WCJD? What Could Jesus Do?

mrmufin · Post by **mrmufin** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 8:28 pm

I saw one of those WWJD (what would Jesus do?) bumper stickers not too long ago, and I got to thinking... What Jesus would do would be dependent upon what Jesus could do, so I wondered, what could Jesus do, anyway? Was he educated? Could he read and write? Did he read Socrates and Plato? Is there anything at all in his own pen? Could he solve for x in terms of y or predict the next lunar eclipse? Did he bother to keep any sort of journal or maybe sign autographs? Just curious...

Regards,
mrmufin

bernee51 · Post by **bernee51** » Sun Jan 30, 2005 3:58 am

RevJP wrote:
are you ready for the supernatural claims made regarding Jesus?
I guess you assumed we were supposed to debate this topic? I stepped into counter the fallacious claims regarding the existence of Jesus and made it pretty clear that His existence and His deity were seperate issues in the scope of that debate.

Now if you want to debate His deistic qualities I would wonder on what you would base the debate? Physical evidence for the supernatural? Ha!

You want to debate the role of Jesus as the Son of God, then you must do it based on scritpure, as that is the evidence.

I make no such assumption as any claims to supernaturallity can only be a matter of faith - and thus such debate is pretty much futile.

However Rev - based on the bible myths I would agree with you - according to your scripture Jesus is the son of god - but it is a mythic tale. I can also say the same things about supernatural claims made for any other character in the myriad of mythic stories which pervade human history.

RevJP · Post by **RevJP** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:04 am

based on the bible myths I would agree with you - according to your scripture Jesus is the son of god - but it is a mythic tale.

Of course we all understand this is simply your opinion. Opinions are fine, but most would state thier opinion as such to maintain their integrity.

bernee51 · Post by **bernee51** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 12:36 pm

RevJP wrote:
based on the bible myths I would agree with you - according to your scripture Jesus is the son of god - but it is a mythic tale.

Of course we all understand this is simply your opinion. Opinions are fine, but most would state thier opinion as such to maintain their integrity.

IMHO is assumed in front of all my posts Rev. My integrity is intact - as I take responsibility for all I say - I do not defer to mythology and metaphor when the going gets tough.

It is easy to quote scripture Rev - you don't even have to bother with something as fundamental as thinking.

RevJP · Post by **RevJP** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 1:11 pm

As it is easy to dismiss anything of scritpure so that one's sphere of influence is not threatened.

It seems to me that you assume people of faith do not think, that all have come to their faith blindly and ignorantly. This of course may be your opinion although the reality of it is drastically different.

bernee51 · Post by **bernee51** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 1:24 pm

RevJP wrote:As it is easy to dismiss anything of scritpure so that one's sphere of influence is not threatened.

It seems to me that you assume people of faith do not think, that all have come to their faith blindly and ignorantly. This of course may be your opinion although the reality of it is drastically different.

Those who hold to a particular scripture as being the 'word of god' and dismiss any others are the ones who do not want their sphere of influence threatened.

Don't get me wrong Rev - elements of scripture are worthwhile. Some of what is written in the bible is of value, same for the Koran, the Bhagvad Gita - it is just that I do not take any of it as 'gospel'.

Take this forum - there are those of 'faith' who do indeed think and those who have 'blind faith' and who display what is, IMO, ignorance when it comes to matters of inerrancy, literalism and the infallability of their chosen scripture.

RevJP · Post by **RevJP** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 1:32 pm

I will grant that there are those who believe blindly, and stupidly accept that which they have not fully considered. But then again, that is not the picture you continue to attempt to paint is it?

I have not seen you post "There are those who..." but I have seen you post gross generalizations. So which is it? All people of faith are stupid, blind, and deluded? Or are their elements of those traits in some people of faith?

Dilettante · Post by **Dilettante** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:12 pm

RevJP wrote:

Let us see, if there is no Jesus, and no God what do I have to lose? The eternal communion with God.

If there is a Jesus and God, what do YOU have to lose? Eternal life in communion with Him in His Glory and love...

I think it is abundantly clear who has more to lose.

Hmmm...except that if there is a God and Muhammed is his prophet both of you (and me too) lose.

Back to the original topic, what could Jesus do? I will assume that Jesus really existed (despite Robert Price's argument to the contrary, it seems likely that he did). So I'm concerning myself with the "historical Jesus" rather than the Jesus of faith. This "historical Jesus" is said to have been a marginal Jew, and a carpenter by trade (or perhaps just an artisan of some kind--the Greek word used in the NT is "techné", I think, and there weren't too many trees around for a carpenter's business to thrive).
The NT says he once wrote some words in the sand, so he was literate. He probably spoke a little Greek (the lingua franca of the Mediterranean at the time) apart from Aramaic and perhaps a little Latin due to Roman occupation.
However, Jesus never put his doctrines in black and white. Had he written the New Testament himself things could have been a lot different. Many of the discussions in this forum would not be taking place. Could he have survived his own death? That's the one miracle that makes all the difference. Peter is said to have seen him after his burial and the empty tomb episode. Does an empty tomb prove a resurrection? Probably not. Was Peter's vision a dream? Some dreams are incredibly vivid, so that possibility cannot be automatically dismissed. Ignoramus...perhaps also ignorabimus...

bernee51 · Post by **bernee51** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 10:45 pm

RevJP wrote: So which is it? All people of faith are stupid, blind, and deluded? Or are their elements of those traits in some people of faith?

There are elements of those traits in all people Rev not just those "of faith" - some just have a knack of a) not realising it b) displaying it more vividly than others c) denying it all together or d) all of the above.

The picture I "attempt to paint" is an attempt to reflect what I see, what a particular person, be they of faith or not, is presenting - or at least my interpretation of it.

If is comes across as stupidity, or blindness, or delusion it could be mine or theirs or a combination of the twain.