• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Myths of Jesus vrs Paul

RGacky3 said:
Yes, he spoke to samaritans, he also commanded his disciples to only talk to jews (Matthew 10), he also said he came for the lost sheep of Israel, he also said he was the JEWISH messiah, he also worshiped at the temple, he called himself the "king of the Jews," Infact in John 4 what does he say in verse 22? "Salvation is for the Jews." He claimed specifically that he had come for ONLY the Jews (Matthew 15). Luke 19:9,10 clearly Jesus saw the Jews as being the means to salvation.

So yeah I'm glad you arn't grading anyones paper when it comes to biblical study because obviously you don't know what you're talking about. Jesus was a JEWISH messiah who believed the Jews were Gods only chosen people.
Click to expand...

First off, you misquote Matthew 10. He does not say go to the Jews, he says to go to the lost sheep of Israel and he does not say never ever talk to Samaritans or Gentiles, but that in this case, the help is intended for the "lost sheep of Israel."

As for "King of the Jews", Jesus does not call himself that. That is a term solely used by Gentiles.

He also never refers to himself as the Jewish Messiah, only the Messiah.

In John 4 22:

22 Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, “But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?”

23 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 24 Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.
Click to expand...

You quote Judas who misunderstands that Jesus is only available to them, and Jesus clarifies that anyone that believes in him is accepted.

In Matthew 15, Jesus tests the faith of a Gentile and she proves worthy, so she gets her prayer answered. Again, hardly an exclusionary message.

Maybe this translation of Luke 9 9-10 is easier for you to understand: "9-10 Jesus told him, 'This shows[a] that salvation has come to this home today. This man was one of the lost sons of Abraham, and I, the Messiah,* have come to search for and to save such souls as his.' "

You seem to be cherry picking small phrases and blatantly ignoring the bigger picture of even a sentence, mush less the entirety of the message. That is why I say you have based your thesis on a false premise, therefore you conclusions cannot be reputable. I'm sorry, but you fail to validate even one premise.
 
Jesus also came for the Gentiles

God relates Jesus’ future mission to the Gentiles:

"It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth." (Isaiah 49:5,6)

Jesus fulfills Isaiah’s prophecy concerning his revelation to the Gentiles of Galilee:

Matthew 4:13 Leaving Nazareth, he went and lived in Capernaum, which was by the lake in the area of Zebulun and Naphtali-- 14 to fulfill what was said through the prophet Isaiah: 15 "Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali, the way to the sea, along the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles-- 16 the people living in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned."

Jesus preaches to large crowds of Gentiles and heals many:

Matthew 5:23 Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people. 24 News about him spread all over Syria, and people brought to him all who were ill with various diseases, those suffering severe pain, the demon-possessed, those having seizures, and the paralyzed, and he healed them. 25 Large crowds from Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan followed him.

Jesus heals the Gentile Centurion’s servant:

As he entered Capernaum, a centurion came forward to him, beseeching him and saying, "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, in terrible distress." And he said to him, "I will come and heal him." But the centurion answered him, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes, and to another, 'Come,' and he comes, and to my slave, 'Do this,' and he does it." When Jesus heard him, he marveled, and said to those who followed him, "Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith." (Matthew 8:5-10)

Jesus heals a deaf Gentile:

Mark 7:31 Then Jesus left the vicinity of Tyre and went through Sidon, down to the Sea of Galilee and into the region of the Decapolis. 32 There some people brought to him a man who was deaf and could hardly talk, and they begged him to place his hand on the man. 33 After he took him aside, away from the crowd, Jesus put his fingers into the man's ears. Then he spit and touched the man's tongue. 34 He looked up to heaven and with a deep sigh said to him, "Ephphatha!" (which means, "Be opened!"). 35 At this, the man's ears were opened, his tongue was loosened and he began to speak plainly.

Jesus witnesses to the Greeks:

John 12:20 Now there were some Greeks among those who went up to worship at the Feast. 21T hey came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, with a request. "Sir," they said, "we would like to see Jesus." 22 Philip went to tell Andrew; Andrew and Philip in turn told Jesus. 23 Jesus replied, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 24 I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. 25 The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. 26 Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me.... 34 The crowd spoke up, "We have heard from the Law that the Christ will remain forever, so how can you say, `The Son of Man must be lifted up'? Who is this `Son of Man'?" 35 Then Jesus told them, "You are going to have the light just a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, before darkness overtakes you. The man who walks in the dark does not know where he is going. 36 Put your trust in the light while you have it, so that you may become sons of light."

Jesus visits Samaria and teaches there:

John 4:39 Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman's testimony, "He told me everything I ever did." 40 So when the Samaritans came to him, they urged him to stay with them, and he stayed two days. 41 And because of his words many more became believers.

Jesus commands his disciples to take his Gospel to all nations:

Matthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

Elsewhere, Jesus heals the Gentile Woman's daughter (Matthew 15), appoints Paul as a witness to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15), and suffers on the Cross of Calvary for the sins of all men (Jew and Gentile alike).
 
ChezC3 said:
But none of them tell any one event the same. You have bits and pieces in each which have been attributed to some mythical Q gospel,(in Matt, Mark, Luke, the synoptic gospels) but no 2 books are the same. What you have is 4 perspectives.

None of that however reconciles your thought process in regards to your selectivity. Especially as it regards your belief in the validity of what was said in Luke but disbelief in what was said in Acts when the common scholarly opinion is that both Luke and Acts are from the same pen. How do you reconcile this with yourself?
Click to expand...

The three apostles we are talking about walked with Jesus, listened to, observed, and learned directly from him. They all witnessed the same things but like any witness wrote from their own perspective of them. I give some credence to the fourth because it might have been John of Zebedee although there is some dispute about who actually authored the Gospel of John.

As for reconciling my thought process about selectivity? Simply that in The Bible I give greatest credence in both testaments to the direct commandments of GOD, and very little to the varying interpretations placed on them by men. I simply do not believe Paul was an actual witness to Jesus, his intepretations of Jesus' commandments are too politically flexible for me to think he was not pursuing his own agendas while recruiting among the gentile.
 
Penderyn said:
Jews as subjects are one thing, Jews as citizens another, but if you have any real information on that issue, fair enough. My real point was that any Roman citizen was acquainted with the idea of man-as-god in a very un-Jewish way, which is why 'Judeo-Christian' is to me so totally dubious a term, and why I think the Church was wrong to keep the OT as anything more than useful background material..
Click to expand...

A Jewish Roman citizen was also not required, the requirement had nothing to do with citizenship it had to do with being subject to the empire, but ALL Jews were excempt from that, citizen or not, and all other citizens were required to partake ... citizen or not.

Any Roman Subject would be aqualnted with the Imperial cult ... Period, at least an educated one, this would include Paul most definately, but it had more to do with his education rather than his citizenship. Paul however didn't bring ANY of that into Christianity, there simply isn't any evidence of that, prior to becoming a christian he was a pharasee, a strict observant Jew ... Zealous for the law, he wasn't Romanized culturally or religiously in any way.

THe whole man as Yahweh thing is extra-biblical, it's not found in the NT, but that's for another discussion.
 
Captain Adverse said:
As for reconciling my thought process about selectivity? Simply that in The Bible I give greatest credence in both testaments to the direct commandments of GOD, and very little to the varying interpretations placed on them by men. I simply do not believe Paul was an actual witness to Jesus, his intepretations of Jesus' commandments are too politically flexible for me to think he was not pursuing his own agendas while recruiting among the gentile.
Click to expand...

Do you believe in the resurrection? There is no varying opinions and interpretations, there is but there isn't, this is why Tradition is of the utmost importance.

Remember as well that it was the interpretations and opinions of men which decided that the Synoptic Gospels were in fact the gospels and not say, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, or even the Gospel of Judas. If I am to look at your explanation, I still don't see how you can reconcile yourself -- isn't it the case of you simply taking your opinion of what is and isn't valid as the gospel?
 
ksu_aviator said:
First off, you misquote Matthew 10. He does not say go to the Jews, he says to go to the lost sheep of Israel and he does not say never ever talk to Samaritans or Gentiles, but that in this case, the help is intended for the "lost sheep of Israel."

As for "King of the Jews", Jesus does not call himself that. That is a term solely used by Gentiles.

He also never refers to himself as the Jewish Messiah, only the Messiah.
Click to expand...

Matthew 10:5,6 "5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

I'ts pretty clear what Jesus was saying here.

Pontius Pilot calls him "king of the Jews" and Jesus confirms it in his repsonse "you yourself said it" a figure of speach that basically means "yes."

He called himself the massiah quoting hebrew scriptures that promise a Massiah restoring the kingdom of David ... a restoration of the davidic kingdom OVER Israel .... he was obviously calling himself the Jewish Messiah ...

In Matthew 15, Jesus tests the faith of a Gentile and she proves worthy, so she gets her prayer answered. Again, hardly an exclusionary message.

Maybe this translation of Luke 9 9-10 is easier for you to understand: "9-10 Jesus told him, 'This shows[a] that salvation has come to this home today. This man was one of the lost sons of Abraham, and I, the Messiah,* have come to search for and to save such souls as his.' "

You seem to be cherry picking small phrases and blatantly ignoring the bigger picture of even a sentence, mush less the entirety of the message. That is why I say you have based your thesis on a false premise, therefore you conclusions cannot be reputable. I'm sorry, but you fail to validate even one premise.
Click to expand...

In Matthew 15 he makes an exception to his rule .... vrs 24-28

"24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25 But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” 26 He answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” 27 She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” 28 Then Jesus answered her, “Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed instantly."

He meant what he said in vrs 24, his faith impressed him and he made an exception, it doesn't change the fact that he was a JEWISH messiah who was sent for the house of Israel.

Don't accuse me of cherry picking scripture (which I am most certainly not, the fact that Jesus was a Jew and believed that he was the Jewish messiah who had come to save the house of Israel and restore the kingship of David is plain in scripture) When you're cherry picking translation .... The text in Luke 19:9-10 says what it says ... I use the NRSV because it's considered by scholars to be the most accurate, I don't know what translation you're using there, but it's obviously not one that is trying to be carefully faithful to the exact greek.

Luke 19: 9 Then Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because he too is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek out and to save the lost.”

That's what the text says ... it says "the lost" and it says "the son of man" and it says because he too is a son of Abraham .... don't pick some paraphrased bad translation to try and prove a moot point, use the actual text of the scriptures.
 
I find it suspect how Constantine and the Council of Nicaea chose to eliminate some of the Gospels of Peter, Judas and Mary Magdalene, not only from the "official," bible and state sponsored negotiated religious doctrine, but also from anyone who was in possession of them. All attempts were made to eradicate these gospels from the face of the earth.

However, when the gospels were later discovered, several centuries later, it became very easy to understand why they wanted to exclude them and eradicate it from humankind.

They flew in the face of the newly invented religion and didn't support their positions socially or politically. To say the least, they invented their religion as far from "God," and as close to their own agenda, as they could. That's just one reason I consider the "council approved," bible to be not much more than manipulated and flawed mumbo jumbo.
 
Logicman said:
Jesus also came for the Gentiles

God relates Jesus’ future mission to the Gentiles:

"It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth." (Isaiah 49:5,6)

Jesus fulfills Isaiah’s prophecy concerning his revelation to the Gentiles of Galilee:

Matthew 4:13 Leaving Nazareth, he went and lived in Capernaum, which was by the lake in the area of Zebulun and Naphtali-- 14 to fulfill what was said through the prophet Isaiah: 15 "Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali, the way to the sea, along the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles-- 16 the people living in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned."

Jesus preaches to large crowds of Gentiles and heals many:

Matthew 5:23 Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people. 24 News about him spread all over Syria, and people brought to him all who were ill with various diseases, those suffering severe pain, the demon-possessed, those having seizures, and the paralyzed, and he healed them. 25 Large crowds from Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan followed him.

Jesus heals the Gentile Centurion’s servant:

As he entered Capernaum, a centurion came forward to him, beseeching him and saying, "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, in terrible distress." And he said to him, "I will come and heal him." But the centurion answered him, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes, and to another, 'Come,' and he comes, and to my slave, 'Do this,' and he does it." When Jesus heard him, he marveled, and said to those who followed him, "Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith." (Matthew 8:5-10)

Jesus heals a deaf Gentile:

Mark 7:31 Then Jesus left the vicinity of Tyre and went through Sidon, down to the Sea of Galilee and into the region of the Decapolis. 32 There some people brought to him a man who was deaf and could hardly talk, and they begged him to place his hand on the man. 33 After he took him aside, away from the crowd, Jesus put his fingers into the man's ears. Then he spit and touched the man's tongue. 34 He looked up to heaven and with a deep sigh said to him, "Ephphatha!" (which means, "Be opened!"). 35 At this, the man's ears were opened, his tongue was loosened and he began to speak plainly.

Jesus witnesses to the Greeks:

John 12:20 Now there were some Greeks among those who went up to worship at the Feast. 21T hey came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, with a request. "Sir," they said, "we would like to see Jesus." 22 Philip went to tell Andrew; Andrew and Philip in turn told Jesus. 23 Jesus replied, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 24 I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. 25 The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. 26 Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me.... 34 The crowd spoke up, "We have heard from the Law that the Christ will remain forever, so how can you say, `The Son of Man must be lifted up'? Who is this `Son of Man'?" 35 Then Jesus told them, "You are going to have the light just a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, before darkness overtakes you. The man who walks in the dark does not know where he is going. 36 Put your trust in the light while you have it, so that you may become sons of light."

Jesus visits Samaria and teaches there:

John 4:39 Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman's testimony, "He told me everything I ever did." 40 So when the Samaritans came to him, they urged him to stay with them, and he stayed two days. 41 And because of his words many more became believers.

Jesus commands his disciples to take his Gospel to all nations:

Matthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

Elsewhere, Jesus heals the Gentile Woman's daughter (Matthew 15), appoints Paul as a witness to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15), and suffers on the Cross of Calvary for the sins of all men (Jew and Gentile alike).
Click to expand...

None of that refutes anything I said ... he did healings for some gentiles as well, as EXCEPTIONS, that doesn't mean he considered himself sent to the gentiles. Some Samaritans put faith in him, that doesn't change how he viewed himself ... as the promised massiah to Israel.

There is no indication that the deaf guy in Mark 7 was a Gentile. In Matthew 4:23-25 (not Matthew 5) there is no indication that the healings there included Gentiles. Nowhere in matthew 4 is that indicated.

The prophesy in Isaiah 49 is about the nations being blessed THROUGH ISRAEL ....

The Greeks that worshiped at the feast we're jewish converts (proselytes) which is why they were worshiping at the feast.

I can go on and on. I don't know why you're arguing this, the fact that Jesus was the Jewish messiah and preached salvation for the nation of Israel is common knowledge and agreed upon even by conservative and orthodox scholarship.
 
Captain America said:
I find it suspect how Constantine and the Council of Nicaea chose to eliminate some of the Gospels of Peter, Judas and Mary Magdalene, not only from the "official," bible and state sponsored negotiated religious doctrine, but also from anyone who was in possession of them. All attempts were made to eradicate these gospels from the face of the earth.

However, when the gospels were later discovered, several centuries later, it became very easy to understand why they wanted to exclude them and eradicate it from humankind.

They flew in the face of the newly invented religion and didn't support their positions socially or politically. To say the least, they invented their religion as far from "God," and as close to their own agenda, as they could. That's just one reason I consider the "council approved," bible to be not much more than manipulated and flawed mumbo jumbo.
Click to expand...

THey didn't eliminate them from the bible ... the bible didn't exist prior to that, there only existed various documents.

The Gospels of Peter Judas and Mary were all 2nd century documents NONE OF which were written by Judas Mary or Peter or anyone close to the period of Jesus or those people.

They didn't include them in the bible because they had nothing to do with the historical Jesus or the historical apostles.
 
RGacky3 said:
THey didn't eliminate them from the bible ... the bible didn't exist prior to that, there only existed various documents.

The Gospels of Peter Judas and Mary were all 2nd century documents NONE OF which were written by Judas Mary or Peter or anyone close to the period of Jesus or those people.

They didn't include them in the bible because they had nothing to do with the historical Jesus or the historical apostles.
Click to expand...

Some gospels were scientifically dated to be around the same time that others, that were included, were. I confess I have neither the time nor inclination to go look up the particulars, therefore, I will not contest any offerings of knowledge you bring to the table. In fact, I am very interested in hearing more.

Don't get me wrong. I am not vouching for the validity of the gospels in question. But in terms of age, none of the gospels have been scientifically established to be close enough to the actual time when Jesus was said to walk this earth, to satisfy me. They were written long after the fact, if I am to understand what I have learned.
 
RGacky3 said:
None of that refutes anything I said ... he did healings for some gentiles as well, as EXCEPTIONS, that doesn't mean he considered himself sent to the gentiles. Some Samaritans put faith in him, that doesn't change how he viewed himself ... as the promised massiah to Israel.

There is no indication that the deaf guy in Mark 7 was a Gentile. In Matthew 4:23-25 (not Matthew 5) there is no indication that the healings there included Gentiles. Nowhere in matthew 4 is that indicated.

The prophesy in Isaiah 49 is about the nations being blessed THROUGH ISRAEL ....

The Greeks that worshiped at the feast we're jewish converts (proselytes) which is why they were worshiping at the feast.

I can go on and on. I don't know why you're arguing this, the fact that Jesus was the Jewish messiah and preached salvation for the nation of Israel is common knowledge and agreed upon even by conservative and orthodox scholarship.
Click to expand...

You're welcome to your beliefs on this.

By the way, Genesis 49:10ff has been / is considered a Messianic prophecy by Jewish rabbis and Christians alike.

In the Targum Onkelos it states:

“The transmission of domain shall not cease from the house of Judah, nor the scribe from his children’s children, forever, until Messiah comes.”

In the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan it states:

“King and rulers shall not cease from the house of Judah…until King Messiah comes”

The Targum Yerushalmi states:

“Kings shall not cease from the house of Judah…until the time of the coming of the King Messiah…to whom all the dominions of the earth shall become subservient”

In the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98b, Rabbi Johanan said:

“The world was created for the sake of the Messiah, what is this Messiah’s name? The school of Rabbi Shila said ‘his name is Shiloh, for it is written; until Shiloh come.’”
 
Captain America said:
I find it suspect how Constantine and the Council of Nicaea chose to eliminate some of the Gospels of Peter, Judas and Mary Magdalene, not only from the "official," bible and state sponsored negotiated religious doctrine, but also from anyone who was in possession of them. All attempts were made to eradicate these gospels from the face of the earth.

However, when the gospels were later discovered, several centuries later, it became very easy to understand why they wanted to exclude them and eradicate it from humankind.

They flew in the face of the newly invented religion and didn't support their positions socially or politically. To say the least, they invented their religion as far from "God," and as close to their own agenda, as they could. That's just one reason I consider the "council approved," bible to be not much more than manipulated and flawed mumbo jumbo.
Click to expand...

You have some valid points but it is necessary that we look through neutral eyes in these matters not pessimistic ones.

You have a mother, I have a mother, Constantine had a mother. Constantine's mother converted to Christianity well before Constantine. While Constantine's political ambitions found a ready ally in the submissive nature of the Christian faith, combined with the all too familiar concept of Man-God understood from the Caesar's of old -- to readily denounce the Council of Nicea and any councils at all for that matter as instrument's of Constantine's will rather than a congregation of knowledgeable men of differing opinions licensed to bring about a conformity of doctrine to unify an empire in faith, is rather self deceiving.
 
ChezC3 said:
You have some valid points but it is necessary that we look through neutral eyes in these matters not pessimistic ones.

You have a mother, I have a mother, Constantine had a mother. Constantine's mother converted to Christianity well before Constantine. While Constantine's political ambitions found a ready ally in the submissive nature of the Christian faith, combined with the all too familiar concept of Man-God understood from the Caesar's of old -- to readily denounce the Council of Nicea and any councils at all for that matter as instrument's of Constantine's will rather than a congregation of knowledgeable men of differing opinions licensed to bring about a conformity of doctrine to unify an empire in faith, is rather self deceiving.
Click to expand...

Very good point.

But I am led to believe that the "official religion," was a negotiated "religious reality," and many at the negotiating table had agendas of their own irregardless of whatever qualifications they might have possessed. The disputed gospels speak to things that are contrary to to the interests of the political and social drivers of the time. I do not suggest for one second that their heart was not in the right place. But imagine what it would be like to gather the heads of all faiths at one table and order them to hammer out a religion between them that will require Jesus to be the deity and the role of woman to be minimal.

How valid would a negotiated belief be?
 
Captain America said:
Very good point.

But I am led to believe that the "official religion," was a negotiated "religious reality," and many at the negotiating table had agendas of their own irregardless of whatever qualifications they might have possessed. The disputed gospels speak to things that are contrary to to the interests of the political and social drivers of the time. I do not suggest for one second that their heart was not in the right place. But imagine what it would be like to gather the heads of all faiths at one table and order them to hammer out a religion between them that will require Jesus to be the deity and the role of woman to be minimal.

How valid would a negotiated belief be?
Click to expand...

Well, I would consider the event more in tune to what the Jesus Seminar was about, minus the trying to disprove everything. Mary -- MOTHER OF GOD. How much more of a role do women want?

Perhaps it isn't the role women would like but to say that their role is minimal is duplicitous.
 
Captain America said:
Don't get me wrong. I am not vouching for the validity of the gospels in question. But in terms of age, none of the gospels have been scientifically established to be close enough to the actual time when Jesus was said to walk this earth, to satisfy me. They were written long after the fact, if I am to understand what I have learned.
Click to expand...

Scholars look at the style of writing, the parchment or material a writing is recorded on, colloquialisms, age of the documents / copies (originals had to be earlier) and a lot of other things. Considering all that, here's some scholarly opinions on the dates the Gospels were most likely written (the vast majority of dates are mid to late first century).

Scholars Date New Testament

Dating the New Testament

Chronological Order

http://www.errantskeptics.org/DatingNT-ChronologicalOrder.htm
 
Logicman said:
Scholars look at the style of writing, the parchment or material a writing is recorded on, colloquialisms, age of the documents / copies (originals had to be earlier) and a lot of other things. Considering all that, here's some scholarly opinions on the dates the Gospels were most likely written (the vast majority of dates are mid to late first century).

Scholars Date New Testament

Dating the New Testament

Chronological Order

Chronological Order
Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing. Interesting indeed. I'm off to read more.
 
Captain America said:
Some gospels were scientifically dated to be around the same time that others, that were included, were. I confess I have neither the time nor inclination to go look up the particulars, therefore, I will not contest any offerings of knowledge you bring to the table. In fact, I am very interested in hearing more.

Don't get me wrong. I am not vouching for the validity of the gospels in question. But in terms of age, none of the gospels have been scientifically established to be close enough to the actual time when Jesus was said to walk this earth, to satisfy me. They were written long after the fact, if I am to understand what I have learned.
Click to expand...

The only non cannonical gospel that could plausably be dated to the first century is the Gospel of Thomas .... although many scholars put it in the early second century (which would still make it early, even if post apostolic). The Gospel of Thomas is a sayins gospel that has some sayings similar to Q (or for those that don't believein Q the matthew/Luke sayins), and some that seam proto-gnostic, which may or may not go back to the historical Jesus. The fact that the Gospel of Thomans isn't in the bible isn't really a conspiracy ... it just doesn't really add much to the Jesus story, it most certianly wasn't written by an apostle or an authority, but it is interesting.

All of the cannonical gospels were written in the 1st century, infact every book of the NT was, Mark from 65-70, Matthew and Luke in the 80s and John in the late 90s (thats the modern critical concensus, some would put Matthew and/or luke earlier).

The gnostics were all written in the second or third centuries, The earliest being the Gospel of Thomas (not really a gnostic gospel though). None of them we're written by the early followers of Jesus however, and it's obvious in the texts of those gospels.

The gnostics existed before christianity ... They were already a kind of sect, when the Jesus movement became influencial amung the lower classes, where gnosticism was also popular, gnostics took the symbols and stories of christianity and Jesus and wove them into Gnosticism.

Gnostics took Yahweh as being an evil God ... and Sophia as being the good spiritual God, Jesus was a Jew ... he worshiped Yahweh, he believed in the physical ressurection.
 
Logicman said:
You're welcome to your beliefs on this.

By the way, Genesis 49:10ff has been / is considered a Messianic prophecy by Jewish rabbis and Christians alike.

In the Targum Onkelos it states:

“The transmission of domain shall not cease from the house of Judah, nor the scribe from his children’s children, forever, until Messiah comes.”

In the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan it states:

“King and rulers shall not cease from the house of Judah…until King Messiah comes”

The Targum Yerushalmi states:

“Kings shall not cease from the house of Judah…until the time of the coming of the King Messiah…to whom all the dominions of the earth shall become subservient”

In the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98b, Rabbi Johanan said:

“The world was created for the sake of the Messiah, what is this Messiah’s name? The school of Rabbi Shila said ‘his name is Shiloh, for it is written; until Shiloh come.’”
Click to expand...

These are not my beliefs, they are what the scriptures say ... Yes the messiah was supposed to bring peace on earth, but what was the 1rst century expectation? The Messiah just meas annointed one, the 1st century expectation was for Jesus to restore the kingship of David and liberate the house of Israel ... Make Israel a nation of kings and priests.

What I said about Jesus still stands, he came for the Jews, he believed that Jews were Gods special and chosen people, Paul ... was a Universalist.
 
Captain America said:
Very good point.

But I am led to believe that the "official religion," was a negotiated "religious reality," and many at the negotiating table had agendas of their own irregardless of whatever qualifications they might have possessed. The disputed gospels speak to things that are contrary to to the interests of the political and social drivers of the time. I do not suggest for one second that their heart was not in the right place. But imagine what it would be like to gather the heads of all faiths at one table and order them to hammer out a religion between them that will require Jesus to be the deity and the role of woman to be minimal.

How valid would a negotiated belief be?
Click to expand...

Oh believe me, Gnostics were not pro-woman, they believed that only men could inheret the kingdom of God, and that women we're ontologically inferior and weak, and that they must become male to inheret spirit life.

They also didn't believe in the humanity of christa at all, he was 100% Deity.

The council of Nicea was Arius vrs Athanasius ... i.e. Unitarianism vrs trinitarianism (or at least proto-trinitarianism) ... I actually here think that Athanasius was wrong and Arius was right, based on the scriptures.
 
The name "Jesus" was everywhere back then. Messiahs were a dime a dozen, as far as I know Jesus became holy only because of the resurrection. He was not thought to be the son of god at the cross.
 
RGacky3 said:
These are not my beliefs, they are what the scriptures say ... Yes the messiah was supposed to bring peace on earth, but what was the 1rst century expectation? The Messiah just meas annointed one, the 1st century expectation was for Jesus to restore the kingship of David and liberate the house of Israel ... Make Israel a nation of kings and priests.

What I said about Jesus still stands, he came for the Jews, he believed that Jews were Gods special and chosen people, Paul ... was a Universalist.
Click to expand...

There are two "faces" of Messiah in Jewish writings.

1. Messiah ben David - the conquering king who annihilates Israel's enemies and brings peace to the nation / world.

http://www.menorah.org/tembd14.html

2. Messiah ben Joseph - the suffering servant who suffers and atones for sin.

Messiah ben Joseph - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These are the two "faces" of the Jewish Messiah. To date, apart from their actually expecting two Messiahs to appear, Judaism has been unable to reconcile the two into one person. Christianity reconciles the two into one individual - Jesus Christ, based on two separate advents, where the Messiah comes first as the suffering servant (which Jesus did as Messiah ben Joseph), and next when the Messiah comes again at the second coming as the conquering king (Messiah ben David).

Someone may say nowhere in the scriptures does it say the Messiah will die and then go on and live again. However, numerous ancient rabbis believed Isaiah chapter 53 was a prophecy concerning the Messiah ben Joseph. One could also make the argument that nowhere in scripture does it say the Messiah will only appear once, as Messiah ben David. There are also rabbinic writings that Daniel chapter 9 (Daniel 9:24-27) speaks about the Messiah dying, and after that "war continues until the end."
 
Last edited:
rhinefire said:
The name "Jesus" was everywhere back then. Messiahs were a dime a dozen, as far as I know Jesus became holy only because of the resurrection. He was not thought to be the son of god at the cross.
Click to expand...

Jesus did have a small following by the time of the cross of people who believed he was the Son of God. Many of these were Jews.

Matthew 16 notes, "Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” This was before the crucifixion.
 
Logicman said:
There are two "faces" of Messiah in Jewish writings.

1. Messiah ben David - the conquering king who annihilates Israel's enemies and brings peace to the nation / world.

http://www.menorah.org/tembd14.html

2. Messiah ben Joseph - the suffering servant who suffers and atones for sin.

Messiah ben Joseph - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These are the two "faces" of the Jewish Messiah. To date, apart from their actually expecting two Messiahs to appear, Judaism has been unable to reconcile the two into one person. Christianity reconciles the two into one individual - Jesus Christ, based on two separate advents, where the Messiah comes first as the suffering servant (which Jesus did as Messiah ben Joseph), and next when the Messiah comes again at the second coming as the conquering king (Messiah ben David).

Someone may say nowhere in the scriptures does it say the Messiah will die and then go on and live again. However, numerous ancient rabbis believed Isaiah chapter 53 was a prophecy concerning the Messiah ben Joseph. One could also make the argument that nowhere in scripture does it say the Messiah will only appear once, as Messiah ben David. There are also rabbinic writings that Daniel chapter 9 (Daniel 9:24-27) speaks about the Messiah dying, and after that "war continues until the end."
Click to expand...

It is my belief that the messiah ben Joseph was Joseph Smith. I made the case for this in the following thread http://www.debatepolitics.com/religious-discussions/160317-biblical-prophecies-2.html. According to Jewish legend the Messiah ben Joseph would be a great prophet that would come in the latter days just before messiah ben David to prepare the way for the latter's millennial kingdom. There is a prophecy given in Daniel of seventy weeks until the Messiah and 2300 days to the sanctuary is cleansed. Many people have figured out these dates are 34AD and 1844 AD given the prophecy gives a beginning date for these prophecies that is known, and I make the case in the thread that these are the martydom dates of the messiah ben David, Jesus, and the messiah ben Joseph, Joseph Smith.
 
laska said:
It is my belief that the messiah ben Joseph was Joseph Smith. I made the case for this in the following thread http://www.debatepolitics.com/religious-discussions/160317-biblical-prophecies-2.html. According to Jewish legend the Messiah ben Joseph would be a great prophet that would come in the latter days just before messiah ben David to prepare the way for the latter's millennial kingdom. There is a prophecy given in Daniel of seventy weeks until the Messiah and 2300 days to the sanctuary is cleansed. Many people have figured out these dates are 34AD and 1844 AD given the prophecy gives a beginning date for these prophecies that is known, and I make the case in the thread that these are the martydom dates of the messiah ben David, Jesus, and the messiah ben Joseph, Joseph Smith.
Click to expand...

In my studies, there's only two places in the Bible that indicate when the Messiah would appear (both indicate the time period is when Jesus appeared). One is based on Daniel 9:24-27, and the other is based on Genesis 49:10. Here's a link for each one:

Daniel's Prophecy of the Messiah

THE 70 WEEKS OF DANIEL

Until Shiloh Comes (Genesis 49:10ff)

Until Shiloh Comes « The Righter Report
 
Captain America said:
I find it suspect how Constantine and the Council of Nicaea chose to eliminate some of the Gospels of Peter, Judas and Mary Magdalene, not only from the "official," bible and state sponsored negotiated religious doctrine, but also from anyone who was in possession of them. All attempts were made to eradicate these gospels from the face of the earth.

However, when the gospels were later discovered, several centuries later, it became very easy to understand why they wanted to exclude them and eradicate it from humankind.

They flew in the face of the newly invented religion and didn't support their positions socially or politically. To say the least, they invented their religion as far from "God," and as close to their own agenda, as they could. That's just one reason I consider the "council approved," bible to be not much more than manipulated and flawed mumbo jumbo.
Click to expand...

I reluctantly agree. I am a Marcionite. I think Marcion was correct in limiting the canon to the gospel narrative and some letters by Paul. He even throw out the Hebrew Scriptures, which while great stuff, just bring confusion to the core gospel message.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom