Jesus Failed Right?

[metis]

They are not closest in theology at all. Jews believe in an 'eye-for-an-eye'. They believe in a vengeful, cruel, jealous, genocidal God.

"Nice" stereotype. Got any more?

 

[soulsurvivor]

"Nice" stereotype. Got any more?

Are you saying they don't actually believe in their own book?
"The LORD is a jealous and vengeful God; the LORD is vengeful and strong in wrath. The LORD is vengeful against his foes; he rages against his enemies."
"Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***."

 

[metis]

Are you saying they don't actually believe in their own book?
"The LORD is a jealous and vengeful God; the LORD is vengeful and strong in wrath. The LORD is vengeful against his foes; he rages against his enemies."
"Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***."

How about Armageddon as found in the Book of Revelation? Do you honestly feel that's any different? Should Christians rip the OT out of their Bibles and maybe all NT verses that contain any violence, human or by God, against another?

Obviously, I'm not a scriptural literalist.

 

[soulsurvivor]

How about Armageddon as found in the Book of Revelation? Do you honestly feel that's any different? Should Christians rip the OT out of their Bibles and maybe all NT verses that contain any violence, human or by God, against another?

Obviously, I'm not a scriptural literalist.

The book of Revelation does not command any humans to kill man, woman, child or infant. The book is describing someone's visions or dreams, not describing God. Also, Armageddon describes the end of world, not how God routinely commits or advises humans to commit crimes against humanity. Throwing most of the OT out the Bible would not be such a bad idea.

 

[soulsurvivor]

Obviously, I'm not a scriptural literalist.

Being a literalist means that you believe God created the universe in 6 days or that the world is 6000 years old. But when book says God killed 70,000 people because Solomon conducted a census, it gives an indication on what kind of God he is, whether you believe it literally or not.

 

[metis]

The book of Revelation does not command any humans to kill man, woman, child or infant. The book is describing someone's visions or dreams, not describing God. Also, Armageddon describes the end of world, not how God routinely commits or advises humans to commit crimes against humanity. Throwing most of the OT out the Bible would not be such a bad idea.

But that involves God committing mass killings, so are you also going to throw out the NT?

 

[metis]

Being a literalist means that you believe God created the universe in 6 days or that the world is 6000 years old. But when book says God killed 70,000 people because Solomon conducted a census, it gives an indication on what kind of God he is, whether you believe it literally or not.

No, literalism doesn't just deal with how many days... I grew up in a fundamentalist church that taught scriptural inerrancy, and I never bought into it.

 

[soulsurvivor]

But that involves God committing mass killings, so are you also going to throw out the NT?

It is someone's visions, it does not describe anything that has happened. You don't need to believe anybody's vision. But if a book says this what God said or did, then you either accept it or discard it.

 

[Colt]

Sure, Jesus had to change his plans after failing with the Jews.

Some of the Jewish followers of Jesus who subsequently claimed and wrote that Jesus came only for the Jews. They were still suffering from the chosen people delusion. The "plan" or hope was that the Jews would have accepted and adopted the original "Gospel of the Kingdom" and hence taught it to the world.

 

[Nakosis]

Some of the Jewish followers of Jesus who subsequently claimed and wrote that Jesus came only for the Jews. They were still suffering from the chosen people delusion. The "plan" or hope was that the Jews would have accepted and adopted the original "Gospel of the Kingdom" and hence taught it to the world.

Does that mean you think that some passages of the Bible were "Fake News"?

 

[Madsaac]

If Jesus' mission on Earth was to preach the good word to communities of Israel and 'covert' a few, then he was a success.

If Jesus' mission was to create this huge religion then he failed, the promotion of Christianity had a lot to do with others, such as Constantine and the people who wrote the bible.

For a religion to avoid failure and to be successful, you need a good PR team, a bit like today actually.

 

[InChrist]

First, each of those quotes is Jesus' denial that he's God.

Second, nowhere in the NT does Jesus say "I am God". Again and again he insists he's simply God's envoy.

You may be familiar with the history of the early church from, say, the start of the second century on. In that case you'll have some insight into the politics of the time, urging that Christianity's central figure should be elevated to God status; and how this results in the Trinity doctrine by the fourth century. (The Trinity doctrine is not just intellectually a nonsense, but officially so, though phrased as "a mystery in the strict sense" in that "it can neither be known by unaided human reason nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed".)

You sound like your mind's made up, regardless of what the bible actually says. Is that fair comment?

First, Jesus purposely humbled Himself, lowered Himself into human flesh to become the Savior of humanity. He did not come during His first advent to proclaim His Godhood or go around saying “I am God… He became human. This accounts for all the verses where He acknowledges His submission to the Father or calls the Father God; Jesus is speaking from his human position.
Secondly, the scriptures throughout OT-NT point to and progressively validate the triune nature of the Godhead, in my reading and perspective, this is the only sensible conclusion.
For years, I actually adamantly thought the trinity idea was ridiculous. Then I was saved by Jesus Christ, my eyes and mind was opened. I knew Jesus had to be God or He was no Savior at all… because Only God could ever be capable of paying the eternal price of my sins and the sins of the world. God Himself.

The Trinity

Many Christians are at a loss to understand, much less to defend, the "Trinity." Critics argue that that word is not even found in the Bible. To deal with that issue, we must begin with God,

www.thebereancall.org

 

[blü 2]

First, Jesus purposely humbled Himself, lowered Himself into human flesh to become the Savior of humanity.

This is Paul's view. As best I recall, none of the others mentions it.

He did not come during His first advent to proclaim His Godhood or go around saying “I am God… He became human. This accounts for all the verses where He acknowledges His submission to the Father or calls the Father God; Jesus is speaking from his human position.

As I said, all five versions of Jesus deny they're God, so your version makes Jesus a liar ─ indeed, with a lie so substantial it undoes his entire mission (or would, if I could actually work out why any mission was necessary at all, given an omnipotent God).

What else do you say he lied or dissembled about, what other deceits did he include?

Secondly, the scriptures throughout OT-NT point to and progressively validate the triune nature of the Godhead, in my reading and perspective, this is the only sensible conclusion.

¿Ché? If there's one thing the God of the Tanakh never was, it 's triune. For instance, as I understand it, the ruach, the breath or spirit of God in the Tanakh, is not a separate entity but one manifestation of the one God.

For years, I actually adamantly thought the trinity idea was ridiculous. Then I was saved by Jesus Christ, my eyes and mind was opened.

A good many Christians, though not a majority, believe in Jesus without believing in the Trinity, so what persuaded you that the Trinity was a good idea? I gave a summary as to why it's not only a nonsense but confessed to be such, >here<.

 

[metis]

Some of the Jewish followers of Jesus who subsequently claimed and wrote that Jesus came only for the Jews. They were still suffering from the chosen people delusion.

How do you supposedly know this?

 

[Colt]

How do you supposedly know this?

One could consider the inconsistency in the scripture. But I also have the Urantia Book revelation which contains the entire story of Jesus.

Matthew 15:24​

King James Version​

24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel​

​

​

Matthew 28:19-20​

​

New International Version​

​

19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations,baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age​

 

[metis]

One could consider the inconsistency in the scripture. But I also have the Urantia Book revelation which contains the entire story of Jesus.

Matthew 15:24​

King James Version​

24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel​

​

​

Matthew 28:19-20​

​

New International Version​

​

19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations,baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age​

That's not what I was asking, which was that which deals with your "chosen people delusion" statement.

 

[Colt]

That's not what I was asking, which was that which deals with your "chosen people delusion" statement.

Oh, Abraham was a chosen “individual”. His descendants turned that into an arrogant chosen people/nation claim. To some extent Christians do it as well.

 

[Colt]

That's not what I was asking, which was that which deals with your "chosen people delusion" statement.

Oh, Abraham was a chosen “individual”. His descendants turned that into an arrogant chosen people/nation claim. To some extent Christians do it as well. When in Babylon the priest class asserted a nationalistic religious tone to their revised history.

 

[Tomef]

Jesus spent 3 years trying to convert people right. Only ended up with twelve disciples. One of whom denied him, Matt. 26:69-75. One who betrayed him, Matt. 26:15.

While on the cross he was derided and mocked. Matthew 27:39–44.

Jesus said he came for the Jews, Matthew 15:24. Who he was rejected by.

It was Paul who went to the gentiles and started the Christian movement.

All of the miracles he did, healing people, bringing people back from the dead, feeding thousands with 5 loafs of bread and 2 fish. You'd think he'd have gotten more of a following among the people he claimed he came for.

Christians have promoted the idea that we should be more like Jesus? He was not a very good teacher/preacher to his chosen audience. Was it part of God's plan for Jesus to fail?

His closest disciples, according to the synoptic gospels, were totally discombobulated by his arrest and execution. It seems that isn’t what they were expecting. It seems also that at some point, they or someone else decided to put a different spin on it, and by the time it was all written down, decades later, the OT had been mined for ostensibly prophetic quotes foretelling his death and resurrection. Thus a really great story of failure turned into victory was born. They really seemed to have hit the nail on the head with the whole idea that good (as they pictured it) will always triumph, even when it doesn’t.

 

[metis]

Oh, Abraham was a chosen “individual”. His descendants turned that into an arrogant chosen people/nation claim. To some extent Christians do it as well. When in Babylon the priest class asserted a nationalistic religious tone to their revised history.

Jesus said he for the Jews.