What do you think about Jesus?

[Jainarayan]

IWas Jesus a Christian, following himself?

Yes, and he was Catholic. We still find him hanging around Catholic churches.

*ducks and runs*

 

[Tumah]

No, they don't suggest that. He was squarely in the prophetic tradition. He was a Jew, he preached to Jews, and lived his life as a Jew.

Well, I can't argue with the first two. But as to that last one: It seems that Jesus is presenting the correct way to be Jewish in contrast with what was being practiced at the time.
If you are saying that the practice of the individual should be used as the defining characteristic over the practice of the public, then I guess I can't argue.

 

[Tumah]

I'm not sure why. Think of it in terms of Martin Luther disagreeing with the Catholic church's practices of Christianity. Martin Luther was a practicing Christian, even though he found himself at odds with the religious authorities. Likewise, Jesus was a practicing Jew. He felt an emphasis on strict legalistic practices while overlooking the weightier matters of the law, such as love, was in error.

By that logic, Muhammad is a Christian.

 

[Windwalker]

By that logic, Muhammad is a Christian.

That makes no sense to me. Play connect the dots for me. Jesus was not a Christian. You do realize that early Christianity was in fact a part of the Jewish religion? Mohamad started a religion in his name. Jesus did not.

 

[oldbadger]

Where did you learn what you know about Jesus?

Hi Villete...! I'll answer your questions below:
Where did you learn what you know about Jesus?
Mostly on ReligiousForums.
Who do you think Jesus was?
A Handworker in Stone and Wood, with particular ability as a Healer
What, in you opinion proves or disproves Jesus existance?
I can't be certain, but I'll go with 'balance of probability
What did Jesus do?
He picked up John the Baptist's mission after John's arrest.
Does Jesus still have a meaning today?
Yes. He is a perfect example of how a good life can be turned into a wicked Pauline lie.
Does Jesus have any meaning to you?
As above....
If you beleived in Jesus do you think it would make any difference to your life?
I do believe in Jesus's life, but as an extraordinary person. A philosopher as well.
What meaning do you think Jesus has for Christians?
I think that Christians believe that they will get something out of believing in him.

 

[Tumah]

That makes no sense to me. Play connect the dots for me. Jesus was not a Christian. You do realize that early Christianity was in fact a part of the Jewish religion? Mohamad started a religion in his name. Jesus did not.

Labels aside, what we are talking about is an individual (or the NT authors) reforming an existing form of worship to suit his taste. Until then, the religion was being practiced in a certain way, based on a certain understanding of the text and philosophy. Jesus comes, reinterprets the text and alters the phillosophy. Now Judaism is reformed in Jesus' image of it.
Muhammad comes, takes Christian texts, tampers with them, reinterprets the philosphy and now Christianity is reformed in Muhammad's view of it.
Jesus believes he is practicing the true form of Judaism just as Muhammad believes he is practicing the true form of Christianity.
There's no real difference in what they were doing.

 

[Windwalker]

Labels aside, what we are talking about is an individual (or the NT authors) reforming an existing form of worship to suit his taste. Until then, the religion was being practiced in a certain way, based on a certain understanding of the text and philosophy. Jesus comes, reinterprets the text and alters the phillosophy. Now Judaism is reformed in Jesus' image of it.

Okay, I see your train of thought now. But you are still stuck with the fact that early Christianity was not a separate religion, but a part of the Jewish religion. Mohamad started a new religion. Jesus did not. Jesus followers, as a Jewish sect eventually broke off from it, and as Paul expanded it to the Gentiles, the Jewish Christians were insisting they practice all the things of the law, circumcision, dietary, and so forth. They were still following Judaism.

It was Paul, who really changed it, getting rid of requirements such as circumcision and so forth. That was not something Jesus taught himself while alive. So, Jesus did not do the reinterpretations. What he did, his emphasis was on the path of love as supreme, versus the legalists who overlooked the spirit of the law. The interpretation of that spirit, is what led to him opening the door for Gentiles without forcing them to do what he understood as unimportant.

It's no different today with those who call themselves Christian going to battle with fundamentalist legalists. They aren't teaching a different religion. They are interpreting the same religion, in a higher, less legalistic light.

 

[Tarheeler]

Okay, I see your train of thought now. But you are still stuck with the fact that early Christianity was not a separate religion, but a part of the Jewish religion. Mohamad started a new religion. Jesus did not. Jesus followers, as a Jewish sect eventually broke off from it, and as Paul expanded it to the Gentiles, the Jewish Christians were insisting they practice all the things of the law, circumcision, dietary, and so forth. They were still following Judaism.

It was Paul, who really changed it, getting rid of requirements such as circumcision and so forth. That was not something Jesus taught himself while alive. So, Jesus did not do the reinterpretations. What he did, his emphasis was on the path of love as supreme, versus the legalists who overlooked the spirit of the law. The interpretation of that spirit, is what led to him opening the door for Gentiles without forcing them to do what he understood as unimportant.

It's no different today with those who call themselves Christian going to battle with fundamentalist legalists. They aren't teaching a different religion. They are interpreting the same religion, in a higher, less legalistic light.

I wonder if early Muslims saw themselves in a similar light.

 

[Tumah]

Okay, I see your train of thought now. But you are still stuck with the fact that early Christianity was not a separate religion, but a part of the Jewish religion. Mohamad started a new religion. Jesus did not. Jesus followers, as a Jewish sect eventually broke off from it, and as Paul expanded it to the Gentiles, the Jewish Christians were insisting they practice all the things of the law, circumcision, dietary, and so forth. They were still following Judaism.

It was Paul, who really changed it, getting rid of requirements such as circumcision and so forth. That was not something Jesus taught himself while alive. So, Jesus did not do the reinterpretations. What he did, his emphasis was on the path of love as supreme, versus the legalists who overlooked the spirit of the law. The interpretation of that spirit, is what led to him opening the door for Gentiles without forcing them to do what he understood as unimportant.

It's no different today with those who call themselves Christian going to battle with fundamentalist legalists. They aren't teaching a different religion.

I see what you are saying. But I would say what you are actually doing is using Judaism as an umbrella term for Bible based religion.
I'm not so knowledgeable of the NT honestly, I've never read it, besides for passages here and there. But passages describing altercations between Jesus and the Pharisees exemplify Jesus' abolishment of what were considered Biblical Law. He didn't just emphasize love, he also desecrated, or taught his students to desecrate the Sabbath, revoked (the Biblical commandment of) divorce and neglected Rabbinic enactments on his own authority. At least according to what I've seen in the NT (the Talmud appears to have an entirely different depiction of him). How many changes does he have to make in order to cross the line?

 

[Riverwolf]

Everyone in America hears about Jesus from various media, Christian culture, etc.

I'm surprised it took me as long as it did to learn about him, seeing as I live in the US. Before I was 14-ish, I only knew the name "Jesus Christ" as a swear.

 

[Windwalker]

I see what you are saying. But I would say what you are actually doing is using Judaism as an umbrella term for Bible based religion.

I wasn't actually. I was speaking of the life of the early Christian community prior to it splitting off and creating their own scriptures.

I'm not so knowledgeable of the NT honestly, I've never read it, besides for passages here and there. But passages describing altercations between Jesus and the Pharisees exemplify Jesus' abolishment of what were considered Biblical Law. He didn't just emphasize love, he also desecrated, or taught his students to desecrate the Sabbath

This is what they accused him of, yes. But what I read in there is really more a matter of degrees of interpretation. People within a given religion accuse each other all the time of violating the law, when in reality they are only violating that other person's or that group's interpretation. They still consider themselves quite true to the religion. Within Christianity for instance, fundamentalists accuse liberals of violating the Bible all the time, not being "True Christians", as so forth.

I would place Jesus definitely on the liberal, progressive end of that spectrum - within the Jewish religion. But in all honesty, those who are truly in touch with the transcendent do tend to have somewhat transcended the need of external authorities. I think that's what Jesus hoped others would find for themselves. Follow the religion, but then have that "law written on the tablets of the heart", meaning it's always and every in accord with God, even while other's who are strict followers of a religion are dismayed you don't look and act as the rest of them.

revoked (the Biblical commandment of) divorce

It doesn't say that anywhere. That is wrong. Here's what is actually recorded as what he taught,

"It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

Now, I have my understanding of why he said this, not to make them more legalistic, but to drive home the point of what happens when you just follow the law to justify yourself, and not consider the human consequences of your own actions. That's another discussion, but my point is, you cannot find what you say he taught. That's what he actually said about divorce.

and neglected Rabbinic enactments on his own authority.

Sure. If what they taught was inconsistent with God, then he, or anyone qualified on a spiritual level should. A truly spiritual understanding of God, will always trump a wrong theological one. It offers a level of insight that just reasoning logically will not offer. I have a saying that goes, "Theology is the mind's last ditch attempt to understand God before it fails, and does."

At least according to what I've seen in the NT (the Talmud appears to have an entirely different depiction of him). How many changes does he have to make in order to cross the line?

His early followers didn't see him as teaching a new religion. They thought it was a better way that that taught by the Scribes and Pharisees, just as modern Christians follow more enlightened teachers as opposed to those like Pat Robertson who thinks God sends hurricanes to destroy New Orleans because they tolerated a convention being held they by Gays. Some points of view, need to go.

 

[Baladas]

I'm surprised it took me as long as it did to learn about him, seeing as I live in the US. Before I was 14-ish, I only knew the name "Jesus Christ" as a swear.

That is surprising. I heard of him when I was under one-year-old.

 

[Riverwolf]

That is surprising. I heard of him when I was under one-year-old.

Same with most people. I have no idea how I got away with not knowing. The town I grew up in has three churches within walking distance of me, I'd heard about God and angels (though didn't understand them in Abrahamic contexts), I knew many of the classic Christmas carols, and loved A Charlie Brown Christmas. Sure, I didn't grow up in a Christian household nor did I go to a religious school or any kind of Sunday School, but I wasn't that sheltered.

It's possible I did kind of know about a dude named Jesus Christ at some point, and just don't remember. Still, Jesus Christ Superstar was my primary introduction to the character.

 

[Jainarayan]

I'm surprised it took me as long as it did to learn about him, seeing as I live in the US. Before I was 14-ish, I only knew the name "Jesus Christ" as a swear.

Bill Cosby related that for the longest time he thought his name was Jesus Christ, and his brother's name was Dammit. This was because their father was constantly saying, "Dammit, will you stop doing that!" and "Jeee-sus Christ! do you see what you did?" One day when Bill was playing out in the rain his father called saying "Dammit! will you get in this house!" So Bill said "But Dad, I'm Jesus Christ!"

That's all... carry on.

 

[Tumah]

I wasn't actually. I was speaking of the life of the early Christian community prior to it splitting off and creating their own scriptures.

This is what they accused him of, yes. But what I read in there is really more a matter of degrees of interpretation. People within a given religion accuse each other all the time of violating the law, when in reality they are only violating that other person's or that group's interpretation. They still consider themselves quite true to the religion. Within Christianity for instance, fundamentalists accuse liberals of violating the Bible all the time, not being "True Christians", as so forth.

I would place Jesus definitely on the liberal, progressive end of that spectrum - within the Jewish religion. But in all honesty, those who are truly in touch with the transcendent do tend to have somewhat transcended the need of external authorities. I think that's what Jesus hoped others would find for themselves. Follow the religion, but then have that "law written on the tablets of the heart", meaning it's always and every in accord with God, even while other's who are strict followers of a religion are dismayed you don't look and act as the rest of them.

It seems to me that the only thing that is holding him in the Jewish religion is his use of Jewish text. Think of the ideological comparison between the Pharisees and the Saduccees. The basic issue was belief in the Oral Torah. But the Saducees were still rooted in the Scriptural Law. That's an important distinction that Jesus doesn't have. The idea of love > all is not a Jewish one, nor does it have basis in Scripture. Using love as a means to circumvent Scriptural Law, is the point where Judaism becomes something else.
And I also disagree regarding your statement about transcendence. They most deeply mystical aspects of Judaism are entirely rooted in the Law and never considered themselves above or beyond it. If anything, kabbalistic generally follow even more rules than normal.

It doesn't say that anywhere. That is wrong. Here's what is actually recorded as what he taught,

"It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

Now, I have my understanding of why he said this, not to make them more legalistic, but to drive home the point of what happens when you just follow the law to justify yourself, and not consider the human consequences of your own actions. That's another discussion, but my point is, you cannot find what you say he taught. That's what he actually said about divorce.

I don't see in this passage how he is not saying what I've said. In Jewish Law, if a Bill of Divorce was not valid for any reason, then her relationship with her second husband is considered full-fledged adultery. So he is saying that all divorces are invalid except on grounds of immorality.

Sure. If what they taught was inconsistent with God, then he, or anyone qualified on a spiritual level should. A truly spiritual understanding of God, will always trump a wrong theological one. It offers a level of insight that just reasoning logically will not offer. I have a saying that goes, "Theology is the mind's last ditch attempt to understand God before it fails, and does."

That's not how it works though, because who should get to decide whether A is truly coming from a better understanding than Mr. B, or not.
In Jewish Law, the main determinate is the majority. If the majority of established knowledgeable men rule on a Law, only a greater majority can overturn them. That is actually the reason why we generally follow the school of Hillel over Shammai. Shammai's disciples were known to be smarter, but Hillel had the majority.
If any individual could just get up and decide for himself how to run the religion, there would be a lot more splinter-sects than there were.
Claiming a spiritual understanding of G-d is a bunch of hogwash, because everyone is biased towards their own desires and can easily "understand" that what G-d wants happens to coincide with their own will. Absolutely not. The only way to determine G-d's Will, is by reading the Book He wrote on what He wants.

His early followers didn't see him as teaching a new religion. They thought it was a better way that that taught by the Scribes and Pharisees, just as modern Christians follow more enlightened teachers as opposed to those like Pat Robertson who thinks God sends hurricanes to destroy New Orleans because they tolerated a convention being held they by Gays. Some points of view, need to go.

Of course not. Because they wanted to eat their cake too. No rules + no guilt = the way of the Jesus.

 

[arthra]

Where did you learn what you know about Jesus?
Who do you think Jesus was?
What, in you opinion proves or disproves Jesus existance?
What did Jesus do?
Does Jesus still have a meaning today?
Does Jesus have any meaning to you?
If you beleived in Jesus do you think it would make any difference to your life?
What meaning do you think Jesus has for Christians?

I was raised in a Baptist church and so was exposed to the teachings of Christ fairly early.. Later in life I read Kahlil Gibran Jesus Son of Man and other works that inspired me...also Tolstoy's Gospel in Brief..When I was around in my late twenties I became a lay reader in the Episcopal church and taught sunday school...I also accepted the Religious Society of Friends. as a result of my studies in other religions I later became a Baha'i. Jesus in Baha'i belief was a Manifestation of God and had innate knowledge ..He was an Intermediary between God and humanity and was martyred for His teachings.. the Gospel. He promised His return..which means the return of the Spirit of Christ.. this promise was fulfilled in 1844 with the proclamation of the Bab in Shiraz Persia/Iran. So Jesus has profound meaning for me..

 

[Akivah]

I think you mean
A very wide teacher of Jewish descent. He isn't considered a part of the tradition by Judaism.

Bad precendent Tumah. This thread is for stating one's opinions. It's not for other's to make their corrections to someone else's opinions.

Aaand...we're off. I see the rebuttals and counters started from your comment.

 

[Tumah]

Bad precendent Tumah. This thread is for stating one's opinions. It's not for other's to make their corrections to someone else's opinions.

Aaand...we're off. I see the rebuttals and counters started from your comment.

I don't think I was stating an opinion. I didn't see that Christians don't consider him a part of the tradition. I said Judaism doesn't. The Talmud doesn't really leave any room for that.

 

[Kenny]

It was Paul, who really changed it, getting rid of requirements such as circumcision and so forth.

Not really. It was a decision made by the Peter and James.

The basic position of Paul was "If you want to observe some Jewish laws unto God as part of your faith because of love--do it, if you have faith that those laws are no longer need (within reason of course--I'm not talking about committing murder etc) and you do that with faith and love unto God--do it"

 

[Kenny]

Bad precendent Tumah. This thread is for stating one's opinions. It's not for other's to make their corrections to someone else's opinions.

Aaand...we're off. I see the rebuttals and counters started from your comment.

LOL -- It is the nature of the beast.