Are There Two Jesus'?

[Georges]

What if the Church power center stayed in Jerusalem instead of eventually moving to Rome,

The Four Gospels and Revelation....

If these 5 books were the only books in the NT, would the classical Christian perception of Jesus be different?

Would we have a Jewish Messiah, or a dying and resurrected God/Man as defined in Nicea?

 

[William Putnam]

What if the Church power center stayed in Jerusalem instead of eventually moving to Rome,

Then there is where would be the Holy See.

The Four Gospels and Revelation....

If these 5 books were the only books in the NT, would the classical Christian perception of Jesus be different?

Only for the Protestants who do not accept Sacred Tradition of the Church that would continue the original perception of Jesus in the minds of the apostles.

Would we have a Jewish Messiah, or a dying and resurrected God/Man as defined in Nicea?

Gee, I thought we already did!

Jesus was a Jew, right?

Mehinks there would be no difference in the decrees of Council of Nicea, assuming, of course, that we still had the heresy of Arius to confront, which denied the divinity of Jesus.

Again, the Sacred Traditions of the Church would fill in as it were, what was not written in the books you have omittted in your post here. My humble opinion, of course. :-D

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+



Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

[Georges]

Georges wrote:
What if the Church power center stayed in Jerusalem instead of eventually moving to Rome,


Then there is where would be the Holy See.

OooooooooooKaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy? Yes, it is a hypothetical, what if? But if one really separates the sections, a different Jesus comes to light. The Jesus of Messianic expectations.

Quote:
The Four Gospels and Revelation....

If these 5 books were the only books in the NT, would the classical Christian perception of Jesus be different?

Only for the Protestants who do not accept Sacred Tradition of the Church that would continue the original perception of Jesus in the minds of the apostles.

LOL, I'm not a Protestant...actually I'm a recovering Lutheran and I don't accept the "Sacred Tradition" of the Catholic Chruch (got past that)...which was formed not by the Petrine, Jamesian, or Johanian perception of Jesus, but rather by a corruption of Paulinism (A blend of Gnosticism, Mystery Religion, Stocism, and Judaism). Not meant to offend, but it is sadly fact.

Quote:
Would we have a Jewish Messiah, or a dying and resurrected God/Man as defined in Nicea?

Gee, I thought we already did!

Not until the point of Nicea was it conclusively separated.

Jesus was a Jew, right?

Jesus was a Jew in fact...no matter how hard Christianity has tried to separated him from that...ie...His name is Yeshua, not Jesus. If he is Yeshua, then he is Jewish, if he is Jesus, then he is Hellenized. Part of the problem.

Mehinks there would be no difference in the decrees of Council of Nicea, assuming, of course, that we still had the heresy of Arius to confront, which denied the divinity of Jesus.

Youthinks so...? Of course you should recognize that there would be no Nicea.....that is if the Church base was still in Jerusalem and the only 5 books in the NT were the Gospels and the Revelation. PS, the heresy of Arius ( :D ) would have been close to what the "legit" apostles would have percieved as the Godhead. There is no way you can read a "trinity" into the Gospels and Revelation as interpreted with the Tanach.

Again, the Sacred Traditions of the Church would fill in as it were, what was not written in the books you have omittted in your post here. My humble opinion, of course.

And I appreciate your opinion in regard to a nice debate...But, however, I don't see the paganism creeping into Nazarene Judaism as it has in Catholocism if the Church base had remained in Jerusalem and not had been forced to move.

God bless,

Same to ya....
PAX

Bill+†+



Me in red...

 

[William Putnam]

Georges wrote:
What if the Church power center stayed in Jerusalem instead of eventually moving to Rome,


Then there is where would be the Holy See.

OooooooooooKaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy? Yes, it is a hypothetical, what if? But if one really separates the sections, a different Jesus comes to light. The Jesus of Messianic expectations.

I am not fully understqnding where you are going here, as Jesus did not meet "messianic expectations" as a conquering hero, but he was still, the Messianic Jesus as we know today.

Have you read any of the early church fathers concerning the authority of the Church? If so, you will see that a central authority is vital for any body to have authority, as the Nations capitol is the central authority for our nation,k so also must the Church have a central authority. That is what we call the Holy See.

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/hiearch.htm

Why is it in Rome instead of Jerusalem?

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/rock.htm

And if Peter went to Rome, there is where the Holy See is!

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/rome.htm

Sorry, but that is a lot of material to read, but I did want to introduce you to the early fathers who wrote adjacent to the end of the apostolic era, to give you some insite of why I embrased the very Church they speak of.

The Four Gospels and Revelation....

If these 5 books were the only books in the NT, would the classical Christian perception of Jesus be different?

Only for the Protestants who do not accept Sacred Tradition of the Church that would continue the original perception of Jesus in the minds of the apostles.

LOL, I'm not a Protestant...actually I'm a recovering Lutheran and I don't accept the "Sacred Tradition" of the Catholic Chruch (got past that)...which was formed not by the Petrine, Jamesian, or Johanian perception of Jesus, but rather by a corruption of Paulinism (A blend of Gnosticism, Mystery Religion, Stocism, and Judaism). Not meant to offend, but it is sadly fact.

Ah, a Messianic Jew! You need to meet Nevim over at CARM!

WOW! Perhaps I did well in providing the links above for you to read!

Would we have a Jewish Messiah, or a dying and resurrected God/Man as defined in Nicea?

Gee, I thought we already did!

Not until the point of Nicea was it conclusively separated.

No, the Council of Nicea demonstrated the hypostatic union of the natural of man with the nature of God, all in one man called Jesus. Thus Jesus is God!

Jesus was a Jew, right?

Jesus was a Jew in fact...no matter how hard Christianity has tried to separated him from that...ie...His name is Yeshua, not Jesus. If he is Yeshua, then he is Jewish, if he is Jesus, then he is Hellenized. Part of the problem.

I prefer the English name of Jesus, thank you!

Mehinks there would be no difference in the decrees of Council of Nicea, assuming, of course, that we still had the heresy of Arius to confront, which denied the divinity of Jesus.

Youthinks so...? Of course you should recognize that there would be no Nicea.....that is if the Church base was still in Jerusalem and the only 5 books in the NT were the Gospels and the Revelation. PS, the heresy of Arius ( :D ) would have been close to what the "legit" apostles would have percieved as the Godhead. There is no way you can read a "trinity" into the Gospels and Revelation as interpreted with the Tanach.

Why does that make any difference? The heresy of Arius would sill come to the attention of the Holy See be it in Jereusalen, Antioch (where Peter spent a little time) or Constantnople, had Peter gone there instead of Rome.

And further, the early Church synods of Carthage, Hippo and Rome seems to have included more then the five books we have in our bible, including the deuterocanonicals that were in the OT text that found favor with the apostles in the first place, the Septuagint (LXX)

Again, the Sacred Traditions of the Church would fill in as it were, what was not written in the books you have omittted in your post here. My humble opinion, of course.

And I appreciate your opinion in regard to a nice debate...But, however, I don't see the paganism creeping into Nazarene Judaism as it has in Catholocism if the Church base had remained in Jerusalem and not had been forced to move.

Do you often bounce from one subject into another? Wanna talk about the so called "paganism" that has crept into the Church? Or shell we simply note that December 25, the day we celebrate the birth of Our Lord, is the old defunct, ole' pagan celebration of Saturnalia? :-D

Nice work, don't you think?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


"A little bit of science averts people from God,
a lot of it, takes us back to Him" (Louis Pasteur).

 

[stranger]

What if the Church power center stayed in Jerusalem instead of eventually moving to Rome,
. . .

Would we have a Jewish Messiah, or a dying and resurrected God/Man as defined in Nicea?

Hi Georges,

Jerusalem is the city of God demonstrated by the 'new Jerusalem descending over the old one.' No change in polity here.


We have a Jewish Messiah 'a dying and resurrected one' - no change here as far as what the scriptures confess.

I will leave it to you to elaborate on the God/Man definition of Nicea. Your usage of the word 'or' suggests that the Nicea definition was exclusive of the Messiah being Jewish.

In Christ: Stranger

 

[jgredline]

Are There Two Jesus'?

Georges...There are atleast 3 Jesus mentioned on this board alone.... :roll:

There is the Jesus that I worship. The second person of the God head, the Jesus who went to the cross in my place...

Then there is this created Jesus, the one that you embrace along with a few others...

and then there is this thrird Jesus who manifest himself into differant beings...

So to answer your question '' Are There Two Jesus'? '' NO. there are more than two..... :-?

 

[cyberjosh]

So to answer your question '' Are There Two Jesus'? '' NO. there are more than two.....

That's why Paul warned, "But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough." (2 Corinthians 11:3-4)

That's because people wanted to believe in their own version of Jesus, and in so doing "exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man" (Romans 1:23)

Paul even saw people go aside for a different gospel (Galatians 1:6).

 

[GundamZero]

The thing is that the doctrines of Christians didn't change a Nicea, they were really just clarified. You see, most are under the impression that the believes expressed at the council originated there. However, these doctrines are derived from the canonized scriptures. And the scriptures there were canonoized not because the Council decided it, but because these were the most common, universally used Scripture. As for the New Testament, they are the youngest and most accuarate representation of Chrisitianity.

Indeed, if the power had never shifted to Rome, it's possible that far fewer schisms may have oocured in the Church. But because we tried to localize and centralize power, we paid the price, because we essentially stymied the ability of the Holy Ghost to effectively lead the Church.

However, more good may have resulted than bad, because the polarization of the Church forced the more complacent to be swept up by silly traditions and called the real believers to guard the truth with more vigor.

 

[Georges]

That's why Paul warned, "But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough." (2 Corinthians 11:3-4)

That's because the Nazarene Jews found out what he was preaching and were setting the Corinthians straight...What was the Jesus that Paul preached...the Jesus of Torah Anomia, or the Jesus of Torah obedience?

That's because people wanted to believe in their own version of Jesus, and in so doing "exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man" (Romans 1:23)

Nope....that's because they were teaching an incorrect theology of Torah Anomity. Jesus taught that loving God was doing his commandments...Paul taught that since Jesus died on the cross that the Torah was no longer in effect (Anomia). These are 2 different Jesus'.

Paul even saw people go aside for a different gospel (Galatians 1:6)

Cyber, different gospel than he preached...They were rightfully obeying the Gospels as preached by the Apostles of Jerusalem. Something that was quite different than what Paul preached....He was found out in Ephesus and kicked out...for preaching "his" gospel.

.

 

[Georges]

Are There Two Jesus'?

Georges...There are atleast 3 Jesus mentioned on this board alone.... :roll:

And many more in the book....if you look... :D

There is the Jesus that I worship. The second person of the God head, the Jesus who went to the cross in my place...

Really? Second person? you may be worshipping the wrong guy...you should be worshipping Jehovah and honoring Jesus....the one you showed us the proper way to worship Jehovah.

Then there is this created Jesus, the one that you embrace along with a few others...

Was or was not Jesus born...that makes him created. Oh...of course Jewish tradition holds that Messiah was one of the 7 items created before the world.

and then there is this thrird Jesus who manifest himself into differant beings...

:silly:

So to answer your question '' Are There Two Jesus'? '' NO. there are more than two..... :-?

Profound....now try answering in the context of the OP...

 

[Georges]

Hi Georges,

Jerusalem is the city of God demonstrated by the 'new Jerusalem descending over the old one.' No change in polity here.

But stranger....while the earthly Jerusalem was the seat of Nazarene Judaism, the proper perspective of the Messiah and his relation to Jehovah was kept in proper perspective. With the eventual move to Rome, the perspective changed from a Jewish perspective, to a more Hellenized perspective.

But, since you mentioned the "New Jerusalem" will descend down...Jesus will be back in the Jewish perspective as the Son of God as he really is...

We have a Jewish Messiah 'a dying and resurrected one' - no change here as far as what the scriptures confess.

But I said..... dying and rising God/man......Messiah dying and rising is a Jewish concept, it is the God part that they don't accept. The OP suggest that with the given books of the NT would Jesus be seen in a different light.

I will leave it to you to elaborate on the God/Man definition of Nicea. Your usage of the word 'or' suggests that the Nicea definition was exclusive of the Messiah being Jewish.

Well it is quite obvious that to took 400 years to "complete" a "God/Man" trinity theology. To the Jewish believers, Jesus was a man who had the complete HS of God, who was the expected Messiah. The Jews didn't expect God to come down as a man to be the Messiah. They expected that that God would empower a man (Isa 11:2) with all of his power to be the Messiah.

The rising and dying God/man stems from a blending of the Mystery Religions of the Roman Empire with the Gnosto Christianity as it had become by Nicea...Arius attempted to correct that.

In Christ: Stranger

me in red.

 

[stranger]

Hi Georges,

With the eventual move to Rome, the perspective changed from a Jewish perspective, to a more Hellenized perspective.

Not according to scripture. Rome is mentioned just 9 times in the whole bible.

But I said..... dying and rising God/man......Messiah dying and rising is a Jewish concept, it is the God part that they don't accept. The OP suggest that with the given books of the NT would Jesus be seen in a different light.

Who doesn't accept the God part? Are you referring to Israel? If so then Romans 9-11 explains the 'hardening that has come upon Israel' that the full number of gentiles come in.

Well it is quite obvious that to took 400 years to "complete" a "God/Man" trinity theology.

Yes, there were many controversies.

To the Jewish believers, Jesus was a man who had the complete HS of God, who was the expected Messiah. The Jews didn't expect God to come down as a man to be the Messiah. They expected that that God would empower a man (Isa 11:2) with all of his power to be the Messiah.

The Messianic Jews have a voice today - but they too must 'formulate' a statement about Yeshua which marks their official position.

The rising and dying God/man stems from a blending of the Mystery Religions of the Roman Empire with the Gnosto Christianity as it had become by Nicea...Arius attempted to correct that.

Again - we are outside sola scripture.

blessings: stranger