Theists Only: Who was/is Jesus, in your opinion?

[Mister Emu]

No it's about the nature of the Father's person in contrast to the Son's person. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the father, and adding the fillioque changes the role of the Son.

As I said, it has different connotation in Greek than Latin...

Furthermore, since it could be argued that the Holy Spirit is also the "Mother", and I believe it is so, and several early Christians believed it, the Mother proceeds from the Son? Makes no sense

Since that belief has never been orthodox, it has no bearing on why the Eastern Churches rejected the filioque.

 

[S-word]

Unlike other convicts, the posting over His head had a political/religious slant.
The Jewish authorities had serious objection.
If the Romans execute any man standing forth as 'king of the Jews'...
or any man standing forth as a prophet....
Then all hope of ever coming out from under Rome is gone.
In the face of Jewish authority...Pilate refrained...
'I have written what I have written.'

However, when approached and the request made for the body, the Roman authorities allowed the body quickly removed.

Across the immediate country side, Jesus had been known to draw large crowds.
What if news of the execution be allowed to spread over several days?

BTW...He was nailed to hasten His death.
Most convicts were simply tied the cross.
Death followed by thirst or exposure.
Jesus was nailed...then lanced....that He not hang for the usual three days.

I don't know what you're on about, there's nothing scriptural to suggest that the theives were crucified differently than Jesus, (NAILED) and the theives were also taken down on the same day as Jesus, but instead of being speared as was Jesus, they had there legs broken in order to hasten their death. See John 19: 31. How many days had the theives been hanging for? We are not told, but the reason given for them to be taken down from their crucifixion stake, was not because they had been hanging for three days, but because the Jews didn't want them hanging on the day of Passover, the day after the day of preparation, when the passover lamb was slaughtered.

 

[S-word]

God, yes, but not equal to God the Father, and by no means God in the same way God the Father is God.

Jesus was a man who became a God, and not a god who became a man.

Moses asked God for his name in order that he might be able to tell the Israelites in Egypt, who had sent him. And God said; Exodus 3: 14; "I Am Who I Am." You must tell them: 'The one who is called "I AM" has sent me to you.' Tell the Israelites that I, the Lord, the God of their ancestors, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, have sent you to them.

Acts 3: 13; "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of your ancestors, has given divine glory to his servant Jesus.

Deuteronomy 18: 18; The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, says to Moses; "I will send them a prophet like you from among their own people; I will tell him what to say, and he will tell the people everything I command. He will speak in my name etc.

Peter confirms that Jesus was that man. Acts 3: 22; For Moses said; "The Lord your God will send you a prophet, Just as he sent me, and he will be one of your own people, etc."

Did the people of his day believe that he was the Lord, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The God of our ancestors? No, they did not, for on the day of his triumphant entry into Jerusalem, the people escorting him cried out, "Blessed is he, who comes in the name of the Lord." Verifying that they believed Jesus to be the one that God had prophesied that he would choose from among the Israelites, and send to the people to speak in his name.

Act 17: 31; For he (The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.) has fixed a day in which he will judge the whole world with justice by means of a man he has chosen. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising that man from death.

Jesus is not the God of our ancestors, he is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as is proved conclusively by the Holy Scriptures.

 

[Thief]

I don't know what you're on about, there's nothing scriptural to suggest that the theives were crucified differently than Jesus, (NAILED) and the theives were also taken down on the same day as Jesus, but instead of being speared as was Jesus, they had there legs broken in order to hasten their death. See John 19: 31. How many days had the theives been hanging for? We are not told, but the reason given for them to be taken down from their crucifixion stake, was not because they had been hanging for three days, but because the Jews didn't want them hanging on the day of Passover, the day after the day of preparation, when the passover lamb was slaughtered.

You can lay it to Scripture, or you can lay it to politics.
The thieves were probably treated differently....they had different script above their heads.

