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]

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.

Good point. Luke says the blood is shed for them and goes on to say it is the new Testament, which is the idea of a new covenant, in different words. If you are suggesting that Matthew has the idea of a new ...set of rules, perhaps given by Jesus as the new Moses, then I think that is right., and is reflected in Matthew's interest in the old Law, which Luke doesn't share. Both surely had a new Something whether Testament or Covenant I can't be sure. But it looks like a Q addition which Mark doesn't have. I think..I'll check again. no, 14.24 This is my blood of the new Testament, which is shed for many. So this is the original with Luke, and Matthew has altered it to his idea of a new Covenant or new Mosaic law. Which i recall you argued. It's just Matthew's idea and addition and the idea of a revised old Law is his own. (thankfully as Q material is awkward when it is location - specific)

Incidentally, though mark often is closest to the Synoptic original, sometimes Luke is, in not having two feedings, of five and four thousand and no cursing of the fig - tree. And neither Matthew nor Luke have Pilate's surprise, which has to be Mark's addition, like Zebedee's servants or the name of the blind man at Jericho. Mark has less additions, but it is an edition, not the original.

Oh yes, the pouring out of blood for many in Mark and Luke (and is surely original) must imply as a sacrifice for sins, even if Matthew is the only one to put in the explanation.

[TRANSPONDER]

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

Yes. This is surely the intent by the time the Synoptic Original (of which Mark itself is an edition) came to be written. Paul wanted to adapt the old religion to one without the old Mosaic laws and rules, and thereby he created a new religion. The Christian writers of the Gospels merely added to this by turning the Messiah from a human sacrifice into a god.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

Good observation, but not borne out by the evidence. Jesus is shown as arguing the Pauline idea that the Jewish Law is not being followed and especially by the 'Teachers of the law' with whom the Christians had a particular beef. Aside from throwing accusations at them which by all the evidence they didn't deserve, the idea was to junk all the Jewish Laws and traditions, like the Temple and Sabbath. Synagogues (as churches) were ok as places to keep the faithful topped up on a..Sabbath, and never mind that Jesus taught against it.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

Something new every day. I can think of several examples where the idea of Son of God as Messiah (which the Son of mas also covers, and David's son, for that matter) is there even if the term is added later. The editors must have got the term from somewhere.

The soldier at the crucifixion (Mark) 15,39.40 says 'Truly, this man was Son of God". Which can hardly be a later addition. Matthew 27.54 the same The Son of God. An absolutely Gentile - christian view of Jesus, remote from anything that a Jew, not even Paul, could have believed.

Including a Roman, who is made to utter a Christian idea that could never have come to any actual solder there, even if the Temple veil did rip, and he was up on a hill East of the city so as to be able to see it (not in the suburbs where the present 'sepulchres' are located, you can bet on that). And Luke, smarter than the others, realises that and alters what the centurion says to 'a righteous man, or some render it 'Innocent'. This is less anachronistic but still rather improbable.

Another point is the one about aramaic. It is a bothersome point as, if it was Greek Christians, rather than aramaic - speaking Jews writing the Gospels, where do the aramaic quotes come from? I note that the aramaic versions of the Psalm quoted on the cross are just in mark and Matthew (so I trace it to a version of the synoptic gospel they both used, and Luke didn't). So I'd have to ask where ALL the aramaic terms are found. Are any in Luke? For example 'Abba' (father - meaning God)?

Bibtheo (online Biblical studies) put it thus: "The Greek New Testament does preserve some Hebrew and Aramaic words, but they were written in Greek letters that preserve the approximate sounds of the original Hebrew or Aramaic words, (i.e., they’re transliterated). There is uncertainty on whether some of these transliterated words reflect an Aramaic or a Hebrew origin. This is common for languages in the same family."

Clearly they got the aramaic from somewhere, but it is far from clear that it was from utterances by Jesus in Aramaic, rather than the writers researching or heard them and incorporated the. The aramaiuc psalm - quote on the cross can hardly be original, though it may well have reflected the original idea of the Messianic spirit; it arrived in Jesus at the baptism and left him (taking all the magical powers with it) on the cross, which is where and why he died. He was no longer divine.

But I'm not sure this was original as again, Luke doesn't have it. He adds, and alters, but not omit the thing entirely. So I think that originally it was just a loud cry and expiry. Luke adds his own words and the common source for Mark and Matthew (I call M or P material) comes up with this aramaic quote.

I'll consider other aramaic names and so on "Abba", for instance, though that could also be Hebrew.

[JehovahsWitness]

... 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 dont dispute that...my point however is that he also initiated a new religion not based on the Mosaic law in Mark's gospel.

HERE is the support for this point : viewtopic.php?p=1153851#p1153851

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.

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

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. I'll leave it for you two to wrangle it out, but clearly, the idea emerged that the crucifixion became a human sacrifice for sin, related to the point of Jewish animal sacrifice.

The idea of human sacrifice as ritual was as foreign to Hebrews as it was to Romans, or Greeks, but the principle of a human death to gain the approval of a god was not. Quite apart from Jeptha I think it was, who had to sacrifice g his daughter (retrospectively) to gain a battle, is just one example. The message is clear - humans sacrifice' human sin forgiven (conditionally ) Roman gladiatorial games were there to honour the gods, not just to entertain the crowd.

This wasn't what made for a new religion, however; it what the Junking of the Mosaic law tand replan cing the Temple and the R Torah with belief in Jesus that made it a new religion.

Now, I had a look at aramaic in the Gospels and this is what I got:
“empty headed” (raka) ῥακά Matt 5:22
“zealot” (kananaios, from Aram. kan’an) Καναναῖος Matt 10:4; Mark 3:18.
“Save now” (hosanna) ὡσαννὰ Matt 21:9 (2x), 15; Mark 11:9; John 12:13
“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Eloi, eloi, lema sabaxthani) ελωι ελωι λεμα σαβαχθανι Mark 15:34
“…why have you forsaken me?” (lema sabaxthani) λεμα σαβαχθανι Matt 27:46
“Little girl, rise.” (talitha koum) ταλιθα κουμ Mark 5:41. The parallel in Matt 9:24 and Luke 8:54 omit this phrase.
“Be opened” (effatha) εφφαθα Mark 7:32
“Rabbi” (rabbouni) ῥαββουνί Mark 10:51; John 20:16
“Father/Dad” (abba) αββα Mark 14:36; Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6

It is interesting that the only example in John as well as two gospels is Hosannah, which I think is one thing that is true; Jesus engaged in a Hoshanah procession in hopes to begin a zealot rebellion (or robber insurrection). Interesting indeed is Luke not using the term. It is another example (like the anointing in Bethany) that he covers up to disguise what Jesus was doing.

the raising of the daughter of the Ruler is not omitted by Luke, but is in the common material for Mark and matthew's gospel, and it does seem to have some aramaic terms not in Luke or John.

Thus I suggest that this is NOT reliable indications of original aramaic spoken by Jesus, but some aramaic searched out by the writer of the 'M' (or 'P' gospel copied (and added to by Mark and Matthew) and that explains why Jesus would quote Psalm while he was being crucified, and moreover no other gospel agrees with that.

These are not only contradictions, but ones that I think fit and even support my argument of what the gospels are and how they were written and why they aren't original disciple report, even if they do have some aramaic pick - up words.

[oldbadger]

... 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 dont dispute that...my point however is that he also initiated a new religion not based on the Mosaic law in Mark's gospel.

HERE is the support for this point : viewtopic.php?p=1153851#p1153851

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.

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

I don't think so.
f you do believe that Jesus wanted the return of Mosaic Law then that is the law (back then) sorted out.
If you think that Jesyu's last toast with his friends becomes a religion then I cannot possibly see the reason in that. His last toast with friends could become a ceremony, but how that was spun in to redemption from all sins and entry in to some kind of heaven....is quite beyond me.

The Church needed control of the people, and the concept of confession with this toast for redemption was and is rather 'dodgy', truth being that there is no escape from the law for crimes committed. If sin is more than crime then ...what?

[oldbadger]

Yes. I'll leave it for you two to wrangle it out, but clearly, the idea emerged that the crucifixion became a human sacrifice for sin, related to the point of Jewish animal sacrifice.

The idea of human sacrifice as ritual was as foreign to Hebrews as it was to Romans, or Greeks, but the principle of a human death to gain the approval of a god was not. Quite apart from Jeptha I think it was, who had to sacrifice g his daughter (retrospectively) to gain a battle, is just one example. The message is clear - humans sacrifice' human sin forgiven (conditionally ) Roman gladiatorial games were there to honour the gods, not just to entertain the crowd.

This wasn't what made for a new religion, however; it what the Junking of the Mosaic law tand replan cing the Temple and the R Torah with belief in Jesus that made it a new religion.

So..... Church reversing itself in to other religions and cults for the purposes of catching all.

Now, I had a look at aramaic in the Gospels and this is what I got:
“empty headed” (raka) ῥακά Matt 5:22
“zealot” (kananaios, from Aram. kan’an) Καναναῖος Matt 10:4; Mark 3:18.
“Save now” (hosanna) ὡσαννὰ Matt 21:9 (2x), 15; Mark 11:9; John 12:13
“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Eloi, eloi, lema sabaxthani) ελωι ελωι λεμα σαβαχθανι Mark 15:34
“…why have you forsaken me?” (lema sabaxthani) λεμα σαβαχθανι Matt 27:46
“Little girl, rise.” (talitha koum) ταλιθα κουμ Mark 5:41. The parallel in Matt 9:24 and Luke 8:54 omit this phrase.
“Be opened” (effatha) εφφαθα Mark 7:32
“Rabbi” (rabbouni) ῥαββουνί Mark 10:51; John 20:16
“Father/Dad” (abba) αββα Mark 14:36; Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6

Very useful list.

Off the top of my head you can add:-
Barounerge = Son of Thunder
Bar = Son of
Barta = Daughter of.
Cephas = Rock or stone, probably used as 'anchor' by boating people.
Nagar/Nagarra = Handworker (something to do with magical cleverness, the hiss of snakes)

[JehovahsWitness]

... 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 dont dispute that...my point however is that he also initiated a new religion not based on the Mosaic law in Mark's gospel.

HERE is the support for this point : viewtopic.php?p=1153851#p1153851

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.

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

I don't think so.

And how do you account for the words in the text quoted?


JW

[oldbadger]

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

I don't think so.

And how do you account for the words in the text quoted?

JW

A covenant is an agreement, so Jesus wanted his friends to eat and drink in his memory.
OK.......but how does that change their way of life in to such a religion (that dumped the Mosaic laws) as Paul later described?