Jesus as Christ

[Altfish]

The dates you have given for the writing of the Gospels are not the dates traditionally given, but correspond with modern criticism and scepticism. The earlier dates for the synoptic Gospels, which all occur before the destruction of the temple in 70 CE, are much more likely. Had this not been the case the destruction of the temple, and of Jerusalem, would have featured in Luke's chronological accounts (taken from Luke and Acts).

There is not a lot of difference with 3 of the 4 gospels, it is still a long time after the event.

The books of the Torah, Prophets and Writings were all in existence before the birth of Jesus, so the prophecies they contain are clearly in existence before the events of the New Testament.

I realise that, in fact that's what I said. BUT could it be possible that some stories in the Bible were just written to fulfill the prophecies?

The idea that there were Jews willing to create a fictional character who would fit the prophecies borders on madness. Who would do such a thing and for what benefit? There were false Messiah's, one of whom gets a mention in the book of Acts, but there is nothing to indicate that the many witnesses to Jesus' life made up their stories. If you think it's an easy thing to do then try taking the Tanakh and making up the story of the Messiah as expected by Jews. Your story will contain nothing but holes, l'm sure.

The Jews don't believe the messiah has yet come!
They think JC is a false messiah

 

[AlexanderG]

[

This is a misleading statement that is made, some scholars is what you should say and by “Christian” some of those are actually apostates and not following Christ at all. Some contemporary scholars make assumptions and believe they have “all” the information surrounding the content, dates that the letters ex. 2Peter are written and make a judgement.
My thoughts about a person losing their faith is that they never had it to begin with and it was never based on knowing God and being born again.
There is a big difference between people who know Jesus and have made a covenant with Him and people who are just religious.

"People who believed the same things I did, then investigated them and found them to be unjustifiable and likely wrong, never 'truly' believed and so I don't have to take their findings seriously." This is a psychological defense mechanism. This kind of fallacious reasoning has no bearing on what is true or real. Either way, the fact still stands that the consensus of biblical scholars, almost all of whom are self-identifying Christians, have concluded that virtually none of the NT was written by the authors that are attributed to the various sections. The fact that these are anonymous accounts means that not only can we not identify the author to determine how trustworthy they are as a source, but the one thing we do know is that someone lied about the authorship; this raises the question of what else they were willing to lie about. The bible is extremely unreliable, and does not warrant belief.

How do you really know Jesus, if the only source that describes his words and character is likely full of falsehoods? How do you tell the difference between actually knowing Jesus, versus feeling utterly convinced that you know Jesus when in fact you do not?

 

[Redemptionsong]

There are No three categories, that is just a tradition that developed after the first century ended.
God sent His pre-human heavenly Son to Earth. Heavenly Jesus was born as a perfect sinless man.
God's Son is the Lord of 1 Thessalonians 4:16 who has the voice of 'the' archangel.
None of us could be a ransom for the wrong Adam committed, so we needed a ' perfect Adam ' to balance the Scales of Justice for us.
A perfect Adam that would correspond to what Adam was 'before' Adam sinned ( aka broke God's Law )
Who God sent from Heaven is who we call Lord Jesus and Lord Jesus has the voice of 'the' archangel.
We are dealing with two persons. Resurrected Jesus appeared before only one person at Hebrews 9:24 his God.
Resurrected ascended-to-heaven Jesus appeared before the person of God. Jesus did Not appear to himself.

What I would like you to state clearly is just who Jesus was during his ministry on earth.

Did Jesus have a corruptible body?
Did Jesus have a soul?
Did Jesus have the Holy Spirit without measure?

 

[ElishaElijah]

"People who believed the same things I did, then investigated them and found them to be unjustifiable and likely wrong, never 'truly' believed and so I don't have to take their findings seriously." This is a psychological defense mechanism. This kind of fallacious reasoning has no bearing on what is true or real. Either way, the fact still stands that the consensus of biblical scholars, almost all of whom are self-identifying Christians, have concluded that virtually none of the NT was written by the authors that are attributed to the various sections. The fact that these are anonymous accounts means that not only can we not identify the author to determine how trustworthy they are as a source, but the one thing we do know is that someone lied about the authorship; this raises the question of what else they were willing to lie about. The bible is extremely unreliable, and does not warrant belief.

How do you really know Jesus, if the only source that describes his words and character is likely full of falsehoods? How do you tell the difference between actually knowing Jesus, versus feeling utterly convinced that you know Jesus when in fact you do not?

I do know Jesus because He is alive and showed me this by giving me His Spirit when I heard and trusted the Gospel. He made Himself known to me.
I’m not surprised when unbelievers don’t accept the authority and truth of the Bible, which is God’s Word. That’s why they are unbelievers.

 

[halbhh]

What reasons do you have for BELIEVING that Jesus lived as God amongst men on earth?

Testing everything He said, by trying these instructions out (precisely, so that to "love" means to do actual love, "forgive from the heart" means that full forgiving in the heart, and so on) to see what happens.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The dates you have given for the writing of the Gospels are not the dates traditionally given, but correspond with modern criticism and scepticism. The earlier dates for the synoptic Gospels, which all occur before the destruction of the temple in 70 CE, are much more likely. Had this not been the case the destruction of the temple, and of Jerusalem, would have featured in Luke's chronological accounts (taken from Luke and Acts).

The books of the Torah, Prophets and Writings were all in existence before the birth of Jesus, so the prophecies they contain are clearly in existence before the events of the New Testament.

The idea that there were Jews willing to create a fictional character who would fit the prophecies borders on madness. Who would do such a thing and for what benefit? There were false Messiah's, one of whom gets a mention in the book of Acts, but there is nothing to indicate that the many witnesses to Jesus' life made up their stories. If you think it's an easy thing to do then try taking the Tanakh and making up the story of the Messiah as expected by Jews. Your story will contain nothing but holes, l'm sure.

Why are they more likely? Why are the scholars that study this wrong and what makes you right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do know Jesus because He is alive and showed me this by giving me His Spirit when I heard and trusted the Gospel. He made Himself known to me.
I’m not surprised when unbelievers don’t accept the authority and truth of the Bible, which is God’s Word. That’s why they are unbelievers.

No, you only believe this. There is a difference between knowledge and mere belief. If you know then you can support your claims. If you can't you only have mere belief.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Yes, the Suffering Servant is the nation of Israel.

But there's no description of a Jewish messiah that's applicable to Jesus. The idea that he was entitled to the honorific "messiah-Christ-anointed" ─ is purely Christian. There's no basis for the claim ─ not that you've made it ─ that the Jews recognized Jesus as the messiah but willfully rejected him.
In Jewish thought there's only one God, and although [he] specially favors some of [his] Chosen People, such as Moses, Elisha or David, [his] representatives whether angelic or human are [his] subordinates. The ruach, the breath of God, is not a separate entity as the Holy Ghost is, but a manifestation of God [him]self.
But there's no reason [he] can't do it by [his] representatives ─ certainly none that I know of. Jesus says more than once that God has given him the power to forgive sins, for example.
Yes, both express views of Jesus colored with gnosticism, and regard Jesus as the gnostic demiurge.
For the reasons I stated ─ all versions of Jesus deny they're God, none claims to be God, all pray to God which is pretty silly if they're addressing themselves, and nothing even vaguely resembling the Trinity doctrine was known to the authors of the NT, since it didn't exist until centuries after their time.

To suggest that there is no description of a Jewish Messiah that is applicable to Jesus is ridiculous. I've listed the 52 various prophecies to Jesus as the 'suffering servant' many times on this site, and am happy to do so again. But let's take one as an example, Isaiah 61:1-3, which was used by Jesus himself in the synagogue in Nazareth to announce the beginning of his ministry [Luke 4]. Torah Jews have great difficulty today deciding who the passage refers to, but in Rabbinic times this passage was considered a Messianic passage. Reference to other passages in Isaiah support the view that it must be Messianic. So rather than talking in generalisations, let's look at this specific passage of scripture to determine the meaning.

Isaiah 61:1-3. 'The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the broken hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified.'

The title 'Christ' (Christos) means 'anointed', and is equivalent to the Hebrew masiah. Isaiah 61 states clearly that the person upon whom the Holy Spirit rests is the person who is 'anointed' to preach 'good tidings' or 'good news' (the Gospel). He is also the one sent to set the captives free. And since we know that Jesus' purpose was heavenly and not earthly, this clearly means that Jesus was sent to free people from spiritual captivity (called 'sin').

When Jesus read this passage in the synagogue at the beginning of his ministry, he stopped his reading after the bit in bold. To the Jews present in the synagogue, the passage was understood to be Messianic. When Jesus said, 'This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears', the bit he referred to did not include the words 'and the day of vengeance of our God'. So the earthly ministry of Christ is one of mercy not vengeance. But the vengeance of God comes afterwards, once mercy has been offered. This is why Christians await the return of the Messiah to judge.

So who is the judge? Surely only God has the omniscience to pronounce judgement? So why is Jesus made judge if he does not carry the authority of God Himself?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you don't take Bible verses as evidence, what are you doing on this thread? It's a debate about what the Bible says about who Jesus is.

The Bible is only evidence of what the Bible says. You made a claim that went beyond that. You needed a qualifier in your post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jesus wasn’t saying He was not God, just the opposite. How about you? Answer the question yourself, Is Jesus good?

Of course he was saying that he was not God. He made the difference between him and God clear. You are putting a very strange spin on that verse that you do not appear to be able to justify.

AS to your question what do you mean by "good". I am good by any reasonable definition. Why can't Jesus have been as good as I am?

 

[Subduction Zone]

To suggest that there is no description of a Jewish Messiah that is applicable to Jesus is ridiculous. I've listed the 52 various prophecies to Jesus as the 'suffering servant' many times on this site, and am happy to do so again. But let's take one as an example, Isaiah 61:1-3, which was used by Jesus himself in the synagogue in Nazareth to announce the beginning of his ministry [Luke 4]. Torah Jews have great difficulty today deciding who the passage refers to, but in Rabbinic times this passage was considered a Messianic passage. Reference to other passages in Isaiah support the view that it must be Messianic. So rather than talking in generalisations, let's look at this specific passage of scripture to determine the meaning.

Isaiah 61:1-3. 'The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the broken hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified.'

The title 'Christ' (Christos) means 'anointed', and is equivalent to the Hebrew masiah. Isaiah 61 states clearly that the person upon whom the Holy Spirit rests is the person who is 'anointed' to preach 'good tidings' or 'good news' (the Gospel). He is also the one sent to set the captives free. And since we know that Jesus' purpose was heavenly and not earthly, this clearly means that Jesus was sent to free people from spiritual captivity (called 'sin').

When Jesus read this passage in the synagogue at the beginning of his ministry, he stopped his reading after the bit in bold. To the Jews present in the synagogue, the passage was understood to be Messianic. When Jesus said, 'This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears', the bit he referred to did not include the words 'and the day of vengeance of our God'. So the earthly ministry of Christ is one of mercy not vengeance. But the vengeance of God comes afterwards, once mercy has been offered. This is why Christians await the return of the Messiah to judge.

So who is the judge? Surely only God has the omniscience to pronounce judgement? So why is Jesus made judge if he does not carry the authority of God Himself?

Please, verses taken out of context are not "prophesies". That was one of the first acts of apologists. When it was clear that Jesus failed the Messianic prophecies they made up their own. The "Suffering Servant" was Israel if you read it in context. You are trying to change the meaning after the fact. That only demonstrates that one can abuse the Bible. It is not evidence for Jesus.

 

[ElishaElijah]

No, you only believe this. There is a difference between knowledge and mere belief. If you know then you can support your claims. If you can't you only have mere belief.

I’m living proof that Jesus is alive by what he has done in my life. Every person has to receive the same from God, when a person believes the Gospel and is born again that’s the proof. Seems you’re asking for information contrary to what God has said for the criteria for faith. It’s like you’re standing on the shore asking God to part the water when He told you to step into the water first.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’m living proof that Jesus is alive by what he has done in my life. Every person has to receive the same from God, when a person believes the Gospel and is born again that’s the proof. Seems you’re asking for information contrary to what God has said for the criteria for faith. It’s like you’re standing on the shore asking God to part the water when He told you to step into the water first.

Nope, that is not "proof". It is only very very weak evidence. You do not appear to understand what qualifies as proof or even what qualifies as reliable evidence.

 

[Redemptionsong]

There is not a lot of difference with 3 of the 4 gospels, it is still a long time after the event.


I realise that, in fact that's what I said. BUT could it be possible that some stories in the Bible were just written to fulfill the prophecies?


The Jews don't believe the messiah has yet come!
They think JC is a false messiah

The traditional dating for Mark's Gospel is before 56 CE, since Luke is dated between 56-60 CE. Matthew could be any time after 50 CE but before 70 CE. John's Gospel is later, maybe 90-100 CE.

If these traditional dates are true then it means the first record, Mark, was written down within 20 years of the crucifixion of Jesus. This means most of the witnesses would still be alive.

Many Jews living at the time of Roman occupation believed, based on the Jewish understanding of scripture, that the coming of the Messiah was imminent. Today, two thousand years later, Torah Jews continue to deny that Jesus is the Messiah, but, as I mentioned before, it creates problems in coherence. For instance, in Micah 5:2 it says, 'But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.' Torah Jews continue to believe that this prophecy has yet to be fulfilled. Yet, if Jesus is the Messiah it has already been fulfilled, and cannot be fulfilled a second time! This means that Torah Jews are going to be surprised when their Messiah comes from heaven and not from the crib.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The traditional dating for Mark's Gospel is before 56 CE, since Luke is dated between 56-60 CE. Matthew could be any time after 50 CE but before 70 CE. John's Gospel is later, maybe 90-100 CE.

If these traditional dates are true then it means the first record, Mark, was written down within 20 years of the crucifixion of Jesus. This means most of the witnesses would still be alive.

Many Jews living at the time of Roman occupation believed, based on the Jewish understanding of scripture, that the coming of the Messiah was imminent. Today, two thousand years later, Torah Jews continue to deny that Jesus is the Messiah, but, as I mentioned before, it creates problems in coherence. For instance, in Micah 5:2 it says, 'But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.' Torah Jews continue to believe that this prophecy has yet to be fulfilled. Yet, if Jesus is the Messiah it has already been fulfilled, and cannot be fulfilled a second time! This means that Torah Jews are going to be surprised when their Messiah comes from heaven and not from the crib.

And you should find out why that has changed. Not only stick with a date because it is comforting to you. There are reasons that scholars use the dates that they use. They have to justify their claims. You got one thing right. The Jews at the time of Jesus were looking for a messiah. It appears that some of them invented one. Have you ever seen "Life of Brian"? It is not historical, but it appears to be more accurate than the work of many apologists.

 

[Wildswanderer]

The Bible is only evidence of what the Bible says. You made a claim that went beyond that. You needed a qualifier in your post.

No, if the Bible says nature glorifies Christ, that is evidence on a thread about what is biblical.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Nope, that is not "proof". It is only very very weak evidence. You do not appear to understand what qualifies as proof or even what qualifies as reliable evidence.

You would literally not accept any proof. Get real. If Jesus came down and put sugar in your coffee you would decide it wasn't enough evidence.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Nope, that is not "proof". It is only very very weak evidence. You do not appear to understand what qualifies as proof or even what qualifies as reliable evidence.

My definition of proof is the same as God’s definition concerning faith and salvation.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The ^ above ^ about Arianism making a comeback is news to me.
I find Arius taught God is Un-begotten and without a beginning. The Son, because he is begotten can not be God in the sense that the Father is. The Son did Not exist from all eternity but was created and exists by the will of the Father.

Yes, the Bible does teach the Son is begotten.
Yes, the Bible does teach God is Un-begotten being from everlasting ( No beginning ) -Psalms 90:2
Yes, the Son was created and like us exist (Not by our own will) but by God 's (The Creator) will - Revelation 4:11

Well, it has surprised me to find so many Arian Christians in these online forums and in chat rooms. It really is a common thing right now. In the past, no Christian would have been caught dead going against Trinitarian teaching.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Why are they more likely? Why are the scholars that study this wrong and what makes you right?

I have already stated that traditional dating by scholars (which is not mine!) places the synoptic Gospels much closer in time to the crucifixion. This makes absolute sense when one looks at the content of the Gospels, which make no mention of the great calamity of the times, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (70 CE). The Jewish wars began in 66 CE, so it is highly likely that the three synoptic Gospels were completed before the wars began. The book of Acts provides a chronological account of the years between the Ascension and Paul's imprisonment in Rome, around 61 CE.