Would Jesus condemn or condone Yahweh for his crimes against

[felix dakat]

Marcion disagreed with the orthodoxy and that might be enough to have me see him as a Gnostic as it shows he is a free thinker. Gnostic Christianity has evolved over time and it would be best to discuss his position on things and compare them to modern Gnostic Christian thinking though as Christianity won the god wars and muddied the waters in terms of what we actually believed. Like the lies that we do not venerate matter and think the world corrupted. Gnosticism, defined in short form, is a creed of esoteric ecumenists and naturalists who recognize that all gods are man made and we just openly admit it and if we are all to make up our own gods then why not take the label of god, which we do, by naming god I am and actually meaning ourselves. Knowledge and honesty is paramount to us and that is what frustrates some as we will only speak to what we know or can be known, which excludes anything supernatural.

Scholars disagree about whether or not Marcion was a Gnostic. Wiki says the following:

Marcion is sometimes described as a Gnostic philosopher.
In some essential respects, Marcion proposed ideas which would have aligned well with Gnostic thought.
Like the Gnostics, he argued that Jesus was essentially a divine spirit appearing to human beings in the shape of a human form, and not someone in a true physical body.
However, Marcionism conceptualizes God in a way which cannot be reconciled with broader Gnostic thought.
For Gnostics, some human beings are born with a small piece of God's soul lodged within his/her spirit (akin to the notion of a Divine Spark).
God is thus intimately connected to and part of his creation.
Salvation lies in turning away from the physical world (which Gnostics regard as an illusion) and embracing the godlike qualities within yourself.
Marcion, by contrast, held that the Heavenly Father (the father of Jesus Christ) of Marcionism was an utterly alien god; he had no part in making the world, nor any connection with it.

If Jesus had unconditional love for all, he sure did not show it to the merchants who had the temples permission to be where they were when Jesus chased them away from the temple.

I already stated that Jesus seems to contradict the sermon on the mount elsewhere in the texts. Your example may be an instance of that.

Unconditional love would be epitome of love. Love of the highest form. I think. Ask those mothers if their love would grow for their children if their children had not been axe murderers or otherwise unworthy. If they say yes, which I think they would, then they have conditions to the degree of love they have even for their children. That fact negates unconditional love of the highest degree.

To be unconditional, is to impose no conditions, qualifications, stipulations. To be of the highest form might be something else. I don't see why love couldn't be granted unconditionally and yet still have the capacity to greater or lesser. So, imagine a woman who loves her abusive husband but realizes that if she stayed with him he would kill her. So she leaves him but still has feelings of love for him. Such love as she has for him is unconditional love. Is it the highest love? I don't know. How does one determine that?

[Serendipper]

But when I return there I will never be interrupted again

If that is true then you aren't here now. What happens once in eternity, never happens.

[barbarianhorde]

Martin Luther.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”

Good stuff! The deification of ignorance.

Luther was one sick dude.

In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam
agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be
repentance.

2. This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance,
i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by
the priests.

3. Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no
inward repentance which does not outwardly work divers
mortifications of the flesh.

Just great.

[omar]

Hello Felix

OK, so we agree there are different characterizations of Jesus in the New Testament [NT]. There are even disagreements about his deeds. The point is, that presents problems when we go to try and figure out if Jesus would condemn or condone Yahweh actions in the OT.

I don't think he would, but, as a jew, his approach to his father was much more like Job than like our critics. When he was praying to his Father, Yahweh, it was clear that his resolve was faltering and that he would've rather the Father effect his solution in some other way that in the brutalization of the Son, and yet Jesus ultimately resigns to His will, whatever reservations or criticism he might have had. The story of Job also shows a critical believer, who obviously was far from approving of Yahweh's treatment of him, a faithful servant, nevertheless submitting to His will.
Now, before one goes on, it is important to acknowledge that there are differences between the Barbaric Yahweh, the Loving Jesus, and the philosophical God of John's gospel. These differences lead one to doubt the claim that the Bible is a work inspired by God but instead informed by the culture of the time which surrounds it. You look at the history of the Catholic Church and we see even today pagan beliefs rolled in as Christian beliefs, simply because they were part of the culture that was absorbed into the Church. Same goes for the amplified role for Satan and the views about the afterlife, from something denied, to something they embraced.
This cultural influence has always required an explanation from the believer, hence the title of the original post. But, in my opinion, the answer is not in the facts but in the person. Would Jesus condemn Yahweh? Doubt it. Yahweh's barbarity was not a long forgotten memory but something lived. Jesus was a jew, not a Christian. He celebrated passover, the remembrance of the death of an innocent child for the sins of his father, who may very well have been destined. Some of this jewish culture still produced ideas that only Yahweh could carry out, as in Paul's Potter. actions beyond explanation. Barbaric, cruel. Love is talked about by Paul in such a way, but away from the jewish sources. When dealing with certain passages, Paul has to deal with Yahweh head on and the look is not good. But condemn Yahweh? Farthest thing from their minds.

The heaven and hell question is a good one. Of course, that's a NT conception. The "Old Testament" that the church appropriated from the Jews doesn't depict heaven or hell that way. Personally, I don't think the idea of eternal punishment is moral. It's a disproportional to the crimes even of a mass murderer like Hitler. And without the possibility of repentance and rehabilitation it serves no purpose. It seems to be the projection of powerless people onto God that makes Him look like a person who is spiteful because He is unable to create an absolutely good universe. So, the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount wouldn't condone the teaching of the Jesus who preached eternal judgment.

Again, I think that we are judging ancient conceptions we no longer understands. The effects of philosophy changed what humans needed their gods to be, but Hell, Day of Judgment, Lake of Fire...these ideas precede Christianity, just as the idea of an All-Father that can intercede in our stead. We, as a species, seem to be ok with immense suffering, as long as there is a way for us to avoid it.

[felix dakat]

I don't think he [Jesus] would [condemn Yahweh actions in the OT], but, as a jew, his approach to his father was much more like Job than like our critics. When he was praying to his Father, Yahweh, it was clear that his resolve was faltering and that he would've rather the Father effect his solution in some other way that in the brutalization of the Son, and yet Jesus ultimately resigns to His will, whatever reservations or criticism he might have had. The story of Job also shows a critical believer, who obviously was far from approving of Yahweh's treatment of him, a faithful servant, nevertheless submitting to His will.
Now, before one goes on, it is important to acknowledge that there are differences between the Barbaric Yahweh, the Loving Jesus, and the philosophical God of John's gospel. These differences lead one to doubt the claim that the Bible is a work inspired by God but instead informed by the culture of the time which surrounds it. You look at the history of the Catholic Church and we see even today pagan beliefs rolled in as Christian beliefs, simply because they were part of the culture that was absorbed into the Church. Same goes for the amplified role for Satan and the views about the afterlife, from something denied, to something they embraced.
This cultural influence has always required an explanation from the believer, hence the title of the original post. But, in my opinion, the answer is not in the facts but in the person. Would Jesus condemn Yahweh? Doubt it. Yahweh's barbarity was not a long forgotten memory but something lived. Jesus was a jew, not a Christian. He celebrated passover, the remembrance of the death of an innocent child for the sins of his father, who may very well have been destined. Some of this jewish culture still produced ideas that only Yahweh could carry out, as in Paul's Potter. actions beyond explanation. Barbaric, cruel. Love is talked about by Paul in such a way, but away from the jewish sources. When dealing with certain passages, Paul has to deal with Yahweh head on and the look is not good. But condemn Yahweh? Farthest thing from their minds.
---
Again, [when judging that the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount wouldn't condone the teaching of the Jesus who preached eternal judgment] I think that we are judging ancient conceptions we no longer understands. The effects of philosophy changed what humans needed their gods to be, but Hell, Day of Judgment, Lake of Fire...these ideas precede Christianity, just as the idea of an All-Father that can intercede in our stead. We, as a species, seem to be ok with immense suffering, as long as there is a way for us to avoid it.

There is much to what you say, Omar, but the criticism of Yahweh isn't merely the result of modern historical distance. We have Marcion of Sinope for one who was obviously a critic of Yahweh as the demiurge way back in the second century. Marcion was certainly innovative and the first to compile a NT canon. What Marcion, the so-called Gnostics and some of the early so-called church fathers seemed to be doing was applying Greek philosophy to their analysis of the Hebrew Bible and the kerygma.

The remarkable thing about Jesus' view in some places is his faith in an all good God given the adverse circumstances in first century Palestine. If God is all good then how does one account for the evil state of the world? Thus, the necessity of an almost equally powerful evil deity, Satan the devil. This dualism you don't see in the Hebrew Bible aka the Old Testament where the true God's sovereignty over all isn't seriously challenged. There Satan is an angelic messenger of God and while people may go astray to worship foreign gods, such are no true rivals to the All-Mighty in the narrative cosmologies of the authors.

Many modern NT scholars don't believe Jesus or his followers anticipated his crucifixion. There was no expectation of a crucified messiah in the first century. Jesus and his disciples had expected that with divine intervention from above he would become the reigning king of Israel. Obviously that didn't happen. Christianity, the spiritualization of Jesus as the Christ of Faith, was the creative response to the trauma of the crucifixion of the founder.

[barbarianhorde]

Hello Felix da Kat. It is good to read such an informed talk on Jesus. I was wondering if this means you reject the drama from "father let this cup pass me by!" which has captivated me always. Because I have religion and wonder how it would feel if I Odin would abandon me. I always admired Jesus for going through with his ordeal even though he knew it and didn't like it.

I guess what I am secretly saying is, Jesus is greater when he knew the future. If he is only a rebel who was martyred then the whole deal of Christianity doesn't seem so magical and holy.

Still though even if Jesus himself didn't know he was gonna get nailed to a cross, the early Christians did know that and still didn't renounce their faith. Thus did they follow an example Jesus didn't even really set? If so they were braver than Jesus. Even braver. Pretty strong dudes. And dudettes.

[Greatest I am]

I have seen where Allah says not to put a partner with him but I have not seen where he forbids putting someone above him

Do you gave a quote that does

The First Pillar Of Islam references that Allah is the one and only true God so there can be no one above him
The notion of God having a partner is not acceptable in Islam for there is none who is actually equal to Allah

Islam completely rejects such a notion which is why it rejects Trinitarianism which also references equality with God
As a philosophical concept it makes no sense at all for it is impossible for God to be dead and alive at the same time

Even he cannot violate the Law Of Non Contradiction

I agree with that last.

If the notion of God having a partner is not acceptable because of equality then how is it that Muslim men partner with women who are a measure below men?

I would have thought that Muslims would live by the same or as close to the standards of Allah, which means that you would have to scrap the notion that your women are inferior to you just because they are women.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

The Jesus character in the bible is most certainly the antithesis of the Father character while the Holy Spirit character is rarely, if ever, personified (certainly not in the greek).

Those I've challenged in the past have simply dismissed the murders of the Father on the basis of his never committing sin, but Jesus had likewise never committed sin yet he said to turn the other cheek and the meek shall inherit the earth, so if Jesus' words are true, the tyrannical Father will NOT be inheriting the earth, though he might destroy it since he appears to have a healthy appetite for destruction if the bible is any sort of guide on the matter.

Yet Allah and Yahweh are the same god to Islam. Or are you denying this.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Martin Luther.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”

Good stuff! The deification of ignorance.

At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

All kind of weird eh?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Marcion disagreed with the orthodoxy and that might be enough to have me see him as a Gnostic as it shows he is a free thinker. Gnostic Christianity has evolved over time and it would be best to discuss his position on things and compare them to modern Gnostic Christian thinking though as Christianity won the god wars and muddied the waters in terms of what we actually believed. Like the lies that we do not venerate matter and think the world corrupted. Gnosticism, defined in short form, is a creed of esoteric ecumenists and naturalists who recognize that all gods are man made and we just openly admit it and if we are all to make up our own gods then why not take the label of god, which we do, by naming god I am and actually meaning ourselves. Knowledge and honesty is paramount to us and that is what frustrates some as we will only speak to what we know or can be known, which excludes anything supernatural.

Scholars disagree about whether or not Marcion was a Gnostic. Wiki says the following:

Marcion is sometimes described as a Gnostic philosopher.
In some essential respects, Marcion proposed ideas which would have aligned well with Gnostic thought.
Like the Gnostics, he argued that Jesus was essentially a divine spirit appearing to human beings in the shape of a human form, and not someone in a true physical body.
However, Marcionism conceptualizes God in a way which cannot be reconciled with broader Gnostic thought.
For Gnostics, some human beings are born with a small piece of God's soul lodged within his/her spirit (akin to the notion of a Divine Spark).
God is thus intimately connected to and part of his creation.
Salvation lies in turning away from the physical world (which Gnostics regard as an illusion) and embracing the godlike qualities within yourself.
Marcion, by contrast, held that the Heavenly Father (the father of Jesus Christ) of Marcionism was an utterly alien god; he had no part in making the world, nor any connection with it.

If Jesus had unconditional love for all, he sure did not show it to the merchants who had the temples permission to be where they were when Jesus chased them away from the temple.

I already stated that Jesus seems to contradict the sermon on the mount elsewhere in the texts. Your example may be an instance of that.

Unconditional love would be epitome of love. Love of the highest form. I think. Ask those mothers if their love would grow for their children if their children had not been axe murderers or otherwise unworthy. If they say yes, which I think they would, then they have conditions to the degree of love they have even for their children. That fact negates unconditional love of the highest degree.

To be unconditional, is to impose no conditions, qualifications, stipulations. To be of the highest form might be something else. I don't see why love couldn't be granted unconditionally and yet still have the capacity to greater or lesser. So, imagine a woman who loves her abusive husband but realizes that if she stayed with him he would kill her. So she leaves him but still has feelings of love for him. Such love as she has for him is unconditional love. Is it the highest love? I don't know. How does one determine that?

I would guess by calling unconditional love the epitome of love and comparing that highest degree to whatever degree is being shown.

Some might say of your example that if she loved that fool unconditionally, her of fear of death would not drive her away.

That love she is sharing cannot be unconditional or even true love because true love requires reciprocity and good works and deeds. Obviously the good works and deeds are negated by his threats to kill his wife.

I would not say that she in unconditionally in love. I would say she is insane to stay with the prick.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

[ There was no expectation of a crucified messiah in the first century. .

Not to butt in but I cannot agree.

Jesus wanted to die. This is obvious from his bribe and show of love by passing a sop to Judas at the last supper and all the other disciples just sitting back and letting Judas go do as Jesus trusted him above the others to do. I think he was hoping that what would happen and did not, his resurrection, would happen.

The Jewish always expected a messiah and Jesus might have been delusional enough to give it a god and do what the tradition promised.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrDGgKunPsY

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Hello Felix da Kat. It is good to read such an informed talk on Jesus. I was wondering if this means you reject the drama from "father let this cup pass me by!" which has captivated me always. Because I have religion and wonder how it would feel if I Odin would abandon me. I always admired Jesus for going through with his ordeal even though he knew it and didn't like it.

I guess what I am secretly saying is, Jesus is greater when he knew the future. If he is only a rebel who was martyred then the whole deal of Christianity doesn't seem so magical and holy.

Still though even if Jesus himself didn't know he was gonna get nailed to a cross, the early Christians did know that and still didn't renounce their faith. Thus did they follow an example Jesus didn't even really set? If so they were braver than Jesus. Even braver. Pretty strong dudes. And dudettes.

Hey. I saw your avatar and say my hand scar, inherited through my Viking blood, pictured.

What came first? The natural scaring from the blood produce growth in the hand that is left after the operation or dide the Vikings tattoo the hand before the condition shows itself? The nickname for Dupuytren's nickname is Viking hand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dupuytren%27s_contracture

You probably have no idea but I thought I would see how Viking you are, brother.

Regards
DL

[felix dakat]

Marcion disagreed with the orthodoxy and that might be enough to have me see him as a Gnostic as it shows he is a free thinker. Gnostic Christianity has evolved over time and it would be best to discuss his position on things and compare them to modern Gnostic Christian thinking though as Christianity won the god wars and muddied the waters in terms of what we actually believed. Like the lies that we do not venerate matter and think the world corrupted. Gnosticism, defined in short form, is a creed of esoteric ecumenists and naturalists who recognize that all gods are man made and we just openly admit it and if we are all to make up our own gods then why not take the label of god, which we do, by naming god I am and actually meaning ourselves. Knowledge and honesty is paramount to us and that is what frustrates some as we will only speak to what we know or can be known, which excludes anything supernatural.

Scholars disagree about whether or not Marcion was a Gnostic. Wiki says the following:

Marcion is sometimes described as a Gnostic philosopher.
In some essential respects, Marcion proposed ideas which would have aligned well with Gnostic thought.
Like the Gnostics, he argued that Jesus was essentially a divine spirit appearing to human beings in the shape of a human form, and not someone in a true physical body.
However, Marcionism conceptualizes God in a way which cannot be reconciled with broader Gnostic thought.
For Gnostics, some human beings are born with a small piece of God's soul lodged within his/her spirit (akin to the notion of a Divine Spark).
God is thus intimately connected to and part of his creation.
Salvation lies in turning away from the physical world (which Gnostics regard as an illusion) and embracing the godlike qualities within yourself.
Marcion, by contrast, held that the Heavenly Father (the father of Jesus Christ) of Marcionism was an utterly alien god; he had no part in making the world, nor any connection with it.

If Jesus had unconditional love for all, he sure did not show it to the merchants who had the temples permission to be where they were when Jesus chased them away from the temple.

I already stated that Jesus seems to contradict the sermon on the mount elsewhere in the texts. Your example may be an instance of that.

Unconditional love would be epitome of love. Love of the highest form. I think. Ask those mothers if their love would grow for their children if their children had not been axe murderers or otherwise unworthy. If they say yes, which I think they would, then they have conditions to the degree of love they have even for their children. That fact negates unconditional love of the highest degree.

To be unconditional, is to impose no conditions, qualifications, stipulations. To be of the highest form might be something else. I don't see why love couldn't be granted unconditionally and yet still have the capacity to greater or lesser. So, imagine a woman who loves her abusive husband but realizes that if she stayed with him he would kill her. So she leaves him but still has feelings of love for him. Such love as she has for him is unconditional love. Is it the highest love? I don't know. How does one determine that?

I would guess by calling unconditional love the epitome of love and comparing that highest degree to whatever degree is being shown.

Some might say of your example that if she loved that fool unconditionally, her of fear of death would not drive her away.

That love she is sharing cannot be unconditional or even true love because true love requires reciprocity and good works and deeds. Obviously the good works and deeds are negated by his threats to kill his wife.

I would not say that she in unconditionally in love. I would say she is insane to stay with the prick.

Regards
DL

You've got your definition and I've got mine.

[felix dakat]

Hello Felix da Kat. It is good to read such an informed talk on Jesus. I was wondering if this means you reject the drama from "father let this cup pass me by!" which has captivated me always. Because I have religion and wonder how it would feel if I Odin would abandon me. I always admired Jesus for going through with his ordeal even though he knew it and didn't like it.

I guess what I am secretly saying is, Jesus is greater when he knew the future. If he is only a rebel who was martyred then the whole deal of Christianity doesn't seem so magical and holy.

Still though even if Jesus himself didn't know he was gonna get nailed to a cross, the early Christians did know that and still didn't renounce their faith. Thus did they follow an example Jesus didn't even really set? If so they were braver than Jesus. Even braver. Pretty strong dudes. And dudettes.

I don't presume to know. A historical reading of the texts suggests that Jesus regarded himself as the messiah in the normal Jewish sense of the term. In other words he thought of himself as a human leader who would restore the Jewish monarchy, drive out the Roman occupiers, set up a Jewish state, and inaugurate an era of world peace, justice and prosperity. This is what it meant to be Messiah according to many Jews based on the prophecies of the Hebrew Bible.

Jesus was apparently not a militarist. He didn't build up an army to fight the Romans since he believed that God would perform a great miracle to break the power of Rome. According to Zechariah 14:4 the miracle would take place on the Mount of Olives. That may be what Jesus was praying for In The Garden of Gethsemane. If God had initiated the "day of the Lord" on the Mount of Olives the cup of crucifixion may have indeed passed from him.

By the time of his prayer in the garden, Jesus had already drawn negative attention to himself from Jewish and Roman authorities by disrupting order in the temple and he may have sensed that the end was near. When God did not intervene his messianic dream failed.

After his death it was up to his followers to reimagine his mission. The New Testament record shows that Paul of Tarsus was instrumental in this project. According to tradition at least 10 of the 12 apostles were martyred. Some say Matthew was not martyred others say he was stabbed to death in Ethiopia. Only John is generally thought to have died a natural death from old age. But the documentation on this is questionable. Only the deaths of Judas and James the son of Zebedee are recounted in New Testament texts.

[felix dakat]

[ There was no expectation of a crucified messiah in the first century. .

Not to butt in but I cannot agree.

Jesus wanted to die. This is obvious from his bribe and show of love by passing a sop to Judas at the last supper and all the other disciples just sitting back and letting Judas go do as Jesus trusted him above the others to do. I think he was hoping that what would happen and did not, his resurrection, would happen.

The Jewish always expected a messiah and Jesus might have been delusional enough to give it a god and do what the tradition promised.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrDGgKunPsY

Regards
DL

The historical basis for the last supper story is questionable. The preponderance of the evidence I've seen suggests that Jews in the first century were not expecting a crucified messiah. If Jesus had expected to become the messiah/king/savior of an earthly Israel, Jesus' followers would have needed to reimagine Jesus' mission in order for the movement to continue when his expectation failed. The video you linked is interesting. However, as the video's narrator notes and is further documented here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel%27s_Revelation the meaning and provenance of the writing on the stone is inconclusive.

[Serendipper]

The Jesus character in the bible is most certainly the antithesis of the Father character while the Holy Spirit character is rarely, if ever, personified (certainly not in the greek).

Those I've challenged in the past have simply dismissed the murders of the Father on the basis of his never committing sin, but Jesus had likewise never committed sin yet he said to turn the other cheek and the meek shall inherit the earth, so if Jesus' words are true, the tyrannical Father will NOT be inheriting the earth, though he might destroy it since he appears to have a healthy appetite for destruction if the bible is any sort of guide on the matter.

Yet Allah and Yahweh are the same god to Islam. Or are you denying this.

Regards
DL

I don't know anything about Islam and far too much about Christianity.

[Serendipper]

Before we get too carried away nuancing every bump n wiggle throughout the life of Jesus, have we established that he even existed?

Don't watch this video from 5:00 to 30:00 if you want to preserve your faith.



“The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the sun, in which they put a man called Christ in the place of the sun, and pay him the adoration originally payed to the sun.” Thomas Paine.

What blows my mind is how someone living in the 1700's could know that.

[Greatest I am]

The Jesus character in the bible is most certainly the antithesis of the Father character while the Holy Spirit character is rarely, if ever, personified (certainly not in the greek).

Those I've challenged in the past have simply dismissed the murders of the Father on the basis of his never committing sin, but Jesus had likewise never committed sin yet he said to turn the other cheek and the meek shall inherit the earth, so if Jesus' words are true, the tyrannical Father will NOT be inheriting the earth, though he might destroy it since he appears to have a healthy appetite for destruction if the bible is any sort of guide on the matter.

Yet Allah and Yahweh are the same god to Islam. Or are you denying this.

Regards
DL

I don't know anything about Islam and far too much about Christianity.

I know too much about both. Have a chuckle on me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYV7KWQ-fY4

Regards
DL

[Serendipper]

I know too much about both. Have a chuckle on me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYV7KWQ-fY4

Regards
DL

Yeah I love that video

[felix dakat]

Before we get too carried away nuancing every bump n wiggle throughout the life of Jesus, have we established that he even existed?

Don't watch this video from 5:00 to 30:00 if you want to preserve your faith.

“The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the sun, in which they put a man called Christ in the place of the sun, and pay him the adoration originally payed to the sun.” Thomas Paine.

What blows my mind is how someone living in the 1700's could know that.

If Jesus was a myth, then discussing whether he would have condemned or condone Yahweh is absurd. I think it's more likely that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person whose story was mythologized by the church after he died.

[omar]

Hello Felix

There is much to what you say, Omar, but the criticism of Yahweh isn't merely the result of modern historical distance. We have Marcion of Sinope for one who was obviously a critic of Yahweh as the demiurge way back in the second century. Marcion was certainly innovative and the first to compile a NT canon. What Marcion, the so-called Gnostics and some of the early so-called church fathers seemed to be doing was applying Greek philosophy to their analysis of the Hebrew Bible and the kerygma.

I agree, but, the experiences of Marcion differ greatly from the common jew I was talking about. He inherited Christianity much more than judaism. He is the product of the Gospel of John than the Gospel of Mark. For him, in my opinion, religion was not a way of life because it was still for him an object of study and subject, in need of correction.
Ortega y Gasset described the distinction as "Creer y Pensar". Think about "creed" as unconscious beliefs that are necessary for our current life to flow. Through them we arrive at "pensar", thoughts about belief that have been abstracted into ideas, facsimiles though they be of those unreflective beliefs. So, I hold the opinion, that there were many God fearers who could be the potential converts of early Christianity, though many of them saw Christianity as one in a forrest of other possible alternatives, other mystery religions still available. Christianity at that point had not yet coalesced and the reason perhaps was that the religion was often much more an object of thought than of that sort of belief that exist from ingrained tradition.

The remarkable thing about Jesus' view in some places is his faith in an all good God given the adverse circumstances in first century Palestine. If God is all good then how does one account for the evil state of the world? Thus, the necessity of an almost equally powerful evil deity, Satan the devil. This dualism you don't see in the Hebrew Bible aka the Old Testament where the true God's sovereignty over all isn't seriously challenged. There Satan is an angelic messenger of God and while people may go astray to worship foreign gods, such are no true rivals to the All-Mighty in the narrative cosmologies of the authors.

Sacred History is the answer. The idea of a Messiah, of a restitution to glory, goes back perhaps as far as the Babylonian captivity period. The idea is that human beings were the ones who earned God's wrath. The future was always in their hands to affect, to repent and return to his good graces. The kingdom of god Jesus was preaching about held this idea at heart. Through the virtuous life of one, the community would be saved. Jesus' last gasp in Mark reflects that he expected something to happen that didn't happen. The world around him, as bad as it was, was animated by that "creencia", that underlying and unquestioned belief that what we do still could change it all in a flash.
You are right about the original role of Satan. A lot of its evolution resulted from Persian influences it received from Zoroastrianism. The world however was not that much worse overall. Yahweh's followers doggedly held to a principled monotheism which is why Yahweh was as terrible. It was not a fault to be corrected but a feature of their belief. I believe that even the super-Satan of Christianity was not su much a feature of judaism but an exceptional belief that flourished in the polytheistic garden in which Christianity grew.

