I think it can come down to opting for the most logical testimony of Jesus. For example Islam teaches things about Jesus that does not line up with the NT description. Now Muhammad's accounts of Jesus come 600 years after the fact . He never met Jesus, never lived in his lifetime . Now he makes claims about Jesus as do lots of religions . Claims that completely contradict the NT . The NT is criticised because its accused of 'late ' writings after the events took place ( which makes perfect sense given the persecution at the time ) But here we have other religions making claims about Jesus hundreds of years after the effect. They never met Jesus.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"What Jesus REALLY meant was ...."
- Thread starter John1.12
- Start date
Yes, the content of the narrative, written decades after the purported crucifixion (arguably, mostly by anonymous apologists) impacted the world.
And you are free to hold and affirm that belief, just as I am free to discount it as an unevidenced presumption.
You know that he taught what he taught about Jesus . That he didn't die on a cross and was a prophet and Muhammad himself as the final messenger.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Yes, that poem is on my long, long, list of Questions to Which the Answer is "No".
I’d suggest the question that really matters is posed in the 2nd verse, and answered in the 4th.
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
I believe that is exactly what the problem is. People cannot agree on what Jesus said and taught.
Yes your free to do so of course. The average date for the NT writers is 50 - 65 ad however.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
I know what the teaching says yes. If Muhammad actually orally said it, i do not know, i was not there to hear it
Except for Paul, that is not at all my understanding. So, for example ...
MARK
Most scholars date Mark to c. 66–74 AD, either shortly before or after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD.[6] They reject the traditional ascription to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of the Apostle Peter, which probably arose from the desire of early Christians to link the work to an authoritative figure, and believe it to be the work of an author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.[7] It was traditionally placed second, and sometimes fourth, in the Christian canon, as an inferior abridgement of what was regarded as the most important gospel, Matthew.[8] The Church has consequently derived its view of Jesus primarily from Matthew, secondarily from John, and only distantly from Mark.
MATTHEW
Most scholars believe the gospel was composed between AD 80 and 90, with a range of possibility between AD 70 to 110; a pre-70 date remains a minority view.[9][10] The work does not identify its author, and the early tradition attributing it to the apostle Matthew is rejected by modern scholars.[11][12] He was probably a male Jew, standing on the margin between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values, and familiar with technical legal aspects of scripture being debated in his time.[13] Writing in a polished Semitic "synagogue Greek", he drew on the Gospel of Mark as a source, plus the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source (material shared with Luke but not with Mark) and material unique to his own community, called the M source or "Special Matthew".[14][15]
LUKE
The author is anonymous;[6] the traditional view that it was Luke the Evangelist, the companion of Paul, is still occasionally put forward, but the scholarly consensus emphasises the many contradictions between Acts and the authentic Pauline letters.[7][8] The most probable date for its composition is around AD 80–110, and there is evidence that it was still being revised well into the 2nd century.[9]
JOHN
John reached its final form around AD 90–110,[5] although it contains signs of origins dating back to AD 70 and possibly even earlier.[6] Like the three other gospels, it is anonymous, although it identifies an unnamed "disciple whom Jesus loved" as the source of its traditions.[7][8] It most likely arose within a "Johannine community",[9][10] and as it is closely related in style and content to the three Johannine epistles most scholars treat the four books, along with the Book of Revelation, as a single corpus of Johannine literature, albeit not from the same author.[11]
See, also, Early Christian Writings.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Different people and different religions have different concepts about God or Gods, and it is virtually impossible to objectively prove beyond any shadow of doubt which is correct, if any. Thus, we seek answers, but maybe it's just best we mainly "listen" to our informed conscience.
Psalm23
Well-Known Member
i wonder if anyone today can "really" know what Jesus actually meant when he spoke
I think that sometimes what he meant was more plain than at other times. Jesus often spoke in parables. I may be easier to understand the parables if you could know the culture of the time or how it would have sounded to the people back then. Sometimes new thoughts about Jesus parables may jump out at someone that they didn’t notice at first glance.
The OP discusses many different ways Christians think of Jesus. For completeness it would be better to do the same for other religions. I've posted this before from a biography of Ramakrishna, so here's a different version What Christ Means to Me | Vedanta Society of Southern California showing that some Hindus think of Jesus as much more than a 'spiritual guide of sorts' but as one manifestation of the Avatar - God becoming man.
