Rebuttal to those who call Jesus a Man

Hey Guys,

This is a response i sent to a colleague of mine who sent me an article trying to claim that Christians and non-Christian scholars agree on who Jesus was. Here is the link to the article that my co-worker sent. Below is my "scholarly" response. It is very long so if you don't read it i wont be offended, but this may be of use to you in the future. So in the light of John here it is


Article: Who was Jesus the Man?


What does Jesus Say By Neil Roessler
While I am not calling into question the intentions of the writer of this article I would like to point out some very interesting things for your information about the argument presented by the man being interviewed. It is true that we can agree on a historical Jesus. What is interesting though is that the author or interviewer has chosen a man from the Jesus seminar as the main speaker for his subject. The Jesus Seminar is the main institution calling into question the validity of the Gospels and discerning who really was the man Jesus Christ. What is interesting is that, for many years, they, Just like their Christian counterparts are lacking objective analysis of the subject of Jesus Christ. Notice how their rhetoric is inticing, However, they certainly have omitted much of how Jesus presented himself to the world and particularly the disciples.

Hagerland, making a point about how many of the Gospel stories have been exaggerated says this:

"The reactions as depicted in the Gospels must have been exaggerated because, as far as we can know from historical research, no first-century Jew would have considered the proclamation of forgiveness blasphemous," Hagerland said. "It is far more likely then, that the controversy over Jesus' proclamation of forgiveness is not grounded in an historical exchange, but was brought into the episode for rhetorical purposes."

This is very compelling, except it leaves out any scholarly analysis of Jewish beliefs and what Jesus said. Here is the actual story that Hagerland is referring to:

Mark 2:1-12
1A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home. 2So many gathered that there was no room left, not even outside the door, and he preached the word to them. 3Some men came, bringing to him a paralytic, carried by four of them. 4Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus and, after digging through it, lowered the mat the paralyzed man was lying on. 5When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven."
6Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7"Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"
8Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, "Why are you thinking these things? 9Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? 10But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ." He said to the paralytic, 11"I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." 12He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, "We have never seen anything like this!"

First off, Hagerland leaves out the fact that Jesus was setting a precedent never before seen by Jewish people. They believed that forgiveness was a part of everyday life. However, for someone to say they had the power to forgive a peoples sins would have been blasphemy to Jews who believe only God can forgive sins. Jesus claiming here that the power had been given to him.
On a similar note, in the gospel of John, the author recalled Jesus’ baptism by John the Baptist. As Jesus entered the area John was baptizing people, he saw Jesus among the crowd and proclaimed, shortly after John baptized Jesus:
29The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! [John 1:29]

This is another precedent in Jewish culture. This proclamation would never have been heard before. Jews would have been stunned because prior to this, Jews were only used to having their sins be covered. In the Old Testament the sacrifices offered only served to cover the sins of the world. However, john stated that Jesus was “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” Take away, not just cover. Jews would have been perplexed at this because no one before in history could be said to be able to take away the sins of the world.

The second example that Hagerland uses to support his argument is that Jesus did not consider that he would die for the sins of the world. He also misses that fact that although Jesus was crucified by the authorities, Jesus presented his crucifixion in a different manner. To say his disciples only regarded Jesus death as sacrificial for sins and not Jesus himself shows very poor scholarship. According to the article and the Jesus seminar scholars:

"While crucifixion was a punishment consistent with Roman law during Jesus' time, historians say, the circumstances of Jesus' crucifixion certainly morphed in the decades following his death, according to Borg."

"Historically, Jesus was executed by the authorities - Roman imperial authority in collaboration with high-ranking priestly authority. Historically he did not 'die for the sins of the world,' but he was killed by the powers that ruled his world," Borg said."

However, in John chapter 10 Jesus makes this statement in reference to his crucifixion:

18"(W)No one has taken it away from Me, but I (X)lay it down on My own initiative I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again (Y)This commandment I received from My Father."
To second the fact that Jesus approached the cross knowing exactly what he was doing I want to draw your attention to the verse we were discussing yesterday that is used by the blue cross.

The verse, which is documented as Jesus speaking at the beginning of his ministry, around three years before his crucifixion says this:

John 3:10 10You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus [speaking to a 1st century Jewish leader named Nicodemus, who according to John was at Jesus crucifixion and eventually believed In Jesus], "and do you not understand these things? 11I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.[d] 14Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.[e]

The bolded type is a reference to numbers 21. Context of the story is that the Jewish people were sinning against God, so God sent snakes to judge the people. Here is the story
7(J)So the people came to Moses and said, "We have sinned, because we have spoken against the LORD and you; (K)intercede with the LORD, that He may remove the serpents from us." And Moses interceded for the people. 8Then the LORD said to Moses, "Make a (L)fiery serpent, and set it on a standard; and it shall come about, that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, he will live."
9And Moses made a (M)bronze serpent and set it on the standard; and it came about, that if a serpent bit any man, when he looked to the bronze serpent, he lived.

Jesus, a first century Jew himself, would have known that Nicodemus, a first century rabbi, who was a scholar of the scriptures would have immediately known that Jesus was referring directly to this story and known that the fiery serpents represented Judgement and sin and that in order to receive forgiveness and healing, they needed to express their faith that the serpent lifted on the standard could heal them. I kind of butchered this a-bit. However, immediately in Nicodemus’s little mind, he would have understood that Jesus was saying that he would have the authority for mankind to have eternal life if they repented from their sins and believed in him. Also Jesus was informing Nicodemus that He would need to be lifted up on a standard, The cross/crucifixion. What is cool is that in the versus following these, jesus says the verse you asked me about yesterday, John 3:16, 16"For God so (W)loved the world, that He (X)gave His (Y)only begotten Son, that whoever (Z)believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

There is also the subject of when the documents were written, I don’t want to waste any more of your time. If you are curious come and ask me I can tell you. I hope this helps keep you informed. The scholars out there, especially those in the Jesus seminar are deceiving many many people by misrepresenting what Jesus said. There is a breadth of scholarship about the bible and some of it does not have the best objectivity, including Christians. That is why there is so much debate. If you have any questions, please ask.

“One of the first duties of man is not to be duped, to be aware of his world; and to derive the significance of human experience from events that never occurred is surely an enterprise of doubtful value. To establish the facts is always in order, and is indeed the first duty of the historian; but to suppose that the facts, once established in all their fullness, will ‘speak for themselves’ is an illusion. It was perhaps peculiarly the illusion of those historians of the last century who found some special magic in the word ‘scientific.’ The scientific historian, it seems, was one who set forth the facts without injecting any extraneous meaning into them.”[1]
—Carl Becker (1873–1945)