Why Jesus was not the Messiah

I have an erection....

And I come with this:

The above posts showing manipulation, malcontextual statements, and twisting truths are the prime example of a belligerent, ignorant, zealous bigot.

When you can learn to take the bible out your ass and face the truths that are being exposed about your so called 'faith', then you will be permitted to make such statements as well.

You cannot preach truth without knowing it first.

Quote from: Hara Taiki on August 11, 2007, 11:30:07 AM

I have an erection....

And I come with this:

The above posts showing manipulation, malcontextual statements, and twisting truths are the prime example of a belligerent, ignorant, zealous bigot.

When you can learn to take the bible out your ass and face the truths that are being exposed about your so called 'faith', then you will be permitted to make such statements as well.

You cannot preach truth without knowing it first.

Do you ever get tired of being Midnight's sidekick, Hara?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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;

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

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

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.

I've been waiting for you to open this up.

*yawn*

1) How the fuck is either of those a historical record that proves the Biblical Jesus' existence?
2) Read and learn.
3) For being eye-witness accounts, 35 years seems like a long time to me.  And only one of the Gospels is said to have been written that shortly after the events anyway.

Yours sincerely,

Roundy,

in his last words on this tired subject.

Quote from: The Yattering on September 27, 2007, 09:24:05 PM

I've been waiting for you to open this up.

*yawn*

1) How the fuck is either of those a historical record that proves the Biblical Jesus' existence?
2) Read and learn.
3) For being eye-witness accounts, 35 years seems like a long time to me.  And only one of the Gospels is said to have been written that shortly after the events anyway.

Yours sincerely,

Roundy,

in his last words on this tired subject.

1) They prove that those who knew Jesus were historical people and the bible is not pure mythology
2) Thankyou I will
3) Luke was a doctor, he had a good memory and was a very articulat, plus he woulod have interviewed everyone who had known Jesus, Matthew was a tax collector but he was also a notary and had a good memory also. And keep in mind, they went to their deaths, why would they do this for a lie?
--They couldn't have been halucinating they were actually trying to avoid Jesus and didn't believe the ressurection accounts at first. Also if they were lying they would have eventually given up before they were killed.

Yours again sincerely, The Rational Theist

SEVEN ARGUMENTS AGAINST CHRISTIAN DEPENDENCE ON THE MYSTERIES

I conclude by noting seven points that undermine liberal efforts to show that first-century Christianity borrowed essential beliefs and practices from the pagan mystery religions.

(1) Arguments offered to "prove" a Christian dependence on the mysteries illustrate the logical fallacy of false cause. This fallacy is committed whenever someone reasons that just because two things exist side by side, one of them must have caused the other. As we all should know, mere coincidence does not prove causal connection. Nor does similarity prove dependence.

(2) Many alleged similarities between Christianity and the mysteries are either greatly exaggerated or fabricated. Scholars often describe pagan rituals in language they borrow from Christianity. The careless use of language could lead one to speak of a "Last Supper" in Mithraism or a "baptism" in the cult of Isis. It is inexcusable nonsense to take the word "savior" with all of its New Testament connotations and apply it to Osiris or Attis as though they were savior-gods in any similar sense.

(3) The chronology is all wrong. Almost all of our sources of information about the pagan religions alleged to have influenced early Christianity are dated very late. We frequently find writers quoting from documents written 300 years later than Paul in efforts to produce ideas that allegedly influenced Paul. We must reject the assumption that just because a cult had a certain belief or practice in the third or fourth century after Christ, it therefore had the same belief or practice in the first century.

(4) Paul would never have consciously borrowed from the pagan religions. All of our information about him makes it highly unlikely that he was in any sense influenced by pagan sources. He placed great emphasis on his early training in a strict form of Judaism (Phil. 3:5). He warned the Colossians against the very sort of influence that advocates of Christian syncretism have attributed to him, namely, letting their minds be captured by alien speculations (Col. 2:.

(5) Early Christianity was an exclusivistic faith. As J. Machen explains, the mystery cults were nonexclusive. "A man could become initiated into the mysteries of Isis or Mithras without at all giving up his former beliefs; but if he were to be received into the Church, according to the preaching of Paul, he must forsake all other Saviors for the Lord Jesus Christ....Amid the prevailing syncretism of the Greco-Roman world, the religion of Paul, with the religion of Israel, stands absolutely alone."[21] This Christian exclusivism should be a starting point for all reflection about the possible relations between Christianity and its pagan competitors. Any hint of syncretism in the New Testament would have caused immediate controversy.

(6) Unlike the mysteries, the religion of Paul was grounded on events that actually happened in history. The mysticism of the mystery cults was essentially nonhistorical. Their myths were dramas, or pictures, of what the initiate went through, not real historical events, as Paul regarded Christ's death and resurrection to be. The Christian affirmation that the death and resurrection of Christ happened to a historical person at a particular time and place has absolutely no parallel in any pagan mystery religion.

(7) What few parallels may still remain may reflect a Christian influence on the pagan systems. As Bruce Metzger has argued, "It must not be uncritically assumed that the Mysteries always influenced Christianity, for it is not only possible but probable that in certain cases, the influence moved in the opposite direction."[22] It should not be surprising that leaders of cults that were being successfully challenged by Christianity should do something to counter the challenge. What better way to do this than by offering a pagan substitute? Pagan attempts to counter the growing influence of Christianity by imitating it are clearly apparent in measures instituted by Julian the Apostate, who was the Roman emperor from A.D. 361 to 363.

1) They prove that those who knew Jesus were historical people and the bible is not pure mythology

3) And keep in mind, they went to their deaths, why would they do this for a lie?

--They couldn't have been halucinating they were actually trying to avoid Jesus and didn't believe the ressurection accounts at first. Also if they were lying they would have eventually given up before they were killed.

Yours again sincerely, The Rational Theist

Quote from: Dann The Mann on September 28, 2007, 07:30:37 AM

When did you and Vauxy merge?

Your answer indicates you have no understanding of the question. Sober moar.

Do you ever get tired of being Midnight's sidekick, Hara?

Quote from: The Dedicated Theist on August 11, 2007, 06:53:13 PM

Do you ever get tired of being Midnight's sidekick, Hara?

Hara and Mids are one and the same.

Quote from: TheRationalTheist on September 27, 2007, 10:16:01 PM

1) They prove that those who knew Jesus were historical people and the bible is not pure mythology

No, they prove that speculation to the layman is rampant.

Quote from: TheRationalTheist on September 27, 2007, 10:16:01 PM

3) And keep in mind, they went to their deaths, why would they do this for a lie?

People do awfully senseless things to perpetuate a lie.

Quote from: TheRationalTheist on September 27, 2007, 10:16:01 PM

--They couldn't have been halucinating they were actually trying to avoid Jesus and didn't believe the ressurection accounts at first. Also if they were lying they would have eventually given up before they were killed.

Why the fuck not? Are you claiming that hallucinations are impossible?

Quote from: TheRationalTheist on September 27, 2007, 10:16:01 PM

Yours again sincerely, The Rational Theist

There was nothing sincere in your post.

Or the Gospel authors exaggerated the witnesses and events or fabricated everything.

Quote from: The Communist on October 01, 2007, 09:12:34 PM

Or the Gospel authors exaggerated the witnesses and events or fabricated everything.

1) Can you prove that
2) If they had fabricated everything they would have been very easy to dispute.

Quote from: TheRationalTheist on October 02, 2007, 09:05:45 PM

Quote from: The Communist on October 01, 2007, 09:12:34 PM

Or the Gospel authors exaggerated the witnesses and events or fabricated everything.

1) Can you prove that
2) If they had fabricated everything they would have been very easy to dispute.

1) You're unclear on where the burden of proof belongs here.
2) There's no contemporary historical evidence of Jesus' existence.  It's really not that hard to dispute.

The evidence is overwhelming
 

Quote from: The Communist on October 01, 2007, 09:12:34 PM

Or the Gospel authors exaggerated the witnesses and events or fabricated everything.

1) Can you prove that
2) If they had fabricated everything they would have been very easy to dispute.

The burden of proof belongs on the atheist in this case since you would have to somehow prove thay were so dishonest

Quote from: TheRationalTheist on October 03, 2007, 08:44:10 AM

The burden of proof belongs on the atheist in this case since you would have to somehow prove thay were so dishonest

Contradictions between the Gospels suggest dishonesty or ignorance of the events.

They are easy to dispute.  No original documentation exists that documents Jesus' life.  Just documents +100 years from the events.