There's another tool we have at our disposal.

In addition to Jesus being a teacher in a culture, in a tradition, there is good evidence that whatever he said or did while he we walking around Judea had a transforming effect on some people within that culture.

The earliest records of the church indicate an egalitarianism, a disregard for class and wealth, an inclusion of both men and women in worship, an idea of spiritual life as separate from political life ... all of these things are changes in the cultural current, departures from both Judaism and Roman Hellenism as they were practiced in that period. All happened very soon after the life of Jesus, in the communities of those that self-identified as his followers.

So, in addition to doing some critique on what cultural baggage the authors of the various texts might have brought to their task, we should also consider how those early church communities stood in contrast to their surrounding cultures, and consider how that might match up with some of the teachings left behind in the written record.

I got the best example of the oddity religion can be last week... a friend who is jewish is wanting to marry an islamic girl (whos mum is christian and dad is muslim) but his dad is against it because he says he can only marry a jewish girl, even though my friends mum was christian! They all belive in the same god, why can't they just get on?

Hope that made sence

calling him/her by the same name does not mean they believe in the "same god." They believe very, very different things about the nature of God, the character of God, and the commands of God. Altogether, that adds up to some heavy duty problems to resolve.

WWMD?

Merc said - "WWMD" ... too funny! ROTFL :D

As for the original post... sorry, I don't see Jesus saying a lot of it.
Some of it is simply illogical, and pretty much all of it is promotional to a specific bias looking for support because its "how Jesus feels".
Parasite mentality... as I see it.

Highlight at your peril

Jesus loves you.

But I'm his favourite.



Jesus does not really love you.

He's just using you for sex.

I've decided that I would prefer it that no one dies for my sins. This sounds like a terrible idea, and I would prefer to die for my own sins, and if warranted, go to hell myself.

I have decided to be responsible for my own sins and if someone has made the mistake of dying for my sins, I am offering an apology, because there is no need, I have them handled, and I am also very sorry for the mix-up in spiritual procedure. Some say that it is obligatory and too late, but I will talk to god and maybe god will make an exception.

I am willing to bare the burden of my own sins. If anyone in the future would like to die for my sins, the answer is no. No thank you, that is awesome of you! Thanks, but no thanks. I will try to handle this myself, maybe poorly, but I think I should be the responsible party here....I think a little self-responsibility is in order. I do that poorly too, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't attempt it as much as possible.
:)

I've never heard it called that before!

A little extra for, you know, fetish...
;)

If anyone is really interested in Jesus and what he may or may not have taught or said, I highly recommend Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" or his lecture series "Lost Christianities" available from the Teaching Company.

It will clear a lot of things up.

Interesting article about him on wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

I have an audio recording somewhere around here of Ehrman debating William Lane Craig at Holy Cross on the topic of the historical probability for the resurrection. It's like watching a one-armed man fight Mike Tyson.

Craig develops a very rigorous framework for understanding probability, one that treats historical probability in the same way that statistical probability functions in every other field of study, one that accounts for both field of observation and potential background knowledge, and proceeds to roll out a very compelling argument for why the resurrection is a probable explanation for four different historical data points.

Ehrman then proceeds to do the academic equivalent of shouting "Nuh-uh, you dumb dumb poo poo head!" He ignores the argument itself, as Craig laid it out, and instead says, "Well, of course you would think that, you're a Christian. Why should we listen to you?"

That's some nice intellectual work there, Lou.

I'd love to hear it. how can I get a copy?

...I'd recommend the Bible. It will clear a lot of things up.

Sorry, I couldn't help it. Such as easy shot. I'm just a little devil, I am...:devil: