Solutions to the Jesus paradoxes

[finsternis]

Yesterday I watched "The Last Temptation of Christ" (great movie, by the way), in it I saw so interesting possible solutions to some of Jesus' paradoxes: like he saying that he is god and not god and the whole "god changed his mind about the old law" problem.

By the way, the movie is being play for free on Hulu, here's the link:
The Last Temptation of Christ

Was Jesus really god or not? In the movie, Jesus is very confused about what is it that god wants him to do. Jesus is shown as a weak and scare man who is afraid of everything, yet when he preaches he sounds like a great leader. What's up with that? Well Jesus himself says it when talking to Judas about the stoning of Mary Magdalene (which is very similar to what is said in the Gospels) he said "when I saw those people stoning Mary, I wanted to kill them. But I open my mouth and what come out? Love". This goes in relation to what happened at the beginning of the movie when he asks "what should I tell the people?" and someone (don't remember his name) says "just open your mouth".
Now, what does this all mean? Jesus was not god, he was just a speaker. Every time Jesus preached, it was not Jesus talking, it was god; this means that every time Jesus said "I am god" it did not mean "I, Jesus of Nazareth, am god", it meant "I, god, speaking through this thing you call Jesus, am god".

This means that Jesus never called himself god (he called himself the messiah, but not god), god called himself god.


On to another paradox. What's with the new law thing? Isn't god suppose to be all knowing and powerful? If so, he shouldn't be able to change his mind.
In Jerusalem, when Jesus talks to the priests in the temple (after destroying the market) he says "I bring a new law". The priest says "so god changed his mind about the old law?" and Jesus responses "No, he just thinks our hearts are ready to hold more, that's all".

I think what that means is that god is being practical. Yes he is all powerful and know, and knows what is the perfect way of things, but you can't apply a perfect idea to an imperfect being. This is why communism and other utopia ideas don't work: communism is a perfect system, but when applied to imperfect beings as our selves it turns into what you have in North Korea, China and Cuba (which is not communism, no matter what the media thinks).

So the reason for the new law is that we have evolved a little and are ready for something new and better. Maybe in the future and even newer law will come. Maybe Islam was actually the last new law (like a lot of Christians thought when the Muslims rose up). Who knows.


Now, this is "A" solution, not "THE" solution. I am not saying that this is what happened, just saying that it solves some of the paradoxes of the new testament.
This solution implies that Jesus was nothing but another prophet (like Islam says), an important prophet who needed to be sacrificed for something (not sure what), but a prophet nonetheless. This means that those sects of Christianity that worship Jesus more than god (Evangelical Christians and other protestants) are wrong.

Now remember, The Last Temptation of Christ is just a movie, it is not even based on the gospels, just on practical ideas combined with gospels ideas.

[IrishHitman]

Or, Jesus wasn't the son of a deity and deities don't exist.

[KingOfTheIsles]

Not to sound snide or anything, but you might be better looking in the bible than in a film if you want to think about the life of Jesus.

[finsternis]

Or, Jesus wasn't the son of a deity and deities don't exist.

That's possible too.

Not to sound snide or anything, but you might be better looking in the bible than in a film if you want to think about the life of Jesus.

As I said, the movie in not based on the Gospels. However the movie shows Jesus in a more human way, with problems and questions.

And as I said, I am not saying that this happened, I am just saying that there is a solution to the Jesus paradoxes and this is one: Jesus was just a loudspeaker.

[GuineaPig]

Or maybe Jesus didn't even exist...

Because as far as historical sources go, the Bible is about as useful as the Silmarillion.

[boofhead]

Or maybe Jesus didn't even exist...

Because as far as historical sources go, the Bible is about as useful as the Silmarillion.

Wrong.

There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for Julius Caesar. And yet you won't doubt he existed, will you?

[Imperator Romani]

Good job of completely going against the facts to prove a point. Pretty sure you are wrong about nearly everything...

[Chlodwig I.]

