Would more detail about Jesus help?

[marco]

How tall was he? We don't know. How did he cope with adolescence? We don't know. What colour of hair did he have? We don't know. Was he bearded? We don't know. What food did he like? We don't know, but he did take a piece of fish so wasn't vegetarian. What illnesses did he have? We don't know. Did he limp, stutter, stammer, cough, have allergies? We don't know.


He came out of the shadows at thirty, never apparently took a wife, and lived rough, it seems, as an itinerant preacher.


Would it help to have a physical description of Christ?

Does the psychological portrait we have make him more of a myth?

[marco]

This is SO, SO, comical, that I find it hard to believe? I mean, on the one hand, what is contained in the Bible, is nonsense in your mind. However, on the other, it makes sense, and you can tell us what it means? Really?

The Bible is good in parts, like the curate's egg. I can find things with which I agree. But that's by the way - I regard the Bible as fictional with regard to its tales about God but I can then look at what is written and make sense of the sentences that paint fictional pictures of God. Fiction may be false, but it can be well written. So when the fictional hero Yahweh speaks to some human, I can offer an explanation of his words.

Many folk have endorsed this Abrahamic God as their own and yes, they have ignored LOCAL laws and customs; they have not ignored GENERAL moral commands given by this important being. It is true this character didn't speak to Napoleon or to Isaac Newton or to Nell Gwyn or to Roger Federer (not that we know) but if people adopt him, they surely adopt his commands. What else? You would carry out the commands, but not because God wants you to. This declaration of independence from God is fine with me. I don't accept him; I am merely interpreting the lines in the play about him, just as I would interpret: "All the world's a stage," from As You Like It. There's nothing odd in that.

GOOD GRIEF? How many "if clauses" can there be? And the thing is, I don't even have a farm, how would these things would apply to me?

These intrusions just distract, but to supply the information you've asked for: there can be umpteen conditional clauses. The Decalogue has NO conditional clauses. You take God - you obey God. Those folk without farms or sheep or chickens are still subject to the commands of the Lord Almighty unless (conditional clause ) they don't believe in the God of Abraham. You apparently do, so you're bound by his general moral rules, which means honouring the Sabbath in some way, not killing and not coveting donkeys. If you don't want to agree, then atheism is an option.


There is nothing more to argue about here.

The OP was about detail on Jesus so perhaps we should leave poor Yahweh alone and concentrate on the shadowy, part-fictional form of Christ. His anonymous biographers scraped around various texts to put details together. Perhaps it wasn't good enough.

[JoeyKnothead]

How tall was he? We don't know. How did he cope with adolescence? We don't know. What colour of hair did he have? We don't know. Was he bearded? We don't know. What food did he like? We don't know, but he did take a piece of fish so wasn't vegetarian. What illnesses did he have? We don't know. Did he limp, stutter, stammer, cough, have allergies? We don't know.


He came out of the shadows at thirty, never apparently took a wife, and lived rough, it seems, as an itinerant preacher.


Would it help to have a physical description of Christ?

Does the psychological portrait we have make him more of a myth?

I'm curious about this'n, in light of Trump's recent dismissal of that Blasey lady's "credible" (Trump) testimony, and that rally he gave about all them "I don't remembers" (Blasey).

If we can reject "credible", yet unsupported claims regarding events of 30ish years ago, why is it so many evangelicals'd get upset about even "credible", yet unsupported claims from two thousand of 'em ago?

We can't even prove Jesus existed, nor that he ever swung him him a Vaughan. Turning water into wine, catchin' the yugest fist ever, or being the actual son of God himself should be believed!?

I'm reminded of feathers, it's just I've kinda promised I wouldn't speculate to which bovine it is I think they belong.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 31 by marco]

The Bible is good in parts, like the curate's egg. I can find things with which I agree. But that's by the way - I regard the Bible as fictional with regard to its tales about God but I can then look at what is written and make sense of the sentences that paint fictional pictures of God.

But that is not the point. The point is, I believe you have said in the past, "that we cannot know what Jesus may have said, and if what he is reported to have said, is actually what he said."

Now however, for some reason, we can not only know that he said, "I did not come to abolish law, but to fulfill it" we can also know, (according to you), exactly what he meant by this.

So then, the question to you is, which is it? Can we know what he said? Or, is there no way to know what he said? If there is no way to know if he actually said what I quote above, (which was something you brought into the conversation) then there would be no way to even imagine what he may have meant, concerning something he may have never said.

Moreover, your explanation of what he may have said, would not be the only possible explanation, and if he indeed said much of the other things he is said to have said, then your explanation could not possibly be correct. In other words, there would be no way he could have been saying, "I have fulfilled the law, so you do the same."

Fiction may be false, but it can be well written. So when the fictional hero Yahweh speaks to some human, I can offer an explanation of his words.

We are not talking about "fiction" in this case, and we are not talking about, "Yahweh." Rather, we are talking about what Jesus may have said, unless of course you would like to argue that he would have been fiction?

Many folk have endorsed this Abrahamic God as their own and yes, they have ignored LOCAL laws and customs; they have not ignored GENERAL moral commands given by this important being.

I have already demonstrated that there would be many, and I mean many Christians who understand these things in the same way in which I do. Therefore, if by saying, "they have not ignored GENERAL moral commands given by this important being" as meaning all Christians, then this would be a false statement.

However, having said this, it is not as though we, "ignore these things", but rather we understand these laws to have been given to the Israelites as a nation. Therefore, we may as Christians abide by some of these things, but not because they were commanded in the OT to the Israelites, but for the same exact reason you would abide by them.

In other words, do you commit murder? If not, is it because it was a command to Israel? No, this is not the reason you do not commit murder. So then, in the same way, I do not commit murder, but it is not because it was a command to the nation of Israel.

Do you keep the Sabbath? I would imagine you do not, because you are under the impression that the whole thrust of the Bible would be false. I do not keep the Sabbath, because I understand that this was a command to Israel as a nation, and it would have nothing whatsoever to do with me.

The point is, more than likely, you and I both follow the same moral commands given to Israel, but neither of us would be doing so, because it was a command to Israel. Also, both of us more than likely ignore the same commands given to Israel, but you would do so, being under the impression that the whole thing would be false, while I do so, being under the impression that what was commanded of Israel as a nation, would have nothing whatsoever to do with me.

We could go through all the commands if you wish, and you will see, that the ones I attempt to abide by, would not in any way be because they were a command from God to Israel, but rather it would be because of the same reason you would abide by them, and the ones I would ignore, would be because I understand that what was commanded of Israel, would not pertain to me.

It is true this character didn't speak to Napoleon or to Isaac Newton or to Nell Gwyn or to Roger Federer (not that we know) but if people adopt him, they surely adopt his commands.

Right! Even in the face of the facts I have presented that these commands were given to Israel, as a nation, on top of the fact that Christians are clearly said to have been "redeemed from the law" on top of all the other evidence I have given, that would clearly demonstrate that Christians are not obligated to the laws that were given to Israel, that were tied to the possession of the land, which I do not live in, my friend!

You would carry out the commands, but not because God wants you to.

Do you carry out any of these commands? If you do, and it is not because "God wants you to", then what would be the difference between you, and I?

Moreover, even if I carry out certain commands because I believe, "God wants me to", this would not in any way necesitate that it would be because God commanded these same things of Israel. Rather, it would be because he not only commanded it of Israel as a nation, but because he has also commanded it of Christians, and there would be a tremendous difference!

This declaration of independence from God is fine with me.

I have not "declared independence from God", but rather declared indepence from Israel, and the commands, and stipulations, (if clauses) given to them by God, that was tied to the "land of promise."

With this being said, I do ignore the commands given to Israel as a nation, but this would not mean that I do not abide by some of these things, but I do not abide by them because they were laws given to Israel, but rather because of the same reason you abide by them.

I am merely interpreting the lines in the play about him, just as I would interpret: "All the world's a stage," from As You Like It. There's nothing odd in that.

Again, this is not the point. The point is, according to you, we can know nothing of what he said. So then, attempting to interpret, what we do not even know he said, would be useless, and a waste of time.

These intrusions just distract, but to supply the information you've asked for: there can be umpteen conditional clauses. The Decalogue has NO conditional clauses.

My friend, the "Ten Commandments" were given to Israel, along with all the other commands, and God is said to tell Israel, "IF, you obey ALL I have my commanded", (which would include the Decalogue).

So again, I am not obligated to any of these laws any more than you are, and the ones I abide by, would be the same reason you abide by them, and it would not be because it was commanded of, Israel.

You take God - you obey God.

Right, in what he commands of me. Not what he may have commanded of a nation, tied to a land of promise, which would have nothing whatsoever to do with me.

Those folk without farms or sheep or chickens are still subject to the commands of the Lord Almighty unless (conditional clause ) they don't believe in the God of Abraham.

Again, making these up as we go along, in the face of the fact that I have supplied clear evidence that we as Christians, have been, "redeemed from the law?"

You apparently do, so you're bound by his general moral rules, which means honouring the Sabbath in some way, not killing and not coveting donkeys.

Well my friend, today happens to be, Saturday, which I believe is the "Sabbath", and I have been working in the yard all day, because I do not honor the Sabbath, because I understand this to be a command to Israel as a nation, which had stipulations tied to the land of promise.

I also understand that Paul clearly explained that we have been, "redeemed from the law", which the Israelites were tied to, and that the whole of the letter to the Galatians is dedicated to the fact that the Galatians were tending to go back to the law, and Paul was scolding them for doing so, to the point he asks, "who has bewitched you?"

If you don't want to agree, then atheism is an option.

Well no! There would be another option, and that would be to go with what we are actually told in the Bible, which is the fact that we are told, "we have been redeemed from the law."

There is nothing more to argue about here.

Actually, there has been no argument at all. I have supplied facts, along with the evidence to support the fact that the law was given to Israel, as a nation, with stipulations, and was tied to the land of promise, along with the fact that we as Christians have been redeemed from the law, while all you have done is to point to commands given to Israel, and suppose that it must, and has to apply to Christians, while supplying only assumptions, with no facts, nor evidence to support your assumptions. Nice work!

The OP was about detail on Jesus so perhaps we should leave poor Yahweh alone and concentrate on the shadowy, part-fictional form of Christ. His anonymous biographers scraped around various texts to put details together. Perhaps it wasn't good enough.

Well, let us recall that I did not bring the "Sabbath" into the conversation, but it was another who said,

Jewish and Muslim faithful adhere more closely to Divine laws than lax sabbath-breaking Christians who tend to leave out the bits they don't like and make stuff up that isn't really there.

Since the Sabbath was brought into the conversation, and I was sure this person could not possibly defend their accusation, I simply ask, "where were Christians commanded to keep the Sabbath?"

This question was not directed to you, but for some reason you felt the need to jump in, and defend his position, which you, and he have failed at miserably. Therefore, you are now ready to get back to the question of the OP.

The point is, I believe it is legitimate to ask someone to defend a point they bring into a conversation, even if it does not pertain to the OP, since they are the ones who bring in such an accusation.

It is sort of strange how you did not initially attempt to bring the conversation back to the topic, but for some reason felt the need to help defend the position, and now for some strange reason, we need to get back to the OP?

At any rate, I think I understand why you would want to get back to the OP, and it is probably a good move on your part, but I am not so sure, so let us see?

The OP was about detail on Jesus so perhaps we should leave poor Yahweh alone

I do not think that I bothered, "poor Yahweh" at all, and was rather asking "where Christians were commanded to keep the Sabbath", and all either of you have done, is to point to commands that were clearly given to the Israelites, as a nation, that were clearly tied to the land of promise, and have not in any way demonstrated, how these commands would apply to anyone else, besides those who were being addressed, all the while, ignoring the fact that Christians are said to have been "redeemed from the law."

In fact, I have brought this point up, along with several other passages, and you have failed to address, or say a word concerning any of these passages, that would clearly explain that Christians, are not obligated to the law, which would include the, Sabbath.

and concentrate on the shadowy, part-fictional form of Christ.

Is this to suggest, that we can know, there are, "fictional parts?"

His anonymous biographers scraped around various texts

Is this to say, that we cannot know who any of the authors , may have been? Is it also to suggest that we can know that these authors used other text, when writing? If so, what would be the proof of such things? Because, if these are things we can know, then there would be proof, not simply evidence, and I will assure you there would be no need in referring to what any of the scholars may say, since this would neither be, proof, nor evidence.

