Is it really necessary...?

[KonThaak]

I agree with most everything you said. We differ on a few minor, very trivial points, but nothing worth arguing over. There was one point I wished to defer with you on...

As for the reference to God speaking of redoing things I have an idea what you are referring to and I believe you are misunderstanding what is being said. The Israelites continually screwed up what God had intended, so God was creating a new way that cleared the mess that Israel had put in the way of salvation. The Law of Moses is never talked to as being misleading, what was misleading was the additional laws the Priests had put on the Jewish people.

First off...

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... h+31:31-34

To paraphrase, God speaks to the Jews of Israel, and says he's making a new Covenant. He says that the Jews broke the old Covenant, but doesn't say how or why. This tells me that to God, at the time that this line is spoken, it isn't important. What is important, God says, is that noone will need to teach God's law to their neighbor, for it will be imprinted in the hearts and minds of all men, and that he will forgive the sins of all men when this new Covenant is formed.

Secondly...

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... version=50

Wherein the Bible states, re-states, and re-iterates that the laws of Moses are like trying to look at God through a veil... If that isn't saying that the laws of Moses are misleading, then I can't understand old English as well as I thought I could.

The only other point that's even remotely debatable is the importance of the resurrection, but that's not something I intend to debate. Each part of a religious belief system has a different weight and a different importance to each person. I don't call myself a Christian, but I still try to follow the teachings of Christ. My father-in-law says that no matter what I call myself, that alone still makes me Christian, regardless of what I believe of Christ. My father-in-law is the most learned man I know in regards to religion, and he doesn't believe in the resurrection, either.

However, it's pointless to argue what's important or not. To do so is to fall into the same trap I was lamenting at the beginning of this thread...

[DarKnyht]

First off...

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... h+31:31-34

To paraphrase, God speaks to the Jews of Israel, and says he's making a new Covenant. He says that the Jews broke the old Covenant, but doesn't say how or why. This tells me that to God, at the time that this line is spoken, it isn't important. What is important, God says, is that noone will need to teach God's law to their neighbor, for it will be imprinted in the hearts and minds of all men, and that he will forgive the sins of all men when this new Covenant is formed.

The Jews did break the old Covenant, constantly, just read their recorded history and you will see the people of Israel constantly breaking the Laws of Moses (the ten commandments). Even King David, who was seen as one after the Lord, broke the commandments. However, in this situation you are speaking of the nation was being sent into bondage because of their sinful nature. God was reminding Israel that this was not the end and He would set things right once more. In other words, He had not forgotten the promises He had made with their ancestors.

They paid tribute to God only in words, not in actions. As I said, this is a foreshadowing of the coming of the Messiah. New Covenant is when the sacrificial system that was set up as atonement was removed by the ultimate sacrifice of Christ. The death and resurrection of Christ is what created the new Covenant. That is why the Bible is separated into the Old Testament and New Testament. It is Christ's sacrifice that fulfills the promise that all man could find forgiveness for sin.

Secondly...

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... version=50

Wherein the Bible states, re-states, and re-iterates that the laws of Moses are like trying to look at God through a veil... If that isn't saying that the laws of Moses are misleading, then I can't understand old English as well as I thought I could.

Again, I believe you are misunderstanding what Paul is saying. The first veil he is speaking of when Moses came back off the Mount with the Ten Commandments his face was shining with the reflection of the glory of God. He wore a veil because the people were afraid of what they saw.

The second veil he speaks of is the veil of Israel's heart. The nation of Israel knew the laws inside and out, and could quote them to you. It was part of their education, but they did not truly understand what they learned. As it was put many other times, "They have ears, but they hear not. They have eyes, but they see not."

The final veil that Paul speaks of, is the veil on the hearts of man that prevents them from understanding the scriptures. An example of this can be found in Acts, the Ethiopian that Philip met could not understand the scriptures before him despite being an educated man (he was an official for the queen of Ethiopia). Philip had to explain them to him, to remove the veil, before it was understood by the Ethiopian.

The only other point that's even remotely debatable is the importance of the resurrection, but that's not something I intend to debate. Each part of a religious belief system has a different weight and a different importance to each person. I don't call myself a Christian, but I still try to follow the teachings of Christ. My father-in-law says that no matter what I call myself, that alone still makes me Christian, regardless of what I believe of Christ. My father-in-law is the most learned man I know in regards to religion, and he doesn't believe in the resurrection, either.

However, it's pointless to argue what's important or not. To do so is to fall into the same trap I was lamenting at the beginning of this thread...

I believe it is important to debate all things, if you cannot look at opposing views to your beliefs to challenge them then you have a shallow belief.

I am afraid that I must disagree with your belief that only following the teachings of Christ makes you a Christian. Everything the early church wrote points to an unshakable belief in the resurrection. To deny that essential point of theirs and claim to be like them seems very contradictory.

[KonThaak]

I can look at an opposing viewpoint and see that debating it will lead nowhere. To debate whether it is important or unimportant would be akin to debating whether or not it is important to believe that Jesus was of a certain race or color. To some, it's very, very important that the church is right, and that Jesus was white with brown hair; others see it as very important that the Bible describes him as having darker skin, and so is therefore either black or Middle-Eastern; and then there are those who say it isn't his race that mattered, but rather his messages.

And that's a debate I see as being utterly pointless, just as I see this debate as being utterly pointless. To me, it isn't important what one believes is important or not, and so I don't see it as important to debate the importance of those beliefs. It doesn't mean I can't understand opposing opinions; it just means I choose my arguments.

Re: the passages: I suppose it all lies in interpretation, and according to the Baptists, noone can interpret the Bible for you, a belief which I think they very much got right. Personally, I get that only the laws of Christ apply, which you stated... "But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart. Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away" Even in context, what I see is that the laws of Moses intentionally pervert the message of God, and that the two laws of Christ are the only way to see the message of God clearly.

Re: what makes a Christian: I understand your point, but I think I disagree. While it is true that people make generalizations and assumptions about what you believe if you tell them you're a Christian, the core definition of what a Christian should be is a person who follows the teachings of Christ (love God/love and love your fellow man). After all, Jesus never preached exclusivism; why should Christianity follow such ideals? A heretic may not be a Christian by most Christians' definitions, but a heretic is a person who believes--just differently than the church. To deny them the right to call themselves Christians and force them into only a title that is potentially harmful goes against the teachings of Christ.

According to Lex, it's all just be labels and titles, anyway. A person's belief system shouldn't be defined by the label they wear, nor should a person's title cause assumptions to be made of the individual. I believe Jesus preached that we shouldn't wear our religion on our sleeve, but live it instead--which, as I understand it, is the primary reason the term "Christian" didn't arise until after his death.

[GhostSpider]

We wouldn't be human if we didn't debate, and argue.

[KonThaak]

To debate, there must be two distinct sides of an issue... The issue I've requested not to debate has been the importance of Christ's resurrection. Not the resurrection itself, but the importance. If anyone would like to debate his resurrection, I wouldn't mind chatting about that, but this seems silly and circular...

"It's very important to believe in the resurrection, because blah blah blah."

"No it's not, because blah blah blah."

"Yes it is!"

"No it's not!"

And so on, and so forth, ad nauseum. Therefore, the subject at hand isn't important enough to debate. The sides aren't distinct enough to argue at length.

Again, if anyone wishes to discuss Christ's miracles, death, or resurrection, I would be glad for the conversation.

[DarKnyht]

I will drop it with this final thought. When you read about the early church, you read about the terrible persecution it went through. You read about how the followers of Christianity were beaten, punished and executed by the Jewish leaders. Why was it that this happened?

