Is there one Jesus for the left and another for the right?

First topic message reminder :

A study at Stanford University in California found that the Jesus of liberal Christians is very different from the one envisaged by conservatives. The researchers asked respondents to imagine what Jesus would have thought about contemporary issues such as taxation, immigration, same-sex marriage and abortion. Christian Republicans imagined a Jesus who was against wealth redistribution, illegal immigrants, abortion and same-sex marriage, while the Jesus of Democrat-voting Christians would have had far more liberal opinions.

Johnjoe McFadden, writing in ‘The Guardian’ says: “Conservatives envisaged a Jesus with views close to their own on morality issues; but they recognised that the man who gave all his possessions to the poor would probably have advocated more progressive taxation policies than those of the Republican Party. Conversely, liberals saw Jesus as having similar views as themselves on fellowship issues but they believed his views on gay rights would be to the right of their own.”

It seems that while the Bible claims that God created man in his own image, this Stanford University study suggests man creates God in his own image.

For the full article:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/mar/04/jesus-liberals-conservatives

Polyglide. I will answer your post on '-how-can-anyone-believe-the-bible-when-it-contains-many-contradictions-and-fabrications' as hinted at by Ivan.

I have explained elsewhere, you only have to look at the last book in the Bible to see that much of the content is symbolic rather that factual, in which case the same may be applicable to the Old Testament.

Redgards.

So to plagiarise some someone else's beliefs, add your own and claim you're right is OK. The OT symbolism leads up to Isaiah 53 and the Jewish Messianic age. Christianity has wrongly interpreted this. This is evident is you study the OT. The suffering Servant is the Jewish Nation. No mention of Jesus.

There is a great possibility that two or more religions will adopt similar claims, this does not make either right or wrong.

The only time Jesus becomes an issue is after he was born.

The whole thing about different religions is that where there is conflict of belief only one or none can be right.

I accept the Bible.

Regards.

The problem is that you don't accept the Bible. You accept what you want to believe from the Bible. There is no indication of Jesus in the OT, but Christianity says there is. Without Matthew's wrongly quoted scriptures from the OT regarding the birth of Jesus, and Luke's mix-up of Roman laws, we have a Jewish preacher whose teachings and activities, in the main, are of Jewish background, with Christian interpolations. Because of Jesus' temptation 'in the wilderness' we have Satan, the enemy of Jesus. Yet in Judaism - prior to Christianity - HaSatan (The Satan) was Jahweh's messenger and one who was given the task of testing men's faith. Job passed. Jesus passed.
The Jewish preacher was tried and crucified because he opposed the religious hierarchy of his day for their deviation from the Torah and their religious oppression of the 'common' Jewish people.

I accept what you say, however, I believe that prior to the birth of Jesus there were different obligations for the behaviour of the human race, humans decided to ignore those obligations, and decided on a path very similar to those adopted by many today, with the same results.

Just look at the world as a whole and the manner in which the majority of the human race have decended into, exactly the state the Bible predicted it would.

Jesus was born to enable those who believed in him to be saved, because just prior to his birth mankind was almost beyond salvation, having decended into the same state the world finds itself at the present time.

I am not realy interested in anything prior to the birth of Jesus because according to the Bible it of no importance to the future of mankind for those after his birth.

Regards.

Well, you should study the birth of Jesus then. 2 different stories in Matthew and Luke that cannot be reconciled. Matthew claims the birth of Jesus was according to OT prophecy - which is completely wrong. Born in Bethlehem Ephrata to fulfil an OT prophecy which clearly refers to Israel That he was taken to Egypt as a baby, simply for Matthew to fulfil - again incorrectly - an OT prophecy.
Luke has him born in Bethlehem against all known Roman regulations for a census of taxation. Then he sends Jesus to Nazareth after about 8 days - where he remains until he is 12.
Wow. Jesus in 2 places at once. Now that is a miracle.
Jesus was simply a Jewish preacher elevated to divinity by the disciples.

The world today is little different to the world of yesteryear. There has always been wars, murder, rape, pillage and sexual promiscuity etc. We think things are far worse because we have modern communication which spreads, news that would have remained in the village in olden times. How many wars have there been which are unknown through lack of history, or so minor they have not been commented upon. Many wars today are religion based. Islam against infidels and Islamic sects against each other.

If only a time traveller could go back to 700BCE and stop the Babylonians taking the Jews into captivity and writing their fairy stories about Abraham, Moses and the Exodus we would be spared the religion of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Also those sects who followed on.

The world today is nothing like any other generation, either in the behaviour or the conditions and opportunities.

A report from the Worldwatch Institute states,"Three times as many people fell victim to war in [ the 20th ] century as in all the wars from the first century AD to 1899." More than 100 million people have died as a result of wars since 1914.

There is no way one can compare the state of the world today with any other generation.

Nuclear weapons, every Nation able to comunicate within seconds with each other, murder once a very rare event now a daily occurance, parents killing their children husbands killing their wives, children killing each other etc; no morals, anything goes, pestilance abounds, earthquakes once a rare event now not even a shock when reported, brother fighting brother, not in isolated cases but world wide, the majority just want pleasure and not worried how they obtain it, drugs, all kinds of deviations once frowned on, now promoted, the list is endless, and there is no time in history when all the above has been existing at any one time.

The END IS NIGH.

regards.

You really need to read up on history. True we have the capability to destroy a lot more people. So would the people of old had they the same facilities.

Let me introduce you to some of my friends.

Ashurnasirpal II Assyrian Emperor. That wonderful warrior wrote while recalling a massacre he had just committed "their men young and old I took prisoners. Of some I cut off their feet and hands; of others I cut off the ears noses and lips; of the young men's ears I made a heap; of the old men's heads I made a minaret. I exposed their heads as a trophy in front of their city. The male children and the female children I burned in flames; the city I destroyed, and consumed with fire".

Of course, I've no doubt if he had had a large bomb he would have used it.

Mithridates VI Eupator Dionysus, King of Pontus, took advantage of Roman problems at home by sweeping through the Roman province of Asia Minor. He was so quick that many Romans and Italians were captured.
He ordered that they be executed throughout the province at certain times. It's estimated 80,000 people were murdered.

Perhaps machine guns would have been quicker.

I could give you many such massacres from ancient times, and IMO they would have been much worse with modern weapons.

Most of the crimes above have been going on for generations. The real difference is that with the advent over the last 200 years of the Media in various forms we now hear of them. Pestilence, earthquakes have been going on throughout history. The earth's crust is always moving causing earthquakes. The Indian subcontinent is very slowly moving north and pushing the Himalayas up. This causes earthquakes in Tibet, Nepal and China. Some of the events in the Bible are probably down to earthquakes. Pestilence is also recorded in the Bible. Famines occur throughout history. Swarms of Locusts devastate large areas. Diseases have wiped out populations, usually of animals ot plant species, and devasted human populations.

There's nothing new under the sun.

There are new births every day, millions, I feel thay are very new.

I could say that all the quotes you relate are just fairy stories as you think the Bible is.

There is no factual evidence that shows the ears etc; just stories, thought up by Satan to mislead the blind.

God has when circumstances demanded, used his powers to deal with those that put his followers under unacceptable circumstances
using what we may feel harsh measures, however, were my children put under certain circumstances I would do exactly the same, and expect every other parent to do also.

As humans our powers of understanding are limited, and to second guess the actions of God confirms the fact.

Regards.

polyglide wrote:There are new births every day, millions, I feel thay are very new.

I could say that all the quotes you relate are just fairy stories as you think the Bible is.

You could, except we have evidence of these in Museums. There is no evidence whatever for the existence of Abraham, Moses, the Exodus etc. In fact, when you look at the Bible stories and then at the  history of the time, it's pretty obvious they did not exist as the Bible declares.  
Satan did not exist until Christianity made him up.
Which story of Jesus birth do you accept? They can't both be true.

Matthew presents us with the Jewish Messiah if you take all his OT prophecy. Luke presents us with the problem of Roman Law and the even more difficult problem of hundreds of thousands of Jews all descending upon a small town in Judah. Mary and Joseph would not have got anywhere near the town.

I watched a programme regarding the Exodus and it gave graphic details of how it could have occured and probably did.

There are also numerous references in history to all the people mentioned at the times in question.

The reality of history depends entirely on those recording it, some may bend it for a purpose, and others make genuine mistakes.

If you take certain words used within my lifetime during which they have become used in entirely different ways and meanings, one can understand that one has to make exeptions regarding history and the manner in which it is portrayed.

I could give numerous apparent anomolies in past history but this does not mean that it makes any or all either right or wrong, one has to consider all the possible implications and come to a decision, and that is what I have done.

Regards.

I've seen programmes for and against. Common sense tells us that it could not have occurred. Have you actually studied the details that the Bible gives.

Over 2.5 million Hebrews exit Egypt and no indication in Egyptian history. That's probably nearly half the population of the time. It would have affected many families in Egypt and the 'economy' of the country. This number survive in the scrubland/desert that a few tribes just manage today, for 40 years?
This number, with babies, cattle, flocks and goods cross a rocky, dried up seabed in less than 12 hours.
They reach Sinai. although no-one knows where Sinai was/is.
Have you read and studied the marching columns and camping directions given? All ridiculous and impossible to carry out.
Depending what date this supposed Exodus took place, 'the Promised Land' was probably under Egyptian control anyway.
The story is made up by writers with no understanding of life in the desert.

Was it a reflection of the Exodus when the Hyksos were thrown out? Who knows.

polyglide wrote:There are also numerous references in history to all the people mentioned at the times in question.

There's no mention of Moses or of the Hebrews. Semites, yes. But Semites is a general term for tribes of the area. We know these tribes regularly entered the Nile Delta to feed their flocks. Some stayed, most left after fulfilling their purpose.

There may be other names mentioned but then the story was written about 700BCE so names from history are available.

As to words changing over time I've studied the episode taking into account the time, culture and history of the time - as I usually do with studies of the OT and NT.

I have not studied, as you have done, however, I base all my beliefs on all that I can actually see, in the here and now, and not having to go back in time to consider all the apparent discrepancies .

In my opinion there is only one possibility to explain both the universe as a whole and the earth in particular.

A creator with the knowledge to create anything from energy, where the energy originated I know not.

I then consider why such a creator would create humans with the capabilities they have, and they die when in fact they are at their most learned.

It is a fact that things do evolve, but not into entirely different species, and all but humans have a life span and a means of living pre determined, from which few deviate.

So in view of the above I considered all the options, including different religions, and the only one so far as I am concerned that fits the bill, is Christianity.

Since doing so I have had many experiences to reinforce my belief when the occasion arose, too mnay to be coincidence.

The feeling when you have received help and advice when needed, even were it to be an unfounded belief is well worth the effort, however, I emphatically emphasise that I am a Cristian because I believe 100% that Jesus was born to save us from Satan.

Regards.

If you are happy that your experiences are divine guidance rather than the result of your mind solving the problem etc which it's known to subconsciously do, then fair enough. When I run into a problem I think it through and  allow my mind to sort it.  
Up to about 30 I was a fervent Christian and believed like you. However, I found that I, and others, had the ability to somehow 'see' through things others couldn't. Being a Christian I put these things down to 'satan' and ignored them. Now I realise there are more things than science understands yet.

I will now leave you in peace to your beliefs.

Thanks for sharing your views, I hope one day you will reconsider.

Regards.

There was only one Jesus - an early anti-imperialist socialist who expressed his ideas in the universal 'religious' language of his time. Religious people falsify all he said, and in America seem never even to have read it.

The weekend Sunday Times magazine contained a quiz, authored by the sadly embittered Rod Liddle, entitled "How Liberal Elite are you?" (Presumably meaning us, rather than him).

Inter alia, Mr Liddle appears to suggest that the degree of atheism increases the further up the social scale you go and the greater level of educational qualification achieved.

Is he right, and how does Britain compare with the USA in that respect?

Bertrand Russell once said that “the immense majority of intellectually eminent men disbelieve in Christian religion”, and research appears to support that remark. Michael Shermer, in ‘How We Believe: The Search For God In An Age Of Science’, describes a large survey of randomly chosen Americans that he and his colleague Frank Sulloway carried out. Among their many results was the discovery that religiosity is negatively correlated with education (more highly educated people are less likely to be religious). Paul Bell, writing in ‘Mensa Magazine’ in 2002 told us: “Of 43 studies carried out since 1927 on the relationship between religious belief and one’s intelligence and/or educational level, all but four found an inverse connection. That is, the higher one’s intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold ‘beliefs’ of any kind.”

https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t334-are-atheists-and-left-wingers-more-intelligent

boatlady wrote:The problem with this kind of discussion, and why I very rarely indulge, is that you can prove, or disprove anything by reference to Biblical authority - that's why I find organised religion such a worry.

People waste time arguing about what their imaginary friend might have meant, when they could be learning to care for the planet and for each other in an ethical and sustainable way

Most organised religions believe the world will end in an apocalyptic conflagration, where 'only' they and those who share their beliefs will be saved. This doesn't strike me as conducive to good stewardship of the planet, and it's resources to me. There is an interesting podcast from the states called the Atheist Experience, there are a few presenters including former president Matt Dillahunty. They often refer to the bible as the great book of multiple choice, so they appear to share your view that you can cherry pick it to mean just about anything you want.

Here's a link to one of the ACA's (Atheist Community of Austin) videos: https://youtu.be/EFml69gyaW8

That one is about end times beliefs, sadly such views are nit rare among theists, and strike me as pernicious, not least because they promote a fatalist view of the world, rather than promoting a sensible ethical and responsible view to sustaining our planets ecosystems for future generations.

polyglide wrote:I watched a programme regarding the Exodus and it gave graphic details of how it could have occured and probably did.

There are also numerous references in history to all the people mentioned at the times in question.

On the contrary there is no evidence that the exodus story is true at all. The Israelis have searched for archaeological evidence for decades and found not one shred to support the biblical narrative. There are no historical records form any other source other than the bible to support it either. So your last sentence is simply wrong, could you reference some of these historical works that you claim support the biblical narrative?

Yes there seems to be a Jesus for the left and right as one would find in a "new age" Jesus a Catholic,and  Protestant  Jesus etc.  

(Jesus according to the scriptures should be more obvious to the various denominations in this regard - using the same book.)


“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

― Mahatma Gandhi

polyglide wrote:I watched a programme regarding the Exodus and it gave graphic details of how it could have occured and probably did.

There are also numerous references in history to all the people mentioned at the times in question.

The reality of history depends entirely on those recording it, some may bend it for a purpose, and others make genuine mistakes.

If you take certain words used within my lifetime during which they have become used in entirely different ways and meanings, one can understand that one has to make exeptions regarding history and the manner in which it is portrayed.

I could give numerous apparent anomolies in past history but this does not mean that it makes any or all either right or wrong, one has to consider all the possible implications and come to a decision, and that is what I have done.

Regards.

Hi PG (et all) ,

Don't think I've seen the documentary but does sounds interesting.  Yes the anomalies like some of our forum friends have mentioned would seem contradicting to the bible although it is also likely to some extent that a lot of ancient history as we currently understand may need to be corrected - when new explanations by continious further study come to light.

An important aspect to the contradictions is if this is due to the Egyption chronology dated in error as a study by leading Egytologist David Rohl suggests.  According to this proposition the dates match historical when both time lines are adjusted.

(haven't got saved links in this PC just type in  David Rohl in google as there are sites available online.)

At the time I came across this fellow he was making a documentary can't remember the title at the moment (rushing to meeting)

regards

Complaining about the accuracy of history is like criticising Biblical scriptures for not having been recorded on an I-pad.  They are what they were, at the time written.  They made no reference to electricity or self-propelled vehicles or even popular internet media - because they couldn't possibly have done so.

I dare say you don't look quite as good now as you may have done several years ago.

Those who don't make allowance for the Context will usually misunderstand what they are reading.

Those who don't make allowance for the Context will usually misunderstand what they are reading.

Whilst this is of course true for human history, and out interpretation of the evidence, I never understand the rationale of how such human limitations apply to a deity, let alone one that is claimed to be both omnipotent and omniscient when communicating a message that is claimed to be the reason everything was "created" by that deity.

It's a simple fact that most of the OT is not supported by any evidence, and not one single historian wrote one single word about Jesus until decades after his death, and none of it demonstrates evidence he was anything other than human. If of course he existed at all, and that is far from being beyond a reasonable doubt.