Which Jesus is Jesus?

Ok, this is my current WIP, but hear me out:

Suppose that you realize Jesus' characterization is all over the place. Sweet and gentle. Thunderous jerk. Terrorist. Healer. Assaulter. Here's my thought:

The people were never asked in the story to choose between Jesus son of Joseph and Jesus son of the father (Barabbas). It's instead a psychological literary trope where Good guy and Bad guy are judged but they're the same guy. We see (especially in the States) that people seem to prefer (in general) the thunderous jerk terrorist over the peaceful sweet hippie. Do you think they are actually the same person? Do you feel they were separate (condemning both, IMHO, to one-dimensional characterizations)? Are both just references to a bunch of Jesus' who all have really weird hobbies?

My husband's buddy's son owns a local business. His name is Jesus. I'm quite certain he's real.

Jesus is a restaurant owner.

This to me is a psychological question. As I see it, the same basic mechanism about how we see Jesus and how we see Biden or Trump are much the same. I'm not asserting they are the same by any means but I am asserting that there's a part of human psychology that, in effect puts the "veil" of our own assumptions as what we see.

If someone we approve of does something positive, we're happy to have our view reinforced. On the other hand, if it's negative, we typically assert that the motive was positive and the ultimate outcome will be positive in spite of the apparent negative action.

And, of course, if we disapprove of someone, we will interpret a positive action as stemming from negative intent and that it's designed to lull us and reduce our alertness so the followup nefarious act can be accomplished.

Kelly of the Phoenix said:

Ok, this is my current WIP, but hear me out:

Suppose that you realize Jesus' characterization is all over the place. Sweet and gentle. Thunderous jerk. Terrorist. Healer. Assaulter. Here's my thought:

The people were never asked in the story to choose between Jesus son of Joseph and Jesus son of the father (Barabbas). It's instead a psychological literary trope where Good guy and Bad guy are judged but they're the same guy. We see (especially in the States) that people seem to prefer (in general) the thunderous jerk terrorist over the peaceful sweet hippie. Do you think they are actually the same person? Do you feel they were separate (condemning both, IMHO, to one-dimensional characterizations)? Are both just references to a bunch of Jesus' who all have really weird hobbies?

Click to expand...

In terms of characterizing Jesus, this is psycho-analyzing stuff. But in theological terms, I see some possible parallels with the bit I know about Marcion's views, the separation between the god of the OT and the god of the NT.

Kelly of the Phoenix said:

Ok, this is my current WIP, but hear me out:

Suppose that you realize Jesus' characterization is all over the place. Sweet and gentle. Thunderous jerk. Terrorist. Healer. Assaulter. Here's my thought:

The people were never asked in the story to choose between Jesus son of Joseph and Jesus son of the father (Barabbas). It's instead a psychological literary trope where Good guy and Bad guy are judged but they're the same guy. We see (especially in the States) that people seem to prefer (in general) the thunderous jerk terrorist over the peaceful sweet hippie. Do you think they are actually the same person? Do you feel they were separate (condemning both, IMHO, to one-dimensional characterizations)? Are both just references to a bunch of Jesus' who all have really weird hobbies?

Click to expand...

People are weird and multi faceted. It is possible for an otherwise sweet and gentle healer to be a jerk on a bad day. That's just human. We aren't known for consistency.
Otoh, some of the Jesus stories feel strange or out-of-character and it could well be that there were multiple people on which the stories were built, knowingly or through honest mistakes.
Imo Jesus is a legendary character, based on one or more real people with a lot of invented stories and exaggerations. The "historical" Jesus (if there was only one) would not be identifiable by the stories told about him 60 years later.

I don't see the nature of the character called Jesus as being all that self-contradictory. What I see instead, are people's interpretations of the story and it's character as being contradictory. Which I suppose is to be expected given the ideals that particular story and character present to us.

Kelly of the Phoenix said:

Ok, this is my current WIP, but hear me out:

Suppose that you realize Jesus' characterization is all over the place. Sweet and gentle. Thunderous jerk. Terrorist. Healer. Assaulter. Here's my thought:

The people were never asked in the story to choose between Jesus son of Joseph and Jesus son of the father (Barabbas). It's instead a psychological literary trope where Good guy and Bad guy are judged but they're the same guy. We see (especially in the States) that people seem to prefer (in general) the thunderous jerk terrorist over the peaceful sweet hippie. Do you think they are actually the same person? Do you feel they were separate (condemning both, IMHO, to one-dimensional characterizations)? Are both just references to a bunch of Jesus' who all have really weird hobbies?

Click to expand...

No, it's not a bunch of Jesus', He's the same One.

He just has different jobs to do.

In the first century He came as the Good Guy. He came as the Lamb of God to take away the sins of the world. He came so that we might have life, and have it more abundantly.

The next time He comes, the majority will see Him as the Bad Guy. Jesus is coming back to roll this place up like a scroll. Behold He comes like a thief. The thief comes also to steal, and to kill, and to destroy.

The next time He comes, the time will have come, to destroy the destroyers of the Earth.

And the land will vomit out it's inhabitants.

Heyo said:

Imo Jesus is a legendary character, based on one or more real people with a lot of invented stories and exaggerations. The "historical" Jesus (if there was only one) would not be identifiable by the stories told about him 60 years later.

Click to expand...

Imo, the gospel writers invented a lot of stories but Paul also invented much of what Christians believe about Jesus.

“That the figure of the Nazarene, as delivered to us in Mark’s Gospel, is decisively different from the pre-existent risen Christ proclaimed by Paul, is something long recognized by thinkers like Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Herder and Goethe, to mention only a few. The distinction between ‘the religion of Christ’ and ‘the Christian religion’ goes back to Lessing. Critical theological research has now disputed the idea of an uninterrupted chain of historical succession: Luther’s belief that at all times a small handful of true Christians preserved the true apostolic faith. Walter Bauer (226) and Martin Werner (227) have brought evidence that there was conflict from the outset about the central questions of dogma. It has become clear that the beliefs of those who had seen and heard Jesus in the flesh --- the disciples and the original community--- were at odds to an extraordinary degree with the teaching of Paul, who claimed to have been not only called by a vision but instructed by the heavenly Christ. The conflict at Antioch between the apostles Peter and Paul, far more embittered as research has shown (228) than the Bible allows us to see, was the most fateful split in Christianity, which in the Acts of the Apostles was ‘theologically camouflaged’. (229)

Paul, who had never seen Jesus, showed great reserve towards the Palestinian traditions regarding Jesus’ life. (230) The historical Jesus and his earthly life are without significance for Paul. In all his epistles the name ‘Jesus’ occurs only 15 times, the title ‘Christ’ 378 times. In Jesus’s actual teaching he shows extraordinarily little interest. It is disputed whether in all his epistles he makes two, three or four references to sayings by Jesus. (231) It is not Jesus’ teaching, which he cannot himself have heard at all (short of hearing it in a vision), that is central to his own mission, but the person of the Redeemer and His death on the Cross.

Jesus, who never claimed religious worship for himself was not worshipped in the original community, is for Paul the pre-existent risen Christ….

This was the ‘Fall’ of Christianity: that Paul with his ‘Gospel’, which became the core of Christian dogma formation, conquered the world, (237) while the historic basis of Christianity was declared a heresy….

Pauline heresy served as the basis for Christian orthodoxy, and the legitimate Church was outlawed as heretical’. (240) The ‘small handful of true Christians’ was Nazarene Christianity, which was already extinct in the fourth century……

The centerpiece then, of Christian creedal doctrine, that of Redemption, is something of which—in the judgment of the theologian E. Grimm (244) --- Jesus himself knew nothing; and it goes back to Paul. “

(Udo Schaefer, Light Shineth in Darkness, Studies in revelation after Christ )

How Paul changed the course of Christianity

Dave Watchman said:

The next time He comes, the time will have come, to destroy the destroyers of the Earth.

