Jesus: First, An Apocalyptic Prophet; Then The Lamb of God (tradition, Gospels)

[thrillobyte]

I stumbled onto an intriguing theory:

Jesus started off as an itinerant apocalyptic preacher:

Give away all your wealth; abandon your families; follow the Law of Moses down to the last iota; overfulfill the Law inside and out; abstain from all sin even in your thoughts; practice nonviolent nonresistance and peacemaking; spend your remaining time doing good works; purify your own character; spread the news that the world is soon to be destroyed, Judgment Day is at hand.

When the end of the world doesn't pan out, the early Christians are left with egg all over their faces. What to do?

Switch the theology to Jesus as the "lamb without blemish" who does miracles, dies and is resurrected. The legends continue and grow. The historical figure is ignored and fades into obscurity.

So Jesus' mission might have been radically different from what we perceive it to be today.

Remember there is roughly 70 years from Jesus' death to John's gospel to get the story "right"---plenty of time to give Jesus a great makeover.

Sounds plausible. Is it?

[101c]

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

I stumbled onto an intriguing theory:


So Jesus' mission might have been radically different from what we perceive it to be today.

Remember there is roughly 70 years from Jesus' death to John's gospel to get the story "right"---plenty of time to give Jesus a great makeover.

Sounds plausible. Is it?

his mission was set even before the foundation world was. scripture, 1 Peter 1:18 "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; 20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, 21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God”.

in order to believe him, is to hear him. as the apostle Paul said, Romans 10:13 "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God”.

in order to hear, to believe, one must preach. and prophets preach. and our Lord operated as a prophet. and we are to hear him. Acts 3:22 "For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you". and this was foretold to happen before he came in flesh. see Deuteronomy 18:15. nothing changed, John’s Gospel is correct.

this was the whole reason why God came in flesh so that man might believe.

be blessed.

[thrillobyte]

Originally Posted by 101c

his mission was set even before the foundation world was. scripture, 1 Peter 1:18 "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; 20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, 21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God”.

in order to believe him, is to hear him. as the apostle Paul said, Romans 10:13 "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God”.

in order to hear, to believe, one must preach. and prophets preach. and our Lord operated as a prophet. and we are to hear him. Acts 3:22 "For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you". and this was foretold to happen before he came in flesh. see Deuteronomy 18:15. nothing changed, John’s Gospel is correct.

this was the whole reason why God came in flesh so that man might believe.

be blessed.

I'm open to explanations for what history says happened along the way from Bethlehem to Jerusalem 33 years later, but the stumbling block I continuously run into is the fact.....THE FACT....that in the first three gospels Jesus never hints that He is God. Surely for such a central point---THE central point in approaching His mission Jesus would have to have established His deity right off the bat, yet He doesn't. I think He would have repeated it over and over and over as He does in John, yet it's totally absent in the synoptics. Only in John, roughly 25 years after Mark, does Jesus finally let us in that He is divine. There has to be a method to such madness.

Why is that? Just answer that one question for me and we can find a common ground to begin discussing the hypothesis I laid out.

Why didn't Jesus reveal His divinity in Matthew, Mark and Luke???

[pcamps]

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

I'm open to explanations for what history says happened along the way from Bethlehem to Jerusalem 33 years later, but the stumbling block I continuously run into is the fact.....THE FACT....that in the first three gospels Jesus never hints that He is God. Surely for such a central point---THE central point in approaching His mission Jesus would have to have established His deity right off the bat, yet He doesn't. I think He would have repeated it over and over and over as He does in John, yet it's totally absent in the synoptics. Only in John, roughly 25 years after Mark, does Jesus finally let us in that He is divine. There has to be a method to such madness.

Why is that? Just answer that one question for me and we can find a common ground to begin discussing the hypothesis I laid out.

Why didn't Jesus reveal His divinity in Matthew, Mark and Luke???

Thrill,l he didn't in John either. He never claimed that he was the one true living God. His testimony was I and the Father are One. He said to Philip if you have seen me you have seen the Father and if he went to prepare a place he would return that were he is(oneness in union with the Father) we would be too.

[101c]

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

I'm open to explanations for what history says happened along the way from Bethlehem to Jerusalem 33 years later, but the stumbling block I continuously run into is the fact.....THE FACT....that in the first three gospels Jesus never hints that He is God. Surely for such a central point---THE central point in approaching His mission Jesus would have to have established His deity right off the bat, yet He doesn't. I think He would have repeated it over and over and over as He does in John, yet it's totally absent in the synoptics. Only in John, roughly 25 years after Mark, does Jesus finally let us in that He is divine. There has to be a method to such madness.

Why is that? Just answer that one question for me and we can find a common ground to begin discussing the hypothesis I laid out.

Why didn't Jesus reveal His divinity in Matthew, Mark and Luke???

GINOLJC, to all
the Lord Jesus is God in flesh, as a SHARE, or Another. your main question, “did our Lord say that he was God in the Gospel?”. the answer is a resounding, YES. supportive scripture. John 8:24 "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins” so who was the Lord Jesus referring to when he said, “I am he”. here’s the answer, Isaiah 52:6 "Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore they shall know in that day that I am he that doth speak: behold, it is I”. here in Isaiah 52:6, it is almighty God speaking. and almighty God said in that day “his” people, “his” people, shall his name. and in that day, almighty God said “his” people will know "his name”. lets see when we, (God’s people, us who believe), knew God personal name, not his titles, but his personal name. Matthew 1:23 "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us”. ok if God is with us, Emmanuel is not his personal name, that name just tell us that God is with us. so what is God, who is with us, name?. answer, Matthew 1:21 "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins”. the virgin "birth" is the sign that God is with us, and the one who was "born" of the virgin, his name is "JESUS". that's God name.

now lets recap. God almighty said that his people, (believers), will know his name in that “day”. when was that day?, when the virgin gave birth to the saviour, (see Matthews 1:23, Luke 2:11, John 1:1, and John 1:14). when did we, as believer know his personal name?, Matthew 1:21. and when did our Lord say that he is God?, John 8:24

Now lets be sure that Jesus said, "that he is God", from another view, in the GOSPEL. Luke 9:56 "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village”. Luke 19:10 "For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost”. so we see that this is the Christ, the Lord Jesus , Son of man right. but there is ONLY one saviour, GOD. scripture, Isaiah 43:11 "I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour”. hold it, if jesus is savior, then he is God, because God just said that there is no savior beside him. well that just narrowed down who is savior. Isaiah 60:16 "Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings: and thou shalt know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob so clearly the LORD, all cap is savior.
Ok it’s God almighty who is saviour, and no other. lets support this, Isaiah 35:4 "Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you”. now there is only ONE saviour, and that one saviour is God, who is coming, did not God come?, (see John 1:1, and verse 14). and our Lord Jesus said that he came to seek and to “save” the Lost. we know that the Lord Jesus is saviour of the world. for he said it, listen closely, John 4:42 "And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world”. did not Jesus, our lord say that he is the Christ?, John 4:25 "The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. 26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he”. did not God almighty say, "in that day that I am he that doth speak". and the Lord Jesus just told the woman, "I that SPEAK unto thee am he". how plain can one get?.

the gospel is full of our Lord saying that he is God, in words, and deeds. we as “his”, people will know. this is just a few examples of his saying that he is God in the gospel alone.

even the gospel writers themselves knew that our Lord Jesus is God, (in flesh). not the obvious scriptures, but the ones many don’t see out right. for example. the elect is who’s?, God or or the Lord Jesus. Luke 18:7 "And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?”. Matthew 24:30 "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other”. WAIT A MINUTE I thought the elect was God’s. well they are, because the Son of man is God in flesh. see the gospel writers knew, the apostle knew, the disciples knew, that Jesus is God in flesh. for he said in that day “my” people shall know.

be blessed.

[thrillobyte]

because the Son of man is God in flesh. see the gospel writers knew, the apostle knew, the disciples knew, that Jesus is God in flesh. for he said in that day “my” people shall know.

101, you're making a huge, HUGE jump from Jesus being the Son of Man to being God in the flesh. You're saying that through the prism of what you already know about John 2000 years later. At the time Mark was written, 25 years before John, stories were circulating that Mark had to have heard that Jesus' family members, possibly Mary herself (though she is not specifically referenced) thought Jesus was a nutcase.

Mark 3;21 amplified bible

the family of Jesus heard that a great throng came together, to see Jesus cast out demons, preach, heal the sick,......

the family of Jesus went to take Jesus by force, for they kept saying "He is out of His mind".

Honestly, does this sound like something you do to a person who is claiming to be God Himself? Nowhere in Mark does the topic of Jesus proclaiming Himself to be God or even the Son of God, or even divine in any way ever come up. That's a monumental oversight for Mark to make.

[101c]

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

101, you're making a huge, HUGE jump from Jesus being the Son of Man to being God in the flesh. You're saying that through the prism of what you already know about John 2000 years later. At the time Mark was written, 25 years before John, stories were circulating that Mark had to have heard that Jesus' family members, possibly Mary herself (though she is not specifically referenced) thought Jesus was a nutcase.



Honestly, does this sound like something you do to a person who is claiming to be God Himself? Nowhere in Mark does the topic of Jesus proclaiming Himself to be God or even the Son of God, or even divine in any way ever come up. That's a monumental oversight for Mark to make.

no huge jump, I believe you need to understand that the Son of Man is the SHARED spirit, or the allos, "of" God in flesh and bone. Son of man is the shared spirit, (see how I used the samall case "s" in spirit. Son of God is Flesh and Bone. the Son of Man is the inward man, and the Son of God is the outward man. make the difference, not the jump.

thrillobyte, you must not read or hear, the whole book of Mark is about the Son of God. it states it right at the beginning. Mark 1:1 "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God". all of his gospel is about the Son"of" God. do yourself a favor and look up the word "of" and understand what it means and how it is used. thanks.

[thrillobyte]

101, I take to heart many of your comments. You are trying to have a civilized productive conversation and I thank you for that. It's rare around here.

Let me point out what the BibleGateway says about Mark 1:1

1 The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah,[a] the Son of God,[b]

Footnotes:

Mark 1:1 Or Jesus Christ. Messiah (Hebrew) and Christ (Greek) both mean Anointed One.
Mark 1:1 Some manuscripts do not have the Son of God.

So there are some manuscripts of Mark, I haven't checked how early these manuscripts are dated but I would suspect they are the earlier ones because Mark adding "The Son of God" likely would have been a theological move to try to establish Christ's divinity when most of the earlier Christians probably thought Him as nothing more than an apocalyptic preacher who had the misfortune of running afoul of the Roman leaders who branded Him a radical Jew trying to free Israel from Roman rule.

I also note that Judaism identifies the Mashiach as thus:

The mashiach will be a great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5). The mashiach is often referred to as "mashiach ben David" (mashiach, son of David). He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments (Isaiah 11:2-5). He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15). But above all, he will be a human being, not a god, demi-god or other supernatural being.

This perhaps is why Mark failed to identify Jesus as God incarnate, indeed why Jesus Himself kept ordering demons and people who might have suspected He was a supernatural Being to keep quiet about His divinity--because He knew well enough that if He had been identified as the Son of God, knowing what Judaism was expecting of the Messiah--a human being, not a god, demi-god or other supernatural being--then His entire ministry would have been derailed from the get-go. This doesn't address His actually being God incarnate, as John attests, I realize, but it does go to the possibility that Jesus never thought Himself as divine, and indeed He may not have become divine until He was exalted after His resurrection as Paul says in Philippians 2.

[thrillobyte]

Originally Posted by pcamps

Thrill,l he didn't in John either. He never claimed that he was the one true living God. His testimony was I and the Father are One. He said to Philip if you have seen me you have seen the Father and if he went to prepare a place he would return that were he is(oneness in union with the Father) we would be too.

pcamps, this is true, although the wording in John 1: "...and the Word WAS God..." basically establishes His divinity right off the bat. We have that perplexing problem of Jesus, or John, equaling Him to God, while at the same time Jesus saying "My Father is greater than I". So we have Jesus equal to God at the same time as Jesus not equal to God.

It's a theological conundrum I don't think we'll ever understand until we get to heaven.

[jghorton]

Once one makes-up their mind to reject whatever the Bible says (be it about the deity of Christ, heaven/hell, or anything else), ... or to see everything only through a worldly/philosophical 'filter', one can quickly make the Bible agree with any/every 'wind of doctrine' (or at least make it sound plausible).

Similarly, when one makes-up their mind to do something that they really don't believe is right, it's amazing how quickly any/every action or thought can be justified with an entire structure of rationale.

Rationalize = 'Rational Lies'

Jesus IS God incarnate; God in the flesh; fully God and fully man. Jesus and the Bible repeatedly affirmed this, but, then, if one accepts that truth, .... they can no longer be 'god' of their own lives.