Why is Jesus not a "madman"?

[CleanShavenJesus]

Why would he be considered a madman? The people of Jerusalem (or at least, those who followed him), knew he was the son of God. Unfortunately, not all were faithful and not all saw it this way. They didn't really see him as a madman, but more of a reformer trying to churn the pot in the society they had. Pilate wanted none of it.

[naimless]

Why would he be considered a madman?

Because if I told you I was the son of god you would consider I was.

[Violet]

Because if I told you I was the son of god you would consider I was.

Which god? A couple of them have been known to be pretty promiscuous.

[naimless]

Well actually I am god, and I'm not very promiscuous.

I would like to be but unfortunately Nelly Furtado doesn't fancy me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0J3vgcE5i2o

So I wrote shit about her in a book and call her the devil. She's teasing me.

[Violet]

Well... you know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in-sZ20G3F8

Lesser gods always seem to think so much of themselves... what is with that lately?

[CleanShavenJesus]

Why would he be considered a madman?

Because if I told you I was the son of god you would consider I was.

Did you read my post at all?

[naimless]

Because if I told you I was the son of god you would consider I was.

Did you read my post at all?

Yes. I can't challenge you on those points. Just answering your question. If your points were answering your own rhetorical question then I missed the tone.

[EGross]

Did you read my post at all?

Yes. I can't challenge you on those points. Just answering your question. If your points were answering your own rhetorical question then I missed the tone.

I got it. Especially since the concept of "son of god" would have been a completely foreign notion. It would be like saying "I am the son of Zeus!" to the Jews back then. Same thing. Had he even said it "I am the son of god!" (and had he even existed), the zealots would have sliced him a new windpipe before he could say "Gaaahk....".

To understand what would have happened, one needs to understand the religious hatred and division going on during that day as the house of Shammai was invaded by dangerous wackos (think of the "tea party" in the USA taking over the Republican party, but without any fear of jail - freedom to do anything!). The year 30 was the year that the judges left the Temple area because capital cases were being brought forth so often for even the smallest infraction, that they wanted nothing more to do with it. And all feared the Sicarii (the name of the knife they carried) and the Biryanim (thugs who used fire rather than knives.)

So yeah, had someone said "God knocked up my mother when she was 12, but hey, I'm cool with that", the zealots would have had a field day.

[naimless]

Yep, I understand now. Similar things may not have been considered that mad in that time.

I'm not sure I agree though. People considered Socrates before Christ. Furthermore, there is a place in Siberia that one can understand today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2Cv5hZfOmk

[ThomM]

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

- C.S. Lewis

I found this interesting. Lewis understands the latter choice and chooses the former. Why is Jesus not a "madman", as Lewis puts it? The Quran believes in Jesus as a messiah and yet not the son of god. Only the bible refers to Jesus as the son of god. Why would one of these books lie about that and, furthermore, how does one know which book is a more reliable source of what Jesus said or is or was?

Once major problem with the christ myth is that the story of the christ shows a remarkable lack of knowledge of the Jewish religion of that time.
One must remember that the WORD of the god of the Jewish religion is ALWAYS good - and perfect - and would NOT be changed.

So - while the god might add to the covenant of the messiah - he cannot and would not CHANGE it completely as is suggested in the christ myth story. That would be HERESY - and heresy results in stoning to death.

Of course - the jewish religion admits only ONE god - not a trinity - no son- and the holy spirit is simply a messenger of god. Again - claiming that he was the son of god was heresy - stoning.

It was Blasphemous for Mary to claim that her son was the son of god - she would have been stoned to death too.

The bible goes out of its way to say that Joseph had no marital relations with Mary until AFTER the christ was born. A child out of wedlock would NOT have been trained as a teacher - but would have been shunned - at the least.

The real jewish teachers (the word Rabbi did not yet exist at that time) - would have known that the christ was a heretic. The clear statement of the covenant was that the messiah would be a HUMAN - of the lineage of David - and would REBUILD the Temple of Jerusalem for the third time - but the second temple existed throughout that time. AS a result - the christ would NOT have been allowed to teach in the temples - and as a heretic would have been stoned to death again.

THere are LOTS more things that simply only make sense to xtians who refuse to study the jewish religion. THERE is no way that christ would have been allowed to approach the temple at Jerusalem - much less attack the money changers - he was already established to be a heretic and would have been killed first.