↪ThinkOfOne

You seem to be talking about Christianity from a more modern social perspective. From a theological and philosophical perspective I see nothing wrong with a Christianity that clings to the word of Jesus and disregards those of Paul. One could hold that view and still call oneself a Christian. I'm lukewarm on Paul but he was undoubtedly influential but I don't think anyone can call Paul infallible. I'm familiar with anti-Paul views but I don't hate the man. I'd be interested to know in what way he perverts the word of Jesus. Your dispute is with the compilers of the canon. — Moses

Sure, one could hold that view and call oneself Christian, but Christianity, as the word is commonly understood, does not have the gospel preached by Jesus as its foundation. The underlying concepts are worlds apart. It would likely lead to misunderstanding.

As to the dispute being with the compilers of the canon, seems like the compilers of the canon determined would have chosen what is consistent with beliefs already held. Beliefs based on the epistles of Paul and the other books of the NT which were already influenced by Paul.

As to the corruption of the words of Jesus, that's a really large topic. So let's narrow it to one aspect of the gospel preached by Jesus: The Righteous vs the Unrighteous.

According to the gospel preached by Jesus:

The righteous do not commit sin. They are not "sinners". They do not "do evil".
The unrighteous commit sin. They are "sinners". They "do evil".

The righteous are considered to have "life".
The unrighteous are considered to be "dead".

It is crucial to note that this is a strict dichotomy. An individual is considered to be either righteous or unrighteous. There is no overlap between the two. There are no partly righteous and partly unrighteous individuals.

Some of the unrighteous make a show of "acting righteously". Jesus calls them "whitewashed tombs" or even "wolves in sheep's clothing". Righteous looking on the outside. Corrupt on the inside.
They may do many "good deeds". Jesus does not consider their "good deeds" to be good.

Jesus "came not to call the righteous, but to call the sinners (unrighteous) to repentance". Jesus calls the unrighteous to make themselves righteous.
Note that Jesus speaks of there being those who are righteous for whom He did not come.
Those who have made themselves righteous are considered to have been "resurrected" from death unto life. They have been "raised up". They have been "born from above". They have been "saved".
Note that the "resurrection" is figurative rather than literal.
"Repentance" entails making oneself righteous. Anything short of this is not true repentance.

Only the righteous receive eternal life, live in the Kingdom of God, etc.

There is a lot that needs to be unpacked in what's been sketched out above. Hopefully you'll give it a thorough reading. Let's discuss it, then I'll move onto the corrupting influences of Paul. Comments? Questions?

Judaism and Christianity understand righteousness differently. Judaism understands righteousness through the lens of ethical conduct (i.e. action.) I am not quite familiar with how Christians understand the term.

Judaism has always been a religion focused on action over belief (or more generally it prioritizes the external over the internal.) If Jesus was initially preaching within Jewish communities his focus on the sinners is brilliant because the righteous believe that they're already saved due to their good deeds. The Jewish sinners have nothing to lose especially if they're already low on the social totem pole in addition to bleak afterlife prospects. His focus on them is brilliant.

It's still not entirely clear to me how one is saved under Christianity. — Moses

Just so you know, I am not and have never been a "Christian".

Christianity has the gospel taught by Paul as its foundation rather than the gospel preached by Jesus. Perhaps the following will help shed light on a key difference:

"In the teachings of Christ, religion is completely present tense: Jesus is the prototype and our task is to imitate him, become a disciple. But then through Paul came a basic alteration. Paul draws attention away from imitating Christ and fixes attention on the death of Christ The Atoner. What Martin Luther. in his reformation, failed to realize is that even before Catholicism, Christianity had become degenerate at the hands of Paul. Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ. Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely turning it upside down. making it just the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ"

My understanding is that the above quote comes from Soren Kierkegaard, though I've never confirmed it. Here too what's of importance are the concepts conveyed. I should also add that while Kierkegaard "fixes attention" on "imitating Christ", the gospel preached by Jesus "fixes attention" on understanding, believing, keeping and ultimately "abiding" in the words spoken by Jesus while He preached His gospel.

So, I was speaking of how the gospel preached by Jesus views righteousness and salvation rather than the views of "Christianity".

