Was Jesus Christ Bipolar or Schizophrenic?

Post Reply New Topic

Why would someone even bother with ignoring dubious veracity?!

In any case ...

If there actually is a Satan, then there is a supernatural realm and the speculation of "Bipolar Schziphrenic" does not need to be even a rhetorical factor here. So, all of that leaves us with little more than this to consider:

"Why couldn't Satan give 'Jesus' the powers to perform miracles?"

We would first have to show Satan even having such powers to give, and then we could consider this factor:

"And the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the reigns of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said to Him, 'All this authority I shall give You, and their esteem, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. If, then, You worship before me, all shall be Yours.'
”And answering him, He said, 'Get behind Me, Satan! ...”
(Luke 4:5-8)

In other words: Satan had nothing 'Jesus' either needed or wanted.

Polarity and Schisms topic

Maybe Jesus was Bi-Winner like Charlie.

Or, god needed to see what mental illness was like. Project it onto his only begotten son, and see what happens.

methinks god is a bit satanic.

Nah ...

That would be too many bad guys in one movie.

Created? Now you sound like a Jehova Witness, hmm..... are you?. I thought you believed Jesus was never created, rather incarnated.


If Jesus is God, then why he couldn't understand his own creations?

Last edited by blunnet on 22 Apr 2011, 6:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Like father, like son.

Though, really I think Jesus in the gospels seems to have that contempt for social norms that you expect from a holyman. Who wants a civil and polite prophet? I like the way he behaves in the gospels.

No, he only had contempt for the day's religiosity ...

Last edited by leejosepho on 22 Apr 2011, 6:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Giving up all your possessions, insulting rich people and travelling around Judea with a bunch of disciples probably wasn't normal behaviour at the time.

Essenes did it, John the Baptist did it, but they weren't part of normal Jewish society at the time.

Christianity and Jesus are about world-denial.

Yes, but all were/are volunteers and none of that was done in contempt for anything else (other than possibly, if so perceived, the Sadducees, Pharisees and so on).

Except the ones that didn't deny the world. They weren't going to be saved.

Possibly so, but that does not mean the believers' and/or their teacher's actions were done in contempt of anything. I obey because I want to obey just as the teacher wanted to obey, and I try to "keep myself unstained by the world" simply because that is what I have been asked/told/required or whatever to do and I like that better anyway.

The way I interpret Christianity, it seems to be a very forceful 'denial' of traits in the human character that are manifested most strongly on a society-wide scale. The desire for more wealth and resources for oneself, the desire to promote one's own kin over everyone else's, the desire for pleasure for its own sake. To go and live in poverty and be celibate is actually an act of rebellion. To be really pretentious and quote Camus, 'a rebel is someone who says no'. Jesus is a rebel against human nature. I think to rebel against something like that, it requires contempt.

Also, if you going to call someone who doesn't follow your rules a 'sinner' and damn them, then that requires contempt, as well.

I think we see the world very differently, so I don't know if this discussion will go anywhere.

If all of life began with self-indulgence or whatever as the norm, then I could only agree. However, and at least from a Scripture-referenced point of view, "the ways of this world" are rebellious against the way "God" first set things up ... and not the other way around.


Okay, but then does that mean everyone who ever says "No!" is a rebel?


Even some preachers might say Jesus was a rebel, but he was really only an obedient son doing as his father would have him ... and I do not recall his ever teaching anyone to "rebel" against anything other than possibly something like when he told Peter (who had just done a human-nature act) to put away his sword ... and he then restored the attacked soldier's ear.


I defend your right to see and/or to interpret things as you wish, but I do not recall Jesus or anyone else ever calling anyone else a sinner and damning them. Rather, it is simply reported to all who can hear that disobedient people are sinners and that sinners will be damned. And as to the allegation of contempt: It was Jesus who received the most criticism for occasionally hanging out with sinners!


I think we are simply looking at all of this while holding some personal beliefs that are in direct conflict with each other, but then neither of us need have any contempt for the other just because of that.

leejosepho's use of the scripture fails. After all, there were no witnesses to his time with Satan, and if Jesus served Satan, he would likely lie about his serving Satan.

In any case, that aside, I disagree with the implicit premise that a diagnosis of Jesus can be done on the grounds of what little we've seen in the NT. First of all, it's going to capture the more dramatic elements of his life. Secondly, whatever he does will suffer from some mythological improvement of it. Thirdly, the authors weren't concerned with the deeper truths in some ways. This isn't to say that they are liars, but... they wanted a Gospel, not a well-cited historical document. So... really, any diagnosis of Jesus would be like 20 times worse than those attempts to diagnose Jefferson or Joan of Arc.

You are so silly! Scripture might not convince anyone of anything, but neither was I even trying to even try to do so!


You bet. Such can only come from a prejudiced (rhetorical) position or philosophy or whatever.

For me, that's effectively the same thing as being told that I'm a sinner and that I'm damned. Simply because it was reported as God's decision, doesn't make any difference to me. This is because I believe in that God is man-made, whereas you believe humans are God-made.

Also, if Jesus is God and it's his decision to damn me, then I call that contempt.

In my view, humans didn't rebel against the ways of God because there was no God to begin with. Jesus and pals are the real rebels.

I don't think a rebel is a bad thing to be and I think many assumed aspects of 'human nature' are worth rebelling against. I believe in human social progress rather than the ways of God. We don't become less of a crap species by following the will of a God who might not exist, but by actively trying to improve.*

*imho, of course!

The key for me is knowing what did not make the New Testament. The Gospel of Thomas had Jesus push someone off a roof and kill him, but used his resurrecting powers to bring them back from the dead. I believe that the Book of Judas had Jesus grow up trying to control his powers and use it for good.

I do not believe Jesus was bipolar or schizophrenic. Looking at the other books outside of the Bible and from what I remember he was just some guy with special powers trying to adjust to use them properly. I really do not remember anything in the Bible that would really show anyone but God to be bipolar.

EDIT: Master Pedant. could you please underline or show that it is a hyperlink next time? I accidentally ran the mouse over the Principle of Embarrassment and I never even knew.

Last edited by HerrGrimm on 23 Apr 2011, 1:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.