Is the "Christ of Faith" an idol?

[Elijah John]

Historical Jesus scholars make a distinction between the historical Jesus and the "Christ of Faith". Yet some of these same scholars ( some of the Theistic ones) instead of worshiping only the God who the historical Jesus preached, also venerate, if not actually worship the "Christ of Faith", usually as part of the Trinity.

This seems a bit odd, since they realize that the historical Jesus never preached the "Christ of Faith" but rather only the Father YHVH and His Kingdom.

Is the "Christ of Faith" a God that humans in their devotion have made out of Jesus? In effect, an idol? Have humans idolized, and thus Deified Jesus?

[Elijah John]

Historical Jesus scholars make a distinction between the historical Jesus and the "Christ of Faith". Yet some of these same scholars ( some of the Theistic ones) instead of worshiping only the God who the historical Jesus preached, also venerate, if not actually worship the "Christ of Faith", usually as part of the Trinity.

This seems a bit odd, since they realize that the historical Jesus never preached the "Christ of Faith" but rather only the Father YHVH and His Kingdom.

Is the "Christ of Faith" a God that humans in their devotion have made out of Jesus? In effect, an idol? Have humans idolized, and thus Deified Jesus?

I think you are confusing the term "idol" which is an image, which can not see, hear, or walk (Revelation 9:20) with the term "god". The most common idol of wood, brass, or gold, being the cross. Both uses break two different commandments, 1 & 2.

I think I see what you are getting at. But don't you think human beings can be idolized? Idols can be made of blood and bone as well as wood and stone, can't they? And idolatry can be inflicted on the innocent, in this case Jesus who it seems never asked for this or set himself up as a god.

Yes, the Tanakh focuss on images and blind and dumb statues as the idols. But even in Jesus' day the Caesars were human idols. Claiming to be gods or having Divinity claimed on their behalf.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 18 by tam]

Tammy, with some rare exceptions historical Jesus scholars do not believe the author of the fourth Gospel, the evangelist "John" was an eyewitness. And with some rare exceptions, only Evangelicals and Jehovah's Witnesses believe he was an eyewitness.

And yes, HJ scholars realize his name was not "Jesus". They realize it was Yeshua or something similar. They also teach that his "last name" was not "Christ". They use the name "Jesus" to connect with the masses and the laity, for that is how they know him.

How do historians know what Jesus thought? Their best guess, based on Jesus likely words, (the Synoptics far more likely than the GoJ) and his purported actions.

Also, do you dispute that King David knew only one Savior? YHVH? ("LORD" all caps, in most English translations). There is no evidence that he regarded the Messiah as his Spiritual Savior. In fact, the concept of the Messiah is derived from David's kingship. Some Jew's await "another David" as their Messiah. And of course, they completly disregard Yahshua of Nazareth as such. With good reason.

The "LORD said to my Lord"? I read that as YHVH said to King David. THe Psalm makes a whole lot more sense if the author was someone other than David. David is the author's human Lord, ie his human king.

And yes, "Jesus" can and did make mistakes. Matthew 16.28 is evidence of this. Or Matthew made the mistake to put those errant words on Jesus lips.

And you claim that "John" was an eyewitness who only wrote what he heard and saw? Did he hear the long prayer Jesus prayed in John 17? And did he record this prayer, verbatim?

Did John see and hear the prologue to his Gospel? The Word was with God? Was he there too at the beginning of Creation? Or was that theological speculation and conjecture?

And does "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son so that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life". Does that really sound like something that Yahsua actually said? Or isn't it possible that the Evanglist put that on Jesus lips, in a bit of literary license. Based on who Jesus was to him. Seems more likely, doesn't it? An interpretation of Jesus significance?

[tam]

Peace to you EJ,

[Replying to post 18 by tam]

Tammy, with some rare exceptions historical Jesus scholars do not believe the author of the fourth Gospel, the evangelist "John" was an eyewitness. And with some rare exceptions, only Evangelicals and Jehovah's Witnesses believe he was an eyewitness.

Bringing into question the reliability and findings of 'historical "Jesus" scholars'.

And yes, HJ scholars realize his name was not "Jesus". They realize it was Yeshua or something similar. They also teach that his "last name" was not "Christ".

Is that their teaching, or is that just a fact that they are repeating? Of course Christ is a title and not a name (first or last).

