Jesus the man

[QED]

When it comes to Jesus, I have little doubt that the man himself lived and taught more or less as recorded. I find it highly probable that such a man might devote his life (sic) to teaching a philosophy developed during the course of his life. I cannot find any mention of how old he was when he first started to pass on his message, but I don't recall him ever being referred to as a child messiah.

Irrespective of the chronology, I can readily imagine how such a philosophy might form in the mind of a human-being in his position in the world. His ideas were transcendent and novel yes, but I see them as needing to be no more than his own. The degree of intellect demonstrated by the great greek philosophers before his time reminds us of the potential that man had already attained. Jesus's own education could have equipped him with all the tools he would require for the tasks he set himself, aided of course by his intrinsic genius.

Simply by basing his appealing messages upon a set of irrefutable propositions he could pass them into the realms of apparent truths upon which the christian faith could attach itself. I'm not suggesting he was an out-and-out "con artist" except I do suggest he borrowed the methods in order to further an arguably just cause.

I suspect that many are readily attached to the Christian message because it appears to offer a set of attractive absolutes. Take for example the golden rule:

All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets

This typical (but non-exclusively) Christian message seems on the face of it to be a real nugget, but it turns out to be iron pyrites when your realise that it is at the mercy of ego. I have yet to see a single account in any religion of what I would consider to be a divinely inspired absolute delivered from beyond the realm of our own limited capacities.

[bernee51]

I am an open person just like you,

Are you open to questioning your beliefs? I think not.

Are you open to questioning the existence of the man on whom you base your whole life view? I think not.

I notice that you managed to avoid clearing up the confusion over the 1000's who witnessed the resurrection. I noticed you avoid supporting any of your claims to the historicity of the bible.

Are you willing to even investigate the possibility that you could be wrong? i think not.

but I'm open in the sense that I know there is a God and a life after this one.

Ah I see - you are only open as long as what is presented fits with your beliefs.

How do you know there is a god?

How do you know there is an after life?

...he gave us the gift of eternal life. He helped restore our faith in
God by showing us eternal life is a choice that we must make. We were
born sinners because God loved us so much that He let us choose our
destiny. It makes sense to me, at least as much as I expect it to.

It makes no sense whatsoever to me. The whole idea is illogical. It is blind unquestioning adherence to a pre-rational mythic world view.

[stevencarrwork]

Just know those babies get to go straight to Heaven and don't even have to bother with the horrible things this world has to offer, and will enjoy only the good forever.

How do you know those babies get to go straight to Heaven, apart from the fact that you cannot stomach the alternative?

[The Happy Humanist]

Fellow heathens, this is fruitless, and grows tiresome. They cannot be argued out of it. Their worldview is airtight. There is no contradiction, no fallacy, no negative that cannot be countered with "God can do anything." And if we get even slightly close to a coup de grace, there is that passage in the Bible that says something about wise men are really fools, or what seems like wisdom is really foolishness, or something. When their backs are against the walls, they have that to fall back on. It is, in many respects, a perfect philosophy. It cannot be argued against with mere words.

Experience is a different matter, however. As they go through life, they will encounter happy, productive, ethical non-believers who seem to be enjoying life as much as they do, and more. They will experience bad things happening to good Christian people in approximately the same ratio as they happen to everyone else, and a few of them will start to wonder. Some of them will have loved ones contract awful diseases that cry out for euthanasia, and they will wonder about God's wisdom. Some will have gay friends, and they will wonder if it would so horrible for them to marry....

No, the best argument against Christianity is Eupraxophy - seculars leading a good, wise, joyful life, sacrificing for future generations with no hope of reward in the afterlife. Nothing in their Bible prepares them for such an experience.

Now go forth, be fruitful, and party on.

[trs]

No, the best argument against Christianity is Eupraxophy - seculars leading a good, wise, joyful life, sacrificing for future generations with no hope of reward in the afterlife.

That's plain silly. The existence of "good, wise, joyful" seculars is no more an argument against Christianity than is the existence of "good, wise, joyful" Hindus.

[RevJP]

That's plain silly. The existence of "good, wise, joyful" seculars is no more an argument against Christianity than is the existence of "good, wise, joyful" Hindus

Agreed.

As they go through life, they will encounter happy, productive, ethical non-believers who seem to be enjoying life as much as they do, and more

I do so daily and am happy for it. How or why would this matter or change the thinking of a Christian?

They will experience bad things happening to good Christian people in approximately the same ratio as they happen to everyone else, and a few of them will start to wonder.

Again, I see this regularly. While sad that bad things happen, it is unavoidable. Nothing in scriptures tell us that we are immune from the follies of life, we are in the world are we not?

Some of them will have loved ones contract awful diseases that cry out for euthanasia, and they will wonder about God's wisdom. Some will have gay friends, and they will wonder if it would so horrible for them to marry....

So let's understand this: A christian would be confronted by disease and question God's wisdom? I suppose it could happen, heck I suppose anyone could question anything, I suppose that a christian could even doubt and rethink his/her faith, in fact, over the course of the last 2000 years I'm sure this has happened. I am also sure that christians have been confronted with illness and untimely deaths of loved ones and have had their faith strengthened, their sorrow softened, and their burdens lightened.

