Who is Jesus?

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

To me, Jesus is the son of an adulteress who raised him with her and her husband's children. He became a zealot, chomping against the bit of the Roman Empire and finding himself on the wrong side of Pontius Pilate. Maybe he felt self-conscious about not knowing his dad and wanted to make a name for himself that wasn't 'Miriam's *******'. I can imagine it may have taken a toll on him and his self-esteem. This may have resulted in paradoxical delusions of grandeur to compensate.

What would make you think that Jesus is the son of an adulteress woman?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Rival]

What would make you think that Jesus is the son of an adulteress woman?

Good-Ole-Rebel

Because non-Christians do not believe Mary had a virgin birth and the text does not indicate that Josef was Jesus' father. That makes Mary an adulteress or at the very least, having had intimacy before marriage. Neither go in her or her son's favour.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Because non-Christians do not believe Mary had a virgin birth and the text does not indicate that Josef was Jesus' father. That makes Mary an adulteress or at the very least, having had intimacy before marriage. Neither go in her or her son's favour.

But the text also says the Jesus is the product of God. (Luke 1:34-35) That means Mary was not an adulteress.

So, you believe the text that says Joseph is not the father of Jesus. But you disregard the text that says God is the Father of Jesus.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Rival]

But the text also says the Jesus is the product of God. (Luke 1:34-35) That means Mary was not an adulteress.

So, you believe the text that says Joseph is not the father of Jesus. But you disregard the text that says God is the Father of Jesus.

Good-Ole-Rebel

I'm looking at the text from a critical perspective. It makes no sense to disregard the whole. It's clear to me that the bare bones of the story cary some truth, but it has been embellished. I am of the opinion that Jesus existed, but obviously not that he was born from a virgin.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

I'm looking at the text from a critical perspective. It makes no sense to disregard the whole. It's clear to me that the bare bones of the story cary some truth, but it has been embellished. I am of the opinion that Jesus existed, but obviously not that he was born from a virgin.

I see. You just believe and use the text you like and consider the other 'embellished'. Well, that is handy. Just make it say what you like.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[blü 2]

I know nothing about anyone other than the Jesus Christ of the Bible. That would be your "Mormon Jesus."

I apologize for speaking too broadly. Mormons accept the (conventional) bible as you say.

However, ─ and again, please correct me if I'm wrong ─ from the Book of Mormon they also believe that in 34 CE the recently resurrected Jesus appeared in what is now the US, preceded by earthquakes and heavenly signs, displayed (and I trust explained) his wounds, created twelve disciples, performed the sacrament, and converted those with whom he had made contact. However, four centuries later the converts (Nephites) were effectively wiped out in a pitched battle.

That's a long way west of standard Christologies.


Btw, might I ask which version of the NT Jesus Mormons accept? Mark's, with his completely earthly parents? Matthew's and Luke's, born as the result of divine insemination? Or Paul's and John's, who have lived in heaven with God from pretty much the beginning?

 

[PruePhillip]

I am trying to see what people who have not read the Bible, or who have read it only a little, understand about the nature of Jesus. I don't care if you believe it or not, just trying to get an idea of what people think it says.

Do people already "know" that Jesus is God before ever cracking the book. In other words, if and when they do open the book for the first time, do they have preconceived ideas about Jesus?

Thanks!

If Jesus is God, then
did Jesus raise himself from the dead?
why doesn't Jesus know when the end will come?
why did Jesus pray to himself?
why did Jesus say he wasn't good, but only His father?

No, Jesus isn't God. That's nonsense. Jesus, like ourselves
can be ONE WITH GOD.

 

[PruePhillip]

Grew up in an fundamentalist Baptist church. Got born again when I was ten. Knew the Bible well, read all the apologetics. 50 years later I have come to the conclusion that Jesus was just a human, itinerant rabbi at best.

A super clever Rabbi. He warned of the destruction to come for Israel.
And he said Jerusalem will be trodden under the feet of the Gentiles
until the Gentile Time is fulfilled - which is our age, BTW.
And the OT speaks of Israel remaining as a nation until the Messiah
comes, no more than that. And He will come while the temple still
stands.
Do you know of other Rabbis like this?

 

[Wandering Monk]

A super clever Rabbi. He warned of the destruction to come for Israel.
And he said Jerusalem will be trodden under the feet of the Gentiles
until the Gentile Time is fulfilled - which is our age, BTW.
And the OT speaks of Israel remaining as a nation until the Messiah
comes, no more than that. And He will come while the temple still
stands.
Do you know of other Rabbis like this?

