Daydream Bazaar (USA): Acid

[PratchettFan]

I have read the Bible. I think the difference between us is that I read it, not read into it. I did not attempt to "interpret" it. I simply took what Jesus said on its face, no matter how difficult it might be. Of course, I am not burdened by the problem of thinking Jesus was a god. He was a man. A great teacher, but a man nonetheless. So, for me anyway, his teachings are what is important.

It is impossible to read what Jesus said and not try to interpret it beyond its face value especially when he said things like, "The kingdom of heaven is like treasure buried in a field," or as in John 16:25 he said, "Till now I have been using figures of speech." which means everything he said before about bread from heaven, eat my flesh, the blind seeing, the deaf hearing, the dead coming to life, etc., was not literal and requires a rational thoughtful interpretation that may have nothing whatever to do with the literal meaning of the words he used......

If you do not do this it is impossible to understand what Jesus meant by the things he said much less understand what the stories are even about.

I could not disagree more. The act of interpretation is simply an attempt to make what was said fit into what one wanted to hear. Jesus was quite straight forward and I had no difficulty at all understanding him.

What are the two great commandments? To love God with all your might and to love your neighbor as you would yourself. How do you demonstrate love for God? By treating others as if they were God. By feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, healing the sick. It really isn't complicated at all. It just isn't convenient.

 

[hobelim]

I have read the Bible. I think the difference between us is that I read it, not read into it. I did not attempt to "interpret" it. I simply took what Jesus said on its face, no matter how difficult it might be. Of course, I am not burdened by the problem of thinking Jesus was a god. He was a man. A great teacher, but a man nonetheless. So, for me anyway, his teachings are what is important.

It is impossible to read what Jesus said and not try to interpret it beyond its face value especially when he said things like, "The kingdom of heaven is like treasure buried in a field," or as in John 16:25 he said, "Till now I have been using figures of speech." which means everything he said before about bread from heaven, eat my flesh, the blind seeing, the deaf hearing, the dead coming to life, etc., was not literal and requires a rational thoughtful interpretation that may have nothing whatever to do with the literal meaning of the words he used......

If you do not do this it is impossible to understand what Jesus meant by the things he said much less understand what the stories are even about.

I could not disagree more. The act of interpretation is simply an attempt to make what was said fit into what one wanted to hear. Jesus was quite straight forward and I had no difficulty at all understanding him.

What are the two great commandments? To love God with all your might and to love your neighbor as you would yourself. How do you demonstrate love for God? By treating others as if they were God. By feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, healing the sick. It really isn't complicated at all. It just isn't convenient.

Well then, please explain to me what Jesus meant by saying "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you can have no life in you"?

What is his flesh, what is his blood and how does one eat and drink it?

How is life related to eating his flesh?

How is the absence of life related to failing to do so?

How can one possibly comply and receive the life promised if they don't understand what he meant or take it at face value and dick around with bread and wine without ever even trying to understand?

This was also a command. Eat my flesh and drink my blood.

It isn't just inconvenient to take what Jesus said literally, it is insane.

 

[PratchettFan]

It is impossible to read what Jesus said and not try to interpret it beyond its face value especially when he said things like, "The kingdom of heaven is like treasure buried in a field," or as in John 16:25 he said, "Till now I have been using figures of speech." which means everything he said before about bread from heaven, eat my flesh, the blind seeing, the deaf hearing, the dead coming to life, etc., was not literal and requires a rational thoughtful interpretation that may have nothing whatever to do with the literal meaning of the words he used......

If you do not do this it is impossible to understand what Jesus meant by the things he said much less understand what the stories are even about.

I could not disagree more. The act of interpretation is simply an attempt to make what was said fit into what one wanted to hear. Jesus was quite straight forward and I had no difficulty at all understanding him.

What are the two great commandments? To love God with all your might and to love your neighbor as you would yourself. How do you demonstrate love for God? By treating others as if they were God. By feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, healing the sick. It really isn't complicated at all. It just isn't convenient.

Well then, please explain to me what Jesus meant by saying "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you can have no life in you"?

