Jesus was no teacher....

I am the Buddha.

Am I crazy, dishonest—or am I making a true claim? Or am I simply mistaken?

What kind of claim am I making? That is, what is the nature of such a claim?

The nature of Jesus’ claims (and those made on his behalf) has been debated by Christians for millennia, and has been debated on here among Christians. What do certain terms—such as Christos, son of God, son of man—really mean? What are they being used to say?

All religions have their symbols and their coded terms. That is why I have spent so much time trying to use different terms. Decoding and recoding, perhaps. Crossing formalist lines.

Nevertheless—

I am the Buddha.

Originally posted by vistesd
I am the Buddha.

Good to know. If I see you on the street, I will kill you.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Good to know. If I see you on the street, I will kill you.

Nemesio

LOL!!!

And with that, you correctly answer all the other questions about the nature of that statement! (As you well know.)

Originally posted by vistesd
I am the Buddha.

Am I crazy, dishonest—or am I making a true claim? Or am I simply mistaken?

What kind of claim am I making? That is, what is the nature of such a claim?

The nature of Jesus’ claims (and those made on his behalf) has been debated by Christians for millennia, and has been debated on here among Christians. What do certain terms—s ...[text shortened]... Decoding and recoding, perhaps. Crossing formalist lines.

Nevertheless—

I am the Buddha.

If you are claiming that you will be the sole judge of all of humanity at the end of time and that your death is going to result in the forgiveness of humanity's sins then , yes , I might think the cheese had slid off your cracker somewhat.......

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]He would not be just mistaken but wildly deluded and egotistical

That one is "sincere" in his being mistaken would mean to first order that he believes the claims he puts forth, despite that these claims are inaccurate. Sure, maybe the claims are outrageously inaccurate. Sure he could have other faults too, like being delusional in some ways o ...[text shortened]... ed it would make him a "madman" or "lunatic" as CSL claims.

What's your point anyway?[/b]

My point is that there are many people walking around hospital wards who are "sincerely mistaken" about their belief they are Julius Caesar (or some other delusion) , but I would not then go and trust what they have to say about morals and human behaviour or label them as a great human moral teacher. I would probably have a deep scepticism of the value of anything else they had to say.

Originally posted by knightmeister
If you are claiming that you will be the sole judge of all of humanity at the end of time and that your death is going to result in the forgiveness of humanity's sins then , yes , I might think the cheese had slid off your cracker somewhat.......

Right! And anyone who thought that I meant anything close to that wouldn’t understand the Buddhist language I am using.

Now, if you think that’s what Jesus meant, then:

(1) Either you misread the idiomatic usages of terms such as son-of-man and son-of-god in currency at the time; and Jesus’ own metaphorical, symbolic, paradoxical language aimed at what it means, for example, to be the Christ—in which case perhaps some cheese has slid off your cracker; or

(2) Jesus meant exactly what you just said, as individualistically applied to himself—in which case I would say that some cheese did slip off his cracker.

Note that lying is not a necessary alternative.

Now, the ground that lies (no pun intended) between (1) and (2) is ground where a lot of doctrinal blood (really and metaphorically) has been shed among different groups all claiming to be the True Christians™. And battles on that ground go on here on these threads. They are often cast in terms of so-called “high Christology” versus so-called “low Christology”.

Originally posted by vistesd
Right! And anyone who thought that I meant anything close to that wouldn’t understand the Buddhist language I am using.

Now, if you think that’s what Jesus meant, then:

(1) Either you misread the idiomatic usages of terms such as son-of-man and son-of-god in currency at the time; and Jesus’ own metaphorical, symbolic, paradoxical language aimed at wh ...[text shortened]... They are often cast in terms of so-called “high Christology” versus so-called “low Christology”.

I don't see how any honest , objective reading of his words can lead to anything other than (2). This is why I believe that seeing him just as a great "teacher" is disingenuous most of the time and just plain patronising.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I don't see how any honest , objective reading of his words can lead to anything other than (2). This is why I believe that seeing him just as a great "teacher" is disingenuous most of the time and just plain patronising.

I don't see how any honest , objective reading of his words can lead to anything other than (2).

I guess that statement really surprises me. I take such a reading to be dreadfully superficial—and I don’t think you are superficial. Nor do I think that everyone who reads it that way is superficial, as a person. (You and I should perhaps be beyond these personal apologetics, but tempers seem to have been running high here recently, and sensitivities raw.)

The point, though, is not so much that you come to the Christological (or “Jesus-ological” ) conclusion that you do, but the assumption that anyone who comes to some alternative interpretation must be either dishonest or biased—but that your reading is not.

Suffice it to say that, as I have more than once claimed: Jesus is the Christ, the Christ is not (exclusively) Jesus. A bunch of those “I-Am” statements of his are pointing toward a broader ontological notion (rooted in the Torah) than just “this person me here”.

Of the gospel writers, only Mark may not have been brilliantly literate, at least in Greek. Matthew and John, from differing perspectives or styles, are absolutely brilliant. Luke’s Greek prose may be better than Matthew’s, but he draws a lot of his presentation from Matthew, and I do not think ranks as such an original thinker/writer. Paul is interesting because he is both a skilled midrashist, and aware of Greek categories of thought. His genius is unquestionable—agree with his conclusions or not. And I think their genius and their deliberate use of language merits more than a superficial "plain-text" reading (by theists or atheists).

For one who has spent so much time poring over these texts—and studying generations of others who have—to be told that only your conclusions are honest and objective smacks itself of patronization. But, you are bright enough that such a statement surprises me. I know that you intend no insult. And so, it is not any feeling of affront, but actual bafflement that leads me to write all this.

And I want to be perfectly clear: I am not saying that your reading/interpretive skills are inferior to mine, or that I am so good that you—and others—ought to accept what I say when exegeting scripture! To draw from Paul: I must be mad to even say such things! All I expect from people, when I delve into scriptural exegesis, is that they take my efforts as honest attempts to explore the possibilities, and hope that they show me the respect of—arguing with me.

_________________________________


Now, I made a Christological statement: That Jesus is the Christ, but the Christ is not (exclusively) Jesus. And I think that statement is amply supported both by scripture and by Christian tradition.

If you want to argue that statement, I’ll set aside all my other posting on here to do so (and others can participate as well).

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]I don't see how any honest , objective reading of his words can lead to anything other than (2).

I guess that statement really surprises me. I take such a reading to be dreadfully superficial—and I don’t think you are superficial. Nor do I think that everyone who reads it that way is superficial, as a person. (You and I should perhaps be beyond ...[text shortened]... t, I’ll set aside all my other posting on here to do so (and others can participate as well).[/b]

I think if it came to a debate around scriptural knowledge I would come a poor second. Unfortunately , I have little interest in getting immersed in fine detail , I'm more of a "let's get to the bare bones of it" guy.

The bare bones of it seem to me that Jesus clearly said many things (if we believe the Gospel to be a reasonable account) that fall way outside the remit of a human being who has any kind of humility or sanity. For example the "when I was hungry you did not feed me" stuff clearly points to the idea that if we treat others badly we are treating Jesus himself badly. Have you ever thought about what this implies?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I think if it came to a debate around scriptural knowledge I would come a poor second. Unfortunately , I have little interest in getting immersed in fine detail , I'm more of a "let's get to the bare bones of it" guy.

The bare bones of it seem to me that Jesus clearly said many things (if we believe the Gospel to be a reasonable account) that fall ...[text shortened]... badly we are treating Jesus himself badly. Have you ever thought about what this implies?

I'm more of a "let's get to the bare bones of it" guy.

And I can’t dis that. Sometimes your bare-bones gets it right, and I have to re-think a whole lot of stuff. You just can’t then say that I am either dishonest or biased, that’s all.

I have had the experience of working and studying and exegeting, doping the Greek linguistics, etc., etc.—to have Kirk come in and blow me out of the ocean with the gospel that comes right out of where he lives. And leaving me embarrassed (not that Kirk would intentionally and malevolently do that to me—he only attempts to embarrass people when he thinks it would help their own spiritual development).

But Kirk comes out of a humility—even at times an irreverent humility—that I lack. A groundedness that I lack.

[Have you noticed that there are some people lately intimating that you seem to have been just a bit off-kilter of late; people who used to argue hard with you, and maybe never even agreed with anything you said, but had the respect to engage you—and the willingness to argue is always a token of respect—who are now saying, “Something wrong, KM?” I have that sense lately, too. Maybe that is in itself presumptuous, but your skin seems a bit raw, and some of your responses a bit shrill lately. ]

For example the "when I was hungry you did not feed me" stuff clearly points to the idea that if we treat others badly we are treating Jesus himself badly. Have you ever thought about what this implies?

Often. Although I would there take the word “Jesus” as meaning, and synonymous with, the Christ incarnate in and as that human being before me right now. I cannot, for example, view you—knightmeister—as some anonymous, generalized human, nor as someone that you are not. In that sense, you are not Jesus; it would be a denial of your particular humanity (incarnation) if I saw some “Jesus” instead of you, and treated you as that person. On the other hand, I can see the living-Logos, called the Christ, as having uniquely incarnated as you. Not as someone else. And then I wonder, “What the hell is this incarnation about?”

Now, I can do all of that in Buddhist terms as well. But I have learned that the terms are just the terms. I can draw all of that from Orthodox Christianity, without having any knowledge of Buddhism. And understand it in the same way.

The Christ is neither some vague, anonymous, interchangeable “everyman” (“everywoman” ), nor just some guy that lived 2,000+ years ago (who still happens to be alive; or not). And that only seems paradoxical to those who understand the Logos in some static, nonchanging, non-dynamic way. The beginning of the Gospel of John puts it quite well: “Everything that is begotten is begotten through/by the Logos.” (The Greek verb is egeneto.)

That Jesus was a unique (and “sacramental” ) expression of that Logos does not mean that he was the exclusive, one-time-only expression (incarnation) of that Logos. He realized it; when and how is not critical—Jesus developed (grew in wisdom and stature), too. That’s what makes him an incarnate sacrament of the Logos.

Tired now, and am cooking supper. Have to go...

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]I'm more of a "let's get to the bare bones of it" guy.

And I can’t dis that. Sometimes your bare-bones gets it right, and I have to re-think a whole lot of stuff. You just can’t then say that I am either dishonest or biased, that’s all.

I have had the experience of working and studying and exegeting, doping the Greek linguistics, etc., etc.— an incarnate sacrament of the Logos.

Tired now, and am cooking supper. Have to go...[/b]

Have you noticed that there are some people lately intimating that you seem to have been just a bit off-kilter of late; people who used to argue hard with you, and maybe never even agreed with anything you said, but had the respect to engage you—and the willingness to argue is always a token of respect—who are now saying, “Something wrong, KM?” I have that sense lately, too. Maybe that is in itself presumptuous, but your skin seems a bit raw, and some of your responses a bit shrill lately.-----------visted---------------

I think what it is is I'm getting bored with all the side salad stuff and the games. ToO has been a focus for this because I basically have no time for people who won't answer a straight question but seem to expect others to. So , yes , things came to a head on that.

Overall , I feel that intellectual honesty is in short supply and there's so much rubbish to wade through before getting down to the real crux of the issues. I might be "over- forumed" as well. Part of coming on here is cathartic but it's also wearing. What's your take on these issues?

BTW- I did read all of your post , just felt like responding to this part.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Have you noticed that there are some people lately intimating that you seem to have been just a bit off-kilter of late; people who used to argue hard with you, and maybe never even agreed with anything you said, but had the respect to engage you—and the willingness to argue is always a token of respect—who are now saying, “Something w ese issues?

BTW- I did read all of your post , just felt like responding to this part.

So much for stopping your posts about me. Shows how long your word is good for.

As you've been told numerous times, just because you ask a question doesn't mean it has to be answered. I've told you this and others have told you this. Many of your questions are out of line and / or off-topic, so I choose not to answer them. Just because you'd like your questions answered doesn't justify the months of harassment that you've subjected me to. If that isn't bad enough, you've spent a great deal of time making disparaging remarks about me to anyone and everyone. Many of the remarks have been distortions, half-truths and outright lies. The fact remains that I've answered many of your questions and the many of the questions of others, so it's not like I "won't answer a straight" question. It's that I choose not to answer ALL of YOUR questions. Also it's not that I "expect others" to answer all my questions. I put them out there and they can answer them or ignore them. Believe me, plenty are left unanswered. I just don't hound them to death and start a smear campaign for not doing so. If "intellectually honesty" is what you're after, then start telling it like it is instead of distorting the facts.

Once again, please stop addressing posts to me, posting about me as well as starting threads about me and lying about me.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
So much for stopping your posts about me. Shows how long your word is good for.

As you've been told numerous times, just because you ask a question doesn't mean it has to be answered. I've told you this and others have told you this. Many of your questions are out of line and / or off-topic, so I choose not to answer them. Just because you'd like your ...[text shortened]... , posting about me as well as starting threads about me and lying about me.

If I respond to this post then will I be seen by you as harrassing?

I guess I will have to take that risk.

I was simply responding to visted's point , I mentioned you because I felt it was relevant and I was thinking that you might not read it anyway. The post was not addressed to you or a response to you either , it was an honest chat between myself and visted.

I'm sorry you feel "subjected" to "harassment" but all you had to do is bypass my posts and not read them. Problem solved.

This all began way back between us if you remember when I wanted you to answer some questions about other parts of Jesus's teachings and not just one small area. You chose not to do this and instead kept only to your comfort zones. I , at least , tried to look at the issue you were raising whilst at the same time feeling that I was entitled to ask you to look at something I was raising for you. You would not look at what I was raising.

Now , if you do want to start an honest direct debate based on simple honest answers then that's fine. You have no idea how much I would support such an idea.

What I suggest is that we restart a thread on Jesus/grace/salavtion/sin and have direct questions listed in number starting 1,2,3,4,5,6 etc

The rules would be that you would have the rights over the odd numbered questions and then I would have the evens. You would start and I could only move on to ask question 2) until I had answered question 1) honestly and simply . The rules would then work the same for you in order to move on to question 3. So on and so forth. That way there could be no loaded dice and the entire forum could see who was evading questions and who wasn't. It would also equalise the number of questions between us.

I did suggest something similar between us ages and ages ago and you declined. So what conclusion was I supposed to reach from this?

So right now , right here is yet another chance to do something different and engage in a fair honest debate where BOTH parties have an obligation to answer questions. Not only that , it can be monitored and assessed by others who will see who is ducking and who is being honourable.

Up for it?

Originally posted by knightmeister
If I respond to this post then will I be seen by you as harrassing?

I guess I will have to take that risk.

I was simply responding to visted's point , I mentioned you because I felt it was relevant and I was thinking that you might not read it anyway. The post was not addressed to you or a response to you either , it was an honest chat between essed by others who will see who is ducking and who is being honourable.

Up for it?

"I mentioned you because I felt it was relevant and I was thinking that you might not read it anyway...I'm sorry you feel "subjected" to "harassment" but all you had to do is bypass my posts and not read them. Problem solved.

What part of the following don't you understand:
"Once again, please stop addressing posts to me, posting about me as well as starting threads about me and lying about me."

Do you really think that the phrases in BOLD do not apply since I "might not read it anyway"?

Do you really think that if I bypassed your posts that the phrases in BOLD do not apply?

It's because of your demonstration of this brand of "honesty" that I have no interest in discussing anything with you. You have repeatedly shown a lack of integrity.

Your rationalizations of your despicable behavior over the last several months is alarming. There is nothing "honorable" about impugning someone's character and resorting to distortions, half-truths and outright lies to do so. Carrying on such a smear campaign over the course of months shows the type of individual you are.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]"I mentioned you because I felt it was relevant and I was thinking that you might not read it anyway...I'm sorry you feel "subjected" to "harassment" but all you had to do is bypass my posts and not read them. Problem solved.

What part of the following don't you understand:
"Once again, please stop addressing posts to me, posting about me[/ smear campaign over the course of months shows the type of individual you are.

Fine . If you want a sanitised "discussion" where no-one challenges anything instead of a proper meaningful debate full of pertinent piercing questions on both sides then find some nice forum where everyone is "nice" and tells you what you want to hear.


People will make up their own mind on your good self anyway. They will know if someone is being intellectually dishonest or not. I don't expect them to believe me , they will only see that you refuse to participate in a good honest debate , that much is public knowledge to many already without my so -called "smearing". The offer of a proper debate has been made in my previous post but again turned down. Infact , as far as I am concerned we haven't really started on the real issues. All your smears on me are just an excuse to not get engaged with the issues and if you re-read all my posts you will see they are littered with content that is well on topic.

I will tone things down , if that's what you want but you are not going to boss me about. If you don't want anyone to hold a mirror up to you then don't come on here.