He's being asked a direct, YES or NO question, and is refusing to answer. Of course that is being cagey. But I'm not blaming him for it: crucifixion's a nasty way to go. But if he's not trying to avoid the death sentence, the simplest thing in the world would be to say, YES, I am the Son of God. Because that is what he was accused of claiming.
Now, as you’ve acknowledged, you believe He is, for all intents and purposes, a man-made invention piled upon an actual historical figure...my question is this: Where’s the flaw? Where’s the human error in His character? Where’s the lie, the ulterior motive, the shading of the truth, the malice aforethought, the lust, the greed, the avarice, the streak of pride that would, should, must accompany any human character, as all humans are flawed? Where’s the error? Where’s the sin? Where’s the point in “the myth” that indicates this is simply a human creation drummed up to provide people with someone to believe in?
I have little idea what character flaws he may have had. We'll never know; he died 2000 years ago. I just think he was a man positioning himself for a dangerous job: that of united Jews to rise up against the Romans in order to re-establish an independent kingdom of Israel. He may have been a nice guy, a bad guy, a proud man... who knows. When we read the Bible, we can't really say we are reading what actually happened. We are reading the accounts of the followers of his disciples, 60-80 years later. We can only try to infer what he meant to them from what stories they told. The stories suggest that his followers believed him to be a potential king of Israel. Now, the followers of his followers must have come to a different conclusion, given that he did not come back and save them from Rome. So they would have to take the stories of the disciples and reinterpret them to explain his never coming back.
I’m sure you’ve found yourself dealing with some of those same blemishes in the stories you’ve taught. Where’s the blemish on Christ?
It's hard to say. If I were to try and write a characterization paper on him, though, I'd probably focus on Judas' comments just before the betrayal, and note that Judas was dissatisfied with Jesus getting his feet massaged with some expensive oil, and commented that it should have been sold and the money given to the poor. This suggests to me that as he grew more famous, Jesus may have become less aesthetic and more materialistic. Also, his comment to the woman whose daughter was sick ("I am here for the lost lambs of God") and dismissive ("Go home, your daughter is healed" -- of course we never see her again so chances are he was just blowing her off) suggest a gathering arrogance. But again, I don't know. He died a long time ago.
John 3:9-18
9 Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?”
10 Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? 11 Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.[a] 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but[b] have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Your responses in post 245 are surprising, coming from an English teacher, as you are clearly making what are at best very weak inferences based on a very cynical reading of the biblical text. Christ is “materialist,” “dismissive,” “arrogant.” These absurdities are not derived by any careful reading of the text, but from a mind unwilling to engage in any serious consideration of the text. You enter it disbelieving—but then are not willing to suspend your disbelief to give it a fair reading so that when you return to discuss the text, you cherry pick a word here, a phrase there that, by themselves, make the case you want (though do not make any case at all.) I daresay you would not allow your own students to get away with this in your English classroom, or are you one of those teachers, so common today, who will allow a student to believe in whatever interpretation they so choose to come up with, regardless of its (to use your own word) “plausibility.” What you’ve posited in post 245 is NOT a plausible, not even a possible conclusion to draw, given the entirety of the biblical text. Your conclusions are, in fact, laughable—little fragments and pieces pushed together by a mind unwilling to engage in a serious consideration of the topic. A good English teacher would never allow her students to get away with this kind of superficial consideration of a text, but would, instead, prod them to go back and see what they’ve missed. Well, you miss much in your reading of the bible.
Earlier, I posted the scriptural reason for this:
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
This verse describes your exact view of the scriptures (that they are foolishness) and the reason for that view (you lack spiritual discernment). God reveals Himself to the willing heart (Jer 29:13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.) He does not respond so to the heart of unbelief (read Proverbs 1). If you go back in the bible, you can read all the times folks tried to trap Christ, trick Christ, catch Christ in some conundrum similar to what you’ve done here. Each time, it was HE and not they whose scriptural position held (as it must - He IS the Word of God). The point being, yours is an old practice, plied by those unwilling to enter into a serious discussion with Christ due to an unwilling heart.
Perhaps you would do well to ask yourself what the real reason is that Christ/the bible so offends you. As a cynic, an unbeliever, you sure have spent an awful lot of time here (and at other times - we’ve had a lengthy discussion about the Bible before) challenging the veracity of scripture, the authenticity of Christ.) For some reason, your heart drives you to (and not from) these discussions - why? Why is it so necessary for you to debunk Christ here at FR when there are so many other, and, dare I say, easier, targets (Obama, Reid, BLM, etc.) Why would you give half your day (or however much time you spent yesterday) to discussing/refuting that which you have no interest in?
It might be worth asking yourself that question....