Religion and Ethics Forum

Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Jack Knave on December 26, 2015, 05:43:56 PM

Title: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Jack Knave on December 26, 2015, 05:43:56 PM
I heard an off the cuff comment on the radio the other day which said Jesus had no intention of forming a new religion.

So what do people think was Jesus' intentions in all that preaching that he ministered?

Would he be surprised by its outcome and how events have unfolded?
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: trippymonkey on December 26, 2015, 05:46:34 PM
Jesus LIVED & DIED a JEW !!!!!!
Nuff said ?!!?!?

Nick
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Jack Knave on December 26, 2015, 05:54:56 PM
Jesus LIVED & DIED a JEW !!!!!!
Nuff said ?!!?!?

Nick
That wasn't the point of my OP. It was what he said and was encouraging people to do that it concerned and the implications it had. Did JC intend for his followers to breakaway from the Jewish faith or what?
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Rhiannon on December 26, 2015, 06:00:20 PM
It's thought by many that his mission was that of someone who believed he was living in the 'end times' trying to prepare his followers for the coming apocalypse.

Overview here under Christianity.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypticism
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: trippymonkey on December 26, 2015, 06:16:51 PM
As I said - it was obvious Jesus felt the real spirit of the Jewish faith wasn't being 'heard', certainly as HE saw it anyway.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Sriram on December 27, 2015, 06:22:21 AM
I heard an off the cuff comment on the radio the other day which said Jesus had no intention of forming a new religion.

So what do people think was Jesus' intentions in all that preaching that he ministered?

Would he be surprised by its outcome and how events have unfolded?


Its all about reformation...and what certain people felt was necessary at that time to change social behavior, spiritual philosophies and ideologies. 

Jesus was a Jew and not a Christian and did not intend to form a separate religion.   Buddha was not a Buddhist, he was a 'Hindu' who wanted to emphasize certain aspects over other aspects of the existing religions at that time (now collectively called Hinduism).

They had no idea that after them separate religions would be created in their name. 
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Floo on December 27, 2015, 08:45:19 AM
If Jesus was alive today I think he would be very surprised, and possibly disgusted by the way some of his followers behave. The religion formed well after his death was not created by him, Jesus was merely the figurehead.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: jeremyp on December 27, 2015, 10:23:20 AM
This question is impossible to answer. We don't have any of Jesus' original thoughts or even any disinterested accounts of his deeds.

All we have are accounts written by people with an agenda. Paul's letters espouse Paul's idea of what Christianity should be. Do those ideas coincide with those of Jesus? We do not know. The same applies to the gospel writers and other epistle writers.

There are simply no accounts that reliably tell us Jesus' motivations.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Jack Knave on December 27, 2015, 01:26:30 PM
This question is impossible to answer. We don't have any of Jesus' original thoughts or even any disinterested accounts of his deeds.

All we have are accounts written by people with an agenda. Paul's letters espouse Paul's idea of what Christianity should be. Do those ideas coincide with those of Jesus? We do not know. The same applies to the gospel writers and other epistle writers.

There are simply no accounts that reliably tell us Jesus' motivations.
That implies to me a very cliquey little group who didn't make the 'headlines' with the authorities, worked below the radar, else the Romans would have made some documentation of the fuss he caused. Only later was it blown up to look like it was more than it was as the follower numbers increased and a narrative was required to bind the growing group together. This analysis would make what Trippy said as being the most viable position - Jesus was just working within his Jewish faith with the possible idea of the end times in the mix, as Rhiannon said - though this could have been part of the narrative for the growing group, as many cults tend to have a death wish. Only when it didn't happen did it change gear to a more prolonged outlook.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Hope on December 27, 2015, 08:49:20 PM
I heard an off the cuff comment on the radio the other day which said Jesus had no intention of forming a new religion.
I doubt it was an off-the-cuff comment, Jack; after all, very few Christians or Jews believe that he set out to form a new religion.  Judaism was meant to be a faith that served as a witness of God's love for all humanity, but which became very insular, teaching that the God they worshipped was ONLY the God of the Jews.  Jesus' purpose was to call the Jews back to the purpose for which they had been called/chosen in the first place.  A handful acknowledged this and followed Jesus' teachings by witnessing to what the Jews had been intended to witness to in the first place.   

Remember that the term 'Christian' and its associated forms was originally merely a term of abuse introduced by the Ephesians.

Quote
Would he be surprised by its outcome and how events have unfolded?
I suspect that he woukd be disappointed by the way that some elements of the 'body Christian' have fallen into the same trap that the Jews did.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: trippymonkey on December 27, 2015, 09:56:23 PM
Why on earth would a god 'choose' as unfulfilling a people as Jews to form his 'church' on earth ?!?!!?!?
What was so special about them anyway ????
Anyone honestly answer THAT one ?!?!?!?
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Bubbles on December 28, 2015, 08:04:59 AM
Why on earth would a god 'choose' as unfulfilling a people as Jews to form his 'church' on earth ?!?!!?!?
What was so special about them anyway ????
Anyone honestly answer THAT one ?!?!?!?

According to the Jews they were the only people that was prepared to take it on.



Plus I think they see themselves as bringing an ethical and moral message to mankind.

I think people misconstrue what they mean by chosen

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-alan-lurie/jews-gods-chosen-people_b_1079821.html

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/160993/jewish/Are-the-Jews-the-Chosen-People.htm

The light the Jews were supposed to deliver wasn't the Christian message, from my reading of it it tallies with this.

Quote


This is not a "spin" or an apologetic, but is a theological and historical fact. Judaism traces its beginnings to Abraham who, according to the Bible, was the first human being to recognize the truth that everything and everyone emanates from the same Source. And with this recognition comes the call to personal and communal transformation. Whatever your believe about Abraham -- that he was a real person, the mythologizing of a tribal chief, or a fabricated character -- does not matter, because the reality is that Judaism has understood his story as a call to kindness and hospitality. And while one can -- and at times ought to -- find serious flaws in Abraham, his flaws are deliberately shown so we can know that one does not need to be perfect in order to be of service, and that answering the call will inevitably lead to personal struggle and mistakes. Abraham is not a perfect human; he is a human who seeks to be more.

Chosenness continues when the Jews received the 10 commandments at Mt. Sinai. Again, whether historical fact or fiction matters not one bit, because we do have the 10 Commandments, and they came to the world through the Jews. While one can be critical ("why should an all-powerful God care if we take His name in vain?"), most criticism also comes from a deep misunderstanding. The Bible and Jewish literature does not refer to these as "commandments," but as "statements" that flow inevitably from one to the other.

This begins with the essential and revolutionary recognition that there is an eternal, loving, involved consciousness that is the creative and sustaining force of everything. With this knowledge the rest of the statements naturally follow: we will not desire to worship the "idols" of egoic gratification because we will see that these are illusions; will not use spiritual insight for personal gain (the real meaning of "not taking God's name in vain"); will honor our time and set aside a day to reconnect to Spirit; will feel gratitude for life and to those who gave us birth; will see others as fellow creations of God who must not be abused in any way; and finally we will not be jealous of others or want what they have because we will know that to compare ourselves is to be ungrateful for what we have been given. This radical understanding of the dynamics of life has slowly changed the world for the better.

Jews were chosen to bring to the world this message of goodness: treat the stranger as one's own, love your fellow as yourself, care for the widow, orphan and handicapped, give to the poor, know that Spirit is higher than material success and that you are a child of God, and most importantly, always value life. In this way, Jews are chosen to be the lamp that allows God's light to shine in the world.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-alan-lurie/jews-gods-chosen-people_b_1079821.html


You have to separate Judaism from what Christians believe it is and what Christians teach it is and see it in its own right.

Then I think you can see why I think Jesus was a Jew trying to teach that aspect of Judaism,and later Christianity and mainly Paul turned it into something else.

That's not to say Rhiannon isn't right, he obviously did seem to think he was in the end times but much of his teaching revolved around kindness.

Apparently lots of rabbis of the time taught the same, and criticised the same aspects of a few people who applied Judaism without a real meaning of kindness.

Christians often teach that Jesus was criticising all Jews but he wasn't, he was criticising the behaviour of a few.

(Plus, I like the way Judaism tries to keep Abraham and Moses as human beings with faults, rather than making them faultless, like Christianity and Islam have with Jesus and Mohammed)
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Bubbles on December 28, 2015, 08:09:17 AM
Some Christians can get very spiteful, and don't understand what Jews mean by being chosen.

They try and victimise Jews because they want to be chosen themselves, and they misunderstand what is meant by the term.

http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=134

A lot of hatred is generated by a misunderstanding of the term.

People can get very jealous.  :(
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Bubbles on December 28, 2015, 08:28:49 AM
Quote

Jews do not believe that being a member of the Chosen People gives them any special talents or makes them better than anyone else. On the topic of chosenness, the Book of Amos even goes so far as to say: "You alone have I singled out of all the families of the earth. That is why I call you to account for all your iniquities" (Amos 3:2). In this way Jews are called to be a “light to the nations” (Isaiah 42:6) by doing good in the world through gemilut hasidim (acts of loving kindness) and tikkun olam (repairing the world). Nevertheless, many modern Jews feel uncomfortable with the term “Chosen People.” Perhaps for similar reasons, Maimonides (a medieval Jewish philosopher) did not list it in his foundational 13 Principles of the Jewish Faith.

Different Jewish Movements' Views of Chosenness:

The three largest movements of Judaism – Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism and Orthodox Judaism – define the idea of the Chosen People in the following ways:

Reform Judaism views the idea of the Chosen People as a metaphor for the choices we make in our lives. All Jews are Jews-by-Choice in that every person must make a decision, at some point in their lives, whether or not they want to live Jewishly. Just as God chose to give the Torah to the Israelites, modern Jews must decide whether they want to be in a relationship with God.
Conservative Judaism views the idea of chosenness as a unique heritage wherein Jews are able to enter into a relationship with God and effect change in the world by helping create a compassionate society.
Orthodox Judaism views the concept of the Chosen People as a spiritual calling that ties Jews to God through the Torah and mizvot, which Jews have been commanded to make a part of their lives.

http://judaism.about.com/od/judaismbasics/a/jewsaschosenpeople.htm




I like the idea of being chosen to shoulder responsibility and show consideration and kindness for others, it is actually quite nice.

You can choose to be chosen, no matter who you are.

You don't have to be Jewish, you can be anyone,  you can do it by helping others.

🌹

It has nothing to do with salvation or being controlled by other people or joining some church or twisting your brain into convolutions with odd beliefs , but about deciding to help a neighbour or a stranger and leading a good honest life and not hurting others.

That's what I believe.



 :)





Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: trippymonkey on December 28, 2015, 08:52:39 AM
Rose
What great replies & SO honest too. ;D
Many thanks for that &, as far as I can see, no preaching ?!!?? LOL  ;) ;D

Nick
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: 2Corrie on December 28, 2015, 11:52:13 AM
I heard an off the cuff comment on the radio the other day which said Jesus had no intention of forming a new religion.

So what do people think was Jesus' intentions in all that preaching that he ministered?

Would he be surprised by its outcome and how events have unfolded?

He came to confirm fulfill the Law, to make atonement and to confirm the (prophesied) New Covenant with Israel.  That gentiles would benefit from this should be no surprise as it was promised even to Abraham. And yes He came to preach the Kingdom and repentance.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Floo on December 28, 2015, 01:23:03 PM
He came to confirm fulfill the Law, to make atonement and to confirm the (prophesied) New Covenant with Israel.  That gentiles would benefit from this should be no surprise as it was promised even to Abraham. And yes He came to preach the Kingdom and repentance.

In your opinion!
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Jack Knave on December 28, 2015, 03:35:06 PM
I doubt it was an off-the-cuff comment, Jack; after all, very few Christians or Jews believe that he set out to form a new religion.  Judaism was meant to be a faith that served as a witness of God's love for all humanity, but which became very insular, teaching that the God they worshipped was ONLY the God of the Jews.  Jesus' purpose was to call the Jews back to the purpose for which they had been called/chosen in the first place. A handful acknowledged this and followed Jesus' teachings by witnessing to what the Jews had been intended to witness to in the first place.   
In that case all Christians should be by faith be Jewish(?). And if the above is the case then in Jesus' time the cross, the blood of the lamb and the usual Christian message we hear today, and all that, didn't apply so again all Christians should be Jewish, and that Christianity is a false religion built on idolatry.

Instead of following the message they followed the messenger.

Quote
Remember that the term 'Christian' and its associated forms was originally merely a term of abuse introduced by the Ephesians.
Why was it a term of abuse?
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Jack Knave on December 28, 2015, 03:39:09 PM
Why on earth would a god 'choose' as unfulfilling a people as Jews to form his 'church' on earth ?!?!!?!?
What was so special about them anyway ????
Anyone honestly answer THAT one ?!?!?!?
Well, it had nothing to do with divine will...
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: trippymonkey on December 28, 2015, 03:50:47 PM
JK
INDEED !!!!
Jesus was executed - helped by the Jewish Ministry because he didn't fulfill ALL criteria requirements of the awaited Messiah !!!! Fact !!!
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Jack Knave on December 28, 2015, 04:17:02 PM
He came to confirm fulfill the Law, to make atonement and to confirm the (prophesied) New Covenant with Israel.  That gentiles would benefit from this should be no surprise as it was promised even to Abraham. And yes He came to preach the Kingdom and repentance.
I think that because some say that he just conveyed the need to get back to the original ethos of the Jewish faith, and this is what some of his Gospel preaching's point to, and others say what you have stated probably explains some of the conflicting messages we can see in the Gospels.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Hope on December 29, 2015, 08:58:48 AM
Why on earth would a god 'choose' as unfulfilling a people as Jews to form his 'church' on earth ?!?!!?!?
What was so special about them anyway ????
Anyone honestly answer THAT one ?!?!?!?
That is an extremely easy question to answer, Nick.  There was NOTHING special about them.  That was the whole point (and its made several times in the Old Testament, and has been debated here on several threads started by Floo).  They weren't chosen 'because' ...; they were chosen 'for' ... .

Not sure what happened when you were at school, but as a teacher I would often choose a pupil to run an errant for me (take a message to another teacher; tell the head teacher something; etc.) on the grounds that they were nothing special and that giving them the responsibility of doing something 'official' would boost their self-esteem, encourage them to feel of value, etc.

Being chosen isn't always about merit.  In a sense, isn't that that underlying idea behind comprehensive education?
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Hope on December 29, 2015, 09:29:53 AM
Then I think you can see why I think Jesus was a Jew trying to teach that aspect of Judaism,and later Christianity and mainly Paul turned it into something else.
I'd disagree with the idea that 'Christianity and mainly Paul' turned it into something else: after all, even Jesus had begun to expand the message and the responsibility for sharing it beyond the Jewish people - think of the Roman centurion he praised for having faith; or the way in which he spoke with the woman of Samaria (no self respecting Jew of the time would have been seen dead speaking to a Samaritan, let alone a Samaritan woman); or his dealings with those people who the Jews had rejected, either on the grounds of race or physical or mental ill-health.

Quote
That's not to say Rhiannon isn't right, he obviously did seem to think he was in the end times but much of his teaching revolved around kindness.
Not sure that Jesus ever mentions the end times as being close - though he did imply that his followers ought to live as if they were around the corner.  I think that Paul probably picked up on this element of his teaching and encouraged his readers to be alert and to be ready for the end-times should they occur during their lifetimes.  Ironically, for all the mention of Paul's influence on the church, it was the author of Revelations who really got into the apocalyptic mode - a book probably written afer Paul's death.

Quote
Apparently lots of rabbis of the time taught the same, and criticised the same aspects of a few people who applied Judaism without a real meaning of kindness.
Whilst this probably the case, history only seems to highlight 2 or 3 - perhaps the most famous being Rabbi Hillel who did at about the same time as Jesus was born.  His diametric opposite was probably Rabbi Shammai who died at about the same time as Jesus was starting his ministry and who, in today's terms would be regarded as a fundamentalist (a rigid interpretation of the Torah and strict separation of Jew and Gentile).  The third, viewed by some as possibly the greatest rabbi of all time, is Rabbi Akiva - who lived in the latter half of the 1st century - and who seems to have leaned more to the funadmentalist way of thinking of Shammai than the more 'liberal' ideas that Hillel espoused.

Quote
Christians often teach that Jesus was criticising all Jews but he wasn't, he was criticising the behaviour of a few.
Can't say that I have ever heard any sermon, or read any book that has Christians suggesting that Jesus criticised all Jews.  After all, that type of thinking and action only really became common in the middle of the 1st Millennium.

Quote
(Plus, I like the way Judaism tries to keep Abraham and Moses as human beings with faults, rather than making them faultless, like Christianity and Islam have with Jesus and Mohammed)
The problem here is that Jesus is understood to be the Messiah - God in human form - something neither Abraham, Moses or Mohammed are by their respective 'adherents'.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Floo on December 29, 2015, 11:06:15 AM
If Jesus was the 'messiah' he failed to make an impact where most of the Jews were concerned!
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: OH MY WORLD! on December 29, 2015, 01:24:58 PM
People who actually read the Bible everyday will recall this,
"...He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and aquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not."   Isaiah 53:3
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Hope on December 29, 2015, 04:21:39 PM
I think that because some say that he just conveyed the need to get back to the original ethos of the Jewish faith, and this is what some of his Gospel preaching's point to, and others say what you have stated probably explains some of the conflicting messages we can see in the Gospels.
Why would your two ideas create conflict, JK - after all, they're the same message!!
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Hope on December 29, 2015, 04:27:56 PM
Some Christians can get very spiteful, and don't understand what Jews mean by being chosen.

They try and victimise Jews because they want to be chosen themselves, and they misunderstand what is meant by the term.
Ironically, the people I've found most confused about the term 'chosen' is the non-religious - at least as far as this board are concerned, Rose.  I have come across a handful of Christioans who would fit your descrition, but compared to the rest I've met who understand the way in which the Jews were chosen - ie not 'because' but 'for' - they are but a handful.  After all, the meaning that Jews have is set out very clearly in the Old Testament and is similar to how Christians think, anyway.  Whilst people now have to make the first move towards God, as opposed to God making the first move towards the Jews, both Jews and Christians are 'chosen' for a purpose, and not on merit.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Hope on December 29, 2015, 04:29:15 PM
If Jesus was the 'messiah' he failed to make an impact where most of the Jews were concerned!
Does that in any way invalidate his claim?  Of course not.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Dicky Underpants on December 29, 2015, 04:41:12 PM
Whilst people now have to make the first move towards God, as opposed to God making the first move towards the Jews, both Jews and Christians are 'chosen' for a purpose, and not on merit.

One believing Jew I knew, speaking in the context of the horrors of Auschwitz etc., said he thought the Jews were 'chosen to suffer'.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Dicky Underpants on December 29, 2015, 04:54:44 PM


There are simply no accounts that reliably tell us Jesus' motivations.

This is certainly true. However, there are certain criteria (which some scholars apply to the texts to attempt to penetrate behind the haze of mythologizing and literary spin) which may point to certain details about him which may be historically true. One notorious criterion (that of 'embarrassment') is particularly relevant. If certain details are reported (and not edited out) of the gospel accounts which do not present the most glowing images of  Jesus, then there is a strong possibility that these may contain historical truth. Likewise, those texts which contain obviously unfulfilled prophecies (whose date has 'expired' - prompting the most tortuous explainings-away from evangelicals) may indicate that Jesus actually said something of the kind. Rhiannon has already referred to the eschatological aspect of Jesus' teaching, which seems to involve such dud prophecies.

 
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Dicky Underpants on December 29, 2015, 05:00:07 PM
I heard an off the cuff comment on the radio the other day which said Jesus had no intention of forming a new religion.

So what do people think was Jesus' intentions in all that preaching that he ministered?

Would he be surprised by its outcome and how events have unfolded?

"I am sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel" "Go not unto the gentiles, but only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel".
All other texts are add-ons, seen through the filters of St Paul's and St John's views about Jesus. The quoted texts may be something like words uttered by a wandering preacher called Jesus. With these in mind, it is difficult to believe that he ordered his followers to make 'disciples of all nations'
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Dicky Underpants on December 29, 2015, 05:05:42 PM
Why would your two ideas create conflict, JK - after all, they're the same message!!

Not quite. In some parts of the gospels, Jesus instructs his disciples to evangelise the whole world. The essential Jewish message is that the whole world may indeed be 'blessed', but that the whole world needs to come to Judaism and absorb its truths. Modern reform Jews seem to think that it doesn't matter a toss whether you 'come to Judaism' or not, so long as you live a good and decent life.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: jeremyp on December 29, 2015, 05:24:47 PM
I'd disagree with the idea that 'Christianity and mainly Paul' turned it into something else: after all, even Jesus had begun to expand the message and the responsibility for sharing it beyond the Jewish people - think of the Roman centurion he praised for having faith; or the way in which he spoke with the woman of Samaria (no self respecting Jew of the time would have been seen dead speaking to a Samaritan, let alone a Samaritan woman); or his dealings with those people who the Jews had rejected, either on the grounds of race or physical or mental ill-health.
These are all stories that appear in the gospels which were written after Paul's letters. They are probably further from Jesus' original teachings than Paul was.

So much for your vaunted critical thinking skillz.

Quote
The problem here is that Jesus is understood to be the Messiah - God in human form - something neither Abraham, Moses or Mohammed are by their respective 'adherents'.
Only by Christians, not by the people who actually understood who the Messiah was meant to be.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: jeremyp on December 29, 2015, 05:34:55 PM
One notorious criterion (that of 'embarrassment') is particularly relevant. If certain details are reported (and not edited out) of the gospel accounts which do not present the most glowing images of  Jesus, then there is a strong possibility that these may contain historical truth.

The criterion of embarrassment is an embarrassment. How do you define what the gospel authors might have found embarrassing?

Why would there be any pressure to put something in that was embarrassing? After all, it's not as if they didn't leave things out when they felt like it.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Hope on December 29, 2015, 05:37:58 PM
These are all stories that appear in the gospels which were written after Paul's letters. They are probably further from Jesus' original teachings than Paul was.

So much for your vaunted critical thinking skillz.
Evidence?  After all, as we've already discovered, Paul never heard any of Jesus' teachings and - so we are told - never discussed it with the apostles.  Anything he did learn about the teachings would therefore have HAD to have come through a  3rd party; the Gospels may have been transcripts of eye-witnesses' accounts.

Quote
Only by Christians, not by the people who actually understood who the Messiah was meant to be.
jeremy, perhaps you could tell us who were the first people to regard Jesus as the Messiah?
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Hope on December 29, 2015, 05:40:35 PM
One believing Jew I knew, speaking in the context of the horrors of Auschwitz etc., said he thought the Jews were 'chosen to suffer'.
OK, so that's one believing Jew - out of how many millions?  There is certainly no indication in the Hebrew Scriptures that that was the reason they were chosen.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: jeremyp on December 29, 2015, 05:41:07 PM
Evidence?  After all, as we've already discovered, Paul never heard any of Jesus' teachings and - so we are told - never discussed it with the apostles.  Anything he did learn about the teachings would therefore have HAD to have come through a  3rd party;

Paul claimed he received the gospel through revelation. They didn't come through a third party. Not that there is any evidence he knew any of what is in the gospels other than a couple of fragments.

Quote
the Gospels may have been transcripts of eye-witnesses' accounts.

But it is obvious they are not.
Quote

jeremy, perhaps you could tell us who were the first people to regard Jesus as the Messiah?
Unlike you, I am not prepared to make stuff up without evidence.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Hope on December 29, 2015, 05:44:53 PM
Not quite. In some parts of the gospels, Jesus instructs his disciples to evangelise the whole world. The essential Jewish message is that the whole world may indeed be 'blessed', but that the whole world needs to come to Judaism and absorb its truths. Modern reform Jews seem to think that it doesn't matter a toss whether you 'come to Judaism' or not, so long as you live a good and decent life.
Dicky, there is nothing in the Hebrew Scriptures that teaches 'that the whole world needs to come to Judaism and absorb its truths'.  Rather, the passages relating to this topic refer to the Jews going out and acting as witness to the love of God for all humanity (ok, for them that was the people-groups who lived around them).  There is no reference to 'conversion' or 'becoming Jewish'.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Dicky Underpants on December 29, 2015, 05:45:21 PM
The criterion of embarrassment is an embarrassment. How do you define what the gospel authors might have found embarrassing?

Why would there be any pressure to put something in that was embarrassing? After all, it's not as if they didn't leave things out when they felt like it.

The argument is that certain sayings of Jesus (such as obviously unfulfilled prophecies) were so ingrained in the minds of Jesus' followers that they felt obliged to record them, even though they must have thought "Well, I'm sure that's what he said - it seems he was wrong, but maybe he meant something different." They certainly did leave things out when they felt like it, but when dealing with matters of eschatology, such things were of such intrinsic importance to the whole scenario, they could hardly avoid recording them.
However, you can see how certain gospel writers dealt with these things in very different ways. Luke relates all the 'end-times' talk of Mark and Matthew, but then goes on to record (or invent) stuff which directly contradicts it. John of course virtually dispenses with all this 'earthly end-times' prophecy altogether.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Dicky Underpants on December 29, 2015, 05:49:21 PM
Dicky, there is nothing in the Hebrew Scriptures that teaches 'that the whole world needs to come to Judaism and absorb its truths'.  Rather, the passages relating to this topic refer to the Jews going out and acting as witness to the love of God for all humanity (ok, for them that was the people-groups who lived around them).  There is no reference to 'conversion' or 'becoming Jewish'.

There is certainly a passage in Micah which speaks of the nations of the world coming to the Mountain of the Lord. But I agree, the message here is not on conversion (in fact it seems to say 'all gods are welcome'), but there is a strong implication that the Jews have got something very special which other nations need to learn from.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Hope on December 29, 2015, 05:49:33 PM
Paul claimed he received the gospel through revelation. They didn't come through a third party. Not that there is any evidence he knew any of what is in the gospels other than a couple of fragments.
Precisely, he received it by revelation.  He didn't receive the teaching, as the teaching isn't the gospel

Quote
But it is obvious they are not.
So obvious, that even now, 2000 years later, there is still evidence that they could be.

Quote
Unlike you, I am not prepared to make stuff up without evidence.
You don't need to make up any evidence.  We know that this 'sect', if that is what you want to call it, was originally made up of Jews.  The Roman documentation that we do have, small though it may be, makes that pretty clear.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: jeremyp on December 29, 2015, 05:55:03 PM
The argument is that certain sayings of Jesus (such as obviously unfulfilled prophecies) were so ingrained in the minds of Jesus' followers that they felt obliged to record them, even though they must have thought "Well, I'm sure that's what he said - it seems he was wrong, but maybe he meant something different."
But they didn't find them embarrassing or they would not have become ingrained. Even if they had become ingrained, that would not prevent the gospel authors from dropping them. Two of the four gospels omit the Lord's Prayer. I doubt if there is anything more ingrained into the Christian psyche and yet we have two gospels not mentioning it even though it is not even embarrassing.

Christians did not find anything in the gospels embarrassing or it wouldn't be there.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: jeremyp on December 29, 2015, 05:57:16 PM
Precisely, he received it by revelation.  He didn't receive the teaching, as the teaching isn't the gospel
So you admit to making up this third party.

Quote
So obvious, that even now, 2000 years later, there is still evidence that they could be.
No there isn't.

Quote
You don't need to make up any evidence.  We know that this 'sect', if that is what you want to call it, was originally made up of Jews.  The Roman documentation that we do have, small though it may be, makes that pretty clear.
What Roman documentation?
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Hope on December 29, 2015, 05:57:48 PM
However, you can see how certain gospel writers dealt with these things in very different ways. Luke relates all the 'end-times' talk of Mark and Matthew, but then goes on to record (or invent) stuff which directly contradicts it. John of course virtually dispenses with all this 'earthly end-times' prophecy altogether.
And there are pretty obvious reasons why the Gospel authors expressed and explained things in different ways.  For instance, the first 3 Gospels (aka the Synoptic Gospels) had very different purposes and probably audiences to that attributed to John.  This wasn't a 'here is the Good News' document; it was a 'this is where people have been going wrong with their thinking' document; even the Synoptic Gospels would appear to have different audiences to each other.  Even today, we find very different reports of the same event - especially when it is political - depending on the political disposition of the report's author, the media in which it appears, perhaps even the timing in relation to other 'political' events.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Hope on December 29, 2015, 06:15:22 PM
There is certainly a passage in Micah which speaks of the nations of the world coming to the Mountain of the Lord. But I agree, the message here is not on conversion (in fact it seems to say 'all gods are welcome'), but there is a strong implication that the Jews have got something very special which other nations need to learn from.
An interesting passage on 'Jews as the chosen race', from wkipedia:
Quote
... this choice is (often) seen as charging the Jewish people with a specific mission — to be a light unto the nations, and to exemplify the covenant with God as described in the Torah. This view, however, did not preclude a belief that God has a relationship with other peoples — rather, Judaism held that God had entered into a covenant with all humankind, and that Jews and non-Jews alike have a relationship with God. Biblical references as well as rabbinic literature support this view: Moses refers to the "God of the spirits of all flesh" (Numbers 27:16), and the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) also identifies prophets outside the community of Israel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_as_the_chosen_people#In_the_Bible
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Hope on December 29, 2015, 06:25:48 PM
So you admit to making up this third party.
No; he received the gospel (ie the good news) via revelation.  He would have had to have received information about the actual teachings of Jesus (after all, he does make reference to certain of them) from someone else.  If that 'someone else' wasn't one of the apostles, it would have had to have been a third party.

Quote
No there isn't.
Sorry to disappoint you, but Mark's Gospel includes certain details that only Peter would have likely known, suggesting that Mark received that info from him, first hand.  eg events concerning his family, and events relating to incidents that only involved Jeus and Peter.

Quote
What Roman documentation?
I had Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius in mind.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Jack Knave on December 29, 2015, 08:12:24 PM
Why would your two ideas create conflict, JK - after all, they're the same message!!
They are not. One is about being a good Jew and the other is about worshiping the messenger and, thereby, creating a new religion in opposition and in conflict with Judaism. Christians are not good Jews!!!
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Hope on December 29, 2015, 08:45:47 PM
They are not. One is about being a good Jew and the other is about worshiping the messenger and, thereby, creating a new religion in opposition and in conflict with Judaism. Christians are not good Jews!!!
A wonderfully incorrect response, JK.  Nowhere in Jesus' teachings or in any of the New Testament writings is there an instruction to worship Jesus, as a singularity.  Nor, is Judaism about being a good Jew; it's about worshipping God.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Hope on December 29, 2015, 09:05:49 PM
In that case all Christians should be by faith be Jewish(?). And if the above is the case then in Jesus' time the cross, the blood of the lamb and the usual Christian message we hear today, and all that, didn't apply so again all Christians should be Jewish, and that Christianity is a false religion built on idolatry.
OK, let's take a more up-to-date analogy.  In the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, Britain basically had two political parties, the Whigs and the Tories.  In the late 19th Century, parts of the Whig Party changed a certain amount, but retained their fundamental ideas, and became the Liberal Party which sought to fulfill those fundamental ideas in what they deemed to be a better way. 

This is an analogy of Judaism and Christianity in so far as Jesus clearly came to the Jews initially and sought to move them out of what had become a very introverted and insular faith, under which it as thought that Jehovah was purely a deity for the Jews and no-one else - which contradicted what they had been told that they had been chosen to do.  Sadly, the majority of the Jews of the time either rejected his claim to be the promised messiah (predominantly the leaders of the faith) or simply didn't understand enough to make decision. 

Even during his lifetime, Jesus had begun to take the message of the Gospel beyond the 'boundaries' of Judaism, and he effectively reinstituted the original instructions to the Jews (recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures) to take the light to those beyond their physical and tribal boundaries by instructing the disciples (not merely the 11 apostles) to 'go into all the world and make disciples'. 

Quote
Instead of following the message they followed the messenger.
No, they followed Christ's reinstituted and, yes, developed instructions, but continued to carry out the original instrctions to worship God.

Quote
Why was it a term of abuse?
The early Christians were, like the Jews, monotheistic which was a very unusual thing aroujnd the Mediterranean of the time, and the people of Antioch were alert enough to realise this but that they based their lives on the teachings of both the Hebrew Scriptures and the teachings of the character they called 'the Christ'.  As with most modern-day societies, people who are different get given nicknames, many of which aren't meant to be complimentary.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: trippymonkey on December 29, 2015, 09:09:50 PM
HOPE
Welllll
The Jews have really failed BIG time then, eh ?!?!?!!?
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: jeremyp on December 30, 2015, 12:37:24 AM
And there are pretty obvious reasons why the Gospel authors expressed and explained things in different ways.  For instance, the first 3 Gospels (aka the Synoptic Gospels) had very different purposes and probably audiences to that attributed to John. 
Do you realise that you have just argued against the gospels as reliable sources?
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: jeremyp on December 30, 2015, 12:45:27 AM
No; he received the gospel (ie the good news) via revelation.  He would have had to have received information about the actual teachings of Jesus (after all, he does make reference to certain of them) from someone else.
He claims what he teaches comes from revelation. He never claims any other source for anything he teaches. In fact there is no evidence that he even knew of anything that later appeared in the gospels except for the execution and resurrection.

You are speculating.

Quote
Sorry to disappoint you
The only way in which you disappointment is in your inability to think analytically about this subject.

Quote
Mark's Gospel includes certain details that only Peter would have likely known suggesting that Mark received that info from him, first hand.  eg events concerning his family, and events relating to incidents that only involved Jeus and Peter.

Or he made them up, or he knew some oral tradition that may or may not have come from Peter originally.

Quote
I had Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius in mind.
All of whom were writing years after the events and none of whom say anything that they couldn't have got from Christians in their own time.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Hope on December 30, 2015, 08:50:25 AM
Hope, it's really simple.

Jews have not become Christians for exactly the same reason you haven't rushed off to become a Muslim because Mohammed claimed to have been told the truth about the scriptures by God via the Angel Gabriel

That's because Islam isn' t accurate in your eyes.

Well Christianity isn't accurate in the eyes of a Jew.

Even if Jews might have seen value in many of the teachings of Jesus ( and in many they do because originally  they are Jewish teachings ) , that was destroyed once people turned him into a divine being.
Oddly enough, Rose, it was Jews who did that latter action, no-one else.  In fact, it was because of his own claim to be divine that the Jewish authorities had him executed - so don't blame other people.

Quote
Even more so as they have a history of being persecuted by Christians. ...

It's sad, but true, they have been treated appallingly throughout history by Christians.
Yet, that didn't even begin until the late 1st millennium - so that is a poor excuse to give for why Jews haven't taken the message up.

Quote
See, reading a bit about Judaism and meeting some in real life, they are very wary of people claiming things about God and pushing themselves upfront, it's people wanting to be God, like leaders thought they were, in Egypt. For example.
Not quite sure what you're trying to say here.  Remember that Jesus actually fits the older idea of Messiah to a tee, whilst he didn't fit the politico-military idea that had taken precedence by the 2 or 3 centuries prior to Jesus' time. 

Quote
Some human beings do this, believe they are more than they are. Cult leaders etc. It's an ego thing.

Obviously they were wary of it in Jesus time too.
It would appear that the people were very happy to pay attention to Jesus during hius life, but it was the religious leaders who felt threatened by him (hint of people believing they were more than they are, perhaps?) and who seemed to turn the people's opinion.

Quote
Although they have had a few of their own, it is pretty much disapproved of, turning a man into the divine. ...

Jesus was just one in a line of many.
The problem with this understanding is that the 'few of their own' didn't claim divinity but had it thrust upon them.  That is why Jesus is definitely not 'just one in a line of many'.

Quote
Jews are not going to become a Christian any more than you are going to become a Muslim.
Sorry, Rose, but it is worth remembering that it was Jews who were the first Christians. So, to suggest that they aren't going to become Christians is somewhat of a mis-representation.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: trippymonkey on December 30, 2015, 01:23:25 PM
EX points once again, Rose ?!?!?
Of course God KNEW this was all going to happen & so didn't choose... the ....jews...in the ...first place. OH SH.. !!!!!!

Nick
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Jack Knave on December 30, 2015, 06:50:08 PM
And there are pretty obvious reasons why the Gospel authors expressed and explained things in different ways.  For instance, the first 3 Gospels (aka the Synoptic Gospels) had very different purposes and probably audiences to that attributed to John.  This wasn't a 'here is the Good News' document; it was a 'this is where people have been going wrong with their thinking' document; even the Synoptic Gospels would appear to have different audiences to each other.  Even today, we find very different reports of the same event - especially when it is political - depending on the political disposition of the report's author, the media in which it appears, perhaps even the timing in relation to other 'political' events.
So what were these gospels used for at the time they were created? They didn't have the printing press or the internet, and they aren't exactly small and easy to copy out, so who actually had them or read them?
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Jack Knave on December 30, 2015, 07:01:37 PM
A wonderfully incorrect response, JK.  Nowhere in Jesus' teachings or in any of the New Testament writings is there an instruction to worship Jesus, as a singularity.  Nor, is Judaism about being a good Jew; it's about worshipping God.
It is claimed that JC is the son of God. Gods are worshipped.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Hope on December 30, 2015, 09:46:39 PM
It is claimed that JC is the son of God. Gods are worshipped.
And, JK, as a Christian I worship God.  I don't worship the son of God, nor do I worship the Holy Spirit.  I worship God who, I believe, is 3 in 1.

Incidentally, if you look again at your own post to which I was responding, you said that one of the religiuons under discussion was about worshipping the messenger, and that is why I pointed out how wildly inaccurate your post was; the 'messenger' as you call Jesus is actually the God whose message both the Jews and Christians have been instructed to share with the world.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: trippymonkey on December 30, 2015, 09:48:17 PM
So why didn't 'God' appear AS 'God' then we'd ALL have paid attention ?!?!?!
Simple truth is Jesus was NOT God any more than WE are !?!?!
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Hope on December 30, 2015, 10:25:30 PM
So what!, the first Mormons were Christians, so suggesting the rest of the Christians are not going to become Mormons is a misrepresentation?
Rose, the first Mormons were as much Christians as the first Muslims.  In the same way that Mohammed took a number of Old and New Testament ideas and weaved them in to the Quran, so Joseph Smith took a number of Old and New testament ideas and weaved them into his Book of Mormon.

Quote
Just because a few Jews joined Jesus in the beginning, has no bearing on the vast majority of Jews ( then and now ) who have no intention of becoming Christians.
And as some here love to remind us, an argumentum ad populum doesn't prove anything.

Quote
I see no reason why they should.

They have a beautiful religion all of their own.

To let that go, would be a shame.

IMO Jesus and Christianity,  is contrary to Judaism.
The problem with this argument is in the answer to the question 'Why were the Jews chosen?'  The Hebrew Scriptures make it clear that they were chosen in order to act as God's witnesses to the nations amongst whom they lived - 'the world'. Those same Scriptures make it clear that they failed to fulfill this purpose and, as a result, they were punished in a number of ways.  Furthermore, over the centuries, a series of prophets such as Jeremiah, Haggai, Micah, Isaiah, et al were called with the express purpose of calling the people back to that purpose.  Sadly, over the centuries, their leaders became so inward-looking that God did what he had said he would do if the situation required it - and came to earth himself as the promised Messiah.

Note that I have not at any point referred to the New Testament - the coming of the Messiah was prophesied on more than one occasion in the Hebrew Scriptures and all the other information I have given is consonant with Jewish thinking prior to Jesus' birth.

Judaism may well be a beautiful religion, but when (and this accusation can equally be laid at the feet of the Christian Church at various points through history) the followers of the religion fail to follow through on the purpose that they have been given by God, that religion becomes somewhat directionless.

Quote
Christianity has been the biggest preventative concept ever, in preventing Jews from claiming the teachings of Jesus ( Plus his own unique Jewish contribution )as their own(as an ordinary faulty rabbi and discussing his ideas).
Yet, as you have already pointed out several times, many Jews refused to accept Jesus' claims of his divinity and his teaching that built on teir own existing Scriptures.  In other words, to claim, in one post/breathe that the Jews chose not to accept him as the Messiah, and then to claim in another post that "Christianity has been the biggest preventative concept ever, in preventing Jews from claiming the teachings of Jesus" is one of the least cohesive arguments that anyone can provide.

Quote
This is because not only because of his claimed divinity, but the disgusting way Christians have behaved in his name, going right back to 250 AD or as soon as Christians gained enough power to do any real harm.
Yet again, you suggest that the Jews refused to accept him and his claim of divinity in the early first century, only to then suggest that events of some 200 years later (though I'd suggest that the real damage was probably not done till several centuries later) were the cause of the Jews' unwillingness to accept his message.  Which of the two is it?  Are you suggesting that actually a number of Jews actually took his teachings on board in those initial 170+ years only to decide to jettison them when the church began to teach ideas that, whilst reflecting the way that the Jewish religious leaders had regarded and treated Jesus during his lifetime, seemed to be laying the blame on the people as a whole?

Quote
Denying it happened is a bit like holocaust deniers, misguided.
Contrary to your interpretation of my posts, I have never denied that the Church has - over the centuries - treated the Jewish people appallingly. 

Regarding your quote(s) from Origen, have you ever considered that, by ensuring that the people in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' execution were seen to agree with their proposal of the death penalty, those self-same leaders were trying to tar their own people with that particular brush?  Remember that many of those same people had welcomed him into Jerusalem and effectively proclaimd him as king only a week or two earlier.

Quote
This is a Catholic timeline shocking really.
And that is why I tend to treat institutional timelines, be thy religious or political, ancient of modern with a sizeable pinch of salt, preferring to get back, as best I can to the original documentary material.

PS: I'm going to have to work out how best to respond to your other points (in red) tomorrow, as the new quoting system doesn't allow me to automatcally quote them.  I'll probably have to cut and paste them into a new post.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: 2Corrie on December 31, 2015, 12:24:01 AM
Rose, what are your thoughts about the existing and growing congregations of Jewish believers in the Lord Jesus Christ?
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: OH MY WORLD! on December 31, 2015, 02:16:09 AM
Rose,
Please read the statement of faith of the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations.

http://www.umjc.org/statement-of-faith/
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Leonard James on December 31, 2015, 07:03:27 AM
And, JK, as a Christian I worship God.  I don't worship the son of God, nor do I worship the Holy Spirit.  I worship God who, I believe, is 3 in 1.

Incidentally, if you look again at your own post to which I was responding, you said that one of the religiuons under discussion was about worshipping the messenger, and that is why I pointed out how wildly inaccurate your post was; the 'messenger' as you call Jesus is actually the God whose message both the Jews and Christians have been instructed to share with the world.

What all believers fail to accept is that the "message" was nothing more than the beliefs of the writers of the Bible ... and they were clever enough to claim that those thoughts were being dictated by "God".

The human mind is very susceptible to accept any story which confers on it the possibility of everlasting life.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Hope on December 31, 2015, 09:46:15 AM
I think it's a terrible shame, they have traded in their beautiful religion and history for the mass hysteria, the approval and acceptance of other Christians,   and pursue eternal life instead.
In what way have they "traded in their beautiful religion and history for the mass hysteria, the approval and acceptance of other Christians ... ", Rose? 

Quote
I don't think they can really have understood Judaism, because if I was Jewish I would never have let it go.  ( not that I do, but what I do, I value)
 :'(

They have lost something, something important  :(
The irony of your comments here is that they have actually moved back to the more traditional Jewish ideas that existed before the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel split and the land was invded by various neighbouring nations.

Quote
I'd advise them to look at Judaism again, this time without Christians reinterpreting their scriptures.
Sadly Rose, the 'Christian reinterpretation', as you call it, was carried out by practising Jews.  All Christians are doing is following in those footsteps.

Quote
The desire to live forever is like an addictive drug though, distorts your reality and is hard to give up.
Couldn't agree more, Rose, and modern Western society is possibly history's greatest exponent of this 'addictive drug'.

Quote
That's how I see much in Christianity, like Dorian Grey.
The drug that distorts their reality, and make the unacceptable acceptable.
It also shows how mixed up you are in regard to Christian beliefs.  There is nothing about immortality in Christianity.
 :o

Quote
One of the lines of the Jewish Shema says
(Here again we see one slight imperfection in the current quoting system)
IMO that doesn't leave room for the pursuit of eternal life at all costs.
Quoting a passage out of context like this does your argument no favours, Rose.  The point about the instruction "And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might" is that this is the means by which Jews believe that they will be able to enjoy life after death in the presence of God.  This has nothing to do with immortality, even though you seem to think the terms 'eternal life' and 'immortality' are synonymous.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Floo on December 31, 2015, 10:23:25 AM
 "And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might"

That would be like loving Hitler if  what the Bible attributes to the deity is correct, as I  have said many times before!
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: 2Corrie on December 31, 2015, 10:36:54 AM
Now this is eternal life that they know You the One true God and Jesus Christ whom  You sent. John 17:3
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Floo on December 31, 2015, 11:46:40 AM
Now this is eternal life that they know You the One true God and Jesus Christ whom  You sent. John 17:3

Another verse without any meaning in reality!
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: 2Corrie on December 31, 2015, 11:55:08 AM
Any particular reason you don't comment on the verses when Rose quotes them Floo ?
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Floo on December 31, 2015, 12:02:35 PM
Any particular reason you don't comment on the verses when Rose quotes them Floo ?

I don't think Rose thinks they have anymore credence than I do.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Shaker on December 31, 2015, 01:05:00 PM
Eternal life is a form of immortality.

It means you don't die.

The sort of people who put a large store by it, tend to be people who commit atrocities or are basically swindlers.

Examples would be Isis and TV evangelists of various sorts.


I have found people who put the stress on eternal life etc tend to lack empathy for others

Not all Christians put the same emphasis on it, but the ones that do, seem to cause harm.

Personally I like Wittgenstein's take on it - we already have eternal life from the subjective point of view, not because we live for ever - there's no evidence of that - but because for every subject we can only ever know that we are alive; once we're dead, we can't know that we're dead, because we're dead! So for every individual, there's only ever consciousness that goes on and we can't know when it stops for the reason already given. Borges said effectively the same thing.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Hope on December 31, 2015, 03:18:50 PM
"And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might"

That would be like loving Hitler if  what the Bible attributes to the deity is correct, as I  have said many times before!
But of course, you have 'many times' given no evidence to support you 'many times'-made claims.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Hope on December 31, 2015, 03:22:55 PM
I don't agree with so many things you have asserted its hard to know where to begin. It will have to wait until I'm not using my phone
You may not agree with what I have said, but then I'm not sure that I'd put your judgement over that of certain Jews of the time.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Dicky Underpants on December 31, 2015, 03:41:07 PM
But they didn't find them embarrassing or they would not have become ingrained. Even if they had become ingrained, that would not prevent the gospel authors from dropping them. Two of the four gospels omit the Lord's Prayer. I doubt if there is anything more ingrained into the Christian psyche and yet we have two gospels not mentioning it even though it is not even embarrassing.

Christians did not find anything in the gospels embarrassing or it wouldn't be there.

Are you a 'Jesus Mythicist', Jeremy? I suppose that if you believe all the gospels are so lacking in any material that could be attributed to a definitive historical character, then you must be. Or do you believe that there was a certain wandering preacher called Jesus around whom the gospel writers attached a host of circulating stories of indefinite source, and padded these out with their own imaginings, woven around texts from the OT that seemed to prophesy 'The Messiah'?
I think we agree on the importance of Paul's 'vision' in colouring all later attempts at depicting Jesus, but the differences between his ideas and certain important passages in the gospels is striking.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Dicky Underpants on December 31, 2015, 03:48:28 PM


All I see is Christians stretching and distorting things like Jewish Scripture,  to try and support what they believe.

However, one could hardly claim that the Jewish Scriptures themselves are consistent, and the idea that there is one clear line of teaching present in the OT is difficult to sustain. There are about four divine covenants related in the OT, and these are not consistent. Even on the question of sacrifice of animals, which became central to the main Jewish sects up to the time of Jesus, there are diametrically opposed views. You can trace this back to Jeremiah*, who distinctly says God gave no commandment for a system of sacrifice to be installed at the time of the Exodus. And of course Isaiah and Micah insist on its irrelevance.
The Jews have not been noted for their capacity for agreement on many things :)

*Jeremiah 7:22
" For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices."
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Dicky Underpants on December 31, 2015, 03:58:37 PM

No but most of them agree their writings don't predict the coming of Jesus, it's only the converts to Christianity that do that.


On that I'd certainly agree.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Jack Knave on December 31, 2015, 04:41:43 PM
Personally I like Wittgenstein's take on it - we already have eternal life from the subjective point of view, not because we live for ever - there's no evidence of that - but because for every subject we can only ever know that we are alive; once we're dead, we can't know that we're dead, because we're dead! So for every individual, there's only ever consciousness that goes on and we can't know when it stops for the reason already given. Borges said effectively the same thing.
That sounds like fools gold. We see our loved ones die and know we shall follow them. The fact that we moan their parting shows that we are very aware of the reality of death in a deep and profound emotional way that moves our very being. Some even have lives that are a living death...
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Shaker on December 31, 2015, 04:44:37 PM
That sounds like fools gold. We see our loved ones die and know we shall follow them. The fact that we moan their parting shows that we are very aware of the reality of death in a deep and profound emotional way that moves our very being.
That doesn't actually contradict anything previously said, though - from the point of view of individual subjective consciousness, the death of others is precisely and entirely and exactly that - the the death of another, not the death of that subjective individual consciousness.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Jack Knave on December 31, 2015, 04:56:34 PM

No but most of them agree their writings don't predict the coming of Jesus, it's only the converts to Christianity that do that.

It's like most Christians don't see the coming of Mohammed in the bit about the comforter coming after Jesus in the NT

People twist other people's scripture to suit themselves.  Christians twist Jewish scripture, Muslims twist Christian scripture.

Happens a lot.

I don't need to because I'm not Muslim or Christian ......... I'm free to speculate  ;D
So what do the Jews believe about their saviour, if they have one, and/or what do they say these references to a 'messiah' mean?
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Jack Knave on December 31, 2015, 05:05:21 PM
That doesn't actually contradict anything previously said, though - from the point of view of individual subjective consciousness, the death of others is precisely and entirely and exactly that - the the death of another, not the death of that subjective individual consciousness.
But we aren't an island, which is what that depends on. We are substantially connected to one another which was what may comment was about, and so we can not avoid but look death in the face whilst we are conscious and aware.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Jack Knave on December 31, 2015, 05:30:56 PM
It has occurred to me, whilst reading the comments on this thread, that taking that JC had no plans for a new religion but only wanted to revive the true spirit of Judaism, and that he was crucified next to two robbers, the odds are are that he was falsely accused of a similar crime by the high priests etc. as he was causing too much trouble and becoming too much of a handful for them.

The sudden loss of their inspired leader* the apostles and disciples panicked and ran for it and hid in the 'mountains' (one apparently went to India). Only later did they return and started to pick up the pieces and form their churches, pass their stories around and 'rewrite' history.

* I have seen elsewhere that the word carpenter, for Joseph, could have meant architect and that Jesus could have had a very good education, unlike (I gather) his followers, and hence why he was for one reason very impressive and could run rings round the Pharisees. The other thing we know from history is that revolutions are usually managed and carried out by the 'middle classes' not the workers who only feel the discontent of the times and as such only follow such people of better education. 

Additional : And reading Roses' post below because Jesus didn't bring this world peace and be this world leader in the End of Days, because of his sudden death, it was sublimated into a spiritual actualization. And we have seen from those predicting the end times etc. that when it doesn't happen they tend to make rash explanations and double their effects. 
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Jack Knave on December 31, 2015, 06:01:44 PM
The messiah was a man who they believe will come one day to usher in world peace

What he isn't is a divine saviour, that's purely Christian.



In Judaism there isn't a concept of being saved, or the alternative of being thrown into a lake of fire. The concept of original sin is missing as well.

Messiah means anointed and was a human leader, rather than a divine person.

Christianity added all the nasty concepts, like hell and eternal damnation and the idea man is inherently evil.

Judaism seems to believe man was created in Gods image and had the capacity for both good and evil.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/worth.html

Whereas Christianity leans heavily on the man is inherently bad side, which loads people up with guilt.
And to add to this that the Jews also have no heaven, the focus is totally Earthly.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Shaker on December 31, 2015, 06:08:11 PM
And to add to this that the Jews also have no heaven, the focus is totally Earthly.
You're sort of right, almost nearly not quite a bit up to a point if you like. Even Orthodox Judaism refers to Olam Ha-Ba, (the world to come), but it's not made explicit as to whether this state is to come after death (on which Jews have historically been a good deal less than firm - see Ecclesiastes amongst other documents) or will be a state of the future Earth/society.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Hope on December 31, 2015, 06:38:34 PM
What he isn't is a divine saviour, that's purely Christian.
Sadly, this runs contrary to what is taught in various parts of the Hebrew Scriptures, Rose.  I appreciate that some forms of Judaism - even at the time of Christ - didn't/don't believe in everything that other forms did, but the idea of a Messiah who would usher in world peace was based on the fact that he would be divine - as only God would be in a position to usher in that situation.

The idea of a purely politico-military Messiah, so beloved of the Zealots of Jesus' time, dated from the 5th/4th century BC, but the idea of Messiah as a saviour sent from God had existed long before that - ie from an era when the people o Israel were in charge of their own destiny and therefore without need of a military saviour.  All the references are, furthermore, in a spirtual context.

Quote
In Judaism there isn't a concept of being saved, or the alternative of being thrown into a lake of fire. The concept of original sin is missing as well.
Whilst it is true that the concept of original sin is missing, there are plenty of warnings of how those who continue to sin would be cut off from the 'congregation'.  I(nterestingly, the concept of being thrown into the fire is originally a Jewish one - or so many of the Jews I've known over the years have told me.

Quote
Messiah means anointed and was a human leader, rather than a divine person.
Whilst it is true that the term was applied to various human agents - including Cyrus - it also had a wider meaning that included more than mere human ideas.

Quote
Christianity added all the nasty concepts, like hell and eternal damnation and the idea man is inherently evil.
Actually this is only partially true, Rose.  The concept of Sheol (Hell) predates Christ by several centuries (and is probably the 'precursor' of the Christian idea of purgatory).  Likewise, the idea that mankind is inherently sinful is based on Jewish thinking as well.

Quote
Judaism seems to believe man was created in Gods image and had the capacity for both good and evil.
As does Christianity.

Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Shaker on December 31, 2015, 06:39:55 PM
This is an interesting article / Reform Judaism

http://www.reformjudaism.org/blog/2012/05/10/do-jews-believe-afterlife

I like the way they can make up their own minds  :) rather than being a dogma.

I like that. Latitude of belief. Nobody actually knows so believe whatever you like.

There's no "My way or the fry way" as in Christianity, Judaism's ugly bastard offspring.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Hope on December 31, 2015, 06:45:16 PM
I like that. Latitude of belief. Nobody actually knows so believe whatever you like.

There's no "My way or the fry way" as in Christianity, Judaism's ugly bastard offspring.
And what 'My way or the fry way' exists in Christ's teaching, Shakes? 
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Shaker on December 31, 2015, 06:54:04 PM
And what 'My way or the fry way' exists in Christ's teaching, Shakes?
There's no such thing as Christ's teaching, only what is allegedly reported by others to be Christ's teaching, supposedly.

But within that, John 14:6, amongst other places.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Shaker on December 31, 2015, 06:54:45 PM
You make all these claims and refute what I say, but you never back up your arguments Hope.

Not with anything meaningful.
Yes, he's like that. Consistently.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Leonard James on January 01, 2016, 06:05:18 AM
Yes, he's like that. Consistently.

Hence his moniker! He hopes he's fooling us.  :)
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: 2Corrie on January 01, 2016, 12:19:40 PM
It may be helpful to step back altogether from concepts of heaven, hell, immortality and get to the root of what the Jewish and Christian religions are all about: a relationship with God.

God created man and in the beginning man and God were in close relationship, 'God walked in the garden in the cool of the day'. God wanted the relationship to be built on trust; he wanted man to trust Him. Whether you take the garden of eden episode as history or allegory the outcome is ultimately the same: man stopped trusting God and the relationship was broken.

Throughout the Jewish scriptures there were people who did trust God, take Abraham for example - Genesis 15:6 is a pivotal scripture demonstrating a restoration of this trust and right relationship "Abram believed the LORD and He reckoned it to him as righteousness."  Abraham's relationship with God was restored because he trusted Him.


It is my belief that all humans have an immortal spirit (and that there will be a resurrection of both the 'righteous' and the 'unrighteous'); an idea that has its roots in the Hebrew scriptures: Daniel 12:2 for instance, and Job 19:25-27.
So we have the idea of people spending an eternity with or without God; in or out of a relationship with Him.


That God wants us to trust Him should not be understated; we see it throughout the scriptures, and now in this Gospel age people the world over are being given that opportunity to put their trust in God. This is what God ultimately wants, our trust; a restored relationship, consider the following in the light of this: "For by grace you have been saved through faith."

Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Red Giant on January 01, 2016, 12:23:41 PM
I'd disagree with the idea that 'Christianity and mainly Paul' turned it into something else: after all, even Jesus had begun to expand the message and the responsibility for sharing it beyond the Jewish people - think of the Roman centurion he praised for having faith; or the way in which he spoke with the woman of Samaria (no self respecting Jew of the time would have been seen dead speaking to a Samaritan, let alone a Samaritan woman); or his dealings with those people who the Jews had rejected, either on the grounds of race or physical or mental ill-health.
That would be Jerusalem's take on it, but Jesus came from Galilee.  Merely growing up with attitudes that are shocking to the narrow-minded doesn't mean you're on a mission to change the world.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: trippymonkey on January 01, 2016, 05:43:59 PM
Why did God give us 'something' that let us NOT trust Him & then punish us for using it ?!?!?!?!
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Leonard James on January 01, 2016, 05:47:15 PM
To amuse himself! He knew he would be bored to tears with all the sycophants that trusted him.  :)
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: trippymonkey on January 01, 2016, 05:49:53 PM
LJ YER know You're right !!!
Can you imagine a place full of sycophantic Christians all over the place.  ;) ;) ;D

I DO often think this was all done as some cosmic game with little or NO consideration for the players ?!?!!?

Nick
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Jack Knave on January 01, 2016, 07:03:27 PM
Sadly, this runs contrary to what is taught in various parts of the Hebrew Scriptures, Rose.  I appreciate that some forms of Judaism - even at the time of Christ - didn't/don't believe in everything that other forms did, but the idea of a Messiah who would usher in world peace was based on the fact that he would be divine - as only God would be in a position to usher in that situation.

The idea of a purely politico-military Messiah, so beloved of the Zealots of Jesus' time, dated from the 5th/4th century BC, but the idea of Messiah as a saviour sent from God had existed long before that - ie from an era when the people o Israel were in charge of their own destiny and therefore without need of a military saviour.  All the references are, furthermore, in a spirtual context.
Whilst it is true that the concept of original sin is missing, there are plenty of warnings of how those who continue to sin would be cut off from the 'congregation'.  I(nterestingly, the concept of being thrown into the fire is originally a Jewish one - or so many of the Jews I've known over the years have told me.
Whilst it is true that the term was applied to various human agents - including Cyrus - it also had a wider meaning that included more than mere human ideas.
Actually this is only partially true, Rose.  The concept of Sheol (Hell) predates Christ by several centuries (and is probably the 'precursor' of the Christian idea of purgatory).  Likewise, the idea that mankind is inherently sinful is based on Jewish thinking as well.
As does Christianity.
You need to add in there the influence of Greek philosophy, which entered in a substantial way at the time of Alexander the Great, and which brought may of the ideas you mention.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Jack Knave on January 01, 2016, 07:23:37 PM
Why did God give us 'something' that let us NOT trust Him & then punish us for using it ?!?!?!?!
But when A & E did take of the fruit God didn't chastised them for not obeying It, It said now man has become like one of us. And becoming "like one of us" means you have to take on the responsibility for "knowing what is right and wrong". And in my view the toil imposed on them is just a symbolic representation of this.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Leonard James on January 01, 2016, 07:36:17 PM
LJ YER know You're right !!!
Can you imagine a place full of sycophantic Christians all over the place.  ;) ;) ;D

I DO often think this was all done as some cosmic game with little or NO consideration for the players ?!?!!?

Nick

I don't think it was "done" at all! It's just the way matter behaves when it does its own thing.  :(
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: trippymonkey on January 01, 2016, 09:26:09 PM
IS this 'own thing' not controlled by God though ???
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Leonard James on January 02, 2016, 07:20:01 AM
IS this 'own thing' not controlled by God though ???

Only if you use the word 'God' to mean that, and accept that we know nothing more about it yet.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: trippymonkey on January 02, 2016, 08:41:24 AM
I feel God is ultimately responsible for ALL things even if He just 'allows' a thing to happen ?!!??!
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Floo on January 02, 2016, 09:14:26 AM
I feel God is ultimately responsible for ALL things even if He just 'allows' a thing to happen ?!!??!

That doesn't exactly do god any credit if it exists!
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Leonard James on January 02, 2016, 10:25:35 AM
I feel God is ultimately responsible for ALL things even if He just 'allows' a thing to happen ?!!??!

Fine! But unfortunately the word  "God" is usually used by believers to imply much more knowledge of him than that.

Maybe you would be better using the word "Cause" to avoid the imagined claptrap that is so often assocˇated with "God".  :)
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: SusanDoris on January 02, 2016, 01:24:29 PM
I rather like the Duke of Edinburgh's article about engineers and the short part of the interview on Today this morning. He was saing that everything that is not the natural world was invented by engineers.  Oh, I would have loved to hear him say he long ago stopped believing in God!  However, he just couldn't do that of course.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Floo on January 02, 2016, 01:46:19 PM
I rather like the Duke of Edinburgh's article about engineers and the short part of the interview on Today this morning. He was saing that everything that is not the natural world was invented by engineers.  Oh, I would have loved to hear him say he long ago stopped believing in God!  However, he just couldn't do that of course.

His Missus would probably put him in The Tower if he did! ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Sassy on January 02, 2016, 02:05:14 PM
I heard an off the cuff comment on the radio the other day which said Jesus had no intention of forming a new religion.

So what do people think was Jesus' intentions in all that preaching that he ministered?

Would he be surprised by its outcome and how events have unfolded?

Christ fulfilled the Jewish religion prophecies. In doing so he set the precedent for Gods truth to be revealed to man and his plan.
Christ's intentions was to bring the truth to all men both Jews and Gentile to allow all to become the Children of God.
Born of Spirit and the truth. It is a living ministry and built on the Words of God in the OT and the setting straight of what God wanted from people.

Nothing is a surprise as God knew the end from the beginning and foretold it.
A complete knowledge and understanding of all that which he created.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Spud on January 02, 2016, 03:03:14 PM
"I am sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel" "Go not unto the gentiles, but only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel".
All other texts are add-ons, seen through the filters of St Paul's and St John's views about Jesus. The quoted texts may be something like words uttered by a wandering preacher called Jesus. With these in mind, it is difficult to believe that he ordered his followers to make 'disciples of all nations'

Something I read about Matthew's gospel might help put your quoted texts in perspective. It's from Rosenstock-Huessy's book Fruit of Lips, on pages 23 and 24.

http://tinyurl.com/ppwtpk9
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Red Giant on January 03, 2016, 03:49:16 AM
Something I read about Matthew's gospel might help put your quoted texts in perspective. It's from Rosenstock-Huessy's book Fruit of Lips, on pages 23 and 24.

http://tinyurl.com/ppwtpk9
This is total fantasy.  "Matthew" didn't "write" the Gospel, it's a cut-and-paste job.  "Mark" wrote half of it.  The bit at the end is transparently a clumsy add-on.  Nobody thinks that really happened - not least because no other Gospel has a remotely similar story.  Luke, John and the end of Mark were all written later than most of Matthew and are essentially 3 denials that Matthew's Great Commission on the mountain in Galilee ever happened.  (Though not intentionally, since that bit hadn't been written yet.)



Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Leonard James on January 03, 2016, 06:46:32 AM
I rather like the Duke of Edinburgh's article about engineers and the short part of the interview on Today this morning. He was saing that everything that is not the natural world was invented by engineers.  Oh, I would have loved to hear him say he long ago stopped believing in God!  However, he just couldn't do that of course.

I'm sure the Queen and the rest of the royal family are as aware as the church moguls of the anomalies in the Christian "God" story.

I am also sure that a few of them swallow the daft 'God knows best and moves in mysterious ways' answers which try to cover those glaring contradictions.

But it is inevitable that a growing number refuse to be taken in by it and simply can't believe.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Private Frazer on January 03, 2016, 09:29:25 AM
I'm sure the Queen and the rest of the royal family are as aware as the church moguls of the anomalies in the Christian "God" story.

I am also sure that a few of them swallow the daft 'God knows best and moves in mysterious ways' answers which try to cover those glaring contradictions.

But it is inevitable that a growing number refuse to be taken in by it and simply can't believe.
Talking of glaring contradictions there is a laddy on another board claiming the universe isn't uncreated and it isn't created.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Floo on January 03, 2016, 10:48:22 AM
Christ fulfilled the Jewish religion prophecies. In doing so he set the precedent for Gods truth to be revealed to man and his plan.
Christ's intentions was to bring the truth to all men both Jews and Gentile to allow all to become the Children of God.
Born of Spirit and the truth. It is a living ministry and built on the Words of God in the OT and the setting straight of what God wanted from people.

Nothing is a surprise as God knew the end from the beginning and foretold it.
A complete knowledge and understanding of all that which he created.

An assertion without proof!
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Jack Knave on January 03, 2016, 02:03:13 PM
Fine! But unfortunately the word  "God" is usually used by believers to imply much more knowledge of him than that.

Maybe you would be better using the word "Cause" to avoid the imagined claptrap that is so often assocˇated with "God".  :)
Or "Something".
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Jack Knave on January 03, 2016, 02:20:12 PM
Christ fulfilled the Jewish religion prophecies. In doing so he set the precedent for Gods truth to be revealed to man and his plan.
Christ's intentions was to bring the truth to all men both Jews and Gentile to allow all to become the Children of God.
Born of Spirit and the truth. It is a living ministry and built on the Words of God in the OT and the setting straight of what God wanted from people.

Nothing is a surprise as God knew the end from the beginning and foretold it.
A complete knowledge and understanding of all that which he created.
The parts of the OT that are claimed to refer to these prophecies are in symbolic language which by their very nature can be made to mean anything, and therefore can not express what the writer had in mind.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Spud on January 03, 2016, 05:00:43 PM
This is total fantasy.  "Matthew" didn't "write" the Gospel, it's a cut-and-paste job.  "Mark" wrote half of it.  The bit at the end is transparently a clumsy add-on.  Nobody thinks that really happened - not least because no other Gospel has a remotely similar story.  Luke, John and the end of Mark were all written later than most of Matthew and are essentially 3 denials that Matthew's Great Commission on the mountain in Galilee ever happened.  (Though not intentionally, since that bit hadn't been written yet.)

In fact if you read the book I linked to, it points out that Mark quotes from Matthew, carrying on in 1:1 where Matthew  left off: Jesus, the son of Abraham, is now the Son of God (Matt 28:19). Mark introduces him as the Son of God. Part of Mark's job, being under the instruction of Peter, is to show Jesus and him only to be the Saviour. Peter's importance is played down. (Eg instead of "I will put up three shelters", " let us put up three shelters" in the transfiguration accounts)

Anyway, if you read on in Mat. 10 you find Jesus talking about the disciples' mission to the Gentiles. So Dicky is incorrect, according to that
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: jeremyp on January 03, 2016, 05:25:54 PM
In fact if you read the book I linked to, it points out that Mark quotes from Matthew
You have it the wrong way round. Matthew copies almost all of Mark.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Red Giant on January 04, 2016, 07:41:04 AM
In fact if you read the book I linked to, it points out that Mark quotes from Matthew, carrying on in 1:1 where Matthew  left off: Jesus, the son of Abraham, is now the Son of God (Matt 28:19).
Mark has a few adjustments retrofitted.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Red Giant on January 04, 2016, 07:43:50 AM
Talking of glaring contradictions there is a laddy on another board claiming the universe isn't uncreated and it isn't created.
Sounds good to me.  What would "create" mean when applied to the universe?  If we don't know what we would mean by saying it was or it wasn't, how can we ask which is true?
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Hope on January 04, 2016, 09:09:57 AM
An assertion without proof!
So, she's learning from you, Floo  ;)
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Hope on January 04, 2016, 09:16:16 AM
I'm sure the Queen and the rest of the royal family are as aware as the church moguls of the anomalies in the Christian "God" story.
And those anomalies would be?

Quote
But it is inevitable that a growing number refuse to be taken in by it and simply can't believe.
Interestingly, on a board I used to be a member of - and now defuncy, I'm afraid - we had a sizeable thread based on a couple of the skeptics websites.  Over a period of time, we (and 'we' included many of the professed atheists) ended up pointing out the weaknesses that the websites had in their arguments.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Leonard James on January 04, 2016, 10:22:43 AM
And those anomalies would be?

One of them is the claim that a loving "God" would create a system of life in which half of the living creatures has to pursue, kill and eat the other half.
Quote
Interestingly, on a board I used to be a member of - and now defuncy, I'm afraid - we had a sizeable thread based on a couple of the skeptics websites.  Over a period of time, we (and 'we' included many of the professed atheists) ended up pointing out the weaknesses that the websites had in their arguments.

Most arguments have weaknesses somewhere, and religious arguments have their fair share and more.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Hope on January 04, 2016, 11:22:48 AM
One of them is the claim that a loving "God" would create a system of life in which half of the living creatures has to pursue, kill and eat the other half.
That's not an anomaly; its a dynamic system.

Quote
Most arguments have weaknesses somewhere, and religious arguments have their fair share and more.
No more than any other, Len.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Shaker on January 04, 2016, 11:36:15 AM
That's not an anomaly; its a dynamic system.
One which an omni god of the traditional would not create.
Quote
No more than any other, Len
Len was correct.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Dicky Underpants on January 04, 2016, 04:19:57 PM


Anyway, if you read on in Mat. 10 you find Jesus talking about the disciples' mission to the Gentiles. So Dicky is incorrect, according to that

Matthew 10 epitomises this evangelist's confusion. Early in the chapter he has Jesus saying "Go nowhere among the Gentiles". Later on, he seems to recollect something different, because he talks of "testimony to the Gentiles". Later still, he goes back to restate Jesus' purely Judaic mission, emphasising how short the time left is:
 " When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes."

This confusion permeates Matthew's gospel: on the one hand, he seems to be writing for a predominantly Jewish audience, so Jesus' apparent parochialism is stressed. On the other hand, there is rather a lot of extra stuff about his mission to the world (ending with the notorious final verse).
I don't see how these two views of Jesus can be really reconciled, apart from the idea that he was open to certain gentiles when they showed enough interest and faith in Judaism. But for all I know, those encounters may be as fabricated as the ending of this gospel obviously is. (The whole lot could be fabricated, if you hold to the Jesus' mythicist view: I don't)
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Jack Knave on January 05, 2016, 01:32:27 PM
Matthew 10 epitomises this evangelist's confusion. Early in the chapter he has Jesus saying "Go nowhere among the Gentiles". Later on, he seems to recollect something different, because he talks of "testimony to the Gentiles". Later still, he goes back to restate Jesus' purely Judaic mission, emphasising how short the time left is:
 " When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes."

This confusion permeates Matthew's gospel: on the one hand, he seems to be writing for a predominantly Jewish audience, so Jesus' apparent parochialism is stressed. On the other hand, there is rather a lot of extra stuff about his mission to the world (ending with the notorious final verse).
I don't see how these two views of Jesus can be really reconciled, apart from the idea that he was open to certain gentiles when they showed enough interest and faith in Judaism. But for all I know, those encounters may be as fabricated as the ending of this gospel obviously is. (The whole lot could be fabricated, if you hold to the Jesus' mythicist view: I don't)
By this standard JC has truly failed.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Hope on January 05, 2016, 08:29:19 PM
Matthew 10 epitomises this evangelist's confusion. Early in the chapter he has Jesus saying "Go nowhere among the Gentiles". Later on, he seems to recollect something different, because he talks of "testimony to the Gentiles". Later still, he goes back to restate Jesus' purely Judaic mission, emphasising how short the time left is:
 " When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes."
This confusion permeates Matthew's gospel: on the one hand, he seems to be writing for a predominantly Jewish audience, so Jesus' apparent parochialism is stressed. On the other hand, there is rather a lot of extra stuff about his mission to the world (ending with the notorious final verse).
I don't see how these two views of Jesus can be really reconciled, apart from the idea that he was open to certain gentiles when they showed enough interest and faith in Judaism. But for all I know, those encounters may be as fabricated as the ending of this gospel obviously is. (The whole lot could be fabricated, if you hold to the Jesus' mythicist view: I don't)
And this whole post shows how poorly you have studied the Bible and Jewish religion, DU.  It is clear from the Hebrew Scriptures that the Jews had been chosen to be 'a light to the Gentiles' - a purpose that the same Scriptures are keen to highlight as having been failed in.  Understandably, God offers the Jewish people the chance to redeem themselves in this regard by sending his son to them, rather than to another group, but when their leaders seem unwilling to get involved, he encourages the Jews he has gathered around him to bypass them and go directly to the Gentiles themselves - thus fulfilling the purpose the Jews were chosen for.  As such, there aren't 'two views of Jesus' as you suggest, just two aspects of the same purpose. 
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Dicky Underpants on January 06, 2016, 02:54:28 PM
And this whole post shows how poorly you have studied the Bible and Jewish religion, DU.  It is clear from the Hebrew Scriptures that the Jews had been chosen to be 'a light to the Gentiles' - a purpose that the same Scriptures are keen to highlight as having been failed in.  Understandably, God offers the Jewish people the chance to redeem themselves in this regard by sending his son to them, rather than to another group, but when their leaders seem unwilling to get involved, he encourages the Jews he has gathered around him to bypass them and go directly to the Gentiles themselves - thus fulfilling the purpose the Jews were chosen for.  As such, there aren't 'two views of Jesus' as you suggest, just two aspects of the same purpose.

I am fully aware that there is a corpus of ideas in the OT that the Jews are chosen to "be a light to the Gentiles", though this view is by no means consistently stressed, and 'God' is often portrayed as being narrow-mindedly tribal. However, I'd agree that it relates that 'through Abraham's seed all the nations of the earth will be blessed' - and in the NT, St Paul, by semantic sophistry, tries to insist that this refers to Christ, rather than the Jewish people. You seem very glued to the idea that the Bible puts forward a totally consistent message - it doesn't, neither in the OT, nor the confused melee of quotation (often misquotation) and contrived exegesis apparent in the NT.
Which brings us back to the texts in Matthew, which you didn't really deal with in any satisfactory way. The narrative is very confused, and it is a wonder that Matthew himself seems to have made little attempt to iron out the contradictions. Maybe the Jewish references relate back to definitive memories of what the historical Jesus actually said, however inconvenient these may seem to M's other attempts to portray Jesus as having  a universal message. There is certainly no indication in the texts I quoted to indicate that Jesus wished to reaffirm God's message to the Jews first, before his teaching should be spread to the wider world, especially (as in the text which Jack highlighted) it is clear that the Jesus quoted in these texts thought the whole system of things was about to be wound up, and there would therefore be no time for a more widespread mission.
Lastly, I can't for the life of me think how you can reconcile this text from Mat 15 with the idea that Jesus had a mission to spread his message to the whole world (he is speaking to the Canaanite woman - or Syro-Phoenician elsewhere):

[24] "He answered, "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
 
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Spud on January 06, 2016, 05:44:27 PM
Dicky, does this help:

(Peter is speaking to his fellow Israelites)

Quote
24Indeed, beginning with Samuel, all the prophets who have spoken have foretold these days. 25And you are heirs of the prophets and of the covenant God made with your fathers. He said to Abraham, ‘Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed.’b 26When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways.

And God speaking to his servant in Isaiah 49:

Quote
And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Spud on January 06, 2016, 06:13:01 PM
Also, remember that Peter was speaking after Pentecost, when the Spirit came. Jesus was sent to the Jews only, but the Spirit enabled the disciples to speak in the languages of all nations.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Leonard James on January 06, 2016, 07:48:38 PM
Also, remember that Peter was speaking after Pentecost, when the Spirit came. Jesus as a man was sent to the Jews only, but when he sent his spirit he enabled the disciples to speak in the languages of all nations, so it was really Jesus speaking through them.

Do you seriously believe that the disciples suddenly understood and spoke every language on earth?
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Leonard James on January 06, 2016, 08:13:31 PM
Music transcends every language on earth  :)

No matter what language someone speaks they can still appreciate a good tune  ;)

" if I were a rich man ....dee Dee dee......"

No doubt, Rose, but unless it is sung in their language they aren't going to glean much from it. :)
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: jeremyp on January 07, 2016, 01:18:28 AM
Music transcends every language on earth  :)


Not necessarily true. East Asian music sounds distinctly foreign to Western ears and vice versa. They use different scales and everything apparently.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Hope on January 07, 2016, 09:26:57 AM
Not necessarily true. East Asian music sounds distinctly foreign to Western ears and vice versa. They use different scales and everything apparently.
Whilst that is true, it doesn't mean that a Westerner can't appreciate East Asian music.  'Appreciation' and 'liking' aren't necessarily synonymous.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Floo on January 07, 2016, 12:13:21 PM
Also, remember that Peter was speaking after Pentecost, when the Spirit came. Jesus was sent to the Jews only, but the Spirit enabled the disciples to speak in the languages of all nations.

Like as if! ::)
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Spud on January 07, 2016, 01:34:02 PM
This is total fantasy.  "Matthew" didn't "write" the Gospel, it's a cut-and-paste job.  "Mark" wrote half of it.  The bit at the end is transparently a clumsy add-on. Nobody thinks that really happened - not least because no other Gospel has a remotely similar story.  Luke, John and the end of Mark were all written later than most of Matthew and are essentially 3 denials that Matthew's Great Commission on the mountain in Galilee ever happened.  (Though not intentionally, since that bit hadn't been written yet.)
The bit at the end of Matthew fits nicely with previous verses such as 26:31-32. The shepherd re-gathers the sheep and promises to be with them until the end of the world.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: ad_orientem on January 07, 2016, 02:36:27 PM
The bit at the end of Matthew fits nicely with previous verses such as 26:31-32. The shepherd re-gathers the sheep and promises to be with them until the end of the world.

Red Giant is talking bollocks. Matthew in its entirety was written by Natthew, Mark by Mark and so on and so forth. Modern "scholars" aren't worth shit.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Floo on January 07, 2016, 03:11:12 PM
Red Giant is talking bollocks. Matthew in its entirety was written by Natthew, Mark by Mark and so on and so forth. Modern "scholars" aren't worth shit.

And you know that for sure, because?
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: ad_orientem on January 07, 2016, 03:16:01 PM
And you know that for sure, because?

Because it is what we have received through the Holy Spirit.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Dicky Underpants on January 07, 2016, 04:17:30 PM
Because it is what we have received through the Holy Spirit.

We are encouraged to "test the spirits, whether they be of God" - can you suggest a reliable method of doing this?
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: ad_orientem on January 07, 2016, 04:36:30 PM
We are encouraged to "test the spirits, whether they be of God" - can you suggest a reliable method of doing this?

One way is to see if it has been consistently believed by the Church.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Hope on January 07, 2016, 04:36:54 PM
We are encouraged to "test the spirits, whether they be of God" - can you suggest a reliable method of doing this?
Yes.  In the same way that scientists can check a discovery against existing scientific documentation, to decide whether it is likely to be realistic/viable, so Christians can use documentary evidence to see whther a new idea or teaching (spirit) is realistic viable.  If the scientific discovery flies too much in the face of accepted norms, one has to reconsider it, recheck it, try to recreate it, etc.  The same goes with matters spiritual.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Hope on January 07, 2016, 04:38:53 PM
One way is to see if it has been consistently believed by the Church.
Unfortunately, there have been things that have - at certain times - been consistently believed by the Church yet are clearly not consistent with the teachings of Christ, or even the ideas that the Jews were called to proclaim.  That is why I tend to disregard Church tradition in the main.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Shaker on January 07, 2016, 04:39:23 PM
One way is to see if it has been consistently believed by the Church.
There are names for the two fallacies in there, you know.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: ad_orientem on January 07, 2016, 04:45:17 PM
Unfortunately, there have been things that have - at certain times - been consistently believed by the Church yet are clearly not consistent with the teachings of Christ, or even the ideas that the Jews were called to proclaim.  That is why I tend to disregard Church tradition in the main.

But you are a Protestant. You have to constantly innovate and reject the faith of the ancient Church.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Floo on January 07, 2016, 04:45:26 PM
One way is to see if it has been consistently believed by the Church.

And the church is infallible of course, NOT!
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: ad_orientem on January 07, 2016, 04:45:59 PM
And the church is infallible of course

Indeed!
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Shaker on January 07, 2016, 04:48:10 PM
You missed out the NOT! bit.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: ad_orientem on January 07, 2016, 04:51:07 PM
You missed out the NOT! bit.

I corrected it for her.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Nearly Sane on January 07, 2016, 04:54:33 PM
I penetrated my anus with a bust of Putin.

Indeed.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Shaker on January 07, 2016, 04:56:48 PM
I corrected it for her.
No you didn't, you misrepresented what she wrote to make it read what you think it should have said instead of what Floo intended it to say. Typical dishonesty from some of you lot - seen it a million times before.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: ad_orientem on January 07, 2016, 04:57:55 PM
No you didn't, you misrepresented what she wrote to make it read what you think it should have said instead of what Floo intended it to say. Typical dishonesty from some of you lot - seen it a million times before.

But not when you and your ilk fo it. Hypocrite!
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Nearly Sane on January 07, 2016, 05:00:18 PM
Butter helped ease the bust of Putin into my rectal passage . I am a  Hypocrite!


Indeed
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Shaker on January 07, 2016, 05:03:04 PM
But not when you and your ilk fo it. Hypocrite!
Examples?
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: ad_orientem on January 07, 2016, 05:12:17 PM
You and your ilk have done it to me before. I do not care to go through thousands of posts just to prove smoething you already know.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Shaker on January 07, 2016, 05:13:34 PM
You and your ilk have done it to me before. I do not care to go through thousands of posts just to prove smoething you already know.
Quelle surprise ...
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Nearly Sane on January 07, 2016, 05:17:21 PM
You never really feel alive until you know what a bust of Putin feels like as a plug for one's rectal passage. I do not care who knows that I have done this  thousands of times.

Indeed
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: ad_orientem on January 07, 2016, 05:19:51 PM
Quelle surprise ...

Would you?
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Shaker on January 07, 2016, 05:21:08 PM
Would you?
Would I what?
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: ad_orientem on January 07, 2016, 05:21:56 PM
Would I what?

Go through thousands of pists just to prove something we all already know.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Shaker on January 07, 2016, 05:25:53 PM
Go through thousands of pists just to prove something we all already know.
We have a search facility - unless a post has been removed (there are periodic purges, unfortunately) it doesn't take long to find something.

We're not talking about "something that everybody already knows" - that's just your assertion.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: ad_orientem on January 07, 2016, 05:29:20 PM
We have a search facility - unless a post has been removed (there are periodic purges, unfortunately) it doesn't take long to find something.

We're not talking about "something that everybody already knows" - that's just your assertion.

You'd have to remember exactly which posts. Each of us has thousands of posts between us. I have had it done to me many times.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Gordon on January 07, 2016, 06:07:52 PM
Yes.  In the same way that scientists can check a discovery against existing scientific documentation, to decide whether it is likely to be realistic/viable, so Christians can use documentary evidence to see whther a new idea or teaching (spirit) is realistic viable.  If the scientific discovery flies too much in the face of accepted norms, one has to reconsider it, recheck it, try to recreate it, etc.  The same goes with matters spiritual.

Scientists use an established method, where the various aspects are both described and where appropriate use of these can be checked, such as by replication studies - so what do you spiritual guys use as a method that would be comparable to the scientific method?
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Jack Knave on January 07, 2016, 08:00:24 PM
One way is to see if it has been consistently believed by the Church.
So the 'Devil' fools one influential person in the church in the past and then those lies get passed on through the ages and becomes gospel......brilliant, totally fool proof then.  ;D
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Jack Knave on January 07, 2016, 08:05:48 PM
Yes.  In the same way that scientists can check a discovery against existing scientific documentation, to decide whether it is likely to be realistic/viable, so Christians can use documentary evidence to see whther a new idea or teaching (spirit) is realistic viable.  If the scientific discovery flies too much in the face of accepted norms, one has to reconsider it, recheck it, try to recreate it, etc.  The same goes with matters spiritual.
So subject to cultural norms then, what people see as being the accepted behaviour!!!
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Jack Knave on January 07, 2016, 08:13:25 PM
You never really feel alive until you know what a bust of Putin feels like as a plug for one's rectal passage. I do not care who knows that I have done this  thousands of times.
I'm starting to worry about you Nearly!!! Indeed I am.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Nearly Sane on January 07, 2016, 08:18:19 PM
I'm unable to look at a chicken without getting the impulse to rub its excretions on my head.

Indeed
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Jack Knave on January 07, 2016, 08:45:57 PM
I'm unable to look at a chicken without getting the impulse to rub its excretions on my head.
Hey everybody, we've lost Nearly Sane who has succumbed to the insanity of this board....RIP Nearly, we'll miss you.  :(
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Nearly Sane on January 07, 2016, 08:52:01 PM
I have a collection of balloons on which I have written Ed Milliband in tiny letters

Indeed
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: jeremyp on January 08, 2016, 12:35:58 AM
And you know that for sure, because?

He doesn't know it because he is wrong. Only a fantasist would think the traditional attribution of the authorship of the gospels is correct.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: jeremyp on January 08, 2016, 12:39:00 AM
I corrected it for her.
You lied about what she wrote.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: jeremyp on January 08, 2016, 12:41:07 AM
Would I what?
Insert a bust of Putin in your rectum of course. Haven't you been reading Ad O as abridged by NS?
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: ad_orientem on January 08, 2016, 02:47:40 AM
You lied about what she wrote.

Not at all. Did she not write the words I quoted? I merely corrected it by leaving the last bit out, something which has been done to me on untold occassions by you and your ilk and when I mention it no one bats an eyelid.. You're hypocrites, the lot of you, but then I wouldn't expect anything less from you lot.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Shaker on January 08, 2016, 07:36:22 AM
... except when asked to provide examples of this alleged "hypocrisy" you bluster, make some feeble excuse and do one.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: ad_orientem on January 08, 2016, 08:22:59 AM
... except when asked to provide examples of this alleged "hypocrisy" you bluster, make some feeble excuse and do one.

If you don't believe me then call me an outright liar if you dare. If not, then it's not reasonable to expect me to go through thousands of posts. I really wouldn't know where to start.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Leonard James on January 08, 2016, 11:11:00 AM
Not at all. Did she not write the words I quoted? I merely corrected it by leaving the last bit out, something which has been done to me on untold occassions by you and your ilk and when I mention it no one bats an eyelid.. You're hypocrites, the lot of you, but then I wouldn't expect anything less from you lot.

Oh dear! Keep your hair on, AO!
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Hope on January 08, 2016, 03:43:04 PM
Scientists use an established method, where the various aspects are both described and where appropriate use of these can be checked, such as by replication studies - so what do you spiritual guys use as a method that would be comparable to the scientific method?
Gordon, scientistrs don't only use the more complicated methods you refer to; they will sometimes look at documentation from previous experimentation and/or interpretation of results and compare the 'fingerprints' as it were.  Take for example, the latest N. Korean nuclear test.  The seismologists have been able to compare the footprint of this latest test with those of previous tests and have suggested that, as the various footprints are similar, the device tested recently may well have been the same as in the past - ie, not a hydrogen bomb.  It would be interesting to see the radiation readings taken by Japanese and Chinese scientists.

A comparable method in the spiritual realm is to compare the teachings of this or that religious teacher with the teachings of a given religion's founder or initiator.  For instance, if a Hndu teacher was to start teaching that eating beef was acceptable for a Hindu, Hindus around the word would question how valid that teaching was as Hindu teaching.  Similarly, if a Christian teacher was suddenly to start teaching publically that it was acceptable to kill other humans simply for the sake of killing, the majority of Christians would question that teaching having compared it with Jesus' teaching. 
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: jeremyp on January 08, 2016, 04:28:33 PM
Not at all. Did she not write the words I quoted?
You reversed the intent of her post by omitting a word. That is dishonest.

Quote
I merely corrected it
No. You reversed the meaning. It was correct before you doctored it. Let me remind you that Floo's post claimed that the church is not infallible. Your amendment changed it to "the church is infallible". Nobody seriously believes your version.

Quote
something which has been done to me on untold occasions
When it happens to you, you are free to challenge the perpetrator. Claiming that something bad is done to you is not justification for doing the same thing to somebody else. That is hypocrisy.

Quote
You're hypocrites, the lot of you, but then I wouldn't expect anything less from you lot.
We're evil atheists. You're a Christian, you are supposed to hold yourself to a higher standard.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: jeremyp on January 08, 2016, 04:30:57 PM

A comparable method in the spiritual realm is to compare the teachings of this or that religious teacher with the teachings of a given religion's founder or initiator.  For instance, if a Hndu teacher was to start teaching that eating beef was acceptable for a Hindu, Hindus around the word would question how valid that teaching was as Hindu teaching.  Similarly, if a Christian teacher was suddenly to start teaching publically that it was acceptable to kill other humans simply for the sake of killing, the majority of Christians would question that teaching having compared it with Jesus' teaching.

Your examples don't have anything to do with the supernatural. What are you talking about?
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Gordon on January 08, 2016, 04:41:22 PM
Gordon, scientistrs don't only use the more complicated methods you refer to; they will sometimes look at documentation from previous experimentation and/or interpretation of results and compare the 'fingerprints' as it were.  Take for example, the latest N. Korean nuclear test.  The seismologists have been able to compare the footprint of this latest test with those of previous tests and have suggested that, as the various footprints are similar, the device tested recently may well have been the same as in the past - ie, not a hydrogen bomb.  It would be interesting to see the radiation readings taken by Japanese and Chinese scientists.

This is all naturalistic science, where if needed you could drill down from the summary of the results to the details of the methods used to obtain and analyse data.

Quote
A comparable method in the spiritual realm is to compare the teachings of this or that religious teacher with the teachings of a given religion's founder or initiator.  For instance, if a Hndu teacher was to start teaching that eating beef was acceptable for a Hindu, Hindus around the word would question how valid that teaching was as Hindu teaching.  Similarly, if a Christian teacher was suddenly to start teaching publically that it was acceptable to kill other humans simply for the sake of killing, the majority of Christians would question that teaching having compared it with Jesus' teaching.

No even remotely comparable to science, since you don't have a method or data: just opinions/superstitions dressed up as theology. It seems you have set the bar so low here that you'll need to be careful not to trip over it.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Hope on January 08, 2016, 05:31:28 PM
This is all naturalistic science, where if needed you could drill down from the summary of the results to the details of the methods used to obtain and analyse data.

No even remotely comparable to science, since you don't have a method or data: just opinions/superstitions dressed up as theology. It seems you have set the bar so low here that you'll need to be careful not to trip over it.
The problem is that often non-scientists need to be able to compare things being claimed by scientists.  In many such cases, they will read the documentation available in journals such as Nature, New Scientist, and other similar titles.  They don't have the knowledge or even inclination to 'drill down' but can still see where a claim is viable or not - even if they don't make a final decision.  This is no different to my example about religious documentation.  I realise that you feel that you have got to put as many stumbling blocks in the way of the spiritual argument as you can, but such a flimsy one as the argument you have put up here is unlikely to trip anyone up - apart from yourself, perhaps.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Gordon on January 08, 2016, 05:50:43 PM
The problem is that often non-scientists need to be able to compare things being claimed by scientists.  In many such cases, they will read the documentation available in journals such as Nature, New Scientist, and other similar titles.  They don't have the knowledge or even inclination to 'drill down' but can still see where a claim is viable or not - even if they don't make a final decision.

Even so, they have the opportunity to learn more about the details should they wish to do so and can be certain that within the disciplines of professional science the methods are clear and tested, and even then professional scientists recognise that their conclusions are provisional and are subject to review.

Quote
This is no different to my example about religious documentation.  I realise that you feel that you have got to put as many stumbling blocks in the way of the spiritual argument as you can, but such a flimsy one as the argument you have put up here is unlikely to trip anyone up - apart from yourself, perhaps.

Nonsense: but of course you've yet to explain how you know (e.g. have knowledge) that the contents of religious documentation, which are primarily anecdotal, don't include mistakes and/or lies, and also explain the method you use to confirm that claimed miracles really did occur.
 
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: jeremyp on January 08, 2016, 05:51:21 PM
The problem is that often non-scientists need to be able to compare things being claimed by scientists.  In many such cases, they will read the documentation available in journals such as Nature, New Scientist, and other similar titles.  They don't have the knowledge or even inclination to 'drill down' but can still see where a claim is viable or not - even if they don't make a final decision.  This is no different to my example about religious documentation.  I realise that you feel that you have got to put as many stumbling blocks in the way of the spiritual argument as you can, but such a flimsy one as the argument you have put up here is unlikely to trip anyone up - apart from yourself, perhaps.

In the case of science, there is something to drill down into and if you care to read some scientific papers they tell you exactly how to perform the experiments to verify the results for yourself.

Your  alleged spiritual method doesn't exist so there is nothing to drill down into.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Spud on January 08, 2016, 06:09:40 PM
Insert a bust of Putin in your rectum of course. Haven't you been reading Ad O as abridged by NS?
I think I get it now. I thought someone was pist at first.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Spud on January 12, 2016, 07:27:37 PM
Matthew 10 epitomises this evangelist's confusion. Early in the chapter he has Jesus saying "Go nowhere among the Gentiles". Later on, he seems to recollect something different, because he talks of "testimony to the Gentiles". Later still, he goes back to restate Jesus' purely Judaic mission, emphasising how short the time left is:
 " When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes."

This confusion permeates Matthew's gospel: on the one hand, he seems to be writing for a predominantly Jewish audience, so Jesus' apparent parochialism is stressed. On the other hand, there is rather a lot of extra stuff about his mission to the world (ending with the notorious final verse).
I don't see how these two views of Jesus can be really reconciled, apart from the idea that he was open to certain gentiles when they showed enough interest and faith in Judaism. But for all I know, those encounters may be as fabricated as the ending of this gospel obviously is. (The whole lot could be fabricated, if you hold to the Jesus' mythicist view: I don't)

Rosenstock-Huessy mentions, in the link I gave, that having begun his gospel in Israel, where he refers to Israel as "his (Jesus') people" (chapter 1), Matthew ends (chapter 28) with "to this day, the Jews circulate the rumor that the disciples stole his body". So by the time Matthew has finished his gospel, he no longer refers to Israel as Christ's people, but just, the Jews. This shows a shift in his thinking which has taken place as he has been writing.

Jesus says in Matthew's account of the Olivet discourse that the disciples will be excommunicated from the synagogue, then the gospel will be preached to the whole world. This shows that he understood the gospel to be preached in the synagogues before being taken to the rest of the world.

The end will then come, he says in the above verses. He seems to be lumping together the judgment on the cities of Israel (when Jesus comes) and the end of the world. This seems confusing, but to be fair, he doesn't know how long the mission to the gentiles will last, and that it will be continued long after the judgment on the Jewish nation.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Jack Knave on January 12, 2016, 07:50:41 PM
Rosenstock-Huessy mentions, in the link I gave, that having begun his gospel in Israel, where he refers to Israel as "his (Jesus') people" (chapter 1), Matthew ends (chapter 28) with "to this day, the Jews circulate the rumor that the disciples stole his body". So by the time Matthew has finished his gospel, he no longer refers to Israel as Christ's people, but just, the Jews. This shows a shift in his thinking which has taken place as he has been writing.

Jesus says in Matthew's account of the Olivet discourse that the disciples will be excommunicated from the synagogue, then the gospel will be preached to the whole world. This shows that he understood the gospel to be preached in the synagogues before being taken to the rest of the world.

The end will then come, he says in the above verses. He seems to be lumping together the judgment on the cities of Israel (when Jesus comes) and the end of the world. This seems confusing, but to be fair, he doesn't know how long the mission to the gentiles will last, and that it will be continued long after the judgment on the Jewish nation.
But Matthew was written decades after JC's death and it would seem reasonable that 'Matthew' would have known how the Jews were responding to the Christians by then. What would account for this is that the book was written bit by bit and gradually added to over the decades up to the time when Matthew was finished - hence the shift in the perspective of how things were perceived.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Hope on January 12, 2016, 07:51:24 PM
This shows a shift in his thinking which has taken place as he has been writing.
Does it have to show a shift in the author's thinking?  Of course not; it could quite legitimately reflect a change in attitudes and approach to Jesus' teaching by the Jews over the course of his 3-year ministry.  Remember that there is a similar shift in narrative in the other 2 synoptic gospels.

Quote
Jesus says in Matthew's account of the Olivet discourse that the disciples will be excommunicated from the synagogue, then the gospel will be preached to the whole world. This shows that he understood the gospel to be preached in the synagogues before being taken to the rest of the world.

The end will then come, he says in the above verses. He seems to be lumping together the judgment on the cities of Israel (when Jesus comes) and the end of the world. This seems confusing, but to be fair, he doesn't know how long the mission to the gentiles will last, and that it will be continued long after the judgment on the Jewish nation.
Now those thoughts I do agree with.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Hope on January 12, 2016, 07:53:57 PM
What would account for this is that the book was written bit by bit and gradually added to over the decade up to the time when Matthew was finished - hence the shift in the perspective of how things were perceived.
Rubbish, JK.  If the author was trying to show how Jesus' ministry had changed over 3 years, he would naturally deal with that change as it happens.  It doesn't require the material to have been written bit-by-bit.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Hope on January 12, 2016, 07:55:39 PM
In the case of science, there is something to drill down into and if you care to read some scientific papers they tell you exactly how to perform the experiments to verify the results for yourself.

Your  alleged spiritual method doesn't exist so there is nothing to drill down into.
And there is 'something to drill down into' in the Gospel documentation.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Nearly Sane on January 12, 2016, 08:02:14 PM
Rubbish, JK.  If the author was trying to show how Jesus' ministry had changed over 3 years, he would naturally deal with that change as it happens.  It doesn't require the material to have been written bit-by-bit.

If JC was , while human, an eternal omniscient being what would change about his/its teaching? Indeed what could change?
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Jack Knave on January 12, 2016, 08:11:01 PM
Rubbish, JK.  If the author was trying to show how Jesus' ministry had changed over 3 years, he would naturally deal with that change as it happens.  It doesn't require the material to have been written bit-by-bit.
Perhaps you should say authors. What proof do you have that one person wrote this or that it came from one person's eye witness account? It is more likely, as they didn't have Word in those days, that all these accounts were collected together later well after they were made.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Hope on January 12, 2016, 08:51:47 PM
Perhaps you should say authors. What proof do you have that one person wrote this or that it came from one person's eye witness account? It is more likely, as they didn't have Word in those days, that all these accounts were collected together later well after they were made.
There are literary and linguistic ways of seeing whether a document has been written by one or more authors.  As far as I'm aware, there is no scholarly suggestion that the book was written by more than one author.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Spud on January 13, 2016, 12:35:17 PM
Does it have to show a shift in the author's thinking?  Of course not; it could quite legitimately reflect a change in attitudes and approach to Jesus' teaching by the Jews over the course of his 3-year ministry.  Remember that there is a similar shift in narrative in the other 2 synoptic gospels.

Rosenstock-Huessy seems to think it shows a shift in the author's thinking.
Here's the link again: http://tinyurl.com/ppwtpk9
He says, on page 23 of the book, that Matthew "writes from speaking as a Jew to speaking as a non-Jew" and that "by chapter 28... the Jews are no longer divided into believers [in Christ] and unbelievers in Christ. The Jews as Jews are outside Matthew's family. The fence between them and Matthew is infinitely higher in chapter 28 than in chapter 1. The outpouring of his experiences, his memories, his notes, changed the writer's own mind. Everybody should become a different person by writing a book." (My brackets and emphasis added).

Then he says, "The wisdom of our tradition consists in the fact that in the first gospel a man writes himself out of Israel by writing up Jesus."

"... An evangelist is a man who, by speaking of Jesus, changes his own mind; by being in process, he leads others into the same process. The gospel of Matthew instituted the process of seeing the world and Israel in a new light because it was this very process itself."

"... Standing upright and pleading in danger of his own life, and then abandoning his own Jewish allegiance, Matthew wrote his gospel. He reversed the meaning of the Bible by experiencing that it was no longer the last word. The last sentence of the gospel... expresses this fact very simply."
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Spud on January 13, 2016, 12:37:36 PM
Now those thoughts I do agree with.
I made a mistake there; it was John who said the disciples would be thrown out of the synagogues, not Matthew.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: jeremyp on January 13, 2016, 01:10:13 PM
And there is 'something to drill down into' in the Gospel documentation.
Yes, but if you drill down into the gospels (in an intellectually honest way), you find that they are anonymous with unknown and unverifiable sources and are not independent. In other words, drilling down shows that they are not reliable accounts of the life and death and alleged resurrection of Jesus.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: jeremyp on January 13, 2016, 01:11:11 PM
I made a mistake there; it was John who said the disciples would be thrown out of the synagogues, not Matthew.
Yes, indeed and that passage is used to date John to after 90CE since that is when Christians were thrown out of the synagogues.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: ad_orientem on January 13, 2016, 02:53:53 PM
Yes, indeed and that passage is used to date John to after 90CE since that is when Christians were thrown out of the synagogues.

Except if you believe in prophesy, which is why you can't separate study of the scriptures from the faith, for the unbeliever will always conclude what you have just concluded.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Nearly Sane on January 13, 2016, 03:01:17 PM
Except if you believe in prophesy, which is why you can't separate study of the scriptures from the faith, for the unbeliever will always conclude what you have just concluded.
you could just say 'I believe because I believe, and any form of questioning,logic, is worthless because I believe'
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: ad_orientem on January 13, 2016, 03:49:51 PM
you could just say 'I believe because I believe, and any form of questioning,logic, is worthless because I believe'

Not at all. It's just your conclusion is a non sequitur.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Nearly Sane on January 13, 2016, 03:58:43 PM
Not at all. It's just your conclusion is a non sequitur.

In what way? You said you have to have faith to even discuss it? If you have faith - not based on logic - how would you question it, use logic?
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: ad_orientem on January 13, 2016, 04:24:02 PM
In what way? You said you have to have faith to even discuss it? If you have faith - not based on logic - how would you question it, use logic?

Your non sequitur: The Apostle John in his gospel writes about Christians being thrown out of the Temple therefore it must have been written after the Christians were thrown out of the Temple. That is a non sequitur. But yes, the scriptures cannot be properly understood or studied by an unbeliever for it is the Holy Spirit which leads one into all truth, as our Lord himself promised in the same gospel.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Shaker on January 13, 2016, 04:39:23 PM
Begging the question, they call that particular fallacy.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Nearly Sane on January 13, 2016, 04:40:52 PM
Your non sequitur: The Apostle John in his gospel writes about Christians being thrown out of the Temple therefore it must have been written after the Christians were thrown out of the Temple. That is a non sequitur. But yes, the scriptures cannot be properly understood or studied by an unbeliever for it is the Holy Spirit which leads one into all truth, as our Lord himself promised in the same gospel.

I think you better think it out again
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Dicky Underpants on January 13, 2016, 04:42:40 PM
Your non sequitur: The Apostle John in his gospel writes about Christians being thrown out of the Temple therefore it must have been written after the Christians were thrown out of the Temple. That is a non sequitur. But yes, the scriptures cannot be properly understood or studied by an unbeliever for it is the Holy Spirit which leads one into all truth, as our Lord himself promised in the same gospel.

And that is simply circular, for that supposed 'Holy Spirit' leads Sassy to think that the doctrine of the Trinity is erroneous, and BashfulAnthony to think he should reject the Old Testament as not being from the supreme God.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: ad_orientem on January 13, 2016, 05:05:41 PM
And that is simply circular, for that supposed 'Holy Spirit' leads Sassy to think that the doctrine of the Trinity is erroneous, and BashfulAnthony to think he should reject the Old Testament as not being from the supreme God.

They're both heretics.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Shaker on January 13, 2016, 05:39:34 PM
They're both heretics.

::)

I dare say they might say exactly the same of you ...
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: ad_orientem on January 13, 2016, 06:07:00 PM
::)

I dare say they might say exactly the same of you ...

They might well, but the Holy Spirit through the life of the Church says otherwise.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Shaker on January 13, 2016, 06:07:23 PM
They might well, but the Holy Spirit through the life of the Church says otherwise.
Can we have something a bit more of a credible source please?
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: ad_orientem on January 13, 2016, 06:21:09 PM
Can we have something a bit more of a credible source please?

That the Church condemned both Marcion and Arius.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Shaker on January 13, 2016, 06:21:41 PM
That the Church condemned both Marcion and Arius.
Evidently you didn't understand the question ... ::)
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: ad_orientem on January 13, 2016, 06:39:32 PM
Evidently you didn't understand the question ... ::)

Oh I did. You just don't like the answer.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Shaker on January 13, 2016, 07:35:09 PM
Oh I did. You just don't like the answer.
Since I asked for a credible source, you didn't give one.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Spud on January 13, 2016, 07:38:56 PM
Perhaps you should say authors. What proof do you have that one person wrote this or that it came from one person's eye witness account? It is more likely, as they didn't have Word in those days, that all these accounts were collected together later well after they were made.

"In the year 38, the 12 Apostles lived as a closed corporation in Jerusalem. The Lord had entrusted their powers to them as a oneness and when Matthew took up his pen he could dare it only as its secretary.

... Matthew wrote for the Twelve when they were still together."

Eugene Rosenstock-Huessy, Fruit of Lips, page 142, Appendix 7.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: ad_orientem on January 13, 2016, 07:59:08 PM
Since I asked for a credible source, you didn't give one.

I would argue that it is credible. You're not the arbiter of credible.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Shaker on January 13, 2016, 08:32:56 PM
I would argue that it is credible.
You can argue it all you like - it won't make the implausible plausible, the irrational rational or the false true.
Quote
You're not the arbiter of credible.
No, testable, shareable, (sometimes) repeatable reality is - we've got a methodology for sorting true claims from false or at best undemonstrable ones there. Investigable sources are. And so forth. Not bald assertion, not age or numbers or any other of the fallacies you keep wheeling out.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Hope on January 13, 2016, 10:23:08 PM
"In the year 38, the 12 Apostles lived as a closed corporation in Jerusalem. The Lord had entrusted their powers to them as a oneness and when Matthew took up his pen he could dare it only as its secretary.

... Matthew wrote for the Twelve when they were still together."

Eugene Rosenstock-Huessy, Fruit of Lips, page 142, Appendix 7.
The problem with this suggestion is that Matthew's Gospel is generally regarded as having been written in the last couple of decades of the first century; not only had Judas Iscariot left the group 50 or more years earlier, many of the apostles were, themselves, no longer alive.

The only way that what Eugene suggests could be true would be if the original author of Matthew's Gospel was the compiler of the oft-referred to 'missing document' that Mark and Luke are possibly based on and the final material that we know was pulled together into a more coherent record by some later disciple.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Spud on January 13, 2016, 10:34:33 PM
Hi Hope,
The Twelve he refers to do not include Judas Iscariot but Matthias. What he says in between the two parts of his appendix 7 that I have quoted is interesting. I may post it up.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: jeremyp on January 14, 2016, 04:43:29 PM
Except if you believe in prophesy, which is why you can't separate study of the scriptures from the faith, for the unbeliever will always conclude what you have just concluded.

I do apologise. I've mixed up two passages. The one used to date John's gospel is this

Quote from: John 9 (NRSV)
[the parents of the recently healed blind man] answered, ‘We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind; but we do not know how it is that now he sees, nor do we know who opened his eyes. Ask him; he is of age. He will speak for himself.’ His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews; for the Jews had already agreed that anyone who confessed Jesus to be the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue.

This is not a prophecy but a straight forward narrative of the events following Jesus restoring the sight of a blind man.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: jeremyp on January 14, 2016, 04:48:02 PM
Hi Hope,
The Twelve he refers to do not include Judas Iscariot but Matthias. What he says in between the two parts of his appendix 7 that I have quoted is interesting. I may post it up.

What was his source? Or did he make all that up.

The Gospel of Matthew we have was very unlikely to have been written by the Apostle Matthew. For one thing, the person who wrote Matthew copied most of Mark. One would expect an eye witness to write his own narrative.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: ad_orientem on January 14, 2016, 06:58:54 PM
St. Matthew didn't copy St. Mark for St. Matthew's was written first.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Jack Knave on January 14, 2016, 07:00:51 PM
There are literary and linguistic ways of seeing whether a document has been written by one or more authors.  As far as I'm aware, there is no scholarly suggestion that the book was written by more than one author.
Then that may mean that it is a copy of various fragments done by other people, hence the way it doesn't hang together.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Rhiannon on January 14, 2016, 07:04:16 PM
St. Matthew didn't copy St. Mark for St. Matthew's was written first.

It wasn't though, was it, ad-o. Stop lying to yourself.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: ad_orientem on January 14, 2016, 07:14:07 PM
It wasn't though, was it, ad-o. Stop lying to yourself.

Says who? The conjectures of modern scholars (most of whom are unbelievers or as good as)? Forgive me for not taking them seriously.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Spud on January 14, 2016, 07:18:26 PM
The Gospel of Matthew we have was very unlikely to have been written by the Apostle Matthew. For one thing, the person who wrote Matthew copied most of Mark. One would expect an eye witness to write his own narrative.
The only thing we know he copied, by his own admission quoting from it, is what we now call the Old Testament, eg. Isaiah 7:14. The most likely explanation for this is that he had nothing else.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Jack Knave on January 14, 2016, 07:20:15 PM
"In the year 38, the 12 Apostles lived as a closed corporation in Jerusalem. The Lord had entrusted their powers to them as a oneness and when Matthew took up his pen he could dare it only as its secretary.

... Matthew wrote for the Twelve when they were still together."

Eugene Rosenstock-Huessy, Fruit of Lips, page 142, Appendix 7.
And how do you know that to be a fact from personal experience? Because unless you saw this to be true from a first-hand perspective you have no way of knowing this.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Spud on January 14, 2016, 07:32:35 PM
What was his source? Or did he make all that up.

I will quote him in full:

Quote
"In the year 38, the 12 Apostles lived as a closed corporation in Jerusalem. The Lord had entrusted their powers to them as a oneness and when Matthew took up his pen he could dare it only as its secretary.

Contemporary criticism arises from the hell of individualism since the Enlightenment. It sees the particular Evangelists as will-o-the-wisps messing around in a swamp. Oh, each of them spoke in all the Apostles' names, most of all, naturally, the two later ones, Matthias and Paul. Of the substitue Apostle, Matthias, there is a precious piece of evidence. Clement of Alexandria reports in Stromata VII, 13: 'The Apostle Matthias (Acts 1:15-26) said always: if the neighbor of an elect man sin, the elect man has sinned. For had he conducted himself as the Word prescribes, his neighbor would have been filled with such reverence for the life he led as not to sin.'

This citation is precious, because here the oneness of the Apostles is apparent. No John writes here of the Logos, no Luke of the Servants of the Word [Luke 1:2]. No, the later one appeals to the Word, to the Logos and out of his sentence arises the unified speech of all the Apostles and the Evangelists. The alleged 'late Johannine element is also familiar to the Evangelist.

They are all of one mind. The genealogy in Matthew is as little 'Matthean' as the prologue to John's gospel is 'Johannine.' For they believed one and all to be righteous and sinners together and only together to become worthy of the healing power of the spirit.  However, we will thereby arrive at a reasonable dating of the Gospels. There are no tricks of hind-prophesying, there are no falsifications of purpose. They accuse far more the authors or guarantors of the weaknesses whose victims they were. And they go back one and all to the intimacy of the Apostles. Matthew wrote for the Twelve when they were still together."

E R-H, Fruit of Lips, page 142, Appendix 7.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Jack Knave on January 14, 2016, 07:37:34 PM
I do apologise. I've mixed up two passages. The one used to date John's gospel is this

This is not a prophecy but a straight forward narrative of the events following Jesus restoring the sight of a blind man.
How and why does it do that, date John?
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: ad_orientem on January 14, 2016, 07:45:29 PM
I do apologise. I've mixed up two passages. The one used to date John's gospel is this

This is not a prophecy but a straight forward narrative of the events following Jesus restoring the sight of a blind man.

Eh? I don't get it. I must be dumb or something because there's no way I can see how anyone can use that to date the said gospel. Clutching at straws, I reckon.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: jeremyp on January 14, 2016, 09:11:05 PM
St. Matthew didn't copy St. Mark for St. Matthew's was written first.
Wrong.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: jeremyp on January 14, 2016, 09:12:35 PM
Says who?
Says everybody except a few sad people who can't accept reality.

Quote
The conjectures of modern scholars (most of whom are unbelievers or as good as)? Forgive me for not taking them seriously.
Forgive me for not taking you seriously on this subject.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Sassy on January 16, 2016, 02:22:39 AM
Not necessarily true. East Asian music sounds distinctly foreign to Western ears and vice versa. They use different scales and everything apparently.

But everyone hears the same notes and sounds exactly the same whatever language they speak.
Whilst they may not all enjoy the same music. it is something we all understand and hear the same.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Jack Knave on January 16, 2016, 04:23:22 PM
But everyone hears the same notes and sounds exactly the same whatever language they speak.
Whilst they may not all enjoy the same music. it is something we all understand and hear the same.
That is true of language as well, we all hear the sounds of various spoken languages but whether we understand what is being 'said' or expressed is another matter. If we don't understand it it just comes across as a noise, as does music to a dog.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Hope on January 16, 2016, 09:15:24 PM
But everyone hears the same notes and sounds exactly the same whatever language they speak.
Whilst they may not all enjoy the same music. it is something we all understand and hear the same.
Technically, this is not true, Sass.  Whilst I might hear the same lexical item as you do, my experience and your experience are likely to have been sufficiently different as to rsult in each of us having slightly(or hugely) different understandings of that item.  For instance, if you have a father who abuses, starves and ignores you, you are going to understand the term very differently from someone whose father is supportive, protective and encouraging.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Floo on January 17, 2016, 10:11:31 AM
But everyone hears the same notes and sounds exactly the same whatever language they speak.
Whilst they may not all enjoy the same music. it is something we all understand and hear the same.

That is NOT true. When I hear music it just comes over as a discordant  noise which does my head in!
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Jack Knave on January 17, 2016, 05:18:24 PM
That is NOT true. When I hear music it just comes over as a discordant  noise which does my head in!
Then stop listening to free-jazz!!!
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Sassy on February 12, 2016, 09:08:24 AM
Technically, this is not true, Sass.  Whilst I might hear the same lexical item as you do, my experience and your experience are likely to have been sufficiently different as to rsult in each of us having slightly(or hugely) different understandings of that item.  For instance, if you have a father who abuses, starves and ignores you, you are going to understand the term very differently from someone whose father is supportive, protective and encouraging.

Hope we are talking about music????? I think you went off the rail somewhere... :o :)
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Sassy on February 12, 2016, 09:09:32 AM
That is NOT true. When I hear music it just comes over as a discordant  noise which does my head in!

We did not say everyone would like it.. You confuse personal choice and liking with hearing the same. :o
Pretty much what you do with the bible and God.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Floo on February 12, 2016, 09:17:04 AM
Then stop listening to free-jazz!!!

ALL music has the same effect, although I can just about tolerate classical as my husband likes it, but only has it on in his own room.
Title: Re: What Did Jesus Intend?
Post by: Jack Knave on February 12, 2016, 07:54:18 PM
ALL music has the same effect, although I can just about tolerate classical as my husband likes it, but only has it on in his own room.
That bad? You should have been a puritan.