"Keeping" and "abiding" in Jesus' words focuses on "ethical conduct (i.e. action)". They are righteous. The righteous NEVER commit sin. "Abiding" in His word connotes actually "living" His words. Another way to think of it is that Jesus calls everyone to become "one with God" as He was "one with God". The focus increasingly becomes on producing more and more "good deeds" so to speak.

Evidently you're going to continue to ignore what I write in order to go off on irrational rants. More's the pity. You're free to pull it together at anytime.

I've been reading the NT lately and I agree with Lewis's point. It's a shame that so many in this thread have tried to bypass it by saying insubstantial excuses along the lines of "oh well we don't really know whether JC existed" or "well how do we know those are the real quotes?" We're philosophers here, give the document a bit of a charity. It wouldn't even matter if the person of Immanuel Kant never existed if we have his work. We'd just deal with the ideas. That's how we should treat the ideas in the NT. — Moses

My thoughts exactly. Excellent point on Kant. What really matters are the underlying concepts conveyed by the words attributed to Jesus while He walked the Earth.

Also what I love about JC is how he says in Mark "I have not come to call the righteous, but the sinners." The sinful Jews are on the bottom of the totem pole so why not jump ship? — Moses

Jesus came to call sinners to righteousness much like the later OT prophets. God wants loyalty. Loyalty entails being righteous. The righteous do not sin. According to the gospel preached by Jesus, salvation, living in the Kingdom of God, eternal life all require that one be righteous.

Of course, Jesus also conveyed a different understanding from the OT as to what is and what is not righteous.

So, the way, the truth and the life is the way, the truth and the life?
— Fooloso4

I did not say that "the way, the truth and the life is the way, the truth and the life" or anything of the kind.
You've reached an illogical conclusion. You've once again failed to understand.

Once again,
"I am the way, the truth and the life" is an equivalency just as "Time is money" is an equivalency.

Jesus is figuratively 'the way'" in the same way that time is figuratively "money".

They both employ figurative language. What part of that don't you understand?

The question remains: what is the way, the truth and the life? A tautology does not provide an answer. — Fooloso4

That's not the question you asked. You asked for the meaning of "He is figuratively 'the way'" which is what I provided. If you would have asked me that question, I would have answered it.

To top it off, you make false accusations about a "straw man" and "begging the question". You're really something.

He is figuratively "the way".
— ThinkOfOne

And what does this mean?

A figure of speech is not without meaning. — Fooloso4

Sorry, but you still don't seem to understand. There are many types of figurative language.

For example:
"Time is money" is figurative language.
Time is not literally money.
Time is figuratively money.

In the same way:
When Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life" it was to supply an equivalency the be employed in what immediately follows.

Jesus is not literally "the way, the truth and the life", but you took it that way.
Jesus is only figuratively "the way, the truth and the life".
The meaning of "I" is NOT the physical person.
The meaning of "I" is "the way, the truth and the life".

"the way" isn't figurative any more than "money" is figurative.

That equivalency is then employed in "no one comes to the father except for me" which is also figurative.
The meaning of "me" is NOT the physical person.
The meaning of "me" is "the way, the truth and the life".

It's basically a figurative language two-fer.

Putting it together it, the point Jesus is making is that:
“no one comes to the Father except through [the way, the truth and the life]".
— ThinkOfOne

And, as you say, the way, the truth, the life = Jesus. You have not said anything that is not evident in the statement from John. You have not identified what is figurative in the statement. It is a straightforward claim. Calling it figurative is a smokescreen. — Fooloso4

Do you really not understand the difference between "literal" and "figurative"?

You took Jesus to be saying that He is literally "the way". He isn't literally "the way", He is figuratively "the way".

Jesus is speaking figuratively.
— ThinkOfOne

So what does he mean by these figures of speech? What is he actually claiming? — Fooloso4

There's much more to it than this, but at it's most basic it can be thought of as a simple word puzzle.

John 14
6Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me.

"I" = "Me" = Jesus
Jesus = "the way, the truth and the life".

Putting it together it, the point Jesus is making is that:
“no one comes to the Father except through [the way, the truth and the life]".

It's a simple substitution puzzle.

That there is a man who is "the way" is a myth. A man who is "the truth" is a myth. A man who is "the life" is a myth. That "no one comes to the Father except through [this man]"is a myth. If you argue that Jesus is not just a man, then you accept the myth. — Fooloso4

Jesus is speaking figuratively. Once again you take it literally. A theme that runs throughout the four gospels is that Jesus speaks figuratively and some take it literally no matter how absurd it is for them to do so. Why do you insist on doing so?

