Does Jesus admit being the Son of God? Or does he avoid a clear proclamation?
Jesus accepts the title in some versions of the Bible:
- They all asked, “Are you the Son of God then?” He replied, “You are right in saying that I am.” ~ NIRV
- Then they all said, “Are You then the Son of God?” So He said to them, “You rightly say that I am.” ~ NKJV
- And they all said, “Are You the Son of God, then ?” And He said to them, “Yes, I am.” ~ NAS
- They all said, “Then are you the Son of God?” Jesus said to them, “You are right in saying that I am.” ~ ERV
- They all said, “Are you then the Son of God?” He said to them, “You say it, because I AM.” ~ WEB
He is unclear in others:
- They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?” He replied, “You say that I am.” ~ NIV
- Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am. ~ KJV
- They all shouted, “So, are you claiming to be the Son of God?” And he replied, “You say that I am.” ~ NLT
- They all said, “Does this mean, then, that you are the Son of God?” And he answered them, “You say I am.” ~ CJB
- They all said, “So you admit your claim to be the Son of God?” “You’re the ones who keep saying it,” he said. ~ MSG
Now, considering I have been studying Korean, I am aware of the significance of nuances in translations. Something small can change a meaning significantly. This seems like it could be a case of such. It could also be a manipulation to keep Jesus’ words consistent. Jesus does seem to make some big proclamations in the Gospel of John.
Allowing Jesus to both proclaim and avoid proclamation could be troublesome to Christianity. Suggesting the Gospel of John could be a bit of a misrepresentation would also be trouble considering its value in marketing Christianity.
Such things could undermine the whole Bible to some Christians!
I strongly discourage the all-or-nothing approach though. Ideas should be valued more according to their relevance and usefulness within a mindset geared toward humanity rather than hinged on a particular belief.
That being said – be thoughtful about what you believe.
Christianity Simplified 
“Be thoughtful about what you believe” that could apply to almost every aspect of life! Love it! I grew up Lutheran and it was very early on that I realized there were so many ‘cracks’ in the belief system. This was a solid point you’ve made here I think. The Bible was written by man…so of course it’s going to be confusing at times…even though it’s ‘the word of god’
Just because there are issues doesn’t mean that there aren’t understandings we can learn about through Holy texts. Thoughtfully of course! And yes, definitely applicable to every aspect of life!
Context, context, context had you taken the time to read literally the next line:
Luke 22:71 Then they said, “Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips.”
Heard what? “the blasphemy” that Jesus is the Son of God. If he denied it or was evasive they would not have marched him off to Pilate.
What do you mean by: “Suggesting the Gospel of John could be a bit of a misrepresentation would also be trouble considering its value in marketing Christianity.”
The next line doesn’t determine what Jesus said in the previous line, it only determines that they accepted what Jesus said to be enough in their minds to incriminate as Jesus didn’t deny the charge. It was enough for them to decide it to be an admission of guilt. It hints at the bias and corruption Jesus was up against. Otherwise, why wouldn’t every translation be so clear?
Whenever I hear of the Bible being evangelised (marketed), it is almost a given that the Gospel of John is put at the forefront of the pitch. To suggest that it might hold stronger biases would likely be detrimental to its perceived authority.
If he’s actually blaspheming how were the priests corrupt?
He’s not but they are determining that he is because he refuses to deny it.
You’re right when you say the next line doesn’t determine what Jesus said, but if we’re confused, as you appear to be, it certainly helps. Your narrative of Christ lacks fluidity and is fundamentally disjointed. In your version Christ is an indecisive liar. You seem to pick and choose interpretations that suit you, not ones that follow any consistency. My interpretations are supported throughout the text and the Bible as a whole. Even though the Bible says Jesus is the son of God, you don’t like it so you look for a way to explain that away. Even though the Bible says Jesus was crucified, died, and was resurrected, that doesn’t fit your ideas so you change it. While the Bible admittedly contains mysteries, the Bible is not nearly as cryptic as you suppose, or try to claim.
I am trying to understand Jesus from a basis in reality as I am aware of it. You are the one who chose an interpretation. I opened the book to both common interpretations in this case.
How is my version of Jesus indecisive? I don’t see him as such at all. He is quite calculated in what he does. You can call him a liar for utilizing a deception to emphasize his teachings, but one lie doesn’t discount all offerings. What it does do is allow for an understanding that forgiveness has always existed and does not rely on Jesus’ crucifixion. In other words, all concepts Jesus taught remain intact. The only difference is that the story is more reasonable understood.
If Jesus was clearly found not to be the Son of God, would you have it in you to forgive him?
I chose an interpretation to be sure. Arrogantly, do you think you are above any influence that helped you choose an interpretation? I can explain why my interpretation is correct, you can only say “this makes sense to me and what I’m willing to believe”. Which one is more subjective?
First let me answer your very last question. The answer is absolutely not. What kind of person puts their faith in a liar, and why would Jesus condemn the false teachers that he predicted would come after him? Wouldn’t that make him quite a hypocrite (doubly so since Jesus also dislikes hypocrites). Are we so confused in our postmodern time that we cannot even understand the importance of truth? How lost we must be! If truth is so vapid to you, why do you even have a blog where you attempt to express truths, or are you following the teachings of your deceitful version of Jesus? You seem to brush off lying and recast it as “utilizing deception to emphasize his teachings”. What a comical rephrasing! Hitler utilized deception to emphasize his teachings, so did Stalin and any other despot you can imagine. Jesus says we will know the truth and the truth will set us free. I’m sure you’re already contriving some wacky interpretation of that verse to establish a congruity with your preconceived notions. To paraphrase Paul, If Christ is not raised from the dead, than we as followers of Christ are to be pitied more than all men. How true that is! You are right when you say forgiveness exists outside of Christ, non-Christ followers forgive, but even more than we need to forgive, we ourselves must be forgiven and that can only happen through Christ alone.
I’m not the one arrogantly proclaiming my understanding to be the true one, I am offering opportunities to think and consider alternatives.
I suspect that Christianity has basis in deception, namely the events surrounding the crucifixion, that results in such strong pride of belief coupled with significant hypocrisy. It seems there is some element of confusion emanating from such a belief.
Truth is important, that is why I am offering differing perspectives. I know full well that the truth can set you free. I used to be quite naive and accepted words at face value, though when left with an uncomfortable feeling after having done so, I made an effort to explore that feeling. In doing so, upon understanding the truth of the situation, I was freed from the control it had over me.
Not to mention the issues of believers not accepting tested scientific truths on account of basing their understandings on ancient literature without allowing themselves an opportunity to explore that which makes them uncomfortable.
Sure, Hitler and Stalin utilized deception to emphasize their teachings – difference is, their teachings were not in favour of humanity. Jesus’ were. If Jesus hadn’t utilized such a grand production to emphasize understanding in these humanitarian concepts, do you really think he stood a chance of bringing them to a larger audience considering the state of things at the time?
“I’m not the one arrogantly proclaiming my understanding to be the true one, I am offering opportunities to think and consider alternatives.”
Subversively, are you suggesting that people who accept the Gospels are not thinking? Can we accept something is true, defend why we think it’s true and still be granted intelligence? I find your claims consistently lacking solid reasoning, but because you thought those claims up yourself are they more valid? I don’t think so.
“I suspect that Christianity has basis in deception, namely the events surrounding the crucifixion, that results in such strong pride of belief coupled with significant hypocrisy. It seems there is some element of confusion emanating from such a belief.”
That’s an interesting suspicion, but you haven’t provided any quality proof to validate it. You find the death and resurrection of Christ a tough pill to swallow, but that doesn’t make it by that same virtue untrue. Christians are proud their redeemer lives, as they should be if their claim is true. You find Christians hypocritical? We can be! So can everyone. We are not perfect as Paul reminds us: If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the spirit is not in us. Interesting that you suggest there is confusion emanating from such a belief, would you care to elaborate?
I would never suggest taking words at face value either, and I have no problems with questions or even questions coupled with possible interpretations, but that’s not what you’re doing. You’re giving unsubstantiated answers that contradict what Christ and the Bible say.
What was Christ’s message to humanity? You will probably suggest it was take care of the poor and be a good person (aspects of his message I too acknowledge and try to follow). I would suggest you are missing the larger message which was this: we are all sinners, God loves you, Christ died on the cross to take the punishment for our sins, and was resurrected to prove he was who he said he was. People generally don’t accept this message as Paul says it is a stumbling block for the Jew, and foolishness for the gentile.
Jesus’ core message was love God (or the external forces upon us, for a secular equivalent), and love your neighbour as yourself. Jesus specifically emphasized that message himself.
Christianity gets a bad reputation from all those Christians who set out to regulate and condemn rather than educate and uplift. I highly recommend The Culture Monk blog for some fantastic insight from a Christian perspective, and at times talks about the more extreme Christian perspectives that don’t make much sense. http://culturemonk.com/
My apologies if I insinuated a lack of intelligence – I think it must take incredible intelligence to be able to have a thorough comprehension of all the ins and outs of the Bible. The trouble I see is with such a focus on having faith, there tends to be a lack of focus on exploring doubt. One sermon I experienced at the church I attended sticks out strongly in my mind in that regard. It was a sermon on the prophesy of Jesus. I don’t recall the exact argument – something along the lines of it’s either one way or another. What blew my mind was the complete lack of consideration of self-fulfilling prophesy.
I am curious, where are my claims lacking solid reasoning? I will admit, I have my own biases that I am working to overcome in my presentation and discussion of the questionable issues I am coming upon, but I am making an effort to bring to light aspects of Christianity that come across as questionable.
As for Jesus dying for our sins, I can see where that makes sense in ending the practice of animal sacrifices and connecting with OT prophesy. All that Jesus did connects and makes sense with the beliefs and society of the time. It’s the supernatural aspects that I find to be the issue that requires further exploration.
These things would be less flagrant if you didn’t try to suggest that’s what the Bible says, but you do. If you said, “This is what I think sin means…” that would be one thing, but that’s not what you do. I’m not regulating what you’re doing. I promise I didn’t write to my congressmen to get your blog taken down. I think it’s good you’re thinking about such things at all, which is more than most people can say! However, I disagree with you on most of your positions because they cannot be supported with Biblical evidence. I don’t disagree with your assessment of how Christians are portrayed in the media: unintelligent extremist hypocrites with an agenda to make everyone miserable. But is that really what a Christian is? How can we recognize a Christ follower? I think one place to start would be through, as you mention, educating others. As I’ve said before I hope my interjections will not be seen as insulting, but explanatory on a matter that is near and dear to my heart.
Christ did say to love God (he never said to love the external forces around us, although he did say he who believes in me believes in the one who sent me (God), not he who believes in me believes int he external forces around us), and to love your neighbor. If we look at Jesus’ famous parable about the ungrateful servant in Matthew 18 we see a culmination of all three of these ideas, the third being that Christ died for our sins. The parable goes that the servant (us) owed the king (God) a debt (sin). The man could not pay (neither can we, we are not saved my works, but by faith alone) and went to the king (God) to beg that the debt be canceled. The king (God) agrees. Then the servant (us after being offered forgiveness by God) goes and demands some other servant (someone else) pay him back a smaller sum (some sin against us). The king (God) then throws the servant who was not content to just have his debt forgiven (possibly us) in jail (hell). There are many parables that Christ uses to explain this transaction. I could quote from probably hundreds of other parts of the Bible on what Christ has done for us as far as sin is concerned, but I’m lovingly trying to be conscientious of your biases until you are ready do away with them.
Claims you’ve made that have insufficient reasoning:
YOUR idea on what constitutes sin
Jesus faked his death on the cross–remarkably baseless with disregard for first-hand witnesses among other gaping holes of logic
Jesus never claimed to be God–outright ignorant of what the text says
John is biased–utterly subjective
I keep saying it but I don’t feel like it’s getting though. If you were agnostic or atheist, I would not take such a stern approach, however you are suggesting things the Bible flatly disagrees with and you attempt to suggest the opposite which for me is quite derisive. You seem to be able to accept some things about God, but not ready to accept the comprehensive truth. We’ll start here: Do you think you are a sinner (like I am)?
