Was Jesus the expected messiah or mashiach?
Offline If yes or no , Why? And where is this documented ?
- Login to post comments
Offline I think you hit the bull's eye when you said, " You don't want to face conviction for your sins........If Jesus doesn't exist, then I can happily sin all I want with no worries, and treat people however I wanted. It doesn't matter. We are all worm food in the end ,right?"
What he hit was his own foot with a bullet.
Because this :
If Jesus doesn't exist, then I can happily sin all I want with no worries, and treat people however I wanted.
..does not make any kind of sense at all.
- Login to post comments
Offline TWD39 wrote:funny how an artifact like the shroud of turin has skeptics scrambling like ants to find any any way to discredit it ..
Turin Shroud is a very interesting object, and worthy of its' own thread. You would find to your surprise there is interest on this board in the object, with a lot of science surrounding the examinations of claims about it. However, It is a controversial object and singularly able to stir more heat than light, pretty easy to wick-up. That does not mean it cannot be discussed. It requires critical thinking . . Mini-Updates
There are 3 working papers posited and supported the hypothesis that the 1988 C-14
dating of the. Shroud of Turin was skewed due to such an “invisible” 16th Century
patch . Due to interweaving newer fibers with older (a common practice of conservancy at the Vatican of the time)
The Turin Shroud is a linen cloth bearing the image of a man who appears to have been physically traumatized in a manner consistent with crucifixion. It is kept in the royal chapel of the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, Italy, from which it derives its most common name. Some believe the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Jesus and that his image was recorded on its fibers at his resurrection. Others contend it is a medieval hoax or forgery. The question of its true origins continues to be the subject of intense debate among some scientists, believers, historians and writers, even today.
..That said, however, you might want to check the link BEFORE much else is further said :
The double superficiality of the frontal image of the Turin Shoud .. (article from iopscience.iop.org).
Photographs of the back surface of the Turin Shroud were analysed to verify the existence of a double body image of a
man on the opposite side. The body image is very faint and the 'other' face is even fainter...
http://iopscience.iop.org/1464-4258/6/6/001/
It's a fascinating topic. I don't think we'll ever truly know its origins though.
- Login to post comments
On March 14, 2012, Jerusalem Judge Aharon Farkash stated "that there is no evidence that any of the major artifacts were forged, and that the prosecution failed to prove their accusations beyond a reasonable doubt. 
LOL, you obviously know nothing about Christianity.
40 years isn't even a full generation. That would be like me claiming JFK was raised from the dead. If you are going to claim that Jesus never existed then I might as well claim that Caesar never existed. Oh, hey, let's just go ahead and write off ALL ancient history as fiction, huh?
My argument still stands.
It stands only in your dreams.
40 years after the Jesus supposedly walked the earth is only for Mark. Matthew, Luke and John came much later.
Funny how that's the only point you take on. Did you forget the major part of the argument? You remember - the part about the gospels being written by Greeks who never met any of the people supposedly involved in the story at the behest of a guy (Paul) who never met Jesus and taught his religion in opposition to the teaching of Jesus and his disciples?
We have works that were written by Caesar. We have works that were written by Caesar's opponents while Caesar was alive. What an old argument you bring up. Are you sure you're not a Poe?
I'm not writing off history as fiction. You are trying to promote fiction to being history. See the difference? I doubt you do (the way you abhor and ignore facts).
"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
40 years is not a full generation NOW, consider that these are different times when the life expectancy was much shorter. 50 years ago, if you lived to be 45, you were considered "elderly." Back then, 40 years is a great deal. Besides, like I said, asking the Jews to provide a body is like asking the British to provide the body of King Arthur. They may look, but thanks to faith and the schemes of christians, if they find no body (which is likely to have always been the case) they can claim the body was resurected. Thank goodness they decided to not indicate where the tomb was or if it even existed for the jews to check. Its like me telling everyone on one of my farms up north that there is an alien spacecraft parked in my field. You have all the pwer to check and prove me wrong...but when you look and look and cannot find it, I will just say that the aliens took off back to their home planet and left no trace behind.
Nice try. Unlike Caesar, we actually do have evidence for him...such as documents written by his own hand. http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/caesarx.html
And we have four detailed gospels written from different perspectives which strongly suggest that this was not made up off the cuff. Why gain did the apostles get from inventing Christianity? Power? No, the teachings in the NT are anti-pride and more about humility. Why did each of them risk their lives and were tortured to death for a lie? Why is there extra-biblical references to Christ? How do you know for sure the life expectancy of a Jew back then? In the OT, the gene pool was pure and man lived to be hundreds of years old.
So we have documents with Christ's actual words, and I can go to Israel and visit the exact places where Jesus walked, lived and died. If those standards are not enough then any ancient historical figure is fictional. The writings of Caesar could simply be works of a fiction. How can you prove he actually wrote them?
Certainly more than I expected in terms of comprehension :¬ A good part of TWD remarks tells us us to completely ignore the context of #52;#53 ? Desirous of this for your readers ?
To be perfectly honest we actually only have two "detailed gospels". Looking at the text show that Matthew and Luke borrowed a lot from Mark. So we have two gospels and two copies.
Again, the gospels don't have Christ's actual words as none of the writers were around to hear him speak. Their teacher (Paul) never heard them either. Why are there extra-bblical references to Christ? In the case of Josephus and Tacitus (and probably others), Christians manipulated the text after it was written.
I can go to New York and visit the exact places where Spider-Man walked and lived (He's not dead). By your logic, Spidey is real. You really can't visit the exact places where Jesus supposedly walked because no one is really sure of their locations (there are at least three possible sites for Golgotha, for example)
How do we know Caesar's (I assume you mean Gaius Julius) writings weren't faked by another? We have many samples and we have noticed their similarities. We also have other objects that point to his existence (coins minted during his rule, for example)
Are you SURE you're not a Poe? These arguments have been shattered many times.
"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
The possibility that there were original recordings made by the Apostles in Hebrew. It's unlikely they would have written anything in Greek as they "were" Hebrews. At the time of JC the Romans were dominant. Then some time later the recordings may have been translated into Greek for the Greek converts in Greece. What we may have are the ones sent to the Greeks and the others went to parts unknown. When the evidence that we have shows there was a persecution by the Romans could mean the recordings were hide, probably in the catacombs or a like place, and could still be there. Archeology has shown to be fleeting at times. New (old) things are found in different places constantly. IE- civilization is seen to have originated in the middle east. but at the same time and dates there were floks in what are now today,s UK. Then there,s the far East. How can one say the first civilizations weren't there first. The middle east needn't be the origin of civilization at all. The evidences of civilization there may have been better preserved and creates an impression it was first formed there. Lately every new pile of rocks found indicates civilization somewhere. So, how can one be certain. Not being a history buff I may be way off. The point being---all the evidence may not be known yet.
The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.
https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers
Knowledge trumps faith and I'm not a Theist
Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth
The apostles would not have written anything in Greek. That's why I refer to the gospel writers as the gospel writers. They were not the apostles and probably never met them..
To acknowledge the possibility of the apostles writing the gospels in Hebrew exists (in my view) is to also acknowledge the possibility that "Reformed Egyptian" existed as a language and that Joseph smith alone could translate it. Or that David Kresh was an incarnation of Christ.
"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
Remission of sin doesn't happens because he came. It happens because of the understanding (note the link to scripture) or that the scripture is written. Scripture imparts knowledge to the individual, and then form that one initiates their own remission. He came to verify the scripture for understanding. In the total end it remains up to the person to enact the deed. It's not an automatic process that just because he shows up that anyone is saved or changed. Sin is a mental state caused by the world we're in. He didn't do anything for anybody except impart understanding and die for the cause. Military floks do that all the time. The rest is left to the self. To go his way is voluntary, other wise how does repent get into the works.
Hope this helps.
The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.
https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers
Knowledge trumps faith and I'm not a Theist
Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth
The Spiderman argument again? I can easily turn that around and say just because I can walk the ruins of ancient Rome doesn't prove that the history isn't fiction. Minted coin? So what? You can find blue prints to the Starship Enterprise and collector coins. Doesn't prove it is real. Let's disregard archaeology completely and thow out all history as fiction. That's what you must do if you are going to be fair and apply the same standard that you do to Jesus.
Each of the gospels are both diffferent and similiar. There is no evidence of copying. Matthew speaks to a Jewish audience showing how Jesus fullfilled the OT prophecies. Mark is more face paced, action based, focusing on the events in Jesus life. Luke demonstrates the humanity and compassion side of Jesus. John's focus is more on applying the faith in Jesus Christ to our personal lives.
As for Josephus and Tacitus, it is never been 100% proven that their references to Christ were faked. Unless you can present hardcore evidence to demonstrate this, your statements are biased garbage as usual.
It's your logic - don't get mad at me when I shove it back where it came from. The basis that you claim for believing in Christ (visiting Israel) is exactly as valid as my claiming Spidey's real because I can visit NYC.
Finding coins from the period that point to the existence of a figure in history is called archaeology. It's ironic how you only like archeological evidence when you think it supports your position.
I never said that Matthew and Luke were exact copies of Mark - just that the copied a lot from it. If you'd bother to read the gospels and look at textual criticism. you'd notice that yourself. I also didn't say John borrowed from mark.
We've been through the "100% proof" crap before. Only maths can be proved with 100% certainty. I don't ask for absolute certainty - merely academic consensus (which I have and can include Christians scholars in the group that accept that the TF was an interpolation and that Tacitus was changed).
You claim to have absolute certainty that Jesus was real and the son of Yahweh. Yet, somehow, you can't articulate any of it past "the Bible tells you so". I could make the same statements of bias about everything you've said but it's a lot easier and fun to show you where you're wrong. Let me know when you need another lesson.
"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
I have no problems at all with archaeology. I can accept it for both biblical and non-biblical events. But you can't because you have to maintain this delusion that there is not a SINGLE shred of evidence to support Christianity and the Bible. You must discredit archaeology as a valid form of evidence if it SUPPORTS the Bible. That's biased intellectual dishonesty, and I'll gladly call atheists on it. However, I quite understand why you NEED Jesus to NOT exist.
The problem with your comments is you present them with 100% certainity. "The Bible is fiction" "Jesus never existed". You are presenting it as PROVEN fact. It's not. That's your merely your opinion based on a foundation of arrogant stupidity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdqJyk-dtLs
Answer from an atheist historian.
I have no problem with the existence of a teacher/Messiah claimant named Jesus. My issue is with those who claim he's the son of Yahweh.
There's no proof to either but I can buy an itinerant teacher named Jesus existing over the son of God. Neither quality makes him 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
I don't need to maintain the lack of archaeological support for Jesus, son of Yahweh. The archaeology does that well enough. The archaeology supports that Christianity and the Bible existed in the past. That, however, does nothing to support the truth of the God claim. the God claim is the one you're trying to support. You have to lie to do it - that's intellectual dishonesty.
I don't need Jesus to not exist. You need him to exist. See, if Jesus didn't exist you would not have forgiveness. Without forgiveness, you would lose the ability to absolve yourself of responsibility for those things you call "sins". You remember those, right? Those are the things you do to hurt other people so you can benefit.
That was also a very pretty straw man you built for yourself. I've never said any of those things you've said in quotes (that I recall). What I have presented is why it is most likely that the Bible is a collection of documents wholly created by man without the intervention of a divine being.
You have yet to counter that position because that would mean you'd have to open your eyes to facts, history and archaeology that you don't personally like.. Facts tend to really mess up blind, unreasoning faith.
"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
So Where does that leave the thread ?
Re :: Progression of it and hope for explanation, halted
Did the OP want to leave it at that ? Whatever series of steps was to be taken or the potentiality of the OP's intention has never been fully realized. The use of the two words itself speaks of confusion or a lack of clarity in the title. What there is a Hebrew word not dissimilar to an Aramaic word and then in its Greek translation: Messias, the Aramaic form of "Messiah," which is the english word. If it were translated into Greek it'd be Christos, where we get the term "Christ," the Anointed One (John 1:41, 4:25); and Marana, "our Lord," (In the liturgical formula Maranatha, "Our Lord, come!", etc.) Konia greek used in the NT Greek as Kyrios as generally meaning Lord (1 Cor. 16:22). Or about a zillion factoids you could list WITHOUT setting-out to provide much of a case. But, The progression of the efforts of the OP have apparently been halted. VERY halted. I am left guessing as to if this is intentionally or he was merely side-tracked?
Well, the Ehrman clip that the poster who stated the thread linked to did no more than say that a man named Jesus likely existed. Nothing that claimed that he was "really" the messiah or the son of a god.
When the evidence he presents works against him what does he really have left?
"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
I just finished reading Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?", where he makes the case that jesus was a historical person (criticizing many jesus mythicists in the process), yet not supernatural, i.e., not the son of god, not resurrected, and not coming back.
His explanation for the messianism attached to jesus is that his followers thought that he -- as the messiah -- was going to overthrow the Romans. When this failed miserably with his arrest and execution, some of the faithful redefined the messianic claim, with jesus returning (from the dead, in the disciples' lifetime) to settle the score. A similar example would be the followers of Sabbatai Zevi justifying their belief that he was the Jewish messiah, even after his arrest and conversion to islam.
There are no theists on operating tables.
I know Christians are illiterate if that is what you mean. Are we supposed to believe illiterate Christians or our own lying eyes?
Why would Christians accuse their favorite son of their favorite god of lying?
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
So play devil's adovate and tell me exactly what kind of archaeological find must be discovered to convince you that Jesus is the son of God? It's funny how an artifact like the shroud of turin has skeptics scrambling like ants to find any any way to discredit it. Course, it sounds like you are backpedaling now. Before, you needed to present the case that Jesus the man NEVER even existed so you can disregard Isaiah 53.
The fact that you demonstrate so much contempt and vile behavior towards my peaceful religion shows me clearly that you need Jesus to not exist. You don't want to face conviction for your sins. I feel the need for forgiveness because the Holy Spirit makes me feel rotten when I sin against God. A Christian can't sin comfortably and eventually realizes that the consequences were certainly not worth the small amount of pleasure. If Jesus doesn't exist, then I can happily sin all I want with no worries, and treat people however I wanted. It doesn't matter. We are all worm food in the end ,right?
Just bolding claiming that the Bible is a book of myths is not fact. That's called, "stating your opinion".
Quote for me the "contempt and vile behavior" of jcgadfly. Quote for me where jcgadfly says/shows he doesn't want to take responsibility for his actions. If you can't do this, TWD39, then you are a liar, and I KNOW Christians say lying is a sin.
The fact you treat atheists poorly doesn't seem to worry you at all.
The Christian Bible is a book, and it does contain some myths.
I think you hit the bull's eye when you said,
" You don't want to face conviction for your sins........If Jesus doesn't exist, then I can happily sin all I want with no worries, and treat people however I wanted. It doesn't matter. We are all worm food in the end ,right?"
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.
Turin Shroud is a very interesting object, and worthy of its' own thread. You would find to your surprise there is interest on this board in the object, with a lot of science surrounding the examinations of claims about it. However, It is a controversial object and singularly able to stir more heat than light, pretty easy to wick-up. That does not mean it cannot be discussed. It requires critical thinking . . Mini-Updates
There are 3 working papers posited and supported the hypothesis that the 1988 C-14
dating of the. Shroud of Turin was skewed due to such an “invisible” 16th Century
patch . Due to interweaving newer fibers with older (a common practice of conservancy at the Vatican of the time)
The Turin Shroud is a linen cloth bearing the image of a man who appears to have been physically traumatized in a manner consistent with crucifixion. It is kept in the royal chapel of the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, Italy, from which it derives its most common name. Some believe the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Jesus and that his image was recorded on its fibers at his resurrection. Others contend it is a medieval hoax or forgery. The question of its true origins continues to be the subject of intense debate among some scientists, believers, historians and writers, even today.
..That said, however, you might want to check the link BEFORE much else is further said :
The double superficiality of the frontal image of the Turin Shoud .. (article from iopscience.iop.org).
Photographs of the back surface of the Turin Shroud were analysed to verify the existence of a double body image of a
man on the opposite side. The body image is very faint and the 'other' face is even fainter...
http://iopscience.iop.org/1464-4258/6/6/001/