What Did Jesus Actually Do?

[nPeace]

From a historical standpoint, what, in his own lifetime, did Jesus of Nazareth achieve? I am having trouble figuring this out, because I can see objectively that Muhammad had a huge impact upon not only his own society but others, all within his lifetime. That the impact was either good or bad is not my point here, but that had had one. Baha'u'llah had some direct impacts, if small, upon his society. In contrast, I can't think of anything Jesus did that no-one else could have done.

He was born, he preached, he was executed.

This is probably going to turn into an 'It was all Paul not Jesus' thread, but have at it anyway.

Here

I do not need to believe in Muhammad and his Qur'an to understand that he had a direct impact upon Arabia in his lifetime and that only a certain type of individual could have achieved this. What did Jesus do that I need not believe?

1 Corinthians 15:31, 32
31 Daily I face death. This is as sure as my exultation over you, brothers, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord. 32 If like other men, I have fought with wild beasts at Ephesus, of what good is it to me? If the dead are not to be raised up, “let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we are to die.”

I do not need to believe in Jesus, to know that he had a direct impact upon Jews, as well as non-Jews in his lifetime, and that only a certain type of individual could have achieved this.

Here

First, this could be said about pretty much anyone in his shoes so it's almost irrelevant and second, it could be taken to mean he did nothing but followers did everything. I am asking, from the perspective of a historical Jesus, what did he himself do that is worth remembering?

All that was mentioned to you before about Jesus is not only worth remembering, but is remembered, and traditionally kept.
1 Corinthians 11:23-26
23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night on which he was going to be betrayed took a loaf, 24 and after giving thanks, he broke it and said: “This means my body, which is in your behalf. Keep doing this in remembrance of me.” 25 He did the same with the cup also, after they had the evening meal, saying: “This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood. Keep doing this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this loaf and drink this cup, you keep proclaiming the death of the Lord, until he comes. . 
.
Easter - Wikipedia

It can be said that Muhammad did nothing. It was his followers that did everything - which would make your argument not only irrelevant, but opinionated.

...opinionated in my view, for other reasons.
1. You seem to assume that Jesus sought to do things that would draw attention to himself, and get him recognized.
He didn't. Jesus was not looking for attention, or popularity. In fact he shunned those things.
He refused to accept an appointment as a political leader - "Then Jesus, knowing that they were about to come and seize him to make him king, withdrew again to the mountain all alone." - John 6:15
He tried to avoid being honored as some special celebrity - "Then he gave the man orders to tell no one..." - Luke 5:13; Mark 1:44;
Mark 7:36 With that he ordered them not to tell anyone, but the more he would order them, the more they would proclaim it.
Luke 8:56 Well, her parents were beside themselves, but he instructed them to tell no one what had happened.

Jesus was a lowly, humble individual, and that's perhaps what made it easy for persons - his enemies, of which he had many, because of jealousy... same as today - to discredit him as "just some carpenter's son, who misled a small following with his teachings, and magic tricks". Would we expect that the unfaithful Jews who hated the fact that Jesus exposed their hypocrisy to the people, would write anything good about him? His faithful followers did that, and his enemies could not deny most that was written. It is only today, 2,000 year later, that his enemies continue to try in vain to erase his name from history, because there have not been much preserves after so many centuries - except what the faithful carefully tried to preserve.

2. Jesus' teachings had a powerful effect on his followers. he never preached aloud in the marketplace, or in the public squares. Rather, he gathered people - those who would listen, and who would follow him, if the wanted to.
Those are the ones he taught.

Any Roman that liked what he taught was drawn to his teachings, his manner, and his amazing works - which were also passed on by word of mouth... even though Jesus told his followers not to spread these things.
Roman soldiers believed on account of what they saw.
Matthew 27:54 But when the army officer and those with him keeping watch over Jesus saw the earthquake and the things happening, they grew very much afraid and said: “Certainly this was God’s Son.”

What did Muhammad do?
According to historical secular documents...
According to this tradition, ‘Adnani Arabs were the progeny of Ishmael, the firstborn son of the patriarch Abraham, of the Jurhum tribe. The Hawazin tribe and Muhammad are considered ‘Adnani Arabs.

According to Islamic doctrine, he was a prophet, sent to present and confirm the monotheistic teachings preached previously by Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets. He is viewed as the final prophet of God in all the main branches of Islam, though some modern denominations diverge from this belief. Muhammad united Arabia into a single Muslim polity, with the Quran as well as his teachings and practices forming the basis of Islamic religious belief.

Nothing no ordinary man would not do.
What did Jesus do that isn't a part of nominal Christian belief that awards him a place in history both secular and religious?
That would be easy to find out, by one just reading the accounts of historians like Josephus, Pliny the younger, Tacitus, Suetonius, etc... Non Christian sources.
The Hebrew scriptures of the Biblical texts also has much to say.

According to Christian doctrine, Jesus was more that a prophet. He was the Messiah - the anointed one of God, whom the Jews, and Samaritans were in expectation of, as prophesied in the Hebrew writings - including the Torah. (Luke 3:15) . . .Now the people were in expectation and all of them were reasoning in their hearts about John, “May he perhaps be the Christ?”
He was also said to be the son of God - which obviously, his enemies deny. Jesus united humble people - both Jews, and Gentiles. Unlike Muhammad, he was not in any way political, but was interested in God's will, which involved a new covenent to be made with a spiritual nation who would be children of Abraham - the same Abraham Muhammad followed.

I see no difference in Jesus, and Muhammad, except that what Jesus did surpasses Muhammad... if one looks at it objectively.
I'm open to an argument that would show this not to be the case.
However, if persons prefer to close their eyes shut, they will continue to sing the same old tune, and nothing anyone says will change that. IMO

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Jesus didn't spread this message; his followers did. To contrast, Muhammad had successfully converted most of Arabia within his own lifetime. It took Jesus' followers 70-odd years even to write anything and Jesus had been dead for tens of years by this time.


They do not believe anything like what Moshe believed and taught. They believe a corrupt, anti-Jewish doctrine that literally tried to annihilate the Jews. Good News?


No, the greatest heretic. If the Jews had been left alone to do what G-d gave to them to do without Christianity hindering them and trying to murder them all, who knows that the Noachide Law could have spread far and wide? We will never know, because the Christians crushed it.

I get the feeling that you blame Jesus for all the horrors done in his name. If that’s the case, I must believe that you could see that would be unfair to Jesus.
There is NO evidence anywhere that he encouraged the kinds of evil you speak of. Just the opposite.
All the evil originates in evil people. And what better way for evil people to carry out their evil agendas, than to attach themselves to Jesus because of his popularity with so many? Look at the leadership in the US government today.
Evil infiltrated the new religious movement early on and after centuries of corruption and evil, one can hardly find Jesus anywhere in Christianity. Yes, they talk about him. But their actions are something else.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What if Jesus had never been born?

What if Jesus Had Never Been Born?

Yes, a fascinating read, but without a lot of merit. You see, it's easy to argue that all of those things ascribed to Jesus's teachings would not have happened had Jesus not been born, but as with so many such arguments, it would be false. We credit Darwin with the Theory of Evolution, but the truth is Wallace worked it out as well...and if Wallace hadn't been such a nice guy, he could have his name all over it instead of Darwin.

Every idea is the idea of humans. As I was reading your citation, I noticed the subject of slavery, and the claim that it was largely Christians who eventually abolished it. But it was also largely Christians who opposed that abolition, too. And the fact of the matter is this: Jesus said: "slaves, obey your masters." Never did he say, "slaves, you should be free."

So I put it to you, if some of the goods you attribute to the existence of Jesus had actually come from others, with different philosophies, and different backgrounds (in the event of Jesus's non-birth) can you say with any credibility that they would have been better or worse accepted, or better or worse implemented, without the taint of religious dogma backing, and subverting, them?

In other words, is it not possible that we might have a better world today had Jesus not been born? I mean, I can imagine worlds in which the religiously-dominated dark ages of Europe, the Reformation, the Counter Reformation, and all the religious wars didn't happen. I can imagine worlds in which the Christian authority didn't try to shut down Galileo, had listened to Giordano Bruno, and be much, much further ahead now. Can't you?

 

[Spartan]

Yes, a fascinating read, but without a lot of merit. You see, it's easy to argue that all of those things ascribed to Jesus's teachings would not have happened had Jesus not been born, but as with so many such arguments, it would be false. We credit Darwin with the Theory of Evolution, but the truth is Wallace worked it out as well...and if Wallace hadn't been such a nice guy, he could have his name all over it instead of Darwin.

Every idea is the idea of humans. As I was reading your citation, I noticed the subject of slavery, and the claim that it was largely Christians who eventually abolished it. But it was also largely Christians who opposed that abolition, too. And the fact of the matter is this: Jesus said: "slaves, obey your masters." Never did he say, "slaves, you should be free."

So I put it to you, if some of the goods you attribute to the existence of Jesus had actually come from others, with different philosophies, and different backgrounds (in the event of Jesus's non-birth) can you say with any credibility that they would have been better or worse accepted, or better or worse implemented, without the taint of religious dogma backing, and subverting, them?

In other words, is it not possible that we might have a better world today had Jesus not been born? I mean, I can imagine worlds in which the religiously-dominated dark ages of Europe, the Reformation, the Counter Reformation, and all the religious wars didn't happen. I can imagine worlds in which the Christian authority didn't try to shut down Galileo, had listened to Giordano Bruno, and be much, much further ahead now. Can't you?

Every scourge known to mankind is the result of people rebelling against God / Christ. If every man were to love their neighbor, who is it that's going to go to war? Get the drift? Are you familiar with all the blessings of God for those who love and follow him? So, you can't diss Biblical Christianity by citing examples from people who don't follow its precepts and laws, anymore than you can indict the whole of secular humanity because many are murderers and criminals.

So that's your answer.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Every scourge known to mankind is the result of people rebelling against God / Christ. If every man were to love their neighbor, who is it that's going to go to war? Get the drift? Are you familiar with all the blessings of God for those who love and follow him? So, you can't diss Biblical Christianity by citing examples from people who don't follow its precepts and laws, anymore than you can indict the whole of secular humanity because many are murderers and criminals.

So that's your answer.

Really, "every scourge known to mankind is the result of people rebelling against God / Christ?" That's quite the claim! No doubt you can help me understand how this applies to:

• The earthquake that killed 230.000 in Haiti in 2010 (they were pretty much all Christian, by the way)
• The earthquake and tsunami that killed 230,000 to 280,000 in the Indian Ocean on Boxing day, 2004
• The 1970 Bhola cyclone that killed upwards of half a million people in Bangladesh (it was then East Pakistan)

Oh, why go on...and I could for years. You will just make up some fable that satisfies yourself but has not the vaguest basis in reality.

And let me point something out to you, that you might not like. The fact that most of the world is religious, rather than secular, leads inescapably to the corollary, most of the worlds murderers and criminals are religious, not secular.

 

[Spartan]

Really, "every scourge known to mankind is the result of people rebelling against God / Christ?" That's quite the claim! No doubt you can help me understand how this applies to:

• The earthquake that killed 230.000 in Haiti in 2010 (they were pretty much all Christian, by the way)
• The earthquake and tsunami that killed 230,000 to 280,000 in the Indian Ocean on Boxing day, 2004
• The 1970 Bhola cyclone that killed upwards of half a million people in Bangladesh (it was then East Pakistan)

Oh, why go on...and I could for years. You will just make up some fable that satisfies yourself but has not the vaguest basis in reality.

And let me point something out to you, that you might not like. The fact that most of the world is religious, rather than secular, leads inescapably to the corollary, most of the worlds murderers and criminals are religious, not secular.

I stick by what I said. God's been known to cause earthquakes before. And once again I reiterate that you can't diss Biblical Christianity by citing examples from people who don't follow its precepts and laws, anymore than you can indict the whole of secular humanity because many are murderers and criminals.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I stick by what I said. God's been known to cause earthquakes before. And once again I reiterate that you can't diss Biblical Christianity by citing examples from people who don't follow its precepts and laws, anymore than you can indict the whole of secular humanity because many are murderers and criminals.

Incorrect! Earthquakes have certainly happened, but you cannot state, with any evidence of any kind whatsoever, that they were caused by God. You may, of course, fall back on a lack of knowledge of plate tectonics and general science, but you can't simply arbitrarily enlist God to explain what you personally don't understand.

Of course, if you have any evidence of a God-caused earthquake, I will be happy to review it...

 

[KelseyR]

He established a new covenant. He laid down what Thomas Jefferson called, "the most pure, benevolent, and sublime (precepts) which have ever been preached to man."

He healed the sick, raised the dead, and defeated Satan at Calvary so that all who believed in Jesus could be saved unto eternal life.

And he changed the world for the better.

He planted a seed for the eventual fall of Rome and western polytheism- but at what cost?

 

[Spartan]

Incorrect! Earthquakes have certainly happened, but you cannot state, with any evidence of any kind whatsoever, that they were caused by God. You may, of course, fall back on a lack of knowledge of plate tectonics and general science, but you can't simply arbitrarily enlist God to explain what you personally don't understand.

Of course, if you have any evidence of a God-caused earthquake, I will be happy to review it...

Where's your evidence God didn't cause those earthquakes? You say he can't? Based on what?

 

[nPeace]

Really, "every scourge known to mankind is the result of people rebelling against God / Christ?" That's quite the claim! No doubt you can help me understand how this applies to:

• The earthquake that killed 230.000 in Haiti in 2010 (they were pretty much all Christian, by the way)
• The earthquake and tsunami that killed 230,000 to 280,000 in the Indian Ocean on Boxing day, 2004
• The 1970 Bhola cyclone that killed upwards of half a million people in Bangladesh (it was then East Pakistan)

Oh, why go on...and I could for years. You will just make up some fable that satisfies yourself but has not the vaguest basis in reality.

And let me point something out to you, that you might not like. The fact that most of the world is religious, rather than secular, leads inescapably to the corollary, most of the worlds murderers and criminals are religious, not secular.

I hope you don't have the idea that earthquakes are God's handy work. To the contrary, man is causing destruction and ruin to himself, either carelessly, or deliberately.
Global warming is just one of the hundreds of ways.

 

[Spartan]

He planted a seed for the eventual fall of Rome and western polytheism- but at what cost?

God / Jesus seek to change men's hearts from within their boundaries and countries. That's how Christianity was started - not by war but by peaceful means.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Where's your evidence God didn't cause those earthquakes? You say he can't? Based on what?

Where's your evidence that Ming the Merciless, of the planet Mongo, didn't cause them? I've seen Ming in movies, so that's at least as plausible.

What kind of argument is "you can't prove X so X must be true?" I could give you trillions of those, with enough time, and they would each and every one be completely meaningless.

Sadly for you, the cause of earthquakes is pretty well understood these days, based on the plate tectonics and other sciences I mentioned. There do not appear to be any instances where there was a requirement for God. Just to be clear, nobody has ever recorded an earthquake where there are no known underlying fractures in the earth's mantle, and so forth. So to say that "God only creates earthquakes in places that the earth's crust is already set up to have them" doesn't actually give God a lot of credit for ability.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I hope you don't have the idea that earthquakes are God's handy work. To the contrary, man is causing destruction and ruin to himself, either carelessly, or deliberately.
Global warming is just one of the hundreds of ways.

Earthquakes are part of the natural functioning of the Earth. Humans have nothing to do with it. They were happening millions of years ago, before mammals even existed.

 

[Spartan]

Where's your evidence that Ming the Merciless, of the planet Mongo, didn't cause them? I've seen Ming in movies, so that's at least as plausible.

What kind of argument is "you can't prove X so X must be true?" I could give you trillions of those, with enough time, and they would each and every one be completely meaningless.

Sadly for you, the cause of earthquakes is pretty well understood these days, based on the plate tectonics and other sciences I mentioned. There do not appear to be any instances where there was a requirement for God. Just to be clear, nobody has ever recorded an earthquake where there are no known underlying fractures in the earth's mantle, and so forth. So to say that "God only creates earthquakes in places that the earth's crust is already set up to have them" doesn't actually give God a lot of credit for ability.

The whole planet is in disarray since the fall of mankind in Genesis.

You can also look to Deuteronomy chapter 28 to see the blessings of God on mankind when he's 'good,' and the curses when men are 'bad.'

Jesus also prophesied the fall of Jerusalem some 30 years before it happened in Luke 19:41-44.

And hey - you don't have to believe it. I do. And according to the Book of Revelation there's going to be the mother of all earthquakes: Revelation 6:12-13, “I looked when He opened the sixth seal, and behold, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became like blood. And the stars of heaven fell to the earth, as a fig tree drops its late figs when it is shaken by a mighty wind."

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The whole planet is in disarray since the fall of mankind in Genesis.

You can also look to Deuteronomy chapter 28 to see the blessings of God on mankind when he's 'good,' and the curses when men are 'bad.'

Jesus also prophesied the fall of Jerusalem some 30 years before it happened in Luke 19:41-44.

And hey - you don't have to believe it. I do. And according to the Book of Revelation there's going to be the mother of all earthquakes: Revelation 6:12-13, “I looked when He opened the sixth seal, and behold, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became like blood. And the stars of heaven fell to the earth, as a fig tree drops its late figs when it is shaken by a mighty wind."

Yes, you can quote scripture. Have you any notion at all of science?

And the reason I ask that is very simple: almost everything in your life, everything you've ever experienced, everything you are likely to experience, is the well-understood result of some science or other. You're being on the forum not the least. And further, almost nothing in your life, almost nothing of anything you've ever experienced, can even be vaguely credited to some supernatural cause.

And yet, you have decided, for reasons I doubt you could articulate, that the natural which is all around you and well understood doesn't count, and the miraculous, which you've never seen, accounts for everything.

Are your thinking clearly enough?

 

[nPeace]

Earthquakes are part of the natural functioning of the Earth. Humans have nothing to do with it. They were happening millions of years ago, before mammals even existed.

On the scale that they are happening now?
Please, I welcome that evidence. Can you provide it?

 

[nPeace]

Yes, you can quote scripture. Have you any notion at all of science?

And the reason I ask that is very simple: almost everything in your life, everything you've ever experienced, everything you are likely to experience, is the well-understood result of some science or other. You're being on the forum not the least. And further, almost nothing in your life, almost nothing of anything you've ever experienced, can even be vaguely credited to some supernatural cause.

And yet, you have decided, for reasons I doubt you could articulate, that the natural which is all around you and well understood doesn't count, and the miraculous, which you've never seen, accounts for everything.

Are your thinking clearly enough?

Sex was around before science. I think everyone agrees with that, unless of course they don't know the meaning of science.
I just named one thing, but hundreds of other things existed before science was born.
Additionally, one can only say there is nothing supernatural, because it's a simple thing to make a claim - just open one's mouth, and say it.

 

[Spartan]

Yes, you can quote scripture. Have you any notion at all of science?

I've got a Bachelor of Science degree. Do you?

And yet, you have decided, for reasons I doubt you could articulate, that the natural which is all around you and well understood doesn't count, and the miraculous, which you've never seen, accounts for everything.

I never said it counted for everything, but the Bible is clear that without God the universe (which you can't explain the origins of) wouldn't exist.

Are your thinking clearly enough?

Show me where science had documented that God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist? Think about that.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Jesus didn't spread this message; his followers did. To contrast, Muhammad had successfully converted most of Arabia within his own lifetime. It took Jesus' followers 70-odd years even to write anything and Jesus had been dead for tens of years by this time.


They do not believe anything like what Moshe believed and taught. They believe a corrupt, anti-Jewish doctrine that literally tried to annihilate the Jews. Good News?


No, the greatest heretic. If the Jews had been left alone to do what G-d gave to them to do without Christianity hindering them and trying to murder them all, who knows that the Noachide Law could have spread far and wide? We will never know, because the Christians crushed it.

I believe everything is in God’s Hands. I think we must trust God as God ALWAYS looks out for Israel and the Jewish people. They will see that in the future I believe.

 

[Enoch07]

Yes, you can quote scripture. Have you any notion at all of science?

This is the religious debate section if you want to talk science go to that section.