Religion Jesus could not be the SOG(Son of God)

[No-name]

Obviously you read the passage and missed the obvious point. How tragic that you came away with the opposite message.

Of course I would want my children to emulate Jesus.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

I think that passage in post #80 is beautiful. To me it says: if the mother can show that she has a kind heart, there is no need to worry about the welfare of the child, and therefore no need to go to anyone for help.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I think that passage in post #80 is beautiful. To me it says: if the mother can show that she has a kind heart, there is no need to worry about the welfare of the child, and therefore no need to go to anyone for help.

She went to Jesus to beg for help. She was told to get into her proper place behind the race that was not her own and wait. She was called a dog in the process. Her innitial begging went unanswered. She had to refer to herself as a dog.

I don`t see any beauty in any of that? Why do you?

The only beauty that could redeem such a story would be from her only -- not Jesus. If she were a proud woman and willing to eat her pride for her child`s sake by agreeing with Jesus that she was like a dog -- then yes, that self sacrifice is beautiful. But, in order to come away with that rendering, we would have to assume that she was a very proud woman -- which that is not given to us. That would be speculation. But, in that case, it would be the woman that makes the story good in some aspect -- not Jesus. And therefore it could be done with anyone other than Jesus who is also a racist but who decided to help someone outside their group. Jesus is rather irrelevant in this story if you do speculate on the mother`s side.

btw, Tsuyoiko -- why do you assume she had a kind heart? Nothing about her kindness was even mentioned. She could be a self centered lady who killed previous children of hers because she wanted a wealthier life with less mouths to feed. We don`T know anything about her past or even present situation other than the fact she is in front of Jesus now begging for his help to help her daughter. That in itself does not make her kind.

Why do you think she has a kind heart? Also, keep in mind, she was worried about her child and that what caused her to go seek help.

 

[Mycernius]

As far as proving that Christ was taken down from the cross as described... in a legal sense, we have four separate witnesses and their testimony. You are refuting the testimony. The burden of proof is now yours.

Luke wasn't written by an eyewitness. It states that clearly in the first 4 verses. Luke says that what is written is a collection of accounts taken from eyewitnesses and preachers of the word. So not all the people he took statements from saw what happened. And we know from police reports and accounts that what one person saw would be different from what another saw. IMO it is one of the weaker gospels and shouldn't be used as proof for Jesus' life and death.
Just as a side note John is the youngest of the Gospels. Dated around 100 AD by most historical books I have read. Mars Man san could probably give a better date for when all four were written. As for the gospels, remember that there are other gospels that were not included in the Bible. I have recently purchased them and will have to get down to some heavy reading.

 

[No-name]

Luke may not have been an eyewitness, but he gave an account- he was a witness. It is thought that he worked from another's verbal account. The writing of the gospels was done between about 60 to 90 AD.

 

[PRIZMATIC]

:clueless: :blush: Given "theme" already develops by a circle...(?...) There are new "fragments", but "essence" their former...:blush?...)

 

[No-name]

As a teacher, you know that you will probably find what you are looking for in a child. They live up or down to your expectations.

Two people looking at the same verses will find different things- depending on what they are looking for. This is partly confirmational bias, but it generally says more about the two people than it does about the Bible.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Strongvoicesforward, it seems to me that you are going to the Bible expecting to find faults. You are then taking what you find and either misunderstanding it, or trying to twist it to meet that bias. A true skeptic goes to Bible wondering what they will find, questioning everything, but suspending judgment. They will find a lot of bad things there, but some good bits too. In my experience it's more usually fundamentalists who distort the more obvious meaning of Bible verses to suit their own ends.

She went to Jesus to beg for help. She was told to get into her proper place behind the race that was not her own and wait. She was called a dog in the process. Her innitial begging went unanswered. She had to refer to herself as a dog.

I don't see any of this in that passage. I went back to the full chapter, and even restored to its context I could not see it. I think the mention of the woman's race was to make the point that it didn't stop Jesus speaking to her. This is how I understood the passage:

Jesus wanted some peace and quiet. He went inside, asking not to be disturbed. A woman came asking for help. She was at first turned away, but as she seemed desperate Jesus capitulated. After hearing her problem, he first tried to determine the woman's general character by posing a problem not directly related to her predicament. He wanted to see if she put her child's welfare first. The woman's answer showed that she put her children before the dogs, but that she did not discount the dogs from consideration as well. This gave Jesus to believe that the woman had a kind heart, both towards her own children and in general. Knowing this he didn't need to help her - he had showed the woman that she had the means within herself to help her child. Of course, the Bible verse put it more elegantly than that.

