What was the religion of Jesus?

TWells · Jul 21, 2003

TScott said:
He may have been a Nasoraean, which was a group that the Greeks called, wrongly Nazarene because they thought Jesus was from Nazareth. Nazareth did not exist during Jesus' time, so I think what they meant was Nasoraean, which was probably the sect that John the Baptist was affiliated with and later became known as the Johanaeans.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Hey TScott

I dont think we have any reason to believe Jesus was a Nazarite, the Gospels make it pretty clear that John was as per Nums 6:1-8, but theres not indication that Jesus ever took the vows or followed some of them but the opposite. Theres plenty of archeological evidence that the town we call Nazareth has been inhabited since 400 BC

TScott · Jul 21, 2003

TWells said:
Hey TScott

I dont think we have any reason to believe Jesus was a Nazarite, the Gospels make it pretty clear that John was as per Nums 6:1-8, but theres not indication that Jesus ever took the vows or followed some of them but the opposite. Theres plenty of archeological evidence that the town we call Nazareth has been inhabited since 400 BC

Even if Nazareth did exist, the description of Nazareth in Luke does not match reality. He has a group of angry locals take Jesus to the "brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong." That does not describe Nazareth.

Some scholars have suggested that the one place in Gallilee that is best described by this passage would be the old town of Har Nitai.

Har Nitai was also much closer to the Sea of Gallilee; about a 30 minute walk, while Nazareth would have been at best a 4 or 5 hour walk.

Composer · Jul 21, 2003

TWells wrote: - The fact that Jesus was "sent" by the Father doesnt in anyway hinder his equal divinity with the Father and is in line with Jewish views of Jesus as God's "Wisdom" incarnate.

Composer responds: There we go, you condemn yourself. Wisdom is a state of mind, it does NOT mean it is an alleged co-equal portion of the same entity. You and I are separate entities, yet if we BOTH had the "same" degree of "wisdom", we would still remain separate regardless.

TWells wrote: - Second, the doctrine of Trinity states that Jesus was equal with God ontologically but was subordanate to the Father functionally as is once again completely in line with Jewish Wisdom theology.

Composer responds: I love these man made words used by those that have no Scriptures to support them. You mention an "ontological" difference. Let us examine "ontological" -

ontology n. branch of 'metaphysics' dealing with the nature of being. ontological adj. ontologically adv. ontologist n. [Greek ont- being]

metaphysics n.pl. (usu. treated as sing.) 1 branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of existence, truth, and knowledge. 2 colloq. abstract talk; mere theory. [Greek, as having followed physics in Aristotle's works]

NB - abstract talk; mere theory

So there we have it, the Catholic Church tries to make their own "Laws" or alleged "Proofs" by using a branch of metaphysics = abstract talk / mere theory to try to justify the false doctrine of the trinity, the erroneous man made concept.

In essence it boils down to, "It's all a mystery of godliness" in a futile attempt to hide their lack of Scriptural support.

TWells wrote: - If your going to try to dis "prove" the doctrine make sure your getting it right first.

Composer responds: Oh! I got it right alright, and first time as well.

No abstract talk or mere theory from me, just Scriptural facts.

Jesus informs us in many places that he is NOT God - E. g.

But of that day and hour knoweth no [man], no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. (Matt. 24:36 cf. Mark 13:32) KJS

So there we have it. Jesus is inferior in knowledge to God who in contrast to Jesus, God knows "ALL THINGS" (1 John 3:20) KJS

TWells · Jul 21, 2003

Composer said:
Composer responds: There we go, you condemn yourself. Wisdom is a state of mind, it does NOT mean it is an alleged co-equal portion of the same entity.

First of all, I was refferring to the personification of God's attributes which are made numerous times in the OT and the intertestamental literature and also in Philo's contemporary writings. (Ps. 58:10, 107:42; Job 11:14,Sir 1:1-4, Wis 10:18-19, 7:22-26). So while you as a modern day westerner may see wisdom as a "state of mind" (which means absolutely nothing by the way) the Biblically inspired writers and other Jewish writers of the time did NOT. Personifying divine attributes was a common view in ANE cultures.

Notice Proverbs 8:22-30 for instance....

The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him...

Click to expand...

In the Gospels we find that Jesus viewed Himself as assuming the role of Wisdom and thus divinity. Making obvious allusions to and quoting Wisdom literature (Matthew 11:29-30 - Sirach 6:19-31 51:26)

NT writers made it obvious they were claiming Jesus to be the divine personified Wisdom of God: John 1:1-Wisdom of Solomon 9:9, John 1:4-Proverbs 8:35, John 1:11-1 Enoch 42:2, John 1:14-Sirach 24:8, John 6:27-Wisdom of Solomon 16:26, John 14:15-Wisdom of Solomon 16:18)

JP Holding notes more:

The Word was in the beginning (John 1:1)
Wisdom was in the beginning (Prov. 8:22-23, Sir. 1:4, Wis. 9:9)
The Word was with God (John 1:1)
Wisdom was with God (Prov. 8:30, Sir. 1:1, Wis. 9:4)
The Word was cocreator (John 1:1-3)
Wisdom was cocreator (Prov. 3:19, 8:25; Is. 7:21, 9:1-2)
The Word provides light (John 1:4, 9)
Wisdom provides light (Prov. 8:22, Wis. 7:26, 8:13; Sir. 4:12)
Word as light in contrast to darkness (John 1:5)
Wisdom as light in contrast to darkness (Wis. 7:29-30)
The Word was in the world (John 1:10)
Wisdom was in the world (Wis. 8:1, Sir. 24:6)
The Word was rejected by its own (John 1:11)
Wisdom was rejected by its own (Sir. 15:7)
The Word was received by the faithful (John 1:12)
Wisdom was received by the faithful (Wis. 7:27)
Christ is the bread of life (John 6:35)
Wisdom is the bread or substance of life (Prov. 9:5, Sir. 15:3, 24:21, 29:21; Wis. 11:4)
Christ is the light of the world (John 8:12)
Wisdom is light (Wis. 7:26-30, 18:3-4)
Christ is the door of the sheep and the good shepherd (John 10:7, 11, 14)
Wisdom is the door and the good shepherd (Prov. 8:34-5, Wis. 7:25-7, 8:2-16; Sir. 24:19-22)
Christ is life (John 11:25)
Wisdom brings life (Prov. 3:16, 8:35, 9:11; Wis. 8:13)
Christ is the way to truth (John 14:6)
Wisdom is the way (Prov. 3:17, 8:32-34; Sir. 6:26)

More in Pauls letters: 1 Corinthians 1:24, 30 Jesus is "the power of God and the wisdom of God."

<LI>Wisdom 1:4: Wisdom existed before all things.... <LI>1 Corinthians 2:7: ...wisdom that God predestined before the ages.... <LI>Wisdom 1:6: To whom has the root of wisdom been revealed? <LI>1 Corinthians 2:10: God revealed these things to us.... <LI>Wisdom 1:10: ...he has given [wisdom] to those who love him. <LI>1 Corinthians 2:9: ...which God has prepared for those who love him. <LI>Wisdom 1:15: [Wisdom] has built an eternal foundation among men.... <LI>1 Corinthians 3:10: ...as a wise architect I laid down a foundation.... <LI>Wisdom 2:5: Gold is tested in the fire.... <LI>1 Corinthians 3:12-13: And if any man builds upon the foundation with gold or silver or precious stones..., it is to be revealed in fire.

Maybe next time you actually look into what the person is saying so you'll know what your talking about.

You and I are separate entities, yet if we BOTH had the "same" degree of "wisdom", we would still remain separate regardless.

Irrelevant, the Bible needs to be interpreted in its social and theological context. Not by whatever Composer 2000 years later decides by reading the Bible like a Sunday newspaper. By the way, are you saying someone other than God is equal in Wisdom to him?

TWells wrote: - Second, the doctrine of Trinity states that Jesus was equal with God ontologically but was subordanate to the Father functionally as is once again completely in line with Jewish Wisdom theology.

Composer responds: I love these man made words used by those that have no Scriptures to support them. You mention an "ontological" difference. Let us examine "ontological" -

ontology n. branch of 'metaphysics' dealing with the nature of being. ontological adj. ontologically adv. ontologist n. [Greek ont- being]

metaphysics n.pl. (usu. treated as sing.) 1 branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of existence, truth, and knowledge. 2 colloq. abstract talk; mere theory. [Greek, as having followed physics in Aristotle's works]

NB - abstract talk; mere theory

First of all Im not Catholic. Second, I was correcting your blatant ignorance of the Trinity. Generally when the nature of God is being discussed we use the word "ontological" to describe His being or essence. No big deal, but ill try to use smaller words for you.

TWells wrote: - If your going to try to dis "prove" the doctrine make sure your getting it right first.

Composer responds: Oh! I got it right alright, and first time as well.

No abstract talk or mere theory from me, just Scriptural facts.

...and newspaper hermanuetics.

Jesus informs us in many places that he is NOT God - E. g.

But of that day and hour knoweth no [man], no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. (Matt. 24:36 cf. Mark 13:32) KJS

So there we have it. Jesus is inferior in knowledge to God who in contrast to Jesus, God knows "ALL THINGS" (1 John 3:20) KJS

Once again this completely in line with Jewish Wisdom theology and Trinitarian doctrine in that functionally the Son is subordinate to the Father. The Trinity is based on the sum of Biblical teaching concerning Christ and Wisdom where as you must blatantly ignore the clear claims of Christs divinity and equality with the Father all throughout scripture.

SimplyMe · Jul 22, 2003

Composer said:
Composer responds: Jesus came first for the Jews but because they mostly rejected him, the Gentiles were "grafted" into God's Flock -

But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile : { Gentile : Gr. Greek} 11 For there is no respect of persons with God. (Rom. 1:10-11) KJS

I have to respectfully disagree. Jesus clearly belonged to the Jewish religion, I don't think that is even an issue according to New Testament writings. He clearly stated that his mission was to the Jews, and only the Jews. The Gentiles were only "grafted", or even preached to, after his resurection and assencion to heaven. Peter is the one who started the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles.

I also disagree that most Jews rejected Christ. I would guess a majority accepted Christ, at least as a prophet. The leadership feared Christ because of his popularity and for that reason was he crucified.

Composer · Jul 22, 2003

Yes, small words are sufficient for me.

Even your own trinitarian theologians disagree with each other, take for example the following -

THE TRINITY ADMITTED NOT TO BE A SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE

In view of these repeated and consistent statements and inferences of the subordinate position of Jesus one can understand why most Trinitarians admit that their doctrine of God cannot be found in the Bible. The late Dr. W R Matthews, Dean of St Paul's Cathedral, wrote:

"It must be admitted by everyone who has the rudiments of an historical sense that the doctrine of the Trinity, as a doctrine, formed no part of the original message. St Paul knew it not, and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the Church ultimately agreed". (27)

Or more recently:

"In order to understand the doctrine of the Trinity it is necessary to understand that the doctrine is a development, and why it developed. ... It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament". (28)

27. "God in Christian Thought and Experience", p.180 - (See original Extract - My Ref: matthew1.htm#01)

28. A & R Hanson: "Reasonable Belief, A survey of the Christian Faith, p.171-173,1980, Italics ours.

So much for the man made and fallacious trinity doctrine, even your own kind condemn its Scriptural legitimacy.

You condemn yourselves.

Composer · Jul 22, 2003

Originally Posted By: Composer

Composer responds: Jesus came first for the Jews but because they mostly rejected him, the Gentiles were "grafted" into God's Flock -

But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile : { Gentile : Gr. Greek} 11 For there is no respect of persons with God. (Rom. 1:10-11) KJS

SimplyMe wrote: I have to respectfully disagree.

Composer responds2: Disagree with what, I stated that Jesus first came for the Jews and later the Gentiles were grafted in?

You then confirm all that I had said yourself after you disagreed with me?

You wrote: - Jesus clearly belonged to the Jewish religion, I don't think that is even an issue according to New Testament writings. He clearly stated that his mission was to the Jews, and only the Jews. The Gentiles were only "grafted", or even preached to, after his resurection and assencion to heaven. Peter is the one who started the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles.

You then disagreed with me again - You wrote: I also disagree that most Jews rejected Christ. I would guess a majority accepted Christ, at least as a prophet. The leadership feared Christ because of his popularity and for that reason was he crucified.

Composer responds: If the majority of Jews had accepted Jesus then the majority of Jews today would still accept him.

Clearly they do not. I spoke to a Rabbi in Jerusalem who did not even want to hear the name Jesus Christ at all.

How many active Jews do you know that accept Jesus as their Saviour?

You just disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing and then contradict yourself?

TWells · Jul 22, 2003

Composer said:
Yes, small words are sufficient for me.

Even your own trinitarian theologians disagree with each other, take for example the following -

THE TRINITY ADMITTED NOT TO BE A SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE

In view of these repeated and consistent statements and inferences of the subordinate position of Jesus one can understand why most Trinitarians admit that their doctrine of God cannot be found in the Bible. The late Dr. W R Matthews, Dean of St Paul's Cathedral, wrote:

"It must be admitted by everyone who has the rudiments of an historical sense that the doctrine of the Trinity, as a doctrine, formed no part of the original message. St Paul knew it not, and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the Church ultimately agreed". (27)

Or more recently:

"In order to understand the doctrine of the Trinity it is necessary to understand that the doctrine is a development, and why it developed. ... It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament". (28)

27. "God in Christian Thought and Experience", p.180 - (See original Extract - My Ref: matthew1.htm#01)

28. A & R Hanson: "Reasonable Belief, A survey of the Christian Faith, p.171-173,1980, Italics ours.

So much for the man made and fallacious trinity doctrine, even your own kind condemn its Scriptural legitimacy.

You condemn yourselves.

Hey Composer,

And this means exactly what?!?! So because you've been able to find a couple of quotes by some people that dont agree with the Trinity youve proven your case? Does that mean I can quote a couple of Trinitarians and "prove" it to you? lol

Composer · Jul 22, 2003

My point which alludes you is that even trinitarians disagree with each other about the very basics of this trinity none sense that "evolved" by the corruptness of men.

You can LOL as much as you like, obviously the truth hurts you and laughter is your only feeble defence.

I never laugh at the misunderstandings of others.

Ben johnson · Jul 22, 2003

Hi, guys. Can you please make your posts civil? You never know when a moderator may be watching, with powers of warning and suspension. It's easy to make points with kindness, and promotes better discussions. Besides, you're talking to far more than ONE or TWO people; there are dozens of "lurkers" for every ONE who posts.

If you happen to SEE a moderator, usually friendly advice happens first, and if the interaction doesn't improve, then official action...

Thank you, merci, gracias, danka, kam-en, grazzie, ありがとう, 너를 감사하십시요, 谢谢, Спасибо, obrigado,

TWells · Jul 23, 2003

Composer said:
My point which alludes you is that even trinitarians disagree with each other about the very basics of this trinity none sense that "evolved" by the corruptness of men.

Composer honestly, do you believe that because some within the Church dissagree with or renounce the Trinity that it means the idea is bunk?? The Trinity has been the standard orthodox view of God by Christianity for 2000 years and we still basically go by the nicene creed. Apply the same logic to yourself...if you disagree with another arian or they with your does that mean your ideas are false? Would that convince you? If a arian suddenly became a Trinitarian does that mean your wrong?

vajradhara · Jul 23, 2003

TWells said:
Composer honestly, do you believe that because some within the Church dissagree with or renounce the Trinity that it means the idea is bunk?? The Trinity has been the standard orthodox view of God by Christianity for 2000 years and we still basically go by the nicene creed. Apply the same logic to yourself...if you disagree with another arian or they with your does that mean your ideas are false? Would that convince you? If a arian suddenly became a Trinitarian does that mean your wrong?

you're not saying that the Nicean Creed has been used for 2000 years, are you? if so, that would be incorrect. interestingly enough... the Nicean Creed was unknown to Jesus and saul/paul as well... do you suppose that the recital of said creed is sufficient proof of faith? if so, since Paul didn't recite it (and for that matter neither did Jesus) can we conclude that they don't have the correct "faith" declaration to be considered a Christian?

TWells · Jul 23, 2003

vajradhara said:
you're not saying that the Nicean Creed has been used for 2000 years, are you? if so, that would be incorrect. interestingly enough... the Nicean Creed was unknown to Jesus and saul/paul as well... do you suppose that the recital of said creed is sufficient proof of faith? if so, since Paul didn't recite it (and for that matter neither did Jesus) can we conclude that they don't have the correct "faith" declaration to be considered a Christian?

I was just rounding off the number. Creeds are just statements we use to express truths found in the Bible. So while of course Paul or Jesus never stated the Nicene Creed I do believe that its what scripture teaches.

Composer · Jul 23, 2003

Your statements confirm that Jesus and Paul NEVER referred to your current Nicean Creed but YOU believe it is accurate?

The trinity concept was a development.

Jesus and the disciples knew it not.

sojeru · Jul 25, 2003

hi composer,

as far as jews coming into the faith. no doubt it was indeed the majority.

if it wasnt, it sure was enough to equal the number of 2 or 3 tribes.

and also remember, the men were the ones counted, the families of these men were just brought under his name.

and the leaders have much to do with the rejection.
NOW YOU CANNOT BASE it from what you witness today.
today the rabbis (LEADERS) were taught to teach the people to not even hear of the name Yeshua, and etc nor the Brit hadashah (new covenant)
and when a person mentions this, turn your face, ignore him, if he you even think that he is going to continue, call him "meni", "mamzeer gadol" etc.

this is today.
However, back then it was more like
"do not fight against them, you might just find yourself fighting [the Torah of] Hashem" spoken by a well known rav named GamaliEl

shalom u'bracha

TWells · Jul 25, 2003

Your statements confirm that Jesus and Paul NEVER referred to your current Nicean Creed but YOU believe it is accurate?

This is getting rather exasperating...

A doctrine is a summarized statment of something taught in the Bible. The fact that Jesus and Paul didnt recite word for word the Nicene creed has nothing to do with whether what the creed states or puts forth is in scripture. So far you've given me no reason to think otherwise other than some instances of Jesus talking to the Father which is fully inline with Trinitarian/Wisdom theology.

vajradhara · Jul 25, 2003

TWells said:
This is getting rather exasperating...

A doctrine is a summarized statment of something taught in the Bible. The fact that Jesus and Paul didnt recite word for word the Nicene creed has nothing to do with whether what the creed states or puts forth is in scripture. So far you've given me no reason to think otherwise other than some instances of Jesus talking to the Father which is fully inline with Trinitarian/Wisdom theology.

Namaste TWells,

i agree with you. what, if any, was the purpose in codifying the Nicean Creed? or the Apostles Creed for that matter?

was it simply a summarization of the teachings found in the Bible and nothing more? surely you don't believe that, having read the history of the church for yourself.

where did the impetus of Wisdom Theology come from? this doesn't sound like a teaching of Jesus.

TWells · Jul 25, 2003

Hey vajradhara :wave:

vajradhara said:
Namaste TWells,

i agree with you. what, if any, was the purpose in codifying the Nicean Creed? or the Apostles Creed for that matter?

was it simply a summarization of the teachings found in the Bible and nothing more? surely you don't believe that, having read the history of the church for yourself.

Well basically I do, the creeds were the result of rising heresies. In response the Church gathered to espouse the 'orthodox' view. This has nothing to do with the sensationalized Elaine Pagel "the-opressive-evil-goverment-church-is-in-a-power-struggle-and-is-stamping-out-these-defenseless-"legitimate"-forms-of-Christianity."

Whats the big deal about having a simplified statement of faith anyways?

where did the impetus of Wisdom Theology come from? this doesn't sound like a teaching of Jesus.

There are many passages in the Gospels where Jesus claimed He was God's Wisdom incarnate. Here's a good introduction article: http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_AOA.html

In Christ,

Travis

afnospam · Jul 25, 2003

Composer said:
Sean524 wrote:

Jesus "inherited" the Adamic cursed nature that ALL men possess.

If you read OT scripture you understand that sin is passesd on the patriarchial side. As Christ's father was God Himself, no sin was passed.

+

afnospam · Jul 25, 2003

Composer said:
The trinity concept was a development.

QUOTE]

If you read Gensis 1 and John 1 the evidence of the Trinity is clearly articulated.

+

What was the religion of Jesus?

Well-Known Member

Curmudgeon

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Diamond Thunderbolt of Indestructable Wisdom

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

just a Jew

Well-Known Member

Diamond Thunderbolt of Indestructable Wisdom

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Similar threads