@Alexandergreat3,
Kj, it is unclear as to whom, if any, your post is directed. Please allow me to comment in that regard and thanks. From the opening statement perhaps it is directed to me yet I am unclear of that.
KaseiJin;108308 wrote: While we can ask whatever questions may come to our minds, in order to throw imaginative ideas around some (which can be fun, of course), it will surely contain much, much less meaning if we were to fail to apply good thought and logic.
Well said, only to add if that "logic and thought" are understandable and heard by all.
KaseiJin;108308 wrote: We have this somewhat clear image, in English, of a character named Jesus, based on some writings from the mid first century to the early second, and commentaries from the Apostolic Fathers, and Church Fathers, and some other fragments of lost texts. However, these are mostly in Greek, in which that figure is Iesu, which, in turn, is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name Yeshua. Yeshua would have, with very, very little room for doubt, been Jewish--a follower of the Mosaic Law (in some way or another).
Here you venture as you try to establish a boundary that exists and has always existed between the tenets of all religions. The OP states if Jesus (son of God)........................! That would indicate no religions as He would be all and effort to bring understanding that would close those divides that exist. Right?
KaseiJin;108308 wrote: It is not clear at all that the actual, historical character was just of that character...personality...nor that the historical man acted, and did, as is ascribed to that character in those works.
Agreed.
KaseiJin;108308 wrote: Much less, can we determine that any Hebrew male (a charismatic leader of a cult-like movement [and there were a possible number of such before the first century, and before the Roman sack of Jerusalem]) would have been able to do some of the unnatural miraculous things also ascribed to that character. So, even more so, can we suddenly jump to any conclusion that any historical Yeshua could have been deity, or YHWH? The far most likely answer is no.
Don't you think, for no lesser reason, such a man could exist, but not as we "know" a man? Perhaps his life was a compilation of many such thoughts and "what if's" piled into one so it appeared to "be One"? A God could do that in such a way that "no one" could try and lay claim to it. Of course man and his assumed "autonomy" would surely figure out a why to dismiss it if it was contrary to "that man's rule", huh?
What better way to do that than the way it was done and create a prophecy that could never come true yet a God could make them come true if it were in the best interest of "that God". Again, huh? An omnipotent deity could do that, couldn't he? Yes, I think he could.
Perhaps not so graphically such as what it was understood and depicted as to what it is said Christ did do, but in a way that would indicate why such was said that applied to "Christ's miracles" anyway. Like the OP mentioned, this occurred 2009 years ago (give or take a few hundred years either way). At any rate that was 1500 years before the average person could read or write and the creation of the "book"; much less all the different languages and various interpretations that was necessary in an effort to achieve a common way to have a discourse with one to the other.
Much was in the oral tradition and we both know how what that can lead to. Tell your neighbor a story and ask that he pass it on without out writing it out and then tell it to his neighbor and so forth until it circles the entire block and listen to what is said the last one to hear it relates to you. Ha! Need I say more?
KaseiJin;108308 wrote: It is a historical error to not take into careful consideration the setting, circumstances, and religious belief-system, in which and by which the cult which one Yeshua, along with a few of his relatives had formulated, had been a part of--and that major connect.
Kj, if you will pardon me, I think it important to stick with the intent of the OP and stay with that "wordage" as it applies to "Jesus" and away from what others might like to call that "person":
"If Jesus were born in the 20th Century (instead of 2009 years ago), how would this have changed Christianity? What differences would there be? How would people react to him"?
Of course here, the OP question is logically incorrect--impossible. We can think, however, that a possible intention might have been to ask,'if Jesus were to have come back again in the 20th century, what difference would that have made in Christianity?' [/QUOTE]
Yes, if one believes all that some Christians believe, and that is what has been done since that time, hasn't it and with little show for it. By changing the names, words and circumstances, it can get very confusing and an omnipotent deity would not have to resort to such rhetoric now would he? After all some do get off on the argument don't they and winning such word battles and being "right", "they" will often defer such dialog to confuse the issues at hand, huh? Sure they will; it's part of the game. Is life a game to be played by such individuals? I think life a bit more................than "a game" and religious constructs are a part of it. But even then there is a truth that can be derived from all of them and the belief structures we have created if one can be of that peace of mind to venture into other constructs other than those of which they may or may not agree with to understand that truth.
I have often wondered what would happen if a person who said he was Christ returned and tried to picture what would occur when and if such a person were to approach a "Christian" with such a statement considering what is known about what would happen on "his return". Wrap that around your noodle for a while and try and determine what would occur then? Ha! It is that reason I agree with what Mark Twain had to say on the subject:
"If Christ were here now there is one thing he would not be - a Christian".
William
---------- Post added 12-05-2009 at 11:19 AM ----------
xris;108311 wrote:The man or the myth. The dogmatic interpretation or the message of hope. I think his church would collapse and we would realise the true message he wished to bring.
I agree, but let's not rush it. That has been tried before and it will take a little time.................and trust, for that to happen.
William
