be anything more than a man.


----------

