Coleslaw

This topic has been covered extensively at the Jews for Judaism forum. Unfortunately, the
forums will be ending January 1, 2007, and these links won't work after that.

http://jewsforjudaism.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4681

http://jewsforjudaism.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1984

http://jewsforjudaism.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2269

http://jewsforjudaism.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5143

http://jewsforjudaism.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2291

jakejonesiv

If I may suggest an alternative.

Jake Jones IV

dzim77

I've explained my argument several times. The Lord of the Sabbath has authority to interpret the Sabbath Laws.

They were picking heads of grain as they walked through the fields. Jesus used the illustration of David eating the sacred bread to explain his interpretation that it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.


From this point on you discussed why you feel what the NT says about Jesus is not true or trustworthy.... This is fine, of course, but it does not show that the NT is inconsistent in it's view of Jesus as sinless. Rather, it reveals your basis for judging Jesus to be a sinner.

dzim77

I read through the 'Hebrews/Mythical Jesus' thread. I think it's too late to 'ressurect' this thread Perhaps you could address my questions here?


I was wondering why no one discussed Hebrews 12:2?

Here the author of Hebrews tells us that Jesus
1. endured the cross
2. endured opposition from sinful men

Regarding the mythical theory... would proponents suggest that Jesus died on the cross 'in a lower heavenly realm'?? Would they suggest that evil men opposed him in this 'lower heavenly realm'? Sounds like you really have to force this one to get that meaning.

Also, this verse clearly refers to a Jesus that endured the cross. (Joshua son of Nun did no such thing.) Are you suggesting that only some (a few) passages in Hebrews are taken from Joshua son of Nun?

lpetrich

I checked on the Jews for Judaism pages, and they mentioned a related page which is not likely to go away next year: Sinless Jesus? from "Messiah Truth: Counter-Missionary Education"

Much of it covered territory that I had previously covered, like JC's anti-family comments and his Sabbath-breaking, but it also mentioned:

* His not getting married and having children. Which would mean that if The Da Vinci Code was correct, then he was not guilty of that sin.

* His disrespect for parents (Matthew 10:34-37, 12:46-50, Luke 2:24-50, 14:26, John 2:3-4).

* Matt 8:21-22 / Luke 9:59-60 involving JC commanding that a certain follower of his to violate the law of burial by not burying his dead father ("Let the dead bury their dead").

* JC's "Last Supper" Passover Seder involving eating ordinary bread rather than unleavened bread (Matt 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 24:30).

* JC's rudeness, like to a certain Syro-phoenician woman (Matt 15:22-27) and to those scribes and Pharisees (Matt 23:13-33).

* JC altering the Law, like on adultery (Matt 5:27-28, John 8:3-11), not washing hands before a meal (15:10-11,16-20), forbidding divorce (Matt 5:31-32, 19:9, Luke 16:18), and breaking the Sabbath (Matt 12:1-7, Mark 2:23-26)

Someone in the Jews for Judaism site brought up how Jesus Christ ate on a fast day (Mark 2:18).

Someone else at J for J came up with this list of JC sins from the Gospel of Matthew:

· He ignored the law of burial (8:22)
· He ate on a fast day (9:14-15)
· He wronged another by speech (23:33)
· He gave misleading advice (19:8 )
· He put one to shame (26:34)
· He claimed he hated another (23:33)
· He bore a grudge (10:33)
· His teachings adding to the written or oral Law (6:9)
· His teachings detracting from the written or oral Law (5:34)
· He cursed an Israelite (23:33)
· He permitted Jews to work on Shabbat (12:1)
· He did not rebuking a sinner (12:1)
· He did not love his neighbor (10:35). At least his neighboring Pharisees!

And someone at J for J mentioned that typical Xian counterarguments to "let the dead bury their dead" are:

1) Jesus is G-d and can do whateve he wants!
2) The father wasn't really dead, and one must love G-d (Jesus) more than his parents (Jesus echoes this elsewhere, concerning himself).
3) This was really a parable, and it was speaking of those who will not follow Christ as being "dead".
4) The father had been dead for a year and was being reburied elsewhere.

jakejonesiv

If the claim that Jesus was crucified was proof of his alleged historicity, this argument would have been over a long time ago. But of course all sorts of mythical beings can be said to have been killed by all sorts of means. Do you believe Baldur was really killed by mistletoe?

Jesus can be opposed in either myth or in the preaching about him in the real world. Nothing different here than in the Pauline material. (e.g. Eph 2;16). I think you are importing gospel material into this context.

Earl Doherty would, but it is not compatible with Ephesians 4:9-10. IMO, a mythical Jesus can be imagined to visit earth (or below) as easily as he can be imagined to visit 'a lower heavenly realm'.

Why would sinful men have to go to the orbit of the moon to oppose Jesus? That makes no sense. They could just do it to the preacher's face.

Yes, that is right. Christianity is syncretic. That means all the pieces do not come from the same source. Nothing in Hebrews points to a Historical Jesus.

Jake Jones IV

dzim77

My questions concering this verse contradicting a 'lower heavenly realm' idea were actually in regards to Earl Doherty's views. But I see that you disagree with him, so I think I'm asking the wrong person

It appears that the 'opposition from sinful men' is referring to the cross that Jesus endured. But again, my point was regarding Doherty's view.


Ok, thanks. That helps to clarify your views for me.

IMO, all the verses you mentioned in Hebrews do not corelate to Joshua son of Nun anymore than they do to the Jesus of the gospels. It seems more obvious that they are referring to the Jesus of the gospels... but this is for another thread perhaps.

Maybe not... if you are presuming that it is mythical and viewing every word from that lens.

Clivedurdle

Is it not commonplace - it was in the pentecostal churches I was brought up in - to use these OT stories as types and prophecies and evidence of the actual Jesus?

Of course the whole thing unravels very rapidly if you stop assuming this is about an HJ!

dzim77

Yes.

Because the NT writers explain them as such.

EDIT: and, of course, Joshua can be viewed as a 'type' of Christ in the way you suggest.

Clivedurdle

And