jar - On Christianity

robinrohan writes: Brian's thread on the incident with Barrabas is intended to painstakingly investigate what would have been well-known to anyone who lived in that time and in that area.

That's an entirely different situation.

Sure, Jesus' contemporaries knew more about their own culture and traditions than we do.
But we're talking about Jesus' philosophy.

Remember that He came to earth for the express purpose of overturning a lot of the traditions and practices that went against His phlosophy. Small wonder that his contemporaries would misconstrue Him - intentionally or not - in order to preserve at least some of their comfortable status quo.

Jar wants to ignore such passages because it doesn't make sense to him. He wants to "modernize" the ideas so that it WILL make sense to him.

You may be starting to catch on. :)

What was written in the Bible was written from the perspective of 1st century traditions and practices. But Christianity ought to be timeless.

It ought to be for us as much as it was for Jesus' contemporaries. So of course we have to "modernize" it so that it WILL make sense to us.

Do you think we should still be living by "Don't pull your ox out of a pit on the sabbath"? Do you think it's okay to put in seven-day weeks at the office just because you don't own an ox?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Robin,

Some questions for you about which I am curious (based on your tone in a few posts further up).

Q1: Do you believe Jesus of Nazareth existed?

Q2: If yes to Q1, do you believe that what he is reported as having said was in fact said by him (more or less)

Q3: If yes to Q2, do you believe that what he said is true. And if not why not (briefly)

Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Q1: Do you believe Jesus of Nazareth existed?

I think such a person existed, and over the years legends grew up about him.

Q2: If yes to Q1, do you believe that what he is reported as having said was in fact said by him (more or less)

I see no reason not to.

Q3: If yes to Q2, do you believe that what he said is true. And if not why not (briefly)

He said a lot of things. Obviously, the religious part of his thought I disagree with. He strikes me when I read the Gospels as highly intelligent.

ABE: As regards his moral ideas, this notion of turning the other cheek doesn't set well with me.

Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

Iano, I would like to have your views on Ringo's idea that New Testament concepts must be modernized.

I must accept with humility (difficult for one such as me) that the likes of Ringo and Jar are infinitely more productive in the field of evangelism than me. God, as your general stance against their non-sequitur/cheerful conundrum/paradoxical-speak indicates, can use the negative to as good effect as he can the positive.

Honestly Robin, I cannot comment on what Ringo and Jar say. I'm a simple engineer. Straightforward logic I can handle (although I am prepared to accept mystery at the nodal points where it occurs) - but not that kind of stuff. Best I can say is that truth is timeless. It has been and always will be truth. Truth is not in need of 'modernisation' otherwise it wouldn't be truth.

Sure, Jesus' imagery of sheeps and goats and camels and needles was super-fit for the setting of his day. But by no means so as to require modernisation. How would one go about modernising "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone. Make it a "Let he who has not sinned be first to put a dum-dum bullet in her brain" if you must - but I think that is dancing around the fringes.

iano writes: Truth is not in need of 'modernisation' otherwise it wouldn't be truth.

The application of "truth" has to be up to date, or it has no value.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I think such a person existed, and over the years legends grew up about him.

'Legends' wasn't in the question. The question is what you believe rather than what you think. They are different. What is your belief: did he live or is he a myth (no empirical evidence required)? Your belief at this time.

I see no reason not to ( believe that he said is what he said).

Let's call the edge of the razor blade 'agnosticism '. Some balance there. Is it that or do you plump for one side or the other (you're not bi are you?)

He said a lot of things. Obviously, the religious part of his thought I disagree with. He strikes me when I read the Gospels as highly intelligent.

You've read CS's conundrum I'm sure. So which of his options do you plump for? Insane/liar/truth ...or other.

ABE: As regards his moral ideas, this notion of turning the other cheek doesn't set well with me.

Of course not. It is unnatural for us to do so. Naturally we would strike back. But you know that the 'natural man' is precisely what gets "put to death" at the point of salvation. What do you think people thought when he said that:

" Turn the other cheek? I can't do that (be it someone stealing my sheep or someone commenting on my girlfriends figure when I walk through the town on Saturday night - so much for modernisation huh?)"

He asks us to do the impossible. Apply logic: "I cannot do that" is it not?

What was written in the Bible was written from the perspective of 1st century traditions and practices. But Christianity ought to be timeless. It ought to be for us as much as it was for Jesus' contemporaries. So of course we have to "modernize" it so that it WILL make sense to us.

I'm talking about concepts not practices. Now one of the concepts that is central in the NT is this notion of propitiation to God. It is, of course, an ancient idea, a Pagan idea, but very much alive in the 1st century. It is also a central idea of Christianity down through the ages. Jesus dies as propitiation for our sins. This is very different from little details about living such as when to use our oxen.

Jar eliminates that essential concept and subsititutes instead as one of his modernizations an idea that is not in the NT. This is the notion that we must learn to love ourselves. There is certainly talk in the NT about the fact that we do love ourselves, but it's not seen as some merit or something that we must learn to do. It's just taken as a granted fact about human nature.

So what Jar has done is not modernize but pervert the ideas in the New Testament.

I'm not criticizing here Jar's ideas per se--I'm just saying that they are not Biblical and so he ought not to be claiming that they are.

iano writes: Turn the other cheek? I can't do that

If I slap you, you'll turn the other cheek and like it. :D

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

More likely you'd lose your front teeth. I'm a sinner - you shouldn't lose sight of that fact Ringo.

You've read CS's conundrum I'm sure. So which of his options do you plump for? Insane/liar/truth ...or other

He was deluded.

That's what makes the story so tragic.

Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

iano writes: I'm talking about concepts not practices.

Screw the concepts. Practices are all that matter.

Which is why you have such a poor understanding of things like "propitiation".

There is certainly talk in the NT about the fact that we do love ourselves, but it's not seen as some merit or something that we must learn to do. It's just taken as a granted fact about human nature.

I really don't know why you and robin are so confused about that.

If you really do love yourself already, no problem.
Go out and love thy neighbour exactly the same way that you love yourself.

But your posts and robin's posts don't ring true (to me and to some others around here) as coming from people who love themselves.

I would hesitate to use a word like "self-loathing", but... what's yer shoe size?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Who are you addressing?

He was deluded.

Your level of certainty..on a scale of 1 to 100?

iano writes: More likely you'd lose your front teeth. I'm a sinner

:D

You may be a sinner but you're no Ringo.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC