WOW! Atheists and the World's Religious Leaders agree on Jesus! Are they wrong?

I am going to lay out a, clear, (always documented) undeniable thesis that MOST people have gotten it wrong on who Jesus Christ of Nazareth is…

I have listed (below) what every MAJOR religion thinks of Jesus, which agrees with 99% of what most skeptics, non-believers, feel about him…

1) Islam……
Holds Jesus to be a prophet, or messenger of God, along with Muhammad, Moses, Abraham, Noah, and others.
Source: en.wikipedia.org...

2) Jewish…….
American rabbi and author Milton Steinberg (1903 – 1949) wrote that Jews saw the historical Jesus as a “noble and loving Jewish teacher."
Source: M. Steinberg, 1975 Basic Judaism pp. 106-107, New York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich

3) Baha’i……
Founded in 19th-century Persia, considers Jesus, along with Muhammad, the Buddha, Krishna, and Zoroaster, and other messengers of the great religions of the world to be Manifestations of God (or prophets), with both human and divine stations.
Source: Stockman, Robert (1992). "Jesus Christ in the Baha'i Writings". Bahá'í Studies Review

4) Krishna......
-The International Society for Krishna Consciousness considers Jesus to be a shaktyavesha, the beloved son of Krishna who came down to Earth to preach God consciousness.
-Contemporary Sant Mat movements regard Jesus as a Satguru.
-Ramakrishna believed that Jesus was an Incarnation of God Swami Vivekananda has praised Jesus and cited him as a source of strength and the epitome of perfection.
-Paramahansa Yogananda taught that Jesus was the reincarnation of Elisha.
Source: en.wikipedia.org...

5) Buddists……
Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama regard Jesus as a ‘bodhisattva’ who dedicated his life to the welfare of human beings.
Source: Beverley, James A. "Jesus Christ also lived previous lives", he said. "So, you see, he reached a high state, either as a Bodhisattva, or an enlightened person, through Buddhist practice or something like that".

6) Sikh......
See Jesus as a wonderful parallel with the person of Nanak, the first Sikh Guru....as with Allah and the Buddha.
Source: www.bbc.co.uk...

7) Manichaeism......
Accepted Jesus as a prophet, along with Gautama Buddha and Zoroaster.
Source: Bevan, A. A. (1930). "Manichaeism". Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, Volume VIII Ed. James Hastings. Londo

8) New Agers......
Generally teach that Christhood is something that all may attain. Alice A. Bailey, who, invented the term ‘New Age’, refers to him as ‘Master Jesus’ and believe he had previous incarnations.
Source: en.wikipedia.org...

9) Jesus Seminars......
Portrays him as an itinerant Hellenistic Jewish sage who did not die as a substitute for sinners nor rise from the dead, but preached a "social gospel" of goodness.
Source: en.wikipedia.org...

10) Deists......
Thomas Jefferson, Founding Fathers of the United States, created the Jefferson Bible entitled "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" that included only Jesus' ethical teachings because he did not believe in his divinity
Source: en.wikipedia.org...

= = = = =

Do you notice some CONSISTENCES? All 10 sited-sources acknowledge him as a good man, but not God. Let me say that again...All religious leaders, most ATS-ers, and most atheists...say the same thing...”GOOD GUY, TAUGHT ABOUT LOVE AND SACRIFICE!” But NOT devine....!”

Fair?

But this is ignorant and completely ILLOGICAL...So here’s OT’s 3 points….Point 1 - Remember Back to the Future and the Delorian (sp?) Imagine if you were Micheal J Fox and someone asked you to go to five (only 5) different time zones/geographical areas and meet one person in each time zone/area and ask them, "please write a book about God, I'll be back in 5 years to collect it."

Five years later you went and picked up the five books. Logically speaking what are the chances those five books would agree? What are the chances those five books would build upon one another? What are the chances you could make any semblance out of them...to live by or the like? Snowballs in your know where, right?

Different people! Different cultures! Difference Time frames! Different Premises! Different World view! etc...

Logically speaking you would have five unconnected books with five different perspectives, right?

Well, the Bible (torah, prophets, gospels, epistles, revelation) are not 5 books by five authors, but 66 books by 40 authors...who did not know one another, did not live in the same town, did not live in the same time line...authors were of every occupation and financial status........yet......the Bible is a one-themed, continuing story.

Doesn't prove it God's Word yet though...just something that might warrant another look.

Point 2 ---- Here's an undisputable fact (I believe at least after examining) Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be God, his followers claimed He claimed to be God...and...non Christian journalist (such as Josephus) claimed He claimed he was God. Doesn't appear here to be different agendas going on. He said it, His followers said He said it, third parties said He said it and even his enemies said He said it (Sanhedrin, Pharisees, etc)

SO...with all that said...we have only two LOGICAL outcomes. No religious double-talk here) Either you BELIEVE or you REJECT. Really no other options right? If you believe, then to you HE IS LORD. If you REJECT there are really only two options for you.

1) JC knew he wasn't telling the truth, therefore he would be A LIAR

2) JC didn't know he wasn't telling the truth, therefore he would be A LUNATIC.

That's the only three logical outcomes...LIAR, LUNATIC of LORD. There is no room for him being a good guy and all, no room for him being a prophet as every other religion on the face of the earth calls him.

Because prophets don't lie and they are not usually in psych wards.

Point 3 ---- Most direct followers were killed for believing in JC. If they had stole his body and the Romans excused, at least one of them would have squealed just before their execution right? I would have...but NO-All these ordinary folks were willing to die for what they saw…

= = = = =

JC-----Religious ‘Hall of Fame Dude’ (as most say) ... or ... GOD?

Thoughts?


[edit on 2-7-2009 by OldThinker]

Further inspiration for this thread here: www.whoisjesus-really.com...

Legend, Lunatic, Liar, or Lord and GOD?
In his famous book Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis makes this statement, "A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg--or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us.(emphasis: web author)"

Jesus could only have been one of four things: a legend, a liar, a lunatic--or Lord and God. There is so much historical and archeological evidence to support his existence that every reputable historian agrees he was not just a legend. If he were a liar, why would he die for his claim, when he could easily have avoided such a cruel death with a few choice words? And, if he were a lunatic, how did he engage in intelligent debates with his opponents or handle the stress of his betrayal and crucifixion while continuing to show a deep love for his antagonists? He said he was Lord and God. The evidence supports that claim.

[edit on 2-7-2009 by OldThinker]

double post....mistake, sorry....

[edit on 2-7-2009 by OldThinker]

Continu-ance:

Answers to #1 in the OP.... here: www.answering-islam.org...

Excerpt:

Jesus never once said those words. Not once did he say, "I am God." Since the God of the Hebrew Bible says it repeatedly why didn’t Jesus ever say it, at least once, especially when this is so crucial to Christian doctrine?

Answer:

The simple answer as to why Jesus didn’t simply come out and say, "I am God" is because of the confusion this would have caused the Jews living at that time. Noted New Testament Scholar and Catholic Theologian Raymond E. Brown states it best:

"The question concerns Jesus a Galilean Jew of the first third of the first century, for whom ‘God’ would have a meaning specified by his background and the theological language of the time. By way of simplification (and perhaps oversimplification) let me say that I think by a Jew of that period ‘God’ would have been thought of as One dwelling in the heavens - among many attributes. Therefore, a question posed to Jesus on earth, ‘Do you think you are God?’ would mean did he think he was the One dwelling in heaven. And you can see that would have been an inappropriate question, since Jesus was visibly on earth. As a matter of fact the question was never asked of him; at most he was asked about his relationship to God." (Brown, Responses to 101 Questions on the Bible [Paulist Press, Mahwah, N.J., 1990], p. 98)

Another NT scholar, this time an evangelical one, concurs with Brown. Former atheist turned Christian apologist Lee Strobel interviewed Ben Witherington and asked him basically the same question, namely, why did Jesus never come out and say he was God. Here is Witherington’s response:

"The truth is that Jesus was a bit mysterious about his identity, wasn’t he?" I asked as Witherington pulled up a chair across from me. "He tended to shy away from forthrightly proclaiming himself to be the Messiah or Son of God. Was that because he didn’t think of himself in those terms or because he had other reasons?"

"No, it’s not because he didn’t think of himself in those terms," Witherington said as he settled into his chair and crossed his legs. "If he had simply announced, ‘Hi, folks; I’m God,’ that would have been heard as ‘I’m Yahweh,’ because the Jews of his day didn’t have any concept of the Trinity. They only knew of God the Father–whom they called Yahweh–and not God the Son or God the Holy Spirit.

