Why I cannot be Christian simplified

Jesus may not have technically said He was the son of God, likely in attempt avoid the catch-22 of the Truth also being blasphemy according to law. But He none the less made it clear that He was.

"My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one." Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"

The response of the religious leaders indicates the claim that Jesus made:

"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
John 10:27-33 NIV

 

No, I don't think so. I think he didn't stress it because it wasn't directly relevant to the core of the message he wanted to convey.

If he had wanted to prove to everyone he was from heaven, he could have easily done so, yet he did not.

 

Perhaps a better way to describe it would be the Jewish resistance to the Roman occupation of the land that they considered to have been given to them by their deity.

 

It was given to them. And then God took it away, just like he had warned them he would.

In some way we can view his arrival as a response to the decades of failed revolts by religiously led groups trying to restore the state.

 

Well, they weren't called Christians during Paul's lifetime. … and the Romans were known not to give a fig about the religion as long as they paid their taxes and behaved. So its pretty confusing.

Luke described Saul’s persecution of Christians in Acts 7:57–9:2

 

The Jewish factions fought each other and the Romans. Remember that by then there were Pharisees, Saducees, Herodians, Zealots, Essenes and Sicarri. The destruction of the Temple by Titus was the inevitable outcome..

 

All you need to read is the sermon on the mount from the bible. Even if you aren't religious it contains good advice.

 

Ever notice that although Jesus was allegedly well educated enough to read the scriptures there is not a single first hand account of his own beliefs? Not a single rough copy of a draft of one of his sermons or even just a list of things he wanted to get done.

That means that 100% of everything alleged about him comes from other sources including some, like Paul/Saul, who NEVER even met him in person.

Then there is the glaring ABSENCE of the Roman record of the trial and execution. The Romans were notorious for DOCUMENTING EVERYTHING in their dispatches back to Rome. Strange how that interrogation in a region well known for unrest failed to even get a passing mention at the time.

All of which makes the allegations about Jesus highly suspect given that there is ZERO first hand records by the man himself and CONTRADICTORY claims by those who allegedly knew him. On top of that there is NO outside corroboration of his existence.

Everything you cited above has been EDITED over and over again and in some instance for the nefarious political purposes of the Catholic Church.

If any of the above were to be presented in a court of law it would ALL be thrown out as hearsay.

 

A little bit of something for everybody.

 

Luke and Paul/Saul were definitely collaborators.

 

Makes me wonder when Luke and John .. and the Book of Acts were written.

 

The Sermon on the Mount is all about the hateful Roman occupation and how Jews should cope with it. Basically by turning the other cheek, carrying the soldiers pack two miles, and offering up one's cloak the strategy was non violent resistance and shaming the enemy.

 

Agreed!

One of the conundrums about religion is that it is a strange mixture of both positive and negative all wrapped up in a package that you are forced to either entirely accept or reject and be eternally condemned if you do reject it.

 

I know. I want no part of that god

 

No I cant believe in a God that kills all the first born babies in a city to prove a point

 

Its sort of a formula, isn't it.. Slaughter of babies when Jesus was born, with the Exodus from Egypt, with Noah...

1 Samuel 15


Samuel said that the Lord has sent him to anoint Saul as king, and to give him orders from God.

Since God remembered that the Amalekites had ambushed the Israelites, on their way out of Egypt, he now wanted Saul to slaughter all of the Amalek people.

"Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare nothing; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling baby, ox and sheep, camel and ass". KJV

 

Why did I need know that?

 

It's a summary directed at Christians who believe in the "Great Comission" (google that) why they cannot win me over to sit in the pews.

 

I don't care if you sit in the pews or not. Also, I don't use Google.

 

True, but when asked about the claim of being God or the Son of God, he also quoted the Hebrew Scriptures in calling other men God, which I always found curious.

 

Then this thread was not started for you.

 

I realize it was started for you, not for me.

 

If faith is belief, one can hardly undertake to criticize a proposition - other than as an idle intellectual exercise - without believing some part of it is false.

And if that doesn't clear it up for you, read the quote in #53 and ask yourself whether critical thinking has anything to do with science.

Not explicitly and not here, but it's a common definition among atheists. My guess is, if that is your operating definition, you'll be shrewd enough not to admit it.

 

Cutting off your actual body parts and plucking out your eyes is good advice?

 

No I would define faith as belief without evidence, never seen someone claim belief without proof.