The Two Faces Of Jesus

[Shyone]

Sometime around the time I deconverted, perhaps while reading the Bible, I noted that there were 1) statemens attributed to Jesus that were really nice, consistent with the Hebrew religion in general, but definitely humanistic. There were also statements that 2) seemed to serve no purpose other than to support the foundation of a religion that did not exist and He apparently had no intention of promoting.

 

Two completely different attitudes and goals.

 

First, the idea that anyone can reach God through prayer directly fits the latter "category." Several times he spoke of referencing the Father, especially with prayer.

 

Our Father, who art in heaven,

Hallowed be thy Name.

Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done,

on Earth as it is in heaven.

 

This contrasts with the idea of Jesus as "gatekeeper", the one that must be accessed or addressed in order to reach God.

 

9. I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture.

 

6. Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

 

Then there is the Jesus of Peace and Humility.

 

38. "You have heard that it was said, `Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'

39. But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

 

44. But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

 

Or the Jesus that came to promote division and discord:

 

33. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

34. "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

35. For I have come to turn "`a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--

36. a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'

 

And then there is the Jesus that came to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel:

 

5. These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans.

6. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.

 

24. He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

 

9. Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham.

 

And the one that came to save everyone, including (or especially) the Gentiles:

 

 

18. On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles

 

29. "Sovereign Lord, as you have promised, you now dismiss your servant in peace.

30. For my eyes have seen your salvation,

31. which you have prepared in the sight of all people,

32. a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel." .

 

I won't go into such detail with the other signs of a double personality/purpose, but the general areas are:

 

Jesus attachment to the law versus rejecting the OT laws (and prophets).

Jesus statements regarding the Father existing only in heaven, versus those that suggest He is "divine."

Jesus statements about praying in private and personal salvation versus commands to evangelize.

 

I submit that there was once a body of work or sayings that Jesus may have actually said (or a close approximation), and statements added later to support the theology of a god-man who came for the whole world.

[Abiyoyo]

 

I submit that there was once a body of work or sayings that Jesus may have actually said (or a close approximation), and statements added later to support the theology of a god-man who came for the whole world.

 

I also believe that to be possible. I just try to find commonalities between the sayings and stick to that, but nonetheless, it can be difficult to interpret.

[Shyone]

 

I submit that there was once a body of work or sayings that Jesus may have actually said (or a close approximation), and statements added later to support the theology of a god-man who came for the whole world.

 

I also believe that to be possible. I just try to find commonalities between the sayings and stick to that, but nonetheless, it can be difficult to interpret.

Exactly; it is the commonalities that seem to join things together, but once the "dichotomy" has been appreciated, it becomes a simple matter to "figure out" which statemenst are "original" and which were contrived for theological purposes.

 

What bothers me is that the whole idea of "interpolated text" is dishonest. Maybe "pious fraud", but even though done with probably good intentions, and probably with a kind of "gnostic" way of determining "What Would Jesus Do" that is colored by personal convictions, it's still not honest by today's standards.

 

I found this to be "earth-shattering." It was as though someone had taken the New Testament and ripped it into two pieces (like the way some strong-men can do with Phone Books).

 

I never could find a way to put it back together, and after thinking about it for a while, I couldn't see a reason to even try.

[TedGresham]

 

I submit that there was once a body of work or sayings that Jesus may have actually said (or a close approximation), and statements added later to support the theology of a god-man who came for the whole world.

 

I also believe that to be possible. I just try to find commonalities between the sayings and stick to that, but nonetheless, it can be difficult to interpret.

Have you read the Gospel of Thomas? It's a great text. It's a "sayings" text, not a gospel in the true sense. It's probably what was really available about or form Jesus himself. I have no doubt the words of Jesus were manipulated and some things put in his mouth--if anything at all in the Bible was really from a historical Jesus.

 

I do not doubt the existence of a person named Jesus who was popular or well known, history seems to validate that idea. But the church that exists today does not have the true words, of that I'm convinced. Pauline Christianity is a perversion of whatever he taught.

 

My humble opinion, of course.

[mwc]

Sometime around the time I deconverted, perhaps while reading the Bible, I noted that there were 1) statemens attributed to Jesus that were really nice, consistent with the Hebrew religion in general, but definitely humanistic. There were also statements that 2) seemed to serve no purpose other than to support the foundation of a religion that did not exist and He apparently had no intention of promoting.

 

Two completely different attitudes and goals.

[snip]

I submit that there was once a body of work or sayings that Jesus may have actually said (or a close approximation), and statements added later to support the theology of a god-man who came for the whole world.

Some people look at something like the Gospel of Thomas as the sayings gospel.

 

But why would consistent sayings mean authentic? Are people always consistent? How would you measure this? If you cross texts you've ruined your own experiment since you're now taking from 3 or 4 different groups and what they wanted their leader to say (and you'd have to keep in mind you're already starting years removed from the supposed events in the first place).

 

I mean in G.Mark that "jesus" is not really all that stable and is not a nice person. He gets angry a lot. He is rude. The translations smooth it over a bit but he's just not very pleasant. The other two synoptics make him much more level headed in general. And G.John makes him out to be just nifty of course. So which is it?

 

mwc

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

I mean in G.Mark that "jesus" is not really all that stable and is not a nice person. He gets angry a lot. He is rude. The translations smooth it over a bit but he's just not very pleasant. The other two synoptics make him much more level headed in general. And G.John makes him out to be just nifty of course. So which is it?

 

mwc

 

Good point mwc. I think the early church had their hand on the compositions of the Gospels. Many use the difference in moods, attitude as you described to claim they were eye witness accounts, which possible, but unlikely.

 

Even if a certain amount of composition were original, there is proof that the church has edited, added, verses, words to the texts. So, who knows. I do like the Gospel of Thomas though. It brought some light to the whole kingdom of God thing for me.

[NotBlinded]

Yep, Shy, I agree.

 

See, there are such things as miracles.

[Shyone]

Sometime around the time I deconverted, perhaps while reading the Bible, I noted that there were 1) statemens attributed to Jesus that were really nice, consistent with the Hebrew religion in general, but definitely humanistic. There were also statements that 2) seemed to serve no purpose other than to support the foundation of a religion that did not exist and He apparently had no intention of promoting.

 

Two completely different attitudes and goals.

[snip]

I submit that there was once a body of work or sayings that Jesus may have actually said (or a close approximation), and statements added later to support the theology of a god-man who came for the whole world.

Some people look at something like the Gospel of Thomas as the sayings gospel.

 

But why would consistent sayings mean authentic? Are people always consistent? How would you measure this? If you cross texts you've ruined your own experiment since you're now taking from 3 or 4 different groups and what they wanted their leader to say (and you'd have to keep in mind you're already starting years removed from the supposed events in the first place).

 

I mean in G.Mark that "jesus" is not really all that stable and is not a nice person. He gets angry a lot. He is rude. The translations smooth it over a bit but he's just not very pleasant. The other two synoptics make him much more level headed in general. And G.John makes him out to be just nifty of course. So which is it?

 

mwc

I'm not saying that my "observation" is textual criticism (like the J, E and P (etc.) authors of the Torah. Much like Jefferson (using the "miracle" criterion), I just look for which quotes seem to serve no other purpose than to support the theology of the Church that was to come and constrast them with most other sayings. I'm not suggesting that Jesus was always polite; the money changers outburst was possibly genuine. But if he is depicted as acting like Mohammed Ali (the boxer who is known in part for claiming to be "The Greatest") implying his own godhood, then I would suggest that it is an addition. I do think that he thought a lot of his knowledge, and it appears he had a Gnostic streak.

 

Internal contradictions in particular suggest that either one or the other was added, and my guess would be that whatever supports the doctrine of the New Religion but contradicts something else was probably added.

 

Take two hypothetical statements: "Give your money to the poor" versus "Give your money to the Church which doesn't exist yet" and which one would have been added?

 

Or these two hypothetical statements: "There is only one God, and He is in Heaven" versus "I AM - and you know that means that I'm God!"

 

I didn't find it hard to tell the difference between the two, but I haven't tried to sort every statement of Jesus into one or the other types. For one thing, the parables are a little more complicated, but I think most fall into the former category - but like I said, I haven't done the work to see.

 

As for Thomas, there is a different agenda, but probably a lot of the remembered statements from someone (with a few additions that seemed "appropriate"). If it isn't Q, it was still written after Jesus' death by someone that might have lived around the person that wrote Q. Q, however, wasn't written in a vacuum. If the person compiled these sayings was around Jesus, he was around the disciples (or one of them) and should have known the resurrection story. I see no quotes from post resurrection, but several that seem out of place or self-serving.

 

IOW, it's not as easy to put Thomas into the same context as the rest of the Bible. Perhaps Thomas had a different Messiah in mind:

 

12. The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?"

 

Jesus said to them, "No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."

 

Perhaps, also, Thomas was written from Q, and possibly by someone that knew or influenced the gospel writers. It is even possible that whoever wrote Thomas was doing what I am doing - constructing a collection of sayings that this author thinks were actually said by Jesus (as opposed to those added by the Gospel writers and their clique).

 

The last is unlikely, I think, because the sayings are more disjointed than the gosepls. The sermon on the mount is spread all over the place, so it seems unlikely to have been a deconstruction of a gospel containing the sermon on the mount.

 

In at least a couple of places, I think the writer of Thomas was confused about what was actually said. It's like the author thought, "I know he said something profound in response to the question, like up is down, or left is right, or maybe the inner is the outer and the outer the inner. Aw heck, what was that...?"

[mwc]

As I recall this is what the Jesus Seminar essentially set out to accomplish.

 

My problem(s?) lie with assuming that any of the sayings are authentic. Or that the authentic sayings wouldn't have any pastoral type of references (ie. things dealing with the care and feeding of a church or organization of people). Or how the "original" would have perceived themselves, their nature or their mission.

 

Some of these are overcome by simply removing things that are "borrowed" from other sources (like G.Matthew and the OT). It's not impossible that all the best, and authentic, lines were merely OT quotations but what are the odds? They would be easy to remember going on 2+ generations though.

 

I'm just not sure how you could derive the good from the bad (so to speak). Assuming that whatever ultimately found itself in church doctrine could remove some items but the doctrine could be the result of the words rather than the words the result of the doctrine. I'm curious how you would go about this.

 

mwc

[Shyone]

As I recall this is what the Jesus Seminar essentially set out to accomplish.

 

My problem(s?) lie with assuming that any of the sayings are authentic. Or that the authentic sayings wouldn't have any pastoral type of references (ie. things dealing with the care and feeding of a church or organization of people). Or how the "original" would have perceived themselves, their nature or their mission.

 

Some of these are overcome by simply removing things that are "borrowed" from other sources (like G.Matthew and the OT). It's not impossible that all the best, and authentic, lines were merely OT quotations but what are the odds? They would be easy to remember going on 2+ generations though.

 

I'm just not sure how you could derive the good from the bad (so to speak). Assuming that whatever ultimately found itself in church doctrine could remove some items but the doctrine could be the result of the words rather than the words the result of the doctrine. I'm curious how you would go about this.

 

mwc

I suppose the best way to accomplish this would be to identify criteria in the manner of the textual critics (and I'm sure the Jesus Seminar attempted this). Your criterion of not copying an old testament saying seems reasonable, but I think mainly if the copying is used as prophecy fulfillment. Jesus may have restated many old testament sayings - and he referred to the old testament several times, sometimes to dispute the doctrine of the OT.

 

Speaking strictly of Jesus words, Jesus himself may have meant to enhance his standing by claiming to have secret knowledge and be part of the grand scheme of things. I can only say that if there are other statements that contradict the specific claims of being part of the OT "prophet circle", then I would tend to believe the former rather than the latter.

 

Incidentally, I think that, unless we see the same statements in the Gospel of Thomas from the "living Jesus", we can pretty well exclude all statements made after death.

 

I know what you mean about "any of the statements" being "authentic." It's a big leap. But, given the body of statements that are "deep" but not self-serving or promoting a new religion, there is some reason to think that someone in particular made those statements.

 

For me, it's more of a matter of curiosity rather than a mandate or serious line of inquiry.

 

Incidentally, unlike Jefferson, I might even include some statements related to miracle claims. I don't think that anything done was truly miraculous, but Jesus could possibly have been a "faith healer."

 

What do you think about that? The miracles are part of the foundation of the church, but were some actually things Jesus might have claimed to have done?

 

OTOH, I don't see a lot of miracles in Thomas. Maybe the miracles were all bullshit.

[Guest I Love Dog]

It's highly doubtful that the Jesus of the buybull actually existed.

 

Compare the story of Jesus to the story of Mithra, 600 years before Jesus.

 

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen048.html It's all too similar to be coincidence.

 

It's not hard to imagine that the stories of Mithra were taken and used in the fabrication of Jesus.

[mwc]

Incidentally, unlike Jefferson, I might even include some statements related to miracle claims. I don't think that anything done was truly miraculous, but Jesus could possibly have been a "faith healer."

 

What do you think about that? The miracles are part of the foundation of the church, but were some actually things Jesus might have claimed to have done?

 

OTOH, I don't see a lot of miracles in Thomas. Maybe the miracles were all bullshit.

I guess I would have to see some examples since already can look at the texts in parallel and that hasn't convinced me yet.

 

I'm still firmly in the "jesus" is a myth camp.

 

mwc

[Shyone]

Incidentally, unlike Jefferson, I might even include some statements related to miracle claims. I don't think that anything done was truly miraculous, but Jesus could possibly have been a "faith healer."

 

What do you think about that? The miracles are part of the foundation of the church, but were some actually things Jesus might have claimed to have done?

 

OTOH, I don't see a lot of miracles in Thomas. Maybe the miracles were all bullshit.

I guess I would have to see some examples since already can look at the texts in parallel and that hasn't convinced me yet.

 

I'm still firmly in the "jesus" is a myth camp.

 

mwc

Well, leaving Jesus in the myth camp, it still seems like there are two different "camps." At least.

 

--------------------------------------------------------

 

As an aside, reading Thomas is a hoot. It reads like a Monty Python skit at times.

 

 

At least, in my head...

 

First guy: "Congratulations to the Poor for-"

Second guy: "Are you sure he said Congratulations? I could have swor-"

First guy: "Well, I'm pretty sure. Yes, I believe it was 'Congratulations'."

"Anyway, Congratulations to the Poor, for..."

[the two guys scratch their heads and look perplexed for a while]

Second guy: "...for... winning the lottery!"

First guy: "No, it wasn't that. It was something deep, like heaven or -"

Second guy: "That's it! Congratulations to the poor, for heaven sake!"

First, guy: "Oh, for heaven's sake!"

Second guy" "Yes!"

First guy: "No! It was - for.. they will go to heaven."

Second guy: "Why should they go to heaven?"

First guy: "Because they're poor."

 

I wish I'd been there while the writer of Thomas was trying to remember what the fuck he thought he heard, or what someone had told him. It must have been terribly confusing, and just a bit funny.

[Abiyoyo]

As I recall this is what the Jesus Seminar essentially set out to accomplish.

 

My problem(s?) lie with assuming that any of the sayings are authentic. Or that the authentic sayings wouldn't have any pastoral type of references (ie. things dealing with the care and feeding of a church or organization of people). Or how the "original" would have perceived themselves, their nature or their mission.

 

Some of these are overcome by simply removing things that are "borrowed" from other sources (like G.Matthew and the OT). It's not impossible that all the best, and authentic, lines were merely OT quotations but what are the odds? They would be easy to remember going on 2+ generations though.

 

I'm just not sure how you could derive the good from the bad (so to speak). Assuming that whatever ultimately found itself in church doctrine could remove some items but the doctrine could be the result of the words rather than the words the result of the doctrine. I'm curious how you would go about this.

 

mwc

I suppose the best way to accomplish this would be to identify criteria in the manner of the textual critics (and I'm sure the Jesus Seminar attempted this). Your criterion of not copying an old testament saying seems reasonable, but I think mainly if the copying is used as prophecy fulfillment. Jesus may have restated many old testament sayings - and he referred to the old testament several times, sometimes to dispute the doctrine of the OT.

 

Speaking strictly of Jesus words, Jesus himself may have meant to enhance his standing by claiming to have secret knowledge and be part of the grand scheme of things. I can only say that if there are other statements that contradict the specific claims of being part of the OT "prophet circle", then I would tend to believe the former rather than the latter.

 

Incidentally, I think that, unless we see the same statements in the Gospel of Thomas from the "living Jesus", we can pretty well exclude all statements made after death.

 

I know what you mean about "any of the statements" being "authentic." It's a big leap. But, given the body of statements that are "deep" but not self-serving or promoting a new religion, there is some reason to think that someone in particular made those statements.

 

For me, it's more of a matter of curiosity rather than a mandate or serious line of inquiry.

 

Incidentally, unlike Jefferson, I might even include some statements related to miracle claims. I don't think that anything done was truly miraculous, but Jesus could possibly have been a "faith healer."

 

What do you think about that? The miracles are part of the foundation of the church, but were some actually things Jesus might have claimed to have done?

 

OTOH, I don't see a lot of miracles in Thomas. Maybe the miracles were all bullshit.

 

I have studied the Bible in all kinds of ways, and read the Gospels countless times. One thing I always saw as out of the box with Christ was that there were only a handful of Prophets that ever arose in the OT outside of Israel.

 

Many of them were sought to be killed. Elijah is a good example, sought by Jezebel. But, Daniel had favor with the the King and that king made his God the God of that kingdom. Nevertheless, I think one important point to Jesus in general was that he was similar to Daniel in a sense except the Jewish leadership was present, and seemly accredited by Rome. So, the some of the Jews didn't by it, and the Romans had a working, successful, entity system in the Greek gods. The Greek gods hadn't failed as of yet with the government and in history and the Bible, both supernatural type events and 'groups' like Christians were floating around.

 

Apollo was silenced, so maybe they felt Christ, or the Christian movement was justified, real.

[Abiyoyo]

It's highly doubtful that the Jesus of the buybull actually existed.

 

Compare the story of Jesus to the story of Mithra, 600 years before Jesus.

 

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen048.html It's all too similar to be coincidence.

 

It's not hard to imagine that the stories of Mithra were taken and used in the fabrication of Jesus.

 

Again, wow. You need to go study Mirtha. AM and I both commented about your claims in the other thread.

 

It was also pointed out that it is more likely the opposite of what you said by consensus, Mirtha was fabricated by the Christian movement.

 

Anyway, if you feel like you know for a fact, or some other resource that backs your claims then we should call CNN asap!!

 

[mwc]

But, Daniel had favor with the the King and that king made his God the God of that kingdom. Nevertheless, I think one important point to Jesus in general was that he was similar to Daniel in a sense except the Jewish leadership was present, and seemly accredited by Rome.

Only in the magical book of Daniel. In the real world there's no YHWH mentioned over in Babylon. The kings mentioned their boring old gods and worshiped them. Maybe Danny forgot to tell them that they had switched when they wrote their stuff down?

 

mwc

[mwc]

Again, wow. You need to go study Mirtha. AM and I both commented about your claims in the other thread.

 

It was also pointed out that it is more likely the opposite of what you said by consensus, Mirtha was fabricated by the Christian movement.

Depends which Mithra we're talking about. The Persian form was around for ~600 years prior. The Roman form would have it's origin in the 1st century CE (some place it earlier ~200 BCE but there are no mentions before the 1st century and the earliest reference from those sources go back to Pompey, mid-1st century BCE, but that is uncertain if I remember correctly).

 

Point being that if xians had anything to do with this we're talking about a parallel development and it would be just as easy for it to go the other direction. May as well say that Jesus was fabricated by the Mithras movement. Considering how little Judaism appears in what we know of the Mithras religion and how much GrecoRoman religion exists within the Jesus cult I would tend to accept the theory that the Jews had little to do with the development of either instead of the other way around (if I wanted to entertain this at all).

 

mwc