Was Jesus the expected messiah or mashiach?

Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Was Jesus the expected messiah or mashiach?

If yes or no , Why? And where is this documented ?


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Of course he was.  Isaiah

Of course he was.  Isaiah 53 foretold the life of Christ in remarkable detail, hundreds of years before Christ was born.


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Can you explain in more

Can you explain in more detail.
Why do the Jews reject Isaiah 53 as Jesus?


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1577
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
(Walk on the wild side ..) Walk on the wild side ???


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Of course he

TWD39 wrote:

Of course he was.  Isaiah 53 foretold the life of Christ in remarkable detail, hundreds of years before Christ was born.

Christ is Greek for messiah. Your statement is tautological.

If you're saying that Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be Messiah, I'd agree. He was one of many who did so.

If you're saying he was the Messiah. you need proof.

If you're saying that Jesus was also the son of Yahweh then you've canceled out the Messiah claim. The Messiah is not the son of a God. Jesus never claimed to be the son of God - only Messiah.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
JC

And where does it say that the Messiah is not the son of God?


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2398
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Good one.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

                                  To JCGadfly   and Danatemporary and all other rationalist.   Why don't we let Jimenezj and TWD39 fight this one out and any other theist who wants to jump in.

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:And where

Jimenezj wrote:
And where does it say that the Messiah is not the son of God?

In "the Prophets" part of "the Law and the Prophets" - Jesus didn't fulfill the prophecies.

Details here - http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/jewsandjesus/

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick

Jeffrick wrote:

 

 

 

 

                                  To JCGadfly   and Danatemporary and all other rationalist.   Why don't we let Jimenezj and TWD39 fight this one out and any other theist who wants to jump in.

 

Because in a Biblical discussion there should be at least one person involved who has actually read the Bible?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
JC

The Jews killed Their own prophets of God?
It is not a surprise that they killed their own Messiah.
The Jewish priesthood became corrupted During the
Second temple period. You cannot trust today's Jewish
Interpretation . They are as corrupted as before. Just
Look at the history of Israel and their rebellion . Also
Look at God's judgment on Israel for their rebellion . It's
All in the bible.

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote: The Jews

Jimenezj wrote:
The Jews killed Their own prophets of God? It is not a surprise that they killed their own Messiah. The Jewish priesthood became corrupted During the Second temple period. You cannot trust today's Jewish Interpretation . They are as corrupted as before. Just Look at the history of Israel and their rebellion . Also Look at God's judgment on Israel for their rebellion . It's All in the bible.

So I should trust the interpretation of some Greeks who wrote hundreds of years later who were writing with an agenda to make Jesus into a deity (according to Paul's religion)?

I've looked at the Bible - I've even read it. Isn't it amazing after all Israel's rebellions against Yahweh that they're still his chosen people?

Christians can't even avoid it - they like to refer to themselves as "spiritual Israel".

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:Can you

Jimenezj wrote:
Can you explain in more detail. Why do the Jews reject Isaiah 53 as Jesus?

 

They were expecting a messiah who would be their physical king,  and slay their enemies.  They didn't realize that Jesus came as a spiritual savior.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3199
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Of course he

TWD39 wrote:

Of course he was.  Isaiah 53 foretold the life of Christ in remarkable detail, hundreds of years before Christ was born.

(yawn)

And Middle Earth was a real place where elves, humans, dwarfs, orcs, ogres and wraiths lived and fought over a ring, the one ring to rule them all.

 

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Jimenezj

TWD39 wrote:

Jimenezj wrote:
Can you explain in more detail. Why do the Jews reject Isaiah 53 as Jesus?

 

They were expecting a messiah who would be their physical king,  and slay their enemies.  They didn't realize that Jesus came as a spiritual savior.

and he did nothing to dissuade their illusions...

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 847
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
No

Jimenezj wrote:
If yes or no , Why? And where is this documented ?

Your key word is "expected". The Hebrew Messiah was expected to be a warrior with armies. JC was no such one. Picture the Hebrew Messiah as something like the Roman legions, only invincible. The documentation is the NT ----He was not accepted by the San Hedran. If they thought he was the Messiah they would have followed him---they didn't, but killed him instead--and he was considered blasphemous.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2398
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Jeffrick

jcgadfly wrote:

Jeffrick wrote:

 

 

 

 

                                  To JCGadfly   and Danatemporary and all other rationalist.   Why don't we let Jimenezj and TWD39 fight this one out and any other theist who wants to jump in.

 

Because in a Biblical discussion there should be at least one person involved who has actually read the Bible?

 

 

                              That is true jc,  sorry I forgot.

 

 

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2398
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Jimenezj

Old Seer wrote:

Jimenezj wrote:
If yes or no , Why? And where is this documented ?

Your key word is "expected". The Hebrew Messiah was expected to be a warrior with armies. JC was no such one. Picture the Hebrew Messiah as something like the Roman legions, only invincible. The documentation is the NT ----He was not accepted by the San Hedran. If they thought he was the Messiah they would have followed him---they didn't, but killed him instead--and he was considered blasphemous.

 

 

                      So meny people  forget that Jesus christ is NOT A NAME it IS a TITLE, it means God's savior; annointed! the real persons [yes plural] didn't have that name, no one did!!!!!  the jesus charactor is  a conglomeration of several sources;  some real some fictional.  Try this real person for example and count the similaritys between him and the fictional jesus charactor.....

 

                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_of_Peraea   

 

 

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Jimenezj wrote:
If yes or no , Why? And where is this documented ?

Bar Kochba of the last revolt over the right to mutilate the genitalia of infant males was the officially anointed messiah.

You only get one Messiah in life. Make 'm count.

The Messiach was declared the one long before the Jesus as Messiah idea was invented.

One can take the Messiah mythology as similar to King Arthur who will return in time of need or the 13th Imam or the 9th(?) whatever of the Zoroastrians. The Messiah has a prerequisite of appearing in a time of need. There was no time of need related to the Jesus time frame.

My hypothesis is Jesus was taken as liberator of the Galileans from Judean rule in the later mythology. It is all very messy and between-the-lines stuff and the most stuff between the lines I can find comes from Emperor Justin in the 4th c. which is so late that myth, counter-myth and many counter-counter-counter myths probably influenced his writings.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

jcgadfly wrote:
Christ is Greek for messiah. Your statement is tautological.

If we are going to be rambling on about this subject lets get our terms straight. Yes Christus does mean Messiah but both in clear English mean anointed and nothing more.

Whole lotta 'nointin' going on in those days.

The lack of an indefinite article in classical Greek is a great annoyance to people like me but a license to believing translators. Thee Miles Gloriosus. The Thee himself? A joke we can only say not write in English.

Annointed could only mean TO something specific. So HA CHRISTUS, THEE Annointed, was only in context of knowing to what the anointing was towards or for or whatever. Greek HO, Aramaic HA, Engish THEE definite article. Greek and Aramaic, ne Hebrew, have only the emphatic definite article. If there is a grammarian out there feel free to correct my terms.

Annointed AS Savior or TO BE Savior is the only context here. Ha Christos implies only from context Savior when discussing Jesus. One has to establish both savior and from what in the context of usage. There is simply no Judean context for this anointed to save Judea talk.

As to the requirement of actually being anointed Jesus was not unless you invoke Mary Magdelene as the anointing party. That requires her to be a priestess. Any believer who wants to go this route please feel free to do so.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Jimenezj wrote:
And where does it say that the Messiah is not the son of God?

As the kids from South Park would ask you, Where does it say the Messiah is not a rabbit?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

TWD39 wrote:
Jimenezj wrote:
Can you explain in more detail. Why do the Jews reject Isaiah 53 as Jesus?

They were expecting a messiah who would be their physical king,  and slay their enemies.  They didn't realize that Jesus came as a spiritual savior.

So not only did his single parent send him on a suicide mission he failed miserably to get his message across. One would expect your god to have better communication skills. One would expect better of a god.

In fact were your claim less than laughable one would expect the gospels to be long dissertations of this motherless son of a real god to have spent his time explaining all in clear terms, in plain Aramaic if you will.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:jcgadfly

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
Christ is Greek for messiah. Your statement is tautological.

If we are going to be rambling on about this subject lets get our terms straight. Yes Christus does mean Messiah but both in clear English mean anointed and nothing more.

Whole lotta 'nointin' going on in those days.

The lack of an indefinite article in classical Greek is a great annoyance to people like me but a license to believing translators. Thee Miles Gloriosus. The Thee himself? A joke we can only say not write in English.

Annointed could only mean TO something specific. So HA CHRISTUS, THEE Annointed, was only in context of knowing to what the anointing was towards or for or whatever. Greek HO, Aramaic HA, Engish THEE definite article. Greek and Aramaic, ne Hebrew, have only the emphatic definite article. If there is a grammarian out there feel free to correct my terms.

Annointed AS Savior or TO BE Savior is the only context here. Ha Christos implies only from context Savior when discussing Jesus. One has to establish both savior and from what in the context of usage. There is simply no Judean context for this anointed to save Judea talk.

As to the requirement of actually being anointed Jesus was not unless you invoke Mary Magdelene as the anointing party. That requires her to be a priestess. Any believer who wants to go this route please feel free to do so.

Agree but that had nothing to do with TWD's tautology.

They were anointing everything in olive oil with cannabis flowers soaked in them in those days - no wonder they had "religious experiences".

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:TWD39

digitalbeachbum wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Of course he was.  Isaiah 53 foretold the life of Christ in remarkable detail, hundreds of years before Christ was born.

(yawn)

And Middle Earth was a real place where elves, humans, dwarfs, orcs, ogres and wraiths lived and fought over a ring, the one ring to rule them all.

 

 

 

No, Middle Earth is a well documented work of fiction.  OTOH, Isaiah describes a sinless man who took on  great pain to pay for our sin penalty.  Jesus Christ is the only human being to do this.


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:TWD39

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

TWD39 wrote:
Jimenezj wrote:
Can you explain in more detail. Why do the Jews reject Isaiah 53 as Jesus?

They were expecting a messiah who would be their physical king,  and slay their enemies.  They didn't realize that Jesus came as a spiritual savior.

So not only did his single parent send him on a suicide mission he failed miserably to get his message across. One would expect your god to have better communication skills. One would expect better of a god.

In fact were your claim less than laughable one would expect the gospels to be long dissertations of this motherless son of a real god to have spent his time explaining all in clear terms, in plain Aramaic if you will.

 

 

Christianity rapidly exploded and spread after his death.  The Bible has survived many attempts of destruction, and Christianity remains one of the largest  and most widespread (which is more telling) in the world.  I say Jesus did a pretty good job getting the message out.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote: The Jews

Jimenezj wrote:
The Jews killed Their own prophets of God? It is not a surprise that they killed their own Messiah. The Jewish priesthood became corrupted During the Second temple period. You cannot trust today's Jewish Interpretation . They are as corrupted as before. Just Look at the history of Israel and their rebellion . Also Look at God's judgment on Israel for their rebellion . It's All in the bible.

So you like using the Bible as an example when it agrees with you. But you discount it when it doesn't?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:A_Nony_Mouse

TWD39 wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

TWD39 wrote:
Jimenezj wrote:
Can you explain in more detail. Why do the Jews reject Isaiah 53 as Jesus?

They were expecting a messiah who would be their physical king,  and slay their enemies.  They didn't realize that Jesus came as a spiritual savior.

So not only did his single parent send him on a suicide mission he failed miserably to get his message across. One would expect your god to have better communication skills. One would expect better of a god.

In fact were your claim less than laughable one would expect the gospels to be long dissertations of this motherless son of a real god to have spent his time explaining all in clear terms, in plain Aramaic if you will.

 

 

Christianity rapidly exploded and spread after his death.  The Bible has survived many attempts of destruction, and Christianity remains one of the largest  and most widespread (which is more telling) in the world.  I say Jesus did a pretty good job getting the message out.

Especially thanks to Constantine's armies...Jesus did nothing to get the message out - that was Paul and more than a few popes and emperors.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
TWD39

I Agree, the Gospel is all around the world.
The message of salvation has spread to the world.
Jesus Christ accomplished what he came to do.
Luke 4:18

Jesus said,
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed,and
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

What comes next is
Isaiah 61:2

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:I Agree, the

Jimenezj wrote:
I Agree, the Gospel is all around the world. The message of salvation has spread to the world. Jesus Christ accomplished what he came to do. Luke 4:18 Jesus said, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed,and to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." What comes next is Isaiah 61:2

So...

Not only is Jesus not the son of Yahweh according to Scripture but he's a liar by that same Scripture?

Wouldn't it be easier to just look at history and note that the giopel writers looked at Isaiah and made the Jesus character fit?
 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Jimenezj

jcgadfly wrote:

Jimenezj wrote:
I Agree, the Gospel is all around the world. The message of salvation has spread to the world. Jesus Christ accomplished what he came to do. Luke 4:18 Jesus said, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed,and to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." What comes next is Isaiah 61:2

So...

Not only is Jesus not the son of Yahweh according to Scripture but he's a liar by that same Scripture?

Wouldn't it be easier to just look at history and note that the giopel writers looked at Isaiah and made the Jesus character fit?
 

 

Jesus most certainly claimed to be son of God.  Stop lying.

 

"When in Matthew 16:15-16 Apostle Peter states: "You are Christ, the Son of the living God" Jesus not only accepts the titles, but calls Peter "blessed" and declares the profession a divine revelation by stating: "flesh and blood did not revealed it to you, but my Father who is in Heaven."[4] By emphatically endorsing both titles as divine revelation, Jesus unequivocally declares himself to be both Christ and the Son of God in Matthew 16:15-16. The reference to his Father in Heaven is itself a separate assertion of sonship within the same statement.[4]

In the Sanhedrin trial of Jesus in Mark 14:61 when the high priest asked Jesus: "Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed one?" Jesus responded "I am". Jesus' claim here was emphatic enough to make the high priest tear his robe.[20]

In the new Testament Jesus uses the term "my Father" as a direct and unequivocal assertion of his sonship, and a unique relationship with the Father beyond any attribution of titles by others:[6]

In Matthew 11:27 Jesus claims a direct relationship to God the Father: "No one knows the Son except the Father and no one knows the Father except the Son", asserting the mutual knowledge he has with the Father.[6]
In John 5:23 he claims that the Son and the Father receive the same type of honor, stating: "so that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father".[6][21]
In John 5:26 he claims to possess life as the Father does: "Just as the Father has life in himself, so also he gave to his Son the possession of life in himself".[6][22]
In a number of other episodes Jesus claims sonship by referring to the Father, e.g. in Luke 2:49 when he is found in the temple a young Jesus calls the temple "my Father's house", just as he does later in John 2:16 in the Cleansing of the Temple episode.[6] In Matthew 1:11 and Luke 3:22 Jesus allows himself to be called the Son of God by the voice from above, not objecting to the title.[6]

References to "my Father" by Jesus in the New Testament are distinguished in that he never includes other individuals in them and only refers to his Father, however when addressing the disciples he uses your Father, excluding himself from the reference.[23]  "

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_God

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:jcgadfly

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Jimenezj wrote:
I Agree, the Gospel is all around the world. The message of salvation has spread to the world. Jesus Christ accomplished what he came to do. Luke 4:18 Jesus said, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed,and to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." What comes next is Isaiah 61:2

So...

Not only is Jesus not the son of Yahweh according to Scripture but he's a liar by that same Scripture?

Wouldn't it be easier to just look at history and note that the giopel writers looked at Isaiah and made the Jesus character fit?
 

 

Jesus most certainly claimed to be son of God.  Stop lying.

 

"When in Matthew 16:15-16 Apostle Peter states: "You are Christ, the Son of the living God" Jesus not only accepts the titles, but calls Peter "blessed" and declares the profession a divine revelation by stating: "flesh and blood did not revealed it to you, but my Father who is in Heaven."[4] By emphatically endorsing both titles as divine revelation, Jesus unequivocally declares himself to be both Christ and the Son of God in Matthew 16:15-16. The reference to his Father in Heaven is itself a separate assertion of sonship within the same statement.[4]

In the Sanhedrin trial of Jesus in Mark 14:61 when the high priest asked Jesus: "Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed one?" Jesus responded "I am". Jesus' claim here was emphatic enough to make the high priest tear his robe.[20]

In the new Testament Jesus uses the term "my Father" as a direct and unequivocal assertion of his sonship, and a unique relationship with the Father beyond any attribution of titles by others:[6]

In Matthew 11:27 Jesus claims a direct relationship to God the Father: "No one knows the Son except the Father and no one knows the Father except the Son", asserting the mutual knowledge he has with the Father.[6]
In John 5:23 he claims that the Son and the Father receive the same type of honor, stating: "so that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father".[6][21]
In John 5:26 he claims to possess life as the Father does: "Just as the Father has life in himself, so also he gave to his Son the possession of life in himself".[6][22]
In a number of other episodes Jesus claims sonship by referring to the Father, e.g. in Luke 2:49 when he is found in the temple a young Jesus calls the temple "my Father's house", just as he does later in John 2:16 in the Cleansing of the Temple episode.[6] In Matthew 1:11 and Luke 3:22 Jesus allows himself to be called the Son of God by the voice from above, not objecting to the title.[6]

References to "my Father" by Jesus in the New Testament are distinguished in that he never includes other individuals in them and only refers to his Father, however when addressing the disciples he uses your Father, excluding himself from the reference.[23]  "

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_God

 

The gospels were written at least 40 years after Jesus (if he existed) said anything and were written by people who never heard him speak. Those writers were converted to a religion created by a man who never met Jesus and decided to make him a god. (something Jesus (if he existed) would have slapped Paul in the mouth for [before taking him to trial for blasphemy])

You do know using the Bible to prove the Bible is circular reasoning, right?

Don't call a man a liar unless you're able to prove him wrong. In this case, you can't do that unless you deny the history of when the gospels wee written.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Of course he

TWD39 wrote:

Of course he was.  Isaiah 53 foretold the life of Christ in remarkable detail, hundreds of years before Christ was born.

Is possible that the writers of the NT read Isaiah 53 and then made the story fit? Or can this only be a miracle?

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:TWD39

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Jimenezj wrote:
I Agree, the Gospel is all around the world. The message of salvation has spread to the world. Jesus Christ accomplished what he came to do. Luke 4:18 Jesus said, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed,and to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." What comes next is Isaiah 61:2

So...

Not only is Jesus not the son of Yahweh according to Scripture but he's a liar by that same Scripture?

Wouldn't it be easier to just look at history and note that the giopel writers looked at Isaiah and made the Jesus character fit?
 

 

Jesus most certainly claimed to be son of God.  Stop lying.

 

"When in Matthew 16:15-16 Apostle Peter states: "You are Christ, the Son of the living God" Jesus not only accepts the titles, but calls Peter "blessed" and declares the profession a divine revelation by stating: "flesh and blood did not revealed it to you, but my Father who is in Heaven."[4] By emphatically endorsing both titles as divine revelation, Jesus unequivocally declares himself to be both Christ and the Son of God in Matthew 16:15-16. The reference to his Father in Heaven is itself a separate assertion of sonship within the same statement.[4]

In the Sanhedrin trial of Jesus in Mark 14:61 when the high priest asked Jesus: "Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed one?" Jesus responded "I am". Jesus' claim here was emphatic enough to make the high priest tear his robe.[20]

In the new Testament Jesus uses the term "my Father" as a direct and unequivocal assertion of his sonship, and a unique relationship with the Father beyond any attribution of titles by others:[6]

In Matthew 11:27 Jesus claims a direct relationship to God the Father: "No one knows the Son except the Father and no one knows the Father except the Son", asserting the mutual knowledge he has with the Father.[6]
In John 5:23 he claims that the Son and the Father receive the same type of honor, stating: "so that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father".[6][21]
In John 5:26 he claims to possess life as the Father does: "Just as the Father has life in himself, so also he gave to his Son the possession of life in himself".[6][22]
In a number of other episodes Jesus claims sonship by referring to the Father, e.g. in Luke 2:49 when he is found in the temple a young Jesus calls the temple "my Father's house", just as he does later in John 2:16 in the Cleansing of the Temple episode.[6] In Matthew 1:11 and Luke 3:22 Jesus allows himself to be called the Son of God by the voice from above, not objecting to the title.[6]

References to "my Father" by Jesus in the New Testament are distinguished in that he never includes other individuals in them and only refers to his Father, however when addressing the disciples he uses your Father, excluding himself from the reference.[23]  "

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_God

 

The gospels were written at least 40 years after Jesus (if he existed) said anything and were written by people who never heard him speak. Those writers were converted to a religion created by a man who never met Jesus and decided to make him a god. (something Jesus (if he existed) would have slapped Paul in the mouth for [before taking him to trial for blasphemy])

You do know using the Bible to prove the Bible is circular reasoning, right?

Don't call a man a liar unless you're able to prove him wrong. In this case, you can't do that unless you deny the history of when the gospels wee written.

 

 

Then why are you using the gospels as foundation for your argument that Jesus never claimed to be the son of God?  You can't have it both ways.  Face it, I nailed you to the wall, and you can only resort to your lame "Jesus never existed" or "the gospels are fiction" responses.


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:TWD39 wrote:Of

EXC wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Of course he was.  Isaiah 53 foretold the life of Christ in remarkable detail, hundreds of years before Christ was born.

Is possible that the writers of the NT read Isaiah 53 and then made the story fit? Or can this only be a miracle?

 

 

If they made the Jesus story up, they would have been easily be exposed as frauds by other Jews.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 847
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Alpha Smurf understands that.

Jeffrick wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

Jimenezj wrote:
If yes or no , Why? And where is this documented ?

Your key word is "expected". The Hebrew Messiah was expected to be a warrior with armies. JC was no such one. Picture the Hebrew Messiah as something like the Roman legions, only invincible. The documentation is the NT ----He was not accepted by the San Hedran. If they thought he was the Messiah they would have followed him---they didn't, but killed him instead--and he was considered blasphemous.

 

 

                      So meny people  forget that Jesus christ is NOT A NAME it IS a TITLE, it means God's savior; annointed! the real persons [yes plural] didn't have that name, no one did!!!!!  the jesus charactor is  a conglomeration of several sources;  some real some fictional.  Try this real person for example and count the similaritys between him and the fictional jesus charactor.....

 

                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_of_Peraea   

 

 

 

One needs to ask-Messiah for whom and for what reason. In the OT he's to save the Hebrews from their enemies, while in the NT he's to save the world. Now being we don't anticipate an terrestrial invasion then who is the world to be saved from. From our insights we say---saved from yourselves. If you're going to keep going in this direction of endeavor The Psycho types agree you're headed for self destruction---and at this point it is irretrievable. Under these mental conditions you're going to need a Savior unless the people don't care. The masses cannot remain thinking as they do, it has to be changed.  This is caused by the values under which you all regard each other.

Now- we don't expect floks to believe, but, you are heading into the same mental state that caused the people at the time of Noah and Sodom & Gamorrah to annihilate each other. Social values will have to be changed. All we can do is quote the book as we find it is a perspective of these things---I have always told you before hand so you would know.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:jcgadfly

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Jimenezj wrote:
I Agree, the Gospel is all around the world. The message of salvation has spread to the world. Jesus Christ accomplished what he came to do. Luke 4:18 Jesus said, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed,and to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." What comes next is Isaiah 61:2

So...

Not only is Jesus not the son of Yahweh according to Scripture but he's a liar by that same Scripture?

Wouldn't it be easier to just look at history and note that the giopel writers looked at Isaiah and made the Jesus character fit?
 

 

Jesus most certainly claimed to be son of God.  Stop lying.

 

"When in Matthew 16:15-16 Apostle Peter states: "You are Christ, the Son of the living God" Jesus not only accepts the titles, but calls Peter "blessed" and declares the profession a divine revelation by stating: "flesh and blood did not revealed it to you, but my Father who is in Heaven."[4] By emphatically endorsing both titles as divine revelation, Jesus unequivocally declares himself to be both Christ and the Son of God in Matthew 16:15-16. The reference to his Father in Heaven is itself a separate assertion of sonship within the same statement.[4]

In the Sanhedrin trial of Jesus in Mark 14:61 when the high priest asked Jesus: "Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed one?" Jesus responded "I am". Jesus' claim here was emphatic enough to make the high priest tear his robe.[20]

In the new Testament Jesus uses the term "my Father" as a direct and unequivocal assertion of his sonship, and a unique relationship with the Father beyond any attribution of titles by others:[6]

In Matthew 11:27 Jesus claims a direct relationship to God the Father: "No one knows the Son except the Father and no one knows the Father except the Son", asserting the mutual knowledge he has with the Father.[6]
In John 5:23 he claims that the Son and the Father receive the same type of honor, stating: "so that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father".[6][21]
In John 5:26 he claims to possess life as the Father does: "Just as the Father has life in himself, so also he gave to his Son the possession of life in himself".[6][22]
In a number of other episodes Jesus claims sonship by referring to the Father, e.g. in Luke 2:49 when he is found in the temple a young Jesus calls the temple "my Father's house", just as he does later in John 2:16 in the Cleansing of the Temple episode.[6] In Matthew 1:11 and Luke 3:22 Jesus allows himself to be called the Son of God by the voice from above, not objecting to the title.[6]

References to "my Father" by Jesus in the New Testament are distinguished in that he never includes other individuals in them and only refers to his Father, however when addressing the disciples he uses your Father, excluding himself from the reference.[23]  "

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_God

 

The gospels were written at least 40 years after Jesus (if he existed) said anything and were written by people who never heard him speak. Those writers were converted to a religion created by a man who never met Jesus and decided to make him a god. (something Jesus (if he existed) would have slapped Paul in the mouth for [before taking him to trial for blasphemy])

You do know using the Bible to prove the Bible is circular reasoning, right?

Don't call a man a liar unless you're able to prove him wrong. In this case, you can't do that unless you deny the history of when the gospels wee written.

 

 

Then why are you using the gospels as foundation for your argument that Jesus never claimed to be the son of God?  You can't have it both ways.  Face it, I nailed you to the wall, and you can only resort to your lame "Jesus never existed" or "the gospels are fiction" responses.

If you have nailed me to a wall it was made of jello.

I'm not using the gospels. I'm using Judaism - you do remember that Jesus (if he existed - you're still short of proof of that.) was a Jew (and likely a Pharisee), right? No Jew would say that the Messiah was deity. The OT stops Jesus from being Messiah - he didn't qualify.

Messiah claimant <> son of Yahweh claimant.

I don't think I called the gospels fiction - More like propaganda for Paul's created religion.

Your turn - stop lying.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

TWD39 wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Of course he was.  Isaiah 53 foretold the life of Christ in remarkable detail, hundreds of years before Christ was born.

(yawn)

And Middle Earth was a real place where elves, humans, dwarfs, orcs, ogres and wraiths lived and fought over a ring, the one ring to rule them all.

No, Middle Earth is a well documented work of fiction.  OTOH, Isaiah describes a sinless man who took on  great pain to pay for our sin penalty.  Jesus Christ is the only human being to do this.

Stories with magic and gods are all well documented as works of fiction. That included the old testament which includes Isaiah. For the entire OT no one knows who, when, where or how any of it was written which includes Isaiah. We do know stories which include magic and gods are fiction.

What do you think you are trying to say?

If you claim to know the who, when, where and how of the OT stories please present the physical evidence along with the answers you give.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

TWD39 wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

TWD39 wrote:
Jimenezj wrote:
Can you explain in more detail. Why do the Jews reject Isaiah 53 as Jesus?

They were expecting a messiah who would be their physical king,  and slay their enemies.  They didn't realize that Jesus came as a spiritual savior.

So not only did his single parent send him on a suicide mission he failed miserably to get his message across. One would expect your god to have better communication skills. One would expect better of a god.

In fact were your claim less than laughable one would expect the gospels to be long dissertations of this motherless son of a real god to have spent his time explaining all in clear terms, in plain Aramaic if you will.

Christianity rapidly exploded and spread after his death.  The Bible has survived many attempts of destruction, and Christianity remains one of the largest  and most widespread (which is more telling) in the world.  I say Jesus did a pretty good job getting the message out.

There is no physical evidence of any rapid increase whatsoever. IF you think you have any please be certain to post it along with the numerical population estimates. Or will you choose to try to redefine rapid?

There are no documented or even claimed attempts to destroy the books collected in the bible anthology. Again, if you have physical evidence of it please post it.

If numbers matter to correctness then in what year did christianity change from false to true by population data? But if you want to run with population, then Roman Catholicism is, by population, the only true form of Christianity.

If you claim that was getting his message across then the Pope has it by numbers.

However your Jesus character said nothing about any trinity, death for sin, original sin in Eden, priests, bishops, singing, churches, congregations and just about everything else. IN FACT even the disciples did not understand what he was talking about until after his death AS STATED in Acts. So unless you reject Acts an canonical then he did nothing to get his message across.

The gospels should be entirely different. They should be long-winded recitations of more Christian liturgical practices and 20th century christian morality. They should include all the requisite texts of modern seminaries and all of divisive issues of Protestantism corrected.

If today's christianity is really what your Jesus wanted and he was a god then why did he not  spell out exactly what he wanted? BTW: ALL the Christian squirms out of this require a shitty job of getting across what he wanted. You can't have it both ways.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Jimenezj wrote:
I Agree, the Gospel is all around the world. The message of salvation has spread to the world. Jesus Christ accomplished what he came to do. Luke 4:18 Jesus said, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.

Fuck the rich!

Quote:
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind,

The blind seeing trick is reported but no jail breaks are reported. How do you plan to squirm out of that one?

Quote:
to release the oppressed,and to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." What comes next is Isaiah 61:2

Which year was that? Can you convert it into the modern numbering system? Why only one year? How will you avoid a direct answer?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

TWD39 wrote:

Jesus most certainly claimed to be son of God.  Stop lying.

"When in Matthew 16:15-16 Apostle Peter states: "You are Christ, the Son of the living God"

Our Father, who art in heaven. OUR father, O.U.R. Father. So tell me who is not the son of the living god?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

EXC wrote:
TWD39 wrote:
Of course he was.  Isaiah 53 foretold the life of Christ in remarkable detail, hundreds of years before Christ was born.

Is possible that the writers of the NT read Isaiah 53 and then made the story fit? Or can this only be a miracle?

Mostly it is declaring what Isaiah really meant despite the plain reading. Who are you going to believe? Christians or your own lying eyes?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

TWD39 wrote:
EXC wrote:
TWD39 wrote:
Of course he was.  Isaiah 53 foretold the life of Christ in remarkable detail, hundreds of years before Christ was born.

Is possible that the writers of the NT read Isaiah 53 and then made the story fit? Or can this only be a miracle?

If they made the Jesus story up, they would have been easily be exposed as frauds by other Jews.

Judaism had no codification at all until after Christians invented the idea in their early doctrinal disputes. Still today Judaism has no required beliefs as in the christian Creeds. It is purely a ritual/taboo religion like Islam. For example, until zionism it didn't matter to Jews whether or not Mohamed was a prophet. They simply did not recognize him as one as one of their prophets. As to what prophets said or did they have no required beliefs even today regarding the ones they do recognize.

While I know what you are trying to invent it makes no sense at all in terms of what things were and largely still are like. The Jews for Jesus types are trying to make him a prophet in the Jewish tradition.

As to "exposed" and "fraud" those were clearly terms that did not apply in those days. The discussion was to the quality of the teachings and whether worthy of incorporation. Clearly as they do not rise above the advice of a father to his son they were not of interest in those days and that was said. That was exposure. You can find many of these in the writings of the emperor Justin who was heavily influenced by the Judeans against the Galileans aka Christians.

And it appears the Christians embraced this criticism in that the elevated "dumbing down" the philosophy of the spiritual to an accomplishment of theirs. That is probably why bringing the good news to the poor, i.e. uneducated, was emphasized. In fact this forum is innundated with the poor.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Mouse

Anno Domini


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:Anno

Jimenezj wrote:
Anno Domini

The Catholic control of the calendar is a red herring.

If you want to play that game Jesus was born in 4 BC.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Jimenezj wrote:
Anno Domini

Anno Papa John

 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1577
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
.. like a big pizza-pie, that's amore

      When the moon hits your eye / Like a big-a pizza pie / That's amore  .. That's amore

 p.s. -- What can I say, raised by old people


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:   

danatemporary wrote:

      When the moon hits your eye / Like a big-a pizza pie / That's amore  .. That's amore

 p.s. -- What can I say, raised by old people

Can't go wrong with Dino.

What can I say? I AM an old person.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

danatemporary wrote:

      When the moon hits your eye / Like a big-a pizza pie / That's amore  .. That's amore

 p.s. -- What can I say, raised by old people

Anno Dino Domino

Il Papa John XXIII

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1577
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
(No Subject)

 (No Subject)

                 Notice the School Boy Outfit, if you cannot place the band
____

 

jcgadfly wrote:

Jimenezj wrote:
  . .

The Catholic control of the calendar is a red herring.

If you want to play that game Jesus was born in 4 BC.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote: (No

danatemporary wrote:

 (No Subject)

                 Notice the School Boy Outfit, if you cannot place the band
____

 

jcgadfly wrote:

Jimenezj wrote:
  . .

The Catholic control of the calendar is a red herring.

If you want to play that game Jesus was born in 4 BC.

truly a nice touch - I was just trying to short-circuit the old "Jesus split the calendar" argument.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1577
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
He will see . . . .

Confusion about word studies by Jimenezj (source dated May6th)

 This word 'ignorance' is tossed about from all quarters. If there's a point made from an actual text, let's take a closer look then shall we ? But, First . . .

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Are you (Aussie) thinking this through . . ??

?? Confusion ??  All ribbing aside . . .

 Re :: Confusion about word studies by Jimenezj  ( I seem to recall you giving  Furry a bad time yourself)

Jimenezj wrote:
Timothy 3:16 It is very simple to understand. English translation :All scripture is given by inspiration Of God. Greek translation : All scripture is God breathed . The bible only talks about one God called YHVH. Genesis 1 If you (Nony)  do not understand this simple translation then you are: A. In denial B. Ignorant C. Or Afraid of the truth.  Which one is it?

 Please, whatever you are  subjected to, from the broader context of your comments in an older thread are you suggesting the words  Elohim and Elyon AREN'T found in the OT ?

   If you'd make an effort to not be as dismissive as in the past. Fore you have had a serious problem with hashing out parts you like while not hashing out the others, Is 53 Images.

 Points are left unaddressed.  Off the top of my head,  more than a few references to the Most High usual are rendered wrongly in the English translations.       This is a reference in the New Testament to the word: θεοῦ that is a Greek word, right ? In the thread from the 6th, this isnt what Nony had brought to your attention. Remember I am the curious one,.

TETRAGRAMMATON  יהוה*  

   On this Thread : For the sake of argument, There's an obvious question(s) to the eyes of  any reader from the Isaiah 53 passage concerning seeing his offspring(See :: Image). Likewise it might help to go back into the OT, (as a whole), not just the Hermeneutics you gravitate toward.

{Jimenezj wrote}

Jimenezj wrote:
I Agree, the Gospel is all around the world. The message of salvation has spread to the world. Jesus Christ accomplished what he came to do. Luke 4:18 Jesus said, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed,and to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." What comes next is Isaiah 61:2

     Note :: Image is of a passage in the same book of Luke, in the Canonical Gospel, and not the one cited in the 4th Chapter.

     

 

 

 

 (Images are pretty faint, it states)

 Isaiah passage

    

 9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,

and with the rich in his death, though

he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth

10 Yet it was the Lord’s (Yahweh's) will to crush him and cause him

to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin

he will see his offspring and prolong his days,

and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.

11 After he has suffered, he will see the light of life and be satisfied;[c] by

his knowledge My righteous servant will justify many, and he will

bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and

he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out

his life unto death and was numbered with the transgressors

For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

 

 

 ¬ Dana

 

 


Feredir28
Feredir28's picture
Posts: 45
Joined: 2011-01-08
User is offlineOffline
nonsense

TWD39 wrote:

EXC wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Of course he was.  Isaiah 53 foretold the life of Christ in remarkable detail, hundreds of years before Christ was born.

Is possible that the writers of the NT read Isaiah 53 and then made the story fit? Or can this only be a miracle?

 

 

If they made the Jesus story up, they would have been easily be exposed as frauds by other Jews.

 

This was 40 years AFTER jesus supposedly died. Thinking that the Jews could have exposed the frauds is like asking the British to reveal the body of King Arthur. They would not be able to provide a body, same thing with the jews because there was never a body ever in the first place. There is no evidence of jesus existing in flesh anywhere else in Galilee or wherever.

The argument that the writers of the NT made the jesus story fit Isaiah 53 still stands.