Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

I figured the Jews would be the New Fremen on whatever planet Sheeana, Duncan & Company landed on and Duniformed.

Baraka Bryan wrote:“Either Jesus was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But don’t make up any patronizing nonsense about His being just a great human teacher.” (C.S. Lewis)

That leaves out a number of other options, like he was purposely dishonest and misleading to his followers, was truly ignorant about the Torah and Judaism, or that he was made up altogether.

Purge wrote:

Baraka Bryan wrote:“Either Jesus was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But don’t make up any patronizing nonsense about His being just a great human teacher.” (C.S. Lewis)

That leaves out a number of other options, like he was purposely dishonest and misleading to his followers, was truly ignorant about the Torah and Judaism, or that he was made up altogether.

I'd like to think he really existed, I don't doubt that. If he did and the accounts of his life were accurate, he was teaching the Rabbis as a child, wasn't he?

If Jesus existed and is portrayed accurately then he is portrayed as violating and advising his followers to violate the Torah on a number of occasions. So the notion that he taught the Rabbis doesn't hold weight to a Jew. Unless someone wants to argue that Jesus was teaching Rabbis how to violate the Torah and the covenant, in which case any unlearned person Jew or gentile could do the same thing.

Many of the sayings attributed to Jesus were said before Jesus by people such as Hillel and Shammai and various other sages and Rabbis prior to the first century, and most of it was already said in the Torah and Nach (Prophets and Writings) before them. But then there are other things which are antithetical to Torah, and they clearly show that either Jesus or the people writing for his voice were either ignorant of Torah and the covenant or were actively teaching against it.

There are a million different reasons why Jesus was/is not who he is claimed by others to be. Now, I don't deny that there might have been a Jesus who lived, perhaps he was a good Jew, and perhaps he even had intentions to pull off the messianic requirements, but he didn't, and he won't.

For a Jew that is the end of story. No man - least of all a dead guy, whether Jew or gentile - will ever be our G-d.

Baraka Bryan wrote:“Either Jesus was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But don’t make up any patronizing nonsense about His being just a great human teacher.” (C.S. Lewis)

Funny how quotes like this can rally people in their faith. Looking at it outside theology, I would call this opinion total garbage. Making up "patronizing nonsense" means you either believe what I believe, or GTFO.

C.S. Lewis can kiss my ass.

Hit..err, Fantomas wrote:You guys "killed" Jesus. Tit for tat. Eye for an eye...
at the very least, Jews got blamed for it.

that guy who seems to know nothing about the religion he's trying to shove down our throats wrote:Why would Holy Jesus do that?
To split the 30 pieces of silver with Judas?

Of course Jesus was planning to share the 30 silver with Judas- he was a Jew after all.


AToE, maybe we should get rid of the USA and Russia&China...they seem to all hold much more gunpowder under their sits.

HoosierDaddy wrote:

Baraka Bryan wrote:“Either Jesus was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But don’t make up any patronizing nonsense about His being just a great human teacher.” (C.S. Lewis)

Funny how quotes like this can rally people in their faith. Looking at it outside theology, I would call this opinion total garbage. Making up "patronizing nonsense" means you either believe what I believe, or GTFO.

C.S. Lewis can kiss my ass.

I actually like that quote from an athiest point of view. All Lewis was saying is that either Jesus was telling the truth, or he was a scum bag liar, or that he was insane. One of those three. He explains the thought behind that in the following paragraphs.

I agree with him when he says that either Jesus was telling the truth and is to be admired, or he was an ass - saying that he was awesome (for philisophical/moral reasons) but not divine is silly.

orald wrote: AToE, maybe we should get rid of the USA and Russia&China...they seem to all hold much more gunpowder under their sits.

No we're automatically right because we're us. No one else can be right, especially if their views contradict ours, that doesn't make sense. I thought you were pretty well versed in this type of thinking? (The wink denotes sarcasm, not the rolling eyes.)

Well, you can't really say "we" since you're Canadian. Shoo!:P

"We" pretty much encompasses the "west". I'm not a nationalist, and while my pride kicks in if someone calls me an American, I consider the west to be one "people". There may be divisions between countries, but those divisions often aren't even as big as divisions within each country - so if I'm to consider Canadians whose culture is much further removed from mine "my" people, it'd be pretty silly to not consider those americans who share a similar culture "my" people. Make sense? I rarely do, but this is one time I'd like to make some sense.


Plus the fallout would spill over into Canada if someone blew up the states.

A Thing of Eternity wrote: I actually like that quote from an athiest point of view. All Lewis was saying is that either Jesus was telling the truth, or he was a scum bag liar, or that he was insane. One of those three. He explains the thought behind that in the following paragraphs.

I agree with him when he says that either Jesus was telling the truth and is to be admired, or he was an ass - saying that he was awesome (for philisophical/moral reasons) but not divine is silly.

I can't buy there are only 3 possibilities here. And building "strawman" type of arguments don't work with me anymore.

On that note, I will quietly bow out of this discussion.

HoosierDaddy wrote:

A Thing of Eternity wrote: I actually like that quote from an athiest point of view. All Lewis was saying is that either Jesus was telling the truth, or he was a scum bag liar, or that he was insane. One of those three. He explains the thought behind that in the following paragraphs.

I agree with him when he says that either Jesus was telling the truth and is to be admired, or he was an ass - saying that he was awesome (for philisophical/moral reasons) but not divine is silly.

I can't buy there are only 3 possibilities here. And building "strawman" type of arguments don't work with me anymore.

On that note, I will quietly bow out of this discussion.

Don't bow out! I like different takes on things. I know what you mean by calling that statement by Lewis a strawman argument, but I don't really think that he was intending to say anything negative about people who don't believe in Jesus, just that he doesn't think that Jesus can be regarded as a moral teacher if he's not the son of god, because he'd be lying, which isn't very moral.

As far as other possibilities, I can only think of a couple.
1. He didn't at any point actually say that he was the literal son of god - that was a later missinterpretation. Then it would be okay to call him a good moral teach but not divine.
2. If you think a psychopath can still be a moral teacher (see previous option #3) - I don't see why not.

Those are the other options (that I can think of) for calling him a moral leader. As far as extra options to whether he.the text was telling the truth, I could only add one more, and that would be the possibility that he didn't exist at all, rendering the whole point moot.


Myself, I have no way of knowing whether he was being literal when he said he was the son of god, but if he was - my position is that he was completely insane. Completely.

There's always the alien love-child option...

Let's say that Jesus never claimed to be G-d (I don't recall any such statement). For one, son of G-d is not a divine appelation whatsoever in Hebrew and Aramaic. In Sh'mot/Exodus, Bnei Yisrael/Children of Israel are called His firstborn. This is repeated elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible such as in the nevi'im (prophets).

Furthermore, G-d tells David that Solomon would be like a son to Him and He a father to him. The misinterpretation of son of G-d being a divine/supernatural title only takes place when the Greek, Romans, etc. - with their gods with human/divine sons - get ahold of terms like these and completely misunderstand them.

So it is not impossible that there was a Jesus, that he was a good Jew who followed halacha, who didn't consider himself divine whatsoever, and who merely thought he had the potential to be the messiah (which is not a divine/godly role). But there are many things written about him and words put in his mouth that call into question his knowledge and observance of the Torah and the covenant.

Purge wrote:Let's say that Jesus never claimed to be G-d (I don't recall any such statement). For one, son of G-d is not a divine appelation whatsoever in Hebrew and Aramaic. In Sh'mot/Exodus, Bnei Yisrael/Children of Israel are called His firstborn. This is repeated elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible such as in the nevi'im (prophets).

Furthermore, G-d tells David that Solomon would be like a son to Him and He a father to him. The misinterpretation of son of G-d being a divine/supernatural title only takes place when the Greek, Romans, etc. - with their gods with human/divine sons - get ahold of terms like these and completely misunderstand them.

So it is not impossible that there was a Jesus, that he was a good Jew who followed halacha, who didn't consider himself divine whatsoever, and who merely thought he had the potential to be the messiah (which is not a divine/godly role).

Could be, if he was in fact sane then this is the more likely scenario in my mind. He also could have been stark raving mad

And I see you're another person who doesn't like the letter O. Tisk tisk.

It's not entirely necessary online/on a computer (aside from the chance that someone might print out then tear up or deface the printed page) where it is just being projected and the names can't actually be destroyed, but I do it anyway.

A Thing of Eternity wrote:"We" pretty much encompasses the "west". I'm not a nationalist, and while my pride kicks in if someone calls me an American, I consider the west to be one "people". There may be divisions between countries, but those divisions often aren't even as big as divisions within each country - so if I'm to consider Canadians whose culture is much further removed from mine "my" people, it'd be pretty silly to not consider those americans who share a similar culture "my" people. Make sense? I rarely do, but this is one time I'd like to make some sense.


Plus the fallout would spill over into Canada if someone blew up the states.

I'm confused...do you or don't you like us?

Personally, I like to think that Jesus lived and breathed, and that he was
one of the most brilliant and unsuccessful politicians in history. He really
knew how to work a crowd, but he couldn't keep the dogs off and the
establishment got him.

Spicelon wrote:Personally, I like to think that Jesus lived and breathed

And pooped!

Spicelon wrote:

A Thing of Eternity wrote:"We" pretty much encompasses the "west". I'm not a nationalist, and while my pride kicks in if someone calls me an American, I consider the west to be one "people". There may be divisions between countries, but those divisions often aren't even as big as divisions within each country - so if I'm to consider Canadians whose culture is much further removed from mine "my" people, it'd be pretty silly to not consider those americans who share a similar culture "my" people. Make sense? I rarely do, but this is one time I'd like to make some sense.


Plus the fallout would spill over into Canada if someone blew up the states.

I'm confused...do you or don't you like us?

Some of you I like, some of you I don't. Same goes for Canadians. Same goes for humans in general.

orald wrote:

Spicelon wrote:Personally, I like to think that Jesus lived and breathed

And pooped!

<nods>

It is known.

Baraka,

Not that I am a Jesus defender, but none of those statements are claims of divinity, but rather claims of being the messiah. Christ is a Greek translation of Mashiach (messiah), which means annointed. The messiah never had a connotation of being divine or being a god at any point until later Christianity proclaimed Jesus a god (which has no bearing on the true meaning of the word and the concept of mashiach).

The clouds of heaven stuff is a reference to Daniel, which is about the human/non-divine messiah.

For the record "I Am" is not a name of G-d. This is a big misconception (just like Jehovah, which is a nonsense word) amongst Westerners.

The "I Am" misconception comes from a mistranslation of Exodus 3:14.

The Hebrew is "ehyeh asher ehyeh", which basically means "I will be what I will be". Ehyeh appears before this in verse 12, and you will notice that Christian bibles manage to translate it correctly there, but change it to "I Am" in verse 14, perhaps for the purpose of correlating it to the Jesus quote you mentioned.

"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I Am!"

I don't think that's from exodus

I hear you Purge, there are lots of messed up translations, but that line pretty clearly states that jesus existed before abraham. Unless someone can show me a quote of the text in its original language, and then translate it properly if such is the case for that passage.

There's also the possibility that this passage and others like it were added/altered and do not reflect events.

You misunderstood me. The mistranslation of ehyeh as "I Am" is from Exodus. John makes claims that aren't found in the other gospels, one of them is this one. Whether Jesus actually existed, and if he did whether he said this or not I don't know.

To be honest it doesn't effect me one way or another. But the fact is that quotes attributed to G-d in the Hebrew Bible are not ambiguous. The first commandment to Jews is "I am Hashem your G-d Who has taken you out of the land of Egypt from the house of slavery."

There is nothing ambiguous about His proclaimations, as opposed to this quote which is the only one of its kind, and which is completely ambigious as to what the person is claiming to be.

Ah, you're saying that if he went to all the trouble too become manifest he'd certainly make it clearly known? Probably true.

The argument against that is, of course, that the idea that Jesus made a man walk is poo-poo.

Anyway, am I misremembering something or do the Bene Tleilaxu not get along very well with the Jewish people?

Also, is it safe to assume that "the Unspeakable" is the Shoah?