If today, a woman took her child to a psychologist because he was 'acting like one possessed', might not the psychologist first try to determine the character of the mother before deciding if and how to treat the child?

I don`t see any beauty in any of that? Why do you?

Because I read the passage with an open mind, not knowing whether I would find something good or bad. I found something good, and I found it beautiful because it is simple, it requires some reflection to understand and it still has relevance in today's world.

The only beauty that could redeem such a story would be from her only -- not Jesus.

I think the beauty comes from Jesus, or whoever made up the story. It shows that Jesus knows something about psychology, and that he recognises that it is better to show someone how to help herself, rather than offer a solution on a plate.

 

[Revenant]

Strongvoicesforward, it seems to me that you are going to the Bible expecting to find faults. You are then taking what you find and either misunderstanding it, or trying to twist it to meet that bias. A true skeptic goes to Bible wondering what they will find, questioning everything, but suspending judgment.

I couldn't agree more, and even after I find something dubious, I keep an open mind, thinking that my understanding after asking a particularly well-thought out Christian could change regarding that one subject.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

He wanted to see if she put her child's welfare first.

Exactly what point in the passage leads you to believe there was even a thought in Jesus' mind about determining if she put her welfare before the child? Please quote it so I can see what you are referring to. Then, explain that which leads you to believe it.

The woman's answer showed that she put her children before the dogs, but that she did not discount the dogs from consideration as well.

There was never any question about a child being put before dogs. "Dogs" is referring to any people other than Jews. She understands Jesus is clearly telling her another class of people are to become before her, and indeed, what is to be given to the other 'people' should not be given to her simply because she was not one of them. She accepts this but points out even dogs get that which they can scrounge from what has been dropped from tables.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

It shows that Jesus knows something about psychology, and that he recognises that it is better to show someone how to help herself,

How did she help herself?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Strongvoicesforward, it seems to me that you are going to the Bible expecting to find faults. You are then taking what you find and either misunderstanding it, or trying to twist it to meet that bias.

Well, Tsuyoiko, I am glad you qualified your statement with "seems."

And, I, too, feel that you and brother Sabro are misunderstanding it, and as for brother Sabro, he is twisting it to meet his bias.

A true skeptic goes to Bible wondering what they will find, questioning everything, but suspending judgment. They will find a lot of bad things there, but some good bits too.

Tsyoiko, being a 'true' skeptic does not mean one must suspend judgement forever. Is that what you are implying? What makes you think I am not 75 years old and had reserved judgement for 50 years until just recently. You may be comfortable without reserving judgement forever, but some of us like to be decisive and not dither on the fence until death. There is nothing wrong about making a judgement to reject something and declare it strongly. Why do you think there is?

My life has stretched much further back than just the few weeks I have been posting here. I have gone to the Bible "wondering" what I would find, "questioning" it all, and did reserve jugement. But, I am not afraid to say enough is enough. What I found is that the Bible itself tells me it is false. Judgement need not be suspended forever.

As for some good being sprinkled in with all the falsehood is irrelevant. I am not saying everything in the Bible is bad. Sure, there are some good concepts. That is not the point of contention. I am saying that it itself is showing us that it is not the WOG.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

"Dogs" is referring to any people other than Jews. She understands Jesus is clearly telling her another class of people are to become before her, and indeed, what is to be given to the other 'people' should not be given to her simply because she was not one of them. She accepts this but points out even dogs get that which they can scrounge from what has been dropped from tables.

Where do you get this? It isn't obvious from the passage, so presumably you are taking on someone's interpretation of what Jesus means when he says 'dogs' - please correct me if necessary. This is what I mean by suspending judgment. You came to the passage with your preconceived ideas about what it means. I approached it innocently, if you like, and came to my own conclusions. I might not agree with the 'experts' who want to prove that Jesus hated Gentiles, but I approached it with 'intellectual honesty', to use a favourite phrase of yours.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

As for some good being sprinkled in with all the falsehood is irrelevant.

A diamond is a diamond, regardless of where it is found.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

A diamond in a pile of manure should not be considered irrelevant, IMO. It has the same value of itself as any diamond.

It is to be considered irrelevant if what is being discussed is whether or not that which it is found in is the word of god or not. That makes the "manure" the Bible. Glad we agree somewhat on the analogy.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Where do you get this? It isn't obvious from the passage, so presumably you are taking on someone's interpretation of what Jesus means when he says 'dogs' - please correct me if necessary. This is what I mean by suspending judgment. You came to the passage with your preconceived ideas about what it means. I approached it innocently, if you like, and came to my own conclusions. I might not agree with the 'experts' who want to prove that Jesus hated Gentiles, but I approached it with 'intellectual honesty', to use a favourite phrase of yours.

Tsuyoiko, are you reading Jesus' response to her of "dogs" litterally or as an analogy Jesus is offering to her?

 

[Tsuyoiko]

I took the verse on face value.

 

[No-name]

SVF- I think "dogs" was meant to insult her and draw a reaction. It is rather out of character and unexpected. He wanted her to assert herself and what He said was planned to get the reaction He did in fact get. Sometimes we have to push others to get them to realize the truth about themselves. (as a chess master who claims that he can manipulate me at will and push my buttons, you of all people should understand that) Pay attention to the resolve- she stood up for herself and got what she came for. I believe that this is exatly what Jesus intended. The message is pretty obviously that the woman was just as "worthy" as anyone else. Her daughter was healed.

 

[Pachipro]

Also the other prisoner released was Barabas per custom which would not be recorded in the Old Testament (Please refrain from using Hijacked text as it is offensive) because as any second grade Sunday school student could tell you, the last books of the Old Testament were written well before the Roman occupation.

But "Hijacked text" is exactly what it is. Yes they may well have been, but I remain true to my new convictions (until someone convinces me otherwise) that the bible is based on writings much, much older than well before the Roman occupation and were edited countless of times over the millenia to suit the needs of the Christian Church. Maybe as much as 10's of thousands of years older. As I've said before, "I want to see what is on the cutting room floor", and I want to know why certain texts or books were taken out of the bible. There must be some reason they took them out.

Case in point: in 553 AD Justinian convened the Second Synod of Constantinople, issuing a decree that bans the doctrine of "past lifetimes" or "reincarnation", as well as removal of all veiled references to pre-existance from ALL religious documents, including the bible!

My question is WHY? If it was there to begin with and was a part of church dogma, why remove it? In order to more control the masses by having them believe in one life and one life only as the only path to God and salvation? I think so.

In keeping with the theme of this thread, Jesus could not be the Son of God because Jesus was the complete opposite of the revengeful, spiteful god of the OT. There is no way I can believe this today. Jesus' birth and life parallels those of Buddha and a few other gods of the past. Would Jesus condone his own father destroying ALL his own creations because He made a mistake? If he is God, I was taught that God is perfect and does not make any mistakes. He sounds more human than anything else. Why would a loving, all perfect God, condemn his own son to the terrible torture and death he did just to save mankind? Save mankind from what? The sin of Adam and Eve finding out the truth of who and what they really are? Is god a sadist? It does not make any logical sense to me.

I've said this previously, but in I Corinthians 15:19 it is said that, "If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men."
Why would this be written in the bible which is supposed to be the word of God? Quite a contradiction if you ask me. Is someone here trying to tell us that, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" including my own "son"? Or that this is NOT the only life we will live?

No. I believe Jesus was a spiritual mortal human being just like we all are. Only Jesus knew the true path that humans were/are supposed to follow and he tried to teach that to us. But his teachings were against the controlled teachings of the Roman church at the time (in order to control the masses [why do you think they call it mass?]) and he was put to death/executed because of it as too many people were believing and following him. So the Romans made him a martyr and twisted and rewrote his word to suit their needs of control. Heaven forbid that man should discover that there is more than one life than the present one ("My fathers house has many mansions"), and that we must be "reborn" again to learn from past mistakes and not give in to the "evil" that tempts all men. (Read "The 7 Deadly Sins").

All one need to do is live by Jesus' golden rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and you will find true salvation and happiness. No need for church, religion, the bible (history book), and priests to "tell" us how to live our lives and take more of our hard earned money and believe that by following them and their teachings that we wil be saved.

Is Pat Robertson to be believed just because he is a Christian and claims to have the ear of God? Is he to be believed that Ariel Sharon had a stroke because "God was angry at him for dividing the land of God?" Yet millions believe him and send him their hard earned cash. Is that the kind of god I want to follow? No it isn't. Sorry. I may have been born at night, but it was not last night.

 

[No-name]

Who listens to Pat Robertson? Pat Robertson is not my God and he does not represent me, my way of thinking or any rational human I know. (I think he is an alien in disguise.)