Open debate: What does Jesus teach?

[LastPoet]

Please, do tell us what has this 'jesus' taught us that was so transcendent? Had he so great knowledge or morals, unknown to the rest of the world?

It is a shame that people that are intelligent, are wasting such attributes to a fantasy, a fleeting dream. It does make me feel less of a loser tough.

[vorlon13]

And if all the items in the 4 Gospels is so 'inspirational' why do the cafeteria (mainstream majority) Christians care so little about following even a few jot and tittels recorded in them ?

Why don't Christians, for instance, and I AM serious here, picket and protest grocery stores that sell fig containing products? Doesn't really matter why Jesus doesn't like them, they just have to believe and put in the effort to please their Lord, and stamp out the damned things. Yet, we see nothing of the sort.

I also note it odd, as a plant product, Jewish dietary law doesn't really say much about figs, other than, I suppose, one shouldn't batter dip them and deep fry them in lard, that Jesus had a problem with the fig tree. He healed the lame, made the blind to see, and raised the dead. Seems like fixing a fig tree wouldn't have been much of a hurdle.

[Mudhammam]

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.

I think that goes more to the OP's point, and one that Nietzsche succinctly made in his excellent work, The Anti-Christ: Paul, for whatever reason, forsook a large degree of his heritage and re-wrote Jesus for a non-Jewish audience; he himself repeatedly makes clear that that was his purpose. And in the process, he mutated and distorted the original Gospel, which was VERY Jewish, and was originally intended for Jews (whereas again, a crucified Messiah was extremely antithetical to traditional Jewish beliefs, the OT being interpreted very liberally by Jesus' followers after the fact).

[The Grand Nudger]

Of course it does, I'm onboard with the OP in that regard. The idea of a blood sacrifice washing away inequity though...well.....that's exceedingly jewish. I'm not willing to comment on what Paul may have re-written about jesus - because that would imply that we have any notion as to who jesus was or what he said in the first place. We have only the claims of others.

[Ryantology]

Hi Arc,
I want to answer some of your writing.
When Jesus said to the Jews to keep the laws, the New Testament had not begun, therefore, that was the correct teaching.
The New Covenant began when Jesus became the sacrifice- which replaced the sacrifice of animals that could only cover sin- not redeem the ones for whom it was made.

That's funny, because I can't find any version of the Bible in which this passage reads "until the New Covenant begins, not an iota, not a tittle, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." I don't know about heaven, but the last I checked, the earth's still very much in existence. Also, the last I checked, Revelation is supposed to be a future event, so all is not yet accomplished.

Jesus sets forth two clear conditions which must be met before the Law no longer applies to his followers, and it's an objective fact that neither have been met. So, tell me, why do you think you have any chance of going to heaven when Jesus makes it very plainly obvious that you're not?

[Mudhammam]

I'm not willing to comment on what Paul may have re-written about jesus - because that would imply that we have any notion as to who jesus was or what he said in the first place. We have only the claims of others.

No doubt, and it doesn't help much that biblical scholarship seems to divide people along lines that have more to do with their personal beliefs than a more rigid science should seem to permit. I would suggest a really great place to start is Larry Hurtado's book "How On Earth Did Jesus Become a God?"

(By the way, I've heard he is a Christian but I really couldn't tell from reading his book and I think he even does a fine job of outlining a perfectly reasonable, naturalistic explanation for the transformation of Jesus into the Christ).

[ThomM]

Hi Arc,
I want to answer some of your writing.
When Jesus said to the Jews to keep the laws, the New Testament had not begun, therefore, that was the correct teaching.
The New Covenant began when Jesus became the sacrifice- which replaced the sacrifice of animals that could only cover sin- not redeem the ones for whom it was made.
Paul declared he received revelation directly from Jesus, that NO man had taught him.

Paul wrote all those letters to the churches in the NT to instruct them on what was revealed to him from God.
In one place, Paul stated, about something he wrote, that what he is saying is from himself- clarifying a separate instruction. Making note it was from him rather than from the Holy Spirit.
It is apparent that Paul was chosen to replace the son of perdition- Judas.

I believe it was Paul who came against Peter for falling into the idea that the Law can justify them.
Paul asked in one letter, "Who has bewitched you?
To think you can be made perfect by the law".

ALL of the religions of the world system are Works Systems wherein the adherents believe they can raise themselves up by their boot straps.

The Gospel is taking the Pardon Jesus paid for and any good works done is to be a reflection of having received Grace.

Since you seem to have some grasp on history, note that the red thread that would turn white upon the Jewish priest's yearly sacrifice, no longer changed color after Jesus' sacrifice.
The Jews didn't get it.

40 years later their sacrifices stopped completely.
40 is the number of Testing.
When Jerusalem was surrounded by armies, the Christians remembered the words of Jesus and fled.
The OT clingers didn't and were killed by the Romans.

No - You don't Get it

Your story of the "New Covenant" is just another fabrication of the Xtians - and YOU have no grasp of History - the stories of the bible are not Historical - they are MYTHICAL - not real. There is no record of Israel in the historical record until about 1400 BCE - so we can assume that stories of a million people is nonsense. WE know that the story of bondage to Egypt is not true - we have a list of those who were - and the Hebrews were not on it. Either they did not exist - or were too insignificant to do so - either way the bible is not historical. ANd there is no mention of the christ in the historical record of his supposed time - none at all.

The bible is nothing more than a bunch of Myths and Fables of a bunch of ancient cave dwellers - goat herders - and fishermen - largely uneducated - making up stories to explain things that they did not understand. If you claim otherwise - PROVE the earth is a flat circle - and Prove that you can eat any seed bearing plant for food. And prove that the christ existed based on actual evidence that can be dated to that supposed time - there is NONE.

The problem with a claim of a "New Covenant" is that it admits that the god LIED - and its word it therefore worthless. If the god was all knowing - it would have know that it was not going to fulfill the original covenant - before he supposedly made it - so going ahead and making it - and then doing something else -= is simply showing that the god lied.

There are so many contradictions - errors of fact - and obvious nonsense in the bible -that quoting from it - normally can be contradicted by quoting from it.

And PAUL never saw the christ in life - no one can be proven to have done that. THe idea that Paul god the word directly from the christ is something that superstitious ancients might believe -= but an educated and intelligent person from this century looks at such a statement as nonsense.

[Mudhammam]

40 is the number of Testing.

[Tonus]

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.

Why would god need to "step lightly" in any circumstance, much less when dealing with the laws that he presumably wrote?

[Aractus]

Hi Arc,
I want to answer some of your writing.
When Jesus said to the Jews to keep the laws, the New Testament had not begun, therefore, that was the correct teaching.
The New Covenant began when Jesus became the sacrifice- which replaced the sacrifice of animals that could only cover sin- not redeem the ones for whom it was made.
Paul declared he received revelation directly from Jesus, that NO man had taught him.

1. I think you mean the NT had not yet been written, 2. as I surely mentioned prior - a sacrifice could only be made for "accidental" sin and not deliberate sin, show me otherwise? 3. Almost certainly 1 Corinthians 15 contains a pre-Pauline Christian creed. As a Xian you should agree with this, it's textbook theology as accepted by most modern scholars. That means that pre-Paul Xians had taught him it, not Jesus.

Paul wrote all those letters to the churches in the NT to instruct them on what was revealed to him from God.
In one place, Paul stated, about something he wrote, that what he is saying is from himself- clarifying a separate instruction. Making note it was from him rather than from the Holy Spirit.
It is apparent that Paul was chosen to replace the son of perdition- Judas.

I believe it was Paul who came against Peter for falling into the idea that the Law can justify them.

ALL of the religions of the world system are Works Systems wherein the adherents believe they can raise themselves up by their boot straps.

I believe I can teach you much more about the "religions of the world" at the time of Jesus than you can?

When Jerusalem was surrounded by armies, the Christians remembered the words of Jesus and fled.
The OT clingers didn't and were killed by the Romans.

Rubbish. In 70 AD Jerusalem was once-again taken by siege. Let me put it to you this way: in 70 AD the Xians in Jerusalem perished alongside the Jews.

---

So, Paul's word trumps Jesus' word? How bloody convenient for Paul, since Jesus wasn't around for people to ask.

Boru

No not at all since he wasn't the only non-gospel NT writer. Need I remind you that by volume Luke-Acts trumps Paul? You may as well claim it's all Luke's invention.... now go away and start your OWN THREAD on that topic.

---

Hate to burst your little bubble...

As usual I don't care for your opinion. By the same stroke you shoud doubt early dates of Paul.

---

What really blows my mind is that atheists think that Jesus and His words were a made-up fairy tail.

I never said it, nor do I believe it. Bitch.

---

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

Troll somewhere else.

---

Myths do not do anything in reality

As per my word in the OP I'l telling you - I won't and don't tolerate bullshit - while I would accept that some events are myths I certainly do not accept that all are. And this thread is about contributing to the _teachings of jesus_ not to the perpetuation of jesus-myth theories either start your own thread, if you have substance, or shut up!

---

---

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?

---

Ok I'm going to say this once. I'm an atheist. There is no link in your reply. Goodbye, go away, start: your own f*ing thread!!