Solo

This is an argument past my point. I was not questioning God's creation of humans who 'lack' in intelligence but a view of God which imputes to him nastiness and cruelty. If God had the power to harden Pharaoh's heart, he could not at the same time use this "hardening of Pharaoh`s heart" as an excuse for unleashing mayhem upon Egypt. Only someone whose thinking is demonstrably childish could write or credit:

Exd 7:3-4 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt. But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that I may lay my hand upon Egypt, and bring forth mine armies, [and] my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments.

Jiri

d-ray

Hear, hear!:notworthy:

No Robots

Yes, yes, of course. I suggest you look at Spinoza's analysis of the prophets in his Theological Political Treatise , particularly where he deals with the fact that their representation of God was conditioned by the limits of their own imagination:

[T]he prophets were endowed with unusually vivid imaginations, and not with unusually perfect minds.

Spinoza also makes it clear that Christ's own thought was free from all such imaginative distortion:

[A] man who can by pure intuition comprehend ideas which are neither contained in nor deducible from the foundations of our natural knowledge, must necessarily possess a mind far superior to those of his fellow men, nor do I believe that any have been so endowed save Christ. To Him the ordinances of God leading men to salvation were revealed directly without words or visions, so that God manifested Himself to the Apostles through the mind of Christ as He formerly did to Moses through the supernatural voice. In this sense the voice of Christ, like the voice which Moses heard, may be called the voice of God, and it may be said that the wisdom of God (i.e. wisdom more than human) took upon itself in Christ human nature, and that Christ was the way of salvation.

perfectidius

Well I care nothing for the concept of sin? As a philosopher, I wonder if he was consistent? That he believed that his morality was practicable, that he thought through what he dared recommend others to do.

He says "let your yes be yes, your no, no" meaning, it seems, that we ought to speak in simple noncontradictory ways. Yet his parables are anything but "yes,yes and no,no" but are intended to confuse the listeners "so that they may not be saved."

He also says that you ought not call your brethren "fools" unless you want to go to hell, and that if you even feel anger towards your brother, you are close to hell. Well then: anger is Jesus' main emotion. He feels it more than anything (count it up in the gospel). He calls the pharisees fools, yes, and vipers, and walking tombs, and damnable, etc. etc. He certainly felt angry at them. He feels angry at his own disciples, calling Peter "Satan" when Peter has trouble undestanding why Jesus wants to die.

IT is not that I blame him for getting angry or telling interesting parables, but it simply puts into light that his earlier admonitions to never feel angry, never lust, to give everything you have to anybody who asks with no hope of returning it, etc, don't make sense.

You can catch him up dozens of times breaking his own rules.

He says to pray in your closet, so that you don't make yourself out to look holy, but he often makes himself to look holy, prays openly, etc. He says to do your acts of righteosness in private, so as not to be a spectracle, but it seems he liked to do "faith healings" like a big public display.

He says whoever teaches anybody to break "the least" of Moses' laws will be called "least" in the kingdom of heaven. Yet he seems to teach against divorce in places, and against other laws here and there, such as honoring your parents (at one point, he tells a would be disciple that he should not bury his own father).

I can give you more examples if you want. If your question, "did Jesus sin" equates to "Was the gospel Jesus a pious example of a Jew" the answer is "certainly not."

Daniel

Reason

Since it is highly likely he was humping Mary Magdalene, yeah, he sinned.

perfectidius

by the way, the story about him complying with the demon's request to send them into thousands of pigs in order to the demons to commit suicide (which is totally weird to me to this day)--well that wasn't nice. Do you know how much such a large herd of pigs would be worth to the owners. Nor do they sue him. They simply ask him to leave, after their livelihood was spoiled with demons and drowning. Well with a guy who has so little pity on defenseless animals, maybe they were playing it smart?

Daniel

d-ray

I haven't read Spinoza and probably never will. Nothing against the man, but one thing I'd like to ask him, if I could, is "Where do you get this stuff? How do you know all this? Does it all go back to the old argument, 'God is that greater than which nothing can be imagined'? Then you sit back and imagine all the qualities that such a being would possess? Some of us like to work on the basis of what we know, not of what we can imagine."

d-ray

I recall reading this, that he deliberately spoke in parables so that people wouldn't understand and be saved, or something like that. But I can't find that passage. Can you give me the reference? And yes, please give me more examples of his inconsistencies.

No Robots

He speaks to the multitude in parables because they do not understand.

Therefore do I speak to them in parables: because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
And the prophecy of Isaias is fulfilled in them, who saith: By hearing you shall hear, and shall not understand: and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive.
For the heart of this people is grown gross, and with their ears they have been dull of hearing, and their eyes they have shut: lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

--Mt 13:13-15

perfectidius

In fuller context, Jesus, according to Matthew, says this:

10And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

11He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

12For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

13Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

14And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

15For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

16But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

17For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.

(Mt 13:10-17 KJV)

So here, Jesus seems to be saying that he speaks in parables so that his disciples "who have" will be given more, and the crowd which "doesn't have" will have even less (be confused).

If I understand your interpretation, it is that the crowd was blind to his teaching, so he was trying a new tactic.

Mark has a similar version of the story:

10And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.

11And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

12That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

13And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?

14The sower soweth the word.

Here Jesus says that he says that the disciples are given the mysteries, but not those who are not "in", "so that they may see but no perceive, so that they may hear and not understand, lest they be saved" (my paraphrase).

I am not claiming that Jesus did not want them to be saved. I am not certain how to interpret this explanation the gospels say Jesus made. However, my point was that the parables were meant to be obscure, and not simple noncontradictory speech, "let your yes be yes, let your no be no" (paraphrase of Matthew 5:37).

I am leaving the gospel of John out completely. He can be even more vague and deliberately confusing there (for instance, at the end of the gospels, one of his disciples says, "Finally you are speaking to us in a way we can understand). But I regard that Jesus as very different from the one who said: "Let your communication be yes yes, no no."

Daniel