Originally posted by twhiteheadActually the common man does not exist.
Actually the common man does not exist. Theists have a different concept of death from non-theists and even within those groups there are differences. Presumably, for a typical Christian, neither Jesus' death nor their own should be viewed as a termination of life but a transformation to another life. But none of that makes a suicide any less or more of a ...[text shortened]... Jesus was suicidal - I must have missed where anyone said that was contrary to his teachings.
Nice of you to be pedantic. If you do you not see any difference between Jesus and the rest of mankind in Christian theology, then I can't help you.
Presumably, for a typical Christian, neither Jesus' death nor their own should be viewed as a termination of life but a transformation to another life.
And? Does that make them identical?
I thought this all started because someone said Jesus was suicidal - I must have missed where anyone said that was contrary to his teachings.
So is dying in order to save a bus full of children. And?
Originally posted by twhiteheadHow can you possibly know any of that, if not by analyzing their insistence?
I think that a significant proportion of the creationist 'material' that gets presented is outright lies that the original inventor of knew was lies. I think that quite often those who pass on these lies have know knowledge of the validity of the claim but still claim to believe it to be true (lie) even when they are really agnostic about it or have serio ...[text shortened]... shinnz insistence that Jesus "had" to be omniscient.
I disagree that it can be equated.[/b]
I disagree that it can be equated.
Nice of you to provide a reason.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneAThousandYoung was suggesting that Jesus' teachings can be found in other places than the four gospels. You haven't really addressed his question regarding that.
I guess I was hoping this thread would be about objections over the teachings of Jesus, though it appears to have taken over by objections over the teachings of "Christianity". Seeing as the teachings of Jesus have been taken over by the teachings of "Christianity", I guess it's fitting.
I certainly don't see any good reason to believe the gospel writers to be a more authentic source of Jesus' teaching than Paul.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThere's a wide gulf between the words of Jesus and the teachings of "Christianity" which seems to be largely based on the extrapolations of Paul.
AThousandYoung was suggesting that Jesus' teachings can be found in other places than the four gospels. You haven't really addressed his question regarding that.
I certainly don't see any good reason to believe the gospel writers to be a more authentic source of Jesus' teaching than Paul.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneAnd St Paul's "extrapolations" were based on the teachings of jesus regarding the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was to guide us into all truth. Jesus clearly taught there was more to come after his death. Why do you consciously overlook this?
There's a wide gulf between the words of Jesus and the teachings of "Christianity" which seems to be largely based on the extrapolations of Paul.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe only flawed logic is contained in your post.
Thats flawed logic. It is a well known fact that the gospel writers copied from each other or from a common source, so the fact that they have passages in common only shows their copy/paste ability not how well they wrote down what Jesus actually said. We do not know how any of them found out about what Jesus said, so even though John was written later it ...[text shortened]... spel last year it would be just as valid. The mormons are not as way off as you might think.
It's quite possible the Synoptics are all partly copied from a common source or that two of the Gospels are partly copied from one of the others (probably Mark's). These Gospels all pre-date John's by at least 10 and more probably 30 years and if they are derived from an earlier source, that would make that source much closer to Jesus' time. While it may not be a "definite conclusion" (of course, I never claimed it was), it is pretty logical to assume that contemporaneous documents are more accurate describing events than ones written 60 years later. If you had bothered to read my whole post (or the link I gave), you'd know that the Gospel of John also radically differs from all of the Synoptics in its description of events, style (Jesus never uses parables; Jesus constantly berates Jews, etc. etc.), claims of Jesus' divinity (notice DF ONLY can quote John to support his flimsy claims), etc. etc. etc. All these facts lead to the conclusion that John is an ahistorical document rewriting the facts to fit later religious orthodoxy.
Of course, large parts of the Gospel of Thomas are also in the Synoptics but not in John. This is also supporting evidence of the non-historical nature of John.
Of course, I don't accept "divine inspiration" or biblical inerrancy. If one does, ANY contradiction can be explained away in the most implausible way as threads in this forum have made clear many times. But it seems curious that John was "inspired" to write a Gospel so wholly at odds with the description of Jesus' life and nature as contained in earlier documents that are supposedly "divinely inspired" too.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneSo at what point is one's righteousness righteous enough to entitle one to stand confidently before a Holy God? Where's the cut off point?
Listen, I understand that you have a real problem dealing with the fact that Jesus taught salvation through righteousness. Since then it's been nothing but a steady stream of red herrings, distortions, false accusations, etc. Don't you think enough is enough? This thread is about exploring objections that atheists may have against the teachings of Jesus. If you don't have something to say about this topic, maybe you should just move along.
You may feel confident that your own righteousness will suffice. Me and St Paul will stand confident that Christ's righteousness in us is sufficient.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI won't bet my life on it, but I'd say Paul used the Gospels as source material, so Paul is a step removed from the original source.
I certainly don't see any good reason to believe the gospel writers to be a more authentic source of Jesus' teaching than Paul.
Then again, the Gospel authors relied on oral tradition. 'Mark' is the oldest text, whose author may have been a disciple of Peter, but probably didn't meet Jesus. But Paul said he got the revelation straight from Jesus himself. So clearly, his authority surpasses that of the Gospel writers and their oral tradition.
Originally posted by twhiteheadtwhitehead: but if your question is whether or not some Christians think it was mostly a show of some kind then the answer is yes.
I remember Knightmeister taking that line. As far as I understood his explanation, God was trying to show us what is right by example. His analogy was when a father takes the punishment due to his son upon himself, not because he has to, not to save his son the punishment, but to show his son the need for punishment ie the validity of a system with punish ...[text shortened]... followers' who think that we have sworn statements from 5000 witnesses to his resurrection 🙂
That's completely wrong. Christians believe his death and resurrection were utterly necessary for Man to have any chance of salvation.
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou believe in the teachings of Paul. I believe in the teachings of Jesus.
So at what point is one's righteousness righteous enough to entitle one to stand confidently before a Holy God? Where's the cut off point?
You may feel confident that your own righteousness will suffice. Me and St Paul will stand confident that Christ's righteousness in us is sufficient.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever."
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWe only have Paul's claim that he received any revelation straight from Jesus. If he did, it's extremely curious that he never quotes Jesus at all.
I won't bet my life on it, but I'd say Paul used the Gospels as source material, so Paul is a step removed from the original source.
Then again, the Gospel authors relied on oral tradition. 'Mark' is the oldest text, whose author may have been a disciple of Peter, but probably didn't meet Jesus. But Paul said he got the revelation straight from Jesu ...[text shortened]... f. So clearly, his authority surpasses that of the Gospel writers and their oral tradition.
Don't bet your life on it; no theologian that I know of thinks that Paul used the Gospels as source material. They seem to have been written AFTER his death.