Animore
Active Member
You make an honest point, and I can respect your beliefs. It is a fair point when you say you can't prove a religion that stems from the heart, and I get that. Thanks for the input.
-
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!
Overwhelming Historical Proof: Why do you doubt Jesus?
- Thread starter Animore
- Start date
Animore
Active Member
Crucifixion, yes.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
It's alright to talk about it and how you feel about it, etc. Outside of RF, it's alright to evangelize in a healthy manner to those who want to listen. Just be mindful that not everyone will understand and/or accept what you believe. As long as both sides are open to communication, then you're fine.
Check out the threads here on RF. Some debates get pretty heated, downright nasty at times. There is a pretty diverse group of religions represented in the forum. Miscommunication and misunderstandings occur.
True.That's actually a good and interesting book by the way.
But not very convincing to those of us who didn't accept Lewis' preconceptions.
Tom
shivsomashekhar
Well-Known Member
Awesome. You are a quick learner.
Does this mean you're leaving RF?
I hope not.
There are lots of other threads.
Tom
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
A question just out of the blue. If there is historical evidence for Jesus, what would that mean for people of other faiths and/or lack thereof?
If my friend and mother wrote stories about me and how they relate to me, and even wrote of the miraculous things I did in 2016, and then in the year 4355 a group of people looked at the crusted work my family and friends wrote, and they think "lo! and behold! We have found the Messiah."
I exist. So what? How does my mother and friend's claims support the facts of what I did? They can write their relation to me, experience, et cetera but it's all personal. It's not historical. Maybe an archaeologist may find one of my slippers laying in the dusk, and, like the book they found, what does that mean? How does that prove anything happened beyond my existence from the archaeologist finding and the stories and personal experiences from my mother's and friend's view?
Of course it may be personal to the people who look at me as the Messiah but why go beyond that? What is the need to prove that I historically exist? and even if they found my shoe, why is there a need to prove just because I exist, what my mother and friend claims I did is true?
If we made up an example, what examples would someone give to that will prove what my mother and friend says is true?
and even more so
what does that mean to the person who believes something different?
If my friend and mother wrote stories about me and how they relate to me, and even wrote of the miraculous things I did in 2016, and then in the year 4355 a group of people looked at the crusted work my family and friends wrote, and they think "lo! and behold! We have found the Messiah."
I exist. So what? How does my mother and friend's claims support the facts of what I did? They can write their relation to me, experience, et cetera but it's all personal. It's not historical. Maybe an archaeologist may find one of my slippers laying in the dusk, and, like the book they found, what does that mean? How does that prove anything happened beyond my existence from the archaeologist finding and the stories and personal experiences from my mother's and friend's view?
Of course it may be personal to the people who look at me as the Messiah but why go beyond that? What is the need to prove that I historically exist? and even if they found my shoe, why is there a need to prove just because I exist, what my mother and friend claims I did is true?
If we made up an example, what examples would someone give to that will prove what my mother and friend says is true?
and even more so
what does that mean to the person who believes something different?
meghanwaterlillies
Well-Known Member
They may or would not trust
mark has its burning.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I don't understand. Can you rephrase that?
Surely you have seen a movie. The scriptures about Jesus might be a production, a story. I do not believe Jesus must be real as in scripture to believe in him.
Why is it necessary, according to you?
Tumah
Veteran Member
Just wanted to point out a few problems.
Let's start out with your inability to recognize what constituents a proof text.
Genesis 3:15 doesn't mention anything about a messiah. Whatsoever. In fact, its actually saying that people would hate snakes. And snakes would bite people. That's all its saying. Its only your NT that reinterpreted the verse into a messianic prophecy. But the actual verse has nothing to do with that and this is apparent from the lack of mention of a key point: a messiah.
And of course again, there's no mention of any messiah here as well. The verse is actually quite vague about how the nations of the world would be blessed through Abraham. But there's no reason to assume it has anything to do with a messiah. Maybe if you mention his name at the local Bazaar you get 10% off. Couldn't really prove that to be wrong. And of course NT verses don't count because they were written after the fact with the self-serving intent of reading Jesus into the text.
Not really sure why you feel it necessary to interpret this verse as referring to the Messiah. Its obviously a reference to when David would be crowned king, after the Tabernacle that was at Shiloh is destroyed. The word "come" in the phrase "until Shiloh comes" can also mean to "come to a close", as in Isa. 60:20.
Of course, Luke isn't going to help here.
I don't know how it is in your Bible, but in my book, there's no mention about a messiah whatsoever. This prophecy was already long fulfilled in Joshua and every subsequent prophet. Its barely even a prophecy as much as G-d letting everyone know how things are going to be running for a while. Acts of course not with any standing.
This is even more confusing. David wrote the Psalms. Why in the world would you think its talking about the Messiah and not David who is writing it... Of course Luke won't be very helpful here either.
The Messiah will what?!?! Have you read this Psalm? What happened to the first words of the Psalm: "A letter of David"? There's nowhere in the Psalm where he mentions that he's speaking for someone else. This is very odd. Although not as odd as a bunch of NT prophecies that were written after the fact being used to prove the fact.
This one must have been a mistake, since the crucifixion is mentioned even once in the whole Psalm! I'm sure you meant some other...I don't know.
No, this is David who has this problem. That's...that's why the Psalm starts off "A Psalm of David". He's writing about his experiences. You know, he actually didn't lead such a great life. Not sure what your thing with Luke is all about.
Well this is embarrassing. You've made a mistake in the translation here. כארי ידי ורגלי means "like a lion [at] my hands and feet." Meaning his hands and feet are being broken as though bitten by a lion. The same term is found in Isa. 38:13 שויתי עד בקר כארִי כן ישבר כל עצמותי "[As] I make myself until morning like a lion, so all my bones break". It could happen to anyone, don't feel bad. Although I'd start getting embarrassed at all these Luke quotes...
The forgotten quotes.
Well, Psalm 20 is obviously not saying that, as we've already established that it was David talking, not the Messiah. It also doesn't mention anything about bones not being broken. But we won't let silly points like that get in the way.
As for Psalm 34, I'm not sure how to tell you this, but David is actually making a comparison to how G-d treats the righteous and the wicked. I'm not sure how you didn't catch that. Not having his bones broken is part of the way G-d protects the righteous. Not one of the righteous' bones are broken, but the wicked are killed by evil. See its a comparison. Kind of a weird place to squeeze in a Messiah.
We'll just pretend you didn't quote John, since that's not going to be very helpful.
Somehow we ended up back at Psalm 22!! I thought we had already moved on! Right, so uhm... this was the Psalm that David clearly wrote his name on, so lets just move on...
The Messiah will accused by false witnesses Psalm 35:11 Matthew 26:59,60 and Mark 14:56,57
I'm really sorry to keep having to point this out, but you may not have noticed the opening line of the Psalm "A Psalm of David, Fight [O] G-d, my fights..." Right. Its David talking here. That's David. He's the one, well, he's the one that actually wrote most of these Psalms. So for later proofs, you may want to read the...you know, the whole chapter. So that you get an idea of who the person that's doing the talking is. This way you'll also be able to get an idea of who the subject is.
I'm not sure if your familiar with tenses, but this verse was written in the past tense. And since David wrote it (as we can see from the title), it would have happened way before Jesus was even a twinkle in a soldiers eye. So let's just chalk this Psalm up to more complaining by David and keep going.
You have to admit, this one really doesn't make any sense. In the context we see David describing things going on in the desert. Do we know of any event in the desert where someone went "up" took something and brought it back down for people, some of whom may have often been rebellious? If you guessed Jesus, you're wrong! It was Moses. Yes. Moses went up a mountain and he brought back down the Torah which he proceeded to teach Israel. They were known to be rebellious.
Gosh! What's with you and reading the messiah into everything?!? Don't forget to read the title of the Psalm and keep an eye out for personal pronouns in the first person!!!
Hmmm. You may have missed the opening line where Solomon claims this work and then prays for the "son of the king", who is - obviously - himself, the son of king David. Its easy to miss, so don't worry.
This verse is pretty vague. There doesn't seem to be any reason to interpret it as referring to the Messiah. Seems like it could be talking about David just as easily. Or even Israel really. Let's just skip this one.
Welllll!!!! There's something we can agree on. Although you kind of ruined it with Psa. 132. That verse is talking about all of David's progeny that say on the throne, obviously. Not just one individual. So it doesn't really say anything about a messiah. But hey, the rest is good!!
Oh, a common mistake among Christians. Don't feel bad, a lot of you guys make this mistake. But the word actually just means "young woman" without any indication of her virginal status. Some times it clearly refers to a virgin, but sometimes it doesn't. Pro. 30:19 would be an example of that.
This is confusing. How did you get from a prophecy about Hezekiah being a good king, to a Jesus in the Galilee. It doesn't even mention the Galilee...
Hey! Its another thing we can agree on! Cool!!
