Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is how Christianity presents Christ, I dont blame either of them for not wanting to be in a church. The church has this false narrative they like to believe where they pretend Christianity wasnt a legal sect of Judaism.
We did take Judaism to twist and pervert it beyond recognition until we became the worst enemies of Judaism and anyone who dared to continue walking in Judaism.
The followers of Christ did turn Jesus into an interloper, in fact, Christian's present Jesus as the worst traitor against his own people that has ever been.
For 2000 years the Jews alone practice the religion of Messiah while Christian's accepted all the Babylonian holy days along with all the traditions and rituals, and so when we think to convert the Jew, what do we think we are converting him to?
Paganism? Lawlessness?
Obviously, we want the Jew to leave off following God's ways, we want them to accept our Paganism and our lawlessness so they will no longer remain Jewish from generation to generation.
Why doesn't the Jew realize we are trying to save them with lawlessness and paganism lol. How this backwardness has come about is a mystery to me, in the beginning we claimed Gentiles could join the already saved, chosen nation of God, but now Christianity thinks they are the chosen nation and that Jews should become gentiles and join them instead of us being added to the commonwealth of Israel.
Historical Jesus has no extra biblical evidence, but 2000 years of Christianity proves who and what Jesus was if we are to judge him by the history of the church.
A sad reality, we cant even agree with the historical account of the New Testament, and the historical account is about Christianity being a legal sect of Judaism.
If we did have historical proof outside the New Testament, Christian's wouldnt believe it, they cant even believe the history recorded.
Last edited by Hannibal Flavius; 02-19-2024 at 02:37 PM..
What this forum has made clear to me about the "Historical Jesus" is that making a "religion" out of our attempts to understand God is a societal disaster. Religions are divisive and the ultimate manifestations of human ignorance, vanity, and hubris, IMO. We are such a perverse species that God has no choice but to be long-suffering, patient, and loving of us in our ignorance. IF the "Historical Jesus" is our exemplar of God (which my encounter suggests He is), then His clear and unambiguous revelation and demonstration of God's loving and forgiving nature in the narrative makes all the primitive interpretations in Abrahamic religious dogma misguided at best.
That is how Christianity presents Christ, I dont blame either of them for not wanting to be in a church. The church has this false narrative they like to believe where they pretend Christianity wasnt a legal sect of Judaism.
We did take Judaism to twist and pervert it beyond recognition until we became the worst enemies of Judaism and anyone who dared to continue walking in Judaism.
The followers of Christ did turn Jesus into an interloper, in fact, Christian's present Jesus as the worst traitor against his own people that has ever been.
For 2000 years the Jews alone practice the religion of Messiah while Christian's accepted all the Babylonian holy days along with all the traditions and rituals, and so when we think to convert the Jew, what do we think we are converting him to?
Paganism? Lawlessness?
Obviously, we want the Jew to leave off following God's ways, we want them to accept our Paganism and our lawlessness so they will no longer remain Jewish from generation to generation.
Why doesn't the Jew realize we are trying to save them with lawlessness and paganism lol. How this backwardness has come about is a mystery to me, in the beginning we claimed Gentiles could join the already saved, chosen nation of God, but now Christianity thinks they are the chosen nation and that Jews should become gentiles and join them instead of us being added to the commonwealth of Israel.
Historical Jesus has no extra biblical evidence, but 2000 years of Christianity proves who and what Jesus was if we are to judge him by the history of the church.
A sad reality, we cant even agree with the historical account of the New Testament, and the historical account is about Christianity being a legal sect of Judaism.
If we did have historical proof outside the New Testament, Christian's wouldnt believe it, they cant even believe the history recorded.
Hanni, these irreconcilable conflicts are seldom one-sided! They are not the exemplars of human integrity, honesty, decency, and "righteousness," IMO.
According to my understanding of the Historical Jesus, He considered those who were poor and suffering as to be having it made. He looked at them as we would look at someone who is successful in their life, maybe have a good job and are healthy, have family and are able to go on vacations with them etc. We would say such people "have it good" or "They got it good"!!! The Historical Jesus is saying those who are poor, afflicted, weeping, "have it good"!!! Why? Because they will inherit God's kingdom. (This coming from the sayings of Jesus and His sermon on the mount.) I haven't found any other religious figure speak about the poor in this way.
Conversely, Jesus looked at the rich, the well-fed and satisfied, and those who enjoyed life with pity. So looking at the world from the Kingdom of God's perspective according to the Historical Jesus, it is a very topsy-turvy outlook on society. Again, I don't know of any other figure who taught being poor had a good aspect to it, much less saying they have it made. I argue this is something unique we can learn from the Historical Jesus.
According to my understanding of the Historical Jesus, He considered those who were poor and suffering as to be having it made. He looked at them as we would look at someone who is successful in their life, maybe have a good job and are healthy, have family and are able to go on vacations with them etc. We would say such people "have it good" or "They got it good"!!! The Historical Jesus is saying those who are poor, afflicted, weeping, "have it good"!!! Why? Because they will inherit God's kingdom. (This coming from the sayings of Jesus and His sermon on the mount.) I haven't found any other religious figure speak about the poor in this way.
Conversely, Jesus looked at the rich, the well-fed and satisfied, and those who enjoyed life with pity. So looking at the world from the Kingdom of God's perspective according to the Historical Jesus, it is a very topsy-turvy outlook on society. Again, I don't know of any other figure who taught being poor had a good aspect to it, much less saying they have it made. I argue this is something unique we can learn from the Historical Jesus.
Solon talking to Croesus about being happy, according to Herodotus in his work Historiai.
Solon talking to Croesus about being happy, according to Herodotus in his work Historiai.
Thanks, this is informative for me. Solon seem to be stating the peasant man was happy because he was content. I might argue most who are impoverished and suffering aren't content, but Jesus still consider them to having it made. The reason why of course being they would inherit God's kingdom. Also I might argue what the Historical Jesus was really getting at is for those who are not satisfied with this life, as having it good. This will most likely include more poor and those afflicted, than those who aren't. In general most religious figures consider poverty as either a bad thing, or in most eastern religions as an illusion.
Thanks, this is informative for me. Solon seem to be stating the peasant man was happy because he was content.
That is half of the story. Croesus, the king of Lydia, was said to be the wealthiest man with a large country (covering much of what is now the modern Turkey). When Solon visited him, the king showed Solon his wealth and then asked him who was the happiest man in the world, hoping he would be man. Solon gave two different examples, saying those people had been happy most of their life as one can not measure the total amount of happiness someone has had until they have died.
So Croesus could not be the happiest man because he was not dead, and the last part of his life could have many problems. And this is what happened, Croesus wanted to take some land from Persia, asked the Oracle at Delphi if that was a good idea, and was told if he attacked Persia, a great empire would fall. Croesus thought the Oracle was talking about Persia losing, so he attacked, and Persia invaded Lydia, adding it to it's empire.
The story is a myth, but it is an example of how anyone could be happy in this life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
I might argue most who are impoverished and suffering aren't content, but Jesus still consider them to having it made. The reason why of course being they would inherit God's kingdom. Also I might argue what the Historical Jesus was really getting at is for those who are not satisfied with this life, as having it good. This will most likely include more poor and those afflicted, than those who aren't. In general most religious figures consider poverty as either a bad thing, or in most eastern religions as an illusion.
That is a major difference between the two, the promise of a happy afterlife. It only makes sense if there is the relevant afterlife. The Greek story makes sense in this world, especially when read with later Greek philosophers such as Aristotle talking about how to be happy before one dies.
I don’t think there are any principles which can solely be learned from one discrete person (real or imagined or religious or secular).
I can agree to that. I would argue for who's teaching is the most unique?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
That is half of the story. Croesus, the king of Lydia, was said to be the wealthiest man with a large country (covering much of what is now the modern Turkey). When Solon visited him, the king showed Solon his wealth and then asked him who was the happiest man in the world, hoping he would be man. Solon gave two different examples, saying those people had been happy most of their life as one can not measure the total amount of happiness someone has had until they have died.
So Croesus could not be the happiest man because he was not dead, and the last part of his life could have many problems. And this is what happened, Croesus wanted to take some land from Persia, asked the Oracle at Delphi if that was a good idea, and was told if he attacked Persia, a great empire would fall. Croesus thought the Oracle was talking about Persia losing, so he attacked, and Persia invaded Lydia, adding it to it's empire.
The story is a myth, but it is an example of how anyone could be happy in this life.
That is a major difference between the two, the promise of a happy afterlife. It only makes sense if there is the relevant afterlife. The Greek story makes sense in this world, especially when read with later Greek philosophers such as Aristotle talking about how to be happy before one dies.
Perhaps knowing what is to come, can make a person happy in this life. If Solon was measuring a person's happiness according to Jesus' portrayal, perhaps he would call them the most happy because no circumstance would overrule the expectation of God's kingdom. In essence, we wouldn't have to wait until someone's life was over to estimate happiness, but their reward is already known while alive. In fact according to the sayings of Jesus as we know them, such people will be leaping about in joy. So if Solon saw this, he would perhaps call them most happy as no circumstance in life would change that joy.
I can agree to that. I would argue for whose teaching is the most unique?
That’s a highly subjective assessment which depends more on the person interpreting and applying the teaching than the teaching itself. I take no issue with Jesus being special to you as your lord and savior, but that doesn’t mean the rest of the world must or should care.
To paraphrase a line from School Ties, Jesus doesn’t bother me. I didn’t know the man.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What could be learned from the "Historical Jesus"
