When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?"
So they said, "Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven." – Matthew 16: 13-17
Who do you say Jesus is?
The foundation of the Christian faith is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Bible teaches and people indwelt with the spirit of God believe Christ is the Son of God. He was fully man and fully God. He is God. There was never a time he didn’t exist. He’s always existed with the Father and the Holy Spirit. He is Creator. He is Savior. He is the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, the Lamb who will return to deliver God’s wrath.
To an unbeliever, some of these things seem contradictory or just plain silly. How can Jesus have been human and deity? How can Jesus be the Son of God and God? What do these things mean? Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – what is that about?
For short and oh-so-sweet answers, follow the links:
Who do you say Jesus is?
As C.S. Lewis wrote in his wonderful book, Mere Christianity, Jesus was either Lord, liar, or lunatic. He wasn’t just a “wonderful teacher” or “great philosopher.” He claimed to be God:
“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 a 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 patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”
Who do you say Jesus is?
This is how future president Barack Hussein Obama answered the question back in 2004 for an article series called “The God Factor”:
“Jesus is an historical figure for me, and he’s also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher. And he’s also a wonderful teacher. I think it’s important for all of us, of whatever faith, to have teachers in the flesh and also teachers in history.”
That’s all? What an understated, muted, and mealy-mouth response. No mention of the most important thing? If you’re a Christian and this is how you answer the question of who Jesus is, I question the state of your soul. Presumptuous and judgmental? Yes! But let’s back up. Must our president be a Christian? In my opinion, no. I’d vote for an atheist, as long as he’s socially conservative.
But I have BIG problems with someone who professes Christ and tries to appeal to Christians through “faith,” when his words and deeds indicate he is NOT a Christian. Jesus was “an historical figure.” BHO got that right. Jesus is, in a sense, “a bridge between God and man.” But what else is he? What is his most important attribute? That he was God in the flesh, for crying out loud.
Christ is more than an historical figure and bridge between God and man. If he were just a man, then the Bible is untrue. If Christ is not God made flesh and punished for sin in our place, if Christ didn’t rise from the dead, promising us that we’d also rise from the dead, we’re still dead in our sins and under God’s wrath. We have no Savior.
The death, burial, and ressurection of Christ is literal and figurative, symbolic and real, and a direct parallel to what happens and what will happen to us. To be born again in Christ means to die to our former selves, just as our physical bodies will one day cease to function. The “old man” gives way to the “new man.” Our old selves were buried with Christ, and through his sacrifice on the cross and subsequent resurrection from the dead, we are assured that we – those who claim Christ as their Savior – will be resurrected from the dead and reunited with the living God.
I don’t know about you, but I find that stunning. Unbelievable to some. But what an audacious claim.
BHO, why would you leave out Christ’s most important attribute – his deity? This is the very essence of our faith. Who wants to worship a wonderful teacher or historical figure? Becoming a Christian is a life-changing experience, a radical paradigm shift. I’d be ashamed of myself if I told someone Christ is a “wonderful teacher” and left it at that.
Who do you say Jesus is?
Bonus: BHO’s answers to other questions indicate (to me) that he’s either not a Christian or attended a church where he didn’t receive proper biblical teaching. Can you spot the strangeness? For instance, you’ll never guess how BHO answers, What is sin?
(Hat tip: Commenter George Craggs)
Related posts:
{ 61 comments }
← Previous Comments
Heliotrope..it’s cool. Your clarification to Trish cleared it up for me.
Heliotrope says:
“I assiduously avoid the concept of agnostic, because it is of recent coinage and has no settled meaning.”
You mean Gnosticism (yes I wrote Gnosticism) as defined or Gnosticism as practiced, because Huxley coined “agnostic” in response to it..right?
The definition dates to the mind of Thomas Huxley in 1869. Since then, many others have thrown their minds at the definition. Bertand Russell gave the following definition:
And these two differing “definitions” have been further muddled by the musings of William Blake, Carl Jung, Albert Camus, Hermann Hesse, Allen Ginsburg, Arthur Schopenhauer and other “deep thinkers”who all cleaved in some significant measure to gnostic thought. These people have been stuffed into the category of “philosophy” by some, but they were more engaged in the infant (still) “science” of psychology.
If the 1869 definition of agnostic were cemented in place, 140 years would suffice. But even Dan Brown has thrown his revisionism into the concept with his DiVinci Code. Good on Merriam-Webster for attempting to nail it down. Now if we could get the “philosophers” and encyclopedia writers to agree……..
Meanwhile, I treat the word “agnostic” like the word “fascist” and give it wide berth.
Interesting..
I imagine if, like the practice of surveying, you asked people if they were agnostic, you’d get the applied result verses the preference.. ie..I’d like to be an ISTJ but I’m really an ENTJ.
Oh, and to your point, as you are an educator.. how on earth do you teach at the University level?
For example, students come to our group to study Torah, Hebraic Roots, Messianic Aposticism (whatever the hell that is.. LOL) and fundamental Christianity hoping what.. I guess that they can go and teach others or improve their lives, but then go away confused, but learned.
I guess it’s possible to be learned and confused, but when a teacher encourages students to know and IMAGINE the Almighty, but to KNOW the Almighty, we get cussed out by a Rabbi for…well we haven’t figured out why yet.
Which is why, though we diverge on a few things, I can understand more than I’ve admitted to you, why being dogmatic has faults, not unlike the “Handwriting of Ordinances” that the Apostles spoke against so much.
Which means that how we behave is more important that what we PRETEND to know.
I’m babbling.
“Based on the entirety of LaShawn’s works in regards to her politics and her Christianity, it would be silly to assume that when she says “I would vote for an atheist if…,” she is speaking of someone who is virulently anti-Christian, like a Christopher Hitchens. It makes more sense that “atheist” in this regard is being used simply to describe someone who does not believe in God.”
La Shawn;“That’s exactly what I meant, Gabe. Thanks.”
Answered and explained…thanks
It appears that the fragments of the “atheist” grenade may have all spent themselves out and the smoke has begun to clear.
We all have the habit of reading our impressions into things when our hot buttons are activated. Please excuse just on last remark on the topic.
Christians can be judged against rigid and immovable standards. Atheists, having no creed or standards, are innocent of all assigned qualities until they reveal themselves one step at a time.
To forgo religious belief in deference to doubt is the minimal qualification for atheism. Until you know more about the individual atheist’s mind and soul, that is a sufficient description. To assume an atheist is an active denier or opposer or religion is to imbue him with power and blame he has neither merited nor demonstrated.
We have enough internecine conflict within the sects of Christianity over whether the organ should be painted or the bells and smells need updating that we don’t need to go forth all armed and ready against an atheist army that is indifferent or too lazy to answer roll call.
Dear heliotrope; Ah, so you question the definitions themselves also… right, gotcha.
And indeed, if that is the thrust of your argument, then I would have to agree. After all, Confucianism; Taoism; Buddhism, with their lack of church, theology, leader, creed, loose organization, or ritual, could also not be considered religions.
And certainly, the Romans accused Christians of being atheists, and the Athenians did the same to Socrates, so yes, I understand…
Gregory,
I will not follow you to lumping Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism with atheism.
Atheism is skepticism, which morphs into a conviction for some who then may become militantly convinced. (Margaret Sanger for instance.)
Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism are belief systems and have a modicum of unification. I have attended the MCU Buddhist University at Chang Mai in Thailand and I assure you that they have a very well developed theology. Their temples date back nearly a thousand years and their system of bringing young men through “monk training” is remarkable.
Perhaps the Great Atheist will appear one day and get the skeptics semi-organized. I doubt it. For the most part, atheists are a fairly lazy lot when it comes to their atheism.
As an aside, I notice that the American Atheist headquarters has suffered a failed roof and their books and materials got soaked. I would guess they see no irony in this. (Although I am fairly certain that they take notice when a church is hit by a tornado.)
If it is of any comfort, I believe that most anti-religion people are atheists. But I will not concede that atheists are anti-religion by definition. One can not construct that syllogism.
“As an aside, I notice that the American Atheist headquarters has suffered a failed roof and their books and materials got soaked. I would guess they see no irony in this. (Although I am fairly certain that they take notice when a church is hit by a tornado.)”
That is hilarious.. but true.
As is your absolute right to do so, heliotrope. I merely agree with you that definitions are important, and it certainly is true that differing definitionss will get you hilarious results.
My personal definition of atheism is pretty loose, but there are fellow Christian brethren out there who do not believe anyone other than a fellow Christian is a theist (literal belief in God, in this case, Jesus).
My mother having been brought up in a Buddhist/Taoist background, personally I would say that they are religions/belief systems.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 5 trackbacks }