That's not the problem. I've discussed these things with people I know in real life who are well educated, have good reading comprehension skills, good critical thinking and conceptual thinking skills.
— ThinkOfOne

And there are more than a few of those people here, but since they do not agree with you, you question their abilities. — Fooloso4

Of course, it could be that I question the abilities of some because they have demonstrated that they are lacking in reading comprehension skills, critical thinking skills and/or conceptual thinking skills. NOT because they "don't agree with [me]". That's what those who are lacking in intellectual honesty as well as some or all of those skills sometimes say as a way to soothe their pride.

She finds the depth of my understanding of the entirety of the teachings of Jesus to be extraordinary.
— ThinkOfOne

That's nice, but I do not find it extraordinary. — Fooloso4

That doesn't surprise me. I worked in software development for a long time for more than a few different companies. While most had a pretty good idea of their limitations, some believed that their skills were much better than they were. That's pride for you.

Those would be words attributed to Jesus.
— ThinkOfOne

Right, but are part of John's mythology wrapped around the words attributed to him. — Fooloso4

Let's see if you can make a cogent case.

↪ThinkOfOne

So when Jesus says in John:

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Are they words attributed to Jesus or the mythology? — Fooloso4

Those would be words attributed to Jesus.

Of course, you could have exercised a little patience and waited for my response to you post instead of jumping the gun...
— ThinkOfOne
.You had already said:

That said, I suspect that some who post on this site are a bit short on logical thinking skills and/or the basic teaching of Jesus. Likely they mindlessly repeat things they found on the internet.
— ThinkOfOne — Fooloso4

That was in response to post by @Alkis Piskas. I didn't respond to your post until later. Not sure why you are unable to discern these type things, but it is what it is...

Of course, perhaps I have a deep understanding of the entirety of the teachings of Jesus and so reject simplistic views...
— ThinkOfOne

Of course, perhaps you don't. Perhaps this is the problem. — Fooloso4

That's not the problem. I've discussed these things with people I know in real life who are well educated, have good reading comprehension skills, good critical thinking and conceptual thinking skills. Based on what you've been posting, their skills are well beyond yours.

Well, you certainly don't lack confidence in yourself...[/quote

I don't, but having confidence in myself is quite different than claiming to have a deep understanding of the entirety of the teachings of Jesus. That is something I would not say. — ThinkOfOne

Well, one of those people was a Christian for over 40 years and was highly regarded within her church. She was also well regarded within her profession working for some highly regarded universities in the US. She finds the depth of my understanding of the entirety of the teachings of Jesus to be extraordinary. Though that wasn't until after I, as she put it, "held her down and pried her eyes open". Since having had her eyes pried open, she longer considers herself to be a Christian. Instead she seeks to become a "follower of Jesus".

You're conflating the words attributed to Jesus said while He walked the Earth with the mythology NT writers wrapped around His words.
— ThinkOfOne

How do you disentangle the two? — Fooloso4

In the main it's really quite simple:
1) The writers of the four gospels were pretty good about introducing the words attribute to Jesus. Typically they supply introductory words such as, "So Jesus said..." and follow it by they words that are attributed to Him. Most modern translations put quotation marks around those words, though quotation marks are present in the original Greek text.
2) The rest falls outside of the words attributed to Jesus.

That's the basic idea anyway, though there is a bit more to it.

Rather than confront and address what I have pointed to in the texts you ignore it and attempt to discredit me. That is a common tactic of someone who wants to protect their beliefs and must ignore the texts to do so. — Fooloso4

Of course, you could have exercised a little patience and waited for my response to your post instead of jumping the gun...

Your response is typical of someone who clings to their beliefs and refuses to look carefully at what the gospel texts actually say. You assume you have an adequate understanding of the basic teachings of Jesus and so reject anything that does not conform to your beliefs. Unfortunately for you, this includes what is actually said in the texts themselves. — Fooloso4

Of course, perhaps I have a deep understanding of the entirety of the teachings of Jesus and so reject simplistic views...

There is a great deal of scholarly disagreement, but at a minimum one must be able to address specifically what is said in the text, rather than impose one's assumptions on it. As a general rule of interpretation, when there is evidence in the text that seems to contradict one's assumptions then you must either alter those assumptions or defend them on the basis of additional evidence found in the text. Vague claims about the basic teachings of Jesus won't cut it. — Fooloso4

Well, you certainly don't lack confidence in yourself...

The smallest letter and stroke of the pen refer to what is written. — Fooloso4

Matthew 5
17“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. 18“For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished. 19“Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20“For I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Based on things you've posted, seems unlikely that you are a Christian. Yet this argument is straight out of the evangelical Christian playbook. One I've seen many a time. A playbook with very simplistic views. It all begins with the belief that the entirety of the Bible is the "inerrant word of God" with a very strong tendency toward literal interpretation. No matter how much tells against it.

For example, "God made the animals of the earth according to their kind" (Genesis 1). Cows are cows. Birds are birds. Each created according to their kind. Clearly the theory of evolution cannot be true. Animals MUST have been "created according to their kind".
Never mind that that the creation story can be interpreted as allegory.
The Bible is inerrant. Animals MUST have been "created according to their kind".

Similarly with "not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away". Clearly Jesus MUST be "referring to what is written". Therefore, Jesus MUST be referring to the entirety of the Old Testament. Therefore, Jesus MUST be saying that not the smallest letter or stroke of the OT shall pass way.

Never mind that Jesus often used figurative language.
Never mind that elsewhere in Matthew says that, in essence, the whole of the law and the prophets has the "Golden Rule" as its basis.
Never mind that on the heels of saying ""not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away" Jesus contradicts "an eye for an eye…".
Never mind that Leviticus 25 depicts God as condoning chattel slavery which flies in the face of the "Golden Rule".
Never mind that the dietary restrictions in the OT are irrelevant to the "Golden Rule".
Never mind all the other things in the OT that either fly in the face of or are irrelevant to the "Golden Rule".
The Bible is inerrant. Jesus MUST be referring to the entirety of the OT.

He does not say to ignore all that written stuff. — Fooloso4

I never said that Jesus did. There are many parts of the OT which are compatible with the "Golden Rule" There are parts that are not. You lost the context of what I wrote.

It is Isaiah not Jesus who claims to have been anointed (4:18) — Fooloso4

Jesus read from the Book of Isaiah presenting it as prophecy of which He Himself is the fulfillment (4:21). You missed the context of Luke 4.

As an aside, Jesus claimed that He was

anointed to do the following three things:
1) To preach His gospel - These are the words He spoke while preaching His gospel.
2) To give sight to the blind - To open the eyes of those blind to the ways of God which Jesus explained in His gospel.
3) To set free the captives - To FREE those who abide in His word from the slavery of committing sin (see John 8). To FREE those who abide in His gospel.
Note that this is the core of the gospel preached by Jesus.
Note that Jesus was NOT anointed to serve as a "sacrificial lamb" as a means for vicarious atonement. It's not a part of the gospel that Jesus preached.

Why do you take parts of what I've written out of context and address them as if there is no context to be considered? Why do you do that with scripture? Are you unaware of the necessity of reading in context in order to comprehend what you are reading? Especially when what is being conveyed is not simplistic?

Actually you were correct in your assessment that " ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’" is not what Jesus Himself believed and taught.
— ThinkOfOne
It's only logical, isn't?
Thank you. Well, at least one acknowledgment! :smile:
Anyway, it's silly to argue about things that are known to be plenty of inaccuracies, biases and question marks. That's why I have withdrawn myself from this subject. — Alkis Piskas

Yeah it's logical, though one must have some clue as to the basic teachings of Jesus in order to apply logic there. That said, I suspect that some who post on this site are a bit short on logical thinking skills and/or the basic teaching of Jesus. Likely they mindlessly repeat things they found on the internet.

The Bible on the whole is really problematic. That said, the gospel preached by Jesus is by and large, reasonably sound and reasonably coherent in and of itself. If you have interest in synthesizing abstract complex problem domains, you should give it a try.

