Jesus...the Messiah?

I was raised a Christain, attended pentacostal church for many years, I know plenty.

And none of it sunk in


you mean I wasn't brainwashed? well yes I was until I started thinking

Look dude, every religion says the exact same thing, they have the truth and they are enlightened. You can't all be right, the most likely answer is that you are all wrong.
 
Quote from Mav88:

you mean I wasn't brainwashed? well yes I was until I started thinking

You confuse thinking with being a skeptic (someone who arrives at an opinion, although he is completely incapable of proving his opinion).

Let us move down the continuum from Deity (God) to the nature of the universe around us. Since you are so gifted in explaining away Christianity and things like the deity of Christ, try these much simpler issues. Tell me:

Why physicists have to resort to an 11-dimensional space (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory) to explain things, when we are incapable of grasping beyond the 3rd (and possibly 4th if counting time) dimension?

Why Multiverses are the best explanation of the universe by many cosmologists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse). Of course, we only see and can prove the one universe we happen to live in.

Why we have quantum entanglement where the quantum states of two or more objects are linked together — even though the individual objects may be spatially separated by a large difference? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement).

Look dude, every religion says the exact same thing, they have the truth and they are enlightened. You can't all be right, the most likely answer is that you are all wrong.

Every religion says the exact same thing? Mind furnishing proof of that, or is that another wild conjecture?
 
A fact often neglected is that Jesus was NOT categorically rejected as Messiah by all of the Jews of his day. His opposition came mainly from the Pharisees, the ruling authority. Having had their integrity challenged, they were determined to bring an end to Jesus' outreach to the people.
Later on, though, even the early church consisted mostly of Jews. They were able to reconcile the Old Testament scriptures with the claims and teachings of Jesus, a fact made evident in that almost the entire New Testament is written by Jews! However, many of the rabbinic traditions passed down through the centuries have Pharisaic origins, perpetuating the "offical" Jewish bias against Jesus.

Jewish resistance to Jesus has also been a result of the anti-Semitism practiced in the name of Christ. This is one of the saddest mistakes Christians have made throughout history. They owe the salvation of their souls to the King of the Jews. Persecuting them could not be more contradictory to their faith. Much tragedy might've been averted were it not for the profound ignorance of the Bible on the part of average people.

Ultimately, though, Jews reject Jesus for precisely the same reasons that Gentiles reject him!

Still, there are few Jews around today who do call Jesus their Messiah. Of course, they, like Jesus himself, are not embraced by the mainstream, to borrow your phrase.
 
Just to make the question even more complicated, it should also be noted that Jesus himself--when asked in one way or another "Are you the Messiah?"--answered most often, "YOU say that I am." An ambiguous reply. Why??

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.
More...
 
Complicated ?
It's not complicated. Jesus is a character in a book. The whole story about Jesus and his relationship with Jews and anyone else, is only contained in that book. That book is not a historical document. It is a story , a tale written down and later altered , added to and plagiarized out of all recognition by other story tellers. There are no historical records or any reliable documents whatsoever supporting Jesus, Christ, Messiah or whatever . The whole thing is just as fictional as any of the tales about King Arthur or Lancelot.
You are discussing/ arguing about a fictional character in a story book. You may as well argue whether Arthur was really accepted as the true King of Camelot.

It's a ridiculous notion in the 21st century to be seriously considering outside of fiction whether or not Jesus was actually some sort of Messiah or not.
 
Quote from stu:

Complicated ?
It's not complicated. Jesus is a character in a book. The whole story about Jesus and his relationship with Jews and anyone else, is only contained in that book. That book is not a historical document. It is a story , a tale written down and later altered , added to and plagiarized out of all recognition by other story tellers. There are no historical records or any reliable documents whatsoever supporting Jesus, Christ, Messiah or whatever . The whole thing is just as fictional as any of the tales about King Arthur or Lancelot.
You are discussing/ arguing about a fictional character in a story book. You may as well argue whether Arthur was really accepted as the true King of Camelot.

It's a ridiculous notion in the 21st century to be seriously considering outside of fiction whether or not Jesus was actually some sort of Messiah or not.
More...


Good morning, Stu

Out of curiousity, is it also your position that the Apostles are fictional characters too ?
 
Quote from Barth Vader:

Good morning, Stu

Out of curiousity, is it also your position that the Apostles are fictional characters too ?
More...
Good morning Barth.

Christ's 12 Apostles fictional? Yes of course. It's not just my position but it is the position .
It always was and always will be, until some substantial supporting evidence can be brought to show how any of the Bible stories and the characters within are non fictional. Such evidence is what separates all fictional accounts from historical ones.

The discussion in this thread in the end is revolving around a fantasy narrative about personas which people can only imagine real, although always seeming to talk of as given reality. Fair enough, I just think it necessary to understand there are no truly historical events or confirmations of existence for those personalities like Jesus, in order to get a more appropriate context.
When push comes to shove, the bringing forward of some obvious and basic requirements which would separate Christ / New Testament /Apostle from makebelive toward actuality has never been possible. Same goes for King Arthur and Robin Hood too.
 
Quote from vhehn:

an honest bible scholar on the bible. what the bible really says and means.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cK3Ry_icJo&feature=PlayList&p=8F2CDF596ABFFDC2&index=0&playnext=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Trt1ZWR5PqQ
More...


"...an honest trading guru on the markets. what price action really means and how to make your fortune........."

Buy the new book by Barth Vader " What My Research on Price Action Reveals [and how to make your fortune]...$27.25

To call Dr. Ehrman a scholar is certainly a factual statement, to call Dr. Ehrman "honest" is certainly debatable.

I had no reason to continue watching the video presentation after about one minute into part 2, when Dr. Ehrman focused on P52 for his presentation. P52 is one of 4 components of the minority texts which have meaningful / viable differences with the Textus Receptus.

It would be akin to Stu stating that Jesus is a fictional character, when 99.9% of other atheist/agnostic scholars believe that Jesus was historical but not divine. Stu then writes a book promoting his thesis that Jesus is fictional, and this shakes the non-faith of some of the 99.9 %, thereby giving Stu "credence". And so it goes.........

In part one of the video, Dr. Ehrman relates a story regarding a question put to his students, in which he asks "How many of you believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of G-D?", and nearly all hands raise.....he then asks "How many of you have read the entire Bible ?", and he states that only a spattering of hands were raised......this is the most honest part of Dr. Ehrmans' presentation.......the lack of study and seeking by those who endeavor to be called christian.
 
Quote from stu:

Good morning Barth.

Christ's 12 Apostles fictional? Yes of course. It's not just my position but it is the position .
It always was and always will be, until some substantial supporting evidence can be brought to show how any of the Bible stories and the characters within are non fictional. Such evidence is what separates all fictional accounts from historical ones.

The discussion in this thread in the end is revolving around a fantasy narrative about personas which people can only imagine real, although always seeming to talk of as given reality. Fair enough, I just think it necessary to understand there are no truly historical events or confirmations of existence for those personalities like Jesus, in order to get a more appropriate context.
When push comes to shove, the bringing forward of some obvious and basic requirements which would separate Christ / New Testament /Apostle from makebelive toward actuality has never been possible. Same goes for King Arthur and Robin Hood too.
More...

As always, Stu, your answer is direct and to the point.
It would seem, however, that your methodology would exclude consideration of the vast amount of history prior to the printing press [ for original manuscript], or for that matter, any first hand witness who is not alive !

My next statement is tongue in cheek, but under your methodology any history beyond 100 years is questionable !
How do you discern truth under your requirements, when a living witness is not available ??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top