What Did Jesus Really Teach?

[Hawkeye112200]

"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here,
which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of
man coming in his kingdom."

"Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon
this generation."

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled."

"Nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the
Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming
in the clouds of heaven."


Want more?

Ok so basically you're not sure how to back up your ideology with well spelled out arguments.
Citing Matthew 23, 24, and 26 sporatically because they mention the word generation would hardly pass for sound reason and logic to present your ideology as you have thus far.

If you are just looking for mindless chit chat or someone to pat your back, I'll leave you to get on with that.

If on the otherhand you want to present sound reasons for your position, please do so.

To sum this latest post of yours up, you have presented 4 different verses, from different chapters, yanked them out of their context and presented them as a basis for your position that there is "no doubt" Jesus was talking about the world would end in his days.

Am I missing something here on how feeble that is?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Ok so basically you're not sure how to back up your ideology with well spelled out arguments.
Citing Matthew 23, 24, and 26 sporatically because they mention the word generation would hardly pass for sound reason and logic to present your ideology as you have thus far.

If you are just looking for mindless chit chat or someone to pat your back, I'll leave you to get on with that.

If on the otherhand you want to present sound reasons for your position, please do so.

To sum this latest post of yours up, you have presented 4 different verses, from different chapters, yanked them out of their context and presented them as a basis for your position that there is "no doubt" Jesus was talking about the world would end in his days.

Am I missing something here on how feeble that is?

I think the verses speak for themselves...Jesus thought the End was coming in his generation, it informed all of his teachings. He was the David Koresh of his age

 

[Me Myself]

Ok so basically you're not sure how to back up your ideology with well spelled out arguments.
Citing Matthew 23, 24, and 26 sporatically because they mention the word generation would hardly pass for sound reason and logic to present your ideology as you have thus far.

If you are just looking for mindless chit chat or someone to pat your back, I'll leave you to get on with that.

If on the otherhand you want to present sound reasons for your position, please do so.

To sum this latest post of yours up, you have presented 4 different verses, from different chapters, yanked them out of their context and presented them as a basis for your position that there is "no doubt" Jesus was talking about the world would end in his days.

Am I missing something here on how feeble that is?

A less useless response to debate her point would be to provide the proper context that you seem to be saying exists in which this messages are not talking about an end of the world that was to pass imidiately.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

A less useless response to debate her point would be to provide the proper context that you seem to be saying exists in which this messages are not talking about an end of the world that was to pass imidiately.

He can't do that. Why? Because Jesus is talking about the End of the World in those verses

 

[Hawkeye112200]

I think the verses speak for themselves...Jesus thought the End was coming in his generation, it informed all of his teachings. He was the David Koresh of his age

A less useless response to debate her point would be to provide the proper context that you seem to be saying exists in which this messages are not talking about an end of the world that was to pass imidiately.

She opened a discussion in a debate forum. If not for opposing or thought provoking views why else do it?

I have yet to question the intention of the end of the world. I had asked her to present the data that support "without a doubt" it would be in their day.

She has supplied 4 verses from different chapters that had very specific context she sucked them out of, and presented it as grounds to form the belief she is standing by.
I am only saying that is very silly to think ANYONE would take such a weak position as anything other than agenda.

So again, I say take those four verses and explain them as to strengthen your position. You can't expect people to "get" what you are hanging your beliefs on.
Take The last verse she offered, "hereafter ye shall see the son sitting on the right hand of power". If you actually read that section she pulled it from it in NO WAY shape or form indicates it was talking about a time frame. It does say hereafter, but to conclude what she is, is silly.

For the record, I am not disagreeing with her, but want her to strengthen her position. I am new to this forum, and as she is currently positioned, she is only communicating with friends, like minded people or back slappers. I am neither and am asking for a competent explanation of her "debate question".

If you can't provide that then I'll take the win on this one. K?
Too much to ask?

 

[Me Myself]

She opened a discussion in a debate forum. If not for opposing or thought provoking views why else do it?

I have yet to question the intention of the end of the world. I had asked her to present the data that support "without a doubt" it would be in their day.

She has supplied 4 verses from different chapters that had very specific context she sucked them out of, and presented it as grounds to form the belief she is standing by.
I am only saying that is very silly to think ANYONE would take such a weak position as anything other than agenda.

So again, I say take those four verses and explain them as to strengthen your position. You can't expect people to "get" what you are hanging your beliefs on.
Take The last verse she offered, "hereafter ye shall see the son sitting on the right hand of power". If you actually read that section she pulled it from it in NO WAY shape or form indicates it was talking about a time frame. It does say hereafter, but to conclude what she is, is silly.

For the record, I am not disagreeing with her, but want her to strengthen her position. I am new to this forum, and as she is currently positioned, she is only communicating with friends, like minded people or back slappers. I am neither and am asking for a competent explanation of her "debate question".

If you can't provide that then I'll take the win on this one. K?
Too much to ask?

The verses on themselves do seem to show her point.

I am more neutral in this actually. If I ask you to show the verses in proper context is because I am interested in what you think those verses mean, because from where I stand, they do seem to prove her point.

About the debates, well yeah, of course it was asked for debates sake, it is, after all, the religious debatess section. If you prefer discussions rather than debates, there are other areas in this forum that may appeal to you more than this area

 

[rusra02]

No, he was pretty specific that the End of the Whole System of Thing period and the inauguration of God's kingdom on earth was going to happen in the lifetime of his generation. And he was wrong

I agree with you that Jesus expanded his answer to include the end of the entire system of things and God's kingdom taking control of the earth. However, the account at Luke indicates an intervening time between Jerusalem's destruction, and the conclusion of the (entire) system of things. Jesus prophesied that "Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations, until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled." (Luke 21:24) However long the "appointed times of the nations are", (and I believe they went on for many centuries after Jerusalem's destruction), the end of the entire system would not occur at least until these "times of the nations are fulfilled."

​

​

 

[Reptillian]

I see two main themes in Jesus' teachings:

1. Forgiveness is possible. Just because you were a bad person doesn't mean you have to be a bad person. Just because someone has made bad choices in the past, doesn't mean they have to keep making those choices.

2. Be prepared for judgement. Judgement is imminent, whether its divine judgement at the end of days, or personal judgement in the form of death. Live as though you'll be judged soon.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

The verses on themselves do seem to show her point.

I am more neutral in this actually. If I ask you to show the verses in proper context is because I am interested in what you think those verses mean, because from where I stand, they do seem to prove her point.

About the debates, well yeah, of course it was asked for debates sake, it is, after all, the religious debatess section. If you prefer discussions rather than debates, there are other areas in this forum that may appeal to you more than this area

Here is the context:

Jesus before Caiaphas

57Those who had seized Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together. 58But Peter was following Him at a distance as far as the courtyard of the high priest, and entered in, and sat down with the officers to see the outcome.

59Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus, so that they might put Him to death. 60They did not find any, even though many false witnesses came forward. But later on two came forward, 61and said, “This man stated, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to rebuild it in three days.’” 62The high priest stood up and said to Him, “Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?” 63But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.” 64Jesus said to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN.”

65Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy; 66what do you think?” They answered, “He deserves death!”

67Then they spat in His face and beat Him with their fists; and others slapped Him, 68and said, “Prophesy to us, You Christ; who is the one who hit You?”

Jesus is talking to the High Priest. The HP ask Jesus if he is is the messiah, Jesus affirms it then tells the HP he will witness the Son of Man coming in power during the HP's lifetime. That the HP's would witness the inauguration of the Kingdom. He was probably hinting that the HP would be very sorry.

 

[Hawkeye112200]

The verses on themselves do seem to show her point.

I am more neutral in this actually. If I ask you to show the verses in proper context is because I am interested in what you think those verses mean, because from where I stand, they do seem to prove her point.

About the debates, well yeah, of course it was asked for debates sake, it is, after all, the religious debatess section. If you prefer discussions rather than debates, there are other areas in this forum that may appeal to you more than this area

I like debate.
Just well positioned debates are more engaging for all parties.

What in her verses indicates "without a doubt" (key phrase) the time frame was next week or somewhere close to his death.
For a simple example at a rebuttal see Acts 1 vs 8, in which Jesus is instructing the disciples the end would be when the gospel message would get to all of the world.

By me offering one simple verse in stands in the face of what she is saying, thus my trying to help her strengthen her position.

To be clear this is not a discussion of the end of the world, but of the timing of that event.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

For a simple example at a rebuttal see Acts 1 vs 8, in which Jesus is instructing the disciples the end would be when the gospel message would get to all of the world.

The author of Acts is not the author of Mark or Matthew, they are teaching two different things. While the Jesus of Acts teaches that the End won't come until the entire world hears the message, the Jesus of Matthew teaches that the disciple will barely have enough time to preach to all the cities of Israel until the end come.

The only thing your proof text does is show that Acts contradicts Matthew.

Congrats.

 

[Hawkeye112200]

The author of Acts is not the author of Mark or Matthew, they are teaching two different things. While the Jesus of Acts teaches that the End won't come until the entire world hears the message, the Jesus of Matthew teaches that the disciple will barely have enough time to preach to all the cities of Israel until the end come.

The only thing your proof text does is show that Acts contradicts Matthew.

Congrats.

So your intentions to this debate is to point out Jesus was a pre cursor to David Caresh.
And the overwhelming evidence for such powerful ideologies are four single verses extrapolated incorrectly from different chapters? Where have you been all my life?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

So your intentions to this debate is to point out Jesus was a pre cursor to David Caresh.
And the overwhelming evidence for such powerful ideologies are four single verses extrapolated incorrectly from different chapters? Where have you been all my life?

Show me that Jesus wasn't preaching the End in those verses. Show me

 

[Me Myself]

Here is the context:

Jesus before Caiaphas

57Those who had seized Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together. 58But Peter was following Him at a distance as far as the courtyard of the high priest, and entered in, and sat down with the officers to see the outcome.

59Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus, so that they might put Him to death. 60They did not find any, even though many false witnesses came forward. But later on two came forward, 61and said, “This man stated, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to rebuild it in three days.’” 62The high priest stood up and said to Him, “Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?” 63But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.” 64Jesus said to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN.”

65Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy; 66what do you think?” They answered, “He deserves death!”

67Then they spat in His face and beat Him with their fists; and others slapped Him, 68and said, “Prophesy to us, You Christ; who is the one who hit You?”

Jesus is talking to the High Priest. The HP ask Jesus if he is is the messiah, Jesus affirms it then tells the HP he will witness the Son of Man coming in power during the HP's lifetime. That the HP's would witness the inauguration of the Kingdom. He was probably hinting that the HP would be very sorry.

Posibly, yes. I don´t find it conclusive that one though.

If the bible saying that Jesus resurrecting is right (and that is a big if) then he may have just referred to that and of his assenscion.

 

[outhouse]

You'll get alot of different answers from different people because the issue of what Jesus really taught is confusing. Some say he preached about love and forgiveness, sin and redemption and about justice for the poor and such things as that.

But when one reads the scriptures, they show us that main body of Jesus' message was The End of the World. Jesus taught that the End was coming and coming in the lifetime of his generation. And well Jesus was wrong as you can guess and I believe that all the other things Jesus preached were a product of his belief that the End was soon.

So can ya'll tell me what do you think he taught people and why he taught it.

Excellent question :clap



jesus the real man has very little historicity

However we do know that he did teach the coming kingdom of god.

However, the content of such teaching is up for debate.

Historical Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He told surprising and original parables, many of them about the coming Kingdom of God.[6] Some scholars credit the apocalyptic declarations of the Gospels to him, while others portray his Kingdom of God as a moral one, and not apocalyptic in nature.



What we have with the gospels is only but a faction or a small piece of the total view of what he really taught. We can only guess because what we have, or "ALL" we have are legends written and edited by people who not only never heard a word pass his lips, but didnt live in the area either. A long time had passed before the gospels were written and you have to wonder how much was built around Pauls teachings. And with paul he never talked about the man, only the supernatural dogma that holds almost no historicity at all.


With that said its all guesses since the man has so little historicity.

so heres mine.

According to the gospels he was put to death for perverting the nation, being a tax cheat, and claiming to be the king. yet he is said to claim that his kingdom is not of this world. We do know there was a war over taxes around the time he was born and a tax war after his death. he preached to tax collectors and had a tax collector as a disciple. He was said to have told his disciples to throw away their beggar bowls and staffs in some accounts, and "I would think" that this was so they had nothing that could be taxed, so as not to be able to fund the roman taxation. I feel he preached not to pay taxes and tried to get the tax collectors to stop ripping off the people. He was even question as to "why doesnt he pay taxes" For me this is a overlooked aspect of his message since the gospels were written for a roman audience. Its obvious jesus hated the roman appointed high priest [Caiaphas] and how he handled jewish money turning the temple into a huge money making enterprise for romans. All jews hated taxes and jesus was no different.

Im sure he preached the kingdom of god and the one way to beat romans and restore the land of Israel was through their money. the "SOLE" purpose of roman rule in the area was to extort all the taxes they possibly could without crippling the culture.

Besides being a healer im sure he taught a version of judaism that included baptism and possibly carried on some of the theology from John the baptist's teachings. How much is unknown.

By looking at the culture and enviroment he was raised in a pattern develops, but the extent are only guesses like mine.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Excellent question :clap



jesus the real man has very little historicity

However we do know that he did teach the coming kingdom of god.

However, the content of such teaching is up for debate.

Historical Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He told surprising and original parables, many of them about the coming Kingdom of God.[6] Some scholars credit the apocalyptic declarations of the Gospels to him, while others portray his Kingdom of God as a moral one, and not apocalyptic in nature.



What we have with the gospels is only but a faction or a small piece of the total view of what he really taught. We can only guess because what we have, or "ALL" we have are legends written and edited by people who not only never heard a word pass his lips, but didnt live in the area either. A long time had passed before the gospels were written and you have to wonder how much was built around Pauls teachings. And with paul he never talked about the man, only the supernatural dogma that holds almost no historicity at all.


With that said its all guesses since the man has so little historicity.

so heres mine.

According to the gospels he was put to death for perverting the nation, being a tax cheat, and claiming to be the king. yet he is said to claim that his kingdom is not of this world. We do know there was a war over taxes around the time he was born and a tax war after his death. he preached to tax collectors and had a tax collector as a disciple. He was said to have told his disciples to throw away their beggar bowls and staffs in some accounts, and "I would think" that this was so they had nothing that could be taxed, so as not to be able to fund the roman taxation. I feel he preached not to pay taxes and tried to get the tax collectors to stop ripping off the people. He was even question as to "why doesnt he pay taxes" For me this is a overlooked aspect of his message since the gospels were written for a roman audience. Its obvious jesus hated the roman appointed high priest [Caiaphas] and how he handled jewish money turning the temple into a huge money making enterprise for romans. All jews hated taxes and jesus was no different.

Im sure he preached the kingdom of god and the one way to beat romans and restore the land of Israel was through their money. the "SOLE" purpose of roman rule in the area was to extort all the taxes they possibly could without crippling the culture.

Besides being a healer im sure he taught a version of judaism that included baptism and possibly carried on some of the theology from John the baptist's teachings. How much is unknown.

By looking at the culture and enviroment he was raised in a pattern develops, but the extent are only guesses like mine.

And what did John the Baptist preach? He preached the End of the World and I say so did Jesus. In fact I believe it was Jesus' primary message, the one he felt was the most important

 

[outhouse]

And what did John the Baptist preach? He preached the End of the World and I say so did Jesus. In fact I believe it was Jesus' primary message, the one he felt was the most important

but that cant be said with any certainty at all.

Historical Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jesus' teachings would later diverge from John's apocalyptic vision (though it depends which scholarly view is adopted;


Evidence for the Kingdom of God as already present derives from these verses.[107]

• In Luke 17:20-21, Jesus says that one will not be able to observe God's Kingdom arriving, and that it "is right there in your presence."

• In Thomas 113, Jesus says that God's Kingdom "is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."

• In Luke 11:20, Jesus says that if he drives out demons by God's finger then "for you" the Kingdom of God has arrived.

• Furthermore, the major parables of Jesus do not reflect an apocalyptic view of history.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

but that cant be said with any certainty at all.

Historical Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jesus' teachings would later diverge from John's apocalyptic vision (though it depends which scholarly view is adopted;


Evidence for the Kingdom of God as already present derives from these verses.[107]

• In Luke 17:20-21, Jesus says that one will not be able to observe God's Kingdom arriving, and that it "is right there in your presence."

• In Thomas 113, Jesus says that God's Kingdom "is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."

• In Luke 11:20, Jesus says that if he drives out demons by God's finger then "for you" the Kingdom of God has arrived.

• Furthermore, the major parables of Jesus do not reflect an apocalyptic view of history.

Those gospels are late sources. What's the first thing that Jesus preaches in the earliest gospel Mark?

Are has for our earliest Christian sources like Paul, does he preach the End?

 

[InChrist]

[FONT=&quot]Jesus came to Israel as was prophesied. He came to pay for the sins of the world and preached that the kingdom of God was at hand. The nation of Israel rejected His message and did not receive Him as Messiah. He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. (John 1:11)[/FONT],[FONT=&quot] therefore the kingdom was delayed. In the meantime, the gospel message has been going out to all the other non-Jewish nations of the world during this church age. When the church is complete then God will remove it from the earth and again deal directly to and through Israel concerning the coming kingdom and reign of Jesus Christ on the earth. The fact that Israel is a nation again after so many years of the Jewish people being scattered throughout the world shows that this will take place very soon.[/FONT]

 

[outhouse]

Those gospels are late sources. What's the first thing that Jesus preaches in the earliest gospel Mark?

Are has for our earliest Christian sources like Paul, does he preach the End?

AsI stated earlier, mark and paul have no real historicity as they are only talking about glimpses of their version of jesus.

neither new or heard a word ever pass jesus lips NOR did they live in the area. we dont even know who the author of the gospel of mark was and paul knew nothing of the real jesus. we do know he created alot of is own theology on the subject.


Me, im not sure what he preached as to the kingdom of god, there is good evidence for both sides of the debate. I would like to think he wasnt so stupid as to think the end of he world would just happen for no good reason, but it was a common belief in these primitive times.