When your premise is that the self-referential claim that the Gospel as taught by X church is correct because it is taught by X church, then we get your particular brand of intellectual gaslighting. I wish you would Google more so you can escape the cave of your own circular dogma. If Jesus is just another Jew similar to others of his time, he loses the luster of metaphysical Other, and this threatens your worldview. Jesus the Savior becomes Joshua ben Joseph vMiri, along with his brothers Jacob, Simeon, Jose, and Judah. And so his group just another example of the multiple groups of the time defining themselves in relation to the Law and the Roman overlords and the popular idea of an End Times and a heralding Son of Man angel. A group probably influenced by John the Baptist.

Many criticisms of Pharisees were also found in the Talmud regarding OTHER Pharisees. Jesus had views on Mosaic law like OTHER Pharisees.

OR see him as am Haaretz, opposed to the ritual purity laws being expanded by more strict Pharisee groups. That interpretation doesn’t negate his fitting in that period. A Galilean peasant opposed to the stricter purity laws insisted by some groups.

Of course, believe what you want to believe. I don't care what you put faith in or don't put faith in as a personal matter. However, you are debating on a philosophy forum and you are trying to call out various posters such as myself about the historical methodologies we are using, so fair game to criticize your views.

Jesus explicitly said that a person must be born again in the spirit to see the kingdom of God. — Joe Mello

First, if you were the scholar you claim to be you would know that it is standard practice to cite your sources. Second, you would know that quoting John as a reliable source of what Jesus said, is questionable, but, of course, you dismiss any biblical scholarship that does not support your beliefs. Nowhere in the synoptic gospels do we find such a claim. Third, and perhaps most important, when in the sermon on the mount Jesus says:

theirs is the kingdom of heaven

he says nothing about being born again or the necessity of belief in himself or himself as "his only Son". Instead Jesus emphasizes human capacities.

Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

(5:28)

@Fooloso4

You are actually trying to teach me about Jesus because you think you're a good reader?

Wow.

Then go read about the time Nicodemus, a truly great Pharisee who was a notably honest man, went to see Jesus and wanted him to explain his teaching because it troubled him since it went against something that was a major tenet of Judaism he learned as a Pharisee -- i.e., observance of the Law brings righteousness.

And bring with you your great learning, in particular where you taught me that "[Jesus] says nothing about being born again".

I'll refute your further statement that "[Jesus] says nothing about ... the necessity of belief in [him]" with the simple quote, "No one can come to the Father except through me".

But wait ... both the Nicodemus story and the quote above came from John, and your great learning has made you not trust the Gospel of John for anything Jesus said and did.

And, of course, you didn't "read" from someone else that the Gospel of John was not a good source.

No. That's all you, man.

@schopenhauer1

It's "my" view that Jesus was not just another Jew?

And I'm just believing in Jesus?

What's the date? How many crosses are in the sky? How many people will call on Jesus for help today, or feel love for him, or quote him, or claim they know him personally?

Not bad for "just another Jew".

You're like a brilliant guy, huh, who knows that the greatest person who ever lived may have never lived, and if he did live, he was just another person.

And you are not simply "believing" this about Jesus but know this about Jesus because you have a Google Machine.

Yup. Brilliant.

In order for you to be able to discern such a shallow level of scholarship, you would need to have spent some time and effort reading the sources you believe some forum participants are ripping off.

A number of your statements lead me to think that you think there is something wrong with the historical approach altogether. That suggests you have no interest in such studies.

A number of your statements lead me to think that you think there is something wrong with the historical approach altogether. That suggests you have no interest in such studies. — Paine

Exactly... That is ironically debating in bad faith :lol:.

Look man, I don't care what you believe.. You can believe the Spaghetti Monster sprinkles parmesan on the evil Meateballio to defeat him..

My point is similar to @Paine. Your one and only source is the very thing that is being questioned. How is that informed scholarship? If you don't care, then why even go on a philosophy forum, where these things are hotly debated? You can meditate in your monastery if you want to merrily believing whatever it is you want to believe.

@schopenhauer1

I'm not doing any of those things. I'm telling you what has been known for two thousand years, and I have known for 40 years.

You're the person believing in what you read from modern skeptics, when you don't have any experience actually trying to understand who Jesus was by looking at your own life.

Dry and rattling thoughts in your head don't make you wise. Experiencing what you talk about does.

I understand that perspective. I grew up in it.

It does suggest to me that I was not wrong saying that you have no interest in a "historical" Jesus.

Then go read about the time Nicodemus ... — Joe Mello

In response to my questioning the reliability of John as an historical account you repeat a story from John.

And bring with you your great learning, in particular where you taught me that "[Jesus] says nothing about being born again". — Joe Mello

What I said was:

... when in the sermon on the mount Jesus says:

theirs is the kingdom of heaven

he says nothing about being born again or the necessity of belief in himself or himself as "his only Son". Instead Jesus emphasizes human capacities. — Fooloso4

So where in the sermon does he say that or that no one comes to the father except through him?

Quoting John does not reconcile what Jesus said in the sermon with what Paul said, or for that matter with what John said.

And, of course, you didn't "read" from someone else that the Gospel of John was not a good source. — Joe Mello

Of course I read other sources! That is a fundamental part of scholarship. Closing your eyes to what modern scholars say is not scholarship but a display of close mindedness. I see nothing wrong with reading the NT inspirationally, but that is something different than biblical scholarship.

@Fooloso4

Now you’re just lying.

What kind of a critical thinker makes a declarative statement and then discovers the exact opposite is true, and then refuses to admit he obviously doesn’t know who or what he’s talking about?

All my corrections of you and the other believer in the cult of modern thinkers are from knowledge and experience I acquired 40 years ago when getting a scholastic education and living in response to Jesus’ many promises and directions.

And now I’m supposed to go on Google because intellectual skeptics are telling me to read the texts and figured out Jesus was really just an ordinary guy, if he even existed, and my favorite Gospel isn’t reliable?

No thanks. I gave up simply believing in something decades ago.

There are no experienced professional auto mechanics who only read books about fixing cars.

And likewise there are no great New Testament scholars who only read texts about Jesus.

Until we experience something we’re talking about, we cannot know for sure if it’s true.

Your unwillingness to examine anything that does not fit your long entrenched beliefs appears to be engendered by fear and existential self-preservation.

I will let you be.

@Fooloso4

I have never talked about believing but about knowing.

You are the believer who has no knowledge of God and Jesus through personal experiences and a scholastic education but says he does because he read a skeptic Bible telling him what to believe.

And I’m not religious and never have been, so your skeptic talking points you read from another skeptic (Shermer) that religious people are fearful of death and suffering are just another belief of yours that I have never witnessed in any religious person.

God inspires love and wisdom, not fear and ignorance.

What's the date? How many crosses are in the sky? How many people will call on Jesus for help today, or feel love for him, or quote him, or claim they know him personally? Not bad for "just another Jew". — Joe Mello

I see your point and this is exactly what I think the issue is. I see myself as a devout Christian who believes that through the study of the Jesus of history we can draw closer to the Christ of faith. I like to say that we need to separate the Jesus of history from the Christ of faith and find a balance between the two. One can believe in a historical Jesus and still be a devout Christian.

I think you had mentioned in a prior post that you were a Franciscan friar. I myself considered the Trappists or Dominicans at one time but my stance on this has changed. Christianity is the largest religion in the world for good reason; despite the corruptions and scandals that have gone on in Western Christendom there is a beauty in the traditions of it. There needs to be dialogue between Catholicism, Protestantism, and Orthodoxy as well as dialogue with biblical scholars and ancient historians.

@Dermot Griffin

Your scholastic experience that gave to you simple and wise knowledge of Jesus is showing.

But we’re not in Kansas anymore.

The world today is filled with modern thinkers without your experience spewing nonsense about Jesus that they back up by taking a text or two and applying their ignorant inexperience to it.

On this thread, skeptics are painting Jesus as just another Jew who was not the cause of Christianity, but just an Old Testament follower who didn’t claim the authority of the Son of God or even know that he was changing human history through a spiritual awakening.

Jesus was a complete success as humanity’s spiritual Messiah.

Christianity is of course flawed because it’s a religion populated by flawed human beings.

But a doorknob is perfect if it opens a door.

So likewise Christianity has been the perfect religion that spread the Truth about Jesus.

Good luck with choosing your path to greater Truth and greater Love.

And always remember that …

“The Glory of God is a human being fully alive.”

Religion is a means not an end.

I’ve considered Orthodoxy over the years, maybe someday. They tended to respect Greek thought long before people like Anselm and Aquinas showed up. It’s not that I don’t like Catholicism it’s just that I think there needs to be room for improvement within its ecclesiastical hierarchy. Theologically many modern Catholics are very open to other theological positions in my experience.

@Dermot Griffin

In the Vatican II documents the Catholic Church stated that the true “Church” is the Mystical Body of Christ, which includes every good religion and every person of “good will”.

Very true. The problem with the prolonged after effects of Vatican II is that a certain faction of Catholics seem to put down tradition. I’m not saying return to saying everything in Latin and return to women covering their heads in church but people seem to favor a more charismatic form of worship that, in quite honesty, has never been right for me. Not that it isn’t right at all I just feel more at home with a more ancient style of praxis. Then again, you find groups that are of a more “traditional type” that label every pope since Paul VI to be heretics. That also doesn’t exactly fly with me.

@Dermot Griffin

The Vatican II documents need to be read before they are judged.

And a priest with his back to his congregation speaking a language no one understands and being the only one receiving the bread and wine was not close to being what the ancient Christian churches did to celebrate the Last Supper.

Jesus said “take and eat”, “take and drink”, and he said it in Aramaic, the common language spoken.

The Catholic Mass became a pompous ceremony with a high and mighty priest.

I lived with and met hundreds of priests, and I only met a handful of holy ones, spiritual priests who walked the grounds of the monastery contemplating God.

