Who Was Jesus?

 
A Humanities Essay That Teaches The Study of The Bible As 
A Historical Document

 
        I felt a very positive impression of who Jesus was after 
finishing the Book of Matthew.  I had a new image of someone who 
was a down-to-earth, caring individual.  I did not find quotes of 
Jesus that claimed being superior to the common man, of whom 
sinners could not look upon (a view that most people had of their 
Gods for centuries before). Matthew 12:49-50, Jesus announces to 
multitudes that they are his mother and brothers.  In that way, 
he puts himself at an equal level to the people, rather than 
claiming to be a God above them.  This reflects the whole 
attitude of the book. 
     Chapters 6-7 of Matthew quote Jesus as he is presenting 
rules to live by to the multitudes.  To me, all of these sounded 
like hints to leading a happy life for yourself.  Jesus reflects 
a God that does not expect virgins or animals to be sacrificed in 
His name; but, a God that is pleased by followers that love not 
only God, but each other also.  These seem like simple, logical 
rules to live by.  But, they reflected a time in history where 
that kind of love for one another was hard to find because of the 
hardships inflicted upon the people. 
     I find some conflict in Jesus' actions, however.  Jesus 
never (as far as I know) says to ignore to commandments of God in 
the Hebrew Scriptures; however, constantly breaks the Sabbath 
(Matt 12:13 and others), and gives VERY flimsy and unconvincing 
explanations for it.  I am not sure what his message was in those 
actions.  Perhaps he didn't care? 
     In general, Matthew was a good, entertaining story to read, 
with a very dramatic ending, and great character development (a 
little sarcastic humor here)! 
     I was very surprised to find much of the Book of Mark a 
repeat of what was written in Matthew, but with a little less 
detail, and a few stories omitted. 
     Jesus goes a little overboard on the parables!  Most of the  
parables needed to be explained to his disciples, and some of 
them I wasn't able to understand either!  Although many parables 
have a good, inspiring morals to them, I would question Jesus as 
to if they were an effective way to witness to common people.  
Even today, too many people read parables as TRUTH, rather than 
"just a story."  Plus, they are misinterpreted. 
     But, I have to tell you that an amazing coincidence happened 
to me after I finished reading the Parable of "The Pearl of Great 
Price."  A couple of hours later, I was watching an old episode 
of Star Trek on TV, and 'Scotty' had actually quoted the same, 
exact parable at the end of the show!  Funny that the writers of 
Star Trek predict the future to still hold the same religion as 
now, and 2000 years ago. 
     Both Matthew and Mark write about the part of Pilate in His 
crucifixion.  It seems to me that Pilate was a "good-guy", and 
did not really want to have Jesus killed because he did not see 
anything that He did wrong (as compared to Barabbas, the 
murderer).  (Mark 15:1-15) As a matter of fact, I see that Pilate 
tried to give Jesus another chance by asking the crowd to choose 
to punish the Murderer, or Jesus. Then, 'washed his hands' of 
this crucifixion after the decision was made.  Why is Pilate 
portrayed as a 'Good-Guy' in these books while we know, 
historically, that Pilate was NOT a friend to the Jews? 
     After reading these books, I get the feeling that Jesus was 
here to save the Jewish people, not the gentiles (like most of 
today's Christians).  I can't find the spot, but Jesus seemed 
reluctant to pay attention to a sick gentile, but finally healed 
her because of her faith.  Yes, he is the king of the Jews, that 
is said in many places. But, was Jesus here to save only Jews, or 
the people in all the world (like Rome, the Sumarites, etc.)?  
That kind of makes me feel unsure of why Christianity has become 
the primary religion of Non-Jewish people.      My God, the 
expansion of the Church was incredible from the time of Jesus!  
After reading Matthew and Mark during the time of Jesus on earth, 
and then reading Acts, I was shocked at the change!  A few things 
that happen in Acts are strangely different than what I had 
expected after reading about Jesus and His religion. 
     As I said before, I felt good about what Jesus had said 
in the previous books.  But, it seems that things that happen 
in Acts are like a contradiction to Jesus.  The biggest example 
is the administration of Punishment to people.  Some particularly 
bothersome stories are: (Acts 5:1-11) The death of the husband 
and wife for not presenting 100% of their possessions to the 
Church.  And, (Acts 12:23) the violent death of Herod.  Also, 
(Acts 13:11) blindness to Bar-Jesus. Although my Bible, in all 
three cases, tells that Angels or God had punished these people, 
I could believe that a different translation could accurately 
suggest that the deaths were caused by people of the church (the 
translation is fuzzy in that sense).  Either way, no matter 
who caused the death(s), it seems that these kinds of punishments 
would not happen if Jesus were around; He always seemed to bless 
those who did wrong to Him. 
     From stories in Acts, I can see how the power of the 
Catholic Church had progressed to where it was in the 1400's.  I 
had always felt that many of Catholic acts in history were direct 
mis-translations of the teachings of Jesus.  Now I see, things 
like The Crusades could be backed by all of the punishments I 
previously talked about;  also, The Rich Catholic Church claiming 
all the possessions of poor followers can be backed by the 
Apostles' re-distribution of wealth in chapter 4 of Acts.  
Another thing that I thought was a mis-translation by the 
Catholics was the use of confession to priests by the Catholic 
followers (I felt that each indiv.  should confess only to God, 
not to a Man); however, throughout Acts, you see the power 
increasing for certain Apostles, until they were regarded very 
highly to everyone. And, supposedly, the Apostles say that Angels 
come to them often, and tell them who to go out and convert.  The 
Pope, and other priests could easily put themselves in the places 
of the Apostles to say that Angels directly command them to do 
things that aren't necessarily written in the Bible. I got a very 
different impression of Jesus and his religion than Paul, after I 
read Jesus' written words.  However, Paul's letter in Philippians 
reminded me of the attitude from the Christian religion churches 
that I have been accustomed to for years.  Versus like: 'I can do 
all things through Christ who strengthens me' (P 4:13), and  
'..not look out for your own interests, but the interests of 
others' (P 2:4). 
     However, I felt that P 2:10 showed a direct contradiction to 
Hebrew Scripture or any sayings from Jesus.  '...Name of Jesus, 
every knee should bow, of those in heaven, those on earth, and 
those under the earth.'  If Paul is implying that people are 
living under the earth, in hell, then he is adopting that belief 
without any backup, for there is no one in hell now.  People who 
are dead must wait for the coming of God and Judgement day.  
Anyway, that is what +? always thought. The strongest, overall 
impression that I got after reading Matthew, Mark, Acts and 
Philippians, was that the teachings of Jesus were not very well 
understood/followed during the formation of The Church years 
later.  Issues I discussed before, like 'punishment and Fearing 
God's wrath', 'wealth re-distribution' (Jesus lived as a 
peasant), 'the position assumed by certain influential apostles' 
seem very foreign to Jesus. 
    It seems that many of the new beliefs in the New Testament 
can only be backed-up if you belive that Angels really did come 
to men on earth as often as the N.T. says, rather than looking to 
the Hebrew Scripture for validation. 
    The rest of this class should be interesting.  I expect some 
big changes in my religious beliefs to come from it. 


Word Count: 1,379