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]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

He fleshed out HaTorah(pun intended).

He provided the means by which the Promise is fulfilled, i.e. the problem of guilt.

We might have been able to figure these things out some other way, but that does not appear to be what was happening. Regarding 21st century man, we have the luxury of history. It is too bad we also have many other luxuries that lead us to believe we shouldn't have to pay attention to history.

[marco]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

He fleshed out HaTorah(pun intended).

He provided the means by which the Promise is fulfilled, i.e. the problem of guilt.

We might have been able to figure these things out some other way, but that does not appear to be what was happening. Regarding 21st century man, we have the luxury of history. It is too bad we also have many other luxuries that lead us to believe we shouldn't have to pay attention to history.

He certainly commented on Scripture and apparently fulfilled it. This would be relevant to those that are intimately involved, but curiously Jews don't uphold this view.

I'm afraid your second response is too cryptic for me. I cannot see how the " id est" is in any way explanatory. Perhaps my former ability to interpret English sentences is deserting me.

And your comments on our ignoring history are also lost on me. Help.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

He fleshed out HaTorah(pun intended).

He provided the means by which the Promise is fulfilled, i.e. the problem of guilt.

We might have been able to figure these things out some other way, but that does not appear to be what was happening. Regarding 21st century man, we have the luxury of history. It is too bad we also have many other luxuries that lead us to believe we shouldn't have to pay attention to history.

He certainly commented on Scripture and apparently fulfilled it. This would be relevant to those that are intimately involved, but curiously Jews don't uphold this view.

I'm afraid your second response is too cryptic for me. I cannot see how the " id est" is in any way explanatory. Perhaps my former ability to interpret English sentences is deserting me.

And your comments on our ignoring history are also lost on me. Help.

In Judaism it is not uncommon for one shul to reject the teachings of another.

The second response is directed at Paul's application of the imagery in the Tanakh to Yeshua. Admittedly, that is not apparent to the casual reader. Also, those connections of Tanakh imagery with theological principle were not apparent without Yeshua's life and teachings.

My third point is that the Scriptures need not be presented in a modern textbook or even Dr. Seuss fashion, because we have the resources necessary to put them in the context of the time periods covered and the time periods of the initial readers. However, it behooves the reader to make the effort, because when one restates the writings associated with one culture into the language and context of another culture they lose their proper effect, especially when the one culture rejects the standards of the other.

[Inigo Montoya]

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?

This is a fun question. Regarding A, I'm going to take a few liberties and say there's nothing of Jesus's alleged sayings that couldn't have been wholly invented dialogue. That's not where you're going with it but it's interesting. Whatever fraction or puzzle piece of this "godhead" he's supposed to have been, he says nothing that couldn't have been imagined by an author of the period.

If Mark or John quoted him rattling off Pi to a thousand places or sharing the coding for a 3D printed plastic cat bust or charting a course for "Pluto" in a "rocket ship," we might pause. But what is the guy quoted as saying that Joe Blow couldn't have come up with back then? If folk manipulate verses into meaning whatever they need to hear most in some "spiritual" sense, that's one thing.

But if the man is supposed to be 33.3% god and 100% god and 66% man and 100% man (or whatever the hell that absurdity is) he says nothing that clearly separates the words of a shared omniscience from a writer living 2000 years ago.

I'm through babbling. Carry on.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 5 by Inigo Montoya]

I agree that NONE of the words attributed to Jesus seem particularly profound or well informed -- nothing that would likely beyond the capabilities of a preacher or prophet of the era.

Words attributed to great thinkers before and since seem much more profound.

Can anyone cite ANY words attributed to Jesus that indicate remarkable knowledge or intelligence?

[marco]

In Judaism it is not uncommon for one shul to reject the teachings of another.

Well that's what we might call a negative virtue then. Not good news.

The second response is directed at Paul's application of the imagery in the Tanakh to Yeshua. Admittedly, that is not apparent to the casual reader. Also, those connections of Tanakh imagery with theological principle were not apparent without Yeshua's life and teachings.

The constant nudge, nudge connecting some detail of Christ with Scripture does not give us a message today, but serves merely to offer some passport papers for Yeshua.

My third point is that the Scriptures need not be presented in a modern textbook or even Dr. Seuss fashion, because we have the resources necessary to put them in the context of the time periods covered and the time periods of the initial readers. However, it behooves the reader to make the effort, because when one restates the writings associated with one culture into the language and context of another culture they lose their proper effect, especially when the one culture rejects the standards of the other.

If it behoves the reader to make the effort, then the effort must be worthwhile. I asked what exactly is Christ presenting to us today, but from all this it seems very, very little, other than a few explanations of ancient writings, explanations that don't elucidate much, but make a greater mystery, especially on guilt and sin. Not good news.

[marco]

This is a fun question. Regarding A, I'm going to take a few liberties and say there's nothing of Jesus's alleged sayings that couldn't have been wholly invented dialogue. That's not where you're going with it but it's interesting. Whatever fraction or puzzle piece of this "godhead" he's supposed to have been, he says nothing that couldn't have been imagined by an author of the period.

If Mark or John quoted him rattling off Pi to a thousand places or sharing the coding for a 3D printed plastic cat bust or charting a course for "Pluto" in a "rocket ship," we might pause.

Someone once said: By the fruit shall ye know the tree, and you have illustrated this very well here. The intelligence we take from Christ is rather commonplace and certainly doesn't indicate divinity, nor even a man of remarkably informed status.

But what is the guy quoted as saying that Joe Blow couldn't have come up with back then? If folk manipulate verses into meaning whatever they need to hear most in some "spiritual" sense, that's one thing.

Whom do men say that he is? Son of a god, no less. And what fire did he offer humanity in the manner of Prometheus? Rumours of a doubt.

But if the man is supposed to be 33.3% god and 100% god and 66% man and 100% man (or whatever the hell that absurdity is) he says nothing that clearly separates the words of a shared omniscience from a writer living 2000 years ago.

I'm through babbling.

Ex babblibus muchum makum sensum, Inigo. We are hard pressed imposing a very special stamp on Christ, but we can accept that because many follow him, he's maybe as powerful as Alexander or Gandhi. But god? O dear, dear.

[marco]

I agree that NONE of the words attributed to Jesus seem particularly profound or well informed -- nothing that would likely beyond the capabilities of a preacher or prophet of the era.

His words are frequently quoted because many have beaten a path to the text, and elevated the ordinary to the sublime. He hath put down the mighty from their seat (farewell, Aristotle, Plato, Euclid) and exalted the humble.

Can anyone cite ANY words attributed to Jesus that indicate remarkable knowledge or intelligence?

This is essentially the point of my question. Nothing remarkable has come down to us. People helped each other before he came; they still do, but the difference is that now many attribute their kindness to the words of Jesus. If Jesus hadn't told them they would never have thought of being honest and kind. Charity, generosity, loving one's neighbour - is a legacy falsely attributed to him.

[The Tanager]

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?

As a Christian, I agree that Jesus didn't offer us scientific advances, nor was his moral message that different than many others. But those aren't the traditional Christian claims of Jesus' distinctiveness. He didn't come to make dumb people smart or bad people good; He came to bring the dead to life (which should result in knowledge and goodness, but they aren't the same thing).

The key idea pointed to in the earliest Christian texts are that Jesus came to die for us. Jesus says he came to lay down His life for people (John 10:11, 15) to give his life as a ransom for many (Matt 20:28, Mk 10:45). The idea is that our relationship with God was broken and Jesus came to set that relationship right again, not by giving us knowledge but by changing our humanity (obviously, this would need to continue to be unpacked, but there's the gist). Whether or not this actually happened, this is a distinct claim, I think. I'm open to hearing which other religions or worldviews have this same news claim.