Was Christ Wise and Good?

[Fluffy]

I am currently reading a rather amazing book by Bertrand Russell (who also happens to be an amazing person, in my humble opinion) entitled "Why I Am Not A Christian". It includes a lecture under the same name as well has a host of other relevant material written by the philosopher. There are so many varied and interesting points in it that I am probably going to start a number of threads discussing each one.

As part of the first lecture, Russell, attacks Jesus Christ saying that whilst he felt that the man was very wise, he would not go so far as saying he was the wisest man. In fact he rates both Buddha and Socrates has superior to Christ in terms of wisdom and virtue. It should be noted that Russell is only concerned here with the Christ depicted by the Bible and not with Church doctrine or historical references. Below I will summarise his arguments:

Christ's wisdom was not new and so it would be unfair to attribute the originality to his beliefs that is often given. For example, "Resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also", was discussed over six hundred years prior to Christ by Lao-Tze and Buddha.

Christ was wrong about some things. For example, he thought that his return would happen within the lifetimes of the people he was preaching to. "Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of Man be come", "There are some standing here which shall not taste death till the Son of Man comes into His kingdom".

Christ had a flawed moral system since it included the concept of Hell. Furthermore, Christ seems to exhibit anger towards those he believes shall go to Hell "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?". Such a concept causes a great amount of suffering especially when the prospect of any sort of forgiveness is removed "Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world nor in the world to come".

Christ exhibits irrational or stupid behaviour. For example, he puts devils into pigs instead of simply dismissing them entirely. Additionally, upon seeing a fig tree, "He came haply He might find anything thereon" despite being omniscient. Upon finding nothing he said "No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever", causing the tree to wither and die which is an irrational response since it is stated that it was not the time for figs and so clearly, the tree could not be held to fault.

Do these arguments demonstrate sufficient faults in the Biblical Christ to indicate that he is not a god and, if he were, would this god be sufficiently unwise as to make him unworthy of ruling and judging our lives?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Do these arguments demonstrate sufficient faults in the Biblical Christ to indicate that he is not a god and, if he were, would this god be sufficiently unwise as to make him unworthy of ruling and judging our lives?

I've read Russell's book as well, and we should note that he is criticizing popular Christianity of the 1920s and earlier in Why I am not a Christian and Other Essays.

He doesn't recognize, for example, that Christian scholars even in his own time attributed the demon stories and the apocalyptic sayings to the church and not to Christ himself.

Paul recognized that the Gospel is "foolishness to the Gentiles and a stumbling block to the Jews" - the philosophically-minded Greeks refuse to worship a crucified Jew and reject the Gospel as foolishness, and the Jews reject it because of its inconsistency with Judaism. Russell's objections are not so much philosophical as they are practical - the practice of Christianity in American life from his formative years to the 1970s harmed women, homosexuals, and this harm was religiously motivated. He saw the problem and attacked its root cause, the myth. A weakness of Russell is his ignorance of German scholarship, which academic Christianity in America was just beginning to accept as he was writing his essays.

EDIT: Why I am not a Christian and Other Essays is available online at http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html

 

[Hacker]

To answer your question in my opinion, yes he was.:yes:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

To answer your question in my opinion, yes he was.:yes:

I think so, too.

Classical, traditional Christians don't revere Christ because he was "good and wise" anyway, but because they confess and believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

We have a lot more evidence that Socrates and the Buddha actually existed in the first place - there actually is more evidence of the goodness of both, but there is not suffient evidence that Jesus should not be considered a good and wise person, particularly if he was a pacifist who went to the cross willingly.

 

[michel]

I am currently reading a rather amazing book by Bertrand Russell (who also happens to be an amazing person, in my humble opinion) entitled "Why I Am Not A Christian". It includes a lecture under the same name as well has a host of other relevant material written by the philosopher. There are so many varied and interesting points in it that I am probably going to start a number of threads discussing each one.

As part of the first lecture, Russell, attacks Jesus Christ saying that whilst he felt that the man was very wise, he would not go so far as saying he was the wisest man. In fact he rates both Buddha and Socrates has superior to Christ in terms of wisdom and virtue. It should be noted that Russell is only concerned here with the Christ depicted by the Bible and not with Church doctrine or historical references. Below I will summarise his arguments:

Christ's wisdom was not new and so it would be unfair to attribute the originality to his beliefs that is often given. For example, "Resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also", was discussed over six hundred years prior to Christ by Lao-Tze and Buddha.

Christ was wrong about some things. For example, he thought that his return would happen within the lifetimes of the people he was preaching to. "Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of Man be come", "There are some standing here which shall not taste death till the Son of Man comes into His kingdom".

Christ had a flawed moral system since it included the concept of Hell. Furthermore, Christ seems to exhibit anger towards those he believes shall go to Hell "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?". Such a concept causes a great amount of suffering especially when the prospect of any sort of forgiveness is removed "Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world nor in the world to come".

Christ exhibits irrational or stupid behaviour. For example, he puts devils into pigs instead of simply dismissing them entirely. Additionally, upon seeing a fig tree, "He came haply He might find anything thereon" despite being omniscient. Upon finding nothing he said "No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever", causing the tree to wither and die which is an irrational response since it is stated that it was not the time for figs and so clearly, the tree could not be held to fault.

Do these arguments demonstrate sufficient faults in the Biblical Christ to indicate that he is not a god and, if he were, would this god be sufficiently unwise as to make him unworthy of ruling and judging our lives?

Interesting; for a start, I do not believe that Christ was 'in touch' with his Soul, nor with God during his incarnation. That was the whole point of his Earthly incarnation; sure he was endowed with more abilities than you or I are; but this -like most of these subjects - brings into play re-incarnation (which if you accept as a possiblity, explains away the apparent contradictory :-

Christ was wrong about some things. For example, he thought that his return would happen within the lifetimes of the people he was preaching to. "Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of Man be come", "There are some standing here which shall not taste death till the Son of Man comes into His kingdom".

Of course Christ wasn't perfect; no human can be. For example, he was 'tested' - why would he have been tested had there been no possibility of his succumbing to what he was offered?

Earth is only a training ground, during our time here the only 'traffic' between us and our souls is from us to the soul; very rarely, there might be a 'glimpse', but that is all; that is why Christ's incarnation was so wonderful.

 

[Sasa]

To answer your question in my opinion, yes he was.:yes:

Ditto that.

 

[Sasa]

Bertrand Russell (who also happens to be an amazing person, in my humble opinion) entitled "Why I Am Not A Christian".

No offense, but he sounds amazingly misguided in my opinion.

 

[YmirGF]

Do these arguments demonstrate sufficient faults in the Biblical Christ to indicate that he is not a god and, if he were, would this god be sufficiently unwise as to make him unworthy of ruling and judging our lives?

An idea I have had for some time is what if the historical Christ, as given, in the Bible, was actually an amalgam of two (or more) people. It would certainly explain why some of his words that have come down to us remain brilliant, while others simply have us scratching our heads. Here I am thinking of not only the folklore that surrounds such legendary beings but also the possibility of a "copy cat" scenario. If a deluded fellow happened to LOOK like the historical Christ, he could easily fool people into thinking he WAS the historical Christ. Plus if he was deluded, he would in fact PLAY THE PART, too. In turn the people would hang on his every word. In time, even these words would creep into the overall accepted persona of the correct Christ, as many would believe they had been chatting with the real McCoy. A hundred years down the road, who is to say what was the real Christ and what came from the copy cat.

What if this copy cat was the one that got crucified? It would certainly explain why the real Christ had such a devil of a time convincing his real followers that he was in fact still alive. No doubt they would trip over themselves with all sorts of miraculous explantions.

 

[Halcyon]

My personal belief was that he was good and the wisest (because i believe he had the Wisdom of God). Also, just because wisdom has already been espoused by another does not make its recurrence any less worthy of recognition.

We have a lot more evidence that Socrates and the Buddha actually existed in the first place

Is there? I'm pretty sure the life of the Buddha is as full of miracles and myth as the life of Jesus.

An idea I have had for some time is what if the historical Christ, as given, in the Bible, was actually an amalgam of two (or more) people. It would certainly explain why some of his words that have come down to us remain brilliant, while others simply have us scratching our heads.

It's an interesting idea Paul, but my personal opinion is that it was the writers of the Gospels, especially John, that put words in Christ's mouth - to try and get across their own theological position to the people.

 

[Peace4all]

I think so, too.

Classical, traditional Christians don't revere Christ because he was "good and wise" anyway, but because they confess and believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

We have a lot more evidence that Socrates and the Buddha actually existed in the first place - there actually is more evidence of the goodness of both, but there is not suffient evidence that Jesus should not be considered a good and wise person, particularly if he was a pacifist who went to the cross willingly.

good and wise yes... Best and wisest... NO

 

[logician]

There is no eyewitness historical accounts of the supposed Jesus told by independant historians or writers, (Josephus wrote after his supposed death, and his accounts are considered to be forgeries added later by Eusabias.) In any case, the biblical Jesus is an obvious impossibility - performing acts that are physically impossible. Such are the creations of many religions, man-gods, made in man's image.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm unsure how much of the authentic teachings of Jesus we actually have. Because of that, I think it might always remain an open question just how wise and good he was.

If we go just by the NT, then there would seem to be much that's missing from both the accounts of his life and the accounts of his teachings. If we add in the Gnostic Gospels, we get more information, but we don't know much about how true to Jesus it is.

Perhaps of all the teachings of the famous saints, the teachings of Jesus are among the least known to us.