If Jesus was who he is claimed to have been . . .

[Zzyzx]

.
If Jesus was who he is claimed to have been WHY didn't he say or do anything new or useful?
http://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/04/ch ... -question/

[Danmark]

.
If Jesus was who he is claimed to have been WHY didn't he say or do anything new or useful?
http://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/04/ch ... -question/

Looking at the synoptic gospels there is considerable doubt that he ever claimed to be god. This is a Pauline/John invention, and blasphemous from the point of view of his own culture. It represents one of the most successful of ridiculous lies in the history of man.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

If Jesus was who he is claimed to have been WHY didn't he say or do anything new or useful?

Cause them that set to claimin' it for him, they couldn't do 'em any of it either.

[Elijah John]

.
If Jesus was who he is claimed to have been WHY didn't he say or do anything new or useful?
http://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/04/ch ... -question/

Who do you think Jesus claimed to have been? God or a scientist? Or a combination of Rabbi/Prophet/Messiah?

If the latter, his contributions would have been strictly Spiritual and religious, not practical or technological.

[tam]

Useful to whom?

To those who want to know His Father, to know the Way to His Father, to know the requirements of His Father, to those who want to know Christ and the truth came to bear witness TO... to those who want to be loved and known by Him and His Father, to those who wish to receive the gift of life, then everything He said and did was useful.

To anyone uninterested into those things, then what He said may not be useful to them.


But if He is who He is claimed to be (a condition of the OP) - the Son of God; the Truth; the Way and the Life; the King; the Anointed One... etc - then everything that He taught is useful, and true. At least to anyone who wishes to know His Father, to know truth, to be part of them and their Kingdom, to receive the gift of holy spirit and eternal life.



**

One might ask why He did not teach pure science instead? You can't teach people what they cannot yet bear; what they cannot yet grasp. His knowledge of science - if He is who He is claimed to be - is far beyond our own. But we can't measure the spiritual yet - we can't even detect it yet with our tools; but it is the spiritual that He said is what matters.

So He taught what mattered for us to have life (eternal), and He answered questions that people brought to Him, and He taught as the people could handle at the time.

But that does not mean He did not teach scientific things; it just means that some of those things had to be communicated in a way in which all people from any time period could grasp.

For instance, He taught that it is power (energy) in Him that went out of Him when He healed that woman. But He did not teach the scientific details of that. We still haven't caught up to that, and unless it is observed scientifically, it will be discounted and dismissed.

I will use the following as an example of what I mean, not as an example of something that I can prove:

The term "putting on and taking off the flesh" is something that Paul referred to, when he spoke about what would happen when we were 'caught up' with Christ in the sky and 'changed in a twinkling'. Putting off this flesh (this body), and putting on the new body (the spiritual body). These sound like 'religious terms', but that is how Paul was able to describe something that we don't yet have a scientific words to describe. Because we have not yet observed this using scientific studies; etc.

It is how my Lord and the angels move in between the spiritual and the physical - putting on and taking off the flesh.

Although we do have some scientific backing in understanding how that might be possible, in the sense of matter to energy; but that is incomplete. Also standing wave theory touches a bit on the possibility of this. But that is fairly new as well.


My point is, that unless the science that my Lord taught is proven or scientifically observed in the world at the time it is being taught, it is unlikely to be accepted; because it is unlikely to be understood.



In any case, the second part of my post has to do with possibility and science, and would probably make for a better discussion than a debate.

The first part of my post is my answer to the OP.




Peace to you Z!
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Zzyzx]

.

Useful to whom?

Useful to all of mankind, not just select Believers.

One might ask why He did not teach pure science instead? You can't teach people what they cannot yet bear; what they cannot yet grasp. His knowledge of science - if He is who He is claimed to be - is far beyond our own.

Is this to say that the people Jesus addressed could not comprehend such “scientific� things as:

Wash your hands instead of your feet
Boil questionable water
Cook food thoroughly and avoid spoiled food
Keep distance from sick people
Diseases are caused by “bugs� too small to be seen but they can be removed by washing and cooking
Mind your own business, not the business of others
Women are NOT inferior to men and are NOT to be regarded as property
Earth is NOT the center of the universe and sun and stars do not revolve around it (though the moon does)
Droughts and storms are common processes, not punishment from angry gods
Living too close with various animals can cause people to become sick


Which of the above are too difficult for even most ignorant people to grasp or bear?

[tam]

.

Useful to whom?

Useful to all of mankind, not just select Believers.

The things He taught are useful to anyone who wants to know the things I previously listed.

If not all mankind cares about that, then not all mankind will find his teachings useful to them.

One might ask why He did not teach pure science instead? You can't teach people what they cannot yet bear; what they cannot yet grasp. His knowledge of science - if He is who He is claimed to be - is far beyond our own.

Is this to say that the people Jesus addressed could not comprehend such “scientific� things as:

Some of these were already known and taught in the scriptures. I also don't think ancient man was quite as ignorant on proper hygiene and spoiled food and the like, as modern man sometimes assumes.

Wash your hands instead of your feet

Footwashing was an experience in hospitality, love and humility. Though I suppose it may have served sanitation purposes as well, keeping germs/foreign things/etc from being spread about the home.

The handwashing that Christ rebuked the Pharisees about was the ritualistic handwashing (nothing to do with sanitizing) being done for show; and He only rebuked them because they were looking down on His own disciples for not doing the ritual.

Boil questionable water
Cook food thoroughly and avoid spoiled food
Keep distance from sick people

The Israelites managed to survive for a long time, so I imagine they knew to take some precautions with questionable water, sick or diseased people, spoiled food, etc. There are rules in the OT with regard to types of food (seemingly to keep people from food that could cause harm if prepared improperly), and also what kinds of mold to keep away from or what to do with the different kinds of mold one might find in a house.


Christ did not keep distance from sick people, however, because He had compassion on them. Compassion was more important than remaining 'clean' physically speaking. I mean, you might not volunteer to become blood brothers with someone who has aids; but you don't let your fear of getting sick mean that you avoid or isolate yourself from them; afraid to touch them; make them ashamed.

Diseases are caused by “bugs� too small to be seen but they can be removed by washing and cooking

We know that and we still have disease spreading around like wildfire. But even that was not accepted by 'modern man' until those 'bugs' could be seen with scientific tools.

When you teach people something, you have to build on the blocks that they have.

Mind your own business, not the business of others

He did teach that.

"Why do you look at the splinter in your brother's eye, when there is a plank in your own eye? First remove the plank in your own eye, then you can see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye."


Those who profess to follow Him have a hard time following this teaching; but He did teach it.

Women are NOT inferior to men and are NOT to be regarded as property

He taught that also by His example and also His words about us all being one in God. And his followers seemed to get it also:

"there is no male or female, free or slave, for you are all one in God"

Earth is NOT the center of the universe and sun and stars do not revolve around it (though the moon does)

Did He ever teach that earth WAS the center of the universe and everything else revolved around it? Was it ever a question that someone asked Him?

Droughts and storms are common processes, not punishment from angry gods

He did calm the storm and rebuke his disciples for their lack of faith in being afraid; teaching at least that they need not fear the storm or that it was a punishment from an angry god.

There is also the example where He countered the belief (which led people to sin in judgment and a lack of mercy) that sick people were being punished by God for their sins.


He taught things that were pertinent to truth (of the spiritual, of God, etc), and to how people treated others; how they would be judged (or not) for that treatment; and what God desired from them.




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Wootah]

.
If Jesus was who he is claimed to have been WHY didn't he say or do anything new or useful?
http://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/04/ch ... -question/

I can't think of a modern civil right that broadly speaking doesn't have its genesis in Jesus.

It seems all the discovery stuff comes off the back of putting into practise the ideology stuff. If I love my fellow man and help the leper then maybe I will study the causes of leprosy.

Secondly imagine the Romans with modern technology or any of the tribes back then.

Thirdly I do think we are meant to study nature to learn about God and so why would God circumvent that.

Fourthly the old testament Proverbs consistently value wisdom over knowledge, wealth and fame. Why would the same God change?

[Willum]

How about this:

If he did preach that stuff about bacteria and whatnots, no one would have believed him. Who knows, perhaps he did, and cured the sick with these techniques, but people of the time couldn't understand them, so only wrote what they dis understand.

I see that happen everyday.

[Danmark]

.
If Jesus was who he is claimed to have been WHY didn't he say or do anything new or useful?
http://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/04/ch ... -question/

I can't think of a modern civil right that broadly speaking doesn't have its genesis in Jesus.

There is some truth to this, but only in that Jesus essentially advocated equality of sorts, a spiritual equality. But he taught acceptance, not demand of rights. There are also many cultures and individuals long before Jesus who advocated civil rights, including Greek and Roman classic political philosophy which dates from the 5th Century BCE.

Justice was conceived by poets, lawgivers, and philosophers alike as the structure of civic bonds which were beneficial to all (rich and poor, powerful and weak alike) rather than an exploitation of some by others.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ancie ... al/#PolJus

Despite Pauline efforts which reinforced the lower class status of women which continued in the U.S. long after its beginnings, some of what is recorded about Jesus may have influenced the civil rights movement in the 19th and 20th Centuries, but your statement is an exaggeration.

The Christian historian must also concede that the Bible in general was used by "Christians" to enslave and perpetuate the denial of civil rights to people of color.
http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gab_racism.htm