The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony

[rhinegirl]

It's a historical fact that the gospels weren't written til AFTER christs alleged death and resurection. there are many logical arguments for and against the reliaability of the various gospels.

Jessica[}:)]

quote:Originally posted by Berserk

This post is inspired by Adrian's post on the reliability of biblical tradition.  Outside the New Testament, our most important connection to the eyewitnesses of Jesus is Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in what is now Turkey (60-130 AD).  Papias knew apostles and those discipled by them.  He learns from them that Mark was Peter's interpreter in Rome and that, after Nero kills Peter, Mark shapes Peter's teaching materlals into a Gospel.  So when you read Mark, you are essentially reading eyewitness testimony.   When Mark was young, the first church met in his mother's house (Acts 12:12).

Papias also learns that the apostle Matthew collected Jesus' sayings.  It seems that Matthew composed the most comprehensive sayings source Q (from the German "Quelle" meaning "source").  We no longer have Q, but Q is used in Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark in John.  Most of Jesus' sayings in Matthew are derived from Q.  Papias says that Matthew composed a sayings collection, not a Gospel!   The Gospel bears Matthew's name because of confusion over this point.

Some have made the absurd claim that since Q is just a sayings collection Jesus never performed any miracles.   But Q is just a Wisdom collection and this literary genre does not even allow the inclusion of miracle stories!  We don't scold poetry anthologies for omitting discussions of quantum mechanics!  Before there were Gospels, there were separate collections of sayings, miracle stories, and controversy stories as well as separate birth, Passion, and Resurrection narratives.  In general, the integration of these sources caused the original sequence of events to be lost.  Matthew and Luke use Mark and Q as sources for their Gospels.  

Luke the physician was Paul's travel companion.  Luke composed both the Gospel that bears his name and the Book of Acts.  His Gospel begins with his claim that he has researched "eyewitness" testimony (1:2-3).  When did he do this?  In the Book of Acts he informs us that he travelled with Paul to Jerusalem and consulted with Jesus' brother James and other apostles (21:18).  

In the Gospel miracle traditions, additional evidence for eyewitness testimony can be detected in embarrassing details that seem unlikely to be invented.  For example, in the healing of the blind man at Bethsaida (Mark 8:22-26), the man still has blurry vision after Jesus lays hands on him: "I see people, but they look like ealking trees."  The man needs a second session with Jesus to complete the cure.  If this were legend, the legend would surely portray God's Son as doing the job right the first time.  Matthew and Luke are apparently so offended by this initial failure that they omit the story.  More striking is Mark's admission that in Jesus' home town, He "COULD DO NO miracles there" because of their mocking skepticism.  Matthew changes "could do no" to "did not do many" to soften the obvious implication that Jesus tried and falied to heal there (13:58); and as the commentaries explain, a later scribe adds an awkward "escept" clause to Mark to minimize the damage.  In my view, the willingness of Mark (or rather his source, Peter) to admit that Jesus bombed in his home town makes the other miracle stories more credible.  

It would take too long to explain the case for John's derivation from eyewitness testimony.  So I'll leave that for another post.

[Berserk]

Hi Jessica,

Believe me in the 10 years I devoted to my Harvard doctorate in this field, I learned every imaginable argument AGAINST.  The posts in this section, betray a profound ignorance in the arguments FOR the Gospels.  So I wanted to bring some balance.  By the way, the scholarly consensus on dating is: Mark (64-70 AD), Matthew and Luke (80-100 AD), and John (50-100 AD, with various revisions).  But of course my point is that the Gospel writers used much earlier sources which can plausibly be connected with eyewitness testimony.  

A few years ago, I posted under the silly User Name "Deadworm."  But now that I'm back after a long absence, I've decided to post under my new more spiritually sophistcated name.

Blessings,
Berserk

[exothen]

Berserk,

Interesting topic. Let's see if I can resurrect it.

The biggest problem with the two-source hypothesis, is that, as you stated, we don't have Q, it's just a hypothesis. There are other ways of explaining things without having to make up Q. Also, I find some of your dates for the gospels a little high.

It is possible that Luke was written around 60 AD, based on Acts being written between 60-62 AD. Fragments of Mark from Qumran are said to date to around 50 AD (Jose O'Callahan).

[Mustardseed]

Dear Beserk
Welcome to the AP. It would indeed be very interesting to hear more from you on this matter. Once upon a very long forgotten thread Robert Bruce threw down a Challenge for any Christians to prove that there was, even a shread of historical evidence to prove the existance of Jesus as a Historical person. The thread "Satan decieves you" became the first of mammuth proportions on the AP and was all the rage in its day.[]
Many of us posted various statements literature lists etc and RB finally decided to open a Christian subgroup (as you see[])and called in a certain Beth Philips who became the moderator of the Christian forum. Beth had a Phd and basically made "mince meat" out of a lot of us simple Christians, with a very pointed and agressive line of debating, and using her superior education to in my opinion "bully" folks around. All though most made peace with Beth, and we all agreed to disagree, the actual issue is still not resolved.
I would be delighted to hear your comments on it and will dig up some of the posts, for your information. The issue is of immense importance to many people and your insight wether for or against will be very helpful. Did Jesus exist as a Historical figure?

Regards Mustardseed

PS It is still my opinion that the Creator of the site RB as well as Admin (Adrian) and some of the Moderators are hardcore NewAge believers and very much of the opinion that Christians are "misguided". Sometimes it seems we are in the middle of a reverse inquisision here[]. Most are Hermetic Occultists or Gnostics or a micture of some sort, and though very sweet and very knowledgable on OBEs they do imho seem to have a agenda .

[Berserk]

This post is inspired by Adrian's post on the reliability of biblical tradition.  Outside the New Testament, our most important connection to the eyewitnesses of Jesus is Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in what is now Turkey (60-130 AD).  Papias knew apostles and those discipled by them.  He learns from them that Mark was Peter's interpreter in Rome and that, after Nero kills Peter, Mark shapes Peter's teaching materlals into a Gospel.  So when you read Mark, you are essentially reading eyewitness testimony.   When Mark was young, the first church met in his mother's house (Acts 12:12).

Papias also learns that the apostle Matthew collected Jesus' sayings.  It seems that Matthew composed the most comprehensive sayings source Q (from the German "Quelle" meaning "source").  We no longer have Q, but Q is used in Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark in John.  Most of Jesus' sayings in Matthew are derived from Q.  Papias says that Matthew composed a sayings collection, not a Gospel!   The Gospel bears Matthew's name because of confusion over this point.

Some have made the absurd claim that since Q is just a sayings collection Jesus never performed any miracles.   But Q is just a Wisdom collection and this literary genre does not even allow the inclusion of miracle stories!  We don't scold poetry anthologies for omitting discussions of quantum mechanics!  Before there were Gospels, there were separate collections of sayings, miracle stories, and controversy stories as well as separate birth, Passion, and Resurrection narratives.  In general, the integration of these sources caused the original sequence of events to be lost.  Matthew and Luke use Mark and Q as sources for their Gospels.  

