Which Jesus is the right one?

[Ebionite]

No. The Pharisees were not chief priests.

Straw man. The Pharisees were part of the council that conspired to kill Yeshua. The point here is that the writer of John was aligned with the Pharisees, which would explain the outlier text from the gospel of John which supports the idea of the crucifixion being a sacrifice.

 

[Ebionite]

I don't think we will ever know since the gospels are not a reliable depiction of Jesus.

There information in the prophetic texts which resolves the central theological problem of the gospels. Isaiah 53, Psalm 35, and Zechariah 11-13 have relevant material.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's a good proposal, I think.
We don't know.
But sadly this means that a few Christians can (and do) mix and match these varying characters to suit their needs, and support their attempts at righteousness.

Good analysis..... and Happy Birthday!

 

[Trailblazer]

There information in the prophetic texts which resolves the central theological problem of the gospels. Isaiah 53, Psalm 35, and Zechariah 11-13 have relevant material.

What is the central theological problem of the gospels?
How do those resolve that problem?

Do you really believe those chapters are about Jesus?
Everything in the Bible is not about Jesus.

 

[Ebionite]

What is the central theological problem of the gospels?

That a just and compassionate deity would intend for his son to be tortured to death.

How do those resolve that problem?

By describing a second man associated with the crucifixion.

Do you really believe those chapters are about Jesus?

Isaiah 53 and Psalm 35 describe a righteous servant, and there are several matches between Jesus and the man described in Psalm 35. Isaiah 53 describes rejection and suffering consistent with the crowd calling for Barabbas to be saved rather that Jesus.

Zechariah 11-13 provides context for the events of the early first century, and "smite the shepherd and his fellow" is relevant to the crucifixion.

 

[Trailblazer]

That a just and compassionate deity would intend for his son to be tortured to death.

I do not believe that was the case. I believe that Jesus chose to go to the cross.

By describing a second man associated with the crucifixion.

Who do you believe that was?

Isaiah 53 and Psalm 35 describe a righteous servant, and there are several matches between Jesus and the man described in Psalm 35. Isaiah 53 describes rejection and suffering consistent with the crowd calling for Barabbas to be saved rather that Jesus.

Zechariah 11-13 provides context for the events of the early first century, and "smite the shepherd and his fellow" is relevant to the crucifixion.

Okay, thanks for explaining that.

 

[Ebionite]

I believe that Jesus chose to go to the cross.

And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou [wilt].
Matthew 26:39

Who do you believe that was?

Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man [that is] my fellow, saith the YHWH of armies: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.
Zechariah 13:7

From gabar; properly, a valiant man or warrior; generally, a person simply -- every one, man, X mighty.

Strong's Hebrew: 1397. גָּ֫בֶר (geber) -- man

warrior -> sicarri

Term applied, in the decades immediately preceding the destruction of Jerusalem, to the jewish Zealots who attempted to expel the Romans and their partizans from the country, even resorting to murder to attain their object. Under their cloaks they concealed "sicæ," or small daggers, whence they received their name;

SICARII - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Complete contents the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.

www.jewishencyclopedia.com

The name Iscariot is a garbled form of sicarri.

The two fates of Judas (crucifixion could be described as death by hanging):

And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
Matthew 27:5

Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
Acts 1:18

 

[Trailblazer]

And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou [wilt].
Matthew 26:39

Bible verses can be interpreted to mean various things, so 'if it be possible, let this cup pass from me' does not necessarily mean that Jesus wanted the cup to pass. Jesus was only crying out in anguish. Jesus wanted to do what His Father wanted Him to do and he believed that was to die on the cross.

I believe that Jesus chose to go to the cross because that is what it says in the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

 

[Ebionite]

Bible verses can be interpreted to mean various things, so 'if it be possible, let this cup pass from me' does not necessarily mean that Jesus wanted the cup to pass.

Interpretations that are inconsistent, absurd, or repugnant are not the preferred interpretation.

The point is that Jesus ensorsed the will of his Father, so the original theological problem of a just and compassionate deity intending that his so be tortured to death is still pertinent.

Jesus wanted to do what His Father wanted Him to do and he believed that was to die on the cross.

If that were true then why would he refer to a prophetic text which repudiated blood sacrifice?

But go ye and learn what [that] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Matthew 9:13

For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of Elohim more than burnt offerings.
Hosea 6:6

 

[1213]

Mark {11:15} And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves; {11:16} And would not suffer that any man should carry [any] vessel through the temple.

Actions speak louder than words, 1213. In G-John Jesus uses a whip which he made himself, you know.

Ok, I thought you meant something where Jesus tells other people should be violent.

 

[1213]

Matthew {25:18} But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money.

....All very safe, and secure!

Not from inflation.

The story tells about servants who are given tasks. The other servants show they care about the person who hired them. The servant who did nothing with the matter that was trusted to him, shows he didn't care about the employer. So, the problem is not how much one earns, or how much good he has done with the talent he has, but that person doesn't care.

 

[oldbadger]

Straw man. The Pharisees were part of the council that conspired to kill Yeshua. The point here is that the writer of John was aligned with the Pharisees, which would explain the outlier text from the gospel of John which supports the idea of the crucifixion being a sacrifice.

Strawman? I don't think you use that term correctly.

The writer(s) of John was aligned to the new church's dogma.

The Pharisees were just irritating annoyances to Jesus. The Temple Priesthood was the totally corrupted and careless power under either Roman or Herodian control. That's why Jesus demonstrated and picketed the Temple bazaar and courts! It's all there.....in G-Mark.

 

[oldbadger]

Not from inflation.

The story tells about servants who are given tasks. The other servants show they care about the person who hired them. The servant who did nothing with the matter that was trusted to him, shows he didn't care about the employer. So, the problem is not how much one earns, or how much good he has done with the talent he has, but that person doesn't care.

Spoken like a true follower of finance!

Welcome to mammon!
So you like the ruthless Jesus? OK.

 

[oldbadger]

Not from inflation.

The story tells about servants who are given tasks. The other servants show they care about the person who hired them. The servant who did nothing with the matter that was trusted to him, shows he didn't care about the employer. So, the problem is not how much one earns, or how much good he has done with the talent he has, but that person doesn't care.

Spoken like a true follower of finance!

Welcome to mammon!
So you like the ruthless Jesus? OK.

 

[oldbadger]

Ok, I thought you meant something where Jesus tells other people should be violent.

If you think that there was no violence when Jesus picketed the Temple courts, or trashed the bazaar, you are very wrong.

 

[oldbadger]

The name Iscariot is a garbled form of sicarri.

Exactly!
Clearly, these folks had nicknames, the Zebedee brothers ,Simon the rock and Simon the Zealot... for examples.
And Judas, previously an assassin for cash had the nickname 'the dagger'.
Judas the dagger. Yes. And the Zebedee brothers were not called 'thunder' but 'violence'.
All the disciples were very very hard people.

 

[Ebionite]

Strawman? I don't think you use that term correctly.

So look it up.

All the disciples were very very hard people.

Nazareth was a center of Jewish nationalism, so you would expect that there would be people there who would follow the tradition of the Maccabees. The political issues between the Nazarenes and the Herodians were the part of the false accusations that were used by those who conspired to have Yeshua killed.

 

[Ebionite]

If you think that there was no violence when Jesus picketed the Temple courts, or trashed the bazaar, you are very wrong.

@1213 would not be wrong to think that. The phrase "den of thieves" is more correctly "den of robbers", which implies violence rather than any simple commercial fraud of the "moneychangers". Yeshua would be hypocrite if he criticised their violence and the used violence against them.

 

[oldbadger]

Good analysis..... and Happy Birthday!

Thank you!

 

[oldbadger]

@1213 would not be wrong to think that. The phrase "den of thieves" is more correctly "den of robbers", which implies violence rather than any simple commercial fraud of the "moneychangers". Yeshua would be hypocrite if he criticised their violence and the used violence against them.

But his actions spoke more loudly than his words.

But this is the point of the thread, there's a peaceful loving Jesus and an aggressive one, and a capitalist one, and a charitable one.......... And some a Christians seen to select from these as suits their purpose.