Very very little of anything is entirely original.
If you create or say something completely original, it will have no meaning to anyone you show, play, or say it to. They won’t have a point of entry, a way of relating it to anything they are familiar with.
Having said that…Jesus of Nazareth did not merely say “Y’all oughta be nice to each other and forgive and trust and share”. He dared to make an issue of rigid rule-following forms of worship
Instead of letting himself be intimidated by the letter-of-the-law types, he advocated theologically for the spirit behind the letter. Tricky stunt within a tradition so thoroughly wedded to the Torah as Law! But although he said none of the law was going to be erased and that he was about the business of fulfilling it, not invalidating it, he enshrined “love your God and your neighbor as your self, and act in accordance with that” as the key, and through action as well as statement he said that when that key leads you into conflict with the letter of the law, go with that which would be an act of love. And his teachings were about forgiveness and mercy at a time when righteousness was claimed by judges and bringers of justice and punishment on behalf of God.
Some would say that he deliberately put himself on the line in such a way that the authorities would have to choose between meting out a horribly disproportionate response to someone whom everyone could see wasn’t doing anything truly wrong, or else through inaction concede the point about the letter versus the spirit of the law. (Others are more inclined to believe that getting the Romans involved was a miscalculation on his part which ultimately got him killed). Even if the former is not true (I think it is), he was orchestrating a much more provocative thing than someone simply saying “Be kind and merciful and share and be good to people”.
There is no concept of the Trinity in Judiaism. So Jesus is not God, and in fact he explicitly direct that all prayers are to be addressed to the Father.
He certainly seemed to view himself as a good citizen of then-modern Judah. The Torah contains many stories and affirmations supporting the concept of God as not only personal but merciful. I think he was deliberately provoking some people but believed that all that he did was in line with the faith. So I agree – no way was he claiming to be literally and singularly God, or intending that people should pray unto him personally.
Well, for Hillary Clinton it would make perfect sense.
But seriously,
There is a problem with sticking with the NT. At one point the ire of the Pharisees is ignited when Jesus makes a God statement. As he makes a hasty exit he “backpedals” and cites Scripture saying that anyone who does the work of God is “a god”.
No unique Divinity there.
Also he once says that he goes to “my God and to your God”.
Implying that he is on essentially the same plane as all other folks.
A problem with O’Reilly’s claim is that the nativity stories in Luke and Matthew are among those parts of the Gospels which have the least to do with any supposed universal great philosophical teachings of Jesus which can be separated out from Christianity. The nativity stories are all about the birth of the supernatural Messiah: born of a virgin, angelic visititations, miraculous celestial portents, etc. The nativity stories are also among the most clearly mythologized bits of the Gospels: the stories Matthew and Luke tell disagree on many important points–in fact, they really don’t converge with each other at all–and Mark and John don’t mention any of this stuff at all.
The Sermon on the Mount or the Golden Rule might have some resonance to non-Christians, but the nativity story is overwhelmingly about the miraculous birth of the Christ, the Son of God, and not about the teachings of the Jewish philosopher Jesus of Nazareth. (I just checked the Jefferson Bible, and he did leave in a bit of Luke’s nativity narrative; I guess the “born in a manger” story has some resonance with non-Christian admirers of Jesus, in a classic “greatness born of humble origins” way. But I still say it’s a stretch, especially if your government-approved nativity scene includes a great big miraculous celestial portent hanging over it, or of course if there are any refernces about to Jesus’ mommy being a virgin.)
I read somewhere once that “born in a manger” was an Aramaic figure of speech for being born to humble beginnings, sort of akin to how “born with a silver spoon in his mouth” is a figurative way to describe being born into wealth.
I can’t seem to find a linkable cite for this, but if it’s true it could be an example of of a figurative expression being literalized in mythology. That would make sense to me.
John 8:58
"I tell you the truth,"Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I AM.”
Compare with Exodus 3:14
God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites; ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ "
Jesus indeed declared Himself to be God.
As for the OP;
it’s simplistic to state, as above, that even a lunatic occasionally
has moments of striking insight. I’d ask for some evidence for such, but it’s truly not worth the effort. Rather, demonstrate a single instance of Jesus as lunatic or concede the flippant nature of your comment.
Lewis brought complex theological arguments down to the layman level, and did so wonderfully well. His argument was sound. Our knowledge of Jesus’ life and ministry is almost solely limited to the NT. While there are glimpses of Him in outside sources, the gist, the main thrust is here. (And the Jesus Seminar is not in the mainstream of NT scholarship, specifically in their hasty cut-and-paste revisionism.) Thus, we are left to evaluate the words as recorded by those closest to Jesus for the short period of His ministry. Remember, these are words written within the lifespan of critics and enemies of this early Christian church. Based on the writings of the Apostles, Lewis’ challenge remains: is this man a lunatic? No sane man today would argue this. Is he a liar? Again, there is no evidence that Jesus at any time lied. Furthermore, a liar who fooled so many into following Him to their own deaths? For literally thousands of years? Is He Lord? The only sane answer left. Yes, He is.
Well, I think a major argument of Lewis’ trilemma is that people who go around declaring themselves to be God should be regarded as lunatics, unless they are in fact God. So your own quote could do as an instance of Jesus’ lunacy for everyone who doesn’t accept Jesus as God.
(In fact, as has already been argued above, I would add a fourth “L” to Lewis: liar, lord, lunatic, or legendary. That is, there may well have been a historic Jesus of Nazareth, but trying to form judgements of his character based on the New Testament is a bit like trying to form judgements on the character of the Emperor Charlemagne based on The Song of Roland. Of course, we have other, historical, records of Charlemagne, which is largely not the case with Jesus of Nazareth.)
This isn’t all you have that makes you think he’s G-d, is it? What about all the times he referred to and prayed to his Father. There are many more verses that point to Jesus’ connection, submission and respect to G-d. That doesn’t make sense. I honestly can’t remember what I was taught about that.
Well he was either talking to himself and referring to himself in the third person or he just thought he was G-d?
Maybe not for as long, but Hitler, Jim Jones and I’m sure there are more. Isn’t this an appeal to numbers type fallacy, anyway?
Doubtful. Even if this were an authentic saying of Jesus (which is debatable, John is the least historical of all the Gospels) I would argue that “I am” is simply the translated name of YHWH. In other words, “Before Abraham was Yahweh,” could be a perfectly accurate rendering of what Jesus actually said. It is certainly more likely than Jesus doing something as anti-Judaic, as blasphemous and internally inconsistent as claiming to be God.
Also, he couldn’t have claimed to have been both God *and the Messiah but the Jewish Messiah isn’t God. So, either Jesus was lying or he was crazy or someone made mythological claims about him after his death. What seems miost likely to you?
Oh, and don’t forget, all of the attributed sayings of Jesus come from secondary sources. The author of John never actually heard Jesus say the above. He either wrote what someone else told him Jesus said or he fabricated it to further a religious agenda. 'm open to either option.
I don’t think it’s necessary. I don’t accept that Jesus claimed to be God.
How do you account for the giant, gaping hole in Lewis’ argument that it is predicated on the (franly untenable) presumption that the Gospels are an accrate representation of what Jesus actually said?
The Jesus Seminar is the very cutting edge of NT scholarship. They have the advantage of being unhindered by a priori conclusions about the veracity of the Bible. This allows them to apply some truly objective and scientific methods to their research.
There is no “cut and paste revisionism” involved,w ahtsoever. The JS has no agenda. I’m sorry that factual research is so damaging to any defense of Biblical literalism but attacking the Seminarians is a childish and ineffective response. Show how their research is wrong. Sneering proves nothing.
The Gospels represent virtually the only thing close to documentation of Jesus but they are mythological works written long after the death of Jesus. they are not factual historical documents and they are clearly overelaid with a Thick mythological patina.
Unfortunately, no such documented words exist. Not one book of the NT was written by anyone who ever met Jesus.
Ther are no writings of any apostles and so what if the early church had enemies?
It’s still an illegitimate question. Jesus never said he was God. The NT is wrong.
No, those who wrote the gospels were…at least in the sense that they wrote fiction not fact.
How about when he said he would return before “this generation” had passed from the earth?
Seriouslly, though. Your “evidence” is still based on an unreliable compilation of mythological documents. I have no obligation to accept them as accurate and it’s perfectly reasonable to think Jesus said some things and not other things. Whether you agree with that conclusion is beside the point. The point is that CS Lewis’ argument fails on its face because it is not necessary to accept his predicates.
People have followed lots of religions to deaths. The fact that someone dies for a religious belief proves nothing about the veracity of that belief.