Cont...
Tumah
Veteran Member
I thought we were doing well and then you go and ruin it! This is Isaiah talking. Its his book of prophecies, remember!!
You see, this is weird, because Isaiah is clearly referring to Israel but MMLJ usually talk about Jesus. Not sure what happened there...
No, Isaiah is referring to Israel here.
No, Isaiah is referring to Israel here.
No, Isaiah is referring to Israel here.
No, Isaiah is referring to Israel here.
No, Isaiah is referring to Israel here.
No, Isaiah is referring to Israel here.
The Messiah has nothing to do with the new covenant. That's just silly.
Its a nice thought, but the verse doesn't actually say that. It has G-d seeing that there is no one to pray for Israel, and so G-d does the saving without anyone praying for it. Isn't that a great kindness?
What a mess! This is Isaiah talking again. He's the one who's spreading these wonderful prophecies to a downtrodden people. Don't make stuff up! Read the words!!!
Well, its true that the Messiah will come on a specific date, as it would be impossible for someone to not do an act in a finite period of time. But that has nothing to do with Daniel
You silly guy, you. That's David's home town, not the Messiah's!! The Messiah is often called the "son of David", so he's also the son of the guy from Bethlehem. What a silly mistake.
Well, you're not wrong exactly, but I wonder if you really understood what Zecharia was saying.
This was a parable. I think you may have missed that.
You may want to go through that passage again. This passage is talking about false prophets trying to blend into society during a time that people will reject false prophets.
I think you didn't read the verse well. It says that G-d will send and angel (probably Elijah considering the last verse) to clear house. And then G-d will enter the House. Nothing there about a Messiah entering the Temple with authority.
Didn't really see anything important there.
As has been claimed about Muhammad and the Bab. Maybe they're all telling the truth?
Well, let's just be clear. The people who wrote the gospels wouldn't have really known about people's reactions since they're writing way after the fact.
Oh, he definitely claimed it.
That doesn't follow at all.
Just want to say, that I'm just trying to help people fix their faith.
VioletVortex
Well-Known Member
I do not doubt the existence of a physical, human Jesus. However, there's still no evidence that he's a messiah, or that he holds any spiritual significance. I don't trust anything the bible says because it has been rewritten millions of times. The possibility that someone added the prophecies after they have occurred is very real.
Even if the Christian mythology were true, I would not follow it's teachings.
Even if the Christian mythology were true, I would not follow it's teachings.
It is much like many of the ancient stories: did the battle of Marathon actually occur? Any of the events recounted by Julius Caesar? The wars of the Vedic era? What evidence, beyond the stories of classical writers, do we actually have of many of these people and events from antiquity? Even if we do have some actual physical evidence of some event that matches the story, is that any guarantee that the story is true? Just because we find evidence of the city of Troy and that there was once a great battle there, does that mean the events recounted in Homer actually occurred, just the way he said?
Now then, if there were multiple independent accounts and artifacts of Jesus, for example...and by independent I mean not associated with the Christian church of the first century CE or later...that supports the story--but the details are still undocumented, must be taken on faith. Most of the events of Jesus' life and his supposed deeds would not even have been part of temporary records of the time. It's difficult enough to prove the deeds and sayings of people today, much less a century ago, much less two millennia ago...
Now then, if there were multiple independent accounts and artifacts of Jesus, for example...and by independent I mean not associated with the Christian church of the first century CE or later...that supports the story--but the details are still undocumented, must be taken on faith. Most of the events of Jesus' life and his supposed deeds would not even have been part of temporary records of the time. It's difficult enough to prove the deeds and sayings of people today, much less a century ago, much less two millennia ago...
RabbiO
הרב יונה בן זכריה
I would have given you a "Like" on this post, but this comment was, all things considered unnecessary.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Just as point of logic: Remarks made after the fact, particularly those appearing in the New Testament in reference to Jesus, do not qualify as prophecies. And, it must be remembered that scriptures, NT scriptures in particular, were chosen for inclusion in the Bible because they confirmed (either literally or through changing the wording of the Tanakh) or at least did not contradict the message determined by those trying to establish its legitimacy. The construction of the Bible was not an unbiased undertaking.
.
I don't see how anyone could.
The name we spell Jesus is the anglicized version of the Latin version of the Greek version of an Aramaic name that was very common in 1st century Judea.
Saying there was no Jesus is like saying there is no Jim in contemporary USA.
Tom
Tumah
Veteran Member
I don't feel as though I need to buy into their version over any of the others that are available.