• 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!

Who is Jesus?

Tumah

Tumah

Veteran Member
Good-Ole-Rebel said:
Yes, but I never cared much for it. I find true history much more appealing. You?

Good-Ole-Rebel
Click to expand...
So you're already familiar with fictitious history based on actual events and the possibility for a narrative to contain truthful elements even while the majority of the story remains fantastically fictitious.

This makes your previous comment difficult to understand.
 
Katzpur

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
blü 2 said:
The difference is that in the NT stories, the resurrected Jesus appeared on, and only on, his home soil among the Jews, and then without more ascended to heaven where he was united (or reunited) with God.
Click to expand...
That's right. Mormons believe everything the New Testament stories tell us about Jesus Christ's ministry in the Holy Land, up to and including where He ascended into Heaven to be with God. The New Testament writers were speaking only of His mortal life; they knew nothing of what was to come later. We believe He made a post-resurrection appearance in the Americas, not that He traveled anywhere outside of the Holy Land during His lifetime. In fact, The Book of Mormon describes Him descending to the Earth from Heaven (where He'd presumably been since He ascended there, as His followers in the Holy Land watched).

In those stories, he did not, for example, appear in Britain, Europe, Africa, Asia, India, North, Central or South America, the islands of any of the oceans, Australia, Antarctica, whatever. In this sense, you may agree, to the onlooker it may seem anomalous that he should make just the one overseas reappearance.
Click to expand...
Actually, we don't deny the possibility that He may have appeared elsewhere. There is no logical reason to assume that He didn't. I mean, why wouldn't He want people everywhere to know of His gospel? It's just that we're aware only of one record of such a visit, and that was to the American continent.

The parts of the NT about evangelizing / proselytizing are from Greek (in particular Cynic) philosophy. They reflect a local (Eastern Roman Empire) view, as does Paul, Acts and the NT more generally. That makes the Mormon example at the least unusual, unexpected, but I can't off-hand think of anything it actually contradicts, as you say.
First of all, none of the authors of the books of the NT ever knew an historical Jesus, any more than Paul did.

Second, Mark is both the earliest gospel, and the only biography of the earthly Jesus. That's to say, Paul's earthly bio of Jesus fits into two lines; and the authors of Matthew, Luke and John rewrite Mark because they wish to improve it. (A simple example is how Mark's Jesus is a broken, forlorn and abandoned man; Matthew's is a bit more together; Luke's omits to say, "Why have You forsake me?"; and John's is more like the MC of his crucifixion. Don't take my word for it, reread them for yourself.)

In Mark, Jesus goes to John the Baptist to be washed of his sins. Only when this is done do the heavens open and God declares Jesus to be his son. The model is Psalms 2:7, and though the words "this day I have begotten you" are omitted, they're implicit (and later, in Acts 13:33, they're completely explicit). That's to say, this is how King David became son of God and this is how Jesus became son / Son of God.

(This is unacceptable to the authors of Matthew and Luke, who want Jesus to hit the ground already divine ─ hence the angelic messengers, Bethlehem, flight into Egypt, all of which are attempting to make Jesus conform to passages in the Tanakh which their authors like to think are messianic prophecies.

It's also unacceptable to the author of John, who like Paul is a gnostic, and for whom Jesus is the demiurge: that is, both the Jesus of Paul (1 Corinthians 8:6) and the Jesus of John (John 1:10) created the material world (something which in the gnostic view, God, being pure spirit, would never think of doing) and thereafter mediated between the material world and God.)

Mark is the only use of a Jewish model for the son/Son of God. The models in Matthew and Luke (divine insemination) and Paul and John (gnostic, pre-existing, demiurge) are all Greek.

In Matthew and Luke, the birth of Jesus is attended by advance angelic messages, and the birth itself by astrological signs, the attendance of Magi, and miraculous displays. In Mark, however, when Jesus gets into an argument with the local religious authorities, his family think he's nuts (Mark 4:21) ─ you don't do that if you've been visited by angelic messengers to tip you off.
Paul and the author of John, our two gnostics, have a different understanding of theology, hence Christology, to the one shared, however roughly, by the authors of Matthew and Luke, whose Jesuses didn't exist before their miraculous conceptions ─ a different Greek model to the gnostics. By contrast, Paul and the author of John are vague about who bore Jesus and how; like Mark they completely omit the shepherds, stars, Magi, Massacre of the Innocents, flight into Egypt, and so on ─ something I'd be slow to omit were that the model of Jesus I was advocating.
Click to expand...
So, getting back to the OP, I don't find the difference between the various gospel accounts as significant in the slightest. They are written by different individuals, each of whom was writing from a particular perspective. I don't see that this is evidence of more than one Jesus Christ.

(Just think of the difference of opinion you'd expect to find if you were to ask a half a dozen different individuals to comment on Donald Trump's presidency. You'd hear him extolled as the greatest President who has ever lived by some folks; others would describe him as the biggest piece of crap ever to sit in the Oval Office. That definitely does not mean people were talking about multiple individuals, all named Donald Trump.)
 
P

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Wandering Monk said:
There are no NT fragments or manuscripts that predate the destruction of the Temple, so we don't know that Jesus predicted its destruction.
Click to expand...

I know you are reading from other people's opinions.
Someone writes about a position and the next generation
of authors take that position as gospel, so to speak, instead
of examining the original texts properly.

Here's my take on the Gospels.
I wonder if John's Gospel was not written as it happened.
Matthew was the tax official - you see his intelligence and
reference to money often.
Luke was the Physician who never met Jesus, but gave
us his Gospel plus books of Acts - he went to Rome with
Paul ca 66 AD and his Acts suddenly stops there.
Paul's earliest datable letter is about 55 AD and his last
is ca 66 AD.

I think only Revelations was written after the destruction
of the Temple.

Many, many references to the New Testament and its
happenings are recorded in the Old Testament. Example
is Jacob in Egypt speaking of a Jewish nation with law
and monarchy, but ending when the Messiah comes,
and His message would be received upon by the Gentiles.
ca 2,000 BC.
 
P

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Tumah said:
So you're already familiar with fictitious history based on actual events and the possibility for a narrative to contain truthful elements even while the majority of the story remains fantastically fictitious.

This makes your previous comment difficult to understand.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's why I refuse to believe the story of an African General invading Rome
across the Alps riding elephants.
 
Good-Ole-Rebel

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
Tumah said:
So you're already familiar with fictitious history based on actual events and the possibility for a narrative to contain truthful elements even while the majority of the story remains fantastically fictitious.

This makes your previous comment difficult to understand.
Click to expand...

Why?

Good-Ole-Rebel
 
Wandering Monk

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
PruePhillip said:
I know you are reading from other people's opinions.
Someone writes about a position and the next generation
of authors take that position as gospel, so to speak, instead
of examining the original texts properly.

Here's my take on the Gospels.
I wonder if John's Gospel was not written as it happened.
Matthew was the tax official - you see his intelligence and
reference to money often.
Luke was the Physician who never met Jesus, but gave
us his Gospel plus books of Acts - he went to Rome with
Paul ca 66 AD and his Acts suddenly stops there.
Paul's earliest datable letter is about 55 AD and his last
is ca 66 AD.

I think only Revelations was written after the destruction
of the Temple.

Many, many references to the New Testament and its
happenings are recorded in the Old Testament. Example
is Jacob in Egypt speaking of a Jewish nation with law
and monarchy, but ending when the Messiah comes,
and His message would be received upon by the Gentiles.
ca 2,000 BC.
Click to expand...

Care to address the fact that NO NT manuscripts of fragments predate the destruction of the Temple? How do you know Jesus predicted it prior to the fact?
 
Good-Ole-Rebel

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
Wandering Monk said:
Care to address the fact that NO NT manuscripts of fragments predate the destruction of the Temple? How do you know Jesus predicted it prior to the fact?
Click to expand...

What a stupid question. If you question that Jesus didn't exist till after the Temple was destroyed, what is your proof?

Or, are you just questioning that Jesus didn't exist because there are no NT manuscripts dated at the time Jesus spoke.

Your question makes no sense.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 
Wandering Monk

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
Good-Ole-Rebel said:
What a stupid question. If you question that Jesus didn't exist till after the Temple was destroyed, what is your proof?

Or, are you just questioning that Jesus didn't exist because there are no NT manuscripts dated at the time Jesus spoke.

Your question makes no sense.

Good-Ole-Rebel
Click to expand...

What a stupid assumption you made. I did not say Jesus did not exist. I asked how you know Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple at all since the earliest fragments of the NT come AFTER its destruction? Don't you think someone could have put those words in Jesus mouth AFTER the Temple was destroyed and inserted it into NT manuscripts?
 
P

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Wandering Monk said:
Care to address the fact that NO NT manuscripts of fragments predate the destruction of the Temple? How do you know Jesus predicted it prior to the fact?
Click to expand...

Daniel said the Temple will stand until the Messiah comes, no further than that
as the enemy would destroy the Temple, Jerusalem and even the Messiah.
Jesus' warnings about the destruction of Israel led most Christians to flee the
fighting early - his warnings about Jerusalem under siege and the need to flee
quickly did not make sense (you cannot flee a siege, by definition) but this was
probably a reference to General Gallus besieging the city, then suddenly and
inexplicably withdrawing - his destruction led to the destruction of the Jews later.
Luke referenced Jesus warning. Luke was not alive when Israel was destroyed.
 
Wandering Monk

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
PruePhillip said:
Daniel said the Temple will stand until the Messiah comes, no further than that
as the enemy would destroy the Temple, Jerusalem and even the Messiah.
Jesus' warnings about the destruction of Israel led most Christians to flee the
fighting early - his warnings about Jerusalem under siege and the need to flee
quickly did not make sense (you cannot flee a siege, by definition) but this was
probably a reference to General Gallus besieging the city, then suddenly and
inexplicably withdrawing - his destruction led to the destruction of the Jews later.
Luke referenced Jesus warning. Luke was not alive when Israel was destroyed.
Click to expand...

The only sources to mention the flight to Pella are Christian ones from centuries after Jesus. They would have had a stake in making Jesus out to be a prophet.
 
P

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Wandering Monk said:
The only sources to mention the flight to Pella are Christian ones from centuries after Jesus. They would have had a stake in making Jesus out to be a prophet.
Click to expand...

It didn't make sense to the Hebrews as slaves in Egypt - how can we have our
own nation with its laws and king - and then lose it when our Messiah comes?
It didn't make sense to the Jews - how can the Messiah king be "cut off" and
die for his people, instead of saving Israel?
And it didn't make sense to Christians - how can you flee from a siege when
your city is surrounded?

But all this did happen. It shocks the modern mind like it shocked the ancient
mind.
 
Good-Ole-Rebel

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
Wandering Monk said:
What a stupid assumption you made. I did not say Jesus did not exist. I asked how you know Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple at all since the earliest fragments of the NT come AFTER its destruction? Don't you think someone could have put those words in Jesus mouth AFTER the Temple was destroyed and inserted it into NT manuscripts?
Click to expand...

No, it is not a stupid assumption. Your question denies the New testament's credibility. Which means you may as well deny the existence of Jesus Christ. No need to waste time with Christ's prophecy. Just deny Him altogether.

No, I don't think anyone could have put those words in Jesus mouth after the temple was destroyed, and inserted it into the New Testament manuscripts.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 
blü 2

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Katzpur said:
Actually, we don't deny the possibility that He may have appeared elsewhere. There is no logical reason to assume that He didn't. I mean, why wouldn't He want people everywhere to know of His gospel? It's just that we're aware only of one record of such a visit, and that was to the American continent.
Click to expand...
Though not supported by native American traditions or archaeology ─ nor by the native inhabitants or the archaeology of anywhere else.

But be that as it may.
Katzpur said:
So, getting back to the OP, I don't find the difference between the various gospel accounts as significant in the slightest. They are written by different individuals, each of whom was writing from a particular perspective. I don't see that this is evidence of more than one Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
So was he born in the ordinary way and only became son of God at his baptism, as the author of Mark says?

Or was he the genetic son of God, with his birth attended by portents and divine manifestations, as the authors of Matthew and Luke say?

Or was he in heaven with God from the beginning, and was he the creator of the material universe, as Paul and the author of John say?

Which?
 
Katzpur

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
blü 2 said:
Though not supported by native American traditions or archaeology ─ nor by the native inhabitants or the archaeology of anywhere else.

But be that as it may.
Click to expand...
Well, there is as much support for it as there is for the Exodus, which over 50% of the world's population accepts without question.

So was he born in the ordinary way and only became son of God at his baptism, as the author of Mark says?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure exactly what you're saying. Of course He was "born in the ordinary way." How else would He be born?

Or was he the genetic son of God, with his birth attended by portents and divine manifestations, as the authors of Matthew and Luke say?
Click to expand...
I agree with Matthew and Luke.

Or was he in heaven with God from the beginning, and was he the creator of the material universe, as Paul and the author of John say?
Click to expand...
Again, I agree with Paul and John. And I don't see Paul and John as disagreeing with Matthew and Luke. Maybe we're not even on the same page here. Could that be the case?

Thank you, for not being insulting, despite your unbelief. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top