C.S. Lewis gave the world three options for who Jesus was. Either he was a lunatic, the Devil, or God. Which one was he? If you think he was none of these options let me know why!
None. For we are all God and we are all mad because we cannot see it.
CS Lewis set's up three choices but there are actually more than three choices. The three are meant to be lunatic, liar or lord but it's quite possible Jesus didn't fit into any of those. Here's a few other possible choices:
1) Jesus never existed. Evidence for the historicity of Christ is sparse at best.
2) Jesus was an ordinary moral and religious teacher and never claimed to be the son of God or Messiah, that claim was made on his behalf by the Gospel authors.
3) Jesus was a prophet with some divine power but was simply mistaken for the Messiah (Muslims might appreciate this view).
4) Jesus was an ordinary man who claimed to be the Messiah but did so under the belief that he was actually the Messiah. This would be a form of delusion however it would not necessarily make him a lunatic as Lewis suggests.
Jesus son of Mary was a normal human being, a messenger prophet of the Creator God like Jonah.
He was a man, not God.
"For there is ONE GOD and one mediator between God and men,
the MAN Christ Jesus" - 1 Tim. 2:5
Do not be fooled into polytheism by the Catholics and spiritual whores.
John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."
Jesus = God + man.
You are assuming john is speaking in plain language of Christ as the word. He is not. He is personifying the "Word", creative power of God, in the prose.
No where does the bible state Christ is God. No-where!
Even the Catholics admit that.
The Authority of the Church.
But some will say "Surely, this is also the position of the Church, (Catholics). No Christian would deny that the Bible is the ultimate source of appeal in theological questions."
It is true that this is the theoretical position, but in practice the authority of the Church itself is given equal or even greater weight than that of Scripture. One of the dominant ecclesiastical figures of the nineteenth century was John Newman, an Anglican vicar who in later life switched to Rome and eventually became a Catholic Cardinal. If he is at all remembered today it is for his hymn "Lead, kindly Light", but in his day he was well known for his prolific doctrinal writings. He wrote about the doctrine of the Trinity as follows:
"It may startle those who are but acquainted with the popular writings of this day, yet, I believe, the most accurate consideration of the subject will lead us to acquiesce in the statement as a general truth, that the doctrines in question (viz., the Trinity and the Incarnation) have never been learned merely from Scripture. Surely the sacred volume was never intended, and is not adapted to teach us our creed; however certain it is that we can prove our creed from it, when it has once been taught us ... From the very first, the rule has been, as a matter of fact, for the Church to teach the truth, and then appeal to Scripture in vindication of its own teaching". 3
Notice the clear implication of these words. The Church formulates the doctrines and then appeals to Scripture in an attempt to support them. This is very different from coming to the Bible with an open mind in order to learn what it teaches.
Another Catholic priest, the Rev James Hughes, was even more outspoken about the real source of Church doctrine in general and the Trinity in particular:
"My belief in the Trinity is based on the authority of the Church: no other authority is sufficient".
This is a bold, even audacious claim. It alleges that the Church has greater authority in formulating its doctrines and traditions than God*s own revelation to mankind. This simply cannot be right. Way back in the days of Israel*s prophets God castigated those who disregarded His words:
"Should not a people enquire of their God? ... To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn". (Isaiah 8:19-20 NIV)
Undoubtedly, then, if the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be reconciled with the whole tenor of Scripture, it should immediately be dismissed as spurious—no matter what the Church teaching and centuries of tradition may be.
In those comments of Newman and Hughes do we detect some uneasiness among the advocates of the doctrine of the Trinity? If the biblical evidence for the belief is unassailable why does the Church need to justify the doctrine by invoking its own authority? Such a claim suggests that the Bible*s support for the Church doctrine is, to put it mildly, not as strong as is generally supposed. Many theologians down the centuries have admitted that the biblical evidence for the Trinity is indeed very weak.
But not all Christians are members of an Established Church. Many non-conformists and evangelical groups claim to have by-passed the Church and to have gained their teaching directly from Scripture. And they, almost without exception, believe the doctrine of the Trinity. Yet how accurate is their claim that they are guided solely by the Bible and not by church tradition? Professor F.F. Bruce, the noted Manchester University theologian, keenly observed:
"People who adhere to sola scriptura (as they believe) often adhere in fact to a traditional school of interpretation of sola scriptura. Evangelical Protestants can be as much servants of tradition as Roman Catholics or Greek Orthodox Christians; only they don*t realise that it is ‘tradition*" 7
The seeker after truth, then, will test every belief by Scripture, and will accept nothing that cannot be clearly demonstrated by the Word of God.
If the Catholic Church admits it is not in the Bible... then do you not think we should refuse it?
You can read an in depth history and account of the trinity here...
And they go thru every last verse that you could state in support of the trinity.
It does not exist, it is an abomination, and all should dis-regard it as a doctrinal teaching.
The jews have done the same thing in throwing out the old testament and following the "Holy Talmud", traditions of men.
I don't think he was any of these things. I believe he was a man, who had been influenced by the beliefs of Judaism, and was one among many people at that time who were waiting for the coming Messiah to free them from the Roman empire. If what has been recorded in the New Testament is correct, then I believe he was a good man of peace, but I don't see any evidence that he thought of himself as God, or that he would have imagined a religion being founded in his name. He also seems a sane person, who just happened to have a religious view of the world, as would have been expected for someone at that time. I do however believe there is a lot we can learn from Christ's teachings, just as there are from those of the Buddha and many other religious figures.
To find enlightenment, all one has to do is let go of "I". The best way to convey this is to recommend a movie. It is called Zen and was released in 2009. If one pays enough attention to the meaning, the teaching means everything. If one pays to much attention to the words, the meaning is lost. The same can be said of all religions and does not neccesarily pertain only to buddhism.
Thanks Muldania. However, I don't know if I agree with you, completely. If what the New Testament says is true then he seems to be pretty evil. To demand that his followers leave their families behind and to claim he is on earth to use the sword and not spread peace is seemingly immoral. I totally agree with Judaism's influence on him, but his preaching certainly was an incredible change from what the prophets had said in the past.
Did not the buddha tell his followers to leave behind all worldly trappings? The message was the same, the words are the problem. We don't pay attention to the meaning and all we choose to see are the words.
But doesnt meaning come through the words that relay the mesage
When compared to the Old Testament writings, Jesus can be said to be a man of peace. Think of the sermon on the mount. The law of the old prophets was an eye for an eye, and the belief that committing genocide in the name of God was justified. Christ taught instead to turn the other cheek and to forgive and pray for our enemies. I think we could still have a lot to learn from this man.
In some cases I would agree muldania, but Jesus says many remarakably evil things (unless he was God). He teaches his disciples to turn the cheek and then goes ahead and whips the money lenders in the temple. Along with this, he claims that he is the only way to "The Father" and all those who do not follow him will suffer an afterlife in hell. If he was not God or insane then these are the comments of an extremely evil and cynical person.
none of any three...he was human being who taught moral values...he got killed in process and later came legend...
God in the flesh who came to redeem mankind from sin, who laid down his life and picked it up again after accomplishing what He needed to and now sits at the right hand of the Father, making intercession for all who come to the Father through Him.
"Was", declares it as past tense.
God cannot be past tense.
IE, PRSENT tense. Continuously present tense.
So, Jesus either IS God, or He is NOT God, is the question.
Jesus was a good human being but he was not a god or son of god.
by Disappearinghead5 years ago
As I drove to work this morning I thought in VB codeSub Trinity()Do If Trinity_doctrine = False then Holy_Spirit "3rd_Person" ...
by charlie3 weeks ago
Gen 1:1-4 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. ...
by Deborah Sexton6 months ago
I've had several people say that Paul taught the same thing Yahshua did. They also asked me to post the contradictory beliefs. Here are a few.Manner of Worship:Usually these were small groups, though he did encounter...
by Julie Grimes6 months ago
I think that the Christian religion would have been entirely different, if Apostle Paul hadn't screwed things up. It is my firm belief that if Christians really want to be Christ-like, they need to have a dual...
by Truly Different5 years ago
"Why don't Jews believe in Jesus?"Every time I come from Israel to visit my friend here in USA, I am asked this question by certain people. I always answer that Jews do not deny existence of Jesus, they just...
by haj33966 years ago
haj3396 saysThe Mark of the Beast is enforce Sunday worship. The reasoning behind this answer is this. God sign or mark is Sabbath worship.1. first who is the beast Rev 13-1-8, 16-18 provides 11 identifying marks. verse...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.