I have a question concerning Jesus.....

Venturing off topic, I read those links and one brought this up:

Hell is the common grave of mankind, literally sheol, where all rest in hope.
Mark 9:47-48 “if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire--where 'Their worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched.'”
Click to expand...
I disagree with both groups on this. Sheol is neither a netherworld nor a hell. Moreover, when hell shows up, its translated from Gehenna, an actual physical place on earth where the faithless were burned. Brian wrote a thing about this. There's no indication in the gospels to imply that the usage was symbolic for an afterlife, but rather a methaphor for faithlessness, just as Isaiah used the term.

Ironically, Muslims do use Jehenna in relating to a hades-like place underground.
 
Abogado del Diablo said:
And in Genesis we have the name YHWH or YHVH rendered as "Yaweh" or "Jehovah" that actually means "I Am that I Am" - being. (Ex. 3:14) Jesus uses the phrase to identify himself as well (John 8:58).
Click to expand...
The above quote is very often missunderstood. There is actually a difference between Ex. 3:14 and John 8:58. In Ex. YHWH is stateing a fact of himself, the "I am" is a statement of identity. Jesus is not saying who he is but how long he has been "alive'. The "I am" of as recorded at John Jesus is actualy saing "I have been" in relation to Abraham. Before Abraham I have been. It is inrelation to his age not identity.
 
Eh, that's subjective. No way would a Jew of the era hear the constant 'I am'-ing and not think something of it.

Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
 
Ben57 said:
Jesus is not saying who he is but how long he has been "alive'. The "I am" of as recorded at John Jesus is actualy saing "I have been" in relation to Abraham. Before Abraham I have been. It is inrelation to his age not identity.
Click to expand...
The greek is ego eimi, which is "I am." It is not in the past tense.

Let me suggest to anyone who really wants to delve into the history and meaning of this passage that they review other Gnostic writings before reading this passage "literally." The "Gospel of John" is undoubtedly a Gnostic text and was one of the major teaching texts used by Valentinus. As such it is a square peg that's been jammed into the round hole in the NT Canon. As a starting point, I would reccommend beginning at the beginning with a study of Greek writings on the Logos (the "Word", as in "in the beginning was the Word"). The term has a rich history that predates the "Gospel of John" in Greek and Jewish philosophy. In particular, the writings of Heraclitus and Philo deal with the Logos. The latter is an Alexandrian Jew (described by Clement as "Philo the Pythagorean"), from whose writings we are familiar with the Therapeutae. Eusebius had much to say about Philo and the Therapeutae as well.
 
Eusebius of Ceasarea on Philo and the Therapeutae.

Here is a link to a translation of the text of Eusebius' writings on the subject of Philo from his "Church History" Book II, Chapter 17:

http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/npnf201/htm/iii.vii.xvii.htm

Be sure to check out the footnotes. They are also very interesting. Especially in light of our recent discussions about the author of the Markan gospel.
 
Wasn't there even a brief period in Christianity when the orthodox thought John's gospel had been written by Cerinthus? The Gospel of John is a pain because it introduces the method of symbolism. In no other gospel is there the claim that Jesus' reference to the temple pertains to his body. So the literalists (dating back to Irenaeus) have a more difficult time of it as part of the canon.
 
Mus Zibii said:
Wasn't there even a brief period in Christianity when the orthodox thought John's gospel had been written by Cerinthus? The Gospel of John is a pain because it introduces the method of symbolism. In no other gospel is there the claim that Jesus' reference to the temple pertains to his body. So the literalists (dating back to Irenaeus) have a more difficult time of it as part of the canon.
Click to expand...
Apparently, yes. Epiphianius, in his own response to "heretics" argues against the belief that the Egyptian Gnostic Cerninthus wrote the "Gospel of John." It really didn't even have that name until Ireneaus insisted that as a small child he'd heard Polycarp explain that it was written by "John the Apostle" in Ephesus. Eusebius is ambiguous about the matter, going out of his way to point out that there were two major teachers named John in Ephesus.

The earliest citations to it were by Clement and later Origen, which suggests an Egyptian Gnostic origin. There was a major early commentary written by Heracleon, a disciple of the influential Gnostic, Valentinus. Some scholars think there were two versions - an older version that read like a Cerinthian Gnostic text, and a "revised" version more like the one we see today possibly written for the express purpose of serving as a sort of "response" to the premier Gnostic text the "Gospel of Thomas." Elaine Pagels' new book "Beyond Belief" explores this topic in detail and is an excellent read as well.

Having studied it, in my opinion the revisers didn't do a very good job of straining out the Gnosticism. Of course, as with all the Gnostic works (including Mark possibly and maybe even the Pauline epistles - see Freke and Gandy's "The Jesus Mysteries"), if you don't "know" the symbolism, it's easy to miss the meaning.
 
I've always been of the opnion that all the gospels, the life-story of Jesus were a result of gnostic midrash. None of what could be called the earliest writings mention anything about a gospel Jesus, and the theology of Paul as seen in the epistles frequently seem at odds with the gospel Jesus. Early Christianity, judging from the epistles of Paul, and the Kabbalistic revelations, seem to be an overhauled Judaism, with the name 'Jesus' added later.
 
Mus Zibii said:
I've always been of the opnion that all the gospels, the life-story of Jesus were a result of gnostic midrash. None of what could be called the earliest writings mention anything about a gospel Jesus, and the theology of Paul as seen in the epistles frequently seem at odds with the gospel Jesus. Early Christianity, judging from the epistles of Paul, and the Kabbalistic revelations, seem to be an overhauled Judaism, with the name 'Jesus' added later.
Click to expand...
I agree that it appears to have started as the Gnostic philosophical tradition and gradually came to be dominated by a faith-based religion of the christian literalists. The myth itself is so similar to the godman myths of the "pagan" mysteries that it was almost certainly inspired by them. I think the most plausible explanation is that the Jesus tradition was started by Greek speaking Jews living in Alexandria merging the teachings of the Essenes with the "pagan" mysteries of Osiris-Dionysis and Jewish messianic prophecy and a little theology - particularly borrowing the story structure for the passion/ressurection from Psalm 22 and mythologizing the Day of Atonement when the scapegoat Azazel would carry the sins of the congregation to the animal's death.

The earliest gospels were probably written by Alexandrian Jews who liked the philosophy but wanted to remain Jewish. Paul is clearly at odds with those who intended the myth to remain Jewish - writing extensively about circumcision being unnecessary and how the Law is completely fulfilled in the act of loving one another. Not surprisingly, Paul's message spread better among gentiles than Jews. Gnostic scholars continued to teach and write about the Jesus myth, including such early eminent "church fathers" as Clement and Origen. These early Gnostics were doing something more akin to Greek philosophy than starting a faith-based religion. The philosophical meaning ultimately lost out to the faith-based religion though.

Interesting that Paul writes about Jesus as being "found in appearance as man" in Phillipians, which could be taken as an expression of the docetic "heresy." It also fits with the Islamic account of the Jews only thinking they crucified Jesus as detailed in the Qur'an.
 
I know I'm coming into this thread late but I have something to contribute. Until I started to read what Jesus said and break it down into categories I couldn't get a clear idea of his teachings. I was always taught how to read the Bible and therefore presented all matters from a certain perspective.

First off, by breaking down what he said you'll get an idea of what he really said and what may have been added later by the church. If not looked at this way then it would lead one to say that Jesus contradicted himself at every turn. I don't believe he would have done that.

Shannon, your quote of Isaiah 7:14 needs clarification. In the original hebrew it didn't read that " the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son."
The word was "young woman"(in Hebrew almah). A young woman becoming pregnant is not the same as virginal conception.
 
I'm glad to see this thread resurface; there's quite a bit of interesting commentary going on here. Actually, not having read and reasearched all the roots of early Christianity and the "church fathers," gnostic or not, I can't really evaluate the origins of the Gospels and Christianity historically. However, it's interesting to me to see the sense of two religions, or a religion and a philosophy, being cobbled together to create what we know of today as Christianity.

There seems to be a conflict in Christianity between "what I believe" and "what I know." Some emphasize the teachings of Jesus, the Sermon on the mount, His fulfillment of the law.

The Fulfillment of the Law
17“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matt 5)
Click to expand...

The emphasis above is on what we do, what we "know" to be the way to the Kingdom in our midst. It was very clear, I think. Jesus taught that we must do as He did, give up everything and follow Him. These are the teachings of Jesus and the emphasis is on His human side.

The other side of the coin is "what we believe."
16“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.[g] (John 3, NIV)
Click to expand...

The Gospel of John uses the word "believe" 50 times in the NIV translation (the word apprears 152 times in the entire OT + NT so a full third of the mentions of this word are made in this single Gospel). Believe Jesus is God the Son.

There are the teachings and parables of Jesus, and there is the Passion story. A practical religion, and a mystical religion. A religion of judgement and a religion of grace. A religion of works and a religion of faith. These ideas seem opposed to each other. How do we reconcile them? I think often we are tempted to focus on one and not on the other.

But Jesus was fully God and fully human. I really think those church fathers knew what they were doing when they would not give in to emphasizing just one aspect of Jesus over the other. I think it's brilliant that we have the four Gospels with all their conflicting details and different spins. Paul seems to be more like the Gospel of John, focusing on belief. If you look at James you don't see anything about believing in a resurrected Christ but you get a clear picture of the Way pointed out by Jesus. James is looking at the lifeboat while Paul and the Gospel of John are looking at the ocean.

I wish I could express this more clearly than I know I am doing. Would Christianity have survived as a religion if it didn't have both of these parts? The way to enter the Kingdom is to give up everything, even your life. Everything material, and the richer you are the more you have to let go. Spiritually, you have to die, and rise with Christ. Like in the parable of the rich man,
“With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.” (Mark 10, NIV)
Click to expand...


We may dissect the origins of the Gospels and distill the words down to what Jesus may actually have said and weave together the myths that fleshed out the details of Jesus' life, but at the end of the day, what matters? To me it seems that the Spirit is at work in the world, that Person of the Trinity Whom we often seem to overlook, and I believe that not only in spite of, but through whatever mistakes and bumblings and outright power-grabs may have taken place throughout history, the Bible mercifully gives us a Christ who was not just man, not just God, but fully both.

Forgive my late night ramblings!

lunamoth
 
I differ that it doesn't matter what was really said. It is extremely important to know what was said and added to the Bible. People preach a message of eternal life and damnation from interpretations they get out of the Bible. If mistranslated or conveyed biasly to someone, it can lead to alot of unnecessary anguish. We need to know if Jesus indeed said, you have to beleive in me to go to heaven. I don't beleive he said that. Some would relegate me to the pits of eternal flames for that. They play God with the words they weild from the Bible and it is a deadly game to be playing if not fully understood.
 
didymus said:
I differ that it doesn't matter what was really said. It is extremely important to know what was said and added to the Bible. People preach a message of eternal life and damnation from interpretations they get out of the Bible. If mistranslated or conveyed biasly to someone, it can lead to alot of unnecessary anguish. We need to know if Jesus indeed said, you have to beleive in me to go to heaven. I don't beleive he said that. Some would relegate me to the pits of eternal flames for that. They play God with the words they weild from the Bible and it is a deadly game to be playing if not fully understood.
Click to expand...

Hi didymus, I wasn't trying to say that it doesn't matter what Jesus said, or that what He actually factually said to the best of our scholarly knowledge is not important. It was late so I let my rhetoric get away from me a bit. :) I also don't agree with the idea that it is a professed belief in Jesus as the Son, crucified, buried, and raised, that determines whether one "gets into heaven" (has an afterlife, eternal life) after our physical life is ended. I don't even really know what all of that means and even though I seem to be talking about it quite a bit lately I don't really dwell on it all that much.

I wrote some more but decided to erase it. Keep searching didymus. :) Questioning is the only way to learn and grow.

peace,
lunamoth
 
Hey Im new to this site, and I'd love to prove to the JW that Jesus is in fact God. Let me know that you're here so I can write back. Till then, to spark interest here's what Im brining to the table:

Jesus is not the father, nor is he the Holy Spirit. But, just like the other 2 persons in the Godhead, Jesus is God. Take away any of the 3 and there will be no God.

Later,

Knowledge
 
What's up knowledge, i think you were referring to me when you said JW. I'm not JW but I'll gladly discuss this issue with you. I can give you at least 15 passages where Jesus made a clear distinction between himself and God.
 
Of course you can Did, there is a clear distinction between the two of them. No one has ever denied that at all. And I can give you many more than 15 showing that Jesus is God.
 
Yes, there are many instances where Jesus said he was the "Son of God." But, there are also instances where both Jesus, and scripture (Old and New Testament), show that Jesus is God the Creator. And you know what? He IS!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top