Regarding the second post, that Jesus came only for the Jews, this is in my opinion plain wrong. Isaiah records regarding the Messiah that the Messiah will “be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles.” (Isaiah 42:6) Yes, Jesus came to the Jews first, because as God’s chosen people they had the history and knowledge of God to understand the significance of Jesus’ acts in the greater context of God’s acts throughout history. Of course Jesus preached mainly to the Jews: They were the ones who had read the Old Testament and had the mindset to understand his preaching. But to claim that Jesus died not for all, but only for Jews, is, to me, offensive. It suggests that Jesus’ death is not sufficient to save all who choose to accept it and that God is ultimately not powerful enough to offer the whole world a chance to be saved. That is obviously wrong and God wills all to be saved, although some will tragically not accept God’s love.

Even in the Old Testament, people from other nations were not prevented from joining God’s chosen people should they choose to do so (ex. Exodus 12:33-38). When Jesus speaks to his hometown in Luke 4:24-27, what enrages them is that He indicates that while many of them (the Jews) will reject Jesus, others (non-Jews) will not. Furthermore, how, if Jesus came only for the Jews, could we explain John 4:1-42 where Jesus speaks at length to the Samaritan woman, and later many Samaritans become believers? Jesus says that “salvation is FROM the Jews”, *not* “for Jews only”. The book of Acts answers the question at length, concluding that “God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life.” (Acts 11:18) No, Jesus did not come only for the Jews. Jesus came for, died for, was resurrected for, and provides eternal life to anyone (Jews and Gentiles) who chooses to accept His sacrifice.

When he was alive. Jesus taught Paul and Matthew not to entire the homes of the Gentiles, or non-Jews, nor preach to them. Jesus’ reluctance to help the Cannaite woman is another good example.

Please note that Christianity started as a Jewish cult and Christ was raised as a Jew.

The Jewish society was very racist and the Jews were seen to be a higher class than non-Jews or Gentiles.

To preach to the Jews, Jesus would not and could not preach to non-Gentiles.

And I think it is worthy of respect that Jesus was willing to die for his beliefs to save the Jews.

However, it is erroneous to conclude that he died to save us all because Jesus’ words and actions up to the time of his death were only about bringing salvation and a new convenant to the Jews.

And not non-Jews.

I believe Jesus is not God. God is a Spirit. John 4:24
While Jesus Christ called a man many times in scripture. John 8:40, Act 2:22, Act 17;31, 1Tim.2:5. In contrast to this the Bible says God is not a man?Num.23:19. God was not born , but is eternal. Jesus was begotten; Jesus Christ had a beginning. Matt. 1:18

Jesus, the man is the mediator between God and men. 1 Tim. 2:5

====

If Jesus is to be of the Messiah mentioned in the Old Testaments, he must be born of the bloodline of David.

Virgin birth and a divine bloodline rules Jesus out of the running for this title.

Christian accounts were readily available while centuries of inquiry have turned up no authentic contemporaneous Roman documents related to a historical Jesus.

?… The more serious criticism is that the records would have identified Jesus by his given name rather than “Christus.” The word Christ is a Greek-derived title meaning “Anointed One”. At his time, Jesus was known as Jesus of Nazareth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus

It is almost impossible for Christians to disaprove that the idea of Christ was borrowed from the Pagans. You can refer to the key points on the similarities between Mithraism and Christianity from:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa1.htm

It cites from Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy, “The Jesus Mysteries.”

By the way, Kersey Graves in The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors makes it clear that there are almost 200 precise matches between the events in the lives of Jesus and Horus, and the 346 “striking analogies between Christ and Chrishna (Krishna).

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/kersey_graves/16/chap32.html

The New Testament contains symbolism of course, such as in Jesus’ parables (although there is always a literal point to those parables) and in the book of Revelation. But the New Testament is primarily historical in nature, not symbolic.

“I do not believe that jesus was the son of god and I do not believe that he came back from the dead but I still believe that he was a great man (a MAN) with a great message.”
Look at what Paul says regarding Jesus rising from the dead: “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.” (1 Cor 15:17) Clearly Paul didn’t believe that the most important thing about Jesus was His message about being nice. Robert’s quote of CS Lewis above is quite appropriate; Jesus did not intend to leave the option of “just a good man” open to us; a merely good man (but non-God, non-savior) would not have made the claims He did. And really, if Jesus’ only message was “be nice to eachother”, well, why would anyone care about Him? That’s hardly an original message.

“Think about it, his message takes even more sense if he says it as a man. His message, his kindness is in all a of us.”
Ben, when Jesus speaks in the Gospels, He makes incredible claims about Himself. He claims to be God, to personally forgive others’ sins, to be the only way to know God, etc. He talks about Hell (in deep sadness), in fact He talks about it more than any other biblical person. He did not talk about it to threaten us, but to warn us. The “wages of sin is death”; meaning, the natural consequence of a life spent turning our back on God is seperation from Him. Jesus’ teaching was important, of course, but what seperates Christianity from other faiths is not that it teaches people to “be nice” (all good faith does that) but instead Jesus’ death & resurrection as the foundation for God’s grace.

Many take the “nice guy Jesus” view, but it is simply not there in the texts. See here for more:
http://www.allaboutgod.com/Jesus-christ.htm
What do you think? When we really examine what Jesus said and claimed, what could our possible responses be?

