Who came up with the popular image of Jesus?

"an enormous change of heart for the Romans" >>> The adoption of Christianity as the state approved religion by the Romans is credited to the emperor Constantine who is said to have attributed his success on the battlefield to the God of the Christians. There were various conflicting views of Jesus at that time and the Romans were not happy to take on a religion which would pitch sections of their subjects against one another. They gathered together bishops from their various provinces and got them, through the various Councils, to agree on an official theology. The rest is in my answer.

"established Christianity should become just as paranoid, persecuting not only other religions but also fellow-Christians" >>> Indeed, the Roman Catholic church had the approval of and authority from the state to enforce not only the religion throughout the land but the fine details of the creed too. Indigenous European religions, mainly Pagan, were wiped out and different understandings of the new religion condemned and severely punished as heresy. 

Quite a spin there CLURT. Christians were heavily persecuted by Romans in the first couple of centuries despite your assertions about Paul. Nero comes to mind. Fourth century Christendom didn't hardly reflect Christianity as recorded in the Bible.

"Quite a spin there CLURT" >>> would appreciate the specific point in my answer which you think is incorrect.


Nothing in my answer contradicts anything in the rest of your post.

Kinda the way you mixed some truth in with false conclusions like when you state the reason that Paul changed from the Mosaic Law was to attract gentiles. The Romans did nothing to save biblical Christianity. Romans and weed like Christians all but eliminated biblical Christianity and adherents thereof. The Law was not the focus of the religion but more like Love for Jehovah and the sanctification of His name. Paul is not the one that introduced Jesus as the Son of God. 

The Catholic Church did pretty much the same thing to get their holidays and doctrines, a mixture of truth with a slant towards falsehood.

This post was edited by texasescimo at March 4, 2018 1:58 PM MST

The only comment I found directly related to my post is "you state the reason that Paul changed from the Mosaic Law was to attract gentiles"  >>> just to put the record straight here's what I actually stated "it was changed into a religion free of the burdensome Mosaic laws"

Some points in the rest of your post are as I see them too while others are ones on which your and my understandings differ.

So you didn't say or imply that Paul changed from the Mosaic Law was to attract gentiles?
So you didn't say or imply that The Romans saved Christianity?
So you didn't say or imply that The Law was not the of the religion?
So you didn't say or imply that Jesus became the son of God, appealing to the Romans?

If none of that was your point, I apologize but perhaps you should be more clear in what you are saying as it looked like you were saying those things, for sure implied from my reading.


This was part of your initial post of which my post addresses:
[...
I think Christianity [the name came after the departure of Jesus from earth] would have disappeared had it not been for the Romans. They adopted the religion and adapted it to blend in with their Pagan beliefs, to make it more readily acceptable among themselves and when they introduced it into their empire as the only officially recognised state religion.

The foundation of the Roman adaptations were laid down by Paul who changed the focus of the religion from the law of Moses, strict monotheism and a readily forgiving God [as in Jesus' parable of the prodigal son] to a religion that would be more easy to attract gentiles to. For that purpose it was changed into a religion free of the burdensome Mosaic laws and one in which Jesus was the son of God who entered earth to die for the sins of man and had he not done so man would have had no hope of salvation from the wrath of God.

This was appealing to the Romans whose gods had sons. Yehoshua the son of Mary [short form, Yessou] became Jesus the son of God, a Roman God, with a Romanised name and looks. ...] This post was edited by texasescimo at March 4, 2018 6:04 PM MST

I don't see the need for a court room style questioning. I just pointed out that I did not state what you said I had stated. I then went on to quote what I had actually stated.

I then went on to say that there are some issues on which we see eye to eye and others on which we don't.

You left out much of what you stated, yes? 

As far as court room style questioning, why did you say: [The only comment I found directly related to my post is "you state the reason that Paul changed from the Mosaic Law was to attract gentiles"  >>> just to put the record straight here's what I actually stated "it was changed into a religion free of the burdensome Mosaic laws"]

Actually you have no interest to put the record straight but only to make it look like my post is out of context of the thread or something. At least you didn't edit your previous post before stating it this time.



Quote from you March 4, 2018 2:01 PM: [...here's what I actually stated "it was changed into a religion free of the burdensome Mosaic laws"...]


Quote from you January 26, 2018 2:19 PM: [Q "Who came up with the popular image of Jesus?
It's a clearly European-looking image — fair-skinned, light-haired, blue-eyed, his softly handsome demeanor suggesting a teen idol, if a serious-minded one. You’d figure a guy like that would have been a real sore thumb in first-century Judea. So where’d we get the idea that that’s Jesus?"



I think Christianity [the name came after the departure of Jesus from earth] would have disappeared had it not been for the Romans. They adopted the religion and adapted it to blend in with their Pagan beliefs, to make it more readily acceptable among themselves and when they introduced it into their empire as the only officially recognised state religion.

The foundation of the Roman adaptations were laid down by Paul who changed the focus of the religion from the law of Moses, strict monotheism and a readily forgiving God [as in Jesus' parable of the prodigal son] to a religion that would be more easy to attract gentiles to. For that purpose it was changed into a religion free of the burdensome Mosaic laws and one in which Jesus was the son of God who entered earth to die for the sins of man and had he not done so man would have had no hope of salvation from the wrath of God.

This was appealing to the Romans whose gods had sons. Yehoshua the son of Mary [short form, Yessou] became Jesus the son of God, a Roman God, with a Romanised name and looks. 

A few centuries later, the spirit of God was admitted as God, the Holy Spirit, to become the third person of the new Holy Trinity.

There were of course other Pagan traditions that were introduced into Roman Catholicism, the new Roman religion, such as Christmas.]

See the difference as you didn't just state: "it was changed into a religion free of the burdensome Mosaic laws".
You stated quite a bit more.

I've made my points. 

Yes, points, and I responded to them as you tried to get your comments to morph in to only one comment as if the rest went in to oblivion by being on a previous page or something.

EDIT: Your post at least implied everything I said it did, if not meant that way, you could have clarified and accepted my apology. This is not the first time that you tried to throw Paul under the bus as if he made everything up on his own in opposition to Jesus and the rest of the Bible. A little context never hurts.

(Proverbs 18:17) The first to state his case seems right, Until the other party comes and cross-examines him. This post was edited by texasescimo at March 5, 2018 6:32 AM MST

You are using all sorts of means to take this discussion to where it does not need to go. The subject of Paul.

You know that I credit Paul with being a prime architect of Christianity, and I have explained why. That seems to hurt and/or offend you like I regard Paul as some sort of a sexual offender. You are welcome to believe that Christian theology is built on the teachings of Jesus, that's your choice. However, the role of Paul has been widely acknowledged. It continues to be the view among recent researchers too. Challenged on why he had in all editions of his book continued to put Mohammed at the top of his researched list of the 100 Most Influential People to have ever walked on earth, Michael Hart said that Christianity did not result from the influence of Jesus alone but that Paul had a huge influence on the formulation and promotion of its doctrines.

Pretty sure that your answer to the question about who came up with the popular image of Jesus is where the subject of Paul came up, yes?

Paul did do his part to help others learn about Jesus, just not in the context of your answer.

Sad thing is that you regard Paul lower than you know who that actually was a sex offender.

One should be careful not to harbour hatred. Those that have flames of hatred in their heart will be consumed by that flame. 

Mohammed, a humble being according to those who have studied his life, promoted love for all messengers of God including Jesus and exonerated them from all the criminal misconduct they were associated with by Bible scribes.

Paul who never met Jesus in person is undeniably a central figure in Christianity, above all the disciples chosen by Jesus. His contribution to Christian theology is there for all to see. Paul shifted the focus from the teachings of Jesus [for your salvation do the will of God] and changed it to believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus for your salvation.

No hatred here, just irritation and frustration at your deception. Your initial answer was that Paul did things to appease others rather than under inspiration of God in line with the Hebrew prophecies and not you are trying to make it appear almost like you said the opposite. You have made too many jabs at Paul over the years for me to believe your intention has changed.


If you are trying to put Paul in a good light, following God and Jesus rather than trying to please the Romans as your answer implied, why do you follow Muhammad who went completely in the opposite direction? Mosaic Law wasn't harsh enough for him so he had to add more lashes.

phrases like "your deception" say a lot about your eagerness to accuse others of evil. This is one of the ways in which you and I differ. I would never want to follow you in that aspect.  I do not portray your views as deception. I regard them as your sincere beliefs.

I said "Paul shifted the focus from the teachings of Jesus [for your salvation do the will of God] and changed it to believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus for your salvation." You believe that Paul did that "under inspiration of God" and therefore is justified in that change of focus. That's your choice. I choose to give the teachings of Jesus precedence over those of anyone else in the Bible who came after Jesus. I do not call your beliefs a deception or a jab at Jesus nor do I see my preference for the teachings of Jesus as a deception or a jab at Paul. I think respect in discussions is very important and a sign of civility.

I follow what makes sense to me. I believe that if the universe has a creator, then God is its creator. As the creator of all humanity He loves all humanity and wants the best for all humanity. He sent guides to all humanity with the same essential message, that He is the creator and the all-knowing and that for their salvation here and in the hereafter people should do God's will as explained and exemplified by the guides sent to them, and should not follow their own whims and desires. These guides were sent to all peoples, in all ages and in all parts of the world and include great personalities like Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus. If God exists, then the above is nothing but good, obvious common sense. That's what I believe and that's what I follow.

Yet you imply evil on my part with phrases like "harbour hatred" and "Those that have flames of hatred in their heart".

If you were a sincere person you would have stuck around in our other thread where you made the taunt of something like the Bible is open to pretty much any interpretation to see that that is not the case but after you were shown that is not true, you left.

If you see yourself as one of "Those that have flames of hatred in their heart" then you might like to consider my other general statement, "One should be careful not to harbour hatred."

You can carry on calling my comments on a subject under discussion as "taunts" and casting doubts on my sincerity as much as you want to. That just reflects your choice.

Yes, the Bible is open to a wide spectrum of interpretations. The Watch Tower interpretation is just one of hundreds if not thousands. One just has to look at the number of sects out there. That is a statement of fact. You can regard that fact as a taunt but I'm not responsible for it.

This exchange between you and me is going the same way as other discussions between us unfortunately end up doing. They become too long and unnecessary.

You are so clever. Are you a politician?


Quote: "Yes, the Bible is open to a wide spectrum of interpretations. "

Here's the link that in question. 

https://answermug.com/forums/topic/51385/how-can-the-anti-christ-come-to-power-with-america-great-again

• texasescimo  CLURT
  
  
   
  CLURT, in regards to: "it's also true that even among those who believe what the Bible says there are many widely differing interpretations" what do you make of my comment to my2cents on February 26, 2018 7:41 AM?
  
  If it's too much information to comment on, do you at least agree that the ram with two horns stands for the Medes and Persians and the goat stands for Greece? (The parts in color were added by me)
  History shows that Greece defeated them. After Alexander the Great died, his kingdom was split into four kingdoms ruled over by four of his generals.
  
  (Daniel 8:1-9) In the third year of the kingship of King Bel·shazʹzar, a vision appeared to me, Daniel, after the one that appeared to me previously. 2 I saw the vision, and as I watched I was in Shuʹshan the citadel, which is in the province of Eʹlam; I viewed the vision, and I was next to the watercourse of Uʹlai. 3 As I raised my eyes, look! there was a ram(Medes and Persians) standing before the watercourse, and it had two horns. The two horns were tall, but one was higher than the other, and the higher one came up later. 4 I saw the ram making thrusts to the west and to the north and to the south, and no wild beasts could stand before it, and there was no one who could provide rescue from its power. It did as it pleased and exalted itself. 5 As I kept watching, look! there was a male goat coming from the west crossing the surface of the whole earth without touching the ground. And the goat(Greece) had a conspicuous horn between its eyes. 6 It was coming toward the ram with the two horns, which I had seen standing before the watercourse; it was running toward it in a powerful rage. 7 I saw it closing in on the ram, and it was filled with bitterness toward it. It struck down the ram and broke its two horns, and the ram was powerless to stand up to it. It threw the ram to the ground and trampled it down, and there was no one to rescue it from its power. 8 Then the male goat exalted itself exceedingly, but as soon as it became mighty, the great horn was broken; then four conspicuous horns came up instead of the one, toward the four winds of the heavens. 9 Out of one of them came another horn, a small one, and it grew very great toward the south and toward the east and toward the Decoration.
     February 28, 2018 2:51 AM PST

   Reply Like Edit Delete

   0
• CLURT  texasescimo
   
  I honestly don't know. The differences between you and M2C illustrate what I said to M2C, that Revelation is a record of a vision and full of metaphors that are open to very wide interpretations. People can see what they want to see in them. It's a bit like the book of Nostradamus. Its fans interpret it the way they want to and then marvel at how accurate its prophecies are.
     February 28, 2018 3:17 PM

But we don't have to go there. You can just keep thinking that the Bible is open to any interpretation. It apparently makes you feel better about Islam and the fruits therein. 

(Matthew 7:20) Really, then, by their fruits you will recognize those men.
(Matthew 12:33) “Either you make the tree fine and its fruit fine or make the tree rotten and its fruit rotten, for by its fruit the tree is known.
(John 13:35) By this all will know that you are my disciples—if you have love among yourselves.”

Oh, but you since that condemns Islam, you likely think Jesus himself didn't say that or perhaps the timing of Jesus saying that is peculiar to you or it's open to interpretation or or or ...

can't comment because either you forgot to clearly state the point or points you are trying to make or it [they] have got lost in all that copy and paste. If you're trying to say that only one interpretation of the Bible is possible then I fail to see that point.

Okay, I'll take out the quotes where you made like everything is open to just any interpretation even when something is a clear teaching.

You are so clever. Are you a politician?

[...]

But we don't have to go there. You can just keep thinking that the Bible is open to any interpretation. It apparently makes you feel better about Islam and the fruits therein. 

(Matthew 7:20) Really, then, by their fruits you will recognize those men.
(Matthew 12:33) “Either you make the tree fine and its fruit fine or make the tree rotten and its fruit rotten, for by its fruit the tree is known.
(John 13:35) By this all will know that you are my disciples—if you have love among yourselves.”

Oh, but you since that condemns Islam, you likely think Jesus himself didn't say that or perhaps the timing of Jesus saying that is peculiar to you or it's open to interpretation or or or ...



You've made it clear that the Quran is open to any interpretation with your past comments about not being able to say rather or not those murdering women and children and such are true Muslims. I understand that with verses like this:

Sura 21:06 SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?

Sura 16:101 SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
And when We substitute a verse in place of a verse - and Allah is most knowing of what He sends down - they say, "You, [O Muhammad], are but an inventor [of lies]." But most of them do not know.


Pretty much excuses Muhammad for flip flopping when contradicting himself as well.

I still don't know exactly what point you're making. I think you're commenting on only one of the points from my post immediately preceding my last post . For convenience of reference, I have numbered them. You will see that apart from point 4 each of the other points relates directly to something you posted and in most cases is linked to your point by quoting a word or phrase from your point:

1. If you see yourself as one of "Those that have flames of hatred in their heart" then you might like to consider my other general statement, "One should be careful not to harbour hatred."

2. You can carry on calling my comments on a subject under discussion as "taunts" and casting doubts on my sincerity as much as you want to. That just reflects your choice.

3. Yes, the Bible is open to a wide spectrum of interpretations. The Watch Tower interpretation is just one of hundreds if not thousands. One just has to look at the number of sects out there. That is a statement of fact. You can regard that fact as a taunt but I'm not responsible for it.

4. This exchange between you and me is going the same way as other discussions between us unfortunately end up doing. They become too long and unnecessary.

Your posts are clearly related to point 3. The main message in that point is that the Bible is open to a wide spectrum of interpretations. So are your posts trying to disagree with that?

The Bible makes clear that there would be an apostasy with different sects but it also gives a clear way to know who are following Jesus. Just because ones as yourself choose to take verses out of context doesn't mean that the Bible really is open to any interpretation. You don't even know who the Ram and the Goat stand for in Daniel, even after being spoon fed and you want to make like you are a sincere Bible student, please. With the Quran on the other hand, you can't tell which verses are abrogated or which sect is following Muhammad. They all get involved in killing one another over perceived or real differences. You've even stated that you can't tell if ones involved in all of that mess are true Muslims and even stated that more Sunni have been killed by Sunni than by Shia and more Shia have been killed by Shia than by Shiite. Through all of that you like to talk like you really believe the words of Jesus?

I'll color it read so you know it's Jesus speaking:
(John 13:35) By this all will know that you are my disciples—if you have love among yourselves.”

Just like those who converted from atheism to belief were previously convinced about their atheism so are non JW people convinced about their current religious belief or non belief. It is an obvious fact, and quite natural, that each Christian sect will see all the others as taking verses out of context and see them as the foretold sects of apostasy. If we accept all that as fact then it can make us more understanding and tolerant. It can make us feel less frustrated and angry and wanting to insult and offend others when they fail to accept our arguments "even after being spoon fed" or fail to see them the way we see them.

One can try and help people to see as one does, that the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is/was archangel Michael, or that if Jesus didn't die and rise from the dead the whole world would be in sin, or that a certain beast in Revelation was symbolic for a particular nation or people today, but does one have to become vengeful if they decline to accept those views and especially if they explain why?

It's okay quoting Jesus as saying, "By this all will know that you are my disciples—if you have love among yourselves.” but didn't he also say about loving one's neighbours? Is intolerance of them and hurling abusive, offending and insulting comments at them a show of that love? Not in my interpretation.

There are many people, like yourself with the ram and goat, that refuse to read a whole chapter to get the context and just claim it is open to any interpretation or that their forced interpretation is correct or that refuse to read relevant verses of the same subject in other books or chapters of the Bible so as to let the Bible interpret the Bible.

I am glad that you don't see me as angry, insulting, abusive or offending as last time you said something like that you let me know you were not talking about me. Curious as to why you include those terms in a thread with only the two of us though?

As you reject the Bible, no sense in discussing with you who, what or where Jesus was before Jehovah prepared a body of flesh for Jesus. 
I admit that I could be considered an extremist JW as JW's try to adhere to the scriptures and just shake the dust off of their feet rather than getting in to debates with unreasonable people. 

(Matthew 10:14) Wherever anyone does not receive you or listen to your words, on going out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet.
(2 Timothy 2:14) Keep reminding them of these things, instructing them before God not to fight about words, something of no usefulness at all because it harms those listening.
(Colossians 4:5, 6) Go on walking in wisdom toward those on the outside, making the best use of your time. 6 Let your words always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should answer each person.

There may very well be many people, like myself, who don't have to accept as correct any interpretation forced by an organised church. They feel free to come to their own interpretation after reading a whole chapter to get the context and reading relevant verses of the same subject in other books or chapters of the Bible so as to let the Bible interpret the Bible. For example, they might prefer to reject the whole Bible than to accept that Jesus was/is the archangel Michael.

"I am glad that you don't see me as angry, insulting, abusive or offending" and "As you reject the Bible" are your interpretations. I am sure you applied your principle of using context and looked at all your posts and mine to arrive at the "correct" interpretation.

You have your interpretation of "what or where Jesus was before Jehovah prepared a body of flesh for Jesus", the Catholics have theirs, so do the Mormons and so do I.
 
"I admit that I could be considered an extremist JW" your self assessment could be correct, but the reason may be more than "JW's try to adhere to the scriptures and just shake the dust off of their feet rather than getting in to debates with unreasonable people." I discuss with them face to face whenever they want to but have never heard them make insulting or offensive remarks about others.