What difference did Jesus make?

[marco]

Some think Jesus was a god while others see him as a prophet sent on a strange heavenly mission to get himself killed. Tied up with this theory is the idea that LOVE is involved; he accepted crucifixion because he loved people. That does not seem to make sense unless one constructs a complex theology about redemption.

Be that as it may, Jesus was with us for a short time period so it is relevant to ask what good or bad has resulted from his celestial mission. Alexander founded a city; the Egyptians left us stone monuments and tablets to say what they believed; Caesar changed the calendar for us, and allowed us to use the terms tsar and Kaiser. What is Christ's legacy? The good have stayed good and the bad are still bad; we have Christian charity and Christian killing. All in all we have what we would statistically expect from a popular preacher - some good, some bad.


What made Jesus special were his reported miracles. But not one single miracle enabled medicine to advance today; nor altered technology. Things have moved on as they did from Alexander and from Caesar and through the Inquisition we learned that love is the same as hate. We observe how one Christian group despises another.

SO


Did Jesus make a difference that would reflect a divine mission?


or


Is he, like Muhammad, a mystic who talked to God but offered nothing much to humanity?

[Tcg]

He has given more hope than anyone before or after Him.

This doesn't provide much hope for the majority:

"13 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Matthew 7:13-14"

Hey Tcg!

While your quote of scripture is true, it does not negate the ability for all to walk through the narrow gate.

If this scripture is true, and you have stated that it is, then "all" can't walk through the narrow gate unless Jesus was lying or terribly mistaken.

In any case, this is a clear example that Jesus did not provide hope for the majority which contradicts your earlier claim.

[Peds nurse]

He has given more hope than anyone before or after Him.

This doesn't provide much hope for the majority:

"13 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Matthew 7:13-14"

Hey Tcg!

While your quote of scripture is true, it does not negate the ability for all to walk through the narrow gate.

If this scripture is true, and you have stated that it is, then "all" can't walk through the narrow gate unless Jesus was lying or terribly mistaken.

In any case, this is a clear example that Jesus did not provide hope for the majority which contradicts your earlier claim.

I understand your point. My point is that over the last 2000 years, is there anyone greater who people have put their hope in?

[Tcg]

He has given more hope than anyone before or after Him.

This doesn't provide much hope for the majority:

"13 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Matthew 7:13-14"

Hey Tcg!

While your quote of scripture is true, it does not negate the ability for all to walk through the narrow gate.

If this scripture is true, and you have stated that it is, then "all" can't walk through the narrow gate unless Jesus was lying or terribly mistaken.

In any case, this is a clear example that Jesus did not provide hope for the majority which contradicts your earlier claim.

I understand your point. My point is that over the last 2000 years, is there anyone greater who people have put their hope in?

Your previous claim was that, "He [Jesus] has given more hope than anyone before or after Him." That's a claim that can be examined.

You current question asks is anyone greater than Jesus. The answer to this question would be based purely on the subjective evaluation of the word, "greater".

All one has to do is interpret this word in a way that favors their opinion to answer the question in a way that supports their opinion. It really isn't helpful at all. You might as well ask, "Who likes Jesus?"

[Deleted]

Marco said, "it is relevant to ask what good or bad has resulted from his celestial mission."

With this kind of question it's always good to clarify what metric is expected. A humanistic expectation will want to measure how mankind has improved materially, or ethically. And the metric will be fewer crimes, fewer diseases, less poverty, fewer evil people in the world. This will always lead to disappointment and false sense of failure.

A person familiar with the Bible will have different metrics and expectations. Not only because the NT spells out those expectations but because the humanistic expectations are fraught with problems and failures the biblical view was never meant to fix.

The biblical view of this question is that the world will not only remain evil but will get worse toward the end; because God does not force righteousness on the unbelieving world - that part of Jesus coming did not get fixed (for a good reason). But the metric of accomplishments that have made man better is the rescue for the Kingdom of the souls of those who are saved. The building blocks of the Kingdom are the souls of men and women. That Kingdom is being built every hour of every day since Jesus died on Calvary. What that offers is not fewer crimes and murderers, but the solution to all crimes and hatred. But it must be desired and owned in the souls of would be criminals and evil men. And that's the rub. The real solution is made available but few choose it.

As to technology that has improved life, the rise of democracies that have freed people from tyranny and despotism, these are all part of God's general Grace to a mankind He still loves. "He causes His rain to fall on the just and the unjust."

So in the end, whether mankind has been made better off because of Jesus depends entirely on what mankind did with the gift of Jesus. What has been made better than before is that men can be saved if they desire to be, and that will always be independent of what evil men with free will might still do.

[William]

[Replying to post 24 by mrhagerty]

With this kind of question it's always good to clarify what metric is expected. A humanistic expectation will want to measure how mankind has improved materially, or ethically. And the metric will be fewer crimes, fewer diseases, less poverty, fewer evil people in the world. This will always lead to disappointment and false sense of failure.

My understanding is that this is a false representation of the position of humanity overall. That is WHY my post (#18) emphasized the good that Jesus injected into the world.

If the metric is 'goodness' then Jesus contributed to that alongside other interesting individuals all over the earth, even to this day. (Dali Lama springs to mind).

This contradicts the usual Christian spectra which focuses on only two 'colors' rather than the ample more available, whereas the 'good' and the 'evil' are the only options - humans are doing very well in most cases considering the circumstances.

...for example, we didn't let the Nazi in...

Christians generally seem to miss this matter of fact. They even let the Nazi in. Now they don't seem to know what to do about it.

[Deleted]

This was an interesting reply.

Your post #18 seems to be saying that Jesus mission started us down a path that unfolded into something better as it evolved, even if we cant understand what a mission ought to be. I dont see the Christian faith that way. Jesus made His mission clear and that it was sourced in the Divine will. Thats a statement of what a mission ought to be right there.

Jesus also said, Apart from Me you can do nothing. Im guessing (perhaps wrongly) that this would be too narrow for you. You say that you see Christianity as different from the other two spinoffs from Abraham (Judaism and Islam). Im assuming that means that modern Christian denominations are more tolerant of differences within Christianity than the other two are within themselves.

My observation is that you only get to that kind of tolerance and inclusiveness through a very liberal treatment of the teachings of Jesus, and He never encouraged that. In fact, Jesus is more exclusive than Islam or Judaism when He says No man cometh to the Father but by Me. But you do have to be conservative not liberal to believe that this is the real truth about religion.

Take Islam. We have positive views of Islam when referring not to radicals but to peace-loving Muslims who want to make a home in other countries and embrace other cultures. But Islam regards that as extremely liberal and even an abandonment of true Islam. If they are conservative, the humanistic side rejects Islam as too exclusionary, our way or the highway.

But isnt the point about any religion found in the details of what is preached, not in the message you get at the 30,000 foot level? For me, emphasizing the unity one can get the farther away from details one gets is an artificial overlay on religious truth. Its something weve invented to make it all work out.

Nice to meet you William.

[William]

[Replying to post 26 by mrhagerty]

Your post #18 seems to be saying that Jesus mission started us down a path that unfolded into something better as it evolved, even if we cant understand what a mission ought to be. I dont see the Christian faith that way. Jesus made His mission clear and that it was sourced in the Divine will. Thats a statement of what a mission ought to be right there.

I think where you missed my point was in that Jesus would have understood that it would take a great deal of time for human beings to integrate his message, and therefore things would appear to get better for the human race over such a period of time, rather than everything magically happening in the twinkling of an eye.

Jesus also said, Apart from Me you can do nothing. Im guessing (perhaps wrongly) that this would be too narrow for you.

It is more about interpretation. Most Christians are taught to interpret this as there is no other way to connect with GOD other than through Jesus, which allows for the idea that anyone asking GOD for something (in prayer) can only do so through the medium of Jesus and that any other answer to any other religious/spiritual prayer request has to therefore come 'from the devil'.

That, to me, is a very narrow and destructive interpretation to adopt as belief.

You say that you see Christianity as different from the other two spinoffs from Abraham (Judaism and Islam). Im assuming that means that modern Christian denominations are more tolerant of differences within Christianity than the other two are within themselves.

To clarify, I was alluding to how Christianity adopted paganism into its overall theology, even that in doing so it disguised those pagan beliefs with the cloth of Christian imagery.
The toleration was used to induce the pagan into the flock.

Such practice appears far less tolerated in the other two branches. This has had the affect that Christianity became far more powerful as a political device - especially in terms of toleration. I argue the possibility that while Rome was infiltrating the new movement Jesus began, Jesus was in turn infiltrating Rome - the most powerful political entity in the world at the time, and remnant imprints can be identified in all subsequent political movements...iow, Rome never collapsed into oblivion but redefined itself through the subsequent ages.

My observation is that you only get to that kind of tolerance and inclusiveness through a very liberal treatment of the teachings of Jesus, and He never encouraged that. In fact, Jesus is more exclusive than Islam or Judaism when He says No man cometh to the Father but by Me. But you do have to be conservative not liberal to believe that this is the real truth about religion.

Religion is always political when it becomes organised.
For me, Jesus was unlikely to have spoken those words attributed to him, and they were added later as a political device of Roman occupation and dominance.
However, if I were to accept that Jesus did indeed speak those words, then I am forced also to understand that his plan was to infiltrate Rome and thus have his message announced far and wide through use of that platform.

Either way, the idea of tolerance did indeed find footing and is clearly discovered in the teaching of Jesus.

Take Islam. We have positive views of Islam when referring not to radicals but to peace-loving Muslims who want to make a home in other countries and embrace other cultures. But Islam regards that as extremely liberal and even an abandonment of true Islam. If they are conservative, the humanistic side rejects Islam as too exclusionary, our way or the highway.

I am unschooled in relation to Islam, but if their founder advocated tolerance and embracing other cultural 'isms' then there is hope that this will be evident in the actions of the followers too. But it would also signify that - like Christianity - Islam has also gone through 'too hot and too cold' periods.

But isnt the point about any religion found in the details of what is preached, not in the message you get at the 30,000 foot level? For me, emphasizing the unity one can get the farther away from details one gets is an artificial overlay on religious truth. Its something weve invented to make it all work out.

In that we can only hope.
Part of the answer would be for Christians to tolerate that Jesus is not the only way to GOD.
More to the point, GOD is right there with the individual, and no medium is actually required between the two. The evidence of that becomes seen by others as an outward expression of unconditional love.

Nice to meet you William.

Nice to be meeting with you too mrhagerty

[Deleted]

Quote:
I think where you missed my point was in that Jesus would have understood that it would take a great deal of time for human beings to integrate his message, and therefore things would appear to get better for the human race over such a period of time, rather than everything magically happening in the twinkling of an eye.

Unfolding doctrine was a natural consequence of the limitations in man, but Im not sure I see how the betterment of man in terms of salvation would have to wait for that unfolding to complete. The greatest improvement for man is his salvation and that was readily available from the start.

What one gets with unfolding doctrine is discussion of things like election, grace vs. works. These are doctrines of the inner soul not means for the social improvement of society.

Re: Apart from Me you can do nothing.

Quote:
It is more about interpretation. Most Christians are taught to interpret this as there is no other way to connect with GOD other than through Jesus, which allows for the idea that anyone asking GOD for something (in prayer) can only do so through the medium of Jesus and that any other answer to any other religious/spiritual prayer request has to therefore come 'from the devil'.

I think the only interpreting needed to understand it is what doing something means. Unbelievers can do many things apart from Christ. But nothing that helps the Kingdom or is long lasting or would count in our case before the Judgment Seat of Christ can be done without Him. That doesnt mean those accomplishments come from the devil, merely the flesh. They are done for humanity, but they dont count toward salvation.

Julius II hoped that his Sistene Ceiling would be thrown in the balance against his sins when he was judged. But if it was done without the prompting of God or purely by human motive, it would not save him. That doesnt mean it was Satan inspired.

Quote:
To clarify, I was alluding to how Christianity adopted paganism into its overall theology, even that in doing so it disguised those pagan beliefs with the cloth of Christian imagery.
The toleration was used to induce the pagan into the flock.

What the church did well or badly doesnt help me define what Jesus taught or the meaning of what He taught. The Church will be judged. But its failings dont change the truth Jesus spoke. These observations always seem to be boiling down to how things turned out rather than where is the truth.

Quote:
Religion is always political when it becomes organised.
For me, Jesus was unlikely to have spoken those words attributed to him, and they were added later as a political device of Roman occupation and dominance.

You have evidence for this somewhere? That the words Jesus spoke in the Gospels were penned by secular Romans interested in dominance and control?

Quote:
. . then I am forced also to understand that his plan was to infiltrate Rome and thus have his message announced far and wide through use of that platform.

How are you forced to understand Jesus plan that way? The content belies this virtually everywhere. The above was an exact temptation of the devil on the mountain, which Jesus firmly rebuked as not His way or that of His Father. He further said to Pilate His kingdom was not aimed at Rome. So, this is a bit of a surprise to hear.

Quote:
I am unschooled in relation to Islam, but if their founder advocated tolerance and embracing other cultural 'isms' then there is hope that this will be evident in the actions of the followers too. But it would also signify that - like Christianity - Islam has also gone through 'too hot and too cold' periods.

