Mount Shavano wrote: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.