Elevation of Christ, Jesus

format_quote Originally Posted by Al Habeshi

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.

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

format_quote Originally Posted by 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

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.

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

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.

format_quote Originally Posted by Al Habeshi

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

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!

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

format_quote Originally Posted by barney

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

And:

format_quote Originally Posted by 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.

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.

format_quote Originally Posted by 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 ...

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.

format_quote Originally Posted by glo

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.

format_quote Originally Posted by glo

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.

format_quote Originally Posted by glo

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.

format_quote Originally Posted by glo

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.

format_quote Originally Posted by glo

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).

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

format_quote Originally Posted by Al Habeshi

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! )
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

format_quote Originally Posted by glo

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.

format_quote Originally Posted by glo

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.

format_quote Originally Posted by glo

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.

format_quote Originally Posted by glo

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)

format_quote Originally Posted by 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?

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"



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 ...)
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_problem[/url]

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.

Greetings, Al Habeshi and Yusuf

Lads, lads, I can tell that you would love to engage in a lengthy debate here ... 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

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.

format_quote Originally Posted by Al Habeshi

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.

format_quote Originally Posted by glo

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.

Wa Alaykum Salam,

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

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

Salaam