Seriously, who exactly was the biblical Jesus?

[headheart]

Portrait.jpg

Seriously, who exactly was the biblical Jesus?

1. A failed apocalyptic prophet
2. A failed Messianic prophet
3. A Myth
4. A man
5. A Divine
6. A Deity
7. G-d according to the Hebrew Shema
8. A product of religious evolution
9. A very wise philosopher
10. None of the above, here's what I think

[shunyadragon]

Jesus was the Messiah, Promised one for the Age.

7. G-d according to the Hebrew Shema - This would be a contradiction, G-d according to the Hebrew Shema would not be a human.

[Seasanctuary]

Did you mean historical?

[headheart]

Jesus was the Messiah, Promised one for the Age.

Is this something taught by the Baha'i Faith or your own summary?

7. G-d according to the Hebrew Shema - This would be a contradiction, G-d according to the Hebrew Shema would not be a human.

The Christian sacred texts (referred to as "The Bible") states in many places that Jesus is the Son of God and in others that he is the Son of Man and according to these same texts that all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form. It's also part of Jesus' teaching that we are God's offspring and God's children and though I hold as do others that we have evolved Jesus did not as he was born of a virgin by the Spirit and is referred to as God incarnate in John 1:14 who was co-existent and co-equal with the Father who even taught that those who saw him were seeing the Father, that his words were the words of the Father and in John 17 that his hope was for all of us to know the unity that he enjoyed with his Father and ours and his God and ours before the world began.
Though the idea of Jesus is God alone is sometimes mistakenly taught and many such ideas; the unity of the Godhead is a constant theme of the New Testament and culminated in God the Word taking up our human nature into himself and thereby entering and through his reconciliatory work reconciling all things unto Himself in Son.

The only passage which has often perplexed me when considering this is one which was I understand taught by Arias in defence of Jesus as a lesser deity:

'Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” ( Psalm 8:6 ) Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.' 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 - New International Version (NIV)

Perhaps someone can help me understand how this fits into the doctrine of the Trinity as taught by the Roman Catholic Church: The Blessed Trinity:

'In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom (To Autolycus II.15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian (On Pudicity 21). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen ("In Ps. xvii", 15). The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen's pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus. In his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270, he writes:

There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever (P.G., X, 986).'


Peace,
Eric

[headheart]

Did you mean historical?

I'm always terrified of your questions seeing as you are such a deep thinker, so go gently on me as I'd like for this thread to work.

I am thinking about the Jesus of the Christian sacred texts (OT and NT). His full identity as revealed in them to mankind. (66 books)

Obviously with the radical changes in how we view this topic in our time I am also considering a reinterpretation of these same texts and perhaps a representation of them in the light of extra-biblical sources and scientific endeavour, though it is not my intention to interfere with Church dogma, I do not think it is the final word, if you know what I mean? If not scream, as I'm screaming already.

Hare Krishna!

Peace,
Eric

[Adrift]

Did you mean historical?

I'm always terrified of your questions seeing as you are such a deep thinker, so go gently on me as I'd like for this thread to work.

I am thinking about the Jesus of the Christian sacred texts (OT and NT). His full identity as revealed in them to mankind. (66 books)

I don't think its anything to be terrified about, his question is simply about the title of your OP, "Seriously, who exactly was the biblical Jesus?". When you say "biblical Jesus" do you maybe mean to say "historical Jesus", because, if not, then some of your poll answers don't make sense. For instance, the "biblical Jesus" certainly wasn't a failed apocalyptic or messianic prophet... at least, that's not how the writers of the books of the NT seem to perceive him, however some may believe that the historical Jesus may have been a failure at these things. Likewise, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense that the authors of the Gospels assume their main proponent was a product of religious evolution, though some extreme skeptics might think that of the "historical" Jesus.

If I'm reading Sea correctly, he's simply asking if you mean at this point "Biblical" Jesus or "historical", and in so doing, he's pointing out that there may be a difference (as perceived by the reader or historian if no one else).

[Chrawnus]

A quick question before I answer the poll, what distinction are you making between "A Divine" and "A Deity"?

[headheart]

A quick question before I answer the poll, what distinction are you making between "A Divine" and "A Deity"?

Here's something I was once challenged with, which might help:

'The statements can be made consistent by using the word “God” uniformly as a substantive. Then -
1. There is only one God. (True)
2. That one God is the Father (True)
3. That one God is the Son. (False)
4. That one God is the Spirit. (False)

Alternatively, we can make them consistent by using the word "God" in the qualitative sense (i.e., divine). Then:
1. There is only one who is divine. (False)
2. The Father is divine. (True. Of course)
3. The Son is divine. (True. As God’s own Son, he has the same nature as his Father.)
4. God’s Spirit is divine. (True. How could God’s Spirit be anything else?)

The Bible makes it clear that there are three who are divine, but only one can be called "the only true God," and that one is clearly identified (by Jesus himself) as the Father.'

From: Was Jesus of Nazareth GOD? (Post 123 by Collier)

Peace,
Eric

[Chrawnus]

Here's something I was once challenged with, which might help:

'The statements can be made consistent by using the word “God” uniformly as a substantive. Then -
1. There is only one God. (True)
2. That one God is the Father (True)
3. That one God is the Son. (False)
4. That one God is the Spirit. (False)

Alternatively, we can make them consistent by using the word "God" in the qualitative sense (i.e., divine). Then:
1. There is only one who is divine. (False)
2. The Father is divine. (True. Of course)
3. The Son is divine. (True. As God’s own Son, he has the same nature as his Father.)
4. God’s Spirit is divine. (True. How could God’s Spirit be anything else?)

The Bible makes it clear that there are three who are divine, but only one can be called "the only true God," and that one is clearly identified (by Jesus himself) as the Father.'

From: Was Jesus of Nazareth GOD? (Post 123 by Collier)

Peace,
Eric

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. It seems that according to my understanding (and if I understand what you mean by the Deity/Divine distinction correctly) Jesus would be both divine and Deity, so I think I'll be ticking both boxes.

[headheart]

For instance, the "biblical Jesus" certainly wasn't a failed apocalyptic or messianic prophet... at least, that's not how the writers of the books of the NT seem to perceive him, however some may believe that the historical Jesus may have been a failure at these things.

There are certain problems with the interpretation of the Christian sacred texts because they've not been changed to make them disappear (now that's another story altogether) which might lead one to arrive at such a conclusion and some do based on a reading of the biblical texts. (i.e., Matthew 24:34 - 'Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.')

Likewise, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense that the authors of the Gospels assume their main proponent was a product of religious evolution, though some extreme skeptics might think that of the "historical" Jesus.

It might not be sceptics but those who are undecided as to whether Jesus was mere man or not based on their studies of the Christian sacred texts. The Biblical text creates some real problems for some and might leave the door wide open for such a consideration.

If I'm reading Sea correctly, he's simply asking if you mean at this point "Biblical" Jesus or "historical", and in so doing, he's pointing out that there may be a difference (as perceived by the reader or historian if no one else).

Sure. I'll leave it up to him to do what he does so well. Think.

Peace,
Eric

[Adrift]

Here's something I was once challenged with, which might help:

'The statements can be made consistent by using the word “God” uniformly as a substantive. Then -
1. There is only one God. (True)
2. That one God is the Father (True)
3. That one God is the Son. (False)
4. That one God is the Spirit. (False)

Alternatively, we can make them consistent by using the word "God" in the qualitative sense (i.e., divine). Then:
1. There is only one who is divine. (False)
2. The Father is divine. (True. Of course)
3. The Son is divine. (True. As God’s own Son, he has the same nature as his Father.)
4. God’s Spirit is divine. (True. How could God’s Spirit be anything else?)

The Bible makes it clear that there are three who are divine, but only one can be called "the only true God," and that one is clearly identified (by Jesus himself) as the Father.'

From: Was Jesus of Nazareth GOD? (Post 123 by Collier)

Peace,
Eric

Unless I'm missing something, that wouldn't be a biblically orthodox understanding of the trinity. Orthodoxy teaches that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God indivisible.
So its probably more correct to say something like,

1. There is only one God. (True)
2. That one God is the Father (True)
3. That one God is the Son. (True)
4. That one God is the Spirit. (True)

I believe if you flip it, its going to look different,

1. There is only one God. (True)
2. The Father is on that one God (False)
3. The Son is that one God (False)
4. The Spirit is that one God (False)

And the reason that the last three would be false is because God is intrinsically triune.

Others more up on the doctrine of the trinity could probably flesh this out a bit more.

Sorry, were you just offering up your example as devils advocate though? Maybe I misunderstood. Thanks.

[Adrift]

There are certain problems with the interpretation of the Christian sacred texts because they've not been changed to make them disappear (now that's another story altogether) which might lead one to arrive at such a conclusion and some do based on a reading of the biblical texts. (i.e., Matthew 24:34 - 'Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.')



It might not be sceptics but those who are undecided as to whether Jesus was mere man or not based on their studies of the Christian sacred texts. The Biblical text creates some real problems for some and might leave the door wide open for such a consideration.



Sure. I'll leave it up to him to do what he does so well. Think.

Peace,
Eric

I'm a little confused, because I'm not sure what you've written answers the question.. did you mean your OP to read "Seriously, who exactly was the biblical Jesus?" or "Seriously, who exactly was the historical Jesus?", That's all. Thanks.

[shunyadragon]

Is this something taught by the Baha'i Faith or your own summary?

It is too brief to comprehensive of either. Just simple statement to begin dialogue. None of the given choices fit any thing close to what I believe. When I left the Roman Church and Christianity I considered Him enlightened like Buddha, most definitely not an incarnate God. At this time I went through an atheist to a Buddhist like agnostic phase. My belief evolved through a combination of Buddhist, Jewish, and Islamic Mysticism. I became more accepting of Jewish and Islamic mysticism, through poets like Rumi, before I became a Baha'i. More to follow.



The Christian sacred texts (referred to as "The Bible") states in many places that Jesus is the Son of God and in others that he is the Son of Man and according to these same texts that all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form. It's also part of Jesus' teaching that we are God's offspring and God's children and though I hold as do others that we have evolved Jesus did not as he was born of a virgin by the Spirit and is referred to as God incarnate in John 1:14 who was co-existent and co-equal with the Father who even taught that those who saw him were seeing the Father, that his words were the words of the Father and in John 17 that his hope was for all of us to know the unity that he enjoyed with his Father and ours and his God and ours before the world began.
Though the idea of Jesus is God alone is sometimes mistakenly taught and many such ideas; the unity of the Godhead is a constant theme of the New Testament and culminated in God the Word taking up our human nature into himself and thereby entering and through his reconciliatory work reconciling all things unto Himself in Son.

This represent the relatively standard traditional Christian doctrine and dogma concerning Jesus Christ. Suffice for know I consider the title 'Son of God' as a spiritual title for the Messiah, and not to mean that Jesus was physically a 'Son of God,' and thus the Trinity.

The only passage which has often perplexed me when considering this is one which was I understand taught by Arias in defence of Jesus as a lesser deity:

Nothing perplexing to me here given the beliefs of the world Christianity came forth from. After the first hundred years or so Christianity became more Roman and Less Jewish, and in the end few if any Christian Jews. I believe Paul had significant influence in this transition. I am not a fan of Paul.

'Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” ( Psalm 8:6 ) Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.' 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 - New International Version (NIV)

OK

Perhaps someone can help me understand how this fits into the doctrine of the Trinity as taught by the Roman Catholic Church: The Blessed Trinity:

Not much if any different from the Protestant belief. Probably one of the few fundamental beliefs they agree on.

9quote] 'In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom (To Autolycus II.15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian (On Pudicity 21). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen ("In Ps. xvii", 15). The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen's pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus. In his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270, he writes: [/quote]

OK history

There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever (P.G., X, 986).'

OK description of the Trinity.

[headheart]

I'm a little confused, because I'm not sure what you've written answers the question.. did you mean your OP to read "Seriously, who exactly was the biblical Jesus?" or "Seriously, who exactly was the historical Jesus?", That's all. Thanks.

I'm hoping to retain the title but if it is shown that my choice was a bad one, then so be it. What specifically about my replies in post 10, is confusing you? I am quite willing to clarify anything that might be confusing you.

This reminds me of other threads where we spend too much time arguing about the subject and not engaging it. I hope this is not a Dejavu!

Peace,
Eric

[Adrift]

In orthodox Christianity, subjection does not imply inferiority, but simply position for the establishment of divine order, in much the same way that the NT teaches that God desires wives to submit to the authority of their husbands for the peace and order of the household, though the NT also makes clear that God is not a respecter of persons.