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?

[bluethread]

.

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�)?

Such was the opinion of the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Medeo-Persians, Greeks and Romans, not to mention every other civilization since. Every society presumes itself the greatest and most advanced, except the Hebrew society. Though these rise and fall, Hebrew society rolls on, primarily because it acknowledges that there is nothing new under the sun and all of this self-aggrandisement is just vanity and vexation of the spirit, IMO. As George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." As I have stated, Yeshua was not concerned about "modern life", He spoke to Torah life. Every society has faulted Adonai's people for not falling in line, but here we are.

[Zzyzx]

.

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

Such was the opinion of the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Medeo-Persians, Greeks and Romans, not to mention every other civilization since.

Cultures and civilizations seem to go through a life cycle. Vigorous but unrefined early phase, a period of maximum achievement, a time of trying to hold position, then gradual (or abrupt) decline into has been status. That applies to nations / societies outside the Mediterranean region as well – consider Europe and South America (and now, perhaps, the US).

What has any of that to do with whether Jesus said anything applicable to modern life? If he did not, why beat around the bush – just say so. But then, why revere what he said that applied to ancient people as though it had meaning presently?

Every society presumes itself the greatest and most advanced, except the Hebrew society.

Perhaps the Hebrew society never amounted to much beyond religion and writing. They were often or usually conquered and occupied by other nations.

Though these rise and fall, Hebrew society rolls on, primarily because it acknowledges that there is nothing new under the

Nothing new? Technology, medicine, machine food production and transportation, electronic communication, space travel – nothing new?

and all of this self-aggrandisement is just vanity and vexation of the spirit, IMO.

Recognizing one's position may well be realistic evaluation rather than self-aggrandizement

As George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Did Santayana suggest a means to avoid human mistakes and misdirections?

As I have stated, Yeshua was not concerned about "modern life",

So you say. Is that said as an official spokesman or representative – or as personal opinion?

He spoke to Torah life.

Rather short-sighted for a supposedly omniscient entity, wasn't it?

Every society has faulted Adonai's people for not falling in line, but here we are.

What are “Adonai's people� accomplishing that others do not do as well or better? Arising to the level of mediocre with supposed supernatural help isn't outstanding or impressive.

If a person achieves becoming average with a lot of help that would seem to suggest they were/are significantly below average without the help – like a student who can only make passing grades with tutoring.

[marco]

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.

As you know everything depends on one's interpretation of passages, because Christ never made his point clear. Here are instances where the brain of an infant beats that of an adult, when it comes to faith.

Matthew 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 18:4 Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Mark 10:15 Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.

Luke 18:17 Truly I tell you, if anyone does not receive the kingdom of God like a little child, he will never enter it.

1 Peter 2:2 Like newborn infants, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation,

Of course he could be recommending innocence, purity, simplicity. He might want followers not to question, and obey as infants obey their parents. Who knows?

[The Tanager]

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?

I wasn't sure if you were claiming that because there can be various interpretations of metaphors like Jesus being the vine, this means Jesus' teaching was unclear.

Who decides? We all decide for ourselves and can benefit from hearing the thought processes of others.

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.

How is humanity being separated from God wacky?

How am I suggesting that we all act in some unified way to please or offend? What do you mean there?

And I didn't say God became human to investigate how things could be fixed. He knew how to fix it. That was to become human and then impart that perfected humanity to us. This is wacky because...?

However confident you feel, present the case as to how it is obviously wacky.

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

It's silly to want the best for others? Okay...

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.

Who said they did? I gave you verses where Jesus does speak to this and you haven't responded to them. Respond to them. If you then want to turn our attention to the mustard seeds, grapes and wheat to see what those are meant to refer to, I'd be glad to.

[bluethread]

Cultures and civilizations seem to go through a life cycle. Vigorous but unrefined early phase, a period of maximum achievement, a time of trying to hold position, then gradual (or abrupt) decline into has been status. That applies to nations / societies outside the Mediterranean region as well – consider Europe and South America (and now, perhaps, the US).