What is his flesh, what is his blood and how does one eat and drink it?

How is life related to eating his flesh?

How is the absence of life related to failing to do so?

How can one possibly comply and receive the life promised if they don't understand what he meant or take it at face value and dick around with bread and wine without ever even trying to understand?

This was also a command. Eat my flesh and drink my blood.

It isn't just inconvenient to take what Jesus said literally, it is insane.

Or one can simply take the stuff which related to his deification as nonsense and ignore it. Ritualized cannibalism sounds more like something a priest would come up with, after the death and when it became apparent one could make a living selling the religion.

I do not agree you interpret what the Bible says. But that doesn't mean you just accept it all as fact.

 

[hobelim]

I could not disagree more. The act of interpretation is simply an attempt to make what was said fit into what one wanted to hear. Jesus was quite straight forward and I had no difficulty at all understanding him.

What are the two great commandments? To love God with all your might and to love your neighbor as you would yourself. How do you demonstrate love for God? By treating others as if they were God. By feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, healing the sick. It really isn't complicated at all. It just isn't convenient.

Well then, please explain to me what Jesus meant by saying "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you can have no life in you"?

What is his flesh, what is his blood and how does one eat and drink it?

How is life related to eating his flesh?

How is the absence of life related to failing to do so?

How can one possibly comply and receive the life promised if they don't understand what he meant or take it at face value and dick around with bread and wine without ever even trying to understand?

This was also a command. Eat my flesh and drink my blood.

It isn't just inconvenient to take what Jesus said literally, it is insane.

Or one can simply take the stuff which related to his deification as nonsense and ignore it. Ritualized cannibalism sounds more like something a priest would come up with, after the death and when it became apparent one could make a living selling the religion.

I do not agree you interpret what the Bible says. But that doesn't mean you just accept it all as fact.

Of course but to reject one thing or another in scripture as nonsense means that you have read it and interpreted it as all made up by priests out to make an easy living.

Certainly a reasonable possibility given the ritualized eating of the god ceremony didn't start until Christianity was assimilated by Rome, its power structure and pagan superstitions.

But the scriptures that record all of that flesh eating talk predate that time by hundreds of years and were supposedly written by Jews for Jews and early converts and to Jews what type of flesh can or cannot be eaten is of the utmost importance, a matter of life or death, and in my opinion the command of Jesus to eat his flesh conveys a sublime teaching that Kosher law is not about what you serve and eat but what you teach and learn.

The gospel of John begins by establishing that flesh is a metaphor for words by saying that the word became flesh. It follows then that the flesh of every described creature in kosher law, clean or unclean, is a metaphor for the words, teaching, of every person, clean or unclean, who by their displayed attributes resemble one creature or another, just as people have always compared other people to pigs, dogs, worms, snakes, vultures, sheep, cattle, wolves, birds of prey, donkeys, bottom feeders, maggots, etc., etc., in every culture of every people and in every language ever since people could talk.

 

[PratchettFan]

Well then, please explain to me what Jesus meant by saying "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you can have no life in you"?

What is his flesh, what is his blood and how does one eat and drink it?

How is life related to eating his flesh?

How is the absence of life related to failing to do so?

How can one possibly comply and receive the life promised if they don't understand what he meant or take it at face value and dick around with bread and wine without ever even trying to understand?

This was also a command. Eat my flesh and drink my blood.

It isn't just inconvenient to take what Jesus said literally, it is insane.

Or one can simply take the stuff which related to his deification as nonsense and ignore it. Ritualized cannibalism sounds more like something a priest would come up with, after the death and when it became apparent one could make a living selling the religion.

I do not agree you interpret what the Bible says. But that doesn't mean you just accept it all as fact.

Of course but to reject one thing or another in scripture as nonsense means that you have read it and interpreted it as all made up by priests out to make an easy living.

Certainly a reasonable possibility given the ritualized eating of the god ceremony didn't start until Christianity was assimilated by Rome, its power structure and pagan superstitions.