Yesterday I watched "The Last Temptation of Christ" (great movie, by the way), in it I saw so interesting possible solutions to some of Jesus' paradoxes: like he saying that he is god and not god and the whole "god changed his mind about the old law" problem. ...

... Now remember, The Last Temptation of Christ is just a movie, it is not even based on the gospels, just on practical ideas combined with gospels ideas.

Great Movie?
if you are considering the Bilble and Christian teaching the movie is not good at all.
I mean nice cinema for a nice evening but nothing to start or base
a discussion about christanity, christian teachings, the holy trinity etc. on.

[removeduser_487563287433]

The solution is that the stories of Jesus are given to us second, third or further hands roughly one hundred years after he lived, and as such are obviously not accurate.

[boofhead]

The solution is that the stories of Jesus are given to us second, third or further hands roughly one hundred years after he lived, and as such are obviously not accurate.

Because if someone dared to write a book about the Vietnam war now, including various reports from actual participants, 35 years after its completion, it would have to be complete nonsense.

[MaximiIian]

Oh, good, Thunder Dick is here. Our resident Jesusologist.

EDIT: Boof...only the Irish dude at the top was proposing that Jesus did not exist, and it is fully his right to do so. The rest of us have not said that Jesus didn't exist. Merely that there is very little unbiased information on him, meaning it's hard to take much of the info regarding him seriously. You need to stop being paranoid and pay attention.

[black-dragon]

Why should I trust hearsay/painfully vague/made up writings..?

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

delete

[boofhead]

TG - you showed me some coins and a bust......wow.

And I have the works of caesar - funny how the introduction by éxperts' involves an extensive discussion on whether or not Caesar actually personally penned them - when they compare the literary styles there is a concrete argument against him having written all 4 treatises.

How many images do you want of Jesus? How many evidences from Israel? Do you discount all the achievements of Biblical archaeologists and the stuff they uncover almost daily confirming the Bible?

Problem is, there never was any historical doubt about the existence of Pilate. Considering he's discussed extensively in Josephus and in Philo as well as being mentioned in the gospels, there was never any doubt he existed at all.

If that's the case then there should NEVER be ANY DOUBT that Jesus existed either. Yeah? I know you know that Jesus existed....so I'm not exactly sure what we are discussing here.

[black-dragon]

Biblical archaeologists and the stuff they uncover almost daily confirming the Bible?

Source for this?

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

TG - you showed me some coins and a bust......wow.

I showed you one of several busts we have of Caesar made in his lifetime and one of many dozens of coins issued by him and/or depicting him in his lifetime. That alone kicks your original claim in the ass. You lose.

And I have the works of caesar - funny how the introduction by éxperts' involves an extensive discussion on whether or not Caesar actually personally penned them - when they compare the literary styles there is a concrete argument against him having written all 4 treatises.

Garbage. There is zero serious debate about Caesar's authorship of his works, with the exception of Book VIII of De Bello Gallico which is usually attributed to Aulus Hirtus. Recent linguistic analysis of De Bello Gallico suggests a difference between Book I and the later books, but it's hard to say if this indicates separate authorship or just that it was written earlier by the same author.

What is clear is that these works were in circulation in Caesar's lifetime. So, again, your claim is totally wrong, since we have no works at all about Jesus before some decades after his death.

How many images do you want of Jesus? How many evidences from Israel?

For your original claim to be true, we would need dozens of them. From his lifetime. We have zero. So you're wrong and you fail totally.

Do you discount all the achievements of Biblical archaeologists and the stuff they uncover almost daily confirming the Bible?

*Slaps boofhead in the head* Try to frigging focus. Are we talking about whether there is more evidence for Jesus than for Caesar. So unless your "Biblical archaeologists" have uncovered several dozen portraits of Jesus made during his lifetime as well as coins or inscriptions commemorating his achievements dateable down to the precise year or even the month, there is no such evidence and you still fail.