[Peds nurse]

Hello sweet Marco!

Although, perhaps a physical description of Jesus might dim our curiosity, that isn't what lures people to His side. It is the essence of His love for God and for others that hold our attention to Him. It is the value He found in the beggar, the outcasts of society, the sinners, and the saints alike. It was His authority to the church leaders telling them that following God isn't about a set of rules, it is about loving God to the point that we can love others with a compassion that can and does change the world around us.

If we think about it, the people that we find beautiful are those not with a polished outward appearance, but those who radiate kindness, love, and compassion.

[JoeyKnothead]

Hello sweet Marco!

Although, perhaps a physical description of Jesus might dim our curiosity, that isn't what lures people to His side. It is the essence of His love for God and for others that hold our attention to Him. It is the value He found in the beggar, the outcasts of society, the sinners, and the saints alike. It was His authority to the church leaders telling them that following God isn't about a set of rules, it is about loving God to the point that we can love others with a compassion that can and does change the world around us.

If we think about it, the people that we find beautiful are those not with a polished outward appearance, but those who radiate kindness, love, and compassion.

This!

If we could all learn us to love us a bunch of some othern's of us, it might bode us humans well in the future.

We gotta quit with this "they's evil, them that disagree". We need to somehow find a way to be united, despite our differences.

If there is a god up there, I pray it is, he blesses you first.

[marco]

The point is, I believe you have said in the past, "that we cannot know what Jesus may have said, and if what he is reported to have said, is actually what he said."

Now however, for some reason, we can not only know that he said, "I did not come to abolish law, but to fulfill it" we can also know, (according to you), exactly what he meant by this.

Ah, it's my consistency that's under scrutiny, is it? I have a slight advantage here in that I don't place any credence in the Bible narrative but as a reader of the play I can use lines to support theories based on biblical fictions. If we are dealing with a speech by the character Jesus then I can question whether Jesus has been quoted accurately or I can take what's been said and show how it leads to some other theory. I am consistently of the opinion that Yahweh is a fiction and so Jesus and his pals are just characters in a play, whose lines I might use for comment. At the moment we're discussing the target audience for the Decalogue. The immediate audience was Moses, and then his friends and family. Theological wisdom, from which apparently you dissent, has it that God intended his commands for human consumption. You prefer to think that Moses needed to be told not kill, steal or covet, but others don't need that instruction. My guess is that the Christian world thinks the Ten Commandments are addressed via the Israelites to it. I am surprised that you have another view but it makes for a colourful world. You apparently sift through the commands and pick the ones you want to obey. That's Do It Yourself religion but refreshingly original.

I have supplied clear evidence that we as Christians, have been, "redeemed from the law?"

I know the theory you refer to; the relaxation was from Mosaic law and customs. It would be absurd for people to be "redeemed" from the Ten Commandments. That would mean people could go out and happily murder. Your line of thought leads to absurdities.

Well my friend, today happens to be, Saturday, which I believe is the "Sabbath", and I have been working in the yard all day, because I do not honor the Sabbath, because I understand this to be a command to Israel as a nation, which had stipulations tied to the land of promise.

You are entitled to your private interpretation. As I said, NT explanation is that people are absolved from specifics of Jewish law but not from commands that bind all human beings, rich or poor. Included in the Decalogue is the command - it may be a silly one, but apparently Yahweh didn't think so - to observe the Sabbath. You do not need to obey the specifics of Sabbath observation, since you seem to have been excused from such private duties. However, if you think stealing, adultery, bearing false witness are all ignorable, then that's your private, if curious, decision. When the tribes of the earth are gathered together for public judgment and Realworldjack shuffles forward, you may offer the defence: "But, er, I thought that only the Israelites were told not to steal or kill or covet or observe the Sabbath. Marco told me I was wrong, but I didn't believe him."

Is this to say, that we cannot know who any of the authors , may have been?

Well we don't know who the authors were- we have names written down as supposed authors but know less about them than about the main character, Jesus. So the OP asks whether more info on Jesus would give us a better picture. When we explore the evangelists we get caught up in which Aramaic text was copied, which writer came first and who copied from whom and who is consistent and who is not and why was this added and that left out. A mess. Jesus remains a shadow. Saul change his title to Paul, from paulus meaning "little" - to show false humility.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 36 by marco]

Ah, it's my consistency that's under scrutiny, is it? I have a slight advantage here in that I don't place any credence in the Bible narrative but as a reader of the play I can use lines to support theories based on biblical fictions. If we are dealing with a speech by the character Jesus then I can question whether Jesus has been quoted accurately or I can take what's been said and show how it leads to some other theory. I am consistently of the opinion that Yahweh is a fiction and so Jesus and his pals are just characters in a play, whose lines I might use for comment.

I am afraid this is not gonna work, my friend. Because, you see, if this were a play we could actually attend this play, of even read the script to determine the exact words being used, and then we can discuss, and debate what these words would mean in their intended context.

However, you are suggesting, that we cannot know what the words may have been at all. Therefore, attempting to determine what one may have meant would be useless, if we cannot even know what in the world they may have said.

This has been your argument in the past. But for some reason, now all of a sudden, according to you, we can not only know know that Jesus said, "I did not come to abolish the law", we can also know exactly what he meant, and if we need to know what he meant, then all we need to do, is to ask you.

That my friend, is not consistent, because if we can have no idea what one may have said, then it would be a waste of time attempting to determine what one would have meant, by words he may have never used.

In other words, if I were truly convinced that we could not possibly know what one may have said, then I would never attempt to suggest, what he may have meant, but would been bound to continue to argue, that we cannot even be sure, that he said such a thing.

At the moment we're discussing the target audience for the Decalogue. The immediate audience was Moses, and then his friends and family. Theological wisdom, from which apparently you dissent, has it that God intended his commands for human consumption.

There is a tremendous difference between "human consumption", as opposed to being bound by what one is consuming. In other words, I can certainly pull up, and read the laws of Canada, but this would not in any way mean, that I would be bound by these laws, because I am not.

Even if there were laws that were the same in the U.S., as there were in Canada, I would not be bound by these laws, because Canada has the law, but rather because of the U.S. law.

In the same way, I can surely read the laws that the Israelites were bound to, but this would not in any way mean, I am bound to the same law they were bound to, even if I may be bound to, some of the same laws according to the U.S.

As far as, "theological wisdom" I am not sure what you are talking about, but I cannot for the life of me understand why one would need to refer to what others may be saying, when one can read themselves, and clearly, and beyond doubt determine that these laws were given to Israel, with certain, clear, and definite, stipulations, that could not possibly apply to anyone today.

You prefer to think that Moses needed to be told not kill, steal or covet, but others don't need that instruction.

This is simply a tactic, because you well know that, God could have commanded the Israelites not to murder, in with all the rest of the commands, and I would not be bound by these laws in the least, even the law to Israel against murder.

However, I may be commanded by God now, to obey the laws of the government that I find myself under, and if they have a law against murder, then I am bound to that law, and I am to refrain from such behavior, not because it was a command to Israel, but rather because it is a law of the U.S. which happens to have the same law against murder, as the Israelites.

My guess is that the Christian world thinks the Ten Commandments are addressed via the Israelites to it.

You may have a real good "guess" here, but what in the world would this demonstrate? As I said, this would have been like saying at the time, "my guess is, most of the world believes the sun revolves around the earth?" Would this "guess" even if correct, have any bearing at all upon what the truth would have been?

At any rate, again, I will assure you that there are a multitude of Christians who read, and understand these things in the same way in which I do, and those Christians who argue that we are bound to the laws given to Israel, fare about as well as you have here, when they argue with those of us who can actually read things in context.

I am surprised that you have another view but it makes for a colourful world.

Please allow me to explain why you may be so surprised. More than likely, it is because your mind is confined by the things you have been told, and exposed to by Christians, and you have not actually sat down to read, study, and analyze these things yourself, and scince you are under the impression that most Christians believe in the same way you have been exposed, it is a shock to you to imagine, that there actually might be Christians who read, study, and analyze these things for themselves, and their minds are not confined to simply what they have been told by others.

The above is sort demonstrated by the fact you seem to be completely unaware, that there are multitudes of Christians who understand as I do, that we as Christians are not bound by the laws given to Israel. This is not a new thing in the least.

You apparently sift through the commands and pick the ones you want to obey.

This is really comical! Let me ask you, is this what you do? Do you lie? Do you steal? Do you commit murder? If not, you must, and have to be, sifting through the laws given to israel, and picking, and choosing which ones to obey.

No, but your answer will be, "but I am not bound by those laws to Israel." However, you do not steal, lie, or murder.

In the same way, I may abide by the same exact moral code that you do, and we both would be abiding by this moral code, and it would not have a thing to do with the laws given to Israel, even if we may be abiding by some of the same things that were included in the law to Israel.

Your accusation makes no sense? Neither of us are bound to the laws given to Israel, but we both abide by some of the same things, and I am picking, and choosing?

That's Do It Yourself religion but refreshingly original.

I don't think so, and it is certainly not original. I believe it was said some 2000 years ago, "you have been redeemed from the law", along with all the rest I supplied in an earlier post. So then, how is that an "original, do it yourself religion?"

I know the theory you refer to; the relaxation was from Mosaic law and customs.

It is not a "theory" and it is also not a "relaxation" because we are said to be, "set free from the law." It is hardly a theory that this was indeed said, and it is hardly a relaxation.

It would be absurd for people to be "redeemed" from the Ten Commandments.

Well now? Do you really mean this? I did not realize you had this much respect for, and held the Ten Commandments in such high esteem?

Meanwhile, back in the, "real world", we all understand you would be more than happy if the Ten Commands" were never heard of again. So then, it is not as though you really believe, "it would be absurd for people to be redeemed from the Ten commandments", but rather it is the fact that you believe it absurd for there not to be laws against things such as, murder, theft, adultery, bearing false witness, etc.

But the fact of the matter would be, we could rid ourselves completely of the Ten Commandments, and there would continue to be laws against such things, and there are. With this being the case, then why would I need to be bound to the Ten Commandments, that were given to Israel, as a nation, tied to stipulations, one of which would be the possession of the land, in order to abstain from things such as murder, theft, and adultery?

So again, as we can see, the Ten Commandments were part of the law given to Israel as a nation, with stipulation for not abiding by these laws. We as Christians, have been freed from the law that enslaved the Israelites, but this would not mean that we would be free from any law whatsoever, and we would be perfectly free to participate in any sort of behavior, but it would not be the law that God gave to Israel.

In other words, I am not free to murder, steal, commit adultery, bear false witness, etc., but it is not because I am under the law that was given to Israel, but rather because there are laws against these very same things, in the U.S. So then, I have not been redeemed from the laws against, murder, theft, adultery, bearing false witness, etc. However, I have been redeemed from the Ten Commandments.

That would mean people could go out and happily murder. Your line of thought leads to absurdities.

Do you really want to talk about absurdities? You are suggesting here, that if there were no such thing as the Ten Commandments, that people "could go out and happily murder", when you know this would not be the case in the least. If the Ten Commandments were to be completely done away with, and never heard from again, people could not, "go out and happily murder." That is, "absurd!"

You are entitled to your private interpretation.

It could only be a "private interpretation" if I were the only one who held it, but this would not be the case in the least. Simply because you are not aware of this, would not cause it to be a, "private interpretation."

As I said, NT explanation is that people are absolved from specifics of Jewish law but not from commands that bind all human beings, rich or poor.

You have just made my case! You are not in any way bound to the Ten Commandments, but you are bound by, "commands that bind all human beings, rich or poor." But for some reason, if I do not murder, steal, commit adultery, bear false witness, etc., then it has to be, because I am bound to the Ten Commandments?

How does this work? You can abide by these things, and not be bound to the Ten Commandments, but if I abstain from such behavior, I must have bound myself to the Ten Commandments?

Included in the Decalogue is the command - it may be a silly one, but apparently Yahweh didn't think so - to observe the Sabbath.

Exactly! And you, and I were not under these laws, and therefore we are not in any way held accountable to these laws in any way, but this would not mean either of us would be free to murder, steal, commit adultery, bear false witness, etc., but it would not be because we are bound to the Ten Commandments, but rather because we are both bound by other national laws, that carry the same ban against such behavior.

Your argument is not holding up. As Christians, we are no longer bound to the laws given to Israel as a nation, that were tied to certain stipulations, but this would not mean that we are not bound by the laws of the nations we now live in, which may, and do carry some to the very same laws. But, our ability to keep any law, would not have any bearing on our status as Christians.

You do not need to obey the specifics of Sabbath observation, since you seem to have been excused from such private duties.

And this is what the whole thing boils down to. In other words, you want to stick me to the laws given to Israel, in an attempt to demonstrate that I am bound to the, Sabbath.

So then, you are bound by much of the laws contained in the Ten Commandments, but you are not doing so, because of the Ten Commandments, and I can be abiding by the very same laws that you are, and I have to be doing so, because of the Ten Commandments?

Then, if I do not observe all of the Ten Commandments, then I am accused of "picking and choosing" when it is actually you who is "picking and choosing" because you read the laws given to Israel as a nation, but ignore the other passages that clearly explain that "we are not under the law", and this does not mean that we are still under some of those laws, but rather we have nothing whatsoever to do with the laws given to Israel as a nation, and simply because we do not murder, would not in any way demonstrate that we are abiding by the Ten Commandments, any more than you not doing such things, would demonstrate that you are abiding by them.

However, if you think stealing, adultery, bearing false witness are all ignorable, then that's your private, if curious, decision.

Do you believe that stealing, adultery, bearing false witness are all ignorable? If not, did you need the Ten Commandments to know this? This is really silly! You act as if, we as Christians would not know these things would not be ignorable, unless we have somehow bound ourselves to the Ten Commandments, but you have this ability without being bound to them?

When the tribes of the earth are gathered together for public judgment and Realworldjack shuffles forward, you may offer the defence: "But, er, I thought that only the Israelites were told not to steal or kill or covet or observe the Sabbath. Marco told me I was wrong, but I didn't believe him."

There are those who seem to have a very shallow knowledge of Christianity, but I do not have time to fix that here.

At any rate, I do not believe this is the way it would work out in your fictitious analogy. Because you see, it is not like I am going to go out to kill, and steal, because I am not bound to the laws given to Israel, any more than you are. With this being the case, the only thing left would be, the Sabbath. Your argument is very weak!

Well we don't know who the authors were- we have names written down as supposed authors but know less about them than about the main character, Jesus.

I'm not thinking this is the case. We can be almost certain, beyond a reasonable doubt of who the author of the two letters to Theophilus would be, and we can know a whole lot about him.

So the OP asks whether more info on Jesus would give us a better picture.

I think the only question to ask would be, would there be good, and solid reasons to believe that Jesus was resurrected? If he was, everything else would not much matter.

When we explore the evangelists we get caught up in which Aramaic text was copied, which writer came first and who copied from whom and who is consistent and who is not and why was this added and that left out.

No! This is what you get caught up in. I do not get caught up in, who may have copied from whom, because I understand that there is no evidence for such a thing, and it would all be based upon guesswork. The same would go for who may have written first, because there would be no way to know, and no way to even find out. So again, you would be dealing with, guesswork.

Rather, I prefer to go with things I can know, such as the fact that there is pretty powerful evidence of who the author of the two letters to Theophilus would have been. We can also be certain, that this author would have spent a number of decades traveling around with Paul, on his journeys, and this would mean this author would have had to have been alive at the time of the alleged events, and would have known the original Apostles personally, and could not have possibly avoided the claims they would have been making.

With this being the case, this author would have had no need to copy from another, since he would have known the original Apostles. This would also establish that these two letters would have had to have been written inside the lifetime of the Apostles, which would mean, these letters could not have been very old at the time.

So then, if the other two would have written after these two letters, then this author could not have possibly had a copy of the other two. If however, Matthew, and Mark, would have written before these two letters, more than likely the original intended audiences, would have had the originals, and if there would have been copies, then there would not have been very many at all, because making copies in that day, and age would have been a very painstaking process. The point being, these authors would not have had the luxury, of having their very own copy of any of the others, since copies would have been hard to come by, because it is not like they would have had a Barnes, and Nobles.

The thing is, there are those who are opposed to Christianity, who are not very different than the Christians they rightly criticize, who simply read the Bible, and assume it must be true, because I will imagine that not very many of them have actually read, studied, and analyzed, the content of the Bible, and came to the conclusion, that the authors must have copied from each other, and then go on to attempt to determine who may have written first, in order to determine, who the source may have been.

No! Rather, they have simply read what the scholars have said, and simply assume, that since these folks are scholars, they must, and have to be right. But as we can see, the scholars may be hiding certain things, that would certainly shed a bad light upon their theories, because this is all they can provide, is theories.

Some folks are not satisfied with theories, and guesswork, when it comes to what others are attempting to defend, but for some reason, theories, and guesswork is just fine to convince their own mind of the things they want to believe.

A mess.

Yes, it is in your mind, but what the scholars have to say, is no mess at all, is it?

Jesus remains a shadow.

I will assure you that, the claim that Jesus was resurrected, is not a shadow, because it is clearly, and unmistakably claimed by 5 different folks, and we have the writings to demonstrate this.

So then, with this being the case, what Jesus may have said, and did, would sort of pale in comparison, if there may be good reasons to believe these reports.

Saul change his title to Paul, from paulus meaning "little" - to show false humility.

Oh, so you can demonstrate to us for a fact, that this was done as, "false humility?" Or, would this be another one of those theories, and guesswork?

So you see, it may make some feel better to understand that a lot of Christians, simply believe as they do because they want to, they make a lot of assumptions, and simply accept what they are told. However, as we can see, there are many of these kind of folks on the other side of the fence as well. In other words, it is not only some Christians who simply accept what others have to say.

[marco]

However, you are suggesting, that we cannot know what the words may have been at all. Therefore, attempting to determine what one may have meant would be useless, if we cannot even know what in the world they may have said.

You are incorrectly recalling a previous discussion we had on the "verbatim" accounts of Christ's speeches. The point there was that if we are to follow some important instruction from him, we have to know exactly what he said. I treat the NT as I would a play, with Christ's words invented, and from this fiction I draw conclusions. You've just confused different discussions.

This has been your argument in the past. But for some reason, now all of a sudden, according to you, we can not only know know that Jesus said, "I did not come to abolish the law", we can also know exactly what he meant, and if we need to know what he meant, then all we need to do, is to ask you.

Hmmm. As I say, you've confused different discussions. I haven't "all of a sudden" decided we "know" what Christ said. I have several times told you I regard his utterances as the fiction of a play. We can make deductions from his reported words; we don't need to believe some real character actually spoke the words put in his mouth.

Even if there were laws that were the same in the U.S., as there were in Canada, I would not be bound by these laws, because Canada has the law, but rather because of the U.S. law.

Here you seem not to follow the difference between local laws and universal law. As I have said, local laws can be changed. The Decalogue, in Christian thought, is binding on all humanity. I agree God didn't address Eskimos and Maoris or Chinese but most (yourself excluded) take Yahweh's instructions in the Ten Commandments to be binding on all, rather than trivial local rules. Your unilateral declaration of independence from God's commands is noted and it needn't detain us further.

it is a shock to you to imagine, that there actually might be Christians who read, study, and analyze these things for themselves, and their minds are not confined to simply what they have been told by others.

I'm not surprised; Christianity has lots of colours so your view of the Ten Commandments having nothing to do with you is entertaining, but no more shocking than believing the corpse of Jesus is eaten at mass or that exactly 144,000 people will be on a big bus to heaven at the end of days. I like mythology.

Your accusation makes no sense? Neither of us are bound to the laws given to Israel, but we both abide by some of the same things, and I am picking, and choosing?

Well I am not. You may be, but you're either unaware of it or you choose to believe God hasn't commanded you not to murder - you worked it out without him. God would seem to have no controlling function in such a theology.

But the fact of the matter would be, we could rid ourselves completely of the Ten Commandments, and there would continue to be laws against such things, and there are.

Exactly! We don't need Yahweh to tell us what to do. Man can manage the affairs of man pretty well; introduce religion and you behead people for sleeping in the wrong bed.

I think the only question to ask would be, would there be good, and solid reasons to believe that Jesus was resurrected? If he was, everything else would not much matter.

Well it would be unreasonable to say a resurrection took place. The shadowy figure may have walked off, remained buried elsewhere or whatever. No need to call up miracles.

I will assure you that, the claim that Jesus was resurrected, is not a shadow, because it is clearly, and unmistakably claimed by 5 different folks, and we have the writings to demonstrate this.

So when five different people say they believe that a corpse rose from the tomb you are obliged to believe them because of the magic number five? Did any of them witness the body coming back to life? You are believing in rumours. You place too much trust in the devious Paul who usurped what Christ is reported to have said and made up his own version. I've no idea why you choose this course.

Anyway, from the discussion we can see that much more information about the little-known Christ would give us more substance for making decisions rather than just guess some guy got out of his grave, followed by a host of other good men - if we're to believe those writers!

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 38 by marco]

You are incorrectly recalling a previous discussion we had on the "verbatim" accounts of Christ's speeches. The point there was that if we are to follow some important instruction from him, we have to know exactly what he said.

You are exactly right, and you are killing yourself here!

First, you seem to be admitting, that Jesus would have been giving out, "important instructions" when he said, "I did not come to abolish the law, but fulfil it", which is the reason you refer to it, because you are saying that it would be important for me to note.

However, on the other hand you argue, that we cannot know exactly what he said, which would mean, even if this would have been an "important instruction", we cannot know exactly what he said.

So then, how in the world could you possibly use this passage, in an attempt to tell me what Jesus said concerning what you seem to think would have been an, "important instruction", and then on the other hand say, "if we are to follow some important instruction from him, we have to know exactly what he said" when your argument clearly is, we cannot? GOOD GRIEF!

I treat the NT as I would a play, with Christ's words invented, and from this fiction I draw conclusions. You've just confused different discussions.

The point is, it does not matter how you treat it! Whether it be fiction, or whether it be true, whether it be a play, or whether it be real life, "if we are to follow some important instruction, we have to know exactly what is said." However, according to you, we cannot know exactly what would have been said, which means it would be futile, to attempt to understand what one may have meant, concerning something they may have never said. Continuing to compare this to, plays, and fiction, is not helping your argument, since your argument is, we cannot know what would have been said, whether it be a play, fiction, or real life.

This is like arguing over the content on "Little Red Riding Hood." I could be arguing that it would have been a wolf, at grandma's house, while you are arguing that we cannot know exactly what the author may have originally said. However, if I were to go on to say that, "I am sure Red Riding Hood found the wolf on grandma's couch instead of her bed", you then go on to argue, this is not what the author said.

Is this 4 real? I'm not thinking I am the one "confusing" things here? Either we can know what was said, whether it be fiction, or real life, or we cannot know what was said, whether it be fiction, or real life.

Hmmm. As I say, you've confused different discussions. I haven't "all of a sudden" decided we "know" what Christ said.

OH? My bad! So, is this to say that you have always been under the impression that we can know exactly what he said? Meanwhile, back in the "real world."

I have several times told you I regard his utterances as the fiction of a play. We can make deductions from his reported words; we don't need to believe some real character actually spoke the words put in his mouth.

Oh? I see now? We cannot know what Jesus may have said, but we can know what the words put in his mouth would have meant? So then, we cannot know if Jesus actually said, "I have not come to abolish the law, but to fulfil it", but we can know what the words put in his mouth would have meant?

The problem with this would be, if we were to go on the rest of the words put into the mouth of Jesus, then we could not possibly come to the conclusion, that when the words put into his mouth were, "I did not come to abolish the law, but fulfil it", that these words put into his mouth, could have possibly meant, "you need to fulfill the law as well."

Here you seem not to follow the difference between local laws and universal law.

No, I believe it is someone else who is confused. You see, much of what is contained in the Ten Commandments, would be what you may call "universal laws" in that most everyone would agree, laws against things such as murder, theft, adultery, bearing false witness, along with honoring your parents, would be laws that would be common sense laws, and be good for most any society.

The confusion comes in when there are those who are under the impression that if Christians were to claim to not be bound by the Ten Commandments, then it would be like they are claiming not to be bound by these sort of laws, when this would not be the case at all.

In other words, and has already been demonstrated, simply because I am not bound to the Ten Commandments, would in no way mean, I would be free to murder. I do not have to be bound to the Ten Commandments, in order to understand, that I cannot go out a murder someone.

The Decalogue, in Christian thought, is binding on all humanity.

It is very strange here that you now seem to see the need to add in the phrase, "in Christian thought?" One thing I would ask is, can the "Christian thought" you are referring to be in error? Would that be a possibility?

