I agree [in bold], though I wouldn't say he failed (even at the cost of his own life), the people who have used his name for ill are the failiures. If the Jesus myths have inspired any one to do good then that is where "he" has succeeded.



Precisely.
Ancient astrology, paganism, polytheism through to monotheism is comparable to, in my opinion, a child drawing the Sun with a smiley face (I hope the analogy is clear!)

I think what Cowboy is saying (dude, if I'm misrepresenting you, please correct me!) is that we [rational beings] accept the 'facts' of the scientific community without question, which is not unlike [regular] people accepting the 'truth' of our 'spiritual leaders' and ancient texts.

However there is a massive difference: we can become educated, enter into science and test these theories for ourselves. If an individual disagrees with a commonly accepted 'truth' then he is able to test it with the scientific method; occasionally a 'truth' may be discredited or modifed by this method and is rewritten. Thus progress is made.

This method is not applicable to faith; by definition faith is belief without evidence.
Faith sits in its smug corner with its fingers in its ears.

Very cool

Yes, that is a good point.

Hear hear!

Very true!
and a nice way to bring the discussion back to the original point!

I agree with you there to a point.

If all a person does is look at science and religious teachers as people who all have an agenda to teach their specific topics, then sure, choosing which ones to believe would be on precisely equal footing.

However, if you go beyond that a look at the methods that scientists use to acquire their knowledge versus the methods that religious people use to acquire their knowledge, suddenly the scientists should be trusted to have information that has been far more carefully scrutinized.

And finally, it shouldn't take much to realize that religious people are infamous for going off the deep end of trying to support their religious beliefs whilst purposefully ignoring evidence to the contrary. So not only do they not use the rigorous methods of science to acquire their knowledge, but they even refuse to acknowledge when their knowledge has been shown to be non-credible.

So just based on that alone a person should be more apt to believe the teachings of science than the teachings of any religion.



That is a very obvious TRUTH right there. And this is why it should be highly suspect when being "taught" to the masses.

Agreed!
^ that's pretty much what I was saying
The key thing here is the scientific method (peace be upon it ). It is the only thing that separates Rational Man from Primitive Man.

Yes, and I would like to go back to the original topic again.

When speaking of Jesus specifically, allow me to ask the following questions:

There are really only four "Gospels" in the Bible that actually claim to speak on behalf of Jesus. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Matthew and Luke are most likely just retellings of the Gospel of Mark.

So in essence there are really only two gospels. (1. Mark, Matthew, and Luke as one gospel retold with slightly different slants) and (2. The gospel of John)

These are the only books in the New Testament that claim to "quote" Jesus directly. Any other books that "quote" Jesus are actually quoting from these Gospels.

The writing of Paul are an entirely different matter, yet they make up about 75% of the New Testament.

So here are my questions? (I already know the answers so they are rhetorical questions)

Did Jesus teach anyone, or tell anyone that they should believe that the Torah is the verbatim "Word of God"?

As far as I know, he did not.

Did Jesus teach anyone, or prophesize to anyone that some guy named Saul or Paul would be sent to finish his ministry?

As far as I know, he did not.

Therefore the question that really surfaces is this,...

