Who was Jesus really? (page 3)

Spectrum

Narkissos,
" Matthew consistently points to such a "fulfillment" while its main narrative source, Mark (or an early form of Mark) didn't."
But Mark must have thought of Him as the Messiah therefore the fulfillment of the prophecies are implied.

"It seems to me that the OT material was first used to create most of the Jesus stories, and then the literary source was pointed to as "prophecy fulfilled" "
Does this not imply #2. I think they were all in it together. They needed a focus guy and that was Jesus the Nazarene - probably highly intelligent. He took the role of the Messiah and the rest aided him to that end. This was a group of people that had had enough of the pharasee class and the burden of the Law. They had staganted for 400 years and were under the yolk of the Romans and the Law.

Narkissos

" Matthew consistently points to such a "fulfillment" while its main narrative source, Mark (or an early form of Mark) didn't."

But Mark must have thought of Him as the Messiah therefore the fulfillment of the prophecies are implied.

Yes, and I would say "more than the Messiah" ("son of God" in a sense higher than any political "messiah" needed to be)... but it's all in the text-making and does not imply a smart individual "Jesus" manipulating anything on the historical stage.

This was a group of people that had had enough of the pharasee class and the burden of the Law. They had staganted for 400 years and were under the yolk of the Romans and the Law.

Again, I think most of us are victims of an optical illusion here. The Pharisaic stance on the Law was never normative before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD -- that is, long after the time ascribed to Jesus, but prior to the writing of the Gospels. Another thing is, from a 1st-century Jewish point of view struggle against the Law and struggle against the Romans are antinomic to a large extent. All known nationalistic anti-Roman Jewish movements advocated strict adherence to the Law, and anyone speaking against the Law (e.g. Paul) would be suspect, with some reason, of being at least objectively pro-Roman. Most of the NT, including the picture of a "lawless" Jesus, can be assessed as pro-Roman from this standard (conspicuously so in Luke-Acts). And wherever some anti-Roman feeling can be felt (Matthew, and especially Revelation) Jesus does not appear in opposition to the Law (conspicuously so in Matthew).

acadian

Spectrum asked...

acadian,

What point do you want to make?

Only that we can grasp at straws, or do the research as to the Nazarene's beliefs and practices. And by doing that, we might gain some insight into who Jesus really was/is. What the Roman/Pauline churhces teach, is NOT what Jesus taught.

Acadian

Hondo

1. Was he the Son of God and some kind of god himself?

2. Was he an extremely intelligent man that manipulated people and made himself appear to be fullfilling the prophecies about the Messiah?

3. Was he a dellusional nutter?

If you factor in hermaneutics while reading the bible and take into account the history, language, culture, philosphy, and overall way of life of the period before and after the accounts of Jesus, you will find that there were quite a few "nutters" and manipulative people who claimed to meet the criteria of savior fortold by some past prophet or holy person. I think the question that should be asked, is why did this particular Jesus make such an impact? Why did this Jesus (The name Jesus was a common name 2000+ years ago) claim the following (apparently 10's of thousands of people) he did? Was this Jesus really the son of God, the Messiah, or just the "Billy Graham" of his time? Why was a book, the bible, invented, based on this particular person, to tell the story leading up to his birth and part of his life? Have we all be hoodwinked? Are what are we all basing our faith on?

skyman

Have not made my mind up. All I know is that the bible talks about Jesus and I have found out the if you go back to the oldest know text only 18% in gospels of our modern bible is correct when it tlaks about Jesus so 82% of the time the older text do not agree with the new bible and this has me asking what the HELL is going on here. Why did not the Romans write about JESUS but they did writer about a Christ that lived at the very same time that Jesus of the bible lived. I found that linguist do not believe Josephus account about Jesus is actually Josephus writing but an imposter adding it into Josephus writing hundereds of years later.

Spectrum

Hondo,
I've never heard of these thousands of nutters claiming to be the Messiah. Are you sure?
But you are right we have to start with the correct premise otherwise we are BSing ourselves.

Skyman,
I thought that the NT was pretty accurately handed down. Apparently very few mistakes were introduced. The problem is that they were written some time after Christ where events could not be corroborated, also Paul came along and possibly added his own flavour of Christianity.

Jake99

Not only has everything happened in recent years that reveal the true messiah, but it has been seven years since he admitted to it in 5 Massachusetts courts and asked for the surrender of the judicial system. They tried to crucify him but he walked away and now uses different methods with which to skin the cat.

You are looking for a genetically perfect man who is great at everything, leads by example to perfection, performs miracles and prophecies by intention and with intention. He is physically among you and has left a tremendous residue in his wake as he sped past unseen right in front of the eyes of many.

LittleToe

Well, regardless of what the bible and scholars through the ages have to say, he was certainly very impressive when I met him

Hondo

Hello Spectrum

I only suggested several other "saviors" not thousands (Jesus had thousands of followers), which there probably were. The book Sixteen Crucified Saviors of Christianity Before Christ; Kersey Graves, suggest this premise, albeit with some controversy. Even the bible mentions that there may come false prophets, or others who will proclaim words of God, but falsely.

JamesThomas

Ross:

Well, regardless of what the bible and scholars through the ages have to say, he was certainly very impressive when I met him

Did such a phenominal appearance awaken the seeing consciousness as being truth itself, or did it in any way reinforce the concept of truth being somehow confined, fragmented, separate and apart: as other? If it was the latter, I would say that no-matter how glorious, it was not the Christ you witnessed, but the devil (allegorically speaking <IMHO>). j

Who was Jesus really?

Share this