Next, exactly what are you referring to when you say, "Christian thought?" Because you see, it really would not matter very much at all, what most Christians think, if what they think, would not line up with what the authors of the things contained in the Bible would have said, and none of them ever say, "Christians are bound to the Ten Commandments." In fact, numerous times, and in different ways, it is said in the Bible, "we have been set free from the law."

So then, are we to go on what you refer to as, "Christian thought?" Or, do we go to the source, these folks claim to be getting their ideas?

In other words, it seems sort of strange that you refer to, "Christian thought" instead of claiming that the Ten Commandments, "are binding on all humanity", according to the Biblical authors. There is a reason you cannot do this.

I agree God didn't address Eskimos and Maoris or Chinese but most (yourself excluded) take Yahweh's instructions in the Ten Commandments to be binding on all

Again, notice how you continue to refer to what you believe to be what most folks think, instead of referring to the material in which they would have to be basing their conclusions, and I can only guess you do this, because you understand that this idea cannot be defended, from this source material.

Moreover, on top of all the other facts I have given from the Bible, concerning how Christians are free from the law, there are certain events describe in the Bible, in Acts, chapter 15, where there were those who were claiming the Gentiles must follow the laws of God, given to Moses.

This matter was brought before a counsel of James, and the Apostles, and these determined that the Gentiles were not be be under the burden of the law. It is right there in Acts chapter 15.

So then instead of you referring to what the Biblical authors have to say, you rather refer to, what you believe to be, "Christian thought", because you have to.

Your unilateral declaration of independence from God's commands is noted and it needn't detain us further.

Again, for this to be, "unilateral" on my part, I would have to be the only one who held this understanding, and this is not the case in the least, on top of the fact as has been demonstrated, this idea came straight from the source which would mean that it cannot be, "unilateral."

I am not responsible for the Christianity you have been exposed to. I would also not be responsible if you have allowed your mind to become confined by the things you have been exposed to. It is not my fault, if you have not sat down to determine if the things you were exposed to were correct, and simply accepted that the things you were exposed to were correct, and that you cannot get passed what you believe to be the majority opinion.

The point is, none of these things would enter into the equation. The only thing that would enter the equation would be, what is actually said in the Bible, and here you have nothing. In other words, there is not way you can defend the idea, that Christians are bound to the Ten Commandments from the Bible, and therefore you must attempt to use other sources to defend your position.

I'm not surprised;

Oh, but you said you were? And again, more than likely you were surprised, because your mind is confined to the things you have been exposed to, and have not allowed your mind to come to the understanding that it would be incorrect to believe Christians are bound by the law.

Christianity has lots of colours so your view of the Ten Commandments having nothing to do with you is entertaining, but no more shocking than believing the corpse of Jesus is eaten at mass or that exactly 144,000 people will be on a big bus to heaven at the end of days. I like mythology.

The shocking thing here more than likely is, I have been able to defend my position straight from the source, while you have not. The point is, it does not matter what you happen to imagine the majority of Christians believe. What matters is, if you can defend the position you are taking, from the actual source, or not, and you have not, because it cannot be, and simply continuing to refer to what you believe to be the majority view, would not be an argument.

You may be, but you're either unaware of it or you choose to believe God hasn't commanded you not to murder

You see, here is where your mind is being confined, because this is not even what is up for debate. In other words, were are not debating as to whether God has commanded me, or Christians as a whole, to abstain from murder. Rather, our debate would be, are Christians bound to the laws given to Israel, which would include the Ten Commandments?

With this being the case, Christians could be said to be freed from the laws given to Israel, which would include the Ten Commandments, and still be held accountable to some of the same laws that would have been in the Ten Commandments, without being held accountable to the,Ten Commandments.

But even this would not be the whole of it, because the fact of the matter would be, there were certain, and definite stipulations, (if clauses) which went along with the laws given to Israel, much of which were tied to the possession of the land.

However, the fact of the matter is, in reality, laws can only condemn us, because it can only control external behavior, and has no power over the heart. Those of us who understand that our ability to externally keep certain laws does not in any way cause us to be moral people, are not abiding by the law in order to demonstrate our morality.

What all this means as far as Christians are concerned is, Israel was bound to law, in order to demonstrate their ability to keep the law. Christians have been freed from any sort of law, as far as God is concerned, which means we are not attempting to follow any sort of law, in order to demonstrate our righteousness before God.

This is the whole crux of the matter. Christians have been freed from any sort of law as far as God is concerned, but this would not in any way mean, we would not be held accountable to the laws of the land, just like everyone else.

As I have said, I do not have time to fix your faulty understanding of Christianity, but this was the whole point of the story of, "The Good Samaritan." In other words, some of those who past the man in the ditch, were tied to certain laws, (a moral code) and were unable to help. However, the Samaritan who was not tied to any such laws, was free to help. In the same way, Christians have been freed from any sort of moral code, which frees us to help others in need, not being concerned as to whether our behavior in helping others, may break a certain moral code.

God would seem to have no controlling function in such a theology.

I can certainly understand you saying this, because as I have said, we as humans are hardwired to law, and you cannot allow your mind to think that there can be no sort of law, or moral code that folks are held accountable to.

As you have demonstrated, in your mind, if there were no laws against murder, folks would "happily murder." However, more than likely you, and I would not, "happily murder" if there were no such law. In other words, the overwhelming majority of humans do not murder, and it is not because there is a law against it.

In the same way, Christians are not held accountable to any sort of moral code, as far as God is concerned, but this does not cause us to want to use this freedom as a license, just like if you and I were freed from the law against murder, we would not use this freedom, to go out and murder.

Exactly! We don't need Yahweh to tell us what to do.

You will get no argument here. You are not bound by anything God my have said, and the only way you could be, is if there were humans who attempted to enforce these things upon you, but if this would be the case, then they would certainly have to be doing so, outside the instructions laid out in the Bible, and we could not blame the Bible, on their behavior.

Man can manage the affairs of man pretty well

You have a lot more faith in the human race than I do.

introduce religion and you behead people for sleeping in the wrong bed.

We are not talking about religion. We are talking about Christianity. So can you point me to where Christians may be commanded to, "behead folks?"

Well it would be unreasonable to say a resurrection took place.

This is not what I said, so it makes it seem as if you are dodging here?

The shadowy figure may have walked off, remained buried elsewhere or whatever.

Okay, I will go with that. However, we have certain evidence that would suggest that he rose from the dead. So, what would be the evidence that would point to the things you suggest?

No need to call up miracles.

I haven't said a word about any sort of miracles.

So when five different people say they believe that a corpse rose from the tomb

I do not recall any of them claiming to simply, believe this?

you are obliged to believe them because of the magic number five?

Allow me to explain it in the same way I have in the past. The issue we are discussing is not that simple in the least. It is not as simple a many Christians would have it to be, which is, "the Bible is the word of God, and if the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it."

As I said, it is not that simple. However, it is certainly not as simple as you are making it out to be. This sort of mentality is demonstrated by those who seem to believe that simple short one line sentences can settle the issue once and for all, but it is not that simple.

In other words, we certainly have evidence to back the claims, and it is not sufficient to simply throw out what could be possibilities. Rather, we would need some sort of facts, and evidence that would back these other possibilities, along with considering all that would have to be involved, in order for these other possibilities to be the case.

We certainly do not have the space to cover all that would be involved, but allow me to give just a few examples.

We have two letters that are contained in the Bible, that were addressed to someone by the name of, Theophilus. We can be certain, beyond a reasonable doubt of who this author would have been.

The evidence suggests this author would have spent decades with Paul on his painful journeys. After going through these painful journeys, this author tells his audience how he obtained his information, and also why he is writing, and it is said to be out of concern for Theophilus.

Now, it is certainly a possibility this author may have been lying to Theophilus, but it is not enough to simply suggest this, because we have been given the reason for the writing by the author, which would be testimonial evidence, and we would need to have some sort of evidence, and motive, in order to suggest there may have been false reports.

Moreover, we would need to consider the fact that this author would have had no idea that his letters would have been read by millions, upon millions, and he certainly could not have possibly known about any sort of Bible, and that his two personal letters would have been contained in such a book.

I could continue on, and on, with this sort of evidence, and this demonstrates the point that, it is not as simple as simple saying, "these things have been recorded, and contained in the Bible, so they must be true", but it is also not as simple as saying, "these things are simply to extraordinary to believe, and they would be scientifically impossible" as if this would settle the issue.

Both of these views above would certainly be simple minded, and this sort of view is demonstrated here on this site by those who seem to think that short post, with one line points, certainly settle the issue, when there would have to be a lot more thinking involved, in order to determine all that would have to be involved, for either position to be correct.

What I am saying is demonstrated when there would be one who would say, "you are obliged to believe them because of the magic number five?" When the fact of the matter would be, that I did not bring the number 5 into the equation as a reason for my belief.

Rather, I brought this up to counter your opinion that "Jesus was a shadow" by saying that the claim of his resurrection could not in any way be a shadow, when we have at least 5 clear reports of this event, and demonstrating that the claim of the resurrection would not have been a shadow, would have nothing whatsoever to do with what I may believe concerning the 5 reports, which sort of demonstrates one who continues to dodge the issue.

Again, the issue was, "Jesus is a shadow." My rebuttal was, "the claims of the resurrection is not." This would have nothing to do with, if I may believe the reports.

Did any of them witness the body coming back to life?

The reports claim that this man was crucified, dead, and placed in a tomb. The tomb was later found empty, and there are reports of many folks seeing this man alive after his death. So, how would no one witnessing him being resurrected, demonstrate that he did not?

You are believing in rumours.

ru·mor
ˈro͞omər/Submit
noun
1.
a currently circulating story or report of uncertain or doubtful truth.
"they were investigating rumors of a massacre"
synonyms: gossip, hearsay, talk, tittle-tattle, speculation, word; More
verb
1.
be circulated as an unverified account.

As we look at this definition, I am fine with you saying this, because this is what I have been saying all along. In other words, there would be no way to demonstrate that these reports must, and have to be true, but it also cannot be demonstrated that they would be false.

With this being the case, what you believe concerning these reports would be, "rumor" as well, because there is certainly "current circulating stories", that these reports would be false, and this would be "uncertain or doubtful truth", and it is circulating, "as an unverified account" of what actually happened.

You place too much trust in the devious Paul who usurped what Christ is reported to have said and made up his own version.

So now we are back to being sure of what Jesus meant? It would seem your argument would protect Paul, seeing as how it would be unclear what Jesus may have meant, which is demonstrated by how many different views we have. So again, with this being your view, how would this not excuse Paul.

But what I would really like to see, is you defend the fact, (because you state it as a fact) that, "Paul usurped what Christ is reported to have said and made up his own version?" Show me this evidence!

I've no idea why you choose this course.

I have no idea, how you seem to be under the impression that what you believe concerning these things have been demonstrated to be the case?

Anyway, from the discussion we can see that much more information about the little-known Christ would give us more substance for making decisions rather than just guess some guy got out of his grave

My friend, you do not have to guess anything at all, because you can go on the facts we have, just as I do. Again, we do not have the time, or space to go through it all, but I do not claim it to be a fact, that Jesus indeed rose from the dead.

Rather, the facts would be, we have these reports, and all we can do is go on the facts we have available. These reports would not in any way demonstrate that they are true, but they also cannot be demonstrated, to be false.

With all this being the case, there may be reasons to doubt these claims, but there would also be reasons to believe the claims. Therefore, it would be unreasonable for one to insist these reports, must, and have to be true, and there is no reason to doubt, but it would also be unreasonable to insist, these reports must, and have to be false, and there would be no reason to believe them.

By doing what I suggest above, you do not have to guess, because you could be certain that what you believe concerning these things would be fact.

So then, we can all look at the same exact facts, and evidence, and we can come to completely different conclusions. I happen to believe the facts, and evidence points to a resurrection. You may have a completely different view, and I would have no problem with this in the least, and we can talk, and discuss our differences. The problem comes in, when one side of the other insists, there would be no reason to believe otherwise, when one cannot in any way demonstrate their case.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 38 by marco]

By the way, here is a link to a post by one of your own here on this site who is an unbeliever, and somehow this person seems to have the same idea that I have, meaning they seem to believe that Christians are not held to any sort of moral code.

Of course this would not in any way demonstrate this to be true, but it would indeed demonstrate that I am not on an island by myself, because there are those who are opposed to Christianity who seem to understand that I am correct.

viewtopic.php?p=938623#938623