Hmm why didn't Jesus invent stuff

Two answers spring immediately to mind

1) Necessity is the mother of invention and what did he absolutely need to invent?

2) I'm not sure his role on earth required him to do any inventing.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Not only did he not invent anything, he didn't even give give humanity a new philosophical understanding of the world, everything he said had already been said by older philosophers. Confucius wrote “Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself” 500 years before Jesus said pretty much exactly the same, when he said "Love thy neighbour" he was just quoting Leviticus and it was a 2nd or 3rd century scribe who invented "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", not Jesus.

This is probably why he decided to appear 2,000 years ago and not today, he would have been convicted for plagarism of other people's work if he was around today but there was no copyright laws in the ancient Roman Empire.

Was the work of Confucius known within the Roman Empire at that time? Was it known to the working class Jews? I take your point, but I wouldn't rob the man of philosophical progressivism.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I couldn't say whether the work of Confucius was known at the time in the Roman Empire, there had been a trade of ideas between East and West for a long time prior to the birth of Jesus eg during the Macedonian expansion under Alexander the Great, so I couldn't rule it out. However even if the Jews hadn't heard of Confucius they would certainly have heard of the Greek Cynic movement which was especially active between 100 BC - 100 AD and were found in most cities across the Roman Mediterranean. They also preached the Golden Rule before Jesus did.

Does he get no credit for pushing that philosophy in the context of "eye for an eye" Judaism? What about his extreme pacifism? "Turn the other cheek", ie die rather than ever kill seems admirable in a perhaps insane fashion.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Does he get no credit for pushing that philosophy in the context of "eye for an eye" Judaism? What about his extreme pacifism? "Turn the other cheek", ie die rather than ever kill seems admirable in a perhaps insane fashion.

Some of Jesus' saying were indeed admirable and advocated pacifism and forgiveness, others however were not and advocated violence and unforgiveness.

“Think not that I came to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law: and a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that doth not take his cross and follow after me, is not worthy of me. “(Matthew 10:34-38)

“And he said unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a wallet; and he that hath none, let him sell his cloak, and buy a sword. For I say unto you, that this which is written must be fulfilled in me, And he was reckoned with transgressors: for that which concerneth me hath fulfilment. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.” (Luke 22:36-38)

"He that is not with me is against me, and he that gathereth not with me scattereth" (Matthew 12:30-31)

There are three sayings that advocate violence/unforgiveness. There are more that I haven't mentioned but these are probably the best known. Also let us not forget Jesus going into the Temple and attacking money changers who were converting money in order to prevent the Temple from being desecrated by foreign currency. Let us not forget Jesus' followers included Jewish zealots, zealots being a militaristic wing of ancient Judaism. Let us not forget that at least one of Jesus' entourage was armed when he was arrested.

And finally I come to the Christian argument that Jesus is God and has been from the very beginning. This means that anywhere in the OT where God massacres children or drowns entire nations, their gentle Jesus was involved and responsible. During his Earthly life he said peaceful thing and he said violent things. During his divine existence he has slaughtered millions upon millions of men, women and children (if we are to believe Christian claims of his divinity).

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Can you give me one example of something that changed in human behaviour after ~30 AD which did not exist before to ~10 BC and which can be directly attributed to Jesus?

I'm afraid I don't know a great deal about philosophy so I can't say much on the subject. However, if we are talking strictly about changes in human behaviour, there are plenty of examples in behavioural changes after people accepted Jesus thought the Bible and right up to this day. On a less personal note, one could also look to the behavioural changes of society in large which have been upheld by laws based in some part on the tenets of Christianity. Indeed, though I accept it couldn't be considered a change in behaviour, the date ranges you give in your post are in relation to the birth of Christ. A small indicator of the profound effect Jesus has had on society as a whole.

Time and time again you have quoted those verses to propagate the notion that Jesus was spreading hatred and endorsing violence. And each time you have rejected the historical context and metaphorical meaning as understood by many Christians in favour of your pretext. I really see no value from rehashing this topic in this particular thread.

Akrasia wrote:

He was saying that the man Jesus wasn't an original thinker. What his followers did after his death is separate from what Jesus did during his life.

Whatever about the originality of Jesus' ideas, if a philosophy doesn't inspire then it is useless. One of the main points of Jesus' life, his words and his works is that they inspired those around him and continue to do so today. So in this regard, how the Disciples and contemporary Christians are positively affected by Jesus is entirely relevant to this debate.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

However, if we are talking strictly about changes in human behaviour, there are plenty of examples in behavioural changes after people accepted Jesus thought the Bible and right up to this day. On a less personal note, one could also look to the behavioural changes of society in large which have been upheld by laws based in some part on the tenets of Christianity. Indeed, though I accept it couldn't be considered a change in behaviour, the date ranges you give in your post are in relation to the birth of Christ. A small indicator of the profound effect Jesus has had on society as a whole.

I can't say I agree with you that there was any significant change in behaviour by people which could only be attributed to Jesus and Christianity. Some Christians lived good, honest lives while other Christians lived nasty, dishonest lives, just like some Jews lived good lives and some didn't, and some pagans lived good lives and some didn't. Some Christians were willing to die for their faith and some weren't, just like some Jews were willing to die for their faith and some weren't. Nations founded on the Christian faith have proved time and again to be no more moral than nations founded on any other faith.

Perhaps the one major change that Christianity introduced to humanity that may not have existed otherwise is anti-Semitism. Yes the Jews had suffered prior to the rise of Christianity however this was not because they were Jews, they were not being punished for being Jewish when the Romans or teh Greeks conquered Judea. Christianity changed all this, the Jews were God Killers, they had the blood of Jesus on their hands.

Time and time again you have quoted those verses to propagate the notion that Jesus was spreading hatred and endorsing violence. And each time you have rejected the historical context and metaphorical meaning as understood by many Christians in favour of your pretext.

That is because I don't accept the Christian attempts to alter what Jesus actually is recorded as saying. There is no doubt that the quotes I mention can in no way be reconciled with that of a person who advocated only pacifism. And isn't it strange that it is always the uncomfortable quotes from Jesus are always explained away as being metaphor, never the other way around.

I am always amused when Christians get annoyed at supposed misinterpretation of the New Testament as this is the exact same claim the Jews make about Christians when it comes to the Old Testament and Christian attempts to try to find cryptic references to Jesus in the scriptures even at the cost of completely ignoring the context of the passages they use.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I can't say I agree with you that there was any significant change in behaviour by people which could only be attributed to Jesus and Christianity.

I'm not saying that behavioural changes can only be attributed to Jesus. I'm saying that the changes are attributed to Jesus. By rejecting such claims you are not only disagreeing with accounts in the Bible - something I would expect - but you are also rejecting the countless contemporary testimonies from people who state that it was Jesus who made profound changes in their lives. I've had the good fortune to hear some remarkable testimonies from people who would have freely described themselves prior to their acceptance of Jesus as brutal criminals who perpetrated some truly evil acts on their victims. Whether you or I accept that their reformed nature is due to Jesus or not, that really isn't the point. It is they who attribute the profound change in their life to Jesus.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Some Christians lived good, honest lives while other Christians lived nasty, dishonest lives, just like some Jews lived good lives and some didn't, and some pagans lived good lives and some didn't. Some Christians were willing to die for their faith and some weren't, just like some Jews were willing to die for their faith and some weren't. Nations founded on the Christian faith have proved time and again to be no more moral than nations founded on any other faith.

This has been argued before. You would have a point if I ever stated that a predominately Christian country (and we can probably both agree that such terminology is disingenuous) or a Christian individual is automatically 'better' than non-Christian countries or individuals. I've never stated such a thing, thpugh. However, as I've alluded to in the testimonies above, the people who have given themselves over to Jesus have consistently maintained that they are now, in the most obvious sense, better people then they were before. This doe not mean that they become more loving, generous, kinder etc. etc. than your run of the mill pagan.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Perhaps the one major change that Christianity introduced to humanity that may not have existed otherwise is anti-Semitism. Yes the Jews had suffered prior to the rise of Christianity however this was not because they were Jews, they were not being punished for being Jewish when the Romans or teh Greeks conquered Judea. Christianity changed all this, the Jews were God Killers, they had the blood of Jesus on their hands.

Do you have any evidence for such claims? 'd be interested to see what you can dig up.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

That is because I don't accept the Christian attempts to alter what Jesus actually is recorded as saying. There is no doubt that the quotes I mention can in no way be reconciled with that of a person who advocated only pacifism. And isn't it strange that it is always the uncomfortable quotes from Jesus are always explained away as being metaphor, never the other way around.

It's not alteration, it's hermeneutics. You say that your interpretation of those passages is incompatible with Jesus the pacifist. So, as I see it, this is either down to a whopping mistake in the Bible or your misguided rejection of an interpretation of the passages based upon the life, word and works of Jesus as supported by the Bible. It seems entirely plausible that 2000 after the events described we now have to spend a little more time looking into passages that may have been considerably clearer to the initial audience.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I am always amused when Christians get annoyed at supposed misinterpretation of the New Testament as this is the exact same claim the Jews make about Christians when it comes to the Old Testament and Christian attempts to try to find cryptic references to Jesus in the scriptures even at the cost of completely ignoring the context of the passages they use.

The whole moral equivalence card doesn't work. One belief is based upon cryptology, the other is based upon things that are much more accessible: historical context and the character of Jesus.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Before I read any of the Christian responses to you I could see some pretty obvious metaphor in those quotes of yours. And some of the talk of violence is clearly a warning that divisions would come as a result of Jesus' word. Less a threat than a warning of what was to come. And it did, though it would hardly take a prophet to catch that one.

I assume you are referring to the Matthew quote where Jesus said that he came not to bring peace but the sword and to set families against one another. This was brought up here recently and the Christian response was indeed that this was Jesus saying that families would be split as some would accept his teachings and others would not.

Now I don't think this interpretation is justified because reading the passage carefully it is clear the way the quotation is phrased Jesus is declaring it to be his expressed wish that these things happen, Jesus has come to actively split families. If Jesus said "My coming will set man at variance against father..." then fair enough, however how he actually phrases it is that his arrival is to specifically achieve the aim of splitting families. The difference is subtle but important.

The Christian explanation of this particular quotation does not fit with the way the statement is phrased. The best explanation that I have come across is that Jesus was a Jewish apocalyticist who truely believed the Kingdom of Heaven was arriving immediately, within a few months the world would be turned on its head. Family structure was to be one aspect of life which would be overhauled and by looking at some other sayings of Jesus it becomes clear that he was preaching a message which was anything but traditional family values.