"So if someone were to say he was God, that wouldn’t have made any sense to them and would have been seen as clear-cut blasphemy. And it would have been counterproductive to Jesus in his efforts to get people to listen to his message.

"Besides, there were already a host of expectations about what the Messiah would look like, and Jesus didn’t want to be pigeonholed into somebody else’s categories. Consequently, he was very careful about what he said publicly. In private with his disciples–that was a different story, but the gospels primarily tell us about what he did in public." (Strobel, The Case For Christ [Zondervan Publishing House; Grand Rapids, MI, 1998 - Pocket Size Edition], pp. 178-179)

Good post, OT. Looking forward to reading the rest of it! Star and Flag!

Your points are very well put and it's nice to see. I personally believe through my life experiences and ONE major point to further verify it is that after 2000+ years, the masses are still trying to discredit him, his name and his works.

The simple FACT is that we will all see the truth after this physical existence, like it or not and I have a feeling the multitudes aren't going to like it.

Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
Good post, OT. Looking forward to reading the rest of it! Star and Flag!

kettlebellysmith,

Thx....how have you been?

It has been a while.....

OT


PS: I'm multi-tasking right now....honey-do list and work....I'm trying to stay organized.....


So glad you joined!

or does he get confussed with king jesus?


heres to king arthur

Originally posted by Revealation
Your points are very well put and it's nice to see. I personally believe through my life experiences and ONE major point to further verify it is that after 2000+ years, the masses are still trying to discredit him, his name and his works.

The simple FACT is that we will all see the truth after this physical existence, like it or not and I have a feeling the multitudes aren't going to like it.

HULK/Revealation,

Wow ... ... so glad you chimed in...have not seen you for a while...

Always a pleasure....

OT

Originally posted by serin sister
or does he get confussed with king jesus?


heres to king arthur

ss, hey!


I'm sorry I missed your point....me, not you....


Could you elaborate, please?

OT

reply to post by OldThinker


there was a king jesus too , so people have written, look up the legacy of king arthur its all set in stone literally

Originally posted by serin sister
or does he get confussed with king jesus?


heres to king arthur

oh, I see...sorry....


You are saying he wanted to be KING Jesus...OVER the Romans....right?

Some insight here....

Just when it looks to the crowd as though Jesus will prove He is the Messiah by overthrowing the Roman government of Israel, the King is arrested, betrayed by a friend. Even in His arrest, Jesus reminds them He is King "I could pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels" (Matthew 26:53). Instead, as the meek and lowly King, He is judged by earthly rulers (first the Jewish Sanhedrin and then the Roman governor), mocked, scourged and crucified as the King of the Jews (Matthew 27:26-37).


It appears to go quiet after all the rhetoric. Though He is dead, Matthew records the earthly rulers are still not sure about the King of the Jews, because of the possibility of resurrection, so they seal (with wax) the stone covering the tomb entry and place guards over it (Matthew 27:62-66).


Well they might fear, for nothing, not even the power of death or the gates of Hades can hold the King. He rises on the third day, just as He said, and appears to the disciples.


Finally, Jesus meets the disciples at the appointed mountain and declares to them:


"All authority in heaven and on earth is given to Me. Go, therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them, and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:18-20).

link/more: www.domini.org...

I dunno...what do you think?

OT

no thats not what i was meaning but an intersting find for you anyway

Originally posted by serin sister
reply to post by OldThinker

 

there was a king jesus too , so people have written, look up the legacy of king arthur its all set in stone literally

I will do just that....google it, serin sister....

Thank you so much for the info....

OT

Originally posted by serin sister
no thats not what i was meaning but an intersting find for you anyway

I've been known to find good stuff....


Just kiddin....


OT

PS: Altho....very interesting concepts there 'fo sho!'

ATS-ers!!!!!!!!!

You asleep???????

OT would have thought...a thesis saying Atheists and Religious Leaders agreeing.......would have caused more attention....


Are both WRONG about Jesus, as the OP states??

Skeptics, you onlne...or distracted or just partying?

OT

I will preface this by saying that I am an agnostic, yet I believe in a higher power of sorts.

I believe Jesus was a brilliant man who was thousands (perhaps millions) of years ahead of his time, and if we all followed his teachings the world would be an unmistakably better place.

