Jesus Christ: the greatest story ever told?

[muhammad_isa]

A Jewish prophet would not schedule their death for a specific, beneficial time.

No, it's preposterous!

 

[Redemptionsong]

A Jewish prophet would not schedule their death for a specific, beneficial time.

But it was not Jesus that scheduled his death; it was God the Father.

What became clear to Jesus, at some point after his baptism by John, was that he was called to fulfil the scriptures. One of the first things he did after his temptation in the wilderness was to read aloud in the synagogue from lsaiah 61:1,2. At the end of the reading, he announced, 'This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears'. [Luke 4:21]

How could Jesus have known that lsaiah 61:1,2, which excludes the judgement, should have come to fulfilment in his day?
There is only one way he could have known this, and that is through the Holy Spirit.

On another occasion, Jesus was casting out demons, and some of the people present accused Jesus of casting out the demons by the power of Beelzebub, ie the chief of devils. Jesus replied by saying, lf Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand?

To correct their erroneous thinking, Jesus said: 'But if l with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you'. [Luke 11:20]

 

[muhammad_isa]

But it was not Jesus that scheduled his death; it was God the Father.

OOOOOOOOOOOOh!

..so Jesus is not God after all?

The soul of Jesus was one with the Spirit of his Father

Yes, and Jesus knew that he would be betrayed and sentenced to crucifixion.

 

[Brian2]

That is because Christians try very hard to blame the Jews. It's the oldest Christian antisemitic trope in the world that the Jews are responsible for Jesus' death.

Well it was taught by the first Christians (Jewish people) at Pentecost (Acts 2) so it comes from the beginning of the teaching of the gospel, and those who believed it then were also Jews, 3000 converts that day.

 

[Brian2]

OK Great! I took a look at the document you brought comparing echad with yachid. Here's a link in case you need it:
In what sense is 'echad' [one] used in the Shema?

What I notice is that everytime that ehcad is read as a compound the text says what those two items are which are combined. In other words, a compound echad is qualified. All the examples where echad is absolute without division, echad is unqualified.

In Deuteronomy 6:4, the echad is unqualified, "... the Lord your God is one." One, period, unqualified, end of statement, absolute unity without division.

In Genesis 1:5 echad is qualified as one day, "... it was evening and it was morning, one day", one day, qualified, evening and morning are joined, it's compound.

In Genesis 2:24 echad is qualified as one flesh, " ... and they shall be joined together as one flesh." One flesh, qualified, male flesh and female flesh are joined, it's compound.

Do you understand?

Of course once someone does become a Christian and see that Jesus is Divine that means that "echad" at Deut 6:4 is qualified. Jesus did say "I and the Father are one".
However I think the truth is that it would not matter if the word was echad or Yachid for Christians. The Lord is one Lord either way, compound or absolute unity without division and I'm sure if Yachid was used then Christians would be saying that the Lord is absolute unity without division and Jews would be saying, "Impossible, how could a trinity be that?"

 

[joelr]

Well it was taught by the first Christians (Jewish people) at Pentecost (Acts 2) so it comes from the beginning of the teaching of the gospel, and those who believed it then were also Jews, 3000 converts that day.

That is highly unlikely as the source is definitely not historical.

Although it is implied in the preface of the book of Acts that it is supposed to be some kind of historical account, this couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, Acts has been thoroughly discredited as nothing more than a work of apologetic historical fiction, and the scholarship of Richard Pervo conclusively demonstrates this to be the case. Regarding any historical sources that Luke may have used for Acts, the only one that has been confirmed with any probability was that of Josephus (a person who never wrote about Jesus Christ nor Christianity, yet was likely used by Luke for background material), and although there may have been more historical sources than Josephus, we simply don’t have any evidence preserved from those other possible historians to make a case one way or the other. All of the other sources that we can discern within Acts are literary sources, not historical ones. Included in these literary sources is what may possibly have been a (now-lost) hagiographical fabrication, and basically a rewrite of the Elijah-Elisha narrative in some of the Old Testament (OT) texts of Kings, although placing Paul and Jesus in the main roles instead, which obviously would have been a literary source of historical fiction (not any kind of historical account).

The scholar Thomas Brodie has argued that this evident reworking of the Kings narrative starts in Luke’s Gospel and continues on until Acts chapter 15, thus indicating that Luke either integrated this literary creation into his story or he used an underlying source text, such as some previous Gospel that not only covered the acts of Jesus but also the acts of the apostles. So it appears that Luke either used this source text or his own literary idea and then inserted more stories into it, effectively expanding the whole story into two books, while also utilizing some material from Mark and Matthew during the process (and potentially other now-lost Gospels) and some material from the epistles of Paul. In any case, the unnamed source text mentioned thus far is a hypothetical one that can only be inferred to have existed from the evidence of what’s written in Acts. Luckily, the remaining literary sources that scholars can discern Luke used are indeed sources we actually have and thus can directly compare to and analyze."
The Book of Acts as Historical Fiction

 

[muhammad_isa]

Well it was taught by the first Christians (Jewish people) at Pentecost (Acts 2) so it comes from the beginning of the teaching of the gospel, and those who believed it then were also Jews, 3000 converts that day.

Yes, exactly.
..so it is not that "the Jews" had any blame per se, but the sanhedrin .. the elite in charge who had something to lose.
..hence "For the rich man to enter heaven, is like the camel passing through the eye of a needle"

 

[Brian2]

No, not really. If you bring an example, I should be able to show that it's not manipulating events so that they occur at a favorable time. If you need an example from me, take a look at Ezekiel 39. It's a prophecy about the end times, but makes no effort to control the situation to occur at a specific time hoping to bring a more favorable result.

I already gave you an example, the coming Day of the Lord. This comes when God decides it will be and it is the same for the day when Jesus was going to die. Jesus was not manipulating events, He knew when He would die and prophesied it. He was the new Passover lamb that the first Passover lamb was symbolic of. The whole law of feasts tells something about the coming Messiah.

Parts of Ezek 39 reminds me of parts of Psalm 89:38-52

 

[Brian2]

But it was not Jesus that scheduled his death; it was God the Father.

What became clear to Jesus, at some point after his baptism by John, was that he was called to fulfil the scriptures. One of the first things he did after his temptation in the wilderness was to read aloud in the synagogue from lsaiah 61:1,2. At the end of the reading, he announced, 'This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears'. [Luke 4:21]

How could Jesus have known that lsaiah 61:1,2, which excludes the judgement, should have come to fulfilment in his day?
There is only one way he could have known this, and that is through the Holy Spirit.

Luke 4:18“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

It is indeed interesting that Jesus left out the rest of the prophecy, which of course included the judgement and vengeance of God and other end times events. It is indeed hard to see in the OT prophecies that the Messiah was to come twice and for a different purpose each time, the prophecies have been given about the Messiah but to understand them properly you have to telescope them out so that they occur over a long time.
It would be strange for the year of the Lord's favor and the time of vengeance to come at the same time.

 

[Brian2]

That is highly unlikely as the source is definitely not historical.

How does the ideas of a couple of scholars with fanciful ideas about the non historicity of Acts convert into the source definitely being not historical?

 

[Brian2]

Yes, exactly.
..so it is not that "the Jews" had any blame per se, but the sanhedrin .. the elite in charge who had something to lose.
..hence "For the rich man to enter heaven, is like the camel passing through the eye of a needle"

I don't know if a rich man and the eye of a needle have anything to do with it, but the sanhedrin is said to have participated in the death of Jesus along with those Jews who said to release Barabus and said that the guilt would be on them and their children.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't know if a rich man and the eye of a needle have anything to do with it,.

Don't you?
..then why did they wish to get rid of him?

..now you will probably say "because Jesus claimed to be God".
No, he didn't. He claimed to have "authority" from the Father .. not the same thing.

Jesus knew from "the Father" that he would be betrayed by Judas, so he didn't orchestrate his own crucifixion.

 

[Brian2]

Don't you?
..then why did they wish to get rid of him?

..now you will probably say "because Jesus claimed to be God".
No, he didn't. He claimed to have "authority" from the Father .. not the same thing.

Jesus knew from "the Father" that he would be betrayed by Judas, so he didn't orchestrate his own crucifixion.

There were many reasons that they wanted Jesus gone, why do you want to put His saying about a rich man and the eye of a needle as one of the reasons? In Matt 19:24 it does not seem to be a condemnation of the Jews or of the rich really and He may have said it just to His disciples anyway.

 

[muhammad_isa]

There were many reasons that they wanted Jesus gone..

Are you saying that it had nothing to do with wealth?
Only the week before, Jesus had expelled the merchants and money-changers from the temple.

 

[Brian2]

Are you saying that it had nothing to do with wealth?
Only the week before, Jesus had expelled the merchants and money-changers from the temple.

Part of it was jealousy they had that the people liked Him and not them and the people listened to Him and not them, and no doubt the contempt which He seemed to have for them and their teachings and hypocrisy.

 

[Redemptionsong]

OOOOOOOOOOOOh!

..so Jesus is not God after all?


Yes, and Jesus knew that he would be betrayed and sentenced to crucifixion.

Orthodox Christian belief states the the Father, Son (Word) and Holy Spirit are one God. I believe this to be true.

The Holy Spirit reveals itself through the spirit and soul of man, and this is the way in which revelation occurs.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Is the story of Jesus Christ the greatest story ever told? I think so.

The story of God sending His only son to die for our immorality, in order to redeem our souls, is a touching one, isn't it?

It assumes that we need redemption. Don't we all? Jesus Christ offers us this in the most selfless way.

More than two billion people believe in Christ as the son of God who died for us. It's a story too good not to be true. I find myself desiring to believe in the story too.

It is a story that has endured for millieneum and changed the lives of billions of people.

If it is truly just a story, what a great and powerful story it is!

Some other stories also aren't too shabby: Buddha, Prometheus, Asclepius, Apollonius of Tyana, Heracles.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Luke 4:18“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

It is indeed interesting that Jesus left out the rest of the prophecy, which of course included the judgement and vengeance of God and other end times events. It is indeed hard to see in the OT prophecies that the Messiah was to come twice and for a different purpose each time, the prophecies have been given about the Messiah but to understand them properly you have to telescope them out so that they occur over a long time.
It would be strange for the year of the Lord's favor and the time of vengeance to come at the same time.

Exactly!

There are a number of passages in lsaiah, and elsewhere in the prophets, that conflate the mercy and judgement of God. To my understanding, God intentionally creates ambiguity. This is to create a division between those who are ready to follow by faith, and those whose hearts are unprepared.

Many in lsrael expected a Messiah at the time of Jesus' birth, but few were able to recognise him.

Who will recognise him at his second advent? As we know, he will come as 'a thief in the night' to an unprepared world!

 

[Brian2]

Some others stories also aren't too shabby: Buddha, Prometheus, Asclepius, Apollonius of Tyana, Heracles.

The story of Jesus is the greatest true story told however and it started before the world began and is not finished yet.

 

[Brian2]

Exactly!

There are a number of passages in lsaiah, and elsewhere in the prophets, that conflate the mercy and judgement of God. To my understanding, God intentionally creates ambiguity. This is to create a division between those who are ready to follow by faith, and those whose hearts are unprepared.

Many in lsrael expected a Messiah at the time of Jesus' birth, but few were able to recognise him.

Who will recognise him at his second advent? As we know, he will come as 'a thief in the night' to an unprepared world!

I would say that it will be impossible to not recognise Jesus when He returns. But His coming will be unexpected for most people.