Mad, bad,or the Son of God

[wil]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

But what do all of these stories point to, in your opinion? What do you think they meant to the people they were written for?

As Paul's letters, the gospels were an attempt to shore up, to validate the oral stories, to reduce (or enhance) the exageration and mythology surrounding this leader called Jesus.

Like any story today, the written word is an attempt to clarify, codify, quantify that which is currently rumor, innuendo and hyperbole. Watch BBC, ABC, FOX or Al Jazeera (or Pravda or whatever else) on any issue and we'll find folks attempting to state their beliefs events to support their contentions.

On the political side, Georgia, Russia, South Ossetia for example...tough to get at who is the agresssor, differs depending on the paper you read.

On the religious side, Christianity for example the stories and interpretations of events based on these very books varies widely from the catechism to the watchtower...

[Eclectic Mystic]

Originally Posted by wil

all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.

Wil, Jesus didn't go out of his way to be arrested. Are you saying that by not summoning twelve legions of angels Jesus somehow explicitly did something out of his way?

[wil]

Originally Posted by Eclectic Mystic

Wil, Jesus didn't go out of his way to be arrested. Are you saying that by not summoning twelve legions of angels Jesus somehow explicitly did something out of his way?

Namaste EM,

I thought you asked where it was written that he was fulfilling prophecy. I simply quoted one of the texts that is pointed at in that regard. (I didn't write the text.)

[mee]

[quote=Penguin;156820So it's good teacher or son of god?
My thoughts.[/quote]


it was both of those, he was a good teacher because he was taught by his father JEHOVAH.

And he was the son of God .


God’s firstborn Son, as Gods first student, was taught to do his Father’s will. (Proverbs 8:22-30; John 8:28)



Jesus did many powerful works during the first century.

He opened the eyes of the blind and even raised the dead, yet he was primarily known by his contemporaries as a teacher.

His followers as well as his opposers called him that. (Matthew 8:19; 9:11; 12:38; 19:16; John 3:2)

Jesus never took credit for what he taught but humbly acknowledged: "What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me." "Just as the Father taught me I speak these things."—John 7:16; 8:28; 12:49.

[Eclectic Mystic]

Namaste Wil,

There's a difference between fulfilling scripture and going out of the way to fulfill scripture. (Also, I'm glad to know you whether or not you wrote the text.)

[Dream]

Originally Posted by Penguin

So I guess it leaves some choices:-

1. Jesus was a good teacher, tried to fill prophecy but went too far and paid the ultimate price (possible)

Originally Posted by Eclectic Mystic

I'm not aware of Jesus going out of his way to fulfill any prophecy. Pilate didn't even believe that he "claimed to be" the King of the Jews (John 19:21-22)

All of that was on page one. Fulfillment of prophecy is a tricky subject. The account says in 19:19 it was Pilate who put a sign over Jesus dying head that said king of the Jews and that it was the priestly order, not Ponchus Pilate, that objected to the wording. This was possibly the first time Pilot had heard about Jesus, although King Herod already knew about him through hearesay about miracles. Jesus certainly didn't court the aristocracy, did he? In that sense, you cannot say he went out of his way to fulfill prophecy. He obeyed God, fulfilling prophecy to his own detriment.

[Dream]

The priestly order was also trying to fulfill prophecy. We know this because the death sentence to which they referred is in Deuteronomy 18:20 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.

John 10:24...39 Often comes up in discussion of this. Its helpful to note that the entire encounter from 24 to 39 was a trap laid by certain men for Jesus to get him to say he was the Christ. Their opening question was "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." Jesus had consistenly avoided making this claim, yet was stirring up trouble by his teachings and baptizing people! The trap was to get him to say 'I am the Christ', but he evaded the question with the father son dialogue. For Christians the term 'Son of God' is equivalent to 'Christ', in my opinion. John's gospel always emphasizes that Jesus is the son of God and that we are to become sons of God. In the midst of the trap the men attempted to stone Jesus on the basis of blasphemy, however he was able to dissuade them by saying "If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and scripture cannot be broken), do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, `You are blaspheming,' because I said, `I am the Son of God'?

So what claim to a death sentence were some priests making against Jesus before Pilate? "We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he has made himself the Son of God." (John 19:7) A Christ and a Son of God is exactly what Moses became when he went up into Sinai and came down with his face glowing. He later said to the nation of Israel "The LORD your God will raise upfor you aprophet like me from among you, from your brethren -- him you shall heed --" (Deut 18:15), but the end of that statement is "But the prophetwho presumes to speak aword in my name which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophetshall die." (vs 20). This is the basis for the priest's argument against Jesus: that he consistently refused to behave like they thought the Christ should - that he claimed to be Christ but was not. Their real objection was that he behaved erratically, even refusing to call himself Christ -- much less saving the nation from the Romans. It is upon the Christian to prove that he wasn't mad.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by wil

As Paul's letters, the gospels were an attempt to shore up, to validate the oral stories, to reduce (or enhance) the exageration and mythology surrounding this leader called Jesus.

Like any story today, the written word is an attempt to clarify, codify, quantify that which is currently rumor, innuendo and hyperbole. Watch BBC, ABC, FOX or Al Jazeera (or Pravda or whatever else) on any issue and we'll find folks attempting to state their beliefs events to support their contentions.

On the political side, Georgia, Russia, South Ossetia for example...tough to get at who is the agresssor, differs depending on the paper you read.

On the religious side, Christianity for example the stories and interpretations of events based on these very books varies widely from the catechism to the watchtower...

The Bible makes us aware of what transpired before our time, and introduces us to this God. It set ground rules, tells us there is hope, and encourages us (if not compels us), to seek the higher road. It is a reference, a guide, a set of moral laws, that if taken and consiously followed, would help us to prevent over 90% of the calamities man faces around the world. Unlike the media today, the Bible presents a positive message, and an endearing one, that we are all "special", and should work to that end.

If nothing else, it a book of the school of hard knocks, and advises us on how to get through troubling times, while keeping our dignity and the dignity of others, intact.

It also teaches us to look for God, after our base knowledge of him becomes evident within our own lives.

Genesis set the stage and the ultimate goal...namely God wants to commune with us, and tells us how to do it.

The Brooks and Dunn song "I Saw God Today", says it all. We have the knowledge of the existence of God, we know the "portal" needed to get back to God, now what do we do with that knowledge?

Like a "survival guide" passed down from generation to generation, added to and taken from, and finally put in written form, when we read it, we come away with the knowledge needed to stay alive in the wilderness.

Using that knowledge, is up to us.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Dream

This is the basis for the priest's argument against Jesus: that he consistently refused to behave like they thought the Christ should - that he claimed to be Christ but was not. Their real objection was that he behaved erratically, even refusing to call himself Christ -- much less saving the nation from the Romans. It is upon the Christian to prove that he wasn't mad.

Erratic behavior and madness?
Wouldn't killing a person who is causing no harm and is healing people, but is not behaving as one thinks he should be a prime example of erratic behavior and madness?

[Dream]

Originally Posted by Seattlegal

Erratic behavior and madness?
Wouldn't killing a person who is causing no harm and is healing people, but is not behaving as one thinks he should be a prime example of erratic behavior and madness?

Sure, but the law specifically states to stone anyone who claims to be a prophet who proves to be a false one. Jesus would not say he was the Christ, but he could do miracles. Nowadays, its still tricky for a Christian to explain why Jesus didn't subdue the Romans, etc. His behavior continues to appear erratic to many people. He undermined the priests' authority, smashed tables in the courtyard and cured a blind man and lepers; but he wouldn't oust the Romans! Gospels say the priests' conclusion was: Take Jesus before the high priest and force him to confess he is the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One.(Matthew 26:64-65). After this its merely a matter of Scripture interpretation for the high priest to conclude Jesus has failed to fulfil the prophecies attributed to the Christ, and then to condemn him to death. (Notice, by-the-way, that the high priest uses the words Son of God and Christ interchangeably.)

Originally Posted by Matthew 26:63-64

But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Dream

Sure, but the law specifically states to stone anyone who claims to be a prophet who proves to be a false one. Jesus would not say he was the Christ, but he could do miracles. Nowadays, its still tricky for a Christian to explain why Jesus didn't subdue the Romans, etc. His behavior continues to appear erratic to many people. He undermined the priests' authority, smashed tables in the courtyard and cured a blind man and lepers; but he wouldn't oust the Romans! Gospels say the priests' conclusion was: Take Jesus before the high priest and force him to confess he is the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One.(Matthew 26:64-65). After this its merely a matter of Scripture interpretation for the high priest to conclude Jesus has failed to fulfil the prophecies attributed to the Christ, and then to condemn him to death. (Notice, by-the-way, that the high priest uses the words Son of God and Christ interchangeably.)

Christ's actions and choices are not tricky at all. Jesus most likely could have wiped out the earth. However he's intent was revealed while he hung on the cross. "Forgive them, for they know not what they do."

And who says he did not reveal who he was? No, I opine the reality is that the "priests" knew their way of life was about to change. And they did not like it.

[Dream]

Originally Posted by Quahom

Christ's actions and choices are not tricky at all. Jesus most likely could have wiped out the earth. However he's intent was revealed while he hung on the cross. "Forgive them, for they know not what they do."

This is about some circular reasoning called 'Lord, Liar, Lunatic' that ignores Jesus testimony altogether. You're saying that Jesus testimony was clear as he hung upon the cross. Clearly the 3XL is a bogus argument.

Originally Posted by Quahom

And who says he did not reveal who he was? No, I opine the reality is that the "priests" knew their way of life was about to change. And they did not like it.

Jesus himself would not verbally say that he was the Christ the Son of God and often told people to keep it a secret when they found out. He sent out disciples preaching the kingdom was at hand, but wouldn't directly call himself Christ. Even John the Baptist's disciples couldn't get a straight claim from him (Luke 7:22) but had to make up their minds for themselves. You know all this already. By all means change the topic.

[Eclectic Mystic]

Originally Posted by Dream

Gospels say the priests' conclusion was: Take Jesus before the high priest and force him to confess he is the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One.(Matthew 26:64-65). After this its merely a matter of Scripture interpretation for the high priest to conclude Jesus has failed to fulfil the prophecies attributed to the Christ, and then to condemn him to death.

Utter irony.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Dream

This is about some circular reasoning called 'Lord, Liar, Lunatic' that ignores Jesus testimony altogether. You're saying that Jesus testimony was clear as he hung upon the cross. Clearly the 3XL is a bogus argument.
Jesus himself would not verbally say that he was the Christ the Son of God and often told people to keep it a secret when they found out. He sent out disciples preaching the kingdom was at hand, but wouldn't directly call himself Christ. Even John the Baptist's disciples couldn't get a straight claim from him (Luke 7:22) but had to make up their minds for themselves. You know all this already. By all means change the topic.

Dream, by your own admission, you recognize that Jesus told others who he was...

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Dream

Sure, but the law specifically states to stone anyone who claims to be a prophet who proves to be a false one. Jesus would not say he was the Christ, but he could do miracles. Nowadays, its still tricky for a Christian to explain why Jesus didn't subdue the Romans, etc. His behavior continues to appear erratic to many people. He undermined the priests' authority, smashed tables in the courtyard and cured a blind man and lepers; but he wouldn't oust the Romans! Gospels say the priests' conclusion was: Take Jesus before the high priest and force him to confess he is the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One.(Matthew 26:64-65). After this its merely a matter of Scripture interpretation for the high priest to conclude Jesus has failed to fulfil the prophecies attributed to the Christ, and then to condemn him to death. (Notice, by-the-way, that the high priest uses the words Son of God and Christ interchangeably.)

Isn't that what they tried to do to Jeremiah when he called for the evil-doers to repent, and warned about the destruction of the Temple? In Jeremiah's case, Ahikam son of Shaphan stood up for Jeremiah.(Jeremiah 26) Jesus did the same in calling the evil-doers to repent and warning about the destruction of the Temple. (Matt 23 & 24) In Jesus's case, Pilate would not stand up to the crowd who had been persuaded by the priests to rally for the release of Barabbas instead of Jesus. (Matt 27)

You would think that one of the scholars would have seen the parallel?