People often argue that Jesus Christ was not the Son of God, rather he was a great teacher – a man from whom we could all learn.
I never liked that argument, and a paragraph out of A Layman’s Guide to Protestant Theology
If Jesus was not and is not the Son of God, insists (John Gresham) Machen, then he is the very reverse of a reliable teacher of ethics. For Jesus claimed to be divine; he claimed to have authority over men; he claimed to do that which only God can do – forgive sins; he claimed to be the Messiah, foretelling that he would return on the clouds of heaven; he asserted that he was the Way, the Truth, and the Life. If Jesus were only a man and claimed these things, he cannot be our example, for he was either a madman or a charlatan.
Word.
Comments
5 Responses to “Jesus Christ – Son of God or Ethics Teacher”
I disagree. While he may have been considered a madman for claiming those things, regardless of that he TAUGHT life lessons that are universal and endearing. Correlating his divine claims and whether they are valid or not, to his absolute truth and wisdom is ridiculous. It’s like saying Tiger Woods is now a bad golfer because he cheated on his wife. Clinton was automatically a bad President because he likes cigars with a certain flavor. Michael Vick is a bad football player because he killed dogs. GEN Patton was a bad leader because he slapped a couple of malingering GIs around! Sorry Lee, I believe both HE IS the son of God, and regardless of that fact, his lessons as an instructor are universal and applicable regardless of whether one acknowledges his divine superiority or not.
I tend to think that if someone claims divinity, knowing full well he is not divine, then there is no morality. That is lying and deceiving. How could one say Jesus was a great moral teacher if he was not moral at all?
Also, your examples do not relate. Your comparing apples and oranges (golfing to cheating, etc). The above quote looks at morality and what it means to have it and teach it. To be a good ethical/moral teacher you have to have a good base of ethics/morals, at least if you want someone to trust what you're saying. So, it would be like saying Lebron James is a good basketball player because he can shoot good, even if he has no legs, nothing to stand on.
Either way, it's a moot point. l, like you, believe Jesus was the Son of God, that His claims of divinity were true, and that yes, he was a good moral teacher.
agree w/ya man. Jesus Christ was so much more than a teacher. If he was solely a teacher–then there would be no reason for us to worship Him. There would be no reason for Him to die on the Cross for our sins. If he was just a teacher, then that would be all He needed to do. Yet, he is the Son of God, and that is why we can place our hope in Him.
As you said, if Christ, who is perfect, taught moral lessons, but had no clear morality Himself, then would be the point of all of this.
Lee here is my thing. If someone does not acknowledge he for who he is then that’s on them. But that does not take away from the fact that his principles are enduring. And I also do not believe that someone teaching about morals and ethics has to be extremely moral or ethical either. Our parents tell us to not do things because they are bad. So should we disregard their teachings because they themselves did not initially follow those morals and ethics? NO (I know morals and ethics are quite different, but for this small debate here I am generalizing them) Anyone can acknowledge truth and morality, pass it on, and still not follow it themselves. Remember Bagram? Sex before marriage is wrong. Person A can acknowledge, accept, pass on, and still not follow this lesson. Does his not following it take away from the lesson? Maybe as actions speak louder than words, BUT all teachers are human so…. Jesus wasn't which is exactly why he was the perfect teacher beneath being everything else he claimed to be. For me I like to equate Christ to non believers as a teacher. They feel less threatened AND can relate more to that role and standing. As humans I do not think we have the capacity to even begin to understand God. I consider myself a follower of Christ but not a Christian. When he walked the earth he had followers, Christians did not exist. I have actually come to hate the term for its commercial, hypocritical, sometimes ignorant and biased charge. I follow he and his teachings. I don’t feel a need to associate on a grand scale with others who do. Personal relationship brother, personal.
It depends on whose teaching it really is. If the teaching initially came from him and he did not follow it (after he understood it, if he's learning from a mistake that's a different kind of teaching) then yes, the lesson is detracted from and possibly even disregarded. If he is passing on something from someone else that has already taught that same thing, then I would look to the origin of the teaching, rather than the person that can't abide by it.
Jesus was human. He might have been God too, but he was human. He was born as a man, he was tempted like a man, he died as a man. He could not have not been the substitute for men if he wasn't one himself.
It is good that you recognise the personal nature of a relationship with God (if indeed you do believe that Jesus allows us a relationship with God the father, as opposed to just following his moral teachings). However, the whole bible builds a picture of God gathering his people. Together they can worship God, together he dwells with them, scattering them is a punishment for their disobedience. Gathering is not outside of Jesus mission: Matt 16:19, 18:15-20 & 28:19.
Even though living as a Christian is weighed down by sin and we're constantly trying to uphold the bible against silly traditions, false teaching and hypocrisy, standing together is one of the strongest parallels we have with heaven now and to stand together and uphold his word glorifies God. To stand alone, I think, denies what God is doing in gathering himself a people.