I know all these arguments and found them wanting. Have you ever examined arguments against your position?

 

[blü 2]

If Jesus is God, then
did Jesus raise himself from the dead?
why doesn't Jesus know when the end will come?
why did Jesus pray to himself?
why did Jesus say he wasn't good, but only His father?

No, Jesus isn't God. That's nonsense. Jesus, like ourselves
can be ONE WITH GOD.

Yup. That's the only conclusion available on the evidence of the NT.

Or to put that another way, people are free to believe what they like, but it's simply not correct to say that the NT supports the view that Jesus is God. Each of the five NT versions of Jesus at some point expressly denies that he's God, and none of them ever claims to be God,

 

[Katzpur]

I apologize for speaking too broadly. Mormons accept the (conventional) bible as you say.

However, ─ and again, please correct me if I'm wrong ─ from the Book of Mormon they also believe that in 34 CE the recently resurrected Jesus appeared in what is now the US, preceded by earthquakes and heavenly signs, displayed (and I trust explained) his wounds, created twelve disciples, performed the sacrament, and converted those with whom he had made contact. However, four centuries later the converts (Nephites) were effectively wiped out in a pitched battle.

That's a long way west of standard Christologies.

Perhaps, but what difference does it make to who Jesus actually was just because His mission may have extended to another continent? The Bible is an account of His ministry in the Holy Land and refers to His intentions to also speak to others of "[His] sheep" that were "not of this fold" (i.e. not of the fold of the Israelites living in and around Jerusalem). Our belief that He did so certainly does not contradict anything the Bible has to say about Him.

Btw, might I ask which version of the NT Jesus Mormons accept? Mark's, with his completely earthly parents? Matthew's and Luke's, born as the result of divine insemination? Or Paul's and John's, who have lived in heaven with God from pretty much the beginning?

I'm not aware that Mark teaches that He was conceived through an earthly father, but if you can provide me with the passage or passages you're thinking of, I'd be happy to comment. Also, I don't see either Matthew's or Luke's account of His conception as contradicting anything Paul or John said. Paul and John were referring to His pre-mortal existence in Heaven, prior to His incarnation here on earth. While Matthew and Luke may not have specifically mentioned the time before Jesus' earthly ministry, I don't see that as implying that they were at odds with Paul and John.

 

[blü 2]

Perhaps, but what difference does it make to who Jesus actually was just because His mission may have extended to another continent?

Thanks for your reply.

The difference is that in the NT stories, the resurrected Jesus appeared on, and only on, his home soil among the Jews, and then without more ascended to heaven where he was united (or reunited) with God.

In those stories, he did not, for example, appear in Britain, Europe, Africa, Asia, India, North, Central or South America, the islands of any of the oceans, Australia, Antarctica, whatever. In this sense, you may agree, to the onlooker it may seem anomalous that he should make just the one overseas reappearance.

The Bible is an account of His ministry in the Holy Land and refers to His intentions to also speak to others of "[His] sheep" that were "not of this fold" (i.e. not of the fold of the Israelites living in and around Jerusalem). Our belief that He did so certainly does not contradict anything the Bible has to say about Him.

The parts of the NT about evangelizing / proselytizing are from Greek (in particular Cynic) philosophy. They reflect a local (Eastern Roman Empire) view, as does Paul, Acts and the NT more generally. That makes the Mormon example at the least unusual, unexpected, but I can't off-hand think of anything it actually contradicts, as you say.

I'm not aware that Mark teaches that He was conceived through an earthly father, but if you can provide me with the passage or passages you're thinking of, I'd be happy to comment.

First of all, none of the authors of the books of the NT ever knew an historical Jesus, any more than Paul did.

Second, Mark is both the earliest gospel, and the only biography of the earthly Jesus. That's to say, Paul's earthly bio of Jesus fits into two lines; and the authors of Matthew, Luke and John rewrite Mark because they wish to improve it. (A simple example is how Mark's Jesus is a broken, forlorn and abandoned man; Matthew's is a bit more together; Luke's omits to say, "Why have You forsake me?"; and John's is more like the MC of his crucifixion. Don't take my word for it, reread them for yourself.)

In Mark, Jesus goes to John the Baptist to be washed of his sins. Only when this is done do the heavens open and God declares Jesus to be his son. The model is Psalms 2:7, and though the words "this day I have begotten you" are omitted, they're implicit (and later, in Acts 13:33, they're completely explicit). That's to say, this is how King David became son of God and this is how Jesus became son / Son of God.

(This is unacceptable to the authors of Matthew and Luke, who want Jesus to hit the ground already divine ─ hence the angelic messengers, Bethlehem, flight into Egypt, all of which are attempting to make Jesus conform to passages in the Tanakh which their authors like to think are messianic prophecies.

It's also unacceptable to the author of John, who like Paul is a gnostic, and for whom Jesus is the demiurge: that is, both the Jesus of Paul (1 Corinthians 8:6) and the Jesus of John (John 1:10) created the material world (something which in the gnostic view, God, being pure spirit, would never think of doing) and thereafter mediated between the material world and God.)

Mark is the only use of a Jewish model for the son/Son of God. The models in Matthew and Luke (divine insemination) and Paul and John (gnostic, pre-existing, demiurge) are all Greek.

In Matthew and Luke, the birth of Jesus is attended by advance angelic messages, and the birth itself by astrological signs, the attendance of Magi, and miraculous displays. In Mark, however, when Jesus gets into an argument with the local religious authorities, his family think he's nuts (Mark 4:21) ─ you don't do that if you've been visited by angelic messengers to tip you off.

Also, I don't see either Matthew's or Luke's account of His conception as contradicting anything Paul or John said.

Paul and the author of John, our two gnostics, have a different understanding of theology, hence Christology, to the one shared, however roughly, by the authors of Matthew and Luke, whose Jesuses didn't exist before their miraculous conceptions ─ a different Greek model to the gnostics. By contrast, Paul and the author of John are vague about who bore Jesus and how; like Mark they completely omit the shepherds, stars, Magi, Massacre of the Innocents, flight into Egypt, and so on ─ something I'd be slow to omit were that the model of Jesus I was advocating.

 

[roberto]

If Jesus is God, then
did Jesus raise himself from the dead?
why doesn't Jesus know when the end will come?
why did Jesus pray to himself?
why did Jesus say he wasn't good, but only His father?

No, Jesus isn't God. That's nonsense. Jesus, like ourselves
can be ONE WITH GOD.

Zec 14:3 Then ADONAI will go out and fight against those nations, fighting as on a day of battle.
Zec 14:4 On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which lies to the east of Yerushalayim; and the Mount of Olives will be split in half from east to west, to make a huge valley. Half of the mountain will move toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

Huh?

 

[PruePhillip]

I know all these arguments and found them wanting. Have you ever examined arguments against your position?

Certainly I have examined my position.
Your lack of specifics suggests you
haven't examined your own?

 

[roberto]

No, He does not approve of such pagan ideas....in fact, He knew that “many” of His followers would even perform “powerful works”, but he and his Father wouldn’t be backing them. (Matthew 7:21-23) From where would these ones be getting their power, then?

You can’t blame Jesus, for the actions of those who may claim to be his followers, but don’t follow his instructions.

I believe Christians belong to "the Church" and Jesus belongs to Churcians

Which Church do you belong to that does not believe in Jesus and his sins?

 

[PruePhillip]

Zec 14:3 Then ADONAI will go out and fight against those nations, fighting as on a day of battle.
Zec 14:4 On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which lies to the east of Yerushalayim; and the Mount of Olives will be split in half from east to west, to make a huge valley. Half of the mountain will move toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

Huh?

What is your problem? Jesus is Lord.

 

[roberto]

What is your problem? Jesus is Lord.

Sorry PruePhillip, I misread your statement >"...No, Jesus isn't God. That's nonsense...."

I do agree fully with you if the Jesus you mention is the Messiah of 2000years ago; (him being one with the Creator)

Sorry once again.

 

[Tumah]

I see. You just believe and use the text you like and consider the other 'embellished'. Well, that is handy. Just make it say what you like.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Have you ever heard of the genre called historical fiction?

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Have you ever heard of the genre called historical fiction?

Yes, but I never cared much for it. I find true history much more appealing. You?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Wandering Monk]

Certainly I have examined my position.
Your lack of specifics suggests you
haven't examined your own?

There are no NT fragments or manuscripts that predate the destruction of the Temple, so we don't know that Jesus predicted its destruction.