Jesus was NOT the Messiah
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-10-2014, 07:54 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(31-10-2014 07:26 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(30-10-2014 03:01 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  Stephen Pfann, a xtian scholar, determined that the site was occupied by a single family farm in the first century. One farm does not a city make.

lol. It wasn't a city, it was a town.

"“The AP story concludes that “the dwelling and older discoveries of nearby tombs in burial caves suggest that Nazareth was an out-of the-way hamlet of around 50 houses on a patch of about four acres…populated by Jews of modest means.” -Ehrman

Like I said we have pottery, we have coins, we have references in the Gospels, plenty of 2nd century references from Christian sources referencing the town. An inspiration from the Synagogue in Caesarea Maritima chronicling the assignment of priest, around the Bar Kokhba revolt around 130AD.

Quote:And the Caesarea inscription dates to the 3d/4th century and, even if it did say "nazareth" which is dubious it doesn't matter.

No, it's not dubious at all. The spelling on inscription is: נצרת, which is in fact the Hebrew spelling for Nazareth as well. Though the inspiration dates to the 3rd Century, the events it reference occurred on or about the 1st century.

At this point it requires some creationist like delusions to be a Nazareth-denialist, either that or you just have to be plain stupid, even Carrier knows better.

Quote:But Josephus commanded an army which tramped through the entire region c 67 noting many towns and villages and has nothing to say about any "nazareth" in the first century. After being shut out of Sepphoris when the city went over to the Romans he would have literally had to retreat through Nazareth...had it been there.

Yes, because Josephus mentioned every podduck town of about 4 acres, about a quarter of a square mile on his treks. Josephus might not have mentioned it, but other people certainly had, and with the only gripe being that they were Christians. And we have way more that enough archaeological evidence, to verify that their reference to the town holds up.

So the argument that these writers made up the town, and all the evidence we found to verify it, was merely an uncanny coincidence, at this point is delusional. Anyone who wants to still make it, is just a hypocrite in the same league as the creationist they despise.

What's funny is that at least creationist like denialism is because they have some religion they admire and want to preserve, so what's your excuse?

If indeed there was a town named Nazareth, nothing further can be inferred. Ridiculing "denialism" and equating it with Creationism does not serve anyone. The facts are the facts. There is not a shred of evidence for a (Christian) "Jesus", no matter where he may or may not have been from.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
31-10-2014, 10:41 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
Quote:lol. It wasn't a city, it was a town.

It was a "polis" (the word in Greek.)

According to your boy "luke", large enough to have a "synagogue" which would certainly put it on a level with nearby Sepphoris which did exist at the time even if it was in the early stages of being re-built after Varus' pillaging in 4 BC. Do try to get it through your head that a collection of huts does nothing to save your precious mythology. You need a town of sufficient size to have its own "synagogue" and as is stated elsewhere a citizenry made of up non-related people who would be willing to throw your boy off a cliff. The size of nazareth is not your only problem here.


Quote:Josephus might not have mentioned it, but other people certainly had

You are simply wrong. Or more likely willingly deluded by apologists who are perfectly willing to tell you what you want to hear. There is no record from any historical or even geographical source of the town until the beginning of the 4th century.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Minimalist's post
31-10-2014, 11:30 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(23-10-2014 11:09 AM)Learner Wrote:  
(23-10-2014 10:52 AM)Brian37 Wrote:  Of course a Rabbi is going to do that because they do not believe their savior has come yet.

Actually, it sounds like Orthodox Jews don't think of the Messiah as a savior-figure at all, per Rabbi Skobac. Instead, they believe the Tanakh places far more emphasis on the utopian world WHEN the Messiah reigns, rather than on the person of the Messiah. They don't believe the Messiah will be divine, but will simply be a wise and righteous king from the line of David who will rule at the beginning of the utopian world. And, based on my knowledge of the "Old Testament," I think they're spot-on instead of the Christian interpretation of the Messiah. (Not saying I'm a Jew or Christian, but just my opinion.)

(23-10-2014 10:52 AM)Brian37 Wrote:  However, try arguing with a Rabbi over what came prior to the Hebrews. Suddenly they will deny that they are, in reality, merely a spin off of prior polytheism. If you point out to them the common themes and character names in Ugartic polytheism, such as "Let us make them in our image" and names like "El, Elohim, Yhvh, and Baal" suddenly they will claim they are not the same characters.

You're exactly right. I was astounded to learn about the polytheism behind the names of God, before Judaism. To realize even the earlier Bible writings/traditions allowed other gods, but said to have none of them before God. Only around the time of the prophets like Isaiah did the Israelite religion believe all "gods" are made up and should not have any worship. (I'm going from memory of past reading here...)

That is the unfortunate thing about humans, we are so wrapped up in thinking our clubs and politics and religions are unique we don't understand the evolutionary reality that our species perceptions are notoriously flawed.

Arguing that a religion was the first or original would be like Coke vs Pepsi and Coke claiming it was the first beverage because it has a red can, missing the point that both came about because of prior influence.

I was an atheist before 01 when I finally sought out other atheists online, and prior I was not that well educated in my position. I started to actively doubt my belief when a co worker asked me "What if Jesus was just a man". But even with that I did not call myself an atheist, and went from Catholic to deist.

The biggest linchpin in my journey to calling myself "atheist" was a visit to the Smithsonian Museum in DC. It still took me a couple years after to call myself an atheist, but looking back, what I saw caused me to say "If they can mix, then it all can be influenced"

The exhibit was of the Buddhist Complex of Ankor Wat in Cambodia. The Dynasty started in the 3rd century, if memory serves me correctly, and lasted about 1,000 years until. It consisted of sandstone statues of Buddha. But about halfway through that dynasty Hindus found their way there, and by the end of that hall in the Smithsonian it was clear that the Buddhist statues incorporated Hindu features. That is when I connected the dots with all religions. That was the light bulb that caused me to think "If mixing can happen with this, then humans have always created new religions by taking on attributes of others around them."

There really is nothing new under the sun. Humans make up gods and religions because of our flawed perceptions and far too often gap fill where answers lack.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2014, 11:38 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
So much explanation and debate required.
*Sigh*
Anyone notice a pattern here?



Carry on

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2014, 03:25 PM (This post was last modified: 31-10-2014 03:34 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(31-10-2014 06:49 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(30-10-2014 03:35 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Go back and read posts 112 and press on the links, and press on the links in post 193. Then demonstrate to me you've actually done this by making specific comments or asking relevant comments. Use the information to discover facts and ideas for yourself....google is a wonderful tool. The commentary is littered with primary sources. At the moment talking to you is like trying to teach an obstinate 3 year old calculus. You need to do some basic homework first, then we can discuss.

Okay I went through them, clicked on the links and checked out their cited sources. They mainly refer back to other interpreters, and the ones that mention the primary sources they were interpreting all this from, were the ones I previously mentioned:

"Josephus, the writings of the Church fathers, some of the Epistles, and since you mentioned the Essenes, the Dead Sea scrolls as well. "

There's only going to be a handful of primary sources, so there may be like 1-2 that I'm missing here, but since these are the only ones being references by everyone else, this seems to be about it.

So are you going to be a bit more forthcoming and admit this much, that these are pretty much our only primary sources on what these various groups believed or might have believed?

I'm not sure what drum you're beating. Are you trying to say that Jesus was a Christian?

The primary sources include the writings of Josephus, the dead sea scrolls, and the church fathers (some of which are a little dubious). Yet there is also Philo, Jewish literature, for example, the banning of the Nazarenes in the late first century from worshipping in the synagogues. There is also scripture itself, upon which all forms of Judaism were based. There's also the (genuine) writings of Paul, which I assume you may have read, which also indirectly admit that there was no cordial relationship between him and Jesus' followers?

Then there are the non-primary sources… people who have devoted a life time studying the topic such as Hugh Schonfield, Robert Eisemann, Douglas Lockhart, Peter Cresswell, James Tabor and numerous others, who all claim Jesus was a Jew, and not a watered down Jew with some Christian beliefs either, but a fundamentalist xenophobic, Torah loving fanatic. Have you watched the video that was the original talking point for this thread?

Are you aware of the fact that James, Jesus's brother was a devout Jew? Have you read what may be his letter, in your bible, that has not one Christian concept in it?

Do you have any understanding of the bad feelings of the times that existed between Jews and Gentiles? If you do, there should be no doubt in your mind that Jesus, a Galilean rustic, was Jewish. Are you aware that Galilee was the heartland of Jewish zealotry? Do you know what a zealot was? Are you aware that Jesus was crucified by the Romans as a zealot, between two other zealots? Are you aware that John the Baptist Jesus's cousin, was suspected of being a Jewish zealot, which was why he was executed?

Are you aware that the gospels were created by anonymous authors decades after Jesus died, and there is no known real connection between the writings and the life of this man, who may or may not have existed? Are you aware that the gospels were edited and interpolated for hundreds of years after they were first written?

Are you aware that Paul, the real creator of Christianity, was diametrically opposed to the original followers of Jesus? Or do you simply swallow what was written in the book of Acts? Has it occurred to you that Paul was in fact a Roman government agent, writing literature to undermine Messianic Jews?

Are you aware that the book of Acts, written in the early second century by another anonymous author, was the Christian world's feeble attempt to link the original followers of Jesus with the Christian theology of Paul?

Please tell us all what you think the original Jesus and his disciples believed, and then tell us why.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
01-11-2014, 02:15 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
Quote:If some future archeologist were to dig up my property, would she date it to the 1800's?

Depends on if she was a bible-thumper with a book to substantiate, Chas.

I remember when the so-called 'jesus house' was announced in 2009 - and more on that later.

The original press release from the Israel Antiquities Authority noted the house dated to the 'early Roman period' and then mentioned that the 'early Roman period' included the first AND second centuries AD. Thus, it was completely consistent with Pfann's earlier findings but that doesn't make for a sexy enough headline. That clarification was dropped from subsequent discussions.

The announcement in Haaretz was just before xmas in 2009 because if there is one thing that jews and palestinians can agree on it is the desirability of getting idiot xtian pilgrims to waste their money on bullshit holy sites!

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2014, 01:53 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
Looks like another one gone.

At least the record is there and always will be.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2014, 04:22 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(31-10-2014 03:25 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I'm not sure what drum you're beating. Are you trying to say that Jesus was a Christian?

Did I say he was a Christian?

Quote:The primary sources include the writings of Josephus, the dead sea scrolls, and the church fathers (some of which are a little dubious). Yet there is also Philo, Jewish literature, for example, the banning of the Nazarenes in the late first century from worshipping in the synagogues.

So there's Jewish literature besides the aforementioned sources, and Philo, which speak of the Nazarenes, or do they just give us a background into first century Jewish thought, but not the Nazarenes in particular per se?

Quote:There is also scripture itself, upon which all forms of Judaism were based.

Duh, OT scripture can be used to convey non-christian Jewish thought.


Quote:There's also the (genuine) writings of Paul, which I assume you may have read.


Yep.

Quote:which also indirectly admit that there was no cordial relationship between him and Jesus' followers?

So we'll start slowly.

Paul writers of a non-cordial relationship with certain Christians similar to the Nazarenes and Ebionites, in that they practiced the Jewish ceremonial laws, and states that this conflict centers around this practice and in particular demanding that other followers of Jesus adhere to this, in order to part of the christian community. This is the only thing Paul states their dispute is about.

Are you in denial of this, or do you recognize this as well? That Paul does not express any other doctrinal or theological differences between this group than what centers around the concept of works and faith in relationship to these practices? Do you or do you not realize this?

Quote:Then there are the non-primary sources… people who have devoted a life time studying the topic such as Hugh Schonfield, Robert Eisemann, Douglas Lockhart, Peter Cresswell, James Tabor and numerous others.

I'm not interested in the non-primary sources at this point. There's only a handful of primary sources any of these individuals or any of us could use to determine the nature of the conflict between these particular nazarene like christians and Paul, or anything else regarding their views and beliefs.

Quote:who all claim Jesus was a Jew, and not a watered down Jew with some Christian beliefs either, but a fundamentalist xenophobic, Torah loving fanatic.

Don't start an argument with me over a claim I did not make. If you want to argue about what Jesus would have thought of Paul's view on the laws, that's an entirely different argument than the one being made here, which to repeat is not so much what these individuals did or did not believe, but when you lay claim to what they did or did not believe, in ways not supported by the evidence we have. They are in essence baseless speculations. But in order to show that, we need to establish the primary sources being used.

Which at this point, the only additions, to my previous list being Philo, and Jewish writings, though there is no Jewish writing outside the aforementioned ones, that mention anything about the Nazarenes, or Paul, and their supposed conflicts.

Quote:Do you have any understanding of the bad feelings of the times that existed between Jews and Gentiles?

All the primary sources that describe what this bad feeling between these groups was, indicate that this was primarily regarding the Jewish Ceremonial law, and not much else. This is the main point I am trying to get through to you, and would like to hear you acknowledge this much.

Quote:Are you aware that the gospels were created by anonymous authors decades after Jesus died, and there is no known real connection between the writings and the life of this man, who may or may not have existed? Are you aware that the gospels were edited and interpolated for hundreds of years after they were first written?

Ah huh.

Quote:Are you aware that Paul, the real creator of Christianity, was diametrically opposed to the original followers of Jesus? Or do you simply swallow what was written in the book of Acts?

The evidence we have for the conflict between the two parties of christians, indicate the conflict was in regards to the ceremonial law. All the writing speaking of the conflict indicate just this. Arguments for anything else are nothing but supposition.

Quote:Has it occurred to you that Paul was in fact a Roman government agent, writing literature to undermine Messianic Jews?

Are you aware that 9/11 was an inside job? This claim has no evidential support, so we can all just dismiss it with ease.

Quote:Please tell us all what you think the original Jesus and his disciples believed, and then tell us why.

All that can be argued as to what they believed, would have to be based on the primary sources, and the picture these sources painted. Since we are limited to these resources we can't argue for anything else beyond that, or that which is not grounded in these sources.

Imagine if we are trying to explain a dispute between a man and his friend, and the only sources we have are comments they wrote to each other on Facebook, and some remarks by their friends regarding their dispute. We can only speak of the dispute, or discuss the nature of that dispute on the facts available to us, from these sources. Anything we argue beyond that can be dismissed as being not being based on the evidence, but a product of the persons imagination, is pure speculation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2014, 04:23 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(03-11-2014 01:53 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Looks like another one gone.

At least the record is there and always will be.

Yes, i forgot to mention that I'm typically off from work Thursday-Sunday night, and if I'm out and about, spending time with my wife and family, you might see me absent those days.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2014, 05:04 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
Still waiting for "other" biographies like the gospels, and academic support of the assertion.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: