Open debate: What does Jesus teach?

[Minimalist]

Don't troll my thread with "Jesus never existed" nonsense, start your own thread. Paul wasn't the first to start writing, the earliest epistle in the NT is almost certainly James which is probably written before the Jerusalem Council (AD 50).

Hate to burst your little bubble here but "James" is highly suspect for many good reasons.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/james.html

5. As the history of the canon shows (see 27.2), it was only very slowly and against opposition that James became recognized as the owrk of the Lord's brother, therefore as apostolic and canonical. Thus there does not seem to have been any old tradition that it originated with the brother of the Lord.

This stuff is not factual because some church propagandist says so.

[vorlon13]

The crucifixion and resurrection made inoperative everything Christ worked for.

Except the stuff 'they' say otherwise. WTF?!?!?!

Hell, this is making L. Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith look PIUS !!!

[ronedee]

So in summary: Jesus taught to keep the whole of the OT law, he never taught any different.

Jesus needed to step lightly in the area of OT laws.

He never spoke: [as it is written], He said; "you've heard...", in that neighbor/enemy quote. Big difference!

And that is a perfect example really of how Jesus always makes us think, and reexamine the law; ourselves and others.

Luke 11:29 When the crowds were increasing, he began to say, “This generation is an evil generation. It seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.

….and of course this being a lack of "faith", and testing God. Some things never change…eh? And also a hint at, His death and resurrection.

As we know, Jesus talked mostly in parables and allegories. Partly so He wouldn't be killed prematurely! But most importantly: to change the hearts of the people of that time…. and amazingly those of this time too!

What really blows my mind is that atheists think that Jesus and His words were a made-up fairy tail. The whole Jesus "story" is just counter to our human nature, or anything man has ever produced! Or ever will.

As always, we need to look at the deeper meaning in Jesus' words. And that rests in the heart of the law, which Jesus said were the "2 greatest commandments". And of course His "new commandment"!

"IF" we follow [those laws] we will be well on our way to God, no matter who or what we are.

[Mudhammam]

To quote from Thomas Hobbes, I find this parallel fascinating:

"For as Moses chose twelve princes of the tribes, to govern under him; so did our Saviour choose twelve apostles, who shall sit on twelve thrones, and judge the twelve tribes of Israel. And as Moses authorized seventy elders, to receive the Spirit of God, and to prophecy to the people, that is, (as I have said before), to speak unto them in the name of God; so our Saviour also ordained seventy disciples, to preach his kingdom, and salvation to all nations."

Say what you want about the early Christians but apparently originality wasn't their thing.

[The Grand Nudger]

They were hamstrung in that regard (as is the character of jesus whether you imagine him to be fictional or historical). The spiritual authority they claimed originated elsewhere, not with them or flowing from them. It was a borrowed sword. Any criticism of that authority would weaken their own claim. Still, they needed to differentiate themselves, and so we have what amounts to "follow these guys laws...but these guys have perverted their laws - we're bringing it back". Borrowed authority is rarely returned. Basically, jesus out-jews the rabbi's (unless you ask a jew).

@Aractus. While I wouldn't debate your conclusions about the character of jesus invoking the law, I would mention that it hardly matters. That's where the heft of his claim comes from, so of course he sides with the source of his authority. That said, it would take a very dedicated effort not to see how the character and implications of the overall narrative were being greatly "adjusted" with the addition of christ. Had he not come "to fulfill the law" people would have a harder time arguing that it had been "fullfilled" - which is the other side of your debate. I believe your opponents would be leaning on the nature and value of christ's crucifixion with regards to the sacrificial system of the OT. The ultimate meaninglessness of works in the face of faith. You can have one without the other and get a pass (or so he suggests "but through me"), however; it can't be faith that you find yourself lacking. In that very important way jesus himself did what you feel he hated the pharisees for doing. He made an addition, or two....or three. Thing is, that if you're looking to debate this with a christian you might have hard time. They want both sides of this debate to be simultaneously true. They want to see christ as the "ultimate observant jew", the messiah, who came both to give the law of the OT god and ultimately to fulfill it.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Don't troll my thread with "Jesus never existed" nonsense, start your own thread. Paul wasn't the first to start writing, the earliest epistle in the NT is almost certainly James which is probably written before the Jerusalem Council (AD 50). The first epistle written by Paul is 1 Thessalonians written shortly after the Jerusalem Council c. 51 AD. As you know it's very difficult to date the Gospels, except for Luke-Acts which dates to around 61 AD. This puts the Gospel of Mark at least slightly behind Luke, any date from about 45 AD to 60 AD is possible. Paul's last accepted epistle is Romans written around 55-58 AD. If we accept 1 and 2 Timothy as written by Paul then they date to 62-67 AD, slightly before Paul is martyred. But let's say Roman's is his final epistle, right, so then we have Mark, probably "Q" and James all written around the same time or before. We also have the gospel of John - and my argument would be that it was also written around the same time. In fact, scholars 40 years ago thought John was the last gospel to have been written around 90-100 AD but since that time all the new information and hard evidence (like the dead sea scrolls, Papyrus P52, and more) all suggest an early date for the gospel. At best we can say we don't know if it was written after the epistles of Paul. And if it was, there's only a small window of time when it could have been and that window is not 90-100 AD as it once appeared to be.

Since Jesus is imaginary you can make up whatever facts you want to.

According to this link Paul wrote Galatians in 49. And if you read what he wrote about how he got involved you will see that he was in it just after Jesus supposedly died, around the year 32.

James didn't do squat to spread the message about Jesus. If it hadn't been for Paul we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

And it's not trolling if someone is pointing out that the OP is spewing BS about a subject.

Was Jesus God?

[StuW]

The whole Jesus "story" is just counter to our human nature, or anything man has ever produced! Or ever will.

Are you serious? The "born to a virgin enlightened teacher doing miracles being sacrificed and resurrected" has been done to death and long before your particular variation!

[ThomM]

Actually - Jesus teaches NOTHING

Myths do not do anything in reality

However - it is again a matter of having people actually READ the bible - to see ALL of the things that are attributed to Harry Potter - I mean James Bond - I mean the Christ.

[Mudhammam]

Actually - Jesus teaches NOTHING

Myths do not do anything in reality

However - it is again a matter of having people actually READ the bible - to see ALL of the things that are attributed to Harry Potter - I mean James Bond - I mean the Christ.

Albert Einstein was once asked:
"You accept the historical existence of Jesus?"
He answered:
"Unquestionably. No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. How different, for instance, is the impression which we receive from an account of legendary heroes of antiquity like Theseus. Theseus and other heroes of his type lack the authentic vitality of Jesus."

I partially agree with Einstein. When I read the Gospels, I read evangelical tracts that were composed based off hearsay and oral tradition that reflected the views of people who did believe Jesus was a historical figure who was crucified, and to some degree represent Jesus' actual teachings. The crucifixion alone, given the Jewish background of the early church, is unprecedented and makes no sense as complete fabrication; nothing was more demeaning to the idea of Jewish sanctity than the idea of hanging on a tree--they may or may not have wrote Joseph of Arimathea into the story to get Jesus off the tree before sun down, as that was an even bigger no-no and disgrace to first-century Jews. My problem with the Jesus-myth theorists (as opposed to the myth of Christ, er, God-man, which is completely without merit) is that it leaves far too many questions and problems in discerning the origins and nature of the mid-late first-century Jesus movement.

[The Grand Nudger]

The crucifixion isn't exactly coming out of left field. They had to slaughter their sacrificial lamb somehow. They don't seem to have been interested in continuing on in their "jewishness" such as it was. Ask the jews.