What news did Jesus actually bring?

[marco]

Jesus came to give us good news. Jesus died and the world moved on. Given that some say he was God, one would expect he had something profound to tell us. He may have had cures for some illnesses -but he didn't pass them on to us. He gave us no information that science could use. Before him good men were good and bad men were bad.

a. Did Jesus tell us anything we could not have figured out for ourselves?

b. If someone in the 21st century were to ask: What was his message, in clear terms, what might the reply be?

[GTO50]

Not really, Jesus came to give them the bad news.

The bad news being that most all will be cast into hell.
Even most all of those who thought themselves as to
be God's chosen people.

That's a point of view. Many are called but not a lot get in.

That is very bad news to them who Jesus came to give them the good news.

[GTO50]

Not really, Jesus came to give them the bad news.

The bad news being that most all will be cast into hell.
Even most all of those who thought themselves as to
be God's chosen people.

I think this is what he said incidentally but it's hardly the purpose of his visitation, else his parables would have been more pessimistic. The meek and the poor would still weep.

The good news is most all will be cast into hell.
Even most all of those who thought themselves as to
be God's chosen people.

[bluethread]

Well, if the Australian wishes to be identified with Israel and Yehudah, then he would care. If he doesn't he wouldn't. Yeshua said what he meant, he just said it in the context of the culture in which He lived, just as we do today. His message is to those who have "ears to hear", i.e. those who are interested in what He had to say, not what they wanted Him to say, and are wiling to see it in the historical, grammatical and cultural context in which it was given.

That's fine. You have localised Christ to the point of insignificance and if he has anything of relevance to say today it is found by extracting from his statements some meaning that probably was never imagined in his time and culture.

When we give important messages today they are relevant to humanity and are understood outside of the language and country in which they are delivered. We have not extracted from Christ's reported words anything that could be said that is worthwhile to our modern society. They don't help.

That is entirely a matter of judgment on your part. Nearly everything anyone says is stated to a particular audience and requires one to take historical, grammatical and cultural context into account. Without an understanding of the audience and the historical, grammatical and cultural context, one might argue that what you just posted does not contain anything that could be said that is worthwhile to our modern society. Of course, such an assessment would be rather shallow. That is why context is so important.

[marco]

[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/

Without an understanding of the audience and the historical, grammatical and cultural context, one might argue that what you just posted does not contain anything that could be said that is worthwhile to our modern society. Of course, such an assessment would be rather shallow. That is why context is so important.

Arrogant though marco is occasionally, he's never aspired to Messianic heights, so my simple compositions here may well be worthless to modern society, and probably are. But we would hope that the words of Christ transcend all barriers: cultural, historical and even grammatical, to fall meaningfully on modern audiences.

As yet I do not have anything that I can go off with and say: this, at least, is what Christ gave us today. We have talk of life eternal, of sheep and goats, of fulfilling scripture or fleshing it out, intercession and restoration of broken links with the Divine. All this sounds nice but it signifies nothing.

[bluethread]

Arrogant though marco is occasionally, he's never aspired to Messianic heights, so my simple compositions here may well be worthless to modern society, and probably are. But we would hope that the words of Christ transcend all barriers: cultural, historical and even grammatical, to fall meaningfully on modern audiences.

As yet I do not have anything that I can go off with and say: this, at least, is what Christ gave us today. We have talk of life eternal, of sheep and goats, of fulfilling scripture or fleshing it out, intercession and restoration of broken links with the Divine. All this sounds nice but it signifies nothing.

Again, you are free to your opinion. For me, Yeshua's life and message serve to clarify many things, especially with regard to the Tanakh, which you have noted is important to me.

[marco]

Again, you are free to your opinion.

Thankfully so. I often wonder how, when things seem as they are to me, they can possibly offer a firework display of promise and rapture to others. I don't see that my stupidity is of a particularly spectacular kind nor my thought processes too far behind the average.

Christ suggested one methodology was to become as little children; toss aside the libraries in our brain and leave empty receptacles for the celebration of what seem absurdities, contradictions and false ambrosia.

[bluethread]

Again, you are free to your opinion.

Thankfully so. I often wonder how, when things seem as they are to me, they can possibly offer a firework display of promise and rapture to others. I don't see that my stupidity is of a particularly spectacular kind nor my thought processes too far behind the average.