—————————

Stating fact or arguing with reason is not, by any means, necessarily egoic or fear based in nature. However, the denial of fact, or the inability to accept a reasonable and logical argument is always motivated by ego and fear. Some claims demand serious attention because the implications are so inescapably enormous.

That being said, the most offensive thing anyone could say to the fear and ego driven heart is, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except by me.”

That is the ultimate, staggering, and exclusive claim to sovereignty. It is also a completely reasonable statement. Even so, such a statement is either motivated by the purest form of ego, and/or, it intends to manipulate by the most blatant use of fear, or such a statement is the most selfless expression and profound truth that any man will ever hear. It is a claim that only God can make consistently.

I believe that is why C.S. Lewis wrote the following:

?I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ?I?m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don?t accept His claim to be God.? That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic?on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg?or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man 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 let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.?

———————————

Also Ben, the idea of creating heaven on earth and mankind taking the reigns began in the garden.

The serpent said to Eve that if she ate of the fruit, “you shall become as God”.

The anti-christ is in the sea of mankind…

And here is my point : I do not believe in god, nor in jesus as his son but I do believe in his message and I try to be as good as I can be with the people around me not because some guy told I’d burn in hell for eternity if I don’t, but because it is simply the right thing to do. That was the message of Jesus of Nasareth.

Why being scared about the fact that he would not have been the son of god ? Think about it, his message takes even more sense if he says it as a man. His message, his kindness is in all a of us.

I’m not trying to take anyone away from their faith. I have faith…in mankind.

Most of you are probably outraged by what and I apologise if you felt offended by anything I wrote.

To concude I’d say that it’s time to make our own heaven here instead of waiting to get there and I truly believe that is what Jesus meant.

Take care of yourself and of each other.

I discount them for the same reasons they have never been included in the cannon: Their late date of writing (specifically) by comparison to the canonized 4 gospels. Their strange character; for example, Gospel of Thomas saying 114:
Simon Peter said to them, “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.” Jesus said, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Any questions, feminists?)

There is a contradiction between the Gnostics and the Cannon. The Gnostic defines divinity as ?the all?. The cannon holds that there is good and evil and that they are separate; Monism vs. Dualism. Separation of the two is a theme present throughout the Bible, so when a completely foreign philosophy is brought in, it is easily recognized as contradicting the Cannon.

We all strive for peace albeit from different starting points. I think you will agree that this is irrelevant, as it is our differences causing the problems (conflict).

Furthermore, the Gnostic gospels present an all inclusive element illogically (both/and logic)… ‘all is one’. The Gnostic both/and stance is very problematic in my mind. Contradictory starting points are just that; they are contradictory!

In order for all of the diverse worldviews (my own included) to merge into the ancient both/and system, they will have to be willing to moderate their truth claims.

I agree, that if there is to be peace, this is absolutely necessary for all, but one, of the differing worldviews. We may all be wrong, but we can’t all be right. All must moderate into the ‘real’ one. This is the inescapable exclusivity of truth.

In promoting ‘the one’ (both/and, as many interpret it) are you saying that we EITHER use the both/and system, OR nothing else?

As an American Hindu philosopher said to Ravi Zacharius in response to this point, “The either/or does seem to emerge, doesn’t it?” To which Ravi said, “Not only does it emerge, but let me give you some shocking news. Even in India we look both ways before crossing the road; it’s either the bus, or me!”

The idea that God is ‘all inclusive’ fails to include the alternative (that He is not), so Gnosticism becomes just another truth claim, excluding it’s opposite yet contradicting itself? The Bible does not contradict itself so where do the Gnostics belong? Along side the other incoherent philosophers?

We cannot escape this… truth is unavoidable and exclusive by nature. God is reasonable. We cannot make ’sense’ out of ‘non-sense’ by definition. The law of non-contradiction reflects reality and is essential to ‘reason’. That is why Jesus’ words are so powerful… because they are irrefutable! To deny them is to deny ‘reason’ itself!

By contrast, if we say there is no truth, then, what have we said? Certainly not truth by our own admission.

Jesus said, “You shall KNOW the truth, and the truth shall set you free.”

You can know Him. Knowing God begins with acknowledging the Spirit of Truth (the Holy Spirit). The logical (reasonable) Spirit of God and following His voice so He can lead us to himself.

Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except by me.”

Interesting! Telling the truth, by saying He is. He left us only two possible interpretations.

He made it plain that He will come and dwell inside us. I testify to this truth. Don’t just take my word for it, I am not God. I ask you to consider my testimony and think about it for yourself. Read the Gospel of John with an open mind.

We are sinners and that is why there is no peace. If this is not so, then the fundamentalist Christian is guilty of nothing! No sin = no crime.

We should not strive for peace with evil. It cannot be! To do so is the deception of ancient humanism. We must stop worshipping all of the spiritual host (ideas and philosophies) of heaven, and only worship God, the Holy Spirit, lest we risk claiming to be God ourselves.
Genesis 2:17
??but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of ?good and evil?, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”

Humanism is the oldest religion in the world. It is both/and, trying to reconcile both good and evil. The ‘prince of the air’ (Ephesians 2:2) tells us we can ‘have it all’. We must beware of that clever spirit of the age. He/she (whatever the case may be) is spiritual, but not of God.

In the beginning, we were freely given Christ’s Spirit (the tree of life) for food, and given only one rule; we were commanded not to eat of Satan’s false wisdom (the tree of knowledge of good and evil).

We can’t have peace? AND our sin.