Who was Jesus really? (page 4)

skyman

Spectrum you need to do some real research I was not exsaggerating what I said.

Narkissos

Ross,

The Bible nerd in me was about to ask whether it was Matthew's, Mark's, Luke's or John's (I'd bet on the latter).

But jt's deeper question reminds me of the beautiful reply once given (not sure by whom, perhaps Raimon Panikkar) to Karl Barth's definition of God as the "Wholly other": "Wholly other indeed, and wholly other than another."

LittleToe

James:In the first instance may I say that you are in no place to denigrate the experience of another, regardless of your opinion, as to make the kind of suggestions that you are here making is beyond arrogance.

But to the point of your question, it opened my mind rather than closed it. It was also, lest you misunderstand, an experience secondary to and on wholey another occassion from the one in which I was "awakened".

You'll excuse me, I hope, for taking the occasion to comment that of late your posts are getting more dogmatic and evangelistic regarding your own position. Your exchange with Dansk being a case in point. A militant nihilist - I never thought I'd see such a thing

LittleToe

Didier:It was none of the above, but the closest thing it would resonate with is John's.

skyman

Spectrum look at Luke it say’s that Jesus was baptized when he was about 30 years old account. Luke 3:1-2 3 In the fifteenth year of the reign of Ti·be´ri·us Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Ju·de´a, and Herod *[Antipus Grand son of King Herod the Great] ruler of Gal´i·lee, but Philip his brother was district ruler of the country of It·u·rae´a and Trach·o·ni´tis, and Ly·sa´ni·as was district ruler of Ab·i·le´ne, 2

(Matthew 2:1-4) 2 After Jesus had been born in Beth´le·hem of Ju·de´a in the days of Herod the king,

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke do not agree about the time line of Jesus Birth. Historical records say the King Herod died 4years before our common era or 4 BCE

Luke says that it took place when Cyrenius was governor. Here is another mistake. . Cyrenius was not appointed governor until after the death of Herod, and the taxing had to of happened ten years after the alleged birth of Christ. According to Luke, Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth, to have Jesus born in the right place, the taxing under Cyrenius was used, but the writer, being "inspired" made a mistake by about ten years as to the time of the taxing and of the birth. Matthew says nothing about the date of the birth, except that he was born when Herod was king. first census under Quirinius in 15 B.C.E, 21 years before the second census of A.D. 6 (Chronos, Kairos, Christos, p. 305). This put Jesus born in 12BCE this is a big problem WHY? becasue Jossephus put Jesus alive at a much later date. The only way the two could be correct is that the bible is wrong when it says about 30 and he was really baptized at least 40 years of age.

It is clear to me that some scribe century's later wrote Matthew that is the very least of what has to be true, if not all the Gospels were written by scribes much after the life of the real Jesus to make the bible fit their version of events to unite Roman No matter how you slice it Luke has big problems when it come to comparing it to other writings. So the bibles account taken with other writings do not match up. Unless you throw one or the other out as being un-true. This is only a small problem. The reason the bible is off at lest 82% of the time is because one book does not agree with the other book. Only 18% of the time does any of the gospel match up.

Spectrum

Skyman,
I don't doubt that their are contradictions in the NT just that what was handed down from scribe to scribe was quite faithfully copied. At least that's what I heard.
I think now most scholars put Jesus's birth at 6/7 BC. They are pretty confident that that is quite accurate. I don't know if that would tally with your other points.

Regarding Matthew try the link below.

http://www.probe.org/content/view/678/77/

Little Toe,
What form did he take!

JamesThomas

Ross:

In the first instance may I say that you are in no place to denigrate the experience of another, regardless of your opinion, as to make the kind of suggestions that you are here making is beyond arrogance.
But to the point of your question, it opened my mind rather than closed it. It was also, lest you misunderstand, an experience secondary to and on wholey another occassion from the one in which I was "awakened".
You'll excuse me, I hope, for taking the occasion to comment that of late your posts are getting more dogmatic and evangelistic regarding your own position. Your exchange with Dansk being a case in point. A militant nihilist - I never thought I'd see such a thing

Dear Ross. The essence and theme of 99% of my posts is simply that the actual purity of what words like Buddha, God, Christ, Holiness, etc., point to, are not far away but rather the actual truth of our being (right now!).

You know that what I am saying is that the Christ, which Christians name themselves after and say they love, is in no way limited, or small, or separate, but rather unending and closest of close. One would think that hearing that ones Beloved is far greater and far closer than before thought or believed, would be good news to Christians; as in your case, it rarely is.

What king of "love" is it, that is offended at ones Beloved being exalted? What kind of love is it, that is displeased and resentful at hearing that the Beloved is unrestricted and present as our own true-being here and now? What kind of love is it that is content only when the Beloved is diminished and minimized to an object separate? Perhaps, dear Ross, your anger towards me is misdirected, and you would benefit standing in front of a mirror for a while.

I feel freer to say things more directly and openly to you and dear Ian, for the obvious reasons that you seem serious enough to take the heat; and though you are acting like a bruised little flower right now, my sense is you're pretty tough.

alt

j

tetrapod.sapien

yup, that ross is a hard little nut to crack!

ts

skyman

Spectrum

In your link above how does the author Know this? The reason for the variations is that each author wrote to a different audience Mark wrote to a Greek or Gentile audience…. Did he have a crystal ball? That is total conjecture he don’t know what the author is doing is leading you to a point of his choosing.

The biggest problem is the fact that we do not have the originals, not even close to the originals, hundreds of years off from the originals I have research the claim that portions of Mark was found in the dead see scrolls and I think it probably does but it does not mention Jesus Christ is the person being written about. You have to think for a minute out of the box. There was another Christ that lived at the same time the Jesus of the bible lived. This Christ has historical evidence outside the bible. The portions of the book of Mark found in the dead sea scrolls might be talking about this other Christ (or the real Jesus of the bible) The Romans talk in depth about him but he did not have the name Jesus, his name was Judas Khrestus. Why did Romans not mention Jesus if he was the Christ of the bible? The Jesus of the bible at least the man had to have lived but maybe he was not the person the Church later made him out to be in the gospels. Josephus writing about Jesus does not make sense because no Roman would write such a glamorous article about a Jewish dog. Josephus writing when he talks about Jesus changes grammatically proving Josephus was not the author of historical record of Josephus but that someone else added this section into his writings. Then you have the book of Thomas this book should be part of your bible canon because Thomas was Jesus brother according to the Bible we have today. Thomas book is older than the manuscripts of the other gospels making it the authority book or the closest to Jesus. This book contradicts the other Gospel wildly. I have the a copy of Thomas that highlights every contradiction. There are hundreds of them and we do not know if Thomas is close to the original. But we do know this the Chruch tried to burn all the books of Thomas but they forgot one. Tahnk God.

LittleToe

James:Methinks you've partially misunderstood. I concur entirely with your last post. Further I'm not angry in the slightest and bear you no ill will

Spectrum:
To describe would be to sully. Please don't ask me to put into words that which cannot be properly expressed in words...

Who was Jesus really?

Share this