Should Christ have done more?

[marco]

In many ways Christ is an embarrassment. I was thinking that if he were around in the present pandemic he would have done absolutely nothing about it. Instead of thundering on the earthly scene with challenges for Rome and large-scale improvements in man's way of living, he helped John smith with his sore ear and Mary Jane with her eye trouble. He had a kind of pop festival where he sang to the crowds and gave them free food for listening. Given the chance to show the world his divine passport he said, presumably to a grin from Pilate, "I have some private soldiers waiting in the sky, so watch out."

He's muddle- headed - "I'll die and come back with a knife, sitting on a cloud." What for? Had he said - "maybe in 2000 years time" his listeners would have laughed.

So - what is Christ's great legacy? The stuff we have is the Christmas wrapping paper of the Church - nothing inside it.

Is Christ a small man magnified by the Church?

If he really was divine, why did he not perform on a bigger stage instead of, say, catching lots of fish and saying they came from God?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 38 by 1213]

I don’t see any reason to think he gave empty promises. By what I see, everything goes as he told.

Could you please give us some examples in support of your claim.

[1213]

… People argue he predicted the Roman destruction of Jerusalem's temple; that depends on when the accounts were written. Remember Jesus never wrote a thing. I wonder how you "see" that death has lost its sting. Or in what quarter of the globe the poor are inheriting the earth. ...

I don’t think we have enough evidence to say Jesu never wrote anything. But are you really claiming that someone would write prediction about event that already happened? Why would anyone at that time take it seriously?

I didn’t find scripture that says “poor are inheriting the earth�.

And generally, not all Jesus promised has already happened, and I don’t think everything should have happened already.

… Matthew 16 will do:
"27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.
28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.�

The obvious interpretation is the one his listeners would have taken. They weren't genius interpreters. Christ would be coming to tie things up on Earth.... soon!....

Why add own meanings to it? Jesus says “some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom� and that happened in:

After six days, Jesus took with him Peter, James, and John his brother, and brought them up into a high mountain by themselves. He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his garments became as white as the light. Behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them talking with him.
Matt. 17:1-3

[marco]

I don’t think we have enough evidence to say Jesu never wrote anything.

Well we don't know if he had arthritis or was colour blind or walked with a limp. We know very little about him. I make the following deduction: Jesus claims to be some ambassador from God. If he wrote something down and it was carelessly lost, then one would question his authenticity. Carelessness is surely not divine. We accept Socrates gave us nothing, but if what he wrote has been lost, he never claimed divinity.

But are you really claiming that someone would write prediction about event that already happened? Why would anyone at that time take it seriously?

You have completely misunderstood the point I was making.

And generally, not all Jesus promised has already happened, and I don’t think everything should have happened already.

Quite.

Why add own meanings to it? Jesus says “some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom� and that happened in:

After six days, Jesus took with him Peter, James, and John his brother, and brought them up into a high mountain by themselves. He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his garments became as white as the light. Behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them talking with him.
Matt. 17:1-3

I covered this weak interpretation.

"The son of man coming in his kingdom with angels ....." suggests a triumphant return, not a modest going away. And there were no angels at the transfiguration. Heaven knows how the figures were identified by name. The open-mouthed audience would have their minds on a triumphant return, with the 1st and 7th platoon of heavenly angels, and that is the expected meaning. The one you've chosen is a face-saver given Christ foolishly committed himself with "some will not taste death." He did not COME; he WENT. We still await his COMING, on a cloud of all things. We are constantly dealing in foolishness, superstition and ancient ideas.

[Willum]

…
Now if you (pl) had anything other than “I think�s or “I believe�s or succeeded in addressing a topic, far less of these would occur.

Is here anything else than “I thinks� or “I believes�? Can you show even one example of something else?

For Pete’s sake, yes.
You could quote your Bible instead of your feeling.
You could quote a decision body, or Journal.
You could invoke math, observation, or other obvious repeatables.

But whenever you look at the atrocities of the Bible, or whatever, and defend them with, “I think,� the reader says, “so what?�

If what an individual thinks or believes contradicts what is obvious or observed, it needs to be backed up.

[marco]

If what an individual thinks or believes contradicts what is obvious or observed, it needs to be backed up.

The beauty of belief is that it is the ace card against reason. A mystery is defined as a truth, above reason, but revealed by God. Tertullian in his ancient wisdom said that he believed "because it is absurd." That's as good a reason as any to believe, but in mathematics it would not get one very far. Perhaps faith is not merely an enemy of reason, but an enemy of truth. Christ left so much doubt behind that one can drive a tank through the spaces. And we have some excellent tank drivers today.

[1213]

Why add own meanings to it? Jesus says “some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom� and that happened in:

After six days, Jesus took with him Peter, James, and John his brother, and brought them up into a high mountain by themselves. He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his garments became as white as the light. Behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them talking with him.
Matt. 17:1-3

I covered this weak interpretation.

Jesus said some of them will see him “coming in his kingdom�. And if “His face shone like the sun, and his garments became as white as the light. Behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them talking with him.� is not seeing him “coming in his kingdom�, I would want to know why not.

"The son of man coming in his kingdom with angels ....." suggests a triumphant return, not a modest going away. And there were no angels at the transfiguration. Heaven knows how the figures were identified by name. The open-mouthed audience would have their minds on a triumphant return, with the 1st and 7th platoon of heavenly angels, and that is the expected meaning. ….

Jesus is not saying that some of them will see him with his angels. That is your addition to the story and I don’t see any good reason to accept it.

[1213]

…
If what an individual thinks or believes contradicts what is obvious or observed, it needs to be backed up.

Why would your opinion about the matter be the “obvious or observed�? You have not backed up the “obvious and observed�, it is only your opinion that is as good as anyone’s opinion here.

[marco]

Jesus said some of them will see him “coming in his kingdom�. And if “His face shone like the sun, and his garments became as white as the light. Behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them talking with him.� is not seeing him “coming in his kingdom�, I would want to know why not.

Well most people would want an explantion for the phrase "coming in his kingdom." You have happily applied it to the two characters he met up with, though I have no idea how the words suggest this.

Jesus is not saying that some of them will see him with his angels. That is your addition to the story and I don’t see any good reason to accept it.

Let us revisit Matthew then:

Matthew 16:27-28 27: For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done. 28"Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

Notice the verb "come" in the first sentence and then "coming" appears in the second sentence. I think he intended to come with angels. And I think the poor man was mistaken.

[1213]

Let us revisit Matthew then:

Matthew 16:27-28 27: For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done. 28"Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

Notice the verb "come" in the first sentence and then "coming" appears in the second sentence. I think he intended to come with angels. And I think the poor man was mistaken.

Yes, he will come with angels at some point. But about those who were standing there, for them it is only that they see son of man coming in his kingdom. I don’t really see any reason to think it must include angels also. And I don’t see any reason to think they didn’t see what Jesus was talking about, when they saw what is said in Matt. 17:1-3.

[marco]

Let us revisit Matthew then:

Matthew 16:27-28 27: For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done. 28"Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

Notice the verb "come" in the first sentence and then "coming" appears in the second sentence. I think he intended to come with angels. And I think the poor man was mistaken.

Yes, he will come with angels at some point. But about those who were standing there, for them it is only that they see son of man coming in his kingdom. I don’t really see any reason to think it must include angels also. And I don’t see any reason to think they didn’t see what Jesus was talking about, when they saw what is said in Matt. 17:1-3.

Your interpretation strains the bounds of credibility. It is forwarded in order to get round a problem of false prediction. The interpretation that anyone hearing the two sentences would take is that the first sentence relates to the second. To divorce them as you do is completely artificial. I am happy that I have the correct meaning.

Christ: "I will come in glory with angels. Some of you will see me coming very soon."

It is ridiculous to think that the first sentence relates to thousands of years and the second to a few days. Matthew mentioned the angels by the way not Marco.