Waning Moon Conrad

Did Jesus actually have the right to consider everyone else on this Earth to be a sinner?

Was it perhaps presumptuous of him to think that he had the right to take everyone else's sin upon himself and pay for it?

Darwin's Finch

Given Jesus's background as a first-century Galilean Jew, I would be surprised if he didn't think of others as sinners. Kind of goes with the territory.

Was it perhaps presumptuous of him to think that he had the right to take everyone's else's sin upon himself and pay for it?

I doubt that he thought any such thing. The redemption of sin through the crucifixion is Paul's obsession.

emotional

I like Ingersoll's stance of the lack of forward-planning by Jesus: if Jesus was God, then he knew many would be tortured and killed in his name, yet he did nothing to prevent it. So rather than call Jesus a bastard, says Ingersoll, best conclude he wasn't God, he didn't know what would come out of this whole affair, and if he were alive today he'd be very surprised (to say the least) of the religion that sprang up from his teachings.

sighhswolf

Some would say he was suicidal. I dont go that far because I think we make tremendous errors in Judgement by assigning our modern concepts to the ancient hebrews and giving them motivations that we could never know.
Jesus was first and foremost a Jew, christians
gloss over and ignore that fact.
I honestly think his teachings were never intended
for gentiles, but rather aimed at gods chosen.
He comments several times concerning the "law".
The "law" was not meant for gentiles and it is spelled out rather vigorously in the Torah what
a gentile must do to be a part of the coming of gods kingdom on earth.
He could not have been god, else he would not have told the disciples that some of them would not taste death until the coming of the kingdom of god on earth with himself as head administrator.
There are so many references he makes to his "father in Heaven" I could never understand how christian doctrine came up with the trinity. "we" as god refered to himself is a collective term meaning himself and the angelic hosts. But we must also remember that Jewish beliefs were not monotheistic throughout their history, and so the collective "we" could have possibly been a hold over from a polytheistic belief system.
If literalists say they take the Bible and the NT
as written, then there is absolutely no references to Jesus claiming to be god.
"In my Fathers house there are many mansions, I go therefore to prepare a place for you............"
Too many references to "Father" to be convincing of a trinity for me.
Wolf

sidewinder

If you are referring to the doctrine of original sin, it's highly unlikely that Jesus believed this doctrine. Jesus would've agreed that people are sinners and need repentance but he wouldn't have taught the doctrine of original sin. I am basing this opinion on the fact that (as far as I understand)religious Jews around his time did not teach this doctrine.

Paul is the inventor of the doctrine of original sin. He reinterpreted the Garden of Eden scenes in Genesis and came up with original sin. He did this to justify why the Messiah had to die. It is highly unlikely that Jesus believed he was dying for the sins of mankind. Jesus knew he was going to die (near the end of his ministry) but he thought he was dying simply for the mission of preaching the Kingdom of God.

Amos

He did say that and it sounds like you are drowning in the mire of protestant theology. He died for the sins of his own world and if you want to follow him you must pick up your cross and die for the sins of your world.

Amos

Waning Moon Conrad

How do you work that one out? What is so protestantly theological about asking this particular question?

<strong> Actually, I think that what Sidewinder said above is true. If you read the Gospel of Thomas among other things, it begins to seem pretty clear that there's not much connection between what Jesus taught his disciples and Paul perpetrated.

If you read Barbara Thiering and Dominic Crossnan's works, you may see good reason to believe that Jesus died for threatening the social cohesion with his new mythology or his new philosophy extrapolated from the old mythology.

Amos

Sorry Conrad. That line is supposed to read "He did not say that and it sounds like . . .."

It is typical protestant theology to read that Jesus died for our sins (so now we do not have to). In Catholicism we must pick up our cross and follow the footsteps of Jesus and drink from the cup he drank etc.

Sidewinder is close enough for me but should recognize that Jesus died to set the Messiah free.

Paul was a mythmaker and needed to bring out the religious perspective to attract followers. Catholicism has to be opposite to Judaism and followers must look at the example set by Jesus in the NT while Jews must be mesmerized by the prophets of the OT. Both will end up in the same place, either the first coming for the Jews or the second coming for Catholics.

Amos

Waning Moon Conrad

Then I've been making assumptions about the Christ of the Orthodox Gospels which are totally inaccurate.

Thank you for disabusing me of these notions!

<strong> That's never occurred to me but it makes a certain sense.

It's not just because I'm an ex-Catholic that I have some respect for Catholicism, it's because every priest I've ever spoken to has been educated, open, compassionate and tolerant of other religions. None of them have expressed a belief that good people of other faiths burn. Similarly with Anglicans although they're the only Protestants worth speaking to in my experience.

<strong> I don't understand what you mean.

<strong> I don't like him. I've read some of his books/letters and he seems like the first fundamentalist to me.

[ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: Waning Moon Conrad ]</p>

sidewinder

I have read many posts by Amos and I admit that many times I don't understand what he is trying to say. He seems to be a religious mystic of some sort. (This isn't meant to offend Amos either.)

In any case, the bottom line is Protestant and Catholic theology both agree that Jesus died for the sins of the world. I realize there are many nuances to this but that's the overall view of both theologies.

In the Synoptics, Jesus appears to have no idea that he is supposed to die for the sins of mankind. There is one verse which mentions his life as a ransom but many scholars agree that it was probably inserted by the writer or editor. By the time the first gospel (Mark) was written, the idea that Jesus had died for the sins of the world was well known so it's not surprising that it showed up in the gospels. The writers and editors of the OT wrote in much the same manner.

What many atheists and non-atheists seem to miss is that the Jesus of the gospels (particularly the Synoptic gospels) is very different from the Christ of the churches. The doctrines of Christianity come mainly from Paul and the early Church fathers. Christianity is not the religion of Jesus, it is the religion about Jesus.

Jesus preached the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God. His preaching was all about this Kingdom. It appears that toward the end of his ministry, he knew he was being seen as a troublemaker by the priestly authority in Jerusalem. He also probably realized about this time that he might have to die for his mission of preaching the Kingdom of God. But he believed in his mission so strongly (that his mission was from the God of Israel) that he was willing to die for it.

He went up to Jerusalem for the last time and continued to preach about this Kingdom. It appears that some of his followers began to proclaim him as the Messiah and this was the beginning of the end. The Romans saw this Kingdom as a threat to their political rule and the priestly authority saw it as a threat to their religious rule. The priestly authority assisted in having him handed over to the Romans and the Romans crucified him as a criminal.

Now you can interpret his death as dying for the sins of the world but I see it as a natural course of events in that particular time and place in history. I seriously doubt that Jesus believed he had to die for the sins of mankind. I also seriously doubt that Jesus saw himself as the God of Israel or even as any kind of a manifestation of the God of Israel but that's another topic.

Cheers.