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?

[marco]

Let's face it. The chief reason Bible debunkers argue this way is because if they entertain a Christian interpretation over a peculiarly secular one, they lose their claim that the Bible's full of contradictions.

I don't see any meaning in this. Both sides are capable of error; both are capable of making correct deductions. One swallow doesn't make a summer.

But in the end, why would anyone value as more authoritative a person whose chief aim is to discredit Scripture? He is in many cases arguing from an abysmal understanding of the Bible in depth, has little or no comprehension of the quality of manuscript authorities for literature of this heritage, and often harbors an overwhelming bias that ruins the kind of objectivity he needs in making a fair assessment.

You are addressing the inadequacies of a fool. There are people who find flaws in the Bible who are eminently qualified and possessed of a working brain that understands what bias is. There are those who support the Bible who are distracted by miracles but I have read some Christian commentators who argue brilliantly. Tom Wright, for instance, appears unassailable in his defences and even manages to redeem Paul in his book: "Paul for Everyone."

Well in terms of the word "all" it does.

Forgive me here, but this what comes from a failure to comprehend ancient modes of speech and how context determines how hyperbole is to be understood. You simply can't insist that people living in a different culture two thousand years ago MUST conform to modern forms of usage that you use today.

You would do better to analyse what I've said rather than guess at the deficiencies in my education. I've spent half a lifetime translating and understanding people of that period. The Greek philosophers knew how to use the word "all." We are not dealing with "modern forms of usage." Obviously there are instances where words are used in a throw-off fashion: "Will that be all, sir?" You must not quote irrelevant examples to justify the present one under discussion. Shakespeare spoke well when he said "All the world's a stage." He wasn't, like Christ, dictating and predicting. A relevant parallel might be: "All men are born free, yet everywhere they are in chains," Rousseau.

Depends on who you're asking. If your asking all your friends, you'll get the bogus answer you deserve. If you consult the testimony of folks who were there, you get at least a more informed answer than your tainted atheist buddies.

There's the small matter of how credible is the testimony of simple folk who lived in a world where gods were the toys of the rulers. Would they readily accept a trick as a miracle? It is all very well to rebuke atheists, who've apparently acquired some friendship with me, but basically one accepts not from reasoning but from desire. One likes the idea of a resurrected man, so one believes; one likes the idea that Jesus is a god, so one believes; one loves the idea that Jesus watches from above, so he does. Why belittle the understandable "bias" of some, while ignoring the colossal gullibility of others?

[Elijah John]

You've hit on another one of my pet peeves. Why are people so anxious to believe a contemporary scholar over the people who lived in the first century and subsequent early centuries who were so much closer to the real events that the Bible records?

Because the ancients you allude to had an agenda. That of propagating the new faith. The Gospels are theological propaganda and apologetic, not history.

And because many things in the Bible do not add up, if taken at face value. Paul's theology contradicts Jesus and the Tanakh, Paul himself preaches a "different Gospel". John's Jesus seems like an entirely different person than does the synpotic Jesus. (different speech patterns, etc, very few parables)

And because of passages like Matthew 16.28. And Matthew's account of mass resurrection which seems to have escaped the notice of the Romans or the other Gospel Evangelists, for that matter. Was Matthew emplolying hyperbole here? Poetic license?

Also, you are cherry picking and ignoring other ancient sources, namely Jesus own Jewish contemporaries. Who considered him a failure as a Messiah, or worse, a false teacher.

For some people, like Bart Ehrman, it's all about the publicity and selling books.

Prove it. I thought Christians were not supposed to judge a person's heart and motivations.

Dan Wallace, who is one of the world's premier textual critics, says that, when Ehrman is with scholars, he doesn't try to peddle his drivel because he knows that they can't be fooled.

I would ask Wallace to prove it too. He can read minds and hearts? Or is he yet another Christian who judges? Or is it fair game as long as the one being judged is an atheist?

I guess Wallace is no better than any other human in attributing the worst motives to their theological opponents and not giving them the benefit of the doubt. I thought Christians were called to a higher standard.

How bout this instead? No need to "peddle" to folks who already agree with you.

And to those who discount modern scholars because of supposed "agenda" and bias, not all of them are atheists. Some like John Shelby Spong, John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg are Christians. Just because they don't believe like you do, or like Evangelicas do, does not mean they are not Christians.

[Deleted]

"Replying to post 51 by marco"

You are addressing the inadequacies of a fool. There are people who find flaws in the Bible who are eminently qualified and possessed of a working brain that understands what bias is. There are those who support the Bible who are distracted by miracles

So, we ended up trading authorities. The point I less-well attempted before was this: there is a common indictment that Christians, whether educated or less so, fall into the same category of rather gullible or vulnerable in mind because they buy the Christian message and NT accounts, which are clearly in the class of myths or even tom-foolery - someone pulling the wool over their eyes.

In reply, I think I had the more poignant point about C.S. Lewis for the following reasons:

A significant answer to the above is not the citing of skeptics who are highly educated, but the existence of folks of equal scholastic background who certainly understand the indictment above, yet embrace Christian faith without checking their brains at the door.

Guys like Lewis did not get written off at Oxford. He enjoyed a distinguished career among his peers and no one accused him of caving in to make-believe and the religion of fools.

It's that transformation that is most poignant, not the multiplication of highly credentialed writers and professor who believe it's bunk.

My reason is this: If the misguided, unbelievable, charlatanistic, contrived, and incredulous nature of the Gospels is soooo clear (in fact axiomatic), the converts among the intelligentsia and truly fine-witted would be nil, or accountable by some afflicted disorder or emotional vulnerability. And that simply isn't the case, nor are these conversions fleeting, ending in a hasty return to the sanity their former doubts.

You may not buy Lewis' defense in Mere Christianity but Lewis is hardly a slouch, hardly one who abdicated his formal and institutional training for his Christian faith.

I have yet to see an atheist engage this phenomena with intellectual honesty, except to make further ridiculous indictments that simply reiterate their devotion to their meta-narrative.

For my part, I do see, marco, how folks among your communion of skeptics have difficulty with faith-based propositions of truth. I understand that position more than folks give me credit.

Nor is the fact that I've stuck by my faith for 56 years attributed to just being stubborn, my fear of finding out I would be wrong, or the latest of insults - being brainwashed by a particularly effective practitioner.

You would do better to analyse what I've said . . The Greek philosophers knew how to use the word "all."

An excellent point, because none of those so well-versed in these terms (who knew what all meant) called these verses on the carpet. In fact, practically non-existent are any critiques of the Gospel accounts from Greek philosophers of the time or into the Christian centuries following, despite the novice character of the NT writers. Such erudite scholastics among the Greeks accepted the historicity of the Gospel accounts. They took less exception with linguistic usage than with the truth of claims made.

There's the small matter of how credible is the testimony of simple folk who lived in a world where gods were the toys of the rulers.

Yet, strangely they never identified or treated these events as instances of "toys of the rulers." In fact, they stood apart and became subject to persecution in Rome because they weren't falling into the paradigm accepted.

Would they readily accept a trick as a miracle?

There happens to be a perfect case for this in Acts. People in a region were being amazed at a magician performing your suggested "tricks"
i.e. doing the very thing you say they would be snookered into, yet when they heard the true Gospel, repented and converted, including the magician.
Acts 8:9-13

Paul was even able to tell the unclean spirit inhabiting a woman who was dogging them and commending him and his associates in godly terms. He turned and cast our her demon. Acts 16:16-18

One likes the idea of a resurrected man, so one believes; one likes the idea that Jesus is a god, so one believes;

Funny thing about "manufactured" points of worship. They peter out when the underlying entity is false or phony. You are suggesting that folks who like these things would somewhere along the line manufacture a deity to meet the desire and gain adherents of the same stripe.

In ancient times, it actually worked for the ancient gods. In modern times, it doesn't stick around if it doesn't come thru with the goods.

And that's where the atheist is woefully out in left field. The "goods" come with the indwelling Holy Spirit, something the atheist will never entertain.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 53 by mrhagerty]

And that's where the atheist is woefully out in left field. The "goods" come with the indwelling Holy Spirit, something the atheist will never entertain.

Ah ...

We have the "Indwelling Holy Spirit" again.

I prefer the term "brainwashing" myself.

And you are right ...

This Atheist will NEVER entertain voices inside his head that tell him the angels and virgins and talking donkeys are real, and the first human was made from mud by Yahweh and our planet is a bowl of air in a water-filled universe.

In my view, it takes the brainwashing of religion for people to imagine that the "spiritual" level they are thinking in is at a higher level than standard thinking ...

And they are thereby able to "comprehend" what the godless can't, and the mud-man and his rib-woman and every other glorious thing are thereby really real at THAT elevated level.

I see it as the delusion of religious brainwashing.

"Indwelling Holy Spirit" indeed ...!

[Deleted]

"Replying to post 54 by StuartJ"

In my view, it takes the brainwashing of religion for people to imagine that the "spiritual" level they are thinking in is at a higher level than standard thinking . .

And you believe that assessment the most reasonable, the most well-informed?

So whom do you see as the brainwashers? And how does their procedure meet up with our understanding of brainwashing, ala the process that works against one's will to produce a change of mind or beliefs, etc?

And aren't you the one claiming that believing the Bible is a case of make-believe?

So, can you name an actual make-believe story to which the Bible is a similar instance. I.e. the Bible is just like the make-believe story ___________.

[marco]

So, can you name an actual make-believe story to which the Bible is a similar instance. I.e. the Bible is just like the make-believe story

From 1 Kings 17: "And the barrel of meal wasted not, neither did the cruse of oil fail, according to the word of the LORD, which he spake by Elijah."


And from the Brothers Grimm we have eternal production of salt:


"There lies the mill at the bottom of the sea, and still, day by day, it grinds on; and that is why the sea is salt."

[William]

[Replying to post 56 by marco]

"There lies the mill at the bottom of the sea, and still, day by day, it grinds on; and that is why the sea is salt."

Perhaps the poetics above align with the science in relation to the movement of the planet as being 'The grinder'? She grinds upon Herself. The true Salt of the Earth.

[Deleted]

"Replying to post 56 by marco"

From 1 Kings 17: "And the barrel of meal wasted not, neither did the cruse of oil fail, according to the word of the LORD, which he spake by Elijah."

And from the Brothers Grimm we have eternal production of salt:

I wasn't asking for a story from the Bible that was like another make-believe story. I was asking for a comparable make-believe story to which the entire Bible compares.

The Bible is a collection of accounts by different authors across many millennia where the stories tie together in a common thread throughout.

Bible debunkers claim the whole corpus is a hodge-podge of myths and fairy tales. But they have no paradigm outside the Bible to which they can point and say, "just like that."

If you're going to follow this line of defamation, you may take pride in asking the believer to prove they are not make-believe. But actually, the burden has now shifted to you.

You now have to show the evidence of some author down at the beginning, conceiving of a plan to foist some initial stories on mankind knowing full-well he is making it up.

Then, you have to identify who decided to pick this up next and (even if he took it as true) add to the narrative with more make-believe, and so on

You have to show how this went on for millennia (or how it was all done in a few years, posing as a historic line of stories)

THAT's the make-believe example, outside the Bible, I'm asking you to name.
Otherwise, you have the most cleverly disguised, most powerfully effective make believe story ever conceived.

And then you have to explain that (because it would be your claim)

[Don McIntosh]

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?

Another great question Marco.

I should say up front that being human rather than divine, and living in this universe rather than an eternal realm outside it, I have precious little prior information on what exactly a divine mission should be expected to look like. (What I would do on this earth, given a measure of divine power, versus what God would do, are clearly two different things.)

However, I do have access to the historical accounts of the Jewish nation, whose origins and subsequent history do not seem entirely explicable apart from the activity of the God they worship. And I have the writings of the Jewish prophets, whose prophecies foretold the coming of a Messiah who would deliver them from bondage. I have the Gospels, four factually distinct but overlapping missionary biographies of Jesus, whose teachings, miracles, and resurrection appeared to fulfill those messianic prophecies. And finally, I have theological insights from his followers that spell out further that our bondage is chiefly spiritual, that the kingdom of God is not of this world. Therefore we need to repent of our sins, trust in Christ for salvation, and begin to live this life in the light of the next.

In that larger context, yes, the life of Jesus reflects a divine mission.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 59 by Don McIntosh]

And I have the writings of the Jewish prophets, whose prophecies foretold the coming of a Messiah who would deliver them from bondage.

The possibly fictional Jesus character failed to do that.

Not that the Jews were IN bondage.

The biblical writings inform us that the Jewish nation approached the Roman Empire to enter a treaty with them. The Romans accepted the treaty and were staunch allies of the Jews, and supported the Judean peace during numerous internal disruptions.

Many Jews were VERY pro-Roman.

We only need to read Josephus and St. Paul.

The earliest copies of the "prophecies" we have are from Roman times ...

Which is worth pondering.

As is which of the numerous Jewish factions produced what propaganda.

And perhaps we can spare a thought for how we can establish that anyone's version of "God" had anything to with any of it.

As I constantly say, it looks much more like political propaganda to me.

But ...

If "God" can be shown ....