the right religion

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Sorry, entirely my fault.


Two questions.

1) Do you think Jesus is not synonymous with being 'the Christ'? If so, what do you think of both of them?

2) I took your post as meaning Jesus was not identified with Christ until later writings, so I asked if so, what do you make of these verses where he was identified as such.

I'm not saying it's two different people. I'm saying the name Jesus was added on to the Christ myth later in an effort to make him human.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

He loved his sister, he was not in love with his sister (and who doesn't love their own siblings?). And what does the fact that he became clinically insane (perhaps as the result of syphilis) have to do with his writings (you know, besides nothing)?

A bum in the subway might have some truth hidden in his babbling, but you still avoid him because he's crazy.

 

[sojourner]

Am I the only person in the world who hasn't forgotten that Nietzsche was completely nuts and in love with his sister?

Well...

Was she hot?

 

[Ingledsva]

You think Christ could've been something different to Jesus?

But what about this?

15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.


16: ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Σίμων Πέτρος εἶπεν· σὺ εἰ ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος.
Matthew 16:16 Biblos Interlinear Bible

20: τότε ἐπετίμησεν τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἵνα μηδενὶ εἴπωσιν ὅτι αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός.
Matthew 16:20 Biblos Interlinear Bible

Don't you folks think you might be putting too much emphasis on Jesus being called "son of God," and "messiah?"

Others in the Bible are called by both.


Solomon for instance. 2 Sam 7:14 I shall be a father to him, and he shall be a son to Me. If He takes iniquity upon Himself, then I will chasten him with a rod of men, and with strokes of the sons of men.


We also have the Temple established by him - so why the later Peter/Rock story?


Exo 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:


Psalms 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

Psalms 82:7 Nevertheless as human beings, shall die, and of a certainty, as all leaders fall.


Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

**


Psa 18:50 Great deliverance giveth he to his king; and sheweth mercy to his Messiah, to David, and to his seed for evermore.


2Sa 1:14 And David said unto him, How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thine hand to destroy the LORD'S Mashiyach/Messiah?




Isa 45:1 Thus saith the LORD to his Messiah, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;


1Sa 2:10 The adversaries of the LORD shall be broken to pieces; out of heaven shall he thunder upon them: the LORD shall judge the ends of the earth; and he shall give strength unto his king, and exalt the horn/power of his Messiah.

 

[Ingledsva]

Dropped to the bottom because I had a heck of a time finding it again in Hybrid mode - LOL!

You think Christ could've been something different to Jesus?

But what about this?

15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.


16: ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Σίμων Πέτρος εἶπεν· σὺ εἰ ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος.
Matthew 16:16 Biblos Interlinear Bible

20: τότε ἐπετίμησεν τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἵνα μηδενὶ εἴπωσιν ὅτι αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός.
Matthew 16:20 Biblos Interlinear Bible

Don't you folks think you might be putting too much emphasis on Jesus being called "son of God," and "messiah?"

Others in the Bible are called by both.


Solomon for instance. 2 Sam 7:14 I shall be a father to him, and he shall be a son to Me. If He takes iniquity upon Himself, then I will chasten him with a rod of men, and with strokes of the sons of men.


We also have the Temple established by him - so why the later Peter/Rock story?


Exo 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:


Psalms 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

Psalms 82:7 Nevertheless as human beings, shall die, and of a certainty, as all leaders fall.


Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

**


Psa 18:50 Great deliverance giveth he to his king; and sheweth mercy to his Messiah, to David, and to his seed for evermore.


2Sa 1:14 And David said unto him, How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thine hand to destroy the LORD'S Mashiyach/Messiah?



Isa 45:1 Thus saith the LORD to his Messiah, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;


1Sa 2:10 The adversaries of the LORD shall be broken to pieces; out of heaven shall he thunder upon them: the LORD shall judge the ends of the earth; and he shall give strength unto his king, and exalt the horn/power of his Messiah.

 

[Breathe]

I'm not saying it's two different people. I'm saying the name Jesus was added on to the Christ myth later in an effort to make him human.

Ah right, okay.

 

[Mark Paul]

According to me, every religious have equal importance, there is only need to follow it's all guidelines.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

A bum in the subway might have some truth hidden in his babbling, but you still avoid him because he's crazy.

Ok... And?

I hope you aren't thinking this is analogous to the case of Nietzsche- a man widely acknowledged as one of the most talented and influential writers in all of history?

As I said, the reason ad hominem is a logical fallacy is because facts about a writers person don't tend to discredit (or credit) their views. Someone can be crazy and correct, and someone can be sane and incorrect. (besides, Nietzsche went crazy after he had written all of his works, not before...)

 

[sojourner]

I'm not saying it's two different people. I'm saying the name Jesus was added on to the Christ myth later in an effort to make him human.

Except for the fact that the name appears in the Q source, which is earlier than Paul. So, your theory would have to be amended to say that the mythic (Christ) was added on to the name Jesus later.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Ok... And?

