Why Jesus was not the Messiah

There was no need of Jesus to be a blood relative of Jospeh. By recognizing him as his firstborn son under the Law, he is is his decendant.

"And when your days [David] are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall issue from your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will make firm the throne of his kingdom forever..."

Nope.

Also, by admitting that Jesus is not the son of Joseph, but actually the Son of G-d, you pwn yorself and must reckongnize that he is actually the Messiah.

Set aside that I'm not admitting that, I'm simply saying that this is what is stated in the Bible... how so?

The Judean Messiah was supposed to be a statesman, King of Israel. But, it turned out that he was the Son of God, our Lord and Savior.

It is true he wasn't the son of Joseph, because in the very next verse of the Gospel of Matthew it is said that he was concieved by the Holy Spirit.

It is true that he wasn't the Messiah the Jews were expecting. Because he wasn't an ordinary human. He was Our God in a human form.

Are you on drugs?

The Judean Messiah was supposed to be a statesman, King of Israel. But, it turned out that he was the Son of God, our Lord and Savior.

It is true he wasn't the son of Joseph, because in the very next verse of the Gospel of Matthew it is said that he was concieved by the Holy Spirit.

It is true that he wasn't the Messiah the Jews were expecting. Because he wasn't an ordinary human. He was Our God in a human form.

I'll just take this post as a concession.

No, I just want to point out the absurdity of Roundy's argument. He claims that Jesus is not the Messiah because he is not a direct decendant of David because he is not really Joseph's biological son and we know this from the Gospel of Matthew which states that Jesus was concieved by the Holy Spirit making him the Son of God.

Of course, the Son of God cannot be the Messiah.

Which goes back to my original argument, that the New Testament writers picked and chose which prophesies were relevant, blatantly ignoring others.  The Messiah was not supposed to be a divine figure.

Oh, and he was also supposed to bring all the Jews together into the Holy Land. 

Which goes back to my original argument, that the New Testament writers picked and chose which prophesies were relevant, blatantly ignoring others.  The Messiah was not supposed to be a divine figure.

Oh, and he was also supposed to bring all the Jews together into the Holy Land. 

Where from the Old Testament did they pick and choose about the divine nature of Jesus? I'm sorry for the Jews that it didn't turn out the way they expected. I'm sorry that the Messiah didn't bring them together in the Holy Land. Maybe he was to busy SAVING THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE and fullfilling the Will of God.

Where from the Old Testament did they pick and choose about the divine nature of Jesus? I'm sorry for the Jews that it didn't turn out the way they expected. I'm sorry that the Messiah didn't bring them together in the Holy Land. Maybe he was to busy SAVING THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE and fullfilling the Will of God.

When did Jesus save the human race? Do we live in the same universe?

 

I don't know where you live, but back in my world we celebrate Easter every year.

WTF does that even mean?

It's obvious you are an arogant atheist but the fact is that you pwned yourself with your own argument and you're being obtuse about it thinking it will go away. It won't.

As for mastechief2219, it's just a plain troll. It is already a vegetable.

It's obvious you are an arogant atheist but the fact is that you pwned yourself with your own argument and you're being obtuse about it thinking it will go away.

I never did.  I did pwn you a couple times, though.

See this link for more evidence in my favor.

Quote from: JustATroll on July 22, 2007, 03:55:40 PM

It's obvious you are an arogant atheist but the fact is that you pwned yourself with your own argument and you're being obtuse about it thinking it will go away.

I never did.  I did pwn you a couple times, though.

See this link for more evidence in my favor.

Old.

So basically, you're argueing about whether Jesus was the son of God or Joseph? I think the bible is pretty clear that Joseph had absolutely nothing to do with it. Obviously he raised the kid, but thats not really what you're talking about.

So, your points gentlemen?

My point:

No, I just want to point out the absurdity of Roundy's argument. He claims that Jesus is not the Messiah because he is not a direct decendant of David because he is not really Joseph's biological son and we know this from the Gospel of Matthew which states that Jesus was concieved by the Holy Spirit making him the Son of God.

Of course, the Son of God cannot be the Messiah.

The blue text is for sarcasm.

My point is that Jesus did not come from David's seed, therefore he was not the Messiah predicted in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Bushido's point appears to be that the New Testament said Jesus was the Messiah so  .

Alright, so biologically we know he isn't from the line of David. But the point has been made that he was taken in as the son, so it counts yada yada. Are we in agreement that this counts as being in the line of David as predicted by the bible, or not?

Oh, and kudos on the sarcasm.

LOL, the fundie called me a troll.

Seriously though, when and how did Jesus save the world?

Are we in agreement that this counts as being in the line of David as predicted by the bible, or not?

No.

LOL, the fundie called me a troll.

Seriously though, when and how did Jesus save the world?

Notice I said the human race, you trunk.

My point is that Jesus did not come from David's seed, therefore he was not the Messiah predicted in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Bushido's point appears to be that the New Testament said Jesus was the Messiah so  .

Ok, if you want to make me pull it out of your keyboard, fine. How do you know that Jesus was not from the line of David?

Notice I said the human race, you trunk.

Way to evade the question. How and when did Jesus save the human race then?

Quote from: JustATroll on July 22, 2007, 04:25:27 PM

Notice I said the human race, you trunk.

Way to evade the question. How and when did Jesus save the human race then?

By taking upon him all the sins of mankind and dying on the cross. Now, go worship.

By taking upon him all the sins of mankind and dying on the cross. Now, go worship.

If that is so, why should I even worship? After all, Jesus died for all the sins that I will ever make, so my place in heaven is made no matter what I do. I win.

Quote from: JustATroll on July 22, 2007, 04:31:33 PM

By taking upon him all the sins of mankind and dying on the cross. Now, go worship.

If that is so, why should I even worship? After all, Jesus died for all the sins that I will ever make, so my place in heaven is made no matter what I do. I win.

Yes, you do. Here's a cookie.

Ok, if you want to make me pull it out of your keyboard, fine. How do you know that Jesus was not from the line of David?

I don't.  But that's what's stated in your holy book (it's supposed to be what you believe, unquestioningly), and it contradicts what was predicted.

And, yeah.  If Jesus saved the whole human race, why do so many people go to hell?

Quote from: JustATroll on July 22, 2007, 04:25:27 PM

How do you know that Jesus was not from the line of David?

I don't.

The only thing relevant.

And, yeah.  If Jesus saved the whole human race, why do so many people go to hell?

I don't plan to give you free classes in theology. Jesus died so that the righteous ones CAN go to heaven. God doesn't choose who goes to heaven or hell. Every person chooses for her/himself. And we don't go to one of these places immediatelly after death, but we wait for the Second Coming of the Messiah when all the souls that ever lived will be trialed.

Chief you seem to know nothing whatsoever about this subject. You have however raised a pretty (old) point that is actually valid if you're a decent philosopher, but lets stay on target.

On topic, if we don't think he's fom the line of David, but the Holy Ghost conceived him, is he the messiah? I mean, if we don't accept that he's the biological son of Joseph, then he's not from the line of David, right? So he's not the prophecised one.

Unless you'ld care to disagree this answers your question Roundy.

Jesus's credibility as the Messiah the Jewish people foresaw is predicated on the fulfillment of certain prophesies set forth in the Old Testament.  But the writers of the New Testament seemed content to pick and choose what was needed to be fulfilled, blatantly ignoring some prophesies.

For example: "...they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." (Micah 4:3)

In other words, the Messiah would rule at a time of world peace.  This was clearly not the case in the days of Jesus, and arguably hasn't been the case since then.  In fact, the very idea of the Crusades is hypocritical in light of this fact.

Actually, Jesus was born durin the Pax Romana, a time of a moderately peaceful world. In other words, it was peaceful where Jesus was, but not nessisarily all over the entire globe. (See that, I used RE Globularism!)

But the Crusades may have been necessary in the eyes of the Middle Age Christians, because the Messiah was supposed to usher in a period when everybody in the world worshiped under one God:

"And it shall come to pass that from one new moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, says the Lord" (Isaiah 66:23)

This passage is clear in its intent, but seems to be ignored by Christians.  Even if you make the supposition that all followers of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity worship the same God, you still have the Hindu as well as other smaller religions who do not, not to mention atheists, agnostics, and Buddhists who do not worship any God.

Ths refers to the end of the world. If you didn't know, Isaiah, the person you quoted, deals with the "end times" quite often. He was refering to Judgment day, where christians believe all will bow at the feet of Jesus.

The Crusaders who spilled the blood of millions in the name of Christ tried to fulfill this prophecy, God love 'em (summarily ignoring the first prophecy mentioned, but they may have felt that was justified given that we've never had a period of world peace since the placement of Jesus as the Messiah anyway...) but failed even trying to force-feed their propaganda to the world at large.

Remember, the Crusades were basically for wealth. The Catholic Church had much more corruption than it did today.

In addition, the Messiah was supposed to be a direct male descendant of King David:

"And when your days [David] are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall issue from your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will make firm the throne of his kingdom forever..." (2 Samuel 7:12-13) 

Since Jesus was not Joseph's biological son, it follows that he was not a direct descendant of David in the sense given here.

Look through Mary's side of the family. She leads back to David.

Even though I don't personally believe any of it, I thought it would be interesting to give a Jewish spin on the arguments for and against the Jesus myth, since it's not currently represented here.  If you consider these criteria (and there are other criteria that Jesus doesn't fulfill as well, these are really just the most glaring) you really can't accept Jesus as the Messiah.

If you take all this, combined with the facts that

1)there is no historical record of Jesus's time on earth;

Luke, one of the Gospels and Jesus' followers, was a historian.

2)many elements of the Jesus story come from pagan tradition; and

I'm sure it does, along with other religions.

3)the books of the New Testament were written down long after the events supposedly took place,

Not always. Much of the Gospels were written during the last few months of Jesus' life.

you can see how the early Christians cobbled together bits and pieces of Old Testament and pagan lore to form a cult that is really based solely on myth.  The bottom line is that Jesus does not fulfill the most important prophesies set forth in the Old Testament in any way, so his credibility as the Messiah predicted by the Jews is non-existent.

My answers, obviously, in bold.

Actually, Jesus was born durin the Pax Romana, a time of a moderately peaceful world. In other words, it was peaceful where Jesus was, but not nessisarily all over the entire globe. (See that, I used RE Globularism!)

This is true.  But the Pax Romana is known as a time of relative peace within the Roman Empire; even the Romans were still warring with neighboring tribes:

During this time the Romans still fought a consistent number of wars against neighboring states and tribes, most notably the Germanic tribes and Persians. There was also still political unrest among the noble families. Nonetheless, the Pax Romana was an era of relative tranquility in which Rome endured neither major civil wars, such as the perpetual bloodshed of the third century AD, nor serious invasions, such as those of the Second Punic War three centuries prior.

(from Wikipedia's entry on the Pax Romana) Hardly suggestive of world peace.

Ths refers to the end of the world. If you didn't know, Isaiah, the person you quoted, deals with the "end times" quite often. He was refering to Judgment day, where christians believe all will bow at the feet of Jesus.

Again, true, but the Jews equate the End Times with the coming of the Messiah, so it's really an academic argument.

Look through Mary's side of the family. She leads back to David.

Can you prove this?  Is it in the conflicting account of Jesus's genealogy that Luke gives?

Luke, one of the Gospels and Jesus' followers, was a historian.

I see.  What major works is he known for? 

I'm sure it does, along with other religions.

So you agree that elements were lifted from pagan tradition?  Then how can you also believe that the events took place as related?

Not always. Much of the Gospels were written during the last few months of Jesus' life.

Absolutely not true.  The earliest writings in the New Testament were actually Paul's epistles (which were obviously written after Jesus's death).