Jesus literal son of God, or son of Joseph?

[Hawkins]

The Romans may or may not have, but the author of Mark involves the Sanhedrin, and that's unlikely because the way Mark tells it, this particular arrest and crucifixion violated too many of their rules. Theologically though, the symbolism works, and as such it makes for a good story.

The Bible says that the corrupted Pharisees wanted Jesus die because He suspect of claiming God. And that they wanted Him die by the hand of the Romans.

That event doesn't seem to have anything to do with how Oral Torah was carried out at the time. As for how the Oral Torah was carried out, you need to rely on limited history documents and your own faith to judge.

 

[dogsgod]

The Bible says that the corrupted Pharisees wanted Jesus die because He suspect of claiming God. And that they wanted Him die by the hand of the Romans.

That event doesn't seem to have anything to do with how Oral Torah was carried out at the time. As for how the Oral Torah was carried out, you need to rely on limited history documents and your own faith to judge.

The Pharisees bring up another point since it wasn't until the latter half of the 1st century that they rose to political power. During the setting of the gospel story itself, they were not the dominant sect.
In any event, as I already noted, the author of Mark involved the Sanhedrin, and the way the arrest, trial, and crucifixion went down too many of their rules were violated unless you can show otherwise, so it's more likely that the author was making use of religious symbolism rather than writing an actual account of historical events.

 

[Hawkins]

The Pharisees bring up another point since it wasn't until the latter half of the 1st century that they rose to political power. During the setting of the gospel story itself, they were not the dominant sect.
In any event, as I already noted, the author of Mark involved the Sanhedrin, and the way the arrest, trial, and crucifixion went down too many of their rules were violated unless you can show otherwise, so it's more likely that the author was making use of religious symbolism rather than writing an actual account of historical events.

Jesus. Where do you get your information. We all know that we rely on the Bible to make our point. If you try to teach history you can have whatever you believe to be history. But if you try to refute what the Bible says, it is you (not us) who should present your so-called historical proof.

Even for the first sentence,

"The Pharisees bring up another point since it wasn't until the latter half of the 1st century that they rose to political power. During the setting of the gospel story itself, they were not the dominant sect. "

What's that?! You faith most likely.

 

[dogsgod]

Jesus. Where do you get your information. We all know that we rely on the Bible to make our point. If you try to teach history you can have whatever you believe to be history. But if you try to refute what the Bible says, it is you (not us) who should present your so-called historical proof.

Even for the first sentence,

"The Pharisees bring up another point since it wasn't until the latter half of the 1st century that they rose to political power. During the setting of the gospel story itself, they were not the dominant sect. "

What's that?! You faith most likely.

I'm not refuting what The Bible says, but we obviously disagree on what The Bible is says. I see it as a work of theology, you see it as a history book.

 

[Hawkins]

I'm not refuting what The Bible says, but we obviously disagree on what The Bible is says. I see it as a work of theology, you see it as a history book.

Now you see? It's your mistake. Since when I even hinted that the Bible is a history book? To the Christians the Bible is God's Word. Though I tend to think the the ancient Jews would think that OT is legimately their history.

Bible is all about some witnessed (theologically at least) events conveying the same and consistent message about salvatoin which we believe is from God. We (I at least) believe that the Bible contents are honestly witnessed by honest people. And that the Bible prophecies themselves also behave as witnessing in a form. That's how Christianity is founded which we have faith that it's trust worthy (even more than your so-called historical information which shall be rare about the period of Jesus time).

Moreover, your so-called Jews history in the period not only requires a human brain(s) to interpret subjectively, but also requires one's faith to comprehend and thus accept.

 

[dogsgod]

The Jews wrote mythologies as a means of expressing truths as they saw it. The Gospels are mythologies and they differ due to the different audiences that the different authors were trying to convey their messages to, and all at different times. They are not meant to be accounts of actual events, they are allegorical fictions making use of religious symbolism. They reworked ancient stories from their religious texts into new ones in order to reflect their modern times, in many instances to show how they were repeating the same mistakes as their ancestors. A lot of their stories made use of this process. The Gospels are no different in this respect.

 

[fallingblood]

The Jews wrote mythologies as a means of expressing truths as they saw it. The Gospels are mythologies and they differ due to the different audiences that the different authors were trying to convey their messages to, and all at different times. They are not meant to be accounts of actual events, they are allegorical fictions making use of religious symbolism. They reworked ancient stories from their religious texts into new ones in order to reflect their modern times, in many instances to show how they were repeating the same mistakes as their ancestors. A lot of their stories made use of this process. The Gospels are no different in this respect.

The Gospels are different though. They fall into the category of Lives, or what we call ancient biographies. Understanding that genre goes a long ways.

You do point out something important though. They were written for different audiences, and had different messages to convey. That is why Mark uses the Sanhedrin. He's trying to portray a message. That was common in ancient biographies, and can not be judged by modern standards.

To dismiss them as you do is not historically accurate. The genre that they are apart must be first looked at, and it becomes clear that the Gospels do in fact have some historical merit.



Hawkins: I actually have a hard time responding to you as I'm somewhat unsure of your stance. The Gospels are not historically accurate. And as dogsgod stated, the Pharisees had little power during the time of Jesus. More so, we have no idea who wrote the Gospels, but we do know they were not witnesses of the events that occurred.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Yes the gospels have some historical merit, but they shouldn't be treated as first hand accounts, like some often try to portray them. I think it likely the sayings in the gospels are much more accurate then the narratives of Jesus' life. The narratives are more easily corruptable.

 

[fallingblood]

Just thought I should mention this. First hand does not mean more accurate.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The Bible says that the corrupted Pharisees wanted Jesus die because He suspect of claiming God. And that they wanted Him die by the hand of the Romans.
.

Where does it say Jesus die because He [Jesus] suspect of claiming God?_____

Isn't John [19v7] clear the Jews wanted Jesus to die because he [Jesus] made himself the Son of God?

What does he [Jesus] say at Matthew 27v43? _______
Didn't Jesus say, "I am the Son of God"? Not I am God.

Even decades after God resurrected Jesus to heaven the heavenly Jesus at Revelation [2v18] still calls himself the Son of God.
The heavenly Jesus still having a God over him- Rev 3v12.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

No the NT agrees with hawkins on this it says the Jews took up stones to stone him and he said: "I have showed you many good works from my Father, for which of these do you stone me?" They answered: "Not for a good work, but that you are a man and you have made yourself god." Jesus answered: "The Torah says you are all gods."

They may have misunderstood his meaning, but it still says THEY thought he was claiming to be God

 

[URAVIP2ME]

No, it wasn't. The day of preparation for Passover is dealing with Passover. John is very clear about this. They are not talking about the Sabbath. It actually would make no sense in the context of John, as John has Jesus die on the day of preparation as that is the day the sacrificial lamb was slaughtered. Jesus was suppose to represent the sacrificial lamb, and was thus killed on the day of preparation. That is the message John is portraying. It only works if Jesus is crucified on the day of preparation, the day before Passover.
Again, John is very clear about this.
According to John, there is no reference to the Passover meal being eaten by the disciples and Jesus. The reason is that Passover hadn't happened yet. You are trying to read something into it that there simply isn't.

See: John chapter 13.

Jesus celebrated the Passover on the 14th [evening] It was still the 14th day at John 19v14 or about six hours from sunrise [noon]. The Passover festival would have included the Festival of Unfermented cakes for a total of 8 days.
Passover on the 14th and starting on the 15th the 7-day festival.

The releasing of Barabbas took place on Nisan 14 the Passover.- John 18v39

Wasn't the deliverance from Egypt on the 14th?
By the time of Christ instead of eating the Passover in each home as in Egypt,
for the Passover they gathered at Jerusalem. John [13vs 23,25] shows that with John being described at the disciple Jesus loved being present that evening of the start of Nisan 14. - John 19v26.

So, from chapter 13 by chapter 19 of John it would have been the daytime, or daylight hours, that Jesus died and not that Jesus was going to eat the passover that evening because it was already eaten making the preparation for the rest of the passover which included the Sabbath along with the festival.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

No the NT agrees with hawkins on this it says the Jews took up stones to stone him and he said: "I have showed you many good works from my Father, for which of these do you stone me?" They answered: "Not for a good work, but that you are a man and you have made yourself god." Jesus answered: "The Torah says you are all gods."
They may have misunderstood his meaning, but it still says THEY thought he was claiming to be God

At John 10v34 Jesus reference was to Psalm 82v6.
God judges [Psalm 82v1] the human gods [judges] -Exodus 4v16.

At the charge of blasphemy Jesus reminds them that certain mighty ones of earth are referred to as 'gods' whereas Jesus referred to himself at: John 10v36 - as his [Jesus] being the Son of God -[not son of god]

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Now you're simply talking like a crazy person.
And you shall keep it for inspection until the fourteenth day of this month, and the entire congregation of the community of Israel shall slaughter it in the afternoon.
And they shall take [some] of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and on the lintel, on the houses in which they will eat it.
And on this night, they shall eat the flesh, roasted over the fire, and unleavened cakes; with bitter herbs they shall eat it.
It's very simple. Afternoon comes before night. when that switch happens, from "afternoon" to "night", the switch happens from 14th to 15th.

Doesn't Exodus 12v6 say 'evening' and Not afternoon?______

Slaughter it between the two evenings, or the time between sunset and actual darkness?
Exodus 12v18 says 'evening'
Exodus 16v12 says 'evening'
Leviticus 23v5 says 'evening'
Numbers 9v3 says 'evening'
Deuteronomy 16v6 says 'evening'.

