Open debate: What does Jesus teach?

[SteveII]

@DeistPaladin You think you understand Christianity, but every other sentence you type proves you do not. Do not think that your obvious absorption of mostly nonsense repeated from blogs and fellow atheists has given you any great understanding of what you are railing against?

Compare for me the first three centuries of Christianity to the first three centuries of Islam and you tell me which was established with the sword and which was not. It is actually a teaching of Islam to spread the religion by the sword if necessary.

I want to know how Jesus brings down Paul--especially since Jesus predates Paul. If you think there is some sort of conflict between the teachings of the two, state them.

You keep mentioning killing heretics. If I understand you correctly, this is off topic when we are talking about the historicity of Jesus and what he may or may not have taught.

[Aractus]

My points, which you were trying to engage unsuccessfully until you broke off and beat a hasty retreat, have been that we can't know what Jesus taught because we have no reliable information to go on.

Good that's your argument, and it's already been disproved. goodbye.

---

I want to know how Jesus brings down Paul--especially since Jesus predates Paul. If you think there is some sort of conflict between the teachings of the two, state them.

I already outlined these differences in the OP, so please respond?

[DeistPaladin]

Good that's your argument, and it's already been disproved. goodbye.

[SteveII]

I want to know how Jesus brings down Paul--especially since Jesus predates Paul. If you think there is some sort of conflict between the teachings of the two, state them.

I already outlined these differences in the OP, so please respond?

The audience was Jewish and therefore had questions about if Jesus was there to abolish the law (as some were hoping) or encourage wayward Jews to follow it more closely (as others were hoping). The topic was the Law and the Prophets (not just the law).

He was assuring his audience that the Law and the Prophets were still important and had purpose. You have to examine what "fulfill" and "until everything is accomplished" means.

Regarding fulfilling, Jesus was the prophesied messiah, came to be the final sacrifice--belief in whom is the bridge to forgiveness, righteousness and therefore to God. This was also the purpose of the law.

"Until everything is accomplished" is thought to be better translated "until that which it looks forward to arrives"... Jesus.

Taking these verses to mean that Jesus commands the obeying of all the OT ceremonial law etc. would not be consistent with his message that he is the final sacrifice. The veil of the temple was ripped in two to illustrate that individuals could now get to God through Christ rather than the ceremonial sacrifice etc.

The early church leaders also did not understand this to mean to keep the ceremonial law either and they walked and talked with him for 3 years--the topic probably came up.

[Aractus]

You've given me a theological answer which you didn't (or couldn't) back up with references. Jesus never once says not to follow a law of Moses and giving wild interpretations of "until all is accomplished" and "I have come to fulfill the Law" doesn't alter this. When Jesus is seen healing on the Sabbath he doesn't say that the Sabbath doesn't apply anymore instead he quotes a passage where David eats holy bread that is "unlawful" for him to eat, ordinarily, citing that he was in a "time of need". It wasn't until 50 AD when the early Christians decided to change the requirements to follow the law that this message was altered.

Jesus quotes Leviticus 19 "Love your neighbour as yourself" - in the very same breath God decrees "If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." That's not a ceremonial law it's a moral law. Even in 50 AD the early Christians were not abandoning that law, they were just abandoning the ceremonial stuff like sacrifices, keeping the Sabbath and circumcision.

[DeistPaladin]

@DeistPaladin You think you understand Christianity, but every other sentence you type proves you do not. Do not think that your obvious absorption of mostly nonsense repeated from blogs and fellow atheists has given you any great understanding of what you are railing against?

Actually, I've not just read but WRITTEN some of those blogs.

The "mostly nonsense" comes from reading the Bible cover-to-cover with a critical eye and an attention to detail, where details can be found. I even have a spreadsheet where I plotted out the four Gospels side-by-side.

I've invited Christian apologists to respond and have debated them. The responses invariably are an endless stream of ad hoc excuses and obtuse interpretations for all the "apparent contradictions", absurdities and morally bankrupt parts of the Bible.

"Maybe Quirinius had an earlier governorship. Maybe Luke meant 'before', not 'during' the administration of Quirinius. Maybe Luke meant 'administrator' and not 'governor'. Maybe they still ran a census of Judea in 9 BCE even though it wasn't part of Rome and its citizens weren't Roman. Maybe the census lasted until 5-6 BCE because Herod dragged his heels. Maybe when Luke says Jesus was 'about 30', he meant 37. Maybe... Maybe... Maybe..."

After taking the time to examine the ad hoc excuses tacked on to keep everything together, it turns out they unravel which only prompts a fresh round of ad hocs, and so on, and so on, just like the Parot Sketch.



Eventually, Occam's Razor is invoked and I say, "The simplest explanation is that it's what it looks like," and they conclude my heart is just too hard, that I must look for reasons not to believe the obvious Gospel Truth, because I am desperate for some reason to believe we live in a natural universe

See also Psychological Projection





Psychological projection is a curious thing, isn't it?

Sorry but I read what's there. Skepticism isn't an agenda. It's simply applying consistently the same critical thinking that you and other believers would apply if you were reading someone else's holy scriptures. You know what it means to be a skeptic regarding someone else's religion, as you dismissed Jim Jones and David Koresh dying for their lies as simply the act of crazy people.

When you understand why you reject the religions of others, you understand why I reject yours.

Compare for me the first three centuries of Christianity to the first three centuries of Islam and you tell me which was established with the sword and which was not.

Both were.

Or are you unaware of the Roman persecution of non-Christians, pagans and heterodox Christians? Christianity took hold by the power of the Roman sword, held onto it by the power of a burning stake and spread to the rest of the world by gunpowder. It was only in relatively recent history that the stranglehold of Christianity has finally been broken well enough for intellectuals to question it.

I want to know how Jesus brings down Paul--especially since Jesus predates Paul. If you think there is some sort of conflict between the teachings of the two, state them.

You are surely not this dumb. I said Mark brought Jesus down to earth. Metaphorically speaking, of course. One possible scenario is that Jesus existed as a concept and his life was given first form by Mark who may have even intended it as a parable. As sometimes happens in circulated email "true stories", the parable morphed into a "true story". This might explain why the Docetics thought a man who had lived within the lifetimes of those who would have known him was thought to be a purely spiritual being.

Alternatively, Jesus was one of many doomcriers and messiah-wannabes who got a following before being crucified. As with Elvis, he was later "seen" again. As with Washington and Davy Crockett, fanciful tales and urban legends were spun about him. Decades later, they were written down in contradictory fan fics by different authors. Later generations of a Christian Church smoothed out all the rough edges to make it as good as it is today. Who knows?

No one knows, of course, because we have nothing to go on. That's the point. It isn't my job to fill in the blanks for you. My role as a skeptic, like a defense attorney, is only to point out the flaws in your case.

You keep mentioning killing heretics. If I understand you correctly, this is off topic when we are talking about the historicity of Jesus and what he may or may not have taught.

The heterodox Christians are evidence that if there was a Historical Jesus, he didn't make much clear to his followers.

[Minimalist]

You really need to read this:

http://interbook.us/?c=15&p=8510


You've been blinded by your own bullshit.

Oh, that's rich. The genius con men that created Christianity also embellished accounts of martyrdom as a tool for evangelism. The foresight!! Yet, they would do away with circumsicion for marketing reasons.

Even if the numbers were grossly embellished, that does not move the needle comparing the 1st-3rd centuries' environment to Utah in the US in the late 1800s, where "Only for approximately ten out of the first three hundred years of the church's history were Christians executed due to orders from a Roman emperor" and the rest of the time was up to the provicial governors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution...man_Empire

Like I said..."blinded."

As for circumcision....worry about your own dick.

[/quote]To the Jews, Aelia and its statue of Hadrian were the ‘abomination of desolation.’ For them, the final provocation was Hadrian’s ban on circumcision (which applied to Egyptians and Arabs as well as Jews). As the most Hellenized of all Roman emperors, Hadrian regarded circumcision as nothing less than mutilation.

[SteveII]

You've given me a theological answer which you didn't (or couldn't) back up with references. Jesus never once says not to follow a law of Moses and giving wild interpretations of "until all is accomplished" and "I have come to fulfill the Law" doesn't alter this. When Jesus is seen healing on the Sabbath he doesn't say that the Sabbath doesn't apply anymore instead he quotes a passage where David eats holy bread that is "unlawful" for him to eat, ordinarily, citing that he was in a "time of need". It wasn't until 50 AD when the early Christians decided to change the requirements to follow the law that this message was altered.

See the following excerpt from the fuller explanation from a site that was expounding on the versus in question. http://www.gci.org/bible/matthew517

"Everything is accomplished"
Jesus said that until heaven and earth ceased to exist, nothing would disappear from the law "until everything is accomplished" (5:18). But heaven and earth will pass away, and by contrast, Jesus’ own words will remain forever (Matthew 24:35). They have a greater validity than the Law because Jesus is greater than Moses.

The meaning of "until everything is accomplished" has several possibilities. It is suggested by the Tyndale New Testament Commentary that the translation: "Until what it [the Law] looks forward to arrives" gives the best sense of this phrase. This links the thought with the idea of "fulfillment" in verse 17. This also seems to be the thrust of Paul’s comments regarding the relationship of the Law and Jesus’ earthly ministry (Galatians 3:19, 23-25).

The Tyndale New Testament Commentary expresses the interpretation of "accomplished" in these words:

"The law remains valid until it reaches its intended culmination; this it is now doing in the ministry and teaching of Jesus. This verse does not state, therefore, as it is sometimes interpreted, that every regulation in the Old Testament law remains binding after the coming of Jesus. The law is unalterable, but that does not justify its application beyond the purpose for which it was intended" (page 115).

The Tyndale commentary also makes the same point in these words:

"This passage does not therefore state that every Old Testament regulation is eternally valid. This view is not found anywhere in the New Testament, which consistently sees Jesus as introducing a new situation, for which the law prepared (Galatians 3:24), but which now transcends it. The focus is now on Jesus and his teaching, and in this light the validity of Old Testament rules must now be examined. Some will be found to have fulfilled their role, and be no longer applicable...others will be reinterpreted" (page 117).

This explanation must be the correct one, or else the early Christian church and the apostles violated Matthew 5:17-19 by telling gentile Christians that circumcision and keeping the Law of Moses was not necessary. The book of Galatians would also have been in error on this point. And the book of Hebrews would have been in extraordinary violation of Jesus’ words, too, since it states that the entire sacrificial system, the temple worship and Levitical priesthood had been annulled.

However, these books are in agreement with the principle mentioned above. They explain that some old covenant religious regulations have fulfilled their role and others need reinterpretation. This is the situation that holds with the ceremonial weekly Sabbath "holy time" regulation. It fulfilled its role in old covenant times and can be interpreted spiritually for Christians as the spiritual Sabbath rest we now have in Christ.

[archangle]

Jesus really thought to be the best you can be. Be respectful of others And don't be so self centered.

I don't care what they said Paul said. I bet Paul would have been more careful if we knew he was writing the bible.

[Aractus]

The meaning of "until everything is accomplished" has several possibilities. It is suggested by the Tyndale New Testament Commentary that the translation: "Until what it [the Law] looks forward to arrives" gives the best sense of this phrase. This links the thought with the idea of "fulfillment" in verse 17. This also seems to be the thrust of Paul’s comments regarding the relationship of the Law and Jesus’ earthly ministry (Galatians 3:19, 23-25).

Tyndale lived in the 16th century, you're quoting me a 500 year old suggestion? Nope never mind, looked it up, - you're quoting me a scholarly work where the scholars had to use the pseudonym of Tyndale rather than publish under their own names?? What's next? "Shakespeare's history of Shakespeare" written by middle-eastern Arabs?

The Tyndale New Testament Commentary expresses the interpretation of "accomplished" in these words:

This explanation must be the correct one, or else the early Christian church and the apostles violated Matthew 5:17-19 by telling gentile Christians that circumcision and keeping the Law of Moses was not necessary. The book of Galatians would also have been in error on this point. And the book of Hebrews would have been in extraordinary violation of Jesus’ words, too, since it states that the entire sacrificial system, the temple worship and Levitical priesthood had been annulled.

That's right, that's exactly what I'm telling you. What Jesus taught and what Paul et all taught are two entirely different things. If Paul's lineage of Christianity had not survived you would be calling him and his works heretical and following some other "gnostic" tradition.