Confused about Jesus, the crucifiction, and hatred of the Jews

[Said1]

I'm just wondering, would a bicycle be the same without wheels? I mean it'd still be pretty and shiny. Would beer be as popular a beverage without the alcohol conent? If penises were were flat and disclike would we consider plates to be phallic symbols? If pigs didn't make good bacon, would we still refer to cops as pigs? So many questions, each more important than the last.

Don't you find the story of Shiva and Parvati and Ganesha to be similar to Joseph, Mary and Jesus?

 

[dilloduck]

Of course that makes sense for believers. There are a whole lot of people who would consider Christianity if Christ's philosophy stood on its own. The way it developed requires suspension of disbelief beyond the power of many rational people. The baby gets thrown out with the bathwater that way.

To me things like the resurrection and virgin birth are myths which were developed to "prove" that Jesus was a god. Because people need to worship things that are much bigger than themselves. On the other hand if you take away those unprovable myths there is still a lot of content in Jesus' teachings and Christianity could still exist and be effective as a philosophy rather than as a religion.

Consider this for a minute---people who wanted to have others continue to pay attention to the message ( that I agree stands on its own very nicely ) exagerated the story to seek recuits. This was not a mailicious attempt by any means-just advertising for a message that I think is still a bit misunderstood to this day. IF it is true there was some exageration for effect, it was successful in at least bringing the core messsage into the future for others to study it. If some choose claim the exagerations as true facts, I have no problem with it.

 

[Nuc]

Consider this for a minute---people who wanted to have others continue to pay attention to the message ( that I agree stands on its own very nicely ) exagerated the story to seek recuits. This was not a mailicious attempt by any means-just advertising for a message that I think is still a bit misunderstood to this day. IF it is true there was some exageration for effect, it was successful in at least bringing the core messsage into the future for others to study it. If some choose claim the exagerations as true facts, I have no problem with it.

Interesting theory. And all religions do that kind of stuff. In Buddhism there are a lot of fables which are used for educational purposes or as metaphors. Most people don't believe them literally, but some simple people do, maybe they have to in order to have something they can grasp.

So specifically do you think the resurrection and the story of Mary being a virgin were hyperbole the early Christians used to interest people in the meat of the matter, which was Jesus' philosophy?

 

[Said1]

Interesting theory. And all religions do that kind of stuff. In Buddhism there are a lot of fables which are used for educational purposes or as metaphors. Most people don't believe them literally, but some simple people do, maybe they have to in order to have something they can grasp.

So specifically do you think the resurrection and the story of Mary being a virgin were hyperbole the early Christians used to interest people in the meat of the matter, which was Jesus' philosophy?

This is a good link, some food for thought so to speak. Who was the real Jesus?

 

[5stringJeff]

I came across this link today (thanks WJ!) and it reminded me of a serious question I've had for a very long time.

Based on my understanding of Christianity, the crucifiction of Jesus was probably the single most important event in the Bible. If he hadn't been crucified, wouldn't this have an enormous effect on how Christians view the redemption of sins? I guess my biggest confusion is that Christians view the crucifiction as being an incredibly holy and dare I say, good event, while at the same time believing that it is the most dastardly crime ever committed. Can anyone either correct my understanding of the crucifiction or provide me with an explanation that brings sense to what seems to be mutually exclusive beliefs?

To answer your original post, Horhay, yes, the crucifixion was a central event in God's plan of salvation. Only the resurrection would rank higher in my book. Jesus' death on the cross was God's way of providing the payment for mankind's sin.
However, it is still correct to say that the people involved with Jesus' death - to include the Jewish religious leaders of the day and the Roman soldiers and government officials - were still guilty of sin, specifically of punishing the innocent. It was certainly possible for those people to have repented of that sin, but it was nevertheless a sin. But God took that sin and turned it into His exclusive method of salvation.

 

[Hobbit]

Jesus never said personally that his mother was a Virgin, but the original accounts report that Joseph found her to be such, and was, in fact, going to divorce her for infidelity until he heard from an angel that she was still a virgin. Seeing as how it's pretty easy to prove somebody's a virgin just by looking at their 'parts' (barring some sort of accident), he would have found out if it was true or not and would have acted accordingly.