 

[logician]

I don't believe there was anything "literal" about Jesus at all.

 

[fallingblood]

No the NT agrees with hawkins on this it says the Jews took up stones to stone him and he said: "I have showed you many good works from my Father, for which of these do you stone me?" They answered: "Not for a good work, but that you are a man and you have made yourself god." Jesus answered: "The Torah says you are all gods."

They may have misunderstood his meaning, but it still says THEY thought he was claiming to be God

Only John states that story. The likely hood it ever occurred is basically none. The reason being that the Jews were already diverse, and they basically accepted that. Also, the Gospel of John is very anti-Jewish anyway, so that statement clearly fits with the Gospel of John's author, not actually Jesus at all.

Being that, what the NT states here is quite irrelevant as to what actually happened.

 

[fallingblood]

See: John chapter 13.

Jesus celebrated the Passover on the 14th [evening] It was still the 14th day at John 19v14 or about six hours from sunrise [noon]. The Passover festival would have included the Festival of Unfermented cakes for a total of 8 days.
Passover on the 14th and starting on the 15th the 7-day festival.

Do we really have to go over this again? The Gospel of John is clear that Jesus was crucified on the day of Preparation, the day before the Passover. This is a day before the synoptic Gospels state.

More so, the Gospel of John is making a very clear point; Jesus is the lamb of God which must be slain for the sins of the world. Jesus is the sacrificial lamb, and thus, was crucified on the day of preparation, the day in which the lamb was sacrificed, the day before Passover.

John is very clear about this. He even states that Jesus was crucified on the day of preparation point blank. I don't see why this point has to be argued anymore since it is so clear.

The releasing of Barabbas took place on Nisan 14 the Passover.- John 18v39

Just an interesting note. This never actually happened. There was no such tradition, and there is no way Rome would have released Barabbas. It is a piece of fiction created for a certain reason, to paint the Jews even worse.

Wasn't the deliverance from Egypt on the 14th?
By the time of Christ instead of eating the Passover in each home as in Egypt,
for the Passover they gathered at Jerusalem. John [13vs 23,25] shows that with John being described at the disciple Jesus loved being present that evening of the start of Nisan 14. - John 19v26.

The Passover meal is never mentioned in John. There is no sign of the disciples and Jesus eating the Passover meal in John, as Passover had not yet occurred. More so, John is not described as being the disciple Jesus loved. If it did, then there would be no debate about it. However, John does not state who that disciple is. It is simply assumed that it was John the Apostle (actually distinctly different from John the disciple of the Lord).

So, from chapter 13 by chapter 19 of John it would have been the daytime, or daylight hours, that Jesus died and not that Jesus was going to eat the passover that evening because it was already eaten making the preparation for the rest of the passover which included the Sabbath along with the festival.

I think you're making things up. The passover meal was not eaten in the Gospel of John. It is so in each of the other Gospels, but not John.

 

[dogsgod]

Just an interesting note. This never actually happened. There was no such tradition, and there is no way Rome would have released Barabbas. It is a piece of fiction created for a certain reason, to paint the Jews even worse.

Of course it didn't happen, it's allegorical fiction. The point is that all the scenes in the Gospel stories can be analyzed for what they represent. A lot of the scenes make allusions to stories in ancient Hebrew scripture, especially old stories that tell of the destruction of Israel. Israel had a history of being conquered by much stronger and larger states than theirs. A revolt led by Jewish priests took place in 67CE which led to the sacking of Jerusalem by the Roman occupying forces. This story could very well have been written in reaction to that devastation. Pilate is a gentile and is portrayed as reasonable, while the Jewish people are portrayed as an angry mob. This is a very common theme throughout gMark. The gentiles accept Christ as savior, recall the story of the Roman centurion and the faith that he had in Jesus while the Jewish people had lost faith as in the women that fled the empty tomb and told no one because they were overcome with fear. This story can be representative of a Pauline tradition, Paul preached to the gentiles, they were more willing to accept Jesus than were the Jews, and the destruction of Jerusalem seemed to show that their God was favoring the gentiles. This becomes even more apparent when reading gJohn which was written much later, wherein the division between Jews and Christ followers is even greater.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

fallingblood-

Please explain John chapter 13 to us.
No need to say it did not happen, just explain what chapter 13 is saying.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I don't believe there was anything "literal" about Jesus at all.

Being an atheist it would stand to reason that one would believe there was nothing literal about Jesus. However, the Bible is literal, and with all the enemies [from within and without] throughout the centuries No one has been able to get rid of the Bible even though the Bible is written just on fragile paper. No one can ever get rid of the literal Bible, and No one can stop the literal world wide or global proclaiming of the Good News of God's kingdom,
or royal government, under Christ.

Jesus believed he was literal. Literally the Son of God according to Scripture.