However, I do not believe he was divine. Just an extremely gifted individual. The coincidences in all of these religious texts are testament to the ability of man to tell and re-tell a story, and our ancient oral histories.

I think its really a shame that so many modern religions that have roots in Jesus' teachings have strayed so far from those principles. I was reading somewhere (if I can find it I'll post it) that the religion which most closely follows Jesus' teachings and the original principles of Christianity is in fact Buddhism. It was a very compelling read.

Perhaps the most important thing Jesus taught was tolerance, and it is a shame that there is so little tolerance in today's world.

Originally posted by drwizardphd

I believe Jesus was a brilliant man who was thousands (perhaps millions) of years ahead of his time, and if we all followed his teachings the world would be an unmistakably better place.

However, I do not believe he was divine.

Hey drwizardphd,

Long time no see...hope all is well, thx for joining here!

Soooo.....

Are you saying you AGREE with the 10 "world religous leaders" i listed in the OP? JC, good guy, not GOD tho? ..... If so, how can you say you are agnostic?

Please think this thru....ok?

OT

My boy/scholar/brilliant dude.....MJH has said..... here... www.answering-islam.org...

Evangelical scholar Murray J. Harris explains:

"First, in all strands of the NT, theos generally signifies the Father… When we find the expression theos pater we may legitimately deduce that ho theos estin ho pater. And since pater refers to a particular person (not an attribute), the identity between ho theos and ho pater as proper names referring to persons must be numerical. 'God' must be equated with 'the Father.' If Jesus were everywhere called theos so that in reference to him the term ceased to be a title and became a proper noun like 'Iesous, linguistic ambiguity would be everywhere present.

"Another reason why theos regularly denotes the Father and rarely the Son is that such a usage is suited to protect the personal distinction between the Son and Father… which is preserved everywhere in the NT, but nowhere more dramatically than where the Father is called 'the God of our Lord Jesus Christ' (Eph. 1:17) or 'his God and Father' (Rev. 1:6) and where Jesus speaks of 'My God' (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34; John 20:17; cf. Rev. 3:2, 12), or, in an address to Jesus reference is made to 'your God' (Heb. 1:9). God was the one to whom Jesus prayed, the one he called his Father (e.g., Matt. 11:25). It was ho logos, not ho theos, of whom John said sarx egeneto (John 1:14).

"Clearly related to this second reason is a third. The element of 'subordinationism' that finds expression not only in the four authors who use theos as a christological appellation but also elsewhere in the NT may have checked any impulse to use theos regularly of Jesus. By customarily reserving the term theos for the Father, NT writers were highlighting the fact, whether consciously or unconsciously, that while the Son is 'subordinate' to the Father, the Father is not 'subordinate' to the Son. One finds the expression 'the Son of God' where God is the Father, but never 'the Father of God' where God is the Son.

"A fourth reason that may be suggested for the comparatively rare use of theos as a christological ascription was the danger recognized by the early church that if theos were applied to Jesus as regularly as to the Father, Jews would have tended to regard Christianity as incurably deuterotheological and Gentiles would probably have viewed it as polytheistic. If theos were the personal name of the Father and the Son, Christians would have been hard pressed to defend the faith against charges of ditheism, if not polytheism, however adamant their insistence on their retention of monotheism.

"Fifth, behind the impulse generally to reserve the term theos for the Father lay the need to safeguard the real humanity of Jesus against docetic or monophysitic sentiment in its embryonic form. In the early years of the church there was a greater danger that the integrity of the human 'nature' of Jesus should be denied than that his divinity should be called into question, witness the fact that docetism not Arianism was the first christological deviation.

"Finally, the relative infrequency of the use of theos for Jesus corresponds to the relatively infrequent use of ontological categories in NT Christology which is functional in emphasis…" (Harris, Jesus As God - The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus [Baker Books; Grand Rapids, MI; July 1998, Paperback], pp. 282-283; bold emphasis ours)

This doesn’t mean, however, that Jesus in his earthly ministry never told his disciples that he was God in those precise words. He may have revealed to them that he was God in the flesh, but only after the idea had been ingrained in their mind that he wasn’t claiming to be the Father.

Can you dispute skeptic..?

OT

Ive always wanted to say this ... this thread is perfect....

"There are no Atheists in a fox hole"