Jesus as Christ

[Subduction Zone]

Well, I have no doubt that is your *belief*. But without evidence, there is no reason anyone else should believe the same as you.

I see the stories of the resurrection as just that: stories. Like the stories of Elvis living long past when he died.

In my mind, Satan is just as much a superstition as God is.

I suppose that believers can take some comfort in the fact that they will never know that they are wrong.

 

[Trailblazer]

Surely if you want to know what a messiah is in Judaism, the person to ask is a Jewish scholar?

Yes I would, but that does not mean that the Messiah was who Jews believe He will be. Conceptions do not equate to reality.

I'm a neutral onlooker. It means nothing to me whether Jesus satisfied the Jewish definition of a messiah or not. But as a matter of history, I don't see how the Christian case can be made. The Christians were the only ones calling Jesus the messiah, yet he was neither a civil, military or religious leader of the Jews, nor anointed by the priesthood.

That the Messiah will be a a civil, military or religious leader of the Jews, anointed by the priesthood is only a Jewish expectation, according to their interpretation of their Scriptures. I do not believe that the Messiah was ever slated to be any such person and I believe they are way out in left field. I believe that Jesus was 'a Messiah' but Jesus was never slated to be 'the Messiah of the latter days' because Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies that Jews are expecting to be fulfilled.

I believe that Messiah that the Jews have long awaited was Baha'u'llah. I believe that the Messiah of the latter days came to redeem all of humanity, not just the Jews, and all the messianic prophecies have been or will be fulfilled during the messianic age which began in 1852 AD and will last at least 1000 years.

 

[Trailblazer]

@Trailblazer -

Isaiah 7:14 says nothing about a virgin. If you knew Hebrew you would know that, but then you don’t know Hebrew.

Actually you don’t know a lot about many things, including Judaism on just about any level. Not knowing much about a topic is certainly no crime. It’s not necessarily a shame…… unless one chooses to tout one’s ignorance like a badge of honor.

Some time ago someone, I think it was me, pointed out that your comments indicated you had no knowledge or understanding of Judaism. You responded that you neither need nor desire to learn because Judaism had been superceded, most recently by the Baha’i faith, and had no meaning or relevance anymore.

You need to stick to things you know.

I never claimed to know much about Judaism or the Jewish scriptures. In fact, I do not even know the Christian Bible all that well.

Are you saying that all the translations of Isaiah 7:14 in the Christian Bible that say virgin are incorrect?

Isaiah 7:14 - Bible Gateway

 

[Trailblazer]

This, to me, is key. It shows that there is no way to correct any ideas that are mistaken. And *that* shows me there is no possibility of knowledge (justified true belief).

And *that* leads me to wonder why anyone would believe in something that cannot be verified.

That all depends upon what you mean by verified and how you expect to verify a religious belief.

 

[Polymath257]

That all depends upon what you mean by verified and how you expect to verify a religious belief.

i require as much for religious ideas as I do for any other ideas: testing via observation.

And the *ability* to test via observation is the criterion I use to say that some ideas is even coherent.

 

[Trailblazer]

This passage of scripture makes it abundantly clear that there can only be one Christ, or Messiah. Sin cannot be taken away by anyone other than the Son of God, Jesus Christ.

There was only one Jesus Christ the Son of God, who came to bear our sins, but that does not mean there was only one Messiah. Jesus was a Messiah but He was never slated to be the Messiah of the latter days which is why He did not fulfill the messianic prophecies. I believe it is Baha'u'llah who was the Messiah of the latter days and the return of Christ and that all the messianic prophecies will be fulfilled during His Dispensation, which will last no less than 1000 years.

 

[Trailblazer]

i require as much for religious ideas as I do for any other ideas: testing via observation.

And the *ability* to test via observation is the criterion I use to say that some ideas is even coherent.

What do you expect to observe and test?

 

[Polymath257]

What do you expect to observe and test?

I expect to be able to test any idea in order for it to be coherent.

If religious ideas don't supply a test or observation that can be tested, I just see them as incoherent.

Since there are so many different religious ideas and religious perspectives, I don't have any preconceived ideas of what those tests would be.

In other words, you tell me how to test your ideas.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never claimed to know much about Judaism or the Jewish scriptures. In fact, I do not even know the Christian Bible all that well.

Are you saying that all the translations of Isaiah 7:14 in the Christian Bible that say virgin are incorrect?

Isaiah 7:14 - Bible Gateway

The Christian Bible is based upon the Septuagint often. That is the Old Testament books translated into Greek from Hebrew. At the time of Jesus Hebrew was not well known by most. Jews often relied upon the Septuagint. It was as I said a translation and translations often have errors. Usually minor ones. In the Hebrew it does not say "virgin" the word used better translates to "young woman". It does not say "virgin" and there was a specific term for virgin that was used by the author of Isaiah elsewhere. So yes, there is arguably and error in those translations. They are kept there due to what Matthew says. And at that time more Jews understood Koine Greek than Hebrew. The Septuagint was often the source when it came to their religious beliefs:

It is unclear to what extent Alexandrian Jews accepted the authority of the Septuagint. Manuscripts of the Septuagint have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and were thought to have been in use among various Jewish sects at the time.[47]

Several factors led most Jews to abandon the Septuagint around the second century CE. The earliest gentile Christians used the Septuagint out of necessity, since it was the only Greek version of the Bible and most (if not all) of these early non-Jewish Christians could not read Hebrew. The association of the Septuagint with a rival religion may have made it suspect in the eyes of the newer generation of Jews and Jewish scholars.[28] Jews instead used Hebrew or Aramaic Targum manuscripts later compiled by the Masoretes and authoritative Aramaic translations, such as those of Onkelos and Rabbi Yonathan ben Uziel.[48]

Perhaps most significant for the Septuagint, as distinct from other Greek versions, was that the Septuagint began to lose Jewish sanction after differences between it and contemporary Hebrew scriptures were discovered. Even Greek-speaking Jews tended to prefer other Jewish versions in Greek (such as the translation by Aquila), which seemed to be more concordant with contemporary Hebrew texts.

Septuagint - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

I expect to be able to test any idea in order for it to be coherent.

If religious ideas don't supply a test or observation that can be tested, I just see them as incoherent.

Since there are so many different religious ideas and religious perspectives, I don't have any preconceived ideas of what those tests would be.

In other words, you tell me how to test your ideas.

The Bible has at least one verse on not "testing God". I think that many believers conflate testing their beliefs with testing God So they refuse to do it. And perhaps at least some of the authors of the Bible understood how dubious some of the preceding scripture were so they wrote various defensive verses of that order. In other words the Bible will tell believers "this is all true, but don't you go testing it."'

 

[Trailblazer]

I expect to be able to test any idea in order for it to be coherent.

If religious ideas don't supply a test or observation that can be tested, I just see them as incoherent.

Since there are so many different religious ideas and religious perspectives, I don't have any preconceived ideas of what those tests would be.

In other words, you tell me how to test your ideas.

I do not think that religious beliefs can be tested, not the way you want them to be tested.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Sorry that is not proof. You do not appear to understand what proof is. And you never substantiated your claim that one has to have been saved to understand the Bible.

It’s God’s claim:
“But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”— these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭2:9-16‬ ‭ESV‬‬

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s God’s claim:
“But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”— these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭2:9-16‬ ‭ESV‬‬

No, you cannot say that. At best you can only say that it is Paul's claim. None of the Bible was written by God. We have a good idea of who wrote only a few books in the Bible. But God was not that author of any of them. The Bible does not even make the mistake that you just made.

And of course the Bible is not a very reliable source. Christians generally refuse to put their Bible properly to the test. As a result it cannot be considered to be reliable.

And this does not support your claim that one must be saved to understand the Bible. It is merely another defensive verse. Something that should not be necessary if the Bible were true. It is actually evidence against the reliability of the Bible. You are now trying to use circular reasoning. If you want to use the Bible as a source the burden of proof is upon you to show that the Bible is a reliable source.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Context matters, and in the Bible the Suffering Servant is the nation of Israel named after its mythical founder.

So Israel, the descendants of the twelve tribes of Israel, are real, but their founding father, Jacob/Israel, is not real. That makes a lot of sense!

In Luke 24:26 Jesus says to two disciples on the road to Emmaus, 'Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he [Jesus] expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.'

It doesn't sound to me like Jesus was expounding to the disciples about the nation of Israel. No, he was expounding to the disciples about the Messiah, the Christ of scripture. Belief in such a suffering Christ was widely accepted in the first century amongst the Jews. They understood Isaiah 53, Psalm 16, Psalm 22, Psalm 69, Psalm 88, Psalm 110, Psalm 118, Psalm 132 as the suffering of an individual, not a just of a nation. The question we ought to be asking is 'Why is it that these traditional beliefs have been superseded by a revisionist agenda?'. The 'suffering servant' is both the Messiah and his people.