Click to expand...

Why do Christians believe that Jesus is coming back to this world? Not only did Jesus say His work was finished here and that He was no longer in this world and the world would see Him no more, there is not one single verse in the New Testament where Jesus says He is going to return. It is just not in the Bible and you cannot make Jesus return just because you want Jesus to return.

John 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Jesus never claimed to be a king, and He never said He was coming to rule or destroy anyone. Where do these beliefs come from?

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

John 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

Dave Watchman said:

He just has different jobs to do.

Click to expand...

Nothing in the Bible supports the belief that Jesus has any job other than the one He already accomplished.

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

Trailblazer said:

the gospel writers invented a lot of stories but Paul also invented much of what Christians believe about Jesus.

Click to expand...

We've been through all of this before. But even though I say that there is a slight chance that the NT is absolutely true as written, I doubt it very much. Starting with the virgin birth. A wandering star, angels appearing, the out of context use of a verse in Isaiah, plus neither of the two writers were there that wrote about it were there, so where did they get the story? And, their stories were very different, so it probably was not from the same source... like from Jesus' mother or father. Then we have God speaking from heaven, and doves, angels and even Satan appearing. And then all the healings and the casting out of demons and other miracles. Then there is the reason Jesus had to die... to pay the penalty for sin... that he was the only perfect sacrifice that could satisfy the sin debt. So, I wonder, if people aren't literal-believing Christians, why believe any of it as true? If we are going to believe that most of it was made up by the writers, why call the NT the "Word of God"? If it is made up, then why make Jesus so important? Yet, many Baha'is do, except maybe you and Udo.

CG Didymus said:

So, I wonder, if people aren't literal-believing Christians, why believe any of it as true? If we are going to believe that most of it was made up by the writers, why call the NT the "Word of God"? If it is made up, then why make Jesus so important? Yet, many Baha'is do, except maybe you and Udo.

Click to expand...

Many Baha'is do because they are literalist Baha'is just like we have literalist Christians, so they go by a few words that Abdu'l-Baha and Baha'u'llah wrote about the Bible being the Word of God and God's greatest testimony and they ignore all the other problems the Bible has. It is called cherry-picking.



Jesus was important but not for the reasons Christians believe, and Jesus no longer plays any part in God's Plan for this age.

Trailblazer said:

Nothing in the Bible supports the belief that Jesus has any job other than the one He already accomplished.

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

Click to expand...

This came in while I was writing my post, but, I was wondering, what do you see that Jesus accomplished? He glorified God by the miracles he did? No, we question whether or not those were even real. Christians think that he conquered death and Satan and paid the penalty for the sin of Adam? No, who, other than Christians, believes that all people inherited a sin nature or a sin debt from a person, Adam, that who knows even existed? Oh, and then conquering death? No, Baha'is say that he didn't physically rise from the dead, so didn't accomplish that either.

Now if we are going to believe the NT stories, then he accomplished a lot. But, once we start calling them "invented" stories, what is left that we can truly say is true about what Jesus said and accomplished? Oh, and I agree more with you then those other Baha'is who claim they believe the Bible is the "greatest" gift. I'll never understand how they can say that with a straight face... one minute they'll say how great Jesus and the Bible are, and then they'll tell me all the things they don't believe are true about Jesus and the Bible. So even for Baha'is... which Jesus is Jesus?

Trailblazer said:

Why do Christians believe that Jesus is coming back to this world? Not only did Jesus say His work was finished here and that He was no longer in this world and the world would see Him no more, there is not one single verse in the New Testament where Jesus says He is going to return.

Click to expand...

What about when He told the High Priest, Joseph Ben Caiaphas, that the next time he saw Jesus, that he would be coming on the clouds of heaven?

Trailblazer said:

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

Click to expand...

He did finish the work that He had in the first century, "It is finished."

But now He has the work of the Rider on the white horse.

Good work on the verses Trailblazer.

Don't worry about the things I say.

I'm in a bad mood today watching the news feed, all the phone videos of that poor man, Mohammad Anwar, in DC that the two girls killed.


Nobody cared about him as he laid on the sidewalk face down dead.

The national guard soldiers, and the two girls kept walking back and forth right past him.

They were only worried about getting their phone back out of his car that they crashed.


Even so,
Come Lord Jesus.

Kelly of the Phoenix said:

Ok, this is my current WIP, but hear me out:

Suppose that you realize Jesus' characterization is all over the place. Sweet and gentle. Thunderous jerk. Terrorist. Healer. Assaulter. Here's my thought:

The people were never asked in the story to choose between Jesus son of Joseph and Jesus son of the father (Barabbas). It's instead a psychological literary trope where Good guy and Bad guy are judged but they're the same guy. We see (especially in the States) that people seem to prefer (in general) the thunderous jerk terrorist over the peaceful sweet hippie. Do you think they are actually the same person? Do you feel they were separate (condemning both, IMHO, to one-dimensional characterizations)? Are both just references to a bunch of Jesus' who all have really weird hobbies?

Click to expand...

There is a type of sacrifice involving two animals where one is slain, and one is released into the wild. Barrabas and Jesus are set up in such a way as to echo that. Barrabas is the 'scape goat.

Barabbas is in favor of violently ejecting the Romans, but Jesus is in favor of peace with the Romans. Barabbas then is associated with the escaped animal (unacceptable as a sacrifice?) while Jesus is set up to be like the slain animal (the acceptable sacrifice?). It could be yet another argument to let Christians remain uncircumcised or in some other way facilitate the idea of a more inclusive Judaism. It certainly looks bad for Barabbas. He is put forward as a false hero or perhaps a failure.

CG Didymus said:

We've been through all of this before. But even though I say that there is a slight chance that the NT is absolutely true as written, I doubt it very much. Starting with the virgin birth. A wandering star, angels appearing, the out of context use of a verse in Isaiah, plus neither of the two writers were there that wrote about it were there, so where did they get the story? And, their stories were very different, so it probably was not from the same source... like from Jesus' mother or father. Then we have God speaking from heaven, and doves, angels and even Satan appearing. And then all the healings and the casting out of demons and other miracles. Then there is the reason Jesus had to die... to pay the penalty for sin... that he was the only perfect sacrifice that could satisfy the sin debt. So, I wonder, if people aren't literal-believing Christians, why believe any of it as true? If we are going to believe that most of it was made up by the writers, why call the NT the "Word of God"? If it is made up, then why make Jesus so important? Yet, many Baha'is do, except maybe you and Udo.

Click to expand...

Regarding the Baha'i view of the Bible, I will remind you of what I have posted before:

Introduction

Although Bahá'ís universally share a great respect for the Bible, and acknowledge its status as sacred literature, their individual views about its authoritative status range along the full spectrum of possibilities. At one end there are those who assume the uncritical evangelical or fundamentalist-Christian view that the Bible is wholly and indisputably the word of God. At the other end are Bahá'ís attracted to the liberal, scholarly conclusion that the Bible is no more than a product of complex historical and human forces. Between these extremes is the possibility that the Bible contains the Word of God, but only in a particular sense of the phrase 'Word of God' or in particular texts. I hope to show that a Bahá'í view must lie in this middle area, and can be defined to some degree.

Conclusion

The Bahá'í viewpoint proposed by this essay has been established as follows: The Bible is a reliable source of Divine guidance and salvation, and rightly regarded as a sacred and holy book. However, as a collection of the writings of independent and human authors, it is not necessarily historically accurate. Nor can the words of its writers, although inspired, be strictly defined as 'The Word of God' in the way the original words of Moses and Jesus could have been. Instead there is an area of continuing interest for Bahá'í scholars, possibly involving the creation of new categories for defining authoritative religious literature.

A Baháí View of the Bible
(Rosebery, Australia: Association for Baha'i Studies Australia, 1996)

Trailblazer said:

Many Baha'is do because they are literalist Baha'is just like we have literalist Christians, so they go by a few words that Abdu'l-Baha and Baha'u'llah wrote about the Bible being the Word of God and God's greatest testimony and they ignore all the other problems the Bible has. It is called cherry-picking.

View attachment 48930

Jesus was important but not for the reasons Christians believe, and Jesus no longer plays any part in God's Plan for this age.

Click to expand...

You're too fast. I was writing another post. Anyway, I kind of understand that it is necessary for a religion that says all the major religions are true and from the one true God has to say nice things about them. And, those "nice" quotes are used quite often. A Baha'i can always say, "No, we love Jesus and the Bible. Here's what it says in our Scriptures." Then another Baha'i can honestly say that the Bible is not 100% authoritative, that anything that is not inline with science is probably allegorical and not literal... like the one I like arguing with Baha'is about, the supposed resurrection... That Satan is not real. Hell is not what Christians believe it to be, and then another big one, Jesus is not physically or literally coming back.

So what is left? Jesus did what? A lot, or at least his followers say he did a lot, but it was all wrong. It was all based on wrong interpretations and added made up traditions that were also wrong. Oh yeah, the wrong interpretations were based on possibly made up stories or at best "allegorical" stories about Jesus and what he said and did. So the "Great" and "Wonderful" Jesus includes a Satan that Jesus is going to destroy when he comes back. He's going to cast all evil people into hell with the devil. This "Great" Jesus is so great that he is really God... along with the supposed "Comforter" the Holy Spirit, who is also God. That Jesus is the only way and only one. That Jesus makes all other prophet/manifestations of all the other religions, except Judaism, unnecessary and false. He rose from the dead and is alive and is coming back on a white horse.

So we have the literalist Jesus or we have the Baha'i Jesus or who knows how many other Jesus'? But the literalist Christian Jesus is the most important thing in all of God's creation. The Baha'i Jesus is dead and gone and whatever, no matter how much or how little he accomplished, it doesn't matter... He was three prophet/manifestations ago. He's old news.

CG Didymus said:

This came in while I was writing my post, but, I was wondering, what do you see that Jesus accomplished? He glorified God by the miracles he did? No, we question whether or not those were even real. Christians think that he conquered death and Satan and paid the penalty for the sin of Adam? No, who, other than Christians, believes that all people inherited a sin nature or a sin debt from a person, Adam, that who knows even existed? Oh, and then conquering death? No, Baha'is say that he didn't physically rise from the dead, so didn't accomplish that either.

Now if we are going to believe the NT stories, then he accomplished a lot. But, once we start calling them "invented" stories, what is left that we can truly say is true about what Jesus said and accomplished?

Click to expand...

I do not believe stories written by human authors I cannot trust to be true stories. Regarding Jesus and what He accomplished I believe what Baha'u'llah wrote about Jesus, and I do not need to know anything more. There are other quotes but this is the main one I refer to.

“Know thou that when the Son of Man yielded up His breath to God, the whole creation wept with a great weeping. By sacrificing Himself, however, a fresh capacity was infused into all created things. Its evidences, as witnessed in all the peoples of the earth, are now manifest before thee. The deepest wisdom which the sages have uttered, the profoundest learning which any mind hath unfolded, the arts which the ablest hands have produced, the influence exerted by the most potent of rulers, are but manifestations of the quickening power released by His transcendent, His all-pervasive, and resplendent Spirit.

We testify that when He came into the world, He shed the splendor of His glory upon all created things. Through Him the leper recovered from the leprosy of perversity and ignorance. Through Him, the unchaste and wayward were healed. Through His power, born of Almighty God, the eyes of the blind were opened, and the soul of the sinner sanctified.

Leprosy may be interpreted as any veil that interveneth between man and the recognition of the Lord, his God. Whoso alloweth himself to be shut out from Him is indeed a leper, who shall not be remembered in the Kingdom of God, the Mighty, the All-Praised. We bear witness that through the power of the Word of God every leper was cleansed, every sickness was healed, every human infirmity was banished. He it is Who purified the world. Blessed is the man who, with a face beaming with light, hath turned towards Him.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 85-86

Dave Watchman said:

What about when He told the High Priest, Joseph Ben Caiaphas, that the next time he saw Jesus, that he would be coming on the clouds of heaven?

“Are You the Christ,
the Son of the Blessed One?”​

"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." = Mark 14:62​

Click to expand...

Mark 14:62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Jesus did not say: I am: and ye shall see me sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Moreover, whenever Jesus was referring to the Son of man we would SEE in the clouds, He never spoke in the first person.

Look carefully at Mark 8:38. Look at how the verse is separated by a semicolon and Jesus says “of him also” indicating that the Son of man is someone other than Himself who would come in the glory of his Father with the holy angels

Mark 8:38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

Again, in Matthew 16:27, Jesus said that the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father. Jesus did not say “I will come in the glory of my Father.”

Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Look carefully at Luke 9:26. Look at how Jesus separated Himself from the Son of man (ashamed of me, of him shall), and then Jesus said that the Son of man shall come in his own glory and in His Father’s glory. Jesus did not say that the Son of man will come in my glory.

Luke 9:26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy angels.

Who is the Son of man who will come in the clouds of heaven?

Dave Watchman said:

He did finish the work that He had in the first century, "It is finished."

But now He has the work of the Rider on the white horse.

Click to expand...

The salient problem is that Jesus never said that He had any more work to do, He said that His work was finished here (John 17:4).

There is no reason to believe that Rider on the white horse refers to Jesus. That is just an assumption Christians have made, all the while ignoring other verses in Revelations that say that he will have a New Name.

Why would the same man Jesus take on another name? How would anyone know it was Jesus if He did?

Revelation 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

Kelly of the Phoenix said:

The people were never asked in the story to choose between Jesus son of Joseph and Jesus son of the father (Barabbas). It's instead a psychological literary trope where Good guy and Bad guy are judged but they're the same guy.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure where this equation comes from.....? How are they the same man? Your reasoning is very twisted IMO.
By choosing to free Barabbas, the Jews were demonstrating that Jesus was to them, lower than a common criminal.

Barabbas was imprison.....found guilty of robbery, sedition, and murder (all capital offenses) whom Pilate set free in place of Jesus. Pilate did this, “wishing to satisfy the crowd” who clamored for the release of Barabbas at the insistence of the chief priests and older men. (Matthew 27:15-26; Mark 15:6-15; Luke 23:16-25; John 18:39-40; Acts 3:14)

Are you are comparing his name with Jesus' name? No, you are inventing a comparison which does not exist.

Barabbas' name means.....according to Strongs...
"Βαραββᾶς, -ᾶ, ὁ, (from בַּר son, and אַבָּא father, hence, son of a father i. e. of a master"

Whereas you equate that with Jesus title, not his name, which means...“Jehovah Is Salvation”.

Barabbas is "the son of a father or master".....not the same as "the Son of God" at all...is it?

This unique custom of releasing a prisoner at the Passover every year finds no basis or precedent in the Hebrew Scriptures, and there is no historical evidence of it as a Roman practice. It evidently was of Jewish origin, because Pilate said to the Jews: “You have a custom that I should release a man to you at the Passover.” (John 18:39)

It was more likely just another Jewish tradition, as another addition to what God had commanded them.