Christ suggested one methodology was to become as little children; toss aside the libraries in our brain and leave empty receptacles for the celebration of what seem absurdities, contradictions and false ambrosia.

If you are referring to Yeshua, I don't see Him suggesting anything like what you just presented.

[Zzyzx]

.

That is entirely a matter of judgment on your part. Nearly everything anyone says is stated to a particular audience and requires one to take historical, grammatical and cultural context into account. Without an understanding of the audience and the historical, grammatical and cultural context, one might argue that what you just posted does not contain anything that could be said that is worthwhile to our modern society. Of course, such an assessment would be rather shallow. That is why context is so important.

Okay. Words attributed to Jesus were intended for an audience that was uneducated, likely illiterate, Aramaic speaking, largely ignorant of nature's events and processes; in a culture that was “backward� by modern standards.

Most modern US citizens tend to be educated, literate, English speaking, somewhat informed about natural processes, and living in an advanced technological society. Almost the opposite of the audience of 2000 years ago.

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the words attributed to Jesus are NOT appropriate for modern people. Agreed?

WHY, then, do Christians revere the words attributed to Jesus and attempt to apply them to current life?

Did Jesus say ANYTHING that is applicable to modern life (beyond “be nice to each other�)?

[The Tanager]

Vine is a metaphor. It can have various interpretations. Is he God - is he a plant supplied by God - is he a conduit for human petitions to God?

There is a difference between competing interpretations and having a complexity that speaks to different aspects/levels. There is also a difference between there being various interpretations and there being better interpretations than others.

In John 15, on the level of Jesus' divinity, Jesus doesn't directly answer that question (nor should we expect him to...different analogies have different purposes). I think this does point more towards his divinity, however. Jesus is talking to his disciples, claiming that he will soon be taken away from them (16:5). How can they remain in just another human after that human dies and goes to be with God? You could say through keeping his teachings, but that's not what Jesus says. Sure, he says he has taught them some things and for them to keep his commandments, but he says more than that. He talks about the Advocate/Spirit being sent to them and testifying of him, not just his teachings. He is speaking of a continued relationship with the divine.

One corollary to this is that if we remain in him, our prayer life will be changed (15:7-8) to where we have 'the words of Jesus' and our requests will get done. It shows prayer to be where we get on the same page as the fully good, loving God, rather than God granting us our selfish desires.

A shepherd herds sheep and may shear them or kill them for mutton; the relationship between shepherd and sheep is one of control, not one of love, unless the shepherd is unusual.

If you are referring to John 10, Jesus clearly uses this to (a) rebuke the Pharisees as thieves and robbers of the Jewish people (vv. 1-6) and (b) to say he is a loving shepherd. Jesus doesn't come to steal, kill and destroy but to give abundant life (v. 10), laying his life down for the sheep (v. 11) rather than being like the one who runs away from suffering to save himself because he cares nothing for the sheep (v. 13).

Jesus then says he has come not to steal, kill and destroy like the thief (v. 10), but to give the sheep life to the full (v. 10). He is the shepherd that lays down his life for the sheep (v. 11), not one that abandons them

To say that he is the abstract noun truth suggests that he embraces all that we consider to be true in his being, and that is a hard concept to accept. To say he is the way is possibly clearer if it means his instructions furnish the path to God and heaven; to say he is the life requires us to redefine life in a way that is open to many interpretations.

Jesus has just talked about his upcoming death and how he is going to the Father to prepare a place for them (14:2). Thomas asks him what the way to the Father's house is (v. 5). Jesus doesn't say his instructions will show the path to heaven. Jesus says he will come back and take us there (v. 3). Jesus says he is the way, the truth and the life (v. 6). Jesus is directly tying the way to the Father with himself, with us knowing Jesus. There isn't some key teaching that Jesus is saying will lead you there if you know it. There isn't some way of life, that if followed exactly, will lead you there. Jesus is the way, the truth, the life. We come to the Father through following, knowing and living with Jesus and Jesus can get us there by dying and resurrecting.

It would be arrogant of anyone to say that they have sailed through these few statements and each time extracted the proper interpretation. It is a natural consequence that many sects have risen up, following different interpretations of words that are certainly not lucid.

