About the titles of Jesus.
586356
It is a collection of scriptures of the titles of Jesus. For those of you who want it all in one place.
2926988
There is great detail in the lives of the Essenes.  Some information has never been revealed about Jesus before.  Very controversial, but makes sense if you understand true spirituality.
2935728
The wording is a little off.  Makes me wonder if the people who translated spoke English as a first language.  I tend to read other versions of the Bible.
3884762
As a non-Christian, I found this book to be immensely valuable. I've always known that Christianity must have a valuable message and meaning. It has, however been hijacked by organized religion.

This small book has the REAL meaning of Jesus inside of it.
2233913
To follow Jesus is the w a y I live my life. It's not always easy to follow Jesus word. When you do great things happen in your life.
3635847
The story of Jesus is central to understanding human existence.  People desperately want to be "special," to matter, and to somehow transcend Earthly life and become eternally important.  Jesus is their role model...he was a person who supposedly did this.  Unfortunately, Jesus is dead and his bones have turned to dust....same thing will happen to you, my friends.  In a few billion years, after our Sun explodes...his existence and yours won't matter...not even a faded memory floating amongst deep space particles.
4350103
The title of this book should be Did God Become Jesus? Not, How God Became Jesus.
Some of the texts of Mark begin with "This is the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ." (In the Greek text Christ means the anointed one.) Others begin with "This is the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ the son of God." Because of its added length and grandeur this is most likely to be a copyist's later addition. Mark 16:9-20,the longer ending, has been called a later addition from the 2nd century to the Gospel of Mark by most New Testament scholars in the past century. The longer addition appears in English Bibles; its origin is uncertain; a medieval source ascribes it to an elder Ariston (Aristion), perhaps the man whom Papias (c. A.D. 135) calls a disciple of the Lord. The evidence for Jesus' claims to be divine only comes from the last gospel, John, not the earlier ones. Biblical and historical scholars decided long ago that the gospels of the New Testament were not written by Jesus' disciples. The gospels are not critical history they are theology. The earliest book of the New Testament is Thessolonians 1, a letter written by Paul. He warns about the imminent End Time also supposedly foretold by Jesus. Also see the book: Voting About God in Early Church Councils by Ramsay MacMullen. Christian bishops, by popular vote, officially proclaimed Jesus to be God at a Church council, A.D. 325. The First Council of Nicaea was a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day znik in Turkey) This put an end to the then theological argument that Jesus was of a lower rank and a submissive subordinate to God. Jesus became pre-existing. See material on Arianism. In the earliest art Jesus is sometimes bare headed like Apollo, and bears a wand. Some of the earliest Christians may have thought Jesus to be a sorcerer, magician, or divine man with magic power. In catacomb frescoes of the third and fourth centuries Christ is frequently represented performing miracles by means of a wand. Peter is the only Apostle, in early Christian monuments, who is shown with a staff or wand, apparently as a symbol of his superior position. Ehrman believes Jesus may have thought of himself as the Messiah, Son of Man. Ehrman speculates Judas' betrayal was that of Jesus claiming that he was to be a king. I am a long time member of the Association of Ancient Historians, but I am not a professional historian only a curious amateur.
4452451
A fine translation, correctly emphasizing the Jewishness of Jewish scriptures whose main intent was to bear witness to the arrival of the Jewish Messiah, Yeshua HaMashiach (Jesus the Christ). It's about time that a translator correctly substituted the word "Messiah"/"Mashiach" for "Christ" in an English New Testament. The title "Christ" comes from the Greek word "Christos," and is merely a translation of the Hebrew title "Messiah"/"Mashiach." It was entirely appropriate for Stern to substitute the word "Messiah" (or "Mashiach") every place that the word "Christ" occurs in the New Testament.  After all, this is a translation, not a transliteration, and the goal of translation is to carry over actual meaning from one language to another.  "Christos" means "Messiah," and therefore it SHOULD BE translated as "Messiah." Whether you regard Jesus as the Messiah or not is beside the point.  Be assured, however, that Jesus is, indeed, the Jewish Messiah: According to Daniel 9, the priestly and prophetic offices/ministries of the Messiah had to be fulfilled before the destruction of the 2nd Temple.  The 2nd Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D.; Jesus fulfilled the relevant priestly and prophetic offices of the Messiah before the 2nd Temple was destroyed; Jesus is thus the only candidate for Messiah.  Therefore if Jesus is not the Messiah then there is no Messiah.  So, if the Messiah comes, be assured it will be a "second coming," since the Messiah had to (and did) come before the 2nd temple was destroyed. When Jesus comes again he will fulfill all things pertaining to the royal office of the Messiah, and will reign as a priestly king, "after the order of Melchizedek" (Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 5:6 et al.).
  The above reviewer,Mr. Clark, is mistaken in saying that the Holy Spirit is never spoken of as a "person" in the original Greek manuscripts of the NT. While it is true that the Greek noun "pneuma" ("spirit") is of neuter gender, this has no bearing on the matter since the word "pneuma" existed before either the NT was written or the OT (Tanakh) was translated into Greek several centuries earlier (ca. 200 B.C.). Jewish authors of the NT (such as John) merely used the Greek words they had at their disposal when penning the Gospels in Greek, and it just so happened that the word for "spirit" ("pneuma") was neuter. As for the claim that the personal pronoun "he" is never used of the Holy Spirit, this is simply not the case. For example, in John 14:26 a masculine noun with a masculine article ("ho parakletos") is used along with neuter "to pneuma." "Ho parakletos," which means "the Comforter," is a well known title of the Holy Spirit. After the Holy Spirit is called by the masculine title "ho parakletos," then the masuline demonstrative pronoun "ekeinos" ("he") is used to refer to this very same Holy Spirit/Comforter. Thus, in the original Greek manuscripts of the NT, the Holy Spirit IS spoken of "personally," and the Holy Spirit IS called by the masculine demonstrative personal pronoun "ekeinos." This alone neither proves nor disproves the Trinitarian doctrine, but it certainly does weigh in the direction of the Trintarian doctrine. When we weigh the evidence of the entire Bible we certainly find that God's unity is complex, not simple.  Remember, God's ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55:8): He is omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and eternal.  Therefore we should neither expect the nature of His unity to be as simple nor the same as a man's unity.
2029007
I agree with the commenters who said the stories are too wordy and the pictures need improvement, but my greatest concern relates to the sloppy paraphrasing of our Lord's words.  In many cases, the changes are significant and change the meaning of the original text.

For example, the Great Commission: "Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. ..." Matthew 28:18-20a (NIV)

Compare that to the paraphrase from the Jesus Storybook Bible: "Go everywhere and tell everyone the happy news!"

By leaving baptism out of the paraphrase, the author removes one of the clearest references of our Lord instituting the sacrament of Holy Baptism.  To reduce the Great Commission from preaching and baptizing to preaching alone is unacceptable.

Another example of this occurs when our Lord institutes Holy Communion.

From Matthew: "While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body." Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."  Matthew 26:26-28 (NIV)

or from Luke: "And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."  In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you." Luke 22:19-20 (NIV)

Compare that with the paraphrase from the Jesus Storybook Bible: "My body is like this bread.  It will break." Jesus told them.  "This cup of wine is like my blood.  It will pour out."

In none of the gospel accounts does our Lord say his body is "like" the bread.  He say "this is my body."  Nor does he say the wine is "like" his blood.  Again, this loose paraphrase changes the meaning in significant ways.

There are more examples of this.  I have cited two that seemed particularly troubling to me.

I recommend instead&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/The-Big-Picture-Story-Bible/dp/1581342772/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">The Big Picture Story Bible</a>.  I bought both.  I will be returning the Jesus Storybook Bible and keeping the Big Picture Storybook Bible.
1813323
This was purchased as a gift for someone expressing interest in Jesus and the beginning of Christianity. It is an easy read and can be read by topic of interest.
3279361
Much of the book seemed a put-down of Jesus and his immediate followers. It accented the deep differences between Paul and the other disciples. But in the end he gave Paul much credit for the spread of Christianity, making it acceptable to the Gentiles. He also said Jesus was who he said we was.
846930
I highly recommend reading this book. Although I've read the Gospels many times, it's a different experience to read them all together and flowing as one story. For instance, there are a teachings that Christ did that I assumed He taught only once - just due to the nature of reading them in 4 separate books, I assumed they were all talking about the same point in time. This turns out to be false. Jesus taught on a few subjects at different points in time. That became very clear by reading this book.
1105153
The author provides the reader with a careful survey of the New Testament writings that have come to represent the life and teachings of Jesus.  In doing so, he asks us to imagine the world that was the source of these writings--one that existed well before modern printing, editing, and journalism.  He makes it clear that the various writers who composed the Gospels, Pauline letters, and so fourth were often unaware of each others writings; while at other times they borrowed from each others work.  The working of these many hands led to various issues becoming clouded.  For example, was the kingdom of God immediately at hand and about to arrive before the last of the disciples died, or was this event to occur in the distant future?  It also seemed that the Pauline letters were written without any knowledge of Jesus' supposed biography.  Such discrepancies are in keeping with the account of a life that is largely legendary--which is the central and well-argued point of the author.

The discussion of the Gospel of Mark is of particular interest.  It is generally believed that Mark was written before the other four Gospels, and that the Gospels Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily from Mark.  Therefore, Mark is closer to the origin of the Jesus legend than the other Gospels.  The author views Mark as a literary work where drama is enhanced at the expense of realism.  For example, the disciples are shown as unable to understand Jesus' parables--which made them seem impossibly dull!  This dullness, however, served a dramatic purpose in that they were later able to understand after the Resurrection.  He also observes that some aspects of the Gospel of Mark may reflect the conflict between Christian and Jewish communities during the time that the book was written (70-100 AD?)--rather than the situation characteristic of 30 AD Palestine.  I would also make an additional observation, that the attempt of the gospels to present Christianity as an otherworldly religion that does not challenge Roman temporal power, was meant to aid Christians at the time of the Gospels' composition.
1484765
This is a very good Bible, but it does not capitalize "He" when God or Christ is speaking like most Bibles do. This has really bothered me and I have been trying to do it myself. If you are looking for a true Bible Study this one does not give as many refrences at the bottom and you will still have to do some research yourself.
1701573
I haven't read many regression type pieces, but this one is really interesting.  I had always heard Jesus was likely an Essene, but this gives a lot more detail on what that really means.  Nice job.
1408203
I would like to take the time to say the Title Holy Ghost is not old, cold, vague, mysterious, or insubstantiality. John the Baptist disciples replied. "We have not heard so such the Holy Ghost." In the book of Revelation, it says change not the Words written in this book. I will come back and finish this review. But to say at the beginning it has abused Jesus's expressed words and commandments, is putting it mildly. Paul asked JTB disciples have you received SINCE you believed. The SINCE denotes a time elapse. The Holy Ghost comes after salvation not at the same time as conversion. Apostle Paul received the Holy Ghost after he was blinded. Not when he was blinded. Glory be to His name.
2482664
I really like this book by Dr. Goldsworthy it does a great Job of explaining how all the Scriptures are about Jesus Christ. Two questions I have, Why he don't express more about the decree God Made in Genesis 3:15? Why does he feel so obligated to use the word "Trinity" which has no biblical "origin"? He explains pretty well in the first few chapters about Jesus Christ. Well, I guess if he was to really claim that Jesus Christ is the One, he would possibly be thrown into prison, cast out of the Biblical Theological Scholarship and not be able to sale any books.

"If you believe in the Trinity you give the devil more credit than you give God. In St. John 8:44 he is a "father" of liars(or lies), 2 Thessalonians 2:3 he is a "son", in 1 John 4:2-3 he is a "spirit". The devil is a father, son and spirit and no one says there is "three persons" in the devilhead". (Elder Dr. Johnny James)

"During one class in seminary, we were doing an exegetical study in 1 John. When we got to 1 John 2:1, it says that if we sin, Jesus is an "advocate" with the Father. In the Greek text, the word we translate as "advocate" is really parakletos [par-a-CLAY-tos]. One of the students raised his hand, shocked that Jesus was referred to Parakletos in Greek (1John 2:1). He asked, "Isn't that the same word used for the Holy Spirit in the creeds?" "Yes," replied the professor. "But what does this do to the Trinity?" he asked. The professor just laughed. "You're two hundred years before the Trinity." (Big Ideas by Dr. David S. Norris)