Without God, life is meaningless

[Athanasius]

What do you really know about Jesus? Not much.

Plenty enough.

In every Gospel Jesus is a different person. There are wide differences, especially between Mark and John.

This is just false. The intended audience may be different, but the same character is there in all of them.

One of the reasons for the western crisis, nihilism and all that chaos coming from decadence is that Christianity is not credible anymore, too much knowledge about its history, church and beginnings is at hand since XIX century. And there is no way out of it.

This doesn't make any sense. It's like the prodigal son blaming his father.

 

[infowarrior1]

@Vars

That's why I shared this link. All your objections are addressed there.

 

[Vars]

In every Gospel Jesus is a different person. There are wide differences, especially between Mark and John.

This is just false. The intended audience may be different, but the same character is there in all of them.

Well, it's not and it's very easy to check which I encourage everyone to do.

I even described the most important difference to you.

@infowarrior1

I'm sure you can address them here, at least in brief. Don't get me wrong, cause I don't want to sound arrogant, but to be honest, I rely on written sources and don't have time to watch hours of YouTube for the sake of forum discussion. If you want to refute my argument, here is our "battlefield".

 

[Kid Twist]

@Vars

Different witnesses are bound to remember different details as well as the exact similar details of the same person.

The Gospels aimed at different peoples would emphasize different details. That and other reasons are not grounds to dismiss the New Testament as reliable.

More details here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rml5Cif01g4&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TW70EEo4e2onJ4lq1QYSzrY

One thing is that Gospels were not written by witnesses (Gospels are written in Greek anyway, not Aramaic), names of apostles were added much later. Oldest Gospel, of Mark, was written about 30 years after Jesus crucifixion, and that of John was written 70 years after. And there are more details.

But let's put it aside for a while.
Differences are crucial.

In Synoptics, especially Mark, Jesus assumes that the end of times will come during the lifetime of his disciples and he doesn't say he is a god.

But in John, written 70 years after, when it was clear his predictions were wrong, an apocalyptic message is muted, and Jesus as god motive is on.

That shows how Christianity was formed during a time. What we know as a Christianity isn't that what real historical Jesus taught. And he was a Jewish apocalyptic prophet.

Really quickly, so others aren't made to stumble here:

One thing is that Gospels were not written by witnesses (Gospels are written in Greek anyway, not Aramaic)

Yes they were.

Ever heard of this guy (Saul) Paul of Tarsus? Yet another example of a Semitic (pharisee too) person whose native language for all intents and purposes was Greek, like a majority of jews at the time. Oh yeah, he also met and spoke with many witnesses, although yes, his "witness" was only on the road to Damascus. Now I know he is not a gospel writer, but the gospel writers all had knowledge of Greek (the point), yes some were better than others I imagine.

names of apostles were added much later.

according to you? Sounds like you made a new gospel here, "κατα Varsan" lol

But in John, written 70 years after, when it was clear his predictions were wrong, an apocalyptic message is muted, and Jesus as god motive is on.

While the gospel of John is the most obvious in examples of "I am YHWH" for the untrained biblical scholar, the Epistles of Paul (for example, the letter to the Romans ~56 AD?) were written before the gospel of Mark even, and they have clear references not only to Christ as God, but to the Holy Trinity. So, you are incorrect in an even more roundabout way than you could have known.

In Synoptics, especially Mark, Jesus assumes that the end of times will come during the lifetime of his disciples and he doesn't say he is a god.

No, the teaching has always been that Christ is the fulfillment and "history" is in fact over, in this incarnation sense, since the world has been defeated and the last enemy (death) is overcome. The second point I've already dealt with above. What's more, the entire point of the Gospel is that Christ has power over nature, he forgives sins, ie he does things ONLY GOD CAN DO. This is low level muslim argumentation.

That shows how Christianity was formed during a time. What we know as a Christianity isn't that what real historical Jesus taught. And he was a Jewish apocalyptic prophet.

No, you didn't show it, but you think you did. Nevertheless, I will give you a chance to actually provide evidence for your assertions, which you didn't do above.

Amusing, what "did the real historical Jesus teach"? I'm sure you know, just like the gnostic gospels, you must have some inside "knowledge" that is "hidden."

Final point(s) that is/are actually more accurate?

Jesus wasn't a jew, he was a Galilean. What we refer to as Jews in the modern vernacular weren't "Jews" in Jesus of Nazareth's time. They are inheritors of rabbinical judaism, which intentionally changed the scriptures, wrote on many topics, but don't have some pretty important things you would think "Jews" would have --- namely, a Temple, a priesthood, and a way to make sacrifices (using the former).

 

[Athanasius]

In every Gospel Jesus is a different person. There are wide differences, especially between Mark and John.

This is just false. The intended audience may be different, but the same character is there in all of them.

Well, it's not and it's very easy to check which I encourage everyone to do.

The easiest way to check is to read the Gospels, which I've done I don't know how many times over the past 40+ years. Different authors, same recognizable person.

