Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Missed Point Message-ID: Date: 13 Dec 90 10:47:06 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia Lines: 59 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , spock@maths.tcd.ie (Tommy Hayes (Thanks Dr.W.)) writes: > Why can't everybody just realise that Jesus was just an ordinary, > albeit very ahead of his time, person who had a lot of brilliant > ideas about how we should live? Because He _wasn't_ ahead of His time. I am assured by a Jewish friend that nearly everything Jesus said *except* concerning His own nature and relationship to G-d and *except* His attitude to the Sages of His time can be duplicated from the Talmud, and based on my own very limited reading so far this seems to be true. It's also what a number of Christian commentators have said. There is a book by Vermes called "Jesus the Jew" which I mean to buy, but I am *way* over my book budget this year. This is important point; how could we *possibly* ever have hoped to get away with saying that Christianity is the continuation of the true Faith, how could any honest man ever have begun to criticise any Jew at any time for not following Him, unless His teaching were a recognisable development from the Tanakh? Now, as for His statements concerning His relationship to G-d, (a) you might believe that they were added later (but then why put any more trust in the other sayings?) (b) you might believe that He said them but didn't mean them the way they were taken (in which case He was as bad a teacher as I am, and was less worthy of admiration than Hillel) (c) you might believe that He said them and meant them, in which case (c1) He was lying (what's admirable about that?) (c2) or insane (what's admirable about that?) (c3) or telling the truth. > There is absolutly no need to bring in god,heaven or anything like > that to explain anything,and anybody who does was either brainwashed > by their parents or else are too ignorant to think objectivly about their > religion. My dear feller, there's no need to bring in the physical universe either. You can explain everything with the idea that you are the only reality there is. If you believe that the physical universe exists, were you brainwashed by your parents, or are you unable to think objectively? There is no way at all to prove that the world or other people are real. If you are going to talk about Jesus, there *is* a need to bring in G-d and Heaven, because *He* did. I repeat, if you throw out the texts in which He is said to have talked about these things, why keep any of them? (If you want to tell other people they are ignorant, it would be well to protect yourself rather better against spelling and grammar flames.) > I remember one of my many religious instructors in school once gave > a very cutting address against people like the dreaded 'Moonies' > and 'Born Again Christians' who kidnap people unbeknowns to them > and brainwash them for a couple of weeks into their way of thinking. I've never heard of "Born Again Christians" doing this. Evidence, please! I could give a very cutting address against almost anything you please, but that wouldn't make it _true_! -- The Marxists have merely _interpreted_ Marxism in various ways; the point, however, is to _change_ it. -- R. Hochhuth.