I.S.L.A.M617
Illuminatus
I'm not saying it's two different people. I'm saying the name Jesus was added on to the Christ myth later in an effort to make him human.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
the right religion
- Thread starter islam abduallah
- Start date
I.S.L.A.M617
Illuminatus
A bum in the subway might have some truth hidden in his babbling, but you still avoid him because he's crazy.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
Don't you folks think you might be putting too much emphasis on Jesus being called "son of God," and "messiah?"
Others in the Bible are called by both.
Solomon for instance. 2 Sam 7:14 I shall be a father to him, and he shall be a son to Me. If He takes iniquity upon Himself, then I will chasten him with a rod of men, and with strokes of the sons of men.
We also have the Temple established by him - so why the later Peter/Rock story?
Exo 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:
Psalms 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
Psalms 82:7 Nevertheless as human beings, shall die, and of a certainty, as all leaders fall.
Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
**
Psa 18:50 Great deliverance giveth he to his king; and sheweth mercy to his Messiah, to David, and to his seed for evermore.
2Sa 1:14 And David said unto him, How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thine hand to destroy the LORD'S Mashiyach/Messiah?
Isa 45:1 Thus saith the LORD to his Messiah, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;
1Sa 2:10 The adversaries of the LORD shall be broken to pieces; out of heaven shall he thunder upon them: the LORD shall judge the ends of the earth; and he shall give strength unto his king, and exalt the horn/power of his Messiah.
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
Dropped to the bottom because I had a heck of a time finding it again in Hybrid mode - LOL! 
Don't you folks think you might be putting too much emphasis on Jesus being called "son of God," and "messiah?"
Others in the Bible are called by both.
Solomon for instance. 2 Sam 7:14 I shall be a father to him, and he shall be a son to Me. If He takes iniquity upon Himself, then I will chasten him with a rod of men, and with strokes of the sons of men.
We also have the Temple established by him - so why the later Peter/Rock story?
Exo 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:
Psalms 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
Psalms 82:7 Nevertheless as human beings, shall die, and of a certainty, as all leaders fall.
Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
**
Psa 18:50 Great deliverance giveth he to his king; and sheweth mercy to his Messiah, to David, and to his seed for evermore.
2Sa 1:14 And David said unto him, How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thine hand to destroy the LORD'S Mashiyach/Messiah?
Isa 45:1 Thus saith the LORD to his Messiah, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;
1Sa 2:10 The adversaries of the LORD shall be broken to pieces; out of heaven shall he thunder upon them: the LORD shall judge the ends of the earth; and he shall give strength unto his king, and exalt the horn/power of his Messiah.
ODION said:
Don't you folks think you might be putting too much emphasis on Jesus being called "son of God," and "messiah?"
Others in the Bible are called by both.
Solomon for instance. 2 Sam 7:14 I shall be a father to him, and he shall be a son to Me. If He takes iniquity upon Himself, then I will chasten him with a rod of men, and with strokes of the sons of men.
We also have the Temple established by him - so why the later Peter/Rock story?
Exo 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:
Psalms 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
Psalms 82:7 Nevertheless as human beings, shall die, and of a certainty, as all leaders fall.
Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
**
Psa 18:50 Great deliverance giveth he to his king; and sheweth mercy to his Messiah, to David, and to his seed for evermore.
2Sa 1:14 And David said unto him, How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thine hand to destroy the LORD'S Mashiyach/Messiah?
Isa 45:1 Thus saith the LORD to his Messiah, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;
1Sa 2:10 The adversaries of the LORD shall be broken to pieces; out of heaven shall he thunder upon them: the LORD shall judge the ends of the earth; and he shall give strength unto his king, and exalt the horn/power of his Messiah.
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
Ah right, okay.
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
Ok... And?
I hope you aren't thinking this is analogous to the case of Nietzsche- a man widely acknowledged as one of the most talented and influential writers in all of history?
As I said, the reason ad hominem is a logical fallacy is because facts about a writers person don't tend to discredit (or credit) their views. Someone can be crazy and correct, and someone can be sane and incorrect. (besides, Nietzsche went crazy after he had written all of his works, not before...)
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Except for the fact that the name appears in the Q source, which is earlier than Paul. So, your theory would have to be amended to say that the mythic (Christ) was added on to the name Jesus later.
I.S.L.A.M617
Illuminatus
First of all, there is no "correct" philosophy. You can't say Nietzsche was right or wrong about anything. And yes, I would liken any nut that's in love with his sister to a bum on the subway, regardless of how many books they've written. Nietzsche was crazy when he wrote his books (maybe not in the medical sense, but come on... The man was in love with his sister), then he got syphilis and became even more crazy.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Hey, soujourner. Why do you believe that the name Jesus appears in the Q source? I mean, couldn't 'Jesus' simply have been added by Mark as he wrote his gospel, using Q as a source of the sayings?
I.S.L.A.M617
Illuminatus
If that's the case (which I highly doubt), why didn't Paul ever use the name Jesus in his Epistles?
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Because it does. It appears in material common to both Matthew and Luke. (That is, by definition, Q).
Mark didn't use Q.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Paul was likely unaware of Q. Q was probably rural and Galilean in origin. Paul traveled in decidedly more urban circles.
I.S.L.A.M617
Illuminatus
Yet Mark still uses the name Jesus. Could Matthew and Luke not have gotten the name Jesus from Mark, and not from Q?
Sha'irullah
رسول الآلهة
The right religion is Natural Religion. Earlier I said "No Religion" but truthfully the proper terminology for what I was expressing was Natural Theology. Undoubtedly this is the only correct path to God because this is what we do everyday actually
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
They got the name from both sources. Q isn't shared with Mark. Two sources, unaware of each other, one of which is less than ten years after the fact, is a pretty good indicator of a real person in that time period.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Yeah, Mark was a misstatement on my part, but I'm still confused about your position.
Since there is no Q document, how do you know that Mark didn't make Jesus up and then when Matthew and Luke rewrote Mark, they simply added the Q sayings and attributed them to this new Jesus character, rather than the traditional originator of the sayings (Mithras or some other speaker)?
Look at all the misattributions today. Sometimes it's claimed that Twain said it. Other times it was Einstein who said it. Clearly there's a tendency to attribute memorable sayings to various different characters.
Imagine a Bartlett's scroll (B) floating around in 1st century Judea. Wouldn't it be likely that creators of Jesus would take their favorite sayings from B and attribute them to this new Jesus character?
Last edited:
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Matthew and Luke are quite different from each other in their approach, style and linguistic characteristics. They were unaware of the other. It's a bit of a stretch, don't you think, that both would cabbage onto the very same interpolation, especially when they differ so much in their other treatments of Mark's material.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Why do you think they were unaware of each other?
If there were a free-floating Bartlett's of Christology out in the community, why wouldn't they both think to take passages from that Bartlett's and attribute them to this new Jesus hero?