What do you mean? (assuming it's about Jesus)

If I claimed to be the son of god, would you describe me as hypersane?

Some (perhaps most) historians tend to believe, I think, that the historical Jesus did not claim to be "the son of God". But I'm not sure that we're talking about the historical Jesus here, so this might be irrelevant.

The historical Jesus did, of course, claim that the world was about to end. (More precisely: it will end while some people "standing here" are still alive.) For various reasons (see the many books that have been written on the subject), the passages in which Jesus describes the imminent end of the world are thought to be fairly accurate quotations, though many parts of the gospels were inserted or invented later or clearly adapted from older literature.

EDIT: Obviously, that Jesus didn't claim to be the son of God in no way implies that he wasn't the son of God. There are Christians who believe that the historical Jesus did not claim to be the son of God. Some Christians would claim, I think, that Jesus could not have truly suffered death on the cross without ignorance of his divinity.

If that is the only characteristic of Jesus that comes to your mind, then you have a lot more to learn about him.

If the state today was based strictly on religion and someone would come in and say "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's.", implying the introduction of the separation of the church and the state, you wouldn't call this man sane and a good influence?

It is absolutely a central dogma of Christianity, that Jesus is the son of God, if you believe in the Nicene creed.

I didn't say anything about whether he was a good influence. The whole son if god thing just doesn't sit well with being hypersane.

And being the son of God is kind of the 'characteristic' of Jesus, it isn't really something you can lay to one side.

You do understand that at the time that he said it the beliefs of people living at that time functioned differently and that claim was more relatable to people than it would be now? And if you would be talking to the people at that time you would need to use their terms, their language, and operate within their belief systems? (Also considering the question of whether Jesus actually said those words, or if that notion is just the interpretation of some people writing down the records, of what he was saying at the time.)

"the beliefs of people living at that time functioned differently"

What are you suggesting would be a suitable modern day analogue?

If other people are claiming that he's the son of god, rather than he himself, doesn't that also throw the question of hypersanity into question. If you were to claim that I were the son of God, would that not colour everything else you wrote about me? You are at best not a neutral witness.

He exhibited petulance, short temper, violence, and extremism. Hypersane doesn't really seem to apply.

That's probably because the people who wrote about the character weren't thinking in those terms.

You seem to operate on some other set of historical books and accounts than what is readily available.

That's an odd reply.

Mark 4, Jesus basically says he doesn't want everyone to be saved so he's confusing on purpose.

Matthew 15, he scolds Pharisees for not killing children like god commanded

Matthew 21, he goes on an anger induced rampage in the temple

Mark 11, Jesus killed a tree because he was mad that it didn't have fruit when it was out of season

Do you think these things don't count?

> Do you think these things don't count?

First of all, good point!

More people should read what the book actually says. It can be downright scary at times even if I have found it very useful.

That said, while 3 and 4 are definitely interesting I think most agree 3 was a good thing.

1 and 2 are interesting in this context only because in one case you seem to lack context and in the next you either haven't read it carefully or are deliberately misreading it.

Wow the level of dishonesty and misuse of any context is horrific here.

Mark 4: Jesus is quoting Isaiah who is speaking of a people who have the Scriptures and yet have continually ignored God and will eventually murder Him. God is under no compulsion to be clear with them. It is the sobering truth of Matthew 13:12.

Matthew 15 : I have no idea what you are talking about here.

Matthew 21: The house of God is being used to turn a profit and exploit the poor. Yeah -- that angers God.

Mark 11: You seriously can't see the bigger symbolism here? Are you really concerned about a tree?

not the GP, but the greater symbolism of the fruit tree is very interesting.

If you believe the stories, god created everything, including the tree, and the tree is 'behaving' exactly how it was created. For this, god cursed it.

I suppose this is something programmers can really identify with, but I think the greater symbolism is applying the same thing to humans.

When god created adam and eve, he created them with them with curiosity, and it was that curiosity that led them to eat the apple. For that, they were cursed.

IMO, the greater symbolism is just demonstrating the story of Eden all over again.

Interesting -- so you would say curiosity triggered the fall of man.

Most see the rejection of contemporary Jerusalem (Matt 23:38, Luke 19:43,44) and the house of the scribes and Pharisees, which produced no fruit, was about to be left desolate. In AD 70 Titus and the Romans would demolish Jerusalem and the Temple. The cursing of the fig tree, I infer, is the foreshadowing of their doom. The fig tree is used again in Matt 24:32 as an indicator of the soon return of the Son of Man.

In any case, saying Jesus hates fig trees, is missing the point.

Can you really say that a collection of fan-fiction is in any way historical?

There are no significant historical accounts of Jesus.