Were There Two Different Jesuses?

[Ben007]

Were There Two Different Jesuses?

When Luke wrote Acts of the Apostles to Theophilus, he guaranteed him that he had dealt with ALL that Jesus did and taught until the end of his life on earth.(Acts 1:1,2) If Luke is someone worthy believing, there must be something wrong with Matthew.

1. I am not talking about the huge difference in the genealogy of Jesus.(Mat. 1:1-17)
2. I am not talking about the anxiety of Mary to explain her pregnancy without having yet slept with Joseph.(Mat. 1:18-25)
3. I am not talking about the Astrologers from the East who came to worship the newborn King of the Jews.(Mat. 2:1,2)
4. I am not talking about the star that stood still over the place where the child was.(Mat. 2:9-11)
5. I am not talking about the flight with the child to Egypt.(Mat. 2:13-15)
6. I am not talking about the slaughering of the innocent under the age of two with the Herodian intent to catch Jesus.(Mat. 2:16-18)
7. And I am not talking about a lot of other things that Luke ignores in his accurate account of EVERYTHING about Jesus to Theophilus.

Here's what I am talking about: While the Jesus of Matthew was still in Egypt waiting for Herod to die, the Jesus of Luke was born, after 8 days, circumcised, and on the 33rd day he was presented in the Temple; and immediately after these requirements of the Law, the family headed back to Galilee, and their own town of Nazareth.(Luke 2:21,22,39)

Now, bear in mind , that Jesus was only 33 days old when they headed back home to Nazareth. In the meantime, the Jesus of Matthew was still trapped in Egypt waiting for the word of the "angel" with the news that Herod had finally died. Perhaps in order to spare the embarrassment, the age of this Jesus is omitted.

Therefore, how many Jesuses were there? If there was but one, either gospel writer is lying or neither ever met each other. But how about the spirit that inspired the revelation?

I think Christianity will be better off if we don't remove that stone. It would be a bet to lose big.

Ben

 

[Quasicentennial]

It is possible that the writer who wrote the book of Luke had read Matthew's account and added other missing parts of the story that could have been witnessed by others but never recorded during the time the book of Matthew was written. Witnesses during the time of the birth of Jesus must have kept the information secret and waited until Herod and his enemies had died so that it would be safe to reveal the rest of the information to the writer who wrote the book of Luke.

 

[Hog Red]

you are correct there are two. Jesus was all man and Jesus was all God at the same time. Isaiah 53 my friend, read the part of the Bible you do believe and it always points to Jesus.

 

[salida]

There is one Jesus. They explained it above.

 

[Sketcher]

Here's what I am talking about: While the Jesus of Matthew was still in Egypt waiting for Herod to die, the Jesus of Luke was born, after 8 days, circumcised, and on the 33rd day he was presented in the Temple; and immediately after these requirements of the Law, the family headed back to Galilee, and their own town of Nazareth.(Luke 2:21,22,39)

Now, bear in mind , that Jesus was only 33 days old when they headed back home to Nazareth. In the meantime, the Jesus of Matthew was still trapped in Egypt waiting for the word of the "angel" with the news that Herod had finally died. Perhaps in order to spare the embarrassment, the age of this Jesus is omitted.

Does Luke say that Jesus immediately went to Nazareth after his circumcision? No it does not. You have to remember that the journey of the Magi would have taken some time, and that Matthew does not say that Jesus was still only an infant when they paid him a visit. Matthew refers to him as a "child", and when the Magi failed to return to Jerusalem to report him to Herod, the order was given to kill every boy two years and under. So Jesus would have been about two at the time. It is entirely possible that Herod heard the rumors about Simeon and Anna in the temple, after they had been brewing for a while, and the Magi's arrival would have been the last straw. Of course, the Jews believed those were very Messianic times as well, and he could have been just plain afraid of someone with a claim to Messiah taking his throne; and likewise, when wise men from the East came with news of a king, that would have been the last straw.

 

[Ben007]

you are correct there are two. Jesus was all man and Jesus was all God at the same time. Isaiah 53 my friend, read the part of the Bible you do believe and it always points to Jesus.

--------------------

And whose is the assumption that Isaiah 53 points to Jesus, someone who needs to exercise his faith? Not enough. I need some Scriptural evidence.
And I need it from the only Scriptures that Jesus considered the Word of God.
Ben

 

[Ben007]

Does Luke say that Jesus immediately went to Nazareth after his circumcision? No it does not. You have to remember that the journey of the Magi would have taken some time, and that Matthew does not say that Jesus was still only an infant when they paid him a visit. Matthew refers to him as a "child", and when the Magi failed to return to Jerusalem to report him to Herod, the order was given to kill every boy two years and under. So Jesus would have been about two at the time. It is entirely possible that Herod heard the rumors about Simeon and Anna in the temple, after they had been brewing for a while, and the Magi's arrival would have been the last straw. Of course, the Jews believed those were very Messianic times as well, and he could have been just plain afraid of someone with a claim to Messiah taking his throne; and likewise, when wise men from the East came with news of a king, that would have been the last straw.

-----------------

According to Josephus, a Jewish First Century famous Historian, Herod died in the year 4 BCE. That's the year Jesus was born. Jesus could not have been more than a year old when Herod died, as the family returned immiately from Egypt. In the meantime, the baby Jesus of Luke was back in Nazareth since his last ceremonial requirement in the Temple.

Besides, there is another contradiction. When the family returned from Egypt, if they ever were there, their intention was to return to Judea and not Nazareth. They went to Galilee only after they found out that Archelaus, son of Herod had become Governor in Judea. It means that, according to Matthew, Jesus' family had never lived in Nazareth. How do you unriddle this?
Ben

 

[Sketcher]

That's the year Jesus was born.

You don't know that.

It means that, according to Matthew, Jesus' family had never lived in Nazareth. How do you unriddle this?

No, it does not. Furthermore, if Jesus would have been around two at the Magi's visit, and they were in Bethlehem, that potentially tells us two things about Joseph. One, that he was an enterprising man, picking up carpentry contracts wherever he took his family. Another is that he wanted to keep his family away from the controversy surrounding Mary's pregnancy. He believed the angel of God, but who else in Nazareth would have believed the story. Loving not only his own reputation, but also Mary and the boy's, returning to Nazareth might not have been his first choice. Why not go back to Bethlehem where you would have made a name for yourself. But with Archelaus in charge, and with the economic situation in Galilee (Sepphoris was being built) Nazareth wound up to be the prudent choice.

 

[aiki]

When Luke wrote Acts of the Apostles to Theophilus, he guaranteed him that he had dealt with ALL that Jesus did and taught until the end of his life on earth.(Acts 1:1,2) If Luke is someone worthy believing, there must be something wrong with Matthew.

Obviously, Luke couldn't have written down ALL that Jesus did and taught. Luke would have to have been with Jesus in every place at all times recording each thing he said and did, which we know both by the exercise of common sense and by the testimony of the gospel writers that he could not have done. Jesus went alone into the mountains to pray; he was also in the desert alone for forty days. As well, the narrative that Luke offers does not read like a blow-by-blow account of ALL Jesus did and said. It is plainly evident from Luke's narrative that he was not attempting to give such a detailed account. In addition to these things is the problem of the sheer enormity of the task of writing down ALL that Jesus did and said. The apostle John explains:

John 21:25
25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.

My point is that Luke clearly did not expect Theophilus to believe that he had literally recorded everything Christ said and did. It seems quite reasonable to assume that Theophilus would have recognized the things I've noted above, just as any person using common sense would have done, and understood Luke's claim to have recorded "all" of Christ's doings accordingly.

Here's what I am talking about: While the Jesus of Matthew was still in Egypt waiting for Herod to die, the Jesus of Luke was born, after 8 days, circumcised, and on the 33rd day he was presented in the Temple; and immediately after these requirements of the Law, the family headed back to Galilee, and their own town of Nazareth.(Luke 2:21,22,39)

Now, bear in mind , that Jesus was only 33 days old when they headed back home to Nazareth. In the meantime, the Jesus of Matthew was still trapped in Egypt waiting for the word of the "angel" with the news that Herod had finally died. Perhaps in order to spare the embarrassment, the age of this Jesus is omitted.

Its natural, I suppose, for one such as yourself to read antagonistically what the gospels tell us, searching for anything that looks even remotely like a flaw or an inconsistency. In contrast, I try to synthesize the Scriptures, let them qualify and clarify each other, not set them in contradiction to one another.

The narrative in Luke does not say that Joseph and his family "immediately" returned to Nazareth. It merely says that when - or, simply, after - the fulfilling of the law was accomplished, they returned to Nazareth. Precisely when is not recorded by Luke. We may understand, however, from Matthew's gospel, that although Joseph and his family did return to Nazareth after fulfilling the requirements of the law, they did not do so "immediately" as you suggest.

Therefore, how many Jesuses were there? If there was but one, either gospel writer is lying or neither ever met each other. But how about the spirit that inspired the revelation?

Apparently, your strong prejudice against the New Testament is provoking you to see problems where there are none.

I think Christianity will be better off if we don't remove that stone. It would be a bet to lose big.

Um, I'm not sure what you're referring to here...

Peace.

 

[Ben007]

You don't know that.


No, it does not. Furthermore, if Jesus would have been around two at the Magi's visit, and they were in Bethlehem, that potentially tells us two things about Joseph. One, that he was an enterprising man, picking up carpentry contracts wherever he took his family. Another is that he wanted to keep his family away from the controversy surrounding Mary's pregnancy. He believed the angel of God, but who else in Nazareth would have believed the story. Loving not only his own reputation, but also Mary and the boy's, returning to Nazareth might not have been his first choice. Why not go back to Bethlehem where you would have made a name for yourself. But with Archelaus in charge, and with the economic situation in Galilee (Sepphoris was being built) Nazareth wound up to be the prudent choice.

---------------------

Sorry, but this is a post of assumptions without a trace of a gospel quotation to show evidence. Show me in Matthew that the family had come from Nazareth in the Galilee as Lukes does. The truth, my dear friend, is that they had never been in Egypt in the first place. Luke was right on this one. The guy who wrote the gospel of Matthew, in the search of a prophecy in the Scriptures to improve Jesus status with one more Messianic prophecy, he found Hosea 11:1 in the hope that we would never catch his blunder. The expression "Out of Egypt I called my son," the Prophet leaves no doubt that God was referring to Israel, as the Prophet himself idenfies Israel by name. So, Christians are much better off to think of Jesus in Nazareth, according to Luke than in Egypt, when there is no evidence for the assumption.
Ben

 

[Sketcher]

Sorry, but this is a post of assumptions without a trace of a gospel quotation to show evidence. Show me in Matthew that the family had come from Nazareth in the Galilee as Lukes does. The truth, my dear friend, is that they had never been in Egypt in the first place.

You're the one making assumptions here. You are claiming that Matthew's gospel states something it does not, that Jesus's family never lived in Nazareth. The fact is, Matthew makes no such denial.

Luke was right on this one. The guy who wrote the gospel of Matthew, in the search of a prophecy in the Scriptures to improve Jesus status with one more Messianic prophecy, he found Hosea 11:1 in the hope that we would never catch his blunder.

If Matthew was just making stuff up out of vain hopes, then his gospel would have been more embellished. The fact is, this gospel, as the others are also, is painfully and sometimes inconveniently honest. Otherwise, he wouldn't have had inconvenient events such as women being the first witnesses of the Resurrection, or inconvenient teachings, such as what Jesus taught about divorce.

when there is no evidence for the assumption.

Says someone who is very selective about what he calls "evidence" depending on what suits him. You used the Matthew account of the encounter with the Canaanite woman as "evidence" that Jesus was only for the Jews, yet now you're trying to discredit Matthew. You're not being honest.

 

[Ben007]

You're the one making assumptions here. You are claiming that Matthew's gospel states something it does not, that Jesus's family never lived in Nazareth. The fact is, Matthew makes no such denial.

In Luke, when the family satisfied the last ceremonial requirement according to the Law, it is said clearly that they returned to Nazareth where they had come from. Matthew said nothing about where the family had come from, and when they returned from Egypt they would head back to Judea, were not for the son of Herod, who had become the Governor in there. So, they were afraid and went to look for a place in the Galilee and found Nazareth. Please, read the text.

If Matthew was just making stuff up out of vain hopes, then his gospel would have been more embellished. The fact is, this gospel, as the others are also, is painfully and sometimes inconveniently honest. Otherwise, he wouldn't have had inconvenient events such as women being the first witnesses of the Resurrection, or inconvenient teachings, such as what Jesus taught about divorce.

Are you sure the women were the first witnesses of the Resurrection? What kind of witnesses, eyewitnesses? Remember that when the so-called angel removed the stone from the tomb, he said to the women: "As you can see, he is not here." The tomb was empty. What did they see, that even the angel didn't? If you can show me an eyewitness to the Resurrection of Jesus, you will have scored the highest in my research on this matter. Would you give it a try? I am all ears.

Says someone who is very selective about what he calls "evidence" depending on what suits him. You used the Matthew account of the encounter with the Canaanite woman as "evidence" that Jesus was only for the Jews, yet now you're trying to discredit Matthew. You're not being honest.

What I read is what is written. If I can be selective, it is because contradictions give rise to the freedom of selectivity.

 

[Sketcher]

In Luke, when the family satisfied the last ceremonial requirement according to the Law, it is said clearly that they returned to Nazareth where they had come from.

But not immediately.

Matthew said nothing about where the family had come from

Which isn't the same as a denial, which you are reading into the text.

Are you sure the women were the first witnesses of the Resurrection? What kind of witnesses, eyewitnesses? Remember that when the so-called angel removed the stone from the tomb, he said to the women: "As you can see, he is not here." The tomb was empty. What did they see, that even the angel didn't? If you can show me an eyewitness to the Resurrection of Jesus, you will have scored the highest in my research on this matter. Would you give it a try? I am all ears.

The women, in all four Gospels, were the first witnesses to the empty grave, and therefore, the Resurrection. According to John, Mary Magdalene also spoke with the risen Lord. That's what the Apostles went on for their accounts of the matter. They met the risen Jesus later, but the women were the first to get the news.

What I read is what is written. If I can be selective, it is because contradictions give rise to the freedom of selectivity.

No, you're just being dishonest. You're being selective about what you use as "evidence," but if you really believed it was a bad source, you wouldn't even use it to make your claims in either thread - if you were being honest.

 

[Ben007]

But not immediately.

Yes, immediately. Read Luke 2:39.

Which isn't the same as a denial, which you are reading into the text.

No, it just stands bold to reason.

The women, in all four Gospels, were the first witnesses to the empty grave, and therefore, the Resurrection. According to John, Mary Magdalene also spoke with the risen Lord. That's what the Apostles went on for their accounts of the matter. They met the risen Jesus later, but the women were the first to get the news.

An empty grave is no proof of resurrection. "And therefore the resurrection" are words you are adding into the text. Mary Magdalene did not speak with the risen Lord, but with Jesus, period. Read Acts 1:3. Luke says that Jesus showed himself alive after his suffering or passion for 40 days. He meant after his crucifixion. To be seen after one's passion does not mean even that he died, let alone that he resurrected. Sometimes it helps to use a little Logic.

No, you're just being dishonest. You're being selective about what you use as "evidence," but if you really believed it was a bad source, you wouldn't even use it to make your claims in either thread - if you were being honest.

You are getting upset because you are about to find out that you don't have the answers for my questions.

 

[Sketcher]

Yes, immediately. Read Luke 2:39.

I use the NIV as well as the KJV. Neither says "immediately," "directly," or anything similar.

No, it just stands bold to reason.

What you are getting here is something that most serious scholars outright reject.

An empty grave is no proof of resurrection. "And therefore the resurrection" are words you are adding into the text.

True, but the alternative would be theft of the body, which doesn't make sense. For that to happen, terrified men would have to overcome a disciplined squad of guards. And they would have had to become pacifists all of a sudden, even though violent action would have given them the very basis for the faith that they preached. And they would have to suffer and die for something they knew to be a lie. A resurrection is far more reasonable, especially with Jesus's later appearances.

Mary Magdalene did not speak with the risen Lord, but with Jesus, period.

So you're saying she did speak with Jesus. That precludes theft of a body.

Read Acts 1:3. Luke says that Jesus showed himself alive after his suffering or passion for 40 days. He meant after his crucifixion. To be seen after one's passion does not mean even that he died, let alone that he resurrected. Sometimes it helps to use a little Logic.

So you think it's logical for someone to survive a Roman scourging followed by crucifixion, followed by being stabbed by a spear? According to John 19:34, blood and water came out of the wound. According to medical analysis, that is evidence of hypovolemic shock, causing a buildup of clear fluid around the heart and lungs. So the spear would have stabbed the lungs and the heart. You can't survive that. Furthermore, if he wasn't dead, the Roman soldiers would have been killed themselves. And he would have had to travel some distance, and be in such a condition as to inspire his disciples. What makes the most sense is that he did indeed die, and he did indeed rise again.

 

[sb81]

Were There Two Different Jesuses?

When Luke wrote Acts of the Apostles to Theophilus, he guaranteed him that he had dealt with ALL that Jesus did and taught until the end of his life on earth.(Acts 1:1,2) If Luke is someone worthy believing, there must be something wrong with Matthew.

1. I am not talking about the huge difference in the genealogy of Jesus.(Mat. 1:1-17)
2. I am not talking about the anxiety of Mary to explain her pregnancy without having yet slept with Joseph.(Mat. 1:18-25)
3. I am not talking about the Astrologers from the East who came to worship the newborn King of the Jews.(Mat. 2:1,2)
4. I am not talking about the star that stood still over the place where the child was.(Mat. 2:9-11)
5. I am not talking about the flight with the child to Egypt.(Mat. 2:13-15)
6. I am not talking about the slaughering of the innocent under the age of two with the Herodian intent to catch Jesus.(Mat. 2:16-18)
7. And I am not talking about a lot of other things that Luke ignores in his accurate account of EVERYTHING about Jesus to Theophilus.

Here's what I am talking about: While the Jesus of Matthew was still in Egypt waiting for Herod to die, the Jesus of Luke was born, after 8 days, circumcised, and on the 33rd day he was presented in the Temple; and immediately after these requirements of the Law, the family headed back to Galilee, and their own town of Nazareth.(Luke 2:21,22,39)

Now, bear in mind , that Jesus was only 33 days old when they headed back home to Nazareth. In the meantime, the Jesus of Matthew was still trapped in Egypt waiting for the word of the "angel" with the news that Herod had finally died. Perhaps in order to spare the embarrassment, the age of this Jesus is omitted.

Therefore, how many Jesuses were there? If there was but one, either gospel writer is lying or neither ever met each other. But how about the spirit that inspired the revelation?

I think Christianity will be better off if we don't remove that stone. It would be a bet to lose big.

Ben

There are four gospels to both confirm each other, and to fill in missing details from the other gospels.

Pointing out that there is someone in one gospel that is not in the others is stating the obvious.

 

[Ben007]

There are four gospels to both confirm each other, and to fill in missing details from the other gospels.

Pointing out that there is someone in one gospel that is not in the others is stating the obvious.

-------------

They are different accounts happening at the same time. This is called contradictions. Sorry.

 

[Ben007]

So you think it's logical for someone to survive a Roman scourging followed by crucifixion, followed by being stabbed by a spear? According to John 19:34, blood and water came out of the wound. According to medical analysis, that is evidence of hypovolemic shock, causing a buildup of clear fluid around the heart and lungs. So the spear would have stabbed the lungs and the heart. You can't survive that. Furthermore, if he wasn't dead, the Roman soldiers would have been killed themselves. And he would have had to travel some distance, and be in such a condition as to inspire his disciples. What makes the most sense is that he did indeed die, and he did indeed rise again.

----------------

According to Josephus, it was not uncommon for crucified to linger at their crosses for up to 3 or 4 days before they died. Jesus was taken off his cross after only a few hours by Joseph of Arimathea. It is very likely that he was still alive. Joseph must have realized that and set him at his walk-in tomb to return an hour or so later with some of his men to raise him from there. In fact, the text says that Jesus was raised an not risen.

 

[sb81]

-------------

They are different accounts happening at the same time. This is called contradictions. Sorry.

You are predetermining answers and making those answers fit your already skewed interpretations of the scripture you bring up.

According to Josephus, it was not uncommon for crucified to linger at their crosses for up to 3 or 4 days before they died. Jesus was taken off his cross after only a few hours by Joseph of Arimathea. It is very likely that he was still alive. Joseph must have realized that and set him at his walk-in tomb to return an hour or so later with some of his men to raise him from there. In fact, the text says that Jesus was raised an not risen.

It is quite clear in the NT that Jesus indeed died, and was later seen. You may personally believe Jesus never died, but please do not misrepresent the NT where it is quite clear Jesus died, and was later seen alive.

 

[Sketcher]

According to Josephus, it was not uncommon for crucified to linger at their crosses for up to 3 or 4 days before they died. Jesus was taken off his cross after only a few hours by Joseph of Arimathea.

After they speared him in the vital organs to make sure he was dead.

Joseph must have realized that and set him at his walk-in tomb to return an hour or so later with some of his men to raise him from there.

This is lunacy which absolutely contradicts the historical record.