Who Was Jesus?

[Mycroft]

Note from Jennifer: Moving threads here from elsewhere, since the discussion might develop over time. Also, if you believe a pertinent poll option is missing, please post it here and I will add it for you, so that you can register your vote accordingly.

Ivy, do you believe that Christ existed and was indeed the son of God (or God) come to earth?

 

[Ivy]

Mycroft: I do think Jesus was a real person. As for being the son of God- I don't even know if there is a God. But I hope there is, and I feel there is, and in that way I believe Christ is fully man and fully God.

I like the way the Christian Agnostic puts it:

Someone once asked Bertrand Russell two questions: "Do you understand Einstein? Do you agree with him?"

"My answer is no to the first and yes to the second.", replied the philosopher.

I feel a bit like that when asked about Jesus. No, I don’t understand everything about him but yes, I most certainly do believe in him. I believe, for instance, that Jesus was more than just a good man but I don’t know if I can precisely put my finger on just what that means. I believe, too, that Jesus stands in a unique relationship with God, that he was different from any other man or woman and yet no other human could be more closely identified with you or me than he. Truly God and truly man is what we say and although for some such a description is terribly confusing, I think I understand why it is the best description we can ever have.

 

[Totenkindly]

I feel a bit like that when asked about Jesus. No, I don't understand everything about him but yes, I most certainly do believe in him. I believe, for instance, that Jesus was more than just a good man but I don't know if I can precisely put my finger on just what that means. I believe, too, that Jesus stands in a unique relationship with God, that he was different from any other man or woman and yet no other human could be more closely identified with you or me than he. Truly God and truly man is what we say and although for some such a description is terribly confusing, I think I understand why it is the best description we can ever have.

That is very much like what I have been feeling for quite awhile now.

Sigh. Does this mean I've finally become a Lutheran???

 

[Mycroft]

Ivy, that being the case, I would classify you as a humanist with spiritual leanings who thinks that Christ most likely existed and, if common account of him is at all to be trusted, was a pretty okay person.

If that's what's involved in being a Christian, then I am one, too, despite not believing in God.

 

[lastrailway]

Ivy, that being the case, I would classify you as a humanist with spiritual leanings who thinks that Christ most likely existed and, if common account of him is at all to be trusted, was a pretty okay person.

If that's what's involved in being a Christian, then I am one, too, despite not believing in God.

I think is quite essencial for a Christian to believe Christ was the son of God.
I believe too that Christ did exist and was something more than a pretty okay person.

 

[Totenkindly]

I believe too that Christ did exist and was something more than a pretty okay person.

I did think it implicit in Ivy's offered quote that Christ was more than a person (which does then clash with Mycroft's summary of her beliefs), but that trying to specify exactly what he was, in a relevant way, is the difficulty.

 

[wildcat]

I did think it implicit in Ivy's offered quote that Christ was more than a person (which does then clash with Mycroft's summary of her beliefs), but that trying to specify exactly what he was, in a relevant way, is the difficulty.

Son of God?

Which one of them?

 

[Athenian200]

Son of God?

Which one of them?

The originally Jewish one. You know, Jehovah/Yahweh?

 

[Ivy]

Ivy, that being the case, I would classify you as a humanist with spiritual leanings who thinks that Christ most likely existed and, if common account of him is at all to be trusted, was a pretty okay person.

If that's what's involved in being a Christian, then I am one, too, despite not believing in God.

"Humanist with spiritual leanings" I would not argue with, but I did say that I believe Christ was more than just a good dude. Exactly what that is, I don't know. I don't think it is necessary for me to fully understand (in fact, I think it is impossible). This is also why I don't believe that only people who know about and acknowledge Christ are God's homies. Jesus said that whoever does the will of God is his brother and sister and mother. To me, that means that the trappings of religion and even professed belief are simply window dressing.

What's involved in being a Christian is not my decision to make. I only know what is involved in me being a Christian. And, in my worldview, you very well may be one.

*steels self for burning at stake*

 

[Zergling]

My option (???) wasn't up there, as I don't have enough information to say anything about the existence of Jesus, or what I would think if the existence were real.

 

[Oberon]

There is much that is controversial about Jesus, but it is generally accepted even among agnostics that there was a man by this name who lived roughly between 5 BC and 33 AD. He was executed by order of the Roman provincial governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, and the sentence was carried out in the manner commonly used at the time, i.e. impalement or crucifixion. On these general points the historical sources are in agreement.

