This topic comes up repeatedly every few weeks, so I thought, why not try to properly place the position of Jesus Christ with regards to Christianity?
Or at least draw the lines to show where opinions differ.
The question of Jesus stems from several religious scriptures, so if you don't accept those scriptures as being valid in any way, we come up with the
1) That Jesus was nobody at all, a fictional character, created out of nothing, or something so removed, that it fails to have any
2) Next off is the opinion that Jesus was a real person, who may or may not have done some things, who was then immortalised in a book, which added
many things to his life.
If we take this position, then while we may not disagree with his existence, anything in any scripture is irrelevant. It may be that this
of what the scripture says is true, but this
part is not. In this case, the whole question becomes irrelevant, unless someone is willing to
make a detailed study of the scriptures to find out what is original and what is added (far outside the scope of this post).
3) Lastly comes the position that everything in the Bible (with regards to Jesus's position) is true.
While some may say that much of the bible is metaphoric, I'm sure they'd agree that something as important as Jesus's position with regard to
humanity is pretty important, and would be meant to be taken as is.
I'm taking the assumption that at least SOME PART of the scripture is correct. If this is not true, then the very existence of Jesus is moot point,
and it is pointless to have this discussion.
One main part is John 3:16
. Jesus is referred to as God's only begotten
Son. Begetting (by definition) brings forth the idea of intercourse, which I think is pretty odd when relating to God. Now, I'm hardly a scholar, so
if there is someone more learned than me, I'd appreciate help from them in this part. Another 'begotten' from the NT is in
, referring to Abraham and Isaac. Is this the same word
used? Also, in Pslams
(OT, but anyhow), David is also said to have been
'begotten' by God. Is this the same word?
This information will help clear up a very important point.
Another important point, disregarding the first, is whether or not Jesus is God. He is alternately called Son of man and Son of God in the Bible. Some
say that he called himself 'Son of Man' to hide his divinity until the end. I do not understand such deceit. Some say he was both man and God at the
same time. This is more confusing. Was Jesus both man and God, exclusive of each other, or man and God simultaneously, or a man who sometimes became
God? The first cannot be possible because says "The Father is Greater than I" and "I can do nothing but by the will of my Father". The second is
even more confusing, because then we have verses like this one
call him a man who God worked through. The third idea is absurd, even if you concentrate on before the crucifixion (when some people say that Jesus
and God became seperated).
This brings us to Jesus's position in the Trinity. Of course, for unitarians, there would be no such thing, and no problem here. However, if we take
the Trinitarian approach, where in the Trinity does Jesus stand?
As mentioned earlier, we have "The Father is greater than I". This shows that in any trinitarian concept, the 'Father' would be on the top. Sort
of like a triangle with the peak facing upwards. Then we have Jesus praying to God for
, which I'm assuming is the Holy Spirit, so I'd think
that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not one and the same. So again, it would either be a triangle with the Father on the top, and Jesus and the Holy
Spirite at the bottom, or a line from top to bottom going Jesus->Holy Spirit->Father.
This is as far as I've gone, I'd appreciate some input to fully and properly put this question to rest. If you disagree with the existence of Jesus,
then you disagree, and I understand, but otherwise, I'd like it if there was some scriptural backing for anything you say, because anything
definitive about Jesus would have to come from the scripture.
[edit on 8-8-2007 by babloyi]