kinda problematic isn't it to throw this into a discussion of whether the texts are representative of Jesus, since it IS those texts that we have today that he exists in.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Jesus vs the New Testament
- Thread starter Desert Snake
- Start date
-
- Tags
- jesus new testament
MJFlores
Well-Known Member
I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God
I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, is the one and only Savior given by God
Christ is the sole mediator between God and man
and the only way to God
I do not subscribe to the belief that Christ is a God-Man.
He is man in nature according to His own testimony and the teachings of His Apostles
The attributes of a human being are found in Christ.
He hungered, thirsted, became weary or tired, slept, and died.
However, Christ as distinct from all men, is the only one Who did not sin
He has been exalted by God and given a name above all other names, that at the name of Christ every knee should bow, those in heaven, and those on earth.
He has been placed by God far above all principality, power, might and dominion, and every name that is named, and all things have been put under His feet
Christ will eventually subject all His power and authority to the true God
He had in so many instances introduced Himself as the Son of God but never did He appropriate the title “God” nor “God the Son” for Himself because He is not God but a man.
And that is my Lord Jesus Christ of the Bible.
If a Jesus being preached is different from the Bible then that is a different Jesus.
2 Corinthians 11:3-4 New International Version (NIV)
But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.
What do others believe about "a different Jesus"
- A hologram like something taken from a sci-fi movie
- He is also the Father and the HS
- He is fictional, never really lived
- He went to North America after ascending to heaven
- He lived but not the Christ, not the Messiah and not the Lord
- He isn't the only mediator
- He is a demigod
- He is a vampire or an extra-terrestrial
- He the incarnation of God and the re-incarnation of the different world religion leaders
- Other baloney ideas that I forgot to mention and bologna ideas, I yet to hear
It's striking that neither Paul nor the gospel authors have any idea of a real biography of a real Jesus.
As a result the NT presents at least five different Jesuses.
Paul's (50s CE) is a skygod he met in a vision who has almost no earthly biography. He even informs us that Jesus wasn't called Jesus until after his crucifixion (Philippians 2:8-9) but doesn't give his former name.
Mark's (70-75 CE) is an ordinary Jew with real parents who goes to get baptized for his sins, at which point he's adopted by God just as, in Psalm 2:7, God adopts David. Jesus is at pains to say he doesn't have to be descended from David. At his crucifixion he cuts a miserable figure. We have an empty tomb but no resurrected Jesus until someone tacks this on later. Mark gets his story from what he takes to be messianic prophecies (not directly from the Tanakh but rather the Septuagint) and stitching the pieces together. Theologian Ted Weeden says the trial scene is all based on Josephus' account of the trial of Jesus son of Ananus / Ananias in Wars, citing 24 points in common.
Matthew's (c. 80?) is based on Mark's, but with a somewhat different list of messianic prophecies, so Jesus has to be born of a virgin, come from Nazareth, go to Egypt so he can 'come out of Egypt' and so on. And his Jesus can't be a sinner, so his baptism has to be explained away. He IS however descended from David, though via his not-father Joseph, which is silly. Jesus on the cross also suffers, but has time to talk with the thieves, and his death is greeted with various supernatural portents. Matthew wants to straighten out Mark's version even as he copies most of it.
Luke's (85-90) wants to sort out Mark and Matthew with a somewhat different list of prophecies and some theological corrections of his own eg Jesus doesn't say, 'Why have you forsaken me?' but the much cooler 'Into thy hands I commend my spirit'.
All three declare that Jesus will return in the lifetime of some of his hearers, and bring in the Kingdom.
John (c. 100?) notices that it's getting too late for that and leaves it out. He doesn't fuss with Jesus' origins, just 'the Word was made flesh'. His Jesus on the cross is more like an MC than a victim. John is also more anti-Semitic than the others, reflecting the historical tensions as Christianity moves from Jewish sect to different religion.
So Jesus gets more divine, more in command, with each passing version.
The NT has six accounts of the resurrection, and each of them contradicts the other five in major ways. It's a forensic trainwreck from any angle.
Nothing in the NT is an eyewitness account or claims to be an eyewitness account. And the miracles and the resurrection are no more credible as history than the miracles and resurrections in the Tanakh or in the Greek myths.
