Topics in Religion: Christianity, Part III, Character of Christ

[Divinus Arma]

After covering some basics about Christianity, I would like to debate the Character of Christ. Explore with me, if it entertains you, the mystique that surrounds the name. Legend? Myth? 100% genuine leather?

The New Testament of Jesus Christ paints a picture of a man who has become the most discussed and debated figure in human history. But the books of the New Testament were hand-picked by the early leaders of a religious-governmental heirarchy. What about the omitted works of the gnostic gospels? Do these help portray a greater image of the real man? Were more books suppressed? Or were these books rightly supressed?

Did Jesus believe he was the Christ or did he simply hold a unique vision of the essential relationship between man and his creator? Was he misinterpreted or purposely misquoted?

[Strike For The South]

Jesus knew who he was and he knew he would evtually half to pay for humanites sins. Jesus is gods greatest gift to humainty.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3:16#fen-NIV-26127a)] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

God put Jesus in this planet to do that and he did.

[Papewaio]

According to the portion of the texts massaged by time as all oral traditions are and most copied text are as well, that was then selected by a council that was looking after its worldly power... I wonder what the deleted texts said?

[Divinus Arma]

I would love most to hear some historical evidence supporting the personage of Jesus.

Saying, "The bible is true because it says so" is not what I am looking for here exactly.

[Strike For The South]

Well I'll try to find some then but if you are looking for a bio the bible is the best you are gonna get

[Divinus Arma]

Well I'll try to find some then but if you are looking for a bio the bible is the best you are gonna get

I do not doubt that at all.

But let's add to that body of knowledge and allow ourselves the freedom to discover the true Jesus rather than a legend or myth created by an institution seeking to control its diverse and insolent population.

[Tribesman]

Jesus knew who he was and he knew he would evtually half to pay for humanites sins.
OK Strike if he knew who he was , and he knew what price he was going to have to pay , then how about Mark 15;34 or Matthew 27;46 ?
If he knew he wouldn't have asked ......right .
Or was Luke and John correct when he didnt ask because he knew ?
Bsides which , if he knew what he knew , and knew what it was he was there for , then what was the stuff in Gethsemane about ?


God put Jesus in this planet to do that and he did.
Hmmmmmm.... Divinus mentions gnostics , so did god put Judas there to do what he did ?

Bible studies:juggle2: such fun .

[Strike For The South]

Just becuase Jesus knew doesnt mean he was comfortable with it. He like you and I was a man. Like all men he was faced with temptation. However unlike you and I he never gave in to those temptations. God has a plan for us all.

[Tribesman]

Just becuase Jesus knew doesnt mean he was comfortable with it.
But if he knew what he was there for ,he knew what had to be done , he knew that the days pain and death wasn't really any big issue in the grandscheme of things then how on earth(or in heaven )could he be uncomfortable ?
Did he lack faith in both himself and his father who was also himself ?


Like all men he was faced with temptation.
Oh , I see ,so when he said "oi dad why have you buggered off and left me here hanging" it was temptation .
Temptation to what exactly ? untie the knots or pull out the nails ?

[Xiahou]

I do not doubt that at all.

But let's add to that body of knowledge and allow ourselves the freedom to discover the true Jesus rather than a legend or myth created by an institution seeking to control its diverse and insolent population.
I think it's really a bit dismissive to write off the Gospels as merely chosen for the purposes of power and control. I have no doubt that selecting the official Gospels was an large undertaking that was taken very seriously by a large group of theologians and scholars who were likely smarter than us here.

That's not to crap on your topic either, as it's all well and good to talk about non-biblical references to Jesus- but you seemed overly dismissive of the biblical texts. :shrug:

[Samurai Waki]

The point isn't to wash over the texts the bible has for us, I think Divinus wants a broader image of who exactley Jesus was. Perhaps the omitted texts had relatively little to do with Jesus? or perhaps they had everything to do with him. Jesus, according to Christians was a man, divine in nature. However, what I dislike about the bible is one minute Jesus is 12, and the next he's 35... what in the hell happened to those middle years? Thats what interests me. I would rather like to know more about who he was, because I already know what he did (or didn't do) depending on your beliefs. The bible is a good source, but it's like the boy scouts handbook to Christian Lore, rather than the tome.

[Divinus Arma]

Xiahou and Wakizashi, you are both right. I did come off as dismissive, and perhaps overly so. That said, I do want a total picture of Jesus beyond what has been fed to us.

Xiahou, your argument as to the nature of the founding memebrs of the Catholic Church is interesting. More intelligent and educated? For their time perhaps. But they also had a very limited frame to view the image of Jesus through, given that men of the era were still blind to the knoweldge of science that we take for granted today. I refuse to rely on such an ancient and primitive perspective.

The fact that the church was organized several centuries after the death of Jesus really levels the playing field. We not only have access to many of the same documents, but we also enjoy the luxury of a more sophisticated worldview.

We are gifted with great minds. To refuse ourselves even the the opportunity to challenge convention is a crime against God. Remeber the parable of ten talents (minas) in Luke that we just covered with Speltuhu. Nothing but good can come from embarking on quests of discovery with the goal of a greater understanding of our purpose and the will of God.

[IrishArmenian]

Truth be told, DA, there is not black and white answer. There was, is, and shall always be mystery. One cannot sum up Christ such as this. If there was no mystery, there would be no need for faith, correct?
Anyway, I believe Jesus knew he was the son of God. If you can, research the Gospel of Timothy. It is not in the original Bible, but it is from one of the most credible sources one will find: Jesus' 'brother'. By 'brother' I mean the mortal son of Jesus's guardians. I say guardians because they weren't really his parents.
Then again, I believe if most of you really gave it a chance, you would be Orthodox in no time, due to the open-mindedness of the Church. There is a lot of room for one to form one's on ideas because we respect the mysteriousness of God and do not try communicate it because it is not our place.
I don't actually think he was uncomfortable with his task, because nervousness is human, right? Jesus was not human. He was God, walking the Earth. Just realise that, even with all the debating, religion is best kept an enigma, so that we may not over simplify and miss seemingly simple details that are actually very important.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I would like to divert the thread further along Xiahou's line. It's my understanding that when the Gospels were "chosen" it was merely cementing what had been the majority position for some time. That is, the council didn't seriously consider other gospels, but instead codified what had been effectively been made cannon.

Therefore, from my perspective, the four Gospels are the most accurate accounts of Jesus' life and the best source on his character. All other sources should be taken with a grain of salt - certainly with more salt than the four gospels.

[Strike For The South]

But if he knew what he was there for ,he knew what had to be done , he knew that the days pain and death wasn't really any big issue in the grandscheme of things then how on earth(or in heaven )could he be uncomfortable ?
Did he lack faith in both himself and his father who was also himself ?

He was a man and he was scared. Men get scared.


[/quote]Oh , I see ,so when he said "oi dad why have you buggered off and left me here hanging" it was temptation .
Temptation to what exactly ? untie the knots or pull out the nails ?[/quote]

He could've left Judea. He could've done a number of things but he know why he was on Earth and he followed Gods plan for him.

I would also point out many times you cant just pick and choose verses out of scripture. Ill look those two up tonight in my Bible and see if it had to do with a story or if it was a stand alone.

[Tribesman]

Ill look those two up tonight in my Bible and see if it had to do with a story or if it was a stand alone.
OK , but I thought that the paraprahasing I used was easy enough to identify the particular episode .
Oh , I see ,so when he said "oi dad why have you buggered off and left me here hanging" it was temptation .
Temptation to what exactly ? untie the knots or pull out the nails ?
Eloi Eloi lema sabachthani ?

[Banquo's Ghost]

OK , but I thought that the paraprahasing I used was easy enough to identify the particular episode .
Oh , I see ,so when he said "oi dad why have you buggered off and left me here hanging" it was temptation .
Temptation to what exactly ? untie the knots or pull out the nails ?
Eloi Eloi lema sabachthani ?

As I understand it, Jesus was also seen as quoting from scripture at that moment - one of the more affecting Psalms (22 or 23, I think). So He could have been trying to echo the same doubts that the observers were having.

Oddly, I have always found the Gethsemane night and the incident on the cross that you mention rather compelling. We are told that Jesus is both man and god, but crucially wholly so. The Catholic church likes to characterise this stuff as a "holy mystery" - which is less a cop-out to me than an expression of their faith that God cannot be known fully by human minds.

Whilst Jesus was in the garden, He knew well what His mission was. But I don't think it was pre-ordained. He had set in motion a series of events that would lead to His death, but had to take the steps necessary to make it happen. During His trial, one can see the obtuse way he allows his judges to work up their prejudices and get from a relatively minor offence (which Pilate only considers worth a flogging) to the inevitability of His crucifixion.

In Gethsemane, in the deep dark of the night, surrounded by untroubled friends, He had the crisis of faith that faces many men. He knew more clearly than most what God wished of Him, and that He had to make it happen Himself. Through incarnation, He became subject to man's doubts - otherwise what was the point? I don't think one can dismiss His fear of the torture to come just because He may have known that Paradise awaited. Could even He withstand such terror, and not release Himself from it? How could He know that it wasn't going to be a colossal failure?

By becoming wholly man, and undergoing these fears and terrors, He showed the way for more ordinary souls - doubt, and a crisis of faith in the face of God's will are entirely human, entirely divine, entirely understandable. That's is why those who are so unshakeable in their total belief are oddities. His example is that it is quite OK to doubt, perhaps even necessary.

This neatly ties in with the fate of the two most important figures around him at the time. Peter and Judas both doubted. Judas tried to force God into doing what he thought was best, and realised his mistake later. Peter too doubted his friend and betrayed him in that black dawn.

The difference being Judas simply gave up and pathetically hanged himself - whereas Peter, as much crushed by remorse, devoted his life to making that mistake good. Doubt, and one's reaction to it, seems to me to be a central theme of the Passion.

Jesus' tribulations in the Garden and on the cross speak eloquently of a man with a godly sense of purpose, and sense of what would speak to many generations. This brings me pause to think, for a "God-story" of the time would have been much heavier on the miracles, lightning bolts and heroism.

Then again, the story could simply be the normal anxieties of a normal man trying to accomplish something of a martyrdom.

Either way, it's a very powerful story.

[rory_20_uk]

Here's some links I've got off google:

http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/humm/Resources/Texts/bibTexts.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/non-canonical-books-referenced-in-the-bible

More was left off than put in. The Gospel of Philip probably didn't make the cut as it makes the point that to describe god as the heavenly father is to delineate from Jesus's earthly father.

I know all of this is rubbish - after all a Roman Emperor stated it was :dizzy2:

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There are two ways to look at the Gospels, one is the cynical way, to say that they were chosen to favour Rome. The other is to say that the early Bishops were faced with divergant traditions which they had to reconcile, that they made mistakes and that, despite doctrine, their list should not be seen as diffinative.

You could, of course say that it is the direct word of God but to be honest I don't buy into that at all. None of those Bishops were prophets, therefore they did not have the divine authoriety to create a canon.

What was suppressed, for 2,000 years was Jesus' marriage. A re-examination of the Bible makes it implicit that he was married to Mary Magdaline, and it has been suggested that Catholic reverence for the Virgin Mother was originally directed at his wife.

One other interesting note. He was Jesus the Christ, which means Anointed One, i.e. King.

[Sigurd]

It would be nice if we could get a synopsis of the nature or character of Christ in view of the different sectarian directions.
That is;
Who is Christ to the Catholics?
Who is Christ to the Latter day Saints?
Who is Christ to the Orthodox church?
Who is Christ to the Muslims?
Who is Christ to the Evangelical churches?
etc.

I have a little insight of what the LDS thinks and it is rather compelling.
They put more significance to the Gethsemane incident than any other. The so-called atonement in the garden, where Christ took upon his shoulders all sin committed by the entire humanity from the dawn of time to the end. Where he atoned or paid due all this sin to justice and is the debtor of humanity, dealing out grace to those who is willing to live a Christian life. That through him, all mankind might be saved if they are willing to accept this and follow a certain path.
They also put Christ as the God of the Old Testament, the great Yahweh. Humanity severed their relation to Eloi the father in the Garden of Eden when they sinned against him and Yahweh the Son was from thence the mediator between God the Father and humanity.

Josephus, the 1st century Jewish historian has something to say about Jesus in his work or at least the people around Jesus. I do have his book at home (an 1875 edition) and will post his observations when I get home.

[rory_20_uk]

One's beliefs dictate whether one can pick and choose from one's religious text. Most Christians do to a greater lesser extent, saying that the meaning has altered over the years especially as the Bible is the work of men, and not direct from God. Of course, if you are one who believes that the Bible is 100% true, then by definition everything has to be true - even the bits that contradict the other bits.

Muslims get around this by (generally) not being keen on non-believers or indeed believers discussing their holy scriptures.

The writings might give some idea what kind of man Jesus appeared to a few others at specific times. But IMO it would be like trying to figure out someone's life from a few chapters of someone's biography.

~:smoking: