Turning Jesus into God

What a sad commentary on your 8 decades of supposed learning. Quite remarkable how you assume things that you can't possibly know about. We don't know if there was a mule for her to ride on. If so, it's quite easy to believe they walked at least 3 miles per hour for at least 8 hours a day. 24 hours a day for 32 days. 768 miles well within your 500 mile question. The fact is, they could have rested a total of 11 days and still made it. All the more reason why it's reasonable that they made this trip. But, I'm sure you will come up with a comical reason why they could not like a dinosaur got in their path.

We do know what Jesus said. For someone who doesn't believe in Christ or that he even existed, you are assuming an awful lot of hyperbole. You assume Matthew, most likely a man with Aspergers with a great memory of certain things. I'm sure he wrote down what he heard right away and kept a library as well as other Apostles like Peter, James, John, Luke... No reason to suppose they waited 50 years to write down the words of Christ. Christ came back and taught them for a long time as well after his resurrection. No, the words of the Bible are correct as far as they have been translated correctly. I'd also say that when the Apostles wrote the words they did, they had assistance from Angels as well as the Holy Ghost. But, I'm writing to a non-believer with no understanding of spiritual revelation.

 

Firstly let me correct you. I don't believe 'Christ' ever existed. I do believe a Jewish preacher named Jesus existed. Secondly I question your understanding of the times in which they lived, the human body's capability. Where would they rest? Not in the open in a desert place, and there were no towns or villages. The place was a desert land occupied by 'outlaws', false Messiahs and their followers.
Your figures are completely unrealistic for the family. Could you walk at 3 miles an hour for 8 hours a day. Of course you could, you are Mr miraculous. Could you sit on a donkey for 8 hours a day on a dusty, uneven road carrying a newborn baby. . Could you carry enough food and water for a journey of many days. Food and water for a donkey for the same period. There was nowhere to stock up. Nowhere to stay safely. You've no idea what you are talking about..

In those 32 days - if they had reached Egypt - they would have had to find a Jewish colony, but they were farther in, from what we know of Egypt of the time. Then you have to allow time for Herod to die and his successors appointed. Rome wasn't a phone call away. It was several days journey. That also meant messengers had to await an available ship - to and from Rome - as Paul did sometimes on his journeys. Then the news had to filter through to Joseph and Mary in Egypt. No. I don't believe any angel told them. I said the journey back would be 300 miles. However, if they were to avoid Archelaus and his kingdom they would have to detour and travel east of the Jordan or up the Roman Via Maris on the East Coast of Palestine and then across to Nazareth. A longer journey.

The story only makes sense to the gullible. Jesus never went to Egypt to escape Herod. There was no need. Nothing in Roman History shows the event. Nor, I believe, do the Jews accept it. Apart from 'Christian' Jews. In any case 20 miles from Nazareth north was the Roman province of Syria. Joseph and Jesus would have been quite safe here. Heord had no authority there and would not have dared send his soldiers there. Rome intervened harshly when provinces 'fell out'. Ask Aretas, King of Damascus in Pauls time. He harassed Antipas and Rome sent an army to deal with him.

.I'll add your interpretation of Hosea 11 to the list of other Christian interpretations. The simple truth is Matthew uses it to place Jesus in Egypt. Once you start questioning and put your own interpretation it leads the Bible to be open to any interpretation. For instance, when Jesus raised the scroll and interpreted Isaiah to mean him, what did he mean. Isaiah is all about Israel, and Jesus as a Jew, knew it. Did he really believe he was to be a 'Christian' Messiah, the Jewish Messiah or was Isaiah talking about another prophet to come - Jesus. 3 choices. Pick what you want.

As to Matthew writing the Sermon down art the time? Libraries? Your imagination is running wild.

I've no more interest in your wild ideas concerning human capabilities. Try walking 8 hours, day after day, on rough roads. Sheer bravado.

Good Luck.

 

Typical loser of a debate. Liberal Democrats do this all the time. Move the goal posts when they are confounded with simple logic and understanding. So, I'll just again repost my previous statement, "How many thousand years were spoken of in a small part of Genesis? Those who look for contradictions often overlook the fact that Biblical accounts are rarely exhaustive in their scope as this example. Just like you may leave out some stops along the way across the country or world on your vacation. Luke does not say the infant wasn't taken into Egypt on their trip, does it! In a brief commentary by the authors such as Luke and Matthew, the journey of Joseph and Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem; birth of the child; presentation in the Temple; return to Bethlehem; visit of the Magi; flight into Egypt; return to settle in Nazareth. :-/~

Mark and John don't even mention this part of the Christ story. Luke didn't feel it was necessary to say anything about Herod and the trip to Egypt. Or, maybe he did and that page was lost in his record. Who knows and it doesn't contradict anything. The fact is, Joseph and Mary eventually took Jesus into Nazareth. This is not a contradiction at all. And, Matthew said they went to Egypt and stayed several years. So, they didn't make this huge journey either. As far as all the dinosaurs along the way, who cares about that too. The fact is, they made it safely to Egypt and then safely to Nazareth. There could be different reasons why they made it safely but is not written in the Bible. Maybe they didn't travel alone. Maybe they were part of a large caravan and had plenty of food, water and shelter at night. Maybe the Angels protected them and God sent manna from heaven along the way. How they got there and what condition they were in is of no point to conclude that Jesus is not the Christ. Except between your own ears.

Isaiah most certainly spoke of the Lord Jesus Christ in chapter 53 and other places as his name would be Emmanuel or "God is with us." And, a virgin would conceive the Lord child. Israel means triumphant with God or Prince with God. The Prince of Peace. Isaiah used Israel as a metaphor to convey the prophecy of Jesus Christ as the Messiah, Son of God. A second book of testament would be found in the latter days that would be one with the OT/NT or Bible. Isaiah 29. Do you have that book? I do. The book of Joseph through Ephraim.

 

Maybe, maybe, maybe. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. One thing missing is logic and reality.

Niether Roman Law or Jewish law required Joseph to go to Bethlehem. Property was the reason for the Tax. That was in Nazareth. If Joseph had had property in Bethlehem they wouldn't have needed an inn - which, by the way - would not have existed due to a Jewish hospitality rule. Only large places like Jerusalem had inns.
Jewish regard for pregnant women and Roman law left no need for Mary to travel anywhere. You were brought up Jewish?

If they didn't make that huge Journey how did they get to Egypt and back to Nazareth. They had to avoid Bethlehem area etc on the way back as Archelaus was still in power. So they had to follow as I said. Have you no understanding of the times of the events.

There's no evidence they did get to Egypt. Luke specifically says they went to Nazareth after Mary's purification (40 days) and they stayed there as Jesus grew up. If they had needed to go to safety from there they could have gone a days journey into Syria. They may even had had friends over the border. it's only 20 miles. Whereas Bethlehem was around 80 miles.

Matthew simply used Hosea to send Jesus to Egypt. That reference is to Israel. To travel from Nazareth to Egypt would have meant going back through the very area the soldiers were looking for babies up to 2 years of age. No very wise do you think.

There was no chapter 53 and Isaiah is all about Israel. NOWHERE in the OT do you see the Name Jesus. It's all Christian interpretation.

Bethlehem Ephratah. But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days./.
Some translate this 'But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the clans of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from days of old. '.
There was a family descended from Caleb - Bethlehem Ephrathah.

You simply prefer to ignore all the conditions etc and guess at what happened.

That's why it's pointless discussing it with you. Mitt is the same. Refusal to accept proven facts in favour of his own ideas.

It wasn't until the 2nd century to 5th century that people finally agreed what doctrine to publish. Hardly an auspicious start. And Paul used both Judaism and Greek philosophy to convert the Greeks. He adapted many of the words of Greek philosophers in his teachings.

Acts 17:24-29
In Acts 17:18 Paul is encountered by Epicureans and Stoics. Paul’s first sentence struck directly at the “Epicurean” theory (the origin of the world by mere coincidence and of atoms) and arrayed himself with the “Stoics” in their doctrine of the (Divine Wisdom and Providence creating and ruling all things). His speech is made up of words quoted from a Roman Stoic Philosopher called Lucius Annaeus Seneca as mentioned below.

Acts 17:24
Paul went on to say, “God dwelleth not in temples made with hands.”
Seneca, the most prominent contemporary representative of Stoicism, had put their doctrine into these words, “The whole world is the temple of the immortal gods,” and “Temples are not to be built to God of stones piled on high. He must be consecrated in the heart of every man.”

There are many more examples from Philosophers who were before Pauls time

Maybe, maybe, maybe. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. One thing missing is logic and reality.

 

And, you responded with your own "maybe's" without saying the word. But, you still weren't there. And, full of holes again. Luke did not say they went straight back to Nazareth. Nope. Matthew knew more than Luke on this. Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. These were writings of large chunks of time written in a few words. When you put the 4 Gospels together, you have a full complete story of what actually happened. Matthew was a structured individual and would put into his writings more detail and thought that was important. Mark was technical and theoretical as well. John was very much a relationship person. And Luke, he was action oriented with not a lot for detail. Put together, we get a complete account of what happened. Before going to Nazareth, Joseph took his family to Egypt to escape the slaughter of babies. Then, when he had a dream that he should return to Nazareth, he did. 300 miles then 200 miles. got together with a caravan and it was a piece of cake. 32 total days on the trail. The other supposed traditions and ways of life are unimportant. What is written down in the Scriptures is truth that happened to this family.

There is a chapter 53 in Isaiah. What do you mean there isn't. The chapter is a prophecy of an individual in the future that would take upon himself our sins if we repent. Of course you would not want to say this is true or that Jesus is the Messiah, Son of God. I wouldn't either if I was filled with 8 decades of pride buildup and refused to repent and have faith in the one that would atone for me. But, no bushel will cover my sins at the judgment seat of God.

Acts 7:55, "But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God." Hmmm... Jesus isn't that God you refer to in Acts 17:24. Heavenly Father or the Most High God is the God that doesn't dwelleth or come the Temples. It's Jesus that does for the Temples are the House of the Lord (Jesus Christ), not Elohim or the Most High God. Actually, the Temple is supposed to be the Father's House too. More symbolic but still necessary to perform certain ordinances that cannot be done anywhere else. Like Baptism for the Dead and the sealing of families together. Whatsoever shall be bound on Earth shall be bound in heaven. Our bodies are temples as well that house our spirit bodies and intelligences.

 

So you ignore Jewish Law? Luke 2:39-41.

There is no slaughter of babies recorded. If Herod had done so the Jews and Rome would have taken action. You really don't understand anything do you. The Jews had a special relationship with the Romans because of their beliefs . The Romans wanted peace and several times the Jews complained 'vigorously that rulers had offended their religious beliefs. They complained to Rome and the relevant Caesar. 3 times Rome rebuked their rulers and told them to undo what they had done. And Herod was one of those, and Pilate another. Pilate was eventually removed for his actions against the Jews after they complained enough. Rome wanted peace in its provinces.While other conquered countries accept Roman beliefs, and Rome often incorporated theirs, they could no accept Judaism. So they tolerated it for so long. But they could not tolerate outright rebellion. If it had not been for the Zealots the Jews might have lasted much longer in their homeland.

Slaughter of the innocents comes from the OT.

The original book of Isaiah had no chapters. Hebrews did not write in chapters and verses/ It wasn't until the 14th century CE that a Catholic Priest divided the Bible into chapters according to what was convenient for the Church, naturally. The whole book of Isaiah was about Israel. The name of Jesus does not appear in the OT. Christianity has simply adopted the practise of misinterpreting for their own beliefs.

You ignore anything relevant and post scriptures that themselves are questionable as to their authenticity.

The laws of the time are irrelevant? Now you are being ridiculous. What a waste of time. Live on in your dream world.

Now I have to Skype my son who lives and teaches English and science in Japan. I'd rather have an intelligent conversation with an Oxford MA graduate than the drivel you are talking.

 

Hahahah!!! The Jews and Romans had a special loving relationship. Bull crap!!! I suppose you think crucifixion wasn't real and was a loving things with a special relationship. The religious leaders were puppets of the Roman Empire. The people had no weapons to fight them. Yes, there was a decree by Herod to kill the children and there was no way for the Jews to stop it. No weapons.
You obviously deny the entire concept of prophecy and revelation. So, no wonder you can't grasp Isaiah's words as prophecy of future events including our days. By the way, Israel existed in the time of Jesus and also our time. So, you are right that Isaiah talked about his days in Israel. But, he also prophesied about Jesus day and our day.
8 decades of learning and you haven't a clue of God or the truth. Sad. Very sad.

 

Misquotes again.

I didn't say they had a loving relationship. The fact is that they knew the ferocity with which Jews held to their religion and made allowances for it. When Herod built a room onto his Palace where he could watch the Jews going in and out of the Temple, the Jews built a wall to block his view. Herod told them to remove the wall. They complained to Rome and Caesar told Herod to leave the wall in place.
The Jews refused to accept images - faces of Caesar on shields, etc. Pilate, during one night after dark, introduced Roman shields into Jerusalem. In the morning the Jews were in uproar. They sent a deputation to Tiberius who ordered Pilate to remove the shields.
Caligula ordered all temples in the empire to display a Roman image. His advisors managed to dissuade him regarding the Temple in Jerusalem because they knew the problem Unfortunately, in his state of mind, he later changed it and ordered an image in the Temple. But then he was not right in the mind.

Don't know anything?

The Religious leaders were indeed puppets of the Romans - willingly. The ruling party of the Sanhedrin were Sadducees - the rich. They were happy because they gained from the Romans to enhance their position. Most of the High Priests were Sadducees appointed by the person who was Governor. A new Governor would choose his own High Priest. No line of Aaron here. He was chosen by the Governor. That's why you get the mixup between Annas and Caiaphas. Both were High Priests under different Governors. . Sadducees virtually ruled the Temple while Pharisees were teachers of the ordinary folk outside.

Again. Don't you know anything?

I've asked you to show me where Jesus is mentioned by name in the OT. All you have is the Christian interpretation. The Jews, who wrote the OT, have their own inspired interpretation. Should they not know? After all, if all scripture is inspired and this was given to the Jews, and that can't be denied, the inspiration must have been for the Jews. Not for Christianity - 800 years in the future. Christianity is simply looking back and interpreting an 800 year old book given to the Jews to fit their Christian beliefs.
Again I pose the question. If someone told you the world would end in 2821 would you care. On the other hand, if someone told you it would end in 2023 unless you took certain actions - you might listen more attentively and take those actions. Isaiah/Jeremiah summed up the situations of their times and saw the dangers. They warned that certain actions would lead to disastrous circumstances, and they were right. In the 1930's in the UK Churchill warned against Hitler. He was ignored for many years. But he was right in his judgement of Hitler. And Europe paid the price.

If the Jews didn't have weapons how did the disciple cut off someone's ear. How did the false Messiahs cause the Romans so much trouble, and how did they manage during the rebellion. They were able to secure enough to defeat even Roman armies at the beginning, and continue the war for several years. With Bare hands?

Of course the crucifixion was real. A Jewish Preacher named Jesus attracted attention from the Jewish religious hierarchy. He became popular with his teaching, simplifying the supposed 'Laws of Moses', and ignoring all the stupid ideas inflicted on the ordinary people such as not eating the sick on the Sabbath etc, etc. They loved him. The Sadducees hated him for exposing their hypocrisy. Some of the Pharisees even invited him to dine with them. Pilate was a vicious man and despite all the nonsense in the Bible, just wanted the Jewish leaders appeased. So he had Jesus crucified. He was not in Rome's good books, and could note afford trouble breaking out. He is recorded as being a vicious tyrant, and was eventually removed for his behaviour.

What do you actually know except what you have taken from the Bible? The Bible is not reality. It shows only part of the story, and often wrongly. .

Frankly, you are simply a waste of time debating with. .

 

Answer: The Bible is the Word of God interpreted correctly with additional scriptures it's very well understood. And, as I've said before, the Bible only shows part of the story as does the history of other writers in the ancient world. No reason to believe a so-called historian of Rome or anti-Christ. That their words are accurate or true. So, this is where understanding what faith is and recognize the influence of the Holy Ghost for the truth. And, I'm a great person to debate with. We both troll very well with our absolutes.

 

You said they didn't have arms yet they kept the Romans busy licking their wounds for 3 years. So how did they manage that id the Romans had confiscated the Jeweish arms. Make some sense at least. And 70 years later they did a similar thing

Atheists don't believe in nothing. They just don't believe in gods. I believe it is my privilege to serve my fellow man when I can - regardless of reward. There's a great deal of satisfaction knowing you've helped someone along the way. I don't have to have a god for that.

