The all new, totally accepted, bigotry thread - "Blame a Christian"

[kochman]

Through passages in the Bible, which is not the word.

But I like the last sentence. I might even apply and I'll be amongst a lot of very cross Scotsmen.

The Bible is not the Word... per se. The Bible contains the Word.
The Word is the Word of God/Jesus. At least, that's how I've looked at it.
The Bible was tainted by man, translations, etc. The core message is the Word of Jesus, and it is still understandable even if paraphrased, etc because it is a simple (yet tough) message.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The Bible is not the Word... per se. The Bible contains the Word.
The Word is the Word of God/Jesus. At least, that's how I've looked at it.
The Bible was tainted by man, translations, etc. The core message is the Word of Jesus, and it is still understandable even if paraphrased, etc because it is a simple (yet tough) message.

The thing I was tunnelling at really was a realisation that being a Christian also needs the belief he was resurrected, which becomes a shaky proposition. Who knows, maybe the resurrection is an image meant to convey that Jesus lives by his message rather than actually having been resurrected. Without resurrection he still can be in Heaven at the side of God, he still can be divine, all that doesn't change.

I agree the overall message Jesus is sending is pretty clear, the devil is in the details which is also the place where the bickering ground is.

Mainly it's the claims of what a True Christian is that had resurfaced, combined with my own experience of promoting Christianity which I'm still peeved about that sparked the question.

 

[kochman]

The thing I was tunnelling at really was a realisation that being a Christian also needs the belief he was resurrected, which becomes a shaky proposition. Who knows, maybe the resurrection is an image meant to convey that Jesus lives by his message rather than actually having been resurrected. Without resurrection he still can be in Heaven at the side of God, he still can be divine, all that doesn't change.

No, to me, that changes everything. Without the resurrection, there is no proof of forgiveness, which is why we woship Christ specifically.

I agree the overall message Jesus is sending is pretty clear, the devil is in the details which is also the place where the bickering ground is.

I'd say you are right 100%.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

No, to me, that changes everything. Without the resurrection, there is no proof of forgiveness, which is why we worship Christ specifically.

I don't understand. I understand the sacrifice Jesus made which made it possible to forgive sins.

What makes the resurrection pivotal?

 

[kochman]

I don't understand. I understand the sacrifice Jesus made which made it possible to forgive sins.

What makes the resurrection pivotal?

He said, I'm going to die for you, and to show that I mean business, I'm then coming back to life.
It was the New Covenant...

Without the resurrection He was just another guy, proclaiming He was wonderful, whoever you want to compare Him to that was doing it... like the false prophets...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

He said, I'm going to die for you, and to show that I mean business, I'm then coming back to life.
It was the New Covenant...

Without the resurrection He was just another guy, proclaiming He was wonderful, whoever you want to compare Him to that was doing it... like the false prophets...

Even more confused now To show I mean business I died but I'm not dead.

And it still leaves the possibility open that the resurrection was symbolic. Is this not even a possibility for you to consider, or is it not even consider worthy?

Lastly, I feel there's a lot more to Jesus while he was alive. His actions, his teachings are something an atheist like me can respect. That seems to me to be a lot more than just another guy. I do not see how the resurrection made those actions and teachings any more respectable.

 

[kochman]

Even more confused now To show I mean business I died but I'm not dead.

No, to show I mean business...
They are going to kill me, and one of you will betray me.
I will come back from the dead.
*That's a pretty gutsy thing to say, predicting one's own resurrection*

And it still leaves the possibility open that the resurrection was symbolic. Is this not even a possibility for you to consider, or is it not even consider worthy?

Possible? Moot point.
He was resurrected, and seen by many people, including public sermons, before His ascendence.
People who were alive when He was, and saw Him, were willing to die for what they knew to be the truth... hence the ability of Christianity to spread in a highly hostile environment, where they faced severe persecution, including death.

Lastly, I feel there's a lot more to Jesus while he was alive. His actions, his teachings are something an atheist like me can respect. That seems to me to be a lot more than just another guy. I do not see how the resurrection made those actions and teachings any more respectable.

There is a lot before He died and came back...
The resurrection proved He was more than just human, not just more than another typical guy like you or I.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ah, I see this headed into the taking the Bible at it's Word (while I argued it's not the Word) as contrary to being open to more interpretations.

If that's not there, no use for me to continue.

 

[timtofly]

There is also the point that Jesus mislead every one about his kingdom. The whole point about Messiah was an earthly kingdom. It seems to me that Jesus represents more than just a king. Jesus was hands on, where most kings could care less about the mundane.

 

[peter grimes]

Without the resurrection, there is no proof of forgiveness...

And if there's no proof of the resurrection, there is, ipso facto, no proof of forgiveness, and, ipso facto "He was just another guy, proclaiming He was wonderful, whoever you want to compare Him to that was doing it... like the false prophets..."



I think this line of reasoning cheapens and undermines the best stuff the bible has to offer - just because someone may not have lived, and may not have been the physical incarnation of a goat-herd's sky-god, doesn't mean that the stories and parables have no value. But according to your logic here the resurrection is required, otherwise it's all bunk. That's too bad.

 

[kochman]

And if there's no proof of the resurrection, there is, ipso facto, no proof of forgiveness, and, ipso facto "He was just another guy, proclaiming He was wonderful, whoever you want to compare Him to that was doing it... like the false prophets..."



I think this line of reasoning cheapens and undermines the best stuff the bible has to offer - just because someone may not have lived, and may not have been the physical incarnation of a goat-herd's sky-god, doesn't mean that the stories and parables have no value. But according to your logic here the resurrection is required, otherwise it's all bunk. That's too bad.

Not at all, the messages taught are good... No one said that Jesus's teachings mattering were dependent on the resurrection.
Like the messages of Buddha, for example, and messages you can get from other religions. I know I certainly don't discount something just because it came from Hinduism, for example...

There's a difference in accepting wisdom and worshipping.
I would not worship Jesus were there no resurrection, which I believe has been proven as much as you can prove most things from about 2,000 years ago... and have faith in to cover the rest, based on my experiences.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Would you raise an eyebrow when a Christian followed the teachings of Christ, believed in his divinity but not in his ressurection?

 

[kochman]

Would you raise an eyebrow when a Christian followed the teachings of Christ, believed in his divinity but not in his ressurection?

Not really. That's between them and Him... not me and them.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

The writings of Paul make it clear that he believed that if the Resurrection (note that he is referring not only to the first fruits of the Resurrection of Christ, but also the general bodily Resurrection of all men during the last days) is not true then the christian faith is worthless and we are the most pitiable of all men.

 

[Traitorfish]

It makes it clear that Pauline Christians would be pitiable, perhaps, but that's a particular strain of Christianity, it's not interchangeable with Christianity as such. Just because it's enjoyed two millennia of hegemony within the Christian "movement" doesn't mean that it's the only possible interpretation of Yehoshuah's ministry that can be developed. (Look at the Ebionites, or, more recently, the Tolstoyans.)

 

[timtofly]

It makes it clear that Pauline Christians would be pitiable, perhaps, but that's a particular strain of Christianity, it's not interchangeable with Christianity as such. Just because it's enjoyed two millennia of hegemony within the Christian "movement" doesn't mean that it's the only possible interpretation of Yehoshuah's ministry that can be developed. (Look at the Ebionites, or, more recently, the Tolstoyans.)

Although even Paul acknowledged that it would not be fully developed until every one physically sees the resurrected Christ.