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.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 10 by dio9]

UGGGGGGGGGGGG!
You said "line," not "tradition."
I demonstrated no line, then you move the goals-post!

But there are no demi-gods (or unlawful children) in Hebrew tradition.

Fair enough?

[dio9]

[Replying to post 11 by Willum]

all I am saying is Jesus was behaving like all the Hebrew prophets before him. I really don't care who his father was.
If he acts like a prophet speaks like a prophet and lives like a prophet I'm saying he was a prophet.
Did Jesus act like a prophet? In my opinion he did. Thats all.

[Elijah John]

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,

Mary was married to Joseph. On a natural level, wouldn't Joseph be the "prime suspect" in fathering Jesus and not some Roman soldier? Seems a very very likely scenario, don't ya think?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 13 by Elijah John]

Seems reasonable to me. But it can't be backed up with any facts, natural or supernatural.

So then, why did they flee?
Why is there a conspiracy?
Why doesn't Joesph claim him?
Why did Jews claim an un-natural father? (They were there after all.)
Why do Christians claim a supernatural father? (They weren't there, after all.)

Why doesn't anyone claim Joe as the father?

As you know, we can't just go around making stuff up without some kind of scholarship to back it up.

[alwayson]

But we do still have the Gospels. And they record something of Jesus activity in Galilee and Jerusalem.

Composed AFTER the letters of Paul, Mark and Matthew were INTENDED as symbolic fiction, being written in a symbolic chiastic structure.

Watch this video:

Only with Luke-Acts did Christians start to view the four Gospels literally.

The sayings of Jesus in the Gospels are things Paul originally said. See Nikolaus Walter's ‘Paul and the Early Christian Jesus-Tradition’.

The events in Mark and Matthew are based on the Old Testament, directly borrowing its language:

The Donkey(s) - Jesus riding on a donkey is from Zechariah 9.

Mark has Jesus sit on a young donkey that he had his disciples fetch for him (Mark 11.1-10).

Matthew changes the story so the disciples instead fetch TWO donkeys, not only the young donkey of Mark but also his mother. Jesus rides into Jerusalem on both donkeys at the same time (Matthew 21.1-9). Matthew wanted the story to better match the literal reading of Zechariah 9.9. Matthew even actually quotes part of Zech. 9.9.

The Sermon on the Mount - The Sermon of the Mount relies extensively on the Greek text of Deuteronomy and Leviticus especially, and in key places on other texts. For example, the section on turning the other cheek and other aspects of legal pacifism (Mt. 5.38-42) has been redacted from the Greek text of Isaiah 50.6-9.

The clearing of the temple - The cleansing of the temple as a fictional scene has its primary inspiration from an ancient faulty translation of Zech. 14.21 which changed 'Canaanites' to 'traders'.

When Jesus clears the temple he quotes Jer. 7.11 (in Mk 11.17). Jeremiah and Jesus both enter the temple (Jer. 7.1-2; Mk 11.15), make the same accusation against the corruption of the temple cult (Jeremiah quoting a revelation from the Lord, Jesus quoting Jeremiah), and predict the destruction of the temple (Jer. 7.12-14; Mk 14.57-58; 15.29).

The Resurrection - Jesus was known as the ‘firstfruits’ of the resurrection that would occur to all believers (1 Cor. 15.20-23). The Torah commands that the Day of Firstfruits take place the day after the first Sabbath following the Passover (Lev. 23.5, 10-11). In other words, on a Sunday. Mark has Jesus rise on Sunday, the firstftuits of the resurrected, symbolically on the very Day of Firstfruits itself.

Barabbas - This is the Yom Kippur ceremony of Leviticus 16 and Mishnah tractate Yoma: two ‘identical’ goats were chosen each year, and one was released into the wild containing the sins of Israel (which was eventually killed by being pushed over a cliff), while the other’s blood was shed to atone for those sins. Barabbas means ‘Son of the Father’ in Aramaic, and we know Jesus was deliberately styled the ‘Son of the Father’ himself. So we have two sons of the father; one is released into the wild mob containing the sins of Israel (murder and rebellion), while the other is sacrificed so his blood may atone for the sins of Israel—the one who is released bears those sins literally; the other, figuratively. Adding weight to this conclusion is manuscript evidence that the story originally had the name ‘Jesus Barabbas’. Thus we really had two men called ‘Jesus Son of the Father’.


Refs:
(1) John Dominic Crossan, The Power of Parable: How Fiction by Jesus Became Fiction about Jesus (New York: HarperOne, 2012); (2) Randel Helms, Gospel Fictions (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1988); (3) Dennis MacDonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000); (4) Thomas Thompson, The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David (New York: Basic Books, 2005); and (5) Thomas Brodie, The Birthing of the New Testament: The Intertextual Development of the New Testament Writings (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2004).

[dio9]

[Replying to post 15 by alwayson]

Thanks for your thoughtful post. This is what educated discussion is about.
On to the topic :
I don't think Paul just made the story of Jesus up. There were disciples who knew Jesus while he was alive, the people Paul was persecuting, Peter James John and the group. In Paul's letter to the Galatians Paul himself writes he went to meet with them for their approval of his gospel. There was a group before Paul showed up.
Was there a Jesus before Paul? Probably.
Just because the gospels were written later than Paul's letters of instruction to his missionary churches doesn't mean Paul is the source of them. (The Gospels) I am sure you know Scholars have said there was a collection of sayings used by the Gospel writers. Paul didn't actually write anything about Jesus passion in Jerusalem and the prelude in Galilee. Paul's Kerygma was only Christ crucified, no miracles no parables no healings .
The reason I say Jesus was a prophet like Elijah Amos And Jeremiah js because he attacked Priests , temple aristocracy's and kings like they did.

[alwayson]

[Replying to post 16 by dio9]

Where does Paul indicate Peter was a disciple of Jesus?

Apostle doesn't mean disciple.

[dio9]

[Replying to post 16 by dio9]

Where does Paul indicate Peter was a disciple of Jesus?

Apostle doesn't mean disciple.

\
Paul may not have indicated Peter was a disciple , but Peter is part of the seminal Jerusalem church. Paul and peter had their disagreements and arguments indicating Peter was a Jesus man before Paul had his awakening. Implying Peter was a disciple. Indeed the first named leader of the Jerusalem church by Paul is James (hey if you believe Jesus was a fictional character created by Paul) does it matter to point out James is believed to be Jesus' brother. Anyways Peter was a disciple .

And Yes an apostle is more than just a disciple . an apostle is something more like a missionary.

[alwayson]

[Replying to post 18 by dio9]

Peter was merely an early Christian leader.

Was not a disciple of Jesus.

[paarsurrey1]

Jesus was one of a long line of Hebrew prophets.

Yes, it is true. Jesus was a Messenger/Prophet of the One-True-God sent to the Israelites to set them on the truthful teachings of Moses who he followed:

[3:46] When the angels said, ‘O Mary, Allah gives thee glad tidings of a word from Him; his name shall be the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, honoured in this world and in the next, and of those who are granted nearness to God;
[3:49] “And He will teach him the Book and the Wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel;
[3:50] “And will make him a Messenger to the children of Israel (to say): ‘I come to you with a Sign from your Lord, which is, that I will fashion out for you a creation out of clay after the manner of a bird, then I will breathe into it a new spirit and it will become a soaring being by the command of Allah; and I will heal the night-blind and the leprous, and I will quicken the dead, by the command of Allah; and I will announce to you what you will eat and what you will store up in your houses. Surely, therein is a Sign for you, if you be believers.
ttps://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapt ... 3&verse=49

Regards