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

[fallingblood]

With each rebuttal.
As in insisting the Carpenter was guilty.
Sure...He whipped His own people and drove them out of the Temple.
But that's not ...'king of the Jews'...the offense posted over His head.

Never sidestepped this. I've explained, in detail, how he was guilty of a crime. You've never shown that not to be the fact. What he did was a crime in his day and was punishable by death. One could not go into the temple, during Passover, and whip people and drive them out of the Temple. That was a crime as it could have started a revolt because of the time that it happened.

Guilty of chastising a people for misusing the Temple...yes.
Is that a crime...or the act of a zealous prophet?
Is being a prophet a crime?

He was guilty more of that, he was guilty of insurrection. A zealous prophet also, as seen with John the Baptist, is fully a criminal in the eyes of Rome. So yes, being a zealous prophet can be a crime.

And yes Pilate had a problem with it.
Using the Roman penal code in response to a prophets handiwork?
Inappropriate.

Not at all. Pilate was not merciful. He crucified many Jews, and many so called prophets. Not inappropriate at all.

And anything else I've said about the Carpenter is supported by the Gospels.
If need be I could send you to each and every occasion.
But that would be your homework...not mine.

And the Gospels are wrong. It is as simple as that. They were not written to be wholly accurate. The Gospels have many problems, and many inaccuracies. Meaning, they can not be taken wholly to be true.

 

[Thief]

Never sidestepped this. I've explained, in detail, how he was guilty of a crime. You've never shown that not to be the fact. What he did was a crime in his day and was punishable by death. One could not go into the temple, during Passover, and whip people and drive them out of the Temple. That was a crime as it could have started a revolt because of the time that it happened.

He was guilty more of that, he was guilty of insurrection. A zealous prophet also, as seen with John the Baptist, is fully a criminal in the eyes of Rome. So yes, being a zealous prophet can be a crime.
Not at all. Pilate was not merciful. He crucified many Jews, and many so called prophets. Not inappropriate at all.
And the Gospels are wrong. It is as simple as that. They were not written to be wholly accurate. The Gospels have many problems, and many inaccuracies. Meaning, they can not be taken wholly to be true.

Your last claim sums the actual problem.

 

[fallingblood]

Your last claim sums the actual problem.

The Gospel stories contain contradictions, and historical inaccuracies. The birth stories are full of contradictions. For instance, the genealogies disagree with each other. And that is just the beginning. If the two birth stories are compared, they are very different. Why did Mary and Joseph go to Bethlehem? Where did they take Jesus after he was born?

More so though, there are other contradictions. One that cannot be resolved is the day in which Jesus was crucified. The synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) state that it was on Passover. John's Gospel states that it was on the day of preparation, or the day before Passover. This little fact makes the two accounts very different. It also makes the leading up to the Crucifixion of Jesus very different in John, as they do not have the Passover meal.

There are also historical inaccuracies. For instance, we know that the massacre of the innocents (where Herod commanded that all of the infants around Bethlehem were to be killed) never happened. No historian writes about it, and there were a few historians who did in fact write about the atrocities that Herod committed, yet never was this incident mentioned. Also, there is no historical evidence that it ever happened. There was no backlash from the Jews (who would have revolted, or at least fought this), there is no mention anywhere outside the Bible.

Thus, we have to conclude that not everything in the Gospels are historically accurate. Meaning we also have to look outside the Gospels, and compare and contrast the stories. That is what I've done.

 

[Thief]

The Gospel stories contain contradictions, and historical inaccuracies. The birth stories are full of contradictions. For instance, the genealogies disagree with each other. And that is just the beginning. If the two birth stories are compared, they are very different. Why did Mary and Joseph go to Bethlehem? Where did they take Jesus after he was born?

More so though, there are other contradictions. One that cannot be resolved is the day in which Jesus was crucified. The synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) state that it was on Passover. John's Gospel states that it was on the day of preparation, or the day before Passover. This little fact makes the two accounts very different. It also makes the leading up to the Crucifixion of Jesus very different in John, as they do not have the Passover meal.

There are also historical inaccuracies. For instance, we know that the massacre of the innocents (where Herod commanded that all of the infants around Bethlehem were to be killed) never happened. No historian writes about it, and there were a few historians who did in fact write about the atrocities that Herod committed, yet never was this incident mentioned. Also, there is no historical evidence that it ever happened. There was no backlash from the Jews (who would have revolted, or at least fought this), there is no mention anywhere outside the Bible.

Thus, we have to conclude that not everything in the Gospels are historically accurate. Meaning we also have to look outside the Gospels, and compare and contrast the stories. That is what I've done.

I am well aware the inconsistencies of Scripture.
I've been doing comparisons from one gospel to the next for years.

But obviously, my approach is to gain the spiritual qualities implied.
Your approach is to treat the Scripture as something less.

You get what you sow.

 

[fallingblood]

I am well aware the inconsistencies of Scripture.
I've been doing comparisons from one gospel to the next for years.

But obviously, my approach is to gain the spiritual qualities implied.
Your approach is to treat the Scripture as something less.

You get what you sow.

My approach, in this particular case, is to reconstruct a historical Jesus. I have no problem with the scriptures. I think many various scriptures have a lot to offer. However, when it comes to historical research, I find no reason to treat the scriptures differently then other historical pieces of work. Thus is why I do not take them as complete facts, and why I use other sources in order to determine who Jesus was.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

If you don't take the scriptures as complete facts then why do you use them for your theory that Jesus was an apocalyptic messenger and a rebel?

 

[blueman]

Jesus was the promised Messiah, the only Begotten Son of God sent to redeem
mankind through His righteous sacrifice and resurrection. He was the one the prophets Isaiah and Daniel wrote several hundred years prior to His birth in the flesh. He is God Almighty.

 

[fallingblood]

If you don't take the scriptures as complete facts then why do you use them for your theory that Jesus was an apocalyptic messenger and a rebel?

What historical document can be taken as complete fact? I've read a few biographies of Augustus which stated that he was believed to have a miraculous birth when his mother was impregnated by a god. Now it would be ridiculous to believe that story; however, it would be just as ridiculous to dismiss the entire biography.

This means a more critical look must be used. In the case of the Gospels, we can determine what is more historically accurate compared to fabrications. One way is to find the earliest layers which probably go back to Jesus himself. This is done by multiple attestations in independent sources (partially). Also, if it is clear that what is being said is not conducive to the Christian message, or is considered something that goes against the idea of Christianity (such as John the Baptist baptizing Jesus, or Jesus being from Nazareth), there is a higher likely hood that it comes from an earlier layer.

More so, comparing the information with other information that we have, such other Gospels, Jewish writings, historical writings, etc, we can also determine what more than likely happened. This goes in hand with archeological studies and anthropological studies. Also, just a general idea of how oral tradition works goes a long way.

Even more though, we can know, to a point, what Jesus's earliest followers believed. We can see the evolution of his teachings. Meaning, we can determine to a point what would have been probably the teachings of Jesus.

Thus, understanding these ideas, and seeing what Jesus is actually saying, in a historical context, I feel it is quite accurate to use his teachings in order to place him as a historical character, one who was an apocalyptic messenger.

 

[S-word]

Jesus was the promised Messiah, the only Begotten Son of God sent to redeem
mankind through His righteous sacrifice and resurrection. He was the one the prophets Isaiah and Daniel wrote several hundred years prior to His birth in the flesh. He is God Almighty.

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, Jesus was not a god who became a man, but a man who was born a little lower than the angels, who has been given divine glory by God our saviour and is now incontestably divine.