Did Jesus exist?

Discussion in 'Christianity' started by Jeannot, May 22, 2006.

  1. Jeannot

    Jeannot Jeannot

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Uniqueness of Jesus

    I maintain that the Jesus depicted in the Synoptic gospels is a sharply etched personality, and is unlikely to be some imagined amalgam of existing deities or myths, tho there are certainly mythic elements in the accounts.

    One reason I am a (sometimes) fan of the Jesus Seminar is that the JS also sees Jesus this way, and tries to separate the wheat from the chaff in examining the gospels. I do not always agree with their findings, but then probably no individual member agrees with every consensus decision either. But the JS, for all its fanfare, is doing necessary work.

    Some of the criteria used to find the truth, not only by the JS but by many scholars, are the criteria of embarrassment and discontinuity (there are other criteria as well, such as multiple attestation, which seem to me weaker).

    "Embarrassment" means that the incident or saying in question is at variance from what might be expected from a pious writer trying to push a faith agenda. "Discontinuity" means that an incident stands out from the surrounding narrative, and seems to have nothing leading up to it nor following from it. It seems to be gratuitous, and no apparent reason can be assigned to its inclusion in the narrative.

    The "Sermon on the Mount" (on the plateau in Luke) is full of sayings which present an ethic so radical that they seem impossible to put into practice, and indeed have not been by the vast majority (99%?)of Christians over the centuries. I am not saying that there are no precedents for some of these ideas. Foreshadowings of them can indeed be found in both Jewish and Cynic antecedents. But nothing as concentrated and thoroughgoing as the ethic preached by Jesus. Here, for example, is a comment by Michael Grant in JESUS: A HISTORIAN LOOKS AT THE GOSPELS—

    "Certainly the idea of forgiving one's fellow men their wrongdoings and not repaying evil with evil had become widespread in Jewish thought during the centuries immediately preceding the Christian era. Yet the Jews, with their concern that the law should be practicable, found that the prospect of actually loving one's enemy and turning the other cheek was out of the question, since such a hypothetical practice was contrary to human nature and could not therefore be fulfilled."

    Of course, Jesus may have meant this as an "interim ethic" because he thot the end of the age was imminent. (Which doesn't necessarily invalidate it, because for each of us, the end is never really that far away)

    The fundamental burden of Jesus' teaching is "the Kingdom of God is at hand," a pronouncement he had taken over from John the Baptist—a transaction which itself is a criterion of embarrassment; that is, that Jesus' basic idea was a borrowed one. But what does it mean to say that the Kingdom is "at hand," or "closing in" (Greek eggiken.)

    It seems apparent that Jesus thought that the Kingdom, or the appearance of the "Son of Man", was imminent. For example, in Matt 10:23, as Jesus sends the disciples out on a mission to Israel, he tells them "When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly I tell you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes." This is put into the form of a solemn pronouncement by Jesus ("truly I tell you").. This satisfies the criteria of both embarrassment and discontinuity, for it appears to be an unfulfilled prediction, and at the same time, there is no attempt to depict a fulfillment. In fact, ALL the mission episodes (Mark 6:6-13; Matt 10:1-15; Luke 9:1-6 & 10:1-20) fit the criterion of discontinuity, since nothing leads up to them or comes of them. It is upon these passages that Crossan bases much of his argument in THE BIRTH OF CHRISTIANITY: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately after the Execution of Jesus.

    In Chapter 24, Matthew has Jesus present a powerful apocalyptic, depicting the coming of the Son of Man on the clouds of heaven as an unmistakable, earth-shattering event. Then he adds "TRULY I TELL YOU, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place."(Matt appears to have taken this from Mark; it is also found in Luke) But then Matt, as if conscious of the difficulty, has Jesus add "But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." In doing this, Matt presents a Jesus who is hardly omniscient; that is, he presents a human Jesus.

    And later Matt adds, as if to reinforce the idea: "Truly I tell you there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" (Matt 16:28). In considering these passages, Albert Schweitzer came to the conclusion, as it seems one must, that Jesus was simply mistaken about the imminence of the Kingdom and its sensational manifestation. Nevertheless, Schweitzer devoted his life to Jesus in the jungles of Africa. His faith did not rest upon the shaky foundations of an inerrant bible.


    A Sharply Etched Jesus

    Thesis: It does not seem likely that the figure of Jesus as presented in the Synoptics could be merely an amalgam of myths or of previous demi-god figures.

    We have seen that Jesus made daring but unfulfilled predictions. Perhaps this may be one of the reasons his family, as depicted in Mark, thought he was crazy and wanted to put him away before he could cause them further embarrassment. And in John 7 we read that Jesus' brothers did not believe in him. That is, John would have us believe that they lived with God for thirty years and never noticed. And didn't Mary say anything about the angel, etc?

    Bur Jesus does say the damnedest things. For example, when one guy asks to follow him but says he has to bury his father first, Jesus replies, "Let the dead bury the dead." Talk about family values! It is difficult for us to imagine how this would shock Jewish ears, since the Jews were strict observers of family proprieties.

    Then a rich guy wants to follow him, and Jesus says, "First, sell all you have and give it to the poor." But the guy goes away sad, because .he is sad. So here again we have a radical ethic—perhaps an interim ethic—and also a failed conversion.

    As for failures, Mark records a couple. For example, in Nazareth, "he could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them. And he was amazed at their unbelief" (Mark 6:5). The implication is that he is a faith healer, who requires a response in the subject.

    And in Mark 8: 22ff, Jesus doesn't get it right the first time, and has to do it over. In general, Mark seems to believe that Jesus' mission starts with his baptism by John. Indeed, he seems to thing that he became the Messiah, or Son of God, at this time. This is reinforced by the scene in the synagogue in Ch 6, where the people are amazed at the local boy who made good: "'Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Simon, and not his sisters here with us?' And they took offense at him." This is the origin of Jesus' saying that a prophet is w/o honor only in his own home town. The people seem to resent the kid next door coming back and lording it over them, posing as a prophet. Such a story has the ring of truth.

    Then there's the incident of Jesus lying to his brothers (or changing his mind?) in John 7 when he tells them he's not going to the festival of Booths in Jerusalem, and then goes anyway. John tells us, "But after his brothers had gone to the festival, then he also went, but not publicly, but as it were in secret. But how secret can it be when Jesus creates a commotion on the last day of the festival?

    "On the last day of the festival, the great day, while Jesus was standing there, he cried out, 'Let anyone who is thirsty come to me, and let the one who believes in me drink. As the scripture has said, 'Out of the believers heart shall flow rivers of living water.' [and then John strangely adds] He said this about the Spirit, which believers in him were to receive, for as yet there was no Spirit because Jesus was not glorified."


    Bring in the Gentile Clowns

    After Paul had done his work, and before the gospels were written, the church seems to have become largely gentile. Yet we read in the synoptic gospels of Jesus' hostility to Gentiles. For example, he calls them dogs in his confrontation with the Syro-Phoenician woman. Not only tactless on his part, but this reveals him as partaking of the usual Jewish prejudice. (Mark 7, etc.)

    Again, in Matt 6 he says "Do not worry, saying 'What will we eat? or What will we drink? or What will we wear? For it is the Gentiles who strive for all these things. But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well."

    And in Mark 10, when James and John pettily ask to sit on his right and left hand in the kingdom, he upbraids them, saying , "You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them."
    _______

    We are told that Jesus spoke with authority, not like the scribes and Pharisees. That is, what he was saying, he was saying on his own. Tho he did cite scripture repeatedly, he often gives it his own twist, and this twist is frequently something uncomfortable for Jew and Gentile alike.

    Basically, the principle involved here is Occam's razor: the MOST LIKELY explanation of the Jesus phenomenon recorded in the gospels it that there actually was such a person. Granted, people can create works of fiction with remarkable characters and lots of detail. But what we have here is a large number of accounts—not just the four gospels—which takes different and often discrepant routes from the same originating phenomenon.
     
  2. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    22,199
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Namaste Jeanot...very interesting post...some thoughts.... In the first line I think he was referring to old thought and not a physical father....In the second...if you can't give up your attachment to material wealth...you can't come along...it isn't the wealth itself but the 'Have no G-ds before me' concept...

    Something I played with this weekend...another of your "Jesus says the damndest things"

    A contemplation….

    Imagine a rap group singing translated scriptures…

    the title of the songs are Mathew 10:34-39
    or the Prodigal Son,
    or the Beatitudes…

    [FONT=&quot]and on the CD inserts is another understanding….

    [/FONT] New International Version

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

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

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

    37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;

    38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

    39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.


    A Hip Hop rendition

    If you thought I’d make it a breeze
    you’ll find I didn’t come to ease
    but to bring you to your knees

    You gotta shake off the notion
    That you can make a potion
    Or your honey has the lotion
    Cause the answer ain’t in the ocean

    It’s you that’s causin’ the commotion

    If you can’t see the forest for the tree
    You’ll never be your best
    If you refuse to learn to be

    So drop all your bling
    Or I don’t owe you a thing

    Quit chasin the golden ring
    And find out what life will truly bring.

    Another understanding

    Don’t for a minute imagine G-d expresses as human to do it all for you, for this path is a challenge.

    I have come to separate your true self from your intellect, your desires from your emotions, and seemingly rebellious ideas from the old ways.

    You will find all your troubles are in your head, of your own doing.

    If your intellectual and emotional ego ties are strong you are actively refusing the grace and glory of spirit and don’t deserve it.

    If you don’t untie your bonds, pull up the stake, and seek a higher consciousness, you are creating your own hell.

    If you wish to stay in the material world, you will – forever; but if you choose to grow from it, you will discover you have access to everything.


    Those with ears...may hear....and may start looking up the original words..
     
  3. Jeannot

    Jeannot Jeannot

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well said, Wil! (I like the song)

    BTW, here's something the Jesus Seminar said about God's kingdom:

    "For Jesus, God's kingdom is a modest affair, not obvious to the untutored eye. It offers little by way of earthly reward. Its demands are staggering. He apparently didn't want it confused with traditional mundane hopes."

    And Albert Schweitzer was certainly not an inerrantist, yet he devoted his life to Jesus. He also wrote:

    "We have no terms today which can express what he means for us. He comes as one unknown, without a name, as of old, by the lakeside, he came to those men who did not know who he was. He says the same words, 'Follow me!' and sets us to those tasks which he must fulfil in our time. He commands. And to those who hearken to him, whether wise or unwise, he will reveal himself in the peace, the labors, th conflicts and the suffering that they may experience in his fellowship, and as an ineffable mystery they will learn who he is....
     
  4. iBrian

    iBrian Peace, Love and Unity Admin

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,532
    Likes Received:
    10
    Certainly that's not so contentious an issue, but obviously the associated theology are a matter of faith. Even Roman Emperors were reported to perform miracles...
     
  5. path_of_one

    path_of_one Embracing the Mystery

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Messages:
    2,906
    Likes Received:
    0
    A couple thoughts on those few passages, from a non-inerrantist point of view:

    1. Some scholars argue that our problem with "Let the dead bury their own dead" is a combination of 1) a lack of linguistic and historical-cultural context and 2) a mistranslation. First, the saying "Let me bury my father" in Aramaic does not mean his father is dead. It means, roughly translated correctly, "My father is very old and could die any day now. Let me stay and be with him until he dies, and then I will follow you." Secondly, it is likely that there was a mistranslation of the first usage of "dead." "Dead" is "metta" in Aramaic and "town" is "matta," pronounced very similarly. Some scholars argue that the gospels were written with a mistranslation or mis-hearing of what Jesus actually said, which would be "Let the town bury their own dead," which makes sense as during this time/culture an entire town would bury the dead and would mourn.

    2. My personal take on the dog comment to refer to the Gentiles...

    This is mine and mine alone, and I often have struggled with these passages, being a Gentile.

    My experience of Jesus has been profoundly personal and I've never felt slighted by Him in any way. So you can see that this passage is difficult for me.

    I wonder how much has been lost by tone of voice, context, etc. Perhaps Jesus is not so much saying that the Gentiles aren't worthy of receiving spiritual wisdom, but rather testing the woman about her own true desire and worthiness.

    For example, a first-year, undergraduate student could come to me (a professor) and ask me a very complex and detailed question about my field. They do not realize what is involved in the answer, and it is going to come with some cost of time to me, time that could be spent getting stuff done with people who really will benefit. So I may ask them, "Do you really want to know? It's a complicated issue and I want to be sure your heart is really into it. I don't want to waste time and energy, you know?" I'm basically asking them if they are worthy to receive instruction. For me, this is a way to find out what they think. In Jesus' case, He could have already known what the woman thought, but asked so that she could benefit from the self-reflection. Her answer was correct, so she gained spiritual wisdom.

    Other examples of such instances abound in Buddhism, Confucianism, etc. Masters expect their students to prove/show their worth, mettle, sincerity, both for the Master and the student. Confucius once said he holds up one corner, and his students must bring him the other three. Zen masters give their students koans (mental puzzles), and reveal spiritual truth only once the student has persisted and broken free from his/her mental conditioning, which is revealed by the spontaneity of the response.

    The woman had to overcome her pride to answer as she did, which was a correct answer. And I had to overcome my pride (a major stumbling block) in order to take this passage and not become upset or hurt by it, but rather see a value in it.

    ---

    I do think Jesus existed- this is evidenced by historical sources, as well as religious ones (though we know little about the historical Jesus).

    I think it's a little odd to think he didn't. We also know relatively little about the historical Buddha, but most people accept he exists. We can't really know if Lao Tzu ever existed- even "his" name is not really a name.
     
  6. Jeannot

    Jeannot Jeannot

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for your reply, Path. It does shed some light on these passages. Of course, the touching encounter with the Syro-Phoenician woman was not the only case in which Jesus seemed to disparage Gentiles.
     
  7. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    Well, I suppose if I was about to lose my head, and the Ceasar of the time stopped the swing of the headsman's axe before meeting its mark, I would consider that a miracle...:eek: :D
     
  8. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    Jesus did not disparage Gentiles. He certainly did not disparage the woman at the well. Jews did not touch anything from, nor carried on lengthy conversations of any merit with such as her ilk. Yet, He was accepting her offer of water, and offered her something infinitely greater in return. In fact if you truly look into the message of the meeting of the woman and Jesus, you will see, He was very gentle with her. He was also as gentle with Matthew, Peter, the quadraplegic, the leper, the blind man, the criminal on the cross...

    Jesus was most respectful to the Roman Centurian (definitely a gentile), and poured His grace on him and his family.

    He was not gentle with the Sanhedrin however, and they were the most "pious" and priviliged of birth of all men. Sometimes He was down right rude with them.

    You know, it seems to be a pattern, that the first born are forever the favored ones, but it is the second born and the adopted, that get the message the quickest, while the first born are a bit slow on the uptake.

    God pours His love on the favored ones, but that love spills over onto the rest, who eat it up and desperately wait for more, and that catches God's eye. Then He turns to them...:eek: :eek: :) :D

    What disparagement? :confused: :rolleyes: ;)

    my thoughts

    v/r

    Q
     
  9. iBrian

    iBrian Peace, Love and Unity Admin

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,532
    Likes Received:
    10
    I think it's Tacitius - possibly the Histories - who relates on how Vespassian (who had started the seige of Jerusalem, and ended up hooked up with Josephus), when leaving Alexandria, cured one mind of blindness and another one of being lame.
     
  10. Jeannot

    Jeannot Jeannot

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    What disparagement? I already cited some:--

    "We read in the synoptic gospels of Jesus' hostility to Gentiles. For example, he calls them dogs in his confrontation with the Syro-Phoenician woman. Not only tactless on his part, but this reveals him as partaking of the usual Jewish prejudice. (Mark 7, etc.)

    Again, in Matt 6 he says "Do not worry, saying 'What will we eat? or What will we drink? or What will we wear? For it is the Gentiles who strive for all these things. But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well."

    And in Mark 10, when James and John pettily ask to sit on his right and left hand in the kingdom, he upbraids them, saying , "You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them."

    BTW, the woman at the well was not, strictly speaking, a Gentile. She was a Samaritan, who were schismatic Jews. And Jesus said that the Samaritans worshipped what they did not know, unlike the Jews, who worshipped what they knew.

    Anyway, Jesus didn't take on a generalized human nature. He took on a specific one, that of a first-century Jew. And he lived and died an observant Jew.
     
  11. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    ;) No He didn't, at least not in the context you are implying. He said "little dogs" and it was used as a gentle term of endearment, of which the dual message and challenge did not go un-noticed on the woman. She understood her human position, but pointed out that even those not favored were granted kindness and affection from the master. Her faith and determination amazed Jesus, and He realized that what the favored children would discard, the rest would hungrily devour. It goes hand in hand with his cryptic message that a prophet is revered everywhere, but in his own home town. It also goes along with the message of the branch being "grafted" onto the tree of life, and thriving, while orginal branches withered and were shorn away and cast into the burn pile as useless.

    The second part of His message is just as clear. The gentiles didn't know any better, but the people of the law did, therefore He was chastising the Jews for acting in a manner and "worry" (a sin), even though they had the advantage of fore-knowledge as opposed to the clueless gentiles.

    Again, in the third part, Jesus is chastising those who have the knowledge of the scriptures and the prophecies for acting like those that had no knowledge and were in survival mode. He doesn't judge the gentiles, rather His disappointment is in the Jews.

    In the fourth part you answered your own thought. The Samaritans worshipped, while the Jews did not. And on that note I will point out that one of the best parables in the Bible, is about a Samaritan who did what was right and good, because it had to be done, and not the pius Jews who skipped past the injured man as quickly as they could.

    No, the lesson here that Jesus was impressing upon the Jews, is that they missed the boat, while those they considered less than human, were on board and setting sail...for the promised land. :eek:

    my thoughts

    v/r

    Q
     
  12. Jeannot

    Jeannot Jeannot

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interestingly, the confrontation with the Syro-Phoenican woman may be an occasion on which Jesus spoke Greek--at least we can so speculate. Mark makes a distinction between the woman's race (Syrophoenician) and language (Greek). If Jesus spoke Greek to the woman, the word for "dog" he would have used was "kunariois," (which both Matt & Marki use) which means "young dogs." This was an appropriate word, since the woman was pleading for her young daughter.

    Jesus is making the point, as he does elsewhere, that he is sent to "the lost sheep of Israel." When he sends out missions (of 12, then 70), he instructs them to go only to Israel, and not to the Gentiles, or even to the Samaritans.

    Evidently, Jesus is struck by the witty reply of the woman, a reply that shows her desperation, and her love for her daughter. As a result, he grants her request. A parallel case is healing the centurion's servant--but note that the centurion is a "God-fearer," that is, a Gentile who is a "fellow traveller" of Israel, accepting insofar as possible, the laws of Judaism. As a Gentile, he says "I am not worthy that you come under my roof."

    You say:

    "It also goes along with the message of the branch being "grafted" onto the tree of life, and thriving, while orginal branches withered and were shorn away and cast into the burn pile as useless."

    I assume you're referring to Romans 11:24. But where does it say anything about the original branches withering and being discarded? Rather, Paul says in v 26 that "all Israel will be saved." Remember, the Gentiles are the wild olive; Israel, the cultivated one. The Gentiles are a branch that is grafted into the cultivated tree. If the cultivated tree dies, so does the branch.

    In the passage about the Gentiles' materialism and consumerism ("don't worry about, etc), Jesus is telling his audience to behave more like Jews and less like Gentiles. And in the one about power, he is repraoching John and James.

    I don't know what you mean when you say "the Samaritans worshipped, the Jews did not.' Where did you get that? Certainly not in this passage. And what was going on in the Temple?

    Remember that Jesus lived and died an observant Jew. And in the last week of his life he told his followers to listen to the scribes and Pharisees and to follow their teaching (Matt 23-1-30--as the Pharisees themselves often did not.
     
  13. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    :eek: ;) My reply.

    I can not help it if you choose to ignore the specifics in the bible. Jesus was not "struck" by the wittiness of the woman. It states, He was amazed at her faith. And as I recall, she was on her knees before Jesus (obviously she considered herself not worthy), and she was a practicing ("hybrid jew"), Samaritan.

    And He was not referring to the woman's daughter at all. He was addressing the woman directly, and she refused to be dismissed by Him. And you assume that because she was syrophonecian, that she did not understand Aramiac? Presumptuous and profilific...

    That too is correct. He sent the messangers to the "lost sheep". The Gentiles already knew who He was, and what message He had. Why waste time preaching to the choir?

    No where does it say that if the cutivated tree dies, so does the branches. Jesus is the tree, we are the branches, cultivated or "wild".

    This is what Paul states: "For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches."

    "And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest He also spare not thee." "Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?"

    Exactly in this passage. The Samaritans worshipped what they did not know, yet the Jews ignored what they knew. Because it was not the way they wanted things. They wanted a King who would beat the Romans and all other enemies at the time, not a savior for the soul. And what was going on in the temple was a farce, as we shortly find out when Jesus' ire is invoked, and He personally turns everything over and every person on their ear.

    LOL, Jesus said do what they speak of as right, not what they do in reality. An observant Jew would act just like he observed the Pharisees do...Jesus said carry out the law. He called the Sanhedrin "hypocrites". Then He told the crowd how to live...which is very different from the way the Pharisees lived.

    He mocked the learned, and educated the simple and humble.

    my thoughts

    v/r

    Q
     
  14. Jeannot

    Jeannot Jeannot

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Exactly in this passage. The Samaritans worshipped what they did not know, yet the Jews ignored what they knew. Because it was not the way they wanted things. They wanted a King who would beat the Romans and all other enemies at the time, not a savior for the soul. And what was going on in the temple was a farce, as we shortly find out when Jesus' ire is invoked, and He personally turns everything over and every person on their ear."
    ______________

    Whoa! You're indulging in some very selective reading there. In my NASB, John 4:22 reads:

    "You worship what you do not know. WE worship what we know, FOR SALVATION IS FROM THE JEWS."

    And here's what Jesus said in Matt 23 "to the crowds and to his disciples":

    "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat. Therefore, practice and observe whatever they tell you."

    IOW, despite their conduct, Jesus is saying that they remain valid teachers. And he is saying this shortly before his death.
     
  15. YO-ELEVEN-11

    YO-ELEVEN-11 Watcher

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    608
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am of the opinion that "someone" did exsist..
    Weather his literal name was "JESUS" is not the issue.
    The fact remains that information was given to us from a source that is in charge .."GOD"...
    That information should be used for the benefit of all humanity.
    :cool:
     
  16. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    Not at all. I've been quite clear that I read through the whole thought given and compare it with other whole passages, to get a clear picture (as much as possible). Shortly after for example, the gentiles were told they would be given what the favored ones threw away. There is no denying the Jesus made that clear. He also was clear in His attitude about the priests who were supposed to lead the people (at least the leaders of the priests). He called them hypocrites and vipers. Jesus was telling the crowd to remember what they taught, but not what they did.

    He was adamant about that.

    v/r

    Q
     
  17. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    LOL, yeah, I believe that despite our difference of opinion and interpretation on this issue, Jeannot and I have made it quite clear that we two strongly believe in the existence of Jesus as well...;)

    v/r

    Q
     
  18. Jeannot

    Jeannot Jeannot

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think I mistitled the thread. I had just come from reading a couple of posts on another site that questioned whether Jesus existed--which, I think, is nonsense. (Principle of "Occam's razor" applies)

    I should have titled it simply "The Uniqueness of Jesus."
     
  19. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    Now that is cause for another thread...:D
     
  20. Jeannot

    Jeannot Jeannot

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, dear! Thread multiplication! ;)
     

Share This Page