Political Crossfire Forums

[toddytodd]

Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: Hyde wrote: Was Jesus a miracle worker or have events been exaggerated or even made up over the years.

I think it depends on what you consider a miracle. Walking on water? A miracle if it did indeed happen (rather it was supernatural or not). People do tend to exaggerate stories, even today. Sometimes on purpose, other times just because they were excited. I think it would be ignorant for us to think this exaggeration didn't happen to some extent, especially with the lack of scientific knowledge/understanding that existed back then.
Personally, I am more concerned about what he taught. Getting people to think about things the way he did as told in the bible is, in of itself, a miracle.

You seek to make Jesus Christ the equivalent of Buddah or Confusius He was not. He was not a teacher He was God Incarnate and He made that clear time after time.

His significance was NOT what he taught his significance wasHis LIFE, HIS DEATH and RESURRECTION.

I do not seek to make Jesus anything more or less than he was. I believe he was part god & part man, although I don't understand it totally. What I do understand fully is he was a great teacher, he was kind, loving, patient, forgiving, etc. All these things are not, in my opinion, something people have naturally. They are learned, therefore, they need to be taught.
In regards to his life and actions, of course they were important to people who believe. Being a great teacher does not, in my opinion, detract from what his life meant to believers in any way.

Fair enough, my point was simply to point out that IF one views Jesus Christ ONLY as a teacher then they need to resolve how a great teacher can think and claim Himself to be God and not be considered insane. They would need to explain how they would consider a crazy man a great teacher.
I understand where you are coming from. But didn't some people back then (and even some today still) consider Jesus insane and or crazy? Some people today claim to be God or the son of. And people believed and or followed them - some even followed them to their deaths.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Gilbert1908 wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: Hyde wrote: Was Jesus a miracle worker or have events been exaggerated or even made up over the years.

I think it depends on what you consider a miracle. Walking on water? A miracle if it did indeed happen (rather it was supernatural or not). People do tend to exaggerate stories, even today. Sometimes on purpose, other times just because they were excited. I think it would be ignorant for us to think this exaggeration didn't happen to some extent, especially with the lack of scientific knowledge/understanding that existed back then.
Personally, I am more concerned about what he taught. Getting people to think about things the way he did as told in the bible is, in of itself, a miracle.

You seek to make Jesus Christ the equivalent of Buddah or Confusius He was not. He was not a teacher He was God Incarnate and He made that clear time after time.

His significance was NOT what he taught his significance wasHis LIFE, HIS DEATH and RESURRECTION.

I do not seek to make Jesus anything more or less than he was. I believe he was part god & part man, although I don't understand it totally. What I do understand fully is he was a great teacher, he was kind, loving, patient, forgiving, etc. All these things are not, in my opinion, something people have naturally. They are learned, therefore, they need to be taught.
In regards to his life and actions, of course they were important to people who believe. Being a great teacher does not, in my opinion, detract from what his life meant to believers in any way.

Fair enough, my point was simply to point out that IF one views Jesus Christ ONLY as a teacher then they need to resolve how a great teacher can think and claim Himself to be God and not be considered insane. They would need to explain how they would consider a crazy man a great teacher.

Jesus never says hes the son of god.

Why then was he crucified?

Pissing the Romans off, by pissing the Sanhedrin off by causing a ruckus in the temple around festival time.

If it was just a simple crime of blashpemy the romans would have gotten involved and he would have been stoned outside jerusalem at the end of passover.

The Romans only crusified people when you caused a problem in terms of stability.

Seriously though, don't get me wrong demons identify him as a son of god other people do also but the charater of Jesus never comes out and states 'I'm the son of god'.

Whether that's the truth of the matter of a literary device used by the gospel writers/E. church tradition comes down to faith.

I agree with you but still not using that sequence of words does not mean He does not make it plain enough to both his followers and those folks who see him as blaspheming as to who and what He is.
Haah here comes the gospel of John, yes i know theres a lot of lovely poetry in John ascribing him to be this and that, however i tend to view the gospels as a whole, which when you do John often appears to be the odd one out to be bluntly honest i consider the more human pictures of mark to be closer to the god honest truth as it where, and in mark and in the other two synoptics the clear "oi im the son of god you wankers" is never quite given out.

Quote:
Jesus time after time makes it pretty clear who HE is. And the RUCKUS you describe includes the fact that he is accused of claiming to be God.

Why would the romans have cared if he stated that he was the son of a god, sons of gods were a dime a dozen to hellenistic faiths.

The cross was only for political agitation, and the preaching in the temple just before his arrest probally causes some sort of riot leading to said arrest and convition.

In all honesty, i think the jewish authoritaries had little to nothing to do with it.

Quote:
Here is the most obvious example, one can not deny the use of "I AM" as simply coincidence since the meaning even out of this context would have been stunning, within the context of what He is saying it is worthy of a stoning on the spot.

Exaclty as above, worthy of a stoning. Then again re my orginal point on John ,its far more a poetic and theological work than a biograpical one, i don't think we can take it as accurately as a synoptics as to what actualy happened.

[Hawkins]

Barely remember a TV programme talking about teh cruxification from a historical point of view, instead of the religious point of view. It's said teh Roman governor purposely annonounced in front of the Jews that "The son of Jewish God died" or something like that.

[mattwa33193]

perdidochas wrote: Hyde wrote: perdidochas wrote: Hyde wrote: toddytodd wrote:
Personally, I am more concerned about what he taught. Getting people to think about things the way he did as told in the bible is, in of itself, a miracle.
i dont think it is as much of a miracle as a church that in the beginning would imprison or kill anyone that they thought where heretics or blasphemous. They manged getting people to believe there way of thinking by fright and that belief being passed down over the years from parent to child. And alot of children have the same religious beliefs as their parents. That is kind of sad though seeing how Jesus had a great message but it was sent wrong by church (catholics to be precise).

The beginning of the Church had people being persecuted for being Christian. Christianity spread despite this. Your whole fright theory is a load of hogwash.

so that makes persucution and mur.der okay if they were the ones being persucuted and mur.dered first. you can not deny the church killed innoce.nt people because they thought they were heretics. and the heresy charge was even used to get rid of anyone the church saw as a threat to their power. they got people believing everything that came out of the pope so they could do whatever they felt like, prosucute whoever they felt like, and mur.der whoever they felt like.

Actually, the church killed no one. The church has and has had no authority to punish. Governments have punished people for heresy, but the Church never did. Yes, it's a subtle point, and I truly don't expect an anti-Catholic who's almost foaming at the mouth to understand it.



Threatening a king with excommunication for failure to punish heresy is the method typically used by Popes to achieve their ends while theoretically keeping their hands clean. Lets not forget the fact that a Christian Divine Right king served at the pleasure of the Papacy. Forgiving or paying off debt was another favorite.

All soldiers in any of the Crusades received dispensation for all sins previously commited, guaranteed acceptance into Heaven, absolution for any acts commited during the Crusade, and all the plunder they could carry. This was granted by the Pope.

But the Church never killed anyone.

perdidochas wrote:
Hyde wrote: Quote: In terms of Jesus' message, ask poor people in the Black Belt of Alabama (primarily Baptists) about Catholic Social Services. The primary non-governmental agency providing help to the poor there is the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has been imperfect (and continues to do so, however, everything composed of humans is fundamentally imperfect), but they are doing the best that they can.

imperfect? they are worse than imperfect. what kind of church is more worried about gays than their child molesting priests. what kind of church immediatly dismiss any point of view that differs from theirs as heresy and condemns it. if they are doing the best they can like you said, that is really sad that that is their best.

The Catholic Church is not more worried about gays than the few child molesting priests--the contention is that few of the "child molesting" priests are technically child molestors, most are involved with male teens, not children. It is thought that most of the "child molesting" priests are gay.


Pure supposition, promulgted by the Church to defend their indefensible actions when confronted by the presence of child molesters within the priesthood. Also ignores the fact that these priests used their authority as direct representatives of God to coerce boys into having sex with them. how many of those teenage boys were actually gay? And why has the Church spent half a billion dollars paying off the families of these boys if they were simple cases of consensual homosexual sex?

[/quote]

Does this sound like the statement of a church that "immediatly (sp?) dismiss any point of view that differs from theirs as heresy."

From the Catholic Catechism:

Quote:

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324

The Church and non-Christians

839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."325

The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ",328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329

840 And when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.


841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330

842 The Church's bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:


All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .331

843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332



Hardly sounds like an organization that claims other views are automatically heretical.

As Bishop Sheen once wrote: there are only a handful of Americans who hate the Catholic Church, though there are millions who hate what they think the Church is.[/quote][/quote]

The Cathars, Pagans, Wiccans, Unitarians, Muslims, Templars, and Rosicrucians, to name a few, would say that talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words.

[garyd]

T'ain't the Church it is the Roman Catholic Church vastly different organizations Historically.