 

[MichaelWitcoff]

John has a different emphasis because he’s combatting heresies that have started to pop up. He often talks about Christ having a physical body because he’s writing against the Docetists who claimed He did not. He emphasized Christ’s divinity, I would assume, because there were already people denying it even within the Church by the end of the first century - a view that had taken so many minds captive it had to be formally condemned at the first Ecumenical Council so Christians would know which teachings came from the Apostles and which did not. But Christ is referred to as God explicitly by two other New Testament authors as well, so John obviously wasn’t just inventing that or saying anything opposed to what the rest of the group believed. There is never a difference in Who Christ is, merely in the perspective and the audience along with the varying emphases needed to account for those factors.

 

[kel]

The easiest way to check is to read the Gospels, which I've done I don't know how many times over the past 40+ years. Different authors, same recognizable person.

Please join us in the New Testament read-through, your perspective as someone very familiar with the material would be welcome. You, too, Vars.

 

[Athanasius]

@Vars

Different witnesses are bound to remember different details as well as the exact similar details of the same person.

The Gospels aimed at different peoples would emphasize different details. That and other reasons are not grounds to dismiss the New Testament as reliable.

More details here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rml5Cif01g4&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TW70EEo4e2onJ4lq1QYSzrY

One thing is that Gospels were not written by witnesses (Gospels are written in Greek anyway, not Aramaic), names of apostles were added much later. Oldest Gospel, of Mark, was written about 30 years after Jesus crucifixion, and that of John was written 70 years after. And there are more details.

But let's put it aside for a while.
Differences are crucial.

In Synoptics, especially Mark, Jesus assumes that the end of times will come during the lifetime of his disciples and he doesn't say he is a god.

But in John, written 70 years after, when it was clear his predictions were wrong, an apocalyptic message is muted, and Jesus as god motive is on.

That shows how Christianity was formed during a time. What we know as a Christianity isn't that what real historical Jesus taught. And he was a Jewish apocalyptic prophet.

Really quickly, so others aren't made to stumble here:

One thing is that Gospels were not written by witnesses (Gospels are written in Greek anyway, not Aramaic)

Yes they were.

Ever heard of this guy (Saul) Paul of Tarsus? Yet another example of a Semitic (pharisee too) person whose native language for all intents and purposes was Greek, like a majority of jews at the time. Oh yeah, he also met and spoke with many witnesses, although yes, his "witness" was only on the road to Damascus. Now I know he is not a gospel writer, but the gospel writers all had knowledge of Greek (the point), yes some were better than others I imagine.

names of apostles were added much later.

according to you? Sounds like you made a new gospel here, "κατα Varsan" lol

But in John, written 70 years after, when it was clear his predictions were wrong, an apocalyptic message is muted, and Jesus as god motive is on.

While the gospel of John is the most obvious in examples of "I am YHWH" for the untrained biblical scholar, the Epistles of Paul (for example, the letter to the Romans ~56 AD?) were written before the gospel of Mark even, and they have clear references not only to Christ as God, but to the Holy Trinity. So, you are incorrect in an even more roundabout way than you could have known.

In Synoptics, especially Mark, Jesus assumes that the end of times will come during the lifetime of his disciples and he doesn't say he is a god.

No, the teaching has always been that Christ is the fulfillment and "history" is in fact over, in this incarnation sense, since the world has been defeated and the last enemy (death) is overcome. The second point I've already dealt with above. What's more, the entire point of the Gospel is that Christ has power over nature, he forgives sins, ie he does things ONLY GOD CAN DO. This is low level muslim argumentation.

That shows how Christianity was formed during a time. What we know as a Christianity isn't that what real historical Jesus taught. And he was a Jewish apocalyptic prophet.

No, you didn't show it, but you think you did. Nevertheless, I will give you a chance to actually provide evidence for your assertions, which you didn't do above.

Amusing, what "did the real historical Jesus teach"? I'm sure you know, just like the gnostic gospels, you must have some inside "knowledge" that is "hidden."

Final point(s) that is/are actually more accurate?

Jesus wasn't a jew, he was a Galilean. What we refer to as Jews in the modern vernacular weren't "Jews" in Jesus of Nazareth's time. They are inheritors of rabbinical judaism, which intentionally changed the scriptures, wrote on many topics, but don't have some pretty important things you would think "Jews" would have --- namely, a Temple, a priesthood, and a way to make sacrifices (using the former).

Good writeup that saved me some typing! (Only place I'd differ is the statement that Jesus wasn't a Jew.)

 

[Kid Twist]

It is a bit of trivia, I explained it, of course he was a "Jew" but literally the Greek word from the bible is "Judean", someone from Judea, the Roman named province, which was the last remnant of the non-lost 12 tribes and what else??? They had the temple. So while their cousins the Galileans were in fact part of "Israel" in their estimation, they were looked down on. Why else would Nathanael say "Can anything good come out of Nazareth (Galilee)?" [John 1st chapter]

For reasons I said, he was NOT a jew in the sense of what you refer to Jews as nowadays, on several ways of thinking --- many things were lost from 2nd temple judaism (that's "Jewish" regarding Christ) and the pharisees added much. The point is, orthodox Christians have all things "jews" lack, and are the actual "Israel of God". To further hammer home the point, no one would call Christ a pharisee, correct? That's what/who modern "jews" fathers are. That locks the case down, no possible rebuttal.