Christianity, not Paulinism

[Keronians]

Jesus and Buddha were not avatars of Vishnu...

Claims to the contrary by various Hindus need scriptural evidence. They do not possess any.

Vishnu's avatars represented the evolution of man. Jesus and Buddha, as such, are irrelevant to this goal.

Buddha was a person who took Hindu teachings, adapted them, and took out religious references.

Its called truth.

Not really.

He didn't teach truth, he taught how to attain it.

Which would be enlightenment, or moksha. Acceptance, and participation, in the endless cycle of creation and destruction.

[Lessnt]

Its called truth.

Not really.

He didn't teach truth, he taught how to attain it.

Which would be enlightenment, or moksha. Acceptance, and participation, in the endless cycle of creation and destruction.

You have no understanding.

[Dakini]

Actually, none of those would have been written by 33 CE. The earliest gospel was written sometime after 65 CE...

The teachings existed before the writings.

Well, yeah, those principles are pretty ancient and long predate any supposed Jesus.

However, there isn't exactly any evidence of these things being taught by a Jesus in Jerusalem in the first century before the gospels started writing about them.

[The Alma Mater]

Actually, it's a very basic criticism of the idea that Christian axioms are applicable in the absence of acceptance of God.

Rooted in an incorrect conception of what Christianity actually is.

Sadly, the reality is that currently the word christianity does not mean what you want it to mean, nor has meant that for the past 2000 years.
If it should mean that is another matter.

So may I suggest you call your interpretation "Jesusism", "Cheekism" or some other wordthat is not immediately interpreted differently ?

[Keronians]

Not really.

He didn't teach truth, he taught how to attain it.

Which would be enlightenment, or moksha. Acceptance, and participation, in the endless cycle of creation and destruction.

You have no understanding.

Being a Hindu, I'm pretty sure I do.

[Lessnt]

You have no understanding.

Being a Hindu, I'm pretty sure I do.

Meaning you do not understand.
If you are still hindu.

[Keronians]

Being a Hindu, I'm pretty sure I do.

Meaning you do not understand.
If you are still hindu.

You do realise how many common teachings there are between Hinduism and Buddhism, and the amount of cultural impact each have had on the other over the millenia, right?

[Lessnt]

Meaning you do not understand.
If you are still hindu.

You do realise how many common teachings there are between Hinduism and Buddhism, and the amount of cultural impact each have had on the other over the millenia, right?

You do realise your path is wrong?

[Aesthetica]

Again, once you remove the OT, and any favorable or supportive references to it's teachings, and discard everything after 33ad and the cruci-fiction, what actual teachings of the "non-theistic Christ" do you have left.

"Love your neighbor"
"Turn the other cheek"

among others...

Is that it? kind of selective, seems you are only using the ones you think are nice, and leaving out the nasty stuff...

Actually, none of those would have been written by 33 CE. The earliest gospel was written sometime after 65 CE...

Never said they were, but basically when this jesus of yours dies in 33 ad, thats the end of the show, everything written after that or which is claimed to have miraculously after that is irrelevant, right?

So, by making a dismissive point of that date you are simply showing off your erudite intellectualism to score debate-society brownie points...

[Bluth Corporation]

You're trying to draw a divide that can't be made. The whole point of Jesus' ministry was that He was the Son of God, and had come to save the world by His death and resurrection. There is nowhere for you to draw a line between that and the rest of Jesus' teachings - its the whole message.

(I'm assuming that you are familiar with the Scriptures and I am not providing chapter and verse. I can dig them up on request, but it needs to be by TG since I can't promise to return to this thread.)

Bold point #1: Christ makes it absolutely clear that his kingdom is not of this world, much to the chagrin of the Jews who hoped to see him overthrow Rome.

That was Jesus, not the Christ. The two are not the same.

Bold point #2: Again, you are actively contradicting the teachings of Jesus,

So? Jesus was imperfect.

Bold point #3: For someone who hates Paul's teachings, you sure sound a lot like him with this statement.

I hate nothing. They're simply incorrect. Not the same as "hating" them.

And I suspect that Naftaly Frenkel believed that 1+1=2. That doesn't mean I'm contradicting myself when I express objections to his work-food regime in the GULAG.

Of course, while Jesus is familiar with our weakness, He never succumbed to it Himself.

This is your error. Christians believe that Jesus was a man, with the same human frailties and foibles as the rest of us. It is non-Christian, Paulinist acolytes of the cult of Jesus and Jehovah such as yourself who believe that he was not.

