Is Jesus Christian

Anonymous
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Is Jesus Christian

Genuinely interested in responses from theists about this.

My question is, if Jesus existed and were the son of God and it were all true, therefore we also assume the Holy Ghost is present and aware of all our actions, ( I am not actually debating this right now there is enough of that particular argument elsewhere). Do you think he would...

a/ Be Christian?

b/ Be proud of what has been done in his name?

c/ Want to kill gay people?

d/ Want to kill Muslims?

e/ Like all the crosses? (I personally think this would freak him out, if it were me I for sure wouldnt want to do a second coming till all the crosses were gone.)

f/ think todays Christians have understood his teachings?

 

Not trying to be a smart ass here , I really want to hear what you think.

 

Peace.


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2366
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
I am an A-theist!

 

 

 

                   My SECOND opinion on your questions are:

 

           a}  NO!  He was born and raised  a Jew.  Chrisians are followers of christ;  he did not follow himself anywhere.

 

           b}  NO! Any decent human would be ashamed of what was done in his name.

 

           c}  NO!  "Love thy fellow man"  makes him gay.   "Love they brother"   makes him worthy of prison.

 

           d}  NO!  (consult answer c},) Muslim's didn't exist for another 600 or so years.

 

           e}  NO!    A cross would be as likable as a modern day noose;  gallows humor!  nothing more:  and disgusting.

 

           f}   NO!

 

                    My first and always answer is :   --     Joshua Bar Yussuph did not exist. It is a story,   the name is so commen it may has well be our equivelent of John Doe.  Paul of Tarsus invented an IDEAL and called it THE CHRISTO'S.  Later writers invented an actual name for the IDEAL.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Quote:a/ Be Christian?It's

Quote:
a/ Be Christian?

It's the Church He founded; She is His bride, I don't see why not.  Especially since Christianity in its purest form seems quite similar to Judaism. 

Quote:
b/ Be proud of what has been done in his name?

Not all of what's been done, no.

Quote:
c/ Want to kill gay people?

No.

Quote:
d/ Want to kill Muslims?

No.

Quote:
e/ Like all the crosses? (I personally think this would freak him out, if it were me I for sure wouldnt want to do a second coming till all the crosses were gone.)

Yeah, He does.

Quote:
f/ think todays Christians have understood his teachings?

Some.  Depends on which "Christians".

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Ignoring the rest of your

Ignoring the rest of your post, how in the world do you know the man known as Jesus would be fond of crosses?  Isn't that a bit presumptive on your part?

 

In other news, Bhudda's favorite texture is 'velvety'.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
RankBaajin wrote:Genuinely

RankBaajin wrote:

Genuinely interested in responses from theists about this.

My question is, if Jesus existed and were the son of God and it were all true, therefore we also assume the Holy Ghost is present and aware of all our actions, ( I am not actually debating this right now there is enough of that particular argument elsewhere). Do you think he would...

a/ Be Christian?

b/ Be proud of what has been done in his name?

c/ Want to kill gay people?

d/ Want to kill Muslims?

e/ Like all the crosses? (I personally think this would freak him out, if it were me I for sure wouldnt want to do a second coming till all the crosses were gone.)

f/ think todays Christians have understood his teachings?

 

Not trying to be a smart ass here , I really want to hear what you think.

 

Peace.

Probably not (to all of those), but he DID start out jewish, IIRC

I'm not a theist, btw, but I thought I should post anyhow.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

 Jesus was supposedly Jewish. Christianity didn't start until decades after he may or may not have lived, by John, who claimed he did and used him in his stories.

 

 

John founded the church.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Ignoring the

mellestad wrote:
Ignoring the rest of your post, how in the world do you know the man known as Jesus would be fond of crosses?  Isn't that a bit presumptive on your part?

In fact, I think it is the crucifix, with the corpus hung upon it which is the most potent symbol.  "The man known as Jesus" spoke repeatedly of crosses.

Matthew 16:24 "Then Jesus told his disciples, 'If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me...'"  Then He proceeded to set the example by doing exactly that.  When taunted by bystanders to save himself and to come down from the cross, He desn't.  He remains and fulfills His mission. 

St Paul in his letter to the Romans speaks of the Cross as a a scandal to the Jews and a stumbling block to the Greeks, yet he continues to preach "...Jesus Christ and Him crucified..."

For Christians, specifically for Catholic Christians, one of the great lessons of the Cross is that suffering has a real value.  Suffering came into the world through an act of the will of Man via the Fall, for some reason that suffering cannot be alleviated, but must be endured.  Somehow, suffering figures into God's plan of salvation and is so central to salvation history that even God is not above suffering.  Like Christ, we do not seek suffering, but when it is necessary, when it is unavoidable, we accept it willingly.  Like St Paul, we unite our sufferings to the sufferings of Christ;  hence that uniquely Catholic concept taught to Catholics by their mothers to "offer it up".

In the heaveny liturgy revealed to St John in the book of Revelation it is the sacrificed Lamb who sits upon the throne.  It is the crucified Christ who reigns as King.

The Cross then, becomes for Christians the central point of history, the focal point of all that has transpired and all that is to come.  We view the world through the lens of the Passion, but not just the Passion because the Passion of Christ is linked inextricably to His Resurrection.  It is through the suffering of the Cross that the hope of Resurrection, that promise that all things wil be made new, is realized.  There, at the Cross, the "scandal" and the "stumbling block" become our hope.

And, as Pope Benedict XVI tells us, "He who has hope lives differently."

 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:mellestad

totus_tuus wrote:

mellestad wrote:
Ignoring the rest of your post, how in the world do you know the man known as Jesus would be fond of crosses?  Isn't that a bit presumptive on your part?

In fact, I think it is the crucifix, with the corpus hung upon it which is the most potent symbol.  "The man known as Jesus" spoke repeatedly of crosses.

Matthew 16:24 "Then Jesus told his disciples, 'If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me...'"  Then He proceeded to set the example by doing exactly that.  When taunted by bystanders to save himself and to come down from the cross, He desn't.  He remains and fulfills His mission. 

St Paul in his letter to the Romans speaks of the Cross as a a scandal to the Jews and a stumbling block to the Greeks, yet he continues to preach "...Jesus Christ and Him crucified..."

For Christians, specifically for Catholic Christians, one of the great lessons of the Cross is that suffering has a real value.  Suffering came into the world through an act of the will of Man via the Fall, for some reason that suffering cannot be alleviated, but must be endured.  Somehow, suffering figures into God's plan of salvation and is so central to salvation history that even God is not above suffering.  Like Christ, we do not seek suffering, but when it is necessary, when it is unavoidable, we accept it willingly.  Like St Paul, we unite our sufferings to the sufferings of Christ;  hence that uniquely Catholic concept taught to Catholics by their mothers to "offer it up".

In the heaveny liturgy revealed to St John in the book of Revelation it is the sacrificed Lamb who sits upon the throne.  It is the crucified Christ who reigns as King.

The Cross then, becomes for Christians the central point of history, the focal point of all that has transpired and all that is to come.  We view the world through the lens of the Passion, but not just the Passion because the Passion of Christ is linked inextricably to His Resurrection.  It is through the suffering of the Cross that the hope of Resurrection, that promise that all things wil be made new, is realized.  There, at the Cross, the "scandal" and the "stumbling block" become our hope.

And, as Pope Benedict XVI tells us, "He who has hope lives differently."

 

 

Fair enough.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Jesus was

ClockCat wrote:
Jesus was supposedly Jewish. Christianity didn't start until decades after he may or may not have lived, by John, who claimed he did and used him in his stories.

 

 

John founded the church.

Reagrdless of which timeline one uses for the writing of the Gospels, that of St John was written last.  I adhere to the idea, supported by the testimony of the earliest witnesses, that St Matthew wrote first.  St Matthew's Gospel is where we find the great Petrine passage where Jesus delares his intention to found a Church by telling Simon Peter, "You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church."

