Was Christ who He said He was? The thrust of His teaching was self-centered, on the theme of His identity: "Who do men say, that I am?" This was the turning point of His ministry and Peter was inspired by the Father to accurately pinpoint that He was the promised One, the coming Messiah, who was to be the Son of the living God. To believe in Him was to believe in God the Father, and to reject Him was to reject His Father. He said, that the Father and He were One, that He is in the Father, and the Father is in Him. This was a shock to the religious Pharisees, who knew what He was saying and charged Him with blasphemy, saying that He was equal to the Father, calling Him Abba, or Dad.
Anyone can say that they are who they choose, but do they have the credentials: I mean the character that is consistent, that confirms, that doesn't belie the claim; the signs and wonders to accompany the claim and make it authentic that sets Him apart; the witnesses to verify that it is not on His own authority that He makes the claims.
Jesus claims were one of a kind: His character unique; His conduct unprecedented; His credentials unequaled; His works and signs unmatched! No one has ever surpassed or excelled, neither predecessor nor disciple, His qualifications and merits to deity. He is the one and only Son of God and we cannot compare Him to any mortal; even if we called Him Jesus the Great or the greatest man who ever lived, that would not do Him justice, nor satisfy us. We don't compare Him to others, nor contrast Him, for there is no equal in any category of personality--the greatest charismatic person who ever lived. You cannot add to His name, simply Jesus will do, for He is the Savior and His purpose is to save us from our sins, as it is written in Matt. 1:21.
He made the claim that He was God in the flesh and had the moral authority to do it, for He even challenged the authorities to find fault with Him and charge Him with sin--at His trial the only charge that stuck was political and not moral. The disciples, who were close to Him for three years (and normally familiarity breeds contempt), had the consensus that He committed no sin. ("In Him was no sin, " says 1 John 3:5; "committed no sin," in 1 Pet. 2:22; "had no sin," in 2 Cor. 5:21.)
The closer you get to Him, the more you realize you are a sinner, not Him! For instance, Peter confessed: "Depart from me, O Lord, for I am a sinner." The leaders of other faiths are flawed in character, yet Christ stands out as the model of perfect manliness and godliness. What they say is that He had no sin, He did no sin, He knew no sin! If He were one, He couldn't save sinners! His challenge was: "Can you prove Me guilty of sin?" This was the greatest sign or miracle!
There is circumstantial evidence that is compelling, and this is evidence that is admissible in a court of law, we have eyewitness accounts of His resurrection and many facts cannot be explained apart from believing He rose from the dead. The written records verify His life, secular and clerical--there is no doubt of His historicity, so you must come to terms with Him and not dismiss as fable, myth, or even legend. Psychiatrists have examined Him and find Him to be perfectly balanced and His sermons are not the rantings and ravings of a madman-quite the contrary--He is perfectly balanced and the ideal man, someone whom all of us can emulate. Even intellectuals have called Him the model of mankind, and someone to imitate. Even the testimony of the close disciples cannot be dismissed so easily.
What His enemies said: They tried to trap Him in His words and accuse Him of blasphemy and couldn't believe He associated with known sinners and publicans, their favorite command, the Sabbath, was the main thrust of their attacks, for they could not bear someone breaking the traditions of the elders, but Jesus called Himself the Lord of the Sabbath--mind-boggling to them. The way He came eating and drinking they accused Him of gluttony and of being a drunkard and that His religion was frivolous. They accused Him of having a demon, but He had authority to cast them out and said that Satan would not be divided against himself, casting demons out. Three unlikely enemies (Pilate, Judas, and the centurion) all concluded that He was innocent blood and righteous ("Truly this was the Son of God!").
Look at the way He taught: As one having authority (cf. Matt. 7:29). He never footnoted His sermons nor quoted the authorities: He didn't speak by authority, but with authority. His only source was Himself (what the Father told Him to say) and the Scripture. He illustrated His teachings with signs and wonders or miracles to do lessons and proof that He was the Son of God in the flesh: Like feeding the multitude to prove He's the bread of life or raising the dead to prove He's the resurrection and the life.
Now anyone can claim to be God, for instance, Father Divine did, but can you prove it: The ultimate proof of Christ's claim is His resurrection which has many infallible proofs (Acts 1:3) and is the one sign that sets Him apart as the incarnation of God, who demonstrated victory over death and hell. The prime difference between His claims and those of others is the caliber of His life and that He offered proof to verify it.
For instance, if I claimed to be born of a virgin, you might think I'm unbalanced, but if the caliber of my life demonstrated no sin, you might take me more seriously. Not only His sinless morality, but His witnesses of John the Baptist, the most popular prophet of the day, and the over 500 who say Him rose from the dead, even what His enemies conceded unbeknownst to them, and the signs of His miracles (for if He had performed none, He would have ended up a mere footnote in history), and if you take away these miracles His witness is not credible, but the teachings themselves are such sublime words that only God could have originated them.
He came teaching and preaching (practicing what He preached and preaching what He practiced) but He upset the whole religious apple cart (the establishment) and the Pharisees were jealous of His influence and power over the people. What can you say, but that there is no hypothesis that fits the facts better than the one that He is indeed the Son of God, who came to visit and save man, by becoming one of us. Soli Deo Gloria!
Anyone can say that they are who they choose, but do they have the credentials: I mean the character that is consistent, that confirms, that doesn't belie the claim; the signs and wonders to accompany the claim and make it authentic that sets Him apart; the witnesses to verify that it is not on His own authority that He makes the claims.
Jesus claims were one of a kind: His character unique; His conduct unprecedented; His credentials unequaled; His works and signs unmatched! No one has ever surpassed or excelled, neither predecessor nor disciple, His qualifications and merits to deity. He is the one and only Son of God and we cannot compare Him to any mortal; even if we called Him Jesus the Great or the greatest man who ever lived, that would not do Him justice, nor satisfy us. We don't compare Him to others, nor contrast Him, for there is no equal in any category of personality--the greatest charismatic person who ever lived. You cannot add to His name, simply Jesus will do, for He is the Savior and His purpose is to save us from our sins, as it is written in Matt. 1:21.
He made the claim that He was God in the flesh and had the moral authority to do it, for He even challenged the authorities to find fault with Him and charge Him with sin--at His trial the only charge that stuck was political and not moral. The disciples, who were close to Him for three years (and normally familiarity breeds contempt), had the consensus that He committed no sin. ("In Him was no sin, " says 1 John 3:5; "committed no sin," in 1 Pet. 2:22; "had no sin," in 2 Cor. 5:21.)
The closer you get to Him, the more you realize you are a sinner, not Him! For instance, Peter confessed: "Depart from me, O Lord, for I am a sinner." The leaders of other faiths are flawed in character, yet Christ stands out as the model of perfect manliness and godliness. What they say is that He had no sin, He did no sin, He knew no sin! If He were one, He couldn't save sinners! His challenge was: "Can you prove Me guilty of sin?" This was the greatest sign or miracle!
There is circumstantial evidence that is compelling, and this is evidence that is admissible in a court of law, we have eyewitness accounts of His resurrection and many facts cannot be explained apart from believing He rose from the dead. The written records verify His life, secular and clerical--there is no doubt of His historicity, so you must come to terms with Him and not dismiss as fable, myth, or even legend. Psychiatrists have examined Him and find Him to be perfectly balanced and His sermons are not the rantings and ravings of a madman-quite the contrary--He is perfectly balanced and the ideal man, someone whom all of us can emulate. Even intellectuals have called Him the model of mankind, and someone to imitate. Even the testimony of the close disciples cannot be dismissed so easily.
What His enemies said: They tried to trap Him in His words and accuse Him of blasphemy and couldn't believe He associated with known sinners and publicans, their favorite command, the Sabbath, was the main thrust of their attacks, for they could not bear someone breaking the traditions of the elders, but Jesus called Himself the Lord of the Sabbath--mind-boggling to them. The way He came eating and drinking they accused Him of gluttony and of being a drunkard and that His religion was frivolous. They accused Him of having a demon, but He had authority to cast them out and said that Satan would not be divided against himself, casting demons out. Three unlikely enemies (Pilate, Judas, and the centurion) all concluded that He was innocent blood and righteous ("Truly this was the Son of God!").
Look at the way He taught: As one having authority (cf. Matt. 7:29). He never footnoted His sermons nor quoted the authorities: He didn't speak by authority, but with authority. His only source was Himself (what the Father told Him to say) and the Scripture. He illustrated His teachings with signs and wonders or miracles to do lessons and proof that He was the Son of God in the flesh: Like feeding the multitude to prove He's the bread of life or raising the dead to prove He's the resurrection and the life.
Now anyone can claim to be God, for instance, Father Divine did, but can you prove it: The ultimate proof of Christ's claim is His resurrection which has many infallible proofs (Acts 1:3) and is the one sign that sets Him apart as the incarnation of God, who demonstrated victory over death and hell. The prime difference between His claims and those of others is the caliber of His life and that He offered proof to verify it.
For instance, if I claimed to be born of a virgin, you might think I'm unbalanced, but if the caliber of my life demonstrated no sin, you might take me more seriously. Not only His sinless morality, but His witnesses of John the Baptist, the most popular prophet of the day, and the over 500 who say Him rose from the dead, even what His enemies conceded unbeknownst to them, and the signs of His miracles (for if He had performed none, He would have ended up a mere footnote in history), and if you take away these miracles His witness is not credible, but the teachings themselves are such sublime words that only God could have originated them.
He came teaching and preaching (practicing what He preached and preaching what He practiced) but He upset the whole religious apple cart (the establishment) and the Pharisees were jealous of His influence and power over the people. What can you say, but that there is no hypothesis that fits the facts better than the one that He is indeed the Son of God, who came to visit and save man, by becoming one of us. Soli Deo Gloria!