Jesus

[ryguillian]

Jesus: savior, teacher, or magician?

—Ryan

[leahcim]

Jesus: savior, teacher, or magician?

All 3. There's even a few burger flippers and a tank driver.

[thalbergmad]

Jesus was probably the best magician ever.

He rose from the dead and not even David Copperfield has done that.

The fishes trick must have taken some doing as well.

If jesus was alive today he would probably put David Blaine out of business. Blaine has brought a fly back from the dead on live TV, but if Jesus pulled of the Lazarus trick, that would be something else.

If Jesus had concentrated on his magic instead of trying to be the saviour of mankind, he might of lasted a bit longer.

[rob47]

Here's an episode from southpark's fifth season involving Jesus and David Blaine having a showdown. One of my fav episodes.

https://s44.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=2M9KK5EQ8NXR516RBMGL0FNG2G

enjoy

[pianistimo]

why can't he be many things.  i'd say all three - except the last one would be miracle worker.  He knew some people needed miracles to believe.  but, He wished it wasn't so.

people who work magic cannot do one thing.  save themselves.  on Christ's side - you can do both (not save yourself - but be saved) through His power.  interesting the power play between pharoahs magicians and moses, too.  God one upped each one of the magic tricks into showing pharoah that He could affect whole areas of land/people/rivers/etc.  no magician that i know can have that much power.   only a limited amount is given to them - to try to deceive others.

[pianohopper]

If jesus was alive today he would probably put David Blaine out of business. Blaine has brought a fly back from the dead on live TV, but if Jesus pulled of the Lazarus trick, that would be something else.

Actually, the fly wasn't dead.  It had just been exposed to cool temperatures to such a point where it hibernated.  Upon being introduced to warmer temperatures (placed on a window-sill, if I am not mistaken?), awoke. 

[rimv2]

Actually, the fly wasn't dead.  It had just been exposed to cool temperatures to such a point where it hibernated.  Upon being introduced to warmer temperatures (placed on a window-sill, if I am not mistaken?), awoke. 

HAHAHA

Like the flys at the grocery store where I work. They fly into the diary aisle and when the costomers leave and the store cools they sleep, but around the evening when the store is most busy and they heat up, they fly once again.

[thalbergmad]

Here's an episode from southpark's fifth season involving Jesus and David Blaine having a showdown. One of my fav episodes.

https://s44.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=2M9KK5EQ8NXR516RBMGL0FNG2G

enjoy

Thank you so much.

I wet myself with laughter.

[pianowelsh]

In his own words Jesus said ' I have come that they might have life and have it more abundantly' So His purpose was definately as saviour. True though he was also regarded as an authorititive teacher and there are reports some of which historical evidence has been found to support of miracles which still in the 21st century are staggering.  He's awesome

[stevie]

hahaha, jesus was a cock

i dont mean this in an offensive way, but according to the teachings i have read, he was a big red rooster, shocking but true.

coincidentally, jesus was also a dick, his middle name was richard.

[ahinton]

If Jesus had concentrated on his magic instead of trying to be the saviour of mankind, he might of lasted a bit longer.

Maybe - but don't forget that there was no TV then - and even He might have had more difficulty getting and retaining a reliable agent...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

He already had an agent.  God.  who can get a better one than that?

[ahinton]

He already had an agent.  God.  Who can get a better one than that?

Touché! But I'm not sure that He would necessarily have marketed Him to the point of getting Him professional public engagements and TV appearances as a magician, in accordance with what I think "thalbergmad" may have been implying - and, even if I happen to be wrong about that, I would still be tempted to wonder what rate of commission He would have charged Him...

That said, a little harmless frivolity is one thing; indeed, although I wrote in a response to "pianowelsh" in another thread earlier today that, as none of us can actually claim to "know" Jesus Christ or anyone that ever met Him, we can "know" Him only through what we may have read, I nevertheless take leave to assume that even He had a sense of humour. Tasteless insult however, is quite another matter. Without either being specific or wishing to cause offence to anyone, it might not be too much to suggest that there are already items in this thread so far that fall into each such category...

Best,

Alistair

[stevie]

we are all allowed to have our own faith *halo*

judaism denies the existance of jesus, my religion merely states that his middle name was richard, and that he was a big red rooster.

[ahinton]

we are all allowed to have our own faith *halo*

I implied as much in a response earlier today to another of this forum's threads.

my religion merely states that his middle name was richard, and that he was a big red rooster.

And may one ask - just out of courtesy and as a matter of interest, you understand - what particular "religion" that may be, what is the specific bibliographical reference thereto in your religion's Biblical equivalent and why your religion happens not - unlike the claim you make for Judaism - do deny "the existence of Jesus"?

Best,

Alistair

[stevie]

i do not believe in organised religions, i believe we have to all follow our own paths and find the religion that suits us best.

the religion that i created, 'stevieism', is only practised by few, the basic jist is the same as agnosticism, except with the added bonus of FREE COOKIES upon death, and that jesus did exist, but he was a chicken.

this is just my belief, you may laugh, but you will pay the price, you wont get the free cookies when you die!

[ahinton]

i do not believe in organised religions, i believe we have to all follow our own paths and find the religion that suits us best.

the religion that i created, 'stevieism', is only practised by few, the basic jist is the same as agnosticism, except with the added bonus of FREE COOKIES upon death, and that jesus did exist, but he was a chicken.

this is just my belief, you may laugh, but you will pay the price, you wont get the free cookies when you die!

It's a small price; I don't like cookies!

Best,

Alistair

[stevie]

heaven dont sound too good either

[pianowelsh]

Stevie stevie - keep taking the tablets! Or maybe its the tablets thats making you see big red roosters??! The jews actually dont deny the existence of Jesus.  That would be very difficult as they legally handed him over to the Romans.  They do deny that He is the son of God or the messiah. But so does half the world - you know what though. Jesus is sitting at the right hand of the Father now quite content in himself that He knows who He is.  He doesnt have to visit a shrink to get a second opinion on that one!

[rob47]

The jews actually dont deny the existence of Jesus.  That would be very difficult as they legally handed him over to the Romans. 

"The Jew's [who] actually don't deny the existence of Jesus" are obviously not "the Jews who legally handed him over to the Romans."

so come on, stop being a douche:

 

   

[musik_man]

I think that the proposition that Jesus never existed is complete bull.  It is certainly intellectually defensible to argue that he didn't actually consider himself the Christ and that his followers deified him after his death.  I wouldn't agree with you, but I can respect your position.  But arguing that the man who started the world's largest religion didn't ever live.  C'mon.  Did all those Jews spontaneously convert to follow a non-entity?  Wouldn't the Roman authorities in Jerusalem, who weren't too hot for Christianity merely point out that they never executed anyone named Jesus?  "We did a Habbakuk, an Isaiah, two Abrahams, a Mordechai, and a Jeremiah, but no Jesus.  Not on the roster."  It'd be hard to make up a story about a very public execution that never took place. 

It' pretty easy to prove to anyone reasonable that a man named Jesus did live back then.  Whether he was the Son of God, a Messiah-complex, or a misunderstood philosopher, I don't think you'll be able to answer that one based off of any historical efforts.  That's a matter of faith.

[pianowelsh]

When I used the term 'jews' I meant the jewish nation as a religious entity. I have spoken with jews who have No problem accepting Chirists existence but they have a problem with his deity.  There are also a growing number of messianic jews explain that one if jews dont believe in Christ! 

[prometheus]

Chrisianity as a religion only started off at about the 3rd century. Whatever causes this, it wasn't Christ himself.

There is this theory about that Julius Caesar and Christ are the same person. JC and JC. They both died at the hands of a traitor, Brutus and Judas. They lived in about the same time, though it is unknown when Jesus actually lived. They were both seen as Gods after they died. And compared to Caesar we know nothing about Christ.

It is not impossible for Christ to be a jewish mythification of Caesar, creating a jewish sect compatible with roman way of life. It is also seen in christmas, sabbath on sunday, etc.

It's hard to reconstruct how myth stories evolved during history. Maybe there was a first century radical rabbi called Jesus. And maybe he was the basis for the roman/jewish myth, becoming what we now call christianity, described above.

Do note that there is no historic source that talks about Jesus Christ from before his death. All the gospels were written after his death, at least after 60 AD, some maybe 100 AD.

[maxy]

Jesus: savior, teacher, or magician


none of the above

[arensky]

Chrisianity as a religion only started off at about the 3rd century. Whatever causes this, it wasn't Christ himself.

There is this theory about that Julius Caesar and Christ are the same person. JC and JC. They both died at the hands of a traitor, Brutus and Judas. They lived in about the same time, though it is unknown when Jesus actually lived. They were both seen as Gods after they died. And compared to Caesar we know nothing about Christ.

It is not impossible for Christ to be a jewish mythification of Caesar, creating a jewish sect compatible with roman way of life. It is also seen in christmas, sabbath on sunday, etc.

It's hard to reconstruct how myth stories evolved during history. Maybe there was a first century radical rabbi called Jesus. And maybe he was the basis for the roman/jewish myth, becoming what we now call christianity, described above.

Do note that there is no historic source that talks about Jesus Christ from before his death. All the gospels were written after his death, at least after 60 AD, some maybe 100 AD.

Click here, and read down to "Josephus proves Jesus exists" . Josephus was an important Jewish historian, and archaeology confirms his account of the Masada siege circa AD 70. He is respected as an accurate and objective scribe and historian.

 https://kevin.davnet.org/articles/jesus_exist.html

[prometheus]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

So his writing is from 93 AD. It doesn't really matter if it is disputed for what I said. I said that there are no historical documents about Jesus from his time, 6 BC-30 AD. No eye witness accounts, etc. That's kind of strange. I am not saying this means Jesus did not exist. But it does mean that it is very hard to know who Jesus actually was. History gets distorted and an important piece is missing. Plus, with this missing piece it is impossible to know if Jesus actually existed at all.

[pianowelsh]

There are tons of eye witness accounts fo Jesus. Not to mention the Bible!! Dough! The reason the CHURCH became established in the 3rd century was because it was a result of the ressurection that 'Christianity' spread. You could in a technical sense say that the first Christians were the disciples. But scripture is clear that God dosent delineate between jew or gentile or any cultural background etc All must trust in him for salvation in Christ as He's the only acceptible sacrifice.

[pianistimo]

agreed with arensky and pianowelsh.

today, when you seek someone's geneology - you look for #1 birth record  #2 marriage record  #3 death record #4 historical record.   if you are living under a roman rule (or any government) and are not part of the ruling party - do you think what you say (if it is written down at that time) is going to be kept.  NO.  it's destroyed because it's considered unimportant to that government.  that is why the dead sea scrolls and many other biblical scrolls were hidden and/or passed from christian church to christian church.  back then, they didn't have printers either - so handwriting was a laborious job for scribes that manually had to copy texts.  it is amazing we have ANYTHING today about Christ let alone the entire bible.  there must be a reason we even have the bible! that is why Christ's death so profoundly affected so many people.  archeology has discovered many things related to the ressurrection of Christ - but more importantly history has recorded it for all time - because Christ's death was an awesome event.

flavius josephus IS an account (from historical times of Christ) from a scholar of the time (37 AD-100AD) and is witness to the people's that witnessed the ressurrection.  it was such an awesome occurance that even many roman's were converted at Christ's death and ressurrection (mark 15:39).  for one thing, the sun was darkened (luke 23:45-47), the veil of the temple ripped in two, and there was a great earthquake (also, many saints were ressurrected as mentioned in matthew 27:52).  when God says 'great' earthquake - he means GREAT.  geological record should be able to prove this.  and, yet even without my looking that one up - we have a COMPLETE changing of the calendar.  THIS COULD NOT HAPPEN WITHOUT THE ROMAN's, WHO WERE IN CHARGE AT THE TIME OF CHRIST's DEATH AND RESSURRECTION - CHANGING THE CALENDAR!!!  the jews had no control of calendrical things except for their own portion that they kept religiously.  it had no effect over the romans.  now, AFTER Christ, the ENTIRE WORLD was affected by an event and it changed the calendar.  it was as if the world was freed from chains that had been around it (with sacrifice and OT statutes replaced with the 'weightier matters' of the law - to love God and to love your brother/sister as yourself - and to believe in God - that He will soon judge the world and that we should make ourselves 'ready' for Christ's second coming).   there are many parables of Christ that mention a 'master' going to a far country and then returning to see what his 'servants' are doing.  the wasteful ones will not have brought him a return on his investment (their lives) and will be doing wasteful things at his return.  we, on the other hand, have to still have faith.  otherwise, he will return to an earth with no faith (and just foolishness of our own ideas and none of His).

www.josephus-1.com  tells more about josephus and other proofs of Christ's example of living and dying.  but, i say the calendar and the bible are still valid even if we had no other proof (besides the entire creation and the care that God shows from day to day to the smallest elements of his creation).  how is it that every spring, the earth regenerates EVERYTHING from leaves on the trees to births of animals everywhere.  this is miraculous that it has occurred even once.  this should be proof enough for God.  just look at one leaf - (not even mentioning how many on one single tree) - and yet God is more concerned about US - to even know EVERY HAIR ON OUR HEADS.  if He is so concerned about us - we should return the favor and give Him some benefit of the doubt.

[pianistimo]

the book of micah (micah 5:2) was written before Christ, and predicted not only his birth, but that he would come from 'bethlehem.'  bethlehem is still celebrated and venerated as the birthplace of Christ today.  i've actually been there - and it is an awesome experience to actually be in a place when you've only previously read about it.  every place in the bible is a REAL place on the earth.  also, isaiah 9 mentions 'He shall make it glorious, by the way of the sea, on the other side of jordan, galilee of the gentiles (the people who walk in darkness will see a great light).'

but, more than bethlehem, jerusalem will be the most miraculous place again because bible prophecy is either true or false (i believe true) and that Christ will return to the mount of olives at a time when the nations are at war.  right now, we have nations beginning to be at war.  don't worry or be dismayed when you see it all happening - because we were told ahead of time that it WOULD happen.  just make yourself ready to see your Saviour.  if he returns now - you'll be ready.  if He returns 100 years from now - you'll have lived the best life you could.  personally, i believe he's already given us the extra time to repent and we are now living in days of judgement.  the angels fortold to unloose this and that in revelations have been let loose, imo.  we've already seen the 'burning' of practically 1/3 of the earth.  and, plagues, etc. are definately on the rise as well as famine and pestilence (and wild beasts).  the bible mentions these as being a precursor to war.  which is the final 'doings' but will turn supernatural when Christ returns to wage war.  this time HE will be KING of ALL THE KINGS and no weapons will be able to be used against Him.

isaiah also predicted Christ's chastening and scourging and piercing (his side was pierced by a roman soldier).  isa. 53.  the actual sword or replica of it is among many things (besides pieces of cross, shroud, cup that Christ drank from) considered relics by many churches.  there must be a historicity to all this (just as musicians are memorialized and their memorabilia kept) for the relics to be important (for historians and scholars to look at).  whether they are the actual ones or replicas, i don't know.  a recent show about the shroud of turin was interesting because it seemed they couldn't explain the image on the shroud (it was a sort of x-ray of the thorns, face, piercings, everything).  at the time of the ressurrection an awesome change from physical to spiritual was accomplished by whatever means God ressurrected His own Son.  i don't think we can scientifically explain this - just as we can't explain what happens to us after death without the bible or God telling us.

what i find amazing is that the book of isaiah (written before Christ) mentions also many places we hear in the news today - and exactly what will happen to them at the end times.  ramaliah is even mentioned.  read isaiah 13 and you'll see babylon (iraq) is prophecied to be invaded.  and verse 4 'a sound of the uproar of kingdoms, of nations gathered together!  the Lord of Hosts is mustering the army for batlle.  they are coming from a far country, from the farthest horizons, the Lord and His instruments of indignation, to destroy the whole land.  Wail, for the day of the Lord is near!  it will come as destruction from the Almighty, therefore all hands will fall limp, and every man's heart will melt.  and they will be terrified, pains and anguish will take hold of them; they will writhe like a woman in labor...the sun will be dark when it rises, and the moon will not shed it's light.  thus I will punish the world for its evil, and the wicked for their iniquity;  i will put an end to the arrogance of the proud...therefore I will make the heavens tremble, and the earth will be shaken from it's place. 

so just like at the ressurrection, we have another earthquake of very great proportions and then the return of Christ a that very moment.  isaiah 17 talks about 'damascus' - being removed from being a city.  that has already happenned (so much warfare there already).  we are witnessing everything either happening or shortly to happen exactly as it was foretold.

[pianistimo]

something even scarier than damascus being destroyed (isaiah 17:1) is that in verse 3 it says 'the fortified city will disappear from ephraim.'  if ephraim and manassah (sons of jacob) were foretold to be 'nations' (since the promise to abraham is that he would be the father of many nations) and england and the usa are now nations that represent the greatest bounteous blessing ever given to any nations (in terms of past wealth, productive farmland, etc) and they were instrumental in 'governing' the holy land in 1947 and setting up the system that is there today (with the usa) - then at the time that all this falls apart - their own countries are weakened and destroyed as well.

prophecy doesn't seem to leave any nation out.  wherever it says 'sons of jacob' it is referring to the 'saxons' or 'issac's sons.'  at least that's what i understand.  there's a time of 'jacob's trouble' that is said to be before the return of Christ.  the 'trouble' is not always from without but also within.  just as rome fell from within- we have many troubles of our own doing.  now we (the usa) are in debt way over our heads.  our blessings are now borrowings.  we cannot continue without a major shift in how we rank compared to the nations.  our trade is not balanced anymore and we hire out to countries who work for less than what we can pay our own workers.  basically we have a lost a major war financially already.  without God, we will be reduced to nothing.

there is encouragement in isaiah 41:10 though because if we trust in God (despite our blessings being taken away) he says 'do not fear, for I am with you; do not anxiously look about you, for I am your God (covenant from the beginning with abraham to obey and listen to God).  i will strengthen you, surely I will help you, surely i will uphold you with My righteous right hand.  behold, all those who are angered at you will be shamed and dishonored; those who contend with you will be as nothing, and will perish.  you will seek those who quarrel with you, but will not find them, those who war with you will be as nothing and nonexistent...you will glory in the Holy One of Israel.  so we may take boldness in the fact that all the nations that uphold God (that freely distribute the bible and the Word of God) are sons of Jacob - and they will be redeemed at the time of the end.  those of nations who do not now know or believe in God can still be grafted in, too, because even Egypt is spoken of in isaiah as knowing God and being redeemed, too.  He is redeeming the ENTIRE world for Himself (first through Jacob and now in the last days through HIMSELF).

[pianistimo]

one last dispute, the one over the gospels not being written for over 100 years after the fact - there is scholarship that proves that this may not be true.  they want to say myth replaced fact, when myth was attempted to replace it but the 'saints' or disciples jealously guarded the Word and wrote it down for later generations as carefully as they could.  this site explains (1/2 way down page) that paul's writings show the approximate time that the Christian Way or Sect was beginning to 'take off.  the early church called itself 'The Way.'  explaining the SAME things each time.  Christ's life, death, and ressurrection - and the gospel of the kingdom of God (that he would return). 
NOTHING about the gospel is changed in any of the gospels!  God wouldn't allow it if He says 'every scripture is written for knowledge, repoof, and instruction in righteousness...'

www.allaboutreligion.org/christian-faith.htm

we do know that the romans tried to extinguish any element of this true faith and true gospel.  almost all the disciples were martyred.  maybe what should be said is that for 100 years, the romans TRIED to get rid of the gospels, but they didn't succeed.

[cfortunato]

"Who does this poll say that I am?"

[pianowelsh]

If your trying to undermine the authority of scripture (the Bible) you'll have a hard time.  It is the most reliable sacred text in existence. Even scholars will admit that

[timothy42b]

If your trying to undermine the authority of scripture (the Bible) you'll have a hard time.  It is the most reliable sacred text in existence. Even scholars will admit that

I dunno if you can really make that statement. 

Clearly there are older and less reliable scriptures - there are after all a lot of religions in the world, and some of them predate Judaism and Christianity.

But we know the Bible is a collection of copies of copies of works written in the first and second centuries.  We have none of the originals, some of the important books have been lost (Q document?) and other books used by some believers were discarded and didn't make it into the canon.  I think we have the same OT Jesus would have used, or close to it, but the NT has some possible problems.

Now contrast that to the Quran, Koran, or whatever the PC spelling is.  Don't we have the whole thing, intact, as it was written?  It's more recent, too, 540 AD or so. 

And what about the Book of Mormon, and the Pearl of Great Price?  1840 or so?  and I think we have originals?  Though the gold sheets the angel wrote on are lost. 

So can we really say the Bible is more reliable than those two?  Maybe we need to define reliable. 

[pianowelsh]

I didnt say oldest book i said most reliable. The bible although written by 40 authors at different time periods in different places and by people of all social backgrounds has one very clear and united message and all points to Chirst without having to manipulate anything.  Scholars will agree on that much that the central focus of the book is Christ (either coming, here or coming back). This is because it is a God breathed book He inspired these different authors to write in a way which was consistent with him and his character (in essence he was working in them).  Mohammed when He wrote the Qu'ran was illiterate and muslims claim this as being the great miracle. However he claims to have a direct revelation from God but in fact didnt see God and could not provide a guarentee that he would see God He recieved the message from an angel of light who spoke to him.  This is very different from God speaking to someone.  In scripture we are told if anyone preaches another gospel to you even an angel than the one recorded for you in scripture may they be anathema. That is strong. Other places in scripture it say hold tight to the gospel and hide the word in your heart etc etc... It supports itself and it advocates itself unreservedly as a trustworthy source.  The biggest thing is the way you look at the authors of the bible and you see a Christ-likeness in their characters.  They are not perfect as Christ is but you can clearly see a trend in thier writing that they are becoming more and more like him.  I dont believe the same can truely be said of Mohammed??! Christianity is centered around a personal God and his son Jesus Christ. It is entirely relationally based in a way other religions are not and it is not based on how good we are or correct we are or how much we give or what we sacrifice for God NO! totally the opposite its about Jesus coming to us and taking all our deserved punishment on the cross and saying follow me and walk in newness of life.  Jesus didnt stay dead. He rose in power and scripture tells us the same power that rose Jesus fromt eh dead is at work in those who believe on his name. Scanning my knowledge of world religions I think thats quite a unique point. Also there is a 100% guarentee of eternal life, we know that jesus has even gone to prepare a place for us (us being christians in relationship with him) and because jesus has justified us by his blood and said this one is mine noone can separate us or put up an accusation against us getting in because the price has been paid in full. Now how awesome is that I know im going to heaven and i know that noone one earth and no evil power or principality can ever say to God hey this one shouldnt get in look what he did!! because Christ has cancelled the debt of my sin and has paid for it.  its like a bank creditor coming to reposses your car.  Now Christ has come in and paid the whole lot of in fact hes even topped up your account too. Then the balifs come to the door and say weve come to take your car.. Jesus says no you havent the price has been paid... the balifs say but weve been told we have to take your car you had a debt for this much £££ we need to take you car! and jesus yet again says No I paid it all off on his behalf there is no debt outstanding you cannot take the car its paid for.  Now any illustration is imperfect but do you see that in Christ there is an absolute assurance which cannot be compared.  It isnt related to how well we do or even how much we believe even faith is a gift from God and he gives liberally to all who ask in truth.  Jesus is interested in relationships and he stands at peoples doors knocking.  there is no registration fee no maintainance fee no hidden extras and every single person in the world needs what he gives and thats  forgiveness from God.  He challenges each one today - will you put your trust in me? and thats one individually you have to respond to today while hes at the door so to speak. One day it will be too late, scripture says today is the day of salvation. He says to call upon him while he is near.  It is a simple act of believing him and recieving Gods pardon and reconcilliation with him through Jesus his son.  Jesus is AWESOM£

[prometheus]

I thought Pianowelsh was being sarcastic by adding 'sacred'.

[pianowelsh]

why?      I want a round of applause for the shortest theological response ive ever made (here anyway!)

[timothy42b]

I didnt say oldest book i said most reliable. 

You didn't define reliable so I made a guess.

Umm, it would be okay to use paragraphs.  It would make it easier on me. 

My guess was that you meant reliable in the sense of remaining close to the original, and I pointed out there are other sacred texts that have claims to that as well.  But it seems that's not what you meant, so my post is not relevant.  Ignore it.

I'll make another guess and post again.

There are some apparent contradictions in the old and new testaments.  Most are really trivial and nitpicky, though they exist.  However there are a couple that a Christian should know and resolve.

The three most significant events in Christianity are the birth, the crucifixion, and the resurrection, I think we can agree on that.  If there is anything we need to be sure it is reliable, it is the account of those events. 

What were Jesus's last words on the cross?  Careful, now, there are three versions, and they lead to very different theological interpretations.  They speak directly to the means of our salvation. 

[prometheus]

Because sacred text aren't reliable by definition? Just look at history. The three theisims have always opposed the truth based on their sacred text. This is an objective fact.

[johnny-boy]

"I didnt say oldest book i said most reliable. The bible although written by 40 authors at different time periods in different places and by people of all social backgrounds has one very clear and united message and all points to Chirst without having to manipulate anything"-Pianowelsh

The New Testament focused on Christ, the Savior -  which isn't accepted as the word of God by many religious scholars.

Best, John

[pianistimo]

"It is finished."  (his work/gospel/redeeming of the world).  those are the last three recorded in the gospel of John.  in another language it might be understood "Father, into Your hands I commit My Spirit."  Or, it could be that He said, it is finished and sort of whispered to himself the commending of His spirit.  In any case, he was ressurrected, so those weren't his very last words!  but, the last words after the crux were honest enough to make the centurion who saw what had happened (how He died) said "Certainly, this man was innocent."

after He was ressurrected He said many more things - and also to His disciples "Follow Me."  There are many songs, etc., that realize the gospel message of giving up our lives for Christ.  We are told if we lose brothers, sisters, mothers, etc. for the gospel - we will recieve many times over in the kingdom (grace and mercy hopefully for our personal families, too).  I think of the fellow in afghanistan? that is on trial for converting to Christianity.  prayers for his life and choice.

[timothy42b]

"It is finished."  (his work/gospel/redeeming of the world).  those are the last three recorded in the gospel of John.  in another language it might be understood "Father, into Your hands I commit My Spirit." 

Very selective quoting. 

Yes, John has him say, "It is finished."  If you've read much of the gospels at all (and I'm beginning to suspect you haven't) you realize John's theology consistently differs radically from the other three.  For John the resurrection was not necessary, it really was finished at crucifixion, as an expiatory sacrifice which fulfilled the law.  Jesus did not triumph over the law for John, and grace doesn't mean the same.  This primitive understanding was outgrown by the early church in the first couple of centuries.

Funny you should mention "Into your hands I commend my spirit."  I'm sure you recognize those words as part of Psalm 22, the familiar Jewish evening prayer.  Well, you should.  No, John does NOT have Jesus say these words, though Mark does.  (I think it's Mark, this is from memory.)  That's  a peaceful calm resigned approach to meeting death, is it not?  Very different from the other two gospels, who have Him say "My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"  What a radically different image - this is a suffering and despairing Jesus, abandoned by the Father, facing death not calmly but in extremis.  And of course, it's another quote, this time from Psalm 31.  As I'm sure you know.  Theologically only the last choice fits at all with the resurrection. 

Maybe it means the same in another language?  Maybe he whispered it?  Maybe he said all three?  Maybe there was an echo?  Come on, none of that works.  There are three distinctly different versions of the most important event in all of Christianity.  They cannot be reconciled, and they are nontrivial.  This is not like how many donkeys he road into Jerusalem or whether a rabbit chews cud.  My view is He actually said the "forsaken" one. 

[cfortunato]

Very selective quoting. 

Yes, John has him say, "It is finished."  If you've read much of the gospels at all (and I'm beginning to suspect you haven't) you realize John's theology consistently differs radically from the other three.  For John the resurrection was not necessary, it really was finished at crucifixion, as an expiatory sacrifice which fulfilled the law.  Jesus did not triumph over the law for John, and grace doesn't mean the same.  This primitive understanding was outgrown by the early church in the first couple of centuries.

Funny you should mention "Into your hands I commend my spirit."  I'm sure you recognize those words as part of Psalm 22, the familiar Jewish evening prayer.  Well, you should.  No, John does NOT have Jesus say these words, though Mark does.  (I think it's Mark, this is from memory.)  That's  a peaceful calm resigned approach to meeting death, is it not?  Very different from the other two gospels, who have Him say "My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"  What a radically different image - this is a suffering and despairing Jesus, abandoned by the Father, facing death not calmly but in extremis.  And of course, it's another quote, this time from Psalm 31.  As I'm sure you know.  Theologically only the last choice fits at all with the resurrection. 

Maybe it means the same in another language?  Maybe he whispered it?  Maybe he said all three?  Maybe there was an echo?  Come on, none of that works.  There are three distinctly different versions of the most important event in all of Christianity.  They cannot be reconciled, and they are nontrivial.  This is not like how many donkeys he road into Jerusalem or whether a rabbit chews cud.  My view is He actually said the "forsaken" one. 

In the first place, you mixed them up.  "My God, My God why have you forsaken me" is from Psalm 22, and "Into your hands I commend my spirit" is from Psalm 31.

In the second place, you claim that John's theology "differs radically from the other three."  (I assume you mean Christology, since they seem to have pretty much the same take on God.)  Well... maybe.  You really can't say that, either: it's a subjective judgment.   People have been discussing and debating what, exactly, that Christology IS for 2,000 years, and don't seem any closer to a consensus.   There is different feel to John, but if that different feel means you are looking at a different Jesus, or simply an expansion on the SAME one is a pure judgement call.  You tacitly assume that the difference are "either/or" rather than one being an addition or deeper understanding.  It's not like John is bereft of a "human" Jesus, nor like the others have no high Christology.  It's just a matter of emphasis.

Also ,keep in mind that John is the last Gospel written.  The writer of the Gospel of John almost certainly knew the other three Gospel, probably regarded them as valid since by that time most of the church did, and would have assumed that his readers ALSO knew them.    So perhaps, the differences are intentional, and intended to add to the already established story.  Perhaps it was intended to address specific things.

I think the literal level of the Bible is the least important, myself.  There are lots of history books, and they aren't read in church.  They don't read the Bible in church because it's a history - they read it because it is regarded as containing wisdom, spiritual truth, and things necessary for salvation.

But I really don't see the problem with the crucifixion accounts, ever regarded as completely literal.  The crucifixion lasted three hours, and every Gospel covers it in about two paragraphs.  If they all come from independent oral traditions, every single one of those traditions could be dead accurate, but recounting different specific events.

[pianistimo]

agreed with the above.  matthew and mark both mention that after Christ seemingly was abandoned (for the sins of the world God looked away for one brief moment - and that's all it took for Christ to feel so alone and abandoned as He fully relied on God the Father for his wisdom).  but, after this both gospels mention 'and Jesus cried out AGAIN with a loud voice (i believe John heard this cry as 'it is finished' since that was his moment of 'death'), and when he 'yielded up His spirit' (that is when John heard Him commend His spirit to God).  l

luke may be the most accurate gospel in the timeline of what happened when because in luke 23:46 - it concurs that the very last words of Christ before he died were "Father, into Your hands I commit my Spirit. and having said this, He breathed His last.'  it was a peaceful death - and amazing to the centurion (as several gospels concur) 'certainly this man was innocent.'

[pianistimo]

what i find the most interesting of the gospels is the account in luke of doubting thomas (since many of us doubt what we cannot see - until we are given 'eyes to see.')   the words after the ressurrection were 'peace be with you...reach here your finger, and see my hands, and put it into my side; and be not unbelieving, but believing.'

'because you have seen Me, have you believed?  Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.'

i take it that even if we are confused over the exact order of what was spoken when - the sacrifice of Christ was 'finished' and 'begun' at the same moment the veil was ripped completely (allowing anyone who would enter - and perhaps that was the violent entrance that Christ spoke of in his preaching - that His sacrifice covers the most heinous of sins and noone is exempt from his mercy).  only doubt can keep us from entering.

if the gospel was preached to the jews first and also the gentiles - that would mean that the original gospels had many  jewish aspects of religious ceremony and beliefs.  but, the gentiles were 'grafted in.'  Christ himself was born jewish - and yet, ressurrected a spiritual body.  there is no favoritism with race since He created all from the same seed.  just as He is the 'firstfuits' of the ressurrection (as adam was the first man).

i don't think God thinks in terms of 'who is right.'  just 'who is forgiven.'  if we admit we have sins and ask for forgiveness - it is better than saying 'i'm better than you because i'm this race or that race - or this religion or that religion.'  we are all God's.  maybe all of us are somewhat misled in our full understanding of the 'freedom' of the gospel.  it is freedom to do well to our neighbors (and perhaps if they do not understand or follow 'the law' - they do better with the intent - or spirit of the law - by loving neighbor - as the samaritan did).  the gentiles being grafted in are supposed to make the jews more zealous for doing right (as they had the gospel first).

[timothy42b]

agreed with the above.  matthew and mark both mention that after Christ seemingly was abandoned

"seemingly abandoned?"

Where do you get "seemingly?"  Now you are adding to scripture based on your own prejudices.  Jesus says clearly that he WAS abandoned, and I for one would not dare to claim he was lying or mistaken. 

[pianistimo]

are you really abandoned if your parents look away for a moment (when you're a child) and then are with you for your entire life?  it's about discipline and that Christ took our sins (and God wouldn't look at sin and say 'oh yeah, this looks good.')  He was proving a point - but the point wasn't that He abandoned Christ forever or even to the grave.  He is with us, similarly.  'I will be with you to the end...'  also, his peace is with us forever.

[cfortunato]

"seemingly abandoned?"

Where do you get "seemingly?"  Now you are adding to scripture based on your own prejudices.  Jesus says clearly that he WAS abandoned, and I for one would not dare to claim he was lying or mistaken. 

Are you referring to Psalm 22?  If so, IS that what he is saying, or is he quoting a Psalm?  A Psalm which ends with the promise of vindication for the "forsaken."  After all, he had probably been reciting that Psalm (as well as the other 149) his whole life.

What I'm saying is that, in times of great trouble, I may quote Psalm 22.  It doesn't mean I thiknl God has actually forsaken me.

[pianistimo]

i take psalm 22 as a prophecy of Christ's own words  (especially since psalm 22:14 refers i think to the crux - 'i am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it is melted within me.  my strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue cleaves to my jaws; and Thou dost lay me in the dust of death.'

right after psalm 22 comes psalm 23 where we pray 'though i walk through the valley of death, i will fear no evil...'  so we have escaped the death of sin by Christ coming before us.  that's how i see it.  even though we may feel abandoned at times, He's already given us much hope that if we pray and ask for help - we will receive it because 'Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me.'  i take this to mean that small disciplines (smaller pains we have) and the guidance that He gives are only to keep us in His fold and not to discourage us.  we would be much more discouraged if He never 'chastened' us  - and let us go through life  without bumps and scrapes. 

there are many other places that say 'i will never forsake you...'  so we know that whatever our deep dark places - that he can reach them (as jonah in the belly of the whale - etc) another passage i can remember is from matthew 28:20, 'teaching them to observe all that i commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.' (ages)

[contrapunctus]

Many of you are basing your entire arguments on quotes from the Bible. You cannot really do this since the English Bible is a translation. I doubt any of you have read the original greek and hebrew texts.