[benharrison]

You're logic is correct, but it's not the great teacher part that is in question. The part that is always in question is about whether or not he is really God.

Take that same analogy and replace "great teacher" with "great person". If Jesus told people that he is God, and convinced them to put their trust in him, but he happens to be wrong about being God (regardless of whether that's an intentional lie or an honest delusion), then it really isn't fair to say that he's a "great person". It would be more accurate to characterize his morality in leading people astray similar to the likes of Hitler and L. Ron Hubbard.

[dkersten]

I'm saying that whether or not he was a great teacher is independent of whether or he was god. He can be a great teacher and still not be god.

Are people saying he's a great person because he's god; god because he's a great person; or independently both god and a great person? I'm arguing that they don't necessarily have to have a causal relationship and neither implies the other. (Ok ok maybe being god implies you are also a great person... but the other around way is not true)

[benharrison]

I get what you're saying; that these characteristics are not mutually necessary. And I agree with you.

As for the other question, I suppose you could separate those characteristics as well. For a moment, let's ignore the Bible and focus on an abstract concept of "God". It is possible to be good, and not be God. It is also possible to be God, and not be good. And in that case, we don't have to redefine the word "good" to mean (a bad) God, just because he is "God". So yes, ultimately these are independent concepts that are not mutually necessary.

> "Are people saying he's a great person because he's god"?

Jesus is described in the Bible as being a man that lived a sinless life. That's where the "good person" description comes from. He was tempted just the same as any of us are, and he could have given into any of those temptations. According to the Bible that didn't happen, but if it did, it leads right back to your original point: he could have theoretically been God and simultaneously not have been good. The problem with that (not the problem with your logic, but the problem with him being an impure God) is he would no longer be an innocent sacrifice and his whole mission falls apart.