MurphtheSurf
Active Member
My previous remarks were directed to the poster with the I Pod, the Jewish guy.
So you failed to understand the reasoning that I previously posted, or you ignored it.
Understood.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Jesus literal son of God, or son of Joseph?
- Thread starter Rainbow Mage
- Start date
My previous remarks were directed to the poster with the I Pod, the Jewish guy.
So you failed to understand the reasoning that I previously posted, or you ignored it.
Understood.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
I understood that. My intention was to show that it wasn't just Jews who do not see Jesus as the Messiah. More so, it was to show that in fact, there is no reason to believe he was the Messiah, and that the Davidiac line simply did not matter.
More so, many Jews in the first century did not see Jesus as the Messiah and did not recognize the Davidiac line. What you failed to mention is that Matthew and Luke were not known by everyone attacking the new Jesus movement. Many people never heard of them, and there is some suggestion that the virgin stories were not even part of many versions that were being circulated. So the point you were making is quite moot.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
I agree with you, but I think your argument is flawed. For the sake of this point, I'm going to use Houdini as an example. I have many various biographies about him, as well as letters and writings of Houdini himself. I can tell you that different biographies contain stories that other ones don't. Each one is quite accurate, but had different sources, and different connections (as in some were privy to speaking with Houdini's family (such as his brothers and wife), while others were not).
So just because Luke and John have stories the other two don't, that doesn't suggest anything really, accept that they had different sources. Based on just them having different stories could still mean that they were all correct, and thus could logically be put together with little flaw. The problem is that the stories are contradictory and do not fit together very well.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
Putting them together actually raises questions. For instance, where did Jesus go after he was born? The Gospels do not fully agree on this, more so, they can not be logically put together. Going back to the virgin stories, Matthew talks about the Massacre of the innocents where Herod the Great commands to have the infants (2 years and younger) in the region of Bethlehem killed. Luke never mentions this and more so, locates Jesus in this area during that massacre. This means that if both accounts were true, Jesus most likely would have died in that massacre.
Going to the other end of his life, we even see that his death, as related in each of the Gospels, can not be put together. The synoptics have Jesus dying on Passover. John has Jesus dying on the day of preparation, which is the day before the Passover. These two accounts can not be put together, as they are drastically different.
According to Luke 3v15 the Jewish people were in 'expectation' of seeing the Messiah. They knew the Hebrew OT Scriptures and were asking questions.
According to John chapter one the Jewish disciples felt they had found the Messiah. Found him of whom Moses and the prophets did write [vs 45]
According to Matthew chapter three John the Baptist was a PR [public relations] man for setting the stage, so to speak, for the Christ to come.
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
When you hold the pen, you can make the story say whatever you want. And when you're trying to sell something, you don't tell people why they shouldn't buy it.
The first time I read any part of the Christian scriptures, I was in a hotel room on a school field trip. I was curious... I had no preconceived notions about Christianity or Jesus... so I started reading... and by the end of Matthew 1, I knew that what I was reading was ********.... and the more I read, the more I became convinced that the authors were either liars or idiots. Or both.
I don't think so.
It is the 66 books of Bible canon that are the inspired books of 2nd Timothy 3vs 16,17 which includes Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as inspired by God.
How do the gospels not agree? Jesus parents were sent to Egypt during the time of the killing of the infants up to age 2. The magi found the 'child' Jesus, not the infant, in a 'house', not manger, in Bethlehem. The 'star' first took the magi to Jerusalem, not Bethlehem. They were never at the manger. By the time Herod's son Archelaus is king of Judea then, at that time, Joseph and family travel north to Nazareth in Galilee.
Of the three dozen reference Scriptures found in chapter one of Matthew, how many corresponding or parallel verses or passages did you cross reference in your research?
Not the first time I read any of the Hebrew Scriptures, but because I was curious I started to read the Hebrew Scriptures in a Holiday Inn.
I questioned at that time, like the Ethiopian official of Acts chapter eight, how could I understand unless someone guided me?
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
The Hebrew OT, as we know it, did not exist. There were actually other Scriptures that various sects also used. So you have to be more specific, and the requires understanding what sect of the Jews Jesus would have been apart, and attracted.
Yes though, The Jewish people were expecting the Messiah. At the beginning of his ministry, it is possible that Jesus would eventually have been the messiah. However, once he died, and did not free the Jewish people, there was no way he could be the Messiah. He was just one more failed messiah.
The Jewish disciples of Jesus. That was 12 individuals who were greatly influenced by Jesus. They in no way dictate what the majority of Jews believed. And that was that Jesus was not the messiah.
According to Josephus though, and even suggested in the Bible, John the Baptist was also a potential Messiah. What we know of John, and what the Gospels state, don't always match up. The Gospels even suggest that there was more to John than just what they were saying.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
2nd Timothy does not state that. 2nd Timothy could have been talking about any of the various writings that were considered scripture during that time.
The Bible did not exist during the writing. The New Testament hadn't even began forming at the point of it being written. Not even all of the books of the New Testament had been written at that time.
According to Matthew, not Luke. Luke has Jesus parents staying around Bethlehem.
There is no evidence for this. The Gospels disagree and thus can not be put together. You are taking pieces from one Gospel, and then from another Gospel, and putting it together in a way that it simply does not work.
The Gospels have contradictions. One will suffice for now. Mark, Matthew, and Luke have Jesus dying on Passover. John has Jesus dying the day before Passover. There is no way to reconcile this difference, and is a clear contradiction.
The Hebrew writings were completed with Malachi hundreds of years before Jesus. How did Jesus fail when Jesus explained to his followers that God's kingdom, or royal government, would Not be set up right away.
Jesus explained that in his illustration of Luke 19 vs 11-15.
As the nobleman Jesus would first travel to a far country or far away country before returning having then received the kingdom or kingdom power.
First > the heavens would be cleared or cleansed of Satan.
Second> Satan, for a limited time, brings 'woe' to earth before heavenly Jesus time of glory, or divine intervention into mankind's affairs.
Third> Jesus, as crowned king of God's kingdom, ushers in Peace on Earth toward men of goodwill.
[Rev 12vs7-9, 12; 19vs11,14,15; Isaiah 11v4; Matthew 16v27; 25v31,32]
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
I went to Isaiah to look up this "virgin birth" prophecy, which had nothing to do with a virgin, nothing to do with the messiah, nothing to do with Jesus.
I went to look up the figures listed in the genealogy... and discovered that Jeconiah's progeny were ineligible to bear the Messiah.
I saw the lines about the virgin birth, and knew right away that if this were the case, the whole genealogy of Joseph was absolutely meaningless.
I also happened to know a few things about what the Messiah is supposed to do from my days in Hebrew school... and knowing the very simple fact that I don't live in Israel clued me into the fact that this is not the Messianic age we're living in... which means that nobody can claim to have been the Messiah. (I don't know if it was in a footnote, or if I had simply already known that the word "Christ" is supposed to be the greek equivalent for "messiah").
I saw this line: Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.
Counted up the names, and realized that even that sentence was in error, even without considering the fact that the list had left out a number of generations....
Luke 2v51 says Nazareth and so does Matthew 2v23.
What verses do you have in mind?
What verse of John has Jesus dying the day before passover?
The preparation [noon meal] of the Passover -John 19v14 -would have included the entire Passover festival time which started at sunset the evening before noon. Passover time would have included the whole day starting from sunset to sunset. The people would have eaten more than once that day of sunset to sunset which was still the Passover to them. So they ate the Passover in the evening [Thursday] and possibly noon [Friday] and possibly eat again before Friday's sunset which would still be in the same day that started Thursday at sunset.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
During the time of Jesus, various sects of Christians recognized different pieces of work as scripture. The Hebrew canon was not even closed until after Jesus died, and the Temple was destroyed. That pushes it back until after 70 C.E.
Different sects accepted different works as scripture. They also agreed on some works as scripture, but not all of them. There were differences. And there was actually more Hebrew writings going on then what was included in the Old Testament that were considered scripture. More importantly, Christians hadn't even agreed on what scriptures to include in the Old Testament. Even up to the 4th century different lists were being circulated. Even more, the Bible even alludes to other pieces of work that were considered to be scripture.
As to how Jesus failed, all one has to do is understand what the Messiah was suppose to accomplish. Jesus did not accomplish that. He died. Also, the Kingdom he was talking about, the Kingdom of God, was suppose to happen, according to Jesus, within the life times of his disciples, or at least those who had heard him speak. They are all dead, and there is no Kingdom of God. Thus, he fails again. Jesus simply is not the Jewish messiah, which is why they don't accept him as such. He failed.
Mark 8:31-9:1 (which also has parallels in both Matthew and Luke) states that some of those standing before him would not die until the Kingdom of God had come. They are now dead, and the Kingdom is not here. So again, it shows he failed.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
We both agree that Matthew states that Jesus and his family fled to Egypt. Now, at the same time according to Luke 2:21, they stayed in area for over a week. And after that, it is clear that they went to Nazareth, and there is no suggestion that they ever went to Egypt. So the two accounts do not agree. More so, Luke has Jesus back in Jerusalem every year, while Matthew has them hiding in Egypt.
John 19:14 clearly states that it was the day of preparation. That was the day before Passover. It is clearly written in the Gospel, and John disagrees with the other Gospels on this point.
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
The popular Christian explanation is that John had it written this way to make it as if Jesus died the same day as the Jews were slaughtering their Passover lambs, in a way to make Jesus out to be a Passover lamb.
How the hell you stretched the word "preparation" to be about a noontime meal is beyond me. And of course you're also suggesting that a mob of Jews had gathered DURING passover, when they all should have been at home doing passover things.
And another thing... they did NOT eat "the Passover" on three separate occasions... "the Passover" is only eaten ONCE, when the sun sets and it becomes the 15th of Nisan.
They might have been eating festive holiday meals, but only once did they eat "the Passover." So when you say things like " So they ate the Passover in the evening [Thursday] and possibly noon [Friday] and possibly eat again before Friday's sunset which would still be in the same day that started Thursday at sunset." you come across as an ignoramus.
Your explanation is simply looney toons.
Webbster101
Member
Why is there such discrepancy over the death of Christ? nomatter whether he did die on the passover day or not he still died for you and me. There is a problem with your saying he was to "look" like a passover lamb, he was not meant to "look" like one he was one! There were never any legit charges brought againest him and he never sinned before that, so he was the one and only perfect lamb sent to cleanse us from our sins. If this were not true then why would the apostles have died for Christ, was it because he wasn't the real Christ or was it because he was the Christ?
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
Because the guys who wrote the book were either liars or idiots. That's why.
No, he didn't.
No, he wasn't.
Yes he did.
No, he wasn't.
Who says that they did in the first place? The same guys that said Jesus died on Passover? Give me a break.
Besides, you would have to assert the truth of every faith who claims to have martyrs in order to avoid looking like a hypocrite. You prepared to do that?
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
Because each writer was trying to portray a certain message.
He died because he was a criminal, and a human. The idea that he died for humankind was only invented afterwards in order to explain why Jesus died, and had not in fact fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah.
That is only according to John. The synoptic Gospels have him dying on Passover, which was after the Passover lamb was killed.
There were legit charges. Jesus entered into the Temple, during Passover, and caused a massive scene. He overturned the money changer tables and chased all of those out who were buying and selling in the Temple. That was a crime as it was a sign of insurrection, and had the potential of starting a riot during a very touchy time.
The moneychangers were necessary, as it was not allowed to buy sacrificial animals in the temple with money bearing idols. Much of the money circulating had the image of Caesar on it, appearing as a god. So they had to change that money to something that was accepted in the Temple. The selling of animals and buying of animals was also necessary, as people were traveling from far off. Bringing their own animals to sacrifice in the Temple simply was not an option. So they sold them in the Temple so even people traveling to the Temple from far off could still do their religious duties. To upset that work during Passover was a crime.
More so, Jesus was either, or others were saying, that Jesus was the King of the Jews. Not a crime in itself, but it was definitely something that would have made people keep a watch on him. Then to add with his teaching of the Kingdom of God, which was to replace the Kingdom of Rome, he had more then enough charges to see him as a criminal.
That proves nothing except that they personally believed in Jesus and the ideas that they created afterwards about him.
According to the Greek:
John 19v14 was but preparation of the passover, hour was the sixth.
That is about 12 noon counting from sunrise.