Jesus was one of a long line of Hebrew prophets.

[dio9]

Jesus was one of a long line of Hebrew prophets who spoke in one refrain to priests temple aristocracy and kings . let justice prevail in the land destroy the nighty and wicked mes so that the strong might not afflict the weak. Like all the prophets before him he did not glorify the king but showed the wrongful confusion on earth for the betterment of mankind.
When reading through the Hebrew prophets there is found a consistency of spirit through the ages of concern for the common man being treated fairly by the powerful.
Its disappointing form me a Christian that Jesus is not recognized for the Hebrew prophet he was in the troubled time which he lived. When Jesus said before Abraham was I am he was not claiming to be a pagan god , he was saying what they all said the eternal God said thus .
Priests and temple flunkies and kings were always the target of the prophets. That they should know the law is not made by man but by God. There are certain unalienable truths. Not congressed by man but from God.

[dio9]

So the question for discussion is who was Jesus and what was he trying to do?

[alwayson]

Paul, who writes before the gospels, never indicates Jesus taught anything.

Gerd Lüdemann:
"Not once does Paul refer to Jesus as a teacher, to his words as teaching, or to [any] Christians as disciples."

"Moreover, when Paul himself summarizes the content of his missionary preaching in Corinth (1 Cor. 2.1-2; 15.3-5), there is no hint that a narration of Jesus’ earthly life or a report of his earthly teachings was an essential part of it. . . . In the letter to the Romans, which cannot presuppose the apostle’s missionary preaching and in which he attempts to summarize its main points, we find not a single direct citation of Jesus’ teaching."

[dio9]

Paul, who writes before the gospels, never indicates Jesus taught anything.

Gerd Lüdemann:
"Not once does Paul refer to Jesus as a teacher, to his words as teaching, or to [any] Christians as disciples."

"Moreover, when Paul himself summarizes the content of his missionary preaching in Corinth (1 Cor. 2.1-2; 15.3-5), there is no hint that a narration of Jesus’ earthly life or a report of his earthly teachings was an essential part of it. . . . In the letter to the Romans, which cannot presuppose the apostle’s missionary preaching and in which he attempts to summarize its main points, we find not a single direct citation of Jesus’ teaching."

No doubt. What does this mean? Paul totally ignores the work - mission of historic Jesus. As I've read Paul says the only thing he cares about is the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. But we do still have the Gospels. And they record something of Jesus activity in Galilee and Jerusalem. Particularly his critique of the priests and temple sycophants like a prophet of old.

[bluethread]

Paul, who writes before the gospels, never indicates Jesus taught anything.

All of Paul's writings are in the form of letters. He was therefore addressing specific issues and not chronicling the actions of Yeshua. Most of those problems centered around acclimating Gentiles to the principles in HaTorah, and countering the argument that circumcision was necessary for salvation. If on holds that Paul wrote the letter to the diaspora(Hebrews), that is a midrash supporting the concept of Yeshua as HaMeshiach and salvation by grace through faith.

[marco]

Paul, who writes before the gospels, never indicates Jesus taught anything.

Gerd Lüdemann:
"Not once does Paul refer to Jesus as a teacher, to his words as teaching, or to [any] Christians as disciples."

And so? That Paul didn't use the word teacher is less significant than the content of the gospels that allows us to perceive that Jesus did indeed teach, frequently using parables to do so.

Take this, for example:
Matthew 28:19 King James Version (KJV)

" Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"

It would be odd if Christ ordered his followers to teach while declining to do so himself.

[Willum]

Jesus was either the progeny of Tiberius Panthera, or God. Mary's contribution to his genepool, I think you'll, was a function of God's whim... he could have made the saviour of mankind's mother, dust, a kangaroo, any dumb creature or octopus.

So he was hardly from a long line of Hebrew prophets.

As far as opposing the aristocracy... I could see that, Roman will was to undermine the Jewish aristocracy... Pharisee particularly, so that the people could be undermined...

As to the rest, the NT preaches obeying the (Roman government) and paying its taxes...

[Elijah John]

Jesus was either the progeny of Tiberius Panthera,

Please demonstrate that Jesus was the "progeny of Tiberius Panthera".

[Willum]

Jesus was either the progeny of Tiberius Panthera,

Please demonstrate that Jesus was the "progeny of Tiberius Panthera".

Sure EJ, in this case it is easy:

There are only two "official" stories of the big J's birth:
The Christian version, saying he was the result of immaculate conception with God.
Or the Palestinian-Jews version of the story which claims he was the unhallowed union between Mary and a Roman soldier, Tiberius Panthera, or Pandaeria (et&al.).

It is an either or situation, with no other dogs in the fight - that i know of. A quick 'Google' will show any information you might want on Panderia, and tons of apologetic non-sense as well.

The important bit is that there are only two versions, divine and mundane. Neither one demonstrates Jesus as a Hebrew prophet.

If divine - then God's input into Jesus' 'genome' (or whatever) trumps any mortal assumption about 'race,' so a Hebrew designation is blasphemous to God, imputing Mary's womb trumps divine will, clearly non-sense.
If mundane: Bastards are cursed to the tenth generation because of Deuteronomy 23:2.

Best regards,

[dio9]

[Replying to post 7 by Willum]

Please demonstrate why you say Jesus was not in the tradition of Hebrew prophets.