Mad, bad,or the Son of God

[Dream]

Does that in some way have to do with 2 Samuel 12:10? Theoretically, this means that as long as any king sits upon David's throne, there will be a sword against it. If so, it could partially explain why Jesus left as well as why a sword appears in the story.

Originally Posted by Nathan speaking to David

Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.

[Eclectic Mystic]

Matthew26:52Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

53Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
54But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?
55In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me. 56But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.

OK, and?

[Dream]

and if that is the case then why is the sword upon Jerusalem with no king on David's throne (Luke 21 below), and what happens if someone does sit on it? In any case, do you feel the above verse was one of those being 'fulfilled' by the presence of the sword among Jesus' disciples, or is it more coincidental?

This is likely a claim to the throne of David:
Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

And maybe this is, too or maybe not:
Luke 21: 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Dream

and if that is the case then why is the sword upon Jerusalem with no king on David's throne (Luke 21 below), and what happens if someone does sit on it? In any case, do you feel the above verse was one of those being 'fulfilled' by the presence of the sword among Jesus' disciples, or is it more coincidental?

Luke 2:25-35

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Dondi

But there have been followers of mad men who espoused a certain philosophy throughout history (Hitler and Mein Kampf come to mind),

True

Originally Posted by Dondi

so your premise is false..

Er, no! Hitler was a dictator and didn't give people a choice, you follow the movement or die in a concentration camp! His Philosophy (if you can call it that) was eradication. Jesus didn't impose his will on people by force. People accepted or rejected, same then same now. You can't compare Jesus to Dictators. Mein Kampf isn't the best selling book in the world

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Eclectic Mystic

I'm not aware of Jesus going out of his way to fulfill any prophecy. Pilate didn't even believe that he "claimed to be" the King of the Jews (John 19:21-22)

Who knows. I was just being hypothetical.

[DT Strain]

Originally Posted by cavalier

There is an argument which runs that Jesus was mad, bad or else must have been the Son of God; that he he could not have been simply a good man or a great teacher.
I would love to know what people here think about this.

Thanks

The argument would indeed logically apply if the words of the gospels were taken literally, as inerrant reports of history, and as one sequential whole. However, many of those who look into the origins of the biblical source material in an archaeological sense, who do not have a predisposed preference of faith in Christianity, tend to come to the conclusion that the bible consists of disparate and contradictory works by different authors at different times, and that the reliability of reports on Jesus' life and what he said - if he even historically existed - are suspect. Therefore, they do not find themselves in that logical corner because if Jesus didn't actually claim to be God in the flesh or other such things, and if those words were simply put into his mouth by Paul and others decades or centuries later, then this leaves open the logical possibility of Jesus as a fully human, sane, well-meaning good person and spiritual teacher. That is a technical matter of logical options and structure in the argument - quite mechanical and unrelated to whether or not one finds that stance on scripture or Jesus agreeable or supportable.

In short, the argument doesn't logically apply to anyone for whom it was probably intended to refute, since those who believe the bible is one sequential inerrant whole would not be claiming any of that false to begin with.

Sorry if I've repeated points of others (I'm sure I must have in such a long thread), and hope that helps

Sincerely,
Daniel

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by Penguin

Er, no! Hitler was a dictator and didn't give people a choice, you follow the movement or die in a concentration camp! His Philosophy (if you can call it that) was eradication. Jesus didn't impose his will on people by force. People accepted or rejected, same then same now. You can't compare Jesus to Dictators. Mein Kampf isn't the best selling book in the world

I'm not talking about the Jews, who were the primary target for the concentration camps, nor necessarily the common German people. I'm talking about the Nazi Party and any ather social fascist group associated with them.

Hitler wrote Mein Kampf while in jail for his part in a failed attempt to elicit a coup in the Beer Hall Putsch in 1923, in which he tried to take over meeting being held by WWI general Erich Ludendorff and other leaders of the Kampfbund in order to gain power. Obviously, a direct forced takeover wasn't a good idea.

So Hitler resorted to propaganda. The idea for the book came from an earlier work, "Gustave Le Bon's 1895 The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, which theorized propaganda as an adequate rational technique to control the seemingly irrational behaviour of crowds." (Wiki, Mein Kampf)

The main thesis in Mein Kampf was '"The Jewish peril", which speaks of an alleged Jewish conspiracy to gain world leadership.' (Wiki). Which led to the idea of eradicating the Jewish population so that they will be prevented from ruining Germany. Hitler had Mein Kampf published, advertised, and distributed so that by the end of the war 10 million copies were sold. It was basically the 'Nazi Bible'.

You don't sell that many copies of a book without an impression on people.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Eclectic Mystic

OK, and?

all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Dondi

I'm not talking about the Jews, who were the primary target for the concentration camps, nor necessarily the common German people. I'm talking about the Nazi Party and any ather social fascist group associated with them.

Hitler wrote Mein Kampf while in jail for his part in a failed attempt to elicit a coup in the Beer Hall Putsch in 1923, in which he tried to take over meeting being held by WWI general Erich Ludendorff and other leaders of the Kampfbund in order to gain power. Obviously, a direct forced takeover wasn't a good idea.

So Hitler resorted to propaganda. The idea for the book came from an earlier work, "Gustave Le Bon's 1895 The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, which theorized propaganda as an adequate rational technique to control the seemingly irrational behaviour of crowds." (Wiki, Mein Kampf)

The main thesis in Mein Kampf was '"The Jewish peril", which speaks of an alleged Jewish conspiracy to gain world leadership.' (Wiki). Which led to the idea of eradicating the Jewish population so that they will be prevented from ruining Germany. Hitler had Mein Kampf published, advertised, and distributed so that by the end of the war 10 million copies were sold. It was basically the 'Nazi Bible'.

You don't sell that many copies of a book without an impression on people.

Yep, an impression of a madman's drivel for hatred and intolerance for non-germanic things and nazism. I don't want to ruin Cavalier's thread by talking about narrow minded nazis.

So, back on track. Everyone who reads the New Testament, in answer to Cavalier's original question, must by guided by their heart and spirit on what they read. That's the crunch.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by cavalier

There is an argument which runs that Jesus was mad, bad or else must have been the Son of God; that he he could not have been simply a good man or a great teacher.
I would love to know what people here think about this.

Thanks

Well, it's not an air-tight logical or theological statement, and I think CS Lewis did write in lay terms about this 'analysis' of who Jesus was.

As much as people try to twist it, the Gospels clearly portray Jesus as recognized by the apostles, those closest to him, as the Son of God. Note that to Jews at the time the Messiah was not expected to be more than a human...although he was expected to fulfill certain prophecies.

Jesus set about fulfilling those prophecies in an unexpected manner, and his claims to be one with the Father, and the claims of his disciples that He was God incarnate (John 1), were more than over-the-top.

I don't remember CS Lewis' explanaion of the mad, bad or Son of God question, but it's easy to imagine that someone making the same claims today would be considered crazy (not trustworthy to follow), blasphemous (perilous to follow), or who s/he claims to be.

Now, it would be one thing for someone to say they are called by God to start a food relief program or reach out to the untouchables of society like Mthr. Theresa because they are not claiming to be God with us. The stronger the claim, the greater the trust asked for.

So, even if not a logically sound 'proof' of the divinity of Jesus, it is a common sense way of realizing that if Jesus was not Who he said he was, then why/how would he be considered a great teacher worth following?

In fact, that points to a weakness in some segments of liberal Christianity. Just giving good advice like 'love your neighbor' is not really all that earthshattering...the Jews had that advice for millenia before Christ. It is not the teaching of Jesus that was revolutionary, but His claim and his request that we trust him to be More, a request proven trustworthy by the resurrection. So, if you don't trust the Resurrection, and you don't trust that Jesus was God Incarnate, what are you left with?

[wil]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

As much as people try to twist it, the Gospels clearly portray Jesus as recognized by the apostles, those closest to him, as the Son of God.

The gospels are quite interesting. We take the whole bible as a book, even though it wasn't in book form for centuries. The authors of the Gospels had the letters of Paul which were handed around church to church in pretty much a folded pamphlet form. Shared amongst folks "You done with Corinthians yet, I'll trade you a Gallatians when your ready" So the authors of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were familiar with the letters and the oral stories that were around. But each was writing from a particular perspective and each to a different audience (much as Paul's letters were as well ie attempting to answer a certain question or solve a certain problem on behalf of a certain group)

And each of the gospels was written 10-20 years apart, so after Mark each had another to gospel to build on, and attempt to clarify to their audience. So while one may focus on Son of G!d, another focuses on prophecy, another on the miracles, but literally literarily they have many differences when talking about the same instance, so which is correct if any is up for debate as it has been for 2,000 years, hence the questions and contentions by Lewis and thousands of others.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by wil

The gospels are quite interesting. We take the whole bible as a book, even though it wasn't in book form for centuries. The authors of the Gospels had the letters of Paul which were handed around church to church in pretty much a folded pamphlet form. Shared amongst folks "You done with Corinthians yet, I'll trade you a Gallatians when your ready" So the authors of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were familiar with the letters and the oral stories that were around. But each was writing from a particular perspective and each to a different audience (much as Paul's letters were as well ie attempting to answer a certain question or solve a certain problem on behalf of a certain group)

And each of the gospels was written 10-20 years apart, so after Mark each had another to gospel to build on, and attempt to clarify to their audience. So while one may focus on Son of G!d, another focuses on prophecy, another on the miracles, but literally literarily they have many differences when talking about the same instance, so which is correct if any is up for debate as it has been for 2,000 years, hence the questions and contentions by Lewis and thousands of others.

Fair enough wil, no arguments there. But which of the Gospels says there was no resurrection?

[wil]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Fair enough wil, no arguments there. But which of the Gospels says there was no resurrection?

You mean which one doesn't mention it? If I remember correctly one has only the empty tomb, another only a spirit Jesus, one with discussion and physical Jesus.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by wil

You mean which one doesn't mention it? If I remember correctly one has only the empty tomb, another only a spirit Jesus, one with discussion and physical Jesus.

But what do all of these stories point to, in your opinion? What do you think they meant to the people they were written for?