Scholar: Jesus Thought He was the Messiah, but Not God

[Muffled]

Jesus was a man, within him was the Holy Spirit from/of God. So I would consider that he was a spiritually enlightened person, don't know for sure though.

It always messes my mind up when I try to comprehend the trinity .

Welcome to RF.

Can a person have two identities, the physical mind and the spirit within or is that person considered one identity?

I believe if a person is considered one identity then the Spirit of God dwelling within identifies Jesus as God.

 

[Muffled]

I've just started reading his "Jesus, interrupted". The facts are not actually new to me, but his interpretations are often rubbish. So he quotes as a "contradiction" the fact that Mark says Jesus told Peter that he'd deny him "before the **** crows", while Matthew has "before the **** crows twice", Shock, horror: a missing word!

Sorry about the **** — this site obviously has a dirty mind.

Maybe his barin is in his **** before it crows. I don't see how this difference makes a difference and I believe it certainly doesn't fit the definition of a contradiction. Not only that I believe it is not relevant to the fact that Jesus is God in the flesh although knowing the future is an attribute of God and both verses indicate that,

 

[Muffled]

I haven't asserted that Ehrman's reasoning or evidence is compelling. You're making that up about me. All I'm asking of you is to explain why you don't think his reasoning or evidence is compelling. Tough question, I guess.

This is what you said: "If you read the article, then how do you deal with the evidence presented in it that Jesus thought of himself as the messiah, but not as God?" I asked "what evidene" since you stated that you thought there was some.

I have no reason to do that. I know that you didn't use the word "compelling" and I never said you did.

I believe I answeered that in Post #26.

Asking me to review evidence that you saw and I didn't makes it a tough question. Please give me some meat I can chew on.

 

[Sunstone]

This is what you said: "If you read the article, then how do you deal with the evidence presented in it that Jesus thought of himself as the messiah, but not as God?" I asked "what evidene" since you stated that you thought there was some.

I have no reason to do that. I know that you didn't use the word "compelling" and I never said you did.

I believe I answeered that in Post #26.

Asking me to review evidence that you saw and I didn't makes it a tough question. Please give me some meat I can chew on.

Obviously, we don't use words the same way. This is hopeless.

 

[Prophet]

I think the evidence is floating around that the Roman Empire attempted to fit Jesus to the mold of Israel's prophesied warrior-king. Why would it be so important that he was of the line of David to be a pansy lil prophet? The motive for this was to make at least an attempt to absorb Judaism as well... but the Jews are an eternally stubborn people.

But to say Jesus was God is simplistic. He was connected to God as a son who knows all about his father, and invited us to be his brothers and sisters and join him in this knowledge, but the way there is not easy:

You have heard that it was said, "Love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven.

 

[Muffled]

Obviously, we don't use words the same way. This is hopeless.

I do not consider speculation and assertion as evidence. The text contained a lot of speculation and assertion so I am merely asking what you thought in the article was actual evidence and not speculation or assertion.

 

[Muffled]

I think the evidence is floating around that the Roman Empire attempted to fit Jesus to the mold of Israel's prophesied warrior-king. Why would it be so important that he was of the line of David to be a pansy lil prophet? The motive for this was to make at least an attempt to absorb Judaism as well... but the Jews are an eternally stubborn people.

But to say Jesus was God is simplistic. He was connected to God as a son who knows all about his father, and invited us to be his brothers and sisters and join him in this knowledge, but the way there is not easy:

You have heard that it was said, "Love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven.

I believe that generalization is not true. I believe Constantine who found God to be a good supporter of his military ambitions did so not because of Christian or Jewish traditions but because he had a dream ostensibly from God since God supported the actions taken in accordance with the dream.

Mt 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

 

[Ingledsva]

I do not consider speculation and assertion as evidence. The text contained a lot of speculation and assertion so I am merely asking what you thought in the article was actual evidence and not speculation or assertion.

It is Christian "speculation and assertion" that Jesus is God, - for he never claims that.



*

 

[Prophet]

I believe that generalization is not true. I believe Constantine who found God to be a good supporter of his military ambitions did so not because of Christian or Jewish traditions but because he had a dream ostensibly from God since God supported the actions taken in accordance with the dream.

Mt 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Constantine made changes to Christianity to merge it with their pagan religion. Christmas and Easter are not originally Christian holidays. To say Constantine switched the religion of the Roman Empire is simplistic. To assume Constantine was acting out of religious devotion rather than practical power consolidation concerns is naive.

 

[Shiranui117]

Constantine made changes to Christianity to merge it with their pagan religion.

No he didn't.

Christmas and Easter are not originally Christian holidays.

Yes they are.

 

[outhouse]

No he didn't. Yes they are.

Sources please.

Constantine only forced a decision that defined how divine jesus was in relationship to god. Yes men define gods all the time. They are the only ones who do such.

Xmas is a pagan holiday period. It was never his birthday ever.

Easter is Passover a Jewish holiday, so your semi correct there.

 

[Prophet]

No he didn't. Yes they are.

Great points.

 

[Prophet]

Sources please.

Constantine only forced a decision that defined how divine jesus was in relationship to god. Yes men define gods all the time. They are the only ones who do such.

Xmas is a pagan holiday period. It was never his birthday ever.

Easter is Passover a Jewish holiday, so your semi correct there.

My notes say Easter is of Babylonian origin. Mind sharing your sources?

 

[metis]

Constantine made changes to Christianity to merge it with their pagan religion. Christmas and Easter are not originally Christian holidays. To say Constantine switched the religion of the Roman Empire is simplistic. To assume Constantine was acting out of religious devotion rather than practical power consolidation concerns is naive.

Well, I don't know how anyone can truly judge Constantine 1600+ years later. As far as the rest: Easter was established to recognize Jesus' supposed resurrection after Passover, and Christmas reflects the liturgical calendar whereas different saints are recognized for their faith and what they did accomplish. This practice was done very early by the church, so Constantine did not start it.

As far as Constantine's supposed mixing in "pagan" practices or beliefs into Christian ones, could you be more specific? This is partially true, but that can be deceiving.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Well, I don't know how anyone can truly judge Constantine 1600+ years later.

That's nothing. People make a lifetime career of judging Jesus 2000 years later.

 

[Prophet]

Well, I don't know how anyone can truly judge Constantine 1600+ years later. As far as the rest: Easter was established to recognize Jesus' supposed resurrection after Passover, and Christmas reflects the liturgical calendar whereas different saints are recognized for their faith and what they did accomplish. This practice was done very early by the church, so Constantine did not start it.

As far as Constantine's supposed mixing in "pagan" practices or beliefs into Christian ones, could you be more specific? This is partially true, but that can be deceiving.

A few examples are the virgin birth and the physical resurrection of Jesus. And okay, let's not judge Constantine, but do we really think he had no clue of the practical benefits of making Christianity the state religion?

 

[outhouse]

My notes say Easter is of Babylonian origin. Mind sharing your sources?

The date of Passover

 

[metis]

A few examples are the virgin birth and the physical resurrection of Jesus. And okay, let's not judge Constantine, but do we really think he had no clue of the practical benefits of making Christianity the state religion?

Even though the concept of virgin births was well accepted in Greek mythology, I am far from certain that it made it over to Christian theology for that reason. Instead, it appears to have more likely stemmed from a mistranslation of Isaiah whereas "young maiden" was mistaking translated as "virgin". Was this an honest mistake or not? I don't know.

It's quite clear from the early church records prior to Constantine that the concept of Jesus resurrection was widely believed, and the only debate that I've seen from these early writings was whether it was his whole body and soul or just his spirit (soul)? Most drifted towards both, but some, like Origen, believed it to be his spirit that was resurrected.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Even though the concept of virgin births was well accepted in Greek mythology, I am far from certain that it made it over to Christian theology for that reason. Instead, it appears to have more likely stemmed from a mistranslation of Isaiah whereas "young maiden" was mistaking translated as "virgin". Was this an honest mistake or not? I don't know.

The virgin birth idea is missing from Mark and Paul. The gospels attributed to Luke and Matthew have it, but they probably date from 100-150. I think it came from Isaiah, as you say. It's difficult to say that the Septuagint is a mistranslation. The Greek "parthenos" can mean a virgin, but it can also just mean an unmarried woman. The translators couldn't have realised just what they were starting!

 

[outhouse]

The translators couldn't have realised just what they were starting!

I think your 100% correct