"What Jesus REALLY meant was ...."

[John1.12]

what we see in other religions and philosphies is a claim on Jesus . As a Christian we of course have our differences on certain verses and doctrines . But this is within christianity. We see the issue is down to our free will and different opinions and such . But imagine to our horror ,when we see other religions who make a claim on Jesus and what he taught and they have not the same world view . Its hard enough within the same worldview , But what we see is all these claims from ' outside ' and how radical theses claims are .
Here are a few
Mormonsim teaches Jesus went to America to preach to the natives .

Jehovah's_Witnesses teach that Jesus is micheal the Arch Angel .

Hinduism and Buddhism see Jesus as a spiritual guide of sorts . An enlightened one.

Islam. He's a prophet. Not the Son of God and that he certainly didn't die on a cross or resurrect.

We could name countless religions who have a claim on Jesus . Its always a different Jesus than the Jesus of the bible . Of course this shows he impacted the world and not Just in Jerusalem, but the whole world . But we have radically different claims on him .

Thoughts?

 

[SalixIncendium]

I think it doesn't matter how one perceives Jesus based on one's religion, spiritual path, or culture. What matters is what he said and taught.

 

[Spirit of Light]

what we see in other religions and philosphies is a claim on Jesus . As a Christian we of course have our differences on certain verses and doctrines . But this is within christianity. We see the issue is down to our free will and different opinions and such . But imagine to our horror ,when we see other religions who make a claim on Jesus and what he taught and they have not the same world view . Its hard enough within the same worldview , But what we see is all these claims from ' outside ' and how radical theses claims are .
Here are a few
Mormonsim teaches Jesus went to America to preach to the natives .

Jehovah's_Witnesses teach that Jesus is micheal the Arch Angel .

Hinduism and Buddhism see Jesus as a spiritual guide of sorts . An enlightened one.

Islam. He's a prophet. Not the Son of God and that he certainly didn't die on a cross or resurrect.

We could name countless religions who have a claim on Jesus . Its always a different Jesus than the Jesus of the bible . Of course this shows he impacted the world and not Just in Jerusalem, but the whole world . But we have radically different claims on him .

Thoughts?

Every human beings who believe in Christianity or other religious teachings will have their own understanding of the different spiritual teachers, or about if they were enlighten or not, from God or not.
It will be wrong of me to claim i know who Jesus truly was, and no matter what i personally believe, it should not make a christian person fear my words, because since i am not Christian my thoughts on Christianity and the role of Jesus, or even if Jesus truly are Gods son will probably be wrong anyway.

 

[danieldemol]

I think the early Christians fashioned their own Jesus independently of the historical Jesus for theological reasons and others followed in their footsteps.

 

[exchemist]

what we see in other religions and philosphies is a claim on Jesus . As a Christian we of course have our differences on certain verses and doctrines . But this is within christianity. We see the issue is down to our free will and different opinions and such . But imagine to our horror ,when we see other religions who make a claim on Jesus and what he taught and they have not the same world view . Its hard enough within the same worldview , But what we see is all these claims from ' outside ' and how radical theses claims are .
Here are a few
Mormonsim teaches Jesus went to America to preach to the natives .

Jehovah's_Witnesses teach that Jesus is micheal the Arch Angel .

Hinduism and Buddhism see Jesus as a spiritual guide of sorts . An enlightened one.

Islam. He's a prophet. Not the Son of God and that he certainly didn't die on a cross or resurrect.

We could name countless religions who have a claim on Jesus . Its always a different Jesus than the Jesus of the bible . Of course this shows he impacted the world and not Just in Jerusalem, but the whole world . But we have radically different claims on him .

Thoughts?

How do we know it is the bible that is right? After all, it is just our scripture. These other religions
have theirs. It seems to me there is no objective way to determine which is right and which is wrong.

My suspicion is all of them, being human creations, albeit inspired, are probably a bit wrong, and all of them may have some truth to them.

So I don't share your sense of horror. I think we live in a world of shades of grey, not simple black and white.

P.S. I don't see much connection between the thread title and the OP. Can you explain?

 

[Marcion]

You seem to be totally unaware that the (oldest) Christian interpretation of the teachings of Jesus was also a biased one.
Going back to what Jesus really meant to say should not depend on this or that religious outlook.

 

[Spirit of Light]

i wonder if anyone today can "really" know what Jesus actually meant when he spoke

 

[RestlessSoul]

According to mediaeval English legend, Jesus visited *Glastonbury as a teenager, in the company of Joseph of Arimathea. Inspiring, among other things, these lines from Blake’s Jerusalem

“And did those feet, in ancient times,
Walk upon England’s pastures green,
And was the holy lamb of God
On England’s pleasant mountains seen ?”

I suspect not, but it’s a nice story and it inspired a great poem, now become a hymn, so what’s the harm?

*don’t know who was headlining that year

 

[SigurdReginson]

There's several factors at work going on here...

Firstly, the closest accounts we have to what Jesus even actually said are second hand. Secondly, different gospels about what Jesus said were written by different authors with different perspectives, so in them Jesus says different things at the same events (like when he was crucified). The accounts of Jesus, though thought provoking, are also lacking. There is definitely a lot of wiggle room for people to take away different interpretations from the writings about him - and so people have. Just think of all the denominations and religions this has produced in itself. And then you have issues with language and context lost to translation and cultural references of the time...

If it wasn't for Paul explaining what Jesus meant specifically, Christianity would be a different animal than it is today. Paul pretty much shaped the religion into its current form. If one just payed attention to the gospels and non-pauline doctrine, people might get very different interpretations of what Jesus actually meant for sure...

They might even walk away with a different idea of what Jesus meant if they only read what Jesus supposedly said.

 

[PureX]

Thoughts?

Everyone has to decide for themselves, by their own reasoning, what the story of Jesus means to them. There is no one right answer. There is only the answer we choose, and the result of it.

 

[PureX]

I think it doesn't matter how one perceives Jesus based on one's religion, spiritual path, or culture. What matters is what he said and taught.

But all we have now is the story of what Jesus said and did, pieced together from here-say by people who were not there. So even that is someone's interpretation.

 

[John1.12]

i wonder if anyone today can "really" know what Jesus actually meant when he spoke

Does that thought apply to what you believe? The writing's you trust ?

 

[John1.12]

Everyone has to decide for themselves, by their own reasoning, what the story of Jesus means to them. There is no one right answer. There is only the answer we choose, and the result of it.

You don't think the author had intent and that intent is discoverable?

 

[John1.12]

But all we have now is the story of what Jesus said and did, pieced together from here-say by people who were not there. So even that is someone's interpretation.

I believe if we just read it at face value . in discovery mode, the narrative is easy to follow .

 

[John1.12]

Everyone has to decide for themselves, by their own reasoning, what the story of Jesus means to them. There is no one right answer. There is only the answer we choose, and the result of it.

You don't think reading comprehension is enough ?

 

[John1.12]

There's several factors at work going on here...

Firstly, the closest accounts we have to what Jesus even actually said are second hand. Secondly, different gospels about what Jesus said were written by different authors with different perspectives, so in them Jesus says different things at the same events (like when he was crucified). The accounts of Jesus, though thought provoking, are also lacking. There is definitely a lot of wiggle room for people to take away different interpretations from the writings about him - and so people have. Just think of all the denominations and religions this has produced in itself. And then you have issues with language and context lost to translation and cultural references of the time...

If it wasn't for Paul explaining what Jesus meant specifically, Christianity would be a different animal than it is today. Paul pretty much shaped the religion into its current form. If one just payed attention to the gospels and non-pauline doctrine, people might get very different interpretations of what Jesus actually meant for sure...

They might even walk away with a different idea of what Jesus meant if they only read what Jesus supposedly said.

I think the variations are due to not Believing the narrative at face value . The results vary because of unbelief at some level .Behind every difference there is this at the heart of it . At some level its not Believing the text at face value. The more Liberal the more obvious this is demonstrated.The catholic church is a good example . They interpret the bible through the lens of other sources ,namely there traditions . What ever else your adding to the bible this will affect your outcome. The more you simply take the bible face value ,without the lens or set of glasses of another competing source ,the closer the interpretation is understood in context.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Of course this shows he impacted the world ...

Or, rather, that the authors of the narrative did, at least eventually.

 

[exchemist]

According to mediaeval English legend, Jesus visited *Glastonbury as a teenager, in the company of Joseph of Arimathea. Inspiring, among other things, these lines from Blake’s Jerusalem

“And did those feet, in ancient times,
Walk upon England’s pastures green,
And was the holy lamb of God
On England’s pleasant mountains seen ?”

I suspect not, but it’s a nice story and it inspired a great poem, now become a hymn, so what’s the harm?

*don’t know who was headlining that year

Yes, that poem is on my long, long, list of Questions to Which the Answer is "No".

 

[John1.12]

Or, rather, that the authors of the narrative did, at least eventually.

The content is what impacted the world . I believe thats Jesus. A living saviour who people discover / experience as a result.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Does that thought apply to what you believe? The writing's you trust ?

Personally i do not know fully what Muhammad actually Said no. I have a belief in what is written in the teaching.