Elevation of Christ, Jesus

[Umar001]

As Salaam Alaykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatu,

In the Name of Allāh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.
Peace be upon His Prophets and Messengers, specially Muhammad.

I want to discuss a matter which I find to be very fundamental, a discussion mainly concerning Christians and their Scriptures.

I have come across writings which indicate that there is an elevation of the person of Jesus within the Gospels contained in the Bible.

What is your view dear Christian.

Eesa

[Keltoi]

As Salaam Alaykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatu,

In the Name of Allāh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.
Peace be upon His Prophets and Messengers, specially Muhammad.

I want to discuss a matter which I find to be very fundamental, a discussion mainly concerning Christians and their Scriptures.

I have come across writings which indicate that there is an elevation of the person of Jesus within the Gospels contained in the Bible.

What is your view dear Christian.

Eesa

I'm afraid you will have to be more specific than that. I'm not sure what exactly you are referring to or what point you are attempting to make.

[Umar001]

What I mean is that some have noted a change between the Gospels, through which Jesus is seen to 'become more'

This is from a preface on a Commentary to Matthew, I dont know the book I just read this in a bookshop:


Text in Mark but not Matthew where Jesus experiences emotions:

Mark
1:41 – ‘moved with anger or pity’ (doubtful text)
1:43 – ‘he sternly charged’
3:5 – ‘looked around with anger and grieved’
6:6 – ‘marvelled’ or ‘amazed’
8:12 – ‘he sighed deeply in his spirit’
10:14 – ‘became indignant’
10:21 – ‘loved him’
14:33 – ‘greatly distressed and troubled’

Texts in Mark but not Matthew where Jesus experiences inability or exhibits ignorance:

Mark
1:45 – ‘could no longer enter a town’
5:9 – ‘what is your name’
5:30 – ‘who touched my garments’
6:5 – ‘could not perform any mighty miracles’
6:38 – ‘how many loaves do you have’
6:48 – ‘he meant to pass them by’
7:24 – ‘wanted no one to know about it’
8:12 – ‘why does this generation’
8:23 – ‘do you see anything’
9:16 – ‘what you discussing with them’
9:21 – ‘how long has this’
9:33 – ‘what were you arguing
11:13 – ‘it was not time for it’
14:14 – ‘where is my guestroom, where am I to eat’

Other texts in Mark evidently omitted or altered our of reverence:

Mark 1:32-33 ‘healed many’ becomes ‘all’ in Matthew 8:16
Mark 3:10 ‘many’ becomes ‘all’ in Matthew 12:15
Mark 3:21 ‘he is our of his mind’ (ommited)
Mark 10:18 ‘why do you call me good’ becomes ‘why do you ask me concerning the good’ Matthew 19:17
Mark 14:58 ‘I will destroy’ becomes ‘I am able..’ Matthew 26:61

[AntiKarateKid]

I have heard that if you read the books of the Bible in the order in which they were written or something, you can see a gradual elevation of Isa ( pbuh) to a more and more godlike position

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Umar001]

I have heard that if you read the books of the Bible in the order in which they were written or something, you can see a gradual elevation of Isa ( pbuh) to a more and more godlike position

I don't know if that is true, specially since the dating of books can be something which differs from scholar to scholar.

But I think that the evidence is in favour of development in the case of the Gospels at least.

Also, given the historical context you might find that some later books may speak of a human/flesh Jesus, this may be due to the theological conflicts against those who believed Jesus was only God, and so the authors of 'our' books, who took a middle path of Jesus being both totally God and totally human, wrote, even in later times, of Jesus' human side.

[Umar001]

So noone is bothered by what seems to be an adaptation to the words/traditions by authors of the Gospels to elevate Jesus?

[AntiKarateKid]

i think they explain it in the way that: God did not let the REALLY important stuff get abrogated like " Christ's Godhood". But the minor stuff could be wrong.


Though I don't understand how that really works.

[barney]

Theres a branch of christian thought, that Jesus was both man and God, and so had human frailties. This runs only so far. To suggest that he got married or had a GF or even decendants is too much to accept, but his anger is Gods anger, the inability to see things he should omnipresently know is rhetorical questioning, like when he played hide and seek with Adam and Eve in Eden.
"Where are you"
"Hey, Your god, if you cant see i'm in a bush then somethings seriously wrong!"
"Shh Eve, he ill hear us"

All scripture of all faiths has clues to what was really historically happening, its one of the joys of theology figuring it out.

[YusufNoor]

So noone is bothered by what seems to be an adaptation to the words/traditions by authors of the Gospels to elevate Jesus?

:sl:

i don't know how to link posts, so i'll just paste this here:

i found this interesting commentary this morning, i'll share parts of it with you:

The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible (1971) page 664:

The Gospel According To Mark by Lindsey P. Pherigo

Introduction

Relation to Mathew And Luke. Literary analysis of the agreements and differences among the first 3 gospels has established that Mark was the earliest of the 3 and was used independently by both Matthew and Luke as their major source of information about the life of Jesus…The fact that the 2 later gospels have incorporated practically all of it in their accounts indicates that they intended to replace Mark rather than simply to supplement it…

Date and Occasion. The tradition that Mark put together his gospel after the death of Peter on the one hand and the manner of its use by Matthew on the other limit the date of the writing to the period from AD 64 to ca 75…

[this was MOST interesting and revealing!]

During the whole period in which this gospel could have been written, Christianity was in transition from it’s original home in the Semitic culture of Palestinian Judaism to the Gentile culture of the Roman Empire. The older Christianity held tenaciously to the traditional Jewish customs (such as circumcision and the food laws), but the newer (Gentile) version abandoned these entirely. More significantly, the older Christianity understood Jesus mainly under the Jewish concept of the Messiah, whereas the newer found more meaning in him as a divine being, the Son of God, Lord and Savior. The older view clung to the Semitic concept of religion as obedience to God’s Will, whereas the newer openly abandoned this as hopeless by man’s own effort and espoused a religion which redeemed man from his slavery to sin by and act of God’s Grace( the Christ event).

so, i'm guessing sometime between "Q"[the source] and Mark!

i checked to see if this was written by Muslims, but the cover says:

“Seven years of planning and research, the most up-to-date archaeological information, and the latest technological developments have been used in preparing this one-volume commentary.

Seventy scholars-Protestant, Roman Catholic and Jewish-have contributed fresh, new interpretations of the ageless truths of the Bible.
The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible is designed for use by laypersons, ministers, librarians, college and seminary professors and students – anyone who enjoys studying the Bible.”

so...i guess not!

it's not like Christians can ADMIT they change their religion; IF they did, they wouldn't be Christians anymore!

[dougmusr]

"Where are you"

I do not interpret this to mean God did not know where Adam and Eve were, but wanted them to admit they were in a position of hiding from Him as a result of sin. It's much like in AA when a person can not get help until they admit they have a problem with alcohol.

[glo]

I continue to be confused by what this thread is about.

Are you saying that there is a sequencial process in the synoptic gospels of Jesus' status being raised from merely human to more than human?
How can that be, if - as Al Habeshi points out - there isn't actually any agreement on the order the gospels were written in ... :?

It may be that different gospels writers tell their accounts slightly differently - because they were addressing different groups of people in different cultures and different times.

Matthew was writing to a Hebrew audience and one of the purposes of his Gospel was to show from Jesus' genealogy and fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies that He was the long-expected Messiah, and thus should be believed on.

Mark, a cousin of Barnabas (Colossians 4:10), was an eyewitness to the events in the life of Christ as well as being a friend of the Apostle Peter. Mark wrote for a Gentile audience as is brought out by his not including things important to Jewish readers (genealogies, Christ's controversies with Jewish leaders of His day, frequent references to the Old Testament, etc.). Mark emphasizes Christ as the suffering Servant, the One who came not to be served but to serve and give His life a ransom for many (Mark 10:45).

Luke, the "beloved physician" (Colossians 4:14), evangelist, and companion of the Apostle Paul, wrote both the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. Luke is the only Gentile author of New Testament. He has long been accepted as a diligent master historian by those who have used his writings in geological and historical studies. As an historian, he states that it is his intent to write down an orderly account of the life of Christ based on the reports of those who were eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1-4).

Source: http://www.gotquestions.org/four-Gospels.html

You may ask why have three so similar gospels at all?
Perhaps it gives us a greater and more complete picture of Jesus, his life and his teachings.

As for the differences, I don't think it matters whether Jesus healed some or many or two or ten ... do you??? :?

Here is what's more important:

The synoptic gospels all tell the story of Jesus, proclaiming him the Son of God, the Son of Man, the Messiah (Christ), the judge of the future apocalypse. The synoptic gospels start either with Jesus' birth or his baptism and conclude with the empty tomb and resurrection appearances, though some texts of Mark end at the empty tomb (see Mark 16). In these gospels, Jesus cures diseases, exorcises demons, forgives sins, displays dominion over nature, knows the secret thoughts and past of others, speaks "with authority," calls God his own Father and says that the Father had handed over to him "all things."

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels

More on the synoptic gospels here (article not verified, so handle with care ...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_problem

[Umar001]

Theres a branch of christian thought, that Jesus was both man and God, and so had human frailties. This runs only so far.

And:

i think they explain it in the way that: God did not let the REALLY important stuff get abrogated like " Christ's Godhood". But the minor stuff could be wrong.

What I am speaking about is whether the author of the Gospel of Mark had the same understanding of Jesus as the author of the Gospel of Matthew, it is possible to see how the author of Matthew may differ from the author of Mark by looking at the theological changes/ommision to the text of Mark by Matthew.

This is what I speak of.

I continue to be confused by what this thread is about.

Are you saying that there is a sequencial process in the synoptic gospels of Jesus' status being raised from merely human to more than human?
How can that be, if - as Al Habeshi points out - there isn't actually any agreement on the order the gospels were written in ... :?

There will never be an agreement because we cannot decisevly know, but the majority, if I am not mistaken hold Mark being the earliest. Which would make most sense.

It may be that different gospels writers tell their accounts slightly differently - because they were addressing different groups of people in different cultures and different times.

When the changes tend to be so regular and in such a similar direction it would seem not just an audience change but rather a change in the view of Jesus.

Matthew was writing to a Hebrew audience and one of the purposes of his Gospel was to show from Jesus' genealogy and fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies that He was the long-expected Messiah, and thus should be believed on.

Mark, a cousin of Barnabas (Colossians 4:10), was an eyewitness to the events in the life of Christ as well as being a friend of the Apostle Peter. Mark wrote for a Gentile audience as is brought out by his not including things important to Jewish readers (genealogies, Christ's controversies with Jewish leaders of His day, frequent references to the Old Testament, etc.). Mark emphasizes Christ as the suffering Servant, the One who came not to be served but to serve and give His life a ransom for many (Mark 10:45).

Luke, the "beloved physician" (Colossians 4:14), evangelist, and companion of the Apostle Paul, wrote both the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. Luke is the only Gentile author of New Testament. He has long been accepted as a diligent master historian by those who have used his writings in geological and historical studies. As an historian, he states that it is his intent to write down an orderly account of the life of Christ based on the reports of those who were eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1-4).

But noone knows in reality who the authors are, such stories are derived by mixing traditions with New Testament people, the earliest traditions being from 2nd or so century, noone knows who the authors are, I don't say this, Christian Scholars say this. If we had known the authors then we could begin to see what type of people they were.

You may ask why have three so similar gospels at all?
Perhaps it gives us a greater and more complete picture of Jesus, his life and his teachings.

Or more likely they are similar due to the reliance of some authors upon an earlier Gospel.

As for the differences, I don't think it matters whether Jesus healed some or many or two or ten ... do you??? :?

Of course, if it was just that then I wouldn't think it mattered, but what i speak of is the consistency through the work by which the changes are made, the inability to do something is changed by Matthew, instances which may cause offence or embarassment are ommited by Matthew, I mean, it is not just a number which can innocently be mistaken.

Here is what's more important:

The synoptic gospels all tell the story of Jesus, proclaiming him the Son of God, the Son of Man, the Messiah (Christ), the judge of the future apocalypse. The synoptic gospels start either with Jesus' birth or his baptism and conclude with the empty tomb and resurrection appearances, though some texts of Mark end at the empty tomb (see Mark 16). In these gospels, Jesus cures diseases, exorcises demons, forgives sins, displays dominion over nature, knows the secret thoughts and past of others, speaks "with authority," calls God his own Father and says that the Father had handed over to him "all things."

The writings came individually, not mean to be together, at least no indication of so. The authorship is unknown, they were anonymous, later texts were attributed to figures from the New Testament. All I ask is that we look at them and study them. What has been noted is that a steady gradual change of who Jesus was occured, not an obscure, one or two changes, rather, systematic, where the text is similar until something thought of as offensive appears, this is then ommited, not once, but enough times. It may be that these authors thought that the previous Gospel writer had a made a mistake, and sought to change that (much like some scribes in later times).

[glo]

Greetings Isa (I still prefer your 'old' forum name! :))

All I ask is that we look at them and study them. What has been noted is that a steady gradual change of who Jesus was occured, not an obscure, one or two changes, rather, systematic, where the text is similar until something thought of as offensive appears, this is then ommited, not once, but enough times. It may be that these authors thought that the previous Gospel writer had a made a mistake, and sought to change that (much like some scribes in later times).

If that was the case, why did the bishops of the First Council of Nicaea not just drop the 'more offensive gospels' and keep the 'one most useful one'?
At the point of formally putting together the books of the Bible, this would have been their chance!
The fact that they neither invented the New Testament, or edited it to remove certain elements, shows that they had no intention to 'edit the Bible for their own purposes'. They kept it as they believed it to be - God's inspired word, written by human hand ... and they kept it as such without smoothing out any inaccuracies.

Such is the word of God - it is not the inaccuracies that matter, it is the message of salvation through Jesus Christ that does!

So I'm afraid I am still not sure what exactly the point is you are making.
Which gospel writer(s), do you think amended/edited the story of which gospel writer(s) to create an elevation of Christ? :?
I still cannot see how you can make such a claim, without knowing in which order the gospels were recorded? :?

There may certainly be an elevation of Christ within each gospel in itself. That's because Jesus only gradually (and sometimes reluctantly) revealed his divinity to others.
He didn't just turn up one day, saying 'I am the Son of God, follow me!' (Sometimes I wish he had ... it would save me a lot of hassle! :D)
Instead he let people make up their own minds about him (as he still does today)
He only told his own desciples hours before his death ... and even then they don't fully grasp the truth until he reappears to them after his resurrection.

Peace

[Umar001]

Greetings Isa (I still prefer your 'old' forum name! :))


If that was the case, why did the bishops of the First Council of Nicaea not just drop the 'more offensive gospels' and keep the 'one most useful one'?
At the point of formally putting together the books of the Bible, this would have been their chance!

Do you find the Gospel of Mark offensive? No I guess, else you wouldn't accept it.

Later on, people began to understand that the Gospel was written by Mark so and so, and so it must be true, how can they just throw his works out? But the author of Matthew may have not had the same view, he would have just edited the works thinking that the previous guy made errors.

That's one possible explanation, which would fit better.

The fact that they neither invented the New Testament, or edited it to remove certain elements, shows that they had no intention to 'edit the Bible for their own purposes'. They kept it as they believed it to be - God's inspired word, written by human hand ... and they kept it as such without smoothing out any inaccuracies.

You are talking about men who came much later, this is what I mean, those men may have believe that the Bible was 100% true and so forth, but those earlier may have not. All you have mentioned is that the people later on didn't want to change the Bible. Even if that is true it does not nullify the position that Matthew or other writers may have changed the words of their predecessors, as evident in the ommisions/editions of the words of Mark.

But did those councils not change things? I think they did, there were various debates about whether to enter different gospels. These debates are most likely only a fraction of what happend, since the people named 'heretics' didn't survive in our sources, so we don't know who or what they wanted i nthe Bible.

Such is the word of God - it is not the inaccuracies that matter, it is the message of salvation through Jesus Christ that does!

But this is the point glo, the sect that is the father of Christianity now held your view, but other sects may have not, but the fact that this sect was victorious does not mean that is it right, other sects, which may have not focused on the blood of Christia, which died out, may have been right, Early Christianity was diverse.

So I'm afraid I am still not sure what exactly the point is you are making.
Which gospel writer(s), do you think amended/edited the story of which gospel writer(s) to create an elevation of Christ? :?
I still cannot see how you can make such a claim, without knowing in which order the gospels were recorded? :?

What I am saying is, that if you take the most probable order, then you see this, you see Matthew's Jesus is greater than Marks, and who knows what type of Jesus Mark's source started of with.

One example:

In Mark (ch.10 vs. 17-18) a man approaches Jesus and asks him, ‘Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ Jesus replied, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.’ This answer by Jesus might pose problems for those who view Jesus as God or part of God; it is not thus a surprise that although the author of Matthew writes the story almost word for word, the author changes words around to alter the meaning, Jesus is asked, ‘Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?’ so instead of referring to Jesus as ‘good teacher’ the questioner says, ‘teacher, what good’, Jesus then replies, ‘Why do you ask me about the good?’ This response is quite illogical, since this is exactly what we would expect, meaning someone asking about what good to do. Through the change of words by Matthew’s author to avoid an answer by Jesus which would be problematic to those who view of Jesus as God or those who wish to view Jesus as ‘good’, the author has produced an illogical answer.

And this type of elevation happens, sure people can try to overlook it, and that is fine, but it doesn't get rid of the problem. We can say 'well we dont know who wrote first' I agree we don't we have to work with what is most likely since God didn't provide that information for us. If we work backwards I then think that knowing who Jesus really was from historical sources is very difficult. (I personally don't think a Just God would do that)

[YusufNoor]

I continue to be confused by what this thread is about.

Are you saying that there is a sequencial process in the synoptic gospels of Jesus' status being raised from merely human to more than human?

i actually believe that to be 100% true! the "Q" "source" document is widely believed to be the sayings of Jesus. everything after that IS the word of man!

How can that be, if - as Al Habeshi points out - there isn't actually any agreement on the order the gospels were written in ... :?

there is a general agreement

It may be that different gospels writers tell their accounts slightly differently -because they were addressing different groups of people in different cultures and different times.

and it MAY be "that there is a sequencial process in the synoptic gospels of Jesus' status being raised from merely human to more than human"

:D

You may ask why have three so similar gospels at all?
Perhaps it gives us a greater and more complete picture of Jesus, his life and his teachings.

As for the differences, I don't think it matters whether Jesus healed some or many or two or ten ... do you??? :?

nope, because we don't deny the miracles of Jesus/Isa ibn Maryam, just the deification process of the gospels and "the Church."


Here is what's more important:

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels

More on the synoptic gospels here (article not verified, so handle with care ...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_problem

it's ALL wikipedia...

Peace Glo,

don't forget, it's US in a Muslim forum, please don't get too perturbed with us!

i posted from a Christian Bible commentary:

Literary analysis of the agreements and differences among the first 3 gospels has established that Mark was the earliest of the 3 and was used independently by both Matthew and Luke as their major source of information about the life of Jesus…The fact that the 2 later gospels have incorporated practically all of it in their accounts indicates that they intended to replace Mark rather than simply to supplement it…

it says replace NOT supplement...

and also:

During the whole period in which this gospel could have been written, Christianity was in transition from it’s original home in the Semitic culture of Palestinian Judaism to the Gentile culture of the Roman Empire.

Christianity was in transition...

The older Christianity held tenaciously to the traditional Jewish customs (such as circumcision and the food laws), but the newer (Gentile) version abandoned these entirely.

more transition...


More significantly, the older Christianity understood Jesus mainly under the Jewish concept of the Messiah, whereas the newer found more meaning in him as a divine being, the Son of God, Lord and Savior.

from Messiah to God!!!!!

The older view clung to the Semitic concept of religion as obedience to God’s Will, whereas the newer openly abandoned this as hopeless by man’s own effort and espoused a religion which redeemed man from his slavery to sin by and act of God’s Grace( the Christ event).

more transition...

i think that the ENTIRE history of "Christianity" is merely the documentation of the change from it's "Semitic concept of religion as obedience to God’s Will" which openly abandoned this as hopeless by man’s own effort, to a newer religion which redeemed man from his slavery to sin by and act of God’s Grace( the Christ event), ...

and all the words of Christians!

Astargfirullah, for posting in you thread if you don't want me to, Brother Easa.

:w:

[glo]

Greetings, Al Habeshi and Yusuf

Lads, lads, I can tell that you would love to engage in a lengthy debate here :D ... but I'm afraid I will have to pass.

My reason are as they have always been:

I am a mother of two, a wife and a home maker. I work part time and I am actively engaged in church activities. I read the Bible daily, and try to do deeper Bible study whenever I can.
I also love to learn about what other people believe ... but I have to admit that - given my full and busy life - I lack the time and energy to engage in in-depth debates.

Moreover, I am not actually interested in on-going debates. I never have been, and I probably never will be.
My interest lies in understanding what other people believe, and helping other people understand what I believe ... rather than trying to make others change their views/beliefs.

You have both known me for a while, so you may have noticed that I rarely let myself be drawn into discussions.
When I post in the Comparative Religions forum, I tend to put much thought and care into my posts. So once I have written a post it tends to contain all the information I feel I wish to share.

The same applies to this particular thread. So all I can do is refer you back to my previous post. There isn't much else I have to add at this point.

Thank you, and peace to you both :)

[Umar001]

Hey,

This is not a debate, well for me, I just wanted to know what people feel about such a position, like how they still believe and how they view it if that makes sense.

[glo]

Hey,

This is not a debate, well for me, I just wanted to know what people feel about such a position, like how they still believe and how they view it if that makes sense.

Well, hopefully you know my personal view now.
Perhaps other Christians will contribute too. We are a little thin on the ground now. :)

Salaam, young brother. :statisfie

[Umar001]

Well, hopefully you know my personal view now.
Perhaps other Christians will contribute too. We are a little thin on the ground now. :)

Salaam, young brother. :statisfie

Wa Alaykum Salam,

Well I think I've confused you as to what I was talking about more than anythinglol.

[glo]

I'm sure it's my age, Eesa! :D

Salaam

[barney]

When Jesus returned to Nazereth in his Son-of-God mode, the people started saying "Who is that? Isnt it the son of Joseph the carpenter? Why is he saying such things?"

As I have posted before, suddenly after 29 years of just being a standard Chippy and Odd-Job guy in a small, and probably very dull, town in the provinces, he announced he was actually the creator of the entire universe, was everlasting and had always been.

To make people swallow that must have been an incredible, nay Miraculous, undertaking.

[Umar001]

When Jesus returned to Nazereth in his Son-of-God mode, the people started saying "Who is that? Isnt it the son of Joseph the carpenter? Why is he saying such things?"

As I have posted before, [U]suddenly[/U] after 29 years of just being a standard Chippy and Odd-Job guy in a small, and probably very dull, town in the provinces, he announced he was actually the creator of the entire universe, was everlasting and had always been.

To make people swallow that must have been an incredible, nay Miraculous, undertaking.

How do you know it was sudden, or that he was virtually quiet before 20 or so...

[barney]

There is no record. If he was preaching or doing miracles or saying he was the son-of-god, people would have picked up on it.
Theres one mention of the twelve year old running off one day and mum & dad found him in the temple. "You should have known I would be in my fathers house".

If he had done mighty deedz B4 this, the people of his home town wouldnt be complaining that their local carpenters son was saying he was God. They would have heard it before.

[Umar001]

There is no record. If he was preaching or doing miracles or saying he was the son-of-god, people would have picked up on it.
Theres one mention of the twelve year old running off one day and mum & dad found him in the temple. "You should have known I would be in my fathers house".

Do all records survive? Meaning could there have been records which were later deemed heretical and thus destroyed? Or even records which we have now which are deemed heretical.

If he had done mighty deedz B4 this, the people of his home town wouldnt be complaining that their local carpenters son was saying he was God. They would have heard it before.

How do you know they complained? Because of the Gospel. Also, maybe they complained because they thought he was working magic instead of using God as a source.

[barney]

Do all records survive? Meaning could there have been records which were later deemed heretical and thus destroyed? Or even records which we have now which are deemed heretical.



How do you know they complained? Because of the Gospel. Also, maybe they complained because they thought he was working magic instead of using God as a source.

The only solid evidence that Jesus was a real historical being any more than Oliver Twist is the Bible.
Most Religion's have had a lot of time to wash any laundry. Burning "heretical" works that disagree with the establishment.
Abrogating embarrassing verses.

Why the fantastic record of Jesus's actions from the age of 29 and nothing before? Well because he simply wasnt doing anything before.
If he rebuilt a temple or said a psalm or caused water to turn into cottage cheese, then surely thats important. It would have gone into the book.
It dosnt, this mortal-immortal simply carries on a bog standard life for 29 years then one day, a old woman comes up to the house and asks if Jesus is around, cos he did a really good job on her roof last year so can he fix the broken spoke on her chariot?
"Sorry love...He's not here any more....Turns out he is the alpha and omega, the light everlasting, creator of the universe and God himself who's come to visit us. He's over on the galalee coast walking on water, if your quick he might have a free slot to get it fixed next week"

[Umar001]

The only solid evidence that Jesus was a real historical being any more than Oliver Twist is the Bible.

That does not indicate whether the source is strong or not though, sure we can ascertain that there was an individual called Jesus, why else would they write that, but is the image within those Gospels right? That's a different question.

Most Religion's have had a lot of time to wash any laundry. Burning "heretical" works that disagree with the establishment.
Abrogating embarrassing verses.

The problem arises when one cannot tell which is heritical and that which isn't.

Why the fantastic record of Jesus's actions from the age of 29 and nothing before? Well because he simply wasnt doing anything before.
If he rebuilt a temple or said a psalm or caused water to turn into cottage cheese, then surely thats important. It would have gone into the book.

There are other possible reasons, for example, the Oral Tradition which had instances from Jesus' childhood may have been deemed false by those who wrote 'our' Bible.

So for example you get later gospels stating that in his childhood Jesus did x.y.z, are such things from genuine tradition? We cannot know! Imagine we did not have the Gospel of matthew and luke, people would say 'Pffft virgin birth, that only was made up later on!'

You see?

[barney]

Heretical is whatever conflicts with the particular schism of the time and location.
Protestant teachings were Heretical; we fought a civil war over it.
Jo Smiths teachings, Arienism, the Libary of alexandria, abrogated Quranic Verses.
All the above show how heresy is a matter of time and place.

[Umar001]

Heretical is whatever conflicts with the particular schism of the time and location.
Protestant teachings were Heretical; we fought a civil war over it.
Jo Smiths teachings, Arienism, the Libary of alexandria, abrogated Quranic Verses.
All the above show how heresy is a matter of time and place.

And the question is, what is heretical with regards to the teachings of Jesus?

[barney]

That he was an ordinary man. That he had a wife or kids, that he did not preform miracles.

Jesus's Teachings were Heretical to the Jews as he claimed to be the Messiah, the person who signaled the end times. They killed him so that they could prove him wrong, but his followers got around that by the whole Easter Story.
Jesus's Teachings are heretical to the muslims,(as you know) because he said he was the son of god. God has no son...or daughters.

[Umar001]

That he was an ordinary man. That he had a wife or kids, that he did not preform miracles.

Jesus's Teachings were Heretical to the Jews as he claimed to be the Messiah, the person who signaled the end times. They killed him so that they could prove him wrong, but his followers got around that by the whole Easter Story.
Jesus's Teachings are heretical to the muslims,(as you know) because he said he was the son of god. God has no son...or daughters.

And the sources of this knowledge you have?

Also, I ask again what is heretical (opposes) the teachings of Jesus? In order to know what opposes his teaching you need to know his teaching, I assume. So that is the question.

[barney]

Source is the Bible.


Jesus claims to be the messiah, The jews condem him as a heretic, procecute and have him killed.

I think im missing your point, because you already know that?

Why do I think he is an ordinary man? That could take forever to explain, and tonight ,i'm not up to it, (being rather worse the wear for wine).
If thats what you mean , I'll compile my evidence and post it.

[Umar001]

Source is the Bible.

Ok, I'd say, no Jesus did not claim sonship, source Qur'an. We would have to analyse the sources, this is what I mean

Jesus claims to be the messiah, The jews condem him as a heretic, procecute and have him killed.

I think im missing your point, because you already know that?

But what you are taking for granted is the source, you claim this based upon knowledge which is dependent upon a source, now, what I am thinking about is t he reliability of the source.

[barney]

Oh the source is fulla holes. I dont beleive 2% of the bible or any other scripture, I was simply saying from a jewish point of veiw he was a Heretic. Their scriptures dont acknowlage him at all, of course.

From a Muslim point of veiw to beleive that he is a deity is heresy. God has no sons, Mohammed transmitted.

Poor old Christians. Nobody else buys into it. :(
Pretty cool story as well.

[Umar001]

Oh the source is fulla holes. I dont beleive 2% of the bible or any other scripture, I was simply saying from a jewish point of veiw he was a Heretic. Their scriptures dont acknowlage him at all, of course.

From a Muslim point of veiw to beleive that he is a deity is heresy. God has no sons, Mohammed transmitted.

Poor old Christians. Nobody else buys into it. :(
Pretty cool story as well.

Ok, then maybe you can explain why you dont believe that the Bible, more accurately to our discussion the Gospels are not accurate source for the life of Jesus?

[ddz]

I beleive that the gospels are a FAIRLY accurate source of Jesus, in the bible, the 4 gospels in order are Matthew Mark Luke and John, but through close examination, we are able to insinuate that Mark was actually the first source, this is because the works of Jesus and his teachings within Mark are carried out through Matthew and Luke pretty much the same. In theory, Matthew and Luke had a new source which scholars beleive to be the 'lost source' popularly called source 'Q' (I dont know why lol) thats why Mark is the shortest of Gospels, and has more simplistic grammer with the continuous use of 'and' to continue on a story. If you examine Luke and Matthew, they are rich in grammer and have seperate stories as well as different eye witness accounts. Sure, there may be a lot of differences and contridictions within the 2 books, and perhaps the book of Mark as well. This is because when Jesus asscended into Heaven, many thought he would appear again, in what they called 'Parousia' meaning second coming. With the mentality that Jesus would re appear once again, many thought that there was no need to write down his life in documents, plus hiring scribes I imagine would have been very expensive. So stories were told through word of mouth. After about 100-200 years after the death of Jesus, people began to document his life because the parousia had not occured as they expected. The books were not written close to each other through time, Mark is estimated to have been written roughly 70-90 years before Matthew and Luke, and Matthew and Luke is beleived to be have written by authors relativley close in time to each other, about 10 years roughly.

Each author is writing to a different type of audience. Matthew wrote for the messianic Jews. Luke wrote for a Gentile and Non Jewish Christian Audience. Mark is beleived to be aimed at a Judeo-Christian audience.

Mark concentrated more on Jesus' Humanity and Divinity. Matthew concentrated on Jesus' Royalty through a jewish Lineage and Bloodline, tracing his roots back to King David. Luke portrayed Jesus coming for everyone both Jews and Non Jews alike.

Now, The elevation of Jesus Christ through the Bible is evident and can be traced back to the Old Testament. He is prophecised in the prophetic books-

Micah 5:1-2 (NIV) Marshal your troops, O city of troops, for a siege is laid against us. They will strike Israel's ruler on the cheek with a rod. 2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."

Deuteronomy 18:18 (NIV) 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.

Acts 3:20-22 (NIV) and that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you--even Jesus. 21 He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets. 22 For Moses said, 'The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you.

etc etc and I beleive he is elevated within the first three gospels in their own approach.

The book of John however has a Jesus preaching the Logos (The Word) there is no birth of Jesus, nor information on his past life. After the prologue it concentrates on Jesus' Ministry. Jesus is the same person in all 4 Gospels, but the Ethos and Theological emphasis differ.

Christology is made evident within John, and he describes Jesus as the Logos - The Word.. which parallels the book of Genesis and John's Prologue 1:1

Genesis

In the Beginning God created the Heavens and Earth

John

In the beginning there was the Word and the Word was with God

In this context it is clear that Jesus is elevated. Through the Prophets Jesus is made eveident to cause an impact within his time. Over the years there have been different interpretations on Jesus, but his humble and loving qualties stay the same. There are arguments of whether he claimed Divinity, but one cant argue that Jesus has made a huge impact within our lives regardless of religion.

[Pygoscelis]

This talk about how Jews regard Jesus reminds me of a conversation I had the other day with a fundamentalist Christian. Fellow hated jews becasue they killed Jesus. He didn't seem to realize that if jews hadn't killed Jesus he'd not have his salvation. Seems to me if anything he should be thanking the Jews for playing their part in bringing him an afterlife off bliss in paradise.

[Keltoi]

This talk about how Jews regard Jesus reminds me of a conversation I had the other day with a fundamentalist Christian. Fellow hated jews becasue they killed Jesus. He didn't seem to realize that if jews hadn't killed Jesus he'd not have his salvation. Seems to me if anything he should be thanking the Jews for playing their part in bringing him an afterlife off bliss in paradise.

Any Christian who hates Jews has no idea what their faith is in the first place.

[barney]

Ok, then maybe you can explain why you dont believe that the Bible, more accurately to our discussion the Gospels are not accurate source for the life of Jesus?

That could be a long post. But i'll sum it up by saying that the stories of the Apostles contradict each other in many many ways.
Just take the story of the open tomb. We have angels inside, outside, not visable, two of them, one of them. The gaurds are gone, asleep outside, Jesus meets mary outside the garden, then she dosnt.

The Apostles clearly got together after Jesus was killed and decided on a basic story. They diddnt have time to thrash out the details. They stuck in miracles, angels and events as they thought of them, whilst still trying to adhere to the basic story of rising from the dead.

Some speeches and events are clearly based on real events. The entering of jerusalem. There must have been a fair crowd come to see the celebrity. I fear for the palm tree population of Jerusalem if all 30000 each threw down a leaf.
Some not so much:
As Jesus died, hundreds of old dead prophets rose from the graves and wandered about the fully populated city.......for days........And this is mentioned in one place. The Bible, by one person.:?

It's impossible to know what is real and whats not about the life of Jesus. Since so much is clearly falsified by the apostles, I start at 0% and work my way up. Evry apostle says that Jesus preached loving your brother, so thats a safe bet that he said something similar.

Really needs to be made into a "science"!

[ddz]

Any Christian who hates Jews has no idea what their faith is in the first place.

Thats true, maybe it could have been that they still dont see Jesus as important or hold his work credible even to this day, and they are still waiting on their messiah to come down and save them.. I dont know if he meant that lool but OMG if he really does hate Jews for killing Jesus thennn... he needs to think long and hard what religion he'd be if it didnt happen

[Keltoi]

That could be a long post. But i'll sum it up by saying that the stories of the Apostles contradict each other in many many ways.
Just take the story of the open tomb. We have angels inside, outside, not visable, two of them, one of them. The gaurds are gone, asleep outside, Jesus meets mary outside the garden, then she dosnt.

The Apostles clearly got together after Jesus was killed and decided on a basic story. They diddnt have time to thrash out the details. They stuck in miracles, angels and events as they thought of them, whilst still trying to adhere to the basic story of rising from the dead.

Some speeches and events are clearly based on real events. The entering of jerusalem. There must have been a fair crowd come to see the celebrity. I fear for the palm tree population of Jerusalem if all 30000 each threw down a leaf.
Some not so much:
As Jesus died, hundreds of old dead prophets rose from the graves and wandered about the fully populated city.......for days........And this is mentioned in one place. The Bible, by one person.:?

It's impossible to know what is real and whats not about the life of Jesus. Since so much is clearly falsified by the apostles, I start at 0% and work my way up. Evry apostle says that Jesus preached loving your brother, so thats a safe bet that he said something similar.

Really needs to be made into a "science"!

The Apostles didn't "get together" and create anything. They are separate accounts written years apart relating the same events. The issues surrounding the Resurrection narrative are distinct yet similar on the fundamentals. As the old analogy goes, no two witnesses describe a car accident in the same way. One will concentrate on a particular aspect, while another will focus on a different one.

[barney]

Kelt, the Apostles diddnt suddenly stop seeing each other after Jesus died. Except Paul of course who never knew the others they at least left some txt messages or emails for each other on what to do now, how to hide, where to run to, not to spill any more beans, who was going to hang Judas, that sorta thing.
For all twelve/thirteen to never see each other again ever maks no sense. Having a last few meet-ups in a hurried, hunted way does.

I Agree with your analogy re the car crash.
Some people will say its a blue car, others a blue truck, some will say someone was killed, another will say that there was blood, another that there was nobody hurt, some will say the red bus skidded and the police came straight away. Others that the Fire Brigade came after half an hour.

Jesus, a well known and popular/unpopular figure, a major celebrity, returned from the dead, for forty days (again) and forty Nights (again), did many new miracles and was seen by many.

The Romans forgot to mention any of this. "Yeah, Elvis was electrocuted in the chair, but the following week he put on a full preformance" The Romans were pretty good record keepers.
The Jews who hated him declined to mention that the chap they had procecuted and buried was suddenly up and around again doing the same stuff, FOR OVER A MONTH!
Again, not a sausage of a mention in any contempory notes.
The Followers of Jesus would have been astounded and overjoyed. He actually came back from the dead? Well that means that he's the Son of God! Along with all those other prophets who "rose from the grave and were seen by many" the night he died.

But Like them, a city full of wandering corpses doing astounding things, in the light of a cultured and highly developed civilisation is mentioned by less than a half dozen people. That in itself would be OK. But these half dozen just happened to be the prophets best mates!
Even his old followers declined to make any note of their dead leader wandering about.

[Umar001]

I beleive that the gospels are a FAIRLY accurate source of Jesus, in the bible, the 4 gospels in order are Matthew Mark Luke and John, but through close examination, we are able to insinuate that Mark was actually the first source, this is because the works of Jesus and his teachings within Mark are carried out through Matthew and Luke pretty much the same. In theory, Matthew and Luke had a new source which scholars beleive to be the 'lost source' popularly called source 'Q' (I dont know why lol) thats why Mark is the shortest of Gospels, and has more simplistic grammer with the continuous use of 'and' to continue on a story. If you examine Luke and Matthew, they are rich in grammer and have seperate stories as well as different eye witness accounts.

Ok I think we agree so far. Q is called Q because it stands for the German Quelle meaning source. :)

Sure, there may be a lot of differences and contridictions within the 2 books, and perhaps the book of Mark as well. This is because when Jesus asscended into Heaven, many thought he would appear again, in what they called 'Parousia' meaning second coming. With the mentality that Jesus would re appear once again, many thought that there was no need to write down his life in documents, plus hiring scribes I imagine would have been very expensive. So stories were told through word of mouth. After about 100-200 years after the death of Jesus, people began to document his life because the parousia had not occured as they expected. The books were not written close to each other through time, Mark is estimated to have been written roughly 70-90 years before Matthew and Luke, and Matthew and Luke is beleived to be have written by authors relativley close in time to each other, about 10 years roughly.

I don't think I agree with the dates. They seem very great. But I do understand your possible explanation for why people did not put pen to paper straight away. This is one plausible explanation, as I understand it.

Each author is writing to a different type of audience. Matthew wrote for the messianic Jews. Luke wrote for a Gentile and Non Jewish Christian Audience. Mark is beleived to be aimed at a Judeo-Christian audience.

Mark concentrated more on Jesus' Humanity and Divinity. Matthew concentrated on Jesus' Royalty through a jewish Lineage and Bloodline, tracing his roots back to King David. Luke portrayed Jesus coming for everyone both Jews and Non Jews alike.

We do not know that, we can only assume through reading the text and seeing how it is worded and changes from other areas. We can only assume who the authors of Mark, Matthew or Luke or John were writing to.

Now, The elevation of Jesus Christ through the Bible is evident and can be traced back to the Old Testament. He is prophecised in the prophetic books-

This is an assumption that those passages, in the OT, are speaking about Jesus. They may be not.

etc etc and I beleive he is elevated within the first three gospels in their own approach.

The question is, is Jesus elevated from Gospel to Gospel as time went on? If he was then who was the real Jesus?

Thank you for engaging in this discussion and as you said at the start of the thread, I beleive that the gospels are a FAIRLY accurate source of Jesus the question is, why do you have that belief? What is it based on?

This talk about how Jews regard Jesus reminds me of a conversation I had the other day with a fundamentalist Christian. Fellow hated jews becasue they killed Jesus. He didn't seem to realize that if jews hadn't killed Jesus he'd not have his salvation. Seems to me if anything he should be thanking the Jews for playing their part in bringing him an afterlife off bliss in paradise.

Reminded me of these lines of a poem:

If the Lord was murdered by some people’s act…what sort of god is this?

We wonder! Was He pleased by what they did to Him? If yes, blessed be they..they achieved the pleasure of His

But if He was discontented….this means their power subjugated His!!

That could be a long post. But i'll sum it up by saying that the stories of the Apostles contradict each other in many many ways.
Just take the story of the open tomb. We have angels inside, outside, not visable, two of them, one of them. The gaurds are gone, asleep outside, Jesus meets mary outside the garden, then she dosnt.

The Apostles clearly got together after Jesus was killed and decided on a basic story. They diddnt have time to thrash out the details. They stuck in miracles, angels and events as they thought of them, whilst still trying to adhere to the basic story of rising from the dead.

Some speeches and events are clearly based on real events. The entering of jerusalem. There must have been a fair crowd come to see the celebrity. I fear for the palm tree population of Jerusalem if all 30000 each threw down a leaf.
Some not so much:
As Jesus died, hundreds of old dead prophets rose from the graves and wandered about the fully populated city.......for days........And this is mentioned in one place. The Bible, by one person.:?

It's impossible to know what is real and whats not about the life of Jesus. Since so much is clearly falsified by the apostles, I start at 0% and work my way up. Evry apostle says that Jesus preached loving your brother, so thats a safe bet that he said something similar.

Really needs to be made into a "science"!

The underlining assumption you have is that the Apostoles (eyewitnesses) were behind the Gospels. What if the Gospels were written by authors who had recieved information through oral or written sources? Who then shaped the Gospels according to their communities' needs, this should explain some of the contradictions and theological writings which may not be historical.

The question then would be how much has Jesus changed.

Thank you all for keeping this thread civil.

[barney]

The underlining assumption you have is that the Apostoles (eyewitnesses) were behind the Gospels. What if the Gospels were written by authors who had recieved information through oral or written sources? Who then shaped the Gospels according to their communities' needs, this should explain some of the contradictions and theological writings which may not be historical.

The question then would be how much has Jesus changed.

.

Yeah, thats the big question, and impossible to answer! There were many factions up to the 300AD mark who beleived that Christ was mortal, Nicia straightened that out so that everyone was singing more or less from the same hymnbook.

I would look at duplication as a grounding point.
Some messages, Love your neighbour, do good to others as you would want done to yourself and I am the way and the truth and the light, are repeated again and again.
I often find that a core message in any scripture is repeated over and over so that it becomes a mantra, this obviously aids rememberance but can also point to the words being actually said at some point, or similar words.
If we look at Hadiths, we will find substansively different narrators convaying the same message with minor changes, all due to the memory of the listener.
This is part of how Hadiths are assigned their authenticity?

I would also look at external sources, unfortunatly no contempary of Jesus other than the apsostles,(if indeed it was them) ever recorded a word about him, so we have to draw a blank here.

[Umar001]

Yeah, thats the big question, and impossible to answer! There were many factions up to the 300AD mark who beleived that Christ was mortal, Nicia straightened that out so that everyone was singing more or less from the same hymnbook.

I would look at duplication as a grounding point.
Some messages, Love your neighbour, do good to others as you would want done to yourself and I am the way and the truth and the light, are repeated again and again.
I often find that a core message in any scripture is repeated over and over so that it becomes a mantra, this obviously aids rememberance but can also point to the words being actually said at some point, or similar words.
If we look at Hadiths, we will find substansively different narrators convaying the same message with minor changes, all due to the memory of the listener.
This is part of how Hadiths are assigned their authenticity?

I would also look at external sources, unfortunatly no contempary of Jesus other than the apsostles,(if indeed it was them) ever recorded a word about him, so we have to draw a blank here.

But you see, if a statement is repeated this could indicate that it is genuine, but that depends, on whether the different sources are indipendent of each other. Example, a teacher is teaching a class, you look at the student's notes a week after and find that alot of the students note that 1+1=3, now, due to the number of people who wrote that you may conclude, well that is what the teacher said, but if you knew or if it was possible that the students copied notes from one student, or a group of students who were working together on the same table/group then this means that it is not the number of people that counts.

You get what I mean? The fact that all the Gospels have a saying common to them does not neccesarily mean that the saying came from Jesus, it could be that those Gospel writers had the same source (i.e. other than Jesus) And so this is what happens with people look at manuscripts.

It is not neccesarily the quantity of one reading that shows whether it is true or not, rather it is the quality of where it is found.

If that doesn't make sense I'll explain further.

The study of hadith works different, in that the individuals who study this start with a basis of knowing who said what to some extent. This eliminates various things which can keep one in darkness.

[barney]

But you see, if a statement is repeated this could indicate that it is genuine, but that depends, on whether the different sources are indipendent of each other. Example, a teacher is teaching a class, you look at the student's notes a week after and find that alot of the students note that 1+1=3, now, due to the number of people who wrote that you may conclude, well that is what the teacher said, but if you knew or if it was possible that the students copied notes from one student, or a group of students who were working together on the same table/group then this means that it is not the number of people that counts.

You get what I mean? The fact that all the Gospels have a saying common to them does not neccesarily mean that the saying came from Jesus, it could be that those Gospel writers had the same source (i.e. other than Jesus) And so this is what happens with people look at manuscripts.

It is not neccesarily the quantity of one reading that shows whether it is true or not, rather it is the quality of where it is found.

If that doesn't make sense I'll explain further.

The study of hadith works different, in that the individuals who study this start with a basis of knowing who said what to some extent. This eliminates various things which can keep one in darkness.

No thats ok, it makes sense :thumbs_up.
Thats why i'm very open to the option that they just gathered together in a meeting shortly after his death and thrashed out the details breifly.:)