Why did Christ not indicate advances?

[marco]

A super-intelligent being walks around but doesn't correct misconceptions or scientific untruths. He sees lepers but doesn't suggest any cure, except prayer. He left it to other clever people to advance human knowledge.


Was he educated in anything but Scripture?

Did he know the Earth orbits the sun, and was he aware that imparting this simple fact would have saved lives?

Or was he just a preacher, rumoured to have healing powers?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

As ond of Jehovah's Witnesses I believe Jesus did increase the sum of human knowledge in regard to the most important things, namely matters of faith. His purpose was not in my view to teach science, which is limited and cannot answer the most important questions such as

- what is the purpose of life?
- what happens when we die?
- why are we here?
- why is there so much suffering?
- what does the future hold?
- Is there a God who cares?

etc

I would challenge that most of these questions are not important to the sum of human knowledge and that he did not answer them in any meaningful way(evidenced by the fact that no one really agrees on what he meant by any of it).

[marco]

I actually agree with you here, but does someone need to be a scientist in order to be a great preacher/ moral philospher?

If he was simply a great preacher, EJ, then the story ends there. There have been many great preachers. Only if it is claimed that he had exceptional knowledge would we suggest he should have used it for the betterment of mankind, especially to prevent massacres in the name of his religion.

[Elijah John]

I actually agree with you here, but does someone need to be a scientist in order to be a great preacher/ moral philospher?

If he was simply a great preacher, EJ, then the story ends there. There have been many great preachers. Only if it is claimed that he had exceptional knowledge would we suggest he should have used it for the betterment of mankind, especially to prevent massacres in the name of his religion.

Those things are evidence, imo, that Jesus was not Almighty God...but completely human.

Yes, one would think an Incarnate God would advance the practical knowledge of humankind.

Unless, of course, He had His own reasons for withholding that scientific knowledge, and wanted us humans to discover such things on our own.

The irony of your concluding statement here is noted. Indeed. But that would be moral/spiritual enlightenment, not practical, empirical or scientific advancement.

And that world peace would also necessitate free will co-operation in the implementation of said presented principles of enlightenment.

Is the fault then, with the teacher? Or with the unfaithful, less than diligent students...I suspect the latter.

[Willum]

[Replying to Elijah John]

Unless, of course, He had His own reasons for withholding that scientific knowledge, and wanted us humans to discover such things on our own.

The irony of your concluding statement here is noted. Indeed. But that would be moral/spiritual enlightenment, not practical, empirical or scientific advancement.

This is also an identical answer if Jesus did not exist at all: Assuming somehow he would tell the truth about unprovables, but stumble like a three year old over physical truths - which would, by the way, lend credence to his other assertions.

So do you believe that based on evidence equivalent to no evidence; that there was a mystical or non-mystical preacher, whose wisdom is disputed and whose miracles, world changing miracles, are undocumented outside disputed propaganda?

Or does one simply believe nothing happened?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 6 by Elijah John]

The only way I personally come to terms with them is by seeing Jesus as a poet in addition to being a preacher. He was likely using hyperbole...exageration to make a point.

The problem here is of course...that you don't know that. No-one does. Luke 19 has him relating a parable, where it most likely seems that Jesus is the king of the story. This king, at the end, says to bring those servants who didn't want him to be king in front of him, so that he can kill them.
So what I see is you, out of a desire to have Jesus be a peaceful poetic teacher, say that he was exaggerating.
However, to us atheists...we don't share that desire. I don't have a desire for Jesus to be peaceful. I have no desires towards Jesus at all. I am perfectly neutral towards him emotionally. So when I read Luke 19, I read the parable as meaning that Jesus is supposed to be the king in that story, and the king in that story says he is going to execute the servants who didn't want him to be king.
If this was in fact said by Jesus, I have no desire to say "It is an exaggeration on Jesus's part". It looks to me like Jesus is saying that he will execute those who do not proclaim him king.

[JehovahsWitness]

I would challenge that most of these questions are not important to the sum of human knowledge and that he did not answer them in any meaningful way(evidenced by the fact that no one really agrees on what he meant by any of it).

That is your personal view and you are welcome to it, but the fact that the words attributed to Jesus have proved to be arguably the most influential in all human history, contributing as they do to one of the most influential and ardently defended books ever produced, as well as the fact that the bible (containing Jesus' words and life story) is certainly the most widely distributed and translation piece of literature in history and remains the world best selling book every year, argues that much of humanity may well feel differently.

Facts,

JW

I am an historian, I am not a believer, but I must confess as a historian that this penniless preacher from Nazareth is irrevocably the very center of history. Jesus Christ is easily the most dominant figure in all history. —H. G. Wells (1866-1946)

[Willum]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

That is your personal view and you are welcome to it, but the fact that the words attributed to Jesus have proved to be arguably the most influential in all human history, contributing as they do to one of the most influential and ardently... argues that much of humanity may well feel differently.

Superman, Thor, the other mythological gods, all of these things are more influential for having miraculous powers and being made-up.

In fact, except for this particular issue, seems to be a good litmus for these.

In that light, you and Daniel are in agreement.

Made-up people are even more influential than the Alexanders, the Augustus' and all the other great numbers of great people whose names we don't remember.

[JehovahsWitness]

Superman, Thor, the other mythological gods, all of these things are more influential...

None of the books that contain words attributed to these fictional characters have sales that come anywhere near in the region of the bible. None of these characters have major religions based on their words that have survived into this our 21st century. No one to the best of my knowledge have been willing to die in order to ensure that the words attributed to them be translated into the common languages of the day. Our present calander years are not based on the supposed era of their existence, and I don't recall any historians writing that they are arguably the most influential figures in human history.

Feel free to present factual evidence to the contrary.

JW

[JehovahsWitness]

Made-up people are even more influential than the Alexanders, the Augustus' and all the other great numbers of great people whose names we don't remember.

I disagree, fictional characters are rarely if ever as influential as real people and even if that were the case, the overwhelming consensus of historians is that Jesus was a historical figure.

JW

[Willum]

None of the books that contain words attributed to these fictional characters have sales that come anywhere near in the region of the bible. None of these characters have major religions based on their words that have survived into this our 21st century. No one to the best of my knowledge have been willing to die in order to ensure that the words attributed to them be translated into the common languages of the day. Our present calander years are not based on the supposed era of their existence, and I don't recall any historians writing that they are arguably the most influential figures in human history.

So you are citing the most successful fiction as proof that it is real? Jesus was just a result of Roman improvement of religion, people who didn't believe, creating believers, who created believers, to subjugate their conquests.

[Replying to post 19 by JehovahsWitness]

I beg to differ, do you remember the exploits of Apollo or Caracalla?
Paul Bunyon or James McDill?
Clark Kent or Oleg Makarov?

Jesus or Columella?

We know about vaccines, and automobiles, but rarely who made them. Don Quixote, but not Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra.

The fiction is more influential, the facts dull, utilitarian and ignored.
Fiction, literature, fun, lives forever - real people become dusty history.

All Jesus is is a fiction the government of Rome declared real, 300 years after he was allegedly walking around.