What has any of that to do with whether Jesus said anything applicable to modern life? If he did not, why beat around the bush – just say so. But then, why revere what he said that applied to ancient people as though it had meaning presently?

"(M)odern life" is just a phrase designed to make the various cultures of the current world appear to be singular. That is also the common view of the dominant cultures throughout history. I did say that what Yeshua said was not directed at other cultures, including "modern life". Those who do live in the dominant culture have to make some adjustments, as they always have, but that doesn't mean they need to throw their culture out all to get her.

Every society presumes itself the greatest and most advanced, except the Hebrew society.

Perhaps the Hebrew society never amounted to much beyond religion and writing. They were often or usually conquered and occupied by other nations.

Unlike many other cultures, all of which have gone through the same thing, as you noted above, they own up to that and have incorporated it into their culture. Maybe that is why that culture has survived to this day.

Though these rise and fall, Hebrew society rolls on, primarily because it acknowledges that there is nothing new under the

Nothing new? Technology, medicine, machine food production and transportation, electronic communication, space travel – nothing new?

and all of this self-aggrandisement is just vanity and vexation of the spirit, IMO.

Recognizing one's position may well be realistic evaluation rather than self-aggrandizement

As I said vanity and vexation of the spirit. Yes, societies have become more complicated, but the basic principles are the same. "(R)ealistic evaluation" is dependent on the standard one is using to do the evaluating. Generally, as I presume is the case here, the dominant society establishes the standard of evaluation. Therefore, it is not surprise that those of the dominant society would consider theirs to be the grander society.

As George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Did Santayana suggest a means to avoid human mistakes and misdirections?

He suggested a lot of things. However, I included the statement in an attempt to counter the fallacy of novelty, that appears to be the basis of your argument.

As I have stated, Yeshua was not concerned about "modern life",

So you say. Is that said as an official spokesman or representative – or as personal opinion?

That is my assessment based on the literal, historical and cultural context of the accounts.

He spoke to Torah life.

Rather short-sighted for a supposedly omniscient entity, wasn't it?

I don't think so. Focused, yes, short sighted, no.

Every society has faulted Adonai's people for not falling in line, but here we are.

What are “Adonai's people� accomplishing that others do not do as well or better? Arising to the level of mediocre with supposed supernatural help isn't outstanding or impressive.

If a person achieves becoming average with a lot of help that would seem to suggest they were/are significantly below average without the help – like a student who can only make passing grades with tutoring.

Why must they do anything as well or better? You seem to be of the impression that I am arguing that Adonai's people are somehow superior to anyone else. I do not recall making any such claim.

[marco]

I wasn't sure if you were claiming that because there can be various interpretations of metaphors like Jesus being the vine, this means Jesus' teaching was unclear.

That is certainly true. Multiple interpretations, with none the obviously correct one, would suggest a lack of clarity. Of course, to excuse the Lord, one can say that people are simply stupid in the way they construe.

Who decides? We all decide for ourselves and can benefit from hearing the thought processes of others.

That, I would suggest, is an unsatisfactory situation, if the message has any importance.

How am I suggesting that we all act in some unified way to please or offend? What do you mean there?

By saying that humanity, not two or three people, has cut itself off from God and this situation needs to be fixed, you are saying that all humans have acted in some way that broke links, since you are saying the breakage affects all humanity. How, then, has humanity acted in some way that broke links? One can see that a murderer may have done something wrong and links might be broken, but you are saying that sin is the result of broken links not the cause. So I take it that humanity, by some spectacularly concerted effort, managed to break links for everyone.

You are surely not returning to the Adam myth.

And I didn't say God became human to investigate how things could be fixed. He knew how to fix it. That was to become human and then impart that perfected humanity to us. This is wacky because...?

He knew how to fix it, did he? He changed shape and in this metamorphosis was able to restore a broken link - but nobody was aware the link was broken, and afterwards, everything went on in the same old way.
I don't employ the word "wacky" but what I have just outlined seems to fit that description. It is bizarre divine behaviour.

I gave you verses where Jesus does speak to this and you haven't responded to them. Respond to them. If you then want to turn our attention to the mustard seeds, grapes and wheat to see what those are meant to refer to, I'd be glad to.

Your quoted verses relate to "life" and shedding blood that men will be saved.
Here is clarity:
"Look, friends, man has been cut off from God. Don't ask me how, but he has. I'm here to reconnect you. To do this I have to die, but don't worry, it will only be for a few days and I'll come back, after which you'll all feel better, since links will be restored."

Instead we have messages that you cleverly interpret as indications of your story. If Jesus did have any divine authority, do you suppose he would stutter and stammer in nebulous verbiage? Presumably he had the eloquence of a Cicero and Cicero's undoubted ability to express himself clearly. If he did, he didn't use it.

[bluethread]

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.

As you know everything depends on one's interpretation of passages, because Christ never made his point clear. Here are instances where the brain of an infant beats that of an adult, when it comes to faith.

Matthew 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 18:4 Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Mark 10:15 Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.

Luke 18:17 Truly I tell you, if anyone does not receive the kingdom of God like a little child, he will never enter it.

1 Peter 2:2 Like newborn infants, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation,

Of course he could be recommending innocence, purity, simplicity. He might want followers not to question, and obey as infants obey their parents. Who knows?

If you acknowledge that "like a little child" does not have to mean "toss aside the libraries in our brain and leave empty receptacles for the celebration of what seem absurdities, contradictions and false ambrosia", then why did you say that. That is not what I think of when I think of a child. Matthew 18 is talking about humility. Mark 10, Luke 18 and I Peter 2 are talking about eagerness. None of these have to do with irrationality.

[marco]

If you acknowledge that "like a little child" does not have to mean "toss aside the libraries in our brain and leave empty receptacles for the celebration of what seem absurdities, contradictions and false ambrosia", then why did you say that. That is not what I think of when I think of a child. Matthew 18 is talking about humility. Mark 10, Luke 18 and I Peter 2 are talking about eagerness. None of these have to do with irrationality.

I know it does not HAVE to mean... but that is a possible interpretation and appears to be a good one based on the observation that Faith replaces reason.

I said it because that is often a consequence of abandoning reason and acting as a child. Faith sometimes seems to require this.

Yes, YOU can extract an interpretation that fits YOUR picture. Why do you suppose there are so many Christian sects? Not because they WANT to be different, but because they find different interpretations. The fault is in the message or at least in its wrapping.

[bluethread]

If you acknowledge that "like a little child" does not have to mean "toss aside the libraries in our brain and leave empty receptacles for the celebration of what seem absurdities, contradictions and false ambrosia", then why did you say that. That is not what I think of when I think of a child. Matthew 18 is talking about humility. Mark 10, Luke 18 and I Peter 2 are talking about eagerness. None of these have to do with irrationality.

I know it does not HAVE to mean... but that is a possible interpretation and appears to be a good one based on the observation that Faith replaces reason.

Interesting, that argument has not been presented on this thread. At least not by me. Why would you presume that Yeshua is calling for faith to replace reason? Augment, yes, replace not so much.

I said it because that is often a consequence of abandoning reason and acting as a child. Faith sometimes seems to require this.

Why do you equate acting as a child with abandoning reason? That is not what is called for in the passages you presented. I have always encouraged my children to apply reason, not abandon it.

Yes, YOU can extract an interpretation that fits YOUR picture. Why do you suppose there are so many Christian sects? Not because they WANT to be different, but because they find different interpretations. The fault is in the message or at least in its wrapping.

I used reason to "extract" that interpretation. Isn't that what you are suggesting one should do?

[Zzyzx]

.

Why would you presume that Yeshua is calling for faith to replace reason? Augment, yes, replace not so much.

No one knows what Yeshua calls for -- only what Bible writers claim.

"Believe on faith" DOES replace reason. No reasoning at all is required to simply believe what one is told.