What is your opinion of this?

[Snowbear]

snow, as you know, i tend to see Jesus as a historical figure,
Yeshua or Yeshu, whose followers were clearly influenced by him,
to the point of putting their lives on the line.

when they tried to re-create what he had said and done
for later generations, i think some things got lost in
translation.

this may be one of them

Either that or the message is lost when one chooses to deny Jesus' Deity....

 

[H2Andy]

Either that or the message is lost when one chooses to deny Jesus' Deity....

well, to me (this is just me) the message makes no sense if i assume Jesus
is God. i don't really want to get into why, cause i respect people who
believe he is God.

the only way it makes sense (to me) is to assume he was a person, and that his
followers got it wrong when they wrote down what he said

here's that reading i was talking about:

The most prominent of the many movements to 'reJudaify' Judaism was the Essene Movement. Founded in the second century B.C.E., the Essenes were either founded by or greatly influenced by a "Teacher of Righteousness," to which the Dead Sea Scrolls make constant reference without ever naming. One individual who fits the scanty evidence is a Yeishu ha Notzri, Jesus or Jesua, or Yeshua or Joshua ben Pantera or Pentera or Pandera or Pandira, who apparently had some influence with this movement, but may have been much more than that; we simply don't know. Indeed, there are even several first-century Christian references to this supposed miracle worker.

If he was the Teacher of Righteousness referred to by the Dead Sea Scrolls, as some have suggested, his impact on the movement towards Jewish reform was considerable. And if he was the Teacher of Righteousness, it would answer a lot of interesting questions, such as the scattered first century Christian and Talmudic references to a miracle worker named Yeishu ha Notzri, known to first-century Christians as Jesus or Jesua ben Pantera. Among them are a quote from Origen, saying that his arch-rival Celsus had heard from a Jew in Jerusalem that "Jesus Ben Pantera" was born of Mary as the result of a rape by a Roman soldier named Pantera, and had borne the baby in secret (scholars now regard this belief as a first-century legend resulting from misinterpretation of the facts). That the first century Christians may have feared there was some truth to this rumor is evidenced by the fact of Mark's obvious embarrassment regarding the origins of Jesus; Mark, the first writer of a canonic gospel, never mentions Joseph as the husband of Mary. Note also that it was both the Roman custom and the custom of the Jews to include a patrilineal surname as part of a person's full name; yet nowhere in the New Testament does the surname of Jesus, (or Joseph, for that matter) appear. There is at least one Talmudic reference to Jeshu as being the illegitimate son of an adultress named Mary Magdala. There are several interesting references to a Yeishu ha Notzri (note the resemblance of the name to "Jesus of Nazareth"), who traveled around and practiced magic during the reign of Alexander Janneus, who ruled Palestine from 104 to 78 BCE. As these references are Talmudic (from the Baraitas and the Gemara), and therefore presumed by Christian scholars to be anti-Christian, Christian apologeticists have simply dismissed them as referring to someone else or being fabricated propaganda. But if they are genuine, and they really do refer to the Jesus of whom the Christians speak, they add evidence to the claim that the Jesus of Nazareth story is really based on the life of Yieshu ha Notzri, possibly the Essene "Teacher of Righteousness." Evidence points to him being the founder of the Notzri.

An interesting note here is that the version of the Talmud still used by modern Christian scholars, is normally the version known to have been heavily edited by Christians by the 16th century - presumably to remove the dangerous references to Yeishu ha Notzri and his followers, the Notzrim. But the pristine version, used by Jewish scholars, gives us some rich detail. Yeishu ha Notzri was considered by the temple authorities of the time to be a troublemaking heretic, and when they had finally had enough of him, they put him on trial. He was convicted of heresy, sentenced to wander the city for 40 days, with a crier going before him, shouting that if anyone had reason why he should not be executed, they should come forward. When no did, he was stoned to death, and his body hung from a tree on the eve of passover, in 88 B.C.E. Note the death on the eve of passover. Note also the hanging of the body from a tree - at the time, a sign of despicability, with its resemblance to the crucifixion myth.

http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

 

[Snowbear]

well, to me (this is just me) the message makes no sense if i assume Jesus
is God. i don't really want to get into why, cause i respect people who
believe he is God.

the only way it makes sense (to me) is to assume he was a person, and that his
followers got it wrong when they wrote down what he said

Actually, as I understand the concept, you are correct in that although He was (is) God, Jesus actually was a man when He was born to Mary.... He was God who came to earth to BE fully human... to take on human mortality, be subject to the humility, temptations and trials of us lowly humans. He had to do that in order to be able to die to take the death penalty of sinning for we humans who WILL give in to temptations.

As for how it was written down, even though these guys, AFAIK, didn't sit around in a circle to make sure they all got their stories straight, and I think even wrote them at different times (again, there are others much more knowledgable than I on this).... Matthew's version quoted above is pretty darn close to Mark's:

Mark 8:34 And calling near the crowd with His disciples, He said to them, Whoever will come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me.
35 For whoever will save his life shall lose it; but whoever shall lose his life for My sake and the gospel's, he shall save it.
36 For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?
37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
38 Therefore whoever shall be ashamed of Me and of My Words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man shall also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.
Mark 9:1 And He said to them, Truly I say to you that there are some of those who stand here who shall not taste of death until they see the kingdom of God come with power."

and Luke's:

"Luke 9:22 saying, The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.
23 And He said to all, If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow Me.
24 For whoever will save his life shall lose it, but whoever will lose his life for My sake, he shall save it.
25 For what is a man profited if he gains the whole world and loses himself, or is cast away?
26 For whoever shall be ashamed of Me and of My Words, the Son of Man shall be ashamed of him when He shall come in His own and in His Father's glory, and that of the holy angels.
27 But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who shall not taste of death until they see the kingdom of God."

and I think John's words actually explain the concept pretty well, though this is in a different context than those quoted above:

"John 6:32 Then Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Moses did not give you that bread from Heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from Heaven.
33 For the bread of God is He who comes down from Heaven and gives life to the world.
34 Then they said to him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
35 And Jesus said to them, I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes on Me shall never thirst.
36 But I said to you that you also have seen Me and do not believe.
37 All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will in no way cast out.
38 For I came down from Heaven, not to do My own will but the will of Him who sent Me.
39 And this is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all which He has given Me I should lose nothing but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes on Him should have everlasting life. And I will raise him up at the last day."

 

[H2Andy]

we have two different approaches to the texts...

we're not gonna agree



i am showing you an alternative reading, not telling you that your reading is wrong

 

[Snowbear]

we're not gonna agree

Of course not.... Christians and non-Christians do not usually agree on the Word of God.

 

[H2Andy]

Christians and non-Christians do not usually agree on the Word of God.

well... true...

seems like a lot of Christians don't agree with other Christians about the word
of God either

it's a tough subject

 

[Snowbear]

No, but at least we tend to agree that Jesus is God and is our Savior in that He came to earth as a human and allowed Himself to be crucified to pay the death penalty for the sins of any human who accepts this gift

 

[H2Andy]

this is true

 

[Supernal]

Returning to the original topic, I think Pat Robertson is a psychopath.

 

[TimR]

I fully believe Jesus is who he claimed to be. Tried the agnostic thing and that didn't work. As to Pat Robertson, I flat disagree with and most of the folks I know do as well. This has nothing to do with the Bible. Just Pat spouting off. Too bad because some people think he is a spokesman for Christians in general. He is not.