Non-Christians who believe in Jesus?

Post Reply New Topic

First off, you on't need to worry about offending me. after all the "If God existed, he'd give me everything I wanted" arguements I've had to put up with, it's nice to talk to someone who understands the basic concepts of religion.

I was not familiar with the Noahide laws, I'll admit. that was an interesting read.

Now, as you pointed out, by being Christian one will ultimately follow the Noahide laws. I suppose you could argue that one could just identify oneself as a Noahide, one could also argue that if it was Jesus's teachings that brought you to the Noahide laws, one might as well just call oneself a Christian as well. I guess I feel Christianity has plenty to do with the Jewish tradition as well. I guess I can't really be sure of that (after all, I didn't know what the Noahide laws where untill just now ) But as someone who has read both the Jewish books of the old testiment and the new testiment I feel that the synch up quite nicely, but I know there are books that where left out when the Christian Bible was cannonized, and I'm curious as to what they say. I was recently given a bunch of apocraphal books as a gift, so I should probably get reading, but I'll admit I'm ignorant as to what books are cannon in the Jewish tradition that are absent from the Christian old testiment.

There is also that Jesus incorperated other things into his teaching that (to my knowledge) had not been previously covered by the prophets, or at least not in as great of detail. He also urged his followers be more peacful than more traditional Jewish teaching suggested was nessicary. (but implied was ideal).

As for his "death" and salvation, Christians, as I'm sure you know, don't believe he's really dead. Also, if you don't mind my asking, what do you feel is ment by "saved?" Christians interpret it as a sort of spiritual salvation, as opposed to anthing worldly. Some believe this is why Judus betrayed Jesus: he did not believe Jesus was going to save anyone because he did not understand what he ment by save. Christians also believe that the "second half" of the saving, that is, the destruction of evil, will come later. Since Jesus isn't dead, he could come back at any time sort of thing.

I'm fine with Jews converting to Christianity. And if they want to continue to observe Jewish traditions generally not included in Christian practice that is their perogotive: I am not their judge. Paul does talk about how the law doesn't need to be followed anymore, but Jesus said he did not come to replace, but to fulfill, and Paul said "If one person says eating meat is wrong, it is wrong for that person" so I say everybody do what they believe God wants them to do, and so long as it doesn't include genocide or something along those lines I won't complain.

by two covenants do you mean believing that the old law still applies to the Jewish people but everyone else is now under Jesus's covenant? I'd say it's possible. on the one hand some people might feel that the Jews "broke" the old covenant, but on the other, God said it was an everlasting covenant, and when God says everlasting, it's safe to assume he means it. and even though Paul said that the old law did not need to be followed, he also made it clear it was still powerful, binding, and good: he just did not believe it could save without Jesus, So I would not discount it as a strong possibility.

as for the idolization of Jesus, I'm against it. Jesus was not God, he never claimed to be God, he made it perfectly clear that God was more important than he was. I allow for the possibility that Jesus was somehow conneted to God in some metaphysical way, but I find man's attempts to rationalize that connection (i.e. the trinity) to be hamfisted and dubious. whatever that connection may be, I doubt we humans are capable of understanding it in our present form. God is the only one that we should pray to.

The answer is simple: it was a cult that was later taken over by Gentiles. Cults can deviate from their background, even significantly. Gentiles have no concern with Jewishness.


But the earliest follower that we can reference is Paul. He's the only one that appears to have writings. We can try to remove Christianity from this, but I don't have faith in the validity of such a reconstruction to any real extent.


Ok, possibly. I am not a mainstream Jew.


Well, yes and no. The Sabbath had more importance than Jesus was giving to it.

Exo 31:14 You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you. Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death. Whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

I mean.... Christ is clearly standing against the actual scriptures.


Umm... I don't think so. I think Jesus actually proclaimed the importance of the rules while denying them.

Mat 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Mat 5:18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Mat 5:19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

This paradox was actually hard for me to get, but, I don't think that there is internal consistency in the teachings, but rather Jesus is a re-interpretation.


Probably not. Luther rejected some of the influence of the Church fathers to uphold Sola Scriptura. This isn't a matter of meaning, but rather valid foundations. The Protestant movement both loosened and tightened rules at the same time. Some Protestants have actually done things such as label alcohol and dancing profane on questionable scriptural grounds. I don't think that there is a real comparison. That being said, I actually don't think liberal Christians are very Christian.(not in some more moralistic sense, but rather in the sense of adhering to the teachings)


No, actually it doesn't. The Jewish Messiah has the ability to overturn most elements of the Jewish religion as he pleases, right? He is the Messiah, and past writings and beliefs could have been wrong.


Christianity is a universal religion.


Well, everyone does. The issue is that I don't believe your grounds to be valid. Once again, you have to recognize that you aren't talking to a Christian or anyone who actually


Ok, have you never heard of plot holes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plot_hole

Retconning?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroactive_continuity

The fact of the matter is that inconsistency happens in literature all of the time.


Look, I don't know what you are looking for.

You are like a person who is reading a fiction about the Civil War and then looking for historical data from that. The two can't be combined in any realistic manner. The fiction will disagree with the history, the history will disagree with the fiction, and there is no good way to determine from the fiction alone what actually happened. Even if you have a book called "The Real Story of the Civil War", there is no real reason for the Lincoln in that story to match up with the historical facts about the real Lincoln, or for flying saucers to have decided the Battle of Gettysburg.


He's the only one we have writings from. We don't have writings from the actual Mark, the actual Matthew, the actual Luke, or the actual John, or even the actual James, or the actual Peter. So, "more influential"? No. Only historical reference is the word you are looking for.


Ok, but it doesn't have to be rational to you to be the proper construction of claims. I mean, a person might talk about how a person forced him to kill somebody, and you could try to reasonably reconstruct that to be threats but it also could be the person making claims about psychic powers.

[/quote]
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... tures.html [/quote]
It doesn't really say anything that contradicts my claim. If anything it supports the idea that inconsistencies can exist.


Ok??? You have to recognize exactly how little they are affirming. They aren't affirming facts about the Jesus movement, only basic facts they are affirming.

The Jefferson Bible is actually partially my criticism of your attempted reconstruction. "In short, Mr. Jefferson's Jesus, modeled on the ideals of the Enlightenment thinkers of his day, bore a striking resemblance to Jefferson himself."

I reject the use of Tacitus. Tacitus is only going to be parasitic on other sources, and HE DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING! The most he says is that Pontius Pilate rightfully killed these people. Then again, he doesn't have the facts right about Pilate, "Pontius Pilate's rank was prefect when he was in Judea."-from your source, and there is no reason to believe that his statements on Christians are a result of unbiased scholarship, I mean, if he is blaming the Christians then he may very well want to show how Pilate did the right thing to kill this "malicious superstition".


Umm..... ok??? He was considered a Jewish leader. That doesn't say anything about the kinds of issues you are bringing up though. At all. Additionally, I don't think you are doing anything but projecting onto Jesus some Jewishness. Why? I don't accept any of your claims of Jewishness on these matters, you've mostly used them to attack trinitarian doctrine, and your attacks were never that substantial, instead you assume Jesus would not be trinitarian and then you pick some scripture that you think shows something when it is perfectly consistent with trinitarianism, and when I have other scriptures you haven't rebutted. Could I be missing something Jewish? Maybe, but the more Jewish ideas are going to be more likely in Paul, as Gentiles also really didn't care about Jewish ideas. You might be able to use Matthew, but Matthew is a rewrite of other writings.


Ok? That does not rebut my previous comment. I didn't deny the existence of the idea of a Messiah in Judaism. I denied the prophecy claims made in the New Testament by looking at what they referred to in the Old Testament.

That being said, a lot of the other things are things that later writers could throw into the history. For example, you contested the virgin birth, but the issue is that the virgin birth was partially an attempt to fulfill a prophecy that was a translation error in the Septuagint. So, I don't take any of the prophecy fulfillment claims seriously, given the efforts in the actual New Testament. (additionally, some of the prophecies, such as Psalms 22 only exist due to interpretive liberty in the Old Testament, as the words in the writing are uncertain, and the Jewish Publication Society Bible and the Christian bibles have completely different interpretations by interpreting that one word very different.)


Grasp on Judaism is irrelevant. As for studying both? Psh, you have hardly shown much impressive in terms of your studies. You are looking for something, and trying to make the patterns show it.

Ok? Honestly, the Jews didn't have a concept of a trinity, so I don't see the criticism. Especially given that trinitarian theology is not even internally consistent, as all of it is consistent with Deu 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Y'see, the idea is that Jesus is God. The Father is God. The Holy Spirit is God. So, there is only one God. But... Jesus is not the Father, despite the logical transitivity of it.

So, no, you don't get it. At all. As for this being "a scripture which I'm against"? WTF. Seriously? WTF. I don't know what the you are looking for. I've given you every clear answer that seems to be there, but you want to accept and disregard things at your whim, a previous criticism I've made. You either pretty much HAVE TO accept the scriptures, or you have NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT. No other documents really talk about Christian teachings other than the canonical scriptures or the ones that weren't canonized. One can reference the other historians but they are even more deeply questionable than the scriptures.


No, you care about making stuff up to Judaize things.


Why are you trying to settle the inconsistency? Inconsistencies are part of the territory. There is no answer. If someone is giving you an answer, they are likely making stuff up.


That's not a fallacy. That's a plot hole. Fallacies are matters of logic. Plot holes are matters of narratives. Scriptures tend to be narratives more than philosophical doctrines.


A doctrine contradicting the basis isn't a fallacy though! Fallacies are logic problems. Doctrines and things like that aren't arguments, so they can't be fallacies.

If you don't recognize this issue, then why don't you re-examine your exploration. You're looking for something, but there is no reason to think it exists.


No you don't. Anyway, I should probably get away from the delusional.

EDIT: Look, maybe I am still missing something or being confused somewhere.

Here, I'll quote Daniel Dennett making an analogy to religious anthropology with a fake god called "Feenoman":
"While not believing in Feenoman, the anthropologists nevertheless decide to study and systemize as best they can the religion of these people. ... Since those beliefs may contradict each other, Feenoman, as a logical construct , may have contradictory properties attributed to him -- but that's alright in the Feenomanologists' eyes because he is only a construct to them. The Feenomanologists try to present the best logical construct they can, but they have no overriding obligation to resolve all contradictions."

I don't care about any perceived contradictions in Christian historical documents simply because the only effort is to reconstruct what is there. Resolving contradictions is to go beyond this goal. Additionally, from the outset, I am disregarding the historicity of our accounts, so the "real historical Jesus" is actually something that I view with complete indifference given questions about the supposed teachings of Jesus. Maybe a few things can be uncovered, but only the most basic of attitudes that seem to be across scriptures, not any artifact of any specific scripture.