posted October 28, 2007 02:18 AM              

We each have our own personal image or metaphor for Jesus. To some, he is the great shepherd. To others, the son of God or maybe son of man. Or how about the way, the truth and the life? The word? The teacher, healer? The Christ? The king of the Jews?

Without discounting any of these possibilities, we offer yet another alternative. Jesus Christ as the first and last of the Christian heretics.

What is meant by heresy? Very simply, articulating a belief and practice in opposition to the orthodoxy of the day.

Jesus Christ delivered a message that was uncomfortable to the ruling elite of his day. For this, he was executed. Even today, 20 centuries later, Jesus offers a way we are inclined to avoid or ignore.

What was Jesus’ heresy? Very simply, the heresy of Jesus was and is conflicted Christianity.

In the next few pages, we outline this alternative view of Jesus. For a few moments, keep an open mind. Prepare to be challenged.

Conflicted Christianity: Our primary thesis is this -- Jesus Christ intended conflict. After all, it was Jesus who pointedly declared: "Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division!" In short, the conflicts are there because he wanted it that way.

This was the god-man who desired that we be fully immersed in the turmoil. And there is a purpose – that we wrestle with the contradictions, draw new understanding synthesized for changing times, and apply the understanding in the here and now of our daily lives.

When we fail to grasp the message, we miss the full wonders of God’s kingdom – the kingdom that is here among us now. Now, for more of the particulars.

Who Was Jesus? We know nothing about Jesus except from what others have written about him. Jesus left no CD disc, no videotape, no writings, not even a drawing of his likeness.

No New Testament (or secular) writer of the first two centuries AD approached the task of reporting Jesus’ ministry in a fully objective fashion. Each was telling his (or her) own story. Each put their own spin on the message – by choosing specific incidents (and words) to include or exclude.

So, is it really possible to strip back the accretions of time and tradition and find the real historic Jesus? The answer is both yes and no.

The Tradition of the Historic Jesus: The essentials of historical Jesus can be gleaned from a variety of both historical and credal documents passed down through two millennia. Consider first the creed formulated under the direct supervision of the Roman emperor Constantine at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD:

We believe in ….. One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God …. who for us men and for our salvation, came down and was made flesh, and became man, suffered, and rose on the third day, ascended into the heavens …."

When it comes to the historical Jesus, this first credal formulation is very simple. Jesus Christ was the son of God, became human, died, was resurrected, and ascended to heaven.

Now consider a different formulation, ostensibly from a more dispassionate source, that of the first century Jewish military leader and historian Josephus:

Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works – a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over many to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

The essentials as recounted by Josephus parallel those of the Nicene Creed in several key respects. He was an actual human, died on a cross, and reappeared. Josephus also calls Jesus a doer of wonderful works (miracles?), a teacher, and as the source for a movement involving people known as Christians.

Jesus also is mentioned as an historical figure by two Roman figures of the first and early second centuries – historian Tacitus and politician Pliny the Younger. Neither could be considered as friends of the nascent Christian movement.

Beyond these early, cryptic formulations, most of what can be gleaned about the life of Jesus is contained in the four Gospels of the New Testament. The apostle Paul provides few clues in his writings about Jesus’ life – describing only selected events surrounding his death and resurrection. Other early information is available from non-canonical sources of the first two centuries.

Conflicted Christianity
For two millennia, theological and doctrinal debates over the life, teachings and actions of Christ has been predicated on the notion that there is but one truth. Where there may appear to be two conflicting statements, orthodoxy demands that truth must be reconciled through harmonization.

Seeming contradictions are to always be reconciled, no matter how bizarre the explanation. The contradictions may be of two types: (a) internal inconsistencies noted within the account of a single author; and (b) between different authors.

Conflicts Within Gospel Accounts: Conflicts between gospel accounts are more often noted than those conflicts internalized within a single New Testament gospel. Yet it is these internal conflicts that are of most interest – because they seemingly portray Jesus at war with himself.

Virtually all of the New Testament gospels and some of the non-canonical writings provide vivid examples of a conflicted Jesus. In the Gospel of Mark alone, at least 15 different sets of conflicting statements attributed to Christ can be found.

Here is an example. Speaking to a rich man, Jesus invokes the Mosaic commandment to:

"Honor your father and mother."

Yet, just moments later, Jesus admonishes Peter his disciple:

"Truly, I tell you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields, for my sake and for the sake of the good news, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this age – houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and fields, with persecutions – and in the age to come eternal life."

Another example is presented by Matthew’s gospel (and also in slightly different form by Mark). Here, he flip-flops on the question of whether to accept and heal a non-Jew. Matthew’s story is worth recounting in its entirety:

Jesus left that place (Gennesaret) and went away to the district of Tyre and Sidon. Just then a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, "Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon." But he did not answer her at all. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, "Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us." He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

But she came and knelt before him, saying, "Lord, help me." He answered, "It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs." She said, "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table." Then Jesus answered her, "Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish." And her daughter was healed instantly.

Why did he change his mind and help the woman? One interpretation is that he was testing to see how badly she wanted healing. A second explanation could be that he was persuaded by the strength of her logic. A third and related explanation would be that Christ was confronted by his own prejudicial attitudes to non-Jews.

He was confused by the contradiction between his belief and her assertion, leading him to repent of his own xenophobia. So, no matter what the explanation, here is a picture of Jesus potentially who is either disingenuous or conflicted by his own personal beliefs and emotions.

Conflicts Between Gospel Accounts: Conflicts between gospel accounts have been more widely cited – particularly different chronologies of Jesus’ ministry provided by the gospel writers. An example of a doctrinal conflict is most simply illustrated by Matthew's "Blessed are the poor in spirit" versus Luke's more abbreviated "Blessed are the poor."

So, is his blessing directed at those who are poor in material possessions or poor in spirit? In this case, the answer seems to depend on who is telling the story.

Throughout his gospel, Luke places special priority on assistance to the poor. Mark takes a different tack, quoting Jesus as saying: "For you always have the poor with you, and you can show kindness to them whenever you wish, but you will always have me." Matthew has Jesus making the same statement, only a bit more hard hitting by deleting the italicized phrase noted above. In his account of this same incident of the anointing of Christ, Luke avoids the entire comment about the inevitability of poverty.

John’s gospel takes a tack.similar to Matthew, but adds a parenthetical note that Judas Iscariot had raised the question "not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief; he kept the common purse and used to steal what was put into it." So John lets Christ make the tough statement, but then excuses it with this aside about the betrayer to his readers.

In short, the gospel writers consistently portray Jesus differently in terms of theology, politics and humanity. Is this simply because each writer is injecting his own unique bias or spin into the account?

Or could these differences also reflect genuinely different faces of the same Son of Man? A rabbi who could be both hard and soft, who preached both a personal and social gospel.

The answer may be both neither and both. Each gospel writer sought to explain this conflicted Jesus in terms that would be understandable to the intended audience. It is not surprising that each author would find a different means to fit his particular angle on the meaning of this unique ministry.

Non-Canonical Gospels: As we turn to accounts outside the generally accepted New Testament, some writers offer relatively cohesive pictures. Others present a collage of what may include more discordant elements. This is especially true of the Gospel of Thomas.

For example, the Jesus of Thomas also sends mixed signals about the priority placed on reconciliation with those believers who fall by the wayside. In strong language unique to this non-canonical gospel, Jesus is quoted as saying: ""Damn the Pharisees! They are like a dog sleeping in the cattle manger: the dog neither eats nor [lets] the cattle eat."

But, this is the same person who can tell the parable of the lost sheep with a straight face: "The Kingdom is like a shepherd who had a hundred sheep. One of them, the largest, went astray. He left the ninety-nine and looked for the one until he found it. After he had toiled, he said to the sheep, 'I love you more than the ninety-nine.'"

Contradictory Actions of Jesus Christ
With the exception of Mark, the four gospels of the New Testament canon devote the majority of their respective narratives to the words of Christ. But, as the colloquialism goes, "actions speak louder than words."

And so, we turn to the actions of Jesus. Do they show a pattern of conflicted behavior that corresponds with his spoken statements? The answer is a decided yes. Look at the earthly record of an individual who:

Walked away from his parents at age twelve but at age 33 made sure to entrust his mother into the care of a beloved disciple.

Drove the money changers from the temple with a whip and then submitted days later to Jewish and Roman authorities without any resistance.

Encouraged children but cursed an olive tree.

Could command center stage with a Sermon on the Mount but yet slip through a crowd ready to stone him.

Repulsed a gentile woman seeking healing, but then relented after she persisted.

Performed healing and natural miracles in both urban and rural venues, but not in his own home town (of Nazareth).

Deliberately set his face to Jerusalem and the accompanying expectation of death but then asked God to reverse this course of action.

Some might suggest that these are contradictions in appearance only. Seemingly conflicting events actually hide deeper meaning – and so really represent a consistent manifestation of Jesus’ holy nature. For example, Christ driving the money-changers from the temple represents a righteous anger appropriate for this event but not for his later arrest and trial. At the trial, the divine imperative for submittal to the foreordained outcome of crucifixion comes to outweigh any consideration of an angry response.

But then, how does one explain his ability to work miracles everywhere but Nazareth? Was he simply too nervous to do the miracle thing around those who had known him since childhood? Or was he unmasked by those who knew the real Jesus and judged him a charlatan?

Why All the Contradiction?
Are these contradictions real or only apparent? Are they simply to be explained away, to be harmonized, as has been the goal of mainstream Christian theologians since the first century.

What if all these efforts to "make sense of it all" are missing the real message? A message with three parts:

While early New Testament era authors each gave their own spin to Jesus’ life, the reported conflicts reflect something far deeper – contradictory statements and actions by the historical Jesus himself. Conflict and contradiction run throughout Jesus’ ministry – both in word and deed. Early Christian writers felt compelled to report at least some of the major conflicts as they occurred – because Jesus actions and his teachings simply could not be explained otherwise.

He intentionally set up situations of conflict and contradiction. The gospel text gives clear clues that Jesus intentionally set up conflict, intentionally making those around him uncomfortable. After all, it was Jesus who deliberately refused to see his mother, brothers and sisters when they traveled to see him. And it is Jesus who says that he speaks in parables – specifically so that his listeners will not understand his message.

We can never fully experience the kingdom without living through the contradictions -- both individually and collectively. This statement involves the greatest leap from the Jesus of the New Testament to the Jesus of today. Jesus is making his listener – then and now – reach for understanding.

The Jesus of Matthew puts it this way: "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you." The non-canonical Gospel of Thomas etches the words of Jesus in even bolder relief: "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will rule over all."

So, Who is Jesus?
He has been portrayed in countless ways over 20+ centuries – in forms ranging from the written word to artistic renditions. He is shown as the gentle shepherd, the embracer of children, the suffering Messiah and, yes, as the scourge of the sellers at the Temple.

These images typically convey a single theme, a simple agenda. They sketch a Jesus Christ of purpose, often of single-minded intent. Too seldom are the complexities – or the internal conflicts – of this man/god adequately captured in a single portrait.

It is this ambiguity that made it so difficult for his disciples to answer the question: "Who do you say that I am?" Yet it is the underlying conflict within the man that continues to perplex even those who have come some twenty centuries later. For most, the objective has been to smooth out the rough edges, to "harmonize" the gospels.

Yet, the question has been posed: what if these efforts to "make sense of it all" are missing the real message? That this is a Jesus of deliberate, often bewildering conflict.

As he lived in and through conflict, he requests as much of those who follow behind. We are asked to work out our salvation via conflict – both personal and familial. So that, like the pagan, Canaanite woman who was rebuked by Jesus, we persist until the master relents, saying: "Let it be done for you as you wish."

posted October 28, 2007 02:25 AM              

Heretics move counter to the orthodoxy of the moment. Twenty centuries ago, Jesus challenged the mainstream of Judaism and the governing authority of the roman Empire.
At the dawn of the 21st century, Jesus continues to challenge and sometimes offend. This is the Jesus who says that he comes not to bring not peace, "but rather division."

So, step back in time to consider 12 individuals who dared to challenge the orthodoxy of their time. Some of these heretics – the gospel writers, Paul, James, Peter, Jesus himself – found their heresies absorbed into the mainstream of Christianity. Others such as Thomas and Mary did not. And a couple – namely Constantine and Martin Luther – may be considered as on the fence.

Read on for a synopsis for twelve heresies of Christianity.

I
Matthew – Prophecy Fulfilled
Unlike most New Testament writers, Matthew wrote to a primarily Jewish audience. Matthew focused on demonstrating that Jesus is not a blasphemer intent on overthrowing Judaism. Rather, Matthew’s Jesus represents the fulfillment of both the "law and the prophets."
But, did Matthew over-reach – bending and twisting passages of the Hebrew scriptures (or Old Testament) to fit the life of Jesus?

Did Matthew’s portrait of Jesus as the bridge between the old order and the new serve to reform Judaism from within or help drive Christianity out from the Judaic fold?

The answers to these questions are of profound importance – to Christians of today as well as yesteryear. And they speak volumes to two millenia of estrangement between Judaisim and Christianity.

II
Mark's Dimwitted Disciples
Mark’s heresy revolves around the tale of twelve fellow travelers with Jesus – who are repeatedly characterized by ineptitude, thoughtlessness and avarice:
Why does Mark’s gospel consistently skewer the twelve men who left family and homes, particularly Peter?

If early church leadership had remained in the hands of the eleven disciples remaining after Jesus’ death and resurrection, what might be different about the Christianity we know and practice today?

If there is an upside to Mark’s gospel, it may be that the body of believers is not to place full reliance on other earthly leaders – even those closest to Jesus. Does that message continue to hold true today at the dawn of the 21st century?

III
Luke - Social Conscience
Widely billed as the most beautiful book ever written, Luke’s gospel is unique in presenting Jesus as a man of social conscience and action. As the gospel of the Good Samaritan, Luke aims to address social evils – of poverty, redistribution of wealth, and improved status for women:

Does it make sense for this good news to be directed not only to the eternal but to the demands of day-to-day life?

Does a social gospel reinforce or undermine the need for personal accountability and the opportunity for personal intimacy with Jesus the crucified and risen Savior?

Matthew’s Jesus said: "Blessed are the poor in spirit." Luke’s Jesus simply says: "Blessed are the poor." Is one view more important than the other? Or can both co-exist side-by-side?

IV
John - Personal Divinity
As a gospel writer, John tells a very different story of Jesus’ life and ministry than the three synopitics – Matthew, Mark and Luke:

Does John’s emphasis on personal intimacy with the divine support the writings of the synoptics, or are we hearing an entirely different message?

Why is John the only gospel writer to talk about judgement or condemnation, but not about a place called hell?

John’s Jesus is the eternal "I am", a man who reaches out to interact on a personal level with people of both genders, from all walks of life. Do the unique perspectives offered by this most intimate of gospels relegate John to a special or to a secondary role?

V
Paul - Salvation thru Faith
With Paul, we reach beyond the original circle of Jesus followers to the man who formulated Christian doctrines that have endured for two millenia.

How did an outsider come to wrest control of the Christian movement from the heir apparents – Peter and then James?

Paul’s heresy of "justification by faith" clearly paved the way to win the hearts and souls of an empire, but did it also represent an unnecessary final stroke severing Christianity from its Jewish roots?

Experience the life and times of a man of contradiction – who advocated both spiritual freedom and disciplined church doctrine. A man whose persistence and penchant for the written word built the church that Jesus the Christ foretold.

VI
James - Salvation via Works
Paul’s ascendance was not uncontested. There is a counterpoint – represented by James the brother of Jesus. After all, it was James who wrote that "faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead." But wait:

How is it that James vision of Christianity bested Peter but then lost out to Paul? And by the way, did James really lose?

Does the message of James suggest a path for rapprochement to bridge two millenia of conflict between Jew and Aryan, between a social and personal gospel?

James has suffered through obscurity, indifference and even charges of heresy – by sources no less than the reformationist Martin Luther. James may yet have the last word.

VII
Peter - Compromised Christianity
More is written in the New Testament about Peter than any other disciple, yet he remains an enigma – a unique combination of cowardice and bluster:

How is it that Peter becomes the person always caught in the middle – the whipping boy for Jesus, then James and Paul?

How was this heir apparent to the ministry of Christ, this leader of the church at Pentecost, so easily shoved aside?

In life and death, Peter exemplifies the personal struggles that many followers of the Way also experience – then and now. However, neither his intemperate actions nor his more gentle message of conciliation carry the day.

VIII
Thomas - Mystery & Wisdom
In 1945, a copy of a lost manuscript known as the Gsopel of Thomas was found in the desert of Egypt. This non-canonical gospel likely was composed contemporaneously and the discovered manuscript actually predates any known, complete and authenticated manuscript from the more familiar gospel writers of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John:

What does this work attributed to doubting Thomas have to say that was so disturbing to the early church that all traces of this gospel disappeared for at least a millenium?

What does this decidedly counter-cultural Thomas of the here and now – of mystery and wisdom – have to say to us as denizens of the 21st century?

In this gospel of puported heresy, Jesus goes beyond what is stated in the canonical gospels, declaring: "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will rule over all."

IX
Mary - Life & Ressurection
There are so many Marys in the New Testament that it is sometimes difficult to keep them straight. Among these are Mary the virgin mother, Mary the sister, and Mary the Magdalene. Each of these had a unique connection to the god-man; one is reputedly the author of a non-canonical gospel:

What was it that these tough, purposeful women dared to understand that others could not see and to speak what others could not know?

How did one Mary – the Magdalene – serve as the bridge between the dead and the resurrected Christ, keeping the flame of Christianity alive during its earliest and darkest hour?

Get close to the Marys who shared some of the most intimate moments with the Savior. Discover how the mutual web of life and resurrection heresies they have spun live on – animating the Christian church to faith in the goodness of the present and the confidence of life beyond the human realm.

X
Constantine - Monolithic Christianity
In 313 AD, a warrior became emperor of the western Roman Empire after seeing a vision – the initialed symbols of the name of Christ with the words "By this sign you will conquer." During the ensuing reign of Constantine, the status of Christianity changed from enemy of the state to religion of the state:

Why did a secular ruler take such a sudden and lasting shine to a foreign, non-Roman religion?

By personally formulating the Nicene Creed, how did one man define Jesus as God and then move to create the monolith of a single state religion?

How could one who professed Christianity carry out unspeakable horrors against members of his own family?

Nearly 17 centuries removed from this ruler of a since fallen empire, the hierarchical church lives on in the image of its creator. What then, after the heresy of the church-empire outlives its usefulness?

XI
Martin Luther - Reformation Undone
In 1517, an Augustinian monk declared an end to a 1,200 year ear of Roman Catholic hegemony over Christian belief and practice – by posting 95 theses on the door of the castle church at Germany’s Wittenburg University. In so doing, Martin Luther unleashed winds of change for church and state:

How was it that a religious reformation heralded a secular revolution – the end of feudalism, the triumph of capitalism, the resurgence of education and, eventually, the swelling tide of democracy?

By failing to throw off the shackles of Nicaea, to accept and celebrate diverse interpretations of Jesus message, did monk Luther fail to complete the reformation he started?

In short, is the fulfillment of Christian reformation yet to come?

XII
Jesus - Conflicted Christianity
From the apostle Matthew to the monk Luther, the Christian legacy has been on of dissension and conflict. To understand why, travel back to the source – back to the very person, the mission, the legacy of Jesus:

Did Jesus want this legacy of conflict to occur and persist? If he intended the conflict, why?

When Jesus says he has come not to bring peace but "rather division," what is he also saying about our ability to experience the kingdom of God?

As this Savior lived in and through conflict, maybe he asks as much of those who follow behind. So that, like the pagan Canaanite woman who was rebuked by Jesus, we persist until the master relents, saying: "Let it be done for you as you wish."

Epilogue - Which Way Christianity?
We have lived with two millenia of Christian heresy – centered on people willing to step out and advocate in opposition to the mainstream orthodoxy of their time:

Is it possible that the Christian movement does not merely survive, but thrives on heresy?

Does this tradition of heresy and attendant conflict serve to deplete or enrich our earthly and spiritual sojourn?

At the dawn of the 21st century, reinvigorating Christianity once again may require a return to our spiritual roots. We continue to seek a Jesus who consistently demonstrates that, just when we think we have the answers, there are new questions. When we feel we’ve already run the race, we find we’ve really just begun.

posted October 28, 2007 10:06 AM            

On a skim read, I noted it stated "a conflicted Jesus" Do you think it is indicating a duality existed in him?

------------------
~
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted October 28, 2007 10:06 AM              

quote:

---

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, (if it be lawful to call him a man,) for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. (He was the Christ) and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, (for he appeared to them alive again the third day,) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."

---

quote:

---

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."

---

quote:

---

as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."

---

posted October 28, 2007 10:16 AM            

You know, whoever JC was, if he was or not... he was/is an inspiration.

Life is always changing, ever moving, and ever evolving; and in order to maintain this change, new ground has to be broken, the old must die to give way to the new, and so... it seems like life has to always have a certain critical amount of upheaval, not too much upheaval to cause destruction but just enough stimulation to prevent complacency and just enough fuel to promote growth.

That to me, from what I read above, is JC's modus operandi, and it is a good M.O.

So...

this 'could' mean that those who believe in JC blindly and those who do not question him, the world or what he stands for; those who do not debate about him and the status quo, those who do not change/grow and explore as he did (since he is "the way"...) are the 'real' sinners, the blasphemers, the one's who did not have an ear to listen to him.

JC was natural because nature is forever changing.

LOL... I question things, and I have been told that I was going to hell by some "Christians" who didn't understand where I was coming from. My reply was, "I will see you in hell, then..." Little did I know that I was actually onto something by saying that.

posted October 28, 2007 10:51 AM            

Thanks!

------------------
~
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted October 28, 2007 10:58 AM              

Suffice it to say....there are many contradictions in the words and actions of Jesus because two different men were confused as being one and the same.
One a gentle teacher who did not adhere to Judaisic law and teachings, who was teaching a Buddhistic way...and the other who supported Judaism and wanted to overthrow Roman occupation in an insurrectionist military revolution/revolt.
Both had Fathers named Yoseph.
Both had mothers called Mariyam.
One was Yoseph ben Yacob(Jacob), the other was Yoseph ben Heli.
The therory I have of it being Yeshua ben Yoseph and Jesus Bar Abbas(Jesus Son Of The Father) is further proven by the two differet histories of "Jesus".
Starting wih the Lineages...
Joseph Ben Heli
and...
Joseph Ben Jacob

Which one is Jesus Bar Abbas' father...and which one is Yeshua's?

And the flight to Egypt severely clashes with the temple presentation of by his parents in Jerusalem when he was an infant.

So one was in Egypt:Yeshua
And the other in Jerusalem:Jesus Barabbas.

Jesus Bar Abbas(Known as Jesus Son of The Father) was arrrested for being an insurrectionist. A trouble maker during the big holy holiday.
Sounds like exactly the kind of bloke who would turn over the money changer's tables in the temple courtyard.

But Yeshua said of money...
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

So either "Jesus" was bi-polar and went about acting and talking in a contradictory manner...
One moment claiming to be the messiah..the next minute running from folks trying o stone him..and denying he was the messiah.

Or...
Ocam's Razor....
Two fellows with similar names & lineages being born at about the same time.
You will find a serious descrepancy concerning the lineage of Jesus.
Which leads back to my theory that Jesus Bar Abbas was being confused with Jesus(Yeshua).
Both were called "Son of THe Father"...
Both lived and preached at the same time.
The Bible translators left out the parts concerning Jesus Barrabbas...Or Bar Abbas=Son Of The Father...and made him out to be a common criminal instead.

So now look at the two lineages:

Generation Mat 1:16-2 /Luk 3:23-38
1 Jesus /Jesus
2 Joseph /Joseph
3 Jacob /Heli
4 Matthan /Matthat
5 Eleazar /Levi
6 Eliud /Melchi
7 Achim /Janna
8 Sadoc /Joseph
9 Azor /Mattathias
10 Eliakim /Amos
11 Abiud /Naum
12 Zorobabel /Esli
13 Salathiel /Nagge
14 Jechonias /Maath
15 Josias /Mattathias
16 Amon /Semei
17 Manasses /Joseph
18 Ezekias /Juda
19 Achaz /Joanna
20 Joatham /Rhesa
21 Ozias /Zorobabel
22 Joram /Salathiel
23 Josaphat /Neri
24 Asa /Melchi
25 Abia /Addi
26 Roboam /Cosam
27 Solomon /Elmodam
28 David /Er
29 Jesse /Jose
30 Obed /Eliezer
31 Booz /Jorim
32 Salmon /Matthat
33 Naasson /Levi
34 Aminadab /Simeon
35 Aram /Juda
36 Esrom /Joseph
37 Phares /Jonan
38 Judas /Eliakim
39 Jacob /Melea
40 Isaac /Menan
41 Abraham /Mattatha
42 Nathan
43 David
44 Jesse
45 Obed
46 Booz
47 Salmon
48 Naasson
49 Aminadab
50 Aram
51 Esrom
52 Phares
53 Juda
54 Jacob
55 Isaac
56 Abraham
57 Thara
58 Nachor
59 Saruch
60 Ragau
61 Phalec
62 Heber
63 Sala
64 Cainan
65 Arphaxad
66 Sem
67 Noe
68 Lamech
69 Mathusala
70 Enoch
71 Jared
72 Maleleel
73 Cainan
74 Enos
75 Seth
76 Adam
77 God

If Zorobabel and Salathiel in the two genealogies are the same,
Then the facts we have to keep in mind are:

The Zorobabel mentioned in Luk 3:27 who is a blood relative of Mary and through her a blood relative of Jesus, can not be a blood relative of Jechonias because of the curse mentioned above.

The verses above name Salathiel a son of Jechonias AND the son of Neri

The verses above name Zorobabel a son of Pedaiah AND the son of Salathiel.
We will have to assume the following, which are actually not entirely described in the Bible:

(a) Salathiel was the biological son of Jechonias. This makes (2.) halfway true.

(b) Salathiel died without child, but left behind a widow

(c) Pedaiah was Salathiel's brother and took Salathiel's widow and begat Zorobabel, this way Zorobabel can be called as Son of Salathiel AND son of Pedaiah. This makes (3.) true.

(d) Pedaiah can not be Salathiel's biological brother, since then he would be the biological son of Jechonias and therefore Zorobabel would become biological grandson of Jechonias and violate (1.) Therefore Pedaiah has to be only adopted son of Jechonias and only half brother of Salathiel. This makes (1.) true.

(e) Jechonias has to have Neri's daughter as a wife, and this way we can call Salathiel as son of Neri, referring to his grandfather through his mother. This makes (2.) true.

(f) Pedaiah has to be a son of Neri's daughter. This way he can be called as son of Jechonias when (e) happens and Pedaiah becomes Jechonias' adopted son as it is required by (d)
The assumptions between (a) and (f) could be shown with the following family tree:

*: this relationship or person is not described by the Bible, just by the assumptions between (a) and (f)

Jechonias * Daughter of Neri

Salathiel *Wife of Salathiel Pedaiah

Zorobabel

If Zorobabel and Salathiel in the two genealogies are NOT the same,
Then the facts we have to keep in mind are:

The Zorobabel mentioned in Luk 3:27 who is a blood relative of Mary and through her a blood relative of Jesus, can not be blood relative of Jechonias because of the curse mentioned above.
This is automatically true.

The verses above name one Salathiel a son of Jechonias AND the other Salathiel a son of Neri
This is automatically true.

The verses above name Zorobabel a son of Pedaiah AND the son of Salathiel.
The only thing we have to assume is:

(a) Salathiel (Jechonias' son) died without child, but left behind a widow

(b) Pedaiah was Salathiel's biological brother and took Salathiel's widow and begat Zorobabel, this way Zorobabel can be called as Son of Salathiel AND son of Pedaiah. This makes (3.) true.
This could be shown with the following family tree:

Jechonias Neri
*: this relationship or person is not described by the Bible, just by the assumptions between (a) and (b)

Salathiel *Wife of Salathiel Pedaiah Salathiel

Zorobabel Zorobabel

Zorobabel and Salathiel Answer
There are only two reasons to assume that the two persons listed in Matthew's genealogy are the same as in Luke's:

They lived approximately during the same time
Their names were rarely used
As we compare the two possible answers above, we can conclude that we stay closer to the facts described in the Bible if we accept that the Zorobabel and Salathiel mentioned in Matthew's genealogy are NOT the same as the Zorobabel and Salathiel mentioned in Luke's list.

Missing names in Matthew's genealogy
Matthew's list leaves out Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, and Eliakim from the generations of the kings. The reason for why their names were omitted is not known.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
So who is who?

Joseph Ben Heli>
>Jesus

Joseph Ben Jacob>
>Jesus

One has Solomon and David...
The other does not.
An awful lot of descrepancies and contradictions.

Then throw in the mythos Of other cultures and "histories"....and things get even more fouled up!

What a theological/philosophical/historical MESS!

Occam's Razor:
The principle is most often expressed as Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, or "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity", but this sentence was written by later authors and is not found in Occam's surviving writings. This also applies to non est ponenda pluritas sine necessitate, which translates literally into English as "pluralities ought not be supposed without necessity". It has inspired numerous expressions including "parsimony of postulates", the "principle of simplicity", the "KISS principle" (Keep It Simple, Stupid), and in some medical schools "When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras".
Other common restatments are:

Entities are not to be multiplied without necessity.
and

The simplest answer is usually the correct answer.
A re-statement of Occam's Razor, in more formal terms, is provided by information theory in the form of minimum message length.

"When deciding between two models which make equivalent predictions, choose the simpler one," makes the point that a simpler model that doesn't make equivalent predictions is not among the models that this criterion applies to in the first place. [1]

Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519) lived after Occam's time and has a variant of Occam's razor. His variant short-circuits the need for sophistication by equating it to simplicity.

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
Occam's Razor is now usually stated as follows:

Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred.
As this is ambiguous, Isaac Newton's version may be better:

We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
In the spirit of Occam's Razor itself, the rule is sometimes stated as:

The simplest explanation is usually the best.
Another common statement of it is :

The simplest explanation that covers all the facts.
This is an over-simplification, or at least a little misleading. See above, "In science".

This rephrasing has several faults, the worst being that Occam's razor is only supposed to be used to choose between two scientific theories which are otherwise equally predictive. The second problem with the "simplest is best" equation is that Occam's razor never claims to choose the 'best' theory, but only proposes simplicity as the deciding factor in choosing between two otherwise equal theories. It's possible that, given more information, the more complex theory might turn out to be correct the majority of the time. Occam's razor makes no explicit claims as to whether or not this will happen, but prompts us to use the simpler theory until we have reason to do otherwise.

The earliest versions of the razor clearly imply that if a more complex theory is "necessary" then it need not be invalid. Perhaps a better way to state it is: "a correct theory of phenomena is only as complex as is necessary — and no more so — to explain said phenomena."
For More See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

posted October 28, 2007 11:17 AM              

quote:

---

fayte.m, would you please share your resource so we can read it too?

---

Google this line to find more of the same ideas:

If Zorobabel and Salathiel in the two genealogies are the same,

posted October 28, 2007 11:30 AM            

I noted something that I clearly see as not true and believe to be a misunderstanding of many folks. Christian and non Christian alike.

quote:

---

So either "Jesus" was bi-polar and went about acting and talking in a contradictory manner...
One moment claiming to be the messiah..the next minute running from folks trying o stone him..and denying he was the messiah.

---

The exchange between Pilot and The Christ when he was being questioned about being the Messiah....

They asked him, "are you the messiah?" He responded.... "You say I am"

Four simple words yes? But now look at them as I add emphasis.

"YOU say I am" (others may or may not)

"you SAY I am" (you say it but you do not
Know it...your heart is veiled)

"you say I AM" (which is the same as the messiah...God said "I am that I am" ).

"you say I am" (why do you not accuse others? emphasis on the "I")

A simple but different on each emphasis of Jesus`s reply gives a clearer picture of what he actually said.

So, in Reality, did he say I am?

------------------
~
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted October 28, 2007 12:54 PM              

I can easily relate to that duality and the contradictions in Jesus because I find them in myself. It's hard to tell if the conflicts and contradictions in myself is the same as Jesus or if he had them on a larger scale. I don't know. But I can easily relate to that duality.

My resource for these excerpts is jesustheheresy.com. The mission of this site is as follows:

"We at JesustheHeresy.com are committed to rediscover the Jesus of history. A Jesus stripped of dogma, unfettered by preconceptions of the right and the left. A Jesus who inspires the faithful and facinates the skeptical. To recover a Jesus pertinent for today."

Here is the link to the home page. At the site you can either download the books or order hardcopies of them.
http://www.jesustheheresy.com/index.html

Obviously some will say this is a liberal Christian site. Although I think it attempts to maintain a balance.

Within Christianity, as in within our world society itself, there are liberals and conservatives. So it is in different factions of Christian churches. The liberals get frustrated with the conservatives. The conservatives feel threatened by the liberals. It's this way amongst both the laity of churches and the priests all the way up to the hierarchy. It all contains a mixture of liberal and conservative thinking. Religion, I believe, needs that mixture as much as our world society needs it because we challenge each other to stretch and grow.

Very true what you said, Unmoved. And I fully agree with your words.

quote:

---

Life is always changing, ever moving, and ever evolving; and in order to maintain this change, new ground has to be broken, the old must die to give way to the new, and so... it seems like life has to always have a certain critical amount of upheaval, not too much upheaval to cause destruction but just enough stimulation to prevent complacency and just enough fuel to promote growth.

That to me, from what I read above, is JC's modus operandi, and it is a good M.O.

---

Although there is also much value in the old that should be retained as well. Because the old is neither bad nor untrue. It is just limited in light of new knowledge, new revelations and new understanding. We have to try to stretch and grow and change without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

You also said:

quote:

---

this 'could' mean that those who believe in JC blindly and those who do not question him, the world or what he stands for; those who do not debate about him and the status quo, those who do not change/grow and explore as he did (since he is "the way"...) are the 'real' sinners, the blasphemers, the one's who did not have an ear to listen to him.

---

Maybe, and I never really understood those people, but I think that we have to try and be tolerant and understanding of the differences in people. When it comes to Christianity or any religion, even when it comes to government and politics, there are those who - for whatever the reason may be -can't deal with contradictions, aren't comfortable with questioning things, and need it all laid out for them. There are people who need that strict structure in their lives because they are just not comfortable with any kind of uncertainties. That is not understandable to those of us who believe in questioning and who easily accept uncertainties in life and the contradictions and who are willing to explore new thoughts, discoveries and revelations. It can also be very frustrating to the more liberal and adventuresome of us. The resistance between the two kinds of thinking is there, the conflict is there because it is meant to be. Liberals tend to upset the status quo, they tend to upset the apple cart. It will always be resisted by those who want to maintain the status quo for their own comfort. That is why Jesus was a threat to those in power in his time and that is why liberals will always be a threat to the comfort zones of the conservatives. We tend to stretch those comfort zones and some people just can't handle that. But liberals need the conservatives to at times hold them back a little so we don't run amuk.

Notice that in the mission statement of Jesustheheresy.com it states, " unfettered by preconceptions of the right and the left."

I like that because you know, both those on the left and right DO have preconceptions which often we are unwilling to relinquish as much on the left as we accuse those on the right of doing.

posted October 28, 2007 01:36 PM              

"Some think." Yes, some think this way and some think that way. That is where the conflicts lie. That's the whole mess we have to sort out.

So our mission then is to sort through all the contradictions and conflicts in religion, in government, in our own selves and in life in general and discover from all that what truth we can. Knowing that even what we may hold to be truth at this moment in time is like all else in the world and the universe, constantly changing and constantly evolving.

None of it is the end. Not Scripture and not Oscar's Razor or any religion or any other resource. Those are only the tools by which we slowly unravel the mysteries. They are the all the means. All of it is at best partial truths. A small piece of a very large and vast puzzle.

For that reason there is no right and wrong.

But what we get in our world mostly and most unfortunately is this:

We miss the message when we hone in on one quote out of a whole article that had so much more to say just to present that this person says this about that quote and that person says that about this quote. This may or may not have been changed and altered is not the message. Those are the conflicts that the whole article that posted talked about. The conflicts we NEED to live with. The conflicts that stretch us. Because as the article stated, we need to know that once we feel we have the answers new questions will arise. Which is why Paul of Tarsus stated, " Once I think I know, it is then I become a fool." But he may or may not have actually said that either and I am sure someone wrote a book saying he did and another person wrote a book saying he didn't. But at any rate we can easily see how true that is in our lives. Whether Paul said it or not.

I do hope you understand that I am just giving my opinion and in no way attacking you or saying you are wrong. Because, frankly I don't believe there is a right and wrong. But I do know we need to live with conflicts and contradictions in order to attempt to piece that gigantic and monumental, even inconceivable puzzle together as best we can.

posted October 28, 2007 01:43 PM              

quote:

---

Love one another

---

The true history however is what I am trying to uncover.

The message is easy to see.
The historical facts are not so simple to prove.
It is my theory that some the Bible(s) deem as villians were not...because the stories were not known to most and so folks made stories up. Lies about Pilate, about who Judas really was, (not Iscariot as thought!)
About Yeshua's own mother's involvement in
the drama of the crucifixion,the Bible's hint at that...According to the Gospel of Mark (Mark 3:19-21, 31), during the period when Jesus was preaching, Mary and his brothers believed that he was mentally ill, or "out of his mind" as per the KJV. The Gospel of John comments that

quote:

---

"neither did his brothers believe in him" (John 7:5).

---

quote:

---

"Who are my mother and my brothers? . . . For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother,"

---

PS:

quote:

---

Not Scripture and not Oscar's Razor or any religion or any other resource.

---

posted October 28, 2007 02:11 PM            

I do see and understand your belief in the duality in Jesus.

On the other hand, I believe he has no duality/confliction. He may have prior to the devil tempting him in the desert. That would be the reason for the trip into the desert to wrestle with the devil ie ego/nafs.

I say that because I believe the temptation by the "devil" was Jesus fighting the lower nature ego/nafs and purifying into a balance without confliction or duality.

It is always nice to see different perspectives and beliefs I agree there is no right or wrong, simply our own Paths to follow in finding Peace and our Faith to strenghten us.

------------------
~
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted October 28, 2007 02:30 PM            

quote:

---

I do not believe in the Devil or Satan.

---

Nor do I by the name of devil satan. My belief is hey both are a word to indicate the ego/nafs. The true potential for wrongdoing.

quote:

---

Figments of man's imagination to have something other than himself to blame his misdeeds upon.

---

Agreed WE are responsible for our misdeeds and Jesus Teachs us how to overcome our egos (or the devil) and become like him.

------------------
~
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted October 29, 2007 12:57 AM              

The entity of the devil or Satan is something I question but no matter, I do know that one of the conflicts we live with in our world is that for all good, there is evil. A paradox, a contradiction and a conflict we have to live with. And attempt to figure out and reconcile ourselves to the fact that there are opposites in our world and it's the way it was all meant to be. For a purpose that we can never really figure out in our lifetime. The mystery is just way too vast for our minds to comprehend.

Juni,

When I speak of the duality in Jesus I am referring to his struggle with his nature, that of being both human and divine. I am not certain of what others are speaking of when they speak of a duality in Jesus. I do think that Jesus struggled within himself the same as we do. We humans all struggle with inner conflict. That is what I mean regarding duality. I also think that it was those inner conflicts which caused Jesus to contradict himself in both speech and action. Logically if we think about it, isn't it those inner conflicts that cause us to contradict ourselves in words and actions so often?

I don't think, and there are some scholars that agree with this, that Jesus fully comprehended his divinity until after the resurrection. I think possibly because of his divine nature Jesus' inner conflictions and struggles may have been on a much larger scale than ours. But that is just a thought that I ponder over.

posted October 29, 2007 08:46 AM              

quote:

---

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

---

posted October 29, 2007 05:14 PM              

Your theory to explain the contradictions is striking,
and the research you've done is admirable.
I would imagine you have what it takes
to participate in this debate on the highest level.
Are you working on a book?

quote:

---

Just for the record..
I do not believe in the Devil or Satan.
Figments of man's imagination to have something other than himself to blame his misdeeds upon. Same for the belief in someone coming to or having saved mankind. Always wanting to get someone else to fix their problems or take the fall and or blame for what they themselves do without any outside help.

---

For argument's sake,...

Let's suppose, hypothetically, that nobody ever availed themselves of any opportunity (real or imagined) to escape blame, nor made any claim that there was, is, or will be a savior; that no one sought to blame anyone for their misdeeds, or to look to anyone outside of themselves for salvation. Would it then be possible that there is indeed a Satan; provided we do not profit by him? Or that perhaps there was, is, or will be a savior; provided no one makes use of the occassion to avoid responsibility?

The question is absurd, because, frankly, the logic you offer is absurd. It is like saying that, "If there were no God, man would invent God. Therefore, man invented God." Whether or not we use something to our advantage, through selfishness or weakness (if a superficial difference may be drawn between these two), has no bearing upon whether or not it is true. Your argument (if it was intended to be an argument?) is purely emotional.

But you yourself have argued, at times, that there are circumstances in which a person is not in control; that a person may be held against their will, or striken with a horrible disease, etc., which is not due to any action, conscious or unconscious, of their own, and which may not be remediable by themselves. And although there are those who told you that this was a mere "excuse" to avoid responsibility, you insisted that it is so. Why then is it so hard to imagine that such a circumstance may be at work on a larger, universal scale? Is it so hard to believe that there may be beings in this universe so much more powerful than ourselves, that their actions would entirely negate, or even determine, our own? I suspect that it is so, as the odds against it seem, to me, astronomical. I think that there are probably beings so powerful that, when they sneeze, we call it a "Big Bang". I can imagine lesser beings who would smile, somewhere in the unseen worlds, and thereby inspire a selfless impulse that would move a man to swallow hemlock (or mount a cross) of his own "free" will. And, conversely, when such a being frowns, some mortal heart may darken with the inspiration to build a furnace and fill it with Jews. All of this seems far more likely to me than the supposition that man, who manipulates the destinies of weaker animals, is yet the master of his own destiny, and not subject to any powers greater than himself, at least, as far as his moral will is concerned.

What I wonder is how you can insist that it is possible to have our bodies manipulated, to such a degree that we are not accountable for the condition of the body, but that it is categorically impossible for our hearts and minds to be manipulated in the same way. How can one be possible, and the other not? Why is it a valid defense to claim the former, and a deplorable "excuse" to claim the latter?

posted October 29, 2007 05:37 PM              

quote:

---

His answer,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Who are my mother and my brothers? . . . For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother,"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(verses 33-35) shows that he was hostile to their attempt to see him. There could be but one reason. His family, mother brothers, and sisters, believed him to be mentally ill and had not come simply to see him, but had come to seize him.

---

I agree that your assessment of the action in the story is correct, but I disagree that it is the only possible explaination for his comment. When I read those words, I did not think, "Oh, it is because they came to seize him," although I agree that this is what provided the mundane context for him to speak those words. What I thought when I first read those words is that he is illustrating a spiritual principle which appears frequently in the Gospels. Namely, that spirit, and not blood, determines your true family. Your brother is not he who was born from the same physical womb, but, he who was born of the spirit, from the same metaphysical womb - the same philosophy of life. Your true father is not the man who impregnated your mother, but, he who personifies the priniciples which motivate and inspire you to live and act. In other words, Jesus might have said these words even if they had not come to take him, but only to speak with him. If his mother and brothers had merely claimed some special distinction, as blood relatives, to be allowed private time with him, he would have said these words. He spoke of leaving one's family, and the entirety of one's personal life, behind. He came for everyone. God forbid that he should cease ministering to the multitudes, to give a private audience to a few.