Open debate: What does Jesus teach?

[SteveII]

Jesus said he came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. Fulfilling it is not that same as "getting back to basics" or some other effort to clarify it.

Ignoring all the extras that the Pharisees heaped on top, the strictness of the OT Law was to show people they needed to be redeemed. Jesus was the fulfillment of the OT Law by being the final sacrifice needed so then salvation would be through belief in him and not through the rituals of the OT atonement system. Therefore the OT Law was not abolished nor destroyed

When referring to the "dos and don'ts" of the OT, Jesus said that is is not enough to abstain from murder, but we should not even hate. We should not only avoid adultery, but avoid lust. He was teaching that obeying the law was not a "works" thing but an internal thing.

Paul taught that circumcision and dietary laws (and other things) do not pass on to the gentile Christians.

[Crossless2.0]

Jesus said he came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. Fulfilling it is not that same as "getting back to basics" or some other effort to clarify it.

Ignoring all the extras that the Pharisees heaped on top, the strictness of the OT Law was to show people they needed to be redeemed. Jesus was the fulfillment of the OT Law by being the final sacrifice needed so then salvation would be through belief in him and not through the rituals of the OT atonement system. Therefore the OT Law was not abolished nor destroyed

When referring to the "dos and don'ts" of the OT, Jesus said that is is not enough to abstain from murder, but we should not even hate. We should not only avoid adultery, but avoid lust. He was teaching that obeying the law was not a "works" thing but an internal thing.

Paul taught that circumcision and dietary laws (and other things) do not pass on to the gentile Christians.

So Jesus introduced thought crimes into the mix, and Paul found a nifty marketing gimmick to out-hustle competing Jewish sects in appealing to potential Gentile converts. Color me impressed.

[SteveII]

If you think the historical Jesus was a myth, then you do not agree with the vast majority of scholars. And, as I am constantly reminded in my evolution discussions, shouldn't we be trusting professional judgements in these matters?

It is very likely that most of the important events described in the gospels and Acts really happened. There was insufficient time for legendary influences to exaggerate the historical facts before they were written down. There were still people alive that would know that x, y, or z happened or did not happen. People and places were named. Their children would still be around. The fact that Christianity spread so quickly indicates that these early converts believed these events happened--many of these people that could actually talk to an eyewitness or someone close to an eyewitness.

The Jews had a highly developed tradition of written and oral transmission and were quite used to preserving content and meaning of teachings.

If they were all made up, they would have made up a better story. As it was mentioned earlier, crucifixion was a disgraceful way to go. The owner and location of the tomb was known so people could confirm that at least the burial took place. The first witnesses of the resurrected Jesus were women--who's testimony in court was useless. Jesus appeared to hundreds of people over the next 40 days--many who would have been around through the first rounds of written accounts. It is an undeniable fact that the original disciples believed, proclaimed, and most going to their deaths for the fact of Jesus' resurrection.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you think the historical Jesus was a myth, then you do not agree with the vast majority of scholars.

Appeals to authority are useless. Show us the evidence that "the vast majority of scholars" have used to reach their conclusion.

And, as I am constantly reminded in my evolution discussions, shouldn't we be trusting professional judgements in these matters?

No, we "trust" the evidence.

It is very likely that most of the important events described in the gospels and Acts really happened. There was insufficient time for legendary influences to exaggerate the historical facts before they were written down. There were still people alive that would know that x, y, or z happened or did not happen.

There are people alive who went to the moon. Nevertheless..........there are moon landing hoaxers in this world.

People and places were named. Their children would still be around. The fact that Christianity spread so quickly indicates that these early converts believed these events happened--many of these people that could actually talk to an eyewitness or someone close to an eyewitness.

Mormonism has grown faster (goggle the math...it exists, and actually accepts the bullshit numbers given in acts) - and we're still running afoul of my comment above.

The Jews had a highly developed tradition of written and oral transmission and were quite used to preserving content and meaning of teachings.

And?

If they were all made up, they would have made up a better story. As it was mentioned earlier, crucifixion was a disgraceful way to go.

The criterion of embarrassment doesn't have much power in the face of theology, and I don;t want to hear you talking about scholars and experts and then invoking this trash...because scholars and experts are the ones who've decided that the criterion of embarrassment doesn't apply (though, hilariously, it doesn't stop those inclined from using it here).

If stories about greek gods were faked they would have made up better stories. Their gods acts are disgraceful.

The owner and location of the tomb was known so people could confirm that at least the burial took place.

How could they confirm that - without the presence of a body. If I told you that my basement had a troll in it...and then showed you my basement -sans troll- as evidence -of- the troll....you'd call shenanigans, wouldn't you?

The first witnesses of the resurrected Jesus were women--who's testimony in court was useless.

How convenient.

Jesus appeared to hundreds of people over the next 40 days--many who would have been around through the first rounds of written accounts. It is an undeniable fact that the original disciples believed, proclaimed, and most going to their deaths for the fact of Jesus' resurrection.

and zombies walked the earth, and the ground trembled, and the skies darkened, and stone was split asunder.......

I love the "die for a lie" ending. Really, really persuasive stuff...because, I mean...it's not like people -would- "die for a lie", right? This whole "going to their deaths for their beliefs" bit...btw, also legendary.

[SteveII]

Jesus said he came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. Fulfilling it is not that same as "getting back to basics" or some other effort to clarify it.

Ignoring all the extras that the Pharisees heaped on top, the strictness of the OT Law was to show people they needed to be redeemed. Jesus was the fulfillment of the OT Law by being the final sacrifice needed so then salvation would be through belief in him and not through the rituals of the OT atonement system. Therefore the OT Law was not abolished nor destroyed

When referring to the "dos and don'ts" of the OT, Jesus said that is is not enough to abstain from murder, but we should not even hate. We should not only avoid adultery, but avoid lust. He was teaching that obeying the law was not a "works" thing but an internal thing.

Paul taught that circumcision and dietary laws (and other things) do not pass on to the gentile Christians.

So Jesus introduced thought crimes into the mix, and Paul found a nifty marketing gimmick to out-hustle competing Jewish sects in appealing to potential Gentile converts. Color me impressed.

You are missing the fact that there is a huge body of systematic theology that coordinates all these teachings--fitting them into a larger, consistent framework. You can't take a random sentence or even a compete teaching, isolate it, and come up with trite expressions like "marketing gimmick". The writers of the NT would have ALL had to be colluding geniuses to envision all the pieces together to make sure they were consistent with each other, with the OT, and what eyewitnesses would have remembered--oh, and at the same time be persecuted, jailed, travel the known world, and eventually martyred.

[The Grand Nudger]

Probably explains why they're -not- consistent with each other, or the OT - and it would also help to explain why there were so many schismatic sects of christianity - they couldn't find any witnesses whose stories widely corroborated a single narrative.

Again, even "early christians" managed to be on the persecutor end of the stick more often that the persecutee end. They didn't "travel the known world" until they hitched their wagon (or vv) to Rome.

[DeistPaladin]

If you think the historical Jesus was a myth, then you do not agree with the vast majority of scholars. And, as I am constantly reminded in my evolution discussions, shouldn't we be trusting professional judgements in these matters?

I don't believe in evolution because Richard Dawkins says so. If you argue against evolution, the counter is not just "all the scientists say so" but also includes a mountain of evidence for it.

The logical fallacy with The Historical Jesus is called "appeal to authority" or saying something is true only because some smart people say so. Even experts in their field of expertise are required to produce evidence for what they believe and why.

Speaking personally, I now advocate for "The Jesus Moot" theory. The only detailed accounts we have on The Historical Jesus come to us through the Gospels and if they Gospels aren't reliable as historical documents or they don't tell a coherent, compatible-with-itself story, we'll never know anything about this mysterious figure and so his existence is moot.

Bart Ehrman and other divinity scholars are welcome to pursue this elusive Historical Jesus in their Ivory Towers and get back to me if they find anything.

It is very likely that most of the important events described in the gospels and Acts really happened.

Please define "important events".

If you mean the supernatural events, such as the resurrection or the healing miracles, it's fair to say such public displays of divine power would have gotten attention. The best we have outside the Bible is an oblique 2nd century reference in the Annals of Tacitus.

If you mean the more mundane events, we can only assume they happened for want of any extra-Biblical confirmation.

There was insufficient time for legendary influences to exaggerate the historical facts before they were written down.

Elvis.

That one word.

Elvis.

How many "Elvis sightings" were there in the immediate aftermath of his death? How many people believed them? How many tabloid publications were there on this subject? And we live in a more skeptical time where fact checking is relatively easy.

Want another word?

Reagan.