 

[S-word]

You can lay it to Scripture, or you can lay it to politics.
The thieves were probably treated differently....they had different script above their heads.

I don't care whether you lay it to Scripture, or you lay it to politics, and irrelevant to the scripts that were above their heads, the theives were not left to be eaten by the birds etc, nor is it said anywhere in scripture, that they were tied to their torture stake or nailed, as was Jesus, and the only reason given, for them to have been taken down after having their legs broken in order to hasten their death, was because the Jews didn't want them hanging around on the day of Passover, which began that evening, immediately after they had been removed.

 

[fallingblood]

Actually I think Jesus was an avatar of Brahman not Jehovah. Just like Krishna. I don't see how the NT and OT teach anywhere near the same thing, they don't even describe God the same. I believe just what Jesus meant when he said to the Jews: "You are of your father the devil, and the works of your father you will do, he was a liar and a MURDERER from the beginning." Murderer indicating the slaughter of the Canaanites on Jehovah's supposed orders.

Most likely, Jesus never said this. That is why it is only seen in the Gospel of John. In order to understand what it actually says, one must understand the time in which it is coming from.

The community in which John was coming from was splitting from the Jewish-Christians. Actually, most likely they were probably forbidden from participating with the Jewish-Christians, or at least frowned upon by them. There were some harsh feelings, and the writer of John portrays that. He states that the Jews are from the devil. This is only one example the writer of John attacking the Jews. That passage has nothing to do with the slaughter of the Canaanites.

 

[Thief]

I don't care whether you lay it to Scripture, or you lay it to politics, and irrelevant to the scripts that were above their heads, the theives were not left to be eaten by the birds etc, nor is it said anywhere in scripture, that they were tied to their torture stake or nailed, as was Jesus, and the only reason given, for them to have been taken down after having their legs broken in order to hasten their death, was because the Jews didn't want them hanging around on the day of Passover, which began that evening, immediately after they had been removed.

The script above His head is altogether relevant.
The disposition of the dead thieves is not mentioned.

 

[fallingblood]

Yes I agree Jesus was berating them for moving away from the original teachings of the law. In their time though they no longer had the original law even. Jeremiah said the pen of the scribes wrought falsehood. As for the prophets, the prophets didn't teach "Judaism" either, they tried to teach people deeper spiritual truths, and Jesus said they got killed for that. He said: Jerusalem that murders all the prophets. In fact, they murdered Jesus too.

I don't see where you are getting this from. Jerusalem did not murder Jesus. The Roman authority executed Jesus for what could be deemed as treason. Jesus committed a crime during Passover, one that had the potential of setting off a revolt. So the Roman authority did what they needed to and executed him. Nothing to do with Jerusalem, it was Rome.

As for the original laws, there is no evidence that they still weren't there. During the time of Jeremiah, there were various forms of Judaism. More so, the Hebrews were not strictly Jewish, and most likely, Jeremiah wasn't talking about the Jews per se. He was most likely talking about the pagan Hebrews who were worshipping other gods as well. Jeremiah, as well as many of the later prophets, were very strict against anyone who were not fundamental Jews. They were a minority though. So they spoke against the the false believers. The reason they were killed, was because of this insurrection. That and the fact that some of them were simply considered nuts and for good reason.

They were teaching Judaism though. Jesus was also doing so. Matthew, the most Jewish of the Gospels, shows that Jesus was teaching a Jewish message. He commanded his followers to obey the Jewish law even better then the strict Jews.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

S-word- Jesus is an avatar of God the Father That's what makes him God and man at the same time. Yes he was a human like you or I, very much so, but when an avatar dies they return to the oneness that is God, that's why in a sense, it's not incorrect to pray to Jesus, or through his name.

 

[S-word]

The script above His head is altogether relevant.
The disposition of the dead thieves is not mentioned.

The scripts above THEIR heads were indeed irrelevant as to wheter they were nailed or tied to their cross's, or irrelevant, as to how long they were to remain on thier cross's. Because the Jews didn't wan't their Bodies (Plural) BODIES hanging around on the day of Passover, the theives, who were still alive, had their legs broken so as to hasten their deaths, in order that their bodies might be taken down before sunset, when the Jews would sit down to eat the sacrificial lamb that had been slaughtered on the day of preparation to the Passover.

Although scipture does not bother to tell us what happened to the bodies of those criminals, we can rest assured that they were not still hanging on thir cross's at sundown, which was the beginning of the day of Passover.

 

[fallingblood]

Unlike other convicts, the posting over His head had a political/religious slant.
The Jewish authorities had serious objection.
If the Romans execute any man standing forth as 'king of the Jews'...
or any man standing forth as a prophet....
Then all hope of ever coming out from under Rome is gone.
In the face of Jewish authority...Pilate refrained...
'I have written what I have written.'

However, when approached and the request made for the body, the Roman authorities allowed the body quickly removed.

Across the immediate country side, Jesus had been known to draw large crowds.
What if news of the execution be allowed to spread over several days?

BTW...He was nailed to hasten His death.
Most convicts were simply tied the cross.
Death followed by thirst or exposure.
Jesus was nailed...then lanced....that He not hang for the usual three days.

Jesus was not the only person who supposedly claimed to be the King of the Jews. For Jesus though, if he even stated that, it was a baseless claim. The evidence would point to the fact that he did not have a very large following. Most likely, he did not draw massive crowds. What he did was go place to place so that people did not have to come to him. Since he spread his message in this way, that is probably why it had more of an impact.

Pilate though would not have refrained from executing Jesus. He had no reason to. He was known to be harsh. Most likely, there were orders to execute anyone who could potential start a riot. Jesus would have been just that.

The crucifixion of Jesus was making a point. It was telling people to basically not mess with them, and if they did, they would be dealt with. The crucifixion was a public announcement, and Pilate would have had no problem making that announcement.

There is little evidence that Jesus's body would have been allowed to be taken down. Really, it simply did not happen. There are a few cases, but the person receiving the body had to have considerable power. The general practice was to allow the body to remain on the cross as a warning, and to add to the humiliation, the body would be devoured by wild animals. It was a political message.

Out of the thousands upon thousands of crucifixions that we know of, there has only been one known instance in which a crucified body was placed in a tomb after wards.

As for whether or not others heard of the crucifixion of Jesus, it would not have mattered. Rome was fully prepared to deal with an uprising. It would not have been the first time. And really, they would not have blinked about it. It would have been just one more instance in which they needed to squash an uprising. Rome was not going to run scared from some Jewish peasants.

Also, the Gospels may have stated that he was nailed to the cross, but that was one of the common forms of crucifixion. So it would not have been unique. And death was caused by asphyxiation.

Finally, there was no norm as you're stating. A criminal could be left hanging on the cross for days to a week until they died. After that, their bodies were usually left to be eaten by the wild animals.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Jesus did not claim to be the king of the Jews. This is what they accused him of to ensure his death. He fled away when he saw people wanted to make him a king. He said God's kingdom is not of this world (carnal mind) because if it was, his followers would take up swords.

 

[painted wolf]

To me he is a mythologized figure who may (or may not) have been based on an actual person.
At best, he brought a message that needed to be heard in his time and place.

wa:do

 

[dogsgod]

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages; Light of Light, true God of true God; begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father; through whom all things were made.


Who, for us human beings and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was made flesh by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, and was made a human being; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; and suffered, and was buried; and the third day rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; whose kingdom will have no end.

On this much we can agree.

 

[S-word]

Jesus was not the only person who supposedly claimed to be the King of the Jews. For Jesus though, if he even stated that, it was a baseless claim. The evidence would point to the fact that he did not have a very large following. Most likely, he did not draw massive crowds. What he did was go place to place so that people did not have to come to him. Since he spread his message in this way, that is probably why it had more of an impact.

Pilate though would not have refrained from executing Jesus. He had no reason to. He was known to be harsh. Most likely, there were orders to execute anyone who could potential start a riot. Jesus would have been just that.

The crucifixion of Jesus was making a point. It was telling people to basically not mess with them, and if they did, they would be dealt with. The crucifixion was a public announcement, and Pilate would have had no problem making that announcement.

There is little evidence that Jesus's body would have been allowed to be taken down. Really, it simply did not happen. There are a few cases, but the person receiving the body had to have considerable power. The general practice was to allow the body to remain on the cross as a warning, and to add to the humiliation, the body would be devoured by wild animals. It was a political message.

Out of the thousands upon thousands of crucifixions that we know of, there has only been one known instance in which a crucified body was placed in a tomb after wards.

As for whether or not others heard of the crucifixion of Jesus, it would not have mattered. Rome was fully prepared to deal with an uprising. It would not have been the first time. And really, they would not have blinked about it. It would have been just one more instance in which they needed to squash an uprising. Rome was not going to run scared from some Jewish peasants.

Also, the Gospels may have stated that he was nailed to the cross, but that was one of the common forms of crucifixion. So it would not have been unique. And death was caused by asphyxiation.

Finally, there was no norm as you're stating. A criminal could be left hanging on the cross for days to a week until they died. After that, their bodies were usually left to be eaten by the wild animals.

quote=fallingblood; Jesus was not the only person who supposedly claimed to be the King of the Jews. For Jesus though, if he even stated that, it was a baseless claim.

What if it could be shown, that Jesus was a descendant of Mark Antony and Cleopatra, who were born on the 25th of December. What if it could be shown that Heli, the grand father of Jesus, was in fact Helios the high priest in the Temple in Sepphorus, who was the twin brother of Cleopatra Selena/moon, who is thought to be the mother of Philip the son of Herod and the tetrarch ot the territory north and east of lake Galilee, where Jesus performed most of the mighty miracles.

And what if it can be shown that Cleopas, which is the masculine form of Cleopatra, who was the husband of Mary at the cross and who was also known as Alpheaus, the father of James, the brother of Jesus. Would you then say that his claim to the throne as King, was baseless? Jesus only came down to Jerusalem for the major religious festivals, otherwise he remained in the Hellenistic area of Northern Galilee, visiting the 10 major Helenistic cities of the decapolis, gathering his followers and support base from the Greek speaking Jewish community. "Heli," the name of Jesus's Grandfather, is the Greek adaptation of the Hebrew "Eli" the high priest. Did Jesus cry out Eli, Eli, or was it, "Heli, Heli, why hast thou forsaken me?"

 

[Thief]

The scripts above THEIR heads were indeed irrelevant as to wheter they were nailed or tied to their cross's, or irrelevant, as to how long they were to remain on thier cross's. Because the Jews didn't wan't their Bodies (Plural) BODIES hanging around on the day of Passover, the theives, who were still alive, had their legs broken so as to hasten their deaths, in order that their bodies might be taken down before sunset, when the Jews would sit down to eat the sacrificial lamb that had been slaughtered on the day of preparation to the Passover.

Although scipture does not bother to tell us what happened to the bodies of those criminals, we can rest assured that they were not still hanging on thir cross's at sundown, which was the beginning of the day of Passover.

Asserting a conclusion for the thieves doesn't work.
Many people were crucified in those days...and the roads were lined with bodies.
Pilate had no special respect for Jewish sabbath.
(Though he tried to use a yearly custom to avoid judging the Carpenter.)
He simply didn't want the spectacle of the Carpenter's execution to escalate.
The sooner the Carpenter was out of sight the better.

 

[Thief]

Jesus was not the only person who supposedly claimed to be the King of the Jews. For Jesus though, if he even stated that, it was a baseless claim. The evidence would point to the fact that he did not have a very large following. Most likely, he did not draw massive crowds. What he did was go place to place so that people did not have to come to him. Since he spread his message in this way, that is probably why it had more of an impact.

Pilate though would not have refrained from executing Jesus. He had no reason to. He was known to be harsh. Most likely, there were orders to execute anyone who could potential start a riot. Jesus would have been just that.

The crucifixion of Jesus was making a point. It was telling people to basically not mess with them, and if they did, they would be dealt with. The crucifixion was a public announcement, and Pilate would have had no problem making that announcement.

There is little evidence that Jesus's body would have been allowed to be taken down. Really, it simply did not happen. There are a few cases, but the person receiving the body had to have considerable power. The general practice was to allow the body to remain on the cross as a warning, and to add to the humiliation, the body would be devoured by wild animals. It was a political message.

Out of the thousands upon thousands of crucifixions that we know of, there has only been one known instance in which a crucified body was placed in a tomb after wards.

As for whether or not others heard of the crucifixion of Jesus, it would not have mattered. Rome was fully prepared to deal with an uprising. It would not have been the first time. And really, they would not have blinked about it. It would have been just one more instance in which they needed to squash an uprising. Rome was not going to run scared from some Jewish peasants.

Also, the Gospels may have stated that he was nailed to the cross, but that was one of the common forms of crucifixion. So it would not have been unique. And death was caused by asphyxiation.

Finally, there was no norm as you're stating. A criminal could be left hanging on the cross for days to a week until they died. After that, their bodies were usually left to be eaten by the wild animals.

Jesus was well known for drawing large crowds.
He fed several thousand on one occasion...and then again....

During the Passover the Temple would be standing room only.

And Pilate did indeed avoid judging the Carpenter.
First, he argued with the pharisees, as they were insisting that Jewish law be upheld by Rome. (there had been accusations of blasphemy)
Under Rome, the Jews were not permitted capital punishment...and certainly not for upholding religious beliefs.
If the pharisees could have done so they would have executed the Carpenter themselves.
So when they took the Carpenter to Pilate....Pilate didn't want anything to do with it.
He sent the Carpenter to another man's court.
That didn't work.
Then he tried that yearly custom of releasing a convict during passover.
That didn't work. The people called for Barabbas.
A whipping was dealt during all of this.
That didn't make the crowd happy either.

Finally, Pilate washed his hands.
An outward sign that he would not be held responsible.

He declared the Carpenter claimed to be 'king of the Jews', a crime under Roman law...because....
'there is no king but Caesar'.
Notation of the crime was nailed to the cross above His head.

 

[S-word]

Asserting a conclusion for the thieves doesn't work.
Many people were crucified in those days...and the roads were lined with bodies.
Pilate had no special respect for Jewish sabbath.
(Though he tried to use a yearly custom to avoid judging the Carpenter.)
He simply didn't want the spectacle of the Carpenter's execution to escalate.
The sooner the Carpenter was out of sight the better.

It is the Bible which reveals the conclusion to the crucifiction of the thieves, John 19: 31; "Then the Jewish authorities asked Pilate to allow them to break the legs of the men, who had been crucified (Three in all on that particular day) and to take the bodies (Plural) Bodies down from the crosses.

You may assume whatever you wish, I will continue to put my faith in the words as recorded in the scriptures, and not in the assumptions of men.

 

[fallingblood]

Jesus was well known for drawing large crowds.
He fed several thousand on one occasion...and then again....

The source being the Bible? I don't know if you could then state that it is well known even when those large crowds are not accounted for in each Gospel.

During the Passover the Temple would be standing room only.

Jesus never attracted a crowd at the Temple during Passover. People were going back and forth to the Temple because it was Passover. If Jesus wasn't there, it would have been no different.

And Pilate did indeed avoid judging the Carpenter.
First, he argued with the pharisees, as they were insisting that Jewish law be upheld by Rome. (there had been accusations of blasphemy)
Under Rome, the Jews were not permitted capital punishment...and certainly not for upholding religious beliefs.
If the pharisees could have done so they would have executed the Carpenter themselves.
So when they took the Carpenter to Pilate....Pilate didn't want anything to do with it.
He sent the Carpenter to another man's court.
That didn't work.
Then he tried that yearly custom of releasing a convict during passover.
That didn't work. The people called for Barabbas.
A whipping was dealt during all of this.
That didn't make the crowd happy either.

Stating to be the son of God or the King of the Jews is not blasphemy. Jesus committed a real crime against Rome. Also, the Jews were permitted capital punishment. For instance, they stoned Stephen, and Rome didn't care. Rome didn't care if some Jews killed some other Jews. And they certainly had no problem with it.

Also, that yearly custom did not exist. There is no mention of it anywhere but the Bible. There is no record of it ever happening. Simply, it was not a tradition. Now, the whipping was part of the deal of crucifixion. Jesus was not unique in this at all. It was common practice.

Also, calling Jesus a carpenter may not be accurate. The Greek is tekton. It could even suggest that he was just a handy man. Others have said it is relating to stone work. Either way, it is most likely used as somewhat of an insulting term.

Finally, Pilate washed his hands.
An outward sign that he would not be held responsible.

He declared the Carpenter claimed to be 'king of the Jews', a crime under Roman law...because....
'there is no king but Caesar'.
Notation of the crime was nailed to the cross above His head.

Claiming to be king of the Jews was not in itself technically a crime. Actually, Herod the Great was considered the kind of the Jews, as was one of his children. It probably would have ticked some people off.

However, the crime Jesus committed was going into the temple and symbolically destroying it (when he over turned the money changers tables and created a scene there). It could have easily started a revolt during Passover. That was not something Rome was going to tolerate, and as their actions in prior events attest to, they crucified him.

 

[Thief]

The source being the Bible? I don't know if you could then state that it is well known even when those large crowds are not accounted for in each Gospel.

Jesus never attracted a crowd at the Temple during Passover. People were going back and forth to the Temple because it was Passover. If Jesus wasn't there, it would have been no different.
Stating to be the son of God or the King of the Jews is not blasphemy. Jesus committed a real crime against Rome. Also, the Jews were permitted capital punishment. For instance, they stoned Stephen, and Rome didn't care. Rome didn't care if some Jews killed some other Jews. And they certainly had no problem with it.

Also, that yearly custom did not exist. There is no mention of it anywhere but the Bible. There is no record of it ever happening. Simply, it was not a tradition. Now, the whipping was part of the deal of crucifixion. Jesus was not unique in this at all. It was common practice.

Also, calling Jesus a carpenter may not be accurate. The Greek is tekton. It could even suggest that he was just a handy man. Others have said it is relating to stone work. Either way, it is most likely used as somewhat of an insulting term.
Claiming to be king of the Jews was not in itself technically a crime. Actually, Herod the Great was considered the kind of the Jews, as was one of his children. It probably would have ticked some people off.

However, the crime Jesus committed was going into the temple and symbolically destroying it (when he over turned the money changers tables and created a scene there). It could have easily started a revolt during Passover. That was not something Rome was going to tolerate, and as their actions in prior events attest to, they crucified him.

Your rebuttal is shallow ....shall I waste the effort to counter?

During His ministry the people He fed, sought to put a crown on His head.
He wanted no part of it and left them quickly to be alone.
So yes, He drew large crowds, and they favored Him.

When He went to the Temple, He chastised the entire crowd driving all of them from the Temple.
This would be disturbing the peace.
A charge worthy of a beating....not crucifixion.

But the pharisees wanted Him dead. His message reduced them publicly.
It is noted they plotted to that end.
However, speaking well of God and His kingdom is not a crime in Rome.

Being called King of the Jews...is.