Bold point #4a: Jesus Himself made His divinity clear (and He was clearly NOT talking about the chocolate kind).

Yes, and he was wrong when he said that.

You don't have to go to Paul for that - if that's your only grounds for rejecting Paul, you should reconsider immediately.

Paul's error was that he failed to recognize (or willfully ignored) Jesus's error.

Bold point #4b: Jesus Himself clearly made reference to the Old Testament as divinely inspired, relevant, and factual. He often builds upon it to make His points, and casts His whole life as a fulfillment of the Old Covenant. That is far, far more than simple cultural context.

Once again, Jesus was imperfect. He erred when he made such statements.

Bold point #5a: I flatly reject your implied notion that "physically impossible" is equivalent to "impossible". I've seen miracles, clear and unmistakable demonstrations of the power of prayer, and cannot buy into your position for even a second.

Ironically, Tolstoy himself wrote about confirmation bias.

Bold points #5b: Who are you to decide what to take and what to leave?

I would ask the same of the Church fathers.

A) Let go of your assumption "there is in fact no god". Is there anything to that theory other than that it is what intelligent, educated people are expected to believe these days? Peer pressure, both active and inactive, is powerful (believe me, I know) but NOT a valid basis for beliefs.

Reason.

If you can, go away from man's cities, and just climb a mountain somewhere (Mount Shavano, Colorado, would do nicely ) and look out at CREATION!!! It's really hard to stay atheist in paradise.

I do, quite often. Its effect has been the opposite of what you have attended.

B) Since you obviously respect Christ, go back and re-read the Gospels, or at least Mark and then Luke. This time, rather than picking and choosing, assume He is completely reliable.

That's an unwarranted assumption, though.

EDIT: Upon review of the topic appearing when I tried to post I feel obliged to mention that most people don't realize just how scant historical sources are. There is no relevant challenge to the historicity of Jesus; in addition to dozens of "Gospels" besides the four accepted at Nicaea, there are multiple "Josephus" type passing mentions in widespread and unrelated sources. While that doesn't sound like much in this day and age, it really and truly is for that point in time. The only intellectually valid alternative to accepting the historicity of Jesus is to synonymize "dawn of recorded history" with "invention of the printing press".

While the bulk (though no means all) of professional academic historians who specialize in classical history (as well as myself, whose specialty-in-training is admittedly in a different field) acknoweldge that Jesus probably did exist, it is far from being conclusively demonstrated to be true by academic standards.

[Aesthetica]

Matthew:
5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

So Jesus says Ot laws including the anti-gay, the dietary restrictions etc, are part of his message...

Unless of course Bluth says this was one of Jesus' non-christ moments...

Precisely. Jesus did not destroy the OT. He fulfilled it, thereby making it irrelevant for Christians today, apart from further reading, and contextual meaning.

No, he doesn't cancel it by existing, if you believe in him then he tells you that the old law STILL stands, TILL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS...

Hadn't noticed the destruction of earth myself, it's still here, so if you are a christian, so is OT law, and if you don't obey it, you are disobeying the Man, and, well...
"Spiritual Monopoly" Chance Card time...
"Go to Hell, go directly to Hell, do not collect $200"

[Bluth Corporation]

Rooted in an incorrect conception of what Christianity actually is.

Not at all. Nietzsche goes in depth on what Christianity is, who Christ was, and what Christians are.

No, he goes in depth on what has been inaccurately termed Christianity--an inaccuracy he perpetuates, presumably because he didn't know any better.

[Mount Shavano]

--snip--

Not going to waste my time replying to your general mockery, although I would like to thank you for getting to me clarify a couple points that I suppose I left unclear.

First, I am not trying to say "Ooh, I have shiny evidence that you can't see but you should believe it anyway." I am only attempting to protect my identity on the internet. Anyone who I am convinced is genuinely interested in learning, and I can be confident won't go re-posting it everywhere, is welcome to telegram me on the subject.

Second, I am not "posting and running", I am just not going to waste my time arguing with fools like Aesthetica, and don't have the time to read through long threads full of similar folks to find the people who are worth responding to. Anyone interested in genuine discussion is free to telegram me on any point I brought up (With the obligatory caveat that I am not on NS very often and it may take some time for me to get around to replying).

--snip--

*The early Church fathers only picked and chose which Gospels to include, not which elements of those Gospels. Not the same thing as you are suggesting. Further, challenging their validity does little to bolster your own.