So when I subsequently look at Psalm 22, a lyric written by David ben Jesse some ten centuries prior, I find striking similarities between the account of suffering in David's psalm and the historical account of the death of Jesus by crucifixion.

The psalm begins with the question "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" which is of course why Jesus would have said that same thing in the process of his execution.

Please note, also:

16 ...Dogs have surrounded me;
a band of evil men has encircled me,
they have pierced my hands and my feet.

17 I can count all my bones;
people stare and gloat over me.

18 They divide my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing....

The piercing of hands and feet was common practice in crucifixion, but as I understand it would not have been particularly familiar to David in 1000 BC. The casting of lots for clothing was unusual too, and yet found in both accounts.

Act of God? Prophetic utterance? Coincidence? Psychic phenomenon? Jungian synchronicity in action? Nothing at all? It's up to the student to decide, of course.

It's worth noting, by the way, that the psalm can be corroborated by religious Jewish sources hostile to Christianity. While it is possible that the gospels may have been manipulated to fit Psalm 22, it's highly unlikely to the point of impossibility that Psalm 22 was manipulated to fit the gospels.

 

[usernameredacted]

How 'bout an option for why this question is addressed just to Ivy, and not to me? lol.

I believe, according to Scripture, that Jesus was more than man, and more than just the "Son of God" (although that He definitely was). He was not only these, but God Himself, wrapped in flesh.

For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. (Colossians 2:9).

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (I Timothy 3:16)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. (John 1:1, 14)

Jesus is the Father
Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, [red]Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?[/red] (John 14:8-9)

[red]I and my Father are one.[/red] (John 10:30)

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father[/b[, The Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6)

Jesus is the Son
[red]Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?[/red] (John 10:36)

Jesus is the Comforter (Holy Ghost/Spirit)
[red]I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.[/red] (John 14:18)

The Holy Ghost is the Father
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. (Matthew 1:18)

So....
A. Jesus is the Father
B. Jesus is the Son
C. Jesus is the Holy Ghost.
D. The Holy Ghost is the Father.

It is also interesting to note that YHWH (the Old Testament Name for God) translates into "Jesus" in Greek (with "Yeshua" tying them together, since I believe "Jesus" is actually an English translated Name).

Also, you will note several times when Jesus uses the sacred phrase "I AM" to refer to Himself just as He did in the Old Testament. (This is actually a poor English translation of a verb tense we don't have, meaning "I am, I was, and I always will be.")

And finally, we note many times in the book of Acts (2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, 22:16) that the Apostles responded to Jesus command in Matthew 28:18 to "go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," by baptizing several thousand people in the Name of Jesus.

There's more, but I think you get the point. If not, just ask, lol.

 

[Ivy]

How 'bout an option for why this question is addressed just to Ivy, and not to me? lol.

It was split off from another thread, and the initial question was posed to me because of something I said in that thread. You are more than welcome to answer for yourself!

 

[Totenkindly]

16 ...Dogs have surrounded me;
a band of evil men has encircled me,
they have pierced my hands and my feet.

17 I can count all my bones;
people stare and gloat over me.

18 They divide my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing....

The piercing of hands and feet was common practice in crucifixion, but as I understand it would not have been particularly familiar to David in 1000 BC. The casting of lots for clothing was unusual too, and yet found in both accounts.

Act of God? Prophetic utterance? Coincidence?

Well, there is a problem here -- you are reading a great deal into this.

First of all, it's poetry. So now you have figurative language coming into play.

What does it mean to have "evil people encircle me?" That can apply to any situation.

What does it mean to have someone pierce your hands and feet? Does it have to apply just to crucifixion? No, not in the least. It happens to fit with crucifixion but is not confined to it in the least, and might not even be literal. Couldn't it simply mean that "one cannot escape," because all four of one's limbs are held immovably? (Like nailing one's "feet to the floor?")

Your interpretation is not a bad one, but I am simply saying it is SO vague that it is certainly not confined to this particular event in Jesus, especially considering that it's poetry (so it's not necessarily prophetic) and that thousands of years are being considered. It is like people reading Nostradamus and trying to 'fit in' current day events. So many things could apply!

Gloating, staring, splitting up the spoils of the victim. These are hardly definitive of Jesus' crucifixion (and only Jesus' crucifixion).

