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?

[marco]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

As one 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?

Take each one, then:

1. To serve God and love others. What were people doing before Christ arrived?
2. We don't know what happens when we die. We are discussing that question here, with as many opinions as there are people.
3. Our purpose seems to depend on our geography or the faith that has been thrown at us. Jesus gave a variation on an ancient theme.
4. We have absolutely NO idea why there is so much suffering except to put it down to the fickleness of Nature and perhaps the nastiness of man. Christ did not elucidate.
5. Science has told us our sun will die out. Jesus has given us nothing that can be verified.
6. People before Jesus held the view that there is a caring God. It is true that Jesus seemed to deny the existence of Jehovah, but that is contentious. Given Jehovah exists, this is incompatible with there being a caring God, as the OT demonstrates very well.

We can debate each point here but that means Jesus gave no clear answers. And if this was his major thesis, he has failed.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to Elijah John]

It's about whether or not one gives Jesus the benefit of the doubt. I do, his supporters do, his detractors don't. Seems his detractors want to see the worst in him.

Very well. Assuming of course that Jesus did indeed say that parable to his followers 2,000 years ago (and that it wasn't something made up by the author of Gospel Luke or made up by whoever told it to the author...or made up by someone else further on down the line)
Who is the king in the parable? Is Jesus saying that he is the king? If he is saying he is not the king, what point does the parable have?

[marco]

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.

Take John 9:6

King James Bible:
When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay ....
Was this medically effective or just done for theatricality? He had his own reasons for this, too.

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

He gave warnings about pregnant women when the second coming was to take place so presumably it was just as important to see into the future and catch a glimpse (a) of people being killed for holding correct scientific beliefs. His followers were still reading the OT. Some were obeying "kill witches." (b) of Jews being killed throughout the centuries because of his crucifixion plan in which the entire Jewish race was blamed.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 23 by JehovahsWitness]

Even these historics are hardly credible. There were a group of people from the fourth century BC on called "Chestos" or more likely Chrysos. Golden people. Many may have had the name "Hail Zeus," or IeZeus, in Rome.

The majority of these folks are of course writing after the fact, where they aren't suspected of forgeries.

Then there is the overwhelming lack of evidence. Lack of thousands upon thousands of stories, discussions, allegations, etc., of this amazing event.

Then there is nothing he did persisted, his was hardly profound, his healing and works have no further follow-up. The lepers have no testimony, Lazarus has no interviews, his accusers nameless, and so on.

So did he exist? It looks pretty doubtful.

[marco]

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.

I agree. There are times when we can readily accept metaphor, as in the start of Genesis where anything other than a figurative interpretation is nonsense. And when someone says: "I am going to kill the local priest," we would not be entitled to regard this as poetry. We must always remember that Jesus is addressing his words not to Aristotles or Anselms, but to fishermen. And if WE have difficulty, they must have been in tears, unless of course they take the obvious meaning.

[marco]

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?

Yes, it is incredible that a highly intelligent man did not have the inquisitiveness of Plato, Aquinas, Kant, Dawkins ..... but accepted untruths without comment. It is not as if he was averse to criticising the status quo: he justified working on the Sabbath. The man who made a basic error about the mustard seed and "punished" the fig tree for having no figs out of season is perhaps an unlikely candidate for an anachronistic Nobel Prize ..... even for peace, since he said he hadn't come to bring peace. Nor did he. It makes one wonder what good he did.

[marco]

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.

But of course when one removes what you would regard as false the quantity decreases considerably. A huge part of Christian literature came from the Roman Catholic Church. Various brands of Protestantism also spread their good news, albeit not quite as good as yours. As a result of Catholic conquest and Protestant evangelism, there is a huge demand for Christian literature. I suspect it will drop, especially since some "enlightened" lands ban the bible. In the past we'd have sent a gunboat to put them right; now we send them arms..... but I digress.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 37 by marco]

It's strange, isn't it? To be using the argument from popularity, but not as a representative of the most popular denomination of the religion.
Even if we were to grant the argument from popularity (no reason to do so, but even if we did), JW's claim still fails because no-one knows for sure just what Jesus meant (or what he actually said; there is of course debate as to how much of what is in the New Testament was actually uttered by Jesus). The Bible can be interpreted practically endlessly and the JWs are just one group out of many.

What I'm seeing is "The Bible is true because it's the most popular book (or volume of books) of all time...even though there are thousands of interpretations of it and the group I represent with their interpretation is relatively small".

[Tired of the Nonsense]

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?

Luke 9:
[43] And they were all amazed at the mighty power of God. But while they wondered every one at all things which Jesus did, he said unto his disciples,
[44] Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men.
[45] But they understood not this saying, and it was hid from them, that they perceived it not: and they feared to ask him of that saying.
[46] Then there arose a reasoning among them, which of them should be greatest.

Jesus apparently talked a lot, but much of what he said went right over the heads of his followers. For example: (Sayings of Jesus taken from the Gospel of Thomas)



Jesus said, "The person old in days won't hesitate to ask a little child seven days old about the place of life, and that person will live."

***

Jesus said, "Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human."

***
Jesus said, "You see the sliver in your friend's eye, but you don't see the timber in your own eye. When you take the timber out of your own eye, then you will see well enough to remove the sliver from your friend's eye."

***
Jesus said, "If a blind person leads a blind person, both of them will fall into a hole."

***
Jesus said, "There are many standing at the door, but those who are alone will enter the bridal suite."

***
Jesus said, "Whoever does not hate father and mother cannot be my disciple, and whoever does not hate brothers and sisters, and carry the cross as I do, will not be worthy of me."

***
Jesus said, "Whoever knows the father and the mother will be called the child of a whore."

***
Jesus said, "One can't enter a strong person's house and take it by force without tying his hands. Then one can loot his house."


http://gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html

I have to be honest here. This stuff is ether way too deep, or far too obscure to make any sense to me either. But maybe that's the point. Because it gives the impression of possessing a mystical higher level of knowledge. But the fact of the matter is, sometimes nonsense is simply nonsense. It's a way of speaking while giving the impression that something vitally, mystically, important is being imparted, without actually advancing the cause of knowledge in the slightest.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 39 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Jesus apparently talked a lot, but much of what he said went right over the heads of his followers. For example: (Sayings of Jesus taken from the Gospel of Thomas)

Don't forget the Last Supper in Gospel John.

Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified, “Very truly I tell you, one of you is going to betray me.�

22 His disciples stared at one another, at a loss to know which of them he meant. 23 One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him. 24 Simon Peter motioned to this disciple and said, “Ask him which one he means.�

25 Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, “Lord, who is it?�

26 Jesus answered, “It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.� Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. 27 As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him.

So Jesus told him, “What you are about to do, do quickly.� 28 But no one at the meal understood why Jesus said this to him. 29 Since Judas had charge of the money, some thought Jesus was telling him to buy what was needed for the festival, or to give something to the poor. 30 As soon as Judas had taken the bread, he went out. And it was night.

Wait...we're supposed to be believing these men, when they're recorded as saying Jesus did miracles and Jesus is most definitely the Son of God?
Apparently they have trouble parsing very simple accusations of betrayal!

But maybe that's the point. Because it gives the impression of possessing a mystical higher level of knowledge.

So basically...Jesus must have been Deepak Chopra in a previous life?