The Jesus Myth

[InChrist]

The verses in which this story appears is Luke 4:18-19. In it, Jesus is quoting from Isaiah. He starts at Isaiah 61:1, jumps to Isaiah 58:6, and then back to Isaiah 61:2.

From my understanding, to do so seamlessly would not have been possible.

.

Not impossible for God in the Person of Jesus Christ who knew the scriptures and whose words they were originally.



[FONT=&quot]His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover. And when He was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast. When they had finished the days, as they returned, the Boy Jesus lingered behind in Jerusalem. And Joseph and His mother did not know it; but supposing Him to have been in the company, they went a day’s journey, and sought Him among their relatives and acquaintances. So when they did not find Him, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking Him. Now so it was that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers. Luke 2:41-47[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]And so it was, when Jesus had ended these sayings, that the people were astonished at His teaching, for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes. Matthew 7:28-29[/FONT]

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Isaiah 61:1 and Isaiah 61:2 were edited. In Isaiah 61:1, he omits to heal the broken hearted. In Isaiah 61:2, he omits "(to announce) a day of vindication, to console those who mourn, to give those of Zion who mourn glory instead of ashes." (this verse carries into verse 3).

Or the version he read omitted them, or what he read was poorly conveyed, or what he read was accurately conveyed but sloppily transmitted, or ...

What possible relevancy does any of this have to the question of historicity?

 

[fallingblood]

Not impossible for God in the Person of Jesus Christ who knew the scriptures and whose words they were originally.

Yes it is. Because Jesus was human, and was reading from a human work.

 

[fallingblood]

Or the version he read omitted them, or what he read was poorly conveyed, or what he read was accurately conveyed but sloppily transmitted, or ...

What possible relevancy does any of this have to the question of historicity?

It has to do with whether or not Jesus was illiterate. This particular verse is pretty much the only evidence that Jesus had the ability to read, and it isn't very good support once looked at.

The problem with these verses is that they are portraying Lukan theology, and not what would be expected of Jesus. By omitting those sections of the verses, Luke is portraying his idea of a universal savior instead of a savior for Israel.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

God inspired the writing of the Bible.

Who told you that, and why did you believe them?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Who told you that, and why did you believe them?

If I may interject, the apostle Paul wrote that the Bible is inspired by God at 2nd Tim 3vs16,17.

There it also says the Scriptures are useful for setting things straight.

By comparing what the Bible writers wrote by topic or subject arrangement shows me the internal harmony among the Bible's many different Bible writers over many centuries to complete.

I can find not fault with Jesus teachings.

 

[waitasec]

If I may interject, the apostle Paul wrote that the Bible is inspired by God at 2nd Tim 3vs16,17.

but the bible didn't exist ...
do you think paul was referring to the torah?

There it also says the Scriptures are useful for setting things straight.

so far it hasn't

By comparing what the Bible writers wrote by topic or subject arrangement shows me the internal harmony among the Bible's many different Bible writers over many centuries to complete.

I can find not fault with Jesus teachings.

i can...he condoned the beating of a slave....

 

[URAVIP2ME]

but the bible didn't exist ...
do you think paul was referring to the torah?
so far it hasn't
i can...he condoned the beating of a slave....

What Scripture says Jesus condoned the beating of a slave?

Jesus gave Christians a 'new commandment' to love others as he loved us.
Jesus did not beat any one. -John 13vs34,35

 

[waitasec]

What Scripture says Jesus condoned the beating of a slave?

luke 12
47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

he was also an elitist jew.
matthew 15 he compares a canaanite woman to a dog...

 

[InChrist]

It has to do with whether or not Jesus was illiterate. This particular verse is pretty much the only evidence that Jesus had the ability to read, and it isn't very good support once looked at.

The problem with these verses is that they are portraying Lukan theology, and not what would be expected of Jesus. By omitting those sections of the verses, Luke is portraying his idea of a universal savior instead of a savior for Israel.

[FONT=&quot]The passage in Luke 4 records Jesus in the synagogue on the Sabbath day reading from Isaiah. Clearly Jesus intent was to show Himself as the Savior of Israel and this is what Luke intended his readers to understand. The gospel was for the Jews first, then the Gentiles. The words Jesus read from Isaiah were prophetic and He read only the portion that was being fulfilled at that time by Him at His first advent. The remainder of the prophecy concerning God’s vindication on behalf of Zion (Israel) will take place when He returns again to the earth at Jerusalem.[/FONT]

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It has to do with whether or not Jesus was illiterate. This particular verse is pretty much the only evidence that Jesus had the ability to read, and it isn't very good support once looked at.

Whether good or not, it seems to me that you've done little to debunk it. One can note that Luke's 'report' is little more than hearsay, but to suggest that Luke's possible failure to accurately quote what was read/said somehow falsifies the report is just silly.

By the way, Schniedewind (How the Bible Became Book) suggests that the level of literacy in early Israel was likely much greater than previously thought, driven, in part, by the introduction of vowel letters in Hebrew.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

If I may interject, the apostle Paul wrote that the Bible is inspired by God at 2nd Tim 3vs16,17.

I'm pretty sure that Joseph Smith or perhaps the Angel Moroni(?) wrote that the Book of Mormon is inspired by God. It's pretty easy to claim that one's writings are inspired by God.

And as waitasec notes, there was no such thing as the Bible when Paul was writing.

As for fault in Jesus' teaching, didn't he say that he'd come to set brother against brother?

 

[Storm]

As for fault in Jesus' teaching, didn't he say that he'd come to set brother against brother?

Now see, I don't really think that's fair.

The Bible is at best a translation of a translation of a copy of an account from memory. I don't think we can harp on exact phrases, because it's impossible to know what was really said, what was misremembered or added by the unethical, or just an ancient typo.

Make sense?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Whether good or not, it seems to me that you've done little to debunk it. One can note that Luke's 'report' is little more than hearsay, but to suggest that Luke's possible failure to accurately quote what was read/said somehow falsifies the report is just silly.

By the way, Schniedewind (How the Bible Became Book) suggests that the level of literacy in early Israel was likely much greater than previously thought, driven, in part, by the introduction of vowel letters in Hebrew.

Thanks, Jay.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Now see, I don't really think that's fair.

The Bible is at best a translation of a translation of a copy of an account from memory. I don't think we can harp on exact phrases, because it's impossible to know what was really said, what was misremembered or added by the unethical, or just an ancient typo.

Make sense?

Sure. In fact, I see no reason to read such a book -- in which we cannot separate the actual reporting from the falsities.

Maybe Do-Unto-Others was also added by someone later and not actually said by Jesus.

Would you consider it unfair for a Christian to point to the Golden Rule and declare that Jesus was therefore a great teacher?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Sure. In fact, I see no reason to read such a book -- in which we cannot separate the actual reporting from the falsities.

Maybe Do-Unto-Others was also added by someone later and not actually said by Jesus.

Would you consider it unfair for a Christian to point to the Golden Rule and declare that Jesus was therefore a great teacher?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Sure. In fact, I see no reason to read such a book -- in which we cannot separate the actual reporting from the falsities.

There is bathwater, therefore there is no baby.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You always make the most elegant rebuttals, angellous. I'll give you that.

 

[Storm]

Sure. In fact, I see no reason to read such a book -- in which we cannot separate the actual reporting from the falsities.

Maybe Do-Unto-Others was also added by someone later and not actually said by Jesus.

Would you consider it unfair for a Christian to point to the Golden Rule and declare that Jesus was therefore a great teacher?

Well, for one thing, that wasn't original to Him, which strikes me as making it more likely He actually said it.

For another, I do think we can get the basic idea of what He taught, which I find positive. If you don't, that's cool.

Lastly, I have no issue against using it as a debate tactic against someone doing the same thing. I've been known to whip out the speck in the eye metaphor myself.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As for fault in Jesus' teaching, didn't he say that he'd come to set brother against brother?

Where? If you're referring to Matthew 10:21, no.