Supreme Irony?

[Elijah John]

Is it ironic is it that Jesus, the "incarnate Word of God" never wrote his down his words, but left that task for others, who may or may not have gotten it right?

If not a writer, was Jesus at least a good orator? Was he always clear, plain-spoken, effective and comprehensive?

Should the "incarnate Word of God" have been all these things in his communications?

[Divine Insight]

Is it ironic is it that Jesus, the "incarnate Word of God" never wrote his down his words, but left that task for others, who may or may not have gotten it right?

It's far more than ironic, it's utterly absurd.

Think about, today some 2000 years after these highly questionable and self-contradictory rumors have been written, we are being told that if we merely don't believe that Jesus was the Son of God we will be damned.

To be quite frank, the claims of this religion are nothing short of ridiculous.

Yes, if Jesus was a messenger from God that has such an important message for humanity, he not only should have written everything down himself, but his writings should have been crystal clear with absolutely no self-contradictions, errors, or anything that could be rationally questioned. Especially if the God behind this is going to condemn us if we fail to believe what is said.

If not a writer, was Jesus at least a good orator? Was he always clear, plain-spoken, effective and comprehensive?

According to the rumors we have of Jesus he was not clear at all. In fact, some things he is reported to have said are obviously wrong. The Gospels have Jesus proclaiming that God feeds the birds. But we know with certainty that birds need to fend for themselves just like all other animals and humans. The birds aren't getting any free ride in life. Birds need to go out and hunt and scavenge for food just like any other animal, and they are often preyed upon by other animals (even by other birds) in the process. So it's clearly false that the birds are being 'fed by God' in any way that is special or different from any other animals including humans.

There's no reason for a person who had any genuine divine knowledge of the world to make such an obvious mistake. We can know for certain that Jesus did not have any divine knowledge of the world.

Also, if we consider the Biblical canon as having been "inspired by God", and allow the words of Paul to speak on behalf of Jesus as well, then we also see grave problems. Paul claims that we can see that the world must have been created by an intelligent designer (not using those modern terms but to imply the same idea) and therefore we are "without excuse" to not believe everything else he and his religion has to say.

Well, there's a grave error with that 'logic' as well. The problem is that it's non-sequitur. In short, it doesn't follow that if we conclude by looking at the world that there must be a designer God that this means that some specific religious claims must then be true.

Even if we embrace the idea that there must be a God, that does not support the validity of any specific religion. In other words, the conclusion that there must be God can be used to support any and all religions. So Paul's claim that we are "without excuse" for not believing in his religion his favorite religion clearly false.

I realize that you want to focus just on the words of Jesus, but keep in mind that Paul claims to be a spokesperson for both Jesus and God. Paul claims that Jesus chose him to speak on behalf of Jesus, this is part of this religious dogma.

In fact, many Christian theologians, clergy, and apologists, use the writings of Paul as if they came from Jesus himself. And since the writings of Paul are included in this "Holy Canon" they can't be easily dismissed as irrelevant.

Should the "incarnate Word of God" have been all these things in his communications?

The "incarnate Word of God" should have been perfect, without flaw, and impossible to deny. The Christian gospels are none of these things.

~~~~~~

Also, consider this:

Back in the days when this was supposedly taking place very few people actually believed Jesus. And these were people who met him in person. This includes the Chief Priests of God's very own Temple.

Even Jesus' very own disciples didn't truly believe him according to the Gospels, for what disciple would have denied or betrayed Jesus if they truly believed he was the Son of God?

According to these stories God himself didn't feel that Jesus was convincing anyone because this God supposedly had to speak from the clouds on several different occasions to proclaim that Jesus was his Son. And people still weren't buying into it.

There were miracles being performed, Saints being raised from their grave to show themselves to the people, and Jesus himself supposedly being raised from the dead. Yet none of this appears to have convinced much of anyone save for a mere handful of authors who didn't write down their opinions until decades later.

And we didn't get to witness any of this. Yet we are told that if we don't believe all this hearsay nonsense which makes absolutely no sense and is riddled with obvious flaws, we will be condemned for merely not believing it.

Never mind about morality. This religion has absolutely nothing at all to do with morality. In fact, you could be the most immoral person around, as long as you are willing to believe in this nonsense you can be "saved" from damnation. Proof positive that it has absolutely nothing to do with morality at all.

It's an off-shoot mythology from an original religion that was supposed to be all about morality. An off-shoot that couldn't have become more derailed from the original principle if it tried.

~~~~

Finally, and I feel that this is truly the paramount point.

Why are we even bothering to talk about Jesus and Christianity when this entire religion is an off-shoot of a previous older religion that already makes no sense as well?

Never mind how screwed up Christianity is, the original stories of the Old Testament don't fair any better. There isn't even a sound underlying religion to build on here.

I would need to be totally convinced that the Old Testament stories made sense before considering the stories of Jesus. This entire religion dies in Genesis, the very first book of the Holy Canon. And it only continues to go downhill from there becoming less and less believable with every page turned.

This religion totally destroys itself long before the man named Jesus was ever born.

Bottom line for me: Justify the Old Testament before we even talk about the New Testament.

I haven't seen any compelling justification for the Old Testament. So why should I even consider what the New Testament has to say when it is totally dependent on the Old Testament being the true description of God?

This is a huge problem for Christianity as they want to start all discussion based on Jesus when the Old Testament itself can't even been justified. Yet they depend entirely on the Old Testament proclaiming that it has prophesied the coming of Jesus, which is a claim that cannot be justified itself. They act like this is an unquestioned given. But it's not.

[Neatras]

Well, if Jesus could make the blind see, he could make somebody literate. "Go forth and write this stuff down so people 2,000 years from now won't take my words out of context." Seems simple enough. Anyone actually interested in disseminating knowledge would know better than to use a method so vulnerable to corruption and deceit. As it stands now, the spread of Christianity models how we would expect a lie to become popular.

[bluethread]

This appears to me to be a rather self centered myopic view of the Scriptures. I do not always speak to my children in terms that would be necessary for my grandchildren to understand, let alone multiple future generations. However, I would expect my children to pass on what I told them to future generations, telling them what I said and what I meant by it. I would also, hope that my children would educate future generations on the context of my times, language and culture, and the importance of those things when looking at what someone says. Also, though it would be nice, if other people's children understood what I meant, it is enough that may children understand and stand as an example of what it means to be part of my family. if I actually wanted to say something to the members of some other family, I would do so directly.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

You make a lot of good points. Just a couple of observations.

Paul's prologue to Romans is echoed by Thomas Paine. Creation is evidence for a creator. But you are right, that evidence does not vaildate any one, given religion, including Paul's. Paine reached a different conclusion, and saw Creation as evidence for a general, Deistic Creator at the core of all Theistic religions. And unlike John, Paine never spoke of damnation for the "offense" of not believing that Jesus was the Son of God.

In fact, Paine saw that belief as an unwarrented leap. Nothing in Creation, nothing outside of the NT supports the notion that "Jesus is God" or the Son of God.

Yes, the written word can be easily corrupted and distorted, and you and others make a good case that is, in fact, what has happened.

Paine makes a simliar point. That is why the only reliable "Word of God" is Creation herself. And God-given Reason.

Creation does not rely on the will of man to be published, but is self-publishing. And it is not subject to corruption at the hands of men.

Regarding OT/ Hebrew mytology? Yes, much of it is ridiculous if taken literally. Remember cnorman's signature line? "I believe the Torah is true, and some of it may have actually happened!" That line reflects the attitude of may modern Jews towards Scipture, and in Judaism, (unlike Christianity) belief is far less important than is behavior. One's actions and attitudes count for far more in God's eyes, than does "right belief" or getting one's theology "right".

So yes many of he OT stories are ridiculous at face value. It is often argued that the Ancients were not so concerned with literal accuracy as we are, and thus were not troubled by such "absurdities".

But to dismiss the OT out of hand as "absurd" and thus worthless, (or the NT for that matter) overlooks the fact that the OT especially is a mix of mythology, ethics and poetry as well. With a dash of history, mixed in. Admittdedly, hard to tell which is which at times.

And even the mythology has value. I trust you are familiar with Joseph Campbell and other mythologists? Don't they teach that if one can get past literal meanings of myths, one will dicover deeper meanings at the core? Like the "moral of the story" in fable.

So I would agree that Jesus is not, and likley cannot be the "Word of God" the way John has it. But I would add that the NT has much more to defend.

At least the basic theology of the OT/Hebrew Bible is more straightforward. God is one, God demands ethical behavior from His followers, God forgives based on simple repentance. The same cannot be said of the NT. No irrational nascent Trinity to defend in the OT.

But still, the Bible has value for this reason (among others) "I believe the Torah is true, and some of it may have actually happened".

(Thanks for that, Charles )

[William]

[Replying to post 4 by bluethread]

I do not always speak to my children in terms that would be necessary for my grandchildren to understand, let alone multiple future generations.

Seems reasonable. Children appear to create their own language anyway, and this happens generation after generation.

However, I would expect my children to pass on what I told them to future generations, telling them what I said and what I meant by it.

But why would you do this if you already don't expect your grandchildren to understand, let alone multiple future generations?

Also, there is not the accompanying 'what Jesus meant by it' just a hearsay that he said it.

At the very least, why would you entrust your children to pass down something verbally which you could write down yourself - even with accompanying footnotes as to 'what you mean'?

