What did Jesus Really Preach?

[ElCodeMonkey]

Hey everyone, it's been a while for me. I thought I'd pose a debate question and shamelessly plug a request . So first of all, I would like to pose that Jesus did not preach sacrifice and atonement. At the time of the last supper, after 3 years of preaching, the disciples didn't even realize he'd be dying. Clearly he was preaching something other than, "I'm going to die for the atonement of your sins." So what was it and why the heck do Christians focus on bloody atonement instead?

As for my request, I thought you peeps would be the absolute best to help me out. I have written a book called "Christians Are Revolting" which ultimately centers around the question above while walking the reader through the experiences of my psychotic Christendom. I'm looking for a few people willing to proof-read it for me both Christian and non-Christian alike. If you have questions or would like to proofread it, please PM me rather than replying so that this thread focuses on the debate question. Be prepared, it is a full 340-page book of 127,000 words. As a thanks, I can also provide a printed copy when it is complete. Thanks!

[ElCodeMonkey]

If someone gives their life for others' is that not also humanitarian?

Depends on what you mean by giving it for others. MLK was humanitarian as was Jesus and they both died serving their humanitarian goals. So fighting for humanism even unto death is certainly very humanitarian. Offering to kill yourself on behalf of the sins of others is not humanitarian, however. Sacrifice is not humanitarian in the slightest.

You said in your OP that because the apostles did not seem to understand that Christ was going to give His life that He did not preach this. What if that is a teaching that He did not emphasize until the end? Such as at the last supper?

If it were only a teaching toward the end, then that means there were 3 years of preaching something else. These three years of preaching versus the "final" teaching should likely be quite important. And yet, what is MOST important to a fundamentalist Christian is "Jesus died for your sins" rather than whatever the 3 years of teaching was. Most Christians don't even know what he taught but they know he supposedly died for their sins. On top of this, his teaching seems to go against the idea of sacrifice for sins. He gave many accounts of people being separated by action as opposed to their faith. And he constantly questioned while people called him master without doing what he said. In Matthew 7:21-23 he even indicates that many "Christians" would be turned away simply because they continued in sin. People who "accepted" Jesus as Lord but never actually followed his teachings. The teachings for the 3 years is the important part, not his death.

[beeswax]

Can you explain how you know Jesus taught for three years please? Where in the NT does it give that information?

[ElCodeMonkey]

Can you explain how you know Jesus taught for three years please? Where in the NT does it give that information?

Answer: According to Luke 3:1, John the Baptist began his ministry in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar’s reign. Tiberius was appointed as co-regent with Augustus in AD 11, and 15 years later would be AD 26. Jesus began His ministry shortly thereafter at approximately the age of thirty (Luke 3:23). This gives us a basis upon which we can approximate what year Jesus began His public ministry: around AD 26. As for the end of His ministry, we know that it culminated with His crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension.

According to John’s Gospel, Jesus attended at least three annual Feasts of Passover through the course of His ministry: one in John 2:13, another in 6:4, and then the Passover of His crucifixion in 11:55–57. Just based on that information, Jesus’ ministry lasted 2 years, at the very least.

Because of the amount of things that Jesus accomplished and the places He traveled during His ministry, many scholars believe there was another Passover, not mentioned in the Gospels, which fell between the Passovers of John 2 and John 6. This would lengthen Jesus’ ministry to at least 3 years.

We can add more time because of all that took place before the first Passover of Jesus’ ministry in John 2. By the time of that first Passover (in the spring of 27), Jesus had already traveled from the area of the Jordan to Cana to Capernaum to Jerusalem. He had been baptized by John (Matthew 3:13–17), been tempted in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1–2), began His preaching ministry (Matthew 4:17), called His first disciples (John 1:35–51), performed His first miracle (John 2:1–11), and made a trip to Capernaum with His family (John 2:12). All this would have taken several months, at least.

Add to that the 40 days between Jesus’ resurrection and His ascension (Acts 1:3), and we have a total length of Jesus’ earthly ministry. From His baptism to His ascension, the late summer of 26 to the spring of 30, we have approximately 3½ years.

[Paprika]

I didn't say that.

I have actually studied this in great depth (hence the book I wrote about it).

That is hardly apparent to me. But if you have done so, do explain why those parts of the texts should be rejected, especially if you're not just picking and choosing as you will.

Why should it be apparent to you?

I would think that if someone had really studied the text deeply for years, he would be able to present a better argument than you've had in the original post: the only justification presented for the stance that "Jesus did not preach sacrifice and atonement" was "at the time of the last supper, after 3 years of preaching, the disciples didn't even realize he'd be dying".

Just because you disagree doesn't mean I'm wrong and thus have not studied it.

See above.

Since you appear to think the Bible is perfect, what brings you to that conclusion? And before you claim Timothy, I can also offer that my words are all perfect for correction and study as well. So if you believe Timothy, the same logic should lead you to believe my writings. So, why believe every verse in the Bible that Jesus purportedly said without further examination of history?

For the purposes of this discussion, I do not need a belief that 'the Bible is perfect' but a methodology that judges from the historical context whether what was attributed to Jesus plausibly was said by him, which is in contrast to a methodology that, having a conclusion in mind, rules out all statements or references to the contrary as 'not genuine'.

Also, check out the Jesus Seminar which had a bunch of people using their brains to figure out what was authentic and voting what they believed was accurate.

They've had a few eminent scholars on the team but frankly the whole endeavour was quite an embarrassment and highly biased so on the whole I find it a good thing that it has died out.

