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!

[beeswax]

Jesus supposedly gave the Great Commission to go and baptise in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

So why didn't he tell Zacchaeus to get baptised as all the other disciples were baptising as well. I know people will say Jesus didn't baptise because he was God or summat..

Its just a silly ritual in my opinion and means absolutely NOTHING to God imo because Paedophile Priests were all baptised..So what? I was a Christian for 50 years and refused to go through that amazingly infantile and brain dead procedure. Maybe i was never Church fodder...

I'm sure Jesus told people they must be baptised in order to see heaven as why did the church dream up Limbo for unbaptised babies. You know folks, the more I really think about all this stuff, the more I am convinced we must be complete morons to go along with it all. Well, most people don't in fairness. It wasn't just semantics, believers died in their millions and parents with unbaptised babies tormented because of this poison!

I picture grieving parents who's child has died in childbirth or just a few years old being told by the Church their little ones could not go to heaven as they weren't baptised and would go to a place called Limbo awaiting the judgement of God. Then told their loved ones couldn't be buried in hallowed ground in the church yard for that same reason. NOW! I don't know about anyone else, but this makes me as mad as hell to read this and despite Jesus saying to the children, let them come unto me as they are like unto heaven itself. Now how come those idiots in the Catholic Church could not see how that conflicted with Limbo?

Maybe if they stopped doing all their meaningless rituals and incense waving, they may start realising what it is they are there for?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 51 by beeswax]

I don't think the RCC teaches Limbo anymore, so....

And I don't think it was ever an official doctrine. Could be wrong, but I think it was just common speculation. Or that of the theologians.

[Paprika]

But notably, Jesus did not uphold the scriptures himself and had many arguments like ours bringing up contradictions. This is why he says "your law" when talking to the Pharisees

Because they had their own additions to the Law.

and brings up "and hey, if the law is perfect like you believe then..."

Where?

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods�’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside—what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?

What is your point here?

Clearly we have a very different way of viewing the Bible. What evidence can possibly be brought forth to indicate one way or the other as correct? I say none whatsoever apart from God himself telling us.

Nonsense. We can take off whatever religious hats we're wearing and examine the historical claims, ie 'Did Jesus say this?'

[ElCodeMonkey]

But notably, Jesus did not uphold the scriptures himself and had many arguments like ours bringing up contradictions. This is why he says "your law" when talking to the Pharisees

Because they had their own additions to the Law.

Jesus was quoting Psalm 82:6 and called it "your" law to the Pharisees. So no, it was not one of their additions--it is part of the Bible we hold today and Jesus did not take claim to it as his own even though he is supposedly God and it is supposedly God's word.

and brings up "and hey, if the law is perfect like you believe then..."

Where?

I put it in bold so it would be easy to find: "and the Scripture cannot be set aside." I'm not sure what that means to you, but I take it to mean "and you can't go against the scripture" which, to me, is exactly like saying it is perfect. If it were not perfect then one should perfectly be allowed to go against it.

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods�’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside—what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?

What is your point here?

I believe I mentioned the points above. Was the correlation of my statements and the bold parts not clear?

Clearly we have a very different way of viewing the Bible. What evidence can possibly be brought forth to indicate one way or the other as correct? I say none whatsoever apart from God himself telling us.

Nonsense. We can take off whatever religious hats we're wearing and examine the historical claims, ie 'Did Jesus say this?'

We can't for two reasons: 1, I do not wear a religious hat since I am atheist and 2, neither of us have any way of knowing anything Jesus said; we can simply say the Bible claims he said something and argue regarding whether or not it is likely he truly did.

[Paprika]

But notably, Jesus did not uphold the scriptures himself and had many arguments like ours bringing up contradictions. This is why he says "your law" when talking to the Pharisees

Because they had their own additions to the Law.

Jesus was quoting Psalm 82:6 and called it "your" law to the Pharisees.

Seriously? What self-contradiction did he find in Scripture in that instance?

but I take it to mean "and you can't go against the scripture" which, to me, is exactly like saying it is perfect.

What an interesting assertion.

I believe I mentioned the points above. Was the correlation of my statements and the bold parts not clear?

Oh, I thought it obvious that it was irrelevant, so I thought you had something more substantive in mind.

See above: What self-contradiction did he find in Scripture in that instance?

[quote[
We can't for two reasons: 1, I do not wear a religious hat since I am atheist [/quote]
My dear fellow, that one self-identifies as atheist certainly does not imply that one does not worship anything.

and 2, neither of us have any way of knowing anything Jesus said; we can simply say the Bible claims he said something and argue regarding whether or not it is likely he truly did.

Correction: we can know some things by historical argumentation.

[ElCodeMonkey]

Jesus was quoting Psalm 82:6 and called it "your" law to the Pharisees.

Seriously? What self-contradiction did he find in Scripture in that instance?

I did not say there was a self-contradiction. I said he did not own the scripture as God's word.

but I take it to mean "and you can't go against the scripture" which, to me, is exactly like saying it is perfect.

What an interesting assertion.

Rather than commenting on the "interesting" nature of my quite valid observation, perhaps you can offer what you think the underlying purpose of these statements are for. Jesus did not merely say, "God's word indicates that we are all Gods". It says your 'law' indicates X and if you can't go against it then [paraphrased] "you are wrong." So he uses their law/scripture against them in the same way atheists do against Christians.

Correction: we can know some things by historical argumentation.

No, we cannot "know" anything. We can only presume, guess, surmise, and make educated guesses that are probably more likely to be correct than others. Unless you were there yourself, it is impossible to know anything. And even if you were there, it is quite possible to miss things and misinterpret things. Our brains are extremely fallible and unreliable.

[Paprika]

Jesus was quoting Psalm 82:6 and called it "your" law to the Pharisees.

Seriously? What self-contradiction did he find in Scripture in that instance?

I did not say there was a self-contradiction. I said he did not own the scripture as God's word.

*blinks*
In what way, pray tell?

Rather than commenting on the "interesting" nature of my quite valid observation, perhaps you can offer what you think the underlying purpose of these statements are for. Jesus did not merely say, "God's word indicates that we are all Gods". It says your 'law' indicates X and if you can't go against it then [paraphrased] "you are wrong." So he uses their law/scripture against them in the same way atheists do against Christians.

There is no reason why 'your law' could not have been given by God.

No, we cannot "know" anything. We can only presume, guess, surmise, and make educated guesses that are probably more likely to be correct than others.

I beg to differ. We don't need a 'foolproof' justification to know.

[ElCodeMonkey]

I did not say there was a self-contradiction. I said he did not own the scripture as God's word.

*blinks*
In what way, pray tell?

This is what I have been saying and explaining this whole time. And I've said it a few different ways. I am not sure how else to say it for you to understand. Jesus called it their law, not his, not God's, but theirs. And he quoted what is in our Old Testament when doing so. Clearly he did not hold it to be God's word. When you discuss the Bible with other people, you do not say, "well, in your book it says X" when you're referring to the book that you yourself believe is God's word. If you still don't understand what I am saying then I guess I'll let someone else try to explain it.

[Paprika]

I did not say there was a self-contradiction. I said he did not own the scripture as God's word.

*blinks*
In what way, pray tell?

This is what I have been saying and explaining this whole time. And I've said it a few different ways. I am not sure how else to say it for you to understand. Jesus called it their law, not his, not God's, but theirs. And he quoted what is in our Old Testament when doing so. Clearly he did not hold it to be God's word.

That hardly follows.

When you discuss the Bible with other people, you do not say, "well, in your book it says X" when you're referring to the book that you yourself believe is God's word.

Perhaps you might want to explain why one contemporary style of speaking in English should be projected onto an alien culture 2 millenia ago?

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 59 by Paprika]

Provide for me an example where "your" is used in a way that does not also insinuate "not my" in the Bible and maybe I'll entertain this possibility. Otherwise, it sounds like too many hoops to jump through and too much grasping at straws for me to take such a question seriously.