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]

... 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

If you would open a thread about Jesus passing around bread and wine I could join in about that?

[oldbadger]

I AM

No. Not 'I am'.

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.

Jesus called himself a 'son of man' and verses such as Mark 1:1 did not include 'son of God' in many early manuscripts.

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.

Why does Christianity insist that Jesus was a teacher? He was a very poor teacher and his close friends often couldn't understand what he was trying to say. He made speeches for sure.
He was a Nagar, a hand worker who demonstrated and called out for a return of the Mosaic laws.

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.

Definitely a worker, but no teacher.

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.

As the Gospels were written it shows how Jesus changed, from a man to a Lord to a God. Church dogma was influencing the gospels of Matthew and Luke heavily and G-John was absolutely the work of early church, certainly not the postman John BarZebedee. G-Mark was the first gospel but even that has insertions.

[bjs1]

I AM

No. Not 'I am'.

I have no idea what you mean. Yes, “I AM” was the name of God given in 3:14, and yes Jesus repeatedly applied that name to himself, such as in John 8:58

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.

Jesus called himself a 'son of man' and verses such as Mark 1:1 did not include 'son of God' in many early manuscripts.

Jesus did call himself “the son of man.” He also claimed that he was “the son of God,” such as in Luke 22:70 and Mark 14:61.

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.

Why does Christianity insist that Jesus was a teacher? He was a very poor teacher and his close friends often couldn't understand what he was trying to say. He made speeches for sure.
He was a Nagar, a hand worker who demonstrated and called out for a return of the Mosaic laws.

Christians insist that Jesus was a teacher because Jesus called himself a teacher (John 13:13) and because he spent most of his time in the Gospels teaching people. You are free to your opinion of his skill as a teacher (we obviously disagree), but even if you think that he was “a very poor teacher” he still was a teacher.

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.

Definitely a worker, but no teacher.

The Gospels record Jesus spending much of his time being a teacher and record no instance of him being a nagar (carpenter or worker).

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.

As the Gospels were written it shows how Jesus changed, from a man to a Lord to a God. Church dogma was influencing the gospels of Matthew and Luke heavily and G-John was absolutely the work of early church, certainly not the postman John BarZebedee. G-Mark was the first gospel but even that has insertions.

You opened this thread by saying “I've read the gospels a few times.” You are free to insist without evidence that Church dogma changed the gospels, but it is false to suggest that a belief that Jesus is not God somehow came from the gospels.

As I wrote in my first post on this thread, “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]

The Gospels record Jesus spending much of his time being a teacher and record no instance of him being a nagar (carpenter or worker).

Mark 6 verse 3. ??

Jesus was hand worker alright, a tekton in Greek, but a Nagar in his native tongue.

[oldbadger]

You opened this thread by saying “I've read the gospels a few times.” You are free to insist without evidence that Church dogma changed the gospels, but it is false to suggest that a belief that Jesus is not God somehow came from the gospels.

As I wrote in my first post on this thread, “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.”

Evidence?
To save me writing a book to you, please get a copy of Geza Vermes book 'the changing faces of Jesus'. Mr Vermes was a priest intimately acquainted with Mid eastern languages, he translated the dead sea scrolls and was a language professor. As he studied the gospels more, so he recognised that Jesus changed with them from man to God.

The Gospel of John does have very useful anecdotes, probably true, but it was written by a priest on a detention island off Ephesus and it is absolutely full of church dogma. You will notice how it excluded the events of the last week almost totally because they don't fit with the required story.

[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

If you would open a thread about Jesus passing around bread and wine I could join in about that?

Why do I have to open another thread to challenge something you claim in this one?

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

[oldbadger]

Why do I have to open another thread to challenge something you claim in this one?

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

Because you agreed that Jesus did want a return of the Mosaic laws, so that wasn't a challenge that I need to answer.

And if you doubt that Christianity cherry-picked from the 613 Mosaic laws then I'm really surprised! Where have you ever read that Christianity requires protection around all rooftops to protect folks from falling and hurting themselves ..... and just a few more!!

[JehovahsWitness]

... you agreed that Jesus did want a return of the Mosaic laws ...

Only during his lifetime. I am therefore challenging your statement that "Christianity cherry-picked from the 613 Mosaic laws". Christianity has it's own laws instigated by Christ albeit based on the principles of the Mosaic law.

If you agree that Jesus initiated a new religion, that he intended to become fully operational after his death, then we have no issue. If (as you seem to be insinuating) that you think Jesus did not initiate a new religion and wanted his followers (after his death), to continue in the Jewish temple based tradition, then you are wrong.

JW

[oldbadger]

... you agreed that Jesus did want a return of the Mosaic laws ...

Only during his lifetime. I am therefore challenging your statement that "Christianity cherry-picked from the 613 Mosaic laws". Christianity has it's own laws instigated by Christ albeit based on the principles of the Mosaic law.

But no. The vast majority of Christian rules and laws and many were instigated by Paul!
I have a list of about 1050 such items.
And Jesus supported the whole of Mosaic Law, even during his last week he was upholding those laws, even when he ransacked and picketed in the Temple.
[/quote]
And no. Christianity did cherry pick from the Mosaic Laws and often with not the slightest idea why they were first layed down, imo.

If you agree that Jesus initiated a new religion, that he intended to become fully operational after his death, then we have no issue. If (as you seem to be insinuating) that you think Jesus did not initiate a new religion and wanted his followers (after his death), to continue in the Jewish temple based tradition, then you are wrong.

No, I don't agree that Jesus initiated a new religion, although he had no care for the Temple and it's mammon at all, But Mosaic Law could survive without Temple.

[bjs1]

The Gospels record Jesus spending much of his time being a teacher and record no instance of him being a nagar (carpenter or worker).

Mark 6 verse 3. ??

Jesus was hand worker alright, a tekton in Greek, but a Nagar in his native tongue.

Okay. I agree that Jesus was once called tekton. Do you agree that Jesus was called a teacher and that, while we never see him doing the work of a tekton, we often see him doing the work of a teacher?