I agree. I always hold my interpretations tentatively. I could be wrong in parts I just shared. But I'm not going to just assume I'm wrong because there is a possibility that I'm wrong. We should go with what makes the most sense and change if new information or ideas come to light.

A plethora of interpretations does not mean that all these interpretations are good ones, based in the actual context. People can come up with some wacky stuff. And they can't be convinced they are wrong, often. That doesn't mean their interpretation is valid. We are to discuss our interpretations with each other and reason about them. If you have reasons to doubt my interpretation from the text, challenge my claims with your support. If you have reasons for a conflicting interpretation, challenge my thinking with your support.

There are various interpretations of quantum mechanics, but that doesn't mean there aren't better explanations of it than others or that we should consider quantum mechanics to be completely bogus.

I have no idea what this means. I assumed that sin disconnects, since the popular notion is that God hates sin or shuns sin or some such piety.

I'm saying the disease is our broken relationship with God, while what we call sins is a symptom of being out of relationship with God. Christianity says God created life to be in constant relationship with him to 'work' right. That relationship is the fuel we need to run properly on. Without that relationship, being left on our own, we will get out of whack and believe that certain things are good, when we really are not taking into account everything we should. We see the good in the pleasure we will feel by sleeping with another women while ignoring the bad of the broken relationships it will cause and how we won't truly be content through this experience, for instance.

Yes, God hates sinful actions because of the damage they do to ourselves and other humans. We are trapped in living a less abundant life than one that would result if we were in constant relationship with God. We become more and more self-centered and we will damage others (or at least not help others like we could) to gain pleasure for ourselves that doesn't actually fulfill our desire for pleasure...it starts by creating in us a desire for more and more pleasure and leads to less and less fulfillment on those promises.

I cannot see Christ's part in the broken link between man and God. He has, on the face of it, nothing to do with it. If Father and daughter have stopped speaking, then one goes and offers an apology and relations are restored. Why this complex arrangement of Christ being an intermediary?

Did you read my post 14? (I mean that as an honest question, not as in 'man, didn't you read what I wrote already') I feel like I addressed that directly there. If you did, please let me know why you don't think it addresses your issue here.

I cannot see why there would be "broken links" between man and God. Different people act in different ways; some sin, some lead saintly lives, but the suggestion is that humans are cut off, and this is a prima facie unfairness.

The suggestion is that humans have cut themselves off. If humans have done that, how is God being unfair?

The supposition is that man is essentially sinful or bad which is evidently not so. If God expected perfection he could have created perfection.

Why is that the supposition? Christianity (certain segments not withstanding...did I say that right?...it's late) seems to me to say that man is a mix of good and bad. We are the image of God, but we do sin.

I agree with you that if God only wanted to guarantee moral perfection, He could have created different kinds of creatures than He did. He could not have created beings with free will, which I think Christianity teaches we are. I think that is a greater option than robotic, morally perfect beings.

[marco]

There is a difference between competing interpretations and having a complexity that speaks to different aspects/levels. There is also a difference between there being various interpretations and there being better interpretations than others.

There is a difference between an elm leaf and a beech leaf but what has that to do with anything? In a variety of interpretations one would expect that some are better than others. But who is to decide on that?

A plethora of interpretations does not mean that all these interpretations are good ones, based in the actual context. People can come up with some wacky stuff.

This is amusingly ironic, since the explanation you proffered in post 14 fits this description. You think humanity is in a hole, having somehow cut off links with God. This suggests that we all act in some unified way to please or offend. Some of us are murderers and some saints, some fairly thick and others geniuses. But we've all managed, as a human unit, to disrupt communication channels with God. Ingeniously God hit on the idea of making himself human to investigate how the broken channel could be fixed!!! I don't claim to be completely conversant with every form of wackiness, but I would confidently suppose that this theory conforms perfectly.

Yes, God hates sinful actions because of the damage they do to ourselves and other humans.

Yes, this is a return to the religious obsession with sin and God's squeamishness. It strikes me as silly.

If Jesus wanted to explain the theory of man's divergence from God he could have said so in terms that are clear. His mustard seeds, grapes and wheat tell us nothing about the desperate situation we are apparently in, or how to fix it. I suspect he knew nothing about it either.