Just Starting To Doubt - Question About The Bible

[currentchristian]

I’m afraid I’m going to have to ask which Jesus is the one who was a genius? Was it the Jesus who said:

...

 

The ones that are canonical came from the genius Jesus!

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

And what about the “genius jesus” teaching method of using parables??

 

From Julia Sweeney’s Letting Go of God:

 

Jesus says that he speaks in parables because the people, they just don’t understand anything else. But the parables are often foggy and meaningless. And Jesus is snippy when even the disciples don’t get them. He says to them “If you don’t understand this parable, then how can you understand any parable?” and “Are you incapable of understanding?” I kept thinking “Don’t teach in parables, then! It’s not working! Even your staff doesn’t understand them! Why don’t you just say what you mean?”

 

That's a funny one.

 

Being a teacher, I can understand Jesus' frustration at trying to get a point across.

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

Yeah. Jesus was a genius alright.

 

Such a genius that he presented a message from god that was so convoluted and ambiguous that it immediately scattered his followers into a hundred different groups, and like the big bang universe, it just keeps on expanding, with his minions getting further and further apart in their ideas and wacky ways.

 

Sheer genius.

 

 

If I had known that word "genius" would set off a firestorm, I would have left that thought out.

 

-Minion of the Genius

[currentchristian]

I'll take that thought and go a step further. What genius are we even talking about? Hell, I've read more inspiring, more enlightened posts from members on this board than I ever read from Matt, Luke, Mark or Jimbo. Seriously. Unless you are reading the sermon on the mount with rose colored, green, mauve and amber speckled glasses, you won't find anything profound that can't also be uncovered by common sense.

 

I don't know about that. Jesus' teachings are the opposite of our human, survival-of-the-fittest nature. He asks us to love those who hate us; to bless those who curse us; to treat employees fairly; to overturn evil with good not with guns; to love life more than money; to be wary of power and greed and money.

 

Now of course only about two dozen people in history have lived out this vision, but it was profound, especially to a small group under the boot of the Roman Empire.

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

...

Ah, you see here, I keep getting drug back into this debate even though I said I would bow out so as not to detract anymore from the OP. But CC, your insistance on spin is just so darn exasperating. You stated the other day that you believe based on evidence even though I had insisted that you believe based on faith, and faith alone. Well, your evidence is in fact the gospel accounts is it not? And here you go making a leap of, now brace yourself, faith that those gospel accounts are accurate because a holy spook assured you.

 

Just repeating what "the man" said, as one possible means whereby the stories were preserved. I do allow the supernatural element.

 

My point is that even stripped of all supernaturalism, the existence of Jesus seems historically validated.

 

-CC

[Mythra]

Probably the most notable example would be Gandhi.

 

Oh, wait. He wasn't a christian.

 

Nevermind.

[currentchristian]

And, lets not forget Jesus' profound teachings that no one finds worthy of putting into practice:

 

"If someone hits you in the face, turn your face the other way, so they can hit you on that side too"

 

"If someone demands your money, give him your ATM card with PIN number also"

 

"Fuck your dead father's funeral. Let the dead bury their own dead. Follow me now or fuck off"

 

"Forget savings accounts. They are a waste of time. Give everything you have to the lady you see there pushing the shopping cart down the street"

 

"if you can't abandon your family, don't bother trying to follow me. You're not worthy of following me."

 

"I'm going away now. But, don't worry. I'm just going to the store for a carton of milk. I'll be right back"

 

Sheer fucking genius.

 

Much of this can be understood by the urgency of the moment. If he was the ambassador of heaven, here for just a short time, he didn't have time to coddle and wait around for funerals and setting up trust funds. There was business at hand and a short time in which to conduct it. Give the guy a break.

 

-CC

[Mythra]

My point is that even stripped of all supernaturalism, the existence of Jesus seems historically validated.

 

There's a few fairly well educated folks who aren't as convinced as you:

 

The Center for Inquiry Transnational, in conjunction with its Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion (CSER) announces the creation of the Jesus Project. The Jesus Project will enlist the talents of scholars from many disciplines to try to determine the likelihood of Jesus of Nazareth having ever existed.

 

Spearheading this important undertaking is the Chairman of CSER, R. Joseph Hoffmann. The goal of the project, according to Hoffmann, is not to "prove" the non-existence of Jesus, but to take the theory as a "testable hypothesis" and use the best methods of critical inquiry to reach a probable conclusion.

 

Members of the Project include James M. Robinson (senior consultant), editor of the international Q Project and of the Nag Hammadi (Gnostic) Library project; Van Harvey, a leading philosopher and historian and chair emeritus of Religious Studies at Stanford University; Gerd Luedemann, a Jesus Seminar veteran and professor at the University of Goettingen; Robert Price, editor of the Journal of Higher Criticism; and other leading scholars in biblical studies, classics and ancient history, social anthropology and archaeology.

 

The Jesus Project will meet twice a year as a public seminar at universities and other venues in North America. For further information, contact Gwyn MacRae.

 

All are welcome!

 

The Center for Inquiry-West

4773 Hollywood Blvd.

Hollywood, CA 90027

[currentchristian]

Probably the most notable example would be Gandhi.

 

Oh, wait. He wasn't a christian.

 

Nevermind.

 

But he did study, extensively, the teachings of Jesus.

 

That's not to say, at all, that one must know about Jesus to be holy. Holiness of character is found in all peoples, without regard to religion or lack thereof.

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

My point is that even stripped of all supernaturalism, the existence of Jesus seems historically validated.

 

There's a few fairly well educated folks who aren't as convinced as you:

 

The Center for Inquiry Transnational, in conjunction with its Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion (CSER) announces the creation of the Jesus Project. The Jesus Project will enlist the talents of scholars from many disciplines to try to determine the likelihood of Jesus of Nazareth having ever existed.

 

Spearheading this important undertaking is the Chairman of CSER, R. Joseph Hoffmann. The goal of the project, according to Hoffmann, is not to "prove" the non-existence of Jesus, but to take the theory as a "testable hypothesis" and use the best methods of critical inquiry to reach a probable conclusion.

 

Members of the Project include James M. Robinson (senior consultant), editor of the international Q Project and of the Nag Hammadi (Gnostic) Library project; Van Harvey, a leading philosopher and historian and chair emeritus of Religious Studies at Stanford University; Gerd Luedemann, a Jesus Seminar veteran and professor at the University of Goettingen; Robert Price, editor of the Journal of Higher Criticism; and other leading scholars in biblical studies, classics and ancient history, social anthropology and archaeology.

 

The Jesus Project will meet twice a year as a public seminar at universities and other venues in North America. For further information, contact Gwyn MacRae.

 

All are welcome!

 

The Center for Inquiry-West

4773 Hollywood Blvd.

Hollywood, CA 90027

 

 

Are you saying they have already made up their minds? That this Jesus Project is pre-ordained to come to a negative conclusion?

 

I look forward to following their work, actually, although I think their outcome will be about as surprising as if Jerry Falwell and Pat Roberton recruited the fellows for the project.

 

-CC

[Piprus]

According to what I have read about this project, it is supposed to be totally objective, with no a priori proofs in mind. It will be interesting to see what they come up with, given the time necessary to undertake such a project.

 

Don't be prejudiced, CC, give 'em time.

[currentchristian]

According to what I have read about this project, it is supposed to be totally objective, with no a priori proofs in mind. It will be interesting to see what they come up with, given the time necessary to undertake such a project.

 

Don't be prejudiced, CC, give 'em time.

 

Thank you for the reminder; it's way too easy to pre-judge people and things.

 

Let's keep each other informed of their doings!

 

-CC

[Mythra]

Much of this can be understood by the urgency of the moment. If he was the ambassador of heaven, here for just a short time, he didn't have time to coddle and wait around for funerals and setting up trust funds. There was business at hand and a short time in which to conduct it. Give the guy a break.

 

If this explanation truly makes sense to you, you aren't as intelligent as I thought you to be.

 

Or, something is getting in the way of clear thinking.

 

Because this is a bullshit explanation.

 

Plus, it only addressed one of the nonsensical things from that thread that Jesus supposedly said. Of course, I kinda took some artistic license in sliding em into modern vernacular. Just to freshen up the feel of em a little bit.

[mwc]

Much of this can be understood by the urgency of the moment. If he was the ambassador of heaven, here for just a short time, he didn't have time to coddle and wait around for funerals and setting up trust funds. There was business at hand and a short time in which to conduct it. Give the guy a break.

I'm in a bit of a rush...so two things.

 

First, a correction. Papias did not believe in the Phoenix. My bad.

 

Second, compare things accomplished to, say, Alex the Great. Jesus, the god-man, could have done a bit better by the same age methinks.

 

mwc

[currentchristian]

If this explanation truly makes sense to you, you aren't as intelligent as I thought you to be.

 

Or, something is getting in the way of clear thinking.

 

Because this is a bullshit explanation.

 

Plus, it only addressed one of the nonsensical things from that thread that Jesus supposedly said. Of course, I kinda took some artistic license in sliding em into modern vernacular. Just to freshen up the feel of em a little bit.

 

It's not a full explanation, by any means. Just, perhaps, part of one. While I like to figure things out, I don't have a compulsion to figure everything out. Thank goodness.

 

I just let many things slide: Like why NFL and NBA players make more in one year than I'll make in a lifetime; why anyone cares what Britney Spears does to her hair, and why Jesus didn't just speak the word and resurrect the man's dead father and then have the man follow him. I can't tackle all these important questions of life!

 

We'll never walk in his sandals, so who knows what all was going on....

 

I remain,

 

Minion of the Genius ( )

[currentchristian]

I'm in a bit of a rush...so two things.

 

First, a correction. Papias did not believe in the Phoenix. My bad.

 

Second, compare things accomplished to, say, Alex the Great. Jesus, the god-man, could have done a bit better by the same age methinks.

 

mwc

About point 1: Who was it then who talked about the Phoenix? Some church father, I know. I thought it was Papias, too?

 

About point 2: But Jesus' kingdom was not of this world. There's the rub. Alex's was. And Alex's kingdom no longer exists. Jesus' kingdom does. (If one is a believer, of course.)

 

-CC

[Lycorth]

Yeah. Jesus was a genius alright.

 

Such a genius that he presented a message from god that was so convoluted and ambiguous that it immediately scattered his followers into a hundred different groups, and like the big bang universe, it just keeps on expanding, with his minions getting further and further apart in their ideas and wacky ways.

 

Sheer genius.

 

Heh - exactly. Brilliantly put, Mythra

 

Assuming he existed and did what the Babble said he did, Jebus was no genius. No more so than David Koresh or Jim Jones or Adolf Hitler or Vladimir Lenin or Sun Myung Moon or... well, you see where I'm going.

 

All Jebus would've been is another wacky ideologue with some crazy ideas that some people in hard times picked up on. The fact that some people will believe the most insane things if they are propagandized enough doesn't make those insane things true.

 

If Jebus existed, he would not have wasted time speaking in riddles and would not have let his religion dissolve into feuding sects. He would guide his church and would make sure everyone had a clear idea of his message. But that is not so.

 

Yeah. Genius. Right

[Dave]

My point is that even stripped of all supernaturalism, the existence of Jesus seems historically validated.

 

Only by those that need to believe he existed. Outside of biblical circles, there is no historical "validation" that he existed.

[Dave]

Much of this can be understood by the urgency of the moment. If he was the ambassador of heaven, here for just a short time, he didn't have time to coddle and wait around for funerals and setting up trust funds. There was business at hand and a short time in which to conduct it. Give the guy a break.

 

No way. That isn't even a very good rationalization. Come on... the guy was supposed to be a god, an omniscient, omnipotent, one at that. If I was a god I could have done better.

[currentchristian]

My point is that even stripped of all supernaturalism, the existence of Jesus seems historically validated.

 

Only by those that need to believe he existed. Outside of biblical circles, there is no historical "validation" that he existed.

 

Are you saying that every single person who asserts the existence of a historical Jesus does so for only one reason: they need to believe he existed? If this is what you are saying, I must ask: When did you acquire omniscience?

 

-Someone who is, I guess, needy

[Dave]

Probably the most notable example would be Gandhi.

 

Oh, wait. He wasn't a christian.

 

Nevermind.

 

But he did study, extensively, the teachings of Jesus.

 

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.

 

The scriptures of Christians, Mussalmans and Hindus are all replete with the teaching of ahimsa.

 

I love Christianity, Islam and many other faiths – through Hinduism.

[currentchristian]

Much of this can be understood by the urgency of the moment. If he was the ambassador of heaven, here for just a short time, he didn't have time to coddle and wait around for funerals and setting up trust funds. There was business at hand and a short time in which to conduct it. Give the guy a break.

 

No way. That isn't even a very good rationalization. Come on... the guy was supposed to be a god, an omniscient, omnipotent, one at that. If I was a god I could have done better.

 

Try. Let's see what you can come up with.

 

There is no indication biblically that the avatar known as Jesus was omniscient or omnipotent. He had power and powers of perception, sure. But remember, the understanding is that he was a flesh-and-blood man who was able to achieve Christ consciousness. Only after the resurrection, did he claim that "all power" had been given to him.

 

-CC

[Mythra]

It's not a full explanation, by any means. Just, perhaps, part of one.

 

The problem is, it's a passage and an explanation that violates your own concept and claim of what Jesus is: loving, forgiving, understanding, caring, patient, kind.

 

Your Jesus would have said:

 

"Sure, I understand. Go ahead and bury your dad. I'm terribly sorry for your loss. You can catch up to us in the next town. Go with God, my friend."

[currentchristian]

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.

 

The scriptures of Christians, Mussalmans and Hindus are all replete with the teaching of ahimsa.

 

I love Christianity, Islam and many other faiths – through Hinduism.

 

Understandable of Gandhi to feel this way.

 

I like Gandhi's universalist tendencies. Very much so. He was able to see God in everyone. Very nice.

 

-CC

[Dave]

My point is that even stripped of all supernaturalism, the existence of Jesus seems historically validated.

Only by those that need to believe he existed. Outside of biblical circles, there is no historical "validation" that he existed.

Are you saying.....

 

That line is ALWAYS followed by a strawman argument. Come on, you should know by now that those kind of arguments won't work on me, or anyone else here. How can there be a "validation" for a person that there isn't any evidence that he even existed? The bible is NOT a valid source of information so don't even try that one since even you admit that parts are not true. It's a religious text, not a historical one.