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]

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.

No that could not be the case, blood was sacred for the Jews and used exclusively in worship; no agreements could be seated with himan blood. So Jesus words been viewed as illegal and sacreligiius under the Mosaic law.

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.

No that could not be the case, blood was sacred for the Jews and used exclusively in worship; no agreements could be seated with himan blood. So Jesus words been viewed as illegal and sacreligiius under the Mosaic law.

JW

They were not drinking blood! They were drinking ordinary wine, and asking friends to remember him with a small ceremony did not raise Jesus from a man to a God.
Using wine as a metaphor for blood was no crime.

Church dogma created Christ the God after Jesus.
If you have determined that Jesus is God that created the universe and all else from that ceremony, then that is your privilege.

[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.

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)

Yes. I'd forgotten those. I'll see where they appear and by whom. And yes, Paul's take on Judaism, deliberately set out to appeal (catch, if you like) the Gentiles, and then told himself it would free Jews from the Law, too. Which i think betrays part of his agenda; he offended against the law, by living like a gentile, as he accusing Peter of doing, and he speedily talked himself into believing that Jesus freed him from the law, too, even though he expressly says in Romans that the Jews are bound by the law, as is any Gentile who consents to be circumcised.

[oldbadger]

Yes. I'd forgotten those. I'll see where they appear and by whom. And yes, Paul's take on Judaism, deliberately set out to appeal (catch, if you like) the Gentiles, and then told himself it would free Jews from the Law, too. Which i think betrays part of his agenda; he offended against the law, by living like a gentile, as he accusing Peter of doing, and he speedily talked himself into believing that Jesus freed him from the law, too, even though he expressly says in Romans that the Jews are bound by the law, as is any Gentile who consents to be circumcised.

I'm sure there are more but I'll need to look thru the gospels.

What I don't get is this, my question here is 'Is/was Jesus a man or God?'...and for Christians to make mention of a wine and bread ceremony surely cannot make Jesus a God, even with the blood/body metaphor?

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. I'd forgotten those. I'll see where they appear and by whom. And yes, Paul's take on Judaism, deliberately set out to appeal (catch, if you like) the Gentiles, and then told himself it would free Jews from the Law, too. Which i think betrays part of his agenda; he offended against the law, by living like a gentile, as he accusing Peter of doing, and he speedily talked himself into believing that Jesus freed him from the law, too, even though he expressly says in Romans that the Jews are bound by the law, as is any Gentile who consents to be circumcised.

I'm sure there are more but I'll need to look thru the gospels.

What I don't get is this, my question here is 'Is/was Jesus a man or God?'...and for Christians to make mention of a wine and bread ceremony surely cannot make Jesus a God, even with the blood/body metaphor?

No.....as I recall the only point with that is to argue that Paul validated the gospel story and thus everything in it is true so Jesus is God.

A few crutch - cracking leaps of reason there.

The other is (as I recall) that ceremony makes Christianity a different religion. Turning Jesus into a demigod (or god) is enough to do that.

I looked up those other bits of aramic, and mainly names. or epithets. And they are notably Mark, who has a penchant for giving names to nameless characters. This doesn't so much mean he spoke aramaic, but he knew the names of a number of people.

I fretted about Simon of Cyrene quite a bit in the old days. It's easier now as clearly Mark claimed he was the father of Alexander and Rufus (clearly both good Jewish boys ) and it is easier when one supposes the synoptics ought to read the same and anything that doesn't is altered or added to. So Mark appears to have a penchant for adding names to the text. So we get the aramaic boanerges or 'sons of thunder' given to the sons of Zebedee. That might match to sons of John elsewhere, but the thing is that Mark seems to have a particular thing for aramaic words and names which might suggest he was not Greek.

Sure the Rough Greek of Mark (so I heard) must represent the original synoptic, and Matthew and Luke had better Greek. But the aramaic loan words would seem particular to Mark and do not argue for an aramaic original gospel. I still see it as Greek or at least not Jewish because it has material that a Jew would know couldn't be true.

The one thing that is an anomaly is Cephas in John, as well as in Paul. I'd expect Luke to use the name but it's John. I can't even suggest a hypothesis why. Certainly not that the calling of disciples (contradicting what it is in the synoptics) doesn't sound at all likely.

But a p.s. There were other bits of tourist - guide gossip that John had picked up. The gabattha, the Pool of Siloam. That Caiphas was High priest (though he thinks it was for 'that year' and not in the middle of a ten year stint) and he knew of Annas, the Father in law of Caiaphas. So it seems that he had bits of information but did not understand them. For instance he uses the pool of Siloam as a scene for the story of the palsied man whereas the Synoptics place it in Galilee. So John used bits of info. to add credibility to a story that is actually garbage.

So his use of a true aramaic name for Simon Peter may not give us much pause after all. Though in the old days, I thought that John really had an eyewitness to which he added his own boring theological sermons. But now I think he made it all up, even the raising of Lazarus. Though it looks beautifully like a set up fake miracle, planned long beforehand.

[JehovahsWitness]

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

They were not drinking blood!

I did not say they were. But he was clearly instigating a religious ceremony using wine to represent his blood ("my blood") to consecrate an agreement (a covenant). Under the Mosaic law blood represented a person's life so by saying the wine represented his blood Jesus was clearly instigating a religious ceremony and one based on his own life. The Mosaic law provided STRICT boundaries for religious ceremony and did not allow for additional (religious) covenants, certainly not one's based on the life of a human, so what Mark recorded had Jesus initiating something outside the constraints of the law.

[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

They were not drinking blood!

I did not say they were. But he was clearly instigating a religious ceremony using wine to represent his blood ("my blood") to consecrate an agreement (a covenant). Under the Mosaic law blood represented a person's life so by saying the wine represented his blood Jesus was clearly instigating a religious ceremony and one based on his own life. The Mosaic law provided STRICT boundaries for religious ceremony and did not allow for additional (religious) covenants, certainly not one's based on the life of a human, so what Mark recorded had Jesus initiating something outside the constraints of the law.

Exactly who was keeping the law at that time?

In any case, Jesus using a metaphor like that was not causing a law to be broken. And a memorial toast wasn't a religious agreement.

That was all early church spin. And it didn't make a Northern Jewish working man in to a God, either.

[JehovahsWitness]

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

And a memorial toast wasn't a religious agreement.

Jesus was not merely asking to be remembered, he was according to MARK'S GOSPEL saying his death had not only religious significance but saving property. Notice Marks report

MARK 10:45

For even the Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his life as a ransom in exchange for many

A RANSOM is something offered for the release of another. Notice according to Mark, it is the death ("give his life") that was the release, as opposed to the spiritual freedom obtained through his (Jesus) life work and teachings ("spend his life") This supports the reading of Jesus instructions to memorialise the value of his blood (which in Jewish tradition can ONLY be used for religious purposes) as having salvatory (read religious) significance.


Do you have any scripture based counterarguments to present ?

[oldbadger]

Jesus was not merely asking to be remembered, he was according to MARK'S GOSPEL saying his death had not only religious significance but saving property. Notice Marks report

MARK 10:45

For even the Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his life as a ransom in exchange for many

A RANSOM is something offered for the release of another. Notice according to Mark, it is the death ("give his life") that was the release, as opposed to the spiritual freedom obtained through his (Jesus) life work and teachings ("spend his life") This supports the reading of Jesus instructions to memorialise the value of his blood (which in Jewish tradition can ONLY be used for religious purposes) as having salvatory (read religious) significance.


Do you have any scripture based counterarguments to present ?

Absolutely! I have that one and no need to inspect that gospel for more.

For even the Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his life as a ransom in exchange for many.

This was the paragraph in your post to review, for all your interpretations are no more than your own. In support of this thread's title I offer back to you :-
the Son of man came...........

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

There are many verses and phrases in Mark which appear to be inserts, additions and adjustments, some known about as in 1:1 and many others working with 'hindsight is 20/20.

[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.