French Prometheus

Neither. Jesus the false prophet who was rightfully killed (Deut. 18) for trying to divert the Jews from God.

Chili

You are correct. He was in imposter who had to die and so crucifixion was the best thing that ever happened to him: "It is finished."

French Prometheus

Assuming he existed, I don't think he had planned to actually die on the cross. That was just an unfortunate ending that had to be rationalized and explained away by his followers. Now, there's also the possibility that he was psychologically very disturbed and actually planned his infamous death to start his legend. There are other examples in history (including recent history) of people committing suicide or provoking their murder out of religious fanaticism.

More generally, religiously-inspired suicides can be seen everyday in the Islamic world.

The fact remains that the OT clearly shows that Jesus was a false prophet and certainly not the Messiah. I know you have an "interesting" way of reading Scriptures, Chili, but it takes a huge number of anachronistic re-interpretations and theological inventions to make Jesus the Messiah. The funniest (phoniest?) one is that whole "second coming" thingy that's supposed to explain why Ezekiel's clear prophecies didn't occur 2000 years ago.

Chili

He existed as Jew in the myth and he could have been any Jew except that he was not any Jew or it would happen to every Jew. He came to show how and why the children of Israel did it wrong . . . for they were Jews and because they did it wrong they wanderer and died nonetheless. John 6 is clear on this.

Of course he did know but that knowledge was privy to him only in awakening . . . "my time has not come yet" and "it is finished." The Jews did not know but Peter knew and he represents the kind of faith that we need to 'get there' and do the same thing.

Yes he was psychologically disturbed but for good reason. His disturbance was caused by his faith that was put to the test and brought to understanding in the Gospels 'wherein' he arrived after he went to Bethlehem where he went to give an account of himself (an "account" here is an unconscious surrender of the rational will = a psychological disturbance). He was moved there by faith and by faith only and therein lies the difference between a comedy and a tragedy. That is, his was a comedy and the children of Israel ended upon a tragedy (which he introduced as gehenna and lated became known as hell). Suicides is an act wherein the wrong identity is killed. It is intuit urge to kill one driving identity in our mind but it is wrong to kill the actual being. He was not the Messiah for those who rejected him and any reason to reject him is a good reason to reject him if the Messiah must call us by name to be our messiah.

We, in Catholicism, accepted him by example and are waiting for the second coming in our life when he calls us by name. Until then do we accept him by the fate of our forefathers just as the Jews deny him by the faith of their forefathers while both of us are waiting for him to come, or to come again.

Interesting is that we use the word "parousia" for the second coming while this words itself predates the first coming when the second coming was inconceivable.

French Prometheus

As usual your interpretation is...unusual, Chili. Anyway, it presupposes that the NT is not bunk. This, in turn, presupposes that Jesus is not a false prophet. There's no getting aroung this fact. And that presupposes to re-interpret the OT in ways that are indistinguishable from purely rhetorical ad-hoc constructions.

You interpretation is so removed from the literal meaning of the text (and exegesis based on the historical and cultural context) that it allows for absolutely any other competing view. You'll probably tell me that this is where faith comes into play. But that's not very useful when debating people who don't share your views a priori (whether they're Christians or not).

Thomas II

Pernod?

Chili

The NT is not bunk because it just shows how it's done and how it is done right the first time because there is no second chance. In this sense was Jesus not a prophet but the fulfillment of OT prophesy.

Jesus was a false prophet only to the Jews who convicted him, as they must since it was Jewish law and Jewish law only that convicted him. Ie. Pilate had no insight towards this conviction at all.

Let me suggest here that it is wrong for Jesus to lead Jews away from Judaism since it only the Law of Moses that can do that. The Law is the heart of the mythology in every mythology.

This may give a new perspective to you but not to the alternate or underlying intent of the OT wherein it aims to serve as a means to the end. To arrive there a certain stream of consciousness must be accepted as the norm in the mind of the believer against which salvation must be found. This is the exact 'end' that Joseph had reached when he was called to give an account of himself. Just let me remind you here that the Laws were given to Moses for the conviction of sin and not to stop [the act called] sin. The aim here is for the Law to convict the outer man of sin if the Laws are carved upon the human heart as if in stone. This is what Jesus called "fulfill the Law" and agreed that "the Law is good in its entirety." Go to Gal 2 17 where they did just that, or in Romans 7:7-12.

No, not any view but a very specific view that Jesus had in mind. Different views lead to different religions but here we are at the end of religion where the Gospels begin. . . and he showed just that.

French Prometheus

No he wasn't. You can claim that again and again but it won't change the fact that Jesus didn't fulfill Ezekiel's prophecies. The concept of "second coming" is a Christian invention.

No, Jesus was a false prophet according to the definition given in Deuteronomy.

But that's what he tried to do in the NT.

This is exactly what I was talking about in my previous post. These assertions are rhetorical constructions based on nothing but your faith. Anyone can build any religious system using the same method.

Where is that written in the OT? I'm not saying that you're wrong but I can't recall anyplace where this is written.

If Jesus is a false prophet, how reliable do you think Paul's theology is? Anyway, I'd like to ask you a question concerning Jesus fulfilling the Law:

Is Jesus' sacrifice the ultimate sin offering or should there be other sacrifices?

All Christian denominations claim that they're following the view that Jesus had in mind. That's not very convincing when discussing with people who aren't already convinced.

John Kesler

The idea that Chili mentions is a New Testament doctrine, mentioned in passages like Romans 3:20:

To the contrary, the Old Testament teaches that the law was intended to be kept, and the Israelites would be "justified" by doing so:

Chili

It is not the case that I claim such a thing to validate Jesus. I am an NT person and never read Ezekiel except maybe here at this IIDB.

Is it perhaps possible that Ezekiel is wrong, because, God forbid, if there ever would be such an impostor who fulfilled all the prophesies he would end Judaism as probably the greatest mythology to ever exist? I think the best thing was that they did crucify him as an impostor (Matthew 27:64). Notice that the chief priest here recognized Jesus as an imitator but they knew that the second one would be worse than the first if he did not die. The marvel here is that the chief priests knew exactly what they were doing and why they were doing what they did. It is the greatest story ever told.

I am not sure. As I understand it most of his work happened in Galilee where a messianic movement was underway. This would be much like a massive Billy Graham crusade and to upset one of those would be the best thing he could ever do . . . which was the purpose of his message because they were all lost in Galilee and never reached the state of mind called Israel.Yes I understand but my perspective is where any and all religions come to an end. This 'end' will be the same for all and it is towards this end that religion must be the vehicle and no more. So there is a difference. Instead of scattering thru different interpretations I consolidate the valid interpretations into one united front where the final end justifies the means. Important here is to let the evidence speak for itself. I don't know myself, but I do know that manna are second hand bible passages that came from heaven to the children of Israel via Moses. Is it possible to see the Ten Commandments as an inspiration towards the conviction of sin so it becomes like a fishing tool to snare the sin nature of man?The sacrifice of Jesus served him well and we must do the same in "follow me." In this sense must we take Jesus from the cross and place ourselves upon it -- lest we die at the foot of his cross while singing songs of patient endurance. See the difference?

But yes, this is NT stuff for NT people. We have a good passage on this in John 21:18 where we, as Catholic, are free to go about life and pretty much do as we please. Out of this freedom another will emerge to tie us fast and carry us off against our will. In this sense is it a 'hands off' religion. I am the person here who claims that there can be no such thing as a Christian religion because religion ends where Christianity begins. Notice that just as Jews are not Christian so are Catholics not Christian but at best Christian-in-becoming and once they enter this domain religion must come to an end. Gal.5:1-4 is very clear on this.