It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Was Christ A Christian?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lord Altmis



Anyways, I think this is the ultimate paradox. That Jesus himself, wasn't a Christian. Yet he leads them. And nobody notices or says anything. In reality, Christianity is simply Catholocism all the way around. That's my conclusion so far. And Jesus wasn't Catholic.

[edit on 4-4-2005 by Lord Altmis]



i can't beleieve im saying this...

how can Jesus be a Christian? He is "Christ".

it's like saying satan is a satinist. he isn't a satinist because he is Satan. in order for one to be a Christian or a Satanist they would first have not to be the origin.


the "ian" and the "inist" denotes or signifies that ones a follower of.... and thus isn't the person being worship but the worshiper.

in a non religious respect.... it's as stupid as thinking that the state of Texas is a Texan. It can't be a texan because it is Texas... not to mention the fact that it isn't a person anyways.... but you get the point.


i hope that helps... because this is getting rather silly.


and no Christianity isn't simply catholosicm. Christianity is what Catholosicm practices (though in a catholic way). Christianity is bigger then Catholosicm. Christianity is aslo what protestents practice.

i think you are having issues with cause and effect.




[edit on 4-4-2005 by krossfyter]




posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Well based on your analogies, I think Satan is obviously a Satanist.

His followers believe in following him and worshipping him, and so does Satan. He follows himself, encourages others to as well. As strange as that sounds. In other words, he is for that cause. Texas would then be a Texan although it's not a living entity. The reason being, if the pieces are "texans" then the sum total of the pieces (Texas) is a "texan".

Jesus said I am the way, but didn't say to worship him. So when people follow him and worship him they are considered Christians. Yet Jesus didn't say that or wouldn't do that. So technically, Jesus is not a Christian. He is not a sum total of the pieces. I don't know if you can see the discrepancy.

It sounds like an almost out of body analogy, but I think as others have agreed. Jesus may not have been a Christian. Something interesting to consider.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Everyone knows the Jesus was not a christian! He was Jewish!! Everyone knows this...he was a jewish man. But people believe that he was the Son of God, so a new religion was based on this idea.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 03:32 PM
link   
I think Jesus was historically real, but I think that he has been mythologized to such a degree that no one knows who the real Jesus was, or what happened to him. He may well have simply been a great Jewish philosopher (ala Socrates), and some people misinterpreted his teachings as being indicative of his "divine" status.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lord Altmis
Well based on your analogies, I think Satan is obviously a Satanist.


nah based on my analogy satan is satan and those that follow satan are satinists... i don't undertsand why your confusing my analogy to imply something else other then the surface idea of which was directly meant.


Originally posted by Lord Altmis

His followers believe in following him and worshipping him, and so does Satan. He follows himself, encourages others to as well. As strange as that sounds. In other words, he is for that cause. Texas would then be a Texan although it's not a living entity. The reason being, if the pieces are "texans" then the sum total of the pieces (Texas) is a "texan".



He definitly is for the Satanic cause... because he is the origion of it... not because he is a follower. President Bush is a president not a follower of the president.... anything more than that we're playing with semanitcs and philosophical... semiotic trickery. My argument to you come from the perspective of the basic not semiotics.



Originally posted by Lord Altmis

Jesus said I am the way, but didn't say to worship him. So when people follow him and worship him they are considered Christians. Yet Jesus didn't say that or wouldn't do that. So technically, Jesus is not a Christian. He is not a sum total of the pieces. I don't know if you can see the discrepancy.



Jesus never directly said to worship him (because that would be very dogmatic and elitist... he was humble) his stories... his message and his actions all lead those (those that have common sense and can gather context clues quite easily) to help one decide that they are to worship him.
Jesus was poetic about it.... not a machine as most cult leaders and ploticians are. Jesus is God in human flesh (my opinion) and thus with such a position comes actions that aren't usually done by those not in that position... as in the worship me deal.


Originally posted by Lord Altmis
It sounds like an almost out of body analogy, but I think as others have agreed. Jesus may not have been a Christian. Something interesting to consider.


I see what you are getting at... but its semiotic trickery.... very post modernist and derrida esque.
you have to becareful with that junk especially used with the bible. God's message is plain and clear for any normal person with basic cognition can understand. Anything more then that should be used to promote that message not detract from it.





[edit on 4-4-2005 by krossfyter]



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Jesus as he sits on the right hand side of God is in disgust at how his name is being used this day and time. However, he as God knows that "They know not what they do."

This is a big universe folks. We are a small, tiny, blue orb in the context of God's creation.

Who is one to deny that perhaps Jesus or one like him walks our planet today? I will not, and cannot. Those that say they can? Hmm...



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 04:56 PM
link   
" And for their unbelief, and their uttering against Mary a mighty calumny, and for their saying, `We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God'--yet they did not slay him, neither crucified him, only a likeness of that was shown to them. Those who are at variance concerning him surely are in doubt regarding him; they have no knowledge of him, except the following of surmise; and they slew him not of a certainty--no indeed; God raised him up to Him; God is All-mighty, All-wise."



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by supercheetah
I think Jesus was historically real, but I think that he has been mythologized to such a degree that no one knows who the real Jesus was, or what happened to him. He may well have simply been a great Jewish philosopher (ala Socrates), and some people misinterpreted his teachings as being indicative of his "divine" status.



take a look at the book "more than just a carpenter" by Josh McDowell... here's an excerpt...




Recently I was talking with a group of people in Los Angeles. I asked them, "Who, in your opinion, is Jesus Christ?" The response was that He was a great religious leader. I agree with that. Jesus Christ was a great religious leader. But I believe He was much more.

The distinct claims of Jesus to be God eliminate the popular ploy of skeptics who regard Jesus as just a good moral man or a prophet who said a lot of profound things. So often that conclusion is passed off as the only one acceptable to scholars or as the obvious result of the intellectual process. The trouble is, many people nod their heads in agreement and never see the fallacy of such reasoning.

To Jesus, who men and women believed Him to be was of fundamental importance. To say what Jesus said and to claim what He claimed about Himself, one couldn't conclude He was just a good moral man or prophet. That alternative isn't open to an individual, and Jesus never intended it to be.



C.S. Lewis, once a professor at Cambridge University and agnostic turned theologian/philosopher wrote in his book "Mere Christianity" ....


"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 the 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."

Lewis adds...


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 up with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."



Jesus asked His disciples, "Who do you say that I am?" It is a question that every one must answer.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by krossfyter

Originally posted by supercheetah
I think Jesus was historically real, but I think that he has been mythologized to such a degree that no one knows who the real Jesus was, or what happened to him. He may well have simply been a great Jewish philosopher (ala Socrates), and some people misinterpreted his teachings as being indicative of his "divine" status.



take a look at the book "more than just a carpenter" by Josh McDowell... here's an excerpt...




Recently I was talking with a group of people in Los Angeles. I asked them, "Who, in your opinion, is Jesus Christ?" The response was that He was a great religious leader. I agree with that. Jesus Christ was a great religious leader. But I believe He was much more.

The distinct claims of Jesus to be God eliminate the popular ploy of skeptics who regard Jesus as just a good moral man or a prophet who said a lot of profound things. So often that conclusion is passed off as the only one acceptable to scholars or as the obvious result of the intellectual process. The trouble is, many people nod their heads in agreement and never see the fallacy of such reasoning.

To Jesus, who men and women believed Him to be was of fundamental importance. To say what Jesus said and to claim what He claimed about Himself, one couldn't conclude He was just a good moral man or prophet. That alternative isn't open to an individual, and Jesus never intended it to be.



C.S. Lewis, once a professor at Cambridge University and agnostic turned theologian/philosopher wrote in his book "Mere Christianity" ....


"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 the 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."

Lewis adds...


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 up with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."



Jesus asked His disciples, "Who do you say that I am?" It is a question that every one must answer.
You do well in lending credence to my argument. For one thing, I simply stated a possibility of who he was. I personally make no claim about who he was. Who's to say the Gospels are the correct version of his life?

Both McDowell and Lewis commit the fallacy of reductio ad absurdum, and Lewis commits an even worse fallacy by using an ad hominem argument.

Finally, just because a man is crazy doesn't make him immoral. I've met many mentally ill individuals who have made some pretty extraordinary claims, but they're still good people, and just because they might be "crazy" doesn't necessarily negate the truth of something they teach. To dismiss an argument based on character is an ad hominem fallacy. I, for one, happen to think that the philosophy of "Love your enemies as your neighbor" is a good philosophy, regardless of whether or not Jesus was crazy.



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by supercheetah

Originally posted by krossfyter

Originally posted by supercheetah
I think Jesus was historically real, but I think that he has been mythologized to such a degree that no one knows who the real Jesus was, or what happened to him. He may well have simply been a great Jewish philosopher (ala Socrates), and some people misinterpreted his teachings as being indicative of his "divine" status.



take a look at the book "more than just a carpenter" by Josh McDowell... here's an excerpt...




Recently I was talking with a group of people in Los Angeles. I asked them, "Who, in your opinion, is Jesus Christ?" The response was that He was a great religious leader. I agree with that. Jesus Christ was a great religious leader. But I believe He was much more.

The distinct claims of Jesus to be God eliminate the popular ploy of skeptics who regard Jesus as just a good moral man or a prophet who said a lot of profound things. So often that conclusion is passed off as the only one acceptable to scholars or as the obvious result of the intellectual process. The trouble is, many people nod their heads in agreement and never see the fallacy of such reasoning.

To Jesus, who men and women believed Him to be was of fundamental importance. To say what Jesus said and to claim what He claimed about Himself, one couldn't conclude He was just a good moral man or prophet. That alternative isn't open to an individual, and Jesus never intended it to be.



C.S. Lewis, once a professor at Cambridge University and agnostic turned theologian/philosopher wrote in his book "Mere Christianity" ....


"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 the 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."

Lewis adds...


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 up with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."



Jesus asked His disciples, "Who do you say that I am?" It is a question that every one must answer.
You do well in lending credence to my argument. For one thing, I simply stated a possibility of who he was. I personally make no claim about who he was. Who's to say the Gospels are the correct version of his life?

Both McDowell and Lewis commit the fallacy of reductio ad absurdum, and Lewis commits an even worse fallacy by using an ad hominem argument.

Finally, just because a man is crazy doesn't make him immoral. I've met many mentally ill individuals who have made some pretty extraordinary claims, but they're still good people, and just because they might be "crazy" doesn't necessarily negate the truth of something they teach. To dismiss an argument based on character is an ad hominem fallacy. I, for one, happen to think that the philosophy of "Love your enemies as your neighbor" is a good philosophy, regardless of whether or not Jesus was crazy.



tell me which one did lewis use? the traditional or the basic fallacy? besides that...who's charcther did he attack instead of the argument? im clearly seeing an attack on the argument itself not the attacker.
I'm not arguing that just because a mans crazy that would make him immoral. So there goes that... not sure why thats brought up.



[edit on 5-4-2005 by krossfyter]



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by krossfyter
tell me which one did lewis use? the traditional or the basic fallacy? besides that...who's charcther did he attack instead of the argument? im clearly seeing an attack on the argument itself not the attacker.


Firstly, an ad hominem argument isn't an attack, it's a judgement of character, irrelevant to the topic. Secondly, it's an ad hominem argument in relation to Jesus' character over the topic of whether or not it's right to learn from him, even if you do not believe him to be divine.



I'm not arguing that just because a mans crazy that would make him immoral. So there goes that... not sure why thats brought up.

That's the implication of Lewis' argument, though. More specifically, he says:


You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse.



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by supercheetah

Originally posted by krossfyter
tell me which one did lewis use? the traditional or the basic fallacy? besides that...who's charcther did he attack instead of the argument? im clearly seeing an attack on the argument itself not the attacker.


Firstly, an ad hominem argument isn't an attack, it's a judgement of character, irrelevant to the topic. Secondly, it's an ad hominem argument in relation to Jesus' character over the topic of whether or not it's right to learn from him, even if you do not believe him to be divine.



I'm not arguing that just because a mans crazy that would make him immoral. So there goes that... not sure why thats brought up.

That's the implication of Lewis' argument, though. More specifically, he says:


You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse.


One can attack the person given the argument by saying he or she is absurd or a negative comment against ones charechter as opposed to dealing with the argument at hand... thats also an ad hominem... the the basic one... not the traditional one.

"Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person...
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.


The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem



Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say." .... from www.nizkor.org...

.... "Ad hominem-
To the individual. Relating to the principles or preferences of a particular person, rather than to abstract truth. Often used to describe a personal attack on a person. " www.answers.com...&r=67

notice the "attack" word.

Lewis's arguement doesn't argue against not learning from him at all.... it's an arguement against Jesus as only a teacher/philosopher and nothing else.... because of what Jesus said. It's that simple.
No need to get lost in the techinicals over such a simple argument. If you'd like to attack it with Sophistical Refutations then one can also counter attack your argument and loose the point of the entire argument. We can go even further with the Derrida slant... and tear this sh it wide open or futher apart. It never ends.


[edit on 5-4-2005 by krossfyter]



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by krossfyter
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.


The inverse of this is a more recent phenomenon, but since it's of the same form, calling it ad hominem is a proper label:



From Wikipedia:

A makes claim B;
there is something desirable about A,
therefore claim B is true.




Lewis's arguement doesn't argue against not learning from him at all.... it's an arguement against Jesus as only a teacher/philosopher and nothing else.... because of what Jesus said. It's that simple.
No need to get lost in the techinicals over such a simple argument. If you'd like to attack it with Sophistical Refutations then one can also counter attack your argument and loose the point of the entire argument. We can go even further with the Derrida slant... and tear this sh it wide open or futher apart. It never ends.

We've both made our points quite well, I think. My point is that "what Jesus said" may not actually be what he said. I have my doubts about the truth of the Gospels, and believe they do nothing more than mythologize the real person. The reality of the historical Jesus may not be so romantic. As has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, there's strong belief that the Gospels were heavily influenced by pagan mythology. I've always figured that myself, but at least I know that I'm not the only one thinks this. If the Gospels are correct, then yes, Lewis would be correct, but there is no hard evidence to support either perspective.



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 09:13 PM
link   
He may or may not have existed, but, if he did, he sure as God made little green apples was not a Christian. See above posts re: ludicrous.



posted on Dec, 31 2008 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Ryanp5555

No, he was not a christian!

If we are talking about Yeshua the Israelite. The term "JEW" was not part of the language of the tribe of Judah. Check the origin of "JEW" with the northern tribes of Esau group.
No, he did not abserve christian holidays. Matthew 10:6 Yeshua told the deciples to "go rather to the lost sheep
of Israel" who would be the Israelites. At least that is what the blood of Jacob should have been call. He was proud of his hertiage, and would not have sold out glories fore fathers, or God of Abraham!
 



posted on Dec, 31 2008 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by BlackGuardXIII
 



Chk the etymology of the word "ish" u will find that he had no reason to call himself, or his followers such.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join