If that's the case then there should NEVER be ANY DOUBT that Jesus existed either. Yeah? I know you know that Jesus existed....so I'm not exactly sure what we are discussing here.

As anyone with a memory longer than that of a goldfish would recall, we are discussing this statement by you:

"There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for Julius Caesar"

And that statement is totally, completely and hilariously wrong. Now would be a good time for you to slink away from this thread.

[boofhead]

*Slaps boofhead in the head*

Oh I wish you would TG, for real

As anyone with a memory longer than that of a goldfish would recall, we are discussing this statement by you:

"There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for Julius Caesar"

And that statement is totally, completely and hilariously wrong. Now would be a good time for you to slink away from this thread.

Dude, you are offensive. Are you aware of this? 'Facts' under your belt means jack- when a person isn't intelligent enough to have learnt manners or decorum. It's a bit like an idiot savant, really. Brilliant at one thing but pathetically inept at the rest.

I have news for you: I don't give two hoots about your methods of determining what is évidence' or what is acceptable in a debate or what is not. Who made that up? I'll tell you who, the autofellationists who declare themselves to be éxperts' - they make up the rules. And I can see quite clearly in everything you ever say, ever, that your rules revolve around being an atheist and a Darwinist at all costs and that anything else is complete shite.

Just carry on like that TG - it doesn't mean because we all end up in the grave anyway.

Your entire world-view is as subjective as that of those you would poo-poo, and yet you cannot see it. This is the nature of the atheist cult.

Now, take a walk outside and down the street. Now show me the real, living evidence for Caesar......is his building there? His preachers standing on milk-crates? Now look for a church. I bet there is a spire not far from you.

You want real-life substantial proof? There it is.

[Arch-hereticK]

Oh I wish you would TG, for real



Dude, you are offensive. Are you aware of this? 'Facts' under your belt means jack- when a person isn't intelligent enough to have learnt manners or decorum. It's a bit like an idiot savant, really. Brilliant at one thing but pathetically inept at the rest.

I have news for you: I don't give two hoots about your methods of determining what is évidence' or what is acceptable in a debate or what is not. Who made that up? I'll tell you who, the autofellationists who declare themselves to be éxperts' - they make up the rules. And I can see quite clearly in everything you ever say, ever, that your rules revolve around being an atheist and a Darwinist at all costs and that anything else is complete shite.

Just carry on like that TG - it doesn't mean because we all end up in the grave anyway.

Your entire world-view is as subjective as that of those you would poo-poo, and yet you cannot see it. This is the nature of the atheist cult.

Now, take a walk outside and down the street. Now show me the real, living evidence for Caesar......is his building there? His preachers standing on milk-crates? Now look for a church. I bet there is a spire not far from you.

You want real-life substantial proof? There it is.

Some more apologies are in order here for sure.

[VALIS]

Oh I wish you would TG, for real



Dude, you are offensive. Are you aware of this? 'Facts' under your belt means jack- when a person isn't intelligent enough to have learnt manners or decorum. It's a bit like an idiot savant, really. Brilliant at one thing but pathetically inept at the rest.

I have news for you: I don't give two hoots about your methods of determining what is évidence' or what is acceptable in a debate or what is not. Who made that up? I'll tell you who, the autofellationists who declare themselves to be éxperts' - they make up the rules. And I can see quite clearly in everything you ever say, ever, that your rules revolve around being an atheist and a Darwinist at all costs and that anything else is complete shite.

Just carry on like that TG - it doesn't mean because we all end up in the grave anyway.

Your entire world-view is as subjective as that of those you would poo-poo, and yet you cannot see it. This is the nature of the atheist cult.

Now, take a walk outside and down the street. Now show me the real, living evidence for Caesar......is his building there? His preachers standing on milk-crates? Now look for a church. I bet there is a spire not far from you.

You want real-life substantial proof? There it is.

Bring back negative rep for this post plz.

[boofhead]

Bring back negative rep for this post plz.

Please explain.