death:an ending?

[WhiteWings]

I think what's being said (though one might take umbrage with the method) is;

Card, you said this - "I can't think of one thing they teach, as is, that is accurate"

So I think TT is saying, the church DOES believe in Jesus as Savior, so that's something accurate they do believe -

And not even that they have correct.
Jesus is Savior of few (instead of all)

[Beloved Servant]

Thus, she said: "as is."

[WhiteWings]

Even the original Greek says that God was manifested in the flesh; "God incarnate".  And as far as what we mortally have, the original Greek is as accurate a Bible as you can get.

I found a little more proof it's not....

Several versions translate the verse similar to:
^EBR1Tim 3 16 And, confessedly great, is the sacred secret of godliness,––Who was made manifest in flesh, was declared righteous in spirit, was made visible unto messengers, was proclaimed among nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.


I also have an explanation for it....

From: Misquoting Jesus
In 1715 Wettstein went to England (as part of a literary tour) and was given full access to the Codex Alexandrinus, which we have already heard about in relation to Bentley. One portion of the manuscript particularly caught Wettstein's attention: it was one of those tiny matters with enormous implications. It involved the text of a key passage in the book of 1 Timothy.
   The passage in question, 1 Tim. 3:16, had long been used by advocates of orthodox theology to support the view that the New Testament itself calls Jesus God. For the text, in most manuscripts, refers to Christ as "God made manifest in the flesh, and justified in the Spirit." As I pointed out in chapter 3, most manuscripts abbreviate sacred names (the so-called nomina sacra), and that is the case here as well, where the Greek word God (ΘΕΟΣ) is abbreviated in two letters, theta and sigma (ΘΣ), with a line drawn over the top to indicate that it is an abbreviation. What Wettstein noticed in examining Codex Alexandrinus was that the line over the top had been drawn in a different ink from the surrounding words, and so appeared to be from a later hand (i.e., written by a later scribe). Moreover, the horizontal line in the middle of the first letter, Θ, was not actually a part of the letter but was a line that had bled through from the other side of the old vellum. In other words, rather than being the abbreviation (theta–sigma) for "God" (ΘΣ), the word was actually an omicron and a sigma (ΟΣ), a different word altogether, which simply means "who." The original reading of the manuscript thus did not speak of Christ as "God made manifest in the flesh" but of Christ " who was made manifest in the flesh." According to the ancient testimony of the Codex Alexandrinus, Christ is no longer explicitly called God in this passage.
   As Wettstein continued his investigations, he found other passages typically used to affirm the doctrine of the divinity of Christ that in fact represented textual problems; when these problems are resolved on text-critical grounds, in most instances references to Jesus's divinity are taken away. This happens, for example, when the famous Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7–8) is removed from the text. And it happens in a passage in Acts 20:28, which in many manuscripts speaks of "the Church of God, which he obtained by his own blood." Here again, Jesus appears to be spoken of as God. But in Codex Alexandrinus and some other manuscripts, the text instead speaks of "the Church of the Lord, which he obtained by his own blood." Now Jesus is called the Lord, but he is not explicitly identified as God.
   Alerted to such difficulties, Wettstein began thinking seriously about his own theological convictions, and became attuned to the problem that the New Testament rarely, if ever, actually calls Jesus God. And he began to be annoyed with his fellow pastors and teachers in his home city of Basel, who would sometimes confuse language about God and Christ—for example, when talking of the Son of God as if he were the Father, or addressing God the Father in prayer and speaking of "your sacred wounds." Wettstein thought that more precision was needed when speaking about the Father and the Son, since they were not the same.
   Wettstein's emphasis on such matters started raising suspicions among his colleagues, suspicions that were confirmed for them when, in 1730, Wettstein published a discussion of the problems of the Greek New Testament in anticipation of a new edition that he was preparing. Included among the specimen passages in his discussion were some of these disputed texts that had been used by theologians to establish the biblical basis for the doctrine of the divinity of Christ. For Wettstein, these texts in fact had been altered precisely in order to incorporate that perspective: the original texts could not be used in support of it.
The "Johannine Comma" are two manmade verses that were inserted. (Invention of Jerome)

   Indeed, as it turns out, these manuscripts were not of the best quality: they were, after all, produced some eleven hundred years after the originals! For example, the main manuscript that Erasmus used for the Gospels contained both the story of the woman taken in adultery in John and the last twelve verses of Mark, passages that did not originally form part of the Gospels, as we learned in the preceding chapter.
   There was one key passage of scripture that Erasmus's source manuscripts did not contain, however. This is the account of 1 John 5:7–8, which scholars have called the Johannine Comma, found in the manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate but not in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts, a passage that had long been a favorite among Christian theologians, since it is the only passage in the entire Bible that explicitly delineates the doctrine of the Trinity, that there are three persons in the godhead, but that the three all constitute just one God. In the Vulgate, the passage reads:There are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one; and there are three that bear witness on earth, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one.
   It is a mysterious passage, but unequivocal in its support of the traditional teachings of the church on the "triune God who is one." Without this verse, the doctrine of the Trinity must be inferred from a range of passages combined to show that Christ is God, as is the Spirit and the Father, and that there is, nonetheless, only one God. This passage, in contrast, states the doctrine directly and succinctly.
   But Erasmus did not find it in his Greek manuscripts, which instead simply read: "There are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one." Where did the "Father, the Word, and the Spirit" go? They were not in Erasmus's primary manuscript, or in any of the others that he consulted, and so, naturally, he left them out of his first edition of the Greek text.
   More than anything else, it was this that outraged the theologians of his day, who accused Erasmus of tampering with the text in an attempt to eliminate the doctrine of the Trinity and to devalue its corollary, the doctrine of the full divinity of Christ. In particular, Stunica, one of the chief editors of the Complutensian Polyglot, went public with his defamation of Erasmus and insisted that in future editions he return the verse to its rightful place.
   As the story goes, Erasmus—possibly in an unguarded moment—agreed that he would insert the verse in a future edition of his Greek New Testament on one condition: that his opponents produce a Greek manuscript in which the verse could be found (finding it in Latin manuscripts was not enough). And so a Greek manuscript was produced. In fact, it was produced for the occasion. It appears that someone copied out the Greek text of the Epistles, and when he came to the passage in question, he translated the Latin text into Greek, giving the Johannine Comma in its familiar, theologically useful form. The manuscript provided to Erasmus, in other words, was a sixteenth-century production, made to order.
   Despite his misgivings, Erasmus was true to his word and included the Johannine Comma in his next edition, and in all his subsequent editions. These editions, as I have already noted, became the basis for the editions of the Greek New Testament that were then reproduced time and again by the likes of Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevirs. These editions provided the form of the text that the translators of the King James Bible eventually used. And so familiar passages to readers of the English Bible—from the King James in 1611 onward, up until modern editions of the twentieth century—include the woman taken in adultery, the last twelve verses of Mark, and the Johannine Comma, even though none of these passages can be found in the oldest and superior manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. They entered into the English stream of consciousness merely by a chance of history, based on manuscripts that Erasmus just happened to have handy to him, and one that was manufactured for his benefit.

[micah7:9]

"I also have an explanation for it...."  I do not see you having an explantion, you found an explantion, correct? Its a cents worth, thats about al I have. No, I did not read it.

[Quaesitor]

I've read it and it's interesting to say the least.
But he did FIND an explanation which is what, I think, is what WW does best. :happygrin:
Thnaks for sharing WW.

[micah7:9]

I've read it and it's interesting to say the least.
But he did FIND an explanation which is what, I think, is what WW does best. :happygrin:
Thnaks for sharing WW.

I for one am well aware of all the interesting and in depth studying done by the many who do not share all  the faith of the bretheren. I know that My God lives and that it was His Son who payed the price. I, by the grace of God will continue to build on what the Lord reveals to me, as part of the growing corporate man from His Word as it has been established. From what I can reason, I have come to know my Saviour and brother through the 66 books of what I consider the Book. I know that there is other works and words that prove my God and Father and Savior, but He saved me with what I had. Bless the Wonderfull Name of JESUS>

[WhiteWings]

"I also have an explanation for it...."  I do not see you having an explantion, you found an explantion, correct?

Yes, I found information. It's clearly mentioned in the first line of my post. I even mentioned the name of the source of that quote.

Its a cents worth, thats about al I have. No, I did not read it.

Why not? Why judge when you don't have a clue what I quoted?
Why so hostile when a very likey copy error is pointed out?
Why so hostile toward an book author who wants to base his belief on the word of God instead on the error of man?

I for one am well aware of all the interesting and in depth studying done by the many who do not share all  the faith of the bretheren.

What makes you think he doesn't share all the faith?
He does. But unless most brethen he's trying to base his faith on the word of God and not the errors/idea's of man.

I have come to know my Saviour and brother through the 66 books of what I consider the Book.

And you consider that wrongly. The old manuscripts are compared, and still being compared and there are between 200,000-400,000 errors.
The vast majority of those errors are just little spelling errors that change nothing in the understanding of the text. Some errors make a difference. It's simply impossible to claim that 2 manuscripts are right while they clearly differ.

I know that there is other works and words that prove my God and Father and Savior, but He saved me with what I had. Bless the Wonderfull Name of JESUS>

This is not "other works".
It's a direct quote from the most ancient texts availble. Plus text frequently quoted by the church fathers because there were all kind of pagan (mostly Roman) writers who published other idea's.

[WhiteWings]

I've read it and it's interesting to say the least.
But he did FIND an explanation which is what, I think, is what WW does best. :happygrin:
Thnaks for sharing WW.

If you wonder how Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11 or Luke 3:23 is written in the oldest/best manuscripts then PM me.

[Molly]

I love this study--the visible and invisible God of the Old Testament.  Jesus revealed in the Old Testament.




Gen 15
1After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.

Here Abram both sees [vision] and hears the word of the Lord.


4And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.
5And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.

6And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.



Now the word is bringing Abram outside and showing him the stars.  Again, there is the idea of a physical presence of God.  The next verse makes it clear that Abram is talking to YHWH.

7And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.



Samuel also both sees and talks to YHWH

1 Sam 3

4That the LORD called Samuel: and he answered, Here am I.

5And he ran unto Eli, and said, Here am I; for thou calledst me. And he said, I called not; lie down again. And he went and lay down.

6And the LORD called yet again, Samuel. And Samuel arose and went to Eli, and said, Here am I; for thou didst call me. And he answered, I called not, my son; lie down again.

7Now Samuel did not yet know the LORD, neither was the word of the LORD yet revealed unto him.

8And the LORD called Samuel again the third time. And he arose and went to Eli, and said, Here am I; for thou didst call me. And Eli perceived that the LORD had called the child.

9Therefore Eli said unto Samuel, Go, lie down: and it shall be, if he call thee, that thou shalt say, Speak, LORD; for thy servant heareth. So Samuel went and lay down in his place.

10And the LORD came, and stood, and called as at other times, Samuel, Samuel. Then Samuel answered, Speak; for thy servant heareth.

11And the LORD said to Samuel, Behold, I will do a thing in Israel, at which both the ears of every one that heareth it shall tingle.

12In that day I will perform against Eli all things which I have spoken concerning his house: when I begin, I will also make an end.

13For I have told him that I will judge his house for ever for the iniquity which he knoweth; because his sons made themselves vile, and he restrained them not.

14And therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be purged with sacrifice nor offering for ever.

15And Samuel lay until the morning, and opened the doors of the house of the LORD. And Samuel feared to shew Eli the vision.

http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2009/12/where-did-the-nt-writers-get-the-idea-of-jesus-as-co-creator/

[Molly]

One more--the visible God of the Old Testament--

Jeremiah 1
1The words of Jeremiah the son of Hilkiah, of the priests that were in Anathoth in the land of Benjamin:

2To whom the word of the LORD came in the days of Josiah the son of Amon king of Judah, in the thirteenth year of his reign.

3It came also in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, unto the end of the eleventh year of Zedekiah the son of Josiah king of Judah, unto the carrying away of Jerusalem captive in the fifth month.

4Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

5Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

6Then said I, Ah, Lord GOD! behold, I cannot speak: for I am a child.

7But the LORD said unto me, Say not, I am a child: for thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shalt speak.

8Be not afraid of their faces: for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith the LORD.

9Then the LORD put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth.

10See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant.



Who visits Jeremiah, then, --One who is called the word of God,  who is called YHWH,  who has a hand that touches Jeremiah's mouth...

15Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

16For 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:

17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

--Col 1

[Cardinal]

I've read it and it's interesting to say the least.
But he did FIND an explanation which is what, I think, is what WW does best. :happygrin:
Thnaks for sharing WW.

If you wonder how Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11 or Luke 3:23 is written in the oldest/best manuscripts then PM me.

:cloud9: I, for one, want to know......thanks for all your diligent study; you are a treasure to this board.  :girlheart:

[WhiteWings]

I've read it and it's interesting to say the least.
But he did FIND an explanation which is what, I think, is what WW does best. :happygrin:
Thnaks for sharing WW.

If you wonder how Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11 or Luke 3:23 is written in the oldest/best manuscripts then PM me.

:cloud9: I, for one, want to know......thanks for all your diligent study; you are a treasure to this board.  :girlheart:

You asked for it...... :winkgrin:
You are my Son, today I have begotten you.



I want to give some background info because I feel several think/fear I'm somehow minimizing Jesus/the Bible in some way. There is a  lot to say buit I'll summerize:
- The Bible is written long after Jesus died.
- The Bible was copied by amateurs (they just did a few lines a day after work)
- Much later proffesional copiers/scribes did the job.

Until that time real Christians had the most weird idea's
There 1, 3, 12 or even 364 Gods...
Jesus was 100% man
Jesus was 100% man and 100% God at the same time.
Jesus was 100% God and just acted when He was hungry, thirsty or in pain. And acted He died because God don't die.
Many more such things.
All that crept in the translations.
Even Origen admited the massive problems.
So when the professional scribes started they had lots of problems indentifying the real gospels as written by the Mark, Matthew etc.
Today it's proven KJV used one of the worst manuscripts (not on purpose BTW)
As we are all aware the Bible can have tricky passages. Those were used by pagan critics to ridicule Christianity.
So scibes tried to be helpful and did bend the translation a bit at times. Always to make Jesus even better. But still changes.
But there were also little twists that were used for theological battles. Like the above mentione was Jesus 100% man or...
To make a long story (350 page book) short even today the mess isn't fully sorted out. But enornous progress its made.

Ok the voice out of heaven during Jesus'baptism said:
You are my Son, today I have begotten you.

I want to note that by this it isn't insinuated Jesus wasn't special for the day He was born.
It was changed because there was a thoelogical battle. So the scibes "fixed"the text.
Some people said that Jesus was born as a very normal man. Just as the other billion of people that live now.
God just liked Jesus and adopted Him during baptism. That was also mocked by pagans. Their half gods all were rich and powerful and always had a god or godess as a parent. Jesus so it seems from that verse was very common.
Although said elsewere in the Scriptures Jesus was divine; the scribes decided to "upgrade" the verse a bit to avoid mockery end debates.

I want to add the writer of teh book has a serious background.
BART D. EHRMAN chairs the department of religious studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. A leading authority on the early church and the life of Jesus, he has been featured in Time magazine and NBC News. He is the author of twenty books and lives in Durham, North Carolina.

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: Ok, so this particular writer; his opinion is what exactly, which one?  :dontknow: I must have missed the point......

[WhiteWings]

:cloud9: Ok, so this particular writer; his opinion is what exactly, which one?  :dontknow: I must have missed the point......

The book isn't about opinions.
In the first half of the book the author just explains what methods scholars use to indentify the most trusted texts.
In the second half of his book he presents a few different readings in the manuscripts; and explains what variant is the most likely based on the method described in the first half of his book.
The verse I quoted is one example of that.
That's it.
The author doesn't make a single doctrinial statement in his book.
It's up to the reader if s/he feels the "new" verse changes understanding of a certain concept/passage.

[Molly]

ww, I wish you would take a look at Michael Heiser's work because he is talking about things that I have been looking at for years and never heard anyone else say, and covering them from the standpoint of the language, culture, and mindset of the OT Hebrews.

From my point of view, there has never been any question who Jesus is, but I understand that people question it, and the questions deserve an answer.  I also feel that until people know who Jesus is they will never understand who they are.

Just take a look at some of his work.  Here's lecture 4 of a 5 part series.  Jesus and the Old Testament.

  http://vimeo.com/8792424

[jabcat]

While prayerfully drawing conclusions (not to say he may not have some relevant information) Ehrman is reportedly a "de-converted Christian", and is now an agnostic.  That may be something to be aware of as one examines these particular issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

[WhiteWings]

I have only read just one book of Bart; but I've read many reviews of his other books. He never seems to push the reader in a direction.
The book I quoted from above just as well could have been about the works of an ancient poet. There are maybe 10 verses in the whole book.
He turned agnostic, kicking and screaming as he puts it, because he has a huge problem with suffering in the world/Bible. And mostly because the Bible gives no real explanation for it.
So does that make his conclusions, which are widely accepted and not refuted, less valid?
I think it can be argued that agnostics are possibly the most unbiased writers.
Atheists tend to only show the proof that the Bible is fake.
Believing authors most often seem to ignore all problems and on top of that lead the reader to his/her denomination. (I'm sure certain writers would never have show the verse I quoted)
Very likely that makes many feel secure but it doesn't work for me.
I just want facts and decide for myself. I also want the best possible Bible translation and then decide what it actually teaches.

In the chapter about translation bias because of (very) strong anti-Jewish sentiments in the early centuries I found a nice UR verse


^YLTMatt 1
21 and she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.'

Originals read "save the world"

[Molly]

Alright, ww, out of love and respect for you I have forced myself to listen to a lecture by this man.  Here it is.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cK3Ry_icJo

Nothing he says in this lecture at Stanford amounts to a hill of beans.  In fact, after making a big deal about all the changes in the different manuscripts, he says that most changes found in the New Testament are 'inconsequential.'  His biggest complaint is that the four gospels do not always agree with each other on specific incidents.  That's nothing new.  Anyone who reads the Bible knows that.  For me, it makes a lot of sense because we all know that no 4 witnesses to an event will record the same incident with a photographic memory.  One will remember one thing, another will remember something different, and often they might disagree.  The fact that they do not all write exactly the same story means that they were telling what they knew and remembered to be true instead of all getting together and fabricating a story.

But, Erhman comes to his 'inconsequential'  conclusion in the context of ridiculing the scribes, ridiculing the Bible, ridiculing the South, ridiculing believers, and ridiculing Jesus.  In the spirit of true antichrist propaganda he keeps everyone laughing at these inferior people --so that in order to feel superior, you have to take his point of view or you are the one to be ridiculed.  This is standard antichrist propaganda, and young people, unfortunately, are very susceptible to it.

I am surrounded by this type of intellect so I know it well.

Notice how in the body of his lecture, he says people today are relying on this errant Book to come to conclusions about abortion, gay rights, and war--implying people are using an unreliable Book to come to equally unreliable conclusions about God's will.  But, the first person to question him asks him--are there passages that have been changed in the Bible that would impact our understanding of these subjects?  He squirms, buys some time, and then has to admit, no --there are not.

Normally, I would not spend another ten minutes of my time listening to this man, lest I become stupider than I already am. :laughing7:

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: So at least he did find some mistranslations......obviously his heart motive and heart condition betrayed him, though. God shakes HEAVEN and earth, and only that which cannot be shaken remains. This just tells me he needs a stronger foundation and God isn't finished with him yet.  My :2c: Blessings....

[WhiteWings]

:cloud9: So at least he did find some mistranslations......

I get the impression that people think his book is about debunking the Bible. Imo it's not. It's more about the history/science of copying the manuscripts.
He even ends his book with saying that when he was young(er) he was angry that the scribes messed up so often. But when he progressed in his carreer and took all problems in account the scribes faced he sorta fully understood why things can get wrong.
Although he clearly admits in his book the vast majority are just spelling errors that have zero relevance on understanding the Bible I think he mentioned a few things of importance.
Obviously a good copy isn't missing a few verses. Other copies have a few extra verses. That's not how it was inspired so that's not right. But even those things do not need to make a huge difference it can't be ignored the diffreneces are there.
That for example is very problematic for those that claim that the Bible, as we have it at this moment, is without errors. (even if teh message is the same)

When is an error of minor importance and when of greater importance? I think that depends on what kind of believer "you" are.
Some doctrines are almost based on one verse. If that one verse seems unreliable.....
For example one alternative rendering is very problematic for those who believe in Trinity. Another rendering is important for those who believe Jesus was God in human form. The rendering of the third verse I posted gives greater support to UR.
Was that good discovery? Yes I think so. Does it make the Bible completely diffrent? I do not think so.
But one has to look deeper. Why was the UR verse changed? The answers according to scholars is that in the 2nd century the Christians hated the Jews for killing Jesus. So it was impossible in their mind Jews would ever get saved. So they changed "saviour of the world" into "saviour of My people".
Then for me the obvious question is on how many other places that anti-Jews sentiment crept in? Without those sentiments the Bible suddenly could become (even) more pro UR.
:2c:

[Molly]

BTW, one of Erhman's more strident claims is that Jesus never claimed to be God in any of the gospels except John.  So, for Erhman, this is something that was made up by John.  It turns out this is an old argument used by anti-Christians, as the following article describes.   And, yes, ww, Erhman's intent is exactly to discredit the Bible in both subtle and direct ways--that is very clear to me.  And, he's not even original about it.