How many conservatives today are unaware that Reagan raised taxes, negotiated with our adversaries, cut and ran in Lebanon, compromised with Democrats and did other things contrary to the GOP's iconic representation him. And this was within the lifetimes of those who remember him. I was one of his supporters as a young Republican.

How about Washington? He was barely in his grave before the ridiculous stories about the cherry tree were circulated.

Davy Crocket, a legend from my state. He existed. Do you think he really "killed him a bear when he was only three" as the song goes? That song dates to the same century as his life. Nobody cried "false" that we remember today.

There were still people alive that would know that x, y, or z happened or did not happen. People and places were named. Their children would still be around.

...and yet there were Docetics who thought Jesus was a spiritual apparition. Apparently this rival faction of Christianity was so significant as to get not one mention but two in the NT.

1John 4:1-3 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Note that John doesn't appeal to obvious recent history or family that might have known Jesus was a flesh-and-blood person. He doesn't dismiss the Docetics as crazy for denying an obvious recent historical fact. He condemns them with the language of faith. "Believe" and "confess".

Why?

The fact that Christianity spread so quickly indicates that these early converts believed these events happened--many of these people that could actually talk to an eyewitness or someone close to an eyewitness.

Religions spread quickly all the time, sometimes even in the face of prejudice and persecution.

The Jews had a highly developed tradition of written and oral transmission and were quite used to preserving content and meaning of teachings.

In reality, pseudo-epigraphy and interpolation were serious problems with written holy documents, never mind oral tradition.

If they were all made up, they would have made up a better story.

What do you base that on?

As it was mentioned earlier, crucifixion was a disgraceful way to go.

...and?

The owner and location of the tomb was known so people could confirm that at least the burial took place.

Which empty tomb? There were at least two that we know of today, both claiming to be the real deal. That's not counting James Cameron's.

The first witnesses of the resurrected Jesus were women--who's testimony in court was useless.

We have four contradictory accounts.

Jesus appeared to hundreds of people over the next 40 days--

...or he rose up into the sky on the day of his resurrection according to the last chapter of Luke.

It is an undeniable fact that the original disciples believed, proclaimed, and most going to their deaths for the fact of Jesus' resurrection.

Even if you could prove that, and prove that they were given the opportunity to renounce their Christ and refused (see letters of Pliny to Trajan where the Christians did curse Christ under threat and torture), it would prove nothing.

Jim Jones.
David Koresh.
The Hale Bopp, Heaven's Gate cult.

Fanaticism proves nothing.

[SteveII]

If you think the historical Jesus was a myth, then you do not agree with the vast majority of scholars.

Appeals to authority are useless. Show us the evidence that "the vast majority of scholars" have used to reach their conclusion.

And, as I am constantly reminded in my evolution discussions, shouldn't we be trusting professional judgements in these matters?

No, we "trust" the evidence.

It is very likely that most of the important events described in the gospels and Acts really happened. There was insufficient time for legendary influences to exaggerate the historical facts before they were written down. There were still people alive that would know that x, y, or z happened or did not happen.

There are people alive who went to the moon. Nevertheless..........there are moon landing hoaxers in this world.

People and places were named. Their children would still be around. The fact that Christianity spread so quickly indicates that these early converts believed these events happened--many of these people that could actually talk to an eyewitness or someone close to an eyewitness.

Mormonism has grown faster (goggle the math...it exists, and actually accepts the bullshit numbers given in acts) - and we're still running afoul of my comment above.

The Jews had a highly developed tradition of written and oral transmission and were quite used to preserving content and meaning of teachings.

And?

If they were all made up, they would have made up a better story. As it was mentioned earlier, crucifixion was a disgraceful way to go.

The criterion of embarrassment doesn't have much power in the face of theology, and I don;t want to hear you talking about scholars and experts and then invoking this trash...because scholars and experts are the ones who've decided that the criterion of embarrassment doesn't apply (though, hilariously, it doesn't stop those inclined from using it here).

If stories about greek gods were faked they would have made up better stories. Their gods acts are disgraceful.

The owner and location of the tomb was known so people could confirm that at least the burial took place.

How could they confirm that - without the presence of a body. If I told you that my basement had a troll in it...and then showed you my basement -sans troll- as evidence -of- the troll....you'd call shenanigans, wouldn't you?

The first witnesses of the resurrected Jesus were women--who's testimony in court was useless.

How convenient.

Jesus appeared to hundreds of people over the next 40 days--many who would have been around through the first rounds of written accounts. It is an undeniable fact that the original disciples believed, proclaimed, and most going to their deaths for the fact of Jesus' resurrection.

and zombies walked the earth, and the ground trembled, and the skies darkened, and stone was split asunder.......

I love the "die for a lie" ending. Really, really persuasive stuff...because, I mean...it's not like people -would- "die for a lie", right? This whole "going to their deaths for their beliefs" bit...btw, also legendary.

Rhythm, regardless of your personal skepticism, the truth is that it is more likely that the key events described in the gospels and in Acts actually happened than not.

Regarding the criterion of embarrassment, why is that a bad argument when used with other arguments? Are you saying that the crucifixion actually happened but it was not sufficiently embarrassing or that it never happened and someone came up with "I know...let's have the Romans kill our mythological savior via crucifixion".

I made the point about the tomb because people could continue to ask Joseph of Arimathea, his associates and descendants for quite some time if the burial ever happened. I did not mention the tome as evidence that he resurrected from the dead (although an empty tomb would be a necessary precondition).

[Crossless2.0]

. . . the truth is that it is more likely that the key events described in the gospels and in Acts actually happened than not.

What is this, the Josh McDowell school of statistics and probability? It's more likely that Jesus ascended into the sky than that the story is legendary? Seriously?

[The Grand Nudger]

Rhythm, regardless of your personal skepticism, the truth is that it is more likely that the key events described in the gospels and in Acts actually happened than not.

Lets see the math.

Regarding the criterion of embarrassment, why is that a bad argument when used with other arguments? Are you saying that the crucifixion actually happened but it was not sufficiently embarrassing or that it never happened and someone came up with "I know...let's have the Romans kill our mythological savior via crucifixion".

It's a bad argument as you've been using it because it runs afoul of precisely how we define that criterion. I lies entirely within the weaknesses of that argument.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criterion_of_embarrassment

Limitations[edit]
The criterion of embarrassment has its limitations and must always be used in concert with the other criteria. One limitation to the criterion of embarrassment is that clear-cut cases of such embarrassment are few and far between. A full portrait of Jesus could never be based on so little data. Another limitation stems from the fact that what today one might consider an embarrassment to the early Church was not necessarily an embarrassment in its own eyes. Embarrassing details may be included as an alternative to an even more embarrassing account of the same event. As a hypothetical example, Saint Peter's denial of Jesus could have been a substitution for an even greater misdeed of Peter.[8]

A good example of the second point is found in the stories of the Infancy Gospels. In one account from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, a very young Jesus is said to use his supernatural powers first to strike dead, and then revive, a playmate who had accidentally bumped into him.[9] If this tradition had been accepted as worthy of inclusion at some key juncture in the formation of the Christian Bible (and hence integrated in one way or another among the Canonical Gospels), arguably many modern Christians would find it quite embarrassing—especially strict believers in biblical inerrancy. But as is strongly suggested by the existence of this early non-canonical pericope, it must not have been embarrassing to some early Christians.[10][11][12][13]

A further limitation is the possibility that what could be classed as embarrassing could also be an intentionally created account designed to provoke a reaction. For instance, Saint Peter's denial of Jesus could have been written as an example of the consequences of denial. Matthew 10:32-33: "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven."

---

But again, if all of that is too much for you.....are you ready to accept the stories of the greek gods based upon that criterion?

I made the point about the tomb because people could continue to ask Joseph of Arimathea, his associates and descendants for quite some time if the burial ever happened. I did not mention the tome as evidence that he resurrected from the dead (although an empty tomb would be a necessary precondition).

Joseph Smith went to his grave, apparently, a mormon. And? Are you ready to accept his claims? Are you ready to accept the claims of any mormon families children..or their children's children...based on the brute force of their claiming? People can claim anything they want - and if you ask me whether or not my grandfather wrestled a 15ft alligator - I'm just gonna go ahead and say "yes, yes he did". People can even claim...gasp...that Joseph corroborated a story that he did not. I know, I know, perish the thought.

Maybe you don't get my MO. Arguing with you over whether or not some portion of the christ myth is true is, ultimately, pointless. You've checked out of reality, and I don;t have the patience to bring you back. I'm just hoping that I can help you to understand why your arguments wouldn't even convince -you-...in fact...that they haven't convinced you.