[Dropship]

At the time of the last supper, after 3 years of preaching, the disciples didn't even realize he'd be dying..

They did, he'd already told 'em, look-
"Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed" (Matt 16:21-23)

[ElCodeMonkey]

I would think that if someone had really studied the text deeply for years, he would be able to present a better argument than you've had in the original post

I could have presented a better argument, sure, but I didn't want to paste my book here as the OP. I thought it would be nicer to actually have a conversation.

For the purposes of this discussion, I do not need a belief that 'the Bible is perfect' but a methodology that judges from the historical context whether what was attributed to Jesus plausibly was said by him, which is in contrast to a methodology that, having a conclusion in mind, rules out all statements or references to the contrary as 'not genuine'.

Funny how we both assume we're judging from historical context and that the other is simply accepting whatever they fancy. I guess your history says "every last word is true" whereas my history says "Jesus preached a message of love, not sacrifice".

If you want a more detailed argument, by all means proof-read my book and you can offer whatever comments you like on it. Or, you can see the lists of verses I've compiled on different topics. I expect you'll read it all since you want a better argument, yes?

Here's a link compiling the verses indicating that the message of the Kingdom would become corrupt:
https://sites.google.com/site/hapticsyn ... corruption

Here's a link compiling the verses indicating that obedience to righteousness was the main command:
https://sites.google.com/site/hapticsyn ... /obedience

Here's a link compiling the verses indicating what righteousness actually is:
https://sites.google.com/site/hapticsyn ... hteousness

Here's a link compiling the verses indicating that sacrifice was not truly required by God:
https://sites.google.com/site/hapticsyn ... -sacrifice

Here's a link compiling the verses which indicate the original kingdom focused only doing Good:
https://sites.google.com/site/hapticsyn ... doing-good

Here's a link compiling the verses which indicate that the poor have always been on the forefront of God's kingdom:
https://sites.google.com/site/hapticsyn ... o-the-poor

[Paprika]

If you want a more detailed argument, by all means proof-read my book and you can offer whatever comments you like on it. Or, you can see the lists of verses I've compiled on different topics. I expect you'll read it all since you want a better argument, yes?

Here's a link compiling the verses indicating that the message of the Kingdom would become corrupt:

Noted. And we have theologically liberal Christians; what a surprise!

Here's a link compiling the verses indicating that obedience to righteousness was the main command:

Main command is to follow the commands of Jesus/God, sure.

Here's a link compiling the verses indicating what righteousness actually is:

Noted.

Here's a link compiling the verses indicating that sacrifice was not truly required by God:

https://sites.google.com/site/hapticsyn ... -sacrifice

How fascinating. You might want to look up the other posts where I've addressed this view (when raised by Elijah John): that you're basically throwing out swathes of Scripture from Exodus to Revelation where sacrifice is commended and commanded to maintain this view when these verses are very plausible, especially in context, as hyperbolic statements to shock the reader into realising that sacrifice is not the most important.

Here's a link compiling the verses which indicate the original kingdom focused only doing Good:
https://sites.google.com/site/hapticsyn ... doing-good

Nonsense, these verses from Paul's epistles only encourage the reader/listener to do good. They hardly indicate that 'the original kingdom focused only doing Good'; incidentally you don't discuss Paul's own talk about the sacrifice of Jesus. Shall we note this as more picking-and-choosing?

Here's a link compiling the verses which indicate that the poor have always been on the forefront of God's kingdom:
https://sites.google.com/site/hapticsyn ... o-the-poor

Noted.

You do realise that 'Jesus and/or Paul preached that we must do good eg. giving to the poor' does not contradict with 'Jesus and Paul preached about Jesus' own sacrifice'?

[beeswax]

The story of Zacchaeus proves that Jesus didn't come for forgiveness of sins and atonement by his death on the cross and the point made that he never said anything different for the previous two or three years. It was essentially the same message that John the Baptist gave.

Become a better person, be compassionate and loving and do the best you can for others, even your enemies. They both thought the end of the world was coming in their generation and that God was ready to judge them.

The point was and is that humanitarian statement was good for all peoples, ALL of the time no matter when the end of the world was coming.

It was never about blood sacrifice. That was Paul's corruption and why he should not have been allowed to be in the NT canon.

[Paprika]

The story of Zacchaeus proves (snip)

Asserted, but not demonstrated.

It was never about blood sacrifice. That was Paul's corruption and why he should not have been allowed to be in the NT canon.

Asserted, but not demonstrated.

[beeswax]

The NT certainly DOES demonstrate what I said..

Jesus had three years? preaching and rarely during that time if ever, informed his audience that he was to die for the sins of mankind. The last day or too don't count as all those thousands he preached to earlier would not have known about a statement by a man going to his death.

The story of Zachhaeus certainly DOES show that Jesus didn't consider his death to be an atonement/sacrifice for salvation. Just the opposite. Its an inconvenient truth that Christians won't like of course. Jesus said he wasn't good or God, but they ignore that too and no, its not my opinion. Its there in black and white.

My question to Christians is WHY is it necessary to believe that Jesus died for your sins? I once asked what about all those that John baptized? Did they then have to subsequently need to believe in a second baptism and Jesus as their Saviour and the ONLY way to God and heaven?

My guess and it is a guess, is that once you can convict people they are sinners you have caught them in the net. Cos the next thing is you give them the cure. And its ONLY they who have the cure too..