As far as the theory that Jesus didn't actually die on the cross, that's fallacy. Jesus was stabbed...in the HEART...with a spear before they took him down. He was also locked in a tomb with no food or water for 3 days, and anyone who has bled that much cannot survive three days without water.

Jesus also stated before the Sanhedrin, to a very direct question, that he was, in fact, the living, breathing, one and only son of the living God. The "sons of God" metaphor doesn't apply in this case, as it wasn't used back then and any similar statement would be considered blasphemy, one of the crimes he was charged with.

If you'd like more detailed answers than I can provide, there's a book called "A Case for Faith," by Lee Strobel. I haven't read it, myself, but it's written by a former atheist and makes a very compelling factual case to support the factual existence of Jesus and the factual events that occurred during his life. I've heard nothing but good things about this book.

 

[Nuc]

Jesus never said personally that his mother was a Virgin, but the original accounts report that Joseph found her to be such, and was, in fact, going to divorce her for infidelity until he heard from an angel that she was still a virgin. Seeing as how it's pretty easy to prove somebody's a virgin just by looking at their 'parts' (barring some sort of accident), he would have found out if it was true or not and would have acted accordingly.

As far as the theory that Jesus didn't actually die on the cross, that's fallacy. Jesus was stabbed...in the HEART...with a spear before they took him down. He was also locked in a tomb with no food or water for 3 days, and anyone who has bled that much cannot survive three days without water.

Jesus also stated before the Sanhedrin, to a very direct question, that he was, in fact, the living, breathing, one and only son of the living God. The "sons of God" metaphor doesn't apply in this case, as it wasn't used back then and any similar statement would be considered blasphemy, one of the crimes he was charged with.

If you'd like more detailed answers than I can provide, there's a book called "A Case for Faith," by Lee Strobel. I haven't read it, myself, but it's written by a former atheist and makes a very compelling factual case to support the factual existence of Jesus and the factual events that occurred during his life. I've heard nothing but good things about this book.

Thanks, so the accounts of Mary's virginity are not directly corroborated by Jesus. Not to be rude, but if we were not talking about Mary but just an ordinary woman, scientifically she could get pregnant without full penetration.

Factually he died on the cross, but he didn't verify the resurrection himself, those are statements made by humans.

He said he was "son of God", it would be interesting to know what exactly that meant to him.

Sounds like there is a lot of wiggle room for alternate interpretations once you strip away the things that men reported or made up possibly after the fact.

 

[no1tovote4]

Thanks, so the accounts of Mary's virginity are not directly corroborated by Jesus. Not to be rude, but if we were not talking about Mary but just an ordinary woman, scientifically she could get pregnant without full penetration.

Factually he died on the cross, but he didn't verify the resurrection himself, those are statements made by humans.

He said he was "son of God", it would be interesting to know what exactly that meant to him.

Sounds like there is a lot of wiggle room for alternate interpretations once you strip away the things that men reported or made up possibly after the fact.

Usually he stated that he was the son of man. This was stating he was the messiah as that is how he was described in Prophecy. There are several verses when he describes himself and God as One as well, but you can discount those or ignore them to buttress your argument as you please because they were reported by an eyewitness and not written by the hand of Christ himself.

If we discount what men reported from the Bible, there would be no Bible at all. Christ didn't write the Gospels they were eyewitness reports. You are being deliberately obtuse to state such things in an attempt to weaken other people's Faith. Will it make you feel better about yourself if you talk one of the Christians on the board into Atheism? I am really curious here, why is it so important to you?

 

[Nuc]

Usually he stated that he was the son of man. This was stating he was the messiah as that is how he was described in Prophecy. There are several verses when he describes himself and God as One as well, but you can discount those or ignore them to buttress your argument as you please because they were reported by an eyewitness and not written by the hand of Christ himself.

If we discount what men reported from the Bible, there would be no Bible at all. Christ didn't write the Gospels they were eyewitness reports. You are being deliberately obtuse to state such things in an attempt to weaken other people's Faith. Will it make you feel better about yourself if you talk one of the Christians on the board into Atheism? I am really curious here, why is it so important to you?

