Was Jesus unsuccessful?

[marco]

No sooner had the star announced the birth of Christ than a multitude of infants were murdered. Surely an early sign of failure? Though it must have been planned in heaven there was no advance booking made for pregnant Mary. Jesus, on this important assignment, simply vegetated fro thirty years before wandering out to do his job. Was a 20-year old Christ incapable of spreading more good news? His immediate family, the direct recipients surely of his divine message, didn't recognise him.

He operated on foot in a small area of the globe and apparently all he had to say of note was "the kingdom of God!" The consequence of his lack of explanation is that hundreds of different sects have arisen all believing different things. Worse, another powerful messenger of God had to come in the 7th century to do what Christ had failed to do. The world is split; the world fights over who said what. It all adds up to a failed mission.

Is this a good summary of Christ's mission? Or are there some details missing?

[Divine Insight]

Worse, another powerful messenger of God had to come in the 7th century to do what Christ had failed to do.

That's the dead give-a-way right there isn't it?

If Christ was the "Word Made Flesh", why was Paul required to explain what Jesus didn't make clear?

Why did Christ not predict the coming of Paul?

Why, instead, did Christ warn that false prophets would come in his name?

Finally in answer to thread Title Question: Was Jesus unsuccessful?

He most certainly was unsuccessful in convincing me. And far more generally, if Jesus was such a successful teacher why is it that this religion relies upon mere mortal evangelists to try to convince the people that Jesus himself failed to convince?

And even if those mortal evangelists were to succeed wouldn't that do nothing more than demonstrate that they were successful at something that Christ himself had failed at?

~~~~~

And we can't even limit this to talking about Christ. Christ is absolutely nothing if not the Son of Yahweh. Therefore before we even talk about Christ we necessarily need to also ask whether Yahweh was successful in convincing people of his reality.

I am personally totally unconvinced by the Old Testament that there exists any God named Yahweh who behaves in the manner described in the Old Testament. Therefore Yahweh was totally unsuccessful in convincing me of his reality. How could that be? There is no place in the entire Old Testament that I can point to that even remotely suggests to me that those stories have anything at all to do with any actual God. Especially not a supposedly intelligent God who acts with any supreme wisdom. I see absolutely nothing in the Old Testament that doesn't appear as though it came straight out of the mouths of ancient barbaric male-chauvinist men. I see absolutely nothing that even hints of being from any all-wise God.

And when I finally do get to the New Testament and things attributed to Jesus, all I find myself saying is, "Finally! Someone who actually has somewhat of a brain".

But even that amounts to nothing more than giving my approval to the things attributed to Jesus. I'm certainly not reading in 'awe' at the unearthly supreme wisdom of Jesus. Are you kidding me? About all he did was preach moral values that I view as nothing more than mere common sense.

In fact, I actually cheer Jesus on for refuting things that Yahweh had men doing in the Old Testament. Like seeking revenge, in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Jesus taught to turn the other cheek. In other words, don't hold grudges or seek revenge.

Yahweh also commanded men to judge people for various sins and stone them to death. Jesus rebuked that and proclaimed that only those who are without sin should cast the first stone, and according to this religion no man is without sin. So this has Jesus basically overturning the directives of Yahweh.

And these are things that I personally disagreed with Yahweh on myself. So Jesus is actually taking my side against Yahweh. But again, nothing more than I would expect from anyone who has any common sense at all. So I see nothing profound in Jesus even when he refutes what Yahweh had commanded.

And the fact that he is refuting what Yahweh had commanded, whilst simultaneously proclaiming that he did not come to change the laws, and that not one jot or tittle shall pass from law until heaven and earth pass, this entire cannon of stories becomes self-contradictory and unreliable.

Which is it? Are we supposed to hold to the letter of the law of the Old Testament, or rebuke those laws like Jesus did and follow Jesus' instructions instead?

We can't do both.

Now we're down to either obeying Yahweh, or Jesus.

And we're supposed to believe that Jesus was sent by Yahweh?

That actually might have made some sense if the Gospels had Jesus proclaiming that he did come to change the laws. But that's not how the story goes.

So nope. No soup for Jesus. He was a miserable failure.

Of course, what's actually true is that the whole thing is nothing more than a superstitious collection of rumors. So I have no clue what any "real Jesus" might have been trying to actually accomplish. But yes, if he was the Son of Yahweh he was indeed a miserable failure, but then again, so was Yahweh, so like Father like Son. There were both failures.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

Jews also point out that Jesus failed to usher in the Messianic age, so he could not possibly have been the awaited Messiah.

But if he succeeded in helping make people better people, than who's to say he failed?

[marco]

Jews also point out that Jesus failed to usher in the Messianic age, so he could not possibly have been the awaited Messiah.

But if he succeeded in helping make people better people, than who's to say he failed?

I didn't intend to claim that Jesus was unsuccessful in all he did. I am referring specifically to the idea he was sent on a mission to impart some intelligence to mankind. He waited some thirty years before even starting (let's not trouble ourselves about the reported boyhood incident). He walked around, directing fishing operations and sometimes making life more tolerable for deaf and blind people and even dead ones, if we are to accept all accounts as literal. If all he was to do was make people kinder, he did to some extent; but countless others have done the same, with smaller resources.

[1213]

...He operated on foot in a small area of the globe and apparently all he had to say of note was "the kingdom of God!" The consequence of his lack of explanation is that hundreds of different sects have arisen all believing different things. Worse, another powerful messenger of God had to come in the 7th century to do what Christ had failed to do. The world is split; the world fights over who said what. It all adds up to a failed mission.

Is this a good summary of Christ's mission? Or are there some details missing?

I think that is not good summary. The mission was successful, because even I can read it in my own language. The problems seem to come only when people don’t remain in truth and love. That is why I think the problem is not in the message, but in what people want to hear and understand.

[marco]

I think that is not good summary. The mission was successful, because even I can read it in my own language. The problems seem to come only when people don’t remain in truth and love. That is why I think the problem is not in the message, but in what people want to hear and understand.

Your criterion for success is rather minimal. Many an unsuccessful teacher would applaud your observation that the message is good but the listener is deficient. I think we should judge success by the percentage of humanity who have understood and complied. He has not reached everyone because he concentrated on a small area; he perhaps came at the wrong time, when Boeings were unavailable. Of course being God he could have built one, but didn't.

Those who did listen went away and found different messages, as we see from discussion here. He must have known, for example, that many would take his "I'll be back before some of you die" as meaning he would return to earth sometime soon to tie up loose ends and guide the good to Paradise. He made no clarifications, allowing each to believe whatever they wanted.

So I submit that he wasn't a big success in communicating to the world. The fact he got through to you doesn't actually mean massive success.

[Divine Insight]

I think that is not good summary. The mission was successful, because even I can read it in my own language. The problems seem to come only when people don’t remain in truth and love. That is why I think the problem is not in the message, but in what people want to hear and understand.

But this is clearly false. There are plenty of atheists who totally cherish truth and love. So the claim that they don't want to hear that message is nonsense.

Many of them even agree that they can see "This Message" in the New Testament.

But is that really the message of the New Testament? Hardly!

The message of the New Testament is that Jesus is the Son of God and that whoever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life, and anyone who doesn't believe in him will face condemnation of everlasting punishment.

That's the part they see no reason to believe.

It has absolutely nothing at all to do with wanting to know truth or love.

So your position on this cannot possibly be true.

I don't believe in this religion, but I have absolutely nothing at all against truth or love. That has absolutely nothing to do with why I have concluded that this religion is false.

[OnceConvinced]

I think that is not good summary. The mission was successful, because even I can read it in my own language. The problems seem to come only when people don’t remain in truth and love. That is why I think the problem is not in the message, but in what people want to hear and understand.

Your criterion for success is rather minimal. Many an unsuccessful teacher would applaud your observation that the message is good but the listener is deficient.

How true. A teacher is judged on how successful he/she is at getting his students to listen and to learn. A great teacher can teach anyone no matter how stubborn or difficult they are.

I taught computers for a few years and as tutors we were expected to get a certain percentage of our students through the course successful. Ie, teach them well enough that they can pass. If we didn't do that, then OUR teaching abilities were examined. Not the students themselves.

I think we should judge success by the percentage of humanity who have understood and complied.

Exactly! Aren't we as parents judged on how good a parent we are based on how our children turn out? It's definitely the case here in New Zealand. If a kid turns out to be a detriment to society we look at why that is and we put much of the blame on the parents for not having done what they needed to do as parents.

Sure, there may be exceptions, ie where a child has a mental illness, learning disability or something like that, but then we don't blame the child for those things do we?

Those who did listen went away and found different messages, as we see from discussion here. He must have known, for example, that many would take his "I'll be back before some of you die" as meaning he would return to earth sometime soon to tie up loose ends and guide the good to Paradise. He made no clarifications, allowing each to believe whatever they wanted.

Surely the fact that there are so many denominations and cults around, all vehemently disagreeing with each other, that should show us that Jesus was very unsuccessful.

[1213]

Those who did listen went away and found different messages, as we see from discussion here. He must have known, for example, that many would take his "I'll be back before some of you die" as meaning he would return to earth sometime soon to tie up loose ends and guide the good to Paradise. He made no clarifications, allowing each to believe whatever they wanted.

Those who listen and remain in truth, hear also this:

But no one knows of that day and hour, not even the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
Matt. 24:36

If person is really disciple of Jesus and remain in his words, there is no problem in that the end of this world has not come yet.

So I submit that he wasn't a big success in communicating to the world. The fact he got through to you doesn't actually mean massive success.

Massive success is that the message is available all over the world. If not all understand or accept it, it is not sign of unsuccessful job. Not all are “sheep� of Jesus.

But you don't believe, because you are not of my sheep, as I told you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
John 10:26-27

[1213]

I don't believe in this religion, but I have absolutely nothing at all against truth or love. That has absolutely nothing to do with why I have concluded that this religion is false.

Your version of the religion may be false. I think your version is not entirely what the Bible teaches.

Claims like.
“The message of the New Testament is that Jesus is the Son of God and that whoever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life, and anyone who doesn't believe in him will face condemnation of everlasting punishment.�

are misleading. Person who misleads people, is not in my opinion honest person who remains in truth. Even though there is part of truth. I hope Christians know that many lie, even when speaking the truth.



I have seen many atheists or antichristian people lie, even when they tell true things, that is why I don’t trust anything they say.