The Reality of Jesus

[Apologiaphoenix]

Who do you say the Son of Man is? http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/20...lity-of-jesus/

[Christianbookworm]

I agree with what Peter said! Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God.

[ChaosRain]

I agree with what Peter said! Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God.

Perhaps Jesus existed, but he was certainly not the son of any god. That kind of claim requires non-circular evidence.

[KingsGambit]

Perhaps Jesus existed, but he was certainly not the son of any god. That kind of claim requires non-circular evidence.

Despite how the majority of Christians out there might reason, at least around here, the arguments commonly advanced are more than "the Bible says so".

[Christianbookworm]

Perhaps Jesus existed, but he was certainly not the son of any god. That kind of claim requires non-circular evidence.

At least you aren't claiming that a human male from Nazereth named Jesus didn't exist and was actually based on the hero myth... now that is not very scholarly at all!

[ChaosRain]

Despite how the majority of Christians out there might reason, at least around here, the arguments commonly advanced are more than "the Bible says so".

I should hope so.

At least you aren't claiming that a human male from Nazereth named Jesus didn't exist and was actually based on the hero myth... now that is not very scholarly at all!

I can see why people would argue for that; the Bible is arguably little more than a collection of older myths and legends from older religions. Then again, most modern-day religions are.

[robrecht]

Perhaps Jesus existed, but he was certainly not the son of any god. That kind of claim requires non-circular evidence.

What would you say with respect to more obviously metaphorical language, ie, something like Jesus is the human face of God? Let's assume merely for the sake of discussion that you believe in God.

[ChaosRain]

What would you say with respect to more obviously metaphorical language, ie, something like Jesus is the human face of God? Let's assume merely for the sake of discussion that you believe in God.

It would still not make any sense, because whereas Jesus was a very historically benevolent individual, God was certainly not. To call Jesus the "face of God" would be nonsensical, given the two characters' differing natures within the novel.

[robrecht]

It would still not make any sense, because whereas Jesus was a very historically benevolent individual, God was certainly not. To call Jesus the "face of God" would be nonsensical, given the two characters' differing natures within the novel.

You cannot make allowances for the historical, cultural, and other limitations of those writing a novel about God? Are you limited to the confines of their novel? Is Jesus necessarily so limited and unable to expand upon our perception of the nature of God by his teaching and example?

[ChaosRain]

Are you limited to the confines of their novel?

No, but you are, if you follow the Bible as some here do. I, however, am free to go where I choose.

Is Jesus necessarily so limited and unable to expand upon our perception of the nature of God by his teaching and example?

Jesus is limited to his character, and cannot accommodate God's countering character. To say that Jesus was both himself and God would be to have split-personality disorder. He was certainly not teaching by God's example.

[robrecht]

No, but you are, if you follow the Bible as some here do. I, however, am free to go where I choose.

I am not bound by any belief in biblical inerrancy.

Jesus is limited to his character, and cannot accommodate God's countering character. To say that Jesus was both himself and God would be to have split-personality disorder. He was certainly not teaching by God's example.

I think you may have misunderstood my question so I will try to clarify. Is Jesus necessarily limited and unable to expand upon our perception of the nature of God by Jesus' own teaching about God and the example of his life? Cannot Jesus teach us more about God than we might have gathered based on a particular, limited understanding of the previous biblical narratives and discourse?