Who is to Explain?

Originally posted by googlefudge
It's 545 words or 1 1/2 pages of formatted a4 at 12 point text and can be read in well under a minute.

So anyone who isn't a goldfish or has a severe case of ADHD.

its easy to read at speed, perhaps one may even assimilate some of the points that
you are making during the process, perhaps its apathy on my part, i dunno, but as
soon as i see a wall of text i think, why are they unable to distil the essence of their
thoughts and present it in a simple and condescend manner instead of us making us
wade through reams and reams of the stuff, its just a thought, you need not take it
personally 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its easy to read at speed, perhaps one may even assimilate some of the points that
you are making during the process, perhaps its apathy on my part, i dunno, but as
soon as i see a wall of text i think, why are they unable to distil the essence of their
thoughts and present it in a simple and condescend manner instead of us making us
wade through reams and reams of the stuff, its just a thought, you need not take it
personally 🙂

Because not all answers to questions are short enough to fit on a bumper sticker.

I take the time to consider the other persons argument and come up with a thoughtful
response.

I refuse to see anything wrong with that.

And it isn't a wall of text.
I take care to break my posts up into easy to read sentences and paragraphs with few
to no serious spelling or grammatical errors so that they are as easy to read as possible.

I don't post unreadable walls of text.

And nothing shorter than 1000 words can possibly be considered long unless you have had your
mind turned to jelly by texts and twitter.


Insulting someone and dismissing an argument out of hand can be done in a few lines.

However actually responding with reasoned argument often can't.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Because not all answers to questions are short enough to fit on a bumper sticker.

I take the time to consider the other persons argument and come up with a thoughtful
response.

I refuse to see anything wrong with that.

And it isn't a wall of text.
I take care to break my posts up into easy to read sentences and paragraphs with few
to no ser ...[text shortened]... an be done in a few lines.

However actually responding with reasoned argument often can't.

then one can isolate a point and attend to that, its only a suggestion, you need not
agree with it or acquiesce, although there are some other contributors who have
expressed similar preferences, for example i rarely read such walls of text as jaywill
posts for similar reasons and have asked on numerous occasions that he condense the
text, he also stated the same idea, that its simply not practical to express himself in
such a manner, yet poets are able to achieve it with relative ease 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
then one can isolate a point and attend to that, its only a suggestion, you need not
agree with it or acquiesce, although there are some other contributors who have
expressed similar preferences, for example i rarely read such walls of text as jaywill
posts for similar reasons and have asked on numerous occasions that he condense the
text, he ...[text shortened]... al to express himself in
such a manner, yet poets are able to achieve it with relative ease 🙂

If you don't want to read my posts then go ahead and don't read them.
I am not making you read them and neither is anyone else.

All I ask is that if you can't be bothered to read my posts then have the curtsey
not to respond to them.

If you want to discuss philosophy on twitter then go ahead but don't try to restrict
others trying to discuss complex subjects to posts only short enough to fit on a
bumper sticker.

Originally posted by googlefudge
The question "did Jesus really say all those things?" is indeed a good one but it's not the first question to ask.

The First question is "did Jesus really exist?" with a follow up of "If Jesus did exist was he the son of god?"


The answer to the first question is probably not. It is (based on currently available evidence) vastly more likely
that ...[text shortened]... to bad decisions based on those falsehoods and that ignorance.
Faith is immoral.

I read this "incessant ream."

I believe an itinerant preacher whose biography, stripped of divinity, and generally as described in its major elements in Mark, existed. Being that I lack belief in deity, the rest is beyond my scope.

Did Jesus say all those things? I think not, but I think the itinerant preacher said some of those things in some way or another, and touched many of the topics in the same general way as was written.

However, I don't focus on that side of it, so, I'm not offering a rigorous scientific proof. It's just a hunch.

Frankly I don't think we should care about the above issues, I think we should care about the wisdom of what is said by, or is attributed to, a character; or what a parable or fable can teach us about life, just like we could care about the wisdom behind the story of Narada's time with Vishnu, that I have posted here once or twice. The Bible is part history (as history was written in those says) and part literature and part part advice for getting along in life (often in the form of commands; typical of a patriarchal society).

