Originally posted by twhitehead I think you misunderstood the English there. It is correct to say "He may not have done x but ...." when the meaning is "He did not do x but ...."
Originally posted by realeyez When a famous person speaks, do they write down what they said.
When a wise famous person speaks they read from a prepared speech which they (or others) have already written down. Of course nowadays we also have the luxury of being able to record what they say either as audio or video.
One does wonder why Jesus did not hire a secretary if his message was really so important. The gospel writers clearly made lots of mistakes and there would have been so many ways to avoid that altogether.
If you take the usual opinion that the gospel writers were inspired then one wonders why so many Christians emphasize their claim that the writers were eye witnesses. Why would you even believe the gospel writers over some other inspired writer who wrote a gospel 2000 years later like the one the mormons have. For one to verify the authenticity of inspired writing one must either have an independent source or be inspired oneself.
Originally posted by SwissGambit Yes, there are threats of hell for the wicked in the OT too. However, Jesus was apparently OK with continuing to use this scare tactic:
Luke 12:5 (New King James Version)
New King James Version (NKJV)
5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him!
If you put this into context, it's not necessarily as heavy handed as you might suppose.
"4 And I say to you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. 5 But I will forewarn you whom you shall fear: Fear him, which after he has killed has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, Fear him. 6 Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God? 7 But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: you are of more value than many sparrows."
It seems to me that the center of the teachings of Jesus was truth and love. Here he is addressing those who live lives based in fear rather love. Even at that, he tells them they have nothing to fear.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne Simply because I'm interested in what atheists think of the teachings of Jesus.?
Nothing new under the Sun. An evolution of philosphy, after the abandonment of the classic Greek and Hellenist philosophers.
I don't find anything particulary "objectionable", other than the fact that I'm in the non-historical Jesus camp, and therefore object to the implied deception. If pressed, I suppose I could find an objection to earning my eternal vicarious redemption through the gruesome and injust death of another person...a death I would have been morally bound to attempt to prevent had I been present.
Originally posted by David C If pressed, I suppose I could find an objection to earning my eternal vicarious redemption through the gruesome and injust death of another person...a death I would have been morally bound to attempt to prevent had I been present.
Was this the teaching of Jesus or what "Christianity" teaches?
I think it's an important distinction that needs to be made.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne As usual you miss the point. The words attributed to Jesus ring true to me. It's the spirit of His words that's important. Ever notice how the quotes of Jesus often differ by author. If Jesus wrote down his own words, then they'd be first hand. If this were another time, you'd no doubt be a Pharisee.
I get it . When Jesus says something you agree with then you have no problem but when he explicitly talks about the Holy Spirit you cast doubt on his words. ?? Why don't you just tell Joseph not to talk about that troublesome Holy Spirit stuff that jesus mentions? Maybe it will just go away then and you won't have to deal with it?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne From what I've seen, the words attributed to Jesus ring true to me. For you the words attributed to Paul ring true to you. Therein lies the difference.
Actually the differences I see between much of "Christianity" and the teachings of Jesus is at the root for the topic of this thread.
But the teachings of Jesus explicitly include the Holy Spirit and when anyone mentions the HS you just walk off with your ball in a huff.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne Granted it's all second hand at best.
It seems like "the part where he says he is the son of god literally" is open to interpretation. Is there a particular verse that you found objectionable?
There is loads of evidence that Jesus taught that he was the son of God and co-substantial with the Father , you either don't know your Bible or you are being disingenuous. I suggest the latter.
Originally posted by twhitehead Either his death was a sacrifice (suicide) or it wasn't
Technically he didn't kill himself did he. He was put to death under Jewish law for Blasphemy because he claimed to be the son of God. He could have renounced the truth and avoided death but that doesn't make him suicidal.
Originally posted by knightmeister I get it . When Jesus says something you agree with then you have no problem but when he explicitly talks about the Holy Spirit you cast doubt on his words. ?? Why don't you just tell Joseph not to talk about that troublesome Holy Spirit stuff that jesus mentions? Maybe it will just go away then and you won't have to deal with it?
Like usual all you do is sling mud hoping that something will stick. Seems like the only thing that you can do is hope to keep the person busy with distortions and false accusations. If you can manage to present something substantial, I'll be glad to address it.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne There's been quite a bit said against Christianity.
I don't think I've seen much said against the teachings of Jesus. Is there anything that anyone has found objectionable? I'd really be interested in hearing it if there is.
Honestly, I've never been interested in Jesus as a moral theorist. So, I'm not sure what his teachings involve. But if you summarize what you take his moral teachings to be, I'd happily provide you an opinion.
Originally posted by knightmeister Technically he didn't kill himself did he. He was put to death under Jewish law for Blasphemy because he claimed to be the son of God. He could have renounced the truth and avoided death but that doesn't make him suicidal.
Jesus was neither put to death under Jewish law or put to death for blasphemy because he claimed to be the Son of God.
Originally posted by bbarr Honestly, I've never been interested in Jesus as a moral theorist. So, I'm not sure what his teachings involve. But if you summarize what you take his moral teachings to be, I'd happily provide you an opinion.
So much of the teachings of Jesus were in the form of parables. I doubt I could adequately capture their essence in a summarization.
Originally posted by David C Splitting make-believe hairs. Are you a Jeffersonian Christian or something?
Does the Gospel of Thomas count as Jesus' moral teachings?
Can you provide words of Jesus that support your objection "to earning my eternal vicarious redemption through the gruesome and injust death of another person"?
If you want to use the Gospel of Thomas that's fine with me.
Atheists against Jesus?
26 May '08 14:10
Back to Top