Christ and Christianity Contradict Each Other

  1. Jesus never said “Worship me.” He said. “Follow me.” A way is to be followed. A personality is not a way.
  2. Paul formatted Jesus worship as a religion.
  3. Clement of Alexandria and Augustine infused the religion with Greek philosophy so as to make it reasonable.
  4. After the religion had known centuries of dogmatic intolerance of those it considered heretics (inquisitions, witchhunts, manifest destiny), Kierkegaard noted that its truth is irrational. Oops–there goes reason!
  5. Either Mark Twain or Nietzsche, or both, has been quoted as saying, “The last Christian died on the cross.”
    Must one give up reason or any knowledge of history in order to accept the divisive Christain fundamentalism that now passes itself off as being what Jesus intended?
  1. John 14:6 “The only way to the father is through me”.

  2. Paul’s epistles were written at least 60 years before the earliest gospels mark and john.

  3. Not going to deny that. Not sure of your point with this statement though.

  4. Really? Look at how many times Jesus condemns hundreds of thousands of people to hell. Look at how Paul also condemns people to hell. Look at jesus’s vague references to swords and violence.

Kierkgard was cherry picking.

  1. That would be Nietzsche (damn german name!) BUT, even he was wrong, because “christ” is merely a surname that was added later. Christ means messiah. Jeshua was no more christ than he was god. As for what jesus intended? when he’s presenting the beautitudes? Or when he’s condemning entire peoples’ to hell?


Can I be permitted to answer questions with questions? :smiley:

  1. Who said a personality is not a way???

  2. Who cares who formatted what, the question is: what is true?

  3. Lots of people infused lots of things, right up to the present day. The question is, what is true? e.g. in this case: what is true about Jesus?

  4. Some great reasoners have been christians, and some great idiots. The question is, is Jesus reasonable?

  5. Depends on how you define a christian, and fundamentalism. There are many who think that western christianity, especially US christianity is not true. The question is …

I reckon both sides in these sorts of debates can find all sorts of side issues to criticise. But it is much harder to grapple with the questions of what is true in an open-minded way. For me just as much as for you.

It would be interesting to decide (1) what are the really key questions about the topic you have raised, and (2) who really wants to know the truth, and is willing to change their minds!? :smiley:

Best wishes

Good observations. I agree with you on Kierkegaard, but not on Nietzsche. The latter inflamed in order to burn out the dross that conceals honesty. On the Augustine matter, read Matthew Fox’s “Original Blessings”. It tells of sexual guilt repressed and sublimated into religious fervor of intellect as a viable mistress.
Only groupies follow personalities. One must walk the talk.
I, too, have problems with the two Jesuses, the one of the beatitudes and the one of hellfire and condemnation. So did may of the writers of the gnostic gospels. But I have more of a problem with inhumanites perpetuated in the name of Christ than I do on the issue of schizophrenia.
In regards to the latter, I can at least choose which is the better message, which gospel really amounts to good news.

What is true in matters of morality is what can bring out the best in both you and me. Traditionally, all religions that have been formatted become dead words, unable to evoke the passions of prophets who told of empathy, but quite capable of lending misinterpretations of the prophet’s wrath against those who cannot hear as an excuse to destroy them. Paul wrote that the letter of the scriptures is death, but continued to espouse literal dogma.

True, but he implied his divinty, and more importantly allowed others to worship him. If he didn’t want worship he could easily have said so. Thus your idea that Jesus wanted followers but not worshipers is incorrect.

Matthew 2
10When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. 11On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him.

Matthew 14
32And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. 33Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”

Matthew 28
8So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him.

Luke 24
51While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven. 52Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. 53And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God.

John 9
37Jesus said, “You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you.” 38Then the man said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him.

N.F., One aspect of the matter, yes; but-- “Why call me good. None is good but the Father.”–ascribed to Jesus. “I and the Father are one” can be taken to mean that they are one in mind or in spirit. Worship indicates one above and one below, inferiors and superiors–not “You can be as I am” or “the kingdom is within (You)”! No such sharing of the Godhead is implied in worship.

Well now you’re discussing the nature of the trinity, not whether Jesus should be worshipped or not, or whether Christ and Christianity contradict. Do you have a new point to make?

N.F., No new point. I made it quite clear that Jesus reserved the idea of worship for the Father and that Jesus’ concept of worship has nothing to do with our ideas of who is top dog.

An idea that completely contradicts each of the texts I quoted above.

Not if you clarify what is meant by “worship.”

it goes back to the schizophrenic picture of jesus.

The first jesus speaks of the beautitudes and as worshipping god as a seperate commandment. he calls himself the son of man, and non-deity.

The second jesus speaks of hellfire, and condemnation. He commands worship, and tells that the only way to the father is through him.

One of the passages that didn’t survive from mark to matthew and luke is really telling:

Mark 3:20 - EOC

Jesus’ family calling him out of his gourd?


“An idea that completely contradicts each of the texts I quoted above.”

The text contradicts itself.

ONLY John says to worship Jesus as god. The synoptics say to worship god, and in fact that is the “greatest commandment” that he gives in those. He doesn’t say “worship some odd trinity of me, the holy spirit and god.”…
He says “Worship god.”

ONLY john acknowledges the Trinity.

And in the epistles, (romans and ephesians) we are told that god has pre-ordained who will go to heaven and who will go to hell.

Well, maybe you should clarify what you mean by “worship”. It seems quite obvious to me.

God was worshiped in the Old testament. God was worshiped in the New Testament. Same thing, whatever the definition of the word. If you have a different analysis then by all means spit it out.

god was worshipped because of hell in the NT.

There is no hell in the OT.

Scyth, do you have links regarding Jesus’ family believing him nuts? I have not seen this.

Chuckle, weren’t most prophets daffy? Moses had people stoned to death for working on the Sabbat.

With regards,

aspacia :sunglasses:

Why bow?


see above where I quote Mark 3

Read the context and it is plain enough.

Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,…

By worship I mean a condition in which a supposed inferior must proclaim his inferiority in order to partake of whatever is superior. This is suggested and contradicted in the Bible.
Mark is the oldest NT source. He did not specify in his account of the life of Jesus some dogmatic formula that must be accepted before one can follow Jesus.
Elaine Pagels’ “The Gospel of Thomas” reveals a possibilty of Thomas’ gospel of the kingdom within as excluded by early church fathers (Iraneus, et al) because it appeared to contradict the formulations of dogma that appear in the gospel of John (A thorougly Greekized interpretation of who and what Jesus was.)
Why has The Book of Enoch, recognized in Eastern orthodox churches, quoted by Jesus (in Jude), dated at approximately 200 BCE, been excluded from the Bible?
How much else did the early church fathers see fit to proscribe because the work did not fit their definitions of dogma when the work merely exeplified a healthy controversy?
For me, the schizoid Jesus is hardest to accept. I’d really like to think he was the teacher in the beatitudes, but the texts present him as otherwise. Any caring human who reads the NT as presently truncated must agree that Buddha was more compassionate than Jesus.

Interesting comments, Ierrellus, but I wonder what they prove, especially since you are the person who started this topic. I would doubt anyone would stop believing in Jesus because of the matters you have raised.

The documentary evidence for the life of Jesus is far more extensive than for any other historical figure of the time, as I’m sure you know. So it is hardly surprising if there are a few different slants and perspectives, including some that were accepted by the church and some that were not. But the main facts stand.

And anyone who has read the gospel accounts knows that Jesus is a paradox (I prefer that word to your “schizoid”). Most of us would like the gentle Buddha-like Jesus, but that is not what we are presented with. Rather we have a radical, severe, tender, cryptic enigma.

So we make our choice - some believe, largely because he was not like our expectations or anyone else, others cannot believe for the very same reasons. But anyone wishing to change another person’s mind would need stronger arguments than so far presented, I would think.

So I am interested in why you started this topic. Did you think you would convince some christians to change their mind, or encourage some disbelievers to keep on disbelieving? Or were you just stirring? Or is your mind still open to new thoughts on the topic?

Best wishes

I find no fault with Jesus because I can choose the compassionate messiah over the apocalyptic messiah. I do find fault with Paul, Clement, Iraneus (Sp?), Augustine, i.e., popularized and codified Chritianity, which is, IMO and in that of many others, historically a cancer on the human race. That was my OP.
Poet Wm. Blake admired Jesus, but loathed Christianty. All I am asking here is whether or not such a perspective is tenable.