What difference did Jesus make?

[marco]

Some think Jesus was a god while others see him as a prophet sent on a strange heavenly mission to get himself killed. Tied up with this theory is the idea that LOVE is involved; he accepted crucifixion because he loved people. That does not seem to make sense unless one constructs a complex theology about redemption.

Be that as it may, Jesus was with us for a short time period so it is relevant to ask what good or bad has resulted from his celestial mission. Alexander founded a city; the Egyptians left us stone monuments and tablets to say what they believed; Caesar changed the calendar for us, and allowed us to use the terms tsar and Kaiser. What is Christ's legacy? The good have stayed good and the bad are still bad; we have Christian charity and Christian killing. All in all we have what we would statistically expect from a popular preacher - some good, some bad.


What made Jesus special were his reported miracles. But not one single miracle enabled medicine to advance today; nor altered technology. Things have moved on as they did from Alexander and from Caesar and through the Inquisition we learned that love is the same as hate. We observe how one Christian group despises another.

SO


Did Jesus make a difference that would reflect a divine mission?


or


Is he, like Muhammad, a mystic who talked to God but offered nothing much to humanity?

[William]

[Replying to post 30 by mrhagerty]

That effectively removes Christianity from the game of report card assessments in relation to helping society.

I take it then that you think Jesus made no difference?

The bulk of your post (or as much as I read of it) tends to be more a case of taking the opportunity to proselytize your faith-based beliefs, and shifts away from the OP focus. My personal understanding is that getting into argument with anyone who has a nonnegotiable belief system, is pointless and wasteful.

eta;

I did go back and read your post fully. My initial presumption that it is basically an opportunity taken by you to proselytize was correct.

[Deleted]

"Replying to post 31 by William"]

I take it then that you think Jesus made no difference?

You continue to understand my words according to your pet thesis, rather than for what they say. So, ;et me make it PAINFULLY clear:

Jesus did not make a difference if you insist that the ONLY way he could make a difference is according to your horizontal criteria that evaluates Jesus against people like the Dalai Lama. Your distorted view conveyed in the OP is tainted by some ill-conceived idea that Jesus intended to infiltrate pagan Rome and make it a tool of his mission.

Is there any doubt now as to why we are misunderstanding each other?

The bulk of your post (or as much as I read of it) tends to be more a case of taking the opportunity to proselytize your faith-based beliefs, and shifts away from the OP focus. My personal understanding is that getting into argument with anyone who has a nonnegotiable belief system, is pointless and wasteful.

eta;

I did go back and read your post fully. My initial presumption that it is basically an opportunity taken by you to proselytize was correct.

Notice that when you discovered that I wouldn't compromise my beliefs to accommodate your distorted view of what Christians ought to believe, you continued to engage me. If you're going to declare things pointless and wasteful, at least be consistent and live out your convictions.

So, in your frame of reference, if a Christian declines your advice to give up His preference for Christ as the only way and instead defends his beliefs, he's proselytizing. Astounding.

[Overcomer]

I have heard people say that Jesus came to make bad people good. But, as Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias, rightly puts it, Jesus came to make dead people alive. People born dead in their sins remain dead in them without him. That's a huge difference to make and he's the only who capable of making it.

[William]

[Replying to post 33 by mrhagerty]

You continue to understand my words according to your pet thesis, rather than for what they say. So, let me make it PAINFULLY clear:

Your desire to proselytize is not painful to me. It is slightly amusing, if anything.

Jesus did not make a difference if you insist that the ONLY way he could make a difference is according to your horizontal criteria that evaluates Jesus against people like the Dalai Lama.

I note that you did not tarry on my argument that Jesus is attributed with the parable of the afterlife scenario of judgement. It would not at all surprise me in the least if Jesus embraced the Dali Lama as one of those whom 'walked the talk'.

Your interpretation of Jesus, however, appears to be unable to bear such a scenario.

Your distorted view conveyed in the OP is tainted by some ill-conceived idea that Jesus intended to infiltrate pagan Rome and make it a tool of his mission.

Is there any doubt now as to why we are misunderstanding each other?

You really need to re-read what I wrote. History shows us that Rome is indeed the platform on which Christianity rode, and still rides. The bible came from that event.

Unless you can show evidence to the contrary, I remain unconvinced by your protests to the contrary.

Notice that when you discovered that I wouldn't compromise my beliefs to accommodate your distorted view of what Christians ought to believe, you continued to engage me.

If you're going to declare things pointless and wasteful, at least be consistent and live out your convictions.

I still continue to engage you, but only in respect to your proselytizing and this having an obvious affect of twisting my words in order to accommodate said proselytizing. If you choose to continue with that type of argument your will find out soon enough that not only will I cease to engage with you, but so will others.

So, in your frame of reference, if a Christian declines your advice to give up His preference for Christ as the only way and instead defends his beliefs, he's proselytizing. Astounding.

Your 'preference for Christ' is the assumption that your interpretation of that is the correct one, and perhaps even the only one. It is not.

My advice, such as it might be, is for such to be laid aside that it might not interfere with discussion processes. Surely you are intelligent enough to understand that where folk have beliefs which are nonnegotiable, there is no debate or discussion to be had.

I am here to debate and discuss, not to be preached at.

[tam]

Peace to you!

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

What made Jesus special were his reported miracles.

I can understand people thinking that this is (at least part of) what made Him special. Indeed, such things help reveal that He did have power (from God, the One to whom He always gave credit and glory).

But there is also more than that: the beautiful truth that He spoke and bore witness to; His having revealed His Father to us as His Father TRULY is; His great love for His Father and for us (enough that He gave His life for us - regardless of whether or not you understand the reason why); and the wisdom that He both spoke and displayed. A man of such complete truth and love and wisdom is not going to then turn around and lie (or not know) who He came from; who taught Him; or who gave Him that power He possessed.


I spoke in the past tense in the above paragraph, but these things that He did, He continues to do (except that He need only have given His life for us once, even though this was actually the second time that He gave His life - the first time for the creation, to bring life into existence to begin with).

He continues to speak and teach truth and wisdom. He continues to grant the spirit (holy spirit - from which comes gifts and fruits of that spirit). He continues to train His Body (those who are in Him) in truth and righteousness and love.

He can only do these things because He is alive; and known by His sheep, who listen to His voice.


(He is even building the Temple that some call to be 'rebuilt'. Not a third temple made of brick or mortar or stone (that can be destroyed). But the LIVING Temple - His Body - for the Living God to dwell within. A Temple that will never be destroyed.)

SO


Did Jesus make a difference that would reflect a divine mission?

Considering all the above, I must of course say yes.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Deleted]

[Replying to post 33 by mrhagerty]

You continue to understand my words according to your pet thesis, rather than for what they say. So, let me make it PAINFULLY clear:

Your desire to proselytize is not painful to me. It is slightly amusing, if anything.

Jesus did not make a difference if you insist that the ONLY way he could make a difference is according to your horizontal criteria that evaluates Jesus against people like the Dalai Lama.

I note that you did not tarry on my argument that Jesus is attributed with the parable of the afterlife scenario of judgement. It would not at all surprise me in the least if Jesus embraced the Dali Lama as one of those whom 'walked the talk'.

Your interpretation of Jesus, however, appears to be unable to bear such a scenario.

Your distorted view conveyed in the OP is tainted by some ill-conceived idea that Jesus intended to infiltrate pagan Rome and make it a tool of his mission.

Is there any doubt now as to why we are misunderstanding each other?

You really need to re-read what I wrote. History shows us that Rome is indeed the platform on which Christianity rode, and still rides. The bible came from that event.

Unless you can show evidence to the contrary, I remain unconvinced by your protests to the contrary.

Notice that when you discovered that I wouldn't compromise my beliefs to accommodate your distorted view of what Christians ought to believe, you continued to engage me.

If you're going to declare things pointless and wasteful, at least be consistent and live out your convictions.

I still continue to engage you, but only in respect to your proselytizing and this having an obvious affect of twisting my words in order to accommodate said proselytizing. If you choose to continue with that type of argument your will find out soon enough that not only will I cease to engage with you, but so will others.

So, in your frame of reference, if a Christian declines your advice to give up His preference for Christ as the only way and instead defends his beliefs, he's proselytizing. Astounding.

Your 'preference for Christ' is the assumption that your interpretation of that is the correct one, and perhaps even the only one. It is not.

My advice, such as it might be, is for such to be laid aside that it might not interfere with discussion processes. Surely you are intelligent enough to understand that where folk have beliefs which are nonnegotiable, there is no debate or discussion to be had.

I am here to debate and discuss, not to be preached at.

This is no longer productive or intellectually honest. Your view of history is recreational and impish. You declined to support this incredible theory except to say that history shows it. It doesn't qualify as credible so there's no point in engaging it.

[otseng]

This is no longer productive or intellectually honest. Your view of history is recreational and impish.

Moderator Comment

Please avoid commenting on another poster. Instead, just focus on the debate topic.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Deleted]

One final reply from me in this thread on something you said earlier in this referenced post: "William"

William wrote:

History shows us that Rome is indeed the platform on which Christianity rode, and still rides. The bible came from that event.

So how exactly did Moses write the Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible) when Rome wasn't even a twinkle in anyone's eye, yet the Bible (according to you) came from the "Rome as a platform for Christianity" event?

How do we have Hebrew manuscripts for Isaiah that predate the appearance of Christ in the Roman world by two centuries?

Can you please explain how the Bible, especially the OT, is supposed to have come from the event of Christ infiltrating Rome?

[marco]

This is perhaps the easiest for me to understand, the giving up of Jesus's life for the benefit of others. When we love, it often times requires us to sacrifice.

I agree that it is a noble thing to sacrifice oneself, even one's life, for others. Father Kolbe did this during the Holocaust; Sydney Carton in Dickens' Tale of Two Cities expresses the sacrifice of his life famously:

"It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known."


In the case of Christ, he made what seemed to be blasphemous proposals in an age and location where blasphemy wasn't tolerated. That was foolish, and it does not amount to self-sacrifice, since in fact the result of his talk was the executions of those who followed him. So Jesus did not save others in the sense you explain; he endangered them. Some might say he sold magic beans.

Christ's legacy is showing us the very nature of God and the love He has for His people that He would bring redemption to a lost world. Hope.

Well sadly the lost world remains hopelessly lost and the "found" world is rather high on expectation. He changed nothing, at least not for the betterment of mankind. The product of his efforts seems to be entirely ethereal; we must put on our shrouds before we see the effect.

I don't think it was the miracles in and of themselves that set Jesus apart. It was His love for the outcasts, the sick, the poor, the hungry, and the hurt. What He imparted in the hearts of men was a love so great that nothing could ever separate it from us. Not even death. He has given more hope than anyone before or after Him.

Well this love of outcasts is shared abundantly by others before and after him; people who have no connection with Jesus demonstrate a huge humanity. It is wrong to place all goodness in the suitcase of Christ and ignore the philanthropy that exists outside of his orbit. Let's say he was a nice man, a bit judgmental at times, a bit prejudiced about giving bread to dogs and sometimes theatrical - but in summary his heart was in the right place. He sings in a very large choir.

He lives in the eulogies of others, and your post is a perfect example, my friend. Go well.

[marco]

This doesn't provide much hope for the majority:

"13 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

It is clever rhetoric to disguise one's meaaning in metaphor. What is "gate" "broad" "destruction" and indeed "road"? I imagine any theology can make sense of the terms. Christ probably thought he was preaching to a select group, and the dogs beyond that group were not important.