The thing that caused them to suffer was that they steadfastly held to the belief that Jesus was the messiah that was foretold. They believed that he rose from the dead and was sitting at the right hand of God. That Christ was God himself in the flesh. To the average Jewish person of that time that was blasphemy.

There was nothing else that Christ preached that stirred them up so much. It was His claim to be God in flesh and His followers belief in that claim that caused them to be at odds with the Jewish leaders of their time. If you remove that belief there is no real difference between them and the rest of the nation.

Now I am done arguing the issue. In fact my only real beef is when someone cherry picks text from the Bible (or any other text for that matter) and twists it to fit their argument without looking at the culture and context that it was written in. If you are willing to cherry pick, you can make anything say that you want to hear.

[KonThaak]

I hope you're not accusing me of cherry picking, DK... I also hope that I haven't offended you, because I was enjoying our conversation.

At any rate, I don't believe I've ever read anywhere that Christ said he was God, or even that he was the only begotten son of God, and therefore better than everyone else. The church I was raised in taught the latter, but against the former.

Before Christ, there were more than a dozen proclaimed Messiahs throughout history. The OT is littered with them. I can't name them all off the top of my head, but I can get you a list of names, if you'd like. They were all leaders who saved the Jews from the oppressive rule of the previous ruler. At least one of these Messiahs turned around and treated them oppressively as well, only to be later overthrown by the next man to be proclaimed Messiah.

As for there being no difference between Christianity and Judaism without Christ's divinity, I very strongly disagree. One can believe Christ was important, one way or another, without believing in his divinity, and follow his teachings without being a Christian. The Muslims are one such group.

Before Christ, Judaism was an elitist organization. You had to belong to the right groups, fall into the right categorizations, in order to be saved. Jesus sought to remove this clique-ism, and make God's love available for everyone, Jew and Gentile alike. After his death, the people sought to put that elitist attitude right back in, and now, you're only Christian if you believe a number of things that're very difficult to prove that even Jesus believed in. I won't say that Jesus *absolutely wasn't* the only begotten son of God; I will say that I was raised with the line "I am the son of God as all men are the sons of God". I have discovered that there was no way he could've said "I am the way/truth/light". I cannot believe that Christ wanted a division between Christians who believe in his resurrection--or even his divinity in the first place--and those who didn't. I cannot believe Christ wanted any divisions at all.

[Shadowstalker]

I think DK may have been talking in more general terms. At least I hope that is what he ment.

[KonThaak]

I hope so, too... In light of recent events, though, I can't help but worry.

[DarKnyht]

The claim I made was general, and I lay it on people on both sides of the arguement. Too many times I have heard preachers take a single scripture and build a sermon on it, while ignoring the but at the end of it. And for the record, I too have enjoyed the discussion. Like I said, if I am not willing to listen to the other side of something I believe in, then I my belief is very shallow.

I think Christ did claim to be the messiah and devine. When he called himself the "Son of Man" he was specifically referring to Daniel 7:13-14:

"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshipped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed."

I have more, but I am out of time for them moment. I will try to fully respond later.

[DarKnyht]

Before Christ, there were more than a dozen proclaimed Messiahs throughout history. The OT is littered with them. I can't name them all off the top of my head, but I can get you a list of names, if you'd like. They were all leaders who saved the Jews from the oppressive rule of the previous ruler. At least one of these Messiahs turned around and treated them oppressively as well, only to be later overthrown by the next man to be proclaimed Messiah.

Yes, and proclaiming to be Messiah was not the issue. The issue was he claimed to be God. That is the blasphemy that resulted in his crucifixion. Jesus believed fully that he was God, otherwise he would not have proclaimed in Mark 14:62 "And you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of the Almighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven," (the last part of this verse is a direct quote from Daniel 7.) Likewise, he wouldn't have stated in Mark 2:10 "but that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins."

It was certainly not blasphemy to claim to be the Jewish Messiah, as most early Jews believed Messiah would be a human being anointed and appointed by God as the rightful Davidic king, but not God. But to claim to play the role of Yahweh coming to enact the final judgment even on Jews was clearly seen as blasphemy, for only God was expected to come on final judgment day on the basis of all the Old Testament prophecies about the Day of the Lord (see Joel 2:1-11).

Another place where Jesus proclaims to be God can be found in Mark 2:28. He tells the Pharisees that the Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath. To the Jewish people believed that since God created the sabbath, He alone was Lord over it. In other words, as Son of man, Jesus felt He could rewrite the Sabbath rules. Why? Because He was Lord over the Sabbath and its proper observance now that God's divine saving activity was breaking into human history through Him.

Before Christ, Judaism was an elitist organization. You had to belong to the right groups, fall into the right categorizations, in order to be saved. Jesus sought to remove this clique-ism, and make God's love available for everyone, Jew and Gentile alike.

Your right, Judaism was elite. You had to be Jewish in order to be a member. However, that was because they were to be a priestly nation for the nations. Their job was to be an elite class that bridged the gap between God and mankind. They failed miserably because they looked at themselves as being better. As Christ put it, "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are." They made the religion into a prison that prevented the people from getting close to God.

After his death, the people sought to put that elitist attitude right back in, and now, you're only Christian if you believe a number of things that're very difficult to prove that even Jesus believed in. I won't say that Jesus *absolutely wasn't* the only begotten son of God; I will say that I was raised with the line "I am the son of God as all men are the sons of God". I have discovered that there was no way he could've said "I am the way/truth/light". I cannot believe that Christ wanted a division between Christians who believe in his resurrection--or even his divinity in the first place--and those who didn't. I cannot believe Christ wanted any divisions at all.

I was taught and I believe it has been taught from the start that "If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." That is all there is to it for you to be saved. The rest is an outward showing of the inward change. You follow what he asked of you out of love of God and a desire to treat others as you would want to be treated.

I would say that it is quite possible that Christ said that he was "The way, the truth and the light". All we need do is look at other statements (both above and below) that he made.

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." Matthew 7:13-14

"I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die" John 11:25

He also proclaimed, "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it." Matthew 10:34-39

He also is the one who brought the parable of the Narrow Door that spoke of few who would get into heaven. Simply put, Jesus knew what he said was going to turn the world upside down. He also knew that not everyone would willing accept what he offered.

If you want to classify it as elitist you can, but the reality is it is open to everyone. It is only by an individual own choice that they refuse what is freely offered.

[KonThaak]

I would like to give you a response as well thought-out as yours is. I need time to look into these, so I may not have an answer until this weekend.

I will say, however, that I find it peculiar to refer to Jesus as the Son of Man... Like the argument that Jesus claimed to be God, I had never heard of this until very recently, and until now, have never had the need to question it... I'll ask you first, then: Why is Jesus referred to as the Son of Man, and how does this prove his divinity? I'll be honest; something strikes me as being wrong with each of these statements... This is not a slight against you; it's me questioning the teachings. I want to look at the original Greek and Latin forms, and see how they translate out. Something tells me that "Son of Man" may be an intentional mistranslation, just as the term "poisoner of spirit" was mistranslated to "witch" in the now-popular line, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".

Anyway, I'll look to my sources, but if you could give me the official answer to that question, I would appreciate it.

[GhostSpider]

This is a fascinating discussion guys. It looks like you all have put a lot of thought into this.

[DarKnyht]

I understand and I'll wait for the response. I myself only recently came across this in the past few months when I really started trying hard to understand the religion I was raised in. Like most people, for years I always took the phrase Son of Man to just be referring to his humanity.

To help clarify where I am coming from consider this. The Hebrew phrase 'ben adam' (which literally means son of Adam) is found frequently in Ezekiel, it is sometimes translated "son of man" but like I pointed out it is not the source Jesus is referring to. Rather, Jesus spoke Aramaic, and the Aramaic phrase 'bar enasha' which literally means son of a human being (not son of a male in particular) is what Jesus is drawing on. As I said earlier, this phrase is a reference to Dan. 7:13-14.

Now, there are some questions you can ask from this, and there is debate on this very text. One of the questions is, did this Son of Man figure meet with God, the Ancient of Days, in heaven or on earth? I believe the answer is the latter because God's coming for the final day of judgment on the earth is always depicted in prophecies as transpiring on earth, not in heaven. So the phrase "one like a son of man coming on the clouds of heaven," refers to his coming from heaven to earth, where God's judgment throne is already set up. This Son of Man figure is given power and authority over all peoples and he is said to be worshiped by all peoples. In addition, it says that his dominion or kingdom will be eternal.

Now there are three things I see as important to understanding Jesus: 1) This Son of Man comes from heaven to earth to judge the earth and have dominion over it all; 2) He is said to be the one whom all will worship; and 3) His reign will last forever. It is interesting to note that this is the only place that the Son of Man is referred to, and these phrases are some of the most frequent things on Jesus's lips throughout His ministry.

Since this prophecy is written by a Jew, you have to ask what sort of person can rule forever in a divine kingdom handed to him by God, and what sort of person would a Jew agree should be worshipped, especially when you look at the criticism of worship of pagan Emperors in Babylon and Persia given earlier by Daniel? You would have to have a divine and eternal person who also can be called son of man. In other words, they would have to be both divine, and worthy of worship, and human. This would be the person that could be worshiped without violating Jewish monotheism.

Now, look at Mark 14:62 again. Jesus states that He is the Jewish Messiah and the Son of the blessed One, but changes it quickly to Son of Man. As I pointed out before, he states there that when he returns, instead of being judged he will instead be judging His current judges. Caiaphas doesn't miss the point and tears his robe and screams blasphemy. Notice he does not scream blasphemy immediately after Jesus assents to the question of whether he was Messiah or Son of God or not. It was only when he asserted to play the role of Yahweh coming to enact the final judgment.

Then you look at Mark 10:45. He is a combination of ideas from Daniel 7:13-14 and from the servant songs, especially Isaiah 53:1-12. Notice the language of the "coming" of the Son of Man, which may refer to the purpose for which He came to earth (and which may imply that He existed before He took on human form on earth). Notice as well when he speaks of the ransom, of buying out of bondage of lost humanity through a sacrificial death. Jesus is speaking of the substitutionary sacrifice here, Jesus will die in the place of the many (the rest of humanity). This means that Jesus sees Himself as offering Himself as an unblemished sacrifice. Ironically Jesus Himself is the one person for whom He did not have to die for, since He was without sin.

Again, there is Mark 2:10 where Jesus states that he has authority to forgive sins. As the critic of Jesus rightly says, only God can ultimately forgive sins, but he has not understood the implications of Jesus doing so. This whole indirect approach is typical of Jesus. He does not directly say He is God, but He is indirectly claiming here to have divine power and authority from God the Father to forgive sins, even without a Levitical sacrifice taking place. One has to ask, what kind of person can do this? I believe that the answer is a human but also divine one.

Finally again you have Mark 2:28. The argument for this was in my previous post.

I hope this clarifies what I am saying a little better. There are other references, but these are the easiest to find and explain. There is also the benefit that they come from the Book of Mark, which most scholars will agree was written the earliest out of the gospels.

Again I will wait for your response. This has challenged me to dig even further into my faith and for that I am grateful.

[KonThaak]

According to my source, the "son of man" does, indeed, mean "human being". Jesus is not referring to himself, but to all humanity. The blasphemy of his statement in Mark 14:62 is not that he is the "son of the blessed" (which he has said we all are), it is his assertion that any man can sit at the right hand of God. When he asserts to the Pharisees that the "son of man" is lord of the Sabbath, he is saying that we can set our own rules regarding the Sabbath, so long as we set aside one day a week to keep the Sabbath holy. Likewise, when Jesus claims the son of man has the power to forgive sins, he is saying we have the power to forgive each other and ourselves. How many times have we dwelt on our own mistakes and sins?

To add on to the point of Mark 14:62, why would Jesus assert that he is the "son of the blessed" if he were, in fact, the blessed himself?

It doesn't matter what kind of person the Jews *would* worship; Daniel 7:13-14 doesn't say anything about the divinity of this particular son of man, just that he will be worshiped around the world. He also doesn't specify *how* this particular person will be worshiped, just that all around the world, people will worship him.

I want to bring special attention, too, to your passage from Matthew... Put it in context. He is speaking to his followers, giving them instructions to go and spread his message--a message of love, same as it always has been. This particular passage is a warning to them. The "sword" is symbolic, not literal. At no time, including this time, does Jesus ever advocate violence. I've looked around, and seen that most mainstream views of this passage agree with that statement, so I'm guessing you wouldn't argue this point. This is the first of several symbols in this statement.

Note that each time he speaks of making enemies within households, there is the gap of a generation... He doesn't speak of turning siblings against each other, always only parental figures against their children. The reason for this is: this is another symbol. He isn't speaking literally that his message will turn children against their parents. He is instead speaking of turning people of the new way against those who practice the old ways. This is another jab at the Pharisees, another symbol.

Likewise, his speaking of taking up of crosses is also not literal, nor is his talk of finding and losing lives. The entire passage is metaphor; why, then, should we believe that his mention of "me" is anything else? When he talks about who is "worthy of me", he isn't talking about himself; he is instead talking about the message he is spreading. He's saying that whoever clings to the ways of the old cannot grasp his message of love.

To add a further point, when Jesus speaks of himself, he uses first-person pronouns, such as "I" and "me". Why would he constantly switch between such pronouns and the third person? Are we to believe he was arrogant? Why, when Jesus was baptized, did the spirit descend into him? If Jesus were God, wouldn't the spirit already be in him? If Jesus were God, wouldn't he have just said "This is me" instead of "This is my son"? When Jesus is crucified, why does he cry out, "Father, forgive them"? Why does Jesus praise Peter for noting a distinction between Jesus and God?

[DarKnyht]

You are getting into the concept of the trinity, that God is three persons the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit that are undivided in essence and co-equal in power and glory.

Jesus also makes the claim, "Have I been with you so long and yet you do not recognize me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father! How can you say, "Show us the Father"? Don't you believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? (Jn 14:9-10)." The Son of God assumed a human nature. This means that everything Christ is and does expresses his divinity through his human intellect, will and body.

Jesus was not denying that He was God. He was merely acknowledging the fact that He was also a man. Jesus is both God and man. As a man, he was in a lesser position than the Father. He had added to Himself human nature (Col. 2:9). He became a man to die for mankind.

A comparison can be found in the marriage relationship. Biblically, a husband is greater in position and authority than his wife. But, he is no different in nature and he is not better than she. They share the same nature, being human, and they work together by love.

So, Jesus was not denying that He was God. He was simply acknowledging that He was also a man and as a man, he was subject to the laws of God so that He might redeem those who were under the law; namely, sinners (Gal. 4:4-5).

Other places where this is explained is in Hebrews 2:9 "But we do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone." and Philippians 2:5-8 states "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."

I would disagree with you on the statement that "Son of man" referred to anyone. What you are saying makes no sense in the context of the conversation. Why would he refer to himself as the Messiah and son of the blessed, then in the same sentence make a generalization about all mankind? The question was directed to him about himself, and his response was equally about himself alone.

As I have said before, you have to look at the statements in the historical context they are in. Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi, and he was talking to people equally educated in the scriptures. In their culture, in their religion, the only way to remove the penalty of death sin put on someone was to have a sin-sacrifice. In essence, God accepted the death of something else in your place. Yes people could forgive one another and were supposed to, but to gain forgiveness from God required that the sacrifice be made. Something else had to die for the sin committed.

They also believed that someone who was born with a disease was born that was because of the sins of their fathers. I think this is why Jesus said, is it easier to say your sins are forgiven or to say get up and walk. By making the man walk, he was demonstrating his divine authority to forgive sins that only God should have been able to forgive.

I also think that you underestimate the point of asking what kind of person a Jew would worship has a great deal to do with the quote regarding the "Son of Man". The author writing the prophesy was a Jew, the audience the prophesy was intended for was likewise Jewish. If all peoples in the world was to worship him, then Jews would be included in this group. This is a group of people that stubbornly clung to the religion of the forefathers each and every time they were taken into captivity. What here would cause them to give up their fervent belief in One God and that nothing else was right for worship? That is why looking at this through a Jewish perspective becomes important.

No Jesus didn't advocate violence, but I believe he understood the conflicts that would result from his teachings. Not because of any violence his followers would do, but because the fact most of the Jewish people would not accept the full message (that he was the divine messiah that was changing how everyone would relate to God). As I said, the main point of Christianity (That Christ is the Son of Man, he died for our sins, rose again, and will sit in judgment over mankind) is blasphemy to a Jew that does not understand. That is why Matthew and Hebrews were written, to explain these events to a Jewish audience, to answer the questions specific to Jewish belief.

Now regarding your comments on Sabbath, I will have to do some research myself. Unfortunately I am on the road right now and away from my reference materials. I think you are taking a modern tradition for the sabbath and placing it into ancient times, but I am not positive of this. Once I can get to the proper resources I will check into this.

[KonThaak]

You are getting into the concept of the trinity, that God is three persons the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit that are undivided in essence and co-equal in power and glory.

Actually, I wasn't getting into that at all. I mentioned briefly the scene in which Jesus is baptized, the spirit of God descending into him--which, if Jesus were God, wouldn't have needed to happen. That's about the closest I got to Trinitarian beliefs.

Jesus also makes the claim, "Have I been with you so long and yet you do not recognize me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father! How can you say, "Show us the Father"? Don't you believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? (Jn 14:9-10)."

That still doesn't mean "I am the father". Jesus speaks metaphorically a great deal in the Bible, but this still isn't a metaphor for "I am God".

Jesus was not denying that He was God.

He also doesn't affirm it, which is my entire point.

You go on from here to quote a lot of Pauline scriptures with reference to Jesus' divinity. I will say outright that I reject Paul, and I reject his letters and "his gospel". Paul was a man that I wouldn't expect to get the time of day from without suspecting his underlying motives. He was supposedly a convert from the Pharisees to Christianity, but he perverted Jesus' teachings horrendously.

Who is it but Paul who gives us almost every "do" and "don't" in the New Testament? It's like reading Leviticus and Deuteronomy all over again! It's Paul who condemns not only lustful sex between two members of the same gender, but ALL sex, regardless of any details. It's Paul who argues that a slave should be happy being a slave, because his life will be better in the afterlife, and that people should know their place in the world and stay in it.

I would sooner trust John, who is often touted as the "beloved disciple". After all, John at least walked with Jesus. You only quoted John once, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die". This falls in the story of Lazarus, and later in the story, Jesus again calls out to God, referring to him as Father. The implication, again, is that in your quote, he isn't speaking of himself, per se, but his message. (Since you've done so much research into the old church, you should know that the earliest Christians were called "followers of The Way".)

At any rate, I would rather trust John to be an authority on Jesus' divinity, and almost every other thing he writes about is love. The only thing Paul is really useful for is helping to establish dates of when certain things were written, by the events written about in his letters.

I am well aware of the fact that I quoted Corinthians before. I did so in the context of pointing out the invalidity of the Old Testament, and its insufficiency in leading us. It was easier to quote that one line than to start hunting down every instance of Jesus arguing with the Pharisees over the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law...

I would disagree with you on the statement that "Son of man" referred to anyone. What you are saying makes no sense in the context of the conversation.

You're the one who is promoting the argument that "son of man" means "son of God". I'm refuting it, so therefore, it's pertinent to the conversation. I'm sorry if you disapprove.

Why would he refer to himself as the Messiah and son of the blessed, then in the same sentence make a generalization about all mankind?

Because that was the point that drove the greatest wedge between himself and the Pharisees. The Pharisees preached that only God has the authority to do a number of things, and Jesus refutes these notions, saying that any man can do it. Any man can sit at the right hand of God, for we are all his children. Any man can make their own rules about the Sabbath, provided he keeps it holy, including changing what day it is celebrated. Ours is a world of men, not of gods... Our practices are our own. If we choose to keep it on the seventh day of the week, that is our right; if we choose to celebrate it on the first, or the third, or the second, that is also our prerogative. This is what Jesus espouses.

As I have said before, you have to look at the statements in the historical context they are in.

The Bible is not a journalistic view of history. It is skewed in as many ways as there are pairs of hands that wrote in it. What's worse, the words written about the people who supposedly spoke them were written posthumously, in some cases decades after the fact, by the contemporaries of the disciples and those that followed them. The "facts" are skewed not only by the hands that wrote them, but by the number of people who played "telephone" before those words were written down...and then translated...re-translated...mistranslated...misused...abused...etc, ad nauseum.

The statements, therefore, are less important than the spirit of those statements. We, as philosophers and scholars, must figure out what was meant by each statement. We know that Jesus spoke a great deal in metaphor--almost completely so. We must therefore conclude that much of what he says is metaphorical. We must also consider that when we read the Bible, we are reading second-hand accounts of events that happened two millennia ago. The messages we read are not meant for our eyes or our ears--they are intended for the eyes and ears of those who were there at that time. They are not spoken to us, across a span of two millennia. We cannot just read what is said; as Jesus is constantly reminding us, we must read into what was said, and understand the spirit in which it was said.

I also think that you underestimate the point of asking what kind of person a Jew would worship has a great deal to do with the quote regarding the "Son of Man".

And I disagree. The Jews worship Yahweh out of fear and respect, so if he vests full authority over the Earth into one man, wouldn't they worship that one man out of respect to God? After all, to go against that one man would be to go against God, regardless of whether the man was divine or not.

No Jesus didn't advocate violence, but I believe he understood the conflicts that would result from his teachings. Not because of any violence his followers would do, but because the fact most of the Jewish people would not accept the full message (that he was the divine messiah that was changing how everyone would relate to God).

I could've sworn his message was to love God and to love each other... His *purpose* was to create the new covenant between God and Man, in place of the Old Covenant, if you credit the Bible.

As I said, the main point of Christianity (That Christ is the Son of Man, he died for our sins, rose again, and will sit in judgment over mankind) is blasphemy to a Jew that does not understand.

It is also blasphemy to believe that a man has power to forgive sins, to write his/her own rules about the Sabbath, for a woman to speak in public or to teach, for a slave to walk free, for a man to eat a steak on a Friday night, and for a great many other things. Jesus' heresy was that he believed that the reason these rules were made were greater than the rules themselves... For example, committing adultery was a sin because your lust overruled your love, and therefore, it is more important to honor the one you love than to worry about what punishment should fall on the heads of those who don't.

Now regarding your comments on Sabbath, I will have to do some research myself. Unfortunately I am on the road right now and away from my reference materials. I think you are taking a modern tradition for the sabbath and placing it into ancient times, but I am not positive of this. Once I can get to the proper resources I will check into this.

"The son of man is Lord of the Sabbath". "Son of man" means "human being", so we can strike out "son of" from the statement altogether. "A man has the power to write his own rules regarding the Sabbath." This doesn't mean he can do away with the Sabbath altogether; it only means that a person has the power to decide for themselves how they celebrate the Sabbath, and when.

Jesus made the statement after being pestered about picking a grain of wheat on the Sabbath, or some such nonsense. Why would he make a statement that only protects him, when all of the rest of his teachings preach inclusiveness and unconditional love--including for your enemies?

[KonThaak]

I wanted to say one other thing, but the last post was getting kinda long-winded as it was...

I do not have any problem with the belief that Jesus was divine. This belief in and of itself is harmless, but far too many people use this belief to justify excluding others, an act Jesus strove to do away with. Believing he was divine is fine, but to say that another is less of a Christian than you because they don't believe the same way goes against what Jesus tried to teach us.

I only argue that there is no evidence in the Bible supporting such a belief regarding Jesus' divinity. Despite this, there are still ways around it... Shakespeare writes that erring is part of human nature, but forgiveness--which Jesus did a great deal of--is divine. You could also say that because of his purpose, he was divine by right. You just can't say there is Biblical evidence that he was God... Nor can you use your belief to exclude others.

[KonThaak]

A few other tidbits for thought...

I was taught and I believe it has been taught from the start that "If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." That is all there is to it for you to be saved. The rest is an outward showing of the inward change. You follow what he asked of you out of love of God and a desire to treat others as you would want to be treated.

It has never been taught to me that failure to do so will result in instant damnation. In point of fact, I believe the book of John to reveal quite the opposite: "Beloved, let us love, for love is of God... For GOD IS LOVE, and LOVE IS GOD, and ALL WHO ABIDE IN LOVE [ALSO] ABIDE IN GOD, and GOD ABIDES IN THEM." (Caps and italics for stress.) Metaphorically or literally, this passage retains the same meaning. Jesus doesn't teach that all straight people or all white people or all Jews or Christians or whatever else will be saved, he teaches that *all who are capable of feeling and expressing love* will live within God.

I would say that it is quite possible that Christ said that he was "The way, the truth and the light". All we need do is look at other statements (both above and below) that he made.

When I say he could not have said that, I mean that it was physically impossible. Most of the old languages had no definite articles; Latin has no articles at all. At best, he could have said "I am *a* way/truth/light"...and even then, the line brings up questions. Speaking metaphorically, as he almost always does, this could mean his *teachings* are the/a way to God. Speaking literally, I look at how other languages oftentimes function... "I am" is a single word in almost every language in the world except English. If "I Am" is the/a way, then what he is truly saying is that God is the way to God...and since God is love, that love is the way to God.

If Jesus had intended to say "the way/truth/light", he would've said "[the/a] *only* way/truth/light", but he didn't.

If you want to classify it as elitist you can, but the reality is it is open to everyone. It is only by an individual own choice that they refuse what is freely offered.

You say it is freely offered, but by your definition, there are strings attached. That strips away how freely it is offered, and makes it a conditional sale of one's soul. This goes against Christ's teachings of unconditional love, and plays right into the Pharisees' typical ploys... "If you give us your soul, your money, and your faith, we will ensure a place in Heaven for you."

I believe it was you who complained of the same exact thing...the same thing that the Christian church has been doing since the days almost immediately following Christ's death, aka the "early church".

[KonThaak]

I'm sorry. I intended to say last night, and was tired enough I forgot the most pertinent point I was making... Though I meant everything I said about Paul, the argument is over whether or not Jesus believed himself to be divine. Since Paul never walked with Jesus, he can't quote Jesus to say for sure whether Jesus believed himself to be divine. What's more, he says several times to "praise God through Jesus". For all of these reasons, Paul can safely be discarded from this conversation.

[DarKnyht]

KT, I have been on the road and away from a PC for the past few weeks. I have unfortunately, not been able to keep up with things since my last post. I will try my best to take a look at them at length tonight or tomorrow and respond.

I believe that your real question when it comes to Jesus is whether or not the words attributed to him in the Bible are the actual words of Christ or if the words were altered by his disciples to fit their agenda. This is a debate that has raged since the beginning of the enlightenment.

After getting some more reading and research in (there is a great book I just bought that I have not had a chance to crack that I picked up from Books-A-Million just the other day), I would send to you is to remember that if you are going to look at the historical Jesus, you must look at the Theological Jesus. Likewise, if you want to talk Theological Jesus, you must examine the historical one. They cannot be mutually separated.

When you look at the historical Jesus there are two big questions that must be asked. The first question simply is, was the Jesus of History one that was seeped in the Jewish Culture or was he someone that was more Hellenistic in his thoughts? The second one, is did Jesus see himself as the started of a movement or did he just see himself as a wise teacher? Before you can get into the Theology he taught, or debate anything that is said regarding him these are very important issues that need to be settled.

Now, after I have read everything you have written, I will go into details as to why these two questions are essential to the debate. I will also respond to your replies. Of simplest response of why I choose to quote Mark and Paul instead of John is because most scholars that refute the text say that John was written too late to be valid. If you consider John to be a valid text, than I will use it as it makes some of the arguements easier.

Also, I believe that you are mistaken when you claim that there is no word in Greek for "I am". The word I is translated to Ego, and the word Am is known as eimi. However, eimi generally was seen as enough to convey both. Since Jesus most likely spoke Greek and Aramaic it was quite possible that he would have said "Ego eimi" or "Eimi" in his proclamations. Especially when this parallels a key verse in the Greek translation of the Torah, "Ego eimi ho on" or "I am the Being" ("I am who I am" in most english translations).

Again, you have to take the culture and audience of the original intended readers into context. They were Jewish, so they would have understood "Ego eimi" very well. This is also why John chooses to open with "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning." John was purposefully making a parallel between the opening of his narrative and the beginning of Genesis.

[KonThaak]

Also, I believe that you are mistaken when you claim that there is no word in Greek for "I am".

That's not what I said... I said there were no definite articles used. That means he did not say "I am *THE* light/way/truth"... More like "I am *A* light/way/truth". As I said in a previous post, he would have used a word like "only" if he had intended to mean "the" as opposed to "a". The line continues, and is popularly translated something to the effect of "and noone shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven save through me"... However, it's important to note that the word that's translated as "noone" is more accurately translated, quite literally, "none of you". In other words, my time is short, and you all have vested far too much of your spiritual lives into my teachings to find another way to God now.

As to the validity of John vs. Mark or Paul... Even in Paul's writings, he says "Praise God *through* Jesus", not "Praise God *in* Jesus". Nowhere does it say *in the Bible* that "son of man" means "son of God". Nowhere does it specifically say that Jesus says, "I am God". Yes, there are plenty of metaphors that an individual can *personally interpret* to mean that Jesus is God, and as I said before, as long as you keep that your personal belief, that's fine...but there is no biblical evidence to show that Jesus believed himself to be God.

The "son of man"="son of God" argument did not come about for almost four centuries after Jesus' death, and was heavily contested even among the early Christians of that day and age. The biggest opponent to the idea (I can get his name, if you'd like) was a priest of the early church, who mysteriously died of dysentery the night before he was to present his arguments to the papacy. It's believed he was poisoned by the proponent of the idea that Jesus is God, who successfully made his arguments, which were accepted by the papacy since noone contested those ideas.

[DarKnyht]

I apologize, as I said I read the numerous posts quickly. I did not intend to misunderstand what your point. I will correct myself now.

The text I believe you are referring to is the Vulgate translation, and not the actual original greek. This was the latin bible written in the fifth century, and was the first latin bible to translate the Hebrew scriptures from the hebrew Tanakh rather than the Greek Septuagint. The particular mistake you are referring to was corrected by Erasmus in the 1500's when he applied textual critism to the text to remove the common copiest errors. You can imagine that after 1000 years of being copied their were bound to be human screwups along the way.

Most of what Erasmus dealt with was misspellings or mistranslations of cases and tenses. An example is the passage in John 21:22, where the Vulgate preserved an added letter, changing the Latin from si eum volo, "if I wish," to sic eum volo, "so I wish." By comparison with the Greek text it was obvious that the correct translation was, si eum volo. Another type of addition to the text that needed to be emended was the clarifying or interpretive comments of previous copyists. The editor needed to discern with the aid of the texts and his own reasoning where the original text ended and the commentary began. This kind of emendation gave great potential for making the original text even more remote.

In some cases variant readings required a choice between two possible meanings. In these cases, Erasmus sometimes used the principle of dificilior lectio potior-the "harder" variant is most likely the original. This principle recognized that emendations tended to make the text easier. Erasmus used this principle in determining the original reading of Mark 1:2, 3. He assumed that, given the two readings, "in the prophets" or "in Isaiah," the original was probably "in Isaiah." Recognizing that Mark quoted from both Isaiah and Malachi, a scribe would have been more likely to change an original "Isaiah" to "the prophets.'" Erasmus effectively used the format of the Annotations to lay out the options raised by the variations in texts. This format allowed the options to be presented for the readers' evaluation without requiring Erasmus to make the decision, thus preserving the neutral role of the editor. This methodology of telling the reader whenever the editor would depart from the base text was a Renaissance innovation. Unfortunately, the rule was almost never followed strictly. Editors in the Renaissance generally ignored the rule in the case of obvious errors, which they corrected without notification. But what qualified as an obvious error greatly depended on what the editor expected the original to say. Kenney points out that the distinction between trivial and substantive error was not always easy to draw and, consequently, many changes were made unknown to the reader. But the NT suffered less from this negligence than other classical texts, due to the reluctance of scholars to alter the NT text.

One of Erasmus's greatest contributions fell in both the realm of purity and clarity. In his translations he reflected important insights into lexicography. He distinguished the breadth of meaning of terms and idioms. He gave not only an accurate translation of a term but provided a translation which opened up a new understanding of it in light of the historical and sociological context in which it was written. In 1 Cor 13:4, his exposition of charitas brought to "patience" the additional connotation of long suffering and forbearance. In John 14:6, Erasmus clarified that Christ was not only a way, a truth, and a life, as communicated by the Vulgate translation, but, noting the presence of the Greek definite article, rendered it the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Now to address whether or not we can believe that the text we have is close to what Jesus said if not the exact words. As I said before you must look at Jesus both historically and theologically at the same time. One cannot exist without the other, otherwise you go into shaky ground. I believe all too often we look at Jesus now with our Post-Enlightenment views and force him into them, and forget the context of the society he grew up in.

As I said before, the questions of importance to the discussion is "Was Jesus a Hellenist or a Jew?" and "Was Jesus a movement founder?" These two questions are related. If you assume that Jesus was Hellenistic in the way of a wandering Cynic philosopher there is a question you must answer. It is not why the movement continued, but why Jesus was proclaimed the Messiah after his death. No one else that was a Cynic philosopher was seen as messianic before or after death as far as we can tell in history. I think Jesus as a Jewish movement founder makes far better sense.

To clarify why I say movement founder, I will point to two texts. According to most scholars, it is virtually certain that Jesus cleansed the temple (Mark 11:12-18). It is also indisputably certain, that he reclined with his disciples to eat a meal the day before he died (Mark 14:12-26). These two events point to the fact that Jesus saw himself as a movement leader.

When Jesus overturned the tables of the money changers, one thing clearly stands out in the record: Jesus was declaring the imminent destruction of the temple, which would presumably then be restored anew by God under new leadership. In essence, Jesus was saying, "God is going to flip this house - after some pretty serious gutting." This view has been argued very well by more than a few scholars.

Now, whatever scholars are willing to say about the last supper, one thing stands out: Jesus used bread and wine in a symbolic manner. When He says , "This is My body", it seems he was denoting a sacrifice, and one where he would be the victim. Now, in the culture he was in, the notion of a martyr dying an atoning death on behalf of Israel was well established. When such a death is described it is not atypical for the language to be temple language (2 Maccables 7, for another example). Jesus's actions here indicate that he is thinking of himself along the same trajectory.

Likewise it is more than coniencidence that Jesus chose 12 disciples for his inner circle. They stood for the new and restored twelve tribes of Israel. In ancient Judaism, the temple represented the tribes and the tribes represented the temple. His 12 disciples were not just followers; they were the foundation of the new temple.

Now, this doesn't answer the questions of what he meant when by "Son of Man" or "Son of God". However it does give us a foundation that when Jesus spoke, he drew from scripture and he intended for an audience that would survive him. It is important we understand this because it has important implications for our own understanding not only to the very Jewish nature of his message, but also to the way his words would come to be preserved.

[DarKnyht]

Now to address the "Son of Man", "Son of God" statements you find in the New Testiment as best I can.

To start off I will quote from Matthew 19:28 "Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Now you claim that the phrase Son of Man refers to all mankind, but here we have Jesus talking to his 12 disciples. When he uses the phrase Son of Man he then uses the word 'his' instead of 'their' to refer back to Son of Man. Likewise, he tells them they would sit on thrones, but not the same as the glorious throne the Son of Man sits on and he only refers to the twelve. If he was stating the Son of Man was all mankind, he wouldn't have to clarify this to his followers, it would be assumed that they also would be on thrones.

Another place where "Son of Man" is used is found in Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45. The quote as it is in Matthew is "Just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." Again, we find the "Son of Man" phrase being referred to with a singular 'his'. If Jesus meant all mankind, would he not have said, "The Son of Man does not come to be served, but to serve, and to give their life as a ransom for many?" However, again the Son of Man is referred to the context of a very specific person in a very specific point in time.

In fact in every instance I can find where Jesus refers to the Son of Man, he is referring to a single person. Either coming back, sitting in judgement, or making a proclamation about a change in how God relates to people. All of this fits perfectly in the context of Daniel 7. However, I do not see it fitting in the context you are putting it in.

Now, we will look at the famous text from John 3. In it a Pharisee asks to meet with Jesus at night. The part I will refer to specifically is John 3:13. Jesus is quoted as saying, "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven - the Son of Man." Since Jesus identified himself as the Son of Man, he is making that bold statement that he came from Heaven. So if not devine, he is claiming to at least not be of this world. He goes on to explain that the Son wasn't sent to condemn the world, but to redeam it.

As for Jesus's claims to be devine, you can find them all throughout John. John 10:22-42. You have Jesus being directly asked if he was the Messiah. Amongst his statements, you find this "I and the Father are one."

Likewise, let's look at the entire text of John 14. Jesus states that "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." He is stating quite a bit there. First that he is the only way to heaven. Second, that by knowing him you know God. And finally because they have seen him, they have seen God. That is quite a bit for a Jewish rabbi to be claiming.

Futhermore, Philip asks Jesus to show him the Father. His response is, "Don't you know me Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father?' Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves."

You say that Paul refers to God through Jesus which states that Jesus is not devine. I say let's look at the entire introduction (the emphasis mine):

"Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God - the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith. And you also are among those who are called to belong to Jesus Christ.

To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints:

Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ."

It was clear that Paul saw Christ as devine. The reason that he says to God through Jesus Christ is because we talk to God through Jesus. He is our intercessor.

Son of Man doesn't mean Son of God. They refer to two seperate and specific things from OT times. Son of Man, as I said before, is linked to Daniel.

Personally, I don't believe that Son of God always refers to his devine nature when used in the NT. From what I have been able to learn, "son of God" is a title applied only to the real king over Israel (II Samuel 7: 14, with reference to King David and those of his descendants who carried on his dynasty; comp. Psalm 89:27, 28). So I believe that when Matthew and the author of Hebrews used it they were drawing from this meaning instead of the devine one. In other places, it is used to refer to his devinity.

Now, we are debating something that I personally am on shaky ground. Personally I am not entirely sold on the concept of the trinity (more specifically the three gods in one statement it implies), and I have not had time to research it. My focus has mainly been the early church and how the texts were preserved. I am also studying the apologetics and arguements of Christianity. At some point I will get into the issue of the trinity, but right now it is not something I could debate with any authority.

I will also say that most likely we will not come to a conclusion on this issue. The historical Jesus has been debated since 1774-78 when Lessing published the notes of Hermann Samuel Reimarus. I would say that part of the reason the historical Jesus was lost was because the Church didn't understand the importance of having both the Theological Jesus and Historical Jesus. Instead for a long time the church removed Jesus from his Jewish roots and culture and whitewashed him into a Greco-Roman character that fit their narrowminded worldview.

Again, I would stress the importance of looking at Jesus within his time and culture and not trying to force him into a modern worldview. Everything recorded in the gospels were recorded to meet the needs of an audience now almost 2000 years dead. It would be quite foolish on our parts to assume that the authors of the naratives had us specifically in mind back then. While I think the texts are still very relevant to us, they do require that we put them into proper context first.

[KonThaak]

The text I believe you are referring to is the Vulgate translation, and not the actual original greek.

Quote included to specify the argument I'm addressing... Snippage removed to conserve space, as this page in the thread has already gotten interminably long.

First off, I'd like to remind you that the original language used was Aramaic, and a quick search re-confirms that they had no definite article in Aramaic... A second quick search casts a great deal of doubt into my mind whether ancient Greek had a definite article or not--my father-in-law has told me they didn't, or that if they did, the article used in that statement was *not* a definite article--i.e., an "a" instead of a "the".

I'm sorry to shoot down your 15th century friend. I'm sure he had the best of intentions in mind--they almost always do--but there is simply no way that Jesus said "the" in that statement.

I'll respond to the rest later... It's late, and I haven't been sleeping well lately.

[DarKnyht]

I'm sorry to shoot down your 15th century friend. I'm sure he had the best of intentions in mind--they almost always do--but there is simply no way that Jesus said "the" in that statement.

I'll respond to the rest later... It's late, and I haven't been sleeping well lately.

You are correct. At the time of Jesus, Aramaic was the spoken language. The language of trade would have been Greek, and the language of the temples Hebrew. As a rabbi, Jesus probably had more than just a passing understanding of all three. Most likely when he spoke those words, he spoke in Aramaic but we have no way of being sure. I do think in the context that the statements are made it, it is strange for Him to be referring to only 'a' way. Given the painstaking lengths any Jewish person would have gone through to preserve what they saw as the words of God is just one of the reasons for my belief in this.

But as for your argument, I will have to concede the point since we are very quickly starting to hit on topics that I am just beginning to study. While I have a newfound love of my faith and especially of the time we have been speaking of, I think some of these issues would be better discussed with a Textual Critic or a Biblical scholar. They have dedicated their lives to understanding these issues. Perhaps in a few years I will be able to hold a better debate, but for now I have hit the limit of my current knowledge. All I could go on now is my gut feelings and that is not evidence enough to properly debate with.

As you have said, this has become quite a long topic, and as I have said this debate has gone on for many years before us. I have enjoyed the postings and I will look forward to your full response. However, I think for now we will have to agree to disagree.

As for your sleeping problem, I hope it improves. I well understand the problem caused by lack of sleep and do not wish it on anyone.

[KonThaak]

For the record, though, I am a bit offended by the fact that you don't even try to understand what I am saying. I am not the first person to make the arguments I have; I learned them from my father-in-law, who borrowed them from a number of other sources. It isn't that hard to understand...

I'll use your John 3:13... Here, he says, "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven - the son of man." He is quoted elsewhere in the Bible as saying that a person has as much chance to get into heaven as he gives others--basically saying that to gain entry into heaven, one must not condemn others. He has never actually said, "I am the 'Son of Man'", so I disagree with you that he has identified himself as the 'son of man'... While I can understand why you think that, and appreciate how easy it is to fall into that trap, what he is saying here is that everyone has the right to get into Heaven.

This is pertinent because Jesus is tearing apart the outdated belief that one must be in the good graces of the Pharisees to get into Heaven...or to get anywhere in life in this world, for that matter.

You argue that in Matthew and Mark, he speaks of the 'son of man' in the singular form, but that's the only way to refer to 'son of man' that makes any sense. After all, grammatically speaking, it is the only correct way... 'Son of man' refers to all people, but it is a phrase, just like "humanity". "Humanity" is also a singular noun, and if used as the subject of a sentence, requires singular supporting pronouns (where appropriate) and singular-form verbs. Though people say things like it often, it is improper to refer to "humanity" as "themselves". For a simpler example, a "week" refers to seven days, but we do not say "these week were good", we say "this week was good". The only difference between "humanity" and "son of man" is that one is a neuter noun, while the other is a gender-specific noun.

You have said there is no separating the historical Jesus from the theological one, yet you oftentimes turn to people who wrote or argued centuries/millennia after Jesus' death to point at what Jesus wanted... If you wish to keep the two of them together, then there is only one source you can turn to for information about him, and that source doesn't come from the fourth century and later.

Biblical fact: Daniel does not say that the "son of man" in his vision was divine, simply that God would vest authority in him. The notion that the "son of man" spoken of in that vision is divine is an argument from much later.

Biblical fact: Jesus spends a great deal of time talking about the son of man, and references appear to have been made to Daniel. He does not directly say "I am the 'son of man'", nor does he say "I am God". These are both ideas that come to us from the fourth century, long after his death, and even in those days, it was hotly and violently contested. While it is understandable why one would think that Jesus was speaking of himself when he references the 'son of man', if one looks at the definition of the phrase, then even if he were speaking of himself, he is not acknowledging his divinity.

These are the facts. While you can draw lines from there and come to your own conclusions, you cannot claim that another man is less Christian than you because his lines and conclusions are different than your own. You cannot deny Christ from those who love him, just because they love him a different way than you. You cannot negatively judge others just for being--or believing--different than you.

To do so goes directly against the teachings of Christ...even if he were God.

[KonThaak]

One last thing... The ancient Jewish punishment for blasphemy was stoning, an execution that they carried out themselves. If they believed someone was guilty of blasphemy on any level, the Pharisees would have the offender stoned to death. Jesus was charged with blasphemy, but the high priest couldn't prove his guilt...so instead, Jesus was sent off to Pilate, to be executed for the political crime of being "king of the Jews", which would have been an act of sedition against Rome.

If the high priests could've foreseen that Jesus' use of the phrase "son of man" could've been twisted to mean "I am God", they would've had him dragged out into the streets and stoned to death on the spot. Jesus was instead crucified by Roman law, which, of course, had no consideration for the Jewish law system or God.

[KonThaak]

I've been doing a little more thinking on all of this... If Jesus were referring to himself when he references the "son of man", he would've been stoned to death for blasphemy quite a while ago. He was very close to it as it was. I, however, only learned about the Jewish blasphemy punishment recently.

The Pharisees were the direct line to God, or so they claimed. Jesus denounced them, claiming that they not only muddled God's message, but that they had no right to claim that kind of divinity. They said only God could forgive sins--through them, of course...and Jesus claimed, in retaliation, that the "son of man"--literally, anyone--can forgive sins, and to prove it, he forgives sins left and right. The Pharisees declared the laws of the Sabbath on God's behalf...and Jesus retaliated by saying the "son of man"--again, "anyone"--can make their own rules for the Sabbath, so long as he keeps it holy, and to prove it, he decides to celebrate the Sabbath on Sunday instead of Saturday. Because he set about to prove that anyone could do these things, it was misconstrued that when he mentioned the "son of man", he was referring to himself...

This could not be accurate, though, for according to the Pharisees, only God had the right to do these and other things. Jesus forgave sins, changed the laws of the Sabbath, and trod on the carefully-laid laws of the Pharisees because, according to him, anyone could do these things. If he did it because he believed only he could do these things (because he's supposedly God), *that* would be outright blasphemy, which was a stoning offense. Jesus flirted with execution every time he argued with the Pharisees... If they'd had reason to believe that "son of man" = "son of God" = "God" (anyone else hearing the song "I'm My Own Grampa" alluvasudden...?), he would never have been crucified.

[DarKnyht]

It is not that I do not see where you coming from, it is just that I am unable to verify or refute the claims you make. I have no knowledge of ancient aramaic not have I been able to find anything within my own reach to give me that knowledge. For me to continue a discussion that hinges on an understanding of aramiac would be foolishness.

As for your claim that Jesus didn't claim to be God, here are more places where his claim to deity is shown, and also it shows how close he came to being stoned multiple times. In addition to the ones I have stated before you have the following

John 10:25-33: "Jesus answered, 'I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice, I know them and they follow me. I give them eternal life and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one.'

Then the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, 'I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which one of these do you stone me?'

'We are not stoning you for any of these, replied the Jews, 'but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.'"

John 5:16-18 records this: "So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. Jesus said to them, 'My Father is always at his work to the very day, and I, too, am working.' For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him, not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."

John 5:22-24: "Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgement to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as the honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him. I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life."

John 14:1 records him making himself an object of worship: "Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me."

In Matthew, Jesus teaches and speaks in His own name. By doing so, He elevated the authority of His words directly to heaven. Instead of repeating the prophets by saying, "Thus saith the Lord," Jesus repeated, "but I say to you."

Likewise it is written in the OT and quoted by Jesus, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you hall serve." Yet you find multiple times that Jesus accepted people worshipping him. (Matt. 8:2, John 9:38, Matt. 14:33, John 20:27-29). In contrast the disciples wouldn't allow it (Acts 10:25,26, Rev. 19:10)

You also must remember that most English translations of the Bible translate the name of God as "LORD" or "Jehovah". This was a sacred name to the Jewish people just like the name "I AM". Jesus uses these identifiers to himself. You also note that Jesus always refers to "My Father" and "Your Father", never once does he use "Our Father". Throughout the gospel He distungishes between himself and others.

Now, a Christian is taught to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind." Christ and the apostiles did not call upon everyone to exercise blind faith, but rather an intelligent faith. That faith is the assurance of the heart in the adequacy of the evidence. We will never have historical evidence to establish the absolute truth. Instead what we can have is a historical possibility. When I look at the facts, the historical possibility I am coming up with seems to fit much better than what you propose. When I look at what Christ, the apostiles, Paul, James and the other recordings of the early church says, I see no break or vast change in the views they held.

Now when we talk about a christian's faith, you must understand that christian faith is fully opposed to the average "philosophical" use of the term. Christians from the begining did not accept the cliche' "It doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you believe it enough." Simply put, the value of christian faith is not in the one believing, but in the one who is believed in, its object.

John Warwick Montgomery put it this way: "If our 'Christ of faith' deviates at all from the biblical 'Jesus of History,' then to the extent of that deviation, we also lose the genuine Christ of faith. As one of the greatest Chrstian historians of our time, Herbert Butterfield, has put it: 'It would be a dangerous error to imagine that the characteristics of an historical religion would be maintained if the Christ of the theologians were devorced from the Jesus of history'"

So a christian cannot say "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up!" The historical facts reported in Scripture are essential to a Christian. That is why Paul wrote, "If Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty... And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!" (1 Cor. 15:14, 17).

When it comes to Christianity the events are attached to the historical Jesus of Nazareth, whom the New Testament writers knew. In fact, at the time they challenged people to question the witnesses that still lived. Not only that but they turned the tables on their critics and said "You also know about these things. You saw them; you yourselves know about it." Who in their right mind does that if what they claim is not true, because the critics will happily make you look like a fool. But back then the critics could not refute their claims.

While you can draw lines from there and come to your own conclusions, you cannot claim that another man is less Christian than you because his lines and conclusions are different than your own. You cannot deny Christ from those who love him, just because they love him a different way than you. You cannot negatively judge others just for being--or believing--different than you.

Now I think jist of what you are implying is that I should believe that everyone's lifestyle, beliefs, and perceptions on truth claims are equal... Your beliefs and mine are equal, and all truth is relative". Now most people would call that the picture perfect definition of intolerance on my part. So it might be good to clarify what that word really means. The definition of tolarance according to Webster is "to recognize and respect [other's beliefs, practices, and so forth] without sharing them" and "to bear or put up with [someone or something not especially liked]" Paul put it as "[Love] endures all things" (1 Cor. 13:7).

So I think the mistake is that you are implying that truth is inclusive, that it gathers together claims that oppose each other. The fact however is that all truth is exclusive - at least to some degree - for it must exclude as false that which is not true. If Washington D.C. is the capital of the US, then all other cities cannot be. Accepting that doesn't make you tolerant or intolerant, it just makes you either right or wrong.

The same thing holds for Christianity. Christians are either correct or mistaken about how God has revealed Himself in the world. If they are correct, then there is really no other way to God but through Christ. If they are wrong, then Christianity is false. It isn't a question of tolerance, but of truth.

Your claim has it's roots in the tradition of the Ebonites. They likewise believed that Jesus was just a man.

I would offer Jesus' words as my final challenge, "If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority" (John 7:17). I fully believe that if any man comes to the claims of Jesus Christ wanting to know if they are true, willing to follow His teachings if they are true, he will know. But one cannot come unwilling to accept, and expect to find out. Pascal put it like this, "The evidence of God's existence and His gift is more than compelling, but those who insist that they have no need of Him or it will always find ways to discount the offer." God's offer of salvation is open to anyone, it is the individual man that decides whether or not to accept it.