Luke the physician was Paul's travel companion.  Luke composed both the Gospel that bears his name and the Book of Acts.  His Gospel begins with his claim that he has researched "eyewitness" testimony (1:2-3).  When did he do this?  In the Book of Acts he informs us that he travelled with Paul to Jerusalem and consulted with Jesus' brother James and other apostles (21:18).  

In the Gospel miracle traditions, additional evidence for eyewitness testimony can be detected in embarrassing details that seem unlikely to be invented.  For example, in the healing of the blind man at Bethsaida (Mark 8:22-26), the man still has blurry vision after Jesus lays hands on him: "I see people, but they look like walking trees."  The man needs a second session with Jesus to complete the cure.  If this were legend, the legend would surely portray God's Son as doing the job right the first time.  Matthew and Luke are apparently so offended by this initial failure that they omit the story.  More striking is Mark's admission that in Jesus' home town, He "COULD DO NO miracles there" because of their mocking skepticism.  Matthew changes "could do no" to "did not do many" to soften the obvious implication that Jesus tried and falied to heal there (13:58); and as the commentaries explain, a later scribe adds an awkward "except" clause to Mark to minimize the damage.  In my view, the willingness of Mark (or rather his source, Peter) to admit that Jesus bombed in his home town makes the other miracle stories more credible.  

It would take too long to explain the case for John's derivation from eyewitness testimony.  So I'll leave that for another post.

[Berserk]

The narration of resurrection appearances that can most impressively be connected with eyewitness testimony is that found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7:

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance; that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter [called "Rock"], and then to the Twelve.  After that, he appeared to more than 500 brethren at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.  Then he appeard to [Jesus' brother] James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born."

Paul received this list of Easter appearances after making two trips to Jerusalem during which he conversed extensively with eyewitnesses to Jesus' resurrection.   On his first trip, he conversed with Peter and Jesus' brother James, but with none of the other apostles (Galatians 1:18-19).   Fourteen  year later, he met with all the leaders together with the entire Jerusalem church to  ensure that he knew all the vital information about Jesus (Galatians 2:1-2; cp. Acts 15).

The Risen Lord's appearance to Peter is mentioned in passing in Luke 24:34, but is not described in detail.   The first appearance to the twelve apostles is graphically depicted by both Luke and John.   The second appearance to the twelve is described in Matthew and John.   But there is no explicit mention in our Gospels of the mass appearance to the 500 or the private appearance to James.

Paul does not tell us where this mass appearance occurred, but it could not have taken place in a church building or home.   There were no first century churches as distinct architectural structures.  The early Christians met in house churches.   No home was large enough to accommodate 500 believers.   So this Easter appearance must have occurred outside.   Our best guess is that it occurred during a prayer vigil at the empty tomb.    On Paul's second visit to Jerusalem, he would have met many of these eyewitnesses.   He is able to report that some of them have passed away in the intervening years.   But he exults in the fact that most of them are still alive to confirm their miraculous encounter with the Risen Christ.  

The significance of the Risen Jesus' private appearance to His brother James is twofold: (1) It provides the best explanation for the conversion of Jesus' previously hostile brothers.   During His public ministry, His brothers did not believe in Him and were skeptical of His messianic claims and wonder-working reputation.   They were never around to witness His healings (John 7:3-5).  On one occasion, His family thought He had gone mad because He was conducting long teaching sessions with no break for meals.  So they tried to physically restrain Him (Mark 3:20-21).   But by the last of the resurrection appearances, all His brothers have embraced the fledgling Christian community.  We find them with their mother Mary in a group of 120 Christians in the upper room of a house church (Acts 1:14-15).  Jesus' family is participating in a Christian prayer vigil that lasts several days and culminates in the spectacular outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2).   The best explanation of the transformation of Jesus' brothers from hostile cynics to devout believers is the compelling news of their brother James's private encounter with the Risen Christ.

(2) James was not a follower of Jesus for most of His public ministry.  So why did the Jerusalem church agree to let him outrank even Peter as the supreme leader of their church?  Jesus' private Easter appearance to James must have been an important element of the church's decision.  

Paul's vision of the Risen Jesus blinded him, so that he was only able to regain his vision after Ananias laid hands on him and prayed for his recovery (Acts 9).  Only the impact of Paul's resurrection vision can explain his transformation from a confident and convinced Pharisee who violently helped kill and persecute Christians  to Christendom's greatest apostle.   It can be argued that, without Paul's apostolic career, Christianity would never have become a world religion.   So Paul's list of Easter appearances in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 has evidential value on several levels.    

3

[Berserk]

THE LIFE OF JESUS ACCORDING TO HIS EARLIEST JEWISH DETRACTORS

In late antiquity, the Romans executed Christians for refusing to offer sacrifices to Caesar as a god.  Beyond this persecution, there was widespread hatred of Christians among Jews and Romans alike.  Why?  
Couldn't these people see from the Gospels what a wonderful man Jesus was?   Actually, almost none of them read early Christian writings.  Gossip had gradually created a new, more sinister version of Jesus' life--a version that truly inspired anti-Christian feeling.   This new version was never written down; it must be inferred and collected from a variety of sources.   I thought you might be interested in reading a composite of all this gossip.  So I present to you the Jewish anti-Gospel, a version of Jesus' life pieced together from scattered comments traceable to the first two centuries of the Christian era.  The sources for each tidbit are enclosed in parentheses.  Though this anti-Gospel is largely just slander, it deserves to be analyzed in terms of how it relates to the real Jesus.  I will let you mull it over for a while, and later, I will post my analysis of it.

THE JEWISH ANTI-GOSPEL:

Jesus was a Samaritan, not a Jew (John 8:48), and the son of a prostitute (Tertullian, De spectaculis 30).   He was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier named Panthera and a spinner named Mary.  To cover up his embarrassment at his ignoble lineage, Jesus later made up the story of his virgin birth (Celsus 1:28).  Jesus was small, ugly, and undistinguished in appearance (Celsus 6:75).  He was brought up in Nazareth as a carpenter (Mark 6:3), but his poverty forced him to hire himself out as a laborer in far away Egypt (Celsus 1:28, 32).  In Egypt, Jesus gained expertise in magic (Celsus 1:38) and was even tattooed with magical symbols or spells (Rabbi Eliezer).  When Jesus returned from Egypt, he proclaimed himself a god (Celsus 1:38) and became famous as a healer and exorcist.  He thereby persuaded many Jews and Greeks that he was the Messiah (Josephus, Antiquities 18.3.3).  

In fact, Jesus was a demon-possessed Samaritan (John 8:38) who cast out demons by the power of the prince of demons (Matthew 12:34).  His healings were different: they were really magically induced hallucinations (Justin, 1 Apology 30), and so, his cures never lasted long (Quadratus).  He could give no sign to prove that he was the Son of God (Celsus 1:67).   As a wonder worker, he failed miserably in his home town and even his own family did not believe in him (Mark 6:4-5; John 7:5).  
He traveled around with his 10 (not 12!) disciples (Celsus 2:46), who were sailors of the worst sort.  He made his living shamefully as a beggar (1:62).  Although he pretended to follow Jewish customs, he taught his disciples to despise the Jewish Law and to practice magic (Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 10; 69:7).  He was a wino and a glutton, who loved to party and gained notoriety from his cozy associations with corrupt tax collectors and prostitutes (Matthew 11:18; 21:31-32).  Of his prostitutes'' wages, Jesus once foolishly said, "From filth they came and to filth they shall return."  By this he meant that the wages of hookers, if given to the Temple, could only by used to build privies (Rabbi Eliezer).  

Jesus taught his disciples to profane the Sabbath and to conduct promiscuous nocturnal sex orgies during which cannibalism was practiced (Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 10:1).  During these orgies, Communion was celebrated ed by using the Communion bread to collect the gushing blood of the children being sacrificed (Tertullian, Apology 8).  Thus, the Romans labeled Christians "haters of the human race" (Tacitus, Annals 15.44.3-8).  

Jesus considered the Temple establishment to be corrupt and even assaulted the Temple merchants.  He promised to destroy the Temple and then rebuild it in three days (Mark 14:58; John 2:19).  Accusations leveled by Jewish leaders finally got Jesus crucified by Pontius Pilate (Josephus, Antiquities 18.3.3).  He was crucified for being a political rebel and for proclaiming himself "the king of the Jews" (John 6:15; 9:19).  After his crucifixion, his disciples stole his body so that they could proclaim that he had risen from the dead (Matthew 27:64; 28:11-15).  Other Jews had a different explanation for the disappearance of his body:  Jesus' tomb was located in a garden and the gardener in charge took it upon himself to haul away Jesus' body because he didn't want Christian sightseers to trample down his lettuce.   When his disciples found the tomb empty, they wrongly concluded that he had risen from the dead (Tertullian, De spectaculis 30).

NOTES ON THE SOURCES (IN PARENTHESIS) FOR THE ANTI-GOSPEL:

Celsus consulted contemporary Jews to hear their alternative version of Jesus' life.  Celsus then wrote a book against Jesus in 178 AD.  Celsus's book is now lost, but the church father, Origen, later quotes it and alludes to its arguments in his book "Against Celsus."  All the bracketed references to Celsus are drawn from Origen's book.  

Josephus was born in Jerusalem around 37 AD, and so, gives us the earliest non-Christian literary allusion to the life of Jesus.
 
Most of the rabbinic writings that mention Jesus are far too late to help us reconstruct the earliest Jewish version of Jesus' life.  But Rabbi Eliezer was a Palestinian rabbi who was active from 70 to 100 AD.   So his comments are relevant to my task.  The first quote from Eliezer above is based on Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 104b; Tosefta, Shabbat 11:15, and Jerusalem Talmud, Shabbat 12:4 [13d]).  The second quote from Eliexer above is drawn from Midrash Qohelet Rabbah 1.6.3.

Quadratus (125 AD) , Justin (150-165 AD), and Tertullian (200 AD) write against the slanderous alternative Jewish versions of Jesus' life that they have encountered.   Quadratus is quoted from Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:3.

[Berserk]

JESUS: THE EVIDENCE FROM FIRST CENTURY HISTORIANS AND ARCHAEOLOGY

I have traced some of the eyewitness testimony of Jesus' followers to His life and miracles and I have just outlined the slanderous version of Jesus' life as sketched out by His detractors and enemies.  I will now cite the witness of archaeology and non-Christian historians from the first century to Jesus' life.

1. Josephus was born just a few years after Jesus' death.   The Greek version of his fullest allusion to Jesus seems too sympathetic for a Pharisee like Josephus and has apparently been revised by a later Christian hand.   The Arabic version of this allusion reflects Josephus's style and seems more original.  The Arabic version is quoted below:  

"At that time there was a a wise man who was called Jesus.  And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous.   And many people from among  the Jews and the other nations became his disciples.   Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die.   And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship.  THEY REPORTED that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive.  Accordingly, he was PERHAPS the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders (Josephus, Antiquities 18.3.3)."

Note that Josephus is positive but ultimately neutral about Jesus.

2.  The other allusion to Jesus in Josephus is beyond dispute:

"He (the high priest Annas) assembled the sanhedrin of the judges, and brought before them JAMES, THE BROTHER OF JESUS THE SO-CALLED CHRIST, and some of his companions, and when he had levelled an accusation against them as breakers of the Law, he delivered them to be stoned (Josephus, Antiquties 20.9.1)."

3. This account can now be supplemented by a recently discovered ossuary which dates from around the time of James's death in 62 AD.  The ossuary contains this Hebrew inscription: "James the son of Joseph, the brother of Jesus."   The Israelis initally concluded that this inscription is a fake, but more careful scrutiny has convinced the archaeological community that it is probably genuine.  If they are right, then this ossuary once contained the bones of Jesus' brother James.  

4. Two non-Christian historians from the first century bear independent witness to the awesome events described  in Matthew 27, but interpret this bizarre phenomenon as a 3-hour solar eclipse:

"From noon on, darkness came over the whole land, until three in the afternoon. . .At that moment [Jesus' death] , the curtain of the Temple was torn in two, from top to bottom.  The earth shook, and the rocks were split (Matthew 27:45, 51)."  

Both Thalles (52 AD) and Phlegon (also first century) were freedman of Tiberius, the emperor at the time of Christ's crucifixion.   Both of their histories are now lost, but are quoted by the Christian historian, Julius Africanus in 220 AD.   Julius takes issue with their interpretation of the darkness as a 3-hour solar eclipse from noon to 3 PM during Jesus' crucifixion.   Others apparently dismissed the event as a mass 3-hour hallucination.  Julius Africanus feels strongly that they are underestimating the supernatural character of what actually happened in Jerusalem:
 
"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness, and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down.  This darkness, THALLES, IN THE THIRD BOOK OF HIS HISTORY, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.   For the Hebrews celebrated the Passover on the 14th day according to the moon, and the passion of our Savior falls on the day before the Passover; but an eclipse of the sun takes place only when the moon comes under the sun. . .But let opinion pass and carry the majority with it, and let this portent of the world be deemed an eclipse of the sun, like others, a portent only to the eye.   PHLEGON RECORDS THAT, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth (i. e. noon to 3 PM)--manifestly that one of which we speak.   But what has an eclipse in common with an earthquake, the rending of rocks, and the resurrection of the dead, and so great a perturbation throughout the universe?   Surely no such event as this is recorded for a long time (18:1).    

5. A Roman inscription in Greek from the time of Emperor Claudius (40 AD) has been found near Jesus' home town, Nazareth.  The inscription warns the residents against grave robbing and apparently reflects the Roman belief that the disciples stole Jesus' body and then claimed that He had risen from the dead.

In the early second century, two other Roman historians, Tacitus (115 AD) and Suetonius (120 AD), refer to Christ.   Suetonius refers to Christ as "Chrestus" and Tacitus refers to Christians as "Chrestians," but it is clear that Christ is intended.   Chrestus is a common name in Latin, whereas Christus is unattested.  So the spelling is altered to make it more familiar to Romans.  Tacitus refers to Jesus' execution by Pontius Pilate (Annals 15:44).

[Gandalf]

As a Roman historian myself I dont have any beef with your historical references to a messiah/cult leader figure called Christ, I am happy with most of the references to conclude he existed, although there is some doubt about the Josephus reference as there is some evidence this may have been tampered with at a later date.

however, no amount of lecturing is going to convince me that he was conceived divinely (a common pagan theme) or that he was actually the 'son of god' or that he actually performed 'miracles' or that he came back from the dead. Just because it was 2000 years ago, doesnt make it any more believable you know; even credulous individuals like Tacitus and Suetonius wouldnt swallow all those stories as fact, why should I?

Each to their own...

Doug.

PS interesting reading though and ok i admit it I have a classical world bias: I remember the famous line of one exasperated Christian rhetor who once blurted out to his stubborn pagan audience 'what has Athens to do with Jeruselum???!!!'

I prefer to ask, 'what has Jeruselum to do with Athens?'

[Berserk]

In my experience, most New Agers are as close-minded as any cultist.  At least you admit it and I find that refreshing.   The academic study of religion must of course be nonsectarian and therefore cannot allow its historical methodology to be shaped by supernaturalist presuppositions.
That confronts me with a dilemma: I am both a published academic (Harvard PhD) and a devout Christian.  So how do I escape this dilemma?

First, I acknowledge the wisdom of the Augustinian dictum that we must not try to understand in order to believe, but must rather believe in order to understand.  Our arguments are only as sound as our presuppositions and our presuppositions derive from our needs and experiences.  I have been blessed to encounter and experience Gospel-caliber miracles, some of which I have posted on this site.   These miracles serve as convincing analogies which help make Gospel miracle stories more convincing and inspiring.   I would not believe some of the miracles I've encountered if I did not know the parties involved personally (e.g. see my post entitled "The Dead Truck Driver.")  So I totally sympathize with the skepticism of those who have experienced neither miracles nor self-authenticating encounters with the divine.

Does that mean that skeptics and believers cannot engage in dialogue and efforts to persuade?  Of course not!  What needs to be done is what I attempt to do in this thread.  I make the best case I can to connect the Gospel witness to eyewitness testimony.  [Actually, I have only presented a tiny fraction of the case that might be presented.]   Of course, eyewitnesses can lie and exaggerate; they can be misled and deluded.   We cannot separate our assessment of their miracle claims from our needs and experiences.   But rational argument can at least open minds to the compelling spiritual experiences that can change one's whole presuppositional framework.  I know of at least one ex-New Ager from this site who became a Christian through such an experience.  

[Please also check out my response to you on my reincarnation thread.]

Don aka Berserk  [P.S. My brother's name is Doug.]

[Gandalf]

yes, although I would be wary of using the term 'close-minded' to equate with 'not believing in my interpretation'.

I am not discounting your experiences, I just have a different interpretation of what underlies them, that's all.
I can hear your explanation and I am happy to mull it over, but if in the end I happen to disagree with the interpretation and underlying cause of it, that does'nt mean i'm close-minded, it just means I have a  different opinion than you do; just as you may find difficulty with Monroe based views for example, if at the end of the day, after all the case studies etc you still reject that interpretation in view of your own one, that doesnt make you close-minded per say, you just have a different interpretation.

Doug...
PS it should be noted as well that underlying both our positions are two fundamentally diferent perceptions of  the 'divine' world, and we both will attempt to find 'evidence' to prove that ours is more logical or more correct in some way, which is impossible since in my view physical world logic does not apply to what lies beyond it. In my opinon, theological head banging just goes round in circles, chasing shadows. It might show how clever someone is compared to another, but it doesnt equate with a more accurate conception of the 'divine world' and our relation to it.

[Berserk]

Dear Gandalf:

What is close-mindedness but a preemption of further debate by excluding in advance the possibility of being persuaded?    You insisted that "nothing is going to convince me that. . .he [Jesus] actually performed miracles or that he came back from the dead."  Actually, I have a confession: I made that charge tongue-in-cheek in reaction to your playfully appropriate "zingers" to other posters.  I fully realize that you are merely expressing doubt that I could marshall sufficient evidence to convince you.  

Doug, this site needs more people like yourself who have at least engaged primary texts and explored various positions in depth.   Too many posters on sites like this read some New Age kookery, accept the authors' historical claims as Gospel, and then dogmatically parrot those claims without ever engaging the issues in any authentic way.   I am saddened by the historically well informed posters who have felt alienated from this site and left.  In truth, I merely hope to make a small contribution to raising the level of the discussion on some issues.  

Don

[Tayesin]

Hi,
What always seems to be lacking in these types of conversations is the inclusion of human behaviours and the mind-set of the times that Jesus lived in.  We act as if the written words of the Bible are the only possible history we can research, and must therefore agree with.

I for one do think Jesus was a flesh and blood human being.. firstly.

We know how altered a simple statement can get when we pass it along a small line of say ten people.. in most cases the last persons's perceptions and memory of what was said or experienced will be different to the first person's.

If we apply this to the fact that the first Gospel was not written until at least 50 years after Jesus' death (and by old men by then) , we have to include some degree of doubting that they are as clear and fresh as they would have been during his life.  

Given also that the early church already had massive upheavals over it's directions between Jesus' brother John and the remaining disciples, who eventually wrested control from John.  We have to allow for a fair degree of agenda bias and misrepresentation.

Given also the mind-set of the Culture at the time of Jesus, we have to allow for further discrepencies.  Jesus was only one of many miracle workers of the time, he was also one of the people pushed to accept the Hebrew tradition of the Messianic Legacy.  Being a hebrew and raised in it's traditional ways, we should see that Jesus must have known about this Legacy and may have been aware that he was being pressed to accept such a fate in his adult years.

Having faith before understanding !  Oh my.  Can anyone else see that this is a control-mechanism ?  If I were to ask you to Believe in me before I do anything to 'deserve' your belief, would I be helping you or controlling you ?

About the ressurection.  Could it not be possible that Jesus survived the few hours of physical torture when hanging on the tree we call a cross ?  After all, the others who were nailed up at the same time actually 'outlived' him as they hung there for days waiting to die.  Could it not then be possible that the appearances to other people was done in the Flesh as a living human being ?  And not as the Arisen Christ that we have been forced to believe these past almost two thousand years ?

Christians will attack other belief systems as not being the one true faith, etc.  In the US the doctrine has been pushed through schooling and the cultural perception of "In God we Trust", so from early childhood many of you have had this belief-system Indoctrinated into you.  We know this is done so that very few of you will actually look towards anything else for your answers.

Didn't Jesus say that we are all capable of doing the same and more than he ?  Was he not telling us that everyone was an equal in the sight of the Father.  If so, I am sure he would not be a happy man today after seeing what became of the enlightening concepts he offered to us way back then, nor how the church has been doing business over all these years.

I am completely sure that he would be devastated to see that we fight wars in his name, we have put millions of people to the sword for not converting to christianity when ordered to by Constantine.  Surely this must be the work of the Hebrew's god Yahwe, and not the Loving, responsive Father Jesus told us about ?  I think they are not the same entity.  Perhaps the difference can just be put down to human agendas and powermongering ?

I had to laugh at the perception of the New-Agers you put forward.  You speak of them as if they are something less than you, because they do not believe what you believe.  Surely this is not manifesting the Love as Jesus asked us to do ?

There are many historical records not related to the bible that show Jesus was a real person.  In some cases what was historically recorded is completely opposed to what we see written in the bible, for instance...  The water into wine Miracle......

Historically, Jesus was asked by his mother to prepare the wine for their guests.  Tradition demanded that he insured the 'well to do' had wine and the plebs only got watered-down wine, as was the custom of the day.  As Jesus was against the separation of class, seeing us all as equal children of the Loving Father, he simply prepared wine for all the people at the function.  So everyone got the same wine to drink, none of it was watered down.  This is a historically based fact taken from the reports of those people who were guests at the dinner.  In this way Jesus turned the Plebs watered-down wine into full strength wine.  Is that a miracle then ?

I don't have a reference for you to check, this info came from a documentary series based on scholarly efforts by Professors to delve into the issue of Jesus and his times and cultural perspectives.  It may have been called "Jesus the man", or "Jesus and his times", well worth the look if only for the wider perspectives provided by the Bible scholars who presented the information.

What I find displeasing with the christian religion and it's set Indocrination of Belief-System, is that it will not allow for others to have a clearer perception because they then are called Heathen, Pagan, and sometimes, as in my case, have been called "The Devil".  

Interestingly, you should check up what the words actually mean in Hebrew.  You will find an incredibale difference to the meanings portrayed in the writting that actually made it into the Bible.  Most of the term and titles used by the people in Jesus' circles, within the bible, are actually mis-representations of their true meanings.  

For instance, when translating from Hebrew into Greek many words were changed to reflect the belief-structure of those doing the translations... where the translated word was Carpenter, the actual hebrew word meant "Master of the Craft".   Given the misrepresentations of other words we see that his family may well have been members of the Hebrew Mystery Schools, and not simply lowly Carpenters.

If we know that most of written history is recorded from the perspective of those who forced their will upon others, the winners.. we should be able to see that most of the accepted history has actually been mis-represented to us as Facts by the invading, manipulative agendas of those who held the reins of power in those centuries.  

Witness the hard historical line pushed by Egypt, which flies in the face of the latest uncovered FACTS from this past decade.  Egypt is still pushing the old history because they do not want people to know the truth.  Just as the the christian religion/Church has done for the past 2 millenia.

We would be foolish to accept everything we are LED to believe, even if it's what the culture we live in chooses to believe.

I for one prefer to find out for myself, and over the past 25 or more years of Astral and Higher experience, including Oneness with the Creative force (GOD), I have come to see more clearly and refuse to be Indoctrinated into a belief system that forces you to not question and wear the blinkers of tunnel-vision.

Yet, I also see that christianity had perfprmed an important role in the evolution of the species we call human beings.  It has provided support for those who are in need, and it does good work within it's active agencies around the world.  But, this could be done just as effectively if not more-so  without the manipulations that go hand in hand with the Indoctrination pushed.

Anyway, that's my uneducated view.

[Berserk]

Tayesin, I don't want to be unkind, but your post perfectly illustrates the common New Age ignorance about standard nonsectarian biblical scholarship.   I will number 7 of your misguided claims and address each.

1. "The first Gospel was not written until at least 50 years after Jesus' death."

Nonsense!  Read any scholarly introduction to the New Testament.  Jesus was crucified in 30 AD and the first Gospel, Mark, was written sometime between 64-70 AD, perhaps 34 years later.  

2. "The early church already had massive upheavals over its directions between Jesus' brother John and the remaining disciples, who eventually wrestled control away from John."

Nonsense!  First, Jesus had no brother named John.   Second, supreme authority over the early church shifted peacefully from Peter to Jesus' brother James.   The apostle John (the son of Zebedee) never had control of the church.  

3. "If I were to ask you to believe in me before I do anything to `deserve' your belief, would I be helping you or controlling you?"

You totally misunderstand the principle: we believe in order that we may understand.  It assumes that you have already experienced God's grace and implies that you must now be open-minded--i.e. you must hold your faith and beliefs provisionally pending your investigation of the spiritual power and evidence for Christian teaching.   You must reach out in faith to see if God honors His promises and makes Himself real in your life experience.  

4. "Could it not be possible that Jesus survived the few hours of physical torture when hanging on the tree...?   Could it not then be possible that the appearances to other people were done in the flesh as a living human being?"

Is it possible that American astronauts never rocketed to the moon and that the whole thing was faked in a New Mexico hangar?   [There actually groups who believe this!]   Yes, but not a viable possibility.   First, the Romans guarded their crosses to prevent victims from being cut down and freed.   Second, the claim that Jesus was never crucified is first concocted by the Gnostic Basilides in the mid-second century (Irenaeus 1.24.4).   No reputable scholar believes Basilides is right.  

As for Jesus' resurreciton, we have Paul's eyewitness account of Christ resurrection appearance (1 Corinthians 9:1; 15:8; Galatians 1:15).  Paul was blinded by Christ's appearance to him (Acts 9).  It was not a physical appearance.  In the Gospels, the Risen Jesus goes through walls.   If your speculation were correct, we would no doubt have traditions about where Jesus went after coming down from the cross.   There are no such traditions in the early centuries.

5. "Surely this [Constantine's forced conversions] must be the work of the Hebrew god Yahweh, and not the loving, responsive Father Jesus told us about?  I think they are not the same entity."

You have a warped caricature of the Hebrew God.   True, initially Israel had to fight for her survival and Yahweh supported their efforts.  But God tells Israel that He is just as much the God of the ancestors of the Palestinian Arabs [the Philistines] as He is the God of the Jews and Yahweh also defends their right to Palestinian territory (Amos 9:7)! Through prophets like Isaiah and Micah, Yahweh envisages the spread of the faith through peaceful means: "They will beat their swords into plowshares and the spears into pruning hooks.  nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore (Isaiah 2:4; Micah 4:3)."  Jesus' teaching about loving one's enemies stands in this tradition.    

6. 'You should check up what the words actually mean in Hebrew.  You will find an incredible difference in the meanings portrayed in the writing that actually made it into the Bible."  

Nonsense!   You are talking to someone who has taught courses at the graduate level on the Bible and its languages.   First, Jesus and His disciples spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew.  They also knew some Greek.  How much is uncertain.  Secondly, the academic study of Scripture is done by experts in ancient Jewish idioms and biblical languages--Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.   For some words, minor nuances are missed in English translation.   But you don't know what you are talking about when you say: "Most of the terms and titles used by the people in Jesus' circles, within the Bible, are actually misrepresentations of their true meanings."  You cite the Hebrew word for "carpenter" as an example.  The biblical Hebrew term "charash" means "a craftsman who builds yokes, plows, threshing boards, benches, beds, boxes, coffins, boats, and houses, etc."  "Carpenter" is quite adequate as a translation.

7. "Given the misrepresentations of other words, we see that his family may well have been members of the Hebrew mystery schools, and not simply lowly carpenters."

Nonsense!  I challenge you to document this. I know you cannot do so from first century evidence.    Besides, there were no Hebrew mystery schools in this period, unless you view the Qumran Essenes as a mystery school.   But such a label would be inappropriate.

I welcome your further comments and questions.  But please don't make dogmatic claims that you cannot document with evidence from the biblical era.


Berserk

[Gandalf]

Nonsense! Read any scholarly introduction to the New Testament. Jesus was crucified in 30 AD and the first Gospel, Mark, was written sometime between 64-70 AD, perhaps 34 years later.


Actually that's only the earliest of a range of educated estimates, the others are later,
even so, would you trust 100% an 'eyewitness' account written 34 years after an event?, particlularly after taking into account any agenda that the writer himself may have? cults develop their doctines over time, like all movements. All texts have some bias.

You totally misunderstand the principle: we believe in order that we may understand. It assumes that you have already experienced God's grace and implies that you must now be open-minded

however this implies 'experiencing god's grace' is already a christian vision, but perhaps this is a vision shaped by the believer's own perceptions; otherwise how do we explain similar visions in other cultures, with other deities from other religions (buddha, vishnu etc).. all the others are incorrect? I find that argument suspect, they might say the same of you.
I notice that people's visions are generely governed by the dominant belief system they are broought up with, even if they have rejected it, as guilt issues are often still there under the surface, leading to some unhappy individuals such as the one you mentioned who used to post here.

The vision depends on the individual; if several people had the same experience, they might have very different interpretations, ie monroe and his perception of what 'jesus' was and what you might make of the experience...
but you are claiming to be MORE open minded  than us, when in fact you are not, because that is not possible: by asking us to be more open minded, you actually mean come 'round to your way of thinking'.. this seems so logical to you since this is your belief system therfore all the evidence naturally supports it.
My belief system is different and I accept all the same 'evidence' you do, I just have a different interpretation. it is not a matter of being close minded, we are all 'close minded' to some extent, but you certainly cannot claim to be less so, since you also have a specific view, just as we all do. I think that really, there is no point trying to prove which is more 'logical' or not, since it has nothing to do with logic... its about belief.

You have a warped caricature of the Hebrew God. True, initially Israel had to fight for her survival and Yahweh supported their efforts. But God tells Israel that He is just as much the God of the ancestors of the Palestinian Arabs [the Philistines] as He is the God of the Jews and Yahweh also defends their right to Palestinian territory (Amos 9:7)! Through prophets like Isaiah and Micah, Yahweh envisages the spread of the faith through peaceful means: "They will beat their swords into plowshares and the spears into pruning hooks. nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore (Isaiah 2:4; Micah 4:3)." Jesus' teaching about loving one's enemies stands in this tradition.


This is one of the biggest problems I have with the christian bible, the two gods portrayed are so different... you can dress it up any way you like but it comes across as wordplay... how you can reconcile ezekiel 25.17 with the 'turn the other cheek' attitude of the 'new and improved' god of the NT is unconvincing and you can see the effort people have gone to to dig through the book looking for some line to reduce this difference, but this disparity is blatant. And to top it all, in Revelations god goes back to his old 'despot' routine once again... after all the peace and love of the NT!!!

But he loves the 'saved'.. oh thats all right then, thats what I call a god of 'unconditional love' alright.. or perhaps he still loves them even when consigning them to hell? that comes across as psychotic!
Its not his fault, since people made their own choice and decided not to accept him as their lord?
come on, he still takes responsibility since he made up the rules!!!
If a dictator announced a similar rule to his people and you rejected it, resulting in your eternal torture, who from an objective perspective, would you blame ultimatly for the suffering caused?

btw I accept your point that the 'eternal' aspect of hell is wrong and one of the biggest lies promoted by churches today, since the original greek word was 'aeon', a time which varied periodically but sometimes meant 1000 years. certainly it was a finite period of time.
someone forgot to tell the 'hellfire and damnation' fanatics in the US unfortunatly. This rejection of the 'eternal' aspect is the one saving grace of christianity and may be what allows it to survive in the modern world, since eternal punishment and suffering is completly incompatible with modern notions of justice.

You have a warped caricature of the Hebrew God. True, initially Israel had to fight for her survival and Yahweh supported their efforts. But God tells Israel that He is just as much the God of the ancestors of the Palestinian Arabs [the Philistines] as He is the God of the Jews and Yahweh also defends their right to Palestinian territory

However, the BIGGEST reason I will never accept this god of yours is that he comes across as an all to human ruler, a dictator in fact who dispences justice as he sees fit (I stress the HE aspect since although god is officially genderless, this is hardly the perception). this is anthropomorphism... the idea that this being sits there mediating between nations is ridiculous.

As you can probably guess, I have a far more pantheistic or even panentheistic view of what 'god' is, and i believe that the monotheistic view is wrong, as it ultimatly leads to the 'celestial emperor' model, which is all to reminicent of human rulers... of course you might say, 'god made man in his own image' i don't buy this. Ultimalty it comes down to what you believe, not how convincing your argument for the facts that prove it.



Nonsense! You are talking to someone who has taught courses at the graduate level on the Bible and its languages

This statement comes across as arrogant and actually rather immature... even if the other guy is wrong!
So you have a phd ..so what, I dont know about where you come, from but where i come from that doesnt make me think you have any better idea of spiritual reality than anyone else... as Shania Twain says... 'that don't impress me much!'  although well done for your personal achievement!

I also take issue with your blanket perception of 'new agers'. This umbrella term covers a HUGE range of people and beliefs and you certainly can't lump them all together, like all human concerns, there are people who are crack pots, fantastic sensible people and everything inbetween, with so many beliefs differing to such an extent that many of those wouldnt even think of themselves as 'new age'. Where do you stop? those who have adopted hindu doctrines or buddhism officially or unofficially.. are they 'new age'?
You have focused on one the most risable section of this community, if i can call it that, but you can't tar all people who have non-mainstream beliefs with the same brush.
Remember that even your attempts to reconcile the bible with nu age doctrines might itself be regarded as 'new age', as does the astral projection which you are planning to learn.
Certainly, I would disagree with being categorised with the far out element of 'new age' society, and I might add that christianity contains just as many, indeed far more nutters and crazed maniacs spouting all kinds of nonsense, like apocalypse fixations about israel etc ,which i view as pure fantasy.

Doug

[mactombs]

1. "The first Gospel was not written until at least 50 years after Jesus' death."

Nonsense! Read any scholarly introduction to the New Testament. Jesus was crucified in 30 AD and the first Gospel, Mark, was written sometime between 64-70 AD, perhaps 34 years later.

Scholarly introductions do not constitute truth. History is inaccurate - the longer ago, the more inaccurate.

2000 years from now, someone might be telling how the Branch Davidians ascended to heaven in the flames of their enemy, then came back to spread the Word (and a meat constitute that no one could tell was made from kelp).

"History, a distillation of rumour." Thomas Carlyle

"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it." Winston Churchill

[Tayesin]

Hi Beserk,

I agree that I mistook John for James, easily done at 2am I'm sure, and I am sure that I don't have all the facts.. but hay, at least I can look beyond the Dogma of self-supporting ideology.  

Perhaps a search into further research done by others in the field.  A viewing of "Jesus and his times" might be an appropriate mind opener, as it is presented by the some of the foremost Bible Scholars in the Holy Land.

Enjoy your day.

[BirdManKalki]

"In my view, the willingness of Mark (or rather his source, Peter) to admit that Jesus bombed in his home town makes the other miracle stories more credible."

When I was at school I was a quite boy who kept his thoughts to himself and listened to everything and conformed to everything. I let people who were nasty to me carry on being nasty to me because they didn't know what was the cause of there actions. I remained quite in school and had gathered an early reputation as a protector; this was a reputation people at that age didn't understand. Yes like many others I learnt too much at school, but I didn't come away with many paper qualifications.

In my home village, amongst my friends I am known as the same person as I was from school despite school being five years ago. None of my friends can seem to cope with my 'strange' intellect, I am not writing to say how clever I think I am but just to show that people only remember you as your ego or what your character has shown them, despite all the useless books I have read only a few of my friends can bring it on themselves that the dyslexic jobless fool knows a lot more then they give him credit for.

My whole point is this; do we think Jesus was always conscious of his mission? Or do we think that he gradually became self-conscious until it hit him in the face? With his newfound oneness he may have wanted to share with others, naturally your own backyard is where you start. However they would have known Jesus as his un-conscious character, and his self-conscious character that was preaching was saying things that where quite out of the character that they were used to seeing. This could be why Jesus was shocked because of there lack of faith, he knew he knew and he mistaking thought other people would be interested. Lets say I offered to tell the world information that was more valuable then material wealth do you think anyone would listen to me? However say I started off a new religion and called it the creed of greed with the slogan come to me I can get you anything you want, I would have to many letters to read through which is a sad situation.

It is in human nature to dismiss what you don't understand. Thus in my view manipulation to make miracles more credible is wrong, for I don't think Peter would not do that (lie) but speak the truth no matter how hurtful it was. And this explanation makes just as much sense.  

People do ugly things when you are sure that you are telling them the truth, especially friends and family.

[Tayesin]

Quote by BirdMan..
"My whole point is this; do we think Jesus was always conscious of his mission? Or do we think that he gradually became self-conscious until it hit him in the face? With his newfound oneness he may have wanted to share with others, naturally your own backyard is where you start. However they would have known Jesus as his un-conscious character, and his self-conscious character that was preaching was saying things that where quite out of the character that they were used to seeing. This could be why Jesus was shocked because of there lack of faith, he knew he knew and he mistaking thought other people would be interested. Lets say I offered to tell the world information that was more valuable then material wealth do you think anyone would listen to me? However say I started off a new religion and called it the creed of greed with the slogan come to me I can get you anything you want, I would have to many letters to read through which is a sad situation. "

No to the first question.  Yes to the next one.

I think he was slightly aware of something in himself during his childhood years.  And that this awareness grew as he experienced the things he needed, to open him to his higher-awareness.  Although I do not think he was so aware that Death was waiting for him, nor that he saw himself as a Saviour, perhaps only as a Helper to others who would listen.

The ideas he had must have seemed strange for their new-ness at that time.  And I think that was the real problem, it was too simple, too different to the old and deeply rooted ways of the Established religion of his fathers.  He obviously was raised in the Jewish traditions and modified the basics towards a belief structure more suited to personal growth for everyone as compared to the system in place during his time.

That in itself would be tantamount to treason in his culture, wouldn't it ?

[BirdManKalki]

"In my view, the willingness of Mark (or rather his source, Peter) to admit that Jesus bombed in his home town makes the other miracle stories more credible."

Bezerker I find this very interesting, for I first set out to issue challenge towards your statement, its 3:45pm and I have been writing and thinking about this now for a good few hours, as I am writing, all that is written below is what has followed to help me think. I am not well versed in scripture but I seem to find what is needed when it is needed. So what follows is all I have written within the last few hours/days. Please let me know what you think.      

I think that Jesus may have been semi conscious, meaning in-between states of consciousness, between the consciousness of the farther and the consciousness of his own ego and higher self ect ect, he may have slipped between these states of consciousness as he adjusted his will to the will of the farther. It is also possible that as he drifted in-between these states, unbeknownst to himself he subconsciously downloaded newfound ideals, and that whilst in his earth inherited ego perceived these 'ideals' as his own newfound ideals.

With this possibility it is also possible that while at home he may have gradually drifted in these states, grasping ideals unknowingly, unaware of this condition and perceiving these newfound grasped ideals as his own, it would be understandable that he would have wanted to share the ideals with others, then after expressing the ideals as his own ideals with some members of his family is there any wonder why they rejected his ideas? Could this be because Jesus so thought 'his ideas' where right, we can take the possibility that his family may have already rejected Jesus' ideals quite simply because some of the family knew that the 'ideas' were not his own ideas, but ideas of the farther. His brothers if not in the know, on hearing these ideas would naturally feel inferior, and with his own family strictly rejecting his ideas, it would only be natural that his newfound intuition would direct him to 'get out there' and thus follow his intuition. Perhaps he just went for a walk to calm himself and examine his thoughts maybe even doubting himself, until he found himself standing before John the Baptist, intuition/holy spirit on overload, thus hearing Johns words spoken ' also running on pure intuition/Holy Spirit "I need to be baptised by you, and you come to me?" Jesus would come to an understanding via confirmation that his ideas or rather 'the ideas' were correct, and thus the heavens would open up for him. And this would have been his baptism, following afterward by the symbolic plunge into the river; note water is the symbolic physical counterpart manifestation of nothing.    

We then come to the battleground. Or the temptation of Christ, this could symbolise Jesus battle to submit his will to the will of the farther. His ego trying to deal with the knowledge and confirmation that he was right. This would lead to either submission to the will of the farther or the submission to his ego and the misuse of this information. Literally all the kingdoms of the world would be within Jesus' grasp that is if the ego were submitted to. With this confirmation from heaven he would realise that he had never really eat anything, due to form being image, this may have lead to an unsteady loss of appetite as the conscious mind began to come to terms with this information. Thus his ego would have said to him,

"He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone"

This could mean Jesus' pondered on the thought of suicide justified because if he were right angels would save him from his fall. Then having examined his thoughts and memory of scripture concluded via intuition/holy spirit and faith in scripture that it was wrong to test the Lord God. Then eventually Jesus' ego begins submits itself to the will of Christ the son of the farther.  

"Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.' "  

And after the beginning of submission, Jesus intuition/Holy Spirit informs him that he must preach.                

With the possibility of this semiconscious condition we can come to see why Jesus   travelled back to his hometown with the disciples, and I think he did this to teach them and to hint at something.

He may have already known there was lack of faith to be worked with within his town, If this were correct it would mean that Jesus fined shock of the lack of faith. Note to yourselves if is a non-existence word, if this were correct then for what reason would this deception be employed for who was the deception employed for and what could it be trying to tell us?

Remember! If is a non-existence word!! Whenever someone says if the word is immediately invalid and non-existing, this is but a hint for the serious reader.  

We could say that maybe it is a double word, like a word that can be used to mean one thing, but can mean something quite different. It could be a statement intended to convey how Jesus felt when he first sort to convey the word to his family, and the rejection he felt. However it could be a hint laid out to reveal something at the right time.        

On Simon Peter

Matthew Jesus walks on water

22Immediately Jesus made the disciples get into the boat and go ahead of him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowd. 23After he had dismissed them, he went up to the mountainside by himself to pray. When evening came, he was there alone,24 but the boat was already a considerable distance from the land, buffeted by the waves because the wind was against it.25 during the forth watch of the night Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. 26When the disciples saw him walking on the lake they were terrified. "It's a ghost," they said, and cried out in fear.
27But Jesus immediately said to them: "take your courage! It is I. Don't be afraid."
28 "Lord it is you," Peter replied, "Tell me to come you on the water"
29 "come," he said.
Then Peter got out of the boat, walked on the water and came towards Jesus. 30But when he saw the wind he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out "Lord save me!"
31 immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. "You of little faith," he said, "why did you doubt?"

Peters confession Of Christ

13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the son of man is?"
14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15"But what about you?" he asked. Who do you say I am?"
16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my farther in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build a church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven"20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone he was the Christ.      

Jesus predicts his own death

21From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day raised to life.
22 Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, lord!" he said, "This shall never happen to you!"
23Jesus turned and said to Peter, Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.    

Why is it that Jesus gives Simon the name peter? We know that Jesus was a master planer and that he didn't do things without a reason to do so. So surly there is important reasons for this act, and not just because he liked the name Peter better then Simon.

The Transfiguration

17After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2 There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his cloths became as white as light. 3Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.
4Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put three shelters--- one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah."5While he was speaking a bright could enveloped them, and a voice said from the cloud said this is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!"
6When the disciples heard this; they fell face down to the ground terrified. But Jesus came and touched them. "Get up," he said. "Don't be afraid" 8When they looked up they saw no one except Jesus.
9As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus said to them don't tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead                    

Why was it that Peter wanted to set up three tents? What thoughts were going through his mind at that moment?

Jesus predicts Peter's denial

31Then Jesus told them, "This very night you will all fall on account of me, for it is written:

"I will strike the Shepard, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.'

32But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee."
33Peter replied, "Even if all fall away on account of you I never will."
34"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "This very night, before the cock crows, you will disown me three times."
35But Peter declared, "Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you." And the other disciples said the same.      

And as we know Peter does deny knowing Jesus, three times and is very upset, but is he upset because he denied Jesus or is there another reason for his dismay?

Matthew 26
22They were very sad and begun to say to him one after the other, surly not I Lord?
23Jesus replied, the one who has dipped his hand into the bowel with me will betray me. 24The Son of man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to the man who betrays the son of man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.
25Then Judas, the one who was to betray him, said,
"Surly not I Rabbi?"
Jesus answered, "Yes, it is you"

This is the same sort of situation as with the Hopi Indians, when they waited for everyone else to pick the ears of corn before them, thereby proving themselves worthy of the task. Therefore how was it that Judas betrayed Jesus if Christ commanded him to betray Jesus? How can one betray someone if one is asked to betray via command of the Christ? And if Judas didn't betray Jesus Christ, who did?
Jesus washes the disciples feet John 31.2, 4-7
Jesus and his disciples were at supper...Jesus rose from the table, took off his outer garment, and tied a towel around his waist. Then he poured some water into a basin and begun to wash the disciples' feet and dry them with the towel around his waist. He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, "Are you going to wash my feet lord?"

Jesus answered him, "you do not understand now what I am doing but you will understand later."

Peter declared, "Never at any time will you wash my feet!"

"If I do not wash your feet, "Jesus answered, "You will no longer be my disciple."

Simon Peter answered, "Lord, do not wash only my feet, then! Wash my hands and head, too!"

Jesus said, "Anyone who has had a bath is completely clean and does not have to wash himself, except for his feet; His whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not everyone of you. 11For he knew who was going to betray him, and that is why he said not everyone was clean.
12When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. "Do you understand what I have done for you?" he asked them. 13"You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord', and rightly so, for that is what I am. 14Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one anthers feet. 15i have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. I tell you the truth, no servant is greater then his master, nor a messenger greater then the one who has sent him. Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them."                    

Jesus reinstates Peter
15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to "Simon Peter, Simon son of John, do you truly love me more then these?"
"Yes lord," he said, "you know that I love you"
Jesus said, "Feed my lambs"
16Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me?"
He answered, "Yes lord you know I love you"
Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep"
17The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John do you love me?"
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him a third time "Do you love me?" He said, "lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."
Jesus said "Feed my sheep.18 I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands and someone else will dress you and lead you where you don't want to go." 19m Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would Glorify God. Then he said to him follow me      
     
3 John

7Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Jesus talked a lot about hypocrites as if this was some kind of hint as well as a message that we know and understand.

Note the following is written in acts

Acts 2

22"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23 This man was handed over to you by Gods set purpose and foreknowledge; and you with the help of wicked men put him to death by nailing him to the cross.24 But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. 25 David said about him:

"I saw the lord before always before me.
Because he is at my right hand,
I will not be shaken.
26Therfore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices,
My body will live in hope,
27because you will not abandon me to the grave nor will you let your holy one see decay28You have made known to me the paths of life you will fill me with joy in you presence
29"Brothers I can tell confidently Patriarch David died and was buried and his tomb is here to this day30But he was a prophet and knew that god has promised him on oath that he would place one of his decedents on his throne31seeing what was ahead he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ that he was not abandoned to the grave nor did he body see decay32God has raised this Jesus to life and we are all witnesses of the fact33exalted to the right hand of god he has received through the farther the promised holy spirit and has poured out what you now see and here34 for David did not ascend to heaven and yet he said

"The lord said to my lord, sit at my right hand35 until I make you enemies a footstall for your feet36therefore let all Israel be assured of this god has made this Jesus whom you crucified both lord and Christ"

The Authority Of Jesus Questioned
27They arrived again in Jerusalem, and while Jesus was walking in the temple courts, the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders came to him. "By what authority are you doing these things?" they asked "And who gave you the authority to do this?" "I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things? 30Johns Baptism was it from heaven of from men? Tell me!"31They discussed it among themselves and said "if we say from heaven, he will ask, then why didn't you believe him?" But if we say 'from men'..." (They feared the people, for everyone held that john was a prophet.) So they answered Jesus, "We don't know." Jesus said, neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things."