Atheists against Jesus?

Originally posted by no1marauder

Don't bet your life on it; no theologian that I know of thinks that Paul used the Gospels as source material. They seem to have been written AFTER his death.

You're quite right. That makes it all the more fascinating ... That would make Paul the first false prophet!

Originally posted by no1marauder
twhitehead: but if your question is whether or not some Christians think it was mostly a show of some kind then the answer is yes.

That's completely wrong. Christians believe his death and resurrection were utterly necessary for Man to have any chance of salvation.

A necessary show perhaps but still, for some a show.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You believe in the teachings of Paul. I believe in the teachings of Jesus.

No, you believe in the teachings of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, you believe in the teachings of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John.

Nice try. You can play that game with pretty much anything that anyone has said that only has the written word to back it up.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I remember Knightmeister taking that line. As far as I understood his explanation, God was trying to show us what is right by example. His analogy was when a father takes the punishment due to his son upon himself, not because he has to, not to save his son the punishment, but to show his son the need for punishment ie the validity of a system with punish ...[text shortened]... followers' who think that we have sworn statements from 5000 witnesses to his resurrection 🙂

"I remember Knightmeister taking that line. As far as I understood his explanation, God was trying to show us what is right by example. His analogy was when a father takes the punishment due to his son upon himself, not because he has to, not to save his son the punishment, but to show his son the need for punishment ie the validity of a system with punishment. Essentially God is being a good role model.
I did not fully understand it" - WHITEY

RESPONSE----

Too right you didn't understand it. When God (in Jesus) takes our punishment (sin) upon himself it is no abstract matter nor is he being a role model neither is it a question of merely "demonstrating" justice. When God takes our sin upon himself on our behalf it means precisely that - nothing less nothing more. It is not a metaphor for something else . It is not symbolic. Jesus is not in "role". If I didn't know better then I would think you had consciously misrepresented my argument LOL ...but then that would be a bit cynical of me yes???

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Nice try. You can play that game with pretty much anything that anyone has said that only has the written word to back it up.

So probably the best approach would be to remain consistent about EVERYTHING Jesus said and not just some parts of his teachings??? Selectiveness is also a game is it not?

Originally posted by knightmeister
So probably the best approach would be to remain consistent about EVERYTHING Jesus said and not just some parts of his teachings??? Selectiveness is also a game is it not?

In case you missed it earlier:

Listen, I understand that you have a real problem dealing with the fact that Jesus taught salvation through righteousness. Since then it's been nothing but a steady stream of red herrings, distortions, false accusations, etc. Don't you think enough is enough?

You're like a little kid.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
In case you missed it earlier:

Listen, I understand that you have a real problem dealing with the fact that Jesus taught salvation through righteousness. Since then it's been nothing but a steady stream of red herrings, distortions, false accusations, etc. Don't you think enough is enough?

You're like a little kid.

1Tim6:3,4
If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

Originally posted by josephw
1Tim6:3,4
If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

Do you think that when Paul wrote these letters, he intended them to be quoted more than the words of Jesus by "Christians"?

Originally posted by josephw
1Tim6:3,4
If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

1 John 2:3 -6:
By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; 5 but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: 6 the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I guess I was hoping this thread would be about objections over the teachings of Jesus, though it appears to have taken over by objections over the teachings of "Christianity". Seeing as the teachings of Jesus have been taken over by the teachings of "Christianity", I guess it's fitting.

There's no easy way to separate what Jesus said from the rest of the stuff in the Bible. That's why I don't know exactly what Jesus taught and what other prophets or book authors taught.

When considering what Jesus taught, should I consider the Biblical "fact" that he's going to return and smite nations with a sword sticking out of his mouth? Is that the same Jesus you're talking about? The one with brass feet?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I see that as being open to interpretation. In general, I don't believe that Jesus was saying that "We are ALL God's sons". I tend to believe it more accurate to say that Jesus was saying that all those who are righteous (follow the will of God) are God's sons and that all can be God's sons.

So the african tribesman in the bush, having no access to Jesus, and therefore unable to follow the will of god, he is on the outside while you are on the inside?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Nice try. You can play that game with pretty much anything that anyone has said that only has the written word to back it up.

It is not a game it is straight forward. You claim that the gospel writers got what Jesus said right and Paul and the others got it wrong. You then translate that to "I believe what Jesus said not what Paul said". You are incorrect. A more accurate description of your beliefs is you believe what Jesus said and you believe the most accurate record of that is in the gospels and that other records (such as Pauls) are not accurate. You further must believe that the gospel writers were inspired by God to get it right and that Paul was not.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Too right you didn't understand it. When God (in Jesus) takes our punishment (sin) upon himself it is no abstract matter nor is he being a role model neither is it a question of merely "demonstrating" justice. When God takes our sin upon himself on our behalf it means precisely that - nothing less nothing more. It is not a metaphor for something else . ...[text shortened]... iously misrepresented my argument LOL ...but then that would be a bit cynical of me yes???

My apologies if I misrepresented you. I honestly tried to understand your ideas and honestly tried to give my understanding of what you said.

Now you have me confused because in that other thread you repeatedly gave an analogy of a Judge taking the punishment for a prisoner or a father taking punishment for a son and I could not get out of you any explanation for why they would do that except as a demonstration or 'show'.
I was fairly sure you admitted as much but I must be mistaken. Do you remember which thread it was?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Do you think that when Paul wrote these letters, he intended them to be quoted more than the words of Jesus by "Christians"?

Paul claimed to have been inspired by Jesus. The gospel writers claimed to know what Jesus said (I am not sure what they claimed was the source of their knowledge.)
You are assuming, without justification, that the gospel writers were right and Paul was lying.
If Paul and the gospel writers were inspired then one would guess that God knew whose words would get quoted more by "Christians" and dictated accordingly.