I have quite a bit to say on this issue because this is an issue that is very near and dear to my heart.

Let me begin by responding to the thread title.

Christ without Christianity

From my perspective it's meaningless to speak of a "Christ" without Christianity. The Christians (i.e. the authors of the New Testament) are the ones who are making the claim that Jesus was "The Christ". And what they mean by that is indeed that Jesus was divine. Christianity claims that Jesus was the "only" begotten son of God and that he came with a message that came from God specifically.

Moreover, many of the teachings that are associated with Jesus via this image of Jesus as being "The Christ" are associated with what's going to happen to a person after they did. In other words, they are either going to be cast into a place of eternal punishment, or they will be granted the "gift" of eternal in some heavenly place called "The Kingdom of God".

Take away the idea that Jesus was divine and had special divine knowledge and all of the teachings concerning the fate of a human spirit would instantly be reduced to nothing more than a mortal man's opinion, or merely superstitions hearsay that had been attributed to the man named "Jesus".

In fact, this brings me to the very next point:

Whether one believes in the divinity of Jesus - can we all agree that the message in the myth is good?

Evidently we can't agree.

No two people agree on precisely what that "message" was even about precisely. The mere fact that there are so many different denominations of Christianity is proof positive of this. Even people who claim to be "Christians" in the sense of being "followers" of the Christ" do not all agree on what actually constitutes "following" these teachings.

As I mentioned above, part of the "message" is about what happens to a human spirit after the body dies. Many "Christians" or followers of Christianity do not even agree on what is required to achieve entrance into this heavenly world.

Moreover, on a personal note, I think it's quite clear from these writings that it has clearly been attributed to Jesus to have said that the path is straight and the gate is narrow to the Kingdom of God and only few will make it.

Well, if Jesus truly was "divine" and this is "divine knowledge" then clearly only few people will achieve this end result and therefore the vast majority must fall into the state of eternal damnation.

So from my point of view, that particular message is "not good".

Who would want to believe that the vast majority of humans are bound to suffer everlasting punishment? There's certainly nothing "good" about that.

So, IMHO, if Jesus truly was divine, then the message is "not good".

It's not good at all, on the contrary it would be an extremely sad state of affairs, IMHO.


Whether one believes in the divinity of Jesus?

As soon a person accepts that Jesus may not have been "divine" then the entire biblical cannon of scriptures comes into question. If Jesus was not divine, then why bother believing anything that is written in the Bible at all?

The authors of the New Testament claim that Jesus was born of a virgin woman, and that he resurrected from his death along with a multitude of saints. And that God spoke from a cloud saying, "This is my beloved son, hear him".

As soon as a person rejects the divinity of Jesus, all of these outrageous claims become nothing more than fictitious mythology.

Also, there would be no reason to believe that the Old Testament was the "Word of God" either. Moreover, there would be no reason at all to pay any attention to the writings of Paul, which constitute about 75% of the New Testament scriptures.

There is far more in the New Testament about Paul's opinions than there is about the teachings of Jesus.

So as soon as a person accepts that Jesus might have been a mere mortal man, the entire biblical cannon loses all credibility. Especially considering that it claims that Jesus was divine, etc.


Moral Values - can we all agree that the message in the myth is good?


Well, now are we just speaking to the issues of the moral values that these stories attribute to Jesus? And perhaps even ignore the writings of people like Paul, etc?

I personally have no problem with the moral teachings that have been attributed to Jesus. I would personally say that they are good moral values, if taken reasonably and not twisted into extremism.

According to these stories of Jesus, he rejected many of the moral teachings that had been laid out by the Torah (or Old Testament)

Jesus renounced the judging of others (which is absolutely necessary if you are to judge people to be sinners as the Torah had people doing)

Jesus basically renounced the stoning to death of sinners. Especially be other sinners, and supposedly every human is supposed to be a sinner, therefore there should be no stonings at all. That's quite the opposite of what the teachings of the Torah had people doing.

Jesus renounced the seeking of revenge as in "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" and instead he taught to "Turn the other cheek".

Again, without taking this to extremism, all he's basically saying is that it's better to forgive and walk away than to seek revenge. I doubt very much that he actually meant to turn you other cheek and offer it up to someone who is viciously attacking you. That would be quite unwise, and I doubt that Jesus was teaching anyone to do unwise things.

However, overall, I do agree that the moral values that had been attributed to Jesus are "good" when not held not turned into absurd extremism.

Where the moral teachings of Jesus unique or new?

This is the question people should be asking when they ask if the teaching of Jesus were "good". Why ask if they are good? Ask if they are original or unique to Jesus (which many supporters of Christianity like to claim)

The answer to that is clearly, no. They are not unique to Jesus, nor did they originate from him.

The Buddhists, Taoists, and other Eastern Mystics had been teaching similar moral values centuries before Jesus was ever born. The golden rule of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" had been around long before Jesus.

The idea of not judging others is far more ancient than Jesus.

The idea of not seeking revenge and forgiving those who trespass against you, is also extremely ancient.

None of this moral content originated with Jesus. It had all been around and had been taught by other spiritual and moral leaders long before the time of Jesus.

So in this sense Jesus was not the slightest bit unique in terms of his moral teachings. It only seems that way within the very narrow confines of the biblical story. This is because the Biblical story is focused on what the ancient Hebrews were doing, and Jesus came along and taught those people better moral values.

However, the entire human population was not as rude and crude as the ancient Hebrews. The entire human population had not been taught by an ancient Torah to judge and stone sinners to death, etc.

In the larger global picture Jesus was not unique at all in terms of the moral values he taught. On the contrary it's quite possible that Jesus was simply trying to convey to the Hebrews the higher moral values of the Eastern Mystics and trying to get them to move away from the terrible moral values that they had been taught by the Torah.

Summary

Are the teachings of Jesus 'good'?

The moral values are. But they are basically the same moral values as the ancient mystics taught long before Jesus had ever been born.

Are the teachings that Jesus was "The Christ" any good?

I personally don't think they are. All those teachings tend to do is cause people to judge others in Jesus' name by proclaiming that if they don't believe in Jesus, or if they haven't accepted him as their "Lord and Savior". then they are judged to be "rejecting God", etc.

I don't see anything "good" in that. All that does is create religious bigotry in the name of Jesus. Where is there anything "good" in that?

That idea also tends to hold up the entire biblical cannon as the "Word of God", and that goes far beyond the mere teachings of Jesus.

IMHO, Christianity, as a religion, is hardly about Jesus at all. What it's really about is using Jesus as an excuse to hold up the entire Biblical cannon as the infallible "Word of God", including the writings of Paul and stuff from the Old Testament as well. Clearly Jesus himself was not even in agreement with much of the stuff that was in the Torah or Old Testament.

So I don't support any of that, and I don't see that as being "good".

As soon as Jesus is used as an excuse to judge others, I'm done with it.

So I prefer not to think of Jesus as "The Christ", but rather I prefer to think of him as just a mortal man who rejected many of the horrible things that had been taught in the Torah as having been from "God".

I personally don't think they are. All those teachings tend to do is cause people to judge others in Jesus' name by proclaiming that if they don't believe in Jesus, or if they haven't accepted him as their "Lord and Savior". then they are judged to be "rejecting God", etc

Incorrect. No one judges anyone. Nobody know's who is saved but themselves. I know not if you or anyone else of similar belief will go to Heaven or not. I know not one person that I know is going to Heaven, I know not one person who will miss out on Heaven for sure.

If someone makes that judgement, they are just as much in the wrong as the one they are judging to be in the wrong.

Matthew 7

1Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Incorrect. No one judges anyone. Nobody know's who is saved but themselves. I know not if you or anyone else of similar belief will go to Heaven or not. I know not one person that I know is going to Heaven, I know not one person who will miss out on Heaven for sure.

IMHO, Christianity, as a religion, is hardly about Jesus at all. What it's really about is using Jesus as an excuse to hold up the entire Biblical cannon as the infallible "Word of God", including the writings of Paul and stuff from the Old Testament as well. Clearly Jesus himself was not even in agreement with much of the stuff that was in the Torah or Old Testament.

its not WRONG to judge

its wrong to be a HYPOCRITE,, two different things

these verses, often quoted to suggest we shouldnt have and use judgment,

but about HOW to judge, what standards you hold others to, you should not be too hypocritical to hold to yourself

,,why would their be a day of judgement if some people would avoid being judged just by living a wandering life of no judgements,,?

John 5
22For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son

Notice committed ALL judgement to Jesus.

John 5
22For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son

Notice committed ALL judgement to Jesus.

in context, he judgeth NO MAN,, but hath committed all judgment (of MAN) unto the son

we arent to judge MAN because we know noone completely enough to do so, we are indeed to use our god given brain to judge actions and words though,,,

I saw the other passages, and in context, it still refers to not living a life in hypocrisy,, there will be no escape from judgment for any man, whether they have 'judged' others or not,,

repeatedly is the notion of judging things in others that we have done ourself, which is not a welcome behavior apparently

the priority is focusing on how we live our life, but we cant do that without knowing right from wrong and right and wrong and we are hypocrites if we see others do wrong and call it right, or if we see them do right and call it wrong,,,

All sin is equal with the exception of denying the lord thy God. So how can you righteously judge someone for stealing, when you just told a lie? And so forth with many of different possible scenarios.

For a person to judge another, it would be hypocritical no matter how you wish to flip that coin. For you're judging so and so for this, but you're off doing that and so on and so forth.

All sin is equal with the exception of denying the lord thy God. So how can you righteously judge someone for stealing, when you just told a lie? And so forth with many of different possible scenarios.