They use the name "Jesus" to connect with the masses and the laity, for that is how they know him.

Then it would seem that establishing this connection is more important to them than accuracy. Like I said, I would think that historical facts and accuracy would be more important to an historical scholar.

How do historians know what Jesus thought? Their best guess, based on Jesus likely words, (the Synoptics far more likely than the GoJ) and his purported actions.

In other words, they do not know. If a person is guessing, then a person does not know.

Also, do you dispute that King David knew only one Savior? YHVH? ("LORD" all caps, in most English translations). There is no evidence that he regarded the Messiah as his Spiritual Savior. In fact, the concept of the Messiah is derived from David's kingship. Some Jew's await "another David" as their Messiah. And of course, they completly disregard Yahshua of Nazareth as such. With good reason.

Jaheshua is not a savior "apart from" His Father; He is the savior JAH sent. That is in His name: JAH saves/salvation of JAH. Jaheshua is the means by which JAH saves. I do not know how much David knew about this, but he did call Him, Lord.

But are you suggesting that David did not know anything of the coming Messiah? Because if he did know about the coming Messiah, then his words in the Psalm (the LORD said to my Lord) makes complete sense.

And what of Moses' words?

"[The LORD] your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him." Deut 18:15

Then [the LORD] said to me, “They have spoken well. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. I will put My words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. Deut 18:17,18

David knew about those words did he not?

The "LORD said to my Lord"? I read that as YHVH said to King David. THe Psalm makes a whole lot more sense if the author was someone other than David. David is the author's human Lord, ie his human king.

I read that just as Christ explains it. He is the One who would know, after all. He is the One to whom God said to listen (as Mark 9:7, Matthew, and Luke all record).


Speaking of the Messiah (the Christ), Jaheshua said:

“What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is He?�

“David’s,� they answered.

[Jesus] said to them, “How then does David in the Spirit call Him Lord? For he says: ‘[The LORD] said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, until I put Your enemies under Your feet.� So if David calls Him Lord, how can He be David’s son?�

Jaheshua says here that it is David speaking (in the spirit) and that the (second) Lord is referring to the Messiah, not David (no one even argued with him about that).


This too is recorded in Matthew (22:42-45), EJ, one of the synoptics.

And yes, "Jesus" can and did make mistakes. Matthew 16.28 is evidence of this. Or Matthew made the mistake to put those errant words on Jesus lips.

Or one is 'reading' it wrong.

And you claim that "John" was an eyewitness who only wrote what he heard and saw? Did he hear the long prayer Jesus prayed in John 17? And did he record this prayer, verbatim?

I did not claim that he wrote ONLY what he heard and saw. He was an eyewitness, and one of the twelve apostles. But there are a couple of instances in that gospel where he was not actively present, and someone (perhaps his sisters Mary and Martha, in one instance) would have later told him about.

Did John see and hear the prologue to his Gospel? The Word was with God? Was he there too at the beginning of Creation? Or was that theological speculation and conjecture?

It is simply the truth that he learned and received, and shared.

And does "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son so that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life". Does that really sound like something that Yahsua actually said?

Yes. (He did not speak to them in English of course)

Or isn't it possible that the Evanglist put that on Jesus lips, in a bit of literary license. Based on who Jesus was to him. Seems more likely, doesn't it?

No your suggestion does not seem more likely at all. The disciple Christ loved was an eyewitness and he simply recorded what he heard his Lord say (albeit not in English).

An interpretation of Jesus significance?

Again, no.

But these suggestions of 'theological speculation, interpretation, conjecture, best guesses", etc... these describe what you are doing EJ, do they not?





Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 22 by tam]

No, Tammy. Not speculating, just telling what my Lord YHVH tells me. Just as valid if not more so than what your Lord "Christ" tells you right? Because YHVH is greater than "Christ". YHVH showed me discrepancies between the letters of Paul and the Gospels, and between the Gospel of John and the Synoptics, before I even knew the scholar's terminology for these things, or understood the full implication.

The scholars only confirmed what God was showing me. And He showed me Matthew 16.28, and the fact that Yahshua is human and can make mistakes.

And that Yahshua was mistaken in his interpretation of Psalm 110. And that David was not the author, but one of the subjects of that Psalm. (along with the LORD YHVH)

So, there is no such person as "Jesus Christ". It's "Yahshua Christ"? Seems you are mixing and matching. Hebrew with Greek.

[polonius]

Tam posted:

No your suggestion does not seem more likely at all. The disciple Christ loved was an eyewitness and he simply recorded what he heard his Lord say (albeit not in English).

Question: Who are you claiming was the "disciple Christ loved." The usual answer can be shown to be a misconception.

[showme]

Historical Jesus scholars make a distinction between the historical Jesus and the "Christ of Faith". Yet some of these same scholars ( some of the Theistic ones) instead of worshiping only the God who the historical Jesus preached, also venerate, if not actually worship the "Christ of Faith", usually as part of the Trinity.

This seems a bit odd, since they realize that the historical Jesus never preached the "Christ of Faith" but rather only the Father YHVH and His Kingdom.

Is the "Christ of Faith" a God that humans in their devotion have made out of Jesus? In effect, an idol? Have humans idolized, and thus Deified Jesus?

An idol, would be normally in the form of a graven image (2nd commandment). Your "Christ of Faith", would be encapsulated in the gospel of grace/cross. The graven image, is in the form of a cross, made of silver, gold, wood, etc. which can not "see, hear nor walk" (Revelation 9:20). The image of the cross, was thrust upon Constantine by his god, Sol Invictus, at the battle of Milvian Bridge in 312 AD. Under that sign, Constantine was to go out and conquer. Constantine instituted the Roman Church, and has used the sign given by the "dragon" (Sol Invictus) to conquer the world.

[tam]

Peace to you Polonius,

Tam posted:

No your suggestion does not seem more likely at all. The disciple Christ loved was an eyewitness and he simply recorded what he heard his Lord say (albeit not in English).

Question: Who are you claiming was the "disciple Christ loved." The usual answer can be shown to be a misconception.

Lazarus. We discussed this on your thread here:

viewtopic.php?t=34470&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0



Peace again to you!

[Elijah John]

Peace to you Polonius,

Tam posted:

No your suggestion does not seem more likely at all. The disciple Christ loved was an eyewitness and he simply recorded what he heard his Lord say (albeit not in English).

Question: Who are you claiming was the "disciple Christ loved." The usual answer can be shown to be a misconception.

Lazarus. We discussed this on your thread here:

viewtopic.php?t=34470&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0



Peace again to you!

Refer to post 22 where you said the disciple Christ loved was an eyewitness who recorded what he saw. Polonius quoted you on this in post 23. And now you say this eye witness is Lazarus? Did Lazarus write a Gospel? What did Lazarus record?

[tam]

Peace to you EJ,

Peace to you Polonius,

Tam posted:

No your suggestion does not seem more likely at all. The disciple Christ loved was an eyewitness and he simply recorded what he heard his Lord say (albeit not in English).

Question: Who are you claiming was the "disciple Christ loved." The usual answer can be shown to be a misconception.

Lazarus. We discussed this on your thread here:

viewtopic.php?t=34470&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0



Peace again to you!

Refer to post 22 where you said the disciple Christ loved was an eyewitness who recorded what he saw. Polonius quoted you on this in post 23. And now you say this eye witness is Lazarus?

Yes.

Did Lazarus write a Gospel?

Yes, the book commonly attributed to John. See the link.

What did Lazarus record?

He wrote that fourth gospel.



Peace again to you!

[Elijah John]

Peace to you EJ,

Peace to you Polonius,

Tam posted:

No your suggestion does not seem more likely at all. The disciple Christ loved was an eyewitness and he simply recorded what he heard his Lord say (albeit not in English).

Question: Who are you claiming was the "disciple Christ loved." The usual answer can be shown to be a misconception.

Lazarus. We discussed this on your thread here:

viewtopic.php?t=34470&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0



Peace again to you!

Refer to post 22 where you said the disciple Christ loved was an eyewitness who recorded what he saw. Polonius quoted you on this in post 23. And now you say this eye witness is Lazarus?

Yes.

Did Lazarus write a Gospel?

Yes, the book commonly attributed to John. See the link.

What did Lazarus record?

He wrote that fourth gospel.



Peace again to you!

In that thread, post # 4 you said that Lazarus was present at the last supper, and one of the 12. I don't think Lazarus was one of the original 12 apostles. We know all their names, and Lazarus was not among them.