If Jesus was who he is claimed to have been . . .

[Zzyzx]

.
If Jesus was who he is claimed to have been WHY didn't he say or do anything new or useful?
http://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/04/ch ... -question/

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 4 by Elijah John]

Who do you think Jesus claimed to have been? God or a scientist? Or a combination of Rabbi/Prophet/Messiah?

If the latter, his contributions would have been strictly Spiritual and religious, not practical or technological.

We KNOW that Jesus isn't attributed to have said anything really practical or technological. Even "love thy neighbor" is stupid if your NEIGHBOR happens to be Charlie Manson.

Love him and RUN.

The thing about Jesus is... might not have existed in the first place. Not even as a person. Just a super character in an elaborate comic book without too many pictures. I don't think they were into picture books back then. But I'm willing to bet they just LOVED rip-roaring tall tales.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 4 by Elijah John]

Who do you think Jesus claimed to have been? God or a scientist? Or a combination of Rabbi/Prophet/Messiah?

If the latter, his contributions would have been strictly Spiritual and religious, not practical or technological.

We KNOW that Jesus isn't attributed to have said anything really practical or technological. Even "love thy neighbor" is stupid if your NEIGHBOR happens to be Charlie Manson.

Love him and RUN.

The thing about Jesus is... might not have existed in the first place. Not even as a person. Just a super character in an elaborate comic book without too many pictures. I don't think they were into picture books back then. But I'm willing to bet they just LOVED rip-roaring tall tales.

Maybe your interpretation is incorrect?

Love means bringing light.

I think if we love a criminal then we seek to bring justice to them. Many criminals do say that they are glad they got caught and had a chance to stop hiding and after prison start over.

[JLB32168]

It seems to me that “useful� here is a subjective value judgment that can be debated w/about as much success as “Vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream.� Can we all agree upon a list of criteria that would meet the burden of proof for “useful?� W/o such a standard, it seems pointless to discuss it.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 12 by Wootah]

We KNOW that Jesus isn't attributed to have said anything really practical or technological. Even "love thy neighbor" is stupid if your NEIGHBOR happens to be Charlie Manson.

Love him and RUN.

The thing about Jesus is... might not have existed in the first place. Not even as a person. Just a super character in an elaborate comic book without too many pictures. I don't think they were into picture books back then. But I'm willing to bet they just LOVED rip-roaring tall tales.

Maybe your interpretation is incorrect?

Oh, it's not really an interpretation about Jesus being real. It's a guess, and nothing more. The rest, about what he reputedly GAVE... is my opinion.

Love means bringing light.

That's a lovely definition. I don't see the point youre trying to make.

I think if we love a criminal then we seek to bring justice to them.

You can think that.

Many criminals do say that they are glad they got caught and had a chance to stop hiding and after prison start over.

And many others, don't say that.
I don't see the point that you are trying to make.

[Zzyzx]

.

It seems to me that “useful� here is a subjective value judgment that can be debated w/about as much success as “Vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream.� Can we all agree upon a list of criteria that would meet the burden of proof for “useful?� W/o such a standard, it seems pointless to discuss it.

"Burden of proof for useful"? What the heck does that mean?

Must we ALL agree upon (or criteria for) what is useful? Opinions may vary. For instance, some think that teaching people to wash feet is useful whereas others may think that is of little value but teaching people to wash hands and cook foods thoroughly ARE useful.

Some think that teaching people to depend upon invisible entities is useful. Others disagree and instead value teaching people to depend upon themselves and their associates.

Perhaps it would be appropriate for those who think that Jesus taught things they regard as useful (in real life) to list those useful teachings.

[JLB32168]

"Burden of proof for useful"? What the heck does that mean?

If we’re going to debate the usefulness of Christ’s message then I think it’s only appropriate that we all agree to a list of objective criteria to judge usefulness. Of course, one’s the burden has been met according those criteria or it isn’t met, the downside is that one cannot retreat from his position.

[Danmark]

I don't think we have to strain to hard to define "useful.' It means something having practical value; something that adds value in a practical way.
While Jesus may not have added anything new or unique, even the non theist can admit to much practicality or utility in his message. It is no small thing to reinforce as he did the value of humility and love. Not insisting on one's own way, for example, can ... or does, reap a practical benefit of better mental health... probably better physical health as well. I think there is much of practical value in the teachings of Christ. I have no trouble dismissing the supernatural aspects claimed about Jesus, but can retain respect and belief in the value of some of his teachings.

[JLB32168]

I don't think we have to strain to hard to define "useful.' It means something having practical value; something that adds value in a practical way.

I don’t think that anthropology has any practical value. Someone else might think differently; therefore, if we’re going to argue if something has practical value we have to establish mutually agreed upon criteria to judge practicality. If not then any answer trumps any other answer.

Opinions are like the terminus of the large intestine. Everyone has one.

[PghPanther]

Useful to whom?

To those who want to know His Father, to know the Way to His Father, to know the requirements of His Father, to those who want to know Christ and the truth came to bear witness TO... to those who want to be loved and known by Him and His Father, to those who wish to receive the gift of life, then everything He said and did was useful.

To anyone uninterested into those things, then what He said may not be useful to them.


But if He is who He is claimed to be (a condition of the OP) - the Son of God; the Truth; the Way and the Life; the King; the Anointed One... etc - then everything that He taught is useful, and true. At least to anyone who wishes to know His Father, to know truth, to be part of them and their Kingdom, to receive the gift of holy spirit and eternal life.



**

One might ask why He did not teach pure science instead? You can't teach people what they cannot yet bear; what they cannot yet grasp. His knowledge of science - if He is who He is claimed to be - is far beyond our own. But we can't measure the spiritual yet - we can't even detect it yet with our tools; but it is the spiritual that He said is what matters.

So He taught what mattered for us to have life (eternal), and He answered questions that people brought to Him, and He taught as the people could handle at the time.

But that does not mean He did not teach scientific things; it just means that some of those things had to be communicated in a way in which all people from any time period could grasp.

For instance, He taught that it is power (energy) in Him that went out of Him when He healed that woman. But He did not teach the scientific details of that. We still haven't caught up to that, and unless it is observed scientifically, it will be discounted and dismissed.

I will use the following as an example of what I mean, not as an example of something that I can prove:

The term "putting on and taking off the flesh" is something that Paul referred to, when he spoke about what would happen when we were 'caught up' with Christ in the sky and 'changed in a twinkling'. Putting off this flesh (this body), and putting on the new body (the spiritual body). These sound like 'religious terms', but that is how Paul was able to describe something that we don't yet have a scientific words to describe. Because we have not yet observed this using scientific studies; etc.

It is how my Lord and the angels move in between the spiritual and the physical - putting on and taking off the flesh.

Although we do have some scientific backing in understanding how that might be possible, in the sense of matter to energy; but that is incomplete. Also standing wave theory touches a bit on the possibility of this. But that is fairly new as well.


My point is, that unless the science that my Lord taught is proven or scientifically observed in the world at the time it is being taught, it is unlikely to be accepted; because it is unlikely to be understood.



In any case, the second part of my post has to do with possibility and science, and would probably make for a better discussion than a debate.

The first part of my post is my answer to the OP.




Peace to you Z!
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Why is it then that there is so much conflict over who he is.......what he claims to be.....and what he is suppose to reveal ....not among the secure world.............but among believers themselves?

Do you for instance believe what the JW posts think about Christ?

Many would claim he isn't even a Christian but in a cult.

All I know is Christ is no more knowable then say Hercules....everything else is just people thinking they get some supernatural revelation but it never matches up with others in a fashion that would make it consistent and ubiquitous to all humans desiring such revelation.

[Danmark]

I don't think we have to strain to hard to define "useful.' It means something having practical value; something that adds value in a practical way.

I don’t think that anthropology has any practical value. Someone else might think differently; therefore, if we’re going to argue if something has practical value we have to establish mutually agreed upon criteria to judge practicality. If not then any answer trumps any other answer.

Opinions are like the terminus of the large intestine.* Everyone has one.

This post represents a logical fallacy you frequently employ, a version of the false equivalence argument, which in this case says, essentially, all debates are pointless because we cannot all agree precisely on the terms. There is a core meaning most people agree on about the word 'utility.' Because we cannot all agree absolutely does not mean we cannot use the word meaningfully.

__________________________________
*How does this trite, unoriginal and coarse expression bolster your argument? It actually detracts from it, because it is another example of illogic: "Since everyone has an opinion, all opinions are valueless.'