• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

He who is not with me is against me

That it was just a silly story not worth listening to was the common reaction by most Jews at the time, and then by most Romans. This continued for two centuries until the emperor just happened to be part of the Jesus cult and forcibly converted the empire. Most people who hear it think it's nonsense. That's why the majority of the world is not Christian. Do you think people don't know your stories and myths? They're ubiquitous. Everyone knows them. Most people think it's just a silly myth. And throughout history, most people that Christians came into contact with thought the same thing. That's why Christianity was violently spread throughout Europe by conquest, and then through South America and Africa by imperialism.

It is very reasonable to hear a myth and think it's nonsense. You do that with the majority of myths you hear. You don't think that the Jade Emperor must either be the supreme ruler of the celestial bureaucracy or an evil lying charlatan. Instead, you quite rightly think that he doesn't exist. The same is true of Odin, Ra, the Fair Folk, the Aztec sun god who demands the perpetual sacrifice of human hearts, of Papa Legba, or Susanoo.

Throughout history, almost everyone who heard a myth they weren't indoctrinated into as a child or forced to adhere to through violence, thought that myth was nonsense. Yours isn't special, nor is it deserving of special consideration above any other. Your premise is wrong. No one has to choose to accept Jesus or reject him. No more than one must do the same for Anansi the spider or Izanagi and Izanami. Any one of them can say "you must be with me or you're against me". And all of them would be wrong. Including Jesus.

From Gallup:

PRINCETON, NJ -- The large majority of Americans -- 77% of the adult population -- identify with a Christian religion, including 52% who are Protestants or some other non-Catholic Christian religion, 23% who are Catholic, and 2% who affiliate with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Another 18% of Americans do not have an explicit religious identity and 5% identify with a non-Christian religion. In U.S., 77% Identify as Christian
 
Prove it. The evidence that it was written by whom they were traditionally attributed to is far greater than that of modern scholarship.
Given a choice between modern scholarship, and someone who tries to force a false choice down my throat while accepting religious writings with a total lack of critical acumen, I'll take the former.


The man who says "render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar" clearly doesn't care all that much about the Romans.
The man who said "render under Caesar..." was, if the story is to be believed, trying to avoid being trapped by his interlocutors into committing a crime by openly flouting Roman authority. Interpretations of the phrase has developed over centuries of a need by Christianity to reconcile itself to Roman and subsequent secular authorities.


Milton Friedman didn't claim to be the Son of God.
Congratulations on completely missing the point.


The religion grew in the immediate years following His death and resurrection. The people who joined knew what He said first hand or from direct observers. The message that He claimed to be the Son of God is undeniable, and it is what got Him killed.
Jesus did not live in an age with audio recorders, nor was he dictating his speeches in advance to a secretary. He lived in a time and place where a high level of accuracy of recording off-the-cuff conversations was rare (to put it mildly). Nor do we assume that historical texts of that era, such as by Josephus or Suetonius or Livy, are absolutely accurate recordings of events and speeches.

Jesus' claims to be the "Son of God" did not get him killed; even according to the Synoptic Gospels, his crime was claiming to be "King of the Jews." He was a troublemaker in an occupied nation, during an already chaotic and tense holiday, whose controllers had no qualms about executing rabble-rousers.

(I'm curious, by the way -- which of his followers were present, and taking notes, when he met Pilate?)

There really is no question that followers can attribute far more to a key religious figure than that person does to him or herself. A contemporary example is Haile Selassie, emperor of Ethiopia, whom the Rastafarians insist was God incarnate. Selassie was an Eastern Orthodox Christian who did absolutely nothing to promulgate any Rastafarian beliefs. It's not as common as self-aggrandizement, but it unquestionably happens.

So yes, it isn't that hard to suggest that followers of the Son of Man may have attributed and/or interpolated beliefs that Jesus himself did not necessarily hold, or statements he didn't actually make.
 
Matthew 12: He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.

There is no thinking that Jesus was just a good guy with a good message. There is no yeah He's a historical person but I honestly don't think much about Him. No, Jesus demands a response. By claiming to be the Son of God, you must either accept Him or call Him a liar or a lunatic. If He's a liar then He's evil, and if He's a lunatic then He's not a good guy with a good message.

So the idea that people can see Jesus as a guy with a good philosophy and worthy of resepct: sorry, not good enough. You either must fully embrace Him or reject Him. There is no middle ground. If you see Him as only some good philosopher then you either call Him evil or crazy. There is no way around that. Either He is the Son of God or He is evil/crazy.

bull **** every one can have good and evil trait's

and if their was a Jesus what's in the bible may not always represent what he acutely did

even if you assume bible represents the guy you can still think some of the things he had to say were smart and true and believe other pats are bull **** or crazy or stupid or evil its easy

this is a false choice as is the bible quote
 
We are all the sons and daughters of God.

Your "my way or the highway" interpretation of scripture is incorrect.

No it's not, Christ teaches the only way to heaven is to accept him as Lord and Saviour. There is no ambiguity, it's His way or Hell.
 
No it's not, Christ teaches the only way to heaven is to accept him as Lord and Saviour. There is no ambiguity, it's His way or Hell.

But surely you believe the Pope is infallible...?

Francis explained himself, "The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart, do good and do not do evil. All of us. 'But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.' Yes, he can... "The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ, all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! 'Father, the atheists?' Even the atheists. Everyone!" We must meet one another doing good. 'But I don't believe, Father, I am an atheist!' But do good: we will meet one another there."

Father James Martin, a Jesuit priest, told the Huffington Post, "Pope Francis is saying, more clearly than ever before, that Christ offered himself as a sacrifice for everyone. That's always been a Christian belief. You can find St. Paul saying in the First Letter to Timothy that Jesus gave himself as a 'ransom for all.' But rarely do you hear it said by Catholics so forcefully, and with such evident joy. And in this era of religious controversies, it's a timely reminder that God cannot be confined to our narrow categories."
 
Given a choice between modern scholarship, and someone who tries to force a false choice down my throat while accepting religious writings with a total lack of critical acumen, I'll take the former.

You only accept the modern arguments because they are modern? That's ridiculous.

The man who said "render under Caesar..." was, if the story is to be believed, trying to avoid being trapped by his interlocutors into committing a crime by openly flouting Roman authority. Interpretations of the phrase has developed over centuries of a need by Christianity to reconcile itself to Roman and subsequent secular authorities.

The interpretation is that we should follow secular law, but ultimately all authority rests with God.

Congratulations on completely missing the point.

Because your analogy wasn't comparable.

Jesus did not live in an age with audio recorders, nor was he dictating his speeches in advance to a secretary. He lived in a time and place where a high level of accuracy of recording off-the-cuff conversations was rare (to put it mildly). Nor do we assume that historical texts of that era, such as by Josephus or Suetonius or Livy, are absolutely accurate recordings of events and speeches.

Jesus' claims to be the "Son of God" did not get him killed; even according to the Synoptic Gospels, his crime was claiming to be "King of the Jews." He was a troublemaker in an occupied nation, during an already chaotic and tense holiday, whose controllers had no qualms about executing rabble-rousers.

What did Jesus say to do during the Jewish revolt? He told His followers in Matthew 24 to NOT take part, but rather to flee and take shelter. And what good advice it was, as the Jewish Zealots were routed and annihilated. This is not someone who cares about a political uprising.

As for the Son of God claim leading to His death, see Matthew 26:

Gospel of Matthew said:
“I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” 64 Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 65 Then the high priest tore his robes, and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy.[m] 66 What is your judgment?” They answered, “He deserves death.”

(I'm curious, by the way -- which of his followers were present, and taking notes, when he met Pilate?)

