What were the intentions of the Historical Jesus?

[Elijah John]

Yes, let us assume for the sake of this topic that a historical Jesus actually existed, as most scholars believe.

What can we determine of the intentions of the historical Jesus?

1) Did he want to found a new Church or religion centered on himself as the object of worship?

2) Or did he want to reform Judaism, making it less legalistic and more compassionate and expansive, in the tradition of the prophets? Calling people to repentance and a return to the merciful Father?

3) OR did he see himself as an apocalyptic Messiah, God's agent for destroying the old order of things and remaking the world into the Kingdom of God?.

Or any combination of the above.

[JJ50]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

A guy called Jesus might have existed, but I reckon most of what was attributed to him was created by the gospel writers.

[1213]

Yes, let us assume for the sake of this topic that a historical Jesus actually existed, as most scholars believe.

What can we determine of the intentions of the historical Jesus?

I think Bible has very good answer to that:

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, Because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim release to the captives, Recovering of sight to the blind, To deliver those who are crushed, And to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord."
Luke 4:18-19

He said to them, "Let's go elsewhere into the next towns, that I may preach there also, because for this reason I came forth."
Mark 1:38

But he said to them, "I must preach the good news of the Kingdom of God to the other cities also. For this reason I have been sent."
Luke 4:43

For God didn't send his Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through him.
John 3:17

Pilate therefore said to him, "Are you a king then?" Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. For this reason I have been born, and for this reason I have come into the world, that I should testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice."
John 18:37

[Overcomer]

Jesus described his reason for coming this way:

For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (Mark 10:45).

It's worth noting that, in Semitic grammar, the word "many" stands for the totality, not just a preferential few. So Jesus is saying that he came to give his life for all humankind. Of course, not everyone will accept his gift which means that only those who do will be ransomed in the end.

His contemporary audience would have understood "ransom" to refer to bail paid for prisoners of war and slaves or, generally, provided to release someone from jail. In other words, for people who could not free themselves. Jesus chooses to provide this ransom freely, out of love, on behalf of humanity.

See James R. Edwards' commentary simply entitled The Gospel According to Mark.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

A guy called Jesus might have existed, but I reckon most of what was attributed to him was created by the gospel writers.

I agree with JJ50. It's impossible to know because we can't know which parts of the Gospel rumors correctly reflected what Jesus might have said.

Jesus could have simply been a religious fanatic who was trying to preach his own personal views of what he thought might be true. This would place Jesus in a very common group of human behavior.

It is possible that during his preaching he was inspired to start speaking in term of potentially being the promised messiah simply because his very own disciples may have started making those kinds of suggestions. Let's not forget that this all occurred during a time in history where many Jews were expecting a messiah to show up. In fact, don't the Gospel rumors even have Jesus' disciples suggesting these things and Jesus simply not denying them and even telling his disciples not to tell others?

I think it's virtually impossible to have any idea at all what Jesus might have even said, much less what his intentions might have been.

The problem with asking questions like this is that many believers will point to quotes that were attributed to Jesus and say, "This is what Jesus himself had said".

But the problem is, we cannot know this. Those people are already accepting that the rumors told about Jesus are true and accurate. But we know that's not the case because the Gospel rumors contain too many contradictions concerning positions that Jesus would have had to have held.

So the bottom line is that it's really impossible to say. Any "Jesus" that we construct today based on the Gospel rumors is indeed a "Jesus" of our own making. We pick and choose what we would like to attribute to Jesus and what we would prefer to ignore.

So the only Jesus we can claim to know is one that we have created in our own imagination (albeit perhaps constructed using the Gospel rumors as fodder). There are no other options available. So the only Jesus that can exist today is the Jesus of personal imagination.

[Divine Insight]

Jesus described his reason for coming this way:

For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (Mark 10:45).

But this is actually wrong.

This is Mark's description of Jesus, not Jesus' description. We have absolutely no clue what any actual Jesus may or may not have said.

[Zzyzx]

.

Jesus described his reason for coming this way:

For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (Mark 10:45).

But this is actually wrong.

This is Mark's description of Jesus, not Jesus' description. We have absolutely no clue what any actual Jesus may or may not have said.

Several people whose identity is unknown to or disputed by Christian theologians and scholars apparently put words into the mouth of Jesus.

Lacking actual records from Jesus, all 'his words' were penned by others -- often decades or generations after they were supposedly spoken.

[Divine Insight]

.

Jesus described his reason for coming this way:

For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (Mark 10:45).

But this is actually wrong.

This is Mark's description of Jesus, not Jesus' description. We have absolutely no clue what any actual Jesus may or may not have said.

Several people whose identity is unknown to or disputed by Christian theologians and scholars apparently put words into the mouth of Jesus.

Lacking actual records from Jesus, all 'his words' were penned by others -- often decades or generations after they were supposedly spoken.

Not only this, but if we accept words attributed to Jesus that were written by the authors of the Gospels then I can easily claim that Jesus told me that I will not be judged, I will not be condemned, and I will be forgiven all of my sins.

How so?

Well, according to Luke this is precisely what Jesus said:

Luke 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven

These words, of course do not imply that no one will be judged or condemned, nor do they imply that everyone will be forgiven. However, they happen to apply to me. So if they are true, I won't even be judged, much less condemned. And if I am guilty of any sins I will automatically be forgiven of them.

Why? Because that's what Luke 6:37 tells me.

Judge not, and ye shall not be judged:

I don't judge anyone in terms of moral character. I allow that the most hideous criminals could simply be mentally ill. I have no need to judge them on moral grounds, and I never have.

So according to Jesus (actually according to Luke) I will not be judged since I do not judge others. On Judgement day, if there is such a thing, I will be given a pass on judgement.

Note that this may not apply to everyone. If someone judges the moral character of other people then they will need to face judgement on judgement day I suppose. But I'm only interested in how these verses apply to me, not to others. That's their concern, not mine.

condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned:

I condemn no one. Perhaps they did horrible things because they were feeling revengeful toward society. Who am I to say that perhaps they were brutally mistreated as a child and are just lashing out in frustration and anger. I wouldn't condemn someone for that. So I don't condemn anyone. I don't know anyone well enough to even make that sort of judgement on them.

So according to Jesus (actually according to Luke) I will not be condemned. Therefore I must be granted eternal life as there is no other option in this religion.

Note that this may not apply to everyone. If someone condemns other people then they are apparently open to being condemned themselves. But I'm only interested in how these verses apply to me, not to others. That's their concern, not mine.


forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

I have forgiven everyone who has ever caused me harm or has trespassed against me. I'll be the first to grant that this may not have held true had someone ever done me or my loved ones some serious harm. But that never happened, so apparently I'm eligible here as well.

So according to Jesus (actually according to Luke) I will be forgiven of all my sins. Not because I asked Jesus or God to forgive me, but simply because I have forgiven those who have sinned against me. Apparently that makes a person automatically eligible for free forgiveness, according to Jesus (actually according to Luke)

Note that this may not apply to everyone. If someone else refuses to forgive others then I suppose they'll be in a real pickle come judgement day. But I'm only interested in how these verses apply to me, not to others. That's their concern, not mine.

~~~~~

So there we go. According to Jesus I will not be judged on judgement day, nor will I be condemned. And apparently I will automatically be forgiven of all my sins just as I have forgiven those who have trespassed against me.

So Jesus has guaranteed my place in eternal life. (Actually it was Luke who made the claims that Jesus said these things.) But since we have nothing from Jesus we can't place our trust in Jesus. Instead we have to place our trust in Luke.

We should write that on our money.

"In Luke We Trust"

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

It seems likely that Jesus was a wandering Jewish preacher who was a bit radical for his time – perhaps similar to some out-of-the-ordinary modern preachers.

After he died, Paul/Saul and cohorts deified him to become the icon of a new religion they constructed in competition with Judaism.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Elijah John: let us assume for the sake of this topic that a historical Jesus actually existed, as most scholars believe.

What can we determine of the intentions of the historical Jesus?


William: We can determine what we can from the bible stories regarding Jesus...he appeared to be very specific about his intentions...


Elijah John: 1) Did he want to found a new Church or religion centered on himself as the object of worship?

William: Not really. It appears more that he used the physical to point to the spiritual.
His idea of church was not about creating physical houses for people to gather in.
However, given the great houses which have sprung up since the time of HJ, these still reflect some of the most intricate expressions of human creativity to honor their sense of the idea of GOD.
The story of him whipping out the store-holders from 'His Fathers House' appears contrary to his identifying the human form as the temple of GOD. In that, one could ascertain his intentions were not negative about 'church buildings' even that he wasn't about organizing followers to build buildings in his name...it were just simply folk thinking that The Father requires buildings to do his work through what done it...


Elijah John: 2) Or did he want to reform Judaism, making it less legalistic and more compassionate and expansive, in the tradition of the prophets? Calling people to repentance and a return to the merciful Father?

William: I don't think it has to be an 'either/or' question to answer.
There is no reason why HJesus would favor one over the other, if either helps the process.


Elijah John: 3) OR did he see himself as an apocalyptic Messiah, God's agent for destroying the old order of things and remaking the world into the Kingdom of God?.

William: Again, why could he not have thought in all theses ways and more besides?
We have information about his intentions. We also know from that same information source, that he did much of his teaching out of the public domain - behind closed doors.
We can assume from that, that HJesus' intentions would have been motivated by a great deal of things to which the general public were not privy to.

So 'all the above' and obviously more besides...