Last edited:
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
So no answer about your church's teaching, however at least you sort of managed in all that, a no, you don't believe Jesus is divine, or G- d.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
Safety was no issue to Jesus. He went regularly to Jerusalem.
He said plainly that his life wasn't in danger because his "time
has not yet come."
No, he wasn't a rabbi. He came to fulfill all of the Old Testament,
but he, like John the Baptist, was essentially a New Testament
minister. That is, he gave up his home life and lived with those
who cared for him - his own people. We read of nearly 200
men and women in the New Testament doing the very same thing.
They were not rabbis or priests - Jesus said "God doesn't dwell in
temples made with hands."
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
I take Matthew, Mark and Luke to be eyewitnesses. You can "see" the Matthew
of the Gospels with the author of the Gospel of Matthew. Same with John only
more so - the gentle man who Jesus loved the most, a man not interested in
prophecy or the law, just the love of Christ.
Luke lived in Jesus' day but never met him. Luke compiled a history. He was one
of the great historians of antiquity. Luke went with Paul to Rome, and obviously
died there with him.
I don't accept that these people thought Jesus would return in their lifetimes.
Some in the church did, but Paul had to put them straight on that. Lots had to
happen, including the end of Israel, the rise and fall of the Gentiles and the
return of the Jews to Israel.
As for credible miracles. Jesus backed his Messianic claim with miracles -
this is why the Jews found it so hard to contest him. But some of these
miracles are evident in our age - and that is the prophecy of the bible. We
are living in part of it now, ie the fall of the Christian churches and the
return of the Jews to Israel, taking it back with the sword. Things people
in the 1800's ridiculed, despite being clearly written in the bible.
MJFlores
Well-Known Member
Huh? I won't be a church member if my belief is different from my brethren.
They believe what I believe - no buts and no doubts
What Jesus is:
Is Jesus Christ, a Man? Yes, a very special Man.
Is Jesus Christ, Lord and Messiah? Yes, he is.
Is Jesus Christ, the Son of God? Yes, he is.
Is Jesus Christ, holy and sacred? Yes, he is.
What Jesus is not:
Is Jesus Christ, God? No.
Is Jesus Christ, the Father? No.
Is Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit? No.
Is Jesus Christ, one of the persons in the Trinity? No.
My Lord God and my Lord Jesus Christ are not works from the minds of men.
The writing of Matthew is done by someone with a copy of Mark in one hand and the Septuagint in the other. None of the gospel authors claims to be an eyewitness, and Paul expressly says he's not. I can see no reason to think otherwise ─ the lack of coherent biographical data is clear.
We don't know who wrote any of the gospels. The 'names' were added a century or two down the track. They're works of literature, not biographies, and they're fashioned out of sayings in the Septuagint and a few other documents. The mapping of the former onto the latter has be written on extensively.
Yes they did, loud and clear ─
Mark 9
1 And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”
Mark 13: 28 “From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. 29 So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. 30 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place.
Matthew 16:28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”
Matthew 24:32 “From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. 34 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these things take place.
Luke 9:27 But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.”
I see no ambiguity there.
Magic is the altering of reality independently of the rules of physics, and miracles are that subset of magic which is performed by a god. There are no authenticated reports of magic in reality, not even a testable hypothesis as to how magic might be possible.
Accordingly I don't accept reports of miracles as historical. I think of them as stories intended to convey that the hero of the story is special. That's how they were used in other religions, and there's no reason to think the Abrahamic religions are different in this regard.
Or put it this way: HOW did Moses and Aaron turn the Nile into real blood and back? HOW did Pharaoh's magicians effortlessly do the same trick? If you say, by magic, explain to me HOW magic actually brings those effects about.
As for backing one's claims by complying with purported messianic prophesy, that's no more remarkable than an actor following his script. Do you think a performance of Hamlet proves that Shakespeare was a prophet? This kind of thinking is behind eg the author of Matthew having Jesus enter Jerusalem riding on both a foal and an a.s.s.
Last edited:
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
I didn't say John 3:36, contradicting,
But your the one that's doing the contradicting
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
That's 'trinitarian'. What you wrote. You are just saying 'G- d', instead of 'father', in the configuration.
It's like your contradicting yourself.
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
Had you read what i said, i didn't say
John 3:36 was contradicting
But your the one that's doing the contradicting
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Where?
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
Go back and read what you posted.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Where is the contradiction
MJFlores
Well-Known Member
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
It means a trinitarian might write the same thing, what do you think it means.Excuse me? What do you mean?
Configuration? Like in a computer?
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
Have we discussed this before?
Imagine a group of people claiming to belong to the ancient
kingdom of Babylon. They return to Iraq and rebuild the
city (incidentally a city the bible said would never be rebuilt)
and rebuild their ancient language, customs and religion.
They fight against the Iraq govt and defeat it. They fight
against seven Arab nations and defeat them. Just settlers,
coming from all over the world - but the DNA shows they
are actually related.
That's part of the MIRACLE of Israel.
But... that's not a miracle in the strict sense, these things
can happen, okay? The real miracle is that the bible said
this would happen. This is a REAL MIRACLE. You can't
just make that up. In fact even the Jews of the bible were
inclined to ridicule this - and not just the 19th Century
cognoscenti.
MJFlores
Well-Known Member
Used to be a Catholic and that's where the Trinity came from.
The Trinity is an invented doctrine.
Even history bolster this fact.
I believe, this very doctrine is the work of the devil.
And billions upon billions have believed this blindly
like mindless, unthinking and unquestioning zombies
Trinity, in Christian doctrine, the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead. The doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be one of the central Christian affirmations about God. It is rooted in the fact that God came to meet Christians in a threefold figure: (1) as Creator, Lord of the history of salvation, Father, and Judge, as revealed in the Old Testament; (2) as the Lord who, in the incarnated figure of Jesus Christ, lived among human beings and was present in their midst as the “Resurrected One”; and (3) as the Holy Spirit, whom they experienced as the helper or intercessor in the power of the new life.
Neither the word “Trinity” nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Hebrew Scriptures: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4). The earliest Christians, however, had to cope with the implications of the coming of Jesus Christ and of the presumed presence and power of God among them—i.e., the Holy Spirit, whose coming was connected with the celebration of Pentecost. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were associated in such New Testament passages as the Great Commission: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19); and in the apostolic benediction: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Corinthians 13:13). Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity.
The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. Initially, both the requirements of monotheism inherited from the Hebrew Scriptures and the implications of the need to interpret the biblical teaching to Greco-Roman religions seemed to demand that the divine in Christ as the Word, or Logos, be interpreted as subordinate to the Supreme Being. An alternative solution was to interpret Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three modes of the self-disclosure of the one God but not as distinct within the being of God itself. The first tendency recognized the distinctness among the three, but at the cost of their equality and hence of their unity (subordinationism). The second came to terms with their unity, but at the cost of their distinctness as “persons” (modalism). The high point of these conflicts was the so-called Arian controversy in the early 4th century. In his interpretation of the idea of God, Arius sought to maintain a formal understanding of the oneness of God. In defense of that oneness, he was obliged to dispute the sameness of essence of the Son and the Holy Spirit with God the Father. It was not until later in the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons.
The Council of Nicaea in 325 stated the crucial formula for that doctrine in its confession that the Son is “of the same substance [homoousios] as the Father,” even though it said very little about the Holy Spirit. Over the next half century, St. Athanasius defended and refined the Nicene formula, and, by the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of St. Basil of Caesarea, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since. It is accepted in all of the historic confessions of Christianity, even though the impact of the Enlightenment decreased its importance in some traditions.
Trinity | Definition, Theology, & History
The 'miracle' of Israel is not short on many disgraceful dispossessions of lawful owners to seize their land for nominal sums, and the politics of Israel often has very little to do with morality as I understand the term.
But there's no mystery about how it came about ─ from the political connections of the pre-war Zionist movement. When Cato sr. ended his speeches to the Senate with slogans to the effect of Carthago delenda est, he was doing the same thing, and in due course Cathago deleta est. On the theme of political slogans, it's a pity certain people aren't making America great again, but that too is from the same PR family.
Of course, you recall that Yahweh promised Abram (as he then was) that his people would hold all the land from the Nile to the Euphrates (Genesis 15:18), which means that the Muslims, not the Israelis, are the heirs of that promise, no?
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Matthew 15:24
Then you will need to explain this verse...