Oh yeah, I’m definitely prone to take a selfish viewpoint on things as is everyone. Sinner = yes.
Good! I’m definitely a sinner too, and if extent of sin mattered I’d certainly be worse than you. How would you imagine God will judge you?
Hey now, let’s not go into a sin-off here!
But I agree, extent of sin doesn’t matter if you’ve truly been remorseful for your sinful actions and now understand the harm in them so as not to return to those ways.
I understand the experiences of Heaven and Hell in regards to sin within life rather than projected into an afterlife. If there is a God and judgement and accepting Jesus as Saviour is a prerequisite, I’m expecting fire and brimstone.
I’m impressed with your honesty! So as I understand it you don’t believe there is a God who will doll out such a punishment, or at least you’re not certain there is one? What is the “heaven” and “hell “of this life? What do you think happens when we die?
As far as I’m concerned, death is simply the end of existence of someone as a person. If there’s anything afterwards, I’ll consider that a bonus!
You say you’ve done your fair share of sinning, did you experience any sort of emptiness or loneliness, or anger, or any other sorts of negative feelings or confusion while you were living in sin?
Yes, but sin can also be pleasurable. That’s why people do it. Are you saying sin is its own punishment?
Sin is typically more of an immediate gratification that results in negative effects in the long term. Much like how some desserts can be described as sinfully delicious. I believe sin can be understood as being tied to its own punishment – similar to the idea of karma. Or as they say in physics, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. It seems to be different ways of describing the same sort of thing.
Sin can certainly meet the definition of immediate gratification with negative long term effects; however, that is not ALL sin is. In your understanding, corrupt people in power and those that selfishly live in luxury will eventually come to rue the decisions that got them where they are? This is obviously not the case. Isn’t sin’s punishment in your eyes moral relativism in the sense that people will only subconsciously punish themselves for what they think they’ve done that is wrong? Which is to say, if someone murders someone, but they think the victim deserved it would they be punished at all? Don’t you think at least some members of the Nazi party believed they were genuinely doing the world a favor? Who would correct them in your model, if not themselves? Finally, if you suggest there is a universal understanding of right and wrong that we all plug into, why not just call it God? The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
For there to be any meaningful right and wrong, we need an objective judge.
The desire of humanity to survive and thrive makes for a pretty good judge, I’d say.
You seem to be looking at the corruption and luxury in the short term. I would suggest looking to the OT early on where the kingdoms shift back and forth moving “away from God” and “close to God”. There seems to be a natural flow, a natural balance that occurs that is even evident in the Bible.
I personally look at balance as being the universal understanding that we are all connected with. The only fear I see in this is a fear of pushing the balance in too destructive of a direction.
Yes, Israel does move closer to and farther away from God throughout the OT, I don’t know how that supports your point about sin. I’ll elaborate: I’m struggling to connect Karma to sin. Bad things sometimes happen because we sin, but not always. If we only recognize sin by its inconsistently punitive end product, I think we’re missing the bigger picture. You didn’t really answer any of my questions, so I’ll post them again because my response was long.
Isn’t sin’s punishment in your eyes moral relativism in the sense that people will only subconsciously punish themselves for what they think they’ve done that is wrong?
Which is to say, if someone murders someone, but they think the victim deserved it would they be punished at all?
Don’t you think at least some members of the Nazi party believed they were genuinely doing the world a favor?
Who would correct them in your model, if not themselves?
Finally, if you suggest there is a universal understanding of right and wrong that we all plug into, why not just call it God?
Sin punishes through the disconnect it causes. Causing disconnection leads to isolation and negative associations in the view of others. It may not immediately result in visible negative effects, but the negative association is built and can be passed on to others associated.
If someone murders someone thinking it was deserved, that makes no difference in what others see in such an act, and the resulting disconnect the action causes.
I am sure that members of the Nazi party believed they were doing the world a favour. The disconnect with the other people in the world that such action caused led to opposing action to prevent such acts from continuing.
Other members of humanity bring the corrections. The reaction to the action.
And finally, I have no problems with referring to the universal forces that bring about the way things function as “God”. I think God is a reasonable placeholder for that which we do not understand.
So society is the ultimate judge?
Do you see anything wrong with society being the ultimate judge?
If you don’t think humanity and society are analogous can you explain the difference?
If someone sins in a forest and no one witnesses it do they still sin?
Through what means is the “disconnect” manifested, and how is it that the disconnect is inherently negative?
Is the world a just place?
I’m not exactly sure what you’re getting at, but I think survival is definitely the ultimate judge if there is no greater reality beyond life as we know it.
That’s a massive if! I would disagree with you on survival being the ultimate judge. This is especially obvious if we look at how people act when they are most desperate to survive, that’s probably as depraved as people get! You can try to suggest that through helping others we better our own chances for survival, but that implies a two pronged selfish motive: A, your help is understood to be reciprocal (like a moral savings bond) and B, your help is not based out of kindness or caring, but ultimately goes back to your own well-being. If you could somehow prove that someone had absolutely nothing to give back to you in a survival situation, would it still be moral to help them?
I’m embarrassed I didn’t make these clear enough, and upon rereading them I completely understand why you didn’t get them. I could barely understand what I meant! So sorry! Questions rephrased:
1. Does society=humanity?
2. Does sin, according to you, happen if there is no one to observe/experience it?
3. How do we know “disconnecting from ‘humanity’ a negative, and therefore a punishment for sin?
4. Is the world fair?
In desperation, yes, inhumane acts happen. Sometimes people will sacrifice themselves for someone else also. Helping others helps to hold society together as a whole. If too many people are neglected, that’s when things tend to get messy.
1. Society isn’t humanity as separate societies can come into conflict. Humanity can be seen as a society though, and Jesus seemed to see humanity as one large society when he spoke on loving your neighbour as yourself.
2. Sin can happen without observers. Much like lustful fantasies are considered sin, it is a focus on a selfish thought, and the more it is done, the more the thought remains in your mind and distorts your views.
3. Disconnecting from humanity is a negative in the sense that you become more vulnerable with less empathy for anything negative that may happen to you.
4. It depends what you consider as “fair”.
As a general thought, how can any of these things be true or false unless there is an objective standard? You’re answer to number 4 is the most salient. I don’t disagree with any of your answers outright except maybe number 4, and even that’s not a disagreement.
They can be observed through consistencies in cause and effect, and an objective standard can be derived from that.
Who’s deciding if a cause and effect is negative or positive?
Whoever writes the laws.
What? So sin exists only within the context of a societies justice system? I don’t think that’s what you mean based on the context of your previous comments.
society’s justice system (how embarrassing)
Basically it does. Social justice systems are more flexible though – which allows biased laws to be enacted in some cases, but also allows correction of such laws. “God’s law” seems to be a much simpler blanket concept, but it’s not without its sticking points due to some lack of understanding of the complete human condition.
I don’t know what you mean here. It seems completely obvious that wrong cannot be defined by a society alone.
Why not? It seems perfectly natural that it can.
So were the Nazi’s wrong? Their whole society seemed pretty bent on killing off a whole race. If we do a more modern example, is North Korea wrong? Who are we to judge how they run their prison camps, we’re just a society! Wouldn’t it have been arrogant of other societies to intervene considering they themselves are just societies? Who’s judging which society is right?
The Nazis and North Korea held and hold perspectives that were/are anti-human. It’s not necessarily wrong other than as a species we overall tend to care about our own kind and can look at it from the perspective of “would we want to be treated like that?” If we accept such treatment elsewhere, we are opening up the possibility of such treatment to spread. It’s where the idea of the Golden Rule comes from – do to others as you’d have them do to you. If you treat others poorly, you are opening up the acceptance of having others treat you in the same way.
So with your ideology, can you say that Nazi Germany or North Korea was wrong?
Cause and effect, not right and wrong. You can say they are anti-humanity as you are not judging on a set of accepted rules. You are identifying based on results of actions.
So you would just say that the Nazi’s final solution produce the effect of killing 6,000,000 Jews but you can’t go so far as to say it was wrong? To say that they are anti-humanity is assuming that every society is pro-humanity. Obviously this assumption is false based on the example alone. How does this make sense?
Anti-humanity as in clearly not valuing human life in general, as in being selective of who is valued and not. Thus, they are viewed negatively by the majority of people.
Aren’t you selecting who is valued and who is not through your own evaluation? How do I know that you’re correct instead of some other society? If your social views are pro-human, how do I know that pro-human is correct? Wouldn’t you just be a self-important bully if you told other societies they were wrong, since you’re coming from an ostensibly equally revelatory moral vantage point?
Do you see the the problem here?
Yes, when value is assessed it is through one’s own evaluation, that is why societies that value people to greater degrees tend to be seen as anti-humanity.
But what does that matter? I mean you’re assuming that anti-human is inherently negative.
It is negative in the ability to survive for the people on the low end of such a valuation.
Why is survival good? Obviously the idea that survival is good for people is a societal view point, because not every society agrees. How do I know your societal view point is correct?
How is survival a societal point of view? Are there children that are born with a desire to die? Are you suggesting suicide is not a choice, but people are born wanting to kill themselves?
No, obviously not. I’m suggesting that not all societies believe everyone should survive. I’m playing devil’s advocate here in attempt to show you that we need an objective source for morality. Society seems to be a bad place to look given what societies are capable of.
Yes, and the sentiment of not wanting wanting others to survive is what brings other societies who value human life in opposition. We truly don’t need an objective source for morality as our general nature to protect those who we rely on kicks in when there is a threat. Thus, the general basis for human morality.
All you’re doing is twisting my explanation into something that it’s not, or discrediting the entire idea due to an issue of a minor detail. I know Christianity is sometimes presented in a way that if a detail is wrong then the system is wrong, but that’s not how reality functions. Good and bad can be weighed in different elements and from different perspectives. The Bible can be viewed in this way as well.
“Yes, and the sentiment of not wanting wanting others to survive is what brings other societies who value human life in opposition.”
You’re just not getting this. If morality comes from society, you can’t say that one society’s morality is better or worse than another society’s morals because they have the same source: society. If you ARE saying one is better than the other, we have to have a DIFFERENT source of morality, because society is obviously NOT good enough. I think I’m dropping this issue entirely after this post. I love that you’re thinking about these things, I just wish you’d take some of your own medicine.
“We truly don’t need an objective source for morality as our general nature to protect those who we rely on kicks in when there is a threat. Thus, the general basis for human morality.”
We obviously do. As the world we currently live in demonstrates. I feel like I’m beating my head into a wall.
“All you’re doing is twisting my explanation into something that it’s not, or discrediting the entire idea due to an issue of a minor detail.”
What am I twisting? What “minor” details am I using, the holocaust?
“I know Christianity is sometimes presented in a way that if a detail is wrong then the system is wrong, but that’s not how reality functions.”
I don’t know what you’re referring to at all. What’s your basis for reality? (back to the objectivity question again).
“Good and bad can be weighed in different elements and from different perspectives. The Bible can be viewed in this way as well.”
Very vague, but I can’t say I disagree. Keep thinking about these things with an open mind and I think you’ll only go forwards.
Do I need to spell it out again? SURVIVAL is the key of morality. Reactions out of a desire to survive are what leads to the general consensus of basic objective morality. From that point you get into more subjective territory.
I feel like we’re two ships passing in the night.
Yeah, but we shared perspectives. I find value in that. My latest post is another attempt to bring understanding to the idea that survival is the essence of morality. At this point I’m doubtful that I’ll be able to connect you to the understanding, but I appreciate that our conversation has allowed me to further explore it. Thank you for that.
Pingback: Can lies be used for the greater good? | Christianity Simplified