I guess it all depends on which parts you believe more, and which parts you believe less. It is a rare(and probably confused) soul who believes it all equally.
If you are talking about gotquestionsdotorg, then it’s a great place to get " Christian, Protestant, conservative, evangelical, fundamental, and non-denominational" interpretations.
FYI you can read the guidelines about quoting text here.
The short version is you can and are encouraged to link to a source you got information from and can include a small snippet of the source text that is relevant to the point you are making. Basically a “fair use” policy that might be used in any newspaper.
And that presents a slight problem. The Messiah as King of Israel is descended from King David. Since royal descent is patrilineal, the biological son of God cannot be the Messiah and vice versa. The Messiah is not divine at all, but is an instantiation of King David, who can triumph, at last.
Sons of god are unknown in Judaism, save for Genesis 6, and the view has been that they were human, and possibly the sons of Seth. On the other hand descendants of deities were considered common in the Greek and Roman world, so calling Jesus divine (on par with Hercules, at least) is the kind of promotion you’d expect from his Pauline PR firm.
As far as summations go, I’d largely agree with your book. One thing that I’ll note is that, based on the Gnostic works that have been left behind, it seems likely that Jesus’ teachings would have been even more mystical than Paul’s version. The Ophites are generally accepted as being a 1st Century sect following Jesus:
We know nothing about the beliefs of the Nicolaitans, but the Borborites are reputed to have descended from them. The Naassenes may have been 1st Century.
The contemporaries of Jesus and fellow disciples of John the Baptist, Simon and Dositheos had their own Gnostic beliefs:
And Menander continued on the teachings of Simon:
It’s very likely that Jesus’ teachings would have included a very complex cosmology and a fairly elaborate story of the Demiurge and Sophia.
Paul focused more on the Love and Kindness angle and less on the mysticism. Among all the heresies that the “Orthodox” group competed with, there was generally a greater amount of mysticism, strongly implying that the originator was more mystic than Paul.
Again, I’m not talking in absolutes. I guess you could say when I say “believe in the Bible” you believe it is what it claims to be. Or, what your religion claims it is.
Everyone will admit there are certainly truths in the Bible. However, not so many would commit to saying they believe it is the inspired word of God.
Jesus certainly said he was God without saying it like that. He DID indicate we are all sons/daughters of God. However, he did not shy away from pointing out that he was different. God himself, which is why the Pharisees wanted to kill him for blasphemy.
Whatever terminology you apply, the Bible is quite specific (in both old and new testament) that “someone” was with God from the beginning of time, that he will come to Earth and make himself a sacrifice for all people. Isaiah describes what happens to Jesus in the New Testament quite accurately.
I just want to add that I’ve read Aslan’s book, and though I’m well aware that it’s been attacked from several different sources, I found it persuasive and credible. Aslan himself is an interesting and controversial fellow, a one-time evangelical Christian and now a Muslim, an author, religious scholar, and sometimes provocative commentator. Zealot is a fascinating attempt to reconstruct the historical Jesus with credible academic rigor.
Aslan concludes, in essence, that Jesus was a Jewish political revolutionary whose primary mission was the liberation of Judea from Roman control, as well as opposition to the oppressive aristocracy of the Jewish priesthood. His teachings may have had moral overtones but the sanctification of Jesus, in Aslan’s view, was entirely built on after-the-fact embellishments and the institutionalization of Christianity. Thus he was crucified not on the mere pretext that he was fomenting rebellion, but based on the reality that he really was. I think Christians are generally taught that the inscription “INRI” traditionally seen on the cross, meaning “Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum”, or “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews”, was meant as mockery, but in Aslan’s view it was meant literally and intended to serve as a warning to others.
You believe according to your interpretations, and others believe according to theirs-the problem is that your interpretations are guided by beliefs already held. Basically, you can only see what you want to see.
Isaiah does not mention Jesus by name. Much like interpretations of Nostradamus’ writings, vague descriptions can be assigned to whoever you want them to.
Judaism does not agree with Christianity that Isaiah references refer to Jesus.
If you throw out enough wild-ass-guesses, some will stick. Isaiah throws out a shitload of vague, wild-ass-guesses. If you try hard enough, you can find one that predicts what you will have for lunch tomorrow. What a prophet!
Everyone admits what? At most, I accept that there are a few historical facts nestled amongst the storytelling, and plenty of people believe that collection of stories is the inspired word of the god they believe in…but there is a pretty good chance that the god they have derived from those stories is different from the god you see in those same stories.
Anytime two passages appear to contradict each other, it is simply and solely because you do not understand one or both passages. Once both are fully understood, the apparent contradiction disappears.
Actually, once you can “translate” the verse that doesn’t tell you what you already believe(or even ignore it completely), you are than free to believe the verse that does tell you what you already believe.