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?

[JehovahsWitness]

I offer back to you :-
the Son of man came....

What point are you making? that Mark reports Jesus as having existed? How how this address the words and reasoning presented in my post #48?

NOTE I take it you have based your conclusion on the gospel of MARK. ...

... G-Mark shows clearly that Jesus wanted a full return of the Mosaic Laws, so many having been ignored by the Levite leaders for so long.

I therefore conclude you will not object that I do exactly as you and present verses from the same gospel as you did to support my point as you have done

Your scripture based "response" seems to be five words from the gospel of Mark : "the Son of man came"...perhaps you could write a sentence or two on how these five words constitute a counterarguement to what I have posted.

What is the point you are making?

Clarification appreciated.

[TRANSPONDER]

I'd say the old badger has made his point. that the last supper memorial ceremony is presented also as a prophecy of the blood sacrifice to come, done to provide a loophole out of sin - death (the Gospels following Paul's idea) for the faithful.

Referring back to the OP and earlier discussion, Paul's Jeses was not a god, but a man, though a very chosen one sent to redeem not Israel, as the Jews thought the Messiah would do, but all mankind...if they believed in Jesus, which brings its' own problems. Butin a number of ways, Paul was a short - sighted and self - opinionated thinker.
And as to another point I recall, Paul never intended to invent a new religion; it was the Greek gentile churches and their writers, concocting the gospels, did that.

[oldbadger]

Just like any other Jew, he thought of their God as his father, but all were sons of men. Jesus was a man.

...

There us nothing I have written To suggest otherwise. This point is irrelevant as far as responding to my post is concerned.

But that is the claim for debate in this thread, JW.
Ergo it is relevant.

But (I think) that the religion that was spun from what Jesus said and did was driven by Church Dogma and nothing to do with Jesus or his life. I guess that's another thread, really.

[oldbadger]

I offer back to you :-
the Son of man came....

What point are you making? that Mark reports Jesus as having existed? How how this address the words and reasoning presented in my post #48?

Yes, your reasoning is your reasoning. I have read your reasoning, but in my opinion it's spinning more from verses than is there.

NOTE I take it you have based your conclusion on the gospel of MARK. ...

... G-Mark shows clearly that Jesus wanted a full return of the Mosaic Laws, so many having been ignored by the Levite leaders for so long.

Exactly so. You have not disputed that Jesus was a man, not that he called for the return of Mosaic law.

I therefore conclude you will not object that I do exactly as you and present verses from the same gospel as you did to support my point as you have done

Your scripture based "response" seems to be five words from the gospel of Mark : "the Son of man came"...perhaps you could write a sentence or two on how these five words constitute a counterarguement to what I have posted.

What is the point you are making?

Clarification appreciated.

So you want me to expand upon the verses I have chosen to 'counter' what you think about them.

I feel sure that G-Mark communicated quite well, but if I was to add to the verses with any geographical, historical info gathered over the years or points made by interested scholars... those I've got but for the defense of this thread's title I honestly don't think that I need any.

[TRANSPONDER]

Just like any other Jew, he thought of their God as his father, but all were sons of men. Jesus was a man.

...

There us nothing I have written To suggest otherwise. This point is irrelevant as far as responding to my post is concerned.

But that is the claim for debate in this thread, JW.
Ergo it is relevant.

But (I think) that the religion that was spun from what Jesus said and did was driven by Church Dogma and nothing to do with Jesus or his life. I guess that's another thread, really.

I don't know whether I mentioned it before but it amused me when our pal JW wrote "There us nothing I have written To suggest otherwise." Wel, of course there wouldn't be, but it is what Others write to query what he writes that matters, not what his post leaves out.

This is another aspect of the dirty lawyer - tricks of Bible apologetics and which is actually instinctive, not taught in a Bible apologetics school of Rhetoric - controlling the argument. Just as they fiddle, select and rewrite the Bible to make it say (or mean) what they want it to say, they want to control the discussion to suit themselves. Egregious e. g, playing the moderator. I have seen some who, after weaving around like Verstappen trying to stop being passed, they play the 'off topic' card to try to block any argument they don't like. Which of course is none of their business, but should be left to the mods, who do not need some scripture - fiddler telling them their job.

[oldbadger]

I don't know whether I mentioned it before but it amused me when our pal JW wrote "There us nothing I have written To suggest otherwise." Wel, of course there wouldn't be, but it is what Others write to query what he writes that matters, not what his post leaves out.

This is another aspect of the dirty lawyer - tricks of Bible apologetics and which is actually instinctive, not taught in a Bible apologetics school of Rhetoric - controlling the argument. Just as they fiddle, select and rewrite the Bible to make it say (or mean) what they want it to say, they want to control the discussion to suit themselves. Egregious e. g, playing the moderator. I have seen some who, after weaving around like Verstappen trying to stop being passed, they play the 'off topic' card to try to block any argument they don't like. Which of course is none of their business, but should be left to the mods, who do not need some scripture - fiddler telling them their job.

I don't tend to look for or see debating 'dirty-tricks' because it will be any feelings from third parties that will count in the end. I would advise anybody to simply answer the post in front of you, no more nor less.

[JehovahsWitness]

Just like any other Jew, he thought of their God as his father, but all were sons of men. Jesus was a man.

...

There us nothing I have written To suggest otherwise. This point is irrelevant as far as responding to my post is concerned.

But that is the claim for debate in this thread, JW.

Did I say it is not relevant to the thread or did I say it it irrelevant to MY POST?

[JehovahsWitness]

... I have read your reasoning, but in my opinion it's spinning more from verses than is there.

Then take your bible, find the book of MARK and prove it.

You do understand that if someone presents supported argument using the text in question, your saying you disagree is not a studied counterargument. You are entitled to your opinion but if you wish it to be considered seriously, you will need , at the very least, to support your position with something from the text under discussion.

Your opinion is that Mark has Jesus instigating a non-religious memorial of his death. Fine, but since that is disproved by specific passages and the greater context of the gospel in question, it seems reasonable to conclude you opinion is without substance. That is, unless you have something more detailed to present.

So you want me to expand upon the verses I have chosen to 'counter' ...

Yes, that is exactly what I am asking. Do you have anything from the text of Mark itself to counterargue my point that Jesus was indeed reported as instigating a RELIGIOUS ceremony for which there was no allowance under the Mosaic law and thus his (Jesus) vision was obviously more than a simple return to the religious traditions of their forefathers.

JW

[bjs1]

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?

I AM

All Jews, like the Israelites, considered themselves to be the children of their God, not just Jesus.

This idea has gained popularity in recent years, but it is historically inaccurate. The Israelites/Jews would have considered themselves as a group the son of God (Israel was God’s son), but they were not individually the children of God. They would have said “We as Israel are God’s son,” but not “We are the children of God.” The idea of being the children of God was a Christian concept that would not make its way into Judaism until centuries later.

At the bare minimum, I assume you would agree that in the Gospels when Jesus said he was the son of God the Jews around him called it blasphemy. So the Gospels present this as a claim to deity.

Authority in heaven? Jesus wanted fairness and justice for the people.

Yes, Jesus called for justice. According the Gospels he also said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given me.” (Matthew 28:18) This is one of the many ways Jesus declared that he is God in the flesh.

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.

Jesus likely was a worker, and he did drink wine. He was also a teacher, and he claimed that he was God in the flesh. I am curious where you get your information about Jesus if you “do not believe that Jesus was a teacher.” The Gospel directly call him a teacher and give examples of his teaching.

I am also unsure why you think “Christianity has manipulated his memory and has ignored his humanity.” The central doctrine of Christianity – the thing that the entire faith is built on – is that Jesus is both God and man who died for our sins and rose from the dead. To ignore Jesus’ humanity would set a person outside of orthodox Christianity.

[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.

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.

As always, you are free to speculate (create a hypothesis without evidence) whenever you want.

In this case, I explicitly stated that I was talking about what is found in the New Testament. Whatever we imagine was happening behind the scenes does not change what is written in the New Testament.