Many modern NT scholars don't believe Jesus or his followers anticipated his crucifixion. There was no expectation of a crucified messiah in the first century. Jesus and his disciples had expected that with divine intervention from above he would become the reigning king of Israel. Obviously that didn't happen. Christianity, the spiritualization of Jesus as the Christ of Faith, was the creative response to the trauma of the crucifixion of the founder.

I disagree about a unified response. There were many, evident in the controversy recorded in Galatians. Once the center in Jerusalem was lost, Christianities flourished in the resulting diaspora.

[felix dakat]

Many modern NT scholars don't believe Jesus or his followers anticipated his crucifixion. There was no expectation of a crucified messiah in the first century. Jesus and his disciples had expected that with divine intervention from above he would become the reigning king of Israel. Obviously that didn't happen. Christianity, the spiritualization of Jesus as the Christ of Faith, was the creative response to the trauma of the crucifixion of the founder.

I disagree about a unified response. There were many, evident in the controversy recorded in Galatians. Once the center in Jerusalem was lost, Christianities flourished in the resulting diaspora.

I wasn't implying that there was a unified response. Modern archaeological work has recovered a number of texts that reveal religious diversity in the early years that has provided the basis for revising the traditional view of a unified response as presented in the Book of Acts.

The emerging picture of early Jesus movement is of one awash with contending beliefs. The competing "Christianities" each insisted that they upheld the true teachings of Jesus and that they possessed writings of apostles that supported their claims.

But, history gets written by the winners. In this case it was the so-called "proto-orthodox Christians"--those who eventually compiled the canonical books of the New Testament and standardized what became orthodoxy i.e. "The Christian Faith" codified in the official church creeds.

The scriptural basis for The Faith began with the theology of Paul who transmogrified the Jesus of history into the Christ of Faith. The other "Christianities" were the groups that the emerging orthodoxy denounced as heretics and persecuted accordingly.

[Greatest I am]

I know too much about both. Have a chuckle on me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYV7KWQ-fY4

Regards
DL

Yeah I love that video

Too true for comfort.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Before we get too carried away nuancing every bump n wiggle throughout the life of Jesus, have we established that he even existed?

Don't watch this video from 5:00 to 30:00 if you want to preserve your faith.

“The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the sun, in which they put a man called Christ in the place of the sun, and pay him the adoration originally payed to the sun.” Thomas Paine.

What blows my mind is how someone living in the 1700's could know that.

If Jesus was a myth, then discussing whether he would have condemned or condone Yahweh is absurd. I think it's more likely that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person whose story was mythologized by the church after he died.

This question, be you a believer or not, is designed to have the reader show his moral position.

Not mythologized, literalized, stupidly, as he began as a myth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02cia ... =PLCBF574D

Regards
DL

[Serendipper]

Before we get too carried away nuancing every bump n wiggle throughout the life of Jesus, have we established that he even existed?

Don't watch this video from 5:00 to 30:00 if you want to preserve your faith.

“The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the sun, in which they put a man called Christ in the place of the sun, and pay him the adoration originally payed to the sun.” Thomas Paine.

What blows my mind is how someone living in the 1700's could know that.

If Jesus was a myth, then discussing whether he would have condemned or condone Yahweh is absurd.

I think we can discuss whether fictional characters would have done this or that. What would Frasier Crane say about it? That's why I said "the jesus character is the opposite of the father character while the holy spirit character is rarely, if ever, personified." Whether they are real or not is inconsequential to whether they are the same personality.

I think it's more likely that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person whose story was mythologized by the church after he died.

Maybe so, but it would be awfully coincidental that so many others were: born of a virgin, had 12 disciples, died on a cross, resurrected 3 days later. There also isn't much historical evidence supporting the existence of Jesus.

But whoever created the words of Jesus was pretty smart and whoever distorted them, wasn't.