So the old Mass was not real in its depiction of every priest facing away from people in direct communication with God.

Exactly... That is ironically debating in bad faith — schopenhauer1

It is ironic. Another irony is that your review of the texts supports the following observation made by JM:

And the greatest thing that influenced Paul’s writing was that he had a special direct revelation of Jesus. From that moment on he wrote with the same authority Jesus spoke with. — Joe Mello

It is not only that Pau's words don't match what Jesus said about the law, Paul describes the centuries of life under it as a bondage that Jews had to suffer for the sake of "justifying the Gentiles by faith" in the Letter to the Galatians 3:6 ff.

It was the rejection of the idea that a people could live a lie for the sake of the truth that I began to seek for ways to understand the teaching that did not require Paul's testimony.

@Paine

Words not matching and words contradicting each other are two very different things.

I pointed out to you boys that Jesus and Paul were not differing on the Spirit being greater than the Law.

Jesus used “fulfilling” and Paul used “replacing”, or some similar term.

But both knew that strictly adhering to religious laws was not what we were supposed to be doing, because the life of Jesus gave to us the Way to God, the Truth about God (and us), and the spiritual Life we now can live.

Before Jesus, there was a holy person or two around.

After Jesus, and through the coming of the Paraclete, every person living had the spirit of God within them and could do great things.

Jesus and Paul both taught this.

And the “Acts of the Apostles” tell this story.

And we have only to look at human history and the spread of Christianity around the world, and the witness testimony of countless individual persons claiming to know and love God, either through Jesus or not, either religious or not, to see this story playing out.

Other religions can claim the power of this Spirit within its followers, but no other religion can claim to be the reason for the presence of this Spirit.

When some Pharisees asked Jesus when the Kingdom of God was coming, he answered them that it wasn’t “here” or “there”, but “within you”.

Jesus was not only not just another Jew.

Jesus was not just another human being.

I pointed out to you boys. — Joe Mello

By their fruits, you will know them.

@Paine

Right to ad hominem because you can’t allow yourself to actually consider reading and pondering anything from someone else who very well may be vastly your superior on a particular subject.

Your critical thinking is inexperienced and self-centered and therefore boyish.

Do you really not see that saying "you boys" is ad hominem?

You have already admitted you have not explored the texts beyond the interests of your creed. The historical is only what you believe it to be. That is not a contribution in a conversation about the history of Jesus.

I will leave you with the last word.

I will leave you with the last word. — Paine

And thus you follow in the footsteps of everyone who encounters Mr mellow. Wise move.

A quick observation and a pointed question.

Some will argue that black and white are the same. They are, after all, colors.

Was Saul any less convinced of the rightness of what he said and did before his conversion than Paul was afterwards?

The desire to be an effective agent is present before and after the conversion. How that agency is understood is sharply different between the two conditions:

For I through the law died to the law, that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose. — Paul, Galatians 2:19, RSV

The mantle of authority taken here is not only directed to his speaking for the Son of God as an apostle but to the right to speak of himself as the last Jew. What he surrenders, all others should too. Perhaps in that latter sense of conviction, that he is truly what a Jew should be, it could be said the 'conviction' is the same.

I'm not sure I follow. It seems that he did not believe he was acting on his own authority in either case.
Before his conversion he believed the right thing to do was to persecute the followers of Jesus in the name of the Law, afterwards he believed the right thing to to was to persuade everyone to become followers of Jesus.

But my point is not simply with regard to Paul but with regard to anyone who believes absolutely that they possess the truth and cannot be wrong. The content of one's convictions seems to be secondary to the absolute certainty of those convictions. If conviction is the measure of truth than both Saul who persecuted Jesus' followers and Paul who attempted to persuade them to put their faith in Christ were in possession of the truth.

And let’s just forget the most important part of Paul’s “conversion” — that he had a direct special revelation of Jesus that blinded him until a leading Christian showed up and touched his eyes giving him his sight back instantly.

Nope, Paul was just another Jew, too.

He wrote about Jesus and sacrificed the rest of his life for Jesus because he “believed” it was the right thing to do, not because he had absolute certitude that it was the right thing to do because he saw with his own eyes, and had a conversation with, the resurrected Jesus.

I mean, if we talk about Jesus actually doing anything after he died, we would be acknowledging the Resurrection, and we can’t do that.

No. Let’s talk about a psychological conversion and beliefs, not actually seeing things and hearing things and knowing things.

And let’s not ever talk about an act of God? No way, man. They’ll put us in the loony bin.

God ain’t doing anything. We do everything.

He acted on his own authority when he represented himself as an apostle and direct witness of Jesus. The communities he formed were based upon this role in them. So, in that sense, he spoke with the authority referred to in Matthew in reference to Jesus at the end of the Sermon of the Mount:

And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes — Matthew, 7:28, RSV

So, when you say, " The content of one's convictions seems to be secondary to the absolute certainty of those convictions" it seems to me that what is claimed matters. What is being asked from others seems to be central to the differences.