Could Jesus have been merely a good moral philosopher?

[Clay_10]

Many people hold the position that Jesus was not divine, but also assert that he was a good man and good moral philosopher. I believe that to be contradictory in nature because of the simple fact that he claimed divinity.

Objectively and historically, Jesus preached many concepts that most would consider right or just regardless of the validity of religion. Obviously, you can take logical assertions from any imperfect man and they will remain true regardless of the credentials of the man saying them. However, I’m asking about him as a person and his message alltogether. I so often hear that Jesus was not divine but was simply a good moral teacher and philosopher and I don’t understand it.

Jesus claimed divinity and many of his teachings were based on the fact that he was the “son of god” and “divine in nature”. With that, I would say that if he was not divine then he cannot be a good moral teacher. I agree with C.S. Lewis’s “lord, liar, lunatic” argument. Once Jesus bases the credibility and basis for his claims to be that he is divine in nature, there seem to be only 3 logical conclusions:
1. Jesus is divine and his teachings are of the utmost importance, and should be worshipped accordingly.
2. Jesus lied about being divine and his teachings were rooted in falsehood and deception.
3. Jesus is not divine but believed he was. Therefore, is mentally unstable and his claims and teachings are a byproduct of a crazy man.

If we can agree that Jesus claimed divinity, I don’t see how there can be any other logical conclusions other than the 3 listed above that C.S. Lewis made, yet I still hear quite often that Jesus was not divine but simply a good man and good moral teacher. Am I missing something or is this issue pretty cut and dry?

[Haicoway]

I am guessing that nobody responded to this because it doesn't make sense. I don’t make sense, so therefore I am responding. The only conclusion I can make.

Here is a fourth conclusion: Jesus was a good man and he had a complex, like a God complex. The ideas he preached were inherited, reside in the unconscious minds of most people, and they can be made conscious; and they are good ideas.

[LuckyR]

Many people hold the position that Jesus was not divine, but also assert that he was a good man and good moral philosopher. I believe that to be contradictory in nature because of the simple fact that he claimed divinity.

Objectively and historically, Jesus preached many concepts that most would consider right or just regardless of the validity of religion. Obviously, you can take logical assertions from any imperfect man and they will remain true regardless of the credentials of the man saying them. However, I’m asking about him as a person and his message alltogether. I so often hear that Jesus was not divine but was simply a good moral teacher and philosopher and I don’t understand it.

Jesus claimed divinity and many of his teachings were based on the fact that he was the “son of god” and “divine in nature”. With that, I would say that if he was not divine then he cannot be a good moral teacher. I agree with C.S. Lewis’s “lord, liar, lunatic” argument. Once Jesus bases the credibility and basis for his claims to be that he is divine in nature, there seem to be only 3 logical conclusions:
1. Jesus is divine and his teachings are of the utmost importance, and should be worshipped accordingly.
2. Jesus lied about being divine and his teachings were rooted in falsehood and deception.
3. Jesus is not divine but believed he was. Therefore, is mentally unstable and his claims and teachings are a byproduct of a crazy man.

If we can agree that Jesus claimed divinity, I don’t see how there can be any other logical conclusions other than the 3 listed above that C.S. Lewis made, yet I still hear quite often that Jesus was not divine but simply a good man and good moral teacher. Am I missing something or is this issue pretty cut and dry?

Of course there is the fifth option (my personal favorite) that Jesus was a prophet, never claimed to be devine and after the fact the power structure of the early Catholic church changed the scripture to have him make that claim.

[Karpel Tunnel]

or his claims of divine nature were not meant as claims he alone was divine, or that the divinity was the kind of transcendent divinity that the church tends to take this as.

I would guess there are other possibilities also.

[Haicoway]

Lots of other possibilities.

[Steve3007]

I dispute the reasoning in this option:

3. Jesus is not divine but believed he was. Therefore, is mentally unstable and his claims and teachings are a byproduct of a crazy man.

It is an extremely simplistic view of human nature to lump all false beliefs about oneself together, label them as "craziness" and imply that anyone with any of these delusions is automatically disqualified from any form of moral teaching. I have no problem believing that Jesus mistakenly believed himself to be the son of God but nevertheless had some great ideas about how people should behave towards each other.

[Haicoway]

Here’s what I think. Jesus was a Jewish man who meant well. And he had what we now call a god complex. One major interpretation of being a messiah means leading an era, a time, a period. Jesus had new ideas, like Trump does, like building a wall.

Many Jews do not use Jesus’ name; they refer to him as "The Other," the Jew that went off the path. He was charismatic, and quickly gained followers. He issued proclamations that became tenets or laws. They were ideas, good and helpful ideas, which Carl Jung would call archetypes, ideas that almost everyone inherits genetically, and they mostly reside in the unconscious mind until they are mined out, by people, like Jesus, who have the natural ability and interest to individuate; i.e., make formerly unconscious ideas conscious. And followers were so enraptured with Jesus’ ideas that they looked down upon and ostracized any people who did not go along with them as a program. And Jews and others didn’t go along with it because they already had religions, such as the oral Tora. Things were much less civilized then, lawless, and clannish. It was easy to kill someone who one thought didn’t belong or go with the program. The Crusades naturally grew out of that feeling.

[Sculptor1]

Many people hold the position that Jesus was not divine, but also assert that he was a good man and good moral philosopher.

He never claimed divinity.
Phrases employed in Aramaic by him were the same phrases used by all free lance Rabbis of the time.
However, those phrases transliterated into 1stC Greek were ambiguous, and confused with the same set of words associated with Alexander the Great and Emperor, both of whom were LITERALLY considered gods at the time.

Mortal and earthly true, but whether or not his brand of populism could be called "good moral philosophy" is unlikely, though he had some good points.
Here's some failures:
1)I don't think the notion that you should abandon your family to "follow me" is good advice, for example.
2)Turning the other cheek did not work out too well for hum either.
3) Whilst "blessing the weak" might be a nice gesture, that was not going to help them in any way.
4) Maybe his tearing down the money lenders at the temple was a cunning plan to ensure Jewish usury was the only christian way to borrow money? But I don't think he meant it that way.

[Sculptor1]

John 1 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Any moron can be the son of God. All you have to do is believe in this guff

[Wesgtr]

Many people hold the position that Jesus was not divine, but also assert that he was a good man and good moral philosopher.

He never claimed divinity.
Phrases employed in Aramaic by him were the same phrases used by all free lance Rabbis of the time.
However, those phrases transliterated into 1stC Greek were ambiguous, and confused with the same set of words associated with Alexander the Great and Emperor, both of whom were LITERALLY considered gods at the time.

Mortal and earthly true, but whether or not his brand of populism could be called "good moral philosophy" is unlikely, though he had some good points.
Here's some failures:
1)I don't think the notion that you should abandon your family to "follow me" is good advice, for example.
2)Turning the other cheek did not work out too well for hum either.
3) Whilst "blessing the weak" might be a nice gesture, that was not going to help them in any way.
4) Maybe his tearing down the money lenders at the temple was a cunning plan to ensure Jewish usury was the only christian way to borrow money? But I don't think he meant it that way.

This is a very good question, regardless of your religion or lack there of.

Sculptor1, Jesus does claim to be the 'Son of God' in the Scriptures. I am not sure why you would say he does not. The Old Testament has prophecies of one who is to come and change things. Even if one does not wish to join in belief, it is difficult to deny that there are parallels between the New Testament 'Word made Flesh', language solidified later by the council of Chalcedon, and the Old Testament.

One of the primary evidences of Jesus's Divinity is that he performed miracles, and these acts were documented in the Scriptures. Imagine a day with Jesus: perhaps you would not have believed him initially. But, if he had performed miracles, the nature of such acts awed many. They could see that he was God. Perhaps our distance from the biblical era of Jesus creates a divide between ourselves and the biblical world, where perhaps many of us would find belief more accessible. Nevertheless, there were those who wanted to see Jesus murdered, even though he was doing things for people everywhere and if not that, he was just a mere teacher. (Someone who wanted a pacifist murdered would have to show a new kind of hatred. We had Jesus, and, historically speaking, he was a man of wise words and teachings. He was a pacifist, essentially. Many loved him, but then there was utter hate against him, as well. There are people who will always hate Christ, and perhaps it really is 'cut and dry'. I would wager there are truly some who love him and others who despise him.

[Sy Borg]

There are two possibilities:

1) Either Jesus repeatedly broke the laws of physics at will with his miracles, or

2) Ancient people who believed that you could cure viral illness with exorcism were unreliable witnesses.

Consider how Jesus multiplied five loaves and two fish to feed a multitude. I wonder about the fish. Were they dead or still wriggling?

Had they been happily swimming in the ocean when they were suddenly (and invisibly) transported to the hungry people? Or were they conjured up from thin air? But if they were to be materialised, why produce the whole fish, with bones, skull and other inedibles? Why not simply provide the fillets or, better still, ready cooked fillets?

If one can materialise thousands of creatures out of thin air, it should not be too hard to add a little processing and cooking, especially since bread had been provided, rather than unprocessed wheat or dough.

[Sculptor1]

He never claimed divinity.
Phrases employed in Aramaic by him were the same phrases used by all free lance Rabbis of the time.
However, those phrases transliterated into 1stC Greek were ambiguous, and confused with the same set of words associated with Alexander the Great and Emperor, both of whom were LITERALLY considered gods at the time.

Mortal and earthly true, but whether or not his brand of populism could be called "good moral philosophy" is unlikely, though he had some good points.
Here's some failures:
1)I don't think the notion that you should abandon your family to "follow me" is good advice, for example.
2)Turning the other cheek did not work out too well for hum either.
3) Whilst "blessing the weak" might be a nice gesture, that was not going to help them in any way.
4) Maybe his tearing down the money lenders at the temple was a cunning plan to ensure Jewish usury was the only christian way to borrow money? But I don't think he meant it that way.

This is a very good question, regardless of your religion or lack there of.

Sculptor1, Jesus does claim to be the 'Son of God' in the Scriptures. I am not sure why you would say he does not.

It's not my idea, but the idea of academics. I was first introduced to the idea by Rabbi Blue on Radio 4 years ago.

The Old Testament has prophecies of one who is to come and change things. Even if one does not wish to join in belief, it is difficult to deny that there are parallels between the New Testament 'Word made Flesh', language solidified later by the council of Chalcedon, and the Old Testament.

There is no such thing as a prophecy.

One of the primary evidences of Jesus's Divinity is that he performed miracles, and these acts were documented in the Scriptures. Imagine a day with Jesus: perhaps you would not have believed him initially. But, if he had performed miracles, the nature of such acts awed many. They could see that he was God. Perhaps our distance from the biblical era of Jesus creates a divide between ourselves and the biblical world, where perhaps many of us would find belief more accessible. Nevertheless, there were those who wanted to see Jesus murdered, even though he was doing things for people everywhere and if not that, he was just a mere teacher. (Someone who wanted a pacifist murdered would have to show a new kind of hatred. We had Jesus, and, historically speaking, he was a man of wise words and teachings. He was a pacifist, essentially. Many loved him, but then there was utter hate against him, as well. There are people who will always hate Christ, and perhaps it really is 'cut and dry'. I would wager there are truly some who love him and others who despise him.

You have to be pretty stupid to take the Bible at face value.
With a lack of historical knowledge you are at the mercy of a naive way of looking.
People thought about the world differently in those times.
Jesus was just one "god" amongst many.

[Sy Borg]

Jesus was just one "god" amongst many.

Trouble was, God wasn't. That was the trouble with Christians and the Romans, who were perfectly happy to allow Christians to practice their faith at first, and their god would be added to their pantheon. But the Christians rejected all of the Roman gods, claiming that theirs was the only one.

[Sculptor1]

Jesus was just one "god" amongst many.

Trouble was, God wasn't. That was the trouble with Christians and the Romans, who were perfectly happy to allow Christians to practice their faith at first, and their god would be added to their pantheon. But the Christians rejected all of the Roman gods, claiming that theirs was the only one.

Yes.
Christian intolerance, failure to honour the emperor. Christianity was for 100s of years incompatible with civil society, until Constantine figured out the power of ein volk, ein reich, ein gott.

[Sy Borg]

What do you do? Even today, most people hold obviously superstitious beliefs. It's not as though there's a great movement towards reason and rationality at the moment. I can't help feeling that humans have peaked in terms of reason and rational thinking and are on the verge of handing the "baton" to intelligent machines. Still, judging broad sweeps of history when we live for such a short time, in not easy.