There were two Jesus figures in history, the first was John the Baptist. The name Jesus was not a birth name but a title given to John after his death by witnesses that claimed he had been raised from the dead. There is no reference to John before the Gospels and Acts were written. Paul never mentions the Baptist. Leonardo da Vinci comfirms this fact buy Painting John with one figure raised and Jesus with two fingers raised. The Catholic Church grew out of the Cephas faction present in Corinth during Paul's ministry. Our four Gospels are directly descended from the four divisions in the church at Corinth. Mark is the tradtion that followed Paul, Matthew is from the Cephas faction, John is from Apollos, and Luke/Acts comes from the Christ or Circumcision Party headed by James. Four factions led to four Gospels. The Jesus slapped in the face by the servant of the Hight Priest was Paul, The Jesus that called Peter Cephas (John 1:42) was Paul. The Jesus that reprimanded Peter for being concerned for the things of Men and not of God was Paul.
-
Jesus was a title applied to two different people.Voted for by rick2889.
There is no mention of John in any of the New Testament material outside of the Gospels and Acts.
Luke says that many wondered if John were the Christ.
Phillipians says that Jesus was given that name after his death and resurrection:
NIV Philippians 2:4 Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. 5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- even death on a cross! 9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Only Matthew and Luke have miraculous birth stories and genealogies, a practiced condemned by Paul.
1 Timothy 1:3-4 command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer 4 nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work-- which is by faith.
Titus 3:9 9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.
All four Gospels indicate that John was not the Christ, Yet there is no hint of controversy in any of the N.T. Literature outside of the Gospels and Acts. Why did the Gospel writers feel it was necessary to say that John was not the Christ? After the destruction of Jerusalem the people of the Way and Christians realized that John's prophesy that God would overthrow the Roman occupation had not come to pass. At this point they reassigned the meaning of John's ministry to that of the forunner. And emphasized that John prophesied saying a stronger would come after him.
Before the destruction of Jerusalem who believed John was the Christ?
The answer to this question is that everyone thought John was the Christ until the failed revolt. He is mentioned on almost every page of the material outside of the Gospels and Acts. He is the one being called Jesus, and Christ. When Paul wrote the following he was talking about a resurrected John the Baptist.
Romans 6:4 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
The reason John is not mentioned by name by Paul is because it was considered inappropriate:
2 Corinthians 5:16 16 So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer.
There was another prophet voice that warned against resisting the power of Rome. The apostle to the Gentiles told believers that the Powers that Be were ordained of God and to resist them would be to resist God. He took the movement from Palestine to the entire Mediterranean World.
-
NoVoted for by THE-fortunecookie.
Whether or not there were to title to locate Jesus, there is one majorly one. Jesus, is the mesiach. The peace keeper, holy blood and pure in righteousness. Yes Paul the apositle could have been titled Jesus as later he one of his 12 deciples, but technicly speaking who do we all call the messiah today? And who died for everyones sins? Jesus Christ. It depends, do you worship Paul or Gods Son? So in the past the church did something, made everyone believe the actual Son, so they tried to erase all aspects of the other man named Jesus or titled Christ. So here we are, discussing which one is right, which one do you belive to be right?
Augusta
-
stop!Voted for by jackgillespie.
I don't know how but somehow the church has goten people to believe that there was a single person who was executed simply for the fact that he was a christian and no other reason. That is dumb. here is why he was executed. In the days of early christianity, christianity was a radical cult that opperated in secrecy and was attempting to wrest power from the hands of Rome. The story of "Jesus" comes difectly from these facts. Jesus was the leader of a group of people who eventualy developed the various branches of Judeo-Christian religion. He was executed for naming himself as the king of the Jews. The "mysterious" INRI that you see is the latin initials which translate to Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews. A sign with this sentence would have actualy appeared above his crucifix. He was executed because he claimed that he was king and the emporer of Rome was not.He was given tatered purple robes(purple being the color worn soley by royalty in those days) and given a crown of thorns. These were all symbolic. They meant that the emporer was king and if anyone wanted to contest that the would get only tatered rags and a crown that cuts them. It was an act of spite for his treason against the emporer. HUNDREDS of people over more than a century were executed in the same way for the same acts. That is why the tale is remembered and his burial spot is not, because there was no one person, Jesus was just the name of one person who was executed in this manner. Ask questions don't just go along for the ride someone wants to take you on.
Adding your reply:
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
June 4, 2006
Edit | Reply
Reference Material
Is there a tradition from which this line of reasoning comes? What historical record supports this argument? In other words if one is to make such claims it needs to be backed up by some type of corroborating evidence. For example, the statement "The Jesus that called Peter Cephas (John 1:42) was Paul. The Jesus that reprimanded Peter for being concerned for the things of Men and not of God was Paul." implies access to some information from somewhere that backs it up. In order to have a reasoned discussion about those ideas, they have to have a source, other than your head. Otherwise, I'd say stick to more traditional interpretations of the Bible and of Jesus as single individual, the God-Man, and that he was distinct from Paul and John the Baptist.June 14, 2006
Edit | Reply
Jesus at birth
I am not sure I agree with the assertion that 'Jesus is not a birth' name. It was actually a very popular birth name (and still is in countries like Brasil) as it is simply the Greek version of the Hebrew name 'Joshua', both meaning 'Saviour'. It is the 'Christ' part which is not a birth name, but a title, hence Jesus is asked at his trial "are you the Christ . . ." What documentary evidence is there that the name Jesus was ascribed to any historical figure as a title? It was actually the angel who told Joseph to name Jesus 'Jesus' ' . . .because he will save his people from their sins.'Please register or login to comment! It's totally free