>>24472106 (OP)There are only two viable explanations of Christ that I've found in all my ponderings, for whatever that's worth to you, and those two are
1. Christianity as ordinarily handed down is true at face value.
2. From a Hindu-Buddhist worldview, Jesus was a perfectly enlightened man or even a legitimate avatara. People who get enlightened tend to have incredible peace of mind, psychic abilities like knowing the future, and experiencing their lives like living poetry, perceiving it in an ever-transcendental way that is baffling to normal perception.
I have a hard time invalidating my own Hindu-Buddhist worldview and biases, but I want to respect the Christian tradition and investigate the traditional Christology at their face value. It'll take me many more years of searching at least I feel.
>>24472115I always see this referenced and all I heard from Bible scholars that are either atheist or agnostic (who still greatly respect Christianity, just are unconvinced), like Bart Ehrman (evangelicals hate him), is that Isaiah 53 can't be referring to a person but to the state of Israel. I have no idea though. I've heard it said that it's impossible for a Christian to read Isaiah and not think of Jesus, even though interpreting the suffering servant as Christ is a misapprehension of the text.
I've also seen a lot of language and behavior of Christ used in the Gospels that he indicates the Father, to love the Father, to worship the Father, not that he's claiming to be the Father. Like in John where he says just as I and the Father are one, let them all be one. It doesn't help that it feels like the authors of the NT are slightly schismatic and seem to be saying at the very least slightly different things.