Atheists against Jesus?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
The bottom line is that I believe in the teachings of Jesus while you believe in the teachings of Paul.

What I believe in is plainly stated. The foundation is solid.

What you believe in can only be arrived at through fabrication and the extrapolation of "imagery" and "symbolism". The foundation is lacking.

Luke 6:46-49
Why do you call me,'Lord t which the stream broke, and immediately it fell, and the ruin of that house was great.

St Paul would not dispute Luke 6:46-49 at all . He would stand by it and live by it. What you don't realise is that this whole argument is based on a missunderstanding you have that grace somehow undermines works . St Paul taught that grace without works was nothing , but he also had the insight to realise that works without grace was standing in self righteousness as opposed to being clothed in Christ. Once you realise that grace and works are not opposed to each other in reality you will see the truth.

Your "fabrication and imagery" point is pure rubbish. Vast swathes of Jewish theology is based in imagery. The theology of the passover lamb is a very clear, explicit and well understood system of thought regarding the righteousness of God and man's relationship to God. It is not just a story but also a deeply meaningful ritual for the Jewish community regarding God's covenant with man. It's also intertwined with the idea of a "new covenant" predicted by the prophets throughout the ages. This is a very solid foundation that goes back centuries.

This is no "new age" woolliness. This is a robust , clear well practiced ritual that has a meaning that goes right to the heart of the Jewish faith. So what does Jesus do? He places himself right at the very centre of it. Don't forget this is serious stuff. Even to suggest that his body was the bread and the wine was his blood would be seen as utterly incredible to a Jew. The only way you can not see how signifcant this act is if you are willfully ignorant of Jesus's heritage as a Jew.

Bear in mind too that Jesus typically spoke much of the time in parables and symbolism so this is very in keeping with the way he spoke and taught. I put it to you that you are rationalising the last supper away and downplaying it in your mind because you can't make it fit neatly into your rolex counterfeit version of Jesus. Surely at the very least it must cause you to wonder?

Originally posted by knightmeister
St Paul would not dispute Luke 6:46-49 at all . He would stand by it and live by it. What you don't realise is that this whole argument is based on a missunderstanding you have that grace somehow undermines works . St Paul taught that grace without works was nothing , but he also had the insight to realise that works without grace was standing in self ...[text shortened]... counterfeit version of Jesus. Surely at the very least it must cause you to wonder?

John 8:32-36
..."If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free ... Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever..."

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
John 8:32-36
..."[b]If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free ... Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever..."[/b]

...and your point is?

Originally posted by knightmeister
...and your point is?

Comes as no surprise that you cannot see the point.

This one's easier:
Matthew 7:21-23
Not everyone who says to me,'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will tell me in that day,'Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in your name, in your name cast out demons, and in your name do many mighty works?' Then I will tell them,'I never knew you. Depart from me, you who work iniquity.'

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Comes as no surprise that you cannot see the point.

This one's easier:
Matthew 7:21-23
Not everyone who says to me,'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will tell me in that day,'Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in your name, in your name cast out demons, and in your name do m ...[text shortened]... works?' Then I will tell them,'I never knew you. Depart from me, you who work iniquity.'

It's really a shame to be obsessing over a 2000+ year old book. We have a lot more complexity in our society now, nuclear weapons maybe in the hands of terrorsists, random violence in our neighborhoods, megacompanies destroying the ecology of the earth in their insane pursuit of profits, diseases we brought about all by our selves with overuse of antibiotics, mental disease rampant, more people in jail than in college in the USA, these kind of problems go way beyond any words of the bible to cope with. Why don't you worry about those things and give up worrying about an ancient text with very little relevance to our real world problems of today? All the worship in the world is not going to bring back the land stricken by Chernoble.

Originally posted by sonhouse
All the worship in the world is not going to bring back the land stricken by Chernoble.

I'm not sure if 'worship' is the solution To1 has in mind.

Originally posted by no1marauder
A quote about Jesus himself contains later additions beyond any question. But the I haven't heard any serious objections to the authenticity of the references to James, Jesus' brother who appears to have been pretty well known in Jerusalem.

Fair enough. I have to say I never researched this before.

Still, the presence of forgery regarding Jesus must also cast serious doubts about the validity of his references to his brother. What other historical sources are there for the existence of James?

I remember James' Ossuary being shown to be false recently, so I have to say I'm somewhat skeptic about this.

Originally posted by Palynka
Fair enough. I have to say I never researched this before.

Still, the presence of forgery regarding Jesus must also cast serious doubts about the validity of his references to his brother. What other historical sources are there for the existence of James?

I remember James' Ossuary being shown to be false recently, so I have to say I'm somewhat skeptic about this.

This stuff will drive you crazy:
http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/rpeisman.html

Originally posted by no1marauder
A quote about Jesus himself contains later additions beyond any question. But the I haven't heard any serious objections to the authenticity of the references to James, Jesus' brother who appears to have been pretty well known in Jerusalem.

You didn't look very far.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Testimonium_Flavianum

"There is however, debate as to whether the words 'who was called Christ' were in the original passage, or were a later interpolation"

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Comes as no surprise that you cannot see the point.

