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?

[oldbadger]

QUESTION DID JESUS HIMSELF INDICATES AN END TO THE JEWISH OBLIGATION TO OBEY THE MOSAIC LAW ?

JOHN 4:21
" .. the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship ...."

# The Mosaic law mandated worship in Jerusalem; by stating this would cease to be the case Jesus indicated an end to the laws that requires it.

For a full exposée on the recorded words of Christ on this subject please read the POST : Do the teachings and philosophies of Jesus as expressed in the Gospels, taken by themselves, indicate he intented to start a "new religion"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 45#p792645

JW

But G-John was written just for Church dogma. In Mark's account was a man (once the additions have been discarded) and then as the gospels progressed he became 'Lord' and finally 'God'.

The law was based in the Mosaic document and Jesus may well have been disinterested in the Temple because of its corruption and fat wealth.

Do you see how you focus upon 'Christ'? Let me tell you that Jesus didn't even know the word.

[JehovahsWitness]

In Mark's account was a man (once the additions have been discarded) and then as the gospels progressed he became 'Lord'...

DOES MARK'S GOSPEL DEPICT A JESUS THAT INITIATED A NEW RELIGION?

MARK 14: 23, 24

... taking a cup, he offered thanks and gave it to them, and they all drank out of it. And he said to them: “This means my ‘blood of the covenant,’ which is to be poured out in behalf of many

Mark's gospel, like the other three depict a Jesus that instigated a religious ceremony for which there was absolutely no allowance under the Mosaic law. The Hebrew religious system was mediated by the Prophet Moses and installed by the offering of ANIMAL BLOOD SACRIFICES. There was absolutely not provision for the use of human blood or blood substitute) nor any authorization for anyone (especially someone of the non-priestly tribe of Judah) to present an alternative covenant (or official agreement) to run concurrently with the one presented on Mount Sinai. To do so would have been considered APOSTACY.

To insinuate that the gospel of MARK does not present Jesus as initiating an alternative system of worship is to ignore the explicit statements (cited above) attributed to Christ therein.


JW

# The Law mandated FASTING (generally understood by the term "afflict your souls" ) during the day of Atonement. Jesus indicated not only would his disciples not continue this custom but that a "new" system connected to worship would be installed following his (Jesus') death.

MARK 2 :18-22

Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees practiced fasting. So they came and said to him: “Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees practice fasting, but your disciples do not practice fasting?” 19 So Jesus said to them: “While the bridegroom+ is with them, the friends of the bridegroom have no reason to fast, do they? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast.+ 20 But days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast on that day. 21 Nobody sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old outer garment. If he does, the new piece pulls away from the old, and the tear becomes worse.+ 22 Also, no one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost as well as the skins. But new wine is put into new wineskins.”

[oldbadger]

Mark's gospel, like the other three depict a Jesus that instigated a religious ceremony for which there was absolutely no allowance under the Mosaic law.

No, only the addition in Matthew tried to insert that ceremony, part of Christian dogma........'for the remission of sins'.

Now who popped that phrase in?

[JehovahsWitness]

Mark's gospel, like the other three depict a Jesus that instigated a religious ceremony for which there was absolutely no allowance under the Mosaic law.

No, only the addition in Matthew tried to insert that ceremony, part of Christian dogma......

Did you not See the actual passages from the Gospel of MARK that I posted in my response?

LINK : viewtopic.php?p=1153851#p1153851

JW

[bjs1]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #1]

Ok, but what about all the things Jesus said and did that are reserved only for God? Jesus created something out of nothing, accepted worship, professed to forgive sins, and claimed authority over the law (not just called people back to the Law of Moses, but said that he had authority over that law). He took the name of God for himself and declared that he had "all authority in heaven and on earth," which left nothing outside of his authority and made him equal to God. He even said that he was the Son of God (which all four Gospels tell us the people around him understood to be saying he was equal to God the Father).

If you believe that Jesus was only a human teacher, that is your choice. 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.

[oldbadger]

Mark's gospel, like the other three depict a Jesus that instigated a religious ceremony for which there was absolutely no allowance under the Mosaic law.

No, only the addition in Matthew tried to insert that ceremony, part of Christian dogma......

Did you not See the actual passages from the Gospel of MARK that I posted in my response?

LINK : viewtopic.php?p=1153851#p1153851

JW

And exactly where in those passages does Mark show that Jesus was/is God?

Jesus told exactly what he meant, he stood for the return of the old laws, so many ignored and forgotten.

[oldbadger]

Ok, but what about all the things Jesus said and did that are reserved only for God? Jesus created something out of nothing, accepted worship, professed to forgive sins, and claimed authority over the law (not just called people back to the Law of Moses, but said that he had authority over that law). He took the name of God for himself and declared that he had "all authority in heaven and on earth," which left nothing outside of his authority and made him equal to God. He even said that he was the Son of God (which all four Gospels tell us the people around him understood to be saying he was equal to God the Father).

What name of God did Jesus take for himself?
All Jews, like the Israelites, considered themselves to be the children of their God, not just Jesus.
Authority in heaven? Jesus wanted fairness and justice for the people.

If you believe that Jesus was only a human teacher, that is your choice. 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.

I do not believe that Jesus was a teacher, he was a hand worker (nagar) who stood up against rich corrupted authority on behalf of the people.

He wasn't like Christianity has manipulated his memory and has ignored his humanity, just a man who liked his wine at times.....by the way so did his mother.

[TRANSPONDER]

In Mark's account was a man (once the additions have been discarded) and then as the gospels progressed he became 'Lord'...

DOES MARK'S GOSPEL DEPICT A JESUS THAT INITIATED A NEW RELIGION?

MARK 14: 23, 24

... taking a cup, he offered thanks and gave it to them, and they all drank out of it. And he said to them: “This means my ‘blood of the covenant,’ which is to be poured out in behalf of many

Mark's gospel, like the other three depict a Jesus that instigated a religious ceremony for which there was absolutely no allowance under the Mosaic law. The Hebrew religious system was mediated by the Prophet Moses and installed by the offering of ANIMAL BLOOD SACRIFICES. There was absolutely not provision for the use of human blood or blood substitute) nor any authorization for anyone (especially someone of the non-priestly tribe of Judah) to present an alternative covenant (or official agreement) to run concurrently with the one presented on Mount Sinai. To do so would have been considered APOSTACY.

To insinuate that the gospel of MARK does not present Jesus as initiating an alternative system of worship is to ignore the explicit statements (cited above) attributed to Christ therein.


JW

# The Law mandated FASTING (generally understood by the term "afflict your souls" ) during the day of Atonement. Jesus indicated not only would his disciples not continue this custom but that a "new" system connected to worship would be installed following his (Jesus') death.

MARK 2 :18-22

Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees practiced fasting. So they came and said to him: “Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees practice fasting, but your disciples do not practice fasting?” 19 So Jesus said to them: “While the bridegroom+ is with them, the friends of the bridegroom have no reason to fast, do they? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast.+ 20 But days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast on that day. 21 Nobody sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old outer garment. If he does, the new piece pulls away from the old, and the tear becomes worse.+ 22 Also, no one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost as well as the skins. But new wine is put into new wineskins.”

Mark 14. 23 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it.
24 “This is my blood of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. 25 “Truly I tell you, I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

This explicitly shows that Jesus is shown (following Paul's New take on Judaism) as a blood sacrifice, like a Passover lamb. To deny it was a new religion is somewhere between misleading (whether it made a new religion, it was a blood sacrifice) and wrong, as it was as much a different religion as Buddhism is different from Hinduism, from which it derives.

Jesus us depicting as deprecating the Temple as he dismissed the Sabbath and disregarded the family, because the Jesus - cult was the focus on the new religion, not the Jewish law and custom. This addresses your next post which rather strawmans what a new religion has to be. in order to make out that Christianity was not a new religion, different from Judaism. By junking the Jewish law and making Jesus -worship the focal point, it was new.

As I recall, Mark talks of casting out demons by fasting and prayer. So this seems either thr e original changes by the other, or his own idea. In any case, it represents a relic of the old religion, like the Commandments that Paul intended to do away with.

[1213]

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.........

I agree with you. I believe Jesus came to set the new covenant. And in it the law is written in hearts of the people.

For finding fault with them, he said, "Behold, the days come," says the Lord, "That I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, In the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; For they didn't continue in my covenant, And I disregarded them," says the Lord. "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel. After those days," says the Lord; "I will put my laws into their mind, I will also write them on their heart. I will be to them a God, And they will be to me a people. They will not teach every man his fellow citizen,{TR reads "neighbor" instead of "fellow citizen"} Every man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' For all will know me, From the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness. I will remember their sins and lawless deeds no more."
Heb. 8:8-12 (Jer. 31:31-34)
Yahweh your God will circumcise your heart, and the heart of your seed, to love Yahweh your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, that you may live. Yahweh your God will put all these curses on your enemies, and on those who hate you, who persecuted you. You shall return and obey the voice of Yahweh, and do all his commandments which I command you this day. Yahweh your God will make you plenteous in all the work of your hand, in the fruit of your body, and in the fruit of your cattle, and in the fruit of your ground, for good: for Yahweh will again rejoice over you for good, as he rejoiced over your fathers;
Deut. 30:6-9
He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, "All of you drink it, for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins.
Matt. 26:27-28

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #1]

Ok, but what about all the things Jesus said and did that are reserved only for God? Jesus created something out of nothing, accepted worship, professed to forgive sins, and claimed authority over the law (not just called people back to the Law of Moses, but said that he had authority over that law). He took the name of God for himself and declared that he had "all authority in heaven and on earth," which left nothing outside of his authority and made him equal to God. He even said that he was the Son of God (which all four Gospels tell us the people around him understood to be saying he was equal to God the Father).

If you believe that Jesus was only a human teacher, that is your choice. 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.

But, not only does it work just as well if one argues that Paul wanted a version of Judaism that would appeal to the gentiles because it got rid of all the rules that Gentiles wouldn't accept, but the Gospels went beyond Paul's adaptation and added their own, turning Paul's man - messiah into a Greek demigod, but the process of the evolution of Jesus to suit the writers can be followed - if one bothers to read and understamnd the Bible. Unfortunately the Believers prefer to see only what they want to see. uding the eye of faith.