Your interpretation of various doctrines comes by majority decision of the Early Church Councils. Not by interpretation of the OT. The supposed' divinity of Jesus. was disputed for a couple of centuries, every Bishop giving his own idea to his people. Though several of the attending Bishops at Nicea until until disagreed with the decision Constantine accepted it and it later became doctrine. The Trinity was not agreed until 381 in Constantinople. So you see it wasn't an auspicious start for the church. If the Holy Spirit was the guiding force there would have been no need for any of the Church Councils. Christian interpretation is not down to any Holy Spirit. Just the need to make Jesus supposedly prophesied in the OT. If the Holy Spirit had intended Jesus to be the subject of interpretation it would have surely said so. Mot left it to guess work

The Bible is inspired but so much is left to interpretation.

Of course Pilate wanted him out of the way. He didn't want any more trouble in his province. He had had to deal with a great deal of unrest- he didn't want any more or complaints to Rome. His actions over a period were to cost him dearly and exile him.

've asked you to show me where Jesus is mentioned by name in the OT. All you have is the Christian interpretation. The Jews, who wrote the OT, have their own inspired interpretation. Should they not know? After all, if all scripture is inspired and this was given to the Jews, and that can't be denied, the inspiration must have been for the Jews. Not for Christianity - 800 years in the future. Christianity is simply looking back and interpreting an 800 year old book given to the Jews to fit their Christian beliefs.
Again I pose the question. If someone told you the world would end in 2821 would you care. On the other hand, if someone told you it would end in 2023 unless you took certain actions - you might listen more attentively and take those actions. Isaiah/Jeremiah summed up the situations of their times and saw the dangers. They warned that certain actions would lead to disastrous circumstances, and they were right.

You really can't see it can you. If God called and spoke to the Jews through a divine Holy Spirit then the message would be clear. It is. The OT is for the Jews. According to Christianity scripture is Spirit inspired, but only Christianity. can interprete it. Either the whole of scripture is inspired and all can understand it, or it is left to interpretation. In which cast the NT is not inspired either. And there's no reason to believe either are except by faith.

And, I'm a great person to debate with. We both troll very well with our absolutes.

Sadly, you're not. You really know little except what you've been told, and your Christian interpretation. Nothing of the times, history or background on which the Bible is written. Rather like the followers of Islam who are not encouraged to think outside the box.

 

Interesting story about the lost years of Jesus

 

• Thanks. Seen it before. No reason to believe that Jesus went to Egypt at all. Matthew quotes Hosea 11:1. This has no reference to Jesus, but Israel. Or that Herod was after him. The nativity story is simply misused OT scriptures. My own view is that Jesus was - at the age of 13 - so well advanced in the scriptures that he was taken under the wing of a Jewish Rabbi. He would then go on to what we would call 'further education'. Studying the OT and interpreting it in his own manner. This is the way Rabbi's continued their tradition. During this time he would have done some work while the Rabbi himself worked to maintain himself. They were not allowed to receive payment for their teaching. What happened for the next period one can only guess. Did he go on tp teach? Did he become a wandering preacher - learning his 'trade'. At the age of 30 he gained what the Jews believed was the Prime age. Paul was converted but spent 14 years working in Syria successfully preaching and learning before he actually became known. It's a theme continually through the Bible. Moses spent years with his father-in-law before returning to Egypt and Pharoah. David had to spend many years experiencing life before becoming king after his anointing.
• Of course I'm just quoting the Bible. Moses didn't exist and the story of David is highly exaggerated, most of it being merely made up.

Throughout the world there are stories about 'men' going to nations and 'preaching' peace, teaching people how to behave and also, in some cases teaching forms of agriculture. Quetzalcoatl. Viracocha eg. in the Americas. Was ISSA - if he existed - another of these.

 

The piece is about Jesus going to India as a young adult - not the travels of his family as a baby so these are different items.

I like this story and doubt that he spent 17 years with the Jewish rabbi's - although I have no doubt he spent some time with the famous rabbi Hillel.

Jesus seemed to have a large following right off the start - which to me suggest that his personage was known by people prior to the John the Baptist incident - and that it was that of a charismatic religious guru of sorts.

To me this seems very consistent with a "between the lines" assessment of the gospels where as the 17 years with the rabbi's does not..IMO.

 

Who knows. I'm simply going on the fact that he was a Jewish preacher who preached pure Judaism. I don't see any Eastern influence in his teaching. Whatever Christianity might say there are things added to the Gospels that do not fit with a Jewish teacher. A lot of his parables are in relation to the Jewish relationship with Jahweh. The Vine. The Good Shepherd etc. His disciples asked him why he spoke to them in parables. He told them it was because they understood them, whereas the Gentiles didn't. All Jews being brought up to read and study the Tanakh from the age of 5. - 13. In Gethsemane a disc[ple supposedly drew his sword and sliced off an ear. Jesus told them that this was not his way. And they fled. This wasn't what they were expecting. Not the Jewish Messiah. I find the whole of his life that we know of, full of anomalies.

We don't actually know when he started his ministry. Just what we are told in the Bible. Neither do we know what sort of following he had at any time. Only what we are told.
Take the feeding of the 5000. He was in the wilderness according to Matthew. He was in Bethsaida according to Luke. 5000 men found him.It's unlikely there were that number of men in that area. What did they do? Ask their bosses for time off work. 'Please boss 'could I take the day off to hear this preacher? The 3 'cities/towns around Galilee were simply large fishing villages. 5000 men is simply a rather large exaggeration.

We rally have to examine the times, area etc against the Biblical stories. The gospel writers themselves adapt Judaism in the efforts to create a 'new way'.

 

Hmm .. first point is that we have very little from Jesus - Two Gospels really .. Mark/Matt - the second being a spiced up version of the first book. That's it - from a philosophical standpoint .. sans perhaps a few smatterings that may have made it in to Luke/Acts - and John .. such as the "He who is without sin - cast the first rock" - which fits the Mark/Matt Narrative - in particular the Sermon on the Mount.

Contrary to your claim though .. I claim the Rock on which Christ Bases is Teachings is from the East - .. West - South and North as well .. but primarily in the East in terms of adoption into doctrine. .. which is the Golden Rule.

So at least that much we have .. sure we have one of the Teachers of Jesus cite this rule - Rabbi Hillel 110 BC - 10 AD - and Jesus Quotes him in Matt 7:12 in stating that this rule sums up both the Law and the Prophets..

but the good Rabbi got this from the east - not the Golden Rule itself - but incorporation into doctrine in this way .. "Don't do to others what you hate - the rest is all commentary - now go and learn" is as East East East as you can get.

very few details we have and what to believe of those is another issue.

 

You may be right. My own view is that Jesus teachings we mainly about undoing the OT teachings and reversing them. Again, this is only my opinion. The Jews had added so much in 'interpretation' of the Laws of Moses (which were never written by Moses anyway) that the people had become burdened by 600+ mainly nonsense regulations. Jesus contradicted many of these. 'Not healing on the Sabbath'. The supposed sacredness of the Shewbread when people were hungry, or 'thrashing' corn in their hands on a Sabbath walk. Letting a donkey lie in a ditch until after the Sabbath. Even a Sabbath days journey. The local synagogue could be twice the distance in Jesus time than the Tabernacle tent of 'supposed' Moses time. Reversing 'an eye for an eye.......' etc was one of those things.

What do we really know. The woman taken in adultery. What happened to the man who committed adultery with her. Was he married himself? Then he was equally guilty. morally. I believe that Jesus recognised the state into which Judaism had gone and set out to alleviate the harshness felt by the people.

We probably look at things from a difference perspective. I don't believe he was 'the Christ'. I believe he was simply a Jewish 'Evangelist'. I see no reason to believe other than that.

 

The above is not mutually exclusive to an Eastern Influence. Your view makes perfect sense - and definitely Jesus was about turning OT -Law on its head.

Notice in the Sermon on the Mount - which is main theological corpus we have from Jesus - he only talks about observing "The Commands" and for this reason and others I draw an distinction between Jewish law .. and "The Commands". - for it is not what goes into one's mouth that makes one Unclean - but what comes out.

Forgiveness was definitely a welcome improvement on Lex Talionis - another eastern concept is it not ?

Not sure we do have a different perspective on "The Christ" - other than you seem to be more settled on your perspective than I. I don't know who this Jesus fellow was .. and this personage is shrouded in mystery - did he have a divine spark - some ability to receive divine truth .. perhaps

My question for the moment is whether or not there is any merit to the story of Jesus visiting India during his 20 year absence from history.

Let us keep in mind that the Church destroyed everything it could lay its hands on that conflicted with the Church Dogma of the day - from 325 BC for the next 1000 years.

I wonder what the Vatican Library has on the subject

 

To acknowledge 'Divine truth is to acknowledge there is a god or supernatural unknowable being. I don't. I'm more inclined to think that some people are more capable of using parts of the brain than others. We have peo[le who have Hallucinations, schizophrenics who hear voices. Do others have experiences during times of meditation when the brain can go off at a tangent - as it were. Mohammed is said to have gone to a cave for days - isolated from everyone. He must have read the Torah at some time to know the characters in it. Did his brain run wild?
30,000 years ago man was drawing Therianthropes in caves. We don't know why but it's odd that many of the first Egyptian gods were therianthropes, and the Greeks used similar for some of their early gods. Ooops I'm digressing

I don't know what the Vatican Library holds, I've never been there. It's been open to researchers for over 130 years. Little surprising has come out yet and I think their records only go back about 12 centuries. Are there rooms inaccessible? Who knows.

Back later.
.

 

How about a "knowable" supernatural being / entity ? Why does it have to be "unknowable" I am inclined to speculate that there are forces out there that we do not understand - but what I don't do is make up stuff about these forces and pretend that my made up story about these forces is defacto true.

I didn't have you pegged for an atheist .. but curious about the Library being fully open claim ..

 

I was referring to the idea that a god was unknowable because Christianity claims he is omni..... everything and he is not to be questioned because he is far above our understanding.

I am sure there are forces out there we do not understand, but the Christian idea that we never will understand because god is unknowable is not one I ascribe to. What we have learnt over the last 3000 years has brought us to what we are. It may take time as we don't have the 'tools/knowledge' yet to go any faster. One invention, one new breakthrough in physics could change our whole world. Some scientists believe That recent experiments at CERN will alter our understanding of physics Is it a breakthrough? Who nows. My knowledge of physics is limited to the ability to spell the word. To my Uncle Ug the caveman, a million times removed today would be unknowable.. To us it is normal, whatever 'normal' actually means. .

The ancient Egyptians had a good knowledge of basic medicines and biology but they lacked the wherewithal to go further. Their recognition of cancer, but the lack of knowledge for treatment. Knowledge of the anatomy and functions of the body and minor surgery. A Greek in the middle of the 1st millennium BCE theorised the atom but hadn't the tools to prove it.

Unknowable? is a term that should be qualified with 'at the moment'.

Gotta go.Electricians to check my electrical circuits. Ooops not mine but the bungalow.

 

The "Unknowable" part is a problem when religious folks try to fallaciously claim something is true on the basis of "we don't know otherwise" . As you well know - what is "Unknowable" is the mind of God - yet so many religious folks will regularly claim/infer otherwise .. as soon as they open their mouth and claim "God says"

One of the questions of the OP is whether or not it matters what the status of Jesus was - to the question of "What is God's Law" - assuming one believes that Jesus spoke God's word. The status of the messenger makes zero difference to the message.

 

Not quite sure of that. The message may be the same but the status of the presenter plays a part. If a friend tells you something is illegal and a Law Officer tells you the same, which has the greater impact on you. Mohammed's message would have had little impact had he not claimed divine intervention. He was elevated to a Prophet
I suggest that Jesus - as a simple Jewish preacher would never have been heard of after his death, but the claim of his divinity by the Gospel writers changed that. The same speech presented by two different people - one unknown and one of higher status - and it is human nature to take heed of the one with the status. Many years ago Billy Graham preached the same gospel as many ordinary preachers. His converts filled empty spaces on church seats.

That's just the way I look at it. The same message by a wandering preacher, or the Son of God.

 

You are not understanding the assumption .. this is not the difference between a friend and a lawyer

This is God's chosen messenger "THE LOGOS" The Emissary between Man and God .. there is no higher messenger - and the person in question believes this.

I am not talking Your Perspective mate - I am talking from the perspective of someone who believes that the words spoken by Jesus was "The Word of God"

 

Are you sure he was referring to just Gentiles when he said that?

Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” 11 And he answered them, x“To you it has been given to know ythe secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 zFor to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, aeven what he has will be taken away. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because bseeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, cnor do they understand. 14

It sounds to me like he was referring to all people in general.....not just gentiles