There really is no question that followers can attribute far more to a key religious figure than that person does to him or herself. A contemporary example is Haile Selassie, emperor of Ethiopia, whom the Rastafarians insist was God incarnate. Selassie was an Eastern Orthodox Christian who did absolutely nothing to promulgate any Rastafarian beliefs. It's not as common as self-aggrandizement, but it unquestionably happens.

So yes, it isn't that hard to suggest that followers of the Son of Man may have attributed and/or interpolated beliefs that Jesus himself did not necessarily hold, or statements he didn't actually make.

The earliest Christians who knew of Him firsthand or from direct witnesses were all fine with the claim written in the Gospels. They could read it and judge it for themselves. They all apparently agreed.
 
bull **** every one can have good and evil trait's

and if their was a Jesus what's in the bible may not always represent what he acutely did

even if you assume bible represents the guy you can still think some of the things he had to say were smart and true and believe other pats are bull **** or crazy or stupid or evil its easy

this is a false choice as is the bible quote

If He claims that He is the Son of God and gets now billions of people to believe and worship Him, then He is an evil man if He is not truly the Son of God.
 
But surely you believe the Pope is infallible...?

The pope is only infallible when speaking authoritatively on matters of faith and morals. An off the cuff interview does not apply.
 
Matthew 12: He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.

There is no thinking that Jesus was just a good guy with a good message. There is no yeah He's a historical person but I honestly don't think much about Him. No, Jesus demands a response. By claiming to be the Son of God, you must either accept Him or call Him a liar or a lunatic. If He's a liar then He's evil, and if He's a lunatic then He's not a good guy with a good message.

So the idea that people can see Jesus as a guy with a good philosophy and worthy of resepct: sorry, not good enough. You either must fully embrace Him or reject Him. There is no middle ground. If you see Him as only some good philosopher then you either call Him evil or crazy. There is no way around that. Either He is the Son of God or He is evil/crazy.

Ultimately then Jesus/God is not at all about love, but rather about fear.
 
Ultimately then Jesus/God is not at all about love, but rather about fear.

No. Ultimately Jesus is about bringing the Father to us. We are free to accept or reject Him. Everything in our lives is Him calling us to Him. You can either accept Him and His love and mercy and compassion, or reject Him and ultimately that is what you will get. You tell me what separation from God is like when you obstinately choose to reject Him. He's not going to wait around for you forever, but a lifespan is a pretty good amount of time to wait.
 
No. Ultimately Jesus is about bringing the Father to us. We are free to accept or reject Him. Everything in our lives is Him calling us to Him. You can either accept Him and His love and mercy and compassion, or reject Him and ultimately that is what you will get. You tell me what separation from God is like when you obstinately choose to reject Him. He's not going to wait around for you forever, but a lifespan is a pretty good amount of time to wait.

Phat, Fear is precisely the point. "Do it or else." "Follow me or be sorry." "Love me or I'll hurt you." If man said those things to other people and meant them, he could be arrested. Those are not words of love and compassion but rather words of intimidation to create fear.
 
Phat, Fear is precisely the point. "Do it or else." "Follow me or be sorry." "Love me or I'll hurt you." If man said those things to other people and meant them, he could be arrested. Those are not words of love and compassion but rather words of intimidation to create fear.

The compassion is that despite our sins and constant offenses against God that He still forgives us and calls us to Him. How many times would you forgive your drug addcit son who continued to do the same thing and spited you? Probably not his or your entire lifetime. That is what God does with us, though. Ultimately, though, with our sons, if they continue to lead a life of vice and constantly deny our fatherhood, then we have to give up on them. However, it is not that we are punishing them, but rather that the sons rejected us. Do you disagree?
 
The compassion is that despite our sins and constant offenses against God that He still forgives us and calls us to Him. How many times would you forgive your drug addcit son who continued to do the same thing and spited you? Probably not his or your entire lifetime. That is what God does with us, though. Ultimately, though, with our sons, if they continue to lead a life of vice and constantly deny our fatherhood, then we have to give up on them. However, it is not that we are punishing them, but rather that the sons rejected us. Do you disagree?

Yes, I do disagree.

Threats are not derived from compassion. "Do this or don't do that and I won't love you anymore." That is a threat.

As the saying goes regarding children, "When they are young they step on your feet, when they grow older they step on your heart." Jesus didn't say that, by the way. But, I find more love, understanding and compassion in that than, "love me and do what I say or else".

I have children. Of course I love them with all my being. My love for them is unconditional. They don't have to love me back, they don't have to do what I say. I will never love them less. I will never turn my back on my children.

I would never hand them the ultimatum of being with me or being against me. It doesn't work like that.
 
You only accept the modern arguments because they are modern? That's ridiculous.
I accept academic research because it is based on a critical appreciation of the texts, which includes an awareness of the historical context of a) Jesus' life b) the conditions in which early Christianity formed and c) how later generations reinterpreted the texts. They typically result in a much better account of what was actually happening at the time.

The authors of the New Testament were not professional historians or archaeologists; they were not trying to present a factual account. They were believers, who wanted to spread the "Good News." Hence the use of the word "gospel."


The interpretation is that we should follow secular law, but ultimately all authority rests with God.
And again, that interpretation is based on centuries of the need to reconcile ecclesiastical and secular authorities.


Because your analogy wasn't comparable.
Of course it is. I'm pointing out how there is no necessity to accept an entire suite of a person's beliefs, lock stock and barrel. We can easily isolate certain concepts and/or values from the context in which it was presented.


What did Jesus say to do during the Jewish revolt?
He didn't say anything. He made rather vague prophesies about the "end of an age" (including refusing to set a date, and not knowing if it would happen during winter) about the Temple being destroyed (a common metaphor, one suspects, amongst critics of the Kohanim), and instructed them not to believe competing messianic claims (another common tactic in the Messianic Age).

His descriptions in Matthew 24 certainly do not apply to the First Jewish Revolt. There is no evidence that "nation [rose] against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and... famines and earthquakes in various places." The sun was not darkened, the moon did not fail to reflect light, the sign of the Son of Man did not appear in the heavens, the angels did not appear, and so forth. It did not end any obvious "age," since Rome did not depart and the Jews did not give up on rebellion.

I.e. it takes a huge interpretive leap to claim that Matthew 24 is about the First Jewish Revolt.


As for the Son of God claim leading to His death, see Matthew 26:
I think historically, we can say that Jesus almost certainly pissed off the Kohanim and other Jewish authorities, with a wide variety of claims and actions. I'd say that disrupting the money changing at the Temple, assuming it actually happened, is probably the real proximate cause.

We can also say, with a good degree of certainty, that the Romans almost certainly would have executed anyone who caused trouble in Jerusalem, during Passover, as a matter of routine. And of course, even Matthew 27 explicitly states that the Romans charged him with claiming to be "King of the Jews."

And again... Which of Jesus' followers were present, during the alleged dialogue of Jesus and Pilate? Historically, it's far more likely that Pilate would never have met Jesus, and left such petty matters to an underling. All the other historical evidence shows Pilate as having a callous disregard for his Jewish subjects, and would certainly not tolerate being subordinate to the locals.


The earliest Christians who knew of Him firsthand or from direct witnesses were all fine with the claim written in the Gospels. They could read it and judge it for themselves.
Many of them were probably dead by the time the Synoptic Gospels were written and disseminated. If you were 25 in 36 CE (the latest likely date for his death), that would make you 55 in year 66 CE (the earliest possible date for Mark) and 69 in year 80 CE (earliest date for Matthew). That's pretty old for that era.

In addition, they were not living in an era of compulsory public schooling. As in, only a handful were literate. To further muddle the waters, there was no printing presses, central publishing house or distribution network; copies of those gospels had to be created by hand, a practice that would frequently result in minor variations and interpolations by copyists.


At any rate, I see little reason for me, as an individual, to pay any attention to a "My Way or the Highway" attitude -- even if Jesus himself held it. If his statements happen to be wise and/or intelligent, I can take them as they are; when they are unwise or irrelevant, I can ignore them. There is no necessity for me to view him as "evil" if I don't agree with the canonical texts about his ontological or spiritual status.
 
Yes, I do disagree.

Threats are not derived from compassion. "Do this or don't do that and I won't love you anymore." That is a threat.

As the saying goes regarding children, "When they are young they step on your feet, when they grow older they step on your heart." Jesus didn't say that, by the way. But, I find more love, understanding and compassion in that than, "love me and do what I say or else".

I have children. Of course I love them with all my being. My love for them is unconditional. They don't have to love me back, they don't have to do what I say. I will never love them less. I will never turn my back on my children.

I would never hand them the ultimatum of being with me or being against me. It doesn't work like that.

How does it work when they continue to deny you? How do you have a relationship with them if they leave you and reject you?
 
I accept academic research because it is based on a critical appreciation of the texts, which includes an awareness of the historical context of a) Jesus' life b) the conditions in which early Christianity formed and c) how later generations reinterpreted the texts. They typically result in a much better account of what was actually happening at the time.

The authors of the New Testament were not professional historians or archaeologists; they were not trying to present a factual account. They were believers, who wanted to spread the "Good News." Hence the use of the word "gospel."

And you think that the research is without any contention? That everyone agrees about it all?

And again, that interpretation is based on centuries of the need to reconcile ecclesiastical and secular authorities.

Prove it.

Of course it is. I'm pointing out how there is no necessity to accept an entire suite of a person's beliefs, lock stock and barrel. We can easily isolate certain concepts and/or values from the context in which it was presented.

Claiming to be the son of God is far different from a concept or value.

He didn't say anything. He made rather vague prophesies about the "end of an age" (including refusing to set a date, and not knowing if it would happen during winter) about the Temple being destroyed (a common metaphor, one suspects, amongst critics of the Kohanim), and instructed them not to believe competing messianic claims (another common tactic in the Messianic Age).

His descriptions in Matthew 24 certainly do not apply to the First Jewish Revolt. There is no evidence that "nation [rose] against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and... famines and earthquakes in various places." The sun was not darkened, the moon did not fail to reflect light, the sign of the Son of Man did not appear in the heavens, the angels did not appear, and so forth. It did not end any obvious "age," since Rome did not depart and the Jews did not give up on rebellion.

I.e. it takes a huge interpretive leap to claim that Matthew 24 is about the First Jewish Revolt.

Josephus accounts most of these things. There were certainly famines (as is wont to happen during a siege), there was an earthquake, there were constant storms, etc. Nation against nation (Rome against the Jews) is also pretty clear.

I think historically, we can say that Jesus almost certainly pissed off the Kohanim and other Jewish authorities, with a wide variety of claims and actions. I'd say that disrupting the money changing at the Temple, assuming it actually happened, is probably the real proximate cause.

Prove it.

We can also say, with a good degree of certainty, that the Romans almost certainly would have executed anyone who caused trouble in Jerusalem, during Passover, as a matter of routine. And of course, even Matthew 27 explicitly states that the Romans charged him with claiming to be "King of the Jews."

But why did the Jews specifically want Him dead?

And again... Which of Jesus' followers were present, during the alleged dialogue of Jesus and Pilate? Historically, it's far more likely that Pilate would never have met Jesus, and left such petty matters to an underling. All the other historical evidence shows Pilate as having a callous disregard for his Jewish subjects, and would certainly not tolerate being subordinate to the locals.

St. John was likely present, and the Jews did not have the authority to kill so they had to go to Roman authorities.

Many of them were probably dead by the time the Synoptic Gospels were written and disseminated. If you were 25 in 36 CE (the latest likely date for his death), that would make you 55 in year 66 CE (the earliest possible date for Mark) and 69 in year 80 CE (earliest date for Matthew). That's pretty old for that era.

There's good reason to believe that Matthew was written earlier than Mark sometime in the 50's, notably is the inclusion of the Sadducees who were eliminated after the siege of Jerusalem. So it was probably written before the Jewish revolt.

In addition, they were not living in an era of compulsory public schooling. As in, only a handful were literate. To further muddle the waters, there was no printing presses, central publishing house or distribution network; copies of those gospels had to be created by hand, a practice that would frequently result in minor variations and interpolations by copyists.

Thus explaining why most of the apostles didn't write.

At any rate, I see little reason for me, as an individual, to pay any attention to a "My Way or the Highway" attitude -- even if Jesus himself held it. If his statements happen to be wise and/or intelligent, I can take them as they are; when they are unwise or irrelevant, I can ignore them. There is no necessity for me to view him as "evil" if I don't agree with the canonical texts about his ontological or spiritual status.

If He claimed to be the Son of God but was not, then He is evil.
 
How does it work when they continue to deny you? How do you have a relationship with them if they leave you and reject you?

Deny me what? They are my children I will always have a relationship with them. Relationships change, ebb and flow. I do not threaten my children. I am not a jealous parent and I would never attempt to use fear to make them love me. That doesn't work.
 
Deny me what? They are my children I will always have a relationship with them. Relationships change, ebb and flow. I do not threaten my children. I am not a jealous parent and I would never attempt to use fear to make them love me. That doesn't work.

That's not the point. As I said, it's not you denying them, but them denying you. If they refuse to see you, talk to you, etc., then how do you have a relationship with them? They have abandoned you.
 
That's not the point. As I said, it's not you denying them, but them denying you. If they refuse to see you, talk to you, etc., then how do you have a relationship with them? They have abandoned you.

That is their choice. I have never said, nor will I ever say, "You are either with me or you are against me". I would never tell them to love me or else harm will come to them and they'll be sorry.

I accept the fact that you believe Jesus/God loves everyone. I accept the fact that you are fine with that. In responding to the OP I am saying and I maintain that fear of harm is not love.
 
From the Catechism:

1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."[SUP]610[/SUP] Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.[SUP]611[/SUP] To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."

1034 Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.[SUP]612[/SUP] Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,"[SUP]613[/SUP] and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"[SUP]614
[/SUP]
1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."[SUP]615[/SUP] The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.
 
That is their choice. I have never said, nor will I ever say, "You are either with me or you are against me". I would never tell them to love me or else harm will come to them and they'll be sorry.

Because your relationship with your sons is not the same as ours is with God. If we acknowledge that we owe our entire existence to Him, that all is created by Him, and that He is our only good, then it only makes sense that people who reject God are only harming themselves.

I accept the fact that you believe Jesus/God loves everyone. I accept the fact that you are fine with that. In responding to the OP I am saying and I maintain that fear of harm is not love.

Yet you think that it is arbitrary. The problem is that it is not arbitrary. Take a look at the opening paragraph of the Catechism:

1 God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Saviour. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life.

And then later:

27 The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for:

The dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God. This invitation to converse with God is addressed to man as soon as he comes into being. For if man exists it is because God has created him through love, and through love continues to hold him in existence. He cannot live fully according to truth unless he freely acknowledges that love and entrusts himself to his creator.1
 
And you think that the research is without any contention? That everyone agrees about it all?
There is no question that the scholars have a diversity of opinion, nor did I intend to suggest otherwise.

In fact, I'm quite certain those scholars have a higher tolerance for different interpretations than some non-scholarly sources....


Prove it.
"Prove it?" What proof would you accept, since you have already stated that you will reject scholarly opinion? I guess we could just read the full passage....


15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.
16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.
17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.[/quote]


To me, this clearly indicates that Jesus knew the Pharisees were trying to trap him in a crime (flouting Roman authority), and found a clever way to avoid it. It doesn't take much of a stretch to recognize that Jesus is not lauding Roman secular authority, and/or is speaking in a caustic or sarcastic manner.

In fact, the more I think about it, the term "Roman secular authority" doesn't apply in the first place; that's a modern concept. To the Romans, Caesar (the position, not the first emperor) was classified as divine, and the Romans had already developed an imperial cult. To Jesus, offerings to Caesar would be offerings to a false deity.

And again: Once we have a historical awareness, it should be very clear that Jesus was certainly not indicating a favorable attitude towards Roman occupation. Christians debated their stance towards Roman authority for centuries, in no small part because the Roman authorities repeatedly persecuted Christians. Augustine was one of the first to make a prominent case in favor of working with Rome, instead of viewing it as an illegitimate, unjust, pagan occupier.

IIRC Elaine Pagels discusses some of this transition. I don't recall exactly which book, sorry.


Claiming to be the son of God is far different from a concept or value.
OK, sure. But that doesn't change the fact that I am entirely capable of holding the following beliefs:

• Jesus was not divine
• Jesus was not insane
• Jesus was not evil
• Some of his ideas were wise and intelligent
• I can ignore those that I do not find wise, intelligent or relevant


Josephus accounts most of these things. There were certainly famines (as is wont to happen during a siege), there was an earthquake, there were constant storms, etc. Nation against nation (Rome against the Jews) is also pretty clear.
As I said, you would need to engage in a significant interpretation action to make these kinds of claims. Which, apparently, you've done. ;)


Prove it.
Do your own scholarly research on this one. It can't possibly be explained sufficiently in a web forum post.


But why did the Jews specifically want Him dead?
The idea that the Jews "specifically" wanted anything is almost certainly a Christian interpolation. When you read the accounts in the Synoptic Gospels, it seems like the entire world held its breath as Jesus was executed. The reality is that from the perspective of the non-Christians of that time -- the vast overwhelming majority of people -- it was just another troublemaker who ran afoul of the Romans.

To the Jews and the Romans of that time and place, there was nothing special about Jesus.


St. John was likely present, and the Jews did not have the authority to kill so they had to go to Roman authorities.
I have to ask.... Where do you get the idea that John was present? There's certainly no textural support for that. Nor did the Romans care about internecine Jewish theological debates. They cared about maintaining order and control; Jesus was a threat to that order and control; and the Romans dispensed with him the same way they did so many other troublemakers.


There's good reason to believe that Matthew was written earlier than Mark sometime in the 50's, notably is the inclusion of the Sadducees who were eliminated after the siege of Jerusalem. So it was probably written before the Jewish revolt.
Matthew drew on Mark or, if it exists, Q. It was almost certainly written after the First Revolt.


If He claimed to be the Son of God but was not, then He is evil.
I cannot stress enough how much I disagree with this statement, nor do I see any possible justification for it.

At the risk of being too brief: Jesus would only be "evil," at least in my book, if he a) intended to deceive with the purpose of causing harm, and b) actually succeeded at causing harm in this way.

Nor do I regard claiming that "I am the son of God" is an inherently evil act. I'm sure that some religious people would differ -- many Jews of Jesus' time almost certainly did -- but I'm not obligated to share that particular ethical principle. (After all, we don't consider the ancient Greeks "evil" because they believed Heracles was the son of a mortal woman and Zeus.)

There is no question in my mind that Christian institutions have, in many instances, caused harm. However, I don't think any individual has such perfect foresite that they could predict every wrong done in their name. As such, I don't think it makes sense to claim that Jesus is "evil."
 
If He claims that He is the Son of God and gets now billions of people to believe and worship Him, then He is an evil man if He is not truly the Son of God.

ya that would be evil but you could still admire and agree with parts of his message then theirs the possibility other people were the ones that began the son of god claims
 
But surely you believe the Pope is infallible...?

Christ said:

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

John said:

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

Paul said:

for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

It's unequivocally stated many times that salvation comes through faith in Christ, and only faith in Christ.
 
Back
Top Bottom