Jesus the man, death and resurrection

Discuss the Christian Faith.
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

Jesus the man, death and resurrection

Post by Ted »

Much has been written and said about this man from Nazareth. Who was he? Why did he die by crucifixion? What was the resurrection and what does it mean? This assumes with many scholars that he was indeed an historical character.
User avatar
nvalleyvee
Posts: 5191
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:57 am

Jesus the man, death and resurrection

Post by nvalleyvee »

If in fact there was a divine plan.....Judas was but a divine player. He served his purpose and in doing so HAD to be welcomed into Heaven.
The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement..........Karl R. Popper
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

Jesus the man, death and resurrection

Post by Ted »

nvalleyvee:-6

That is certainly an interesting point and one worth considering. Does a just God set people up for a fall?

Shalom

Ted:-6
User avatar
nvalleyvee
Posts: 5191
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:57 am

Jesus the man, death and resurrection

Post by nvalleyvee »

YES - I believe your God set Judas up for a divvne fall. That is why he is absolutely in heaven. Jesus woulod not be there but for Judas. If there is a God - he asked Judas for the betrayal - it had to be. I think Judas was just as much a hand of God as people think Jesus was.

You want to set up a man to be a divine person - you best let the people who make him that divine person be his best alliance.
The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement..........Karl R. Popper
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Jesus the man, death and resurrection

Post by spot »

Would it be fair, Ted, to start by suggesting that Jesus was an extremist?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
User avatar
nvalleyvee
Posts: 5191
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:57 am

Jesus the man, death and resurrection

Post by nvalleyvee »

Geez Spot - Jesus was always an extremist...................he always went against the grain.
The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement..........Karl R. Popper
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

Jesus the man, death and resurrection

Post by Ted »

spot:-6

A good question. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. Jesus was deeply opposed to the treatment of the downtrodden, poor and the outcast. The haves were lording it over the have nots He saw the kingdom of God as an egalitarian kingdom where all were treated as equals. He associated with the "dregs" of society. He practiced nonviolent resistance. He was a s**t disturber to put it bluntly.

Do these make him an extremist? I guess it depends on one's perspective.

It is interesting to note though, nothing has changed in 2000 years. The gap between the rich and the poor is getting ever wider and this is contrary to the teachings of Jesus. He was opposed to empire and preached the kingdom of God.

Shalom

Ted:-6
User avatar
hoxtonchris
Posts: 576
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 2:41 pm

Jesus the man, death and resurrection

Post by hoxtonchris »

he is a man seeking total togetherness for us all,he wants us to keep a lookout for oneanother,,,,,we just dont listen hard enough yet; lockhiem ,chris
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

Jesus the man, death and resurrection

Post by Ted »

I think it is very important that we remember that Jesus was a man, fully human, just like the rest of us. He suffered, he had enjoyments, he had companions and friends whom he loved and associated with, he ate, had to sleep, probably enjoyed a night out at the pub with the boys.

We can add to that that he was a spirit person who enjoyed a very special relationship with God or the divine, This special relationship influenced the way he lived and taught. He was probably an apocalyptic prophet.

All folks at that time who enjoyed a special relationship with God or the divine were known as a "son of God". It was not a unique phrase to Jesus. In fact Caesar was known as: son of God, God, very God of very God, divine ruler, savior of the world, redeemer etc. The real problem arose when people began to append all of those titles onto Jesus. What they were saying is that if Jesus is . . . then Caesar is not. This was high treason.

As a result of experiencing this very unique individual people began to append all of these theological terms to him. The came to believe that he was the Messiah. These traditions grew as time went on an the developing traditions can be seen if one reads the gospels in the order in which they were written.

I personally believe he was the Messiah but the moment we begin to append the theological components to him we enter the realm of the divine which makes them metaphor since we have no other way to speak of the divine.

It was the experience of this man that persuaded the folks that he was indeed the Messiah.

Shalom

Ted:-6
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Jesus the man, death and resurrection

Post by spot »

hoxtonchris;765835 wrote: he is a man seeking total togetherness for us all,he wants us to keep a lookout for oneanother,,,,,we just dont listen hard enough yet; lockhiem ,chris


He had a hairspring temper which he kept wound tight.

Back then it would have been difficult for him to take time out and just chill on the boats, recharge the batteries, leave the coalface for a few weeks and it tells in his confrontational attitude. He's full of flinging sheep and goats at his detractors, oh waily waily there'll be a gnashing of teeth when Yer Man finally turns up, you'll all catch it good and proper.

I quite liked the idea of turning the other cheek but he's more talk than action when the chips are down. "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come" is scarcely language likely to change someone toward reconciliation. "The axe is already laid at the root of the trees; therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire" - aye Jimmy, an' you're next in line so watch yer heid. I think he got a rush out of a good shouting match.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

Jesus the man, death and resurrection

Post by Ted »

spot:-6

The question now becomes are those Jesus words or the words of the early church through the evangelist?

Many scholars now believe that those are the words of the early church and not Jesus of Nazareth. What have we done to Jesus?

The Pharisees were actually quite in line with the teachings of Jesus. Perhaps they are the words of the evangelist who was becoming somewhat anti-semitic.

Shalom

Ted:-6
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

Jesus the man, death and resurrection

Post by Ted »

jester:-6

I don't need biblical references. That is the reality. No magic and make believe. I respect the Bible. I don't worship it.

I believe that if Jesus could come back he would be totally appalled at what Christians have done with him.

Since there is only one God. "Hear O Israel the Lord your God. The Lord your God is One" I would suggest we are talking about the son of "God" and not the son of "god".

Shalom

Ted:-6
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

Jesus the man, death and resurrection

Post by Ted »

I will add that in Acts 2:22-24 Peter is very clear in calling Jesus a "man".

Shalom

Ted:-6
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

Jesus the man, death and resurrection

Post by Ted »

jester:-6

Historians have clearly shown that such folks were referred to as a son of God. The emperor of Rome was considered divine. In fact the Roman empire was considered divine.

I point you to the works of Armstrong, Ehrman, Crossan who are all respected historians. In addition Ehrman and Crossan are also recognized as biblical scholars in their own right Crossan being the premier Jesus scholar at this point in time. As I have shown before and you in fact agreed that if the Bible is not historically accurate than the faith of many is shot to pieces. However, when we see it as metaphor the history is totally unimportant. We need the historical research.

Proof texting is not an historical, reliable use for the Bible though it can support what one says but does not provide a final definitive answer by itself.

Shalom

Ted:-6
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Jesus the man, death and resurrection

Post by spot »

Ted;765911 wrote: spot:-6

The question now becomes are those Jesus words or the words of the early church through the evangelist?

Many scholars now believe that those are the words of the early church and not Jesus of Nazareth. What have we done to Jesus? Every single word in the gospels is the voice of the early church, written down by people who were reporting what they'd been told. None of it is eye-witness testimony. Even the gospel writers had no idea whether what they'd been told was accurate but it's all they had to go on.

Let's assume you have one of these gospel writers in a witness stand with a translator stood next to him, on oath (I quite like the idea of getting Saint Mark to swear on the bible, it has a pleasing circularity, you might think he'd blink at the incongruity of the request). Here we go:The Deposition of Saint Mark the Evangelist.

Saint Mark?

Good morning.

Please state your full name and address for the record.

John Mark Alexandriensis, currently on extended sabbatical from Heaven and living in Nashville, Tennessee.

Thank you. Would you open the book on which you swore just now and discuss the content for as long as you need with your translator?

To what extent do you recognise the content?

It's strange seeing it after all these years. Yes, it's mine. I can see a couple of sentences that have been patched on after I handed it to the copyists but it's not a bad job at all. I love the paper in this copy, we never had paper like that when I was around. Wow that's smooth. As for the content? Here, for example, this "Let anyone with ears to hear listen" bit, that's not mine. The first sentence has been trashed. I see someone didn't like how I ended it, the entire thing from finding the stone rolled back is different. Otherwise yes, it's what I wrote.

Other than the changes you've described, does what your translator tells you accurately reflect what you intended your reader to understand?

Well it sounded better in the Greek of course but you'd expect me to say that. If you mean has anyone monkeyed with my meanings then no, it's all here.

How much of it is true?

That's a trick question, isn't it. I spent quite a while with Saint Peter before I wrote it all out after he was killed in Rome. Most of it is from what I remembered of his talks to groups of Christians there. A few of the stories came from other people I'd talked to but Peter was the only original disciple I ever met, I never went to Jerusalem where most of them lived. I ran into Paul a lot, of course, he's mainly why I wrote the gospel in the first place to put all that waffle he spouted into context.

I mean, there's things here I know aren't true, I used dramatic licence describing where Jesus was when he said some of these things. I had no idea where he said half of it, I had to put it into a framework. I think I did a good job framing some of it. All the stuff about the disciples being called, that's word for word Peter's telling and so's the denial and the crowing bird at dawn after the crucifixion. The bit about the pigs going over the cliff I made up, the way Peter told about that multiple personality loony wasn't anything like as gripping. Do you remember that bit about sitting a bunch of children on his knee and describing heaven? That was Peter did that, I saw him do it in Rome and it was so good I put the whole scene in. You want to know the good part? I asked Peter about it in heaven afterwards and he laughed, he'd done it that time in Rome because he'd seen Jesus do it first. Maybe I was closer than I thought when I wrote it in.

One last question if I may. Which of the direct words of Jesus are words he actually said?

I'm only allowed down here to testify to what I knew before I died, that was the deal. I shouldn't have mentioned that bit about Peter but it's too funny not to bring up. By rights though, anything I learned afterwards in heaven I can't tell you about, it's beyond this court's jurisdiction. So, most of the wording is mine writing down what I'd been told differently on different occasions. Some of it was always told in a particular set of words and I always stuck to those when it was obvious. Whether he actually said any of it I haven't a clue, I wasn't there.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

Jesus the man, death and resurrection

Post by Ted »

spot:-6

80% of the words attributed to Jesus are actually the words the evangelists put into his mouth.

Truth comes in many forms.

I do like the scenario though. That is interesting.

Shalom

Ted:-6
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

Jesus the man, death and resurrection

Post by Ted »

jester:-6

Those words you quoted come from the evangelist and not Jesus. Jesus never claimed to be either God or the Messiah. Yet we have come to believe that he was the Messiah.

In the first few pages of his book "The Historical Jesus" Crossan has a comprehensive list of the sayings that can be reasonably traced back to the historical Jesus. This particular list is supported by many.

Another good book is "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman and well respected biblical historian.

Shalom

Ted:-6
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Jesus the man, death and resurrection

Post by spot »

Jester;768171 wrote: over time any Spot or Ted can make it say one thing or another or something entirely different...


I'd hope that was acceptable to whoever wrote it in the first place.

Jester, you do at least accept that Saint Luke the Evangelist, for example, never met Jesus?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Jesus the man, death and resurrection

Post by spot »

Jester;768215 wrote: I plum never heard of Luke the evangalist, but I sure heard of Luke the physician.

The gospels are eyewittness accounts, the ones who copied the accounts did so by Gods hand of preservation. Thats good enough for me to take word for word with translation assitance.


My point is that Saint Luke says in his own Gospel that he wrote it himself, and he certainly never met Jesus. Or is it your opinion that he did?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

Jesus the man, death and resurrection

Post by Ted »

jester:-6

Not good enough? The truth not magic and make believe. No, whomever wrote the gospels are referred to today as evangelists and their names are unknown and they definitely were not eye witnesses to the life of Jesus. The names were added a few hundred years later to distinguish between each of them.

One doesn't need the "book" one only needs to trust in God.

I do agree that anyone can make the Bible say anything they want. They used it to justify slavery, war crimes etc. It could even be used to justify murder and it still is by some states.

Shalom

Ted:-6
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

Jesus the man, death and resurrection

Post by Ted »

When it comes to the death of Jesus we in fact know very little. We do know that he was tried under Pilate and we do know that he was crucified. The remainder of the story is metaphor or midrash.

Whatever happened at the Easter event was so profound that it has affected the world for the last 2000 years. In some profound way the disciples and followers of Jesus felt that he was still with them as he said he would be. Any explanation, once again, enters into the realm of the divine and as such is simply inexplicable in human words. We do however, have the experience of the risen Lord.

One note of interest is that the Muslims considered any attempt to describe or define God "al-Lah=the God" to be blasphemous though Christians have not gone so far. In fact the ancient Jews were in agreement with this thinking and even refused to refer to the divine as "God". The use of the word "God", being a human construct, was felt to be disrespectful of the Creator.

Shalom

Ted
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

Jesus the man, death and resurrection

Post by Ted »

I've been doing some research into Islam and find that it is a religion founded on the ideas of justice and compassion. Christians who judge it otherwise are doing exactly what they don't want others to do: judge Christianity on the basis of Fred Phelps and his ilk. Some could even be tempted to judge Christianity on the basis of the reconstructionists.

