Was Jesus unsuccessful?

[marco]

No sooner had the star announced the birth of Christ than a multitude of infants were murdered. Surely an early sign of failure? Though it must have been planned in heaven there was no advance booking made for pregnant Mary. Jesus, on this important assignment, simply vegetated fro thirty years before wandering out to do his job. Was a 20-year old Christ incapable of spreading more good news? His immediate family, the direct recipients surely of his divine message, didn't recognise him.

He operated on foot in a small area of the globe and apparently all he had to say of note was "the kingdom of God!" The consequence of his lack of explanation is that hundreds of different sects have arisen all believing different things. Worse, another powerful messenger of God had to come in the 7th century to do what Christ had failed to do. The world is split; the world fights over who said what. It all adds up to a failed mission.

Is this a good summary of Christ's mission? Or are there some details missing?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Yes, but we cannot present invisible, magic doors as evidence of Christ's legacy.

But we can present visible, historical evidence, though.

That is not the moral of the story. The point is that as a consequence of what Christ advocated we had people killed by those who truly believed in him. They weren't murderers who happened to be Christian; they were murderers because they were Christian.

Ok, can you please kindly provide the Scripture at which Christ advocated the murder of anyone.

I have no interest in such a thing. I can debate either side of the question, if needed. The Trinity is an ingenious contrivance, on which I have sufficiently expressed my views in the appropriate threads.

SMH.

Hmm - you are blessed with divine certainty. I don't disagree but I'm sure millions would. Go well.

Well, millions will be lost.

[marco]

But we can present visible, historical evidence, though.

But you didn't. Christ's promise of a portal to heaven is not a piece of history but an aspect of belief or interpretation.

Ok, can you please kindly provide the Scripture at which Christ advocated the murder of anyone.

You have simply misunderstood the point. Nobody is claiming Christ advocated murder; we are discussing the success or failure of his mission. He is responsible for the deductions people - including yourself - make if he hasn't explained himself clearly enough. The Inquisition resulted from Christ's failed mission, not from his directive to kill; Islam rose because Christ failed to explain the role of the Spirit and his own, in relation to God. Allah is wisely directed to say: "Allah forbid that Allah should have a son." Christ himself admitted that he would cause division and split families; in that sense he was a success. We have a mess of multiple belief sets; that is hardly success.

[For_The_Kingdom]

But you didn't. Christ's promise of a portal to heaven is not a piece of history but an aspect of belief or interpretation.

And I argue that Christ's promise of a portal to heaven happened in history, making it historical, and therefore, a piece of history.

You have simply misunderstood the point. Nobody is claiming Christ advocated murder

Wait a minute: You said "The point is that as a consequence of what Christ advocated we had people killed by those who truly believed in him."

So, the comprehension of that statement is; The result of what Christ advocated had people killed by those who truly believed in him.

Don't know how else to take it.

we are discussing the success or failure of his mission.

Which is a silly subject, considering he succeeded at doing what he set out to do. Hell, even if one doesn't believe the Bible, one can simply acknowledge that at least according to the narrative, he succeeded in doing so.

So why is this question being asked, I don't know. Like I said...boredom.

He is responsible for the deductions people - including yourself - make if he hasn't explained himself clearly enough.

Accept by faith that Christ died and have eternal life...or reject Christ and have eternal damnation.

Seems clear enough to me. The only way it can get any more clearer is for on judgement day for folks to stand before the Almighty and get whatever it is they deserve.

And on that day, it will be more than clear, it will be happening.

The Inquisition resulted from Christ's failed mission, not from his directive to kill; Islam rose because Christ failed to explain the role of the Spirit and his own, in relation to God. Allah is wisely directed to say: "Allah forbid that Allah should have a son." Christ himself admitted that he would cause division and split families; in that sense he was a success. We have a mess of multiple belief sets; that is hardly success.

Mannn look. According to the Bible, Christ came to die on the cross for the sins of mankind. That was the mission. Mission accomplished. Success. All of that other stuff is completely/utterly irrelevant to anything.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 23 by For_The_Kingdom]

And I argue that Christ's promise of a portal to heaven happened in history, making it historical, and therefore, a piece of history.

John 16:
[6] Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me

It is a historical fact that the followers of Jesus proclaimed that Jesus was the only pathway to heaven. It is NOT an historical fact however the Jesus made any such promise, or any such claim. Because Jesus wrote NOTHING. Christians simply have to assume that he made that claim. So it is not a historical fact that Jesus made this claim at all. The quote above was taken from an anonymously authored book written 60 or 70 years after Jesus was executed. It is an historical fact that this claim is contained in Gospel John.

[For_The_Kingdom]

John 16:
[6] Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me

Probably my favorite scripture right there..

It is a historical fact that the followers of Jesus proclaimed that Jesus was the only pathway to heaven.

I'm glad that you admit that this is even a historical fact. So the question now is, where the followers of Jesus lying, or where they telling the truth. Hmmm.

It is NOT an historical fact however the Jesus made any such promise, or any such claim.

It is a historical fact that Jesus' followers believed that he rose from the dead and that salvation is through him? Would you not agree?

Because Jesus wrote NOTHING.

Which was never a stumbling block for the faith nor the arguments for the Resurrection.

Christians simply have to assume that he made that claim. So it is not a historical fact that Jesus made this claim at all

If the Gospels owe their origins to eyewitnesses of the events (which we have reasons to believe), then that would make their accounts reliable, making the particular claims reliable.

The quote above was taken from an anonymously authored book

We have evidence that it is more probable than not that John the Apostle wrote the book.

written 60 or 70 years after Jesus was executed.

That may have been when it was written, but that is not when the belief was originated. Big difference. And even before that, you still had three Gospels, plus Paul's epistles. So still.

It is an historical fact that this claim is contained in Gospel John.

Yeah, for good reasons.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 25 by For_The_Kingdom]

I'm glad that you admit that this is even a historical fact. So the question now is, where the followers of Jesus lying, or where they telling the truth. Hmmm.

The oldest copies of Gospel John date from about 200. So we know that early Christians were reading this claim, and accepting it as true. Christians existed. That's just an historical fact.

Let's consider Paul for a moment. Paul underwent an experience that convinced him that Jesus had arisen from the dead. Was Paul lying? That's always possible, but it doesn't really seem to square well with the facts at hand. My take is that Paul was not lying, but was relating things that he genuinely believed to be true. Does that mean that Paul met with a man who had been dead for several days? Well, no, that is in fact the least likely explanation. In Paul's case the most likely explanation is that he was desperately ill from dehydration, and while in this delirious state, and while being prayed over by a Christian man, hallucinated a vision of the years dead Jesus. So Paul was not lying. But neither was he portraying accurate events. In some cases there is a middle ground you see. This middle ground applies to the overwhelming majority of Christians who have ever lived. Like you, the overwhelming majority of Christians have no direct knowledge of the risen Jesus. Their belief is not a lie, but their faith is without any actual grounding on fact.

The real question becomes, were the followers of Jesus lying. Those few who testified that they walked and talked and physically touched the risen Jesus are lying, yes. Giving long time observations of the nature of a truly dead corpse (Dead: ded] adjective, 1. no longer living; deprived of life: 2. not endowed with life; inanimate:), and compare it to the propensity for humans to fabricate stories for the flimsiest of personal motivations, and the obvious conclusion is that they were lying, and that they were doing so in a purposeful and concerted effort to achieve a personal objective. Keep in mind, we are probably talking about less than 2 dozen people who are making this claim originally.

It is a historical fact that Jesus' followers believed that he rose from the dead and that salvation is through him? Would you not agree?

The existence of Christians is an historical fact, yes. And Christian doctrine is available for all to see. I know many Christians personally. The existence of Muslims and Hindus is also an historical fact. I know some few of both groups.

If the Gospels owe their origins to eyewitnesses of the events (which we have reasons to believe), then that would make their accounts reliable, making the particular claims reliable.

This would only be true if humans were reliable. But as we all know too well, they are not.

Some few of the early disciples claimed to be eyewitnesses. This is true based on the Gospels and Acts. These early claims cannot serve to make that claim that a corpse came back to life and flew away probable however. Because we know from a vast amount of evidence that people fabricate stories. Such fabrications are as easy to make as exhaling. Flying reanimated corpses are conspicuously rare, however.

We have evidence that it is more probable than not that John the Apostle wrote the book.

There is no direct evidence that John the apostle wrote the Gospel According to John. There is however direct evidence that the Epistles of John, also attributed to the author of Gospel John, were written by an entirely different individual named John.

That may have been when it was written, but that is not when the belief was originated. Big difference. And even before that, you still had three Gospels, plus Paul's epistles. So still.

Acts indicates that Peter and other of the disciples began spreading the rumor of the risen Jesus on the day that has become known to Christians as the Pentecost. This occurred circa 30 AD. So we can reasonably infer that Christianity began on that day, simply because there is no real reason to deny it. And we know how Paul underwent his conversion a few years later. What the Gospels represent is the state of the story/rumor/tall tale of the risen Jesus as it existed circa 70-100 AD. And we can see that the stories have evolved somewhat from the time of Paul's letters written in the fifties. Christianity was growing and taking shape, yes.

This may be a good place for us to start our discussion, if you wish. Create a new thread, and then cut and paste.

[For_The_Kingdom]

The oldest copies of Gospel John date from about 200.

Keyword: oldest. Which would imply there were earlier copies, which seems to be the 90's CE according to general consensus.

So we know that early Christians were reading this claim, and accepting it as true. Christians existed. That's just an historical fact.

I'm with ya there.

Let's consider Paul for a moment. Paul underwent an experience that convinced him that Jesus had arisen from the dead. Was Paul lying? That's always possible, but it doesn't really seem to square well with the facts at hand. My take is that Paul was not lying, but was relating things that he genuinely believed to be true. Does that mean that Paul met with a man who had been dead for several days? Well, no, that is in fact the least likely explanation. In Paul's case the most likely explanation is that he was desperately ill from dehydration, and while in this delirious state, and while being prayed over by a Christian man, hallucinated a vision of the years dead Jesus. So Paul was not lying. But neither was he portraying accurate events.

A hallucination from Paul (which is a theory I don't accept) wouldn't explain the origin of the apostles belief in the Resurrection, nor does it explain the empty tomb.

In some cases there is a middle ground you see. This middle ground applies to the overwhelming majority of Christians who have ever lived. Like you, the overwhelming majority of Christians have no direct knowledge of the risen Jesus. Their belief is not a lie, but their faith is without any actual grounding on fact.

Agreed...but then again, the entire genre of history is based upon people who have no direct knowledge of any event X. The best we can do with historical inquiry is say that "based on the presented evidence, it is more likely than not that person/event X occurred/existed".

That is not just limited to the Resurrection \..but any event, claim, person in antiquity.

And the Resurrection is in fact a historical event/claim of a miracle..and believers who apply the historical method to this come to the conclusion that it is more probable than not that the Resurrection occurred in human history.

The real question becomes, were the followers of Jesus lying. Those few who testified that they walked and talked and physically touched the risen Jesus are lying, yes.

That wouldn't explain the empty tomb, nor would it explain the origin of Paul and James (brother of Jesus) beliefs in the Resurrection. Now, a theory of the followers of Jesus lying about his appearances AND Paul hallucinating about Jesus seems rather far-fetched.

I can consider one, but not both.

Giving long time observations of the nature of a truly dead corpse (Dead: ded] adjective, 1. no longer living; deprived of life: 2. not endowed with life; inanimate:)

Which is irrelevant considering this fact; the claim is not that Jesus rose naturally from the dead...but rather, God raised Jesus from the dead..which is a miracle that natural observation/occurrences can't touch.

, and compare it to the propensity for humans to fabricate stories for the flimsiest of personal motivations

Humans also have the propensity to tell the truth...which is why things should be looked upon on a case by case basis, instead of generalizations.

, and the obvious conclusion is that they were lying

Obvious to who? You? Not to me.

, and that they were doing so in a purposeful and concerted effort to achieve a personal objective.

Genetic fallacy. Their motivation for achieving their objective has nothing to do with the truth value of the claims. Unless it can be proven that they were lying.

Keep in mind, we are probably talking about less than 2 dozen people who are making this claim originally.

Probably more. The Apostle's creed states that Jesus appeared to more than 500 people at once (1Corin 15:3-8). Kinda hard to keep things on the hush-hush at that point.

It is a historical fact that Jesus' followers believed that he rose from the dead and that salvation is through him? Would you not agree?

The existence of Christians is an historical fact, yes. And Christian doctrine is available for all to see. I know many Christians personally. The existence of Muslims and Hindus is also an historical fact. I know some few of both groups.

Please reread the question, sir.

This would only be true if humans were reliable. But as we all know too well, they are not.

Some are, some aren't. The question is, were they?

Some few of the early disciples claimed to be eyewitnesses. This is true based on the Gospels and Acts. These early claims cannot serve to make that claim that a corpse came back to life and flew away probable however.

Well, if they truly believed that a corpse came back to life, then there had to be a reason why they believe it. What would get you to believe that a person died and came back to life? You wouldn't believe it just for the sake of believing, because as you said, dead people don't come back to life...so if you did believe it, you would have what you consider to be convincing evidence...which is what they allegedly had.

Because we know from a vast amount of evidence that people fabricate stories. Such fabrications are as easy to make as exhaling.

Ok, so for every person that can fabricate a story, there is a person that can tell the truth as it relates to a story. So now what? Who wins? See what happens when you generalize? We are talking specifically about this situation. What people do in other situations is irrelevant to the truth value of this situation.

Flying reanimated corpses are conspicuously rare, however.

About as rare as dead matter becoming animated and conscious (abiogenesis). But that doesn't stop people (and probably yourself) from believing in that stuff. So what is stopping people from believing in a dead person coming back to life? Ahhh, probably because one has a personal accountability factor, and the other one doesn't. Yup, probably.

There is no direct evidence that John the apostle wrote the Gospel According to John.

As I said, a case can be made that he did.

There is however direct evidence that the Epistles of John, also attributed to the author of Gospel John, were written by an entirely different individual named John.

Agreed.

Acts indicates that Peter and other of the disciples began spreading the rumor of the risen Jesus on the day that has become known to Christians as the Pentecost. This occurred circa 30 AD. So we can reasonably infer that Christianity began on that day, simply because there is no real reason to deny it. And we know how Paul underwent his conversion a few years later. What the Gospels represent is the state of the story/rumor/tall tale of the risen Jesus as it existed circa 70-100 AD. And we can see that the stories have evolved somewhat from the time of Paul's letters written in the fifties. Christianity was growing and taking shape, yes.

So please tell me how it evolved from the 50's AD to 70-100 AD.

This may be a good place for us to start our discussion, if you wish. Create a new thread, and then cut and paste.

I will prep.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

What was the intention of the God who sent JEsus?

[marco]

But you didn't. Christ's promise of a portal to heaven is not a piece of history but an aspect of belief or interpretation.

And I argue that Christ's promise of a portal to heaven happened in history, making it historical, and therefore, a piece of history.

We can argue that Alexander, on his deathbed, said that he left his empire "to the strongest." It's a saying recorded in history, not a fact. The verbatim words of Calgacus, a Pictish chieftain, are recorded by Tacitus. It is a fact they are recorded but the words are not facts. We have supposed verbatim statements from Christ but since historians can and do question how such statements can be genuine, they are not facts. Facts are not disputed.

You have simply misunderstood the point. Nobody is claiming Christ advocated murder

Wait a minute: You said "The point is that as a consequence of what Christ advocated we had people killed by those who truly believed in him."

So, the comprehension of that statement is; The result of what Christ advocated had people killed by those who truly believed in him.

Don't know how else to take it.

Why not take it in the way it was written and intended? Your example suggested that murders occur in all beliefs and colours. That is true. However, Christians killed because they were spreading or preserving Christ's message. South America became Christian because of Spanish devotion to Christ. And if you say that Christ never intended division , take Luke 12:53

"The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."

we are discussing the success or failure of his mission.

Which is a silly subject, considering he succeeded at doing what he set out to do

.

You have stated that you think Christ was successful. I have pointed out the divisions, the deaths and the rise of Islam as indications that he wasn't successful. So it is a tad unjust to say the subject is silly. If it is so easy to refute, refute it. You haven't done so. You have talked of portals to heaven when we see none.

According to the Bible, Christ came to die on the cross for the sins of mankind. That was the mission. Mission accomplished. Success. All of that other stuff is completely/utterly irrelevant to anything.

If you take a ridiculous interpretation you make the OP ridiculous. I am discussing the consequences of Christ journeying from heaven. If the entire point was to come, get himself killed, and exit then yes, well done! We can't possibly know if he did anything about the sins of future people. We can however examine his influence for good or bad. That is what I am doing. It is said he came to spread the good news; we might ask, how well did he advertise this for future generations.

[marco]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

What was the intention of the God who sent JEsus?

The discussion is about Christ's success or failure. It is enough to examine his report that the father sent him and presumably, having been sent, he would effect some noticeable change for good if his lessons were digested. God's plan for Jesus is another question. Some say it was to spread good news; others say it was to make known the mystery of three gods united in one; yet others guess it was to atone for Adam's sin, and many believe it was to free man, in some spiritual way from death. I understand that there are some who believe he was sent to set up some political system involving co-rulers, with himself, on the planet Earth.

I think we've enough on our plate to see if Jesus was a success as a preacher, as a man instituting a good religion that led people to do good things. God knows what God's intentions were.