Jesus was not a Christian

[paarsurrey1]

Jesus was a Jew and he did not start a new religion called Christianity. Christianity was started by Paul and the Church. Right, please?
Regards

[Willum]

[Replying to post 130 by AdHoc]

Well agreeing to disagree is one thing, but not explaining your position on what Deuteronomy says about Jesus is simply avoiding the issue. As is allocating likelihoods, you can venture what you think the academic odds are.

As for adultery - who was Jesus to make such a pronouncement - a nobody. Who cares what he said... once the Jewish authorities caught up with her, she was stoned.

So the story ONLY supports and encourages adultery. You're arguments to the contrary are non-sequitur, and as clever as they are, the Jews figured him out, and crucified him. QED.

The coins were Caesar's it says so in the Bible, "Whose image is this? And whose inscription?�
They ARE blasphemous.

Oh, well.

You deserve a better class of deity anyway.

[AdHoc]

[Replying to post 130 by AdHoc]

Well agreeing to disagree is one thing, but not explaining your position on what Deuteronomy says about Jesus is simply avoiding the issue.

I thought I clearly stated what my position is... its my position the scripture in Deuteronomy that you quoted isn't referring to Jesus and is not applicable in any way to Jesus.

As is allocating likelihoods, you can venture what you think the academic odds are.

I don't think I could calculate the odds of any of the things we've been talking about. It's like I could say anything that's extraordinary and then I ask you what are the odds I'm telling the truth. Well I'm either telling the truth or I'm not. There isn't a set of stats that you can review.

As for adultery - who was Jesus to make such a pronouncement - a nobody. Who cares what he said... once the Jewish authorities caught up with her, she was stoned.

He may be a nobody to you but He's not to me and He definitely wasn't to the Pharisees or they wouldn't have wanted Him dead. And as for the woman I don't believe she was stoned so He wasn't a nobody to her either.

So the story ONLY supports and encourages adultery. You're arguments to the contrary are non-sequitur, and as clever as they are, the Jews figured him out, and crucified him. QED.

Not so fast Q Ed.
I wrote what Jesus said about adultery, He clearly called it "sin". You read the same story but said Jesus was "promoting adultery".

You think my arguments "are non-sequitur"? My arguments are very sequitur. They ooze sequiturity.

The coins were Caesar's it says so in the Bible, "Whose image is this? And whose inscription?�
They ARE blasphemous.

I agree with you there.

Oh, well.

You deserve a better class of deity anyway.

I definitely don't want the god I deserve...

[Willum]

[Replying to post 132 by AdHoc]

And I don't see why it isn't applicable to Jesus.
He was unable to convince living witnesses of the time and place of his birth, Jews, that he was born in any special way.

He was, in their eyes, born out of wedlock, Deuteronomy applies.

If those people observed Jesus birth didn't think it was noteworthy, when they were seeking a saviour, how could you possibly believe it was special? They were there, the Bible was written hundreds of years later.

He definitely wasn't to the Pharisees or they wouldn't have wanted Him dead.

He definitely was nothing more than an wandering preacher to them. He was certainly not someone anyone would call for a verdict. Do the police call on your chaplain when a crime is in issue?

No.

That anyone would rely on Jesus as a legal body would be unlawful, and they'd get themselves stoned. It is a plot device.

Willum wrote:

The coins were Caesar's it says so in the Bible, "Whose image is this? And whose inscription?�
They ARE blasphemous.

I agree with you there.

So how could Jesus support blasphemy?

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 130 by AdHoc]

But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?� he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.� They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?�

“Caesar’s,� they replied.

Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.�

Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.

This shows that Jesus believed the separation of the state and the Church. He did not believe in "Theocracy". Am I right to deduce it, please?
Regards

[Willum]

[Replying to post 134 by paarsurrey1]

No, since he said it very close to a temple dedicated to Jove and the Caesars, where the tithes were accepted.
You see, the Caesars were gods. So his sin was two-fold:

He said you should give to the god Caesar BEFORE you give to God, and the coins he tendered were graven images dedicated to Caesar.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 135 by Willum]

He said you should give to the god Caesar BEFORE you give to God,

I honestly never thought of that. I'll go put on my dunce's hat and sit in the corner now...

[William]

[Replying to post 135 by Willum]

…15 But Jesus saw through their hypocrisy and said, “Why are you testing Me? Bring Me a denarius to inspect.� 16 So they brought it, and He asked them, “Whose likeness is this?� And whose inscription? “Caesar’s,� they answered. 17 Then Jesus told them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.� And they marveled at Him.…

http://biblehub.com/mark/12-16.htm

Bit of a stretch methinks. The context of the story is specific to the test. The answer was not 'give to Caesar first and then give to GOD next.' The answer was, 'the property of the coin was Caesars.' implying that GODs 'property' wasn't anything to do with the coin.

Consider the text leading up to this:

…14 “Teacher,� they said, “we know that You are honest and are swayed by no one. Indeed, You are impartial and teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Now then, is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not? Should we pay them or not?�

[Willum]

[Replying to post 137 by William]

Ah, but Greek is a contextual language.
Ah, but to understand it correctly you would have to acknowledge what, Roman and Jewish listeners would understand:

"Render to the god Caesar, (whose temple was a short distance away), what is Caesars, and render to the god God, those things that are his."

Caesar was a lord their god.
Caesar was before God.
Coins with Caesar's image on them declared him a god, and were therefore graven images.

That's a bunch of Commandments. Oh, well.

You may argue some context, but, 'reality' bites.
It was in no way lawful to pay tax.
If you don't believe that, then explain the resulting Jewish insurrection and subsequent diaspora, tactfully.

Rectification by denial is the default, but this is simply definitive proof Jesus was Roman fiction.

[William]

[Replying to post 138 by Willum]

but this is simply definitive proof Jesus was Roman fiction

Interesting conclusion. Why do you think the Romans created the character?

In relation to the OP statement:

"Jesus was not a Christian"

since he was fictional, it appears Jesus was not anything.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 139 by William]

Temporarily, at least, let's make the assumption: Jesus was or was not real, but there is no divinity associated with him.

What then are the take-aways, the terrestrial messages you get from the New Testament, if you read between the spiritual stuff.

"Do unto others..." Good order and discipline - the function of Government. (Luke 6)
"All of you must obey those who rule over you." Obey Government (Romans 13)
"Render to Caesar..." Pay your taxes, necessary for a Government to function (Matt 22)

Indeed, is there any other provable message in the NT?