Jesus...the Messiah?

[Barth Vader]

Quote from Mom0/pH0x:

well, most scholars disagree in that they would place the likely date of authorship much later... but even if that were the case, it exposes them as fraudulent since they are written as eye witness accounts... it's pretty clear to anyone who is willing to take an honest look at the issue that the gospels were manufactured...

Ahh, yes.....Now we are down to the dreaded "most scholars" invocation

Let us now consider the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, whose writings have filled the second century.

[For brevity's' sake, I will not mention all of them, as I am sure this will be disregarded anyway ]

1) First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians [ A.D. 30-100 ]:

This work quotes scripture from the NT, or insinuates a direct familiarity with NT writings, including Ephesians, I Peter, Acts, Titus, Hebrews, Romans, Luke chapter 8, and parts of the other Gospels, including the following statement:

" Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the Gospel first began to be preached ? "

2) The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians [ A.D. 65-155 ] is pregnant with direct NT quotations and Scriptural allusions, including the following:

"....Judge not, that ye be not judged; forgive, and it shall be forgiven unto you; be merciful, that ye may obtain mercy; with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again; ...."

I will not bore you with quotes from Mathetes [A.D. 130], Ignatius [ A.D. 30-107], Barnabas [ A.D. 100], Papias [A.D. 70-155], Justin Martyr [A.D. 110-165], Irenaeus [A.D. 120-202]

 

[saxon]

Quote from Mom0/pH0x:

well, most scholars disagree in that they would place the likely date of authorship much later... but even if that were the case, it exposes them as fraudulent since they are written as eye witness accounts... it's pretty clear to anyone who is willing to take an honest look at the issue that the gospels were manufactured...

well...until the first gospel, Mark, was written down around 70 CE, the teachings and stories about Jesus had been passed down orally; but that's only about 50 years since Jesus death. Not THAT long, really. since Jesus had many followers, it is very likely that much of what became the oral tradition--and later the written gospels--did indeed come from eye wittnesses.

but the subsequent 250 years of copying and editing give plenty of room for the insertion of things like the polemics against jews, which may have not been part of the original texts or oral traditions.

could those bits have been added later by the Catholic Church? :eek:

 

[Barth Vader]

Quote from saxon:

The Codex Sinaiticus is a "minority text"?? Sorry...I think you need to do more research.

I am short on time, but yes, it is a minority text, and a unreliable one at that.

For example, take Luke 24:51 in all of the available witnesses, the words "..and carried up into heaven..." are in the following :
B, C, E, F, G, H, L, S, T, V, Y, Z, Delta, Theta, Psi, Omega and papyrus p75, while the only witnesses against the reading are D, 52 and Siniaticus.

 

[saxon]

Quote from Barth Vader:

I am short on time, but yes, it is a minority text, and a unreliable one at that.

For example, take Luke 24:51 in all of the available witnesses, the words "..and carried up into heaven..." are in the following :
B, C, E, F, G, H, L, S, T, V, Y, Z, Delta, Theta, Psi, Omega and papyrus p75, while the only witnesses against the reading are D, 52 and Siniaticus.

"carried up into heaven"

hmm...sounds pretty Catholic to me.

 

[smilingsynic]

Quote from Mom0/pH0x:

well, most scholars disagree in that they would place the likely date of authorship much later... but even if that were the case, it exposes them as fraudulent since they are written as eye witness accounts... it's pretty clear to anyone who is willing to take an honest look at the issue that the gospels were manufactured...

Fraudulent is a pretty strong word--I would not go quite that far. Perhaps the dialogue was based on oral history that was handed down over the decades, and the gospel writers, whoever they were, tried to recreate it.

Even if they had good intentions, they nevertheless did not create primary source documents, and the historic reliability should be questioned, since oral history is notoriously inaccurate.

 

[stu]

Quote from smilingsynic:

Fraudulent is a pretty strong word--I would not go quite that far. Perhaps the dialogue was based on oral history that was handed down over the decades, and the gospel writers, whoever they were, tried to recreate it.

Even if they had good intentions, they nevertheless did not create primary source documents, and the historic reliability should be questioned, since oral history is notoriously inaccurate.

Still, trying to recreate religious oral tradition is in the end simply using even more superstition to express or explain superstition.

 

[Mvic]

Anyone who wants to come out of the cave and wake up watch this

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197

Start at 11:30, the intro is a lot of annoying graphics and noise, just watch the religious part, the rest of it about the fed etc is nonsense.

 

[murray t turtle]

Quote from saxon:

To the learned Jews in this forum, please run this by me one more time: Why is Jesus not embraced by mainstream Judaisim as the Messiah?

(My question is really about Jesus and his teachings as recorded in the gospels and other sources; not the actions of extremists centuries after his death.)

I hope it's not an offensive question. It's just a curiosity question.
To my mind, Jesus seems a pretty strong candidate for Messiah.

===================
Thoughtful questions,Saxon, I am a learner, dont even have a goal of being named ''learned one'' Want to be a learner
=========================================
Also some Jewish & Christian leadership makes a good point, not necessary to kkknow Hebrew /Greek. Most leaders [not all] do know those languages & english,well. Spell checker not used.

a]I wonder also,Saxon, to partly answer your question;
why did Jesus pick the 12 Jewish apostles[100% Jews] & the 12 tribes ,again Jewish?? [a3 ]Why put/inscribe both those names on heavens foundation?
a again] Why did God use 100% Jews or 100%Jews minus DR Luke,[ maybe a gentile believer?], to write Holy Bible??

b]Why do some people chose not to believe the Jesus/virgin birth;
Genesis1;1 is more complex than the virgin birth.

c-silver] I wonder why the God of Israel made some private investments public, in Ezekiel 38,39;
''gold ,goods, silver, cattle'' King James Version, Amplified version.

d] Why do some , in the gospels value tradition more than the word of the Living God? Remember when John the[unborn] baptist leaped in Elizabeth's womb ,at Mary when she was pregnant with virgin birth-Jesus??

Meaning, when they[told by angel Gabriel to name Jewish kid ''John ];''
Dad '' wrote his name is John'', much of Israel got in an uproar over traditions-''none of your relatives are called by that name''.... Gospel of Luke 1;57-67

Love,
murray

 

[TraderZones]

Quote from Mom0/pH0x:

well, most scholars disagree in that they would place the likely date of authorship much later... but even if that were the case, it exposes them as fraudulent since they are written as eye witness accounts... it's pretty clear to anyone who is willing to take an honest look at the issue that the gospels were manufactured...

It is also believed that many of the books of the Tanakh were written much later than purported, such as the 5 books of Moses. Much of this and other scripture is believed to have actually been written as late as the 600s BCE. But there is segments that seems based on ancient sources. Many scholars doubt the existence of many of the early figures in the Tanakh, such as King David, Abraham, or others.

If you are really Jewish, then you understand the Oral tradition of Israel and other civilizations. That something was written later does not dismiss its accuracy. As most people were illiterate, they were quite accurate at passing on the important things orally.

Do you think Jewish parents in 300 BCE all had the complete scrolls of the Torah and other writings in their home and taught their kids from that? Of course not! Yet they were very familiar with important laws and concepts.

But your scholarship and accuracy leaves a huge amount to be desired. You make sweeping, unsupported statements as if they should carry any weight.

Frankly, it is intellectually painful to read your posts. You write and think like a 9 year old.

 

[I am...]

Quote from Mom0/pH0x:

See More

Thanks for your contributions.

Generally, you are *righteous* in your analysis here.
There is really no correlation between what Jesus thought about himSelf, and what Jewish prophets:
A. thought/wished about their nation,
B. what/who they thought would be good for it,
C. thought would be good for the world,
D. thought they knew about truth.
E. thought they knew about the future.

"My kingdom is not of this world" is pretty clear.
"Call no man father" is also pretty clear.

Many who followed Jesus would not "sell everything" they had.
They held onto:
A. Hebrew folklore,
B. Jewish ways,
C. Pharisee brand eschatology,
D. and cherished the concept of a glorious nation on earth.

These forced a nationalist color onto the legacy of Jesus to the detriment of his message, and any who would follow an agenda, rather than the truth.

Christ!