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?

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

Yes. Mark seems to reflect an earlier for the Synoptic gospel, when Jesus was possessed by the spirit that entered him at thr e baptism, not a divine being from birth. Jesus evolves from a man - messiah to a god present on earth. But it is in John that Jesus appears as the most godlike. When one looks at him, one sees God.

[oldbadger]

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.

..........Yahweh will again rejoice over you for good, as he rejoiced over your fathers;
Deut. 30:6-9

Hello and thank you for your post.
Deuteronomy was not so much a new covenant as a second-reading of the first in Leviticus. Although it did add a few laws as well.

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

........for the remission of sins?
There are three synoptic versions of this speech, and neither the first (Mark) mentioned this addition, nor did Luke.

I feel sure that the communion was a Christian construct.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

..........Yahweh will again rejoice over you for good, as he rejoiced over your fathers;
Deut. 30:6-9

Hello and thank you for your post.
Deuteronomy was not so much a new covenant as a second-reading of the first in Leviticus. Although it did add a few laws as well.

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

........for the remission of sins?
There are three synoptic versions of this speech, and neither the first (Mark) mentioned this addition, nor did Luke.

I feel sure that the communion was a Christian construct.

Ah. I was going to agree, but I checked, and Luke has 22. 20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.[a]

So either it was in the Synoptic original and Mark took it out or both Matthew an Luke added it is.n Which is a problem It doesn't sound like Matthew/Luke additional material ("Q") but it might me. After all, Paul made a special deal about this Last supper detail which is about the only Bio -detail we get, so it could, like the additional details of the temptation, have been made place and time - specific.

What are your thoughts?

[oldbadger]

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.

..........Yahweh will again rejoice over you for good, as he rejoiced over your fathers;
Deut. 30:6-9

Hello and thank you for your post.
Deuteronomy was not so much a new covenant as a second-reading of the first in Leviticus. Although it did add a few laws as well.

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

........for the remission of sins?
There are three synoptic versions of this speech, and neither the first (Mark) mentioned this addition, nor did Luke.

I feel sure that the communion was a Christian construct.

Ah. I was going to agree, but I checked, and Luke has 22. 20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.[a]

No....... the construct to introduce sin forgiveness is only there in Matthew's version.

''.....for the remission of sins.''

So either it was in the Synoptic original and Mark took it out or both Matthew an Luke added it is.n Which is a problem It doesn't sound like Matthew/Luke additional material ("Q") but it might me. After all, Paul made a special deal about this Last supper detail which is about the only Bio -detail we get, so it could, like the additional details of the temptation, have been made place and time - specific.

Only Matthew added in 'for the remission of sins.'.

Mark was the original of the synoptics.

[JehovahsWitness]

I was addressing the following ...

Jesus wanted a return of the Laws of Moses......not just a few cherrypicked choices as Christians would prefer.

In relation to your comments above my post proves that ...

The "new religion" that represented the entire abolishment of the Mosaic laws to be replaced by a religion based on his own blood sacrifice was a part of Mark's narrative

RELATED POSTS

Does Mark's gospel present a Jesus that initiated a new religion as an alternative to that based on the Mosaic Covenant ?
viewtopic.php?p=1153851#p1153851

[oldbadger]

I was addressing the following ...

In relation to your comments above my post proves that ...
The "new religion" that represented the entire abolishment of the Mosaic laws to be replaced by a religion based on his own blood sacrifice was a part of Mark's narrative

No...... 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. He said as much.

That Christianity inserted, edited and manipulated its own dogma on top of Jesus's real mission is quite clear.

JWs have often referred to chosen verses from Leviticus and Deuteronomy to support their opinions/viewpoints.

[oldbadger]

[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 [/color]

[/quote]
No....... As soon as I see/hear the words 'this means', I tend to prepare myself to hear additions, manipulations and adjustments.

Mark's gospel, like the other three depict a Jesus that instigated a religious ceremony for which there was absolutely no ns[/color]

No. Mark's gospel did not depict a religious ceremony, and Matthew's gospel added key words to create a new ceremony.

Terms such as 'blood of the covenant' have nothing to do with anything about Jesus.

[1213]

....
Deuteronomy was not so much a new covenant as a second-reading of the first in Leviticus. ...

Sorry, I didn't mean to say that Deuteronomy was a new covenant. I meant, it (Deut. 30:6-9) tells about the coming new covenant, in which the law will be written in hearts of the people.

[oldbadger]

....
Deuteronomy was not so much a new covenant as a second-reading of the first in Leviticus. ...

Sorry, I didn't mean to say that Deuteronomy was a new covenant. I meant, it (Deut. 30:6-9) tells about the coming new covenant, in which the law will be written in hearts of the people.

But that was a very long time ago. Deut was not prophesying anything for 1st century Palestinian provinces, but reinforcing a brilliant system (back then) for a strong, secure, cohesive, healthy and successful community which had been 'let go'.

That Jesus wanted it restored is the only thing new that he hoped for. To junk it all was and is clearly so unreasonable.

Christians pushing their puritan principles so often quote Mosaic law, and in the next breath they can dismiss it. That's dodgy.

[oldbadger]

Moving onwards........
Jesus is sometimes described in G-Mark as a man of God/truth etc, but in the very first verse of G-Mark we are told that this is the story of Jesus 'Christ' the 'Son of God'. I have always doubted the name 'Christ' because Jesus would never have known that name/title, and you'll notice that his friends nicknames were often written in Eastern Aramaic, the language of Jesus and most northern Jewish peasants.

But 'Son of God' could not do easily be challenged. But I came upon the reality when I picked up a bible in a local Baptist church...the verse that included this title was marked, and the editorial comment showed 'these words were not present in all of the earliest manuscripts'!!! And there you have it, SofG was a Christian addition.

Jesus was a wonderful man with a very strong sense of justice.