We cannot have it both ways. We cannot judge one on one basis and then turn around and say that we should not judge the other on the same basis-extremism.

Shalom

Ted:-6
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

Jesus the man, death and resurrection

Post by Ted »

jester:-6

We do not have any of the original manuscripts. They were long gone before the Canon was put together. They were using copies of copies of copies of copies etc. Among all of those copies including many of each gospel there were some 400 000 variants.

Writers in those days often wrote under the name of someone else. That was a standard practice. Half of the letters attributed to Paul were written after his death by his followers.

The question of the author of "Luke" is settled in the first 4 verses.

Matthew's gospel does not claim to be written by Matthew. It does not tell us who the author was.

It is interesting to note, as well, that the gospels have things happening in a different order and some parts are in one and left out of others. The variations clearly show that they are not eyewitness accounts.

Shalom

Ted:-6
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Jesus the man, death and resurrection

Post by spot »

Jester;768258 wrote: Did anyone consider that its written as it was accounted, so that if the wirter of the thing said he wrote it its a copy of the original and that being a copy it implies the original account was put down by the eyewittness?


This is what Luke wrote at the start of his Gospel. He's the same chap who wrote Acts, same style, same man, same Luke, the chap who travelled with Paul.

As a number of attempts have been made to put together in order an account of those events which took place among us, as they were handed down to us by those who saw them from the first and were preachers of the word, it seemed good to me, having made observation, with great care, of the direction of events in their order, to put the facts in writing for you, most noble Theophilus; so that you might have certain knowledge of those things about which you were given teaching.He says he didn't see any of it himself. He says that he's written what he's heard. He says he's been careful to be accurate. The bit about Theophilus is rather like Jane Austen writing to her "dear reader", that being you, Theophilus meaning "A person who loves God".
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
yaaarrrgg
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:29 pm

Jesus the man, death and resurrection

Post by yaaarrrgg »

IMO Jesus was a combination of several things... probably in part a real person, but also a combination of ancient myth and legend.

As for the resurrection, here's my theory: The real man Jesus had an identical twin Hose. The old switcheroo was pulled off to avoid an execution of the real Jesus. Hose was suicidal and didn't really care about life ... so it was the least he could do for his brother. The event was so touching, Jesus taught that no man has greater life, than to lay down his life for his brother. This teaching became central to the entire message of Christianity ... taking the punishment for another.

This whole series of events was of course interpreted in the context of traditional Jewish metaphor ... similar to how Abe Lincoln was able to express his views in the context of the religious thought of the time period. So Jesus became the sacrificial lamb, dying for the sins of the world, who survived death, then disappeared. Otherwise, you'd think if your leader was killed, there would be no motivation to invent such a story in the first place ... people would have just been demoralized and turned their attention to another person that appeared as a messiah figure to them.

Edit: The other thing that just struck me ... Jesus was set up by Judas ... an insider. This was worked out in advance. Note the contradictions in Judas' death indicate he didn't really kill himself, but used the silver to buy a ticket out for himself and the real Jesus.

:)
yaaarrrgg
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:29 pm

Jesus the man, death and resurrection

Post by yaaarrrgg »

Jester;768547 wrote: Well I guess we can count your theory on the resurrection as moot.:wah:


I'm just a guy piecing together inconsistent eye-witness accounts ... the writers you put your trust in were just people like me ... :)
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

Jesus the man, death and resurrection

Post by Ted »

jester:-6

First of all you have to get beyond the falsehood of the enlightenment that if it is not historically accurate it is not true.

Secondly the word translated as faith actually means trust. I don't need a book to trust in the divine. I have my experiences of the divine.

You are hung up on what if someone is wrong about a point. I really don't think God gives one hoot about the minutiae. We are called to trust God not get the specific points correct. Some seem to need the book to get it right, so they think. Trust is not about right belief but about trust in God or if you will faith in God.

Fourth. One of the reasons for the church was so that the body of Christ as a collectivity might come closer to the truth. That is also why we have studies, research, prayer etc.

The word "Gospel" does not mean correct belief but "good news". The good news of the kingdom.

Historically we know very little about Jesus of Nazareth. We know he was born to a woman named Mary, a very common name and a father who was probably Joseph but that is questionable. We know that he was probably a carpenter in his early life. He became an itinerant preacher, healer, exorcist, spirit person, non-violent resister and had great love and support for the oppressed and we know that he was crucified for both social disturbance and high treason. Those are the historical facts as we know them.

When we begin to add in things like "Son of God" etc. we are into the realm of the divine and our language fails us totally.

None of this disturbs or denies my experience of the risen Lord. Even that is metaphorical because it is in the realm of the divine. It is all that I can say about my experience. In fact since I have come to realize that I no longer have to accept what I consider absurd in the Bible my trust in God has become even stronger.

Shalom

Ted:-6
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

Jesus the man, death and resurrection

Post by Ted »

In my continued reading about Islam I found out today that its history is not unlike the history of Christianity.

Christianity has had it divisions, disputes, leadership in different directions giving us some 22 000 Christian denominations. We have had our extremists. We have those who see the Bible as literal history and we have those who take the metaphorical approach. We have those who question the historicity of the stories in the Bible We have some Christians who think others are not because of their beliefs There are a variety of interpretations of the Bible etcv.

Islam is no different. They've had it all as well and still do.

Shalom

Ted:-6
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

Jesus the man, death and resurrection

Post by Ted »

jester:-6

When it comes to the idea that truth does not have to come in historical accuracy "none are so blind as those who will not see."

Have you read "Oliver Twist" by Charles Dickens? If not it is worthwhile reading. It is a complete work of fiction and yet it is loaded with truth, the truth about the social injustices of his day. Nothing could be much more plain then that.

Have you read "Tess of the D'Urbervilles"? If not that too is worth reading. It too is a work of fiction but it is loaded with truth about the era it speaks about.

The parables of Jesus are works of fiction. The "Good Samaritan" is not a factual story but the truth it contains is for all men. We are obligated as Christians to help our neighbour regardless of who s/he is, if they are in trouble and we can assist.

The parables of creation and Noah are the same. They contain truth. They do not and are not historical but they contain truth.

The First Nations folks will say something like "I do not know if it actually happened this way but I do know this, the story is true." Borg.

I have had children in grades three and four who can understand this. They have no problem. They can see past the story to the truth contained therein. They can see the truths in the old fairy tales. They know they are not historical but they also know they teach lessons.

Your bit about the gospel is hung up on the same issue. The word "Gospel" means good news. The Bible clearly talks about the good news being the "Kingdom of God has come near."

When it comes to what we know about the historical Jesus that is all there is. The rest is midrash plain and simple. When one thinks one needs the book along side of God what does that say about one. It says to me that that individual does not have enough trust in God. They need a contract signed sealed and delivered and the Bible seems to serve as that contract. "I don't trust Mr. Smith so I had him put it in writing." I don't trust God so I had Him put it in writing and boy He better live up to his end of the deal. That is what it sounds like.

When the truth finally hits such a person their faith is shot to pieces. This is apparent here on the forums and around the world. Since others know the truth it makes no difference. Their faith is still intact.

Shalom

Ted:-6
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

Jesus the man, death and resurrection

Post by Ted »

jester:-6

You asked me about truth and I gave you a fairly clear example.

Is there a secular discussion dating back to Jesus time concerning his passion? No there is not.

Are you to trust Tacitus and Josephus? They are a start. But don't forget science, history and archaeology as well as a good dose of old fashioned common sense.

As for my stand on homosexuality, I've explained that before but here goes again. Apparently it is an abomination for a man to lie with a man as with a woman. It is also wrong to eat shell fish or wear clothing of more that one fiber. In these situations you pick and choose to justify it is ok to eat shell fish or wear clothing of different fibers. You are picking and choosing to which I admit for various reasons but you pick and choose and then try to defend it.

How do you know what God wants? Try prayer, reading the scriptures, meditation, study (to show thyself approved), discussion with other Christians, the church (established by God), read the writings of other Christians.

If God is virtually silent now and He has not changed then He was virtually silent back then. Apparently nothing has changed.

Yes, you need the contract. Are you suggesting that God cannot speak to us and guide us in any other way besides the book?

I may respond further.

Shalom

Ted:-6
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

Jesus the man, death and resurrection

Post by Ted »

jester:-6

How to decide which parts to accept. The first thing one must keep in mind is that one must read the OT in light of the NT. We must engage in the above mentioned practices such as prayer etc.

We must use a great deal of common sense. For example the earth does not stop rotating on its axis for a day. This is recorded no where else in history. If in Jesus were see manifest God we do not see a God that condones or encourages war crimes such as we see in Numbers 31. In fact we see a man who would not lift a sword to protect his own life.

We must consider modern scientific discoveries. Our fund of knowledge is so much greater we no long think of epilepsy as being caused by demon possession. We must come to understand that archaeology has shown us a few things among many; there was no Exodus as written; there was no massive invasion of Canaan. We have to come to understanding that evolution is the way it happened. The evidence is irrefutable except by a few wannabe scientists.

It is thought the Exodus story has arisen because of the expulsion of the Hyksos from the Nile delta. The vast majority of the Hebrew people in Canaan were Canaanites who had decided on monotheism and moved to the high country to be away from the others. They were for the most part Canaanites who by the way worshiped the high God El which was the same God in the Hebrew worshiped by Abraham, Isaac etc. Yahweh did not come into the situation until later.

The phrase "I am who I am." is now recognized to be an ancient idiom meaning essentially "none of your business."

Instead of trying the creative writing and dance routine we must come to accept that the Bible itself is loaded with contradictions.

We should investigate how the Bible, both the OT and the NT came about. In both cases it was by men who debated and finally took a vote to make the decision. Were they led by the Holy Spirit? Yes, every bit as much as the church today is. Remember, nothing has changed.

When we study ancient writings which are older than the Bible we can see that some of the biblical stories such as Noah were borrowed from the Mesopotamians and re worked fit in with the Hebrew culture.

So in spite of a nearly silent God we can and do rely on the Holy Spirit to continue to guide us into all truth. (John 16:12-15.

In closing the truth of a story does not have to depend on its historicity. The story can indeed be very true without being historically accurate. i.e. "The good Samaritan.

Shalom

Ted:-6
yaaarrrgg
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:29 pm

Jesus the man, death and resurrection

Post by yaaarrrgg »

Jester;770344 wrote: My problem with your view is that it is self determined. And as many times as I have asked you you deny it, your litmus test is science, archeology, history with a lick of what you call common sense... all of which are limited by mans thinking.

You are 'trusting' in mans explaination of the word of God.


Jester, everything you see is filtered by your perception of things. Even your views of the Bible are man's thinking.

You raise good questions ... but blind obedience to someone else's writings doesn't answer the questions you raise. Your proposed solution is simply to think *less* about the questions.

All the same issues you pose to Ted apply to yourself (determining literal content vs parables) and the original authors of the Bible. How did they know what was real and what was not, anymore than anyone else? How do you?

I've read Ted's answers, and think he's done a fair job explaining his methodology. The sum of it is, I don't think he puts all his eggs in the same basket.
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

Jesus the man, death and resurrection

Post by Ted »

jester:-6

I have never implied nor referred to God as a liar. You use that word either because you will not try to understand what I say or make no effort to. That I refer to God as a liar is pure rubbish.

The literalist interpretation is simply a no go. It tends to make one live in the first century which is fine if that is what you want.

I have to agree with yarg that you are reading into the Bible exactly what you want.

Determined by myself? Ultimately all of us do that, even you. I recognize that there are many ways that God does communicate with us and that includes the Bible but in and of itself it is not the inerrant word of God. You are reading the experiences of a 1st Cent mind with 1st cent. knowledge and 1st cent. culture. I take those experiences and the many millions since into consideration so yes in one way it is my determination just as much as it is yours. At least I am willing to look further and consider the experiences of many others.

I don't defend the Bible? I will when it is necessary. I have always said that God does speak to us through the Bible. However, I refuse to indulge in Bibliolatry.

As far as what I have said about the man Jesus I have reaffirmed what St. Peter himself said. I have also acknowledged that in many ways this very human being was in a very special and profound relationship with the divine.

Do I tear apart what people say about God? Only insofar as to bring to peoples attention that God is beyond human grasp and that any words we use are metaphorical. If you think you have a grasp on God good for you. Personally I don't think so. Men do their best to create Him in their own image and want Him to behave the way they want him to behave. Fortunately He does not follow along. When one thinks one has a grasp on God they are living in a delusion. They are trying to fit God into their box. It won't happen.

Shalom

Ted:-6
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

Jesus the man, death and resurrection

Post by Ted »

What can I say about the death of Jesus of Nazareth.

We actually know very little other than he was tried and pronounced guilty of being a social disturber, a radical leader who may promote a revolution and of course for high treason. An attack against the temple and the temple authorities was considered treasonous.

We know that he was crucified, which was a horrible death. We know little else.

Shalom

Ted:-6
Post Reply

Return to “Christianity”