Common sense Iaisus, COMMON SENSE!

Submitted by Don (India), Nov 22, 2005 at 13:06

...Historical proofs aside you have accused Allonehob of not using rationalism. However I feel that you are the one who is not using common sense at all. Let's look at the analysis of the ‘truth' about what happened 2000 years ago according to you.

Luke 12:53….."I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled! 50 I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished! 51 Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. 52 For from now on in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law (Luke 12:49-53).

A close look at this verse shows that this is a prophetic message. This verse is not a message for that particular time. Since you don't believe in prophecies no need to mention it here. Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? Read at the verse properly. It says ON EARTH. Jesus didn't say in Jerusalem or Rome or he didn't say "do you think that I have come to give YOU (Jew/Roman) peace on earth". He said ON EARTH. He is talking global; the whole Earth…the "fire" he is talking about is not the destructive fire. It is the fire of the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures sometimes associates the Holy Spirit with fire. In the book of Revelation, the Holy Spirit is pictured as "seven lamp stands with burning flames" (Rev 4:5). John the Baptist prophesied concerning Jesus, "I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire" (Luke 3:16).

Common sense tells us that your argument is fallacious.

i) It is meant for the whole world and not the "political agenda" you are talking about of liberating Israel from Romans.
ii) Since Jesus' political agenda according to you is "political" (to overthrow the Romans and restore Mosaic rule) again this assumption is totally baseless and erroneous for the reasons:

a) Jesus would get the overwhelming support of his Jewish people in every house hold. Every Jew, man and woman would support him. There would not be any division. No mother would turn against her daughter or father against the son...

b) If the agenda is political, Judaic stories from the Old Testament in Jewish history tells us that it was the men who would normally participate in war or political situations. Jesus said "mother-in-law against her-daughter-in law". Remember mother-in-law can be an old woman, a grand mother. Even grand mothers joining Jesus' political agenda?!.... There is no historical proof of any political uprising or revolution in the Jewish history where this ever occurred or was supposed to occur! Yes you are quoting the Bible, but you are creating a delusion to fit and suit your own "agenda".

c) A deliverer to self determination from the Romans dose not need for 100 years of prophecies in advance. The Old Testament talks about many deliverers who were never prophesied of the coming. Othniel (Judges: 3:9), Ehud (Judges 3:15), Barak (Judges 4:8) Gideon (Judges 7 and 8), Tola (Judges 10:1), Samson (Judges 13:16), Samuel (1 Sam"6:7) and many others…some times the deliverers and restores are Babylonians! (Cyrus, Darius, Artaxerxes - Ezra 7:14), some Jews should have looked maybe to the East too instead of Jesus… sometime the deliverers is a woman! (Esther- Book of Esther). All these deliverers have never been prophesized about for hundred years let alone for thousands of years. God used to raise them a "savior" out of nowhere right then right there as the situation demanded it. Hence your assumption that the long awaited Messiah role was to remove Romans and bring Jewish to Mosaic laws is wrong. The messiah had a mission far beyond that.

d) The Jew under the Romans were free to worship and practice their Mosaic law. The New Testament even records that the Mosaic Law at that time was followed strictly and were at times even very rigid by the Pharisees and Sadducees. Hence the Jewish were waiting for a messiah so that he can liberate them to practice their Mosaic laws again wrong. They were already practicing their law freely and rigidly. Remember Palestine at that time was an UNIMPORTANT frontier province and they never persecuted the Jew for practicing Mosaic Law. They were not waiting the Messiah to liberate them so that they can practice their Mosaic law.

Christ is Paul's myth?

Since you don't have any non-Gospel sources of Paul, you should take the New Testament as the foundation of your discussion.

Again here plain common sense tells us hat the myth that Christ is Paul's myth s without logic and doesn't make any sense.

i) The Gospel written by the disciple's would not lose anything if the books of Epistle letter written by Paul are there or not. There is no need to add a fantasy tale of Paul if it it was fictitious.

ii) Ananias ( a disciple ) heals Saul (later Paul) in the name of Jesus and Saul accepts Jesus and start preaching (acts 9:17-20) this show s us that Paul was first accepted by the disciples of the historical Jesus Christ was and were preaching his message not the other way round. To say then that Paul alienated himself and started hallucinating and preaching about other fallen messiah is senseless. To say that Paul even "created" the disciple is hard to believe. Had the disciples and Jesus lived years before him this assumption would have earned something worth discussing.

iii) Paul ready to die for the Jesus Christ (Acts 21:13)
This verse tells us that Paul is ready to die (he was executed later) so according to you Paul created a myth called "Jesus Christ" and plagiarisation of the carrier of some "fallen messiahs" and is then ready to die for it! The disciples Stephen was first stoned and killed by mobs. To say that this people fabricated a myth out of history and are bold and ready to die for it is a mockery to common sense.

iv) You said Jesus failed and was executed in his mission. But there is a recode of the disciples going and preaching his message to the Jews and Romans and then martyred (historical fact). On the contrary they were supposed to flee to a very distant country and never come near Jerusalem. Why would they teach the message of a "fallen and disgraced man" an there by also endanger their life? This is like saying immediately after Hitler's death some of his supporters e started preaching Nazism in Germany!

v) Paul turning the message of "politically fallen messiah" into one of the most powerful message of love and compassion in the history of man kind is hard to accept. Why the u-turn?

vi) Prophecies of Bible never fail. If Jesus is not the messiah then who is the messiah that was prophesied by Isaiah and other prophets? The prophecy of the creation of the Jewish nation is fulfilled. For now onwards the remaining prophecies regarding Israel are the prophecies of Ezekiel and the invasion of Israel; but where is the Messiah? If according to you all that it takes for the restoration of Israel is a "modern Ben Gurion" then why the prophecy of the restorer messiah? This is the wrong interpretation of the Jewish of the Messiah as "a political leader" and hence their rejection of Jesus.

vii) The idea of Paul presumed to be talking about other "personalities" is a wrong assumption made by some people because Paul doesn't mention the Lord's Prayer or miracles in his letters. That doesn't make him a "stranger" of the Gospel .The Book of Acts and Epistles are letter of comfort and support to the disciples and church during temptation hardships and tribulations. The messages of Jesus are taken for granted and need not mention miracles and life of Jesus. This is like saying just because President Bush didn't mention Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in his speech on "Terrorism and Freedom" it does not mean that he is not aware of their involvement in terrorism. Paul's entire message is about the Holy Spirit. Would the so called "fallen Jewish messiahs" preach about the Holy Sprit? Hard to believe.

P.S
The Bible can't say "probably" when it says "verily". People like you can't accept it then how much your doubt if it says "probably". Does the America constitution say "stealing is PROBABLY a crime?"…not it says "stealing IS a crime". But why not? Why not say "stealing is probably a crime?"…by this same token you should question the constitution too which is going to make you hardy a law abiding citizen. Do the guidelines of the law Cyber Crime say "hacking is PROBABLY a crime?"...No. it says "hacking IS a crime"…when you accept this laws without any qualms why do you expect the Bible to say "probably" instead of "verily?"..

Best wishes
Don.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".