• ThinkOfOne
    124
    New discussion forum is up titled "The Real Meaning of the Gospel."Dermot Griffin

    You indicated that the plan was to discuss the following in the new thread you were creating:
    In the spirit of what I quoted from Kierkegaard, seems like it calls for instead is an analysis of how the "gospel" of Christianity differs from the gospel preached by Jesus. How it is the " the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ".ThinkOfOne

    The OP seems to be about something very different. What happened?
  • Dermot Griffin
    105


    This specific discussion was supposed to be geared at the overall logic of Lewis's trilemma (and I think most of us think that it is flawed including myself). Perhaps I could've titled the new forum something a little more "academic" but the conversations that have been flowing with these past two discussions have been interesting. If you (or anyone else) have ideas about discussion topics for the future please let me know. I have one idea in particular but I don't think I would get much discussion because of the topic.
  • Art48
    150
    I would like to know what people think of C.S. Lewis's argument for the divinity of Christ. I personally enjoy it but there are much better arguments in my opinion; Justin Martyr provided an argument steeped in the Logos.Dermot Griffin

    Lewis omits an obvious alternative: legend. Not necessarily that Jesus is entirely legend but that what has come down to us is mostly legend. Just as even if a man named Clark Kent once existed who was exceptionally strong and worked for a newspaper, Superman would still be a legend. The Romans may have executed someone named Jesus who preached. They may have executed 100 men named Jesus who preached. This alternative says it doesn't matter, the picture of Jesus in the gospels is mostly legend.

    P.S. Justin Martyr also wrote: "And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter." Justin lived from 100 to 165, and the quote is from chapter twenty-one of his First Apology.

    Jesus = the Roman "son of Jupiter" who became the figurehead of Rome's official religion?

    P.P.S. "Jesus" is a Roman name like Marcus, Brutus, etc. Hm.
  • ThinkOfOne
    124
    This specific discussion was supposed to be geared at the overall logic of Lewis's trilemma (and I think most of us think that it is flawed including myself). Perhaps I could've titled the new forum something a little more "academic" but the conversations that have been flowing with these past two discussions have been interesting. If you (or anyone else) have ideas about discussion topics for the future please let me know. I have one idea in particular but I don't think I would get much discussion because of the topic.Dermot Griffin

    I had understood the topic of this thread.

    You seem to have misunderstood my previous post.

    You had indicated that you were going to create a new thread to discuss the following topic. You then indicated that you entitled the new thread "The Real Meaning of the Gospel". However, the OP for "The Real Meaning of the Gospel" was about something very different from the following:

    In the spirit of what I quoted from Kierkegaard, seems like it calls for instead is an analysis of how the "gospel" of Christianity differs from the gospel preached by Jesus. How it is the " the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ".ThinkOfOne
  • hypericin
    680
    Even if we accept that the accounts and quotations of Jesus are accurate in the new testament, I see no contradiction in treating him as a wise man who expressed this in the prevailing prophetic, eschatological mode of that time and place.
  • Moses
    191


    If JC is a man he is absolutely batshit insane.
  • Moses
    191
    First let me know what you found questionable as to it being a part of Jesus' message.

    Also, just how familiar are you with the teachings of Paul? For some reason I was thinking that you had a reasonably firm grasp on the teachings of Paul and had ideas about what the Pauline message was about.
    ThinkOfOne


    I agree with most of it -- the first 4 parts are fine. I get a little skeptical when you tell me that Jesus is speaking "figuratively" about the righteous being "resurrected." I'm not sure where this is in the Gospels. I suppose it isn't a major point if the general theme is righteousness = life and sin = death.

    I wouldn't say I'm a Paul expert but I have read the entire NT. There are many components to Jesus' Gospels and many themes so any sort of analysis/commentary of the Gospels will surely add things or amplify certain aspects and Paul certainly does this, the question is whether this counts as "perverting" or "contaminating" the Gospel. IMHO the core of the religion, as I understand it, is Jesus' teaching on the greatest commandment -- love God and then love your neighbor as yourself. Other Jesus themes: Simplicity, acceptance, anti-materialism, hierarchy reversal, greatest leader as greatest servant, and others -- but love trumps all.
  • Agent Smith
    7.6k
    The trilemma doesn't explain why Jesus of Nazareth was executed. Lunatics aren't put to death, neither are liars, and who would even dream of killing the lord?

    The Romans clearly saw Jesus as something else entirely. Rebels were crucified, so were murderers and thieves (Dismas & Gestas) I believe. The tetralemma then is: Was Jesus a murderer, a rebel or a thief or worse? :chin:
  • ThinkOfOne
    124
    I agree with most of it -- the first 4 parts are fine. I get a little skeptical when you tell me that Jesus is speaking "figuratively" about the righteous being "resurrected." I'm not sure where this is in the Gospels. I suppose it isn't a major point if the general theme is righteousness = life and sin = death.

    I wouldn't say I'm a Paul expert but I have read the entire NT. There are many components to Jesus' Gospels and many themes so any sort of analysis/commentary of the Gospels will surely add things or amplify certain aspects and Paul certainly does this, the question is whether this counts as "perverting" or "contaminating" the Gospel. IMHO the core of the religion, as I understand it, is Jesus' teaching on the greatest commandment -- love God and then love your neighbor as yourself. Other Jesus themes: Simplicity, acceptance, anti-materialism, hierarchy reversal, greatest leader as greatest servant, and others -- but love trumps all.
    Moses

    As to how the gospel preached by Jesus was corrupted, maybe it will help to highlight the underlying concepts of the main line.

    To lend perspective, the underlying concepts of Isaiah 1:11-20 and Ezekiel 18:27-32:
    No more substitutionary atonement. God wants loyalty.
    Make yourselves righteous. Cease to sin. Make yourselves clean.
    Making oneself righteous is the standard for repentance.

    There is a direct line to the underlying concepts of the main line of the gospel preached by Jesus as it builds upon the above:
    Jesus came to light the way for the unrighteous to make themselves righteous by ceasing to sin. It's about transformation: from a "bad tree" to a "good tree"; from a "slave" to a "son"; from one "born of the flesh" to one "born of the spirit".
    The unrighteous who make themselves righteous have made themselves clean. They have been "saved".
    Being righteous is required to have eternal life /to live in the Kingdom.
    Making oneself righteous is the standard for repentance.

    The underlying concepts of the main line of the Pauline gospel:
    Everyone has sinned.
    No one can make themselves righteous.
    Therefore, everyone needs the substitutionary atonement of the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross to make them clean.
    Faith in this substitutionary atonement is required to be made clean / to be "saved" / to have eternal life / to live in the Kingdom.
    Making oneself righteous is not the standard for repentance.

    Paul abandoned the direct line from the underlying concepts of Isaiah 1:11-20 and Ezekiel 18:27-32 to the main line of the gospel preached by Jesus and went off in a completely different direction. For all intents and purposes the underlying concepts of the main line of the Pauline gospel are antithetical to the main line of the gospel preached by Jesus.

    There are many other ways of course, but…
  • ThinkOfOne
    124
    If JC is a man he is absolutely batshit insane.Moses

    What do you have in mind here?
  • Moses
    191


    What do you have in mind here?

    I mean if he is not God/divine some of his teachings are way out of line, such as his teaching in John 6 that he requires his followers to consume him to attain everlasting life.
  • ThinkOfOne
    124
    I mean if he is not God/divine some of his teachings are way out of line, such as his teaching in John 6 that he requires his followers to consume him to attain everlasting life.Moses

    As so often happened while Jesus preached His gospel, Jesus used metaphor and the listeners (including the disciples) take it literally and don't understand what He is saying.

    Jesus first attempted to explain the metaphor as follows:
    John 6
    32Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. 33For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven and gives life to the world.”

    After the disciples still do not understand, Jesus explicitly gives what He means by the "bread of God":
    John 6
    63It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh provides no benefit; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit, and are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.”

    The "bread of God" which gives "life to the world" are the words He spoke while preaching His gospel. His words are what give "life to the world". As He so often did, Jesus returned to this theme repeatedly. For example:
    John 8
    "34Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin."
    " 31 ...If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”
    "36So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed. "
    " 35The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever.
    51Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he will never see death.”

    John 12
    48“He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day. 49“For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak. 50“I know that His commandment is eternal life; therefore the things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told Me.”

    Thoughts on the above?

    I was also hoping to get your thoughts on my earlier post:
12345Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.