Jesus vs the New Testament

[BSM1]

He was called Rabbi.. Nothing about him being a priest in the Temple.

Revelation 22:16 will have the final say. “I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.”

Exactly. Thank you fr making my point.

 

[sooda]

Exactly. Thank you fr making my point.

You have to know that Revelation is VERY Jewish, old style, apocalyptic writing... and this writer hates Rome.

 

[BSM1]

You have to know that Revelation is VERY Jewish, old style, apocalyptic writing... and this writer hates Rome.

Uhhhh...okay?

 

[sooda]

Uhhhh...okay?

Apocalyptic literature was VERY popular for about 300 years from 200 BC.. and it was heavy going.. Very Jewish and heavy with symbolism. In fact, everybody and their cousin was writing the Apocalypse of this one or that one.

 

[Desert Snake]

Representative? The only source we have for the life and teaching of Jesus is the New Testament, isn't it? So how are we to judge how "representative" it is, when no other vantage point is available to us?

Not every verse or subject is as direct as
John 3:36
For example.

 

[Desert Snake]

Matrilineality in Judaism or matrilineal descent in Judaism is the tracing of Jewish descent through the maternal line. .. Pretty much been that was since Ezra into the present. If your mother is a Jew, you are a Jew.

Hebrews 7:14

Jesus is of Judah

 

[Desert Snake]

You have to know that Revelation is VERY Jewish, old style, apocalyptic writing... and this writer hates Rome.

Because that's your interpretation.


?

 

[exchemist]

Not every verse or subject is as direct as
John 3:36
For example.

Everyone knows there are discrepancies between the various gospel accounts, but your question seemed to be about whether the NT taken as a whole was "representative", whatever you meant by that.

 

[exchemist]

You could give "The Urantia Book" a look-see.

Why would I do that? How would some crank book produced in Chicago in the c.20th shed any authoritative light on the life and teaching of Christ?

 

[Desert Snake]

Everyone knows there are discrepancies between the various gospel accounts, but your question seemed to be about whether the NT taken as a whole was "representative", whatever you meant by that.

That's because the texts together are multi-faceted. Not every religious text is like that.

 

[shmogie]

Th

Is Jesus contradicting Himself? Or is the new testament a faulty set of texts that don't represent the Man from Nazareth, the divine manifestation. How much of the new testament, is just straight fiction?

And no, this isn't about yoheshua being that 'rabbi', that materialists love to present as some form of quasi religion, the premise is religiously traditional, for this argument,
Divine Jesus, manifestation,
There are many things in the new testament that are valuable, however is it, as a whole, representative.


•

The Christ never contradicted himself. The texts, each and every one are not faulty.

Except for the parables, there is no fiction in the New Testament.

The New Testament is The God authorized documentation of His Son, and the founding of His church.

Entertain doubts, select what you like and discard the rest, and you are chasing a self created version of yourself, that leads absolutely nowhere, but gives you the feedback that enshrines yourself as the oracle of God.

All false gods wind up in the same place, the trash heap.

 

[BSM1]

Why would I do that? How would some crank book produced in Chicago in the c.20th shed any authoritative light on the life and teaching of Christ?

No, I guess a script written a couple of thousand years ago in more than one language and redacted numerous times will suffice....just sayin'.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Is Jesus contradicting Himself? Or is the new testament a faulty set of texts that don't represent the Man from Nazareth, the divine manifestation. How much of the new testament, is just straight fiction?

And no, this isn't about yoheshua being that 'rabbi', that materialists love to present as some form of quasi religion, the premise is religiously traditional, for this argument,
Divine Jesus, manifestation,
There are many things in the new testament that are valuable, however is it, as a whole, representative.


•

Ok, can you explain exactly how you call yourself ( Disciple of Jesus) but then goes about contradicting Jesus.

How is this to work ?

 

[Desert Snake]

Ok, can you explain exactly how you call yourself ( Disciple of Jesus) but then goes about contradicting Jesus.

How is this to work ?

John 3:36

Wheres the contradiction?

 

[sooda]

Because that's your interpretation.


?

No.. because it was originally a Jewish apocryphal writing.

Revelation of John, the original Jewish version ...
historical-jesus.info/rjohn.html
The Jewish original version of Revelation (or Apocalypse) of John, much more coherent than the final one, was written very likely (in Greek) late 70 or 71 C.E. in Syrian Antioch by a temple of Jerusalem ex-priest named John. This work offered an explanation for the holocaust of 70 C.E., with the destruction of Jerusalem & its temple, all of that at the hands of the Romans, and also a badly needed hope for the …

Revelation of John, the original Jewish version. Apocalypse composition, dating & authorship

 

[pearl]

Jesus was an observant Jew.. He didn't come to start a new religion.

I agree. Jesus was many things, An observant Jew, a holy man who spoke as a prophet, a mystic, etc., but his mission was to the Jews, to renew the spirit, the heart of the Torah.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Jesus was a follower of the tradition of later prophets.

It's very non-Mosaic and much more like Isaiah and Ezekiel.

Or is your question whether Jesus's teaching jives with the rest of the New Testament? Because many of the followers of Jesus had their own ideas.

 

[Desert Snake]

Jesus was a follower of the tradition of later prophets.

It's very non-Mosaic and much more like Isaiah and Ezekiel.

Or is your question whether Jesus's teaching jives with the rest of the New Testament? Because many of the followers of Jesus had their own ideas.

Basically.

 

[Desert Snake]

No.. because it was originally a Jewish apocryphal writing.

Revelation of John, the original Jewish version ...
historical-jesus.info/rjohn.html
The Jewish original version of Revelation (or Apocalypse) of John, much more coherent than the final one, was written very likely (in Greek) late 70 or 71 C.E. in Syrian Antioch by a temple of Jerusalem ex-priest named John. This work offered an explanation for the holocaust of 70 C.E., with the destruction of Jerusalem & its temple, all of that at the hands of the Romans, and also a badly needed hope for the …

Revelation of John, the original Jewish version. Apocalypse composition, dating & authorship

Didn't you just say that Jesus was a jew, wasn't there to change judaism, etc etc
So why wouldn't this writing be judaism? You are arguing that the new testament isn't Judaism? Then it contradicts Jesus, per discussion subject.

 

[lukethethird]

Is Jesus contradicting Himself? Or is the new testament a faulty set of texts that don't represent the Man from Nazareth, the divine manifestation. How much of the new testament, is just straight fiction?

And no, this isn't about yoheshua being that 'rabbi', that materialists love to present as some form of quasi religion, the premise is religiously traditional, for this argument,
Divine Jesus, manifestation,
There are many things in the new testament that are valuable, however is it, as a whole, representative.


•

Like with fiction, no one ever met this protagonist, just a lot of ink.