• For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ Matthew 15:4
— Art48
This is not what Jesus himself believed and taught! This was his reply to Pharisees who asked him "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders?", referring them to their own scriptures.
How can Jesus ever say or think such a thing at the moment he was agains killing? (https://www.bible.com/bible/compare/MAT.15.1-20, https://biblehub.com/matthew/15-2.htm)

I was amazed by reading such a thing, esp. in here. And consider that I am not even a fan of Jesus. — Alkis Piskas

Actually you were correct in your assessment that " ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’" is not what Jesus Himself believed and taught. Jesus merely quoted Levitical law in service of pointing out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and Scribes. NOT because it is something that He Himself believed and taught. @Art48's simplistic take on it is wrong.

↪Alkis Piskas

It is not so simple. What is at issue is the distinction between tradition and commandments. (Matthew 15:3) The background here is likely to be the dispute between Paul and Jesus' disciples regarding the Law. Jesus not only quotes the commandment, he says elsewhere that all the commandments, even the least, must be upheld (Matthew 5:17-20).

How can Jesus ever say or think such a thing at the moment he was agains killing?
— Alkis Piskas

The prohibition against killing is one of the ten commandments. The obvious problem is, how can one
uphold all the commandment when one commandment says do not kill and another says that one who reviles his mother and father must die? One possible answer lies in the distinction between death and wrongful death. The full statement passage from Matthew is:

You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment. (5:20)

It is the second clause, which does not appear in the Hebrew Bible, that seems to support the distinction between death and wrongful death. Whether the action is wrong and punishable will be judged. If it is in accord with the commandment then it cannot be wrong. — Fooloso4

You are mistaken about what Jesus was saying in Matthew 5:17-19.
What Jesus had in mind when speaking of "the law and the prophets" is NOT the Old Testament (OT). It's a mistake made by many - Christian and non-Christian alike.

The underlying meaning of the "law and the prophets" is, for all intents and purposes, the ways of God. Jesus was anointed by God (Luke 4), in part, to "give sight to the blind". A recurring theme throughout the gospel preached by Jesus was that while the Jews understood some things about the ways of God, they misunderstood many things as well. Jesus was forever correcting them. Jesus was anointed to bring understanding of the true ways of God (which abrogated much of the OT), thus giving "sight to the blind".

Rather than the OT, the following is what Jesus had in mind when speaking of the "law and the prophets":
Matthew 22
37And He said to him, “ ‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’ 38“This is the great and foremost commandment. 39“The second is like it, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ 40“On these two commandments depend the whole law and the prophets.”

Matthew 7
12“In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the law and the prophets.

In essence, the entirety of the true ways of God boils down to what is often referred to as "The Golden Rule". Jesus effectively replaced a rules-based understanding of the ways of God (the OT) with a conceptual understanding (The Golden Rule).

Your misunderstanding of Matthew 5 has led you to be mistaken about Matthew 15 as well.

↪ThinkOfOne You sound more like a troll than someone who is interested in good arguments. — Sam26

Says the guy who side-stepped addressing the following:
"How is it reasonable for you to say "I could [say the] same about you" when you're the only one who said "Well, we just disagree".

Sorry, but you've made one bad argument after another. I point them out, you side-step them or address them in disingenuous ways.

You ALSO can't reasonably conclude that Jesus DID NOT say X, Y, or Z.
— ThinkOfOne

Sure I can. A few pages later he comes back from the dead. Hardly seems a credible book to take literally -- so it's reasonable to conclude Jesus didn't say anything, given that it's a fantastical text written by fervent people and pasted together as a political convenience. — Moliere

You're conflating the words attributed to Jesus said while He walked the Earth with the mythology NT writers wrapped around His words. When Jesus spoke of things such as "giving sight to the blind", "raising the dead" being being "born from above" (resurrection) and so on, they were said figuratively. The NT writers made them literal acts as corny as it is.

↪ThinkOfOne I could same about you, but where does that get us? We have different ideas about what's reasonable. I'm not even sure what you believe. I've been analyzing these arguments for about 47 years, so I quite familiar with the arguments. Moreover, I've a good background in logic, so don't talk to me about reasonably backing up my arguments. I find that most Christians, if you are one, aren't good at defending their beliefs. — Sam26

How is it reasonable for you to say "I could [say the] same about you" when you're the only one who said "Well, we just disagree. I'll leave it at that"? Whatever your "background in logic" it isn't as good as you seem to believe it is. You seem to lose track of context.

That said, tell you what. Since you've been "analyzing these arguments for about 47 years" why don't you actually address what I asked you to address earlier instead of trying to find reasons for not addressing it?

BTW, I'm not a Christian. I never have been a Christian. You are correct that most Christians aren't good at defending their beliefs. It's also been my experience that former Christians aren't good at defending their beliefs either. As I once told a Christian friend of mine (now ex-Christian), "You think that things are true simply because you believe them". Took her a long time to admit it. She still often does it. Seems to be a side-effect of having been a Christian for over 40 years. Seems to be applicable to you.

↪ThinkOfOne Well, we just disagree. I'll leave it at that. — Sam26

Yours is a common response from those who find themselves unable to reasonably back up their arguments. Classic.

You ALSO can't reasonably conclude that Jesus DID NOT say X, Y, or Z. This is the point you seem to fail to grasp.

You also seem to fail to grasp the distinction between "said" and "claimed". "claimed" implies that He said it. Not the other way around.

The point that you seem to be missing is that it's a simply a matter of definition -and definition alone- that powersets don't contain "all subsets" of the "original set". The original set IS the "set of all that exists". To conclude that the original set does not exist is nonsensical. It is borne of a failure of conceptual understanding on your part.
— ThinkOfOne

Powersets do contain all subsets of their original set, this is a well-proven theorem by Cantor that any elementary introduction to set theory should teach you. The set of all exists, by its very definition, includes the cardinality of a set strictly larger than it is, and is therefore incoherent/a contradiction (the proof of this is a very trivial exercise: Suppose E, then there exists P(E), P(E) is cardinally larger than E, therefore there exists x's that are members of P(E) and not E and thus E isn't E).

This does not mean the things that exist, like my keyboard or this screen, do not actually exist, but rather they cannot all be collected into set. If your standards of "conceptual understanding" is mathematical inconsistency, this is a problem on your end. — Kuro

You seem to have missed the point. There is a distinction that needs to be made between the definition of a SET and the definition of a POWERSET. They are not one and the same.

There is a SET of "all that exists" and there is POWERSET of "all that exists".

Perhaps a thought experiment will help.
Let's say that there is a universe with a SET called Tegwar.
Tegwar contains two members {x, y}.
The POWERSET of Tegwar contains "all subsets, empty set and the original set itself".
If the only things that exist in this universe are x and y:
Does Tegwar contain "all that exists" in the universe?
Does the POWERSET of Tegwar contain "all that exists" + all subsets + empty set?

As I posted earlier:

All that needs to be decided is whether or not to allow "all subsets" of "all that exists" to be members of "all that exists".

Either way:
1. There is a set of "all that exists"
2. There is a powerset for "all that exists"

But either way, both both the SET and the POWERSET exist. Whether the SET is called Tegwar or "all that exists", the result is the same.

I'll add that if "all subsets" are allowed to be members, then the set is infinite.
If "all subsets" are not allowed to be members, then the set is finite.

Ya, "IF" he said it, but I have no strong evidence/reasons to conclude that he did say it, other than very weak testimonial evidence. — Sam26

Actually you wrote "IF" He claimed it. Not "IF" He said it.

Why are you framing the argument in such absolute terms? I sure didn't frame it that way. Even if there was strong testimonial evidence to support that Jesus said X, Y, or Z, that doesn't support the idea that Jesus said it necessarily. The argument is an inductive argument. Inductive arguments don't give us conclusions that follow necessarily, only deductive arguments do that. So, again, it's not about what Jesus said necessarily. It's about what he probably said, or didn't say. If it was true that that is what I was implying, then I would agree, but it's not what I was implying. — Sam26

The point you seemed to miss is that even "probably said" cannot be reasonably determined from the available evidence.

Since you responded as if you believe that Jesus claimed to be God, can you address the following which I posted earlier?
— ThinkOfOne

How did you come to that conclusion? I said, we don't know what Jesus actually said, because the testimonial evidence is too weak. — Sam26

Based on the following:

If someone claimed to be God, he may not be a lunatic, he may just be delusional (you could argue that being delusional is a mental illness), or a good liar. — Sam26

While we don't know that Jesus necessarily said what was attributed to Him, there's no compelling reason to believe that He necessarily did not. I've always found that argument really weak. The argument seems to be, "If we don't know that He necessarily said it, then there's no point in discussing anything that was attributed to Him". If that's an acceptable argument, then that argument could be used for many a historical figure.

Since you responded as if you believe that Jesus claimed to be God, can you address the following which I posted earlier?

The following makes Lewis' argument a non-starter.

As documented in the Four Gospels, while He walked the Earth Jesus never claimed to be God. Wherein Jesus claims to be literally God.

Yes, He claimed to be a "son of God". But He called for everyone to become "sons of God" as He was a son of God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Matthew 5:9).
It's a theme that runs throughout the gospel preached by Jesus. For example, someone "born from above" IS someone "born of the spirit [of God]" IS someone who has God as their Father IS a "son" of God.

Yes, He claimed to be "one" with God. But He called for everyone to become "one" with God as He was "one" with God.
I do not ask in behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me. “And the glory which Thou hast given Me I have given to them; that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, that the world may know that Thou didst send Me, and didst love them, even as Thou didst love Me.
(John 17:20-23)

Jesus repeatedly makes a clear distinction between Himself and God. As but a couple of examples:
"He who believes in Me, does not believe in Me but in Him who sent Me. “He who sees Me sees the One who sent Me." (John 12:44-45)
“Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works." (John 14:10)

I've yet to have seen a cogent argument that Jesus claimed to be God while He walked the Earth. Can you make one? — ThinkOfOne

Either way:
1. There is a set of "all that exists"
2. There is a powerset for "all that exists"
— ThinkOfOne

The powerset will always strictly be cardinally larger than the set, and as you yourself understand, those subsets are not actually part of the original set (so there will exist members of the powerset not in the set, making the set not itself hence why the set doesn't exist) You've articulated precisely what I said in my post, so maybe this is a misreading? I'm not sure where exactly you're disagreeing with me or objecting — Kuro

The point that you seem to be missing is that it's a simply a matter of definition -and definition alone- that powersets don't contain "all subsets" of the "original set". The original set IS the "set of all that exists". To conclude that the original set does not exist is nonsensical. It is borne of a failure of conceptual understanding on your part.

Care to try again?
— ThinkOfOne

No, I think we can move on. Take care.
— Tom Storm

Fine by me. If you can't be bothered to keep context in mind (both mine and yours) in order to comprehend what others write, then you'll never post anything of substance anyway.

↪Art48 A more illustrative example of Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef's failure as a moral teacher is this:
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right, turn to him the other also.
— Matthew 5:39
In other words (intentional or not), reward, even encourage, "evil". :mask: — 180 Proof

Evidently Gandhi had quite a different understanding of what Jesus was saying in that passage:

Hence, the Sermon on the Mount had a significant impact and role in the transformation of Gandhi's personality.20 For he said: "Sermon on the Mount went straight to my heart."21 And "The Sermon on the Mount left a deep impression on my mind when I read it."22 Thus, the Sermon made a permanent and lasting impact on Gandhi, as he followed it till the end his of life, being called as the 'Apostle of non-violence.'

What really impressed Gandhi in the Sermon was the teaching of Jesus - 'resist not evil.' So he often quoted from Mathew 5: 39,

Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you. Bless those who curse you and pray for those who treat you badly. To the one who strikes you on the cheek, turn the other cheek; to the one who takes your coat, give also your shirt.
What Jesus expects in this passage is not tit for tat, but the end of all resentment and retaliation. We must graciously forgive others of their wrong-doings and our goodness must exceed the evil that is there in the world. We must win over the evil by our goodness. That means we must not return evil for evil, but our response to evil must be good. And how to respond to the evil with goodness is a challenge always. Gandhi understood this challenge and loved the noble teaching of Jesus to love your enemy (ahimsa) in the Sermon. This meant non-violence, non-retaliation and non-resistance to the evil and doing further good to the evil ones. For example, Gandhi saw in Jesus' verse "If any man will take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also?" a picturesque and telling manner the great doctrine of non-violent non-co-operation.

https://www.mkgandhi.org/articles/mahatma-gandhi-and-sermon-on-the-mount.html#:~:text=of%20non%2Dviolence.-,',to%20those%20who%20hate%20you.

↪Tom Storm ↪ThinkOfOne

I'm feeling kind of sorry for wading into this one. All I know about this topic is that I know nothing. — introbert

The gospel preached by Jesus is remarkably complex problem domain if you're interesting in analyzing such things. By and large, I find the gospel preached by Jesus to be reasonably sound and reasonably coherent within itself. I don't share that view of the mythology and beliefs that the NT writers wrapped around them. At best, they can merely echo His words. At worst, they deviate from His words and at times substantially so.

↪ThinkOfOne

That you failed to recognise my showing how I arrived at that conclusion speaks louder.

We can all play at passive-aggressive chit chat. You like demand explanations from others because it saves you from having to actually think.

If you actually have something to say, just say it. Stop being coy. — Banno

This from the guy making vacuous one-line assertions and then refusing to back it up. Passive-aggressive? How does that NOT much more aptly describe you?

Listen. If you want to actually have a discussion, then try adding some substance to your posts.

"having dark thoughts about Jews"
— ThinkOfOne

the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews

that bit. — Cuthbert

How does that reasonably equate to "having dark thoughts about Jews"?

The fact that you declined to show how exactly how you arrived at that conclusion speaks volumes.

↪ThinkOfOne Tom Storm's post was cogent and relevant. Don't blame the messenger.

Care to try again? — Banno

Care to explain exactly how you arrived at that conclusion? Go ahead. Lay it out for me.

It's folly to take Jesus at face value.
— ThinkOfOne
Correct. What has come down to us is mostly fiction. — Art48

It's unfortunate that you chose to ignore the bulk of what I wrote.

I hope Thomson reminded Jefferson that if we find ourselves cutting up Bibles to arrange the text differently and having dark thoughts about Jews then we may lose credibility on religious matters. — Cuthbert

The Bible is what it is. The Bible is widely open to interpretation and contains inconsistencies, discrepancies and outright contradictions. Though most Christians refuse to admit it, they pick and choose the verses and passages that support their beliefs and dismiss those that don't and often do so in a most disingenuous manner. Somehow many are able to do just that and delude themselves into believing that the entirety of the Bible is the "inerrant word of God".

No idea what you have in mind when you say "having dark thoughts about Jews".

You don't seem to have understood much of what I wrote. Perhaps you'd do better if you were to:
1) Keep context in mind. Both mine and yours.
2) Respond to it as a whole instead of piece-meal.

Care to try again?

Is this heading towards a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy? And how exactly in theory would one determine what counts as Christian and what does not count? — Tom Storm

Quite frankly I don't have any real interest in "what counts as Christian" per se. Just going by what is commonly understood as "Christian".

Consider the following:

1816 January 9. (Jefferson to Charles Thomson). "I too have made a wee little book, from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus. it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. a more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen. it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel, and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what it’s Author never said nor saw. they have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great reformer of the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews, were he to return on earth, would not recognise one feature.

Pasted from <http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/jeffersons-religious-beliefs>

Evidently Jefferson had been accused of not being a Christian, but saw himself as a "real Christian" as opposed to his accusers who he evidently saw as "false". I don't have a problem with Jefferson identifying with being "Christian", though it seems to be out-of-step with how the word is commonly used .

There are no actual words of Jesus, just things written in books many years after the events depicted by anonymous sources. Which words exactly could we demonstrate as having been said? — Tom Storm

That - or some derivation thereof- can be said about many a historical figure. One can only go by what was attributed to Jesus. Quite frankly it makes no difference to me as to whether Jesus actually said them or even if Jesus actually existed. What's important are the underlying concepts conveyed by those words. For ease of conversation, it's just easier to speak as if the words were spoken by Jesus. Not sure why you seem to think it important. Why do you?

It's folly to take Jesus at face value. Jesus was a complex conceptual thinker. There are many layers that need to be understood to be able to understand what He IS and just as importantly what He IS NOT saying in any given passage. There are overarching themes and underlying concepts that run throughout that need to be taken into account.

If you're really interested in understanding Him, I can try to explain it to you. From what I gather, you are not a Christian. How familiar are you with the words spoken by Jesus while He walked the Earth? Overarching themes? Underlying concepts?

Be aware that for various reasons, the vast majority of Christians do NOT understand Him either. And the few that do that I've come across, can better be described as followers of Jesus rather than Christian. Also be aware that I am not and never have been Christian. Christianity is a remarkably self-serving system of beliefs the core underlying concepts of which are, for all intents and purposes, antithetical to underlying core concepts of the gospel preached by Jesus.