Pyrrho

First of all, others said it before Jesus did, so he wouldn't have to be very wise to parrot it back. See:

http://www.origin.org/ucs/ws/theme015.cfm

http://www.christainfaith.com/articles/golden.html

You can also do some research on the matter for yourself, and you will find this to be true. Indeed, there is a version of it in the Old Testament:

Leviticus 19:
Second, Jesus' version is not very well worded:

Matthew 7:
If followed exactly, it would mean that if I want someone to play opera music very loud in public, then I should do that for them (whether they want it or not). And if I want them to have sex with me, then I should have sex with them (whether they want it or not).

Note that the version in Leviticus avoids such problems.

Wise indeed!

Pyrrho

The tree did not need healing; if you read the verses carefully, you will notice that it was not the right season for it to bear fruit. In other words, the tree was doing exactly what God made it to do, and Jesus was too stupid to know this, and lashed out in frustration rather than perform the better miracle of making it bear fruit while not in season. He also, of course, was obviously not omniscient, as he did not know that the tree had no fruit until he approached it, though, if he had been involved in the design of trees, he should have known without bothering to check. The story proves that Jesus was not who Christians say he was.

inquisitive01

Looks to me like you're the one not following Matthew 7 exactly, as it says the same thing as that from Leviticus 19. Of course, you can read it differently if you choose to do so.

Pyrrho, since Jesus was a man and in human form, how do you expect him to be omniscient?

Angrillori

So, if Jesus was just a man in human form, why do you believe he did miracles? Raised from the dead?

Or was he more than just a man in human form? Did he get some of God's cool powers, just not all of them?

If he got the cool "water to wine" trick, why didn't he get the "not as dumb as a box of rocks" trick?

Pyrrho

Amen. Knowing that it was not the right season for figs doesn't require superhuman knowledge; ask any fig grower. By the way, I've seen a magician do the water to wine trick, just like in the Bible, with the pouring from one container into another. Unless a Christian is ready to proclaim every magician the son of God, doing such things shouldn't convince them that Jesus was either. Miracles, indeed!

inquisitive01

Why not? One could believe that God, working through Jesus, was the reason for the miracles, couldn't one? Also, Jesus did not raise himself from the dead, but was resurrected (verb tense) by God.

It is entirely possible that God granted him some "power," but not all of it (although all of it would likely have been at his disposal, IF God allowed that).

How do you know, without traveling back in time AND, at the same time, being able to read Jesus' mind, anything whatsoever about his intelligence?
I don't even know what you're referring to anyway when you say "not as dumb as a box of rocks" trick. Are you referring to the fig tree? If so, see earlier postings (reasonable ones, that is).

Angrillori

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[4] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

So, Jesus, just a man in human form? Or perhaps God himself? The word made flesh?

Also, speaking of sharing god's knowledge, Jebus does show glimmers of god's knowledge in at least the foreknowledge of the future--passion narratives show him knowing what was to come. He knew Judas' betrayal ahead of time. Clearly his knowledge wasn't limited to just that of just a man in human form.

More to the point:

Lets even take away Jebus' divinity for a moment, (Most xians will prolly fight you on this one.) my point remains:

You asked why we should expect Jebus to be omniscient. Well, god gave him all sorts of cool powers: healing, cursing, water->wining, water walking, etc., yet left him as dumb as a box of rocks. In particular, we have the fig tree of this thread. (Despite your implication, there does not seem to be a 'reasonable' response to why he would get angry at a tree for not having the fruit he knew it wouldn't have.)

If I walked into an apple orchard in spring, saw an apple tree, then lit it on fire for not having any apples on it, you'd think I was pretty dumb too, right?

Well, guess what, when Jebus does the same thing to an analguous tree, I'll call him pretty dumb too.

Pyrrho

We can tell in exactly the same way we can tell about anyone else whom we read about. We can read about what they said and did, and if what they said and did shows vast signs of stupidity, then we judge them to be stupid. Mind reading is not required for judgments of intelligence at all.


If you don't know what is meant by "not as dumb as a box of rocks", you might want to read this thread from the beginning. You could also look at the thread to which I provided a link in the first post. Or, if you don't want to read too much, just take a look at:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...&postcount=126

Jesus, as depicted in the Bible, was a dumb as a stump.

inquisitive01

Maybe what's being "depicted" is not fully understood by you? Of course, there are many, many things that are not fully understood, so that's understandable.

Skeptic Pete

Forgive me for not putting this in my own words, but this man who lived over 100 years ago puts it so much more eloquently than I possibly could............

-About the Holy Bible- Robert G. Ingersoll 1894


THE PHILOSOPHY OF CHRIST.

Millions assert that the philosophy of Christ is perfect -- that he was the wisest that ever uttered speech.

Let us see:

Resist not evil. If smitten on one cheek turn the other.

Is there any philosophy, any wisdom in this? Christ takes from goodness, from virtue, from the truth, the right of self-defence. Vice becomes the master of the world, and the good become the victims of the infamous.

No man has the right to protect himself, his property, his wife and children. Government becomes impossible, and the world is at the mercy of criminals. Is there any absurdity beyond this?

Love your enemies.

Is this possible? Did any human being ever love his enemies? Did Christ love his, when he denounced them as whited sepulchers, hypocrites and vipers?

We cannot love those who hate us. Hatred in the hearts of others does not breed love in ours. Not to resist evil is absurd; to love your enemies is impossible.

Take no thought for the morrow.

The idea was that God would take care of us as he did of sparrows and lilies. Is there the least sense in that belief?

Does God take care of anybody?

Can we live without taking thought for the morrow? To plow, to sow, to cultivate, to harvest, is to take thought for the morrow. We plan and work for the future, for our children, for the unborn generations to come. Without this forethought there could be no progress, no civilization. The world would go back to the caves and dens of savagery.

If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out. If thy right hand offend thee, cut it off.

Why? Because it is better that one of our members should perish than that the whole body should be cast into hell.

Is there any wisdom in putting out your eyes or cutting off your hands? Is it possible to extract from these extravagant sayings the smallest grain of common sense?

Swear not at all; neither by Heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by the Earth, for it is his footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is his holy city.

Here we find the astronomy and geology of Christ. Heaven is the throne of God, the monarch; the earth is his footstool. A footstool that turns over at the rate of a thousand miles an hour, and sweeps through space at the rate of over a thousand miles a minute!

Where did Christ think heaven was? Why was Jerusalem a holy city? Was it because the inhabitants were ignorant, crud and superstitious?

If any man will sue thee at the law and take away thy coat let him have thy cloak also.

Is there any philosophy, any good sense, in that commandment? Would it not be just as sensible to say: "If a man obtains a judgment against you for one hundred dollars, give him two hundred."

Only the insane could give or follow this advice.

Think not I come to send peace on earth. I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother.

If this is true, how much better it would have been had he remained away.

Is it possible that he who said, "Resist not evil," came to bring a sword? That he who said, "Love your enemies," came to destroy the peace of the world?

To set father against son, and daughter against father -- what a glorious mission!

He did bring a sword, and the sword was wet for a thousand years with innocent blood. In millions of hearts he sowed the seeds of hatred and revenge. He divided nations and families, put out the light of reason, and petrified the hearts of men.

And every one that hath forsaken house, or breathren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

According to the writer of Matthew, Christ, the compassionate, the merciful, uttered these terrible words. Is it possible that Christ offered the bribe of eternal joy to those who would desert their fathers, their mothers, their wives and children? Are we to win the happiness of heaven by deserting the ones we love? Is a home to be ruined here for the sake of a mansion there?

And yet it is said that Christ is an example for all the world. Did he desert his father and mother? He said, speaking to his mother: "Woman, what have I to do with thee?"

The Pharisees said unto Christ: "Is it lawful to pay tribute unto Caesar?

Christ said: "Show me the tribute money."They brought him a penny. And he saith unto them: "Whose is the image and the superscription? "They said: "Caesar's." And Christ said: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's."

Did Christ think that the money belonged to Caesar because his image and superscription were stamped upon it? Did the penny belong to Caesar or to the man who had earned it? Had Caesar the right to demand it because it was adorned with his image?

Does it appear from this conversation that Christ understood the real nature and use of money?

Can we now say that Christ was the greatest of philosophers?

IX

IS CHRIST OUR EXAMPLE?

He never said a word in favor of education. He never even hinted at the existence of any science. He never uttered a word in favor of industry, economy or of any effort to better our condition in this world. He was the enemy of the successful, of the wealthy. Dives was sent to hell, not because he was bad, but because he was rich. Lazarus went to heaven, not because he was good, but because he was poor.

Christ cared nothing for painting, for sculpture, for music -- nothing for any art. He said nothing about the duties of nation to nation, of king to subject; nothing about the rights of man; nothing about intellectual liberty or the freedom of speech. He said nothing about the sacredness of home; not one word for the fireside; not a word in favor of marriage, in honor of maternity.

He never married. He wandered homeless from place to place with a few disciples. None of them seem to have been engaged in any useful business, and they seem to have lived on alms.

All human ties were held in contempt; this world was sacrificed for the next; all human effort was discouraged. God would support and protect.

At last, in the dusk of death, Christ, finding that he was mistaken, cried out: "My God My God! Why hast thou forsaken me?"


Why did he not plainly say: "I am the Son of God," or, "I am God"? Why did he not explain the Trinity? Why did he not tell the mode of baptism that was pleasing to him? Why did he not write a creed? Why did he not break the chains of slaves? Why did he not say that the Old Testament was or was not the inspired word of God? Why did he not write the New Testament himself? Why did he leave his words to ignorance, hypocrisy and chance? Why did he not say something positive, definite and satisfactory about another world? Why did he not turn the tear-stained hope of heaven into the glad knowledge of another life? Why did he not tell us something of the rights of man, of the liberty of hand and brain?

Why did he go dumbly to his death, leaving the world to misery and to doubt?

I will tell you why. He was a man, and did not know.