Jesus' theology

[sarxweh]

1. What was the self conscious theology of Jesus? Meaning, what did he believe?

2. Where did Jesus get his theology?

Note:
"Theology" meaning not "worldview" or "individual beliefs" but "what God has revealed about himself".

Thus Jesus' "self-conscious theology" would imply his individual beliefs about what God has revealed about himself.

Everyone has a bible, and creates more history by their use of it.

So what was Jesus' Theology?

 

[St_Worm2]

Hi Sarxweh, here is small sampling of how Jesus defined Himself. These will be random (as they come to my mind).

1. What was the self conscious theology of Jesus? Meaning, what did he believe?

1. "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." Revelation 22:13

2. "I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star." Revelation 22:16

3. "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am." John 8:58

4. He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are athe Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven." Matthew 16:15-17

5. Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. John 11:25-26

6. "I and the Father are One" John 10:30

7. Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." John 14:6

8. "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish" John 10:27-28

9. "Just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes." John 5:21

10. "For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father." John 5:22-23

11. "I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live." John 5:25

12. "If you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me." John 5:46

13. "He who has seen Me has seen the Father" John 14:9

14. The high priest questioned Him, and said to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" And Jesus said, "I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." Mark 14:61-62
​

2. Where did Jesus get his theology?

From Himself.

 

[sarxweh]

Is that possible to get theology from yourself? I'm not sure I understand.

I understand/define theology as a persons view of what God reveals about himself, not whatever a person imagines god might be like. If a man creates his own ideas about god, I would not call that a theology, but deification of a philosophy or system of knowledge (or biblically put, just "idolatry")

I find this to be a pretty big over site of most religions I know of. They either don't say where they get their information about God, or they plainly were not theologies at all. I respect both types in as far as I can understand them, but I'm wondering specifically about Christianity's founder because like you quoted, he claims to get his theology from God himself.

Jesus' bible would have been "the law and the prophets" so he got his point of view about God (and apparently, himself) from what he was reading in those scriptures.

He certainly knew them backward and forward according to the gospels

 

[St_Worm2]

Is that possible to get theology from yourself? I'm not sure I understand.

Only in its application, and only if you are the Author. You continue:

I understand/define theology as a persons view of what God reveals about himself, not whatever a person imagines god might be like. If a man creates his own ideas about god, I would not call that a theology, but deification of a philosophy or system of knowledge (or biblically put, just "idolatry").

Considering for now that Jesus is speaking the Truth, what do you believe He is trying to teach us about Himself? (let's start with what He revealed about Himself in my first post above) You continue:

I find this to be a pretty big over site of most religions I know of. They either don't say where they get their information about God, or they plainly were not theologies at all. I respect both types in as far as I can understand them, but I'm wondering specifically about Christianity's founder because like you quoted, he claims to get his theology from God himself.

Actually, He claims to be God Himself (take a close look what He says about Himself in the Scriptures in my first post). You continue:

Jesus' bible would have been "the law and the prophets" so he got his point of view about God (and apparently, himself) from what he was reading in those scriptures.

You are, of course, correct. However, He expanded/corrected/refined our understanding about what the OT really meant. The Author Himself taught us the Truth about Himself and about what was written in His word. IOW, God taught us "theology" directly when He walked among us in various pre-incarnate states, when He was Incarnate, when He was Risen, and in His present, Glorified state. You continue:

He certainly knew them backward and forward according to the gospels

As did many in His day. None, of course, could have possibly understood them like Jesus did apart from His help.

Yours and His,
David

 

[sarxweh]

Did Jesus simply imagine he was God? Couldn't be. If he did he wouldn't be god.

On the one hand, he must have known it if he was God, and therefore, he didn't need to read anything. I get that.

In the other hand, he was fully human, and I wonder what is left of his humanity if he was fully intelligent/self aware as an infant. I mean, the big picture surely developed for him within his own mind. I imagine it culminated somewhat at his baptism maybe? I don't know.

I realize the self conscious stuff is also divine mystery, and I think that's why I'm going to his theology. There of course is the point that he IS scripture. But I think I'm wondering about his specific interpretation of his specific canon at the time (at the time being the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures I suppose).

Perhaps he saw beyond these books, and spoke in terms of what Israel could recognize, for their sake... That sounds strange.

Okay, I think I have an example. On the cross, he is dying, surrendering himself fully to the will of the father (who's plan it was) and he sings a psalm! We don't have the tune, but those were songs, right? I mean he would have known the tune, and I feel like that usually gets read like he was just "quoting an appropriate verse" to the crowd. It makes me wonder because there must be something more to his knowledge of scripture than a bare systematic knowledge regarding himself.

I'm swinging wildly here. Not sure if that's clear enough.

 

[St_Worm2]

Did Jesus simply imagine he was God? Couldn't be. If he did he wouldn't be god.

On the one hand, he must have known it if he was God, and therefore, he didn't need to read anything. I get that.

In the other hand, he was fully human, and I wonder what is left of his humanity if he was fully intelligent/self aware as an infant. I mean, the big picture surely developed for him within his own mind. I imagine it culminated somewhat at his baptism maybe? I don't know.

I realize the self conscious stuff is also divine mystery, and I think that's why I'm going to his theology. There of course is the point that he IS scripture. But I think I'm wondering about his specific interpretation of his specific canon at the time (at the time being the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures I suppose).

Ahh, so you want to be able to "comprehend" the Trinity of God and the dual nature of Christ? The church doesn't believe that's possible and I agree. The doctrine of the Trinity was created to circumscribe and safeguard the mystery, not explain it, as that is clearly beyond our finite minds. I'm not even sure we will fully understand such things in Glory as we remain creatures, but while we remain in our present state, there is no hope.

Neither is understanding how a being can be God Almighty AND man at the same time. Clearly He was both and apparently remains in that condition even now, though He is now 100% "human" in a way we can only guess at until we ourselves are glorified.

I am satisfied to believe that He was and always will be 100% God, and that He took on humanity at His incarnation and became and remains 100% man at the same time. Was He fully aware as an embryo? As a small cluster of human cells before that? Certainly His humanity wasn't, but His deity must have been since there is no way for God to become not-God or partially God, EVER. And how did He exist in a human shell and also exist everywhere else at the same time? Don't know and I don't know that we ever will because as Isaiah 43:10b clearly tells us, we aren't going to become Gods ourselves this side of infinity .. You continue:

Perhaps he saw beyond these books, and spoke in terms of what Israel could recognize, for their sake... That sounds strange.

And for ours, PTL. Israel may have been His chosen people, but they fell just as short of the Glory of God as we have, yes .. Luke 13:34. You continue:

Okay, I think I have an example. On the cross, he is dying, surrendering himself fully to the will of the father (who's plan it was) and he sings a psalm! We don't have the tune, but those were songs, right? I mean he would have known the tune, and I feel like that usually gets read like he was just "quoting an appropriate verse" to the crowd. It makes me wonder because there must be something more to his knowledge of scripture than a bare systematic knowledge regarding himself.

I'm swinging wildly here. Not sure if that's clear enough.

Clearly He had no need to convince anyone of His humanity, but he also convinced those who knew Him best that he was God (as the Scriptures of the OT AND NT that we are so blessed to have in our possession clearly attest). I'm afraid that knowing this is true because the Bible tells us it is, will have to do .. Understanding how it actually works .. Not a chance ..

 

[pshun2404]

Is that possible to get theology from yourself? I'm not sure I understand.

I understand/define theology as a persons view of what God reveals about himself, not whatever a person imagines god might be like. If a man creates his own ideas about god, I would not call that a theology, but deification of a philosophy or system of knowledge (or biblically put, just "idolatry")

I find this to be a pretty big over site of most religions I know of. They either don't say where they get their information about God, or they plainly were not theologies at all. I respect both types in as far as I can understand them, but I'm wondering specifically about Christianity's founder because like you quoted, he claims to get his theology from God himself.

Jesus' bible would have been "the law and the prophets" so he got his point of view about God (and apparently, himself) from what he was reading in those scriptures.

He certainly knew them backward and forward according to the gospels

Jesus told us three things that answer your query..

a. His words are the Father's words
b. His works are the Father's works
c. He only does as He sees the Father doing

 

[sarxweh]

Jesus told us three things that answer your query..

a. His words are the Father's words
b. His works are the Father's works
c. He only does as He sees the Father doing

I accept his testimony about himself and I also accept his testimony about the father.
My question is not to undermine him but to substantiate both his words in the body, and his words in the rest of scripture.

I've been thinking about this question as a bible reader; Jesus certainly read his bible and loved its interconnections and knew they pointed to him. Yet you don't see many elaborations on the idea, except in liberal stances on historical Jesus theoretics.

 

[Job8]

Jesus told us three things that answer your query..

a. His words are the Father's words
b. His works are the Father's works
c. He only does as He sees the Father doing

It's not enough to leave it at that. Christ came to this earth expressly to do the Father's will. Therefore He said those things. At the same time "He thought it not robbery to be equal with God".

Therefore He said that He is (1)I AM (YHWH), (2) The Way, the Truth and the Life, (3) the Door, (4) the Good Shepherd, (5) The Messiah, (6) the Bread of Life, (7) the Light of the world, (8) the Son of God, (9) the Son of Man, (10) One with the Father, (11) the Resurrection and the Life, (12) Master and Lord, (13) the King of the Jews.

In other words, Christ proclaimed full His Deity as well as His full humanity. He said that all the Scriptures speak of Him. Therefore all Bible Truth is His theology, emanating from the Godhead.

 

[Job8]

Yet you don't see many elaborations on the idea, except in liberal stances on historical Jesus theoretics.

Theological liberalism treats "the historical Jesus" as a mere man, and treats the Gospels as a patchwork of human sayings. You won't find the truth in that direction.

 

[Coponius]

Jesus The Jew

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]There is one intrinsic question which anyone, whatever their religious persuasion, may be compelled to ask. Would a Jewish teacher who walked the byways of Galilee in the first century have endorsed the various Creeds and dogmas formulated in his name hundreds of years later? This question may appear to be a theological one but it is certainly possible to find the historical answer. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]In order to do this it is necessary to go back to the period in which Christianity emerged and it is fundamental to understand how easy it was, in the Graeco – Roman world, for a human being to be regarded as a god. Roman Emperors strived to cultivate a divine image, just as previous Hellenistic rulers had done before them. It was commonplace for artists and sculptors to be engaged in portraying the Emperor as Zeus/Jupiter, Herakles or Apollo and the Imperial images on legionary standards were objects of worship by the Roman army. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]When Tiberius’ nephew Germanicus died [19 CE] a cameo was made of the [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]young hero being received into the celestial pantheon, with the former Emperor Augustus among the gods. That such deification could be accorded even to living men is evident from the narrative concerning Paul and Barnabas, who after having healed a cripple at the town of Lystra in Asia Minor, were enthusiastically believed by the populace to be Hermes and Zeus descended to earth. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][Acts 14:8-18][/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The Jewish world, itself permeated with Hellenism, was not totally immune to such concepts. Josephus relates the story of Herod the Great’s grandson, Herod Agrippa I, who in the decade that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified, was himself imprisoned for suspected treachery against the Emperor Tiberius. On the first day of his captivity an owl was seen to alight on a branch above Agrippa’s head and an old German prisoner, noticing this, told him that it was a good omen. He would shortly be released and regain his royal status. However, the German also warned Agrippa that when he saw the bird again, his death would follow within five days. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Just as predicted Agrippa was released and in 37 CE was appointed king of Judaea, ruling over Herod the Great’s former territories. At the height of his power in 44 CE he attended in sumptuous style the quadrennial Roman games at Caesarea, appearing in magnificent robes of silver, which sparkled in the sunlight. Sycophants around him cried out that he was a god not a man and Agrippa, highly flattered, failed to reprove them. It was a fatal mistake. Looking up he saw the owl flying towards him. Seized by violent stomach pains, he died five days later. Whether or not this is just a moralistic tale, it is a clear example of how readily pagans would acclaim a man as a god.[/FONT]




[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]From what is known of the historical background, is it possible that Jesus of Nazareth regarded himself as God? In the Gospel of Mark, the most consistent in conveying Jesus’ humanity, a man is represented as running up to Jesus and addressing him with the words ‘Good master’. Jesus’ response is a firm rebuke. ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone’ [Mark 10:18] Even in John, the Gospel most inclined to emphasise Jesus’ quasi- divine status, he is depicted as stating quite categorically, ‘the Father is greater than I’ [John 14:28].[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]If Jesus had wanted to institute a formula for the religion he taught, there is one instance in Mark where he had the perfect opportunity to do so. A scribe is represented as asking him, ‘which is the first of all the commandments? This was a chance for Jesus to impart one of his characteristic twists, bringing in something new, something regarding himself, if he actually believed that he was on an equal footing with God. Instead he unhesitatingly looked to his traditional Judaic beliefs.[/FONT]


“[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]This is the first: listen Israel, the Lord our God is the one Lord and you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and with all your strength.” [Mark 12: 29-30][/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Here was nothing about any call for faith in himself as a pre-existent cosmic saviour, nothing about any new religion based around himself or his name. Instead by choosing this precept, Jesus was affirming in the most emphatic way possible that the Jewish faith was the absolute foundation of his belief. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The quotation is not merely a passage from Deuteronomy [6:4-5] it is the great Shema Israel, the confession of faith which all practising Jews recite morning and evening every day of their lives. It is a confession believed to have been instituted by Moses in these terms: [Deuteronomy 11: 18-21][/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Let these words of mine remain in your heart and in your soul; fasten them on your hand as a sign and on your forehead as a circlet. Teach them to your children and say over to them, whether at rest in your house or walking abroad, at your lying down and at your rising. Write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates, so that you and your children may live long in the land that God swore to your fathers he would give them for as long as there is a sky above the earth.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]According to Mark, Jesus, without being asked for it, then volunteered a second commandment: ‘you must love your neighbour as yourself.’ [Mark 12: 30] Christians sometimes like to argue that here Jesus was stressing a novel feature which he was introducing into the old religion. The feature by which the new faith of Christianity would set itself apart from the traditional ethos of Judaism. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Such an argument is, however, a profound misunderstanding of what the Jewish religion had been for centuries before Jesus and still continues to be today. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]In stating you must love your neighbour as yourself, Jesus was saying nothing new. It is first to be found in Leviticus [19:18] one of the books attributed to Moses and occurs again in the Apocryphal or Deuterocanonical books of Ecclesiasticus and Tobit. “Do to no-one what you would not want done to you” [Tobit 4:15].[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]This concept was restated in the generation prior to Jesus by the great Rabbi Hillel.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]A Gentile, weary of attempting to understand the subtle complexities of Jewish doctrine, went to Hillel and asked to be taught the whole of the Torah while standing on one foot, [I.e. briefly]. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Hillel told him: “Whatever is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow man. This is the whole Torah. The rest is commentary. Now go and study.” [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]It is impossible therefore to believe that the historical personage, Jesus of Nazareth could have had any knowledge of the elaborate non- Jewish theological speculations devised in his name and which still represent the way he is supposed to be understood by present day Christian devotees.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]If Jesus remained so fundamentally loyal to Judaism, how is he to be viewed today by the modern generation of Jews? One of the most interesting recent developments among Jewish writers, scholars and some Rabbis is the renewed historical interest in who Jesus was and whether he may have merely been a nabi/hasid of a particularly exceptional kind.[/FONT]

 

[Job8]

There is one intrinsic question which anyone, whatever their religious persuasion, may be compelled to ask. Would a Jewish teacher who walked the byways of Galilee in the first century have endorsed the various Creeds and dogmas formulated in his name hundreds of years later? This question may appear to be a theological one but it is certainly possible to find the historical answer.

When one starts with false premises, one ends up with false conclusions. The Gospels -- Divine Revelation -- do not represent Jesus as merely a "Jewish teacher". Even the Koran represents Him as a prophet.

From what is known of the historical background, is it possible that Jesus of Nazareth regarded himself as God?

The PRIMARY historical record is the Gospels. The SECONDARY historical background could be other writings. And according to the Gospels Jesus declared Himself to be God. He proclaimed to the Jews on one occasion "Before Abraham was I AM" (Jn 8:58). "I AM" is the name of the same LORD God who commissioned Moses (Exod 3:14). Therefore the Jews saw this as a claim to Deity, but because they refused to acknowledge Him, they took up stones to stone Him.

In the Gospel of Mark, the most consistent in conveying Jesus’ humanity, a man is represented as running up to Jesus and addressing him with the words ‘Good master’. Jesus’ response is a firm rebuke. ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone’ [Mark 10:18]

And did you get the import of that rebuke? What Christ was telling this man is that if you believe that I am good, then you must also believe that I am God.

Even in John, the Gospel most inclined to emphasise Jesus’ quasi- divine status, he is depicted as stating quite categorically, ‘the Father is greater than I’ [John 14:28].

Did you get the import of this statement? Jesus is and was the eternal Word of God, who is God Himself (Jn 1:1-3). However, God the Son was entirely subject to the will of the Father while on this earth. Hence the above statement. At the same time "HE THOUGHT IT NOT ROBBERY TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD" (Phil 2:6).

It is impossible therefore to believe that the historical personage, Jesus of Nazareth could have had any knowledge of the elaborate non- Jewish theological speculations devised in his name and which still represent the way he is supposed to be understood by present day Christian devotees.

This is simply a blatant misrepresentation of Christian beliefs, either through ignorance or through wilful blindness. Did you miss the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles, and Revelation? The entire New Testament testifies to the Deity of Christ, but we will focus on just one verse, which stands unshakeable in the majority (99%) of all the Greek manuscripts (1 Timothy 3:16):
καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον· Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ ἀνελήφθη ἐν δόξῃ.
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Quite obviously you have scant knowledge of the New Testament other than a few "proof texts" to try and show that Jesus was merely a Jewish rabbi. That is sad indeed.

 

[Coponius]

Originally posted by Job8

When one starts with false premises, one ends up with false conclusions. The Gospels -- Divine Revelation -- do not represent Jesus as merely a "Jewish teacher". Even the Koran represents Him as a prophet.

I adduce no false premise here! - the idea that the Gospels are "Divine Revelation" is a theological supposition - not a historical fact.

Originally posted by Job8

The PRIMARY historical record is the Gospels. The SECONDARY historical background could be other writings. And according to the Gospels Jesus declared Himself to be God. He proclaimed to the Jews on one occasion "Before Abraham was I AM" (Jn 8:58). "I AM" is the name of the same LORD God who commissioned Moses (Exod 3:14). Therefore the Jews saw this as a claim to Deity, but because they refused to acknowledge Him, they took up stones to stone Him.

The word-play is between the similar pronunciation of the Hebrew word Yahweh (The Lord) The personal name of the Hebrew deity, and the word ‘Ehye= I am. Such an assonance cannot be expressed in Greek between Kurios = Lord, and Eimi = I am.
The name Yahweh is related to the Hebrew root, hayah or haway = to be. Yahweh is therefore “he who is” or “he who will be.”
The Massoretic Text transposes the 1st person, “ehyeh- asher- ehyeh” into the 3rd.
The root, Yau appears in personal and place names in Babylonia and in the Tel el-Amarna letters, but whether there is any connection between it and the Biblical name is conjectural.


Originally posted by Job8

And did you get the import of that rebuke? What Christ was telling this man is that if you believe that I am good, then you must also believe that I am God.

No! The literal interpretation still stands. You are putting your own personal theological gloss on the passage - the actual meaning of which is quite self evident to any unbiased reader.




Originally posted by Job8

Did you get the import of this statement? Jesus is and was the eternal Word of God, who is God Himself (Jn 1:1-3). However, God the Son was entirely subject to the will of the Father while on this earth. Hence the above statement. At the same time "HE THOUGHT IT NOT ROBBERY TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD" (Phil 2:6).

Another theological gloss - it has nothing whatsoever to do with history!


Originally posted by Job8

This is simply a blatant misrepresentation of Christian beliefs, either through ignorance or through wilful blindness. Did you miss the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles, and Revelation? The entire New Testament testifies to the Deity of Christ, but we will focus on just one verse, which stands unshakeable in the majority (99%) of all the Greek manuscripts (1 Timothy 3:16):

Please do not be so pompous! The "entire New Testament" (sic) does not testify to the "Deity of Christ". This was only finally agreed upon (the homoousion formulation) at Nicaea in 325 CE.


You are fallaciously arguing by the employment selected instances taken out of context.
The Acts of the Apostles, The NT Epistles and the Book of Revelation belong to different categories of ancient literature and cannot be lumped together in an arbitrary fashion just to suit your polemical purposes. These works (now included in the Christian canon) were originally quite separate from one another - chronologically and geographically.


Originally posted by Job8

Quite obviously you have scant knowledge of the New Testament other than a few "proof texts" to try and show that Jesus was merely a Jewish rabbi. That is sad indeed.

Please try to be less arrogant. I make no personal claim whatsoever to be an expert on the New Testament, however, I am fairly well versed within the area of ancient history, historical methodology and the origins of early Christianity and its Judaic background.


I must finally conclude, that you seem to be totally incapable of making the distinction between history (a rational inquiry) and theology (opinions and speculations based upon received religious texts).


My central point (which it appears must be re-emphasised) is the fact that behind all the tendentious accumulations of later Christian theology, devised over the 1st to 4th century CE, remains, in all probability, the historical figure - Jesus of Nazareth - an obscure ascetic first century Galilean teacher and holy man who was of no direct interest or importance to the contemporary world of Palestinian Judaism in general or Diaspora Judaism in particular. I must however make a strict distinction between this historical personage, Jesus the Christ [of Nazareth] (Іησους ό Χριστο&#962 who was executed for sedition by the Roman authorities in Judaea - and the later theological construct of Χριστος Іησους - Jesus Christ (or Christ Jesus).


The word Χριστος (Messiah) is itself a politico-religious title not a surname. The more familiar form (without the definite article) is first found in the writings of Paul and was apparently devised by him as part of his highly developed mystical soteriology which eventually formed the basis for the new Christian cult after it had finally separated itself from Judaism.


Contrary to your dogmatic assertions, Jesus of Nazareth never claimed to be God. Nowhere in the entire Greek New Testament are the words, Ό θεος ειμι ever to be found attributed to him. Even in the highly theologically developed work known as John’s Gospel such expressions are never directly attributed to Jesus. The language employed is always ambivalent or periphrastic. Judaism then and now has no belief whatsoever in any anthropomorphic deity. That particular concept is derived from Hellenism.


It must never be forgotten that the NT Picture of Jesus, as found in the Gospels, is focussed through the lens of the Greek language. We are therefore seeing an image of a 1st Century Galilean Jew, whose native speech was Aramaic, interpreted through the medium of an essentially (as far as rural Galilee was concerned) alien language and culture. The earliest Jewish followers of Jesus revered him as the expected messiah and anticipated his imminent return to inaugurate the kingdom of God here on earth. They only worshipped, as did Jesus himself, the one immanent and transcendent God of Israel.


The term messiah is a Jewish royal designation meaning “anointed” as in Ancient Near Eastern coronation rituals. In earlier times Saul, David, and Solomon had each been so described. In later Judaic belief the concept was developed further, in speculative eschatological scenarios, to denote an individual invested by God with special powers and functions.


The word Christ [χριστος] is merely the Greek translation of the Hebrew mashiah [messiah]. It is a title not a proper name. The extent to which Jesus personally believed in himself as the messiah is somewhat uncertain. However, there is no doubt that he was tried and executed as one. Any alleged pretensions to “kingship” were deemed seditious by the Roman authorities in Judaea and summarily tried and punished.


Claiming to be the son of God was nothing extraordinary in contemporary Judaism. All righteous Jews were believed to be God's sons. To Jews the term “son of God” was a metaphorical expression of their relationship with the creator. However, in the wider Hellenistic/Roman world with its numerous anthropomorphic deities, both male and female, the significance and implications of such an expression would have been (and indeed were) construed in a totally different fashion.

 

[eartheart]

God settled on earth once the foundation was laid, when the mist allowed God to breathe in a suit and living souls emerged through this animation we call time nature, thus God inhabited the creation as living souls of the spirit. The free will of the spirit is a choice of good and evil, the word of God became a den of devils. The control over the people was through supersition and the false sabbath. The man made sabbath was barbaric and so a commen man "jesus" broke the curse and restored it to the original sabbath "grace" which is "be fruitful and multiply for this is my oath to you". Jesus exposed the lie of the sabbath by purposly comiting a bold heresy "claiming to be God as promised, the jews never expected this to be fullfilled for the cain, our brothers keeper, the old testiment, was created so that if ine were to come, they could regain power because thw book was not updated and people would still be under the old law. The bible itself says that it should not have been but because it is, God would send a savior to free the world of its dogmatica. The devils lie regarding the sabbath.was exposed when the truth was imparted by exposing the hypocracy of the church, hanging a a man died during the sabbath, they brought him down.for the sabbath to descredit him but it w was too late, the people woke up to the truth. They were no longer controlled by a book, this was that Holy spirit from the beginning in the form of man, Gods image, who put Jesus (enmity) between the woman and the serpent

 

[eartheart]

Sorry about the spelling, i cant see what im typing

 

[eartheart]

Also all liars will have a PART in the lake of fire that burns for ever, that fire is the love of Christ, hebrews says that our God is a burning fire
Transformed by Christ through faith and grace

 

[pshun2404]

Theological liberalism treats "the historical Jesus" as a mere man, and treats the Gospels as a patchwork of human sayings. You won't find the truth in that direction.

I have to agree with Job on this. People like Ehrman, Crossan, and others work hard to explain away the truth of what Jesus said and did as well as Who He was/is. yOU WILL FIND NO TRUTH THERE only conjecture and the rejection of all the remaining history actually has.

For example they automatically reject the gospels as historical accounts though much has proven to be true yet they automatically will accept what Plutarch says about Alexander and we have much more evidence for Jesus than for Alexander.....

 

[11god11]

Only in its application, and only if you are the Author. You continue:



Considering for now that Jesus is speaking the Truth, what do you believe He is trying to teach us about Himself? (let's start with what He revealed about Himself in my first post above) You continue:



Actually, He claims to be God Himself (take a close look what He says about Himself in the Scriptures in my first post). You continue:



You are, of course, correct. However, He expanded/corrected/refined our understanding about what the OT really meant. The Author Himself taught us the Truth about Himself and about what was written in His word. IOW, God taught us "theology" directly when He walked among us in various pre-incarnate states, when He was Incarnate, when He was Risen, and in His present, Glorified state. You continue:



As did many in His day. None, of course, could have possibly understood them like Jesus did apart from His help.

Yours and His,
David

well put friend.praise jesus Christ our lord and saviour.

 

[FireDragon76]

Theological liberalism treats "the historical Jesus" as a mere man, and treats the Gospels as a patchwork of human sayings. You won't find the truth in that direction.

That's a careless, sweeping indictment.

As orthodox Christians we should care a lot about understanding the humanity of Christ, because Christ is truly and fully human. It is precisely here that questions about "the historical Jesus" can be pertinent.

There are many scholars of "the historical Jesus", such as N.T. Wright, who are not theological liberals.

 

[Job8]

There are many scholars of "the historical Jesus", such as N.T. Wright, who are not theological liberals.

N.T. Wright is not exactly a conservative either. He has some strange views.