Christ establishes the priesthood of the Church the night before His death at the Last Supper.  Christianity was a thiriving concern well before the Gospel of St John hit the streets.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


KenO5
KenO5's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2010-02-03
User is offlineOffline
Mmmm,,,

Hi!

Most Biblical Scholars believe that Mark was written first (around 70 AD). The rock analogy has been interpreted many times. I prefer the one which argues that Jesus menat Peter was less than him. Petros mean pebble and 'petra' rock - upon THIS ROCK (ie Jesus).

 

No that it matters anyway, as Christ would not join a church that would accept him as a member!  I think he would detest what people have done in his name. What about Jesus as a humanist?

 


JonathanBC
Posts: 139
Joined: 2010-01-28
User is offlineOffline
KenO5 wrote:No that it

KenO5 wrote:

No that it matters anyway, as Christ would not join a church that would accept him as a member!

I thought that was Groucho Marx.

I jest, but I will not erase it. I wrote it thinking it would sound very witty; but now that I have seen myself that I only wanted to show off in a despicable way, I will not erase it on purpose!


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

totus_tuus wrote:

ClockCat wrote:
Jesus was supposedly Jewish. Christianity didn't start until decades after he may or may not have lived, by John, who claimed he did and used him in his stories.

 

 

John founded the church.

Reagrdless of which timeline one uses for the writing of the Gospels, that of St John was written last.  I adhere to the idea, supported by the testimony of the earliest witnesses, that St Matthew wrote first.  St Matthew's Gospel is where we find the great Petrine passage where Jesus delares his intention to found a Church by telling Simon Peter, "You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church."

Christ establishes the priesthood of the Church the night before His death at the Last Supper.  Christianity was a thiriving concern well before the Gospel of St John hit the streets.

 

Right. And these dependable witnesses are?

 

 

 

John created the church. Some of it came from letters, which he and others later changed as needed all the way to the council meetings hundreds of years later working to edit, create, and change your "new testament gospels" to suit what the religion had to in order to survive. 

 

He had assistance yes, but he started the religion. Christians didn't exist when Jesus was alive. They were Jews then. Even after your Jesus supposedly died, there were no Christians as Christianity hadn't yet begun.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Right. And

ClockCat wrote:
Right. And these dependable witnesses are?

Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, the unknown author of the Muratorian Fragment, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius all testify to the fact that Matthew wrote the first Gospel and that John wrote last.  Even scholars who hold the position of Markan priority generally concede that John was written last.  Any who hold otherwise do so contrary to the only evidence available as to the authorship of the Gospels.

Quote:
John created the church. Some of it came from letters, which he and others later changed as needed all the way to the council meetings hundreds of years later working to edit, create, and change your "new testament gospels" to suit what the religion had to in order to survive.

Due to  lack of testimony to this fact, and to the fact that the earliest texts of the Gospels we have date from the 3rd or 4th century AD, this is gonna be  hard sell.

Quote:
He had assistance yes, but he started the religion. Christians didn't exist when Jesus was alive. They were Jews then. Even after your Jesus supposedly died, there were no Christians as Christianity hadn't yet begun.

I'll give you that John was a moving force behind the early Church, but the Church herself was founded by Jesus Christ and entrusted to Peter.  I also agree tht Christianity post dates the death and Resurrction of Christ, but only by  a period of days, the formal execution of the Church's mission of evangelization beginning at Pentecost.  However, the sacrifice of the Mass, the memorial sacrifice of the new Judaism, predates the establishment of the Church being first offered by Christ the night before His Passion and the second time on by Him on the road to Emmaus.

Spiritually, all Christians are Jews, since, in the words of Our Lord Himself, "Salvation is from the Jews."

 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5086
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Jesus was not a proper christian

 

I think if the projection of Jesus from the NT was forced to sit through a sunday service at St Marys Cathedral he'd be bored shitless. The awful singing, the painful ceremony, the tedious sermon, the kneeling down and the getting up. And the talking shit to people you don't like and the dry as dust lamingtons at the end. Nuh. I don't think Jesus could last through it. He only managed a few hours on the cross. You have to question the man's staying power. Jesus was just not tough enough to be a real christian.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1707
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:Quote:c/

totus_tuus wrote:

Quote:
c/ Want to kill gay people?

No.

Quote:
d/ Want to kill Muslims?

No.

 

I don't understand why he wouldn't want to kill gay people and Muslims. Isn't that His plan in the end?

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5086
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I think the plan

 

is to kill everyone who doesn't 'luuuurve' him in a sort of titanic only-child's tenth birthday tantrum 'cos "You don't love me, and you don't love me and you don't love me and nor do you!"

Jesus. What a total wanker.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister wrote:I don't

ex-minister wrote:
I don't understand why he wouldn't want to kill gay people and Muslims. Isn't that His plan in the end?

No, I don't think so.  Do you?  Where do you get that idea?

 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5086
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Totus

totus_tuus wrote:

ex-minister wrote:
I don't understand why he wouldn't want to kill gay people and Muslims. Isn't that His plan in the end?

No, I don't think so.  Do you?  Where do you get that idea?

 

God hates sin and unrepented sinners will be burned, according to the bible, a dubious source, but the only one we have. Gay folks, the bible insists, are hated by god, though the jewish priests might have been talking about top and tailing in a pup tent for all the detail they put in. Oh - I guess sodom and gomorrah confirm god's affront to boys playing with each other's winkles. I'm not sure if playing with bottoms is included. Hetero bottom fetishs aren't singled out in the bible for any attention. Moving on, Muslims believe jesus was a prophet, not the son of god. What this means is they don't accept him as their saviour and according to the bible, all unbelievers are off to gehenna, were the smoke from their torment will forever rise.

Please explain what you are talking about in questioning ex-min. I assume you're saying that like all sinners, gays and muslims, if they repent and try harder next time, get the free pass to heaven?

Or am I just mistaking you for a christian when you in fact worship some other god concept?

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:Papias,

totus_tuus wrote:
Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, the unknown author of the Muratorian Fragment, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius all testify to the fact that Matthew wrote the first Gospel and that John wrote last.  Even scholars who hold the position of Markan priority generally concede that John was written last.  Any who hold otherwise do so contrary to the only evidence available as to the authorship of the Gospels.

I am interested in this. To clarify, could you explain exactly what you mean when you say they "testify" in the above context?


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5086
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:Papias,


totus_tuus

wrote:

Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, the unknown author of the Muratorian Fragment, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius all testify to the fact that Matthew wrote the first Gospel and that John wrote last.  Even scholars who hold the position of Markan priority generally concede that John was written last.  Any who hold otherwise do so contrary to the only evidence available as to the authorship of the Gospels.

 

I'm not sure it's possible to "testify" in this context. All these guys weren't even born when Jesus was alive - Eusebius was prancing around Palestine in 350AD. What's he doing - sitting up all night with his ouija board?

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
AtheistExtremist wrote:I

AtheistExtremist wrote:
I assume you're saying that like all sinners, gays and muslims, if they repent and try harder next time, get the free pass to heaven?

Something like that.  Homosexuals are called to chastity. 

As far as Muslims, why should they repent?  They acknowledge the Creator and with Christians preofess to hold the faith of Abraham, they worship the one, true, merciful God.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote:I am interested

KSMB wrote:
I am interested in this. To clarify, could you explain exactly what you mean when you say they "testify" in the above context?

Sure.  They all allude to the fact that the first Gospel was written in Hebrew or Aramaic.  Some name Matthew directly as the first Gospel.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:KSMB

totus_tuus wrote:
KSMB wrote:
I am interested in this. To clarify, could you explain exactly what you mean when you say they "testify" in the above context?

Sure.  They all allude to the fact that the first Gospel was written in Hebrew or Aramaic.  Some name Matthew directly as the first Gospel.

So if I interpret you correctly, when you say they "testify" or "allude", you mean that they simply state they believe it to be true?


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote:So if I interpret

KSMB wrote:
So if I interpret you correctly, when you say they "testify" or "allude", you mean that they simply state they believe it to be true?

Yes.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5086
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Totus - I've pulled this out

totus_tuus wrote:

...they worship the one, true, merciful God.

 

Of context for the purpose of this question but it's benign enough. The one, true, merciful god. Doesn't merciful mean letting others off the hook - scot free? Can the mighty lord be merciful and vengeful at the same time?

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
I'm obviously atheist, but

I'm obviously atheist, but anyway

a) Well, he was a Jew. He said the only way to God was through himself. However to be a Christian you need to worship Christ, so I think he falls outside the category. He was extremely arrogant though.

b) No, I don't think so. It is obvious that Christianity has mixed up his message. He was only there to save the Jews. The idea of offering the religion to Gentiles was not his, it came after his death.

c) Yes. The only old testament rule he changed was the one about working on Sunday, he said the other rules were still true. Therefore he would want gays stoned to death, and if someone rapes your daughter you should accept a small payment and let him marry her.

d) I don't think that he would specifically want to kill Muslims, that wasn't his message. As long as they don't break any of the rules punishable by death in the OT, such as disrespecting your parents. But they obviously won't go to heaven.

e) Crosses is a difficult one. It's pretty macabre, but he did want people to follow him...

f) No, todays Christians are much too lenient. They pretty much ignore the OT and all of the unpleasant bits of the bible. Plus most are not of Jewsish heriatage, so they don't even count.

 

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
AtheistExtremist wrote:The

AtheistExtremist wrote:
The one, true, merciful god. Doesn't merciful mean letting others off the hook - scot free?  Can the mighty lord be merciful and vengeful at the same time?

Not neccessarily.  Just as a temporal judge can be merciful  by invoking his discretionary power to pardon an offense or to mitigate punishment for an offense, God too has this authority certainly.  As the Church prays in Eucharistic Prayer I, ""Though we are sinners, we trust in your mercy and love. Do not consider what we truly deserve, but grant us your forgiveness".   I think it is justice tempered by mercy as opposed to vengeance.

"Today you shall be with me in Paradise."  (Luke 23:43)

 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
ronin-dog wrote:b) No, I

ronin-dog wrote:
b) No, I don't think so. It is obvious that Christianity has mixed up his message. He was only there to save the Jews. The idea of offering the religion to Gentiles was not his, it came after his death.

What about the woman at the well related in John 4?  Or the Samaritan woman who begs for the crumbs from the table that fall to the dogs?  The centurion's servant?  Or the "Great Commission" to go forth and preach the Gospel to all nations"?  There are also episodes when Jesus eats with publicans and Gentiles.  Jesus said that "salvation comes from the Jews" not that salvation is "for the Jews."

Quote:
c) Yes. The only old testament rule he changed was the one about working on Sunday, he said the other rules were still true. Therefore he would want gays stoned to death, and if someone rapes your daughter you should accept a small payment and let him marry her.

Problems exist here as well.  Specifically I'm thinking of the woman caught in adultery, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", then the only one in the crowd without sin sits and, rather than casting a stone, starts doodling in the dirt.  There seems to be a clear break with Mosaic Law here.  In fact, the woman at the well story seems to be a clear break with the Law as well.

Ritual washing before meals seems to go by the wayside as well when the disciples are caught eating on the move without washing, but several Laws seem to be rupudiated here by Jesus remark that it is not what goes into the body which defiles, but what comes out of the body.

Quote:
d) I don't think that he would specifically want to kill Muslims, that wasn't his message. As long as they don't break any of the rules punishable by death in the OT, such as disrespecting your parents. But they obviously won't go to heaven.

Again, see the woman at the well about inclusiveness, or the woman caught in adultery for examples of mercy and forgiveness.  Better yet the "good thief" in Luke's Crucifixion narrative.

Quote:
f) No, todays Christians are much too lenient. They pretty much ignore the OT and all of the unpleasant bits of the bible. Plus most are not of Jewsish heriatage, so they don't even count.

Again, salvation is from the Jews, not for the Jews.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II