• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Was Jesus A Narcissist?

CynthiaCypher

Well-Known Member
From a pure scholarly approach I don't think the evidence leans towards accuracy, especially when you take all the lost gospels into account and the fact we know there were gospels destroyed in their entirety because they didn't match up with the orthodox gospels. While we may not know what the different gospels said we know they existed and did not match up with what we have today. That fact alone makes the history of Jesus' quotes suspect. To accept the bible as history requires faith as it doesn't hold up to the criterion used to determine historicity.

Well you see that's not actually true. The so-called Lost Gospels have no bearing on the accuracy of the synoptic gospels. Why? Because most if not all of the so-called Lost Gospels are later sources and derivative of earlier gospels, so they don't really count when we are reconstructing what Jesus actually said.

Face it, the synoptic gospels are the earliest sources of information we have about Jesus,, there are the gospels that count.
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
I think when you are as awesome as Jesus or me, it would practicaly be self-deprecation to NOT be a narcissist :p

You call a spade a spade. If you are that awesome, it is only fair you regard yourself as such :D
 

ChristineES

Tiggerism
Premium Member
Ok, who did he say he was?

He said He was a lot of things. A teacher (rabbi), Son of Man (prophet) and some of us believe He said that He was God and some don't take it that way (including other Christians). If he was really those things, then how can he be a narcissist?
I said I didn't think He was and I meant it.
 

Trey of Diamonds

Well-Known Member
Well you see that's not actually true. The so-called Lost Gospels have no bearing on the accuracy of the synoptic gospels. Why? Because most if not all of the so-called Lost Gospels are later sources and derivative of earlier gospels, so they don't really count when we are reconstructing what Jesus actually said.

Face it, the synoptic gospels are the earliest sources of information we have about Jesus,, there are the gospels that count.

That is only true from a position of faith, not scholarly study. Also, not all of the lost gospels were later sources and we know others existed that we can't study because they were destroyed. This tells us that there were conficting versions of what Jesus said and those that didn't fit with the synoptic gospels were destroyed. We can't just assume that because the synoptic gospels survived the purging that they are the authentic representations of Jesus' life. Unless you are relying on faith.
 

CynthiaCypher

Well-Known Member
I think when you are as awesome as Jesus or me, it would practicaly be self-deprecation to NOT be a narcissist :p

You call a spade a spade. If you are that awesome, it is only fair you regard yourself as such :D

It's one thing that you feel that you are so awesome that you think that you are the savior of your people and that they should follow you. That's a bit grandiose.

But when you feel that you are so awesome that not only the messiah but the now you view yourself as the Son of God, the inheritor of the universe and then it doesn't stop and now you now think you, yourself as God.

I think that's going way over of the edge.
 

InChrist

Free4ever
Do you have any scripture of Jesus actually saying he was God?


First you complain that Jesus acted in a grandiose way and now you want scriptures where He says. "I AM GOD". The point of His coming to earth was to humble Himself and come down to the human level. He was born in a stable, He lived a common life as the son of a carpenter, He went around showing compassion and healing the sick, the scriptures indicate that at times He had no place to lay his head and then He was crucified. The life He lived, the things He said and taught, the prophecies He fulfilled, and His resurrection victory over death show that He was God. He did not have to, nor was it His purpose to go around announcing He was God.
 

Super Universe

Defender of God
Even the lowest man or woman is greater than the grandest of temples.


"Everyone hates the universe yet no one does a thing about it", not from Mark Twain.
 

CynthiaCypher

Well-Known Member
That is only true from a position of faith, not scholarly study. Also, not all of the lost gospels were later sources and we know others existed that we can't study because they were destroyed. This tells us that there were conficting versions of what Jesus said and those that didn't fit with the synoptic gospels were destroyed. We can't just assume that because the synoptic gospels survived the purging that they are the authentic representations of Jesus' life. Unless you are relying on faith.
How do you know they were destroyed, were you there?

Many scholars think that the earliest sources Q,M and L were probably oral traditions and were only put to writing when the synoptic gospels were produce. Which makes the synoptic gospels the most reliable sources we have
 

CynthiaCypher

Well-Known Member
First you complain that Jesus acted in a grandiose way and now you want scriptures where He says. "I AM GOD". The point of His coming to earth was to humble Himself and come down to the human level. He was born in a stable, He lived a common life as the son of a carpenter, He went around showing compassion and healing the sick, the scriptures indicate that at times He had no place to lay his head and then He was crucified. The life He lived, the things He said and taught, the prophecies He fulfilled, and His resurrection victory over death show that He was God. He did not have to, nor was it His purpose to go around announcing He was God.

All I for is some scripture. Is there anything wrong with that?
 

CynthiaCypher

Well-Known Member
He said He was a lot of things. A teacher (rabbi), Son of Man (prophet) and some of us believe He said that He was God and some don't take it that way (including other Christians). If he was really those things, then how can he be a narcissist?
I said I didn't think He was and I meant it.

If it were true, that Jesus really was God and he said so, it wouldn't be narcissism. But if it isn't and he said he was, then Jesus would have to be one of the worst malignant narcissist to ever exist. It would put him in the same basket as David Koresh
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
First I would like to present to you guys what the DSM-IV defines as narcissistic personality disorder, if I may:



Oh boy, oh boy. What more could I say? All one has to do is pick up your own copy of the New Testament and you will see that Jesus was a bit narcissistic to say the least. So what say you guys, was JC a narcissist?
I would agree. To a point, he was probably a narcissist.
 