That is because I raised the subject of who is to explain. Jaywill gave me reason to think that an answer is to rely on those who we see "walking the walk" of actually living by the wisdom for which we seek explanation; showing us an example of it in practice. I responded to this by adding a comment to the effect that seeing them walk the walk might actually take the place of hearing them talk the talk.

That's what I wanted from this thread. I am not arguing for anything more.

Originally posted by googlefudge
If you don't want to read my posts then go ahead and don't read them.
I am not making you read them and neither is anyone else.

All I ask is that if you can't be bothered to read my posts then have the curtsey
not to respond to them.

If you want to discuss philosophy on twitter then go ahead but don't try to restrict
others trying to discuss complex subjects to posts only short enough to fit on a
bumper sticker.

wow thats bitter, philosophy, lol, love of wisdom, sure, when i find any wisdom in your
posts, ill let you know.

Originally posted by JS357
I read this "incessant ream."

I believe an itinerant preacher whose biography, stripped of divinity, and generally as described in its major elements in Mark, existed. Being that I lack belief in deity, the rest is beyond my scope.

Did Jesus say all those things? I think not, but I think the itinerant preacher said some of those things in some way or ano ...[text shortened]... he talk.

That's what I wanted from this thread. I am not arguing for anything more.

So you tend towards the 'historicist' perspective in that you think that there was some real historical figure
which was the basis of the Jesus character in the bible?

That's fine, I tend towards the mythicist side of the debate, but while I think that the available evidence points
to JC being a mythical character as opposed to a historical one the evidence is not conclusive either way.


However I don't see the point of debating the 'wisdom' of the words in the bible whether JC was real or not.

Unless you hold that morality comes from god, and that the words in the bible are inspired by god (and
accurately translated ect). Then what is right or wrong and what is or is not moral is independent of what
is said in the bible. (or any other holy book).

Given that, Why debate what people several thousand years ago thought about morality (or anything else)
when you can debate the issues here and now with modern and more accurate evidence rather than get sidetracked
by the opinions of ignorant peasants from thousands of years ago?

If you want to study the beliefs of people thousands of years ago then that's fine the bible is just another source for that.

However, if your interested in discussing present day morality why waste time with the opinions of people who
knew next to nothing about how the world (and the people in it) function?

Originally posted by JS357

At the end Jesus commanded, "Who hath ears to hear, let him hear." But the ears of the vast majority of Christians are deafened by the teachings of Paul and others. Jesus explained it, but the vast majority of Christians are not listening.

Thanks.

There is or was a project called The Jesus Seminar that, among other things, compiled a New ...[text shortened]... that is to explain the Bible or tell us which words matter, any more than it is you or me?

I guess I needed to be more emphatic as to the point: Simply take Jesus at His word, i.e., take Jesus' words at face value. His words paint a very different picture from what the vast majority of Christians seem to believe. Those beliefs seem to be primarily informed from the words of Paul and followers of Paul rather than the words of Jesus.

Originally posted by menace71
So then in your opinion what is Paul's place ?




Manny

Time and again Jesus stressed the importance of HIS words:
Luke 6
46 “Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? 47 “Everyone who comes to Me and hears My words and acts on them, I will show you whom he is like: 48 he is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid a foundation on the rock; and when a flood occurred, the torrent burst against that house and could not shake it, because it had been well built.

John 15
7 “If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 “My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples. 9 “Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love. 10 “If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love

John 8
31So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”


In a response to another poster, you asked the following question:
"The example of eat my flesh and drink my blood why these words?"

Jesus explained the underlying meaning here:
John 6:63
"“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life."

Jesus pointed to HIS words as giving "eternal life." HIS words are the "flesh and blood" of the "spirit" and "life".

Jesus stressed the importance if HIS words time and again. HIS words should be sufficient.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I guess I needed to be more emphatic as to the point: Simply take Jesus at His word, i.e., take Jesus' words at face value. His words paint a very different picture from what the vast majority of Christians seem to believe. Those beliefs seem to be primarily informed from the words of Paul and followers of Paul rather than the words of Jesus.

If you are talking to me, I get it, or at least here is how I take it: Approaching Christianity to gain an understanding of it from my existing position, I would place (1) the words of Jesus (2) the acts of Jesus and (3) the words or acts of anybody else, in that order of interest and priority, with the caveat that apparently there is no "Gospel according to Jesus" to be found. So there is always some human between me and (1) and (2), making the words and acts of Jesus "alleged" but still paramount. Someone may jump in here saying the entire Bible is the Word of God and therefore is the Gospel of Jesus, but their testimony is in category (3) above, IMO. After all, when was the canon settled upon, and by whom? Other people may choose to approach Christianity differently. That is their business.

Originally posted by JS357
If you are talking to me, I get it, or at least here is how I take it: Approaching Christianity to gain an understanding of it from my existing position, I would place (1) the words of Jesus (2) the acts of Jesus and (3) the words or acts of anybody else, in that order of interest and priority, with the caveat that apparently there is no "Gospel according to J ...[text shortened]... whom? Other people may choose to approach Christianity differently. That is their business.

Actually, if you are looking to gain an understanding of "Christianity", you're probably better off starting with Paul and the followers of Paul. From what I've seen, "Christianity" is primarily about the mythology created around Jesus rather than about the teachings of Jesus.

But, if you're looking to get an explanation of any of the teachings of Jesus, then take His words at face value. He repeats most of the important themes in several different places and in several different ways. Placing them in context of one another paints a pretty clear picture of His vision.

From your OP, which references the parable of the wheat and tares, it seemed like you were looking for the latter, but perhaps I read too much into it.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Time and again Jesus stressed the importance of HIS words:
Luke 6
46 “Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? 47 “Everyone who comes to Me and hears My words and acts on them, I will show you whom he is like: 48 he is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid a foundation on the rock; and when a flood occurred, the torrent b ...[text shortened]... stressed the importance if HIS words time and again. HIS words should be sufficient.

Jesus stressed the importance if HIS words time and again. HIS words should be sufficient.

Jesus did stress the importance of His words and the importance of His actions. Many of His words are ABOUT His actions. So He stressed the importance of His words about the importance of His actions.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Actually, if you are looking to gain an understanding of "Christianity", you're probably better off starting with Paul and the followers of Paul. From what I've seen, "Christianity" is primarily about the mythology created around Jesus rather than about the teachings of Jesus.

But, if you're looking to get an explanation of any of the teachings of Jesu ...[text shortened]... res, it seemed like you were looking for the latter, but perhaps I read too much into it.

Another good point. The original question, who is to explain, boils down to which of these -- Christianity, or the teachings of Jesus -- one wants explained. Keeping to the spirit of Jaywill's advice to rely on those who walk the walk, and my own bias toward guidance in how to live, instead of say, what to believe about Jesus, I'll say that it is more important to me to understand, for example, how to apply the teachings of Jesus on judging others, than how to think about the trinity doctrine as expounded by others. I think the former are more universal in value.

Originally posted by jaywill

Jesus stressed the importance if HIS words time and again. HIS words should be sufficient.

Jesus did stress the importance of His words and the importance of His actions. Many of His words are ABOUT His actions. So He stressed the importance of His words about the importance of His actions.

What specifically are you alluding to?

Originally posted by JS357
Another good point. The original question, who is to explain, boils down to which of these -- Christianity, or the teachings of Jesus -- one wants explained. Keeping to the spirit of Jaywill's advice to rely on those who walk the walk, and my own bias toward guidance in how to live, instead of say, what to believe about Jesus, I'll say that it is more importan ...[text shortened]... t the trinity doctrine as expounded by others. I think the former are more universal in value.

Good call on focusing on the moral teachings of Jesus. They are at the center of His message.

You might want to pin JW down on what exactly he meant by "walk the walk". I suspect it would prove interesting.

The "trinity doctrine" is a part of the mythology. Looking at what Jesus taught while He walked the Earth, there's no convincing reason to think that Jesus saw Himself as literally "God in the flesh". In fact, there's much evidence that He didn't.