The Evolution of Jesus in Early Christianity

a reply to: chr0naut

I apologize completely..

Everyone knows Bronze Age sheep herders were just light years ahead of their goat herding cousins.

a reply to: Seede

I’m pretty sure that is erhman’s point lol..

That we can’t even verify it happened let alone claim that Paul is some uniquely trustworthy source.

He is playing devils advocate..


“Assuming he did have a vision, how would he have know who he was seeing”..

And the answer is that Paul couldn’t have..

a reply to: Murgatroid

God was made manifest in the flesh. 1 Timothy 3:16 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" ~ John 1:1 ...in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. ~ Heb. 1:2 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. ~ 1 Corinthians 8:6 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ ~ Ephesians 3:9 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. ~ Colossians 1:16-17

All of what you have shown is my faith also. I do not find fault in your understanding nor the scriptures . But you have left some what unclear in that Jesus was the Christ in the flesh with the spirit of the Creator.

Matthew 16:15-17
(15) He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
(16) And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
(17) And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Mark 8:29 And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.

Then re read John one and you can see no contradiction. The scriptures do not say "But whom say ye that I was." Instead the scriptures say "But whom say ye that I am." And the answer was confirmed by Jesus as He said " Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." I understand that many people call their masters god just as Moses was a god unto his people but Moses was not The Most High God El and neither was Jesus the Most High God El. Jesus was the Christ of The Most High El in the flesh of man.

a reply to: Seede

I think that depends on what kind of trinitarian you talk to

Some seem to believe Jesus IS the Father... One and the same

Others believe three spirits that are ONE... which delves into a few subsections

i've heard so many versions

a reply to: Akragon

I think that right there is the best “proof” that it is ridiculous to claim divine inspiration or some sort of objective truth to be obtained from the Bible....


If there is actually a right and wrong answer(s). Then how come you can’t even find 2 Christians that agree in total..


How do people claim “I know what god/jesus wants done!!” When they are literally the only person maybe in human history to have that precise viewpoint.


That means people are just making it up...


If there was objective truth to be had you would have some form of consensus and there isn’t..

And not just presently.. there hasn’t been a consensus since the very beginning as even the biblical authors don’t agree..

a reply to: JoshuaCox

And not just presently.. there hasn’t been a consensus since the very beginning as even the biblical authors don’t agree..

Lots of truth in what you say but I don't think it's the authors but instead the binders of scripture literature. The most confusion comes as the result of not having the autographs of the authors. Instead we have close to 6,000 MSS of copies of the autographs that cannot be verified as to their relation one to another. In all reality what we have is faith that what we are reading is close enough to the autographs to believe the messages that the authors intended.

The majority of the MSS that the KJ bible has its foundation was about 5,300 manuscripts. Out of this over 95 percent of the MSS agrees. The minority of the MSS was less than 5 percent and were shelved as reference material. Nevertheless the 95 percent of the MSS were copies and we have not one autographs of either the NT or the OT at this time.

Today we have hundreds of additional MSS that have been discovered since the 1611 KJV MSS but most all of them fall into the 95 + percent of the 1611 MSS. So what are we to believe? Regardless of the figures we are still as confused as we were in 1611. Then there are those that take the minority MSS from the shelves of reference material and use them as they would the majority MSS. This then brings a lot of division in word play which in turn the word play decides doctrines and new bibles.

This is not the fault of the authors but the scoundrels that offer their own opinions.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Seede

I think that depends on what kind of trinitarian you talk to

Some seem to believe Jesus IS the Father... One and the same

Others believe three spirits that are ONE... which delves into a few subsections

i've heard so many versions

John 10:30 "I and the Father are one"

1 Cor 6:17 "he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him"

The Father is one spirit with the Son

John 17:21 "that all of them may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I am in You. May they also be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me"

The Father, the Son and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit are one spirit.

a reply to: Ove38

A) John is the latest and least trusted gospel and on top of that it is the only passage that says that AND if I remember correctly there are major questions with that passage as it differs from the earlier manuscripts..


The Catholic Church rewrote and compiled the Bible. It didn’t fall out of the sky.. it was done by Catholics.

a reply to: Seede

We don’t even know who the authors are..


“Gospel of (blank)” doesn’t claim to be written by (blank) . Nor does he claim to have gone back to Judea and have interviewed eyewitnesses to compile it.

The titles were added later..


Also the manuscripts are not 95% I agreement .. that isan often misused quote of some apologist scholar saying “in meaning 95% agrees”.

In real like the theological meaning is subjective and can’t be measured mathematically.

For example the trinity is hotly debated.. that’s a corner stone of Christianity..


If jesus was adopted by god or born divine is hotly debated.

If women should allowed to be pastors depends if you trust the disputed Pauline gospels.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Seede

I think that depends on what kind of trinitarian you talk to

Some seem to believe Jesus IS the Father... One and the same

Others believe three spirits that are ONE... which delves into a few subsections

i've heard so many versions

Couldn't all interpretations be true?

If someone pinches our left arm and asks is that "you" we answer yes.
If someone chops off our left arm and points to our arm on the ground and asks is that "you", we answer no.

"Matthew 11:27: no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son"

Is also true in Hinduism...

The Atman (our spirit) is in Brahman (universal spirit) and yet Brahman is in us. Yet Brahman is greater than the Atman. Moreover, no one can know the Atman but Brahman and no one can know Brahman but the Atman.

So the trinity only exist to represent different states of individualised/universal self. If we are in GODs image then our perception of being individuals separate from the whole is wrong,

Likewise even a great mind like Einstein couldn't accept quantum mechanics. His ego saw spooky action at a distance. The atma (son) doesn't recognise separation from the whole, so doesn't see anything spooky at all.

a reply to: glend

No because even the biblical authors don’t agree.. thegospels are 4 different stories by 4 different people.. none of which agree on anything but that jesus was crucified and resurrected.

Mark says jesus was shocked and hurt by the crucifixion. He didn’t know he would be exalted and screamed out “father father why have you forsaken me??”


In Matthew and john’s gospels they claim jesus knew exactly what was going on. He knew he would be crucified and knew he would be exalted.. in their accounts he tells god “father forgive them they don’t know what they are doing..”

Those things are not reconcilable.


The way apologist evangelicals try and rationalize it is by saying “it all happened”. Which is ridiculous..


Instead of reading each authors work as its own entity teaching its own lessons. They smoosh it all together and omit what they don’t like.

a reply to: glend

The most likely scenerio is that jesus believed he was the Jewish version of a messiah (not the Christian version) then his followers thought he was made divine by god at his crucifixion.

Later Roman converts filled in the gaps. They took the oral histories and writings that survived the Roman purges that destroyed the temple and filled in the blanks with what thy thought made sense.... mixed with their own personal biases.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: glend

No because even the biblical authors don’t agree.. thegospels are 4 different stories by 4 different people.. none of which agree on anything but that jesus was crucified and resurrected.

Mark says jesus was shocked and hurt by the crucifixion. He didn’t know he would be exalted and screamed out “father father why have you forsaken me??”


In Matthew and john’s gospels they claim jesus knew exactly what was going on. He knew he would be crucified and knew he would be exalted.. in their accounts he tells god “father forgive them they don’t know what they are doing..”

Those things are not reconcilable.


The way apologist evangelicals try and rationalize it is by saying “it all happened”. Which is ridiculous..


Instead of reading each authors work as its own entity teaching its own lessons. They smoosh it all together and omit what they don’t like.

Its obvious most of the gospels weren't written by the apostles. Papias of Hierapolis (A.D. 60-130) even wrote the Gospel of Mark was written by john mark etc. Only exception might be Gospel of Matthew which has more Jewish flavour so might have been based on a Aramaic Gospel of Matthew. Which is why that gospel was accepted (without the birth narrative) by some early Christian Groups.

But even if the gospels were written by apostles, by their own admissions none of the Gospel writers were at the crucifixion so its hearsay and must be recognised as such. Gospel of Mary (Magdalene) might be a eye witness account. But the chapters concerning the crucifixion are lost. Unless the vatican wants to lend me a copy.

I am not saying it all happened. I am saying that layman definitions of GOD and the SON are from erroneous assumptions. So majority of readers misconceive what the gospels texts are actually saying. Its highly probably that early Christianity had more advanced teachings for advanced students that never made it to the gospels.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: glend

The most likely scenerio is that jesus believed he was the Jewish version of a messiah (not the Christian version) then his followers thought he was made divine by god at his crucifixion.

Later Roman converts filled in the gaps. They took the oral histories and writings that survived the Roman purges that destroyed the temple and filled in the blanks with what thy thought made sense.... mixed with their own personal biases.

I don't believe Jesus was even Jewish, think he was a Mandaean. They don't recognise Moses as a true prophet of the most high. So Jesus mission might have been to correct Jewish Law. After that failed, Rome worte/modified the gospels to try make him into a Jewish prophet. But Jews didn't accept that either.

a reply to: glend

Actually presently schoalrs think mark was the oldest.. then Matthew, then Luke and John.


In my understanding. Mark is the most Jewish of the bunch. In his account the Romans are the bad guys. There is no redeeming conversation between pilate and jesus..


I agree with everything else though..

Imho it is pretty obvious the “son of god “ stuff was twisted out of the fact Jews refer to god as “their father” and all the Jewish males “his son’s”.

When a Jew read the gospels I doubt he would have thought “literal biological son of god”.

I’m on the Ehrman boat and think the apostles thought god “adopted “ jesus at his death and the Virgin birth was just one upmanship between religious factions.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Imho it is pretty obvious the “son of god “ stuff was twisted out of the fact Jews refer to god as “their father” and all the Jewish males “his son’s”.

100% Agree

I’m on the Ehrman boat and think the apostles thought god “adopted “ jesus at his death and the Virgin birth was just one upmanship between religious factions.

With Jesus dead, the apostles would have been on the run from both the Jewish high Priests (not to mention Saul) and the Romans so its not like they could go to a printing press and get their stories distributed. So if anything the gospels are based on oral teachings that circulated through Syria etc.

So they may not be totally accurate but still might have some pretty inspiring passages in them. If one can read between the lines.

a reply to: glend

According to rabbinic tradition there was no real persecution by the Jews.. atleast not the “round them up and kill them” kind..

The modern Jews claim that Paul’s teacher’s opinion of the Jewish Christian convertswas to leave them alone. When jesus doesn’t come back the Jews will wake up... and for the most part they did..

So why would Paul be murdering Christians if his superior officer had ordered otherwise.

So all that stuff was just part of the flip to demonizing the Jews instead of the Romans.. because Christianity was becoming a Roman religion not a Jewish one.

Now I have just seen rabbis say this, I don’t know where they trace it back to.


Plus I’m pretty sure the Romans didn’t give the Jews the authority to execute. That’s why jesus’s Enemies had to involve Pilate in the first place.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: glend

Actually presently schoalrs think mark was the oldest.. then Matthew, then Luke and John.


In my understanding. Mark is the most Jewish of the bunch. In his account the Romans are the bad guys. There is no redeeming conversation between pilate and jesus..


I agree with everything else though..

Imho it is pretty obvious the “son of god “ stuff was twisted out of the fact Jews refer to god as “their father” and all the Jewish males “his son’s”.

When a Jew read the gospels I doubt he would have thought “literal biological son of god”.

I’m on the Ehrman boat and think the apostles thought god “adopted “ jesus at his death and the Virgin birth was just one upmanship between religious factions.

Adoptionism was declared heresy at the end of the 2nd century and was rejected by the Synods of Antioch and the First Council of Nicaea. Jesus is the firstborn son of God, among many born again brothers and sisters.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Also the manuscripts are not 95% I agreement .. that isan often misused quote of some apologist scholar saying “in meaning 95% agrees”.

Let us first consider certain Greek texts from which all New Testament translations are derived:
1. the Majority Texts (Textus Receptus), and
2. the Minority Texts (primarily the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, based primarily on the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus).
For obvious reasons, the Textus Receptus is also referred to as the "Majority Text" since the majority (95% or more) of existing manuscripts support this reading. These extant manuscripts were brought together by various editors such as Lucian (AD 250-312), Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevir brothers. The most notable editor of all was Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) one of the greatest scholars the world has ever known. When the early Protestant Reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries decided to translate the scriptures directly from Greek into the languages of Europe, they selected Textus Receptus as their foundation Greek document.
source www.1611kingjamesbible.com...

I stated in my above post -
Quote
The majority of the MSS that the KJ bible has its foundation was about 5,300 manuscripts. Out of this over 95 percent of the MSS agrees.
Unquote

You have that same prerogative as does everyone but in the science of textual criticism the authors are accepted as in the KJV bible. Trinity was not in my posting in this thread of substance change. I don't think I have written anything of a trinity in this thread. Yes it is very hotly debated and also greatly misunderstood by most critics.

If jesus was adopted by god or born divine is hotly debated.

Jesus was not adopted. According to scriptures He was begotten or brought out from God.

originally posted by: Seede

Jesus was not adopted. According to scriptures He was begotten or brought out from God.

The old man (Adam) came out of earth, the new man (Jesus) cam out of heaven.

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.