Judaism states that Jesus was just a nice Jewish boy

@William,

William;90932 wrote:

The DaVinci Code was no piece of cake, either.

Come off it, it makes Mills and Boone read like Tolstoi.

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;90934 wrote:

Come off it, it makes Mills and Boone read like Tolstoi.

I don't quite understand your comparison; do you have something against a good love story? It could be the Bible is hidding the greatest love story that was ever existed? I guess it has something to do with lenses you read with. Are you seeking answers, or are you trying to satisfy your own ego? Of course, only the individual can answer that question.

William

---------- Post added 09-17-2009 at 12:18 PM ----------

Dave Allen;90915 wrote:

Works for a great deal of historians and literary critics too.

Critics, huh? I really don't pay a whole lot of attention to them, really. I like to form my own opinions. That works best for me.

William

@William,

A good love story is The Sun Also Rises...

Not so sure about the DaVinci Code, which is nothing more than historical fiction, like Spandau Phoenix. Nothing against historical fiction as a genre, but there is certainly a great deal to doubt about taking it's historical speculation seriously - namely that the authors readily admit that the historical speculation is based upon non-historical "information".

@Didymos Thomas,

A good read on the subject is Jesus of Nazareth by Joseph Klausner. It showed up in the bibliography of seemingly every theology book I read, so I figured it was time to stop avoiding it. Klausner is a Jewish scholar who does his best at an unbiased comparative study of writings referring to Jesus. Generally, he concludes Jesus was very much one of the Pharisees of his time. He ends his work with his own account of Jesus' life.

@Alan McDougall,

William the New Testament, with the exception of the Book of Revelations is the greatest love story ever written, Gods everlasting love for his mortal children;humanity

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;91183 wrote:

William the New Testament, with the exception of the Book of Revelations is the greatest love story ever written, Gods everlasting love for his mortal children;humanity

Yeah, I guess love means extermination if necessary. Pinning each group against each other. Commanding the attack giving the go ahead to enslave or pillage another. To condemn another to death over a minor infraction or difference of opinion.

You call it love, but I would not agree with that statement one bit.

@Krumple,

Krumple;91186 wrote:

Yeah, I guess love means extermination if necessary. Pinning each group against each other. Commanding the attack giving the go ahead to enslave or pillage another. To condemn another to death over a minor infraction or difference of opinion.

You call it love, but I would not agree with that statement one bit.

Krumple why are you so angry? Dont blame god for humanities hatred for each other.

God has a dilemma with us restrict our free will and turn as into a lot of robots or let use this free will to love or hate him. Do you hate God? I really dont think you do, you hate the religions that have the audacity to say they speak for the infinite divinity

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;91189 wrote:

Krumple why are you so angry? Dont blame god for humanities hatred for each other.

I am not angry. I think you are trying to adopt a propaganda statement. What is your source for determining what god is?

Alan McDougall;91189 wrote:

God has a dilemma with us restrict our free will and turn as into a lot of robots or let use this free will to love or hate him. Do you hate God? I really dont think you do, you hate the religions that have the audacity to say they speak for the infinite divinity

I don't hate religion at all. It is the force or imposing behavior of so called religious people that causes all the problems I see in the world.

When someone says, god does not like this, therefore we should ban that type of behavior. I don't see it as creating virtuous people, but instead it breeds criminals. It causes all the evil in the world to spring up but people refuse to accept that because they want to force the world to behave or be virtuous. You can't force virtue through enacting laws, it will only make villains and give them additional power.

So your statement that god is love, is propaganda. So I sincerely request, what is your source that allows you to determine that god is love?

@Krumple,

Krumple;91191 wrote:

I am not angry. I think you are trying to adopt a propaganda statement. What is your source for determining what god is?

I don't hate religion at all. It is the force or imposing behavior of so called religious people that causes all the problems I see in the world.

When someone says, god does not like this, therefore we should ban that type of behavior. I don't see it as creating virtuous people, but instead it breeds criminals. It causes all the evil in the world to spring up but people refuse to accept that because they want to force the world to behave or be virtuous. You can't force virtue through enacting laws, it will only make villains and give them additional power.

So your statement that god is love, is propaganda. So I sincerely request, what is your source that allows you to determine that god is love?

You are correct, I was wrong even audacious to suggest what God wants from us and God does not want. But, nevertheless I am free to believe he loves both of us and hopes we use our free will in a loving way. I do not believe the laws of religion are not the laws of God, who really knows the mind of an entity of omnicient intellect and power, not me.

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;91236 wrote:

You are correct, I was wrong even audacious to suggest what God wants from us and God does not want. But, nevertheless I am free to believe he loves both of us and hopes we use our free will in a loving way. I do not believe the laws of religion are not the laws of God, who really knows the mind of an entity of omnicient intellect and power, not me.

Right, so since you can not know the mind of an entity of omniscient intellect, you also can not determine if it is love or not. You are hoping that it is of love, but there is nothing, no evidence of it, at least none that I can find that supports such a characteristic for such an entity.

@Alan McDougall,

If you allow returning to the original question, then may I point out that:
1) There is an ongoing war between Judaism and Christianity, today mostly in the form of psychological warfare. So when the rabbi made his statement, it was not a philosophical discussion, it was riposting an attack.

2) Jesus was imported into Christianity from Judaism by transforming a Jewish Messiah into a pagan god Jesus. Then this pagan God was pushed down the throats of Jews for centuries. Therefore my friendly advice is avoid entering the pitfall by thinking that a neutral philosophical discourse is possible on that subject with a rabbi.

3) Furthermore, nobody can discuss neutrally the person of Jesus as he is presented by the New Testament because if he is true, then those who do not accept him are guilty; and if he is not true, then those who do accept him are guilty. And if he is just a nice guy, then the mere extent of the discussion is absurd.

@Alan McDougall,

I also think Jesus was a nice jewish boy... But, God or not, he's still one of the most influential philosophers in history, and, IMO, one of the best.

@Lily,

Shlomo;92167 wrote:

1) There is an ongoing war between Judaism and Christianity, today mostly in the form of psychological warfare. So when the rabbi made his statement, it was not a philosophical discussion, it was riposting an attack.

Careful, friend. There may be a psychological battle between some Jews and some Christians, but not all.

I'm a non-combatant Christian. I dig Jews, really appreciate their faith and struggle over the years. Had some really tough times, it's not been easy for the Jewish people. That's a shame - every Jew I've met has been wonderfully nice.

Shlomo;92167 wrote:

2) Jesus was imported into Christianity from Judaism by transforming a Jewish Messiah into a pagan god Jesus.

No sir, Jesus is not a pagan deity. Christianity is a monotheism.

Shlomo;92167 wrote:

3) Furthermore, nobody can discuss neutrally the person of Jesus as he is presented by the New Testament because if he is true, then those who do not accept him are guilty; and if he is not true, then those who do accept him are guilty. And if he is just a nice guy, then the mere extent of the discussion is absurd.

I disagree.

Those who do not "accept" Jesus (whatever that means) are no more guilty of anything than those who do "accept" Jesus. I'm not even sure what these people would be guilty of in the first place.

I'm not sure what it means for Jesus to be true or false, you'll have to explain that one to me.

@Didymos Thomas,

Thank you, D-T.
I skip the issue of monotheism here as it is too big.

Didymos Thomas;92270 wrote:

I'm a non-combatant Christian.

I wonder what do you mean by being a Christian, because your statements on #3 are certainly not in line with the conventional meaning of the word and might even shock a dedicated Christian believer.

Didymos Thomas;92270 wrote:

Those who do not "accept" Jesus (whatever that means) are no more guilty of anything than those who do "accept" Jesus. I'm not even sure what these people would be guilty of in the first place. (John 3:18)

...

I'm not sure what it means for Jesus to be true or false, you'll have to explain that one to me.

"Jesus answered, I am the way and the truth and the life. No-one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6)

Is it something morally neutral to accept or reject the truth?

"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. " (John 3:18)

Now make a simple conclusion: what is your destiny if his words are true, and what if they are not. Just a matter of philosophy? Just a nice boy?

@Shlomo,

Shlomo;92483 wrote:

I skip the issue of monotheism here as it is too big.

Could it be summed up by saying the burgeoning cult of Christianity "enjoyed" (I know this is the wrong word to use - "suffered" might be more apt) a period of coexistence and some overlap with the Roman pantheon?

@Dave Allen,

In my opinion coexistence would not be such a disaster as what actually happened: adjusting strictly monotheistic Judaism to Pagan mentality. The Messiah has been transformed into god in flesh clouded by a new Pantheon of saints.

@Shlomo,

Shlomo;92488 wrote:

In my opinion coexistence would not be such a disaster as what actually happened: adjusting strictly monotheistic Judaism to Pagan mentality. The Messiah has been transformed into god in flesh clouded by a new Pantheon of saints.

I think where Jesus became God in flesh was east of Rome... around Ephesus. The Roman religion had sort of pooped out at the time Christian groups sprang up along with Isis cults, Dionysis cults... Christianity was one of many. Religion experts speculate about how it became the religion of Rome.

One thought I read was that Judaism was popular, but it's complicated to become Jewish. Christianity was like Judaism for dummies (especially uncircumcised ones.) Actually the early history of Christianity is a fascinating topic and fairly complex.

@Krumple,

Krumple;91246 wrote:

Right, so since you can not know the mind of an entity of omniscient intellect, you also can not determine if it is love or not. You are hoping that it is of love, but there is nothing, no evidence of it, at least none that I can find that supports such a characteristic for such an entity.

I know in the absolute what true love is, such as I KNOW I LOVE MY WIFE AND CHILDREN. Surely we should allow an infinite being like God the same privileged. I know I love God

@Alan McDougall,

Shlomo;92483 wrote:

I wonder what do you mean by being a Christian, because your statements on #3 are certainly not in line with the conventional meaning of the word and might even shock a dedicated Christian believer.

Sure, many Christians would consider me a non-Christian. But there exists a couple thousand years worth of history wherein Christians are called heretics, devil-worshipers, ect simply because they held Christian beliefs at odds with the establishment.

I guess I'm lucky to live in a time when folks like me are spared public incineration.

As for point Three: there is a field of study called "Higher Criticism" in which literary critics attempt exactly what you say is impossible.

Shlomo;92483 wrote:

"Jesus answered, I am the way and the truth and the life. No-one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6)

Is it something morally neutral to accept or reject the truth?

I do not read John, personally. Never been a fan.

However, there are ways to interpret that work and reject the conclusion you draw.

Shlomo;92483 wrote:

"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. " (John 3:18)

Now make a simple conclusion: what is your destiny if his words are true, and what if they are not. Just a matter of philosophy? Just a nice boy?

Take a gander at some other Gospels for a moment:
"Blaspheme the Father and you shall be forgiven; blaspheme the Son and you shall be forgiven..."

I take that from the Gospel of Thomas, but essentially the same is said in Luke. The Synoptic Gospels and John's Gospel are remarkably different - and contain immense contradictions.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;95194 wrote:

I guess I'm lucky to live in a time when folks like me are spared public incineration.

In Christianity, yes. Enjoy.

Philosophy Forum

Judaism states that Jesus was just a nice Jewish boy

Quick Links

My Account

able2know