I assure you, Islam has never been tolerant in any strict adherence to the Quran. Those who practice toleration are labeled infidels within Islam as much as Christians are.

Quote:
In that we can only hope

Which would mean the artificial religion invented is only as good as the integrity of the inventor. Who would be interested in believing in something you already know is contrived?

Quote:
Part of the answer would be for Christians to tolerate that Jesus is not the only way to GOD.

Contrary to what He Himself said? That would be the same as saying, If Christians could just give up being Christians. Also, if there were other ways to God, it would be incredibly wasteful to have the Son of God die in order to provide yet one more way. He would have done better to simply point everyone to one of the existing ways.

The reason He didnt is that there is no remedy for sin in any other way.

Quote:
More to the point, GOD is right there with the individual, and no medium is actually required between the two. The evidence of that becomes seen by others as an outward expression of unconditional love.

Where is sin paid for in the arrangement you propose above?

[William]

[Replying to post 28 by mrhagerty]

Unfolding doctrine was a natural consequence of the limitations in man, but Im not sure I see how the betterment of man in terms of salvation would have to wait for that unfolding to complete. The greatest improvement for man is his salvation and that was readily available from the start.

I will assume by 'salvation' you are referring to something promised in the next life, rather than this one.
If so, then arguing for salvation veers away from the OP topic.

What one gets with unfolding doctrine is discussion of things like election, grace vs. works. These are doctrines of the inner soul not means for the social improvement of society.

If some guideline works to help the individual, why are you proposing that this is not beneficial for the society the individual exists in?

I think the only interpreting needed to understand it is what doing something means. Unbelievers can do many things apart from Christ. But nothing that helps the Kingdom or is long lasting or would count in our case before the Judgment Seat of Christ can be done without Him.

One should leave any and all judgement aside, as it is not a task given to any of us and only serves to veer away from the OP topic.

That doesnt mean those accomplishments come from the devil, merely the flesh. They are done for humanity, but they dont count toward salvation.

Salvation is a doctrine which might well have been devised by Rome. We do not know, but if your point is that works mean nothing, then your answer to the OPQ must have to be "No, Jesus made no difference that would reflect a divine mission." since your argument depends upon a future event taking place in an alternate reality.

Julius II hoped that his Sistene Ceiling would be thrown in the balance against his sins when he was judged. But if it was done without the prompting of God or purely by human motive, it would not save him. That doesnt mean it was Satan inspired.

Your argument is centered around a particular dogma which clearly isn't addressing my own or even the OP.

What the church did well or badly doesnt help me define what Jesus taught or the meaning of what He taught. The Church will be judged. But its failings dont change the truth Jesus spoke. These observations always seem to be boiling down to how things turned out rather than where is the truth.

How things turned out is the only truth were can clearly point to. What future things are hoped for/believed in faith, show us no truth.

Religion is always political when it becomes organised.
For me, Jesus was unlikely to have spoken those words attributed to him, and they were added later as a political device of Roman occupation and dominance.

You have evidence for this somewhere? That the words Jesus spoke in the Gospels were penned by secular Romans interested in dominance and control?

I have exactly the same evidence for that as you do for those words actually been spoken to by Jesus. None at all.

Given the proven disposition of humans to elaborate, I see no reason to fail to take that possibility into account.

However, if I were to accept that Jesus did indeed speak those words, then I am forced also to understand that his plan was to infiltrate Rome and thus have his message announced far and wide through use of that platform.

No man cometh to the Father but by Me.

How are you forced to understand Jesus plan that way?

The story as it unfolds in the NT allows for me to understand it in this way. Jesus apparently meet with Saul on the road to Damascus. Saul changes his lifestyle as well as his name and becomes the most well known forefather of Christianity.
Constantine has a vision which eventually helps prompt him to adopt that Christianity as Romes official religion.

The NT informs the public that GOD places officials in those positions of power and influence and we should obey those officials.

These are merely some of the clues which force me to understand that - if indeed Jesus did say No man cometh to the Father but by Me. then he infiltrated Rome for the reason of using Rome as a platform for his own purposes.

There can be no argument that Rome has greatly influenced the world, and does so even today, thus in line with the OPQ, it is reasonable to say that the answer is 'yes' if indeed the stories of divine intervention are to be considered.

The content belies this virtually everywhere. The above was an exact temptation of the devil on the mountain, which Jesus firmly rebuked as not His way or that of His Father. He further said to Pilate His kingdom was not aimed at Rome. So, this is a bit of a surprise to hear.

Then perhaps you can explain the existence of the bible and its stories regarding this, some other way?

I assure you, Islam has never been tolerant in any strict adherence to the Quran.

Are you saying that - unlike with Jesus, there is no toleration in the teachings of their divine messenger?

Those who practice toleration are labeled infidels within Islam as much as Christians are.

And what of Christians who remain intolerant even when clearly their own divine messenger is attributed with teaching tolerance? What labels do these Christians have which are equal with 'infidel'?

Which would mean the artificial religion invented is only as good as the integrity of the inventor. Who would be interested in believing in something you already know is contrived?

I was initially interested but had the resolve to question its teaching to the point where interest in it waned sufficiently for me to then 'see the light'.

Part of the answer would be for Christians to tolerate that Jesus is not the only way to GOD.

Contrary to what He Himself said?

To ping back at you a question you asked of me; "You have evidence for this somewhere?"

If your answer is "The bible say's so" then I will argue that hearsay is not evidence. The best we can do is to take into account that it may have been said, but also take into context other things attributed to been spoken of by Jesus.

For me, this amounts to the possibility that if Jesus had said such, he was not necessarily pointing to himself as the medium between GOD and the individual, but to a certain attitude he himself had, which permitted this connection to become vitalized.

There are clues, such as the parable where some folk appear to him in the afterlife and claim he is their 'lord' but he sends them away with the words, "I do not know you".
The other part of this story is those who approach him thinking the worst and are genuinely surprised that - even that they did not know him or acknowledge him in any way, he knew and acknowledged them as aspects of himself, simply through their expression of love for others.

This means that even atheists who express the same love for others are doing so in accordance with what Jesus taught, whether they know it, have belief in it, or whatever.

This is how I interpret that particular saying. In order to love GOD, one must love others. In order to love others, one must love oneself. In order to love oneself, one must understand that GOD loves you. The way to GOD is Love. There is no other way to GOD - to connect with and relate with GOD. Expressing genuine love is the same as having relationship with GOD.

Part of the answer would be for Christians to tolerate that Jesus is not the only way to GOD.

That would be the same as saying, If Christians could just give up being Christians. Also, if there were other ways to God, it would be incredibly wasteful to have the Son of God die in order to provide yet one more way. He would have done better to simply point everyone to one of the existing ways.

The reason He didnt is that there is no remedy for sin in any other way.

All that of course is Christian dogma. There is no reason for human sacrifice to appease true GODs. If Christians 'give up being Christians' they might well avoid being told by Jesus that he does not know them.

Generally Christians follow after the bible. The bible is not GOD or Jesus, and one would do very well to use extreme caution when being told to believe a book which has been totally written by humans is 'the word of GOD'. Indeed, there is no requirement for anyone to believe that to being the case.

One can read more of my writting on this subject in my Members Notes, here:

Is The Bible Really The Word Of GOD?

More to the point, GOD is right there with the individual, and no medium is actually required between the two. The evidence of that becomes seen by others as an outward expression of unconditional love.

Where is sin paid for in the arrangement you propose above?

Unconditional love covers the multitude of sins. Those who require payment for something which can only be freely given, miss the point.

The arguments of fundamentalists need be taken with a grain of salt.

[Deleted]

I will assume by 'salvation' you are referring to something promised in the next life, rather than this one.
If so, then arguing for salvation veers away from the OP topic.

Not a good assumption. For us, salvations benefits to the soul are not all future in heavenly estate. There are temporal benefits in the present. But those temporal benefits were not delayed by the unfolding of doctrine (as in things got better as things unfolded). Nor was societys benefit in receiving their effects delayed.

If some guideline works to help the individual, why are you proposing that this is not beneficial for the society the individual exists in?

They are beneficial. But that isnt the reason men are saved. Men are chiefly saved to be reunited with God in the person of His Son, and that eternal judgment be averted. i.e. God did not inaugurate a program of salvation purely to benefit the human society mankind lives in. He saved them because they needed to reunited with Him.

That effectively removes Christianity from the game of report card assessments in relation to helping society.

One should leave any and all judgement aside, as it is not a task given to any of us and only serves to veer away from the OP topic.

Since there is a claim about Final Judgment, there IS a task given to us: to do everything necessary to avoid it

Salvation is a doctrine which might well have been devised by Rome. We do not know, . .

But we do know. The best claim to how it was devised is well known. As for this idea that it came from Rome, I would readily agree that you and I and everyone else do not know.

But allow me, for the sake polite exchange, to take you seriously for a moment. Here are some questions:
1. By Rome do you mean imperial pagan Rome or the Roman Church (Catholic)?
2. Do you have the name of the person or council that promulgated this Roman idea of salvation?
3. Where can I read the primary source material that first promoted the doctrine that Romes position in the world was to be used to spread salvation to all?
4. If invented by Rome, why did the disciples version of the salvation doctrine not appear immediately suspect as a counterfeit?
5, Finally, can you explain in detail what the doctrine stated (in its historical form) i.e. elucidate the details of the doctrine, what did it say?

but if your point is that works mean nothing, then your answer to the OPQ must have to be "No, Jesus made no difference that would reflect a divine mission." since your argument depends upon a future event taking place in an alternate reality.

Referring back to your earlier post about Jesus contributing goodness alongside the others doing the same, this is a characterization that betrays a lack of familiarity with the NT and the teaching of Jesus.
Jesus never said he was here to let his contribution of goodness take up its place alongside all the others. He said He came that we might have life and that abundantly. That He alone was the only way to the Father, that He alone is that abundant life. That isnt the kind of thing someone says whose purpose is to join hands with the labors of other divines across human history.

Re: Julius II hoped that his Sistene Ceiling would be thrown in the balance against his sins when he was judged. But if it was done without the prompting of God or purely by human motive, it would not save him. That doesnt mean it was Satan inspired.

Your argument is centered around a particular dogma which clearly isn't addressing my own or even the OP.

Sure it is. Its not a particular dogma, but the very question regarding goodness done to reflect Gods mission. Thats what you are measuring in order to see if Jesus made any difference. Julius would be providing a goodness for the world to enjoy and in so doing would be (in your frame of reference) reflecting Gods mission. My point is that Juliuss good work may never have had divine unction from Christ. And if it stands on its own, it cant be attributed to how much Jesus was making a difference.

In contrast, how much Julius worked to save mens souls and bring them to Christ would be.

How things turned out is the only truth were can clearly point to. What future things are hoped for/believed in faith, show us no truth.

Which is understandable as the only thing one can assess if they have no capacity to appreciate the spiritual or what the spirit can accomplish. For those of us who can and do, how things turned out is the least valuable thing to measure compared to the other.

Its a bit like a mom and pop store in the 1860s that spends most of its profits working the Underground Railroad for blacks escaping misery and abuse. If you are unaware of what they do, you might wrongly assess how much they made a difference purely on the basis of the miniscule success they manage as storekeepers. Nothing gets better in their material lives. But that would be a significant misjudgment.

My point " you are ignoring the work that is unseen by you.

I have exactly the same evidence for that as you do for those words actually been spoken to by Jesus. None at all.

Then I assume youre prepared to throw out virtually all the knowledge we have of the ancient past. Because its based on flimsier elements that count toward reliable history than do the gospels.

If you insist there is nothing reliable we can take from the gospel accounts, then you need to toss every history book you own on ancient Rome, Greece, Egypt, etc.

Are you familiar with Simon Greenleafs book, The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence? (Kregel Reprint Classics, 1995). This all sounds like a case of having not yet read a responsible treatment on this topic.

Given the proven disposition of humans to elaborate, I see no reason to fail to take that possibility into account.

Why not entertain that Darwin was an alien from another planet, or Lincoln actually slipped on a banana peel in Peoria. Those are possibilities of the same likelihood. Shouldnt you be spending your time like most reasonable people on what is highly probable?

Okay, so youve come to the conclusion that the NT isnt even close to probable. Im guessing you simply havent read enough, because plenty of very smart people like you have concluded it is highly probable and worth investigating for its truth.

I would suggest the Greenleaf book and also F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents, Are They Reliable?

The story as it unfolds in the NT allows for me to understand it in this way. Jesus apparently meet with Saul on the road to Damascus. Saul changes his lifestyle as well as his name and becomes the most well known forefather of Christianity. /

Ok, so how was Paul supposed to infiltrate Rome and take advantage of a Christianized Rome for the advance of the kingdom of God? Paul never went to the movers and shakers in Rome to attempt their conversion. He moved and worked hundreds of miles away from the Roman capital in a part of the world Rome cared rather little about. How would converting Smyrna, or Pergamum to the Lord advance this plan? No one would bat an eye in Rome.

And when Paul did come to Rome he was in chains, his message had absolutely no effect on Nero who had him beheaded.

So you might be inclined to say, see, what difference did Jesus make thru Paul? Hardly anything if one is only looking at some ill-conceived idea about Rome. But much in every way for each one of the hundreds of souls won to Christ in Smyrna and Pergamum. That all happened in spite of Rome, not because of God using her.

Constantine has a vision which eventually helps prompt him to adopt that Christianity as Romes official religion.

And where did that go for the next couple centuries? Pagan Romans did not join churches. Blood sport was still performed in the arenas all over the empire. Pagan Rome was not conquered by the church. The bishops of Rome did not become the new emperors. Vandals and Goths ransacked the city and by the 6th cent. Rome had less than 20,000 people living there.

But I suppose you will tell me that God ignored His ability to see the future and went right ahead with this plan to use Romes influence to convert the world.

The NT informs the public that GOD places officials in those positions of power and influence and we should obey those officials.

But not as conveyors and teachers of salvation. He never says anywhere that this is why He ordained them. He ordained them for entirely different purposes.

These are merely some of the clues which force me to understand that - if indeed Jesus did say No man cometh to the Father but by Me. then he infiltrated Rome for the reason of using Rome as a platform for his own purposes.

So let me see if I get this, William. Youre saying that if you find it compelling to believe Jesus uttered the words, No man cometh to the Father but by me, His one and only next option in thinking about the means was to infiltrate Rome because it had control over the largest population in the Western world.

And you seem to be saying that he in fact did this somehow, even though history tells quite a different story.

Do I have this right?

There can be no argument that Rome has greatly influenced the world, and does so even today, thus in line with the OPQ, it is reasonable to say that the answer is 'yes' if indeed the stories of divine intervention are to be considered.

But not if its completely untenable. Jesus nowhere states that this is His ultimate mission. The early church doesnt say this was a mission. History demonstrates it never happened.

The eventual Christianizing of the world from Rome was due to the freedom granted the church and its own work. not the efforts of secular Rome. Christian officials along with emperors like Constantine did not succeed nor did they attempt to declare all citizens Christian. They recognized it could not be legislated. The conversion of the Western world and the East was enabled by the change in Romes policy, but the effecting of it was the work of the church not the government.

So where are we now with this?

Then perhaps you can explain the existence of the bible and its stories regarding this, some other way?

The Bible makes clear why it exists. Posing some other reason and then asking me to account for that isnt tenable.

The Bible exists because if God is going to hold man accountable, He is responsible to disclose the terms of being in favor with Him along with the consequences of ignoring Him. He is responsible for setting up the criteria for righteousness. Adding meaningful lessons from the lives of people who lived rightly and those who did not is extremely helpful to each generation facing the same conditions.

I dont have to explain the Bible in regard to this theory about Rome if theres no basis for it in the Bible.

Are you saying that - unlike with Jesus, there is no toleration in the teachings of their divine messenger?

A peace-loving Imam was asked by a Christian what Muhammed said they should do to infidels. His answer: they should be killed. The Christian then asked who are infidels? The imam said, Anyone who does not follow Islam.

Does that sound like tolerance from Muhammed?

Islam has as its chief objective the conversion of the whole world in subjection to Islam. Besides preaching conversion, they include the sword as a means of getting compliance. But also death for those who will not submit. Islam has a stated doctrine that teaches them to support or participate in the destruction of Israel.

Christianity, even in the days of a corrupt and dominant Catholic Church, didnt kill whole peoples who would not become Catholic. Catholicism never ordered the destruction of a nation, or killing of its citizens simply because they were its citizens As for persecutions, they involved individuals or small groups, never the masses who refused to be Catholic. Even here, the Church has long since condemned those acts from prior generations of its leadership.

And what of Christians who remain intolerant even when clearly their own divine messenger is attributed with teaching tolerance? What labels do these Christians have which are equal with 'infidel'?

They are marginalized as they should be. Conversely, no one goes around saying those people are the normal Christian life, do as they are doing.

The reason is because Jesus character can be read and understood as so different from that.
But lets be clear about tolerance. Jesus was tolerant of the disciples being slow to learn. He was tolerant of their lack of faith. He was tolerant to let the Pharisees continue in their place.

BUT . . He never tolerated their sins against Him and the Father; and He called them out on it frequently. Calling them pools of filth inside a sarcophagus, or sons of Satan was hardly tolerant. He did not ask that His followers go out and force people at sword point to accept Him. That was tolerance to a point. When such people come to judgment He will not exercise tolerance.

To ping back at you a question you asked of me; "You have evidence for this somewhere?"

If your answer is "The bible say's so" then I will argue that hearsay is not evidence. The best we can do is to take into account that it may have been said, but also take into context other things attributed to been spoken of by Jesus.

If hearsay isnt evidence then you better not have a single history book in your house. But Ill bet you have no problem believing that Caesar did say to Brutus, Et tu teknon? and that he was assassinated in a meeting of the Senate in the year historians assign as 44 BC.

Yet all that is hearsay.

This means that even atheists who express the same love for others are doing so in accordance with what Jesus taught, whether they know it, have belief in it, or whatever.

This is a case of conflating two experiences and expecting the corollary to go both ways. The corollary doesnt travel back to allow the above conclusion " that atheists will be saved also.

One experience is the desire to please God. The folks being talked about are OT saints who did not know Jesus had come, but it could apply to Christians. These are people who do a good deed because they know it pleases God. The atheist doesnt do a good work for this reason.

Paul describes works that are passed through a fire for testing. Works of wood, hay and stubble burn up. Works of precious gems survive. The difference is works done in the flesh compared to works done in faith. This interprets the meaning of Matthews parable of those who did not know Jesus but are praised for helping Him. They are not atheists whose works will not count.

This is why you cant cherry pick verses that say what you want but will be wrongly interpreted.

The same Bible says that haters of God, idolators, fornicators, murderers, worshippers of self will not inherit the kingdom of God. Do you honestly believe the same God will allow atheists to inherit eternal life just because they did some good works?

There is no other way to GOD - to connect with and relate with GOD. Expressing genuine love is the same as having relationship with GOD.

But this is worldly grace not divine grace. It is a caricature people make up in order to make their life count for a God whom they only fuzzily understand. It avoids all the worry about sins, repentance, forgiveness, judgment, getting right with Jesus Christ or that there might be only one way to God.

It says that if you love it wont matter what other bad things you may have done, God will only see the love. The problem is this is only a wish not a truth. There is no statement from God that this is the way it works. We simply choose to believe it works (because it must work for us).

Whereas we do have a claim for a statement from God that He has spoken about this whole subject and the details are quite different.

Reaction? It cant be true because that means my neat little explanation of God falls apart.

Part of the answer would be for Christians to tolerate that Jesus is not the only way to GOD.

Re: if there were other ways to God, it would be incredibly wasteful to have the Son of God die in order to provide yet one more way. He would have done better to simply point everyone to one of the existing ways. The reason He didnt is that there is no remedy for sin in any other way.

All that of course is Christian dogma. There is no reason for human sacrifice to appease true GODs.

Says who? Who controls the rules about this? You? Your friends? (youve chosen not to appeal to God). So who?

If Christians 'give up being Christians' they might well avoid being told by Jesus that he does not know them.

Jesus never says to true believers I never knew you. He does say this to pretenders and people who did everything for self.

. . to believe a book which has been totally written by humans is 'the word of GOD'. Indeed, there is no requirement for anyone to believe that to being the case.

Well, this is getting tiresome. I wonder if you realize how worn out the above indictment of the Bible is? Again, it comes from people who have never studied the Bible systematically and without bias.

Attempts to prove this have failed miserably. Its just an assertion that expects Christians who are ill-informed will run and hide.

My undergraduate degree was in philosophy. I am well read, I have over 50 years under my belt in studying the Bible, including the manuscript authorities for how the Bible was written. My philosophy training has helped me distinguish between BS and credible claims. If there was any hint of this allegation being true from recognized, legitimate authorities, I would have come across it.
There is no such foundation for this claim.

It is certainly true that God used human writers. But you have to prove that they could never have gotten their words from God, contrary to their claims that they did. And you cant do that.

Unconditional love covers the multitude of sins. Those who require payment for something which can only be freely given, miss the point.

Im sorry to have to correct you here, but this what comes from being unfamiliar with the guidelines for interpreting Scripture. The verses from Proverbs, 1 Peter 4:1, and James 5:20 are all about the community of believers, not the world at large with unbelievers included. It is not a liberal pathway to God by doing enough love to cover any sins that may condemn you.

In the NT these verses are about how to handle conflicts with believers that exhibit unloving behavior. Choosing love can then cover the sins that caused the dispute and contention.

This is NOT a justification that you can cover your mortal sins before God by doing acts of love.
Context is all important. People who cherry pick verses dont wait for the context.

.