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]

.

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.

Not if that faith is not counter to reason.

[marco]

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

Reason cannot possibly explain everything in Christianity. Faith is there where reason fails.

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.

I don't think Christ was using your children as a template for his statement. Children, uninstructed by someone as thoughtful as you, and particularly "little" children, possess a charming innocence. When they reach the age of reason perhaps they are no longer entitled to the epithet little.

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

And I commend your use of reason. I used reason too, to get my interpretation. I wasn't suggesting that when we do a mathematics problem, for example, we abandon reason and employ faith. Faith is helpful when it comes to accepting those difficult concepts that I cannot accept. Reason helps you to interpret passages. When you get to something that is of a miraculous nature, you can put your reason aside.

[The Tanager]

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.

You just added in "with none the obviously correct one." Of course if none are obviously correct, then there is a lack of clarity. That's simply using two different terms/phrases for the same idea. My point is that the mere fact of there being various interpretations doesn't necessitate that none of them is obviously correct. People will come up with interpretations that obviously ignore or misunderstand the context. People will ignore that the culture is different.

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

So, people are supposed to be forced to believe one way, against their own thought process by whom?

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.

Oh, okay. Yes, I'm saying all of humanity has broken their link. It doesn't matter whether Adam is myth or not. How do humans do this? Our free will. But you are probably seeking more of why believe this is the case. That would involve something like a moral argument for God's existence. We can go discuss that, if you want.

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.

Who says no one was aware of the broken link? And who says everything goes on in the same old way? I never said that. That's not my Christian claim. And you were assuming (my understanding of) the Christian claims were true in order to show they lead to absurdities, so I don't see how changing the claim to a non-Christian one does this.

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.

Are you saying it was unclear to them or unclear to you? Being that this was a different culture than the one you grew up in, of course you have to do a little work to understand things in context. That's not a lack of clarity anymore than me talking to you about computers and then some remote tribesman cut off from our society not being able to comprehend what we are talking about. Just because he needs some analogies or explanations to get a better grasp, this doesn't mean I spoke unclearly. No stuttering, no stammering.

One verse I brought up was Matt. 26:28. There's no nebulous verbiage. In context, Jesus is talking to his disciples about his upcoming death and in this verse clearly says it will be for the forgiveness of sins. They all understood sin means "Look, friends, man has been cut off from God". I don't know how you could say it meant something different for these Jews. Saying it is 'for the forgiveness of sins' directly means "I'm here to reconnect you." That is directly what it means. On numerous occassion Jesus has already talked about rising on the third day. In 26:32 Jesus says "But after I have risen, I will...". And Jesus never said you'll immediately 'feel all better' in the way you probably mean that.

[marco]

You just added in "with none the obviously correct one." Of course if none are obviously correct, then there is a lack of clarity. That's simply using two different terms/phrases for the same idea.

You misunderstand the terms being used. The interpretations belong to the readers. The lack of clarity belongs to the writer. There is no redundancy in saying that because we can interpret the message in many ways, and still not be sure of which interpretation is right, then the writer was being unclear.

My point is that the mere fact of there being various interpretations doesn't necessitate that none of them is obviously correct. People will come up with interpretations that obviously ignore or misunderstand the context. People will ignore that the culture is different.

You are arguing against a point that was not made by me. Of course there may be a correct interpretation; there is just not an obvious one. And people can believe what they like, without being forced into one channel. Let's not call this essential truth.

Oh, okay. Yes, I'm saying all of humanity has broken their link.

Yes, you are simply stating this as if it were an axiom. It isn't. I don't see any reason to accept this tale of a broken link. And since the rest of the debate is built on this premise, it has no value. Saying Christ died to restore a broken link is silly if there was no broken link.

[The Tanager]

You misunderstand the terms being used. The interpretations belong to the readers. The lack of clarity belongs to the writer. There is no redundancy in saying that because we can interpret the message in many ways, and still not be sure of which interpretation is right, then the writer was being unclear.

I think that is a good distinction, yes.

You are arguing against a point that was not made by me. Of course there may be a correct interpretation; there is just not an obvious one. And people can believe what they like, without being forced into one channel. Let's not call this essential truth.

But that is the point I'm speaking against. You are saying the meaning is not obvious. I'm saying it is obvious. I've offered my interpretations of some pertinent passages and why I interpret it that way. You haven't shown my argument is clearly wrong or unclear, from the context, nor given a counter argument from the words of the author for other interpretations for us to consider. You are simply saying their are other interpretations and that which one is correct isn't clear. Show the various interpretations and how it isn't clear which one is the correct interpretation.

Yes, you are simply stating this as if it were an axiom. It isn't. I don't see any reason to accept this tale of a broken link. And since the rest of the debate is built on this premise, it has no value. Saying Christ died to restore a broken link is silly if there was no broken link.

No, I'm not. I'm answering the question of what news Jesus brought. And I'm backing it up with words attributed to Jesus. Whether Jesus brought true news or not is a different (and even more important) question. But, first, it helps to get clear on what the news actually was and that was what this thread started out asking. Jesus clearly believed there was a broken link and he claimed that he was that which reconnected it.

But I also even offered that the moral argument would be a separate support for the belief that the link is broken and I asked if you wanted to discuss that.

[marco]

But that is the point I'm speaking against. You are saying the meaning is not obvious. I'm saying it is obvious.

I have never been asked to prove that something is not obvious. If there are many interpretations, then for many the statement is not clear. I have no idea how to decide which interpretation is the right one, since each of the many groups will think their idea is right, else they would not subscribe to it.

You start with the proposition that man has cut himself off from God. I do not see this. You may have explained that your view of Christ's visitation is to restore a broken link; others may feel he came simply to give moral guidance; others may believe he came to extend the Kingdom to gentiles; others may think that Jesus never claimed to be God (nowhere does he say I AM GOD, and this is significant). So when you say "I have the right interpretation; prove me wrong" there is no way of moving you from your gut reaction. There are other views and there are intelligent people who hold them

But I also even offered that the moral argument would be a separate support for the belief that the link is broken and I asked if you wanted to discuss that.

I've made over 100 post-replies in the past few days and you refer me to posts you have made as though my memory extends to infinity. I have no idea how the moral argument supports a broken link nor what the moral argument is, in this situation.
I maintain that there is no reason to support the view of "broken link", though of course it allows some explanations of what Christ may have been doing. If you are saying the broken link goes back to Adam, then there are many objections to that.
Your view is one of many; I suppose it is no worse than others.

[The Tanager]

I have never been asked to prove that something is not obvious. If there are many interpretations, then for many the statement is not clear. I have no idea how to decide which interpretation is the right one, since each of the many groups will think their idea is right, else they would not subscribe to it.

It's easy. We give the possible interpretations and then check them against the actual texts. If various interpretations, given the context and culture, fit and contradict each other then the statement is unclear. I offered an interpretation. All you need to do is to show, from the text, how my interpretation is weak and/or offer other interpretations and how they fit with the texts. You don't trust me saying "I think I'm right" and you don't trust them saying "I think I'm right." You take the interpretations and you try to square them with the text. If the meaning is not obvious you should be able to point to the text and show how a few interpretations all fit that text.

You start with the proposition that man has cut himself off from God. I do not see this. You may have explained that your view of Christ's visitation is to restore a broken link; others may feel he came simply to give moral guidance; others may believe he came to extend the Kingdom to gentiles; others may think that Jesus never claimed to be God (nowhere does he say I AM GOD, and this is significant). So when you say "I have the right interpretation; prove me wrong" there is no way of moving you from your gut reaction. There are other views and there are intelligent people who hold them.

There is absolutely a way to move me from my position. You engage the texts they are based on and show how my view is clearly wrong or how another view also fits the text.

I've made over 100 post-replies in the past few days and you refer me to posts you have made as though my memory extends to infinity.

No, it was in my previous post to you (#63). I don't think that is expecting an infinite memory from you. In that post, I didn't present the moral argument, I simply said we could go down that road if you wanted to.

I maintain that there is no reason to support the view of "broken link", though of course it allows some explanations of what Christ may have been doing. If you are saying the broken link goes back to Adam, then there are many objections to that.
Your view is one of many; I suppose it is no worse than others.

Regardless of whether there are reasons to support the view of the 'broken link,' we were talking about what Jesus' message was. And that was clearly that there was a broken link. If anyone thinks Jesus taught there was no broken link then they are ignoring the closest texts we have of his recorded teachings and I don't know what they are basing their views on. That's not a lack of clarity in the author.

A different conversation we could have would be whether Jesus' message was connected with reality. I've already stated (just back in post #63) that it doesn't matter whether the broken link goes back to Adam or not. Therefore, those objections, whether valid or not, wouldn't accomplish anything here. This conversation would, however, take us into the moral argument, which I have not explained my understanding of it at all. Do you want to discuss that?

[marco]

[Replying to The Tanager]

I am happy to hear your outline of the moral argument.

The text you quoted, that apparently confirms man's break with God, is Matthew's famous:
"For this is my blood of the new testament which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins."


In the RC Church this forms the second part of the words of transubstantiation. They are taken as an instruction to commemorate Christ's sacrifice, by changing wine to his blood. I suppose you don't agree with this.

Romans associated this ritual with cannibalism, for there is just a whiff of that.

When Jesus lifts a chalice with wine and talks about his blood then we are in deep mystery and in figurative language. He is possibly referring to his coming voluntary death, for he has no intention of demonstrating to the authorities miraculous evidence of who he is.

You associate the words with some break in man's link with God, presumably because Jesus talks about forgiveness of sin. Is he referring to sins that will be committed in the future? He does not seem to be saying he's dying because of something that was done - but for the forgiveness of human sins (plural.)

Your interpretation seems to strain for meaning, does it not? But this is entirely because the words are figurative and we can attach any meaning we want to a figure of speech. Whatever meaning you extract, it is certainly not an obvious interpretation. You are deceiving yourself if you think so.

[oldbadger]

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

'I was a handworker along the Capernaum shoreline. I was good at what I did. I enjoyed eating and drinking with my friends. I had a gift for healing and understaning people. I had a vocation to win a fair deal for the working people. My life and vocation got picked up, twisted, spun and abused. Good luck to you all.'

[marco]

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

'I was a handworker along the Capernaum shoreline. I was good at what I did. I enjoyed eating and drinking with my friends. I had a gift for healing and understaning people. I had a vocation to win a fair deal for the working people. My life and vocation got picked up, twisted, spun and abused. Good luck to you all.'

That is amusing, oldbadger. This artless Jesus nonetheless asked his friends: "Who do you think I am?"

It is a problem deciding which of his reported words to keep and which to discard.