OT: The Theology Thread

[woods-racer]

Not off topic in the least.  This is the theology thread after all.

 

That is great news.  Please pass on my congratulations to your newly ordained friend.  My hope is that the Almighty will bless him and his good work that he is embarking on.

 

 

Good question.

 

No.  As far as I know, there is no function key for (PBUH).

 

As a Muslim, I have to ask for the blessings of Allah whenever I mention the name of a Prophet of Allah.  PBUH stands for ... Peace and Blessings be upon him.

 

I agree, it is a great discussion.

 

I wont say I was afraid to ask, but I assumed every one knew what (PBUH) meant and I was to lazy to google or re-read the thread and embarrassed to ask. I must say by this point in my life one would think I would have learned to ask and not assume, it all makes so much more sense now... 

[Neo]

Thank you for the clarification. This part from the wikipedia page:

 

 

 

Describes almost perfectly the Catholic view of Jesus's eternal existance as the Word vs. his mortal life here on earth.[/quote

 

I dig this.

I want to go to service with NS and a whole bunch of you.

[smj]

smj,

 

I appreciate your kind words and appreciate your take on things.  As I have said, if that works and is right for you then I have no issues at all with it.

 

One small correction.  Islam teaches that both Isaac (PBUH) and Ishmael (PBUH) were blessed as the direct offspring of Ibrahim (Abraham) (PBUH).  Muslims view all three as Prophets and Messengers of Allah, along with all the numerous other Prophets ... we (Muslims) do not view any Prophet and / or Messenger above another.  One (Isaac) (PBUH) was blessed and was anointed as the for father of the Jewish, therefore Jesus (PBUH), faith and tradition.  The other (Ishmael) (PBUH) was anointed the for father of the Islamic, therefore Muhammad (PBUH), faith and tradition.

 

We (you and me, as well as all Muslims, Jews and Christians, in addition to all other faith communities) have much more in common than differences.  I have a calming peace surrounding me with that understanding.

 

Salam / Peace,

 

NS

I appreciate the sentiment but I don't believe the answer to all this is experiential.  It really doesn't matter what I believe or, as you say, what works for me.  There is Truth somewhere and that's what I try to pursue.  I don't believe in good intentions. 

 

Also, you say you think both were blessed but I don't think that is the consensus of Islam.  Another part of the conflict is that there can only be one who was to be sacrificed by Abraham: Isaac or Ishmeal. And Jews believe Rebekah was the legitimate wife of Abraham picked by God but Muslims believe Hagar was given to Abraham as a wife by Allah (and not because of a lack of faith by Abraham who believed Rebekah was barren and could not bear children in spite of God's promise).  Most Muslims believe (from my research) the Bible was corrupted by men thus Muslims would be the Chosen People instead of the Jewish nation.  I am sure Jews cannot accept the Old Testament as corrupted.  If these types of conflicts were not at the core of these religions and were not important to them there would be peace in the Middle East.  

 

Here is another problem.  You recognize Jesus as a prophet only but there are logically only a few options for who Jesus can be.  Jesus clearly claimed to be God.  John 10:30 says, "I and the Father are one."  Even if you try to say this is an example of man corrupting the Bible the evidence disputes it because the Jews did ask for Jesus to be crucified and Islam agrees that the Jews rejected Jesus.  They never would have done so if they merely recognized Jesus as a good man.  They reacted by saying, "For a good work we stone thee not but for blasphemy and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." (John 10:33).  In John 8:58 Jesus said "Before Abraham was, I am" and, again, in response the Jews took up stones in an attempt to stone Jesus for claiming to be God.

 

In reality you can only allow Jesus to play 3 roles.  He was either crazy thinking He was honestly God but mistaken; a deceiver knowing He was not God but claiming to be or exactly who He said He was.  Paul wrote in I Corinthians 15:14-19 that if Christ wasn't who He said He was and resurrected then all faith in Him is futile.  So I would ask everyone to make a decision about Jesus Christ.  He is either the Messiah, a deceiver or crazy but being a good man or even prophet is not one of the options.

 

A good resource for asking questions is: www.gotquestions.org.   If you type in: Where does the old testament predict the coming of Jesus Christ? you will find the passages referenced written long before Jesus was born that He fulfilled.  You can also type in any other question.

Edited August 25, 2015 by smj

[Sabres Fan in NS]

smj,

 

I do enjoy this discussion and, as I have said many times, I do respect and accept your belief as being right for you.

 

I will close this discussion on my part by asking one simple question ...

 

... if I am comfortable enough in my faith to acknowledge and accept yours, why can't you have the same courtesy towards me?  

 

Please do not look at the question as a dig against you (I realize that it seems like I am).

 

You mentioned peace in  the Middle East.  IMO, if everyone (not just in the Middle East, but everywhere on this planet) would look deep inside and move a bit more towards my stance on faith, then and only then will we have peace around the world, or at least a much better chance at it.  When we move to mutual respect and understanding, not only in religion, but in every aspect of life, then we will have real peace.

 

Salam / Peace,

 

NS

 

-----

 

EDIT TO ADD:

 

You do not have to answer my question, but I humbly ask that you ponder it.

Edited August 25, 2015 by Sabres Fan In NS

[LastPommerFan]

Reading through this discussion, I think that you are both (smj and NS) writing of different things. 

 

SMJ appears to be searching for a descriptive truth, a faith that accurately describes the Nature of God and His interactions with the Creation. If these are events that occurred in the past, there can be only one truth. In this case, two in disagreement can agree to no longer jointly seek that descriptive truth, but they cannot honestly agree that both possibilities could be true.

 

NS appears to be describing a prescriptive faith, a message from god that describes His desires for the Creation: the things we do that please Him. In this case, it is possible to disagree on the descriptive truths, and yet come to largely congruent prescriptions on how we should live our lives.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Thank you for the clarification. This part from the wikipedia page:

 

 

 

Describes almost perfectly the Catholic view of Jesus's eternal existance as the Word vs. his mortal life here on earth.[/quote

 

I dig this.

I want to go to service with NS and a whole bunch of you.

 

My Brother,

 

I will gladly meet you, along with anyone else interested, for Friday Payers at the Fairview (a neighbourhood in Halifax) Mosque.  Any Friday.

 

The athan (call to prayer) is at 1:15 PM (ADT).  The khutbah (sermon) starts right after the athan and will last about 30 minutes ... it is in both Arabic and English. We will line up for prayers at around 1:45 PM.  I am good friends with the Imam and he, along with everyone else will be most welcoming, of that I am sure.  You will be encouraged to join us in prayer, if you so wish, but it may be more comfortable for you to witness the prayers first.

 

I suggest we make a weekend of it.  On Saturday morning, we can attend the Shabbat services with many of my Jewish friends.  Then, on Sunday, we can attend many of the Sunday services at the numerous Christian churches in my neighbourhood ... the timing of the services would work well ... Anglican at 8:00 AM and then Catholic at 10:30 AM, I believe the United Church has services on Saturday evening.

 

One fine day, my friend, it would be an honour and a privilege to make the above arrangements.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Reading through this discussion, I think that you are both (smj and NS) writing of different things. 

 

SMJ appears to be searching for a descriptive truth, a faith that accurately describes the Nature of God and His interactions with the Creation. If these are events that occurred in the past, there can be only one truth. In this case, two in disagreement can agree to no longer jointly seek that descriptive truth, but they cannot honestly agree that both possibilities could be true.

 

NS appears to be describing a prescriptive faith, a message from god that describes His desires for the Creation: the things we do that please Him. In this case, it is possible to disagree on the descriptive truths, and yet come to largely congruent prescriptions on how we should live our lives.

 

With respect ...

 

smj, who is, quite obviously, a Born Again Christian, is convinced he has found the truth ... his truth, which is not mine.  I acknowledged, often, his findings as being right for him.  He will not do the same, which, as a Born Again Christian, I understand he can't do.  

 

There are several flaws in his reasoning, but I choose not to take the discussion in that direction, since it would be petty and not contribute to the discussion at hand.

 

Your description of my faith is quite accurate.  Islam is a faith that has certain rituals and traditions passed on since the time of Muhammad (PBUH) and that are quite clearly outlined in the Qur'an.  The most important of these being ... faith, without action, is meaningless.  Allah will judge us all based on our good deeds versus our bad deeds.

Edited August 25, 2015 by Sabres Fan In NS

[smj]

smj,

 

I do enjoy this discussion and, as I have said many times, I do respect and accept your belief as being right for you.

 

I will close this discussion on my part by asking one simple question ...

 

... if I am comfortable enough in my faith to acknowledge and accept yours, why can't you have the same courtesy towards me?  

 

Please do not look at the question as a dig against you (I realize that it seems like I am).

 

You mentioned peace in  the Middle East.  IMO, if everyone (not just in the Middle East, but everywhere on this planet) would look deep inside and move a bit more towards my stance on faith, then and only then will we have peace around the world, or at least a much better chance at it.  When we move to mutual respect and understanding, not only in religion, but in every aspect of life, then we will have real peace.

 

Salam / Peace,

 

NS

 

-----

 

EDIT TO ADD:

 

You do not have to answer my question, but I humbly ask that you ponder it.

I will try to answer your question.  Let me first say that I really do respect you and value our conversation.  I don't consider the question as a dig at all.  You have been respectful throughout and I appreciate it.  I wish we could get together and watch a Bills or Sabres game some time.    

 

I think I understand what you are asking.  It is really not personal in any way toward you and it is even difficult to express.  And I am going to put it in a way that is not meant to imply you don't feel as strongly about your beliefs.  It is because of my affection for Jesus Christ.  I would say love but I think that would be too arrogant because I so often fall short of that goal.  But I try to love Him as best I can knowing His love for all of us is perfect and unconditional.  I believe He died for me and for you and all of us.  Matthew 10:32 says. "Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven."  A great book I suggest reading is called "The Jesus I Never Knew" by Phillip Yancey.  Jesus knew His claims were radical and He did not back down from them to appease opposition even though He loved them. 

 

I hope this begins to explain why I seem stubborn.  I am actually pretty wimpy and don't like conflict.  But I have to be bold about who Jesus Christ is and it doesn't allow accepting something that makes Him less than God's Son and plan for salvation.  John 14:6 says, "Jesus answered, I am the way and the truth and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me."  If that is not true Jesus was not a good man or a prophet.  I know some will say Jesus did not really claim this but if he was merely a good man telling parables and doing good works the Jewish leaders of the day would not have demanded His death for blasphemy.

Edited August 26, 2015 by smj

[Sabres Fan in NS]

smj,

 

Thank you.

 

I understand and accept your feelings on the matter.  

 

As I have said, we are more similar in our beliefs than different, but lets just agree to disagree on that one part.  OK?

 

I too wish that we could enjoy some time together at a Bills, or Sabres, game.  That would be fun, indeed.

 

I consider SabreSpace and it's members my Internet friends and I am happy that we have had this discussion, as it made me more aware of you and that I am able to consider you as one of my SabresSpace friends.

 

Peace,

 

NS

[Neo]

Carp and Drunkard -- from Politics.

 

Here is what I've quickly read inspired by your commentary.

 

The Jefferson Bible was intended by TJ to deliver what TJ considered to be valuable about the life of Jesus and its ethical lessons. In what one critic called "scripture by subtraction", Jefferson's work advocated for the ethical approach to life and mankind as exemplified by Jesus' words and deeds. Stripped away is any conversation, teaching, dogma or need for divinity. Further, references to miracles are excluded. Whether Jefferson didn't believe in Jesus' divinity, or whether he felt there was merit in the ethics despite the debate around Jesus' divinity, isn't yet clear to me.

 

Much like what you both said ...

 

Most cool - he did it in English, French, Latin, and Greek ... Oh, the education!

Edited August 29, 2015 by Neo

[carpandean]

I should have done a search before I posted that theory (though, I did note that I had not looked into it.)  I believe that the video was David Barton on Glenn Beck.  If so, it was about his book, The Jefferson Lies.  Here's a quote from Wikipedia on that text:

 

The Jefferson Lies withdrawn from publication

 

In 2012 Barton's New York Times bestseller The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You've Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson (published April 10, 2012) was voted "the least credible history book in print" by the users of the History News Network website. A group of 10 conservative Christian professors reviewed the work and formed a negative view of its claims, reporting that Barton has misstated facts about Jefferson. In August 2012 Christian publisher Thomas Nelson withdrew the book from publication and stopped production, announcing that they had "lost confidence in the book's details" and "learned that there were some historical details included in the book that were not adequately supported." Glenn Beck, who wrote the foreword, promptly announced that his Mercury Ink imprint would issue a new edition of the book once the 17,000 remaining copies that Barton bought of the Thomas Nelson edition had been sold.

 

How much egg is on my face?  It was an interesting theory, though.

Edited August 29, 2015 by carpandean

[Neo]

Well, the question remains, source notwithstanding. No egg. Good catch!

[Sabel79]

From the Monticello website...

 

https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/jeffersons-religious-beliefs

[Neo]

Me. 79 .. wonderful, and thank you. Ms. Bowman's cite answers my broad question broadly. I have often thought there are 7 billion religions in the world today. I'm no Jefferson .. "I am a sect by myself, as far as I know".

 

Grateful ...

[woods-racer]

From the Monticello website...

 

https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/jeffersons-religious-beliefs

 

Excellent 79 thank you for that.

 

this one struck a cord with me...

 

1803 April 21. (Jefferson to Benjamin Rush). "To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other."10

Edited August 30, 2015 by Woods-Racer

[smj]

Excellent 79 thank you for that.

 

this one struck a cord with me...

 

1803 April 21. (Jefferson to Benjamin Rush). "To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other."10

I have heard about the Jefferson Bible as well.  But that was the point I was trying to make.  You can't take just the portions you like of what Jesus said and did, ignore the rest and call Jesus a good example.  What Jefferson was really describing was a type of humanism.  We can make it on our own and, over time, humanity will solve its own problems by utilizing wisdom from great thinkers like Jesus.  I hope we can see by now that history shows us that will never happen because human nature is as the Bible describes it. 

 

Christ did not intend to leave thinking of Him as a good man as an option.  In Matthew 10:34-36 Jesus says, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth.  I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.  For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law - a man's enemies will be the members of his own household." 

 

Jesus is figuratively describing what occurs what happens when someone follows Him as Lord.  He knew His message would be divisive.  If Christ claimed to be God and was wrong no amount of editing from even Jefferson can change that He led millions and millions of people astray and there is no good in that.  I'd rather have people decide Jesus was crazy or a liar than try to theorize He was a good man but not the Son of God.  Jesus Christ simply did not leave that as a logical option.  The Gospel has to hang together or it is all pointless.

[woods-racer]

SMJ. I understand your position but don't have the same believe as you.

 

Thomas Jefferson, to me, is saying that in order to fully comprehend Christianity one must search out all of Jesus's teachings, and live by his teachings. TJ believes in God, believes in Jesus as Jesus asked him to believe. Those where Thomas Jefferson's believes as he thought Jesus was trying to teach to him. Not eating meat on Fridays during lent is what I take as to what TJ may see as a corruption of Christianity. I always try and take the sum of Jesus's teaching and the moral to which he is trying to get us to see.

 

    "Whoever acknowledges me before men,³² I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven.