*I fail to understand how reason can lead to the conclusion that the universe must have originated spontaneously and then developed by random chance; that is, with no underlying design. I can understand it leading to "I don't know", I just don't understand the definite negative. There's no basis for it.

*I can understand how someone rejecting Biblical infallibility can reject the historicity of Jesus. My point it that is inconsistent to reject Jesuses but accept, for example, Alexander's. Any such rejection is going to be ideologically motivated.

*If you're wedded to the idea of Paul being unreliable and there being no God, I don't really have anything else to contribute.

[Bluth Corporation]

"Love your neighbor"
"Turn the other cheek"

among others...

Is that it? kind of selective, seems you are only using the ones you think are nice, and leaving out the nasty stuff...

None of the nasty stuff is left.

[Dakini]

Actually, none of those would have been written by 33 CE. The earliest gospel was written sometime after 65 CE...

Never said they were, but basically when this jesus of yours dies in 33 ad, thats the end of the show, everything written after that or which is claimed to have miraculously after that is irrelevant, right?

So, by making a dismissive point of that date you are simply showing off your erudite intellectualism to score debate-society brownie points...

1. My Jesus?
2. I wasn't dismissing your point. I was saying that dismissing everything about Christianity after 33 CE wouldn't leave you with anything at all except oral traditions you'd have to hope wouldn't get screwed up. Granted, if you compare the narrative of the Bible to historical events as recorded by other people, you can see that a lot of things did get pretty screwed up.

[Lessnt]

I thought the bible was just a book of gossip.

[Conserative Morality]

No, he goes in depth on what has been inaccurately termed Christianity--an inaccuracy he perpetuates, presumably because he didn't know any better.

Except he carefully deconstructs modern Christianity and compares it to the original teachings of Christ and the later teachings of Paul. He's very clear, and quite correct. Have you ever read any of Nietzsche's writings on the subject, or are you just talking from the pop culture conception of Nietzsche? It very much seems like the latter.

[Farnhamia]

I thought the bible was just a book of gossip.

A little time drinking from the fount of all knowledge will refresh you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

[Lessnt]

I thought the bible was just a book of gossip.

A little time drinking from the fount of all knowledge will refresh you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

Sounds like things people gossip about.

[Bluth Corporation]

No, he goes in depth on what has been inaccurately termed Christianity--an inaccuracy he perpetuates, presumably because he didn't know any better.

Except he carefully deconstructs modern Christianity and compares it to the original teachings of Christ and the later teachings of Paul. He's very clear, and quite correct. Have you ever read any of Nietzsche's writings on the subject, or are you just talking from the pop culture conception of Nietzsche? It very much seems like the latter.

I think you're missing the point.

What he calls Christianity is what was widely called Christianity and is what people who called themselves Christians. I don't doubt that, or that he understood it very well.

My point is that applying the term "Christianity" to the specific set of beliefs he dealt with is inaccurate. It wasn't Christianity; it was merely called (incorrectly) Christianity.

[Keronians]

Precisely. Jesus did not destroy the OT. He fulfilled it, thereby making it irrelevant for Christians today, apart from further reading, and contextual meaning.

No, he doesn't cancel it by existing, if you believe in him then he tells you that the old law STILL stands, TILL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS...

Hadn't noticed the destruction of earth myself, it's still here, so if you are a christian, so is OT law, and if you don't obey it, you are disobeying the Man, and, well...
"Spiritual Monopoly" Chance Card time...
"Go to Hell, go directly to Hell, do not collect $200"

Not really.

He fulfilled the law of the Prophets. As such, it is only relevant for references he makes to it, cultural, and historical, context.

"Till Heaven and Earth pass" means that they forever exist, and bear meaning.

Not quite sure why that makes a case for you...

The history shall not change, and neither shall the cultural significance. Neither shall the references he explicitly makes to it.

Not sure what's so hard to understand.

FYI, you can stop with the "go to Hell, go to Hell", as:

a) it is a poor parody and mockery of what the vast majority of Christians say and believe

b) I am not a Christian

[Lessnt]

I thought the bible was just a book of gossip.

A little time drinking from the fount of all knowledge will refresh you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

Sounds like things people gossip about.

[Farnhamia]

A little time drinking from the fount of all knowledge will refresh you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

Sounds like things people gossip about.

Is there an echo in here?

[Lessnt]

Sounds like things people gossip about.

Is there an echo in here?

[Vestr-Norig]

Are you saying that Jesus, the son of God, and God himself, never existed? If so, you cannot call yourself a Christian, as being a Christian implies the believe in the Trinity; God, his son and the Holy Spirit.