[Sakshi]

I like the question, for the simple reason that it defies any one answer and can lead to chains upon chains of assumptions, contemplations and and Biblical quoting.
Yet, whenever we talk about any religious epic, we have to bear in mind that they were born out of an 'oral tradition', when the events and happenings were conveyed down generations by simple narrations, until someone sat down to write the whole thing down. This means, there is a huge possibility, as happens in a simple game of Chinese Whisper, the "facts" are modified into further "facts."
There are 2 kinds of humans. either a religious man, or a man who believes in religion. While the former borders on an open minded approach (spiritual more so), the latter make themselves close to fanatics. Now, as far as the latter is concerned, the 'miracles' we attribute to any God for that matter are his life blood, for it is the super human capabilities that act as the main catalyst into making him swoon at the very mention of God. For the lformer kind of people, their faith goes beyond the "factual" narrative that speaks of miracles and the like. For such a man, the faith goes beyond the textual, for the faith is not in the miracle-man, but in a power which is beyond even the decipherable. .. which may not necessarily be the one which parts ocean waters.
EPICS were written to keep the morality of ppl in check. And the author understandably could digress into the miraculous to keep the devotees as devout as possible.

[John]

Sakshi wrote: I like the question, for the simple reason that it defies any one answer and can lead to chains upon chains of assumptions, contemplations and and Biblical quoting.
Yet, whenever we talk about any religious epic, we have to bear in mind that they were born out of an 'oral tradition', when the events and happenings were conveyed down generations by simple narrations, until someone sat down to write the whole thing down. This means, there is a huge possibility, as happens in a simple game of Chinese Whisper, the "facts" are modified into further "facts."
There are 2 kinds of humans. either a religious man, or a man who believes in religion. While the former borders on an open minded approach (spiritual more so), the latter make themselves close to fanatics. Now, as far as the latter is concerned, the 'miracles' we attribute to any God for that matter are his life blood, for it is the super human capabilities that act as the main catalyst into making him swoon at the very mention of God. For the lformer kind of people, their faith goes beyond the "factual" narrative that speaks of miracles and the like. For such a man, the faith goes beyond the textual, for the faith is not in the miracle-man, but in a power which is beyond even the decipherable. .. which may not necessarily be the one which parts ocean waters.
EPICS were written to keep the morality of ppl in check. And the author understandably could digress into the miraculous to keep the devotees as devout as possible.

Have you heard what Jesus did and who He claimed to be....and where that places you? Have you heard the good news?

[garyd]

The last of the for Gospels was written within forty years of Christs Crucifixion.

[toddytodd]

garyd wrote: The last of the for Gospels was written within forty years of Christs Crucifixion.
John was written 90-120 AD
Mark - 65-80 AD
Luke - 80-130 AD
Matthew 80-100 AD
According to here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com
About John:
L. Michael White (Professor of Classics and Director of the Religious Studies Program University of Texas at Austin) says, in part: "John's gospel is different from the other three in the New Testament. That fact has been recognized since the early church itself. Already by the year 200, John's gospel was called the spiritual gospel precisely because it told the story of Jesus in symbolic ways that differ sharply at times from the other three. For example, Jesus dies on a different day in John's gospel than in Matthew, Mark and Luke.... Whereas in the three synoptic gospels Jesus actually eats a passover meal before he dies, in John's gospel he doesn't. The last supper is actually eaten before the beginning of passover. So that the sequence of events leading up to the actual crucifixion are very different for John's gospel. And one has to look at it in say, why is the story so different? How do we account for these differences in terms of the way the story-telling developed? And the answer becomes fairly clear when we realize that Jesus has had the last supper a day before so that he's hanging on the cross during the day of preparation before the beginning of Passover."
Allen D. Callahan(Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School) says: "Each of the gospel writers has certain concerns that he must address, certain questions that he must answer, and certain crises that he must negotiate. [In] the fourth gospel, the gospel according to John, Jesus' relation to Jerusalem and the Jerusalem authorities is more of a concern. There are more people in the dramatis personae of John's gospel who hailed from Judea. We encounter some figures there that we don't encounter anywhere else in gospel traditions. Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea. These are Jerusalemite non-priestly elites. One of the things that this suggests is that the sources of the fourth gospel are closer to this social stratum of people and their concerns. Not so, for Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The Galilean traditions are the signal traditions there, and so Jesus' activity in the Galilee and among people in Northern Judea have pride of place....When we look at the concerns of these differences, the concerns that are suggested or reflected in these differences, one of the ways of explaining [these] differences, is seeing that they're coming from different points and different strata of Palestinian society."
Helmut Koester (John H. Morison Professor of New Testament Studies and Winn Professor of Ecclesiastical History Harvard Divinity School) says: "The Gospel of John, of course, stands apart from the other three gospels. For one reason, simply because Matthew and Luke use common sources. They both use the gospel of Mark. They both use the so-called synoptic sayings gospel, and therefore great similarities are evident, particularly the outline of the ministry of Jesus. Now the Gospel of John has some relationships to the sources used by the other gospels.... The passion narrative in John is essentially the same as the passion narrative in Mark, Matthew, Luke and in the Gospel of Peter. The other thing that is common with the other gospels is a chain of miracle stories....
What makes the Gospel of John different is another element. And that's the element of Jesus' discourses and dialogues with the disciples. Now what are those? They are not comparable to collections of sayings of Jesus that we have, for example, in the Sermon on the Mount. They're very different, because the collections of sayings strings those sayings together with almost never a question of the disciples interfering. It's just a collection. Now what we have in the speeches and dialogues of Jesus in the Gospel of John is not a collection of traditional materials, but is ultimately a reflection on traditional materials. That is, the Gospel of John constructs the speeches of Jesus in an effort to interpret traditional sayings of Jesus. I'll give you a very obvious example, the story of Jesus and Nicodemus. Nicodemus comes to Jesus and recognizes he is a great teacher, he's come from God, and Jesus now tells him something that is, in fact, the quotation of a traditional baptismal saying. "Unless you're reborn, you will not enter the Kingdom of God." This saying is found in other contexts; a second century apologist, Justin Martyr, quotes the same saying in his report of the Christian baptismal liturgy.... Now John takes that saying as the basis of the development of dialogue. He changes the saying somewhat, so that Nicodemus understands the rebirth not to be a rebirth by the spirit from above, but physical rebirth, and therefore says, "How can anybody who has gotten old now go back to his mother's womb and be reborn?" And this gives the occasion now for the explanation of what this saying of Jesus means. And that explanation fills the whole rest of the chapter....Essentially all the major speeches of John are developed out of traditional sayings materials. And what is interesting here is that some of these sayings have parallels in the sayings we find in the synoptic gospels. But some of the sayings also have parallels which we now find in the Gospel of Thomas. So John draws on a different set of traditional sayings of Jesus than do the first three gospels of the New Testament."

[connermt]

Gilbert1908 wrote: Hyde wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: Hyde wrote: Was Jesus a miracle worker or have events been exaggerated or even made up over the years.

I think it depends on what you consider a miracle. Walking on water? A miracle if it did indeed happen (rather it was supernatural or not). People do tend to exaggerate stories, even today. Sometimes on purpose, other times just because they were excited. I think it would be ignorant for us to think this exaggeration didn't happen to some extent, especially with the lack of scientific knowledge/understanding that existed back then.
Personally, I am more concerned about what he taught. Getting people to think about things the way he did as told in the bible is, in of itself, a miracle.

You seek to make Jesus Christ the equivalent of Buddah or Confusius He was not. He was not a teacher He was God Incarnate and He made that clear time after time.

His significance was NOT what he taught his significance wasHis LIFE, HIS and RESURRECTION.

You are contradicting yourself. First you said that his significance was not what he taught but his life. But he spent his life teaching. to say his whole life was pointless and that his only reason for his life was to die and be resurrected is a load of crap. People spend so much time focusing on his dea.th and resurrection they dont focus on the important thing; Jesus's teachings.

My point is that if you view Jesus as ONLY a teacher then you need not study his teachings since you will have lost their true meaning.

Also if you did not believe Jesus was God why would you then respect the teaching of a madman?

Quote: My point is that if you view Jesus as ONLY a teacher then you need not study his teachings since you will have lost their true meaning. I disagree. His teachings were simple (yet complex, if you know what you are looking for). Teaching love, understanding, being humble & meek, etc. all can be taught & understood w/o a religious "I am the Son of God that comes to cleanse you of your sins!" mind set I think.

[thefranzkafkafront]

garyd wrote: The last of the for Gospels was written within forty years of Christs Crucifixion.

No that was the first, marks gospel cira 60ad. The rest were written after the roman-jewish war of 70-77ad.

[George W Bush]

Jesus Christ was the David Blaine or Criss Angel of biblical times.

Thats just what I believe.

[connermt]

George W Bush wrote: Jesus Christ was the David Blaine or Criss Angel of biblical times.

Thats just what I believe.

OK
That Criss Angel guy is just freaky....

[George W Bush]

connermt wrote: George W Bush wrote: Jesus Christ was the David Blaine or Criss Angel of biblical times.

Thats just what I believe.

OK
That Criss Angel guy is just freaky....

he can walk on water and levitate
:shock:

[connermt]

George W Bush wrote: connermt wrote: George W Bush wrote: Jesus Christ was the David Blaine or Criss Angel of biblical times.

Thats just what I believe.

OK
That Criss Angel guy is just freaky....

he can walk on water and levitate
:shock:
Like I said: FREAKY
If I saw this guy levitate - have to change my pants

[EugenicHegemony]

Hyde wrote: Was Jesus a miracle worker or have events been exaggerated or even made up over the years. It's all pure conjecture.

[Plodder]

Quote: Hardly sounds like an organization that claims other views are automatically heretical well whats heresy. an obstinate belif in a bent truth and if we catholics belive in only one true truth thern all othe chritians are heretical, unless noted by the chatechism there are a few groups that are not heretical. in fact, Orthodox arent heretical but rather schismatic. they dont want to follow the pope.