I am not trying to weaken other peoples faith. I am wondering if there are other valid ways to look at Jesus than the orthodox ways. I'm not presenting these hypotheses as facts, or even as my personal opinion. I'm just trying to gauge what the parameters are. I don't know a whole lot about Christianity, so I'm hoping to get answers from people on this board who know the answers. You're reading too much into this. I'm honestly curious about these questions. As far as talking anybody into believing something different, if their faith is weak enough to be persuaded by someone asking fairly innocuous questions on a MESSAGE BOARD that's pretty weak. I don't care what other people believe, sometimes I'm just curious about why. You're on the wrong track here.

:chillpill :chillpill :chillpill

 

[no1tovote4]

I am not trying to weaken other peoples faith. I am wondering if there are other valid ways to look at Jesus than the orthodox ways. I'm not presenting these hypotheses as facts, or even as my personal opinion. I'm just trying to gauge what the parameters are. I don't know a whole lot about Christianity, so I'm hoping to get answers from people on this board who know the answers. You're reading too much into this. I'm honestly curious about these questions. As far as talking anybody into believing something different, if their faith is weak enough to be persuaded by someone asking fairly innocuous questions on a MESSAGE BOARD that's pretty weak. I don't care what other people believe, sometimes I'm just curious about why. You're on the wrong track here.

The questions seem more leading than innocuous. If you truly want questions answered wouldn't it be better to go to a Church and speak with a Pastor or to a Parrish and speak to a Priest? Tough questions are more easily answered by people who are trained in such things.

Questioning another's faith is actually fine with me if it is done in honesty, and it seemed that this was a Powerman-type attempt at an attack just using the Socratic method which gives a person an out from their actual goal by making them able to say, "I was only asking questions." But if I ask leading questions....

If I was incorrect I apologize, but I always read the words of what people post. Words have meaning and how you use them can sometimes lead people into thinking you mean something that you may not.

 

[Nuc]

The questions seem more leading than innocuous. If you truly want questions answered wouldn't it be better to go to a Church and speak with a Pastor or to a Parrish and speak to a Priest? Tough questions are more easily answered by people who are trained in such things.

Questioning another's faith is actually fine with me if it is done in honesty, and it seemed that this was a Powerman-type attempt at an attack just using the Socratic method which gives a person an out from their actual goal by making them able to say, "I was only asking questions." But if I ask leading questions....

If I was incorrect I apologize, but I always read the words of what people post. Words have meaning and how you use them can sometimes lead people into thinking you mean something that you may not.

Look, you know as well as I do that every religion has numerous branches and a wide range of interpretations. Christianity is no different. I'm wondering if there is a form of Christianity that doesn't involve the supernatural, and that treats Jesus as a philosopher rather than as a god. Then if something like that exists I'm wondering whether it can co-exist with mainstream Christianity or if it's totally outside the boundaries. What's your problem with this line of inquiry? I'm asking for my own reasons not to try to influence you or anyone else. This is a discussion board, right?

 

[no1tovote4]

Look, you know as well as I do that every religion has numerous branches and a wide range of interpretations. Christianity is no different. I'm wondering if there is a form of Christianity that doesn't involve the supernatural, and that treats Jesus as a philosopher rather than as a god. Then if something like that exists I'm wondering whether it can co-exist with mainstream Christianity or if it's totally outside the boundaries. What's your problem with this line of inquiry? I'm asking for my own reasons not to try to influence you or anyone else. This is a discussion board, right?

If there were a form of "Christianity" that treated Christ as not a God it would have to be in the Unitarian Church where they will accept whatever belief you want to have. It would not be accepted among Christians that those who believed such were also Christians. Mainstream Christianity would never accept such among their numbers, if they did they would accept Muslims as Christian.

Not believing in the Divinity of Christ is incompatible with Christianity.

It is compatible with Islam who believe that he was only a Prophet. They also believe that he was taken bodily to heaven before his crucifixion and a doppleganger was killed in his place. Amazingly Christ is the one in Islam who will judge us all at the end times as well.

Oh, and BTW, you cannot influence a Buddhist with questions about Christianity.

 

[Nuc]

If there were a form of "Christianity" that treated Christ as not a God it would have to be in the Unitarian Church where they will accept whatever belief you want to have. It would not be accepted among Christians that those who believed such were also Christians. Mainstream Christianity would never accept such among their numbers, if they did they would accept Muslims as Christian.

Not believing in the Divinity of Christ is incompatible with Christianity.

It is compatible with Islam who believe that he was only a Prophet. They also believe that he was taken bodily to heaven before his crucifixion and a doppleganger was killed in his place. Amazingly Christ is the one in Islam who will judge us all at the end times as well.

Oh, and BTW, you cannot influence a Buddhist with questions about Christianity.

Thanks for your opinion, but may I have your permission to seek the opinions of others just in case you may not be the final arbiter?

 

[ekrem]

i have some questions

all these baptist churches in america are they catholic or protestant?
and do american catholics see the pope in vatican as their pope, too.
and are catholics or protestants the major power in america?

sorry for this question but in europe many christs thinking that america is flooded by sects as i have knwn so far from europeans... therefore this questions with the pope

 

[Nuc]

i have some questions

all these baptist churches in america are they catholic or protestant?
and do american catholics see the pope in vatican as their pope, too.
and are catholics or protestants the major power in america?

sorry for this question but in europe many christs thinking that america is flooded by sects as i have knwn so far from europeans... therefore this questions with the pope

Baptists are Protestant.

American Catholics see the Pope as their Pope, although here, as in Italy, many Catholics do not agree with the Pope on all issues.

Maybe Protestants have more power, because there are more of them and as you can see we have only had one Catholic president (Kennedy) and the rest have been Protestant.

 

[ekrem]

thank you for your answers.

 

[5stringJeff]

Thanks, so the accounts of Mary's virginity are not directly corroborated by Jesus. Not to be rude, but if we were not talking about Mary but just an ordinary woman, scientifically she could get pregnant without full penetration.

Scientifically, yes, one could, but the fact that she was betrothed (not yet married) means that she would still have been a virgin. Premarital sex was not looked upon lightly in Jewish law.

Factually he died on the cross, but he didn't verify the resurrection himself, those are statements made by humans.

What do you mean by "he didn't verify the resurrection personally?" You mean He didn't write it down? He verified it in front of His disciples. His disciples (specifically Matthew and John, along with Mark and Luke) verified the resurrection. What makes it even more "provable" is that the Jews of that day couldn't prove that Jesus was still dead.

He said he was "son of God", it would be interesting to know what exactly that meant to him.

Jesus often used the term "Son of Man." This comes from the book of Daniel. The "Son of Man" was understood by all to be a direct reference to this passage, which described the Messiah. Jesus described Himself as the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies on many occasions.

Sounds like there is a lot of wiggle room for alternate interpretations once you strip away the things that men reported or made up possibly after the fact.

The things that men reported construe 100% of the Bible. Men did the physical writing of the Bible, even though God did the inspiring for the Bible.

 

[no1tovote4]

Thanks for your opinion, but may I have your permission to seek the opinions of others just in case you may not be the final arbiter?

What I posted is not my opinion.

What I gave was simple factual information about those belief systems, you can research all of this without attempting to find a "Christian" that would be willing to deny the Divinity of Christ. I wasn't arbiting I was simply giving information.

You asked a question and I gave you direct information regarding your question, not opinion. Any religion class in HS would be able to verify what I stated as the belief systems of the religions I mentioned in my post.

Is it that you are looking for others that believe as you do to validate your own beliefs? What part of a post about the belief system of Christians would be part of my opinion?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Don't you find the story of Shiva and Parvati and Ganesha to be similar to Joseph, Mary and Jesus?

I don't think I know the full story on that one. I just know that Ganesha's head got cut off somehow and his parents found it appropriate to replace his human head with an elephant head. thanks mom, you're the best!

 

[dilloduck]

Scientifically, yes, one could, but the fact that she was betrothed (not yet married) means that she would still have been a virgin. Premarital sex was not looked upon lightly in Jewish law.



What do you mean by "he didn't verify the resurrection personally?" You mean He didn't write it down? He verified it in front of His disciples. His disciples (specifically Matthew and John, along with Mark and Luke) verified the resurrection. What makes it even more "provable" is that the Jews of that day couldn't prove that Jesus was still dead.



Jesus often used the term "Son of Man." This comes from the book of Daniel. The "Son of Man" was understood by all to be a direct reference to this passage, which described the Messiah. Jesus described Himself as the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies on many occasions.



The things that men reported construe 100% of the Bible. Men did the physical writing of the Bible, even though God did the inspiring for the Bible.

Didn't man then coming along and decide which writings were actually inspired and which were not instead of leaving everything as it was for people to decide for themselves ?