Now, you might argue that Jesus was lying, and that he was deceiving the disciples by making the scriptures apply to himself. But that's hard to argue, given that the conversation with these two disciples took place after the crucifixion. The disciples had been discussing the crucifixion when the resurrected Lord Jesus appeared alongside them. He was opening their understanding to the fact that prophecies had just been fulfilled at the crucifixion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So Israel, the descendants of the twelve tribes of Israel, are real, but their founding father, Jacob/Israel, is not real. That makes a lot of sense!

In Luke 24:26 Jesus says to two disciples on the road to Emmaus, 'Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he [Jesus] expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.'

It doesn't sound to me like Jesus was expounding to the disciples about the nation of Israel. No, he was expounding to the disciples about the Messiah, the Christ of scripture. Belief is such a suffering Christ was widely accepted in the first century amongst the Jews. They understood Isaiah 53, Psalm 16, Psalm 22, Psalm 69, Psalm 88, Psalm 110, Psalm 118, Psalm 132 as the suffering of an individual, not a just of a nation. The question we ought to be asking is 'Why is it that these traditional beliefs have been superseded by a revisionist agenda?'. The 'suffering servant' is both the Messiah and his people.

Now, you might argue that Jesus was lying, and that he was deceiving the disciples by making the scriptures apply to himself. But that's hard to argue, given that the conversation with these two disciples took place after the crucifixion. The disciples had been discussing the crucifixion when the resurrected Lord Jesus appeared alongside them. He was opening their understanding to the fact that prophecies had just been fulfilled at the crucifixion.

Probably not. England is real, it is not named for King Arthur but he predates any actual King and in the mythos he is the King of all England.

You are conflating an origin myth with history. The Bible is not history. And it is always a loss when one tries to rely on a mythical character to support a myth. There is a consensus among scholars that Moses never existed.

 

[ElishaElijah]

No, you cannot say that. At best you can only say that it is Paul's claim. None of the Bible was written by God. We have a good idea of who wrote only a few books in the Bible. But God was not that author of any of them. The Bible does not even make the mistake that you just made.

And of course the Bible is not a very reliable source. Christians generally refuse to put their Bible properly to the test. As a result it cannot be considered to be reliable.

And this does not support your claim that one must be saved to understand the Bible. It is merely another defensive verse. Something that should not be necessary if the Bible were true. It is actually evidence against the reliability of the Bible. You are now trying to use circular reasoning. If you want to use the Bible as a source the burden of proof is upon you to show that the Bible is a reliable source.

No it’s not a burden of proof on me at all, God spoke through the men who wrote the Scriptures by the Holy Spirit. Whether you or anyone else believes what God says in the Scriptures is up to each person, the Scriptures also declare that everyone will be responsible and held accountable for what they’ve heard.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No it’s not a burden of proof on me at all, God spoke through the men who wrote the Scriptures by the Holy Spirit. Whether you or anyone else believes what God says in the Scriptures is up to each person, the Scriptures also declare that everyone will be responsible and held accountable for what they’ve heard.

It is. When you make a claim you take on a burden of proof. One cannot simply say "I win because I have a magic book". And you defend yourself with more claims that you cannot support.

 

[Redemptionsong]

There was only one Jesus Christ the Son of God, who came to bear our sins, but that does not mean there was only one Messiah. Jesus was a Messiah but He was never slated to be the Messiah of the latter days which is why He did not fulfill the messianic prophecies. I believe it is Baha'u'llah who was the Messiah of the latter days and the return of Christ and that all the messianic prophecies will be fulfilled during His Dispensation, which will last no less than 1000 years.

If you accept the scripture that Christ Jesus was 'once offered to bear the sins of many' [Hebrews 9:28], then it follows that his second appearance will be 'without sin unto salvation'. If you believe that Baha'ullah's ministry was the second coming of the Messiah then you must believe you are saved. And do you not still expect Christ Jesus to return from heaven given that he ascended to heaven after resurrection?

 

[ElishaElijah]

It is. When you make a claim you take on a burden of proof. One cannot simply say "I win because I have a magic book". And you defend yourself with more claims that you cannot support.

The Scriptures support themselves, God makes the rules and determines the burden of proof, the requirements and He has done that.
Just because you or anyone else makes different rules doesn’t mean much, you can ask for this or that proof or evidence but doesn’t mean anything because it’s just your own personal set of criteria, just not mine or God’s.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you accept the scripture that Christ Jesus was 'once offered to bear the sins of many' [Hebrews 9:28], then it follows that his second appearance will be 'without sin unto salvation'. If you believe that Baha'ullah's ministry was the second coming of the Messiah then you must believe you are saved. And do you not still expect Christ to return from heaven given that he ascended to heaven after resurrection?

Believers in the Bible will have different verses that they choose to believe. With all of the contradicting verses in the Bible almost any belief is possible.