But the scriptures that record all of that flesh eating talk predate that time by hundreds of years and were supposedly written by Jews for Jews and early converts and to Jews what type of flesh can or cannot be eaten is of the utmost importance, a matter of life or death, and in my opinion the command of Jesus to eat his flesh conveys a sublime teaching that Kosher law is not about what you serve and eat but what you teach and learn.

The gospel of John begins by establishing that flesh is a metaphor for words by saying that the word became flesh. It follows then that the flesh of every described creature in kosher law, clean or unclean, is a metaphor for the words, teaching, of every person, clean or unclean, who by their displayed attributes resemble one creature or another, just as people have always compared other people to pigs, dogs, worms, snakes, vultures, sheep, cattle, wolves, birds of prey, donkeys, bottom feeders, maggots, etc., etc., in every culture of every people and in every language ever since people could talk.

It really doesn't predate priests, you know. John was written almost 100 years after Jesus and the priesthood was certainly established at that point.

I do not accept Jesus as a god, but as a teacher. Those aspect of the gospels which relate to his godhead I simply ignore and focus on his teachings. I understand it is being filtered, but I don't find them at all confusing.

 

[hobelim]

Or one can simply take the stuff which related to his deification as nonsense and ignore it. Ritualized cannibalism sounds more like something a priest would come up with, after the death and when it became apparent one could make a living selling the religion.

I do not agree you interpret what the Bible says. But that doesn't mean you just accept it all as fact.

Of course but to reject one thing or another in scripture as nonsense means that you have read it and interpreted it as all made up by priests out to make an easy living.

Certainly a reasonable possibility given the ritualized eating of the god ceremony didn't start until Christianity was assimilated by Rome, its power structure and pagan superstitions.

But the scriptures that record all of that flesh eating talk predate that time by hundreds of years and were supposedly written by Jews for Jews and early converts and to Jews what type of flesh can or cannot be eaten is of the utmost importance, a matter of life or death, and in my opinion the command of Jesus to eat his flesh conveys a sublime teaching that Kosher law is not about what you serve and eat but what you teach and learn.

The gospel of John begins by establishing that flesh is a metaphor for words by saying that the word became flesh. It follows then that the flesh of every described creature in kosher law, clean or unclean, is a metaphor for the words, teaching, of every person, clean or unclean, who by their displayed attributes resemble one creature or another, just as people have always compared other people to pigs, dogs, worms, snakes, vultures, sheep, cattle, wolves, birds of prey, donkeys, bottom feeders, maggots, etc., etc., in every culture of every people and in every language ever since people could talk.

It really doesn't predate priests, you know. John was written almost 100 years after Jesus and the priesthood was certainly established at that point.

I do not accept Jesus as a god, but as a teacher. Those aspect of the gospels which relate to his godhead I simply ignore and focus on his teachings. I understand it is being filtered, but I don't find them at all confusing.

if you focus on his teaching what was Jesus teaching by saying eat my flesh if not that the law is figurative in nature and the subjects are hidden and must be understood and applied in this light to receive the eternal life promised for compliance?

Thats why Jesus said that his yoke, a known metaphor for the law, was easy. How hard is it really to refrain from the flesh of a brown nosed dork?

I don't find it confusing at all either. All the pieces fit perfectly.

 

[PratchettFan]

Of course but to reject one thing or another in scripture as nonsense means that you have read it and interpreted it as all made up by priests out to make an easy living.

Certainly a reasonable possibility given the ritualized eating of the god ceremony didn't start until Christianity was assimilated by Rome, its power structure and pagan superstitions.

But the scriptures that record all of that flesh eating talk predate that time by hundreds of years and were supposedly written by Jews for Jews and early converts and to Jews what type of flesh can or cannot be eaten is of the utmost importance, a matter of life or death, and in my opinion the command of Jesus to eat his flesh conveys a sublime teaching that Kosher law is not about what you serve and eat but what you teach and learn.

