Were There Two Different Jesuses?

[Caino]

You are totally mistaken Caino, the original gospel of Jesus was the Tanach. As that is concerned, there was no controversy between the Jews and Jesus. Any thing for that matter was an anti-Jewish slender with the intent to promote the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology.

Get honest Ben! Your motive on this forum is to completely discredit Jesus and make him go away. That's what some of your self righteous kinfolks tried to do when they killed Jesus! But their problems with Jesus had only just begun.

 

[Wick Stick]

Get honest Ben! Your motive on this forum is to completely discredit Jesus and make him go away.

Actually, I don't think it is. It seems to me that his aim is to divorce Jesus from the paradigm of Christianity, and the New Testament, thereby reconciling Jesus to Judaism. Ok, I'll butt out now.

 

[Ben Masada]

Get honest Ben! Your motive on this forum is to completely discredit Jesus and make him go away. That's what some of your self righteous kinfolks tried to do when they killed Jesus! But their problems with Jesus had only just begun.

Okay, let us use a little of logical Psychology. There is nothing more important to the Jews than God's Law. Why would the Jewish authorities kill a fellow Jew who came to fulfill and confirm all the Law down to the letter, even the dot of the letter? Does it make sense to you? (Mat.5:17-19) Caino, the Jews did not kill Jesus; the Romans did it. Furthermore, the Jews had nothing to do with the crucifixion of Jesus. He was crucified on a political charge of insurrection. His own disciples, playing the stupid, starting acclaiming Jesus king of the Jews at the entrance of Jerusalem, a Roman province at the time. Read Luke 19:37-40. So, from now on, I hope, you will blame his disciples and not the Jews in general.

 

[Ben Masada]

Get honest Ben! Your motive on this forum is to completely discredit Jesus and make him go away. That's what some of your self righteous kinfolks tried to do when they killed Jesus! But their problems with Jesus had only just begun.

I am not trying to make Jesus go away but to persuade you guys to leave him alone. After all, he was a Jewish man and not a Christian. And you are using a Jewish man to preach against his own Faith which was Judaism. Since it happens that, like him, I am also a Jew, someone must stand for the Faith of Jesus.

 

[Caino]

Okay, let us use a little of logical Psychology. There is nothing more important to the Jews than God's Law. Why would the Jewish authorities kill a fellow Jew who came to fulfill and confirm all the Law down to the letter, even the dot of the letter? Does it make sense to you? (Mat.5:17-19) Caino, the Jews did not kill Jesus; the Romans did it. Furthermore, the Jews had nothing to do with the crucifixion of Jesus. He was crucified on a political charge of insurrection. His own disciples, playing the stupid, starting acclaiming Jesus king of the Jews at the entrance of Jerusalem, a Roman province at the time. Read Luke 19:37-40. So, from now on, I hope, you will blame his disciples and not the Jews in general.

Answer to your questions:

* Jesus was the fulfillment of the intent of the law to begin with, the spirit of the Law. Jesus established a more rigorous law, Gods law as written on the hearts of man, the whole souled commitment to seek first the will of God in all aspects of our lives and second to actually do Gods will. To the Jews the kingdom was material, political, Israel. The Kingdom established by Jesus was spiritual and for all mankind, it was established on the "good news" that all men and women of earth are the sons and daughters of God, not just a self important chosen few.

* Jesus was tried by the court of the Sanhedrin for offences against their ecclesiastical laws, traditional pride and disturbance of their theological worldview. [Jesus was different from the Messianic expectations of the Jews.]

The Jews of Jesus' day lived under occupation by the Romans, as such they were allowed the freedom of their religion and it's laws among themselves. It was not lawful for the Jews to put any man to death under Roman authority, therefore they had to take their shaky case from their trumped up trial of Jesus before the presiding Roman Governor who would carry out the sentence of death on behalf of the Jews. That was Pilate who even himself saw how ridiculous the case was but he was a coward, leaving it up to the mob thus attempting to wash his hands of the whole sordid affair. In reality Pilate was on trial before Jesus.

* The courts of the Sanhedrin didn't handle "political changes" against the Roman state. Lame attempt there Ben.

 

[Caino]

I am not trying to make Jesus go away but to persuade you guys to leave him alone. After all, he was a Jewish man and not a Christian. And you are using a Jewish man to preach against his own Faith which was Judaism. Since it happens that, like him, I am also a Jew, someone must stand for the Faith of Jesus.

You are trying to disembowel the heart of the pre-cross Gospel of Jesus, his identity and office in a vain attempt to substantiate your disbelief. Having been unjustly persecuted for centuries for their faith in a promise which they didn't fully understand, the Jewish people have formed a callous over their ability for spiritual perception which makes it impossible for you to hear and understand. Today the Jews are sadly wondering in the darkness of a false expectation of a Jewish Messiah that will never come. I recall that you don't believe the Messiah was a person anyway.

If you could only extrapolate the spiritual motivation of the scriptures and realize that the kingdom is a spiritual fellowship and not a material Israel, then your heart and mind would truly be opened.

 

[Ben Masada]

Answer to your questions:

* Jesus was the fulfillment of the intent of the law to begin with, the spirit of the Law. Jesus established a more rigorous law, Gods law as written on the hearts of man, the whole souled commitment to seek first the will of God in all aspects of our lives and second to actually do Gods will. To the Jews the kingdom was material, political, Israel. The Kingdom established by Jesus was spiritual and for all mankind, it was established on the "good news" that all men and women of earth are the sons and daughters of God, not just a self important chosen few.

Yes, Jesus fulfilled the Law and made sure we all did the same till Heavens an earth passed away. Read Matthew 5:17-19. But you prefer to follow the Pauline gospel that says "We have been released from the Law. (Romans 7:6)

* Jesus was tried by the court of the Sanhedrin for offences against their ecclesiastical laws, traditional pride and disturbance of their theological worldview. [Jesus was different from the Messianic expectations of the Jews.

You are wrong! There was nothing wrong with Jesus that demanded a trial by the Sanhedrin. But you prefer to listen to the lies of the Hellenist former disciples of Paul who wrote the gospels.

The Jews of Jesus' day lived under occupation by the Romans, as such they were allowed the freedom of their religion and it's laws among themselves. It was not lawful for the Jews to put any man to death under Roman authority, therefore they had to take their shaky case from their trumped up trial of Jesus before the presiding Roman Governor who would carry out the sentence of death on behalf of the Jews. That was Pilate who even himself saw how ridiculous the case was but he was a coward, leaving it up to the mob thus attempting to wash his hands of the whole sordid affair. In reality Pilate was on trial before Jesus.

When you say that Pilate was a coward, you only show you have never read "War of the Jews" by Josephus. He says that Pilate would not have a good sleeping night the day he did not nail a Jew on the cross.

 

[Ben Masada]

You are trying to disembowel the heart of the pre-cross Gospel of Jesus, his identity and office in a vain attempt to substantiate your disbelief. Having been unjustly persecuted for centuries for their faith in a promise which they didn't fully understand, the Jewish people have formed a callous over their ability for spiritual perception which makes it impossible for you to hear and understand. Today the Jews are sadly wondering in the darkness of a false expectation of a Jewish Messiah that will never come. I recall that you don't believe the Messiah was a person anyway.

If you could only extrapolate the spiritual motivation of the scriptures and realize that the kingdom is a spiritual fellowship and not a material Israel, then your heart and mind would truly be opened.

That's not I but the only Scriptures Jesus used to refer to as the Word of God aka the Tanach. The NT he never even dreamed would ever rise.

 

[Caino]

Answer to your questions:



Yes, Jesus fulfilled the Law and made sure we all did the same till Heavens an earth passed away. Read Matthew 5:17-19. But you prefer to follow the Pauline gospel that says "We have been released from the Law. (Romans 7:6)



You are wrong! There was nothing wrong with Jesus that demanded a trial by the Sanhedrin. But you prefer to listen to the lies of the Hellenist former disciples of Paul who wrote the gospels.



When you say that Pilate was a coward, you only show you have never read "War of the Jews" by Josephus. He says that Pilate would not have a good sleeping night the day he did not nail a Jew on the cross.

History isn't on your side. It's like saying Pharoh got along swell with his slaves, he actually bought them plane tickets to Jerusalem, he used to visit every spring.

Judaism is mostly man made, an invention of priestly Jewish ansestors after Abrams agreement with Melchizedek. You have become discredited false prophets hold up in a museum to an exaggerated past with a distorted sense of self importance. You don't even follow the Leviticus laws anymore!

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Were There Two Different Jesuses?

NO there were not. Stupid question.

 

[Ben Masada]

NO there were not. Stupid question.

Really! So, go ahead and explain to us why the Jesus of Luke went back home to Nazareth soon after his presentation in the Temple when he was only 40 days old and the Jesus of Matthew went to Egypt?

 

[Ben Masada]

History isn't on your side. It's like saying Pharoh got along swell with his slaves, he actually bought them plane tickets to Jerusalem, he used to visit every spring.

Judaism is mostly man made, an invention of priestly Jewish ansestors after Abrams agreement with Melchizedek. You have become discredited false prophets hold up in a museum to an exaggerated past with a distorted sense of self importance. You don't even follow the Leviticus laws anymore!

Let it be as you say if you need that to feel good.

 

[Nameless.In.Grace]

Were There Two Different Jesuses?

Were There Two Different Jesuses?

When Luke wrote Acts of the Apostles to Theophilus, he guaranteed him that he had dealt with ALL that Jesus did and taught until the end of his life on earth. (Acts 1:1,2) If Luke is someone worthy believing, there must be something wrong with Matthew.

1 - I am not talking about the huge difference in the genealogy of Jesus. (Mat. 1:1-17)

2 - I am not talking about the anxiety of Mary to explain her pregnancy without having yet slept with Joseph. (Mat. 1:18-25)

3 - I am not talking about the Astrologers from the East who came to worship the newborn king of the Jews. (Mat. 2:1,2)

4 - I am not talking about the star that stood still over the place where the child was. (Mat. 2:9-11)

5 - I am not talking about the flight of the child to Egypt. (Mat. 2:13-15)

6 - I am not talking about the slaughtering of the innocent under the age of two with the Herodian intent to catch Jesus. (Mat. 2:16-18)

7 - I am not talking about a lot of other things that Luke ignored in his accurate account of EVERYTHING about Jesus to Theophilus.

Here's what I am talking about: While the Jesus of Matthew was still in Egypt, waiting for Herod to die, the Jesus of Luke was born, after eight days circumcised, on the 40th day presented in the Temple, and immediately after these requirements of the Law, the family headed back to Galilee, and to their own town of Nazareth. (Luke 2:21,22,39) Now, bear in mind that Jesus was only 40 days old when they headed back home to Nazareth.

In the meantime, the Jesus of Matthew was still trapped in Egypt waiting for the word of the "angel" with the news that Herod had finally died. Perhaps in order to spare the embarrassment, the age of this Jesus was omitted.

Therefore, how many Jesuses were there? If there was but one, either gospel writer is lying or neither ever met each other. But then again, how about the spirit that inspired the revelation? I think Christianity will be better off if we don't remove that stone. The smell will be too strong

Oh, I have a short answer.

Jesus of the 66 book Judeo-Christian text.

Isa of the Qu,ran


Sent from my iPad using TOL ~Jesus is the Theology and the Counselor is the Commentary

 

[Wick Stick]

That's not I but the only Scriptures Jesus used to refer to as the Word of God aka the Tanach. The NT he never even dreamed would ever rise.

You are reading the prophets differently than the apostles did, and therefore probably differently than how Jesus taught them.

Most people read this oft-repeated phrase in the prophets, "the Word of the Lord came to...," and they take it as an introduction, and perhaps a claim to divine revelation.

The New Testament authors didn't read it that way.

All the internal evidence shows that they regarded "the Word of the Lord" to be an angelic visitor who literally appeared to the prophets, delivering the message. Moreover, it appears that they regarded this angel to be THE angel of the LORD.

Thus, wherever the NT uses the phrase "Word of the Lord" or "Word of God," what is meant is not the Tanach, nor any portion of it, but rather it is meant to intimate a visitation of the highest order.

Jarrod

 

[Ben Masada]

You are reading the prophets differently than the apostles did, and therefore probably differently than how Jesus taught them.

That's a wrong statement as none of the Apostles of Jesus wrote a single word of the NT. Anyway, the NT did not exist at the time of the Apostles. Therefore, I could not read differently from them.

Most people read this oft-repeated phrase in the prophets, the Word of the Lord came to," and they take it as an introduction, and perhaps a claim to divine revelation.

It is a claim of Divine revelation alright but, reached the Prophets either in a dream or vision. (Numbers 12:6)

The New Testament authors didn't read it that way.

Of course you are right! They were not Jewish but Hellenist former disciples of Paul.

All the internal evidence shows that they regarded "the Word of the Lord" to be an angelic visitor who literally appeared to the prophets, delivering the message. Moreover, it appears that they regarded this angel to be THE angel of the LORD.

That's wrong! No "angelic" Divine revelation would come to a prophet in a literal manner but through either a vision or a dream. (Numbers 12:6) Of course it would reach destination literally but from the prophet but not to him.

Thus, wherever the NT uses the phrase "Word of the Lord" or "Word of God," what is meant is not the Tanach, nor any portion of it, but rather it is meant to intimate a visitation of the highest order.

And where do we achieve that understanding? From reading the Tanach. Besides, when Jesus said that the Truth was the Word of God according to John 17:17, he had the Tanach in mind because the NT did not exist at his time.

 

[Wick Stick]

That's a wrong statement as none of the Apostles of Jesus wrote a single word of the NT. Anyway, the NT did not exist at the time of Apostles. Therefore, I could not read differently from them.

That's a heck of a claim. You should do a thread on that. Otherwise, it's just a lack of common ground from which to argue in this thread.

It is a claim of Divine revelation alright but, reached the Prophets either in a dream or vision. (Numbers 12:6)

That's somewhat irrelevant. The Angel of the LORD appears in dreams and visions throughout the Tanach. No reason not to apply the same logic elsewhere.

Of course you are right! They were not Jewish but Hellenist former disciples of Paul.

You appear to have oversimplified the problem to make it binary - "Jew" vs "Greek." Since Rabbi Akiba framed it that way, that's a pretty normal take for a Jewish person. You've fallen for some political rhetoric that's 2 millennia old.

The reality was that Judaism had quite a few different branches during the 1st century. It wasn't until ~90AD that Akiba and the Tanaim decided to re-define Judaism to mean Pharisee-ism, and ostracize all othe other strains of it and label them not-Jewish.

As for Paul, he clearly departed from Pharisee-ism, but does not belong in the category of Hellenizer, either. He falls into a different branch of Judaism. If you want to condemn that, you can, but at least do it on its own merits, rather than erroneously lumping it together with something entirely different.

That's wrong! No "angelic" Divine revelation would come to a prophet in a literal manner but through either a vision or a dream. (Numbers 12:6) Of course it would reach destination literally but from the prophet but not to him.

But is that the understanding the NT authors had in mind? I do not think so.

And where do we achieve that understanding? From reading the Tanach. Besides, when Jesus said that the Truth was the Word of God according to John 17:17, he had the Tanach in mind because the NT did not exist at his time.

Well, that's where we disagree. I don't think He had the Tanach OR the NT in mind. A simple reading of John 17 sure makes it look like He was referring back to Himself. Check out verse 5.

Jarrod

 

[Ben Masada]

That's a heck of a claim. You should do a thread on that. Otherwise, it's just a lack of common ground from which to argue in this thread.

Not just a heck of a claim" but also a heck of a testimony about the Truth.

That's somewhat irrelevant. The Angel of the LORD appears in dreams and visions throughout the Tanach. No reason not to apply the same logic elsewhere.

You can apply anywhere you want but it has to go according to Numbers 12:6. By way of a vision or a dream.

You appear to have oversimplified the problem to make it binary - "Jew" vs "Greek." Since Rabbi Akiba framed it that way, that's a pretty normal take for a Jewish person. You've fallen for some political rhetoric that's 2 millennia old.

That's the Truth according to the gospel of Jesus which was the Tanach and, I don't believe Rabbi Akiba said any thing differently.

The reality was that Judaism had quite a few different branches during the 1st century. It wasn't until ~90AD that Akiba and the Tanaim decided to re-define Judaism to mean Pharisee-ism, and ostracize all othe other strains of it and label them not-Jewish.

About four; quite different from hundreds or thousands among Christians today. As long as they did not change the Tanach, especially the Torah, we are back on the saddle again.

As for Paul, he clearly departed from Pharisee-ism, but does not belong in the category of Hellenizer, either. He falls into a different branch of Judaism. If you want to condemn that, you can, but at least do it on its own merits, rather than erroneously lumping it together with something entirely different.

Paul was never a Pharisee. If you read even the Catholic Encyclopedia, chapter "The New Testament", Paul was a Hellenist by birth; the son of a well-to-do Hellenist couple from the Greek province of Tarsus in the Cilicia, a region first to become Roman as Rome reached the Middle East.

But is that the understanding the NT authors had in mind? I do not think so.

Of course not! They were not Jewish but Hellenists former disciples of Paul.

Well, that's where we disagree. I don't think He had the Tanach OR the NT in mind. A simple reading of John 17 sure makes it look like He was referring back to Himself. Check out verse 5.

You are right! He could not have the NT in mind as it did not exist at his time. If you don't think he had the Tanach in mind, what did he have in mind, the Koran? It didn't exist either.

 

[freelight]

many versions of Jesus......

many versions of Jesus......

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.

While we're at it, lets throw in the various infancy and romance gospels,....who knows which to consider actual history or mythology beyond popular concensus or church vote?

It remains there are many different versions of 'Jesus', each religious group crafting and fitting Jesus into their own particular mold, whether that mode be more or less appropriate. I happen to dig the more Essene, Gnostic, Spiritualist versions or more liberal characterizations of 'Jesus'

 

[Ben Masada]

While we're at it, lets throw in the various infancy and romance gospels,....who knows which to consider actual history or mythology beyond popular concensus or church vote?

It remains there are many different versions of 'Jesus', each religious group crafting and fitting Jesus into their own particular mold, whether that mode be more or less appropriate. I happen to dig the more Essene, Gnostic, Spiritualist versions or more liberal characterizations of 'Jesus'

As far as I am concerned, I don't care about the many different Christian groups and what they do to fit Jesus according to their preconceived notions. I'd rather stick to the NT. That's what I am focused into. They speak too much about Jesus, a Jew who never had any thing to do with the NT and try to reach the Tanach with the intent at promoting the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology.

 

[freelight]

Jesus, becomes whatever you make him.......

Jesus, becomes whatever you make him.......

As far as I am concerned, I don't care about the many different Christian groups and what they do to fit Jesus according to their preconceived notions. I'd rather stick to the NT. That's what I am focused into. They speak too much about Jesus, a Jew who never had any thing to do with the NT and try to reach the Tanach with the intent at promoting the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology.

Well, that's the whole 'Jesus problem',....how hes sandwiched inbetween 2 bibles, which was then made into one big holy bible by 'Christians',...making its contents into a 'compound', which make for various confusions.

Since one can take Jesus in a totally Jewish context and tradition, or further make him into a more liberal version of Messiah, such as an Essene or Gnostic-like figure, where he is assumed a pre-existent divinity of some kind, and up there somewhere in the divine hierarchy along with God Most High. - the messianic spectrum is wide between Jewish and Christian versions of 'Messiah', however 'human' or 'divine' he is made out to be.

Yes Paul with his own gospel puts his own spin on Jesus as some heavenly messiah figure, but when you dive into his deeper gnostic teachings, its all pretty much a spiritual cosmic Christ-figure, which barely uses some earthly historic foundations as a base for his spiritual gospel of the ascension of the human soul.....all "in Christ' of course - thing is, all this 'in christ' activity is wholly 'spiritual', and you need to have spiritual discernment to understand these 'mysteries',...it comes by the witness of the Spirit

All in all, if you want to keep Jesus wholly Jewish and faithful to the law and the prophets, at least the gospel of Matthew and other texts will give you your 'supports',...but later 'Christian' innovations have their 'take' and assumed 'correct interpretation' of the Messiah to uphold, PLUS all those messianic prophecies about Jesus in the OT to boot! - I know all these can be refuted by Orthodox Jewish theologians and rabbis,...but you see....the apologetics here just go round in circles. Jesus exists, and how and who you take Jesus to be, will be based on your own reasons and logics. Anyone's views could change with more info.....so keep an open mind :surf: