Who is Jesus?

[Wandering Monk]

Your question is ambiguous - proof of what?
That the Hebrews DID form a nation?
That the Messiah DID come?
That Israel was destroyed?
That these things WERE written in the bible?

That the Exodus from Egypt happened.

That the Christian flight from Jerusalem happened.

What are your sources for this and have these been verified by sources other than Christian ones?

 

[whirlingmerc]

I am trying to see what people who have not read the Bible, or who have read it only a little, understand about the nature of Jesus. I don't care if you believe it or not, just trying to get an idea of what people think it says.

Do people already "know" that Jesus is God before ever cracking the book. In other words, if and when they do open the book for the first time, do they have preconceived ideas about Jesus?

Thanks!

I think Jesus as part of the Trinity makes God close
(as opposed to aloof or distant).

 

[roberto]

Jesus was perfect; he had no sin.

The "Constantinian jesus" taught his followers to not follow the Fathers instructions.

What is sin?

Sin is the transgression of the instructions/law of our Creator.

Ask any Christian whether they keep the law of Moses.

"Oh, no, we are no longer under the law, but under grace, that law was nailed to the cross."

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I am trying to see what people who have not read the Bible, or who have read it only a little, understand about the nature of Jesus. I don't care if you believe it or not, just trying to get an idea of what people think it says.

Do people already "know" that Jesus is God before ever cracking the book. In other words, if and when they do open the book for the first time, do they have preconceived ideas about Jesus?

Thanks!

You can't assume that everything in the gospels is true. That would be foolish. Although attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, we don't actually know who wrote them. We know they were written well after the church became dominated by Gentiles, who had a Greek culture. Things like the gods having children and rising from the dead were quite common place in that culture, and Christianity took a swing in that direction -- it was not originally that way.

So when you read the gospels, you have to use your common sense to peel away the layers of Hellenism that came to enshroud the oral memories of Jesus, and pick out those things much more likely to represent the original Jewish Jesus.

Basically, he was a nice Jewish man who went around teaching Jews to obey they Torah. He interfaced with other Torah scholars on the application of the law, which was quite normal for the times. At some point in time, he started assuming that he was the messiah. Oddly, he came to the conclusion that he had to die. And... he did. End of his story.

I don't think that the gospels support Trinitarianism -- Christians with this belief read their assumptions into the text. Rather, the gospels view Jesus as the fulfillment of the Son of Man, the messiah. The gospel of John in particular presents a very exalted Jesus, the Logos. But still not Trinitarian. Logos can actually be understood as more an attribute of God that Jesus came to embody.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Not even the slightest possibility?

No. Not the slightest.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[blü 2]

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.

Namely none. This is why the archaeological evidence supports that view that there was no Egyptian captivity and no Exodus, but rather a Hyksos (Asian or Asian/Canaanite mix) invasion of the Nile Delta, then an Egyptian occupation of the eastern end of the Mediterranean, including Judea and Canaan.

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying. Of course He was "born in the ordinary ] way." How else would He be born?

I was intending to convey that both his parents were ordinary Jewish citizens, in contrast to his having God's Y-chromosome, which I don't consider ordinary.

I agree with Matthew and Luke.

The author of Mark wrote the first earthly biography of Jesus. The respective authors of Matthew and Luke borrowed Mark's outline but changed it to suit their respective tastes ─ a conclusion available since, as I said, neither Paul nor any of the gospel authors had ever met Jesus. Regardless, you conclude that Paul's account, and the accounts of the authors of Mark and John, are wrong.

Of course, in this situation, two of the three views have to be wrong, which is the point I'm making. Given there was an historical Jesus, my own view is that Mark's account is the only credible one, avoiding as it does most of the difficulties of history (eg despite Matthew and Luke, there was no Roman census requiring a return to Bethlehem, no Massacre of the Innocents, no darkness at noon, no disturbances at the Temple worth mentioning, no dead folk abroad in the streets of Jerusalem) and difficulties of theology (eg Genesis says God created the heavens and the earth, and the Tanakh never, not even once, mentions Jesus, let alone attributes the creation of the universe to him).

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?

It seems plain to me that Matthew/Luke and Paul/John represent distinct schools of Greek thought, and in particular that if Paul / John agreed with Matthew/Luke, no way could they have omitted to mention the miraculous circumstances in the latter's account of Jesus' birth and following events.

Thank you, for not being insulting, despite your unbelief.

I used to think I was right. These days, I only strongly suspect I'm right.

 

[PruePhillip]

That the Exodus from Egypt happened.

That the Christian flight from Jerusalem happened.

What are your sources for this and have these been verified by sources other than Christian ones?

There WAS a Christian flight from Jerusalem.
But.... it's after most of the biblical writers were dead, and it wasn't
considered of significance to most Christians - Jesus said it would
happen, it happened, and that's that.
The account of Gallus and his defeat at Beth Horan is my own
suspicion - it doesn't matter one way or the other, but it's good to
think about the maybes.
Jewish presence in Egypt is
1 - under current Egyptian cities
2 - not going to promote any archaeologist's career in Egypt to bring it up as Egyptians hate the Jews
3 - Hebrews/Jews didn't build monuments to themselves
4 - the Jews in Israel spoke often of the event - they had nothing to gain by doing so.

We don't start getting read worldly data on things until the late Bronze, early Iron Age.
So early evidence starts coming in about the time of the Prophet rulers. The archaeology
at Shiloh as evidence of practices which hearken back to the law of Moses. And there's
the genetic line to Moses too.
But as for the miracles - no evidence, you take it on faith, or not at all.
But then, when some scientist says the universe created itself, from nothing and for no
reason - people take that on faith, too.

 

[PruePhillip]

Namely none. This is why the archaeological evidence supports that view that there was no Egyptian captivity and no Exodus, but rather a Hyksos (Asian or Asian/Canaanite mix) invasion of the Nile Delta, then an Egyptian occupation of the eastern end of the Mediterranean, including Judea and Canaan.

Look, back in the early 1900's the bible was ALL myth, but since then skeptics have moderated
their position. Now we know there WAS a "house of David" and there WAS a large administrative
center at Jerusalem, and there WAS a cultic center at Shiloh, observing the Laws of Moses
regards ritual, and there IS a genetic line to both the Jew and to the line of Aaron and the Levitical
priesthood.
So I wouldn't be surprised if there appears evidence pushing back further. Certainly you aren't
going to hear it from Egyptian archaeologists. It's interesting - there's scripture pointing to the
fact that the 40 years in the wilderness was really 2 years of actual wandering, the rest of that
time was spent at several staging locations.

 

[Tumah]

The problem is you didn't answer my question of 'why'?

Good-Ole-Rebel

That's because you already did in a subsequent post.

 

[blü 2]

Look, back in the early 1900's the bible was ALL myth, but since then skeptics have moderated their position. Now we know there WAS a "house of David" and there WAS a large administrative center at Jerusalem, and there WAS a cultic center at Shiloh, observing the Laws of Moses regards ritual, and there IS a genetic line to both the Jew and to the line of Aaron and the Levitical priesthood.

I don't know who these skeptics are who dismiss the Tanakh in its entirety, but for me the usual rules apply ─ documents are as credible as the available corroboration for each of their claims.

So it's credible to observe on archaeological evidence that Yahweh appears to have come into being as a Canaanite southern-desert tribal god around 1500 BCE.

And on the evidence of the Tanakh that his followers believed he approved of human sacrifice, and invasive war, and the massacre of populations, and mass rapes, and of course slavery, religious intolerance, and women as chattels.

And the Tanakh is never going to be credible evidence of purported supernatural events, whether as talking snakes and donkeys, special creation, burning bushes that will chat with you or prophecies or Noah's Flood, or the tower of Babel, or that pi=3.

So I wouldn't be surprised if there appears evidence pushing back further. Certainly you aren't going to hear it from Egyptian archaeologists.

Why not? Because every last man jack of them is a professional liar conniving at a greater lie? Phooey.

It's interesting - there's scripture pointing to the fact that the 40 years in the wilderness was really 2 years of actual wandering, the rest of that time was spent at several staging locations.

But nowhere in Egypt or the Sinai is there any evidence of an Egyptian captivity, or a credible date for an Exodus, or a real Moses.

Should some be found, that archaeologist will be world-famous and the books will be rewritten. Meanwhile there's no such evidence and a number of conclusions follow from that.

 

[Katzpur]

I was intending to convey that both his parents were ordinary Jewish citizens, in contrast to his having God's Y-chromosome, which I don't consider ordinary.

Oh, I see. You were referring to His conception, as opposed to His birth. Well, I'm afraid we're going to have to just agree to disagree on that particular topic.

I used to think I was right. These days, I only strongly suspect I'm right.

LOL! That's a position I can respect.

 

[rrobs]

Yeah, seems so. All of that Council of Nicea stuff.

It's amazing how Christians completely ignore history. It's not hard to see where the trinity came from, i.e Greek philosophy and Egyptian mythology. They also ignore scripture. I know this verse is NT, so you may not subscribe to it, but it seems neither do the Christians.

1Tim 2:5,

For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
​

I could quote about a dozen others, some from the OT, thatspecifically & unequivocally make the exact same claim. Depending on how you look at it, Jesus was or will be a man. Not just any man to be sure, but a man nonetheless, anointed by God as the Messiah. I've never even been able to figure out why they are so adamant about making Jesus God. The scriptures work just fine with Jesus being a man sent from God with a special mission.

 

[rrobs]

Yeah, seems so. All of that Council of Nicea stuff.

It's amazing how Christians completely ignore history. It's not hard to see where the trinity came from, i.e Greek philosophy and Egyptian mythology. They also ignore scripture. I know this verse is NT, so you may not subscribe to it, but it seems neither do the Christians.

1Tim 2:5,

For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
​

I could quote about a dozen others, some from the OT, thatspecifically & unequivocally make the exact same claim. Depending on how you look at it, Jesus was or will be a man. Not just any man to be sure, but a man nonetheless, anointed by God as the Messiah. I've never even been able to figure out why they are so adamant about making Jesus God. The scriptures work just fine with Jesus being a man sent from God with a special mission.

 

[rrobs]

Who is Jesus? He's the central character in a major religion, Christianity.

Most of us know that Christians teach and believe that Jesus is a god or the son of a god, born of a virgin, crucified, and resurrected before ever seeing a Bible.

I don't really need to read the Bible to reject those claims. I'm a rational skeptic, and the claims are both extraordinary and unevidenced. So naturally, I don't believe that the character ever lived as described. No doubt many people wandered the Middle East in the first century AD. Maybe one was a heretic Jew named Jesus who actually had twelve disciples, but I have no reason to believe so. Nor would it matter either way. If Jesus wasn't a god, it doesn't matter whether he was a mythical character or not.

Nor do I get my understanding of what Christians believe from the Bible. I get it from them in venues like this one, and the news.

Hope that answers your question.

Thanks. Your second paragraph is what I was interested in. I also think that Christians already know Jesus is God before ever reading the Bible. I think the predisposition to do that is so strong that they miss simple, clear verses like,

1Tim 2:5,

For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;​

 

[rrobs]

Who is Jesus?
Was jesus not the guy that nailed the law of Moses to the/his cross?
Allowing Christians to;
Eat pork
Worship on Sunday
Follow heathen feast days like Christ-mass, Janus-day, Haloween, Eostre-day etc. etc.
I think Christians also believe there is a 3days and 3nights period from Friday evening to Sunday, when jesus was buried.

Hope this helps.

Yeah. How can you trust someone about the nature of God when they can't even count to 3? There is clear evidence in the scriptures that Jesus died Wednesday afternoon and rose sometime between Saturday sunset and Sunday sunrise. But, like knowing Jesus is God before even cracking the book, they also know that he died Friday and rose Sunday. Tradition seems to be a powerful narcotic.

 

[rrobs]

If Jesus is God, then
did Jesus raise himself from the dead?
why doesn't Jesus know when the end will come?
why did Jesus pray to himself?
why did Jesus say he wasn't good, but only His father?

No, Jesus isn't God. That's nonsense. Jesus, like ourselves
can be ONE WITH GOD.

Yeah. And don't forget, Jesus is sitting on his own right hand! That's hard to picture.

 

[rrobs]

I think Jesus as part of the Trinity makes God close
(as opposed to aloof or distant).

Did you know that before you read the Bible?

 

[rrobs]

You can't assume that everything in the gospels is true. That would be foolish. Although attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, we don't actually know who wrote them. We know they were written well after the church became dominated by Gentiles, who had a Greek culture. Things like the gods having children and rising from the dead were quite common place in that culture, and Christianity took a swing in that direction -- it was not originally that way.

So when you read the gospels, you have to use your common sense to peel away the layers of Hellenism that came to enshroud the oral memories of Jesus, and pick out those things much more likely to represent the original Jewish Jesus.

Basically, he was a nice Jewish man who went around teaching Jews to obey they Torah. He interfaced with other Torah scholars on the application of the law, which was quite normal for the times. At some point in time, he started assuming that he was the messiah. Oddly, he came to the conclusion that he had to die. And... he did. End of his story.

I don't think that the gospels support Trinitarianism -- Christians with this belief read their assumptions into the text. Rather, the gospels view Jesus as the fulfillment of the Son of Man, the messiah. The gospel of John in particular presents a very exalted Jesus, the Logos. But still not Trinitarian. Logos can actually be understood as more an attribute of God that Jesus came to embody.

Yes. In many aspects, particularly the nature of God and the Messiah, the Jews are much closer to the truth than Trinitarians.

 

[rrobs]

"Oh, no, we are no longer under the law, but under grace, that law was nailed to the cross."

Paul addressed that claim quite handily in Romans chapter 6. Freedom from law is not a license to sin. It is not good works and then grace, instead it is grace and then the good works can follow. Before being made righteous by the works of the man Christ Jesus, man had no hope of doing any real good works. Romans chapter 1 is an excellent portrayal of man's condition. It's not a pretty picture, but it does explain a lot about the state of our world today.

Essentially, people under the law can never live up to it's requirements. But it was never meant to make people righteous. It was given to point out people's failure to follow God's will (Gal 3:19-29).

You may not subscribe to the NT, but there are some interesting things in it. The book of Hebrews was written specifically to the Jews. It relates much of the OT law to the work of the Messiah.

Heb 7:19,

For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope [did]; by the which we draw nigh unto God.​

 

[roberto]

[QUOTE="rrobs, post: 6416327, member: 64030"

You may not subscribe to the NT, .............
[/QUOTE]

I do.