Which Jesus is the right one?

[oldbadger]

One and the same. Who said you can’t do both?

And so you do accept that there are variations in the accounts about Jesus?
Or maybe it was two different people?
I think that there were two different Jesus's. Certainly there was a Jesus son of the Father because his name was translated in to Jesus Barabbas.

 

[oldbadger]

Both.

Can you explain how Jesus's 'line' was different in Luke's and Matthew's accounts?

 

[oldbadger]

Except for the Pauline epistles and the gospel of John.

Apart from repeats about last meal, execution and resurrection the Pharisee Paul never wrote a line about the actions and words of Jesus, and the author(s) of G-John were unknown persons living on the prison island of Pentos, off Ephesus.

 

[oldbadger]

Life's like that. Different responses for different situations.

But that's duplicitous, no?

That's no good, surely?

 

[Kenny]

In which case you could say that your God is the God of murderers and racists.

God is the friend of sinners. Not just murderers and racists, but prostitutes, thieves and even the self-righteous ones. He came to seek and to save… to transform murderers and racists into God loving and neighbor loving people.

Jesus turned away the rich man who couldn't give away his money, true?

Not really. He didn’t turn away the rich man… the rich man turned away from Jesus because he loved money more than he loved God. Tradition says he is the one that came back in Acts.

I did indeed!

Of course, and some Christians will point to verses like that to justify aggression, violence and more.

Yes… people justify what they want to justify… just like people justify aggression and violence against the unborn or the lack of response when they see violence going on all in the name of peace.

 

[GoodAttention]

Yes… people justify what they want to justify… just like people justify aggression and violence against the unborn or the lack of response when they see violence going on all in the name of peace.

As soon as you justify divorce, which Jesus specifically said not to do, all bets are off.

 

[Kenny]

And so you do accept that there are variations in the accounts about Jesus?

Yes

Or maybe it was two different people?

Or two different lineages.

I think that there were two different Jesus's. Certainly there was a Jesus son of the Father because his name was translated in to Jesus Barabbas.

Yes, people have different viewpoints. I tend to see the story as a whole and not just a few parts to come to a conclusion. John, Mark and the Epistles as well as the TaNaKh helps clear up any misconceptions.

 

[Kenny]

Can you explain how Jesus's 'line' was different in Luke's and Matthew's accounts?

As mentioned before… one through Joseph and one through Mary. Either one to follow the line to David.

 

[oldbadger]

God is the friend of sinners. Not just murderers and racists, but prostitutes, thieves and even the self-righteous ones. He came to seek and to save… to transform murderers and racists into God loving and neighbor loving people.

Your God warned, a long time ago, that people who would not keep his laws would be caste out (Lev 20.22)
And he warned that nations must keep to his laws or he would caste them out. (Lev 20.23)
And he turned out bad people and offered their place to others to keep. (Lev 20.24)

And Jesus wanted to supported his laws absolutely.

But some Christians follow a very violent Jesus, you know. (Matthew 10.34 Think not that I come to send peace on earth, I come not to send peace but a sword.)
But maybe this God and this Jesus are different from yours?

Not really. He didn’t turn away the rich man… the rich man turned away from Jesus because he loved money more than he loved God. Tradition says he is the one that came back in Acts.

What Tradition wants to make up and what the men called Jesus said and did are different matters.
There are so many verses to choose from, but how about these words by one Jesus?
Mark
{10:23} And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!

Yes… people justify what they want to justify… just like people justify aggression and violence against the unborn or the lack of response when they see violence going on all in the name of peace.

Unfortunately Christianity so often justify aggression and violence. And one Jesus said and did things which helps to support them, as above.
But not your Jesus, obviously.

You mentioned 'violence against the unborn' above. I've never read anything about what Jesus said or did about such things. Maybe you're led by Church Tradition on that?

 

[oldbadger]

Yes

Or two different lineages.

So..... two or more differing Jesus's.

Yes, people have different viewpoints. I tend to see the story as a whole and not just a few parts to come to a conclusion. John, Mark and the Epistles as well as the TaNaKh helps clear up any misconceptions.

The Epistles? Apart from the last meal, execution and resurrection I've never seen a sentence of Paul's about anything that Jesus ever said or did.
The Tanakh........ I've got copies of the first books of the old testament but the God in that told so clearly that sin was simply the busting of any of his laws. And Sin led to sickness, weakness, insecurity, danger and incoherence. It wasn't that same as your sin.

 

[oldbadger]

As mentioned before… one through Joseph and one through Mary.

Kenny, Joseph's line was nothing to do with Jesus. Now the line through Mary is strange because Northern (and Southern!!) Jews took no great interest in the girl's lineages. But I wonder why it is not explained thus or through which line?
So maybe Mary was in fact 'Mary BartaHeli'? I wonder that she was not introduced to all as such?

 

[David Young]

There is one problem with saying that one genealogy is through Mary. It does not say that it is through Mary. It says that it is through Joseph. So does the other one.

The genealogy in Matthew contradicts the genealogy in Luke. This is not surprising, because both are works of fiction.

 

[CG Didymus]

There is one problem with saying that one genealogy is through Mary. It does not say that it is through Mary. It says that it is through Joseph. So does the other one.

The genealogy in Matthew contradicts the genealogy in Luke. This is not surprising, because both are works of fiction.

Yeah, I just looked and in Matthew it says...

Matt 1:16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.​

​

And in Luke it says...

Luke 3:23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,​

​

the son of Heli...​

​

So, how do some Christians come up with one of them being Mary's lineage?

I too get the feeling that lot of things were just being made up to make a great story about a God/man sent to Earth to save the world.

 

[Kenny]

Your God warned, a long time ago, that people who would not keep his laws would be caste out (Lev 20.22)

Yes… He was right about that.

And he warned that nations must keep to his laws or he would caste them out. (Lev 20.23)

Yes… although one can always wonder if it was sin that cause the land to vomit them out. (Lev. 18:28)

And he turned out bad people and offered their place to others to keep. (Lev 20.24)

I think you misquoted this one… but, yes, sin will open the door for people to take your land.

And Jesus wanted to supported his laws absolutely

Yes… he did fulfill the law completely.

.

But some Christians follow a very violent Jesus, you know. (Matthew 10.34 Think not that I come to send peace on earth, I come not to send peace but a sword.)
But maybe this God and this Jesus are different from yours?

I don’t know the by and large the Christians follow a violent Jesus. Some people, like unto yourself, take everything so literal instead of understanding the analogy presented.

But I find the same Jesus and not a different one.

What Tradition wants to make up and what the men called Jesus said and did are different matters.
There are so many verses to choose from, but how about these words by one Jesus?
Mark
{10:23} And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!

By simply finishing the statement of Jesus… like the media does today, they take a snippet and act like it is all in context:
26 And they were greatly astonished, saying among themselves, “Who then can be saved?”
27 But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
28 Then Peter began to say to Him, “See, we have left all and followed You.”
29 So Jesus answered and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children orlands, for My sake and the gospel’s, 30 who shall not receive a hundredfold now in this time—houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions—and in the age to come, eternal life.

Wow, that does change the whole of what you presented.

Unfortunately Christianity so often justify aggression and violence. And one Jesus said and did things which helps to support them, as above.
But not your Jesus, obviously.

I’m sorry… what violence are Christians promoting? I see you keep inferring this statement, but in all of Brevard Country in which I live, I haven’t found one that matches your description.

Are you talking about an outlier - out of the norm - Christian?

You mentioned 'violence against the unborn' above. I've never read anything about what Jesus said or did about such things. Maybe you're led by Church Tradition on that?

I didn’t see anything about Jesus saying “Do do heroine” either, does that mean it is OK? Or do I check out my mental capacity? Did Jesus say, “Go kill your unborn baby?” - I don’t think he said that either. Are you promoting violence? Is this where you take your sword and sacrifice your baby on the altar of convenience? Which God do you serve? Sounds like a violent one.

 

[Kenny]

Kenny, Joseph's line was nothing to do with Jesus.

And you know this… how?

Now the line through Mary is strange because Northern (and Southern!!) Jews took no great interest in the girl's lineages. But I wonder why it is not explained thus or through which line?

Are you the determinant on what God thinks is important? Some people may not agree with you...

Matrilineality in Judaism​

In modern Rabbinic Judaism, the traditional method of determining Jewishness relies on tracing one's maternal line. According to halakha, the recognition of someone as fully Jewish requires them to have been born to a Jewish mother. A person who is born to a non-Jewish mother and a Jewish father is regarded as Zera Yisrael and will only be accepted as ethnically Jewish and not as religiously Jewish. Wikipedia

So maybe Mary was in fact 'Mary BartaHeli'? I wonder that she was not introduced to all as such?

Yes… there are many “alternative” theories presented to undermine the historical account as presented in scripture.

 

[Ebionite]

Apart from repeats about last meal

They were not exactly repeats, there were embellishments.

For example:

For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
1 Corinthians 11:26

the author(s) of G-John were unknown persons

The insider knowledge and the consistent bias towards the Pharisees suggests that the author of the gospel of John was the Pharisee Nicodemus.

John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and being a priest wore the sacerdotal plate.
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3:31:3

But that's duplicitous, no?

No, making situational judgments is not the same thing as duplicity. Justice rewards good for good and evil for evil.

 

[oldbadger]

if it was sin that cause the land to vomit them out. (Lev. 18:28)

Sin? I've been talking about your God's laws and what happened if they were ignored.
Why you insist on using this strange word 'sin' is strange to me. For instance, yours and our courts don't use the word.

I think you misquoted this one… but, yes, sin will open the door for people to take your land.

God allowed any people to adopt his laws, all that time ago. He said so.

Yes… he did fulfill the law completely.

No. Think about it, a few words added at the end of a sentence changed it's meaning completely, 'until all is fulfilled'.
So Christians can still quote the laws as suits their righteous feelings whilst ignoring hundreds of others.

I don’t know the by and large the Christians follow a violent Jesus. Some people, like unto yourself, take everything so literal instead of understanding the analogy presented.

Who fought your Civil war and many others?

But I find the same Jesus and not a different one.

In which case your Jesus undergoes some extreme character changes.
I think there are at least two of them.

By simply finishing the statement of Jesus… like the media does today, they take a snippet and act like it is all in context:
26 And they were greatly astonished, saying among themselves, “Who then can be saved?”
27 But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
28 Then Peter began to say to Him, “See, we have left all and followed You.”
29 So Jesus answered and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children orlands, for My sake and the gospel’s, 30 who shall not receive a hundredfold now in this time—houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions—and in the age to come, eternal life.

Wow, that does change the whole of what you presented.

Well, Jesus was probably explaining how a united front against the outrageous corruption of the fat Levite class would balance things out. 90% + of all the province's were living on the bread line.

I’m sorry… what violence are Christians promoting? I see you keep inferring this statement, but in all of Brevard Country in which I live, I haven’t found one that matches your description.

I don't know where Brevard Co is but if it's in the USA then there's a lot of violence there....no?

Are you talking about an outlier - out of the norm - Christian?

Many Christians have fought for various reasons, and to be able to quote the aggressive Jesus has no doubt helped.

I didn’t see anything about Jesus saying “Do do heroine” either, does that mean it is OK? Or do I check out my mental capacity? Did Jesus say, “Go kill your unborn baby?” - I don’t think he said that either. Are you promoting violence? Is this where you take your sword and sacrifice your baby on the altar of convenience? Which God do you serve? Sounds like a violent one.

No.....but one Jesus was promoting violence and I've quoted a few verses to show that.

Me take my sword? !!!
Sacrifice my baby? !!!

You see? What Christianity wants so it will find the suitable Jesus to present. And what it cannot find then dogma can fill in for it.

 

[oldbadger]

They were not exactly repeats, there were embellishments.
For example:
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
1 Corinthians 11:26

So you do acknowledge that Paul wrote nothing else about what Jesus said or did?

The insider knowledge and the consistent bias towards the Pharisees suggests that the author of the gospel of John was the Pharisee Nicodemus.

Changes in the way the account is told suggest at least two authors.
But nothing to do with the boatman John barZebedee.

John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and being a priest wore the sacerdotal plate.
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3:31:3

??

No, making situational judgments is not the same thing as duplicity. Justice rewards good for good and evil for evil.

You think that your justice dishes out evil? Wow!!

 

[Ebionite]

So you do acknowledge that Paul wrote nothing else about what Jesus said or did?

He wrote about an event of the road to Damascus, but the accounts of what Jesus said are inconsistent.

Changes in the way the account is told suggest at least two authors.

Of course. The point is that the textual evidence supports the idea that the author was educated about religion.

You think that your justice dishes out evil?

You think that crimes should go unpunished?

 

[oldbadger]

He wrote about an event of the road to Damascus, but the accounts of what Jesus said are inconsistent.

OK.... So Paul just wrote letters about 'church' etc, and I agree with you that accounts about Jesus are inconsistent. Now I'm thinking that this might be because there are accounts about two different Jesus's rather than inconsistent accounts about one.

Of course. The point is that the textual evidence supports the idea that the author was educated about religion.

OK.... Fair enough. I've always thought that G-John was/is supporting church tradition, dogma and beliefs. But there are anecdotes within this book that I think are genuine.

You think that crimes should go unpunished?

No.....crimes should be confronted and sentenced but I don't think that process is 'evil' if undertaken humanely.
I write 'sentenced' rather than 'punished' because many sentences (UK) hope to rehabilitate.