You seem to think faith is considered some sort of magical shield that we believe it protects us from the foils and foibles of this world. Bad things happen, bad things happen to good people. They happen to bad people, God's people, all people. Scriptures confirms this for us and tell us that our strength is in the Lord, not the magic 'bat shield'.

[Arch]

No, the best argument against Christianity is Eupraxophy - seculars leading a good, wise, joyful life, sacrificing for future generations with no hope of reward in the afterlife.

That's plain silly. The existence of "good, wise, joyful" seculars is no more an argument against Christianity than is the existence of "good, wise, joyful" Hindus.

This show how little you even consider other people's words. This is you behavior as a christian. You might not agree with what he said. However it was hardly PLAIN SILLY.

What he meant by the statement which by the way you abridged. Is that the experience of GOOD people who exist outside of CHRISTEDOM can affect some christian's views of their doctrines like the one that says everyone except christians are going to hell.

One seeing the actions of christians (of which many are in no way holy)versus a being being good natured and loving and kind for no reason at all other than that is how he feels he should behave could cause a person to rethink why that person would be sent to hell fire.

A person being loving and giving and kind to his neighbors with out any hopes of reward or fear of punishment to me is more powerful and true that a person being good only because he is scared of going to hell.

A person doing good without the thought of reward is one of the principles of the teachings of the bible. An atheist has no congregation to appluad his good works, he has no thought of some after life reward. An athiest or agnostic that is a good person stands in the hellishness of the world and responds kindly simply because he or she believes that is the manner in which he or she should be. That is a greater statement then those who do good for their salvation rights.

[The Happy Humanist]

No, the best argument against Christianity is Eupraxophy - seculars leading a good, wise, joyful life, sacrificing for future generations with no hope of reward in the afterlife.

That's plain silly. The existence of "good, wise, joyful" seculars is no more an argument against Christianity than is the existence of "good, wise, joyful" Hindus.

Nor less of one...

[trs]

No, the best argument against Christianity is Eupraxophy - seculars leading a good, wise, joyful life, sacrificing for future generations with no hope of reward in the afterlife.

That's plain silly. The existence of "good, wise, joyful" seculars is no more an argument against Christianity than is the existence of "good, wise, joyful" Hindus.

This show how little you even consider other people's words. This is you behavior as a christian. You might not agree with what he said. However it was hardly PLAIN SILLY.

It is, in fact, "PLAIN SILLY" [sic!]. More than that, it's a distortion and an implied ad hominem in that it suggests that cenral to Christianity is the presumption that non-Christians are inherently bad, unwise, and joyless. While you may well find some backward Christians who hold such a view, they are hardly the norm. Certainly that position is not normative Christianity. A 'Humanist' should be above such nonsense.

I am curious about your comment: "This is you behavior as a christian." Would you mind explaining it?

[Overcomer]

I'd like to return to the original statement about whether Jesus ever said anything that stands out.

When it comes to Jesus, I have little doubt that the man himself lived and taught more or less as recorded. I find it highly probable that such a man might devote his life (sic) to teaching a philosophy developed during the course of his life. I cannot find any mention of how old he was when he first started to pass on his message, but I don't recall him ever being referred to as a child messiah.

If I might borrow a phrase from Marshall McLuhan, the medium is the message. Christ's death on the cross and his resurrection speak volumes about his love for humankind. Since a person must be without sin to enter the presence of God in heaven and none of us have the ability to make ourselves that way, a man had to die as a sacrifice to atone for our sins and give us the right and righteousness to spend eternity with God. But that man giving up his life would have to be sinless to be an acceptable sacrifice. Therefore, Jesus came and was both fully man and fully God, the only being who could ever give us the gift of salvation, being the only man who was ever sin-free.

Remember that it is possible for a man to give up his life for another, especially if that other is his child or a friend. But how many men would give up their lives for the molester of their child or the murderer of their friend? Jesus gave his life, not only for them but for ALL who have ever lived, no matter how heinous their sins. For our part, we have only to accept that and enter into a glorious relationship with Jesus who did not stay dead, but lives!

Actions really do speak louder than words!

[Overcomer]

A P.S. re: the question about Jesus being refererd to as the Messiah at an early age -- I forgot to mention that, in the Gospel accounts of Jesus' life, there are references to him as the Messiah before he was born (Matt. 1:21), immediately after his birth (Matt. 2:2,11), at his circumcision at eight days of age (Luke 2:21-40) and as a child of 12 (Luke 2:41-51), just to give you some examples.

Jesus was born the Messiah. And I repeat, the message he brought from God wasn't just one of words. Jesus WAS the message, the message of God's love, the message of God's salvation in human form. He was the Word of God made flesh. He didn't just talk about God's love, he lived it by coming to earth and dying on the cross for me, for you, for everybody who has ever walked or will walk this earth.

It's important to remember that Christianity is all about relationship, a relationship with God in the person of Jesus Christ through the infilling of the Holy Spirit. It's not about following a bunch of teachings. It's about following Jesus. Therefore, to focus on what Jesus said and forget what he did on the cross is to miss the whole point of his coming. His uniqueness lies in who he is and what he did (providing a means to remove all the sins of all humankind through his death and resurrection) and what he did no other man has done or could do, and, even more importantly, needs to do because Jesus has already done it.