Is Jesus unique in any way?

Great Debates
1

For this discussion to be meaningful, we have to work under the stipulation that the Bible is 100% accurate. That is, if the Bible says that Jesus walked on water, then the man walked on water. Whether you accept it or not, I don’t want this thread to denigrate into a debate on Biblical inerrancy, or lack thereof.

Second, I am in no way a Biblical scholar, and I’m not even as familiar as I used to be (damned agnosticism). Addenda and rebuttals are welcome (obviously, or else I wouldn’t be posting, would I?)

Third, I’m going to limit my discussion to Christianity, because that it a big enough field as it is. If you’d like to compare Jesus to Krishna, have at it.

Ok, disclaimers out of the way, here’s my claim: Jesus was not a unique figure. There is nothing inherently “WOW” about him. He didn’t do anything that had never been done before, he didn’t act in a manner that had never been done before, and therefore his exaltation as a Messiah is silly. Let’s look at the claims for Jesus’s uniqueness.

He walked on water. Meh. Moses PARTED the seas; that’s more impressive to me. Plus, Jesus seemed to imply that Peter could walk on water if he had faith. Finally, if you’re going for sheer majesty of miracles, I don’t think you can top Elijah in his performance on Mt. Carmel (1 Kings 18). The man humiliates 450 Baal worshippers, and then calls on God to incinerate a thrice-dowsed pile of wood. Makes Jesus walking on water seem oh so boring. I could go on about the miracles (Samson springs to mind), but you get the point–working miracles does not a Messiah make.

He was raised from the dead. So was Lazarus (John 11). And I could swear that other people were resurrected, even in the Old Testament, but I’m having a hard time finding the verses. Help! Hell, Lazarus was resurrected after FOUR days, so he was even more rotting and stinky than Jesus and his paltry three days. Next.

He suffered so much. Ok, many of you are probably skimming this one, because it seems so obvious–other people were crucified, and lived DAYS hanging on the cross. But I’ve heard a man give a sermon explicitly, graphically describing, in medical terms, the suffering that Jesus went through. Did he suffer? Sure. Was it “the worst suffering possible”? Maybe, I don’t know, I’ve never been crucified myself. Did he suffer more than any other human ever? Give me a break.

He was free from sin. I think this one becomes a problem of definition. If a person questions Jesus’ actions, asking “What about this? Was that the actions of a blameless being?” the answer is inevitably “Yes, because Jesus lived without sin.” Let’s not play that semantics game, ok? A few examples:

(1) The scene in Matthew 21 (among others) where he “overturned the tables of the moneychangers and the benches of those selling doves.” This scene has always bothered me, ever since I saw Jesus going berzerk in The Last Temptation of Christ. Wouldn’t a better option have been to verbally confront the offending parties? For a perfect being, Jesus sure did fly off the handle there.

(2) Also in Matthew 21, the bit with the fig tree. He sees a fig tree, he sees no figs on it, so he petutantly declares “May you never bear fruit again!” The poor tree withers and dies. What the hell is up with that? Apparently, if Jesus is perfect, having a temper is A-OK. Also, you’re allowed to find fault and destroy things which cannot help it. If your cat pukes on your carpet, feel free to kill it. Yeesh.

(3) The man, for all his rhetoric about not wanting to change The Law, sure did a nice job of flouting it–eating non-Kosher food, doing not-cool activities on the Sabbath. What a role model, kiddies!

Ok, I’ve got to cut this short, because I have class in 5 minutes, but there it is.

Quix

2

Cite? I think you may find the exact opposite.

But to chime in on your OP, I think you’re missing the point, given your criteria of assuming the Bible is 100% accurate. One of the main things you’re going to be hearing from someone who knows the Bible (I’m a Catholic, so there goes that!), is that Christ fufilled the prophesies. 6000 years of promises answered by one guy is fairly unique.

I’d also mention the whole “virgin birth” thing as well, if I were you.

3

quixotic78

Christ believers with whom I am familiar have suggested that Jesus was unique in that he was the Son of God. No one else has held such a title in the Judeo-Christian tradition as far as I know. That’s a pretty big deal. In fact, I think that’s the most important aspect of Jesus. All else is fluff once you consider the enormity of this interesting character trait.

As a note on the fig tree business, I think it’s not as harsh as you have painted it. Fruit and fruit trees are really effective when used for metaphors for human productivity and development. Man and Tree are capable of producing wonderful things. In the case of the former, poetry, love, learning and grace are examples of these wonderful things. In the case of the latter, we get tasty treats that double as seed delivery systems. If Man or Tree will produce nothing of which it is capable, why should it not wither and die?

Connor:

Did Jesus meet all the demands of prophecy to the letter? What about the bit regarding coming in glory as a king and all that crap the Nazarene did not do?

4

Quix, I think there would be quick debate if you had thrown this open – a large share of Christians don’t buy into Biblical inerrancy, to say nothing of the rest of the board.

However, working from your premise, I’d have to say “yes” and disagree with two of your premises:

  1. Unlike others who were raised from the dead, Jesus rose from the dead. (To be sure, Paul occasionally uses “was raised” regarding Him, with reference to the power of God as the activating force, but Christianity of all stripes is united in distinguishing His “self-propelled” Resurrection from a resuscitation of a previously dead person. There is also the mysterious language Paul uses in I Corinthians 15 that He was raised a Spiritual Body – neither a flesh-and-blood body nor a bodiless human spirit, conceived of by almost all ancient peoples as having little innate power, but “getting the best of both worlds” so to speak. To use another of your options, “anybody can walk on water: all it takes is a speedboat and water-skis, or waiting until it freezes over. To do it at a walking pace on liquid, though, is uniquely Jesus.”

  2. Though this requires a bit of eisegesis, the Bible appears to show Jesus as being God incarnate. There are references to “Christ our God” in some of the benedictions that epistles end with, and John in particular is quite adamant that Jesus was God in the flesh. “Before Abraham was, I AM.”

And, Connor and all, with regard to the “unfulfilled prophecies” stuff, two comments, one half-serious and half-joking and the other quite serious…

  1. Like any best-selling author, God saved something up for the sequel! :smiley:

  2. The thrust of the “unfulfilled prophecies” arguments seems to be, in general, that Jesus was not the war-making Messiah who would defeat the Romans and establish God’s Kingdom on Earth – what most Messianic Jews of his day were expecting.

Jesus answers this in his parables, and Matthew in particular was very conscious of how they were not answered in a way that fit expectations, and made sure this was stressed. “The Kingdom of Heaven/God is…” constantly addresses how God’s “kingdom” (authority) is not externally imposed, but within the believer. He established His kingdom by His death and resurrection, and it was first proclaimed in existence Easter night when Thomas confessed Him “My Lord and my God.”

The only parallel that suggests itself is the proud boast of an Englishman: “You Yanks and French may be citizens of republics, but only we English are truly free – only we are subjects of the King!” When you see what that guy is getting at and how it differs from how we Americans would perceive sovereignty, you have a handle on what Jesus was trying to say in those Kingdom parables.

5

Here, I’ll annotate the things that Jesus was unique in:

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,

  • Well, that pretty much says it all

eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.

  • More detail on the matter

For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.

  • Unique there as well

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

  • Well, I suppose God only has one right hand, so that’s unique

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

  • Again, this is unique

In short, Jesus was not considered a messiah due to his works, but he is worshipped because he is, in fact, fully God, as well as fully human. There’s also the fact that, according to some Christians, it is necessary to accept him as your savior to get into heaven.

6

Connor, re: Jesus changing the law, I’d offer up as a “cite” the famous “jot and tittle” verse, Matthew 5:17-18, “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.” That’s what I meant by rhetoric about not wanting to change The Law.

As far as fulfilling prophecies (by the way, 6000 years? Woah! More like somewhere in the lower region of the 500-1500 year ballpark), you’re right, I kind of tied my own hands there. Can I modify my stipulation somewhat and say that you have to regard the Bible as factually correct, but the in-text (and certainly out of text) interpretation can be debated? For example, when the Bible says that the lineage of Jesus was X through Mary and Y through Joseph, fine. But you’re free to debate whether his lineage via Joseph is relevant, seeing as how Jesus didn’t share any blood with Joseph. I don’t know if that modification will make a difference, but some of the prophecies being “fulfilled” is a long shot, IIRC, even accepting the facts as is.

Tymp, re: He’s the Son of God. I’m going to dastardly, retroactively apply my New Stipulation–Biblical Facts are immutable, but Exigesis and Interpretation may vary. I don’t recall the Bible saying, “In Bethany, the Apostles were sitting around, having a beer, when Jesus told them that he is the Son of God.” Jesus is much more fond of the phrase “Son of Man.” Please correct me if I’m wrong and show me where it explicitly says (I’m particularly interested in the Gospels and Acts) that Jesus was the Son of God. If that fact didn’t explicitly occur, then it’s up for debate, and subsequent affirmation or rebuttal.

Re: The Fig Tree, I was never given the impression that the Fig Tree would never bear fruit; it just seems to not be bearing fruit when Jesus bumped into it. I do understand it as a metaphor, but it’s still disturbing. I can use it as justification for killing my roommate’s non-fruit bearing cat. Such a temper on that lad.

Poly, does my loosened condition work any better for you? I.e., factual inerrancy, but not interpretational inerrancy?

Re: raised from the dead. Yes, God would be the activating force in both the resurrection of Lazarus and of Jesus. Unless you’re trying to say that Jesus did some sort of meditation and, of his own, non-divine power, brought himself back to life, which you’re clearly not. So, with regards to “raised” vs. “was raised,” I see no difference between Jesus and Lazarus. With regard to the Spiritual Body, I’ll have to get back to you. I’m not well versed in the “physically raised” versus “a walking ghost” versus “a Spiritual Body” area. Wanna give me some pointers, in addition to 1 Corinthians 15?

Waterj2, keeping this brief, because I gotta split: that’s not the Bible. Even under my original stipulation, the Nicene Creed happened, what, over 300 years after Jesus died?

Keep it coming,
Quix

7

Don’t forget that Jesus was also a hellacool funkadelic rapmaster dancing queen. He could tear up the dance floor with his lil’ hottie, Mary Magdalene. All the Pharisees were jealous of his magic dancin’ feet, so they strung him up like a spring chicken and nailed his mo-biggety ass to the cross.

8

Quixotic… to cite the resurrection of Lazarus as proof that jesus was nothing special is, to put it kindly, just a tad dishonest.

Think about it- did Lazarus come back to life on his own? Or did he, uh, maybe, have a little help from someone else? Hmm?

9

Did Jesus come back to life on HIS own? Or did he, uh, maybe, have a little help from someone else? I’ll admit, coming back to life is a neat trick, but it wasn’t a Jesus only trick.

Plus, how is it dishonest? It’d be dishonest if I were obscuring something, but the Bible’s there for anyone to read. Hell, I even gave you the chapter. If you disagree with my assertion, that’s one thing. But questioning my honesty is ridiculous. I just hope that you chose a poor word.

Quix

10

Your premise includes the assumption that the Bible is %100 accurate.

This is in the Bible. We are under the assumption that the Bible is %100 accurate. This is in the Bible. It mentions Christ as God. Therefore, there is something inherently “WOW” about Jesus.

Dude is God.

11

Vigin birth? Funny, cause the first thing I thought of when I saw a thread about Jesus not being unique was the virgin birth.

Because what could be less unique? Half a dozen Greek and Roman Gods and Godesses were vigin births. In the ancient world divinity was endowed by virgin birth left and right. Hell, Caesar Augustus was a virgin birth. Everybody who was anybody two thousand years ago was a virgin birth.

12

Is quixotic78 unique in any way?

13

Um–Jesus was the only one who died on the Cross for our sins?

14

Jesus–came back to life. Without help.
Lazarus–was brought back to life. By Someone else.

Jesus–was dead only for Saturday. Not long enough to stink.
Lazarus–had been dead four days. “Lord, he stinketh,” they objected.

Jesus–somebody rolled the stone away. Nobody saw it happen.
Lazarus–the men of the neighborhood rolled the stone away. Lots of people saw it happen.

Jesus–emerged from the tomb in total privacy. Nobody saw that happen, either.
Lazarus–emerged from his tomb into the center of an interested audience of his friends, relatives, and neighbors.

On the face of it, Lazarus is the more believeable resurrection. Then why don’t we have “Honk if you love Lazarus” bumper stickers? Because Lazarus never did nothing for nobody. He never did anything else, never healed anybody, never walked around Galilee teaching and preaching. And he never brought anybody back from the dead himself.

15

I like this answer, Polycarp. Your second suggestion is far too reasonable and leaves little room for humorous sniping.

quixotic78,

Having gone back to read this bit in the proper context, I must now abandon my previous interpretation of the incident. Lucky for me, the point I thought I was making is not terribly important in addressing the matter at hand.

Well, if you are going to simply dismiss the idea that Jesus and God were one, then I guess you could see him as being raised by the hand of God. However, most accept the parts of the story that describe Jesus as the Son of God and Son of Man and therefore view the rising of Jesus as a result of his own direct action.

16

“Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” — Jesus (John 2:19)

17

I have often wondered why the authors of the Gospels spent so little time on this (the resurrection of lazarus). I mean, the guy was dead for a long time, yet he never talks about his experiences in detail, Imagine the following (hypothetical) interchange:
(Jesus) : “LAZARUS-COME FOURTH!!”
(Lazarus):man, this hurts, where am I?,I can hardly breath! .and it smells in here!"
(Jesus): how are you, old friend?
(Lazarus): I remember having a heart attack…then everything went black…then I saw a “being of light”’…wait a minute…that was YOU!!!
(Jesus): don’t breath a word of this…have something to drink!
(Lazarus):…wait a minute-I’m rotting!
(Jesus): don’t be hysterical-I’ll fix everything up for you…just wait for easter
(Lazarus): Easter-what’s this Easter?
Sow how come the gospels spend so little time on this?

18

quixotic78 wrote

You’re right – it never says that. That’s because it happened in Caesarea Philippi.

From Matthew 16 :
[sup]13[/sup]Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” [sup]14[/sup]And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” [sup]15[/sup]He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” [sup]16[/sup]Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” [sup]17[/sup] And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
I tend to think most of the claims already made are valid – especially the one about Jesus being God. I’ll add one more to it : He forgave sins. I’m not just talking about the atonement on the cross, but instances where he forgave people their sins.

Luke 7:36-50 : He forgives the sins of a woman called a ‘sinner’ by a Pharisee.
Mark 2:1-12 (also in Matthew 9:1-5 & Luke 5:17-26) he forgives the sins of a paralytic, then heals him.

In both instances this was something remarked upon as unusual by those around him. If, after all, his contemporaries, who were well-versed in Jewish history (as most of these Pharisees were) noticed this as unique, I would think that to be acceptable.

19

Like virgin birth, being the son of god was in no way unique in the ancient world. Alexander the Great come to mind. And Augustus Caesar (again). And most of the Greek heroes (Heracles, Perseus, etc.).

As to Jesus being God, the early Christians themeselves weren’t too clear on that subject. Considers going into long schpeil about Arian Christians vs. Trinitarian Christians, thinks better of it.

20

And in “Judeo-Christian tradition” there was Honi “the Circle-Drawer”, and Hanina ben Dosa, both of whom were labeled "son of God.

As for becoming God, the usual suspects did that, too. From Julius Ceasar on, the emperors were worshipped as gods after their death. (“Of course you have religious freedom. You can choose to sacrifice to the emperor or be thrown to the lions.”) Later on, they got promoted to God even before they died.

Fulfill prophicies? What religious figure worth his salt doesn’t do that? In our own time, the Rebbi Schneerson was considered to be the Messiah prophesied by scripture. See http://www.rickross.com/reference/ultra-orthodox/ultra23.html for example.

OK, so we’re all unique. There’s nothing unique about being unique.