Why do some Christians believe that Jesus was divine although he never stated as such nor insinuated?
I have many conversations with Christians and this always seems to be their core belief. That worshipping Jesus will be their way to Heaven and their protection from Hell. Although Jesus never stated this?
Apparently, this was a consequence of the First Council of Nicaragua (300 years after Jesus dies). Emperor Constantine wanted a single, universal doctrine that he could impose by imperial fiat, so he called together most of the church leaders of the day (some were notably not invited) and ordered them to hash it out. One of the outcomes of that council was the decision that Jesus was also God.
This is because most Christians get this belief in the trinity from the Nicean Councel, held in 325 A.D. Emperor Costantine, a known sun-god worshiper and pagan, made the final decision in the debate where only a minority of people in the council believed Jesus was God. This teaching was later enforced violently, with opposers being put to death. Triune gods were popular in ancient Egypt and Rome and many of the idols used by Christendom today such as the cross and mother and baby statues also originated from this and future councils, as well as holidays such as Easter and Christmas which blended false teachings about Jesus with pagan customs in order to convert pagans to Christianity. Constantine wanted to convert his fellow pagans to the early Catholic church because he supposedly saw a "cross" in the sky and it helped him win a battle.
Cause He's a humble nigga
How many niggas you know bring a body back to life with the soul of the person in the body? Ya boy Lazerus was hooked up
Then ya boy Jesus come back alive and still lives inside us today.
Now that's what I call a divine ass nigga
He was low key about it, most of his followers did not realize he was literally God until after the Resurrection (John 20:28). If he was say he was before, of course, the Crucifixion of him couldn't be seen as wrong as it was, but he wasn't saying that, so he in fact he was completely innocent. However, he did imply he was God when he said he and God are one, after which the Jews prepared to stone him, but he gave them the slip by quoting Pslams saying we're all gods.
Besides this, Christ is the Word, and John says the Word was in the beginning, not created, and that the Word is God. The NT also says he created the world (Colossians 1:16)
Even if none of this convinces you, there is simply no way of getting around Hebrews 1, it's made explicitly and unequivocally clear that Christ is literally God Almighty.
>although he never stated as such nor insinuated?
"Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - John 14:6
By the way, Jesus speaks allegorically. If you take His words without interpretation, you'll end up with the same logic as the creationists. Mysticism is the way.
I don't take anything written in John literally, to believe the Jesus of John is the same man as in the Gospel of mark is almost absurd.
Its far more likely the times he refers to himself as more than the messiah were added by later followers to legitimize their deification of him
John 17:4, 5
I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
sounds like he's stating his divinity pretty explicitly
Well, I'm going to take Paul as an authority, since Paul personally knew the Apostles, and if he were saying Christ were God without their approval, that would be a shitstorm. Just look at how controversial his saying, "You don't need to be circumcised," was.
Not synoptic, laced with Gnosticism, written by an anonymous stranger 70 years after the crucifixion.
If that's the only evidence for Jesus claiming divinity then the entire thing is shaky as fuck.
>All this denial of John
listen, John is a gospel for Christians, it is absurd to make a thread about why Christians believe X and then dismiss whatever pointers they have of that belief because they contradict your own assumptions/bias
>b-but Mark and John are a different Jesus!
>John isnt authentic!
this is your own problem, not theirs
> When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.
> Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
gospel of mark
Welp, Paul's letters are the oldest Christian documents we have.
Paul personally knew his Apostles. If Paul isn't an authority here, then why would you believe later writings about Christ to be an authority?
No, not the same as most Christians today. Most Christians today didn't trade a position of great authority for one of persecution, and don't personally know Christ's Apostles.
All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
The thread is about whether Jesus himself claimed to be God in scripture. Citing authors we definitely know never met him doesn't demonstrate that.
At least the other gospel authors are somewhat debatable as to whether they were witnesses or not, especially since there are agreements every so often.
Now this is more like it.
But, anon, the Gospel of John was written, or at least dictated, by one of Christ's Disciples, if you're going to appeal to Christian tradition about authorship (because secular tradition does not ascribe the authorship of any of the Gospels to personal Apostles of Christ).
Wut? Just saying Jesus calls the sinners to repentence and a lot of born again Christians usually experience something of Jesus being revealed
If you believe in God, you should honor Jesus, who is without fault.
What is one without the other?
They are One, and two "different" aspects of the same thing.
>Wut? Just saying Jesus calls the sinners to repentence and a lot of born again Christians usually experience something of Jesus being revealed
Yeah, and quite a few of them think Jesus is telling them to spread heresies.
>appeal to Christian tradition
I don't think I'm going that far. I only say the synoptics have more authority because they share so many commonalities like sources, simpler structure, elements and themes, agreement on most events, etc.
We can for a fact say that Paul isn't an authority because even he himself admits he never knew the guy. Doesn't matter if "Christian tradition" gives him authority, that doesn't mean a rational scholar would.
why does it matter what they believe? we're talking about facts.
so should we believe a man named homer wrote the iliad and odyssey because the ancient greeks believed it, even though all scholarly evidence points against it?
"And thou [Moses] shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my first born." (Exodus 4:22),
"He [Solomon] shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father and he shall be my son." (II Samuel 7:13-14),
"I am a father to Israel and Ephraim is my firstborn"(Jeremiah 31:9), 'long before Jesus was born', "I will declare the decree:the Lord hath said unto me [David], Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee."(Psalm 2:7),
and "Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God"(Luke3: 38).
The title son of god is clearly mentioned multiple times in the bible so its certainly not unique to jesus,i believe that the title son of god might have had a different meaning during that era,any christians care to explain?
because when you approach a religious text with cynicism and with the assumption that there is nothing outside of the observable natural world, then obviously you aren't going to even consider the notion of divine revelation
it's circular logic
>so should we believe a man named homer wrote the iliad and odyssey because the ancient greeks believed it, even though all scholarly evidence points against it?
we should, if all the "evidence" completely ignores historical commentary through the ages that affirm that Homer wrote the Illiad and if all the evidence is mere uninformed speculation.
>guyz! what if there's an invisible gospel that went unnoticed by all literate Christians yet it reached the communities of the authors and completely disappeared after they wrote their gospel?
"scholars" claim Matthew and Luke must have took some mystery "Q source" because obviously, they were bullshiters and there isn't a God, so they must have just copied from this Q source, as opposed to having been each, independently, divinely inspired
see, scholars assume a naturalist, atheist worldview
>Jesus was considered a heretic
I'm not sure what your point is, unless you're suggesting heresy is relative.
>Don't even know what that is.
Some Scholars claim that, others think they just copied Mark and added from their local oral traditions.
>see, scholars assume a naturalist, atheist worldview
would it make sense for them to assume the same social forces that apply to every other text in the history of man do not apply to the bible because Christians say it's divinely inspired?
And actually, this idea is preposterous, because the Gospels say a lot of the same things but in varying style that makes it clear they aren't just copying from one source, but multiple accounts of the same story.
Also, secular scholarship places the Gospels as composed after the Destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, specifically because they contain allusions to its impending Destruction. And since Christianity couldn't possibly be true, it's presumed that the Gospels must have be written afterward. Literally begging the question.
But what secular scholarship considers "shared material" between the Gospels, is not verbatim. That is, they give the impression there is this shared verbatim between the Gospels that there isn't. There are accounts of clearly the same things, and that is classified as "shared material". But these accounts are seldom verbatim, so that kind of discounts the idea they are just copies of a common source.
There is also the fact there is no reason to assume they were written before that, speaking from a historical perspective it is almost always better to go with a later date unless their is evidence to the contrary. Traditional sources across cultures almost always give dates that are too early
not for christians.
there is no point in considering the opinions of people who assume God doesn't exist, if you're a christian, because you know, as a christian, that these "scholars" don't believe a single word of the text. so why take note of their atheist based theories of who wrote what books and when?
no, not head in the sand, just not wasting time with theories that are, by definition, assuming that divine revelation doesn't exist
it is a circular argument, that can only give theories and answers which assume that there isn't a God
>There is absolutely no reason to believe they were written by the apostles or anyone else who knew Jesus first hand.
The Gospel of John explicitly says it is an account of someone who knew Christ first hand.
Drinking a glass of water is divine traditional.
These people had to pass it down maybe because they lacked in writing skills? Also Jesus mentions somewhere in Matthew to His apostles that they should preach the Gospel in just a robe and exactly what they need
He just likes to play the role of Byzantine Holy Warrior in these threads.
It's obvious he spends a lot of time reading about early Christian heresies, councils, Church fathers and so on, but instead of taking an interest in it from a scholarly perspective, he gets caught up in it and applies that worldview to his own life.
It's sort of like the countless people here who like to roleplay in Roman Empire threads, but at least they do it tongue in cheek.
Yeah but the orthodox Christians are also heretics. The Vatican heretics, Protestantism is a heresy, thinking about mary, heresy. Considering a new church? Heresy? Gnostic? Heresy.
It is like no one actually follows Jesus' "get along" motto anymore, and Christians are becoming their own worst enemy
>But what secular scholarship considers "shared material" between the Gospels, is not verbatim.
Why don't you take a look at Mark's 6th chapter and Matthew's 14th?
Mark says in 6:14
>Καὶ ἤkουσεν ὁ βασιλεὺς Ἡρῴδης, φανερὸν γὰρ ἐγένετο τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, kαὶ ἔλεγον ὅτι Ἰωάνης ὁ Βαπτίζων ἐγήγερται ἐk νεkρῶν, kαὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐνεργοῦσιν αἱ δυνάμεις ἐν αὐτῷ.
Matthew , in 14:9
>kαὶ λυπηθεὶς ὁ βασιλεὺς διὰ τοὺς ὅρkους kαὶ τοὺς συναναkειμένους ἐkέλευσεν δοθῆναι,
Tell me, Constantine, why Matthew is suddenly calling Herod "βασιλεὺς", "King", when earlier in the passage it's always τετραάρχης, "Tetrarch", his actual title; if he isn't copying from someone, making the occasional edit, and slipped his pen this time?
atheist scholars regularly claim contradictions where there aren't any
like assuming 2 similar stories occurring at different times in Jesus' ministry is a contradiction, instead of considering the possibility they are different events.
I think it's more likely that he put that term in there for the sake of Greeks who didn't know a tetrarch in Judea was a lot different from one in Greece (which was a rank of cavalry officer).
That's why I don't read Plato. Still gnostic m8, Jesus came to free us of the Pharisees Talmud Jews which still reign authority today through secret societies.
Jesus is the only one in the whole Bible that transcends the space time continuum
The corruption of the physical world makes more sense when we were created by fallen gods / not the true God. These gods wanted power, and man became slaves to them.
The Bible has been hijacked after the Great Flood and was restored in babylon, and we are constantly warned about mystery Babylon
if Mark refers to Herod as King, then why is it underhand for Matthew to refer to him as king as well?
are you suggesting because he refers to him as Tetrarch, he has to ad nauseum use the same title every single time he mentions Herod from that point on?
what you're doing, is starting with the assumption that Matthew is copying from Mark, and trying to find evidence to prove your claim
Jesus isn't anti-material. Just look at how he face death (Gethsemane) compared to how Platonic Socrates did.
The material is corrupted, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a gift from God. Material atoms are supposed to be like toy blocks for us, God's children.
You should read some Fyodorov
> What exactly *would* be evidence?
If the claim were true I would expect textual criticism to confirm it was written by one author, I would not expect the hostility to "the jews" as a humongous group, I would expect it to be closer to the synoptic gospels, and finally I would not expect to find the hints of Greek philosophy sprinkled liberally throughout.
And your simply assuming the opposite, the only difference is the historians are using a proven method, the historical method to make their case.
>are you suggesting because he refers to him as Tetrarch, he has to ad nauseum use the same title every single time he mentions Herod from that point on?
For starters, there was the fact that he was not in fact a king, and the titles aren't interchangeable.
>what you're doing, is starting with the assumption that Matthew is copying from Mark, and trying to find evidence to prove your claim
I'm starting with the assumption that a person, especially an eyewitness to events and thus at least reasonably knowledgeable about what he's talking about, wouldn't have a sudden lapse in thinking and call someone by the wrong title when he's consistently used the correct one elsewhere in his book.
It might simply have not occurred to him until then, or he might have been speaking at a parish and someone asked a question, or he might have asked someone else to read it and they expressed confusion, it could be all sorts of things.
Gnostic doesn't just mean anti-material.
Demiurge / evil creator god VS Jesus and the True God is worth looking up, especially for non believers for it is likely to make more logical sense to them (potentially )
There is no way Jesus was a Jew, and there is no way He was a Christian (because the religion wasn't really established) but Jesus was just a "teacher" for a lack of words
And everything according to prophecy was waiting for Jesus, and the people who awaited Him denied Him. That's cold, and obviously something is missing from this whole thing and no one looks into it
Extremely unlikely. Matthews divergences from Mark usually are in the realm of correcting geographical, political, linguistic, etc. errors that Mark makes.
Mark copying from Matthew requires him to be quite literally retarded, changing details to make them wrong.
Matthew copying from Mark presents a more plausible narrative: someone seeing Mark, thinking to himself that there's a lot in it that needs fixing, and setting out to fix said errors.
This is a book, not a lecture transcript or a sermon. You really think he didn't do his preparation first, and then started writing?
>If the claim were true I would expect textual criticism to confirm it was written by one author
It examines the Gospel exhaustively in original Greek. It's on libgen if you want to download it, it is very scholarly.
> I would expect it to be closer to the synoptic gospels
There is a lot of ground to cover. As the the Gospel of John says, no amount of books could contain it all.
>I would not expect the hostility to "the jews" as a humongous group
It's not any more hostile to them than the OT is.
>I would not expect to find the hints of Greek philosophy sprinkled liberally
Anti-materialism is a fundamental stance of Gnosticism. The idea is the transcend the material.
>This is a book, not a lecture transcript or a sermon.
It's actually written to be read in Church, just like Paul's Epistles.
>but Mark referred to him as king
Mark also referred to a route from Tyre to Galilee that heads through Sidon, going about a hundred miles out of one's way for no reason; a notion that a Jewish woman could initiate divorce from her husband, and a passover pardon which has 0 corroboration anywhere outside the Gospels, and the notion that the Jewish courts couldn't put people to death, a claim contradicted elsewhere by the New Testament.
The guy had little, if any idea what he was talking about.
Logic suggests that Matthew's Gospel was an attempt to fix up Mark's work.
The whole point of Spirituality is to be Spirit so as to be with God.
Sure I know the imperfections of the material, but you don't just "transcend" it, just a perfect level of indifference towards material causes.
It isn't just about church going and ritual bread eating, we have a mission here
>for no reason
apart from maybe spreading the gospel
you don't tend to go as the crow flies, when your mission is to visit as many people as possible to give them the good news
as far as the other claims, i would have to see verse citation, because i've seen plenty of atheist scholars throw claims out, and when you look at each one, they can all be explained
>Why do some Christians believe that Jesus was divine although he never stated as such nor insinuated?
He both stated and insinuated (John 8:58 and 10:30). So did his Apostles, whose teachings are also followed (John 1:1 and 20:28, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, Acts 20:28). His enemies even acknowledged it (John 10:33).
Worshiping Christ is all over Scripture and Tradition, both of which Christians follow. That's why Christ's divinity has been the orthodox position for nearly 2000 years.
Arius, heretic that he was, didn't deny the divinity of Christ or deny the worship of Christ. He only denied the Son's co-eternity with the Father (an understandable error before the finer points of the Trinity were fully fleshed out).
Quite a few: Just for a few examples off the top of my head
7:31 has Jesus and company traveling a long way out of their way if they're trying to get from Tyre to the Galilee
10:11-12 has a double injunction against divorce. Husband shouldn't divorce wife, wife shouldn't divorce husband, and they definitely shouldn't remarry afterwards. But women in Judea couldn't initiate divorce.
15:34-35 has Jesus (mis)quoting Psalm 22, and then his onlookers, not only not recognizing the invocation, but thinking he's calling upon Elijah. This would maybe be understandable if you have him saying it in Hebrew, the way Matthew gives it, but Mark claims it was in Aramaic, at which point the two names would hardly be mistakeable.
You've got the healing of the guy in 3:5, and the "Pharisees" getting all upset about it, despite the fact that healing on the Sabbath
A) is about using medicine, actually grinding stuff up, not touching a guy's hand
B) Is a Sadducee law that you can't heal on the Sabbath, not a Pharisee one.
There's the part about calling the tetrarchs kings, there's the Passover Pardon that there's 0 corroborating evidence for, there's the blunder right off the bat with the "quote" of Isaiah in 1:2 that doesn't actually quote Isaiah.
>apart from maybe spreading the gospel
Funny how he doesn't mention that, just how he went "By way of"
10:11-12 for the double divorce injunction, 15:6 for the passover pardon, and 15:1 has them delivering Jesus to Pilate after condemning him, instead of stoning him for heresy like their own laws commanded.
Personally, yes, I would, because scholars have made major blunders. A good example are the Homeric Epics, which scholars in the 19th Century started saying were written and re-written by multiple authors over a long period before they had a standardized form. Only relatively lately has this theory started to fall out of favor, and even still you will see it getting meme'd super hard.
Jesus was ahead of his time and had unique views of marriage, he might very well have said that for future generations. Don't forget that Christ was the first thinker in Western history to talk of adultery as committed against a woman.
"God" was often, including in the OT, used as a title of general veneration, it has nothing to do with people mishearing him.
> "Pharisees" getting all upset about it, despite the fact that healing on the Sabbath
We're talking about Pharisaic Judaism then, which is not the same as you practice it today.
I would agree scholars have made blunders, and that is why we are always reevaluating and looking for more evidence, but untill we have that evidence I think we owe it to the process to give weight to its conclusions.
That mistakes were made in the past is not evidence that the historical method does not work any more than bad science in the past is evidence the scientific method doesn't work
Any faith is absolutely insignificant next to the tremendous power of the Force. Jesus suggests that in order to master it, one has to change lifestyle and become pure. Of course, people were deceived by the Church.
The true power comes from the dark side, the same power that held the entire Empire in line and that utterly destroyed the pitiful attempts of resistance. When he was crucified, the only thing that saved him from certain death is his vast knowledge of the Force. If anything, he was a powerful wizard and a philosopher, but to claim the blind faith is significant next to the Force is what triggers me.
It is evidence that grossly ignoring obvious uniformity of style and structure of a text, in order to give succor to pet theories about countless authors and revisions, is a bad idea.
>Jesus was ahead of his time and had unique views of marriage, he might very well have said that for future generations. Don't forget that Christ was the first thinker in Western history to talk of adultery as committed against a woman.
Irrevant to the issue at hand.
Going out and saying
>Men, don't divorce your wives! Women, don't divorce your husbands!
Implies that women could in fact divorce their husbands. Why prohibit something that was already prohibited?
>"God" was often, including in the OT, used as a title of general veneration, it has nothing to do with people mishearing him.
Once again, you misunderstand.
>Ἐλωῒ Ἐλωῒ λαμὰ σαβαχθανεί
A mixed Aramaic-Hebrew of "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me", with the "Eloi", "My God" part, given as Aramaic.
The very next verse ends with Ἴδε Ἡλείαν φωνεῖ "Behold, he calls Elijah"
If that statement had been given in Hebrew, you could mistake "Eli" for either God or a shortening of Elijah. Going from "Eh-Loy" to "El-i-as" the way it would be in Aramaic would require some real sleight of ear.
>We're talking about Pharisaic Judaism then, which is not the same as you practice it today.
Pharasitic Judaism was the same that tweaked the laws about debts near Sabbatical years, insisted that "An eye for an eye" was symbolically talking about money payments, and that 30:19 of Deuteronomy meant that life trumped commandments except in regards to idolatry, murder, and a few of the sexual sins.
The Sadducees were the literalists, not the Pharisees.
And how is it a relevant question?
>Constantine invented new doctrine rather than formalized existing Christian beliefs which are explicitly on the record as being that of a divine Jesus in writers such as Tertullian, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, Polycarp, Origen and others
>Funny how he doesn't mention that, just how he went "By way of"
i would imagine that Jesus and his disciples were spending large portions of almost every day spreading the gospel.. the face it isn't explicitly stated during one particular journey isn't particularly strange, unless you go by the idea that being inspired by the holy spirit, means you become a computer whereby you give every single possible fact of all things, in their entirety
not a misquote
healing the guy by touching him on the sabbath would have got them upset, whether it was medicine or divine healing
that's you looking for foulplay that isn't there. you're assuming it didn't happen, and demanding autistic levels of evidence it did, when it says it did in the text.
>Mark 1:2 blunder
it was common Jewish practise to only mention the major prophet when referring to multiple citations involving major and minor prophets
>Implies that women could in fact divorce their husbands. Why prohibit something that was already prohibited?
Because Christ was speaking for all time, not just for people in his own place and time.
>The very next verse ends with Ἴδε Ἡλείαν φωνεῖ "Behold, he calls Elijah"
Yes, people thought he was referring to Elijah when he said "god", because "god" to the Jews was a term of veneration, not just a title for YHWH. The Judges were called "god". The reason they think he is referring to Elias, is because there were persistent rumors that Jesus was Elias (whom as you know, didn't die, but was taken to heaven alive), sent back by God. They thought when he called that out, it was a confession that he was not Elias.
>The Sadducees were the literalists, not the Pharisees.
The major distinction between Pharisees and Sadducees was they the Pharisees accepted the oral law, Sadducees did not. There was surely a great deal of variation and dissension within these two schools. Jews like to argue about religion (no offense, so do I).
>Men, don't divorce your wives! Women, don't divorce your husbands!
>Implies that women could in fact divorce their husbands. Why prohibit something that was already prohibited?
it's your opinion that it implies that. it reads to me as though he's making the point that both man and wife are in sin when divorce occurs
Constantine actually had Arian sympathies, which is why he chose Eusebius, an Arian sympathizer (but who kept quiet after the Council) to baptize him.
Constantine called the council, but he had zero input on its decision.
Indeed, he also says that when a man divorces his wife, he forces her to be an adulteress (as she has to remarry--a translation that isn't in any translation I've read except for the Orthodox New Testament, which is not the one of the Study Bible--this translation is literal). But he also says that the man commits adultery against the wife by divorcing her.
>7:31 has Jesus and company traveling a long way out of their way if they're trying to get from Tyre to the Galilee
Jesus couldve had a reason for going through Sidon that the author doesnt state
>10:11-12 has a double injunction against divorce. Husband shouldn't divorce wife, wife shouldn't divorce husband, and they definitely shouldn't remarry afterwards. But women in Judea couldn't initiate divorce.
well they could, but they would have to manipulate in order to use Roman law to do it, and if fact, they did it
>Herodias took upon her to confound the laws of our country, and divorced herself from her husband while he was alive, and was married to Herod Antipas
>If that statement had been given in Hebrew, you could mistake "Eli" for either God or a shortening of Elijah. Going from "Eh-Loy" to "El-i-as" the way it would be in Aramaic would require some real sleight of ear.
I thought that they were simply mocking him.
>it was common Jewish practise to only mention the major prophet when referring to multiple citations involving major and minor prophets
>Yes, people thought he was referring to Elijah when he said "god", because "god" to the Jews was a term of veneration, not just a title for YHWH. The Judges were called "god". The reason they think he is referring to Elias, is because there were persistent rumors that Jesus was Elias (whom as you know, didn't die, but was taken to heaven alive), sent back by God. They thought when he called that out, it was a confession that he was not Elias.
I'm gonna need sources for these, please
>not a misquote
It is a misquote because he's suddenly mixing languages. The Psalms were written in Hebrew, and JEsus gives it in this Hebrew-Aramaic bastardization version.
>healing the guy by touching him on the sabbath would have got them upset, whether it was medicine or divine healing
Why? According to the Pharisee position, it's perfectly acceptable.
>that's you looking for foulplay that isn't there. you're assuming it didn't happen, and demanding autistic levels of evidence it did, when it says it did in the text.
I'm demanding ANY level of evidence, as well as noting that other sources that talk about Pilate's conduct in Judea don't mention it att all.
>it was common Jewish practice to only mention the major prophet when referring to multiple citations involving major and minor prophets
>Yes, people thought he was referring to Elijah when he said "god", because "god" to the Jews was a term of veneration, not just a title for YHWH.
No, he said "Eli-Eloi", which is not used for anything other than "God." There are quite a few words in Hebrew and Aramaic which refer to "God", but they're not all interchangeable. For instance, your talking about Elohim: The reason it gets used for judges is because the אלוה root doesn't exactly mean "God", more precise would be "God that rules over some person/people/place/nation/other noun"
>The major distinction between Pharisees and Sadducees was they the Pharisees accepted the oral law, Sadducees did not. There was surely a great deal of variation and dissension within these two schools. Jews like to argue about religion (no offense, so do I).
And yet "The Pharisees" are never presented as anything other than a monolithic group, an odd omission, yes?
I'm going to add here that Jesus thought the Pharisees were the orthodox ones (Matthew 23:3), so he himself was probably very well versed in the oral law. And if the Mishnah, let us suppose, is in fact accurate, the whole thing might in fact just be an indication that Jesus (who is referred to as a rabbi) knows the Oral Law (which is *extensive* better than those he's talking to. Luke 14, for instance, shows Pharisees simply not answering to his inquisition about whether or not healing is permissible on the Sabbath, as it says "they could not answer."
Jesus also frequently accuses the Pharisees of being hypocrites. Experts intentionally distorted the Law to attack people they don't like, or to elude certain requirements for themselves.
>If atheists are so smart why can't they find out how to develope a relationship to God?
But we do. Just because I don't believe in something doesn't mean I can't develop a relationship with it.
>It is a misquote because he's suddenly mixing languages. The Psalms were written in Hebrew, and JEsus gives it in this Hebrew-Aramaic bastardization version.
are you saying he was incapable of speaking Hebrew? if Jesus wants to refer to a Psalm in a mix of hebrew and aramaic, who are you to say he can't do so?
your argument that you can't possibly mishear eloi for elijah isn't a very strong one... it's not like he's saying supercalifragilisticexpialiocious, and then having someone think he's said elijah, they ee-lie, and ee-loy are very similar, especially considering he was on a cross, and who knows what the noise with the people there, and the wind, would have been like
>are you saying he was incapable of speaking Hebrew? if Jesus wants to refer to a Psalm in a mix of hebrew and aramaic, who are you to say he can't do so?
No, I'm saying he didn't quote the Psalm. It's almost certain that Jesus could speak both Aramaic and Hebrew; what I'm skeptical of are Mark's language skills, since he jumps all over the place when he relates these quotes by Jesus, with little understanding of the implications of what he's saying.
>your argument that you can't possibly mishear eloi for elijah isn't a very strong one... it's not like he's saying supercalifragilisticexpialiocious, and then having someone think he's said elijah, they ee-lie, and ee-loy are very similar,
It would be mistaking a 2 syllable word for a 3 syllable word. It's pretty unlikely.
>it's a "Christians try to reconcile the contradictions and errors in the new testament" thread
I would think Christ's speech at that point wouldn't exactly be Themistocles.
he did quote it, using a mix of Aramaic and Hebrew.
it seems it would have been easier for Mark to just copy Psalm 22 down verbatim if he was going to make the whole thing up, then actually write out a more complex mix of the 2 languages.
the people at the cross would have understood what Jesus was saying... maybe Jesus knew that Eloi and Eli were similar sounding enough so that the Jews would have understood the quotation, but also that the people there who only spoke Aramaic would understand he was calling out to God.
>2 syllable for 3 syllable word
in a quiet room with only me and another person in it, i occasionally mishear the odd word, or if i'm watching TV and not focussed on the person... you think it's impossible to mishear eloi and elijah, out in the open, when he's on a cross, and there's a crowd, and with wind? (and yet mishearing eli and elijah is understandable?)
it seems that you're trying to find errors that aren't there
>it seems it would have been easier for Mark to just copy Psalm 22 down verbatim if he was going to make the whole thing up, then actually write out a more complex mix of the 2 languages.
It would have been equally easy for him to not grasp the distinction between Hebrew and Aramaic and quote it from memory, and badly.
>the people at the cross would have understood what Jesus was saying
But Mark's point is that they didn't.
>but also that the people there who only spoke Aramaic would understand he was calling out to God.
EVERYONE in first century Judea spoke Aramaic. It had supplanted Hebrew as the day to day language, with Hebrew retreating to something that was only used in religious discussion. It would be far more likely that his audience would contain people who didn't understand Hebrew than who didn't understand Aramaic.
>you think it's impossible to mishear eloi and elijah, out in the open, when he's on a cross, and there's a crowd, and with wind? (
I think that if people weren't hearing, they'd hear an indistinct mumble, the murmuring of the crowd, or the wind, not some Aramaic which just happens to be mistaken for other Aramaic despite not really sounding like it.
>(and yet mishearing eli and elijah is understandable?)
It's far more plausible since "Eli" is quite literally a shortened version of "Eliyahu", and is itself a name. Spin it around. Why do you think Matthew wrote it down as Hebrew as opposed to Mark's Aramaic?
It seems like you're grasping at straws to ensure that there aren't any errors.
>EVERYONE in first century Judea spoke Aramaic. It had supplanted Hebrew as the day to day language, with Hebrew retreating to something that was only used in religious discussion. It would be far more likely that his audience would contain people who didn't understand Hebrew than who didn't understand Aramaic.
that's my point. he quotes the Psalm in hebrew for those who would understand the quotation, and he uses the similar sounding word Eloi, the aramaic form, so that not only would the Jews understand it, with the context of the whole statement, but those who only spoke aramaic would know he was communicating to God
>I think that if people weren't hearing, they'd hear an indistinct mumble, the murmuring of the crowd, or the wind, not some Aramaic which just happens to be mistaken for other Aramaic despite not really sounding like it.
it's bizarre you can't comprehend that someone could mishear eloi for elijah... bear in mind, he had been on that cross for 6 whole hours. it wasn't like they knew he was about to say something profound at that very second. with the noise and the wind etc it is perfectly reasonable to accept that someone misheard eloi for elijah
That's not begging the question at all, there is no scholar who has advanced an argument about the work not being of a uniform style. If it were revised significantly, it wouldn't have the clear grammatical grotesqueness of being written by someone to whom Greek is a second language. The Gospel of Luke is written by someone who has an excellent command of the Greek language, whereas the Gospel of John is written as if the person were trying to translate Hebrew or Aramaic word-for-word into Greek, leading to syntax and style that seem like Google translate (this is actually one of Harold Bloom's major complaints against it as a work of literary merit).
>that's my point. he quotes the Psalm in hebrew for those who would understand the quotation
But he doesn't, according to Mark.
He says "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani" Aramaic, Aramaic, Hebrew, Aramaic. Matthew's the ones who claims it's in Hebrew (But retains the Aramaic Sabachtani, for reasons I'm not entirely sure of)
>with the context of the whole statement, but those who only spoke aramaic would know he was communicating to God
Except of course, that they didn't, given that they think he's invoking Elijah.
>It's bizarre you can't comprehend that someone could mishear eloi for elijah
Because they don't sound alike? Especially if you're confusing an Aramaic "Eh-Loy" for the Hebrew "Ay-Lee-Ya-Hoo", or just the shortened "Ay-Lee"
Jesus was not the messiah.
The Messiah will do many things.
>The whole world will worship the One God of Israel. Isaiah 2:11-17, Isaiah 40:5, Zephaniah 3:9
Currently does not happen.
>Knowledge of God will fill the world. Isaiah 11:9, 45:23, 66:23, Jeremiah 31:33, Zechariah 3:9, 8:23, 14:9,16, Ezekiel 38:23, Psalm 86:9
This means irrefutable evidence. Knowledge, not faith.
>All Israelites will be returned to their homeland Isaiah 11:12, 27:12-13, Ezekiel 11:17, 36:24, Deuteronomy 30:3
I am still in America.
>The Jewish people will experience eternal joy and gladness. Isaiah 51:11
Holocaust? Inquisition? Progroms?
>Nations will recognize the wrongs they did to Israel. Isaiah 52:13-53:5
>The peoples of the world will turn to the Jews for spiritual guidance. Zechariah 8:23
Spiritual, not monetary.
>Weapons of war will be destroyed. Ezekiel 39:9
Not destroyed by nuclear weapons.
>All of the dead will rise again Isaiah 26:19
You claim one dude, I want them all.
>A person’s genealogical/tribal membership are transmitted exclusively through one’s physical father. Numbers 1:18, Jeremiah 33:17
Jesus whose alleged sketchy genealogy is maternal cannot possibly be a descendent of the tribe of Judah
>Third Temple will be rebuilt. Micah 4:1, Ezekiel 40-42, Isaiah 2:2-3, Malachi 3:4, Zechariah 14:20-21,
Not a person, but a physical building.
>World Peace: Isaiah 2:4, 11:6, 60:18 Micah 4:1-4, Hosea 2:20
Open a newspaper lately?
>Christianity claims that Jesus "Fulfilled the law"
According to Deut 13:2-7, this makes Jesus a false prophet.
>All Jews will embrace Torah observance. Ezekiel 37:24, Deuteronomy 30:8-10, Jeremiah 31:32, Ezekiel 11:19-20, 36:26-27.
How many Jews are fully observant today?
>The Messiah can not be part God. Deut 6:4
Not explicitly Jesus, but the idea that the Messiah will be Godly is antithetical to Judaism.
A lot of these are about the second coming (which is now the first coming to Pharisaic Jews, because everything about the first coming is no longer seen as about the Messiah).
As the Israelites, they are God's Church. The Promised Land isn't just Israel clay in this context, anymore than the Passover Lamb is just a lamb anymore.
Jesus did fulfill the Law. The Law is the highest carnal expression. Christ's fulfillment of it, through the Spirit and new covenant, makes it corporeal instead of carnal. The Golden rule (both positive and negative versions, one appearing the Gospels, the other in the Didache), for instance, is a fulfillment of an eye for an eye, it is the corporeal Truth instead of strictly a carnal one. Baptism is a fulfillment of circumcision, it is of the body (Orthodox still do full immersion) and spirit, instead of the flesh. The bread of the Pascha is leavened now, the Spirit fulfilling it.
1) his independent approach to the Law
2) his feeding of the 5,000
3) his interpretation of his miracles
4) his proclamation of the kingdom of God as present and in-breaking in his
5) his choosing of twelve disciples
6) his use of the Son of Man
7) his use of amēn
8) his use of abba
9) his distinguishing himself from his contemporaries, including John the
Baptist, the Pharisees, Jewish revolutionaries, and the disciples
10) his belief that one’s future standing with God hinged on how one reacted
to his ministry
11) his understanding that his death was necessary to rectify matters between
God and his people
12) his sense of mission to the whole of Israel, especially to sinners and outcasts,
which led to table fellowship with such people
13) his raising messianic expectations in a repeated pattern of controversy with
>Jesus wasn't the Messiah
He predicted the destruction of your temple.
> Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. 2 And He said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down.”
- Matthew 24:1-2
Eh-Loy and Ay-Lee-Ya-Hoo can easily be misheard, especially on a cross, with a crowd, wind and so forth... you're picturing a sound studio, with a group of jews huddled around Jesus with their mp3 recorders, waiting for the impending famous quote that will go down in history for multiple thousands of years
it wasn't like that... imagine a bunch of bored, tired jews standing around after 6 hours, hearing a spluttering guy on a cross suddenly make a sound. you don't know how clear he spoke, he could have had blood being coughed up as he said it, he could have whispered it with a mix of coughing, there could have been a strong wind at that point etc
The teachings of the Church and Jesus Christ are in conflict.
Church teaches blind faith: one must simply believe blindly and pray for the way to salvation. Jesus clearly states the opposite:
>"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Matthew 7:21
Church teaches atonement. Only through the death of Jesus one gets his sins forgiven and gets to salvation. Jesus states otherwise once again:
>For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins. Matthew 6:14-15
What the church teaches about Dogmatism?
The Christian church tends to condemn other religions and places itself as an authority over the Word of God.
>For 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. Matthew 5:20
The pharisees in the days of Jesus represent these very priests of today who cannot see through their dogmatic practice.
What does the Church teach about 'original sin'? The Church teaches that every human is born with it and only through Jesus Christ one achieves salvation.
>14 “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.
In the same way, Church teaches that 'perfection' is something ordinary man cannot achieve and his salvation depends on the blind faith of the Bloody sacrifice of Christ. Again, Jesus Christ teaches totally opposite:
>Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Matthew 6:14-15
>Church teaches blind faith: one must simply believe blindly and pray for the way to salvation. Jesus clearly states the opposite:
Wut. The Church doesn't teach sola fide.
>Church teaches atonement. Only through the death of Jesus one gets his sins forgiven and gets to salvation. Jesus states otherwise once again:
Right, Christ is appointing his clergy. This is why confession is so important.
>The Christian church tends to condemn other religions and places itself as an authority over the Word of God.
The Pharisees were unrighteous because they were hypocrites, not because they were Pharisees (Matthew 23:3)
>What does the Church teach about 'original sin'? The Church teaches that every human is born with it and only through Jesus Christ one achieves salvation.
If the world weren't infected by original sin, then we wouldn't be mortal, would we? Original sin (at least in Orthodox Christianity) has nothing to do with guilt or conception, it is a corruption of the material world that will be fixed by the "restoration of all things"
>In the same way, Church teaches that 'perfection' is something ordinary man cannot achieve and his salvation depends on the blind faith of the Bloody sacrifice of Christ. Again, Jesus Christ teaches totally opposite:
Christ teaches that it is better to think of yourself as the sinful tax collector than the proud Pharisee. Whether or not human beings can be perfect, I won't argue, but it is extremely prideful to think of oneself that way.
you at least admit that you have never taken a epistemology course.
Jesus is God, that has been the orthodox teaching since Christ founded his Church. No one "decided" it later. The Council of bishops.as Nicaea simply affirmed what was always dogma. Ecumenical Councils don't add to dogma, they only preserve and defend what was always there.