Were There Two Different Jesuses?

[Ben Masada]

1 - Paul was a Jewish Scholar who knew well his Scriptures and preached and proved Christ through them .

2 - Paul felt sorry for his fellow Jews who were Blind to the Truth of Jesus.

3 - Rom 3:29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:

4 - Rom 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

5 - Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith,
and uncircumcision through faith.

6 - Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

1 - The Lord keep these scholars far, far away from us.

2 - What truth of Jesus, that he was akin to the Greek myth of the demigod, defined in Mat. 1:18? There is no precedent in Judaism that Jesus was the son of a god with an earthly woman.

3 - Yes, to the Gentiles too but through Israel, the Jewish People qua Emmanuel. (Isaiah 8:8)

4 - It is not circumcision that makes of a Jew a man.

5 - Circumcision without the Law is akin to a body without the breath of life. Dead if you know what I mean. (James 2:26)

6 - Neither can we release ourselves from the Law with faith. (Rom. 7:6)

7 - Yea, we establish faith through the obedience of the Law.

 

[Jacob]

One thing is to miss what another said; another much different is to say the opposite as in the case between Matthew and Luke. The reader has no other option but to think that they were talking about two different Jesuses.

Two of the gospel accounts can be seen to be Matthew and Luke (of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). I am not saying that there is a contradiction between them. There are four gospel accounts total in the New Testament (writings/scriptures).

Are you comparing anything between them? A difference between any two things is not a contradiction necessarily. Is it possible to you that the gospel writers record different events in the life of Jesus? Even if they happened at approximately the same time or just in the early years of Jesus' life and childhood.

 

[Ben Masada]

Were There Two Different Jesuses?

Two of the gospel accounts can be seen to be Matthew and Luke (of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). I am not saying that there is a contradiction between them. There are four gospel accounts total in the New Testament (writings/scriptures).

Are you comparing anything between them? A difference between any two things is not a contradiction necessarily. Is it possible to you that the gospel writers record different events in the life of Jesus? Even if they happened at approximately the same time or just in the early years of Jesus' life and childhood.

Not at the same time when an event is taking place. According to Luke, when Joseph & Mary had finished with all the requirements of the Law, they went back with Jesus up North to Nazareth. (Luke 2:39) At the same time, now according to Matthew, Jesus was being taken down South to Egypt where they remained till Herod had died. (Mat. 2:14)

 

[Jacob]

Not at the same time when an event is taking place. According to Luke, when Joseph & Mary had finished with all the requirements of the Law, they went back with Jesus up North to Nazareth. (Luke 2:39) At the same time, now according to Matthew, Jesus was being taken down South to Egypt where they remained till Herod had died. (Mat. 2:14)

I understand not at the same time in principle. Here though is it possible to come up with an other explanation?

For example, was Nazareth after Egypt? I don't know if this is the only possibility.

 

[Ben Masada]

I understand not at the same time in principle. Here though is it possible to come up with an other explanation?

For example, was Nazareth after Egypt? I don't know if this is the only possibility.

You can try if you want but, in my opinion, you will get lost because Nazareth is up North in the Galilee, while Egypt is down South, North of Africa. Much easier is to accept the Truth.

 

[Jacob]

You can try if you want but, in my opinion, you will get lost because Nazareth is up North in the Galilee, while Egypt is down South, North of Africa.

I believe Jesus went to Egypt. I know He didn't stay there. He grew up in Nazareth not Bethlehem.

 

[Wick Stick]

Ben points out the inconstancies of the human accounts about Jesus. What if he had the guts to point out the inconstancies of the Torah?

Hah! This was my thought, too.

If you're having trouble harmonizing the gospels, try harmonizing the Pentateuch! The redaction there is far worse.

Jarrod

 

[Wick Stick]

Not at the same time when an event is taking place. According to Luke, when Joseph & Mary had finished with all the requirements of the Law, they went back with Jesus up North to Nazareth. (Luke 2:39) At the same time, now according to Matthew, Jesus was being taken down South to Egypt where they remained till Herod had died. (Mat. 2:14)

Are you sure that there isn't something funny happening with the names? 1st century Jewish writings are replete with examples of calling one place by another name, either poetically, or for reasons of persecution.

Nazareth may be both destinations, but Luke (with his Pharisee training) may be referring to it as "Egypt" because of its reputation for non-Jewish culture, or some other affinity between the two.

Jarrod

 

[Ben Masada]

Were There Two Different Jesuses?

I believe Jesus went to Egypt. I know He didn't stay there. He grew up in Nazareth not Bethlehem.

That's not the point in discussion. The point in discussion is that while the Jesus of Matthew was in Egypt, the Jesus of Luke was in Nazareth. Do you know how to explain that or they are talking about two different Jesuses?

 

[Ben Masada]

Are you sure that there isn't something funny happening with the names? 1st century Jewish writings are replete with examples of calling one place by another name, either poetically, or for reasons of persecution.

Nazareth may be both destinations, but Luke (with his Pharisee training) may be referring to it as "Egypt" because of its reputation for non-Jewish culture, or some other affinity between the two.

Jarrod

You are being hypothetical and, hypothesis is a false way to study History. When this is applied, nothing of either case was true. Going that way you could be planning to derail the whole of History which only jeopardizes the existence of both; the one of Matthew and the one of Luke.

 

[Ben Masada]

Were There Two Different Jesuses?

Hah! This was my thought, too.

If you're having trouble harmonizing the gospels, try harmonizing the Pentateuch! The redaction there is far worse.

Jarrod

And don't forget me that, while I am here I could be of some help harmonizing the Pentateuch. I had a course in Judaica at the University of Judaism in Los Angeles.

 

[Ben Masada]

Were There Two Different Jesuses?

Are you sure that there isn't something funny happening with the names? 1st century Jewish writings are replete with examples of calling one place by another name, either poetically, or for reasons of persecution.

Nazareth may be both destinations, but Luke (with his Pharisee training) may be referring to it as "Egypt" because of its reputation for non-Jewish culture, or some other affinity between the two.

Jarrod

Where did you get the idea that Luke had Pharisee training? The Sect of the Pharisees was not available even to the Hellenist Jew; let alone a Gentile of Greek origin. Only very conservative Jews would have access to Pharisee education. A very good evidence of the fact was Jesus whom some scholars claim that he was a very intelligent Pharisee himself.

 

[This Charming Manc]

In response to OP

In response to OP

No!

 

[Jacob]

That's not the point in discussion. The point in discussion is that while the Jesus of Matthew was in Egypt, the Jesus of Luke was in Nazareth. Do you know how to explain that or they are talking about two different Jesuses?

If both accounts are true then there must be a way that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and ended up in both Egypt and Nazareth.

 

[Ben Masada]

Were There Two Different Jesuses?

If both accounts are true then there must be a way that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and ended up in both Egypt and Nazareth.

I take it that it means you are through with this discussion. Anyway, I had already realized that we were wasting our time.

 

[Jacob]

I take it that it means you are through with this discussion. Anyway, I had already realized that we were wasting our time.

I understand you are just responding now, which is fine.

I don't know what you mean by through with this discussion and I don't feel I am wasting my time.

 

[freelight]

Both collection of 'books' have contradictions......

Both collection of 'books' have contradictions......

Hah! This was my thought, too.

If you're having trouble harmonizing the gospels, try harmonizing the Pentateuch! The redaction there is far worse.

Jarrod

On this total count system,...we could scrutinize the entire Bible itself, as a collection of written works, by various authors, in different time periods and cultural contexts, as being subject to so many variations, imperfections, interpolations, redactions, scribal agendas, creative doctoring, literary devices and the list can go on..........welcome to humanity.

To be intellectually honest, one must acknowledge and account for contradictions in the Bible, however one chooses to explain, understand or resolve such complexities. They are what they are. Lump it.

Since its a hodge-podge of books from both ends of the spectrum, its like looking at a pointing finger in a hall of mirrors. Its like a convention of cherry-pickers congregating in different parts of the same orchard pretending they're not doing what everyone else is doing in different sectors. - its just humans doing some more 'sect-arian' activities, towing different party lines and forming 'cults' around their mutual interests. - again, why is this surprising anyone? You're just a cult-ured as any other, unless you are more or less free of such. Are you really free?

~*~*~

Now as far as there being 2 different Jesuses (sp?, heck, lets just roll with it )....well, there are dozens of different 'versions', 'styles', 'personifications' of Jesus in religious thought and philosophy, going beyond more traditional judeo-christianized forms. The contradictions in the gospels are there, but why would such surprise anyone, when these are religious works by various authors, written for their own 'agenda' or 'effect', and that obviously includes some embellishment, mythology and creative 'doctoring',....why is that so awful to accept, its a human production (no matter how inspired...the 'mediums' are human), so the 'production' is subject to human conditioning. - that's just a fact.

All anyone has on 'Jesus' is what accounts have been written about him, 'canonized' or not,....that's all we have to go on, so this 'Jesus' can appear in so many different' forms' molded by the stories and the story-tellers, and this 'Jesus' can also be 'questioned' whether he existed as a historical figure or not, or some embellishment of an actual person or blend of personalities. The list goes on, as well as the criteria by which such evidence can be assumed or determined. What it boils down to in the end by a 'believer' is 'faith' in a particular presentation of 'Jesus' and what this 'Jesus' means to them, how that's 'translated' in their own life or religious community.

 

[Crucible]

It has been admitted by the big ol atheist apologists and historians that there was in fact a historical Jesus. It is indisputable.

You have two choices. You can choose to believe that he was insane, or you can believe that he is God who has given us reprieve from our own wickedness.

As for the subject of this thread:
Lollerskates

 

[Tyrathca]

It has been admitted by the big ol atheist apologists and historians that there was in fact a historical Jesus. It is indisputable.

That doesn't make it indisputable. It also doesn't mean that the historical Jesus and the biblical one are always the same person.

What matters is the reason they thought what they did (and if that reasoning was faulty for whatever reason).

You have two choices. You can choose to believe that he was insane, or you can believe that he is God who has given us reprieve from our own wickedness.

Or neither and most of what is attributed to him his fable. Though most probably he was like the founders of other religions, either high functioning insane, a con man or just very very mistaken /confused.

Do you think Mohammed was insane? Was Guru Nanak Dev (Sikhism)? Joseph Smith (Mormonism)? L. Ron Hubbard (Scientology)?

 

[Crucible]

That doesn't make it indisputable. It also doesn't mean that the historical Jesus and the biblical one are always the same person.

What matters is the reason they thought what they did (and if that reasoning was faulty for whatever reason).
Or neither and most of what is attributed to him his fable. Though most probably he was like the founders of other religions, either high functioning insane, a con man or just very very mistaken /confused.

Do you think Mohammed was insane? Was Guru Nanak Dev (Sikhism)? Joseph Smith (Mormonism)? L. Ron Hubbard (Scientology)?

Islam came 500 years after Christianity, and Mormons aren't recognized by either the Roman, Anglican, or Protestant communions as Christian.

Just because heresy exists doesn't mean Yeshua was not the Messiah in and of the divine Creator. This is the atheist's blunder- supposing you can just dismiss the Lion of Judah, a mere carpenter in a backwash desert who changed the entire course of human history.