 

33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.³³

 

 

34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

35 For I have come to turn " 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law³⁴--

 

 

36 a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'^e35

 

 

37 "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;³⁶

 

 

38 and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.³⁷

 

 

39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.³⁸

 

 

 

40 "He who receives you receives me,³⁹ and he who receives me receives the one who sent me.⁴⁰

 

 

41 Anyone who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet's reward, and anyone who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man's reward.

42 And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward."⁴¹

 

 

 

 

I see a much different moral teaching to this than the one you are trying to describe to me.

 

The question I ask myself in trying to answer your last paragraph is:

 

Would Jesus not heap reward onto a person that believes in God, believes Jesus is a man doing Gods work teaching his word, and then lives by Jesus's teachings?

 

I read the above from Mathew's 2-42  and see Thomas Jefferson viewing Jesus as a prophet and plan on meeting Thomas Jefferson one day in the ever after.

Edited August 31, 2015 by Woods-Racer

[Drunkard]

I have heard about the Jefferson Bible as well.  But that was the point I was trying to make.  You can't take just the portions you like of what Jesus said and did, ignore the rest and call Jesus a good example.  What Jefferson was really describing was a type of humanism.  We can make it on our own and, over time, humanity will solve its own problems by utilizing wisdom from great thinkers like Jesus.  I hope we can see by now that history shows us that will never happen because human nature is as the Bible describes it. 

 

Christ did not intend to leave thinking of Him as a good man as an option.  In Matthew 10:34-36 Jesus says, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth.  I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.  For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law - a man's enemies will be the members of his own household." 

 

Jesus is figuratively describing what occurs what happens when someone follows Him as Lord.  He knew His message would be divisive.  If Christ claimed to be God and was wrong no amount of editing from even Jefferson can change that He led millions and millions of people astray and there is no good in that.  I'd rather have people decide Jesus was crazy or a liar than try to theorize He was a good man but not the Son of God.  Jesus Christ simply did not leave that as a logical option.  The Gospel has to hang together or it is all pointless.

 

This is the response to Jefferson that I would expect from most Christians. Since I don't consider myself a Christian though I can easily disagree and I really appreciate Jefferson's method. Jesus can be a great example to follow (similar to Ghandi) even without being divine. His messages of turning the other cheek, helping the poor, and loving your neighbor are something to aspire to whether he was the son of God, just a regular man who was charismatic enough to amass a huge following of people, or if he never actually existed and his story was just made up and copied from all of the other solar messiahs that preceded him by hundreds and sometimes thousands of years (Horus, Mithra, Krishna, Dionysus, Attis, etc. whose stories are all eerily similar being born of a virgin on Dec. 25th, the Star in the East, 12 disciples, being dead for 3 days then rising from the dead and all that stuff).

[smj]

This is the response to Jefferson that I would expect from most Christians. Since I don't consider myself a Christian though I can easily disagree and I really appreciate Jefferson's method. Jesus can be a great example to follow (similar to Ghandi) even without being divine. His messages of turning the other cheek, helping the poor, and loving your neighbor are something to aspire to whether he was the son of God, just a regular man who was charismatic enough to amass a huge following of people, or if he never actually existed and his story was just made up and copied from all of the other solar messiahs that preceded him by hundreds and sometimes thousands of years (Horus, Mithra, Krishna, Dionysus, Attis, etc. whose stories are all eerily similar being born of a virgin on Dec. 25th, the Star in the East, 12 disciples, being dead for 3 days then rising from the dead and all that stuff).

I have to ask, even though you don't consider yourself a Christian, how can you not consider that His message was not simply about some platitudes.  He was not at all like Ghandi because Ghandi did not claim to be God's Messiah.  By the way, there is more historical evidence that Jesus existed than almost any other individual from that time.  Non-Christian historians mentioned Him.  I've heard these comparisons before but they just aren't that similar.  Please read In Defense of Easter by Chaffey who touches on those comparisons if you are truly recognize the uniqueness of this claim among world religions as the only faith without works belief system.

Edited September 1, 2015 by smj

[Neo]

Can I say, and be square with all of you, that Jefferson's Jesus was exemplary and a model, regardless of his divinity? Can I further say that I don't know definitively Jefferson's view on Jesus' divinity solely from his "Bible", but I do know Jefferson's view on a life to be modeled? I'm making no point. I'm reading the learned.

[carpandean]

I have to ask, even though you don't consider yourself a Christian, how can you not consider that His message was not simply about some platitudes.  He was not at all like Ghandi because Ghandi did not claim to be God's Messiah.  By the way, there is more historical evidence that Jesus existed than almost any other individual from that time.  Non-Christian historians mentioned Him.  I've heard these comparisons before but they just aren't that similar.  Please read In Defense of Easter by Chaffey who touches on those comparisons if you are truly recognize the uniqueness of this claim among world religions as the only faith without works belief system.

 

I take anything that has been processed by "man" with a grain of salt.  I am reasonably certain of two things:

 

a) Jesus, be he man or son of God, probably did exist around the time that he is believed to have,

b) His message and lessons, whether true and unfiltered or approximate and improved by the writers, are valuable lessons on being a good person.

 

Now, as for who he was, there are four possibilities:

1) He really was the son of God and expected to be considered as such,

2) He was a bit delusional, being just a man, but thinking he was the son of God,

3) He knew he was not and intentionally misrepresented himself, whether for good or bad reasons,

4) He never said that he was the son of God, but a story grew around a popular and charismatic figure with a powerful message.

 

Regardless, of which of those is true, (b) still holds above.  So, I leave to each person to believe which of (1) - (4) is correct, but as Neo, Drunkard, etc, have said, the message, without the assumption of (1), is still worth a lot.

Edited September 1, 2015 by carpandean

[LastPommerFan]

SMJ, I'd like to hear your thoughts on Matthew 16:17-19.

[MattPie]

I take anything that has been processed by "man" with a grain of salt.  I am reasonably certain of two things:

 

a) Jesus, be he man or son of God, probably did exist around the time that he is believed to have,

b) His message and lessons, whether true and unfiltered or approximate and improved by the writers, are valuable lessons on being a good person.

 

Now, as for who he was, there are four possibilities:

1) He really was the son of God and expected to be considered as such,

2) He was a bit delusional, being just a man, but thinking he was the son of God,

3) He knew he was not and intentionally misrepresented himself, whether for good or bad reasons,

4) He never said that he was the son of God, but a story grew around a popular and charismatic figure with a powerful message.

 

Regardless, of which of those is true, (b) still holds above.  So, I leave to each person to believe which of (1) - (4) is correct, but as Neo, Drunkard, etc, have said, the message, without the assumption of (1), is still worth a lot.

Thank you for writing down what's been bouncing around in my head whenever I think about this thread. :)

 

#4 is intriguing. People like to embellish their heroes and repeat things without checking the facts. I see no reason why that would have been different 2000 years ago. Actually, I'm mildly surprised that it still happens. I have two examples: Washington throwing a silver dollar across the Potomac. I remember hearing that when I was a kid (in school, even), but it's just not true. Even if there were silver dollars at the time, the Potomac is a mile wide where Washington lived. I kind of what to go up into Western MD where the Potomac looks more like Caz Creek and do it though. :)

 

The facts thing is even more surprising, since most of Western society has a global network of facts at our fingertips. For instance, a couple days ago someone posted a image on FB saying, "Food stamps shouldn't be accepted in restaurants, Like and Share if you agree". The implication (to me, at least) was that they were and this is a bad thing. The problem is, food stamps aren't accepted in restaurants. Facts, schmacts.

[woods-racer]

I take anything that has been processed by "man" with a grain of salt.  I am reasonably certain of two things:

 

a) Jesus, be he man or son of God, probably did exist around the time that he is believed to have,

b) His message and lessons, whether true and unfiltered or approximate and improved by the writers, are valuable lessons on being a good person.

 

Now, as for who he was, there are four possibilities:

1) He really was the son of God and expected to be considered as such,

2) He was a bit delusional, being just a man, but thinking he was the son of God,

3) He knew he was not and intentionally misrepresented himself, whether for good or bad reasons,

4) He never said that he was the son of God, but a story grew around a popular and charismatic figure with a powerful message.

 

Regardless, of which of those is true, (b) still holds above.  So, I leave to each person to believe which of (1) - (4) is correct, but as Neo, Drunkard, etc, have said, the message, without the assumption of (1), is still worth a lot.

 

There is also a

 

1)

 a. He was the Son of God, but expected to be treaded as a man, until he felt the time to reveal himself.

[Drunkard]

I have to ask, even though you don't consider yourself a Christian, how can you not consider that His message was not simply about some platitudes.  He was not at all like Ghandi because Ghandi did not claim to be God's Messiah.  By the way, there is more historical evidence that Jesus existed than almost any other individual from that time.  Non-Christian historians mentioned Him.  I've heard these comparisons before but they just aren't that similar.  Please read In Defense of Easter by Chaffey who touches on those comparisons if you are truly recognize the uniqueness of this claim among world religions as the only faith without works belief system.

Your first sentence is somewhat confusing because of the use of two separate negatives. Do you mean How can I consider that his message was simply about some platitudes? If so, that's how I see it (I think they are just platitudes and that the Bible is predominantly allegorical). If you mean how I can not consider that his message was about more than platitudes I will say that I have considered it, but have gone with the former instead of the latter. I can equate Jesus and Gandhi because I believe they were both just men, although there's empirical evidence that Gandhi definitely existed. Having non-Christians mention Jesus in old books doesn't equate to empirical evidence. Non-Vikings have written about Odin and Thor in some very old books as well, but that's not empirical evidence either. Cavemen from tens of thousands of years ago used to bury their dead with their tools and other possessions but that doesn't prove there's an afterlife even though these artifacts predate any religion by tens of thousands of years that exists today.

 

I don't subscribe to the divinity of Jesus Christ or of any religious figure because I believe that man made God and not the other way around. That being said just because I don't worship Jesus doesn't mean he didn't have some great ideas about turning the other cheek, helping the poor, and loving your neighbor whether he said these things himself or they were attributed to him in books written later on (Good ideas can be good ideas regardless of their origin). I'm not a Hindu or Buddhist either but I can still agree with many of their platitudes as well. I believe in doing the right thing simply because it's the right thing to do and not because of the promise of a wonderful afterlife if I believe or do certain things or because of the threat of a tortuous afterlife if I don't believe or do certain things.

 

As for reading the book from Tim Chaffey, I will pass. I've read some of his bio and background and have come to the impression that he's the exact problem I have with religion. He's another one of the young earth creationists and it's people like him that are trying to pervert science and push their agenda. I've been trying to be as respectful as possible but that Guy! Here's are a couple of quotes from his book Old Earth Creationism on Trial: The Verdict is in:

 

”Since the Bible undisputedly teaches a young earth, when someone claims that scientific evidence proves otherwise, we can be certain they are mistaken.” (pp.153)

 

"Additionally, God cursed the earth when Adam sinned (Gen 3:17-18). The Bible provides only a few details of how the world was changed, such as thorns and thistles. Can we be certain that radioactive decay rates were not affected?”

 

That's how the guy argues for a young earth and how he disputes radiometric dating. I'd rather not submit my brain to such nonsense but I'll make you a deal. You read the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins first and then I'll think about subjecting my brain to the circular logic of the Bible being the Word of God because the Bible says so.

 

Here is a short article that shows there is a living tree that was discovered in Sweden back in 2008 that's root system is 9,550 year old. I guess it started growing out in space because the earth is only 6,000 years old according to guys like Tim Chaffey.

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080414-oldest-tree.html