What difference did Jesus make?

[marco]

Some think Jesus was a god while others see him as a prophet sent on a strange heavenly mission to get himself killed. Tied up with this theory is the idea that LOVE is involved; he accepted crucifixion because he loved people. That does not seem to make sense unless one constructs a complex theology about redemption.

Be that as it may, Jesus was with us for a short time period so it is relevant to ask what good or bad has resulted from his celestial mission. Alexander founded a city; the Egyptians left us stone monuments and tablets to say what they believed; Caesar changed the calendar for us, and allowed us to use the terms tsar and Kaiser. What is Christ's legacy? The good have stayed good and the bad are still bad; we have Christian charity and Christian killing. All in all we have what we would statistically expect from a popular preacher - some good, some bad.


What made Jesus special were his reported miracles. But not one single miracle enabled medicine to advance today; nor altered technology. Things have moved on as they did from Alexander and from Caesar and through the Inquisition we learned that love is the same as hate. We observe how one Christian group despises another.

SO


Did Jesus make a difference that would reflect a divine mission?


or


Is he, like Muhammad, a mystic who talked to God but offered nothing much to humanity?

[marco]

Perhaps greater things humans have done than Jesus, is something Jesus anticipated, and perhaps is saying so, he set humans down that path of achievement?

Yes, much is packed into the word "perhaps". Perhaps discoveries have been made via the grace of Christ - but then Archimedes lived before Christ could influence him. I don't know how we get round the claims that any fragment of good owes its birth to the Nativity. Are billions good because Christ said, mystically, "be good!" ?

I look around me and see no obvious benefits from Christ having lived somewhere.

[marco]

With this kind of question it's always good to clarify what metric is expected. A humanistic expectation will want to measure how mankind has improved materially, or ethically.

A sensible expectation will follow those lines. We should ask in what way we can measure the effects of something that purports to change things dramatically. If life goes on as it did before Christ came, it is relevant to ask what was the point of his coming.

So in the end, whether mankind has been made better off because of Jesus depends entirely on what mankind did with the gift of Jesus. What has been made better than before is that men can be saved if they desire to be, and that will always be independent of what evil men with free will might still do.

The question is whether there ever was a gift, not about its usage. The term "saved" requires the sort of acceptance that a piece of cloth has magical properties. Some who believe it has get better, ergo it is magical.

Welcome to the forum.

[marco]

I have heard people say that Jesus came to make bad people good. But, as Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias, rightly puts it, Jesus came to make dead people alive. People born dead in their sins remain dead in them without him. That's a huge difference to make and he's the only who capable of making it.

Well if he came to make dead people symbolically live he succeeded. We can easily look around and see changes in folk as they grow, and we can attribute these perfectly natural changes to the intervention of Christ. Another possible reason for his coming might be to make children take a liking to carrots and lettuce.

You talk of "huge differences". I wonder how this hugeness is measured.

[William]

[Replying to post 41 by marco]

I look around me and see no obvious benefits from Christ having lived somewhere.

That could be an eye of the beholder thing, either way. The points I made had to do with the idea of something NOT having happened then what would the world be like, which of course we do not know, which is why I said 'perhaps'.

Are billions good because Christ said, mystically, "be good!" ?

Did Christ say that? Indeed, did Jesus even say he was that? I was more focused on the OPQs...Did Jesus make a difference that would reflect a divine mission?

or
Is he, like Muhammad, a mystic who talked to God but offered nothing much to humanity?

Simply put, we cannot tell what influences the person Jesus had on how the world unfolded, but there is evidence that Christianity has, and still does, and one can make up their own mind as to whether that reflects a divine mission or offers nothing much to humanity, or some such other position between the two.

Is it a case of unrefined judgement that hero's make a difference and everyone else are 'meh'?

[marco]

Are billions good because Christ said, mystically, "be good!" ?

Did Christ say that? Indeed, did Jesus even say he was that?

No, Jesus didn't say that at all. I was summarising his entire mission.

Simply put, we cannot tell what influences the person Jesus had on how the world unfolded, but there is evidence that Christianity has, and still does, and one can make up their own mind as to whether that reflects a divine mission or offers nothing much to humanity, or some such other position between the two.

The problem here is that others have argued that because people built a religion in which torture played a part, we cannot blame Jesus. So assessing Jesus on what various religious leaders have decided is maybe unfair, either way. I was suggesting that if a divinity or a divinely inspired human came to change things, then we should see obvious changes. By the divine fruit will ye know the divine tree, I suppose.

[Deleted]

"Replying to post 42 by marco"

A sensible expectation will follow those lines. We should ask in what way we can measure the effects of something that purports to change things dramatically. If life goes on as it did before Christ came, it is relevant to ask what was the point of his coming.

But you have to first understand the definition of terms used in propositions, especially what "life" means. Christ says thru Paul, "all things will be made new." But if you mean all things that comprise physical reality that would be a mistake. The context is about spiritual things and how they affect or relationship to non-spiritual things.

All things about the meaning of our lives changes, and that naturally affects how we see all other things.

But that doesn't mean the man who is contemplating murder across town will be changed from doing so.

The question is whether there ever was a gift, not about its usage. The term "saved" requires the sort of acceptance that a piece of cloth has magical properties. Some who believe it has get better, ergo it is magical.

Welcome to the forum.

I'm assuming you are referring to the NT event of the woman touching His garment and being healed? Otherwise, how are you connecting "saved" to a piece of cloth?

If per the above, "magical" is the only explanation if one disbelieves in miracles connected with faith. The Bible never attributes the healing miracles of Jesus to magic. Only his enemies did that

[marco]

But you have to first understand the definition of terms used in propositions, especially what "life" means. Christ says thru Paul, "all things will be made new." But if you mean all things that comprise physical reality that would be a mistake. The context is about spiritual things and how they affect or relationship to non-spiritual things.

Yes, philosophers are meticulous in framing their propositions; Christ wasn't. You have interpreted - perhaps reasonably - what the man meant when he carelessly used the universal quantifier. Then again, his usage may not have been careless; he may have meant what he said, not what you suppose him to have meant. One can examine the context of the speech and make deductions from that, but we are often distracted by our own partialities.

But that doesn't mean the man who is contemplating murder across town will be changed from doing so.

Well in terms of the word "all" it does. All prime numbers are odd is almost correct, with one exception. Almost is not quite enough for Lady Veritas.

The Bible never attributes the healing miracles of Jesus to magic. Only his enemies did that

A rose by any other name .... If something happens in defiance of the laws we have come to accept, then it is a magical occurrence, a mystical occurrence, a miraculous occurrence.... We might use the word, magic, sarcastically when we feel no miracle happened, as a judgment on the credibility of the tale. When people claim they have performed feats that defy sense it is safest to assume they didn't.

Meanwhile, back at the OP we are still wondering what it was that Christ left the world after his brief visit. We are told the Holy Spirit leaves wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety and fear of the Lord - but it would be a brave or a foolish soul who would attest this with certainty. In the same way we can attest that Jesus left umpteen abstract nouns, but who can prove or disprove the claim?

[Deleted]

"Replying to post 47 by marco"

Yes, philosophers are meticulous in framing their propositions; Christ wasn't. You have interpreted - perhaps reasonably - what the man meant when he carelessly used the universal quantifier. Then again, his usage may not have been careless; he may have meant what he said, not what you suppose him to have meant. One can examine the context of the speech and make deductions from that, but we are often distracted by our own partialities.

Let's face it. The chief reason Bible debunkers argue this way is because if they entertain a Christian interpretation over a peculiarly secular one, they lose their claim that the Bible's full of contradictions.

But in the end, why would anyone value as more authoritative a person whose chief aim is to discredit Scripture? He is in many cases arguing from an abysmal understanding of the Bible in depth, has little or no comprehension of the quality of manuscript authorities for literature of this heritage, and often harbors an overwhelming bias that ruins the kind of objectivity he needs in making a fair assessment.

But there's then a double bias that virtually guarantees failure. He discounts the very people who have spent the quality time with proven tools of interpretation of this type of literature, and has the incredible hubris of calling those folks the ones who are biased.

Well in terms of the word "all" it does.

Forgive me here, but this what comes from a failure to comprehend ancient modes of speech and how context determines how hyperbole is to be understood. You simply can't insist that people living in a different culture two thousand years ago MUST conform to modern forms of usage that you use today.

Acts 1:1 The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach

This doesn't mean that Luke recorded EVERY word and action Jesus ever did. He didn't record when Jesus took His ease to relieve Himself, didn't include an account of all the meals Jesus ate, or even any and all teachings. John plainly tells us that if those things were written the world would not contain the books.
So all does not mean exhaustively all.

Col 1 5-6
the gospel which has come to you, just as in all the world it is constantly bearing fruit and increasing

The word all did not mean to include the native peoples living in the Americas, it didn't include all the island people of the Pacific. it didn't include the ancient far east, like the Chinese.

Acts 17:6 says, " they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also;

So did cities in China get turned upside down? How about all of those in India? Or the native tribes in Australia?

No one back then nor do most people today insist that these uses of ALL must mean what you mean. The only reason you're insisting on it is to make the Bible look unreasonable.

A rose by any other name ....

Which doesn't say anything about reality. I'll side with the folks who were there at the time, rather than with someone living 2,000 years after the fact and is merely expressing his opinion.

but it would be a brave or a foolish soul who would attest this with certainty.

Depends on who you're asking. If your asking all your friends, you'll get the bogus answer you deserve. If you consult the testimony of folks who were there, you get at least a more informed answer than your tainted atheist buddies.

In the same way we can attest that Jesus left umpteen abstract nouns, but who can prove or disprove the claim?

Only the minority of folks like you see them as abstract. A host of other people have no problems understanding their meaning, context and use. And have for centuries.

If the confusion and abstraction were actually as true as you claim, the 200 section in a good library would not have been possible, would not have been able to serve as the valued legacy of Christian thought that it is.

[Overcomer]

mrhagerty wrote:

But in the end, why would anyone value as more authoritative a person whose chief aim is to discredit Scripture? He is in many cases arguing from an abysmal understanding of the Bible in depth, has little or no comprehension of the quality of manuscript authorities for literature of this heritage, and often harbors an overwhelming bias that ruins the kind of objectivity he needs in making a fair assessment.

I remember a Christian apologist (sorry, can't remember which one) laughing because an atheist had told him that he had to provide evidence for Jesus and information about his life from people other than the disciples and their friends. What it boiled down to was this -- he was asking for information from people who had never known Jesus rather than from people who did. It would be like asking someone to write a biography of John F. Kennedy without speaking to anybody who knew him, but only those who had never met the man nor any members of his family nor any of his friends or co-workers. How accurate and worthwhile would such a biography be? And why would we put such crazy limitations on someone?

mrhagerty wrote:

But there's then a double bias that virtually guarantees failure. He discounts the very people who have spent the quality time with proven tools of interpretation of this type of literature, and has the incredible hubris of calling those folks the ones who are biased.

You make an excellent point. People will accept shoddy "scholarship" such as that from the likes of the Jesus Seminar people (whose methods have been debunked) because it lines up with their beliefs instead of actually reading what real textual experts such as Dan Wallace have to say. We need to read not only those who agree with us, but those who don't to be truly educated.

mrhagerty wrote:

Forgive me here, but this what comes from a failure to comprehend ancient modes of speech and how context determines how hyperbole is to be understood. You simply can't insist that people living in a different culture two thousand years ago MUST conform to modern forms of usage that you use today.

People make that mistake all the time. C.S. Lewis called it chronological snobbery. It's so important to study the culture in which the books of the Bible were written if one is to fully grasp their contents. Craig Keener has an excellent Bible background commentary on the New Testament which packs a lot of information in one volume. I highly recommend it as a starting point for anyone interested in gaining an understanding of the people and the era in which the N. T. books were written.

mrhagerty wrote:

Which doesn't say anything about reality. I'll side with the folks who were there at the time, rather than with someone living 2,000 years after the fact and is merely expressing his opinion.

You've hit on another one of my pet peeves. Why are people so anxious to believe a contemporary scholar over the people who lived in the first century and subsequent early centuries who were so much closer to the real events that the Bible records? They don't seem to realize that many of the people who attack the Bible today don't do so on the basis of new information. For some people, like Bart Ehrman, it's all about the publicity and selling books. Dan Wallace, who is one of the world's premier textual critics, says that, when Ehrman is with scholars, he doesn't try to peddle his drivel because he knows that they can't be fooled.

Then there's the excitement over pseudepigrapha such as The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Philip, etc. Scholars have known about their existence for centuries. But the secular media made it look like they were a new discovery by secular academics and that Christians had been hiding them when they were there, out in the open, ready for anyone to read all the time.

mrhagerty wrote:

Only the minority of folks like you see them as abstract. A host of other people have no problems understanding their meaning, context and use. And have for centuries.

But it takes study. And, let's face it, there are some people who aren't interested in taking the time to see what the Bible really says and who Jesus really is and what he has done for the world and why he has done it. It's their loss. As Jesus said, let those who have ears to hear, hear.

[Deleted]

"Commending Post 49 by Overcomer"
mrhagerty wrote:

Thanks, Overcomer, for your observations and encouragement. I was wondering if there were other believers in the forum I might hear from.

You are blessed to have such good references as you mention, and experiences in defending the faith. I'll look with interest for other posts by you in other threads.

Thanks again.