Why is Jesus being used to HOLD UP the notion that the entire Old Testament must be accepted as the "Word of God" and that the teachings of Paul should be accepted as having anything at all to do with God or Jesus?

~~~~~

As was said:



I agree, to a point.

But even within the Gospels there are claims being made that didn't come from Jesus.

For example, one of the Christians most famous versus of all time:


[16] For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Even though that's in the gospels, it wasn't even being attributed to Jesus as a quote. This is just John's narrative opinion.

Moreover, even the things that were being attributed to Jesus as having been actual "quotes" should be highly questioned since they weren't actually written down by Jesus, and according to most scholars these stories won't even written down for some decades after Jesus had lived.

So even the so-called "quotes" that are being attributed to Jesus are just belated hearsay. These authors aren't even claiming to have actually heard Jesus speak these words. They are just repeating rumors and stories they heard in some cases too.

They also could not possibly have overheard conversations between say, Jesus and Pilot for example. They would have had to have been flies on the way to do that.

This is why I highly question these writings. Many of the claims being made simply could not have been overheard by any single reporter.

Were these guys actually there when God supposedly spoke from a cloud? Or where they just reporting this as a rumor? Or did they make it up entirely?

They couldn't possibly have heard everything they claim was said.

One of them claims that Judas when back into the temple and threw down his 30 pieces of silver. Then he went out and hung himself.

Another one claims that Judas used the reward money to buy a field and fell headlong into a ravine where his bowels gushed out.

It would be pretty hard to fall HEADLONG into a ravine if you're handing yourself.

The stories aren't even consistent.

Moreover, the one that has Judas returning the reward money and going out and hanging himself suggest that Judas was in a deep state of repentance. That EARNS God's forgiveness. So if that's story is true then Judas had repented and was "saved" from his sins.

However, if he actually did buy the field with the money and had no remorse for his 'sin' of being honest with the authorities, then falling headlong into a ravine could be seen as his 'punishment' for having no remorse for having been honest with the authorities.



In any case, I have no problem with Jesus. How could I? I never met the guy.

But I have tons of problems with the authors of the New Testament.

It is different because there is only one God in the the OT.
Period. The same as the mystical Taoist/Pantheist God. No different.
Not Jealous. Not having any human characteristics.



This is false. There is only one God in the Abrahamic religions so
it is not possible since there are no other Gods to be God over..



Also, Jews at any rate do not recognize the name Yahweh - God is
not name-able in the OT. This is a misnomer.



Much in the way non-vegetarians eat. I only see it as symbolic.
And of course killing was explicitly prohibited in the bible
except for food and even then subject to the most stringent ethical requirements.

So I don't see any tie-in there.



Well that is only for Christians not Muslims or Jews and Christians
consider Jesus to be equivalent to God on earth not a "son" in the
sense of a biological demigod like Apollo etc. So yeah that is
a very weak argument. And there were many such Gods in the Greek
managerie.



If you do an honest comparison the Abrahamic God is really the same
single monotheistic vision of a Pantheistic God as the Eastern religions - Taoism or Buddhism for example. No difference. All the
same attributes. Not like the Greek god zoology at all.

Most obviously because there is only One.

It states right in the Bible that the biblical God is a jealous God and it's one of the ten commandments that we are not to have any other Gods before him. Well, if there are no other Gods, then why even bother to make such a statement? How could anyone put another God before God if there are no other Gods to put before him?

Clearly this is just one culture trying to create a religion that will trump the religion of their neighbors. This was a common theme in the Mediterranean region. Everyone was seeking to own the copyright on God, and the Christian historically won that war.



Well according to Exodus, not only is the biblical God a jealous God, but his name is Jealous too!


Exod.34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

So when you pray you better end your prayer with,...

In Jealous' name we pray.

Hey, I'm just going by what the Bible says! Exodus 34:14

Could this be an error in the Bible?

Or is the Biblical God's name truly Jealous?

Not necessarily. Names in those days weren't always the exact same name exactly. Say there was this guy named Joe. One community they may refer to him as Joe. But in another community they may refer to him as Jack, cause he knew jack squat. Names had meaning.

Cowboy wrote:






Cowboy..you crack me up


Actually. there are many names and titles that DESCRIBE Who


God is....


http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/El/el.html


and btw,the word "jealous',which also descibes Who God is,

must also be rightly understood

for its true meaning here ,as it applies to that particuar

scripture .

Names were descriptive of the person. Here's a few examples.

Advocate - 1 John 2:1
Almighty - Revelation 1:8
Alpha - Revelation 1:8
Amen - Revelation 3:14
Angel of the Lord - Genesis 16:7
Anointed One - Psalm 2:2
Author and Perfecter of our Faith - Hebrews 12:2
Beginning - Revelation 21:6
Bishop of Souls - 1 Peter 2:25
Branch - Zechariah 3:8
Bread of Life - John 6:35,48
Bridegroom - Matthew 9:15
Carpenter - Mark 6:3
Chief Shepherd - 1 Peter 5:4
The Christ - Matthew 1:16

Well either the bible is the infallible word of God, or it contains erroneous errors and falsehoods. It can't very well be both.

So either the Biblical God's name is "Jealous", or the Bible is totally undependable, and cannot be trusted to contain truth.

Even if you use that apologetic excuse, you'd still be stuck with a jealous God.

If you could not translate it then yes you would be correct.
However, if you translate that into basic English you might get something like

For you are to be worshipers of no other god: For the Lord is a god who will not give his honor to another

Some of the Hebrew descriptive Names of God:


The God of Israel

The God of Compassion

All Merciful God

The God of my Salvation

The Jealous God

The Gracious God

The Holy God


please note:

The Jealous God Suggests that God watches us lovingly and closely,

like a faithful and passionate bridegroom watches over his

betrothed.

THAT is what "jealous" means here !!


http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/El/el.html

Exodus 34:14
14For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

Read up on it. "Jealous" is an inaccurate description. The wording
is more like "demanding" as in expecting correct behavior such
as we expect our friends to be loyal or expect our spouses to
be faithful or expect our kids to do their best in school. We
are disappointed if they fail in their efforts and this is
described in your translation as "jealous" but it does not really
capture the essence of what is being described. It is another
instance of using a human emotion word to describe God when God
clearly cannot experience human emotions. It is the same thing
as talking about the Hand of God when God is known not to have
hands.

Obviously God can be jealous of no one and nothing. It is a another
wrong interpretation of the bible, in part due to language. So
there is an error in your bible in that respect, yes.

The context originally had to do with an explanation of monotheism.
Since there is only one God it would be inappropriate to worship
multiple Gods with varying powers. It would be wrong to view
different human standards of moral behavior as equivalent as well.
So the OT and later the NT say that a single ethic is operative for
everyone and a single God.

This view which rejects moral equivalence is described using the
same jealousy terminology in many translations but it is not
jealousy in the way of envy which is always identified to be wrong.
It is again an expression of the need to reject moral equivalence
and hold everyone to a divine standard. That is - Pol Pot's view of
what was ethical was not equivalent to what Jesus' view of what
was ethical. The english term jealousy was applied but it is not
an accurate description of these expectations as I have learned
it.

Jealousy is described as wrong in the bible and God is obviously
not experiencing a human emotion which is wrong any more than God
has a hand.



God does not have any human attributes or emotions. Except in the
view of Christians concerning Christ. But that's only the Christians
and arguably Jesus did not experience emotions the same as other
people since Jesus was God in human form on earth.

He had hands though.