I hope you aren't thinking this is analogous to the case of Nietzsche- a man widely acknowledged as one of the most talented and influential writers in all of history?

As I said, the reason ad hominem is a logical fallacy is because facts about a writers person don't tend to discredit (or credit) their views. Someone can be crazy and correct, and someone can be sane and incorrect. (besides, Nietzsche went crazy after he had written all of his works, not before...)

First of all, there is no "correct" philosophy. You can't say Nietzsche was right or wrong about anything. And yes, I would liken any nut that's in love with his sister to a bum on the subway, regardless of how many books they've written. Nietzsche was crazy when he wrote his books (maybe not in the medical sense, but come on... The man was in love with his sister), then he got syphilis and became even more crazy.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Except for the fact that the name appears in the Q source, which is earlier than Paul. So, your theory would have to be amended to say that the mythic (Christ) was added on to the name Jesus later.

Hey, soujourner. Why do you believe that the name Jesus appears in the Q source? I mean, couldn't 'Jesus' simply have been added by Mark as he wrote his gospel, using Q as a source of the sayings?

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Except for the fact that the name appears in the Q source, which is earlier than Paul. So, your theory would have to be amended to say that the mythic (Christ) was added on to the name Jesus later.

If that's the case (which I highly doubt), why didn't Paul ever use the name Jesus in his Epistles?

 

[sojourner]

Hey, soujourner. Why do you believe that the name Jesus appears in the Q source? I mean, couldn't 'Jesus' simply have been added by Mark as he wrote his gospel, using Q as a source of the sayings?

Because it does. It appears in material common to both Matthew and Luke. (That is, by definition, Q).

Mark didn't use Q.

 

[sojourner]

If that's the case (which I highly doubt), why didn't Paul ever use the name Jesus in his Epistles?

Paul was likely unaware of Q. Q was probably rural and Galilean in origin. Paul traveled in decidedly more urban circles.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Because it does. It appears in material common to both Matthew and Luke. (That is, by definition, Q).

Mark didn't use Q.

Yet Mark still uses the name Jesus. Could Matthew and Luke not have gotten the name Jesus from Mark, and not from Q?

 

[Sha'irullah]

The right religion is Natural Religion. Earlier I said "No Religion" but truthfully the proper terminology for what I was expressing was Natural Theology. Undoubtedly this is the only correct path to God because this is what we do everyday actually

 

[sojourner]

Yet Mark still uses the name Jesus. Could Matthew and Luke not have gotten the name Jesus from Mark, and not from Q?

They got the name from both sources. Q isn't shared with Mark. Two sources, unaware of each other, one of which is less than ten years after the fact, is a pretty good indicator of a real person in that time period.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Because it does. It appears in material common to both Matthew and Luke. (That is, by definition, Q).

Mark didn't use Q.

Yeah, Mark was a misstatement on my part, but I'm still confused about your position.

Since there is no Q document, how do you know that Mark didn't make Jesus up and then when Matthew and Luke rewrote Mark, they simply added the Q sayings and attributed them to this new Jesus character, rather than the traditional originator of the sayings (Mithras or some other speaker)?

Look at all the misattributions today. Sometimes it's claimed that Twain said it. Other times it was Einstein who said it. Clearly there's a tendency to attribute memorable sayings to various different characters.

Imagine a Bartlett's scroll (B) floating around in 1st century Judea. Wouldn't it be likely that creators of Jesus would take their favorite sayings from B and attribute them to this new Jesus character?

 

[sojourner]

Yeah, Mark was a misstatement on my part, but I'm still confused about your position.

Since there is no Q document, how do you know that Mark didn't make Jesus up and then when Matthew and Luke rewrote Mark, they simply added the Q sayings and attributed them to this new Jesus character, rather than the traditional originator of the sayings (Mithras or some other speaker)?

Look at all the misattributions today. Sometimes it's claimed that Twain said it. Other times it was Einstein who said it. Clearly there's a tendency to attribute memorable sayings to various different characters.

Imagine a Bartlett's scroll (B) floating around in 1st century Judea. Wouldn't it be likely that creators of Jesus would take their favorite sayings from B and attribute them to this new Jesus character?

Matthew and Luke are quite different from each other in their approach, style and linguistic characteristics. They were unaware of the other. It's a bit of a stretch, don't you think, that both would cabbage onto the very same interpolation, especially when they differ so much in their other treatments of Mark's material.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Matthew and Luke are quite different from each other in their approach, style and linguistic characteristics. They were unaware of the other. It's a bit of a stretch, don't you think, that both would cabbage onto the very same interpolation, especially when they differ so much in their other treatments of Mark's material.

Why do you think they were unaware of each other?

If there were a free-floating Bartlett's of Christology out in the community, why wouldn't they both think to take passages from that Bartlett's and attribute them to this new Jesus hero?