Super Universe

Defender of God
If it were true, that Jesus really was God and he said so, it wouldn't be narcissism. But if it isn't and he said he was, then Jesus would have to be one of the worst malignant narcissist to ever exist. It would put him in the same basket as David Koresh

Jesus taught forgiveness of others, even your enemies.

David Koresh raped children.

A narcisist isn't a bad person, all leaders are narcisists, so are all teachers, police, firemen, they have to be in order to do their job.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Sure it can. It's possible those verses were found in Q or M or L

It may be worth adding independent to the multiple attestation. And I assume that is pretty much what you meant anyway, that there were multiple independent attestations. So even though they may have copied from earlier sources, those earlier sources were independent of each other.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Well most cult leaders are. It's part of their charisma

I agree. And I see Jesus probably assuming that he was going to be some sort of leader in the Kingdom of God. That and he doesn't seem to have any problem with asserting intellectual superiority, or that maybe he was privy to special information.
 

Trey of Diamonds

Well-Known Member
How do you know they were destroyed, were you there?

How do you know they weren't? I read a book about it. The book I read was Lost Christianities by Bart Ehrman. I realise its only one source but I thought it was a pretty compelling read. In your favor he did say many of the lost gospels that we know about were later versions but the arguement that there were some destroyed in their entirety is not contested by biblical scholars so why are you? It seems to me you are mixing your faith with scholarship.

Here's a question for you. If you are accepting the orthodox gospels are history then Jesus was God on earth and could not be a Narcissist. If you are questioning the fact that Jesus was God then you are questioning the gospels. If that is so, why are you so dismissive of the lost gospels?
 

4consideration

*
Premium Member
I'm no expert on either the OT or the NT, but I would like to chime in here. I don't see that you have really provided anything much to substantiate your assertions.

Well I don't agree. I believe we have enough material to evaluate whether Jesus was a narcissist or not. Even though the Gospels are not totally accurate has historical documents, they do contain within them some of the things that Jesus actualy said such as:

“Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent?

My Bible has this wording for the same verse 5: "Have you not read in the law how the priests on temple duty can break the sabbath rest without incurring guilt?"

6 I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. "

The next two verses clear it up for me:

12:7 "If you understood the meaning of the text, 'It is mercy I desire and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned theses innocent men. 8 The Son of Man is indeed Lord of the sabbath."

My interpretation is that Jesus is pointing out that the purpose of the sabbath is not to fill some arbitrary requirement. It is a law whose purpose is to serve Love. Everyone needs a rest. The sabbath is a directive for people to take it for themselves, and to grant it to everyone (and everything, including animals) around them. It's only purpose is to serve the well-being of everyone by granting rest. Anyone who interprets it to mean that a person should require others to suffer with hunger in order to fulfill that law does not understand it.

Not even close to narcissism as far as I am concerned. I see wisdom in understanding and application of their law.

"38 Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.” 39 He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41 The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now something greater than Jonah is here. 42 The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, and now something greater than Solomon is here."


In these verses from Matt 12 Jesus compares himself to the Temple, King David, King Solomon and the Prophet Jonah and then deems himself as greater than all.

I still do not see narcissism here. Although Jonah did deliver his message to the people of Nineveh, and they repented and changed their ways as a result of it --Jonah was so bothered by the idea that God would forgive them and not destroy them that he wanted to die. Jonah wanted to see them punished. He was angry that they were being forgiven and being spared. There is not a very high level of understanding and love coming from Jonah. I do think that Jesus demonstrated being better than that, by teaching about forgiveness.

I think that reference to any great leader, king or otherwise, is only valuable if you are talking about the value of their message. Although Solomon was known to be wise, Jesus was attempting to teach the people something additonal that brought them up to a higher level of consciousness or understanding. It would be necessary for them to move forward with the wisdom of the past, but not hold onto only the teachings of the past.

I think his statements are accurate, not narcissistic -- unless you consider it narcissistic to point out that if we want to move forward in our understanding, we have to acknowledge that we didn't know it all in the past.

Is that grandiosity or what? Jesus definitely fits the first requirement

Like I said, I am certainly no expert on the Bible. But, I don't see what how you are coming to the conclusion you have if you really read those passages that you are referring to.
 
Last edited:

CynthiaCypher

Well-Known Member
How do you know they weren't? I read a book about it. The book I read was Lost Christianities by Bart Ehrman. I realise its only one source but I thought it was a pretty compelling read. In your favor he did say many of the lost gospels that we know about were later versions but the arguement that there were some destroyed in their entirety is not contested by biblical scholars so why are you? It seems to me you are mixing your faith with scholarship.

Here's a question for you. If you are accepting the orthodox gospels are history then Jesus was God on earth and could not be a Narcissist. If you are questioning the fact that Jesus was God then you are questioning the gospels. If that is so, why are you so dismissive of the lost gospels?

Just because I am accepting the historicity of the synoptic gospels doesn't mean I accept their theology.

So even Ehrman says that the so-called Lost Gospels are later, therefore they have little historical value. They were too late to have any whatsoever
 

Trey of Diamonds

Well-Known Member
Just because I am accepting the historicity of the synoptic gospels doesn't mean I accept their theology.

It is only their theology that gives them any historicity. It is not a historically accepted fact that Jesus existed, only the possiblity of his existance as a real person is accepted and not by all historians.

So even Ehrman says that the so-called Lost Gospels are later, therefore they have little historical value. They were too late to have any whatsoever

He said many and was speaking of those we have snippits of. He also said there are those that were destroyed that we can't date because they were destroyed.

You can't say you are using a scholarly approach and then pick and choose which data to use. A scholar will study all the data before making an informed decision. You are dismissing some of the data because it doesn't match up with the theology you are accepting as history while at the same time claiming to reject its theology.
 
Top