What Did Jesus Actually Do?

[ChristineM]

I haven’t ever referred to them as “fiction.” I feel I’ve been very clear on that point. I have said they’re partially fictional. Yet again (this is at least the third time I’ve stayed this; I can’t imagine why you’re ignoring it, unless it’s pure stubbornness), it’s more about intent than content. Fiction as a genre is intended to entertain. Gospel as a genre is intended to convey religious-cultural belief and meaning.

As a genre, the Gospel can contain fictional material and remain true to its intent. The fact that it contains fictional material does not diminish its integrity as a literary vehicle.

It is pure fact and i have no idea why you are ignoring facts. There is no evidence that god exists, there s non that Jesus existed as described in the bible. None.

What intent?. Oh dont dont bother.

 

[sojourner]

It is pure fact and i have no idea why you are ignoring facts. There is no evidence that god exists, there s non that Jesus existed as described in the bible. None.

What intent?. Oh dont dont bother.

First let’s deal with “intent.” Intent deals with “Why was this work written? What is its purpose?” Genre refers to the purpose for the work being written. Fiction is written to entertain. Gospel is written to convey religio-cultural meaning. Fiction usually contains some factual material. Gospel contains some fictional material. Both are recognized genres that do what they were intended to do. Therefore, the Gospels maintain their integrity as literary works of their genre.

Next let’s deal with “God’s existence.” Of course Gospel approaches its narrative from the assumption of God — it’s a theological genre. Gospel doesn’t prove Gods’s existence; that’s not its intent. Whether or not God exists, Gospel still maintains its integrity as a literary genre.

 

[ChristineM]

First let’s deal with “intent.” Intent deals with “Why was this work written? What is its purpose?” Genre refers to the purpose for the work being written. Fiction is written to entertain. Gospel is written to convey religio-cultural meaning. Fiction usually contains some factual material. Gospel contains some fictional material. Both are recognized genres that do what they were intended to do. Therefore, the Gospels maintain their integrity as literary works of their genre.

Next let’s deal with “God’s existence.” Of course Gospel approaches its narrative from the assumption of God — it’s a theological genre. Gospel doesn’t prove Gods’s existence; that’s not its intent. Whether or not God exists, Gospel still maintains its integrity as a literary genre.

No, i have dealt with the facts, you may play with all the apologetics that pleases you, they don't change facts.

 

[Spartan]

For one thing, the earliest texts we have (Thess.) don’t mention a physical resurrection. Nor does Thomas. Nor does Q.
The Greek terms used for “resurrection” are anastasis, which means “standing up” and egeiro which means “getting up.” These are not theologically-charged words with special meanings reserved only for occurrences of religious rising from the dead. They are everyday words, used in a thousand different Greek households. “I stood up (anastasis) from bed this morning.”

Now you’re going to tell me that’s BS, and get busy citing several very conservative apologists who present their work “defending the Faith”; I don’t even know why I bother to ferret this stuff out for you; your confirmation bias is so high.

You're another one who ran from the challenge. I asked for examples from the Gospels and you go trotting over to Thessalonians. Then you cite a 2nd century pseudepigrapha (Thomas) plus a fictitious Q document for which there is zero manuscript evidence. That's astonishing.

It's obvious you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Typical of the anti-Jesus crowd.

 

[sojourner]

No, i have dealt with the facts, you may play with all the apologetics that pleases you, they don't change facts.

You don’t realize what the facts are in this instance.

 

[ChristineM]

You don’t realize what the facts are in this instance.

oh i do but obviously you dont. Despite me pointing them out several times

 

[sojourner]

You're another one who ran from the challenge. I asked for examples from the Gospels and you go trotting over to Thessalonians. Then you cite a 2nd century pseudepigrapha (Thomas) plus a fictitious Q document for which there is zero manuscript evidence. That's astonishing.

It's obvious you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Typical of the anti-Jesus crowd.

AHHH...HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Oh!... I... I just... Oh! It’s too much! I’m dying! I can’t breathe!
AHHH...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Holy train wreck!! You don’t have the first clue how textual facts are verified, you don’t have the first clue regarding either the importance of Thomas in establishing authenticity, or the facts that establish Q.

If you want to verify facts in the Gospels, this is what you do.

When you graduate the Derek Zoolander School for Kids Who Want to Know How to Do Exegesis, get back to me. Until then, I’m done wasting my time, battery and bandwidth on you.

<mic drop>

 

[sojourner]

oh i do but obviously you dont. Despite me pointing them out several times

<Yawn>

When you have something better than “yeah but...” get back to me.

 

[oldbadger]

Again, this is about Jesus. Nothing to do with your moral senses or what his followers did, but what the historical Jesus achieved that should catapult him to such fame. You answered this: nah!

It seems as if you have crashed in to the truth, or reversed in to it by accident

Sure, Jesus tried to carry a mission forward, and sadly failed

But whether he the Jesus thst was pardoned, or the Jesus thst was condemned is not certain.

You think that all the above is just mere belief? You can, of course, read all about it.

 

[ChristineM]

<Yawn>

When you have something better than “yeah but...” get back to me.

Sorry, i gave up on ya 2 days ago and you know it. So why the twisting to massage your ego?

 

[oldbadger]

Historical Jesus. I've said to multiple people on this thread that your beliefs don't count (unless they can be well substantiated). I want to know why Jesus should have a place in secular history and if so what did he do to earn it. This is why I compared him to Muhammad, who has an obvious place in secular history.

It's nothing to do with our beliefs.

Let's start with what we can be fairly sure about. If you do a little tiny bit of homework on this it could help you to remember the facts and the balance of probabilities. Let's start with facts.

Can you describe e the obverse and reverse faces of the early first century Temple shekel? That's an important start.

When you've got that sorted, can you guess what working Jewish peasants thought about having to handle that coin?

Next, do you accept that the exchange rates for currencies in to shekels was a total rip off?

If you can just acknowledge those two points we can move onwards. If you cannot accept the above then we could discuss them further?

Easy stuff
....

 

[Rival]

It's nothing to do with our beliefs.

Let's start with what we can be fairly sure about. If you do a little tiny bit of homework on this it could help you to remember the facts and the balance of probabilities. Let's start with facts.

Can you describe e the obverse and reverse faces of the early first century Temple shekel? That's an important start.

When you've got that sorted, can you guess what working Jewish peasants thought about having to handle that coin?

Next, do you accept that the exchange rates for currencies in to shekels was a total rip off?

If you can just acknowledge those two points we can move onwards. If you cannot accept the above then we could discuss them further?

Easy stuff
....

It would be easier if someone could tell me why Jesus is so famous. He did nothing compared to the likes of Napoleon, Kahn, Pankhurst, Curie, Stalin &c. If no religion had developed around him no-one would have cared about him, just like no one really cares about Shabbatai Zevi or any other failed messianic claimants.

 

[oldbadger]

It would be easier if someone could tell me why Jesus is so famous. He did nothing compared to the likes of Napoleon, Kahn, Pankhurst, Curie, Stalin &c. If no religion had developed around him no-one would have cared about him, just like no one really cares about Shabbatai Zevi or any other failed messianic claimants.

So you keep repeating.......
Now....... do you accept that Jesus was a real person?
Do you accept that the Baptist was a real person?
Let's start there.

Basics....

 

[sojourner]

Sorry, i gave up on ya 2 days ago and you know it. So why the twisting to massage your ego?

I’m sorry we can’t get together on this. We just seem to talk past each other.

 

[ChristineM]

I’m sorry we can’t get together on this. We just seem to talk past each other.

Yup.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Every scourge known to mankind is the result of people rebelling against God / Christ. If every man were to love their neighbor, who is it that's going to go to war? Get the drift? Are you familiar with all the blessings of God for those who love and follow him? So, you can't diss Biblical Christianity by citing examples from people who don't follow its precepts and laws, anymore than you can indict the whole of secular humanity because many are murderers and criminals.

So that's your answer.

And my answer to that answer is that the very God you credit was -- according to the Bible itself -- the instigator of war, and of genocide, and of rape. I am not referring to what "some people" in "some groups" do. I am referring exactly to what the Bible itself says about God.

And that should tell you, in no uncertain terms, why I do not believe in the Christianity of the Bible -- nor Judaism nor Islam, neither. If you start off by getting God wrong, why on earth should I pay any attention to the rest of it?

 

[FooYang]

And my answer to that answer is that the very God you credit was -- according to the Bible itself -- the instigator of war, and of genocide, and of rape. I am not referring to what "some people" in "some groups" do. I am referring exactly to what the Bible itself says about God.

Ok, I'll bite. How did you come to these conclusions that the God, as recorded in the Bible, is conveyed as being these things? surely you don't have tunnel vision like every other atheist.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Ok, I'll bite. How did you come to these conclusions that the God, as recorded in the Bible, is conveyed as being these things? surely you don't have tunnel vision like every other atheist.

You have perhaps forgotten about the conquest of Canaan, the land that God decided to give to the Israelites (though it was currently inhabited by Canaanites)? And that God order the wholesale slaughter of the Canaanites, man, woman, boy, even the animals, saving only the virgin girls for themselves? I thought this was pretty well covered in Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy and Joshua?

 

[Spartan]

AHHH...HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Oh!... I... I just... Oh! It’s too much! I’m dying! I can’t breathe!
AHHH...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Holy train wreck!! You don’t have the first clue how textual facts are verified, you don’t have the first clue regarding either the importance of Thomas in establishing authenticity, or the facts that establish Q.

If you want to verify facts in the Gospels, this is what you do.

When you graduate the Derek Zoolander School for Kids Who Want to Know How to Do Exegesis, get back to me. Until then, I’m done wasting my time, battery and bandwidth on you.

<mic drop>

Did you get all that out of Mad Magazine? It sounds like it.

The Gospel of Thomas wasn't written by Thomas. It's a redacted, 2nd century pseudepgrapha. It always amuses me how folks like you bad-mouth the four original New Testament Gospels because they ALLEGEDLY weren't written early enough or by the traditional authors. Then you prop up this 2nd century "Gospel" of Thomas as if it came down from Mount Sinai. It's horse manure. What a bizarre agenda you have.

As for Q, no one had ever heard of it before the HYPOTHESIS of it was invented. There's no manuscript evidence for it. No one in early times ever mentioned it. You say it doesn't speak of the resurrection? How would you even begin to know unless you had some manuscript or historical attestations as evidence? And you don't. There's more:

The Case Against Q: Fallacies at the Heart of Q

The Case Against Q: Ten Reasons

Your romper-room theology should be buried in a cats litter box with the sign, "Do not disturb this disturbing pile of manure."

 

[Aniiz]

From a historical standpoint, what, in his own lifetime, did Jesus of Nazareth achieve? I am having trouble figuring this out, because I can see objectively that Muhammad had a huge impact upon not only his own society but others, all within his lifetime. That the impact was either good or bad is not my point here, but that had had one. Baha'u'llah had some direct impacts, if small, upon his society. In contrast, I can't think of anything Jesus did that no-one else could have done.

He was born, he preached, he was executed.

This is probably going to turn into an 'It was all Paul not Jesus' thread, but have at it anyway.

What Jesus did you cannot believe.