A 21st century Jesus

[Roses]

Now you're just being silly.
LR - he did not trash the temple. He overturned some tables in the outer court, and drove out some animals. As for people who are up themselves, a few other names occur to me.

It was vandalism. Killing a load of pigs wasn't a clever thing to do.

As for people who are up themselves, a few other names occur to me.

Thinking of yourself, dear?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It was vandalism. Killing a load of pigs wasn't a clever thing to do.

As for people who are up themselves, a few other names occur to me.

Thinking of yourself, dear?

Pigs have been used therapeutically and for food. Their pancreas especially harvesTed for insulin.

Do you consider healing children with diabetes vandalism?

[Rhiannon]

It was vandalism. Killing a load of pigs wasn't a clever thing to do.

As for people who are up themselves, a few other names occur to me.

Thinking of yourself, dear?

The pigs are metaphorical swine. We've been here before.

[Roses]

Pigs have been used therapeutically and for food. Their pancreas especially harvesTed for insulin.

Do you consider healing children with diabetes vandalism?

What has that to do with frightening a herd of pigs over a cliff, to no good purpose? There is no suggestion Jesus compensated the farmer for their loss.

[Roses]

The pigs are metaphorical swine. We've been here before.

Who says they are metaphorical?

[jeremyp]

Now you're just being silly.

No I'm not. It's a light hearted post that demonstrates the fallacy of your own argument.

[Rhiannon]

Who says they are metaphorical?

Contemporary biblical scholarship. It's an in-joke against the occupying Romans.

You do know that pigs weren't kept in the number in a country where eating pigs is unclean, right?

[Roses]

Contemporary biblical scholarship. It's an in-joke against the occupying Romans.

You do know that pigs weren't kept in the number in a country where eating pigs is unclean, right?

If you say so.

[Rhiannon]

If you say so.

I didn't realise you were so Evangelical about taking the Bible literally. Sorry.

[SteveH]

What has that to do with frightening a herd of pigs over a cliff, to no good purpose? There is no suggestion Jesus compensated the farmer for their loss.

If memory serves, the biblical account says the Jesus exorcised a man who was possessed by many demons, who frequently threw him to the ground, as indeed they did when he met Jesus. the demons, having been banished, fled into a nearby herd of pigs, and drove then over a cliff. A non-supernatural version might be that the man was an epileptic, and had a fit in front of Jesus, who, assuming demon possession, as one would in those days, admonished the demons. The man's fit came to a natural end, but his thrashing around frightened the pigs, which stampeded. In neither account, biblical or naturalistic, did Jesus deliberately drive the pigs over the cliff.

[SteveH]

No I'm not. It's a light hearted post that demonstrates the fallacy of your own argument.

There was nothing fallacious about my argument. Russell said that Socrates was more admirable than Jesus. He didn't say that Jesus wasn't admirable. There are degrees of admirability.

[Rhiannon]

https://blog.israelbiblicalstudies.com/holy-land-studies/swine-gadarene/

[Roses]

If memory serves, the biblical account says the Jesus exorcised a man who was possessed by many demons, who frequently threw him to the ground, as indeed they did when he met Jesus. the demons, having been banished, fled into a nearby herd of pigs, and drove then over a cliff. A non-supernatural version might be that the man was an epileptic, and had a fit in front of Jesus, who, assuming demon possession, as one would in those days, admonished the demons. The man's fit came to a natural end, but his thrashing around frightened the pigs, which stampeded. In neither account, biblical or naturalistic, did Jesus deliberately drive the pigs over the cliff.

I agree a seizure, which is quite scary, could be thought to be demonic possession, to people in those far off days, before they knew any better. As demons don't exist in reality, if Jesus believed that nonsense to be true, it proves he was no sort of god, but just a man of his time.

[SteveH]

I agree a seizure, which is quite scary, could be thought to be demonic possession, to people in those far off days, before they knew any better. As demons don't exist in reality, if Jesus believed that nonsense to be true, it proves he was no sort of god, but just a man of his time.

Of course he was a man of his time - he was fully man as well as fully God. Therefore, he accepted the universal beliefs of his time.

[Roses]

Of course he was a man of his time - he was fully man as well as fully God. Therefore, he accepted the universal beliefs of his time.

And what verifiable evidence do you have that the guy was any sort of god?

[SteveH]

And what verifiable evidence do you have that the guy was any sort of god?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma

[Rhiannon]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma

Oh please. 

What evidence is there that Jesus thought he was God?

[Stranger]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma

Seriously? Lewis's daft trilemma?

There are so many things wrong with it, for example: the accounts of what Jesus said may well be inaccurate or embellished, even if they could be considered accurate, it's questionable if he actually thought he was god, and, even if that were the case, being delusional about being god doesn't somehow prevent him saying some sound things about morality - people (and delusions) are more complicated than that.

[Roses]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma

An opinion, but no sort of evidence to support Jesus being divine.

[jeremyp]

There was nothing fallacious about my argument. Russell said that Socrates was more admirable than Jesus. He didn't say that Jesus wasn't admirable. There are degrees of admirability.

You've forgotten what you were arguing about. Shaker said that Russell "was sharply critical of Jesus". Your attempted refutation to that was your fallacious argument that just because Russell never wrote "Jesus is not admirable" that means Russell thought he was admirable.

[SteveH]

You've forgotten what you were arguing about. Shaker said that Russell "was sharply critical of Jesus". Your attempted refutation to that was your fallacious argument that just because Russell never wrote "Jesus is not admirable" that means Russell thought he was admirable.

I didn't say that. Try reading what people actually post.

[jeremyp]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma

If those are the only choices, I'm going with liar with a dash of lunatic. Of course, they aren't the only three choices. Jesus might have been fictional or he might have been a preacher onto whom all the gods stuff was projected later by other people.

The other problem with the Trilemma is that you can apply it to any of the historic personages who had delusions of being divine -Charles I, for example.

[jeremyp]

I didn't say that. Try reading what people actually post.

This is you isn't it?

If I recall correctly, Russell opined that Socrates was more admirable than Jesus, but that's a matter of degree. He didn't say that Jesus wasn't admirable. I haven't read the other books.

[SteveH]

This is you isn't it?

Yes - and I didn't say that Russell said that Jesus wasadmirable, either.

[jeremyp]

Yes - and I didn't say that Russell said that Jesus wasadmirable, either.

You wrote it in response to a post claiming Russell was sharply critical of Jesus and it didn't look like you were agreeing with it. Context matters.