You are seeing a pattern for an event you want justification for; but the pattern is applicable to far too many things. It's like in "A Few Good Men" where Jessup essentially says, "I hope you've pinned your case to more than a phone bill." There's no case here.

 

[Ivy]

Also it looks to me like "I can count all my bones" could be a poetic way of saying I am starving to death. Starving, stabbed, encircled by evil men-- I read that as "I am in an awful place in life, and I cry out to God for help." A nearly universal human experience. Certainly it does apply to Christ's last days, but the beauty of it (to me) is that it doesn't ONLY apply to Christ's last days.

It's also worth mentioning that the authors of the Gospels would have been aware of the psalm as a lamentation to God, and may have been linking it to what they wrote about as a literary device, to illustrate how even Jesus cried out to God in his time of peril. I don't think this in any way lessens the essential truth of the Gospels. The literal truth, yes, but who needs literal anyway?

I'm no Bible scholar but this is how it reads to me.

 

[Oberon]

Well, there is a problem here -- you are reading a great deal into this.

First of all, it's poetry. So now you have figurative language coming into play.

What does it mean to have "evil people encircle me?" That can apply to any situation.

What does it mean to have someone pierce your hands and feet? Does it have to apply just to crucifixion? No, not in the least. It happens to fit with crucifixion but is not confined to it in the least, and might not even be literal. Couldn't it simply mean that "one cannot escape," because all four of one's limbs are held immovably? (Like nailing one's "feet to the floor?")

Your interpretation is not a bad one, but I am simply saying it is SO vague that it is certainly not confined to this particular event in Jesus, especially considering that it's poetry (so it's not necessarily prophetic) and that thousands of years are being considered. It is like people reading Nostradamus and trying to 'fit in' current day events. So many things could apply!

Gloating, staring, splitting up the spoils of the victim. These are hardly definitive of Jesus' crucifixion (and only Jesus' crucifixion).

You are seeing a pattern for an event you want justification for; but the pattern is applicable to far too many things. It's like in "A Few Good Men" where Jessup essentially says, "I hope you've pinned your case to more than a phone bill." There's no case here.

Well then, in light of the following:

Act of God? Prophetic utterance? Coincidence? Psychic phenomenon? Jungian synchronicity in action? Nothing at all? It's up to the student to decide, of course.

...it appears as though you have made your decision, and your choice was "nothing at all."

I'm okay with that.

 

[Totenkindly]

Well then, in light of the following:
...it appears as though you have made your decision, and your choice was "nothing at all."

No, I didn't.

I didn't make any decision.

I see the pattern you do. I also see lots of other patterns. Since you only are choosing to focus on one, I felt the need to clarify that many patterns still exist.

I suppose I am waiting for you to tell me what "clinched" it for you that your pattern was the correct way to perceive things. What am I missing? What did I not see? What is the definitive connection that makes your pattern right and the rest wrong?

Or is it just a personal choice based on preference?

 

[Oberon]

No, I didn't.

I didn't make any decision.

Yeah, you did. You decided "There's no case here."

As I said, I'm okay with that.

Understand, INTP, there is no way you're ever going to own all the empirical knowledge required to make an absolutely informed decision on this point.

Me, I'm willing to go with what I perceive as the bet with the best odds. Because most of my evidence is subjective and therefore from your point of view both invalid and useless, I won't bother you with it.

 

[Totenkindly]

Understand, INTP, there is no way you're ever going to own all the empirical knowledge required to make an absolutely informed decision on this point.

I am not asking for an "Absolutely informed decision" on this point.

To use the same logic you've applied to me, i suppose I can say that you've apparently made an arbitrary decision based on personal preference and "played the odds."

It sounds like you should give up witnessing. Sharing your reasoning and story is rather essential to passing on the spark, isn't it?

 

[Ivy]

I am not asking for an "Absolutely informed decision" on this point.

To use the same logic you've applied to me, i suppose I can say that you've apparently made an arbitrary decision based on personal preference and "played the odds."

It sounds like you should give up witnessing. Sharing your reasoning and story is rather essential to passing on the spark, isn't it?

I don't know if I agree with that... I imagine there are many ways to skin a cat here, so to speak. I'm sure my "say absolutely nothing with any degree of certitude" approach is equally maddening to some and proportionally not-maddening to others.