Ramakrishna came to know something of Christianity. One day, while visiting a devotee, he chanced to see a picture of the Madonna and Child. As he was looking at the picture, it suddenly became living to him. His heart was filled with love for Christ. For a period of three days and three nights he stayed in his room, filled with the presence of Jesus. He even refused to go to the Hindu temple or worship any of the Hindu gods or goddesses. Curious to know how the followers of Christ worshipped their Lord, he was granted a vision of devotees kneeling before Jesus and praying to him. On the third day, as he was seated outside his room, Ramakrishna noticed a luminous figure approaching him. At once he knew that this was Christ the Savior. The figure approached and embraced him and entered into his body. And so Ramakrishna came to understand that Jesus was an avatar, a divine incarnation.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
Agree with you on this.
But the exact words jesus used may not be fully known today
Brian2
Veteran Member
The Jews of course say that Christians have a different Messiah than the one in the Tanakh.
All of these different claims certainly clouds the truth.
Some people don't seem to think there is one truth.
Brian2
Veteran Member
PureX
Veteran Member
The author's intent doesn't really matter to anyone but the author. What matters is the value we each find in our interpretation of the story as it's presented to us, how honest we are in trying to understand it, and who we become as a result of what we conclude.
Last edited:
PureX
Veteran Member
So is the story of the "Little Engine That Could". And yet to gain the ideological lesson that the story is meant to convey (about persistence), we have to consider the story metaphorically, not just factually. We have to interpret it for it's real significance.
Last edited:
firedragon
Veteran Member
Of course. The impact Jesus had on the world cannot be measured.
But I must say that Hinduism and Buddhism dont make any claim to Jesus, but a very few Buddhists claim Jesus visited them, and a very few Hindus claim Jesus learned from them. Very very very few.
Your claim that "its always a different Jesus than the Jesus of the Bible" is Highly debatable. because the Christian orthodox conception of Jesus is not even in the Bible. So that claim you made is a faith claim, not an evidential claim.
Yet again, Jesus was one of the most influential characters in the world. Michael H Hart (if I got the name right) has good book I suppose on it.
PureX
Veteran Member
Comprehension requires interpretation. Most stories, poems, songs, etc. have several levels of information available to be comprehended, simultaneously. Especially mythical stories such as the story of Jesus.
InChrist
Free4ever
There will always be attempts to reinvent and/or deny the true Savior Jesus Christ. Like Apostle Paul said...
“But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4 For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it!”
2 Corinthians 11:3-4
“But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.”
Galatians 1:8-9
MatthewA
Active Member
These are very good point.
Sometimes, you know even in JW, or MORMONISM: There may possibly be some people that are in the sections of thought when it comes to Christianity; though do believe that the organization itself and what they may present, may be sideways and counter-intuitive to the understanding what the bible by itself says without the organization - beliefs and doctrines which are taught with-in.
There are people who believe in Jesus Christ; and the Father of the Son of God Jesus Christ; and are in fact saved from the dangers of staying in the darkness of the mind, and are born again by the spirit even while being part of JW, MORMONISM: Could this also be for any other religion yes it is possible. ~ So Born-again JW by and through Jesus Christ probably do exist or Born-again Mormon, ~ Because of the individuals choice to go and seek for truth (about God and Jesus Christ) even though they might be part of these structures.
To me; it is very hard to tell if a person is Christian or not; but however there are truths about Jesus Christ that can be found in the bible. He in fact is truth, the way, the life (John 14:6) and no one comes to the Father except through Him; and this takes faith which is given by God and a believer trusting and confiding in the Father, and the Son of God Jesus Christ. Believe also that the soul (our soul) speaks from the heart, of what it finds and deems valuable. For me God, and the Lord Jesus Christ are valuable.
Here is one interesting tidbit of Jesus Christ becoming wisdom.
1 Corinthians 1:30
But it is from Him that you have your life in Christ Jesus, Whom God made our Wisdom from God, [revealed to us a knowledge of the divine plan of salvation previously hidden, manifesting itself as] our Righteousness [thus making us upright and putting us in right standing with God], and our Consecration [making us pure and holy], and our Redemption [providing our ransom from eternal penalty for sin].
These are some of my thoughts, thank you for your post Barry.
Last edited: