Did Jesus think he was God ? or

[Lt_Ripley]

Did Jesus think he was God or was this made up by man ?

Jesus was a Othodox Jew and according to their beliefs about the messiah , which he would have been well aware ....

Jews do not believe that the messiah will be divine. A fundamental difference between Judaism and Christianity is the Jewish conviction that God is so essentially different from and beyond humanity that he could never become a human.

Moreover, Jews find no foundation in the scriptures for such a belief about the messiah. Passages viewed by Christians as indicating a divine messiah (such as the suffering servant of Isaiah 53) are viewed by Jews as speaking of the people of Israel,

Jesus would have been well aware of the above... that God could never become human.

So if Jesus , being a good Jew , wouldn't think himself God why do Christians ?

[Beckys_Mom]

I know a lot of men that think they are god LMAO....My brother for one.......What is the difference between GOD and My Brother??......simple - God doesnt think he is my brother

ok jokes aside...SERIOUSLY...I am not sure...for when the bible states - I am he........then later states (more than once)...Jesus is the son of god...and later you readwhere jesus looks up and says - of father why have you forsaken me??

IMO the character jesus was not god...from reading the book, he was gods son

Edited April 25, 2009 by Beckys_Mom

[Nik Xues]

Because a majority of christians are pagan converts.

In order to convert pagans, christ was likened to some known deities in order to win them over.

[=Jak=]

Poltics in Spritual will confuse all the concept... spritual is gd for individual.... when it comes to community... Money plays its major roll...

[BlindMessiah]

Based on Biblical texts, it seems Jesus believed himself to be God. Now whether or not the historical Jesus did or not, there's really no way to tell.

[Beckys_Mom]

Poltics in Spritual will confuse all the concept... spritual is gd for individual.... when it comes to community... Money plays its major roll...

ok now I am confused LOL...money plays a major roll?? are you in the right thread? LOL...

[+Paranoid Android]

Based on the New Testament texts, Jesus did indeed think of himself as God, and also as the son of God.

Remember that the original followers of Christianity were actually Jews, and for a century after Jesus' death, Christianity was viewed more as an offshoot of Judaism. It wasn't for some time before it became so large and beyond the scope of traditional Judaism that people started seeing it as a separate brand of belief.

[ambelamba]

The term Son of God in Jewish context is totally different from what Christians and Pagans would think. The term was used to address kings, priests, those who do god's will, and the Israelis as the whole.

Gospel of John is the only gospels that OVERTLY claim that Jesus is same as god. In other gospels, it's elusive at best.

[Mr Walker]

If you take the bilical accounts as "gospel" Jesus would have had a hard time thinking of himself as other than a part of god.

COuld a mere human raise the dead, change the state of matter, create matter etc. Would a man who did not believe himself to be an integral part of god expect and claim/explain to others that he would rise from the dead. COuld an ordinary man have done so (based on the testimonies of several different eyewitnesses between ressurection and ascencion.

But it does all depend on ones pre existing "belief or predisposition" Some legitimately/honestly believe and argue that jesus never really existed, others that he was real but not divine. But others are caught in a dilemma where they cannot admit to his reality and divinity, because such an admission comes at too great a personal cost to other beliefs and values they hold more dearly to. Thus, regardless of any thing to the contrary, they deny both the existence and the divinity of jesus because they cannot allow it to be so.

[fullywired]

But it does all depend on ones pre existing "belief or predisposition" Some legitimately/honestly believe and argue that jesus never really existed, others that he was real but not divine. But others are caught in a dilemma where they cannot admit to his reality and divinity, because such an admission comes at too great a personal cost to other beliefs and values they hold more dearly to. Thus, regardless of any thing to the contrary, they deny both the existence and the divinity of jesus because they cannot allow it to be so.

The same can be said of believers in the existence and divinity of Jesus, to paraphrase you They cannot allow it not to be so

fullywired

[Tiggs]

COuld a mere human raise the dead, change the state of matter, create matter etc.

Do you believe that an all-powerful God is unable to grant that gift to any human, if he so wished?

[seanph]

Did Jesus think of himself as God? IMHO, no. He certainly thought himself closer to God than most, hence his use of the word "abba" (Father). And he certainly thought himself as an integral part of the coming Kingdom of God. However, as a devout Jew, to put himself on equal status with Yahweh ... would be tantamount to blasphemy. It was only after his death, a visionary (IMHO) resurrection appearance to one of the apostles (Peter? James? Mary Magdalene?), that divinity was thrust upon him by the post-Easter community. And it wasn't until the Council of Nicaea, that Jesus was determined to be of equal status to God -- to be God.

Bart Ehrman, "Jesus interrupted," page 141:

Back at Moody I had found this line of argumentation completely convincing, and for years I had used it myself in order to convince others of Jesus’ divinity. But that was many years ago, and my thinking had changed drastically. (All of this—Moody Bible Institute, Christian apologetics, C. S. Lewis, Jesus’ identity, my change of thought—all of it flashed through my mind in a split second while I was giving my lecture on John at Chapel Hill.) I had come to see that the very premise of Lewis’s argument was flawed. The argument based on Jesus as liar, lunatic, or Lord was predicated on the assumption that Jesus had called himself God. I had long ago come to believe that he had not. Only in the latest of our Gospels, John, a Gospel that shows considerably more theological sophistication than the others, does Jesus indicate that he is divine. I had come to realize that none of our earliest traditions indicates that Jesus said any such thing about himself. And surely if Jesus had really spent his days in Galilee and then Jerusalem calling himself God, all of our sources would be eager to report it. To put it differently, if Jesus claimed he was divine, it seemed very strange indeed that Matthew, Mark, and Luke all failed to say anything about it. Did they just forget to mention that part?

From the "Oxford Companion to the Bible" (CD-ROM Edition, 1996):

JESUS’ SELF-UNDERSTANDING. WHILE JESUS’ CAREER EVOKED MESSIANIC HOPES AMONG HIS FOLLOWERS AND FEARS AMONG HIS ENEMIES, STAGE I MATERIAL SHOWS HIM RELUCTANT TO ASSERT ANY OVERT MESSIANIC CLAIM. THE SELF-DESIGNATION HE USES IS SON OF MAN. THIS IS SO WIDELY ATTESTED IN THE GOSPEL TRADITION AND OCCURS (WITH ONE OR TWO NEGLIGIBLE EXCEPTIONS) ONLY ON THE LIPS OF JESUS HIMSELF, THAT IT SATISFIES THE MAJOR TESTS OF AUTHENTICITY. IT OCCURS IN ALL PRIMARY STRATA OF THE GOSPEL TRADITION (MARK, Q, SPECIAL MATTHEW, SPECIAL LUKE, AND THE PRE-GOSPEL TRADITION IN JOHN). IT IS NOT ATTESTED AS A MESSIANIC TITLE IN EARLIER JUDAISM AND OCCURS ONLY ONCE OUTSIDE THE GOSPELS (APART FROM CITATIONS OF PSALM 8.5–7), IN ACTS 7.56. SO THERE SHOULD BE NO REASONABLE DOUBT THAT IT WAS A CHARACTERISTIC SELF-DESIGNATION OF THE HISTORICAL JESUS. IT IS NOT A TITLE BUT MEANS “HUMAN ONE,” AND IT IS BEST UNDERSTOOD AS A SELF-EFFACING SELF-REFERENCE. IT IS USED IN CONTEXTS WHERE JESUS SPOKE OF HIS MISSION, FATE, AND FINAL VINDICATION.

JESUS CERTAINLY THOUGHT OF HIMSELF AS A PROPHET (MARK 6.4; LUKE 13.33), BUT THERE WAS A FINAL QUALITY ABOUT HIS MESSAGE AND WORK THAT ENTITLES US TO CONCLUDE THAT HE THOUGHT OF HIMSELF AS GOD’S FINAL, DEFINITIVE EMISSARY TO ISRAEL. HE WAS MORE INTERESTED IN WHAT GOD WAS DOING THROUGH HIM THAN IN WHAT HE WAS IN HIMSELF. HE DID NOT OBTRUDE HIS OWN EGO, YET HIS OWN EGO WAS INCLUDED AS PART OF HIS MESSAGE: “WHOEVER WELCOMES YOU WELCOMES ME, AND WHOEVER WELCOMES ME WELCOMES THE ONE WHO SENT ME” (MATTHEW 10.40 || LUKE 10.16 Q); “FOLLOW ME” (MARK 1.17; ETC.); “THOSE WHO ARE ASHAMED OF ME …” (MARK 8.38); “BLESSED IS ANYONE WHO TAKES NO OFFENSE AT ME (MATTHEW 11.6 || LUKE 7.23 Q); “IF IT IS BY THE SPIRIT [LUKE: “FINGER”] OF GOD THAT I CAST OUT DEMONS …” (MATTHEW 12.28 || LUKE 11.20 Q). JESUS DARED TO SPEAK AND ACT FOR GOD. THIS IS CLEAR IN THE ANTITHESES OF THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT (MATTHEW 5.21–48: “IT WAS SAID TO THOSE OF ANCIENT TIMES … BUT I SAY TO YOU”), IN HIS PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS (WHICH ONLY GOD COULD DO, MARK 2.5–12; LUKE 7.36–50), HIS ACCEPTANCE OF THE OUTCAST AND HEALING OF LEPERS WHO WERE SHUNNED UNDER THE LAW. COUPLED WITH SUCH FEATURES IS THE TREMENDOUS AUTHORITY WITH WHICH JESUS SPOKE AND ACTED, AN AUTHORITY FOR WHICH HE OFFERS NO CREDENTIALS SAVE THAT IT IS INTIMATELY BOUND UP WITH THE AUTHORITY OF THE BAPTIST (MARK 11.27–33) AND RESTS UPON GOD’S FINAL VINDICATION (MARK 8.38 AND LUKE 12.8 Q). JESUS DOES NOT CLAIM OVERTLY TO BE SON OF GOD IN ANY UNIQUE SENSE. PASSAGES IN WHICH HE APPEARS TO DO SO BELONG TO STAGE II OR III OF THE TRADITION. BUT HE DOES CALL GOD “ABBA” IN AN UNUSUAL WAY, WHICH POINTS TO GOD’S CALL TO WHICH HE HAS RESPONDED IN FULL OBEDIENCE, AND THEREFORE WE MAY SPEAK OF HIS UNIQUE SENSE OF SONSHIP. BUT WE MUST BEAR IN MIND THAT IN THIS PALESTINIAN MILIEU SONSHIP DENOTED NOT A METAPHYSICAL QUALITY BUT RATHER A HISTORICAL CALL AND OBEDIENCE. JESUS DID CHALLENGE HIS DISCIPLES TO SAY WHO THEY THOUGHT HE WAS, WHICH ELICITED FROM PETER THE RESPONSE THAT HE WAS THE CHRIST OR MESSIAH (MARK 8.27–30; CF. JOHN 6.66–69). ACCORDING TO MARK, HE NEITHER ACCEPTED NOR REJECTED PETER’S ASSERTION. WHAT DID PETER MEAN, AND IN WHAT SENSE DID JESUS TAKE IT? IT IS COMMONLY THOUGHT THAT IT WAS MEANT IN A POLITICAL-NATIONALIST SENSE AND THAT JESUS REJECTED THIS. IT SEEMS MORE LIKELY, HOWEVER, THAT PETER MEANT IT IN THE SENSE OF THE ANOINTED PROPHET OF ISAIAH 61.1. SUCH A RESPONSE TO JESUS WOULD HAVE BEEN WHOLLY APPROPRIATE AS FAR AS IT WENT. WHAT PETER AND THE OTHER DISCIPLES DID NOT REALIZE, OF COURSE, WAS THAT THIS MISSION EXTENDED BEYOND THE TERMS OF ISAIAH 61 AND THAT IT ALSO INVOLVED REJECTION, SUFFERING, AND DEATH. IT IS POSSIBLE, THOUGH MUCH DISPUTED, THAT JESUS MODELED THIS FURTHER INSIGHT UPON THE FIGURE OF THE SUFFERING SERVANT IN ISAIAH 53. WE COULD BE SURE OF THIS IF MARK 10.45B BELONGS TO STAGE I.

A VERY EARLY TRADITION (ROMANS 1.3) ASSERTED THAT THE EARTHLY JESUS WAS OF A FAMILY DESCENDED FROM THE ROYAL LINE OF DAVID. WE CANNOT BE SURE THAT THIS PLAYED ANY ROLE IN HIS SELF-UNDERSTANDING. FOR THE POST-EASTER COMMUNITY THIS TITLE WAS IMPORTANT AS QUALIFYING HIM FOR THE MESSIANIC ROLE HE ASSUMED AFTER HIS EXALTATION.

THE USE OF “RABBI” AND “MY LORD” IN ADDRESSING JESUS DURING HIS EARTHLY MINISTRY DID NOT DENOTE MAJESTY: THESE WERE TITLES OF RESPECT ACCORDED A CHARISMATIC PERSON. HOWEVER, AS THE CONVICTION GREW AMONG HIS FOLLOWERS THAT HE WAS THE FINAL EMISSARY OF GOD, THESE TERMS WOULD ACQUIRE A HEIGHTENED MEANING.

IN SUM, WE FIND IN THE SYNOPTICS ONLY LIMITED EVIDENCE FOR AN EXPLICIT CHRISTOLOGY IN JESUS’ SELF-UNDERSTANDING, AND SUCH EVIDENCE AS THERE IS IS CRITICALLY SUSPECT. HE WAS MORE CONCERNED WITH WHAT GOD WAS DOING IN HIM THAN WHO HE WAS, ESPECIALLY IN ANY METAPHYSICAL SENSE. BUT WHAT GOD WAS DOING THROUGH HIM IN HIS EARTHLY MINISTRY PROVIDED THE RAW MATERIALS FOR THE CHRISTOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF JESUS AFTER THE EASTER EVENT.--REGINALD H. FULLER, MOLLY LAIRD DOWNS PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT AT VIRGINIA THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

Another reason why I do not believe Jesus proclaimed himself to be divine during his ministry, comes down to the reaction of Paul. Why? Because he does not persecute the Jesus movement for the first three years of its existence. Again, why? It is my belief, that Jesus was simply not making outrageous claims of divinity, that he was not preaching something Paul found overtly objectionable. It is only after Jesus' death, and the claims that the post-Easter community were making, that we now see Paul on the warpath. Obviously, their claims stirred his ire -- that would be an understatement! -- and thus began his persecution against those proclaiming him to be divine in some way, to some degree.

That said, none of this (regarding Paul) might be true at all. It might be that Paul was not even aware of the Jesus movement during those brief three years. He might very well still have been in Tarsus or some such. And there are any number of other factors why he might not have felt Jesus and his followers were worth being persecuted at that time. This is a complete hypothetical on my part. So take it for what it's worth.

Most kindly,

Sean

Edited April 25, 2009 by seanph

[Mr Walker]

The same can be said of believers in the existence and divinity of Jesus, to paraphrase you They cannot allow it not to be so

fullywired

Perhaps. The idea that jesus was not an historical figure (leaving out his divinity) is a very modern one which has grown out of the nature of our times. I guess growing up interested in history , learning and teaching it, i find it amusing if understandable that this view should develop Its requires a sort of conspiracy theory type of paranoia to really justify it. Jesus' divinity is more debateable and subjective(it obviously was even in his lifetime.)

Many people, however, are not content to simply doubt his divinity they want to make absolutely sure he could not be (the son of) god by trying to deny that he actually existed. Its simply a fairly improbable thing, when people in his local area were worshipping him very soon after his death and at least one of the writers of the gospels was alive and present at the time he was supposedly living.

But you are correct, some people chose to believe because they need/want to.

I came at it differently. I never believed miracles/divine intervention were possible, until i had them happen to me. Then i realised that if they could happen in my time and place, why not 2000 years ago. So to me, miracles/divinity associated with jesus are a quite logical probability, if not quite an absolute certainty.

[Serpentine]

Did Jesus think he was God or was this made up by man ?

Jesus was a Othodox Jew and according to their beliefs about the messiah , which he would have been well aware ....

Jews do not believe that the messiah will be divine. A fundamental difference between Judaism and Christianity is the Jewish conviction that God is so essentially different from and beyond humanity that he could never become a human.

Moreover, Jews find no foundation in the scriptures for such a belief about the messiah. Passages viewed by Christians as indicating a divine messiah (such as the suffering servant of Isaiah 53) are viewed by Jews as speaking of the people of Israel,

Jesus would have been well aware of the above... that God could never become human.

So if Jesus , being a good Jew , wouldn't think himself God why do Christians ?

Nope, there was never ever anyone called Jesus (to think he was or was not god ) in the same way that there is no one here posting on the forum by the name of Serpentine or Lt Ripley

[Mr Walker]

Do you believe that an all-powerful God is unable to grant that gift to any human, if he so wished?

What i suspect is that god consists of matter and energy in a sapient form. Jesus was a physical manifestation of god in human shape. He was largely formed by the energy force we call the holy spirit. To die he had to give up that holy ghost/energy It was the power of the hly spirit so strongly manifested in him that allowed him(like ggod the father) to consciously manipulate the matter and energy around him.While god is an integral part of all mater and energy,jesus was god made manifest in physicalform so he had the same powers and control.

To answer your question. Its not a matter of belief to me, but quite evident from the physical evidence, that all of us contain an element of the holy spirit ( I would argue that god is a part of each one of us) Sometimes we are more conscious of it , sometimes we are more imbued with it. Humans can use it for many things, from healing themselves and others, to more mundane psychic gifts. It can remove all fear , anger etc from a human being and bring a sense of joy wonder and bliss which suffuses one. It transforms a person which it enters or manifests within.

God could perhaps fill a human body completely with the holy spirit. I suspect that might kill you. However more likely that is the condition we are meant to achieve. The question is, what sort of man would god comfortably give the powers of god to? I think theoretically god could grant such a gift to any human becuse we are already designed for it to be a part of us. He might do so however only with people of proven wisdom and restraint.

I was reading some articles recommended to me by 8 bits the other day which talked about people who develop a cosmic intelligence /awareness. They all display some common characteristics. To my mind those characteristics match a person who has more than their share of the holy spirit gifted to them making them unique individuals with unique gifts.

Jesus could be one such man, but as i said it depends what you chose to believe about the truthfulness of the bible s accounts of jesus own words and the observations of people around him. The one thing i doubt such a human being couild do, is raise himself, or perhaps others, from the dead. That requires the directed power of a sapient being. If youre dead you cant raise yourself coz youre no longer sapient.

Edited April 25, 2009 by Mr Walker

[fullywired]

Perhaps. The idea that jesus was not an historical figure (leaving out his divinity) is a very modern one which has grown out of the nature of our times. I guess growing up interested in history , learning and teaching it, i find it amusing if understandable that this view should develop Its requires a sort of conspiracy theory type of paranoia to really justify it. Jesus' divinity is more debateable and subjective(it obviously was even in his lifetime.)

Many people, however, are not content to simply doubt his divinity they want to make absolutely sure he could not be (the son of) god by trying to deny that he actually existed. Its simply a fairly improbable thing, when people in his local area were worshipping him very soon after his death and at least one of the writers of the gospels was alive and present at the time he was supposedly living.

But you are correct, some people chose to believe because they need/want to.

I came at it differently. I never believed miracles/divine intervention were possible, until i had them happen to me. Then i realised that if they could happen in my time and place, why not 2000 years ago. So to me, miracles/divinity associated with jesus are a quite logical probability, if not quite an absolute certainty.

The reason people don't believe he existed is because out side of the bible there is no record of him.You don't know that people in his local area were worshipping him soon after his death ,it was Paul who said he was divine ,Jesus's early followers didn't think he was .We don't even know who the writers of the gospels were ,so you can't say that "one of the writers was alive and present at the time ".Your proving my point "They cannot allow it not to be so "

fullywired

[Mr Walker]

Sorry for the extra post The server is not allowing me to edit some posts of mine.

Do you believe that an all-powerful God is unable to grant that gift to any human, if he so wished?

What i suspect is that god consists of matter and energy in a sapient form. Jesus was a physical manifestation of god in human shape. He was largely formed by the energy force we call the holy spirit. To die he had to give up that holy ghost/energy It was the power of the hly spirit so strongly manifested in him that allowed him(like ggod the father) to consciously manipulate the matter and energy around him.While god is an integral part of all mater and energy,jesus was god made manifest in physicalform so he had the same powers and control.

To answer your question. Its not a matter of belief to me, but quite evident from the physical evidence, that all of us contain an element of the holy spirit ( I would argue that god is a part of each one of us) Sometimes we are more conscious of it , sometimes we are more imbued with it. Humans can use it for many things, from healing themselves and others, to more mundane psychic gifts. It can remove all fear , anger etc from a human being and bring a sense of joy wonder and bliss which suffuses one. It transforms a person which it enters or manifests within.

God could perhaps fill a human body completely with the holy spirit. I suspect that might kill you. However more likely that is the condition we are meant to achieve. The question is, what sort of man would god comfortably give the powers of god to? I think theoretically god could grant such a gift to any human becuse we are already designed for it to be a part of us. He might do so however only with people of proven wisdom and restraint.

I was reading some articles recommended to me by 8 bits the other day which talked about people who develop a cosmic intelligence /awareness. They all display some common characteristics. To my mind those characteristics match a person who has more than their share of the holy spirit gifted to them making them unique individuals with unique gifts.

Jesus could be one such man, but as i said it depends what you chose to believe about the truthfulness of the bible s accounts of jesus own words and the observations of people around him. The one thing i doubt such a human being couild do, is raise himself, or perhaps others, from the dead. That requires the directed power of a sapient being. If youre dead you cant raise yourself coz youre no longer sapient.

The bible tells christians jesus did die. He had to, to reconnect humanity with god.Thus it would have been god the father who resurrected the body of jesus(reimbuing it withthe holy ghost or spirit and making it alive.)

While the physical body was the same (down to the holes in the palms,) jesus, post resurrection, was such a different being, that many who knew him well, had difficulty recognising him

Edited April 25, 2009 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

The reason people don't believe he existed is because out side of the bible there is no record of him.You don't know that people in his local area were worshipping him soon after his death ,it was Paul who said he was divine ,Jesus's early followers didn't think he was .We don't even know who the writers of the gospels were ,so you can't say that "one of the writers was alive and present at the time ".Your proving my point "They cannot allow it not to be so "

fullywired

In my understanding none of those points are true. There are something like 20,000 pieces of writing supporting and parts of /extensions of the gospels. (There are many other accounts not recorded in the bible for example.The gospels were written down, starting almost within the life time of jesus and the earliest extant versions were written within the life time of people living at the time. The writer of one was the young man who was at jesus "arrest" and whose cloak was torn from him. There is historical evidence of jesus cults growing up in the area of his life within a generation of his death and many of the small shrines began then, much late,r became larger pilgrim places of worship.

Again, in my understanding, all this is a matter of historical record. MAny people simply claim otherwise. I am not an expert but am basing this on "experts" historical opinion, which is at least as probable as a bald statement that jesus does not appear in any historical records. The gospels record known historical places and details accurately. They even get details like the number and names of centurions in a small towns garrison correct(as verified by roman records) It takes a big "leap of disbelief" to assume it is all some big lie/conspiracy theory.

There has been a great deal of lies, or more tactfully disinformation, spread about the accuracy of the bible and the provenance of its writings. Again it depends on your predisposition to belief/disbelief.

[fullywired]

In my understanding none of those points are true. There are something like 20,000 pieces of writing supporting and parts of /extensions of the gospels. (There are many other accounts not recorded in the bible for example.The gospels were written down, starting almost within the life time of jesus and the earliest extant versions were written within the life time of people living at the time. The writer of one was the young man who was at jesus "arrest" and whose cloak was torn from him. There is historical evidence of jesus cults growing up in the area of his life within a generation of his death and many of the small shrines began then, much late,r became larger pilgrim places of worship.

Again, in my understanding, all this is a matter of historical record. MAny people simply claim otherwise. I am not an expert but am basing this on "experts" historical opinion, which is at least as probable as a bald statement that jesus does not appear in any historical records. The gospels record known historical places and details accurately. They even get details like the number and names of centurions in a small towns garrison correct(as verified by roman records) It takes a big "leap of disbelief" to assume it is all some big lie/conspiracy theory.

There has been a great deal of lies, or more tactfully disinformation, spread about the accuracy of the bible and the provenance of its writings. Again it depends on your predisposition to belief/disbelief.

And I have to reply that none of your points have been proven.I don't know who gave you the understanding that they are of historical record .I read regularly books of fiction that give known historical places and details accurately but that doesn't make them true

the only thing I agree with is the statement "There has been a great deal of lies, or more tactfully disinformation, spread about the accuracy of the bible and the provenance of its writings. Again it depends on your predisposition to belief/disbelief. All we disagree on is, who did the spreading

I have seen no proof anywhere and it's not for the want of looking

fullywired

[seanph]

The writer of one was the young man who was at jesus "arrest" and whose cloak was torn from him.

Good morning Walker. I must respectfully disagree here. No one knows who that individual was -- although it may be the figure described in Secret Mark (a young man Jesus brought back from the dead). There is not a shred of evidence that he -- again, whomever he might have been -- wrote anything about anyone. The names attributed to the Gospels, did not appear until the mid-second century. If you would, hop over to "From Jesus to Christ" and watch the video documentary on the four Gospels, how they came to be, authorship so forth and so on. Each segment is brief, but extremely informative ... and definitely worth the watch. Why you might not agree, I hope you do so just to get the other side of the story.

From Jesus to Christ (Part Two: The Gospel According to Mark)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...religion/watch/

Also, please visit "Early Christian Writings" for varying opinions regarding the four Gospels. It is one of the best sites on the internet, highly recommended.

Early Christian Writings

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

ALSO:

An Introduction to the Gospels

Written over the course of almost a century after Jesus' death, the four gospels of the New Testament, though they tell the same story, reflect very different ideas and concerns.

by Marilyn Mellowes

A period of forty years separates the death of Jesus from the writing of the first gospel. History offers us little direct evidence about the events of this period, but it does suggest that the early Christians were engaged in one of the most basic of human activities: story-telling. In the words of Mike White, "It appears that between the death of Jesus and the writing of the first gospel, Mark, that they clearly are telling stories. They're passing on the tradition of what happened to Jesus, what he stood for and what he did, orally, by telling it and retelling it. And in the process they are defining Jesus for themselves."

These shared memories, passed along by word of mouth, are known as "oral tradition." They included stories of Jesus' miracles and healings, his parables and teachings, and his death. Eventually some stories were written down. The first written documents probably included an account of the death of Jesus and a collection of sayings attributed to him.

Then, in about the year 70, the evangelist known as Mark wrote the first "gospel" -- the words mean "good news" about Jesus. We will never know the writer's real identity, or even if his name was Mark, since it was common practice in the ancient world to attribute written works to famous people. But we do know that it was Mark's genius to first to commit the story of Jesus to writing, and thereby inaugurated the gospel tradition.

"The gospels are very peculiar types of literature. They're not biographies," says Prof. Paula Fredriksen, "they are a kind of religious advertisement. What they do is proclaim their individual author's interpretation of the Christian message through the device of using Jesus of Nazareth as a spokesperson for the evangelists' position."

About 15 years after Mark, in about the year 85 CE, the author known as Matthew composed his work, drawing on a variety of sources, including Mark and from a collection of sayings that scholars later called "Q", for Quelle, meaning source. The Gospel of Luke was written about fifteen years later, between 85 and 95. Scholars refer to these three gospels as the "synoptic gospels", because they "see" things in the same way. The Gospel of John, sometimes called "the spiritual gospel," was probably composed between 90 and 100 CE. Its style and presentation clearly set it apart from the other three.

Each of the four gospels depicts Jesus in a different way. These characterizations reflect the past experiences and the particular circumstances of their authors' communities. The historical evidence suggests that Mark wrote for a community deeply affected by the failure of the First Jewish Revolt against Rome. Matthew wrote for a Jewish community in conflict with the Pharisaic Judaism that dominated Jewish life in the postwar period. Luke wrote for a predominately Gentile audience eager to demonstrate that Christian beliefs in no way conflicted with their ability to serve as a good citizen of the Empire.

Despite these differences, all four gospels contain the "passion narrative," the central story of Jesus' suffering and death. That story is directly connected to the Christian ritual of the Eucharist. As Helmut Koester has observed, the ritual cannot "live" without the story.

While the gospels tell a story about Jesus, they also reflect the growing tensions between Christians and Jews. By the time Luke composed his work, tension was breaking into open hostility. By the time John was written, the conflict had become an open rift, reflected in the vituperative invective of the evangelist's language. In the words of Prof. Eric Meyers, "Most of the gospels reflect a period of disagreement, of theological disagreement. And the New Testament tells a story of a broken relationship, and that's part of the sad story that evolves between Jews and Christians, because it is a story that has such awful repercussions in later times."

From Jesus to Christ: The Story of the Storytellers

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...religion/story/

Most kindly,

Sean

Edited April 25, 2009 by seanph

[+Paranoid Android]

Good morning Walker. I must respectfully disagree here. No one knows who that individual was --

I would agree to an extent that most historians agree that the author of Mark was not an eye-witness. However, as the earliest of the gospels, it is not inconceivable to suggest that Mark did indeed witness the events. Mr Walker is referring to the passage in Mark which refers to a young boy who flees the scene of Jesus' arrest, naked without his cloak. There is a tradition amongst ancient authors to anonymously insert themselves into accounts to which they personally witnessed. Writing the book of Mark then, many have suggested that the young man who fled was actually the author himself. There is no purpose in adding the actions of this young man into the account unless it was intended as a surreptitious way of saying who he was in context of the events that happened.

True, this does not mean he was present at every event he described in the gospel, nor is it impossible that the author could have just added it in to make his gospel appear more authentic (as noted, most historians do not think that Mark was an actual eye-witness). But nevertheless, the text remains there - and I find that there is enough to suggest that the author of Mark may indeed have been an eye-witness.

I cannot make that statement about the other three gospels though - they were almost definitely not eye-witnesses (Luke, of course, admits such himself).

Just a thought

[seanph]

Evening PA. I guess I would say this ... The figure who flees naked when Jesus is seized, makes sense to me only in light of Secret Mark. And many scholars are suggesting that as well. Of course, there is much debate there. That said, not even Mark himself states that he was an eyewitness. He simply states that he received his information from Peter, decades later, not in any order, and only what he could remember. So, I guess we will have to respectfully agree to disagree here.

And I think you know what I'm going to say now ... Go to bed!!! :lol:

Most kindly,

Sean

[Lt_Ripley]

Did Jesus think of himself as God? IMHO, no. He certainly thought himself closer to God than most, hence his use of the word "abba" (Father). And he certainly thought himself as an integral part of the coming Kingdom of God. However, as a devout Jew, to put himself on equal status with Yahweh ... would be tantamount to blasphemy. It was only after his death, a visionary (IMHO) resurrection appearance to one of the apostles (Peter? James? Mary Magdalene?), that divinity was thrust upon him by the post-Easter community. And it wasn't until the Council of Nicaea, that Jesus was determined to be of equal status to God -- to be God.

Bart Ehrman, "Jesus interrupted," page 141:

Back at Moody I had found this line of argumentation completely convincing, and for years I had used it myself in order to convince others of Jesus’ divinity. But that was many years ago, and my thinking had changed drastically. (All of this—Moody Bible Institute, Christian apologetics, C. S. Lewis, Jesus’ identity, my change of thought—all of it flashed through my mind in a split second while I was giving my lecture on John at Chapel Hill.) I had come to see that the very premise of Lewis’s argument was flawed. The argument based on Jesus as liar, lunatic, or Lord was predicated on the assumption that Jesus had called himself God. I had long ago come to believe that he had not. Only in the latest of our Gospels, John, a Gospel that shows considerably more theological sophistication than the others, does Jesus indicate that he is divine. I had come to realize that none of our earliest traditions indicates that Jesus said any such thing about himself. And surely if Jesus had really spent his days in Galilee and then Jerusalem calling himself God, all of our sources would be eager to report it. To put it differently, if Jesus claimed he was divine, it seemed very strange indeed that Matthew, Mark, and Luke all failed to say anything about it. Did they just forget to mention that part?

From the "Oxford Companion to the Bible" (CD-ROM Edition, 1996):

JESUS’ SELF-UNDERSTANDING. WHILE JESUS’ CAREER EVOKED MESSIANIC HOPES AMONG HIS FOLLOWERS AND FEARS AMONG HIS ENEMIES, STAGE I MATERIAL SHOWS HIM RELUCTANT TO ASSERT ANY OVERT MESSIANIC CLAIM. THE SELF-DESIGNATION HE USES IS SON OF MAN. THIS IS SO WIDELY ATTESTED IN THE GOSPEL TRADITION AND OCCURS (WITH ONE OR TWO NEGLIGIBLE EXCEPTIONS) ONLY ON THE LIPS OF JESUS HIMSELF, THAT IT SATISFIES THE MAJOR TESTS OF AUTHENTICITY. IT OCCURS IN ALL PRIMARY STRATA OF THE GOSPEL TRADITION (MARK, Q, SPECIAL MATTHEW, SPECIAL LUKE, AND THE PRE-GOSPEL TRADITION IN JOHN). IT IS NOT ATTESTED AS A MESSIANIC TITLE IN EARLIER JUDAISM AND OCCURS ONLY ONCE OUTSIDE THE GOSPELS (APART FROM CITATIONS OF PSALM 8.5–7), IN ACTS 7.56. SO THERE SHOULD BE NO REASONABLE DOUBT THAT IT WAS A CHARACTERISTIC SELF-DESIGNATION OF THE HISTORICAL JESUS. IT IS NOT A TITLE BUT MEANS “HUMAN ONE,” AND IT IS BEST UNDERSTOOD AS A SELF-EFFACING SELF-REFERENCE. IT IS USED IN CONTEXTS WHERE JESUS SPOKE OF HIS MISSION, FATE, AND FINAL VINDICATION.

JESUS CERTAINLY THOUGHT OF HIMSELF AS A PROPHET (MARK 6.4; LUKE 13.33), BUT THERE WAS A FINAL QUALITY ABOUT HIS MESSAGE AND WORK THAT ENTITLES US TO CONCLUDE THAT HE THOUGHT OF HIMSELF AS GOD’S FINAL, DEFINITIVE EMISSARY TO ISRAEL. HE WAS MORE INTERESTED IN WHAT GOD WAS DOING THROUGH HIM THAN IN WHAT HE WAS IN HIMSELF. HE DID NOT OBTRUDE HIS OWN EGO, YET HIS OWN EGO WAS INCLUDED AS PART OF HIS MESSAGE: “WHOEVER WELCOMES YOU WELCOMES ME, AND WHOEVER WELCOMES ME WELCOMES THE ONE WHO SENT ME” (MATTHEW 10.40 || LUKE 10.16 Q); “FOLLOW ME” (MARK 1.17; ETC.); “THOSE WHO ARE ASHAMED OF ME …” (MARK 8.38); “BLESSED IS ANYONE WHO TAKES NO OFFENSE AT ME (MATTHEW 11.6 || LUKE 7.23 Q); “IF IT IS BY THE SPIRIT [LUKE: “FINGER”] OF GOD THAT I CAST OUT DEMONS …” (MATTHEW 12.28 || LUKE 11.20 Q). JESUS DARED TO SPEAK AND ACT FOR GOD. THIS IS CLEAR IN THE ANTITHESES OF THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT (MATTHEW 5.21–48: “IT WAS SAID TO THOSE OF ANCIENT TIMES … BUT I SAY TO YOU”), IN HIS PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS (WHICH ONLY GOD COULD DO, MARK 2.5–12; LUKE 7.36–50), HIS ACCEPTANCE OF THE OUTCAST AND HEALING OF LEPERS WHO WERE SHUNNED UNDER THE LAW. COUPLED WITH SUCH FEATURES IS THE TREMENDOUS AUTHORITY WITH WHICH JESUS SPOKE AND ACTED, AN AUTHORITY FOR WHICH HE OFFERS NO CREDENTIALS SAVE THAT IT IS INTIMATELY BOUND UP WITH THE AUTHORITY OF THE BAPTIST (MARK 11.27–33) AND RESTS UPON GOD’S FINAL VINDICATION (MARK 8.38 AND LUKE 12.8 Q). JESUS DOES NOT CLAIM OVERTLY TO BE SON OF GOD IN ANY UNIQUE SENSE. PASSAGES IN WHICH HE APPEARS TO DO SO BELONG TO STAGE II OR III OF THE TRADITION. BUT HE DOES CALL GOD “ABBA” IN AN UNUSUAL WAY, WHICH POINTS TO GOD’S CALL TO WHICH HE HAS RESPONDED IN FULL OBEDIENCE, AND THEREFORE WE MAY SPEAK OF HIS UNIQUE SENSE OF SONSHIP. BUT WE MUST BEAR IN MIND THAT IN THIS PALESTINIAN MILIEU SONSHIP DENOTED NOT A METAPHYSICAL QUALITY BUT RATHER A HISTORICAL CALL AND OBEDIENCE. JESUS DID CHALLENGE HIS DISCIPLES TO SAY WHO THEY THOUGHT HE WAS, WHICH ELICITED FROM PETER THE RESPONSE THAT HE WAS THE CHRIST OR MESSIAH (MARK 8.27–30; CF. JOHN 6.66–69). ACCORDING TO MARK, HE NEITHER ACCEPTED NOR REJECTED PETER’S ASSERTION. WHAT DID PETER MEAN, AND IN WHAT SENSE DID JESUS TAKE IT? IT IS COMMONLY THOUGHT THAT IT WAS MEANT IN A POLITICAL-NATIONALIST SENSE AND THAT JESUS REJECTED THIS. IT SEEMS MORE LIKELY, HOWEVER, THAT PETER MEANT IT IN THE SENSE OF THE ANOINTED PROPHET OF ISAIAH 61.1. SUCH A RESPONSE TO JESUS WOULD HAVE BEEN WHOLLY APPROPRIATE AS FAR AS IT WENT. WHAT PETER AND THE OTHER DISCIPLES DID NOT REALIZE, OF COURSE, WAS THAT THIS MISSION EXTENDED BEYOND THE TERMS OF ISAIAH 61 AND THAT IT ALSO INVOLVED REJECTION, SUFFERING, AND DEATH. IT IS POSSIBLE, THOUGH MUCH DISPUTED, THAT JESUS MODELED THIS FURTHER INSIGHT UPON THE FIGURE OF THE SUFFERING SERVANT IN ISAIAH 53. WE COULD BE SURE OF THIS IF MARK 10.45B BELONGS TO STAGE I.

A VERY EARLY TRADITION (ROMANS 1.3) ASSERTED THAT THE EARTHLY JESUS WAS OF A FAMILY DESCENDED FROM THE ROYAL LINE OF DAVID. WE CANNOT BE SURE THAT THIS PLAYED ANY ROLE IN HIS SELF-UNDERSTANDING. FOR THE POST-EASTER COMMUNITY THIS TITLE WAS IMPORTANT AS QUALIFYING HIM FOR THE MESSIANIC ROLE HE ASSUMED AFTER HIS EXALTATION.

THE USE OF “RABBI” AND “MY LORD” IN ADDRESSING JESUS DURING HIS EARTHLY MINISTRY DID NOT DENOTE MAJESTY: THESE WERE TITLES OF RESPECT ACCORDED A CHARISMATIC PERSON. HOWEVER, AS THE CONVICTION GREW AMONG HIS FOLLOWERS THAT HE WAS THE FINAL EMISSARY OF GOD, THESE TERMS WOULD ACQUIRE A HEIGHTENED MEANING.

IN SUM, WE FIND IN THE SYNOPTICS ONLY LIMITED EVIDENCE FOR AN EXPLICIT CHRISTOLOGY IN JESUS’ SELF-UNDERSTANDING, AND SUCH EVIDENCE AS THERE IS IS CRITICALLY SUSPECT. HE WAS MORE CONCERNED WITH WHAT GOD WAS DOING IN HIM THAN WHO HE WAS, ESPECIALLY IN ANY METAPHYSICAL SENSE. BUT WHAT GOD WAS DOING THROUGH HIM IN HIS EARTHLY MINISTRY PROVIDED THE RAW MATERIALS FOR THE CHRISTOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF JESUS AFTER THE EASTER EVENT.--REGINALD H. FULLER, MOLLY LAIRD DOWNS PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT AT VIRGINIA THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

Another reason why I do not believe Jesus proclaimed himself to be divine during his ministry, comes down to the reaction of Paul. Why? Because he does not persecute the Jesus movement for the first three years of its existence. Again, why? It is my belief, that Jesus was simply not making outrageous claims of divinity, that he was not preaching something Paul found overtly objectionable. It is only after Jesus' death, and the claims that the post-Easter community were making, that we now see Paul on the warpath. Obviously, their claims stirred his ire -- that would be an understatement! -- and thus began his persecution against those proclaiming him to be divine in some way, to some degree.

That said, none of this (regarding Paul) might be true at all. It might be that Paul was not even aware of the Jesus movement during those brief three years. He might very well still have been in Tarsus or some such. And there are any number of other factors why he might not have felt Jesus and his followers were worth being persecuted at that time. This is a complete hypothetical on my part. So take it for what it's worth.

Most kindly,

Sean

thank you Sean.... I was also reminded of where Jesus says -

"I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 31"If I alone bear witness of Myself, My testimony is not true. 32"There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the testimony which He bears of Me is true," (John 5:30-32 )

If he thought himself God , even son of as people think now . part of a trinity .... then wouldn't his will be God's will ?

[Lt_Ripley]

Evening PA. I guess I would say this ... The figure who flees naked when Jesus is seized, makes sense to me only in light of Secret Mark. And many scholars are suggesting that as well. Of course, there is much debate there. That said, not even Mark himself states that he was an eyewitness. He simply states that he received his information from Peter, decades later, not in any order, and only what he could remember. So, I guess we will have to respectfully agree to disagree here.

And I think you know what I'm going to say now ... Go to bed!!! :lol:

Most kindly,

Sean

have you heard the theory that some say the boy who flees was actually the beloved ? and Jesus' son ?

[Mr Walker]

None of the points i made were to argue the absolute authenticity of the bible, Nor do I simply "believe" them or indeed the bible story as such. I merely point out that there is plenty of evidence each way, and it is up to individuals to decide, Give that the earliest recorded versions of the gospels date from about 40 years after christs death it is entirely conceivable that they were writeen within the lifetimes of peole present during those events(even allowing for somewhat shorter lifespans in those times)

Just a few years ago skeptics were loudly declaiming a period of nearly a century between the events and writingsn and argued this made it impossible for them to be based on first hand accounts in any form at all.

One of my bibles( printed by a reputable printing house and based carefully on bible scholarship) says in the preface to st matthew "Matthew, sometimes called Levi, was one of the twelve disciples 9.9 and 10.3, so that his knowledge of jesus was first hand."

In the preface to Mark it says this was the second in order, but probably the first in writing.

"the author, John Mark, was not one of the twelve disciples, but is mentioned several times in the new testament where peter called him Marcus my son. Marks information about jesus probably came largely from Peter." A different bible preface says that the gospelof mark has a number of different endings which varied and or were left out from some of the earliest manuscripts. These included events after the resurrection, but the events up to the resurrection are acknowledged as being written by Mark.

In the new testament, some chronology of Marks life is included in different books. It is this which also links him to the young man in the garden that night.

Again, i dont accept any of this implicitly, however, it is at least as likely in probability, as denial theories advanced by others. Thanks for the links sean. I havent the time to lok at the videos as yet but i read the synopsis, also the other site. if anything they can also be seen as confirming my pov(but thats what you might expect me to say) eg the second site gives datings as early as 37 CE for some writings (about what i said)

The last piece uses a method to evaluate and imply things about dates, purpose, and attributions which is purely presumptive. That doesnt make the author wrong(but it doesnt mean she is right, also )

In australian aboriginal tradition all tales/histories weree told orally and 40 years was nothing. Some of those stories, as far as we can tell ,were passed down verbatim for centuries. Thus, oral story telling does not preclude accuracy and authenticity(some would argue it enhances it, by its nature and the significance attached to it.) Neither does it necessarily mean(especially in 40 years) that it can change as radically as the author implies.

If people were telling a story too different from what actually happened, after only 40 years there would have been people who challenged and even ridiculed the new version (and perhaps there were, but the point is the story spread and that it was the local people who first developed it into a "religion," albeit not in the form we would recognise today)

The documentaries you linked, in their precis, outline this "fact" as part of their presentation and i have seen it before on very reputable documentaries presented on ABC (Australian version) and SBS television.

Edited April 26, 2009 by Mr Walker