Jesus the man, or Jesus the god? Answer = Jesus the man!

[oldbadger]

That is the subject for debate:- Was Jesus a man who challenged a corrupted rich group, or God come to Earth especially for humans?

I've read the gospels a few times, and I feel quite sure that Jesus was a man of the peasant classes (90+% of the whole country) who challenged the wealthy and hypocritical 'Vichy type' rulers of the Palestinian Provinces.

He wanted a return of the Laws of Moses, so many of which had been ignored for so long, and he wanted an honest system that devoted itself to the people and not just a few. I don't believe in long winded essays, rather for short, clear examples, and so I'll post up one example per post.

Example:- Jesus wanted a return of the Laws of Moses......not just a few cherrypicked choices as Christians would prefer.
Matthew 5:17 >> Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.........

So many prophets had come before, calling out for the laws to be supported and kept, and so many rulers had turned away from them.
Church Dogma altered his call and succeeded in destroying these, unless it was convenient to remember them.

Can you show that I'm wrong?

[bjs1]

You opened this thread by saying “I've read the gospels a few times.” You are free to insist without evidence that Church dogma changed the gospels, but it is false to suggest that a belief that Jesus is not God somehow came from the gospels.

As I wrote in my first post on this thread, “You can discount the parts of the New Testament that contradict your view. However, there is no realistic way to say that this is how Jesus presented himself in the Gospels.”

Evidence?
To save me writing a book to you, please get a copy of Geza Vermes book 'the changing faces of Jesus'. Mr Vermes was a priest intimately acquainted with Mid eastern languages, he translated the dead sea scrolls and was a language professor. As he studied the gospels more, so he recognised that Jesus changed with them from man to God.

The Gospel of John does have very useful anecdotes, probably true, but it was written by a priest on a detention island off Ephesus and it is absolutely full of church dogma. You will notice how it excluded the events of the last week almost totally because they don't fit with the required story.

I am familiar with Vermes and the larger historical Jesus research that he was a part of. His work on the Dead Sea Scrolls was particularly important.

The common criticism of the historical Jesus movement (including Vermes) is that it suppresses some information while exaggerating other information to get a picture of Jesus that is new but not all that historical. Inevitably this new Jesus (and this critique certainly applies to Vermes) ends up strikingly similar to the scholar who was looking for him. There is a semi-famous line about looking down the long, dark well of history and seeing one’s own reflection in the water below.

So again, you opened by talking about reading the Gospels. You are free to any view of Jesus you want, just don’t pretend that this take can be found in the Gospels.

As a side note, I am surprised that you cite Vermes while denying that Jesus was a teacher. The fact that Jesus was a preacher and teacher was central to Vermes view of Jesus.

[JehovahsWitness]

Christianity has it's own laws instigated by Christ albeit based on the principles of the Mosaic law.

But no. The vast majority of Christian rules and laws and many were instigated by Paul!

There is a vast difference between a RULE and a LAW. Rules are directives that are established by anyone with authority for the smooth running of an institution or organization. When bible believing Christians refer to The Law or Christian Law we are referring to the conditions established by the leader of the Christian congregation (Christ) by which all Christians will be judged. There are many rules in bible, some permanent some temporary, but Christian Law comes from Christ himself (See John 13 v 34)

[JehovahsWitness]

If you agree that Jesus initiated a new religion, that he intended to become fully operational after his death, then we have no issue. If (as you seem to be insinuating) that you think Jesus did not initiate a new religion and wanted his followers (after his death), to continue in the Jewish temple based tradition, then you are wrong.

No, I don't agree that Jesus initiated a new religion...

Well I have presented scriptural argumentation see post # 48 ---> viewtopic.php?p=1154029#p1154029

Do you have any counterargument to present?

[oldbadger]

The Gospels record Jesus spending much of his time being a teacher and record no instance of him being a nagar (carpenter or worker).

Mark 6 verse 3. ??

Jesus was hand worker alright, a tekton in Greek, but a Nagar in his native tongue.

Okay. I agree that Jesus was once called tekton. Do you agree that Jesus was called a teacher and that, while we never see him doing the work of a tekton, we often see him doing the work of a teacher?

I write or translator probably used 'tekton' for a Greek speaking/reading audience, but Jesus would never have called himself that, he would have spoken Eastern Aramaic and so 'Nagar or Nagarra'.

Teacher? Not really. When I see folks campaigning at a meeting for rights, or justice, or fairness, I don't think 'Listen to that person teaching the throng!'. I don't.

I recognise many if not most of Jesus's speeches as just that.....speeches. And so many of his parables (or analogies) were so unclear that his own friends couldn't grasp them.

[oldbadger]

If you agree that Jesus initiated a new religion, that he intended to become fully operational after his death, then we have no issue. If (as you seem to be insinuating) that you think Jesus did not initiate a new religion and wanted his followers (after his death), to continue in the Jewish temple based tradition, then you are wrong.

No, I don't agree that Jesus initiated a new religion...

Well I have presented scriptural argumentation see post # 48 ---> viewtopic.php?p=1154029#p1154029

Do you have any counterargument to present?

Yes....I would use those verses, only not with your translation. He was just talking to friends and his 'many' were probably the thousands and thousands of working people who were getting scammed by money changers, sacrifice sellers, priests condemning their own sacrifices, etc rtc

[oldbadger]

Christianity has it's own laws instigated by Christ albeit based on the principles of the Mosaic law.

But no. The vast majority of Christian rules and laws and many were instigated by Paul!

There is a vast difference between a RULE and a LAW. Rules are directives that are established by anyone with authority for the smooth running of an institution or organization. When bible believing Christians refer to The Law or Christian Law we are referring to the conditions established by the leader of the Christian congregation (Christ) by which all Christians will be judged. There are many rules in bible, some permanent some temporary, but Christian Law comes from Christ himself (See John 13 v 34)

Now that's a new thread! Tomorrow if I can?

I'll need to use your words [Christian Law comes from Christ himself (See John 13 v 34)]. if I may?

[oldbadger]

I am familiar with Vermes and the larger historical Jesus research that he was a part of. His work on the Dead Sea Scrolls was particularly important.

The common criticism of the historical Jesus movement (including Vermes) is that it suppresses some information while exaggerating other information to get a picture of Jesus that is new but not all that historical. Inevitably this new Jesus (and this critique certainly applies to Vermes) ends up strikingly similar to the scholar who was looking for him. There is a semi-famous line about looking down the long, dark well of history and seeing one’s own reflection in the water below.

Vermes' observations on the gospels was his own singular view. He wasn't part of any other group afaik.

So again, you opened by talking about reading the Gospels. You are free to any view of Jesus you want, just don’t pretend that this take can be found in the Gospels.

Of course it can. One example from many:
See how G-John raises Jesus above the synoptics, nothing so lowly as demon casting or lesser miracles for John, no mention of Jesus conduct for two days running after Palm Sunday, and on......
Jesus is raised up further than the other gospels ..... A very interesting read, and see how his (estranged!!) Mother finds her way with John the boatman to the foot of the cross, when in fact only Magdalene, Salome and some others viewed from afar.
Oh...John's is a different story!

As a side note, I am surprised that you cite Vermes while denying that Jesus was a teacher. The fact that Jesus was a preacher and teacher was central to Vermes view of Jesus.

True, but I have read so many scholars and discovered that I have my own opinion about Jesus and teaching, ok?

[JehovahsWitness]

If you agree that Jesus initiated a new religion, that he intended to become fully operational after his death, then we have no issue. If (as you seem to be insinuating) that you think Jesus did not initiate a new religion and wanted his followers (after his death), to continue in the Jewish temple based tradition, then you are wrong.

No, I don't agree that Jesus initiated a new religion...

Well I have presented scriptural argumentation see post # 48 ---> viewtopic.php?p=1154029#p1154029

Do you have any counterargument to present?

Yes....I would use those verses, only not with your translation. ...

Use whichever translation you like, quote the words you are refering you exactly from the text (preferably using quotation marks) and present your reasoning based on the words you quote.

Over to you ,


JW

[oldbadger]

Use whichever translation you like, quote the words you are refering you exactly from the text (preferably using quotation marks) and present your reasoning based on the words you quote.

Over to you ,

JW

You seem to think that you can tell me to do homework for you, beyond the mission of this thread.

You need to initiate a thread with your very own debate and then I might respond to that, but I must tell you that I won't be immersing every verse in my personal translation.

[JehovahsWitness]

You need to initiate a thread with your very own debate and then I might respond to that, ....

Why should I start a new thread To challenge a point you made in this one ?

Jesus wanted a return of the Laws of Moses......not just a few cherrypicked choices as Christians would prefer.

I am therefore challenging your statement that "Christianity cherry-picked from the 613 Mosaic laws" which implies your position is the religion established after his death in the first century existed contrary to his will and purpose and was not based on his teachings. If I have misunderstood and the above underslined portion is NOT your position, please clarify .

If you agree that Jesus initiated a new religion, that he intended to become fully operational after his death, then we have no issue. If (as you seem to be insinuating) that you think Jesus did not initiate a new religion and wanted his followers (after his death), to continue in the Jewish temple based tradition, then you are wrong.

You of course are free to respond using any bible translation you choose (The use of quotation marks is standard practice and avoids reader confusion).