DID JESUS CLAIM TO BE GOD?

by Jeffrey J. Harrison



One of the popular ways in which scholars dismiss Christianity is to say that Jesus himself never claimed to be God.  Instead, they say, the early church "made" him into a god.  Jesus was an engaging, charismatic rabbi—nothing more.  One version of this theory, popular in Israel as elsewhere, is that the apostle Paul "divinized" Jesus. Some call this the good Jesus, bad Paul approach.  This theory is often supported by the assertion that in the first three gospels, Jesus never claims to be God.  Only later, as in the gospel of John, were these claims "added."*

* The first three gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) may have been written as much as twenty or thirty years before the gospel of John.

Arguments of this kind are nothing new.  The religion of Islam proposed it's own good Jesus, bad Christian approach more than 1,000 years ago:  Mohammed accepted Jesus as a prophet and miracle worker, but not as God.  Christians, he claimed, had altered the Injil (the Gospel).  Cults like the Jehovah's Witnesses are willing to concede a little more:  they accept Jesus as an angel, but not as God.  The Mormons go even further:  they accept Jesus as a god, but not as the one true God.*

* Mormon belief is polytheistic: they believe that the Father and the Son are two different gods.

As you can see, this is an important issue.  In fact, it is the major issue that sets Christianity apart from the other religions of the world.  As someone once observed, every other major religion claims that its founder shows the way to God.  Only Christianity claims that its founder is God.

Those who claim that Christians simply invented the idea that Jesus is God face a difficult obstacle:  Christianity started among the Jewish people, and was for many years an almost exclusively Jewish religion.*  Of all the religious groups in the world, the Jews were the least likely to invent such a doctrine:  most of them continue to resist it vigorously today.  Theirs was the most pure and exclusive monotheism the world had ever known.  It was this core belief that set them at odds with the pagan world around them, and contributed to the destructive wars that drove them from Israel and scattered them around the world, where many remain today. 

* Gentiles didn't gain an official standing in the Church until the Council of Jerusalem, 19 years after Jesus' crucifixion (Acts 15).  They became dominant in the Church only in the 2nd century.  By this time, the doctrine of Jesus' divinity was well established, and continued to be proclaimed by the Jewish Christians (the Nazarenes) long after the Jewish and Gentile branches of the Church split (in the 2nd century).  The divinity of Jesus is therefore clearly a Jewish Christian doctrine. 

Of the different groups within Judaism, the religiously conservative Pharisees are perhaps the last place to look for the creation of a divine Jesus.  Yet Paul was a Pharisee, not only before he accepted Jesus as Messiah, but also afterwards.  As he cried out before the Sanhedrin Council, the supreme court of the Jews, "I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees!" (Acts 23:6).  How could Paul the Pharisee accept the idea that a man was actually God—or to put the Christian belief more accurately, that God had taken on flesh, and walked among us? 

According to the New Testament, it wasn't easy.  Paul, known originally as Saul, traveled the region arresting and imprisoning believers in Jesus (Acts 8:1-3).  He began this rampage soon after hearing Stephen's claim to see Jesus standing at the right hand of God (Acts 7:55).  In a Jewish context, this was a claim to Jesus' divine status—considered a blasphemy by the council gathered before Stephen—and which caused them to rush at Stephen in a murderous rage (Acts 7:56-58).

Even Jesus' disciples were initially resistant to the idea.  At one point, when Jesus claimed to be sent from heaven (John 6:51), many of his disciples rejected the idea and left (John 6:66).  Even after the resurrection, there were some who doubted (Matt. 28:17).  This was just not the kind of teaching that could spontaneously emerge from the Jewish people.*

* Recent discoveries have confirmed that in some Jewish apocalyptic circles, the Messiah was expected to have divine qualities.  But the jump from this to being God himself was a big one. 

Something almost irresistible had to happen to bring any of them to this belief.  It was not Jesus' miracles:  many miracle workers had appeared in Israel both in ancient and recent history, but none of them was ever thought to be God.  It was not even Jesus' resurrection, for others had been raised from the dead and even ascended into heaven, as did Elijah.  The thing that made Jesus unique was that he alone claimed to be God, a claim supported both by his miracles and the remarkably long list of prophecies that he fulfilled.  As the blind man healed by Jesus said, "If this man were not from God, he could do nothing" (Acts 9:33). 

But if Jesus' claims to be God are so important, why are they missing from the first three gospels? In fact, they're not missing, but are cloaked in Jewish thought forms that non-Jews—including many scholars—often misunderstand.

Take Luke 5, for example, where Jesus healed the paralytic.  Most of us overlook Jesus' statement to the man, "your sins are forgiven" (Luke 5:20).  But the Jewish leaders had a strong reaction:  They called his words blasphemy (Luke 5:21).  Why?  They implied a pardon not just for ordinary man-to-man offenses, but for offenses committed against God, a category of offense that, according to the rabbis, only God himself has the authority to forgive.

They had not misunderstood. Rather Jesus pressed the point, saying, "'But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins,' he said to the paralytic, 'I say to you, get up, pick up your mat, and go home" (Luke 5:24).  In a Jewish context, for the "Son of Man" to have the authority to forgive sins can only mean one thing:  that the Son of Man is God!

Even Jesus' use of the title "Son of Man," far from referring to his humanity, as is often supposed, points to his divinity, that he is the exalted Messianic figure, the "one like a son of man" coming on the clouds of heaven in Daniel 7:13—clearly something no ordinary mortal can do.  It was not simply the miracle that had amazed the people (Luke 5:26).  It was Jesus' claim to be God—a claim supported by the miracle that followed! 

In Nazareth, the initially enthusiastic reception in his hometown synagogue soon turned into a murderous rage.  Why?  On the surface, there's nothing particularly dramatic about Jesus' sermon (Luke 4:23-27).  He simply observes that in the time of Elijah, many widows in Israel were not helped by the prophet, and that in the time of Elisha many lepers were not healed.  Yet at the end of the message, the crowd was ready to kill him (Luke 4:28-29)!

What did he say that upset them so much?  His listeners were intimately familiar with the story of these two prophets.  Much of their ministry had taken place in the countryside around them.  They knew that the lack of miracles at that time was because the nation had fallen into idolatry, led by King Ahab and his Phoenician wife, Jezebel.  So they immediately understood Jesus' deeper meaning:  that his own lack of miracles in Nazareth was because of their own hardness of heart toward God.

By saying this, Jesus was in effect judging the hearts of the people.  And by judging them, from their point of view, he made himself equal to God.  As even the New Testament teaches, "There is one lawgiver and judge that is able to save and to destroy:  but who are you that judges his neighbor?" (James 4:12).  The people of Nazareth did not accept that Jesus was God, so to them, his words were a blasphemy, worthy of death.  That's why they marched him out of town to throw him off the cliff.  They clearly understood that he was claiming to be God. 

The same is true of the other times Jesus pronounced judgment:  "Woe to you, Chorazin, woe to you, Bethsaida [both small Jewish villages]:  for if the deeds of power that took place in you had taken place in Tyre and Sidon [pagan Gentile cities], they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.  But I say to you, it will be more bearable in the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you" (Matt. 11:21,22).  Jesus does not speak here using the typical formulas of the Old Testament prophets.  Rather, he says "I say to you," relying on none other than his own authority.  Here too, Jesus claims to be God. 

The ultimate expression of this claim is in Matthew 25, where Jesus describes the coming judgment of Messiah, seated on his "throne of glory"—a phrase that to his disciples would indicate a throne of heavenly glory.*  Here the Son of Man judges in his own name and by his own authority, with the ability to condemn the wicked to hell (25:41).  This is a power only God has.  For Jesus to claim it is a claim to be God. 

* As in Psalm 89:36,37, where the throne of the Messiah is described as "a faithful witness in the cloud of the heavens" (in Hebrew, as in the KJV).

Perhaps the most dramatic of these claims took place on the Sea of Galilee, after the disciples had been struggling all night in their boat against a strong westerly wind.  Though Jesus had been left behind on the shore, he now suddenly appears, walking on the water (Matt. 14:24,25).  Mark adds the detail that "he intended to pass them by" (Mark 6:48).  This is a subtle hint to Job 9, which says, speaking of God:  "The one who alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the heights of the sea.... See—he passes by me, and I do not see; he goes by, and I do not discern him" (Job 9:8,11).

When they cry out in fear, Jesus turns to talk with them (Matt. 14:26,27).  What did he say?  Not "it is I" as usually translated; but as Matthew, Mark, and Luke all agree (in the original Greek) "I am."  This is not a lapse in grammar:  it's a deliberate hint to the personal name of God:  "I am that I am" (Ex. 3:14).

How did the disciples react to all of this?  They "worshipped" him, a word that means (in Greek) to prostrate yourself, face to the ground, in worship (Matt. 14:33).  It was not only Jesus' miracle that impressed them; it was his claim to be God, backed up by the miracles of walking on the sea and calming the wind.  This is what made them fall down in worship.  They may not have understood how God could become a man.  But they saw the result with their own eyes.   

By the way, they did not then and never could, as Jews, have believed that Jesus was a god, different than the one true God.  For them, there was only one God, so therefore it could only be that one true God that somehow stood before them in human flesh.  For this manifestation of God they had a name, the "Son of God"; for it was clear that the world went on, the stars continued to shine, and God in heaven continued to rule the universe as he always had before.  God had not vacated heaven to appear before them.  But he sent some kind of "extension" or "manifestation" of himself: his Word, his arm, his face, his glory, his likeness, his salvation—whichever of the many Biblical names used to describe this incredible phenomenon you prefer; a personal manifestation of God's presence sent to earth to speak directly to us.  That personal manifestation, in the flesh, is Jesus.



http://www.totheends.com/didjesus.html

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: He told me it had been Helenized, so FOR ME, that says it all, and to me means that the Jewishness of it was "stolen" out of the text, and/or the understanding of it was lost, both occuring because of anti-Jewish sentiment that crept in slowly after the disciples died off. He's been opening my eyes to it for several years now.

I can only wonder how things would have progressed if, for example, Christians would have realized that the so-called (and thus obscured) "last supper" was a Passover Seder, and that because of that, the cup meant something accordingly? And that's only one example. The text is riddled with such inferences, that a Christian audience glosses over unknowingly, or intentionally, because after all, "the OT/law was done away with", inferring either indirectly or outright, why bother to study it. Guess that's why Jesus and the disciples quoted from 24 books of it.  :sigh:

[Molly]

But one has to look deeper. Why was the UR verse changed? The answers according to scholars is that in the 2nd century the Christians hated the Jews for killing Jesus. So it was impossible in their mind Jews would ever get saved. So they changed "saviour of the world" into "saviour of My people".
Then for me the obvious question is on how many other places that anti-Jews sentiment crept in? Without those sentiments the Bible suddenly could become (even) more pro UR.

How does one passage changed from 'save the world' to 'save my people' make the Bible anti-Jewish?  That is if I believe such a thing happened in the first place.  Just because an older passage exists in a different form does NOT mean that was the original and correct form.  Age is only one variable of many.

However, the passage in our Bible says that Jesus shall save 'his people' from their sins.  Well, every school child knows that his people were the Jews.  So, if this were a change made deliberately, it is more pro-Jewish in the change.   How do you interpret that 'change' as anti-Jewish?  It is consistent with other statements such as he has come for the lost sheep of Israel, and so forth.  The Jews have been blinded until the fulfillment of the Gentiles, says Paul.

Elsewhere, Jesus is called the Saviour of the World.

So like all of Erhman's arguments, this is just another tempest in a teapot, meant to alienate people from their God, from the religion of their birth, and from each other.

[Molly]

:cloud9: He told me it had been Helenized, so FOR ME, that says it all, and to me means that the Jewishness of it was "stolen" out of the text, and/or the understanding of it was lost, both occuring because of anti-Jewish sentiment that crept in slowly after the disciples died off. He's been opening my eyes to it for several years now.

I can only wonder how things would have progressed if, for example, Christians would have realized that the so-called (and thus obscured) "last supper" was a Passover Seder, and that because of that, the cup meant something accordingly? And that's only one example. The text is riddled with such inferences, that a Christian audience glosses over unknowingly, or intentionally, because after all, "the OT/law was done away with", inferring either indirectly or outright, why bother to study it. Guess that's why Jesus and the disciples quoted from 24 books of it.  :sigh:

Yes, because the Christian world does not need that to believe.

It's Hellenized because this is a new era, the era of the Gentiles.

Only a few like you and I eat up all the deeper references to the Hebrew [not Jewish] Old Testament.  I love that stuff, but I don't need it to believe.

[jabcat]

It's Hellenized because this is a new era, the era of the Gentiles.

:thumbsup:

http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/word_studies/the_christian_bible_1991_7876.msg113546.html#msg113546