Either way, what is to stop your great grand-children's cousins twice removed from infiltrating the movement and spreading rumors about what you said which you didn't say or explaining what you meant with words that are oxymoron to what you actually said?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 4 by bluethread]

I do not always speak to my children in terms that would be necessary for my grandchildren to understand, let alone multiple future generations.

Seems reasonable. Children appear to create their own language anyway, and this happens generation after generation.

However, I would expect my children to pass on what I told them to future generations, telling them what I said and what I meant by it.

But why would you do this if you already don't expect your grandchildren to understand, let alone multiple future generations?

Also, there is not the accompanying 'what Jesus meant by it' just a hearsay that he said it.

At the very least, why would you entrust your children to pass down something verbally which you could write down yourself - even with accompanying footnotes as to 'what you mean'?

I didn't say that I did not expect future generations to understand what I said. I said, I would not necessarily use terms that they would understand. The reason, I would not be extremely verbose and pedantic, writing down everything I said, in several versions that could be understood by each successive generation, is because, it is important that my children teach their children what I said and meant. It not only reinforces what I said to them, it also helps strengthen the family bond. That is the point of the Shema.

Either way, what is to stop your great grand-children's cousins twice removed from infiltrating the movement and spreading rumors about what you said which you didn't say or explaining what you meant with words that are oxymoron to what you actually said?

That is why I visit my grandchildren and talk to them directly on occasion, so that they can be sure that they are learning how to think properly.

[William]

[Replying to post 7 by bluethread]

That is why I visit my grandchildren and talk to them directly on occasion, so that they can be sure that they are learning how to think properly.

Can you tie this analogy into the subject for the reader...how does Jesus accomplish this?

[marco]

This appears to me to be a rather self centered myopic view of the Scriptures. I do not always speak to my children in terms that would be necessary for my grandchildren to understand, let alone multiple future generations. However, I would expect my children to pass on what I told them to future generations, telling them what I said and what I meant by it. I would also, hope that my children would educate future generations on the context of my times, language and culture, and the importance of those things when looking at what someone says. Also, though it would be nice, if other people's children understood what I meant, it is enough that may children understand and stand as an example of what it means to be part of my family. if I actually wanted to say something to the members of some other family, I would do so directly.

That is all good in the context of dad and his kids. You are not, I think, the incarnate son of God nor is your form of communication comparable with the one a favoured messenger of God would use.

If one is content with a general impression, it seems absurd that we would think Jesus came specially to pass on something important. Its precise description and the terms of use, stated exactly, would be essential. As it is we don't know if hell awaits those who can't make out the message or interpret the message in a way different from, say, the Pope in Rome. Have Mormons, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses all misinterpreted?


Your last sentence is surprising, suggesting if Jesus wanted to speak to people in the 21st century he'd have addressed them directly. So his words were for his time only.

[Divine Insight]

Paul's prologue to Romans is echoed by Thomas Paine. Creation is evidence for a creator.

Except even that isn't true.

If that were true, then if a God existed that God would then be evidence for a creator who created the God.

So this reasoning doesn't even work for any religion, much less any specific religion.

~~~~

In fact, the folly of this reasoning comes from the fact that humans have naively come to accept that if they see something they believe to be magic, this can easily be explained if a magician simply steps out of the shadows and claims to have done it.

The magician then supposedly explains how the magic was done. In other words, the magician can then explain that what you actually saw wasn't magic at all, but rather it was just the illusion of magic which the magician had created.

So the idea that God as a magician can explain the existence of a physical reality doesn't even work anyway. In order for a God to actually "explain it" he would need to explain why it's not really magic after all, but just an illusion.

In fact, if true magic exists, it wouldn't need a magician to perform it. So the very idea that there must exist a magician God to explain the apparent magic of existence is actually non-sequitur anyway.

Finally, even if we were to embrace this illogical thinking, we'd then be faced with the problem of how God came to be? That too must surely have been magic. Therefore based on this line of thinking there must have been a magician who created God, and so on ad infinitum.

So the very idea that creation is evidence for a magical God isn't even a sound rational or logical idea anyway. Yet a lot of people seem to feel that it is. They seem to think that if we simply assume that a magician created the universe from nothing this explains everything. But in truth it doesn't explain anything it just moves the problem back one more level of non-understanding. That's all it does.

So apparently Thomas Pain was just as illogical as Paul. His conclusion that creation is evidence of a creator is absolute nonsense that has no basis in any sound reasoning at all. It might sound good to the naive mind, but it's a seriously flawed conclusion that truly is non-sequitur.

Once it has come to our attention that these philosophers/theologians aren't truly making any sense and are jumping to non-sequitur conclusions, we should instantly chalk them up as being undependable sources of any serious knowledge.

They may have been historically famous for various reasons, but that doesn't make their reasoning sound.