Jesus Christ, what's the real story?

[cavalier]

This is in reply to a few posts on the "Barabbas" thread:

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

There may have been an actual human who is the basis for the Jesus story, or it could be a composite character, but the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, as depicted in the gospels, is, if not completely mythological, the very next closest thing.

Originally Posted by taijasi

I still maintain that the true `Jesus' (Yeshua) upon whom the Christian story is centered (the `Christed' chrestos) ... lived from ~105BC to ~72BC.

These are entirely new ideas for me and they have me intrigued. I have previously always been told that it was very well documented historical fact that about 2000 years ago there was a guy called Jesus who went around teaching and healing the sick. Before now I had no idea that anyone seriously called this into question.

So then, how factual is the Biblical account of Jesus?

I hope that people, from both sides of the argument, will explain their views.

Thanks

[Jeannot]

JESUS


My basic position is that "Jesus" – or someone very like him – existed. But his name was not Jesus Christ. This name came later after a lot of politicization. His name was Joshua (or Yeshua) Bar Yusif (Joshua, son of Joseph).

I think that those who say that the truth is in the gospels, AND those who say that the gospels are highly mythologized, are both right. The truth is there (I feel), but buried under a lot of subsequent BS.

One thing we have to remember is that the gospels were written after the letters of Paul, and therefore show Pauline influence. For example, the institution of "the Eucharist" is taken from 1 Cor 11:23-26. And it was Paul who apparently gave Joshua the title of Christ.

The birth narratives in Luke and Matthew disagree with each other, and both seem to be pure mythology, made up after the fact to make Joshua's birth seems as miraculous as those of Pagan divinities. If his birth was so notable, it would probably have been recorded in Mark, almost certainly the first gospel written. But Mark begins his account of Joshua with his baptism by John.

In addition, I have heard that many scholars, including some in the RC Church, are willing to accept the idea that Joshua was born in Nazareth, not Bethlehem. Bethlehem was chosen by Matt and Luke for the same reason that the lineage back to David is given — in order to claim that Joshua was in the kingly line.

In Luke, Augustus orders an Empire-wide tax. Then it says that Joseph had to go to his own city. Why, is not clear. He was living in Galilee (presumably Nazareth), so why did he have to go elsewhere to be taxed? Suppose everyone had to go to his hometown to be taxed throughout the empire, can you imagine the confusion this would cause?

And Matt invents a trip to Egypt, apparently just so he can work in the phrase, "Out of Egypt have I called my son." His son Israel, that is.

In addition to Paul, Mark (and later Luke and Matt) had the hypothetical "Q" document as a source. "Q" is not extant, but is the result of a convergence of probabilities. In any case, Mark, writing about 70, had some source. Apparently he took a list of the sayings of Joshua (possibly even his own notes) and strung them together with some accounts of his doings.

Joshua was a Jew. He did not teach a radically new doctrine, but instead gave his own spin to the TaNaKh. As a Jew, he placed primary emphasis on the "Shema Yisrael": "Hear, O Israel... thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all they heart, etc." (taken from Deuteronomy), and "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself._ (taken from Leviticus). In addition, he was evidently celebrating a Passover meal at the Last Supper.

Beginning with Paul (orig. Saul), who was a Roman citizen, "Christianity" began to move away from Judaism and toward Rome. Rome was where the power was.

It seems likely to me that throughout the gospels, there is recorded some actual words of Joshua. But one has to dig for them. It is a shame that we don't have any pre-Marcan material on Joshua's life and words.

I apologize for the length of this.

[lunamoth]

Hi cavalier,

You may want to check out some of the books by Dominic Crosson and Marcus Borg, and also don't take everything you read by anyone as Gospel truth.

I don't have anything scholarly myself to add to this conversation but I will say that I don't agree with Jeannot that the Gospels were written to accomdate Paul. Perhaps some bits of the Gospels were added to tie in with Paul, I have no idea, but I think if anything the bulk of the Gospels were generated by the early Christian community without the influence of Paul, and Paul seemed to have only a slight knowledge of the specific stories of Jesus' teachings. Some people look at Paul and see such disparity with the Gospels that they think he was not really an admirer of Christ, but a usurper. That's not an opinion I share. I see harmony between the Gospels and Paul, although Paul's influence clearly was to take the light of Christianity out to the rest of the world.

There are layers of story to the Bible and Biblical scholarship attempts to tease these layers out, find out the sources for the passages, which could be attributed to Jesus himself, or at least be the earliest consensus beliefs of the Christians. I find all of this very interesting when I read about it, and while it informs my intellect and shapes my understanding of the origins of Christianity, at the end of the day I think that while the birth of Christianity is not historically clear, I accept that the first Christians were formulating a religion in response to a real experience of God among them. I don't think of the four Gospels as eye witness accounts by four different people who were there. I think of them as the product of the Holy Spirit interacting with the people, the community, well after the fact of Jesus walking the earth.

To me, the basic story of the Gospels is that there was a teacher and healer from Galilee 2000 years ago whose message resonated with the outcasts and marginalized members of society; those who for one reason or another had a problem with the main Jewish community. He healed them and He taught them a way that included them in the refuge found in the law, even if technicallly they could not follow the letter of the law. Simply, the way He taught them was the example of love.

After Jesus was crucified, I believe Something Happened. This is a matter of faith and really no amount of scholarship can prove or disprove the risen Christ. One decides to trust the experience conveyed by the Passion story, written not by four individuals but by community, with four, actually more, different spins, to convey the message to different peoples. Paul's writings show that he was not really in the bosom of the Disciples' community, the little snippets that show strong similarity to the Gospels and letters of others indicate that while there was oral tradition of the teachings of Jesus at the time, the full-blown Gospels were not written, or not widely distribued. (this is all from me, by memory of the various things I've read, so take it with a grain of salt as I said above).

Thus it is also a matter of faith that Paul was writing not from deep community knowledge, nor for his own nefarious reasons, but from a fresh experience of the risen Christ. And, agree with it or not, Paul's Christianity is the one that grew into the Christianity we have today. You can think of it as survival of the fittest, that perhaps there were a lot of different versions of Christianity but only one had all it took to 'make it' as a religion, or that it was the most agressive form and squashed all the others. Or you can trust that it simply is the form of Christianity that was meant to flourish. There's a lot of ugliness in the history of Christianity, as in any human institution, but God can take our mistakes and even our sin and turn them to His purpose, and create something true and beautiful.

I'm not sure I could have been a Christian in certain places or times in history, but the Christ I know today is Someone I can trust.

Good luck in your search for understanding,
luna

[Jeannot]

Hi, Luna,

You make some good points, most of which I agree with. But I didn't say that the gospels "were writen to accomodate Paul." What I said was they showed Pauline influence, which you say yourself. So why construct a disagreement where there is none?

What did Paul mean by "the gospel"? Where did he get it? He says he got it independent of the apostles. Was it something written--maybe something like "Q"? We don't know.

I agree with you that much, probably most, of the gospels we have are independent of Paul. Here's another take on the question:

JESUS AND HIS VOCATION

Mark presents a Jesus who realizes his vocation at the time of his baptism by John. The skies are split open, and Jesus hears a voice, "You are my beloved son, in whom I delight." (There may be an echo here of Psalm 2:7, "You are my son; this day I have begotten you.") Mark has no interest in what went before.

Paul, on the other hand, seems to think that it was not until the Resurrection that Jesus became the Christ, the son of God. This may explain Paul's lack of interest in Jesus' earthly ministry.

But to return to Mark. After John is arrested, Jesus continues his ministry, proclaiming the good news, "The time is ripe. The kingdom of God is close by. Change your hearts and believe the good news."

After recruiting Simon, Andrew, James and John, Jesus preaches in the synagogue at Capernaum. He teaches "like one who has authority, not like the scribes." The scribes, IOW, teach from texts. Jesus preaches from his own knowledge of God.

In Luke 4, Jesus, "filled with the power of the Spirit," preaches at Nazareth. He proclaims his vocation as a prophet by reading the scroll of Isaiah: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free."

That's all he says from the bema (pulpit), but "the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him" after he sits down. Apparently conscious of this, he turns to them and adds, "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing." IOW, Jesus is presenting himself as an anointed prophet.

The congregation is amazed, and says (Matt 13:54-56), "Where did this man get this wisdom and these deeds of power? Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Where did this man get all this?"

And then the crowd "takes offense" at him (in Matt). It seems that they cannot credit the guy they knew as the kid next door as a prophet, further indication that something special happened to him at the time of his baptism. Because, obviously, his neighbors didn't notice anything special about him when he was growing up. And his family thinks he has gone crazy (Mark 3:22), and the scribes, etc., this he is possessed. Apparently, there was something strange about him.

Here, we could offer a naturalistic explanation for what happened. It could be that Jesus left Nazareth (he seems to have been away awhile) to study with Hillel. When he returns, he is able to read (about 97% of the population could not) and to interpret scripture. Of course, this is speculation (but so is much of scripture). Another possibility is that he was a disciple of John.

In Mark 6, the unbelief of his neighbors renders him almost powerless: "And he could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them. And he was amazed at their unbelief." Which would seem to indicate that he is a faith healer.

If the passage about quoting Isaiah in the synagogue is authentic, then Jesus sees himself as a prophet. Also, in Matt 21:11, as Jesus enters Jerusalem, the crowds say, "This is the prophet Jesus from Nazareth in Galilee."

At the same time, the crowds also shout, "Hosanna to the Son of David!" Maybe they also see Jesus as a Messiah. But Messiah really means a king, an anointed one. Then too in Matt 22:41-45, Jesus' question to the Pharisees implies that the Messiah will not be David's son. Is it possible that Jesus sees himself as Messiah, but knows he is not David's descendant – despite what is said in the later concocted birth narratives of Luke and Matt?

Jesus is presented in the gospels as having both a "this world" aspect and an "other world" aspect. The Church reacted to this by constructing the dogma of the "hypostatic union," that Jesus is 100% human at the same time as he is 100% God. This petrifies what Jesus represents.

Another noteworthy thing is that the Romans regard him as King of the Jews, and execute him as such.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Jeannot

JESUS


My basic position is that "Jesus" – or someone very like him – existed. But his name was not Jesus Christ. This name came later after a lot of politicization. His name was Joshua (or Yeshua) Bar Yusif (Joshua, son of Joseph).

I think that those who say that the truth is in the gospels, AND those who say that the gospels are highly mythologized, are both right. The truth is there (I feel), but buried under a lot of subsequent BS.

One thing we have to remember is that the gospels were written after the letters of Paul, and therefore show Pauline influence. For example, the institution of "the Eucharist" is taken from 1 Cor 11:23-26. And it was Paul who apparently gave Joshua the title of Christ.

The birth narratives in Luke and Matthew disagree with each other, and both seem to be pure mythology, made up after the fact to make Joshua's birth seems as miraculous as those of Pagan divinities. If his birth was so notable, it would probably have been recorded in Mark, almost certainly the first gospel written. But Mark begins his account of Joshua with his baptism by John.

In addition, I have heard that many scholars, including some in the RC Church, are willing to accept the idea that Joshua was born in Nazareth, not Bethlehem. Bethlehem was chosen by Matt and Luke for the same reason that the lineage back to David is given — in order to claim that Joshua was in the kingly line.

In Luke, Augustus orders an Empire-wide tax. Then it says that Joseph had to go to his own city. Why, is not clear. He was living in Galilee (presumably Nazareth), so why did he have to go elsewhere to be taxed? Suppose everyone had to go to his hometown to be taxed throughout the empire, can you imagine the confusion this would cause?

And Matt invents a trip to Egypt, apparently just so he can work in the phrase, "Out of Egypt have I called my son." His son Israel, that is.

In addition to Paul, Mark (and later Luke and Matt) had the hypothetical "Q" document as a source. "Q" is not extant, but is the result of a convergence of probabilities. In any case, Mark, writing about 70, had some source. Apparently he took a list of the sayings of Joshua (possibly even his own notes) and strung them together with some accounts of his doings.

Joshua was a Jew. He did not teach a radically new doctrine, but instead gave his own spin to the TaNaKh. As a Jew, he placed primary emphasis on the "Shema Yisrael": "Hear, O Israel... thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all they heart, etc." (taken from Deuteronomy), and "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself._ (taken from Leviticus). In addition, he was evidently celebrating a Passover meal at the Last Supper.

Beginning with Paul (orig. Saul), who was a Roman citizen, "Christianity" began to move away from Judaism and toward Rome. Rome was where the power was.

It seems likely to me that throughout the gospels, there is recorded some actual words of Joshua. But one has to dig for them. It is a shame that we don't have any pre-Marcan material on Joshua's life and words.

I apologize for the length of this.

Christ, is an Anglicanized term for the Greek "Cristos". Hence Jesus' last name isn't Christ, since "christ" in Greek means Messiah. Jesus, is an Anglo/Saxon term for Jesu, or "Eashoa" (in Aramaic). In fact, you can hear it spoken and see it spelled out Here .

Joshua was NOT a Jew. He existed pre-Judeac tribe. In otherwords, before the kingdoms of Israel and Judah split. He was Hebrew, as were all the people within Joshua's command. There was no Israel (land) in the beginning of Joshua's commision as the general of the army of the Hebrews.

v/r

Q

[AletheiaRivers]

Joshua was NOT a Jew. He existed pre-Judeac tribe. In otherwords, before the kingdoms of Israel and Judah split. He was Hebrew, as were all the people within Joshua's command. There was no Israel (land) in the beginning of Joshua's commision as the general of the army of the Hebrews.

Did we read the same post?





The Names Yeshua and Yehoshua
by Dr. James Price, professor of Hebrew

Yehoshua in the Septuagint

Two things indicate that Yehoshua (Joshua) is the proper Hebrew name for Jesus:

(1) In the Greek Translation of the OT known as the Septuagint (LXX), the name Joshua is rendered *Iasous* = Jesus.

(2) In the NT, Joshua is mentioned twice (Acts 7:45; Heb 4:8), and in both places the Greek NT spells the name *Iasous* = Jesus.

Thus the Greek *Iasous* is the equivalent of Hebrew *Yehoshua*

As far as the Talmud is concerned, it is evident that the old uncensored editions of the Talmud associated Jesus of Nazareth with the name Joshua.

http://www.direct.ca/trinity/yehoshua.html

[Jeannot]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Christ, is an Anglicanized term for the Greek "Cristos". Hence Jesus' last name isn't Christ, since "christ" in Greek means Messiah. Jesus, is an Anglo/Saxon term for Jesu, or "Eashoa" (in Aramaic). In fact, you can hear it spoken and see it spelled out Here .

Joshua was NOT a Jew. He existed pre-Judeac tribe. In otherwords, before the kingdoms of Israel and Judah split. He was Hebrew, as were all the people within Joshua's command. There was no Israel (land) in the beginning of Joshua's commision as the general of the army of the Hebrews.

v/r

Q

I would only add to what Aletheia said that the Greek is really Xristos (X = the Green letter chi). Xristos means "anointed," and was applied to the kings of Israel--and also to Cyrus the Persian king.

Yes, Jesus was what we call a Jew. I think you mean that he was not a Judean.

For even more pedantry, Jesus is our approximation of the Latin Iesus, which itself is an approximation of the Green Iesous, which is a transliteration of the Hebrew/Aramaic Yeshua/Yehoshua. (I've also seen Yeshu (which may be a diminutive or nickname).

[Quahom1]

Joshua, was not a Jew. I was specific.

He was a general of the Hebrew army. He lead the people to cause the walls of Jericho to fall. That is the "Joshua" I am speaking of.

v/r

Q

[Jeannot]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Joshua, was not a Jew. I was specific.

He was a general of the Hebrew army. He lead the people to cause the walls of Jericho to fall. That is the "Joshua" I am speaking of.

v/r

Q

Okay. But today we use Hebrew and Jew interchangeably.

[flowperson]

I have recommended elsewhere the work of the late Morton Smith, a Christian scholar and Professor of Religion at Columbia University. His masterpiece, Jesus the Magician, explores obscure materials not widely known in the larger community.

He asserts that the Book of Mark, acknowledged above as the oldest and first written of the synoptic gospels, was likely written by the individual who was the apostle Peter's secretary while he served as the first head of the Roman church. He believes that the evidence of his reseach points to the likelyhood that only about one third of the original Book of Mark survived and made it into the New Testament; and, that Mark was probably written in N. Africa after the secretary left Rome following Peter's humiliation and execution.

Smith posits that the other two thirds of Mark contained materials too secret and too revealing regarding the true nature of Jesus to be allowed to survive. Smith also believed that the only copies of the missing parts of Mark perished in the fire and destruction of the library at Alexandria by the Roman Armies under Aurelius in about 275 ad. This book by Smith isn't easy to find, but its contents are worth the effort.

flow....

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Jeannot

Okay. But today we use Hebrew and Jew interchangeably.

Not if you want an accurate picture of the past...

v/r

Q

[taijasi]

Ah, what's in a name! (with apologies to Bill Shaking-spear) ...

One of the sources to Whom I turn as a modern-day authority (and for very good reason, given his qualifications), is the Tibetan sage who was the author of the books by Alice Bailey, via dictation. This will seem slightly tangential to what some have said here, nor does the Tibetan provide all the answers ... but since there is discussion of names, consider:

The Tibetan Master provides some background for the Individual soul we call Jesus of Nazareth in his first book, Initiation Human and Solar. A brief description is being provided, in the section I quote, for the `Master Jesus.' Much is said about the present work, activity and influence of Master Jesus, scattered throughout the Tibetan's writings, as well as in several other books by the Tibetan's disciples, and in books authored by other disciples of the Masters of the Wisdom.

Naturally, all of this information is being reported in either a firsthand context - by those who know the Master J. - or in some cases by students who have the benefit of acquaintenances (fellow disciples) who themselves directly know the Master Jesus. This information is not speculation. It is not hearsay. It is not "channelled." And it is capable of verification, by those who wish to pursue it - for the right reasons, in the proper manner.

For example, one disciple (Eugene Cosgrove) not only gives us a physical description of Master J., quite similar to the one provided by his Teacher (the Tibetan Master), but he also tells us that Master J. "lives among His brethren in Asia Minor, close to Jebel Druze, where He is a familiar figure to the "Akhils"." Further, Cosgrove tells us that Master J. "speaks Arabic as His common tongue and is equally fluent in Coptic, Greek, Turkish, French and English." (from The Science of the Initiates) Being a polyglot is an almost universal characteristic of the Masters of the Wisdom (please do not say `Ascended Masters' - this is an unrelated and spurious teaching).

I provide all this as contrast, actually, because it is relevant to the Master Jesus now. I realize that it is off topic, but in & of itself it is interesting to consider. The information dates back to pre-WWII, and thus I cannot vouch for the present whereabouts of Master Jesus, but the important point is that this is information regarding the same Individual Soul Whom we are discussing during the period ~2000 years ago in Palestine. He WAS NOT AND IS NOT "The Christ." And this is not simply an esoteric tradition as explained by students of H.P. Blavatsky, Alice Bailey, Helena Roerich, Lucille Cedercrans, et al ... it is also a doctrine that can be supported by Gnostic Teachings, the knowledge of the Therapeutae, and various records preserved by the Greeks, Indian Brahmins, Tibetan Lamas, etc. Had not the great Alexandrian Library been burned to the ground and the vast majority of the scholarly works housed therein destroyed, we would KNOW the truth of the Gospel Story - and everything I have said so far would be much easier to consider, in the light of common knowledge.

Consider - that although there were skeptics 2000 years ago, and disbelievers then, just as today ... the great Law of Rebirth was most certainly taught by Christ Jesus (or Christed Jesus, as I prefer to say, in an effort to speak some grain of truth & accuracy). The Bible still preserves indication of this, in the account of the healing of the blind man, wherein the disciples obviously allude to the issue of the man's past karma in questioning their Rabbi. Also, the questioning (again, by the disciples) of Jesus' Christhood - in which He tells them that no, He is not Elijah, for Elijah has already come ... and they knew him not (for he was John theBaptist!). Yet, watch the wiggling of those who are apparently mortified that Christ taught these most basic of human Truths ... though what they fear, I do not know.

Yet again, consult the encounter of Jesus with Nicodemus, with references to Spiritual Rebirth - and while, certainly, this takes on many meanings and connotations, it seems evident that Jesus chastized Nicodemus for being ignorant of certain teachings, yet calling himself a learned master! Consider ....

I say all this, and then I would like to provide an excerpt of the Tibetan's Teachings on Master Jesus - with DIRECT reference and relevance to His role ~2000 years ago ... AND WHERE & WHO HE WAS even prior to that!!! Thus my allusion to Bill Shakespeare and "what's in a name?" I have always been fascinated by what I'm about to quote - ever since first seeing it some 15 years ago. And WHY should one consider the Tibetan Master's Teachings through Alice Bailey to be authentic and accurate? Why - besides the fact that His Service is a DIRECT Responsibility to and outreach from THE CHRIST, Whom ALL the Masters Serve? Why?

Because Biblically, the Tibetan Master was Benjamin - and thus is He known by some of His disciples, perhaps those of Jewish affliation. Also because we see him appear again as Gaspar, one of the three MAGI, of Whom so little is said in Christian teachings. Much more could be said, but on to the reference:

"He is well known in the Bible history, coming before us first as Joshua the Son of Nun, appearing again in the time of Ezra as Jeshua, taking the third initiation, as related in the book of Zechariah, as Joshua, and in the Gospel story he is known for two great sacrifices, that in which he handed over his body for the use of the Christ, and for the great renunciation which is the characteristic of the fourth initiation." (from Initiation Human and Solar)

I confess, that I have YET to understand if it's being said that Master J. was two or three former `Joshuas' prior to the Jesus of ~2100 years ago. Maybe someone can get to the bottom of it. But I would suggest that this is NOT the first time that a Great Soul has appeared to us with a similar name in each incarnation. There is a REASON for this ...

That DOVE, however, desending at the Baptism ... THAT is the Christ, THAT is another `Individual' (soul) altogether - and accomplished as is the Master Jesus (both then and now), His OWN Master, the "Teacher alike of Angels and of Men" ... The CHRIST ... is to the rest of the Masters, what the Masters are to us. Thus the Tibetan refers to these as the "Silver and the Golden thread of Christianity," which will one day be disentangled for all to see and understand (Jesus and The Christ, respectively).

That's all for now ... I was hurried ...

taijasi

[AletheiaRivers]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Joshua, was not a Jew. I was specific.

He was a general of the Hebrew army. He lead the people to cause the walls of Jericho to fall. That is the "Joshua" I am speaking of.

v/r

Q

But that's what threw me. Why did you bring up Joshua (of Jericho) when Jeannot was speaking of Joshua (Jesus)? Did I miss something?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by AletheiaRivers

But that's what threw me. Why did you bring up Joshua (of Jericho) when Jeannot was speaking of Joshua (Jesus)? Did I miss something?

No, maybe I did. When I hear "Joshua", I think of the soldier. When I hear Jesus, or "Eashoa", obviously I slip into new testament. I guess I screwed up (not the first time)

v/r

Q

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, all!

Q, I can see the easy mistake. I have long thought it curious that the OT Joshua was so often referred to as "Joshua bar Nun." Joshua, son of Nun. When nobody else so early in the Bible seemed to be so fixed to their paternal parent, the soldier Joshua was decidedly fixed to his father.

Yet, the man we know as Jesus could not have that name in his earthly walk. There was no "J" in the English alphabet prior to around 1555 + / -. In that much Jeannot is pretty accurate, and properly translated the name of Jesus would in modern English be Joshua. But this would indeed be Joshua son of Joseph of the NT, not Joshua the soldier of the OT. Two completely different Joshuas. And you are quite right, "Christ" means annointed or messiah, and is not of itself a proper name, but a title. I was taught Jesus' real name in Aramaic to be Yeshua.