Jesus And The Nt

[Golden Meadows]

Jesus is never described in the Gospels as having commanded that new books should be compiled and form what we now call the New Testement. In the past I thought that this may have been due to his foreknowledge of what people of the book are drawn into - fundamentalism /literalism and this perhaps made him into something more than a prophet. Instead of a book the Holy Spirit that he promised would come and lead the church in all truth. Rather than a guide book it would be his very living spirit that would be at work in the Church.

 

That schism's characterized the early church is self evident, even within the NT it had already begun. Today thousands of independent church's all testify to the absence of the spirit of God being at work. It seems Jesus got it wrong.

 

On seconds thoughts I think the reason why there is no evidence of Jesus having wanted an expanded bible was because there was no time for it. For the gospels its clear he sincerely thought that the end of days was imminent - it was pointless preparing books for posterity that was never going to be. It seems Jesus got it wrong again.

 

My thoughts are now moving towards seeing Jesus as being a religious fanatic who quite possibly thought he was Son of God. This phenomena happens to this very day - in the Holy Land they call it the "Jerusalem syndrome" which seems to cause pilgrims who otherwise have no history of mental illness to think thay have become Jesus/God. Some of the rather fanatical anti-family statements/acts he is associated with in the NT are characteristic of modern cult leaders who try to dominate their devotees.

 

Whatever the reasons Jesus got it spectacularly wrong with the coming of the Holy Spirit and

the immenent end of days so he was not God incarnate as he indirectly suggested and his followers explicitly claimed.

[Ouroboros]

It's funny. I've been asking the question to a couple of Christians the last month or so, why Jesus never picked out a disciple to write down his message. According to tradition, he did pick one to take care of the money. It shows that Jesus was more interested in spending the money wisely than getting the message out. Very ungodly and greedy.

 

But you're right. The explanation could be that he saw the "end of time" as imminent, and didn't care to have it written down. Since it didn't happen, he should be considered a false prophet by the same Book.

[Golden Meadows]

It's funny. I've been asking the question to a couple of Christians the last month or so, why Jesus never picked out a disciple to write down his message. According to tradition, he did pick one to take care of the money. It shows that Jesus was more interested in spending the money wisely than getting the message out. Very ungodly and greedy.

 

But you're right. The explanation could be that he saw the "end of time" as imminent, and didn't care to have it written down. Since it didn't happen, he should be considered a false prophet by the same Book.

 

This interest in money seemed to be shared with his early followers - remember how that guy is struck down dead in front of Peter because he didn't hand in all of his property over to the cult and how Judas in the latest gospel is demonised also for dipping into the precious hoard. On the other hand maybe its something that supports one of your speculations that the xtians were really close to the essenes since they also had common fund with no personal posessions.

[Antlerman]

My thoughts are now moving towards seeing Jesus as being a religious fanatic who quite possibly thought he was Son of God. This phenomena happens to this very day - in the Holy Land they call it the "Jerusalem syndrome" which seems to cause pilgrims who otherwise have no history of mental illness to think thay have become Jesus/God. Some of the rather fanatical anti-family statements/acts he is associated with in the NT are characteristic of modern cult leaders who try to dominate their devotees.

 

Whatever the reasons Jesus got it spectacularly wrong with the coming of the Holy Spirit and

the immenent end of days so he was not God incarnate as he indirectly suggested and his followers explicitly claimed.

When I read the Gospels I have to understand that these are not directly Jesus' words. They are the words of the various Gospel authors put into Jesus' mouth. Matthew's Jesus rails against the Pharisees to kingdom come, yet in Jesus' lifetime they were hardly an important religious/political power; but in Matthew's day, post Jewish War, they were very much so; so you see Matthew going after them using Jesus as the mouthpiece for their Christian ideals.

 

The end of days they saw coming in their post-first-Jewish War world that they make their Jesus character speak of was a new sort of expectation of an imminent showdown with Rome, which actually did finally culminate under Bar Kokhba’s failed revolt in the 2nd Jewish War 132-135 AD. It was after this that Christianity took on a much more distant expectation of the 2nd coming, which has wound its way down to the modern theology of Dispensationalism begining in the 19th century, which we all too familiar with today.

 

Jesus' the person didn't incorrectly prophesy; the Gospel writers did. Jesus was a literary vehicle for them. Considering the inconsistencies and evolving predictions, it’s not clear what he might have actually said, if anything at all. But it's a great window into the mind of the writers of that world back then.

[Golden Meadows]

My thoughts are now moving towards seeing Jesus as being a religious fanatic who quite possibly thought he was Son of God. This phenomena happens to this very day - in the Holy Land they call it the "Jerusalem syndrome" which seems to cause pilgrims who otherwise have no history of mental illness to think thay have become Jesus/God. Some of the rather fanatical anti-family statements/acts he is associated with in the NT are characteristic of modern cult leaders who try to dominate their devotees.

 

Whatever the reasons Jesus got it spectacularly wrong with the coming of the Holy Spirit and

the immenent end of days so he was not God incarnate as he indirectly suggested and his followers explicitly claimed.

When I read the Gospels I have to understand that these are not directly Jesus' words. They are the words of the various Gospel authors put into Jesus' mouth. Matthew's Jesus rails against the Pharisees to kingdom come, yet in Jesus' lifetime they were hardly an important religious/political power; but in Matthew's day, post Jewish War, they were very much so; so you see Matthew going after them using Jesus as the mouthpiece for their Christian ideals.

I have never looked at the dating of the gospels from this angle before, know of any links to works that cover it any detail? I wonder if this might also account for the absence of the essenes in the NT, i.e their major settlement on the Dead Sea went under with Jerusalem c. AD70, which perhaps indicates they took part in the rebellion itself in some form, i.e this was the big showdown between the sons of light and darkness. When they were crushed the remnant that was left moved into the early church?

 

The end of days they saw coming in their post-first-Jewish War world that they make their Jesus character speak of was a new sort of expectation of an imminent showdown with Rome, which actually did finally culminate under Bar Kokhba's failed revolt in the 2nd Jewish War 132-135 AD.

I knew that a lot of historians have thought Mathews comments about the destruction of Jersusalem must have been after AD70. As a xtian I thought that this was just because they did not believe in prophecy but your comments on the pharisees seems to give weight to this theory.

 

It was after this that Christianity took on a much more distant expectation of the 2nd coming, which has wound its way down to the modern theology of Dispensationalism begining in the 19th century, which we all too familiar with today.

 

Jesus' the person didn't incorrectly prophesy; the Gospel writers did. Jesus was a literary vehicle for them. Considering the inconsistencies and evolving predictions, it's not clear what he might have actually said, if anything at all. But it's a great window into the mind of the writers of that world back then.

There is a lack of conclusive evidence, all we seem to have is pointers - its a matter of seeing the general direction they are orientated towards. I probably have to do a lot more reading - I kind of avoided what I thought was "anti-christian" works in the past. Maybe someday there will be xtian Dead Sea scrolls type find, 1st century scrolls, and a lot of questions will be answered, depending on who finds them.

 

[Antlerman]

I have never looked at the dating of the gospels from this angle before, know of any links to works that cover it any detail? I wonder if this might also account for the absence of the essenes in the NT, i.e their major settlement on the Dead Sea went under with Jerusalem c. AD70, which perhaps indicates they took part in the rebellion itself in some form, i.e this was the big showdown between the sons of light and darkness. When they were crushed the remnant that was left moved into the early church?

Dating of the Gospels is not an exact science but there are indicators that the majority scholarship generally agree on (except of course for those who ignore scholarly approaches examining the evidence in favor of purely magical explanations). Here is one link I found that appears reasonable (and brief) http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue4...ian_gospels.htm

 

There is consideration given to some of the early Christian community having come out of the Essenes seen in the peculiar emphasis and effort spent on the relationship of John the Baptist to Jesus. “I must decrease so that He may increase”. That seems to directly addressing an important issue for the community at that time. John the Baptist was in fact a real historical figure who had been part of the Essene community.

 

I knew that a lot of historians have thought Mathews comments about the destruction of Jersusalem must have been after AD70. As a xtian I thought that this was just because they did not believe in prophecy but your comments on the pharisees seems to give weight to this theory.

Yes, hence the comment above about those who answer textual criticism with belief in magic. It’s really the same thing as those who say “God did it” as a shortcut, and to ignore evidence revealed by science about the natural world.

 

There is a lack of conclusive evidence, all we seem to have is pointers - its a matter of seeing the general direction they are orientated towards. I probably have to do a lot more reading - I kind of avoided what I thought was "anti-christian" works in the past. Maybe someday there will be xtian Dead Sea scrolls type find, 1st century scrolls, and a lot of questions will be answered, depending on who finds them.

When we look at the Bible from a literary point of view, it actually is quite fascinating historical puzzle. I’ve been intrigued in understanding Jesus as having been a purely mythical creation of a celestial theology of the day, who later became a human with a literary history supporting him. However, I also am intrigued in and see credible reasons to see that there was an actual historical Jesus figure, who through oral traditions, evolving beliefs blending other traditions, hymns, epistles, sayings texts, diverse Gospels creations telling stories of this evolving character (canonical and non-canonical), etc became a character of mythological proportions.

 

What you really have then is a look at the evolving beliefs of a community, which in reality actually became quite successful, having eventually taken over Rome herself as its main religion. You are right, that in the kernel of the stories there will be commonalities that serve as pointers. The only way to even begin to get that picture is to get over putting magic into the equation when examining anything under the sun. I think those who insist on hanging onto magic are really just traditionalists who afraid to find a different way to look at their faith, which indicates to me a tenuous faith for them at best.

[trashy]

Between the inconsistencies and illogical things you have pointed out and the fact that the written history of the region somehow missed out on his entire life one is left with a misguided apocalyptic cult leader at best, a myth at worst. It's amazing what mankind can do with so little!

[Golden Meadows]

I have never looked at the dating of the gospels from this angle before, know of any links to works that cover it any detail? I wonder if this might also account for the absence of the essenes in the NT, i.e their major settlement on the Dead Sea went under with Jerusalem c. AD70, which perhaps indicates they took part in the rebellion itself in some form, i.e this was the big showdown between the sons of light and darkness. When they were crushed the remnant that was left moved into the early church?

Dating of the Gospels is not an exact science but there are indicators that the majority scholarship generally agree on (except of course for those who ignore scholarly approaches examining the evidence in favor of purely magical explanations). Here is one link I found that appears reasonable (and brief) http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue4...ian_gospels.htm

I checked this out but he assumes that there is no such thing as prophecy and therefore any passages that seem to relate to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 must have been written after the event. OK I understand this point of view but its not going to sway a xtian, that's why I was interested in your comments about the pharisee's because that presupposes nothing.

 

There is consideration given to some of the early Christian community having come out of the Essenes seen in the peculiar emphasis and effort spent on the relationship of John the Baptist to Jesus. "I must decrease so that He may increase".

The strange behaviour reported in the bible of John the Baptist in the desert can best be explained as a memory, distorted through oral tradition, of his time in the essene community -The Dead Sea settlement being the most likely. Its maybe not so clear cut because the essenes form of ritual cleaning was tied to a way of life that was far more restrictive in its entry requirements compared to what John was doing for anyone and everyone who would repent.

 

That seems to directly addressing an important issue for the community at that time. John the Baptist was in fact a real historical figure who had been part of the Essene community.

It does seem to point that way.

 

I knew that a lot of historians have thought Mathews comments about the destruction of Jersusalem must have been after AD70. As a xtian I thought that this was just because they did not believe in prophecy but your comments on the pharisees seems to give weight to this theory.

Yes, hence the comment above about those who answer textual criticism with belief in magic. It's really the same thing as those who say "God did it" as a shortcut, and to ignore evidence revealed by science about the natural world.

I have no objections to somebody who holds these views. All I know is that things have happened in my life that I cannot explain by means others than that an intelligence exists outside of time who knows things sometimes many years before they happen. Not for a second am I suggesting that anyone should take my non verifiable experiences as proof of anything. I only mention it since otherwise my belief in "magic" must seem bizarre, like at act of faith or something.

 

There is a lack of conclusive evidence, all we seem to have is pointers - its a matter of seeing the general direction they are orientated towards. I probably have to do a lot more reading - I kind of avoided what I thought was "anti-christian" works in the past. Maybe someday there will be xtian Dead Sea scrolls type find, 1st century scrolls, and a lot of questions will be answered, depending on who finds them.

When we look at the Bible from a literary point of view, it actually is quite fascinating historical puzzle. I've been intrigued in understanding Jesus as having been a purely mythical creation of a celestial theology of the day, who later became a human with a literary history supporting him. However, I also am intrigued in and see credible reasons to see that there was an actual historical Jesus figure, who through oral traditions, evolving beliefs blending other traditions, hymns, epistles, sayings texts, diverse Gospels creations telling stories of this evolving character (canonical and non-canonical), etc became a character of mythological proportions.

I favour the latter speculation, mainly through the style and contents of Paul letters. It seems easier to believe that he did exist rather than the very strained explanations needed to write away Paul's accounts

 

What you really have then is a look at the evolving beliefs of a community, which in reality actually became quite successful, having eventually taken over Rome herself as its main religion.

Sometimes even this period of history is extremely puzzling, e.g I have a roman coin with the Emperor Constanines I face on one side and the great God Sol Invicta on the other. One of Sol's symbols was a cross. Methinks today should be a feast day of his.

 

 

You are right, that in the kernel of the stories there will be commonalities that serve as pointers. The only way to even begin to get that picture is to get over putting magic into the equation when examining anything under the sun.

Like I say I understand where you coming from but a Christian isn't going to believe anything that presupposes the lack of magic.

 

 

I think those who insist on hanging onto magic are really just traditionalists who afraid to find a different way to look at their faith, which indicates to me a tenuous faith for them at best.

Maybe with some but not all.