Is Jesus the Same Jehovah of the Hebrew text???? (page 2)

Glenmore

Sorry, that's bogus. They aren't the same, never were, never will be. But don't worry it's all a crock anyway. Jah've is the Midianite volanco god of Moses' father-in-law Jethro. Moses (the Greater Rutherford) had a mixed band of Israelites and monotheistic Egyptians (Aten worshippers) and needed a rallying theme. Jah've was picked by saying he picked them. It seemed it worked out. Jesus (IMHO) was a jewish-buddist-free thinker. The rest is made up.

Terry

Little toe opined:Terry:And that would be one opinion...

Jesus was completely unimportant in his day to everybody but a tiny splinter group of Messianic Jews.

Yup about a dozen or so, by all accounts.

The usual bluff and bluster about discounting him due to there being few external sources is a bit of a distraction. Don't we have to establish that the person we are discussing really existed?The gospel accounts are secular sources in their own right. How so, pray tell? How do you verify this statement?

You don't have to take the Bible as the word of God or even believe in God, to be content accepting that there was a historical Jesus. The difference between Jesus and, say, Moby Dick, is demonstrated how, then?

In sidestepping the question you're comparing Apples and Pork Chops, since the question refers to the internal harmonies of a document that doesn't rely on external sources at all. The Bible did not fall out of the sky intact, did it? How do you, then, define:EXTERNAL?

LittleToe

Terry:I believe that Satanus put it best when he said:

There have been a few threads that proved that nt writers did write that belief into the nt.

Regardless of the reality (or otherwise) of a historical Jesus, is there internal evidence that the NT writers tried to establish a connection between the character "Jesus" and the OT "YHWH"?

Many would categorically state "Yes", to the point that a goodly number of Theologians would support that assertion.

That doesn't require one to be a believer, it just a matter of textual criticism. So I would answer your question about what YOU think we have to establish, with a categoric "no". We don't have to establish any such thing, because you're answering the wrong question.... again...

JT

thanks for the comments, you all have given excellent insight into this issue, most of what i have read esp at some of the links is what i have often thought about.

this is why i love the net, so many different point of views that help one get a well rounded perspective on issues

thanks again

Terry

Okay, we are on the same page now. I understand your question from a strictly neutral point of view.

I'd now answer this way.

I think the Jews of Messianic persuasion rallied behind Jesus strictly in a context of Judaism.

Paul, on the other hand, was a Neo-Platonist. He was out to graft the Jewish gravitas (history, prophecy, foundational structure) onto Gentile philosophy and create something new.

The advantage Paul had was built in to the milieu of religious thought in the Roman empire.

http://jdstone.org/cr/files/paulandthepaganreligionofmithraism.html

The idea of a godhead was implicit in pagan religion. Paul perverted strict monotheism by injecting a Messianic deconstruction into Judaic ethos. He ended up with a very useful central character; a Demi-god and Messiah: Jesus.

The conflicts Paul had with the strictly Judaic branch of the Jesus Movement have been reinterpreted by JW's and many latter day Christians. They do not want to see what was happening as a fundamental conflict between TRUE and FALSE, strictly speaking. They choose to recast the conflict as OLD vs NEW. And they assign Paul the role of NEW as in revealed by inspired vision.

Nothing of the kind. Paul was covertly preaching his hybrid gospel in direct competition to the purer Messianic Judaism of Jesus brother, Peter and others. Paul was very much a new kind of apostate. I believe that without what Paul did there would be no Christianity as we know it.

The political success of Christianity stems from the compatibility of pagan thought with the Jesus who was God as Man. JW's try to teach that it wasn't really going down that way. Consider this. The same people who decided that the Trinity was orthodoxy decided on the bible canon. If JW's are rejecting a Trinity as implicit in Paul's teaching they are rejecting the authority of the canonizers. The referees of that contest of Jesus stories either were or were not guided by objectivity. Which is it?

Terry

LittleToe

Gah, I lost my post. I hate it when that happens.

Terry:
I'm glad were on the same page. You raise some interesting points.

I agree that Christendom would likely have taken a rather different track, had it not been for Paul's theology. Even Peter comments on it causing a ruckus. Personally I lean more towards John, myself.

Setting aside the Trinity, for a minute, I think that it's possible to extrapolate an "Elohim / Sophia / Yahweh" triad, from the bible. That the NT writers were identifying Jesus with Yahweh, the god of the Israelites, seems evident (though I fully accept that is not uncontested).

I thoroughly enjoy reading the apocryphal and pseudopigraphal works, for the insight they give into contemporary thought, belief and myth. I agree that the "objectivity" of the canonisers is in question, and that it took a further dip at the time of the Reformation.

It's interesting to see how the WTS spins it's web, with the texts that it will accept. It really shot itself in the foot with the Trinity brochure, on sheer scholastic dishonesty. At least a good number of Reformed denominations will accept the additional works to supplement their understanding, even if they don't hold it in the same regard as the "sixty-six".

Nice to see we've found a little common-ground, for a change

Terry

Speaking of John.....

If you arrange the synoptic gospels in the chronological order that scholars believe they were written in and read just the accounts of, say, the arrest in the garden and the resurrection scenario you notice something very interesting. The older (closer to the purported events) the account the less supernatural the events and the more mundane and vulnerable a picture of Jesus. By the time John comes along, Jesus is clearly superman. (ie. divine).

It is quite peculiar to John that constant insertion of himself into the account as "the disciple whom Jesus loved". Disconcerting it is because the implication is exclusion vs inclusion.

He had a personal agenda. Jesus loved him best. If Jesus is God then God loves him best.

My oh my.

Terry

minimus

JT, I hoped my words helped you out a lot.

Greenpalmtreestillmine

Yes, I believe Jehovah and Jesus are the same.

In the Hebrew Scriptures Jehovah is not solely portrayed as a warring God. He is also compassionate, patient and loving.

In the Greek Scriptures Jesus is not only compassionate, patient and loving he is also, as portrayed in Revelation, the one who leads armies in executioner fashion.

They are the same just fulfilling different roles at different times. Well, just my 2 cents on the subject.

Sabrina

Mary

Personally, I don't believe they're the same. With that said, there are certainly many scriptures in the New Testement that would appear that they're the same person.....which is why most of the churches endorse the doctrine of the Trinity.

However, I've also done some research and I came to the uncomfortable conclusion that not everything that's written in the NT is historically accurate. Jesus was a Jew and Jews have never believed in a Trinity. Jesus never came to start a new religion---by today's standards, he probably would have been considered a Reform Jew. Third, Paul's influence in the NT is great but as we saw in a previous thread, he was actually quite deceitful in many aspects although he tried covering it up. Paul never even met Jesus, yet he's the most prominant person (next to Jesus) in the NT.

I believe that by the time the NT was being written, Messianic Jews and regular Jews were being farther and farther split. I believe that Jesus' role was being made higher and higher until he was eventually made equal to Yahweh and finally, made higher than Yahweh. Even if the NT was started about 20 years after his death, alot can be accomplished in making someone into a Deity in 20 years; heck, Elvis has been dead for 25 years and he's still practically worshipped as a god. Imagine how easy it was to make someone a God 2,000 years ago.

Is Jesus the Same Jehovah of the Hebrew text????

Share this