What did Jesus actually give?

[marco]

Jesus saves, we are told. His immediate followers were slaughtered. He did nothing. We praise martyrdom. Christians were sent naked into the Roman arena and one would have thought that a single word from Jesus, from the mists of eternity, would have stopped the lions in their tracks and given a Christian message to the Roman spectators. No - the lions gobbled up the Christians, children and all.

Christ's legacy seems to be empty promises of eternal life, often via a painful death. He promised to be back possibly in 50 or 60 AD, but he didn't show up. Muhammad made promises too and both he and Jesus attract billions - admittedly not from rational persuasion, but often from martial conquest or offers of bread and water.



Why should we credit Jesus with anything other than empty promises?

If he had been a successful messenger of God, why has Muhammad achieved fame as God's final prophet?

Is Christ's sole achievement his nice parables and good example?

[marco]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]


Death and suffering are beautiful; martyrdom is a crowning glory. God displays love by allowing his "son" to be tortured. Jesus begs for help when about to be crucified, but submits to what he thinks is heaven's cruel wish.


And for those who think that terror was man's doing, not the will of Christ, read:




Matthew 10:

34. "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.

35 "For I have come to 'set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-lawagainst her mother-in-law';

36 "and 'a man's enemies will be those of his own household.'

This is one of his successes then. Protestant hates Catholic; Christians have killed Christians. What a legacy!

[ttruscott]

Jesus saves, we are told. His immediate followers were slaughtered. He did nothing. We praise martyrdom. Christians were sent naked into the Roman arena and one would have thought that a single word from Jesus, from the mists of eternity, would have stopped the lions in their tracks and given a Christian message to the Roman spectators. No - the lions gobbled up the Christians, children and all.

Your persistence in ignoring that suffering in the Christian faith is to train HIS sinful elect in righteousness, Heb 12:5-11, WITH NO promise that they will continue to live once they have learned their lesson to be righteous, is quite remarkable... Once they have fully repented and will sin no more there is no reason for them to stay in this life of suffering so they are taken back to be with HIM which causes their body to die.



Perhaps a re-read of FOX's Book of Martyrs would add additional light...

[ttruscott]

This is one of his successes then. Protestant hates Catholic; Christians have killed Christians. What a legacy!

Yes, a perfect legacy that all sinful elect will learn of the true eternal depth of the evil of those who are reprobate and condemned already thus becoming holy and ready to accept the judgement. Only by insisting that all people are the same and that there is no particular or specific reason for suffering can your argument be made but as there are two kinds of sinners, those under HIS promise of salvation and those condemned already for their choice to sin the unforgivable sin, your polemic fades to dust...

[marco]

Your persistence in ignoring that suffering in the Christian faith is to train HIS sinful elect in righteousness, WITH NO promise that they will continue to live once they have learned their lesson to be righteous, is quite remarkable...

I place no belief in this theory. The term "sinful elect" seems something Christ had no inkling about.

Perhaps a re-read of FOX's Book of Martyrs would add additional light...

John Foxe lived in an interesting and turbulent period of English history. One side was as bad as the other in religious persecution. Foxe gives a very biased account and judgment. Has this got any relevance?

[marco]

Only by insisting that all people are the same and that there is no particular or specific reason for suffering can your argument be made but as there are two kinds of sinners, those under HIS promise of salvation and those condemned already for their choice to sin the unforgivable sin, your polemic fades to dust...

People are generally the same; it's a common assumption. The exceptions are judicially treated as exceptions. The differentiation of sinners is a theory too far. It is impressive how you state these things as if they were verified by the Encyclopedia Britannica, or by God himself. Are they?

[Divine Insight]

Why should we credit Jesus with anything other than empty promises?

I just got done pointing this out in another thread.

The Gospels clearly have Jesus lying.

Jesus promises that he will do any thing we ask in his name.

That is a demonstrable outright lie.

I just got done telling the story of my Christian aunt who prayed to God in Jesus's name to keep her daughter safe from harm from an abusive husband. What happened? The husband ended up brutally beating her daughter to death beyond recognition with a heavy steel jack handle.

So much for the promises of Jesus.

Empty words to be certain.

And there is no excuse for Jesus. If he wasn't going to keep this promise then he had no business making it in the first place.

[ttruscott]

place no belief in this theory. The term "sinful elect" seems something Christ had no inkling about.

Yet everything He says about His sheep is applied to the elect by the disciples and Paul...

[ttruscott]

People are generally the same; it's a common assumption. The exceptions are judicially treated as exceptions. The differentiation of sinners is a theory too far. It is impressive how you state these things as if they were verified by the Encyclopedia Britannica, or by God himself. Are they?

Sinfulness makes everyone generally the same, not their human nature. A theory too far ? yet the theory that sheep are redeemed goats and the good seed are repentant tares is incompatible with the rest of scripture which teaches otherwise as per: Deuteronomy 32:5 "They have acted corruptly toward Him. They are not His children, because of their defect but are a perverse and crooked generation. OR: their defect is that they are not HIS children...

I see you have not given up this theory of the sameness of all people yet, even though you have yet to give your interpretation of Deut 32:5 that makes me wrong. As long as this is ignored as a theory to far, you give up all credibility to giving a proper Christian interpretation of Christian theology, destined only for the strawman pile.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

I think you answered your own question.

You see the spectacle of innocent people being horribly killed for public entertainment as wrong. Of course- is that not human nature?

Well obviously the Romans did not- it was the height of civilized entertainment for them for centuries, - arguably the most advanced civilization on the planet. So this advanced civilization did not bring heightened morality, only a more efficient form of mass immorality.

Jesus' message was so successful in permeating modern civilization as we know it, that we take it entirely for granted today. It's very hard for us to imagine a time when 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' was a genuinely novel concept. As a common person, without title, position, wealth, I am very grateful for this, how about you?