This one's easier:
Matthew 7:21-23
Not everyone who says to me,'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will tell me in that day,'Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in your name, in your name cast out demons, and in your name do m ...[text shortened]... works?' Then I will tell them,'I never knew you. Depart from me, you who work iniquity.'

If your point is that there will be some in the church who think that they have earned salvation by doing all these things when infact they have no idea then I see your point and have no problem with it. If your point is that simply saying "Lord , Lord" but not doing the Father's will is a sign that someone's faith is not real then I have no argument with you. It's when you take it that one step further and insinuate that these passages somehow negate St Paul or the doctrine of grace that we start to part company. I see nothing in these passages that St Paul would have a problem with. The problem is yours not his.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You didn't look very far.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Testimonium_Flavianum

"There is however, debate as to whether the words 'who was called Christ' were in the original passage, or were a later interpolation"

You didn't bother to "look as far" as my next post and the link given where it extensively discusses this alleged "interpolation":

It is the words "the so-called Christ" that are thought to be interpolated here - assuming that this passage is even noticed; some writers, I have observed, seem to forget that it exists! But let us consider the arguments for and against regarding this as an interpolation.

First, there is no textual evidence against this passage. It is found in every copy of the Antiquities we have [Meie.MarJ, 57]. This also applies to the larger passage. [ibid., 62] Some will assert as a counter that there was still sufficient time for an interpolation to occur and not enough textual evidence to prove that it didn't, but this amounts to an admission that the textual data, as it stands, favors authenticity. Anything beyond that in these terms is speculation and question-begging!
Second, there is a specific use of non-Christian terminology: The designation of James as the "brother of Jesus" contrasts with Christian practice of referring to him as the "brother of the Lord" or "brother of the Savior." (as in Gal. 1:19 in the NT and Eusebius in later history). The passage "squares neither with New Testament nor with early patristic usage." [ibid., 58]
In response to this Wells objects that "an interpolator might well have been aware that an orthodox Jewish writer could not possibly be represented as calling Jesus 'the Lord.' We do not have to assume that all interpolators went to work with more piety than sense." [Well.JesL, 53]

Wells' argument is refuted by the interpolations themselves. Evidence that interpolators did have "more piety than sense" is in fact found in the larger passage in Josephus itself, where an interpolator has Josephus confessing that Jesus is "the Christ." If an interpolator added this sort of sentiment, knowing that Josephus was an orthodox Jew, then certainly he (or another interpolator) would have been careless enough to refer to James as "the brother of the Lord," had this small passage been a forgery.

Third, we may note the emphasis of the passage. It is not on Jesus or even James, but on Ananus the high priest and the turbulence he caused. There is no praise for James or Jesus. This is not what we would expect if this were an interpolation. [Meie.MarJ, 58-9]
Fourth, Josephus' account of James being stoned is different from the account given by the church historian Hegesippus, who has James being thrown from the roof of the Temple. [ibid., 57] This would be an unlikely move for an interpolator.
Fifth, neither this passage nor the larger one connects Jesus with John the Baptist, as we would expect from a Christian interpolator.
The bulk of the evidence therefore favors highly the genuineness of this passage

Originally posted by sonhouse
It's really a shame to be obsessing over a 2000+ year old book. We have a lot more complexity in our society now, nuclear weapons maybe in the hands of terrorsists, random violence in our neighborhoods, megacompanies destroying the ecology of the earth in their insane pursuit of profits, diseases we brought about all by our selves with overuse of antibiotic ...[text shortened]... today? All the worship in the world is not going to bring back the land stricken by Chernoble.

If people were to actually follow the teachings of Jesus, how many of these problems would be left?

Originally posted by knightmeister
If your point is that there will be some in the church who think that they have earned salvation by doing all these things when infact they have no idea then I see your point and have no problem with it. If your point is that simply saying "Lord , Lord" but not doing the Father's will is a sign that someone's faith is not real then I have no argument w ing in these passages that St Paul would have a problem with. The problem is yours not his.

Jesus teaches salvation throught righteousness. Jesus explicitly states that those who sin cannot enter heaven. Jesus explicitly state that those who follow His commandments are given eternal life.

"Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever"

"Not everyone...will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father...Depart from me, you who work iniquity."

"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand."

Jesus explicitly states who His followers are:
"If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."

"He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself unto him."

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Jesus teaches salvation throught righteousness. Jesus explicitly states that those who sin cannot enter heaven. Jesus explicitly state that those who follow His commandments are given eternal life.

"Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever"

"Not everyone...will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself unto him."

So as one of Jesus' sheep how has he manifested himself unto you?

..and how exactly does he give eternal life to us?

Originally posted by knightmeister
So as one of Jesus' sheep how has he manifested himself unto you?

..and how exactly does he give eternal life to us?

The usual KM tack. You have a real problem dealing with the fact that Jesus taught salvation through righteousness. So now it's on to the usual steady stream of red herrings, distortions, false accusations, etc. I'm not really interested in following you around in the circles that you lead everyone.

The bottom line is that I believe in the teachings of Jesus while you believe in the teachings of Paul.

What I believe in is righteousness.

What you believe in is seeking what you can get.