Jesus the Man vs. Jesus the Christ

[knightofalbion]

Originally Posted by Amilius777

Hey Knight

I hate to break it to you but the fact is he was illiterate. Btw where are you getting your sources?

Majority of even the most liberal atheist scholars conclude that even if Jesus was influenced by the Essenes more than 90% of the world was "ILLITERATE". Even his wording and things presented in Mark's Gospel proves that he was a simple man not by choice but because the Cross-Cultural Anthropology of the time.

It is the Churches that actually state he was an educated Middle-class man. None of these existed unless you were an aristocrat or belonged to the royal class. There was no middle-class.

The stories of Jesus going to the East have been proven to be hoaxes and frauds. When I found this out I was shocked too. But It doesn't mean he didn't travel to Eastern places or around to learn spirituality. We have no idea if he even did travel.

My question is why would he bother going to the Far East if the Essene communities were pretty much heavily influenced by Hindu-Buddhist ideas and even had something quiet similar to a "master-disciple" relationship?

And btw Jesus wasn't an Essene priest. In fact his mission has many similarities but also too many differences for Academia to say he was an Essene. He was very much his own Radical Rabbi. Priests were of a totally different social class that Jesus could not have belonged to.

If you read Edgar Cayce's book on Jesus' upbringing I suggest you TOSS it completely. That is where allot of the stuff came from on his imaginary life that the New Age adopted. Sadly I learned how inaccurate Edgar Cayce, Levi Dowling, and many channelers have been in the 20th Century.

I am sorry but you will find richer information from historians and even the most agnostic scholars.

The facts are that the HISTORICAL Jesus was a son of a carpenter. Carpenters were of the "Artisan class". They were the poorest of the poor and illiterate. He WAS learned under the Nazorean Essenes because of his family location. He had several brothers and sisters. He was a disciple of his cousin John the Baptist and most likely had a one on one relationship as master and disciple. John was someone heavily influenced by the Qumran society. He preached the good ole' fire and brimstone whereas Jesus believed in cooperation with God and forgiveness. John lead a baptismal community that believed that God was coming to strike Rome. Jesus came reforming Judaism with a more Zen-like spirituality after being baptized by John. At his Baptism, John announced Jesus the Christ when he saw the Holy Spirit descend over the crown of Jesus. This is left up to interpretation. Jesus' ministry was a franchise overshadowing John's ministry. John began the "Way" and Jesus fulfilled the Way in this view. Jesus claimed superhuman powers, healed, exorcised, and was killed by Pontius Pilate on a cross because of his followers claiming him to be the King of the Jews and a futuristic Cosmic Judge.

That is the history and following of the historical Jesus.

Btw the 18 lost years are NOT lost years. The Story begins at Jesus' baptism. In all four Gospels it begins at Jesus' baptism. The Infancy Narratives in only 2 Gospels are Overture and Prologues. They are not "beginnings".

I hate to be rude, but neither you nor the wayward priest you get your hypothetical theory from know what you're talking about.

There are many ancient manuscripts which record Jesus, or the same but under a localized name, as present in the East both before his Holy Land ministry - and ...

Nobody is talking about Cayce or Dowling.

The Church's Bible records Jesus at 12 and then there is nothing mentioned of him until he is 30. Read your own book.

Originally Posted by knightofalbion

I hate to be rude, but neither you nor the wayward priest you get your hypothetical theory from know what you're talking about.

There are many ancient manuscripts which record Jesus, or the same but under a localized name, as present in the East both before his Holy Land ministry - and ...

Nobody is talking about Cayce or Dowling.

The Church's Bible records Jesus at 12 and then there is nothing mentioned of him until he is 30. Read your own book.

Luke Chapter 2 covers and says that Jesus grew in wisdom and stature in Nazareth. No mention is made elsewhere in the Bible.

Luke Chapter 3 says that Jesus was about 30 and I place emphasis on this because it is important. Most everyone thinks He was thirty, however, that's not what Scripture says. - "Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,"

[knightofalbion]

And Jesus is also said to have visited England (Cornwall and Glastonbury), with Joseph of Arimathea...

[Amilius777]

Bleh. I don't even know why I bother.


I am not making this up and they are not hypothesis.

I didn't mention a "Wayward priest". I mentioned Scholars and the Seminarian Schools. People going to Seminarian School both Religious, Atheist, Agnostic, and Theologian are ALL taught this.

Please read Jesus, Interrupted. Misquoting Jesus. And Forged all by Bart Ehrman. He dishes out everything discovered in Seminary school that is kept guarded. All your local theologians know this but they keep to their agenda. Sadly the masses have been kept from what is taught in Academia.


Other examples are Paramhansa Yogananda, Sylvia Browne, Nicholas Notovitch. I used Cayce as one example.

The story of Jesus going to India came from Nicholas Notovitch. It was later discovered to be a hoax.

In fact many scholars were hoping the Indian travel trip was true. It would clear up Jesus' profound wisdom. It was false.

I used to even follow a spirituality that basically says everything you say. But when I started getting out of the spiritual, New Age, circle I started reading what really went down.

I use to read tons of stuff on Paramhansa Yogananda. I still like a lot of what he says but I felt something was missing so I had to read what is truly going on.

And yes get this. There is more evidence of Jesus traveling to Northern Europe. I was shocked to hear this too.

Teehee-
You are quoting mostly John's Gospel written around 100 A.D. The story of the Prostitute and him writing in the sand was added much later by scribes. Luke's Gospel was written by the man who wrote Acts. The prostitution scene is entirely made up. Even when I was brought up Roman Catholic the teachers told us that the Magdalene-prostitute story was fused together and used as an example of: "What would Jesus Do". It wasn't literal. The whole story is made up.

Sadly Jesus never even encountered a prostitute nor stopped a bunch of men from stoning her. Sad because everyone loves this story of Jesus.

And majority of Jewish males learned Torah at an early age. But it doesn't mean they could read and write in the sense you think of nowadays. You can't project 21st Century attitude onto the 1st Century.

If you handed Jesus a pencil and paper to write his own Gospel he may have looked for a scribe to write down his thoughts. Which is why he never wrote his own words. He wasn't a prophet. He wasn't a prophetic scribe. He was really nothing seen in the Old Testament except a Teacher of Wisdom. Wisdom Teachers are not found in the Old Testament. That is why it was crucial to call Jesus a "son". It meant a son of humanity. A simple nobody.

And yes this is where the scholars DO get dry. If Jesus was this poor, peasant, illiterate, carpenter how did he comprehend such Zen-like spirituality and was able to transform an entire group?

That can only be answered in faith like you say Knight.

That Jesus was a world teacher, Rabbi indwelt with a Higher-consciousness. But scholars can not touch this part because they are dealing with history.


Bart Ehrman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0zWbL8Uqfw


The one thing we can agree on Knight is this: The Bible and Gospels are not Infallible :-)

[knightofalbion]

For the record I had not considered Notovitch when I gave my reply.
( I suspect most here will be unfamiliar with Notovitch. This link tells his story
http://www.reluctant-messenger.com/issa.htm )

"The Bible and Gospels are not infallible." As you say, that is one thing we can agree on.

[Seawolf]

Originally Posted by TeeHee

That is what I am stating. And thank you for acknowledging the frustration I do feel from time to time. How one can live a sinful lifestyle then claim themselves Christ (or His office) is beyond me. I actually agree with just about everything you say. However, because there are many interpretations does mean that they are all right. There may be many applications from the Scripture, but the Author had one meaning to convey, and that is the goal.

There's a difference between being a fan of Jesus and a true follower. I won't get into this but you do seem to understand that there are dual standards. Christians are not to judge the world, however, Christians are to edify other Christians. That brings judgment, but should not bring condemnation. Condemnation is for God. The judgment of Christians should be righteous in God. It should help other Christians.

I hear you. I'm sure most religions have a sense of wanting to preserve their traditional beliefs.. not wanting new liberal ideas to corrupt what is viewed at the time as the true original meaning. In Hawaii their traditions and beliefs are in danger of being completely lost, since they were always passed orally and never written down.

The standard for true following of any spiritual belief system should be if it brings light into the believer and in the world around him/her. Especially in how we relate to family and friends. Show the light in the most difficult parts in life and that's how people will know it's real.

Originally Posted by Amilius777

Teehee-
You are quoting mostly John's Gospel written around 100 A.D. The story of the Prostitute and him writing in the sand was added much later by scribes. Luke's Gospel was written by the man who wrote Acts. The prostitution scene is entirely made up. Even when I was brought up Roman Catholic the teachers told us that the Magdalene-prostitute story was fused together and used as an example of: "What would Jesus Do". It wasn't literal. The whole story is made up.

Sadly Jesus never even encountered a prostitute nor stopped a bunch of men from stoning her. Sad because everyone loves this story of Jesus.

That is a giant assumption. While there are manuscripts that do not have the certain stories contained in them, the NIV for example in bold print says that these were absent. However, it is interesting that where they are missing there is a space left for them, why do you suppose that is the case? While I am well aware of your find, all it tells me is to cautiously approach any doctrine that rely on those stories if I am relying on those translations.

In regards to Jesus being an illiterate I provided Scripture that says otherwise. There are many others throughout the Bible also, and me presenting a few Scriptures in order to not have my post deleted for copyright infringement (admin warned against even posting Scripture) all you had to say is that nowhere in the Bible does it say Jesus is an illiterate.

The Adulteress in the 8th Chapter

- 1 Timothy 3:16 -

[Morpheus]

There is also the story of the Samaritan woman, at the Well.
Who, when Jesus told her about her life, went and told everyone that she had met the Messiah.

However, since it is found in John you may want to discard that also, to make yourself more comfortable. Seems you have a problem with both Luke and John.


T.H., I would remind us of the statement that there are only two types...
Sinners saved, sinners lost.
The whole present organic paradigm, and situation, is a fallen one.
The lessor reality as well indicated by the NDE accounts of today. Which is also told to us about in St. Paul's experience in Acts 14:19, and 2 Corinthians 12.

[Amilius777]

I have no problem with John and Luke.

In fact for the spiritual seeker John's Gospel is the more valuable. It is about the 'Eternal Christ'- the Word, Logos which manifested in flesh. The Christ in all.

Luke's Gospel in my humble opinion is the most majestic, kingly, and messianic. When you think of Christianity covered in purple garments, pink candles, sacraments, wine and bread etc you think of Luke.

I just appreciate these authors from different points of view. Just because I am saying that it is proven that John's Gospel is not historically accurate doesn't mean it is not "spiritually accurate".

What I mean is that from a human historical perspective John and Jesus probably enacted the scene in Mark's Gospel or at least closely related to it. John probably never uttered with human lips what is said in John's Gospel. But from the ones writing the Gospels and the passing down of Oral tradition, the author John is possibly saying that John intimated these words. I know it sounds like clairvoyance or psychicism but that is the best way I can compare it.

From the onlookers, John and Jesus probably shared a few words like in Mark's Gospel and only Jesus heard the voice from "heaven" or from his superconsciousness saying- "You are my Son!" This is when Jesus realizes he is the Son. John the Baptizer is seen in the dark in Mark's Gospel. But in John's Gospel - John the Baptizer knows damn well who Christ is. Do you see the distinctions? John Baptizer knows that the Christ is the Light, the savior coming to save Israel. But did John know in the historical sense that Jesus his own cousin was the One? No he probably had an inclination but he wasn't certain.

How do we know he wasn't certain? Because later Jesus tells his disciples to go see John the Baptizer in prison and tell him the kingdom of God has come and that he is the Christ for sure.

Basically John's Gospel is speaking from a higher intuitive sense of reality. Mark's Gospel is speaking from a historical everyday consciousness. Luke's Gospel is speaking Messianic- as a fantastic drama that God played out. And Matthew's Gospel is somewhere between them all.

I am not doubting any of them. I am just saying that history- waking everyday consciousness, and metaphysical- super/sub consciousness are two sides of reality.

Watch the movie Last Temptation of Christ. Scorcese tried his best to get this through showing the humanity of mankind and the spirituality of mankind and how they try to reconcile on a daily basis.

[charly233]

The difference between Jesus, the Man and Jesus, the Christ, it seems to me, is that as a man Jesus is a specific being you can have a personal relationship with. The Christ is a cosmic principle that exists at the heart of every being. Jesus, the man, points the way towards the Christ.