Not_Registered

ONCE AGAIN PEOPLE (Magdlyn and TySixtus specifically), I have claimed not to be a scholar and thus and not discussing topics I don't know much about, such as all the specific preachings and quotes of Jesus. My issue raised has NOTHING to do with Jesus' life and any of the words uttered out of his mind. In fact has to do with the opposite, the words he didn't utter. He never defended the accusation that He said He was God. Therefore, I think He did believe Himself to be God. I don't care about his quotes and saying and the "4 canonical gospels" or any bible verses. Come on, what I'm trying to say isn't THAT confusing at all. I already stated that my point my be irrelevant if Jesus' crucifixion had absolutely nothing to do with people believing that He said He was God. But I can't even discuss my issue because half the people replying can't comprehend 3 sentences without distorting the issue at hand, yet they can read the 4 canonical gospels and fully understand them. If you have an opinion about the issue I raised please respond. If I'm wrong of my point is invalid and you can prove that, within the scope of the issue, then great. I'm just posing a question not claiming to be the almighty ruler of knowledge. But people quit confusing the question I posed. One more time: It has nothing to do with Jesus' sayings, teachings, preachings, etc.

-DM-

It most certainly does have something to do with "the words uttered out of his mind." You are asserting what Jesus allegedly did and did not say about himself.

You are again making the same erroneous claim that I addressed in the very first response to your original feedback. Neither you nor anyone else can possibly state what Jesus--or anyone else--has never said.

Your assertion is erroneous. And you should care about his quotes and what the four canonical gospels have him saying. You need to keep in mind, as I pointed out in my first response, that just because the gospels say that Jesus said something doesn't mean that he did. Much of what he allegedly said likely has more to do with the words that people put into his mouth after the fact than what he actually said.

You are not just posing a question. You are also claiming to know what Jesus said and did not say, and you are also stating what you believe based on what you think he did and did not say.

On the contrary, it has a lot to do with "Jesus' sayings, teachings, preachings, etc."--unless you give up thinking that you know what he did and did not say.

-DM-

Mageth

I think someone mentioned this before, but we don't, and can't, know what Jesus didn't utter; therefore, you can't base your argument on what Jesus "didn't utter". You can't establish, for example, that Jesus never refuted the accusation that he said he was God.

One major problem we face with this question (of what Jesus did and didn't say) is that the records we have of his alleged words were all written long after the events portrayed, and by people that were sympathetic, to say the least, of the "cause". In other words, we don't and can't, know if what Jesus is recorded to have said is factual, partly factual but embellished, or totally made up.

And we certainly can't deduce from the Gospels what Jesus didn't say. For one, none of the Gospel writers, whoever they were, were witnesses to the "trials" of Jesus during the Passion (and it's likely that they weren't eyewitnesses of Jesus' life at all). There is no other record, either Jewish or Roman, of the alleged trials, or of any other words of Jesus (outside the extrabiblical "gospels" etc, e.g. the Gospel of Thomas).

We can't even be certain that the "Passion" events portrayed in the Gospels actually happened, or happened in the way described. There is no external verification of these accounts, the different accounts are not consistent, and they include details that are improbable (e.g. Pilate giving in to the Jewish crowd).

It's possible, actually more likely IMO (given that Jesus did come to Jerusalem from Galilee and started to cause a stir), that a group of Roman soldiers, with the charge of keeping order in Jerusalem, seized Jesus "on the spot" and crucified him without any sort of trial (for example, immediately upon Jesus tearing up the temple, an act which wouldn't have set well with the Romans, who were strict disciplinarians in their provinces, to say the least). They would not need direct approval from Pilate et al to do that; it was in their "orders" to quickly deal with troublemakers.

Another thing: the gospels were written after the belief in Jesus' divinity arose. The Gospels are faith documents, meant to support a certain set of beliefs, and not historical records. So it's unlikely that a writer who believed in the divinity of Jesus would include anything Jesus may have said that would undermine that belief.

As others have pointed out, the alleged recorded words of Jesus are ambiguous at best as to whether he claimed to be God, and we certainly can't deduce from what we have (or don't have, as you're trying to do) what Jesus may or may not have actually believed about himself.

Of course you "care about" his quotes in your argument - you're basing your argument on what is not in the quotes - him denying that he was God. Thus, you have to consider the quotes to even make your argument.

As has been pointed out, the Romans, who executed Jesus, didn't give a whit as to the alleged claims of Jesus. Jesus was causing a stir in Jerusalem during the Passover (as illustrated by the Temple incident), was likely seen as an insurrectionist or possible insurrectionist by the Romans (at the very minimum he was seen as a troublemaker), and was summarily dealt with by the Romans. Pilate (as Rome did in general) had a reputation for quick, decisive, and brutal handling of such disturbances. Once the Romans had decided to take care of the problem by crucifying Jesus, no amount of denial of his alleged claims of divinity would have saved him.

Well, you are (fallaciously) basing your argument on what Jesus allegedly didn't say, which opens the door for discussion of what he is recorded to have said. Plain and simple.

Mageth

Looks like the Good Donald and I posted virtually identical (overall, if not in detail) responses.

Amaleq13

Which passage in which Gospel do you find this accusation being made against Jesus?

Not_Registered

Yet I previously say:
A QUESTION....A QUESTION, meaning I DON'T know. I'm NOT claiming. If I wanted to claim something I would make a STATEMENT, not ask a question. And, I also say
Note: The above quote should be "If I'm wrong *and* my point..."
I don't CLAIM to know anything. Come one people. I obviously haven't studied biblical topics as thoroughly as all of you have, but my common sense level sense to be in the stratosphere in comparison to most of ya'll out there.
I use a "if" and "I think" throughout my replies. This should indicate that I am not sure of what I am assuming because I haven't researched it in depth. I'm saying IF what I'm ASSUMING (assuming indicated by the "I think" wording) is true, then (blank). The only saying of Jesus' that is important to my argument would be if Jesus, once appointed to be crucified, did refuse the accusation of claiming He was God. If someone can prove this to me then I will applaud then and say I was wrong. In other words, If someone can prove what I'm assuming is incorrect, not by just saying I'm wrong, but with actual evidence, then I'll shut up. Note that listed a bunch of bible verses doesn't prove MY point wrong. If you list something that shows Jesus denying He ever said He was Lord then I will be proved wrong. Or if you prove that people believing Jesus said He was Lord had absolutely nothing to do with Jesus' crucifixion then you will have proved me wrong and I will shut up. And, I'm not even tryin to prove anyone wrong. I just posed a question. I didn't come in here attacking and slandering unbelievers or whatever. I just posed a question because I was curious. I figured ya'll would know more than me and be able to answer the question. I'm sure ya'll do know more than me, but some where along the way, while your reading this post and others like it that I posted, you lose the substance of my issue and your veer off onto some rant about Jesus never said he was God and look at verse blah blah blah and blah blah blah. NOTHING...ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with my arguemnt which is simple: "If Jesus' crucifixion had anything to do with people believing He said He was God (especially if that was not what He was saying), then why didn't Jesus, to save His life, go way out of His way make it clear that He was NOT saying this and that He was just a prophet or very close to God spiritually.

P.S. Yes -DM-, I know that what Jesus said is important to proving that He ever SAID He was Lord. But right now, for my query, what Jesus said has no relevance, unless He, once appointed to be crucified, denied saying that He was Lord (if His crucifixion had anything to do with people believing He said that He was Lord).

Mageth

Not_Registered:

Amaleq13 raised a very pertinent question. In none of the trial accounts in the Gospels can I find where Jesus was accused of, or crucified for, claiming to be God, or even asked if he was God or claimed to be God. Instead, the questions were directed at him claiming to the the "Christ", or Messiah, (not the same as God) or, before Pilate, the "King of the Jews".

Not_Registered

Finally...Thank you Mageth of a reply I was looking for. A reply that spoke to the heart of my question. In regards to me saying I don't care about what Jesus said or the gospels or whatever, that was to say I don't care about the ambiguous bible verses which some say prove Jesus said He was God and some say don't prove anything. Previously, that's all I was getting from people as a reply. I don't care about those kind of verses. They don't touch the issue of my question. Now if there is something that shows that Jesus denied claiming He was God in order to evade crucifixion then obviously that is crucial. Yes, I realize no one knows for sure but we can say that FOREVER and ANYTHING that doesn't have actual evidence like video or audio or a dated artifact from the exact time or something. That would mean nothing from Jesus' time and before and even other historic events are unknown. That would make half of history an unknown mystery. But whatever. Yeah I see your point though anyway. And like you were not trusted my words I can't necessarily trust yours, so just because you say Jesus' claims of divinity were irrelevant to the Romans, without any proof I can't 100% believe that. Obviously you know more about it than me, but I can't 100% believe you just cause you say, without any real proof. But anyway thank you Mageth for finally supplying me with a logical rebuttal. I understand your points made.

Mageth

Well, to belabor the point, by arguing from what Jesus didn't say, you are indicating that you do "care about" what he did say (you can't come to a (faulty) conclusion about what he didn't say without examining what he is recorded to have said). In addition, by arguing that Jesus didn't deny that he claimed he was God, you "open the door" for people to respond with what he is recorded to have said (to examine if Jesus ever really claimed to be God).

That's all rather irrelevant, however, as it has been pointed out that the trial accounts portrayed in the Gospels don't even support your claim that Jesus was crucified for claiming he was God, or was asked, or given the chance, to deny that he claimed to be God.

As was pointed out, it's not recorded that he was charged with (or crucified for) claiming to be God, so he hardly needed to deny it.

Not_Registered

Amaleq13, that is a good point. I have never thoroughly dissected the gospels. I definetly now will start being more in depth and diligent in my study of the gospels. To explain myself, I always thought (assumed) that Jesus was crucified for, or accused of, blasphemy (along with other things). And, I believe blasphemy is when one claims to be God or have the powers of God. I could be wrong, but I always thought Jesus was accused of blashpemy and that is why He was crucified. I say that just to explain my reasoning in the whole matter.