I Just Proved That Jesus Is A False Messiah In Less Than 5 Minutes

[Five Solas]

The 'objective' requires consistent verifiable evidence. There is absolutely no objective verifiable evidence for religious beliefs;mwhich by their nature are subjective particularly since they are conflicting and contradictory and too many divisions of religion claim their the only 'Way' so to speak.

You statement is packed with clichés. It exposes your ignorance regarding the elementary basics of Christianity. What you express is a subjective view based on misinformation.

 

[Five Solas]

*Staff edit*. Here is why.

He failed one of the first OT prophecies which was to be descended from king David and king Solomon. Genesis 49:10 states that the messiah would descend from king David's side and king Solomon in Chronicles 22:9-10. Jesus already failed this due to a virgin birth. Mary in the NT has no genealogy except for it being hinted at in Luke 1:34-36. The angel confirmed Mary is biologically blood related to Elizabeth. And Luke 1:5 clearly states that Elizabeth is descended from king Aaron. Therefore since Mary is blood related to Elizabeth, she also follows that lineage. So we can conclude Mary is descended from king Aaron of the Levi tribe. There is no mention other than this of her genealogy.


We can also disregard her being descended from king David and Solomon at this point and also because she is not mentioned anywhere in the NT that she was descended from those two anyway. Now, even though Joseph is descended from king David and Solomon, he is disqualified from having any affiliation with Jesus since he made no biological contribution to Jesus' birth as clearly mentioned in Matthew 1:22-25. Only after his birth did Mary and Joseph biologically "consummate." This is a clear indication that Jesus failed this OT prophecy.

What can we logically conclude from this fact alone? That Jesus is NOT the messiah. And I just made the case for Judaism that much stronger ironically...

I am really disappointed by how shallow and ill informed many of the views are in general.

 

[shunyadragon]

You statement is packed with clichés. It exposes your ignorance regarding the elementary basics of Christianity. What you express is a subjective view based on misinformation.

Not a meaningful response.

Please do not dodge the subject and respond to the substance of the psts. Do you understand the difference between the 'objective' and the 'subjective.'?

The 'objective' requires consistent verifiable evidence. There is absolutely no objective verifiable evidence for religious beliefs;mwhich by their nature are subjective particularly since they are conflicting and contradictory and too many divisions of religion claim their the only 'Way' so to speak.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am really disappointed by how shallow and ill informed many of the views are in general.

You will be disapointed as you continue dodging and not responding to the posts.

 

[shunyadragon]

You statement is packed with clichés. It exposes your ignorance regarding the elementary basics of Christianity. What you express is a subjective view based on misinformation.

Claims of objectivity requires 'objective verifiable evidence.

 

[Five Solas]

There is absolutely no objective verifiable evidence for religious beliefs;

This statement is false as far as Christianity is concerned. To generalise is never a safe position to take. I mention Christianity by name. Your statement exposes your ignorance about Christianity as such.
You clearly do not understand Christianity.

 

[shunyadragon]

This statement is false as far as Christianity is concerned. To generalise is never a safe position to take. I mention Christianity by name. Your statement exposes your ignorance about Christianity as such.
You clearly do not understand Christianity.

What is the 'objective verifiable evidence' for the beliefs of Christianity? There is actually no 'objective verifiable evidence' for the existence of God(s).

 

[Five Solas]

What is the 'objective verifiable evidence' for the beliefs of Christianity? There is actually no 'objective verifiable evidence' for the existence of God(s).

More clichés.
I suggest that you do some research on what truth and epistemology is. There are different ways of knowing. And, please, don't tell me that only things that had been proven is true. That is a ludicrous presupposition.

You will , for example, most probably be surprised that Christianity is not based on faith neither is it a faith and to claim otherwise is a lie. Christians believe in God because of the evidence. Our faith is reasonable.

About evidence...
You live inside the evidence for God. Denying the evidence is a total different topic altogether. God became man and lived among us and many did not recognise Him. So, please, don't give me the no-evidence argument. I gather you refuse to accept the evidence.

 

[shunyadragon]

More clichés.
I suggest that you do some research on what truth and epistemology is. There are different ways of knowing. And, please, don't tell me that only things that had been proven is true. That is a ludicrous presupposition.

You will , for example, most probably be surprised that Christianity is not based on faith neither is it a faith and to claim otherwise is a lie. Christians believe in God because of the evidence. Our faith is reasonable.

About evidence...
You live inside the evidence for God. Denying the evidence is a total different topic altogether. God became man and lived among us and many did not recognise Him. So, please, don't give me the no-evidence argument. I gather you refuse to accept the evidence.

The evidence here is the foundation of any argument and claim including youre. So far you have dodged everything asked of you. If you don't want to include the question of Go(s) OK, but the problem remains tha tyou failed to respond to,

What is the 'objective verifiable evidence' for the beliefs of Christianity?

 

[Jolly]

*Staff edit*. Here is why.

He failed one of the first OT prophecies which was to be descended from king David and king Solomon. Genesis 49:10 states that the messiah would descend from king David's side and king Solomon in Chronicles 22:9-10. Jesus already failed this due to a virgin birth. Mary in the NT has no genealogy except for it being hinted at in Luke 1:34-36. The angel confirmed Mary is biologically blood related to Elizabeth. And Luke 1:5 clearly states that Elizabeth is descended from king Aaron. Therefore since Mary is blood related to Elizabeth, she also follows that lineage. So we can conclude Mary is descended from king Aaron of the Levi tribe. There is no mention other than this of her genealogy.


We can also disregard her being descended from king David and Solomon at this point and also because she is not mentioned anywhere in the NT that she was descended from those two anyway. Now, even though Joseph is descended from king David and Solomon, he is disqualified from having any affiliation with Jesus since he made no biological contribution to Jesus' birth as clearly mentioned in Matthew 1:22-25. Only after his birth did Mary and Joseph biologically "consummate." This is a clear indication that Jesus failed this OT prophecy.

What can we logically conclude from this fact alone? That Jesus is NOT the messiah. And I just made the case for Judaism that much stronger ironically...

No not really you are responding to a pagan perception of Jesus.

Jesus actually never claimed to be THE Messiah or HA Messiah in Hebrew. He claimed to be Annoited.

Jesus says very clearly "Do not imagine I have come for peace, I HAVE NOT COME FOR PEACE"

THE messiah relates to 3 different people within the Jewish faith- The annoited high priest of the temple, Yehoshua the annoited high priest and olive tree and The messiah the Jews await- who will bring peace to the earth.

Ofcourse the one the Jews await is never actually called an annoited in scripture- they simply call him The messiah, traditionally.

I have no issue calling Jesus- the messiah because he is- just not the messiah most consider him to be.

 

[Jolly]

No not really you are responding to a pagan perception of Jesus.

Jesus actually never claimed to be THE Messiah or HA Messiah in Hebrew. He claimed to be Annoited.

Jesus says very clearly "Do not imagine I have come for peace, I HAVE NOT COME FOR PEACE"

THE messiah relates to 3 different people within the Jewish faith- The annoited high priest of the temple, Yehoshua the annoited high priest and olive tree and The messiah the Jews await- who will bring peace to the earth.

Ofcourse the one the Jews await is never actually called an annoited in scripture- they simply call him The messiah, traditionally.

I have no issue calling Jesus- the messiah because he is- just not the messiah most consider him to be.

And he is certainly not a false messiah. You sadly fail to understand what messiah means there have been thousands of messiahs in Jewish history. Actually a candle stick can be a messiah.

 

[rosends]

THE messiah relates to 3 different people within the Jewish faith- The annoited high priest of the temple, Yehoshua the annoited high priest and olive tree and The messiah the Jews await- who will bring peace to the earth.

No. In Judaism the term Moshiach (one who is anointed) refers to a high priest or a king. There have been many of those biblically speaking. There was one who is called "anointed" who was not actually anointed with the oil that was compounded in the desert but who was still a king. And there were kings and high priests who, because of the exigencies of the moment or the historical context, were not anointed at all.

Ofcourse the one the Jews await is never actually called an annoited in scripture- they simply call him The messiah, traditionally.

There is no explicit discussion of a future messiah in the written texts but there is an explicit set of discussions about the eternal nature of the Davidic dynasty of kings. So the future Davidic leader, a king, would be anointed like other kings were. Someone who is not a king, or not a high priest would not be called an anointed person.

 

[Five Solas]

The evidence here is the foundation of any argument and claim including youre. So far you have dodged everything asked of you. If you don't want to include the question of Go(s) OK, but the problem remains tha tyou failed to respond to,

What is the 'objective verifiable evidence' for the beliefs of Christianity?

You do not understand the basics of what truth is. Neither do you understand Christianity. Your presuppositions are false. That makes debate with you impossible. The fact that you habitually use false cliches is proof of that.

You live in the evidence and you do not recognise it. You make your own "truth" by ignoring the truth which you cannot see.

Before you do not show evidence that you know the basics of Christianity, no debate can happen.

 

[shunyadragon]

You do not understand the basics of what truth is. Neither do you understand Christianity. Your presuppositions are false. That makes debate with you impossible. The fact that you habitually use false cliches is proof of that.

You live in the evidence and you do not recognise it. You make your own "truth" by ignoring the truth which you cannot see.

Before you do not show evidence that you know the basics of Christianity, no debate can happen.

'live with the evidence?!?!?'! This is not coherent argument nor view, because every imaginable diverse and conflicting belief can argue this.

 

[Five Solas]

'live with the evidence?!?!?'! This is not coherent argument nor view, because every imaginable diverse and conflicting belief can argue this.

Your presupposition is still false.
I did not make an arrangement yet.
Truth is simply the property of being in accord with fact or reality. So, your idea that only that which can be objectively verified is true is untenable. Such a false presupposition makes debate impossible.

PS : all historical events are true. No such event can be recreated because history cannot be repeated.

 

[shunyadragon]

Your presupposition is still false.

What assumptions?

I did not make an arrangement yet.

Pleased do.

Truth is simply the property of being in accord with fact or reality. So, your idea that only that which can be objectively verified is true is untenable. Such a false presupposition makes debate impossible.

Claims of truth by many diverse conflicting beliefs by fallible humans clearly make you claims questionable. You have presented nothing that would indicate your claims are in any way better than the many others that disagree with you.

PS : all historical events are true. No such event can be recreated because history cannot be repeated.

There is no verifiable provenance that date the Bible texts as original to dates claimed, and abundant evence that many of the historical events in the Bible are not true for example Noah's flood.

 

[Sheldon]

The more I read information like this, the more I'm convinced that the Bible is plagiarized from older pagan religions that predate it and Christianity. And as I explained in my post here, I'm also convinced that the Bible has many contradictions within its pages too.

"There’s nothing new about virgin births. History is littered with them."

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

"There’s nothing new about virgin births. History is littered with them."

I'm learning more about that fact as I've been researching the reliability of the Bible.

 

[Sheldon]

I agree with some of the conclusions above. Jesus deliberately left no writings. There was even a sense among his followers that Jesus would "soon return" from heaven to fulfill the expectations of a "Jewish Messiah". The writings began and are in no way perfect, but there was enough there to inspire subsequent generations of believers combined with the presence of the spirit of Jesus among his followers.

The book of Mormon is the product of a convicted fraudster, and is chloroform in print, but this doesn't seem to have adversely affected the growth of the Mormon church. the number of people who believe something tells us nothing about its validity. This claim is called an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

 

[Colt]

The book of Mormon is the product of a convicted fraudster, and is chloroform in print, but this doesn't seem to have adversely affected the growth of the Mormon church. the number of people who believe something tells us nothing about its validity. This claim is called an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

Neither does the number of people who believe something disprove what they believe. Thats called reality.