The gospel of John begins by establishing that flesh is a metaphor for words by saying that the word became flesh. It follows then that the flesh of every described creature in kosher law, clean or unclean, is a metaphor for the words, teaching, of every person, clean or unclean, who by their displayed attributes resemble one creature or another, just as people have always compared other people to pigs, dogs, worms, snakes, vultures, sheep, cattle, wolves, birds of prey, donkeys, bottom feeders, maggots, etc., etc., in every culture of every people and in every language ever since people could talk.

It really doesn't predate priests, you know. John was written almost 100 years after Jesus and the priesthood was certainly established at that point.

I do not accept Jesus as a god, but as a teacher. Those aspect of the gospels which relate to his godhead I simply ignore and focus on his teachings. I understand it is being filtered, but I don't find them at all confusing.

if you focus on his teaching what was Jesus teaching by saying eat my flesh if not that the law is figurative in nature and the subjects are hidden and must be understood and applied in this light to receive the eternal life promised for compliance?

Thats why Jesus said that his yoke, a known metaphor for the law, was easy. How hard is it really to refrain from the flesh of a brown nosed dork?

I don't find it confusing at all either. All the pieces fit perfectly.

I thought I had made that clear. I don't think it was one of his teachings. I think it was inserted after his death in order to support the idea of his godhead.

Let us bring it back to the section from Matthew I presented earlier. What is your interpretation of that?

 

[hobelim]

It really doesn't predate priests, you know. John was written almost 100 years after Jesus and the priesthood was certainly established at that point.

I do not accept Jesus as a god, but as a teacher. Those aspect of the gospels which relate to his godhead I simply ignore and focus on his teachings. I understand it is being filtered, but I don't find them at all confusing.

if you focus on his teaching what was Jesus teaching by saying eat my flesh if not that the law is figurative in nature and the subjects are hidden and must be understood and applied in this light to receive the eternal life promised for compliance?

Thats why Jesus said that his yoke, a known metaphor for the law, was easy. How hard is it really to refrain from the flesh of a brown nosed dork?

I don't find it confusing at all either. All the pieces fit perfectly.

I thought I had made that clear. I don't think it was one of his teachings. I think it was inserted after his death in order to support the idea of his godhead.

Let us bring it back to the section from Matthew I presented earlier. What is your interpretation of that?

You did make that clear. I just showed you how I see things.


What you posted about Matthew and certain devout believers who seem so self assured about their salvation but never do what Jesus taught was spot on.


I suspect they never bothered to even try and interpret the stories and the deeper implications of things Jesus said in a way that makes sense and conforms to reality and have become diverted by superstitious lore and dreams about ruling the earth.

 

[PratchettFan]

if you focus on his teaching what was Jesus teaching by saying eat my flesh if not that the law is figurative in nature and the subjects are hidden and must be understood and applied in this light to receive the eternal life promised for compliance?

Thats why Jesus said that his yoke, a known metaphor for the law, was easy. How hard is it really to refrain from the flesh of a brown nosed dork?

I don't find it confusing at all either. All the pieces fit perfectly.

I thought I had made that clear. I don't think it was one of his teachings. I think it was inserted after his death in order to support the idea of his godhead.

Let us bring it back to the section from Matthew I presented earlier. What is your interpretation of that?

You did make that clear. I just showed you how I see things.


What you posted about Matthew and certain devout believers who seem so self assured about their salvation but never do what Jesus taught was spot on.


I suspect they never bothered to even try and interpret the stories and the deeper implications of things Jesus said in a way that makes sense and conforms to reality and have become diverted by superstitious lore and dreams about ruling the earth.

My apologies. It seems I interpreted your post when I should have taken it at face value.

My take on that passage as well. However, I don't think it was at all unclear or in need of interpretation. That only way one could take it other than the way it is expressed is if one simply doesn't want to be held accountable to it. I think Jesus was very clear that it is how we treat each other that matters. Not how devout we might be, not even what we might believe. When someone stops to aid another person, it doesn't matter whether that person is Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Atheist or whatever. Only the act matters.

Let me add that you have approached this in a rational and respectful manner. I appreciate that. Whether or not we agree on any point, I certainly enjoy reading what you have to say.

 

[hobelim]

I thought I had made that clear. I don't think it was one of his teachings. I think it was inserted after his death in order to support the idea of his godhead.

Let us bring it back to the section from Matthew I presented earlier. What is your interpretation of that?

You did make that clear. I just showed you how I see things.


What you posted about Matthew and certain devout believers who seem so self assured about their salvation but never do what Jesus taught was spot on.


I suspect they never bothered to even try and interpret the stories and the deeper implications of things Jesus said in a way that makes sense and conforms to reality and have become diverted by superstitious lore and dreams about ruling the earth.

My apologies. It seems I interpreted your post when I should have taken it at face value.

My take on that passage as well. However, I don't think it was at all unclear or in need of interpretation. That only way one could take it other than the way it is expressed is if one simply doesn't want to be held accountable to it. I think Jesus was very clear that it is how we treat each other that matters. Not how devout we might be, not even what we might believe. When someone stops to aid another person, it doesn't matter whether that person is Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Atheist or whatever. Only the act matters.

Let me add that you have approached this in a rational and respectful manner. I appreciate that. Whether or not we agree on any point, I certainly enjoy reading what you have to say.

Thank you, and I have enjoyed discussing these things with you too. Its nice to reason intelligently with someone who isn't insecure in their thinking and conclusions or threatened by someone else's.

And I agree that how we treat other people matters but sometimes people who are sincerely trying to help only make matters worse because they do not understand what Jesus taught, never even tried to decipher the figurative language he used, and as a consequence do not know what the right course of action to take is in any given situation.

But you already know this.....

 

[PratchettFan]

You did make that clear. I just showed you how I see things.


What you posted about Matthew and certain devout believers who seem so self assured about their salvation but never do what Jesus taught was spot on.


I suspect they never bothered to even try and interpret the stories and the deeper implications of things Jesus said in a way that makes sense and conforms to reality and have become diverted by superstitious lore and dreams about ruling the earth.

My apologies. It seems I interpreted your post when I should have taken it at face value.

My take on that passage as well. However, I don't think it was at all unclear or in need of interpretation. That only way one could take it other than the way it is expressed is if one simply doesn't want to be held accountable to it. I think Jesus was very clear that it is how we treat each other that matters. Not how devout we might be, not even what we might believe. When someone stops to aid another person, it doesn't matter whether that person is Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Atheist or whatever. Only the act matters.

Let me add that you have approached this in a rational and respectful manner. I appreciate that. Whether or not we agree on any point, I certainly enjoy reading what you have to say.

Thank you, and I have enjoyed discussing these things with you too. Its nice to reason intelligently with someone who isn't insecure in their thinking and conclusions or threatened by someone else's.

And I agree that how we treat other people matters but sometimes people who are sincerely trying to help only make matters worse because they do not understand what Jesus taught, never even tried to decipher the figurative language he used, and as a consequence do not know what the right course of action to take is in any given situation.

But you already know this.....

Yes, it is very difficult to find the right path. If the disheveled man holds out his hand for money and you give it to him, are you just feeding his need for alcohol or are you giving him a much needed meal? Are you helping or hurting him? Should you leave him there or take him home? If you do that, what are you doing to your family? How do you help the one without hurting the other?

The most important decisions we make in life are almost always a choice between two evils. It is never simple, never easy.

You have not said it but I assume you are a Christian. I am a Buddhist. The way I see this is that we are here to experience and learn. So it is not meant to be simple or easy. It is meant to be hard. When you think back to school, you learned the most from those teachers who challenged you the most. Ultimately, you just do the best you can and try not to blame yourself when you mess it up.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

What most don't seem to understand is Jesus didn't start nor teach Christianity. Christianity didn't exist during Jesus' lifetime. As a Jew, he was teaching Judaism. Christianity came up centuries later as what would become the New Testament got written then pasted onto the Jewish Tanach (the OT portion of a Bible.) So all the talk of Jesus and Christianity really only just reveals the speakers' complete ignorance of whatever their talking about.

 

[PratchettFan]

What most don't seem to understand is Jesus didn't start nor teach Christianity. Christianity didn't exist during Jesus' lifetime. As a Jew, he was teaching Judaism. Christianity came up centuries later as what would become the New Testament got written then pasted onto the Jewish Tanach (the OT portion of a Bible.) So all the talk of Jesus and Christianity really only just reveals the speakers' complete ignorance of whatever their talking about.

I really fail to see how any of that matters.

 

[hobelim]

What most don't seem to understand is Jesus didn't start nor teach Christianity. Christianity didn't exist during Jesus' lifetime. As a Jew, he was teaching Judaism. Christianity came up centuries later as what would become the New Testament got written then pasted onto the Jewish Tanach (the OT portion of a Bible.) So all the talk of Jesus and Christianity really only just reveals the speakers' complete ignorance of whatever their talking about.

I really fail to see how any of that matters.

It does matter. Jesus lived in an ultra orthodox system of compulsory observance of Mosaic law under penalty of death. He was raised as an observant Jew claimed to be the Jewish messiah and his teaching was directed to the Jewish people in a time of brutal Roman occupation when there was no such thing as freedom of speech, people were maimed and killed on a daily basis for trivial reasons, and the very people he tried to help were always at the ready to charge him with blasphemy and stone him to death every single time he spoke.

Anything written about him years later can only be understood in this light.


when Jesus said, 'why worry about what you eat or what you wear' to a Jewish audience whose entire life revolved around what can or cannot be eaten or worn it carried a significance and implication that went over the heads of anyone who was not an observant Jew and continues to elude the grasp anyone who professes to be a Christian.

One must be knowledgeable about the teachings of ultra orthodox Judaism that Jesus died trying to reform, the same branch of Judaism that persists to this day, before understanding what Jesus was talking about in figurative language is even possible.

 

[PratchettFan]

What most don't seem to understand is Jesus didn't start nor teach Christianity. Christianity didn't exist during Jesus' lifetime. As a Jew, he was teaching Judaism. Christianity came up centuries later as what would become the New Testament got written then pasted onto the Jewish Tanach (the OT portion of a Bible.) So all the talk of Jesus and Christianity really only just reveals the speakers' complete ignorance of whatever their talking about.

I really fail to see how any of that matters.

It does matter. Jesus lived in an ultra orthodox system of compulsory observance of Mosaic law under penalty of death. He was raised as an observant Jew claimed to be the Jewish messiah and his teaching was directed to the Jewish people in a time of brutal Roman occupation when there was no such thing as freedom of speech, people were maimed and killed on a daily basis for trivial reasons, and the very people he tried to help were always at the ready to charge him with blasphemy and stone him to death every single time he spoke.

Anything written about him years later can only be understood in this light.


when Jesus said, 'why worry about what you eat or what you wear' to a Jewish audience whose entire life revolved around what can or cannot be eaten or worn it carried a significance and implication that went over the heads of anyone who was not an observant Jew and continues to elude the grasp anyone who professes to be a Christian.

One must be knowledgeable about the teachings of ultra orthodox Judaism that Jesus died trying to reform, the same branch of Judaism that persists to this day, before understanding what Jesus was talking about is even possible.

I understand. But the followers of Jesus today are not, with a very few exceptions, Jews. The teachings as outlined in the New Testament were not written by Jews. The dogma which has grown around the religion did not come from Judaism. I certainly see the fact he was a Jew, teaching to Jews and within the context of Judaism. But that does not change the fact that Christianity itself is not an offshoot of Judaism. So, again... I fail to see how it matters.

 

[hobelim]

I really fail to see how any of that matters.

It does matter. Jesus lived in an ultra orthodox system of compulsory observance of Mosaic law under penalty of death. He was raised as an observant Jew claimed to be the Jewish messiah and his teaching was directed to the Jewish people in a time of brutal Roman occupation when there was no such thing as freedom of speech, people were maimed and killed on a daily basis for trivial reasons, and the very people he tried to help were always at the ready to charge him with blasphemy and stone him to death every single time he spoke.

Anything written about him years later can only be understood in this light.


when Jesus said, 'why worry about what you eat or what you wear' to a Jewish audience whose entire life revolved around what can or cannot be eaten or worn it carried a significance and implication that went over the heads of anyone who was not an observant Jew and continues to elude the grasp anyone who professes to be a Christian.

One must be knowledgeable about the teachings of ultra orthodox Judaism that Jesus died trying to reform, the same branch of Judaism that persists to this day, before understanding what Jesus was talking about is even possible.

I understand. But the followers of Jesus today are not, with a very few exceptions, Jews. The teachings as outlined in the New Testament were not written by Jews. The dogma which has grown around the religion did not come from Judaism. I certainly see the fact he was a Jew, teaching to Jews and within the context of Judaism. But that does not change the fact that Christianity itself is not an offshoot of Judaism. So, again... I fail to see how it matters.

I agree with you and you seemed to be agreeing with delta.

It see it matters because without the correct historical context for the stories written at best 50 years after the fact about a Jew who was talking to Jews about the righteous understanding and application of Judaism it is impossible for someone who claims a belief that Jesus was a god to know what they are talking about, especially if that belief is solely based on what was written in the NT and interpreted by a superstitious pagan roman church that claims that everything written in the OT is obsolete..

 

[PratchettFan]

It does matter. Jesus lived in an ultra orthodox system of compulsory observance of Mosaic law under penalty of death. He was raised as an observant Jew claimed to be the Jewish messiah and his teaching was directed to the Jewish people in a time of brutal Roman occupation when there was no such thing as freedom of speech, people were maimed and killed on a daily basis for trivial reasons, and the very people he tried to help were always at the ready to charge him with blasphemy and stone him to death every single time he spoke.

Anything written about him years later can only be understood in this light.


when Jesus said, 'why worry about what you eat or what you wear' to a Jewish audience whose entire life revolved around what can or cannot be eaten or worn it carried a significance and implication that went over the heads of anyone who was not an observant Jew and continues to elude the grasp anyone who professes to be a Christian.

One must be knowledgeable about the teachings of ultra orthodox Judaism that Jesus died trying to reform, the same branch of Judaism that persists to this day, before understanding what Jesus was talking about is even possible.

I understand. But the followers of Jesus today are not, with a very few exceptions, Jews. The teachings as outlined in the New Testament were not written by Jews. The dogma which has grown around the religion did not come from Judaism. I certainly see the fact he was a Jew, teaching to Jews and within the context of Judaism. But that does not change the fact that Christianity itself is not an offshoot of Judaism. So, again... I fail to see how it matters.

I agree with you and you seemed to be agreeing with delta.

It see it matters because without the correct historical context for the stories written at best 50 years after the fact about a Jew who was talking to Jews about the righteous understanding and application of Judaism it is impossible for someone who claims a belief that Jesus was a god to know what they are talking about, especially if that belief is solely based on what was written in the NT and interpreted by a superstitious pagan roman church that claims that everything written in the OT is obsolete..

I still don't see it. For example, the story of the rich man and the eye of the needle. Now it does add some light to understand that the eye of the needle was actually the name of one of the gates into the city. It was a gate too small for a camel to get through. But learning that bit of information really didn't change the essence or point of the story.

Can you give me an example of what you mean?

 

[hobelim]

I understand. But the followers of Jesus today are not, with a very few exceptions, Jews. The teachings as outlined in the New Testament were not written by Jews. The dogma which has grown around the religion did not come from Judaism. I certainly see the fact he was a Jew, teaching to Jews and within the context of Judaism. But that does not change the fact that Christianity itself is not an offshoot of Judaism. So, again... I fail to see how it matters.

I agree with you and you seemed to be agreeing with delta.

It see it matters because without the correct historical context for the stories written at best 50 years after the fact about a Jew who was talking to Jews about the righteous understanding and application of Judaism it is impossible for someone who claims a belief that Jesus was a god to know what they are talking about, especially if that belief is solely based on what was written in the NT and interpreted by a superstitious pagan roman church that claims that everything written in the OT is obsolete..

I still don't see it. For example, the story of the rich man and the eye of the needle. Now it does add some light to understand that the eye of the needle was actually the name of one of the gates into the city. It was a gate too small for a camel to get through. But learning that bit of information really didn't change the essence or point of the story.

Can you give me an example of what you mean?

Lets use the same story.

The wealth of the rich man and his many possessions are not necessarily about monetary wealth or material possessions.

When he came to Jesus he said he followed the entire law ever since he was a boy and asked where was he lacking. When Jesus told he to sell everything he had, give to the poor, and follow him Jesus was telling the man to divest from everything he had been taught since childhood, and follow the law in the way that Jesus taught and he would receive the eternal life promised for obedience.

The man went away with a heavy heart because he had many possessions which indicates that he was a rabbi who headed a congregation or following of many people that supported him that he would have to face and admit that everything they had learned from him was in error.

A very hard row to hoe, yet not impossible according to Jesus.

 

[PratchettFan]

I agree with you and you seemed to be agreeing with delta.

It see it matters because without the correct historical context for the stories written at best 50 years after the fact about a Jew who was talking to Jews about the righteous understanding and application of Judaism it is impossible for someone who claims a belief that Jesus was a god to know what they are talking about, especially if that belief is solely based on what was written in the NT and interpreted by a superstitious pagan roman church that claims that everything written in the OT is obsolete..

I still don't see it. For example, the story of the rich man and the eye of the needle. Now it does add some light to understand that the eye of the needle was actually the name of one of the gates into the city. It was a gate too small for a camel to get through. But learning that bit of information really didn't change the essence or point of the story.

Can you give me an example of what you mean?

Lets use the same story.

The wealth of the rich man and his many possessions are not necessarily about monetary wealth or material possessions.

When he came to Jesus he said he followed the entire law ever since he was a boy and asked where was he lacking. When Jesus told he to sell everything he had, give to the poor, and follow him Jesus was telling the man to divest from everything he had been taught since childhood, and follow the law in the way that Jesus taught and he would receive the eternal life promised for obedience.

The man went away with a heavy heart because he had many possessions which indicates that he was a rabbi who headed a congregation or following of many people that supported him that he would have to face and admit that everything they had learned from him was in error.

A very hard row to hoe, yet not impossible according to Jesus.

He was telling the man he needed to give up what he valued, to change his priorities. We can argue as to whether you are assuming too much in this, but even taking your point for granted I still don't see how that changes the meaning of the story.

 

[hobelim]

I still don't see it. For example, the story of the rich man and the eye of the needle. Now it does add some light to understand that the eye of the needle was actually the name of one of the gates into the city. It was a gate too small for a camel to get through. But learning that bit of information really didn't change the essence or point of the story.

Can you give me an example of what you mean?

Lets use the same story.

The wealth of the rich man and his many possessions are not necessarily about monetary wealth or material possessions.

When he came to Jesus he said he followed the entire law ever since he was a boy and asked where was he lacking. When Jesus told he to sell everything he had, give to the poor, and follow him Jesus was telling the man to divest from everything he had been taught since childhood, and follow the law in the way that Jesus taught and he would receive the eternal life promised for obedience.

The man went away with a heavy heart because he had many possessions which indicates that he was a rabbi who headed a congregation or following of many people that supported him that he would have to face and admit that everything they had learned from him was in error.

A very hard row to hoe, yet not impossible according to Jesus.

He was telling the man he needed to give up what he valued, to change his priorities. We can argue as to whether you are assuming too much in this, but even taking your point for granted I still don't see how that changes the meaning of the story.

It changes the meaning of the story by changing the subject of what Jesus told the man to sell off from monetary wealth to everything he had invested in believing since he was a boy which was the literal application of the law, the basis for his security and pride and probable source of income as a man of many possessions, followers..

Selling material possessions would leave a person destitute, clearing the mind from the wealth of lifelong dearly held beliefs leaves a person open to receive a new way to understand life and live.