Jesus was NOT the Messiah
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-10-2014, 11:55 AM (This post was last modified: 25-10-2014 05:54 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(25-10-2014 11:27 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(25-10-2014 10:32 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So no. Neither a Jew, nor a Christian would connect the Abraham myth to Jesus, (and IF the Fathers of the Church, who no doubt did know about it, thought it made sense or could be useful, they would have used it, .. and they very well may have at some point).

Again, you the bulk of your post consists of you addressing some point that I have never made. But you are clearly wrong here. Christians have long connected the Abraham and Issac myth to Jesus, even wikipedia points this out:

"The majority of Christian Biblical commentators view this episode as prefiguring God's plan to have his own Son, Jesus, die on the cross as a substitute for humanity, much like the ram God provided for Abraham. This fulfilled Abraham's reply to Isaac's question of where was the animal that would be used for the sacrifice; Abraham's affirmation that "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering" is seen as a prophetic foreshadow of the promise of the Lamb of God."

As far as the early Christians doing so, well here goes a link covering multiple sources doing just that:

http://www2.ferrum.edu/dhowell/txt_cntxt...istian.htm

Quote:"This "wood," again, Isaac the son of Abraham personally carried for his own sacrifice, when God had enjoined that he should be made a victim to Himself. [21] But, because these had been mysteries which were being kept for perfect fulfilment in the times of Christ" - Tertullian

Quote:And on this account Isaac carried the wook on which he was to be offered up to the place of sacrifice, just as the Lord Himself carried His own cross.

"Finally, since Isaac himself was not killed - for his father had been forbidden to kill him- who was that ram which was offered instead, and by whose foreshadowing blood the sacrifice was accomplished? For when Abraham had caught sight of him, he was caught by the horns in a thicket. Who then did he represent but Jesus, who, before He was offered up, had been crowned with thorns." - Augustine

Quote:"In place of Isaac the just, a ram appeared for slaughter, in order that Isaac might be liberated from his bonds. The slaughter of this animal redeemed Isaac from death. In like manner, the Lord, being slain, saved us; being bound, He loosed us; being sacrificed, He redeemed us ...

For the Lord was a lamb, like the ram which Abraham saw caught in the bush Sabec. But this bush represented the cross, and that place Jerusalem, and the lamb the Lord bound for slaughter." - Melito of Sardis

So yes, Christians did make this connection, very early on in fact.

(25-10-2014 10:32 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The second huge problem, is the nature of what is being done (efficacy of) in the sacrifice itself. Hebrew sacrifice was a "ritual (external) purification" to make a human come back into "sych" "right-sanding") with the universe, (and Yahweh). The nature of Christian sacrifice is NOT that. It's the same as "spiritual (internal)l purification" (which most likely came from Zoroastrianism) via Paul (who was from Tarsus, a hotbed of Mithraism, which was a form of Zoroastrianism). They are totally different concepts.


No, Paul's view of sacrifice as well as the gospel writers view of Jesus's sacrifice was as you put it " to be in right-standing" with God. It seems you understanding of Pauls writing is filtered through the lens of certain strains of Protestantism, but has no real bearing on how it's been understood by the churches with a historical link to the early traditions, such as Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. And the only sort of "internal purification" taking place, is the changing of one's heart.

"No, Paul's view of sacrifice as well as the gospel writers view of Jesus's sacrifice was as you put it " to be in right-standing" with God"

Really ? So you read minds and post no scholarly references ? Really ?
Are you like 12 ? The "majority of Biblical commentators" also thought the OT was literally true, and it's been proven to be pretty much all bullshit, as far as history goes.
The gospels have no (general) or equivalent view of "Jesus' sacrifice". Some don't even mention it at all. Show me where they agree and then show me how they agree with the Pauline literature.

Let's see the poll of Biblical commentators. Posting shit from a Christian site with no references to scholars doesn't cut it here. Of course they say that NOW. Assertions are proof of nothing. And lets see the proof of anything you assert and what you are claiming. Tertullian was not a Jew. Augustine was not a Jew. Neither were "very early on". And "very early on", would be in 1st Century. Prove it. Present-day Catholicism has no more a link to "early" anything than anyone else, (even though they CLAIM to). Catholic theology developed and CHANGED (as much as anything else did), and if you doubt that read the proceedings of the Councils : Ex :http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const2.asp
Clearly you are fully indoctrinated. You obviously have no education in ancient Hebrew culture, and how it related to how Christianity developed, or the early history of Christianity. You parrot the Christian line, and obviously have swallowed it, hook, line and sinker.

And BTW, the sacrifice "for forgiveness of sin" is NOT a Hebrew concept. When the young man in Matthew asked Jesus what he had to do to gain eternal life, he did not say "Just wait, I'll die for you", he said "Keep the commandments". You clearly don't even get the nuances of sacrifice. Purification in Hebrew culture, is NOT "purification from SIN". Please take a class. ASAP.

Martin Buber, the famous Jewish Talmud scholar and Philosopher, (whom Catholics love to quote, in "I and Thou") in his "Good and Evil", shows clearly how the "salvation paradigm" makes NO SENSE in terms of Hebrew culture. It ONLY makes sense if the Hebrew roots are jettisoned.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ins?page=2

"And the only sort of "internal purification" taking place, is the changing of one's heart." That is nether what Paul meant nor what Jews meant. It's Not what Catholics TODAY mean. Prove that that was ever what either group meant, with scholarly ORIGINAL references. It sure as hell is NOT what Catholics think is accomplished when "original sin" is "removed" by the *cleansing of baptism*, wrought by the sacrifice of Jebus. You clearly have not a clue what you are on about.

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
25-10-2014, 09:56 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(25-10-2014 06:38 AM)Learner Wrote:  
(25-10-2014 05:56 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Yeah, except that Alexander the Great is historically dependent, Jesus is not. Then take into account that all of the evidence for Jesus is no better than all of the legendary attachments to historical figures, and I'm left wondering how people justify existence as more plausible than myth? A historical Jesus is by no means required to explain anything in history or with the start and the success of Christianity.

I would recommend Bart Ehrman's book on the existence of Jesus to better understand why one scholar believes Jesus' existence is more plausible than myth. I've read Earl Doherty (and listened to Richard Carrier), and I don't find their work convincing.

That is a non-answer.


(25-10-2014 06:38 AM)Learner Wrote:  When you said "historically dependent," I assume you mean Alexander the Great had a large impact on history unlike Jesus. So in that case, I would say that based on what is historically plausible that Jesus did in his life, he should've been completely forgotten in history...some backwater failed apocalyptic prophet.

Right, so how is a historical failed backwater prophet more plausible than a myth, sans any evidence? Failed prophets existed, but so too did entirely fictitious figures and religions built around them.


(25-10-2014 06:38 AM)Learner Wrote:  (I mean, who remembers John the Baptist today outside of Christianity??) I think the rise of Christianity is mostly a matter of the right things happening at the right times, what with Paul spreading Christianity to the Gentiles and largely due to the Roman emperor Constantine converting to Christianity.

Still provides zero evidence for a historical Jesus.


(25-10-2014 06:38 AM)Learner Wrote:  I agree with your sentiment that there's a different quality and quantity to the historical evidence supporting the existence of Julius Caesar VS Jesus of Nazareth.

Right. Caesar meets the necessary burden of proof required for us to confidently say that he actually existed in history. I'm still not convinced how you think Jesus comes even close to competing.


(25-10-2014 06:38 AM)Learner Wrote:  But nonetheless, the historian's endeavor is to discern historically plausible explanations to explain all of the evidence and to sift through legend, if their is convincing evidence of the person's actual existence. In his book, going from memory, Ehrman cites multiply-attested sources that confirm the barest-bone aspects of Jesus' life (such as that he was crucified during Pontius Pilate's reign)...and if I remember right, there are historical aspects of Jesus' life that no one in their right mind would make up to later say Jesus is the Messiah (he came from Nazareth, not Bethlehem...he was baptized by John the Baptist as his follower...etc).

See, it's that kind of flawed reasoning that gets you in trouble in the first place. It's this sort of thing why Carrier actually attacked the entire basis of historical Jesus studies and showed how all of their reasoning and techniques are fundamentally flawed (he's not alone in his critique of their methods either). For example, the 'criterion of embarrassment' is a fucking joke.


(25-10-2014 06:38 AM)Learner Wrote:  I'm personally convinced of the opposite: I don't honestly understand how Jesus-disciples/Christianity could've originally taken off without a historical basis, if it was all made up.

See every other mystery cult/religion in the same time and place in history. Unless you're also convinced there was an actual historical Mythras, Bacchus, and Romulus as well? If Jesus actually did exist, he would have been the only one, the lone exception. Not very plausible, especially sans evidence.


(25-10-2014 06:38 AM)Learner Wrote:  My opinion is that the Jesus-never-existed position is like a conspiracy theory. I don't find it convincing that a bunch of people made up Jesus and went out to spread the news about him.

I don't find it convincing that a bunch of people made up Mythras and went out to spread the news about him.

I don't find it convincing that a bunch of people made up Romulus and went out to spread the news about him.

I don't find it convincing that a bunch of people made up Bacchus and went out to spread the news about him.


Your personal incredulity is not evidence for a historical Jesus. Drinking Beverage


(25-10-2014 06:38 AM)Learner Wrote:  I find it much more historically plausible that a follower of John the Baptist named Jesus had a small following who earnestly believed he was Israel's Messiah...then he was crucified...then they believed he had ascended to heaven and would come again. So they earnestly went out seeking to convert all their fellow Israelites...why?...to bring in the kingdom (Romans 11)!! There's just too much early evidence (whether extremely limited secular info or all the NT documents with interspersed historical info and events) that has to be explained away to say everything about Jesus was all made up. My two-cents.

Except that 'myth' explains a lot of it far better.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2014, 11:10 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(25-10-2014 11:55 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(25-10-2014 11:27 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Christians have long connected the Abraham and Issac myth to Jesus, even wikipedia points this out:

"The majority of Christian Biblical commentators view this episode as prefiguring God's plan to have his own Son, Jesus, die on the cross as a substitute for humanity, much like the ram God provided for Abraham. This fulfilled Abraham's reply to Isaac's question of where was the animal that would be used for the sacrifice; Abraham's affirmation that "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering" is seen as a prophetic foreshadow of the promise of the Lamb of God."

As far as the early Christians doing so, well here goes a link covering multiple sources doing just that:

http://www2.ferrum.edu/dhowell/txt_cntxt...istian.htm

So yes, Christians did make this connection, very early on in fact.
Really ? So you read minds and post no scholarly references ? Really ?
Are you like 12 ? The "majority of Biblical commentators" also thought the OT was literally true, and it's been proven to be pretty much all bullshit, as far as history goes.
The gospels have no (general) or equivalent view of "Jesus' sacrifice". Some don't even mention it at all. Show me where they agree and then show me how they agree with the Pauline literature.[....] Posting shit from a Christian site with no references to scholars doesn't cut it here. Of course they say that NOW. Assertions are proof of nothing. And lets see the proof of anything you assert and what you are claiming. Tertullian was not a Jew. Augustine was not a Jew. Neither were "very early on". And "very early on", would be in 1st Century. Prove it.

lol, way to move the goal posts there. Let me quote my previous remarks here, to show you doing this:

Quote:ME: …..a person who believes Jesus's was the messiah, the son of God, will likely see allusions in Abraham and Issac to the Jesus story, just like they would see in the suffering servant passage of Isaiah, even if the writers themselves were not making any messianic suggestions.

And:

Quote:ME: Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac may not have been used by these writers, but any reader today reading the passage can see the illusion to the death of Jesus, of God sacrificing his only son.

And here's your reply to this, with bolding for the relevant portions I responded to:

Quote:You:Neither a Jew, nor a Christian would connect the Abraham myth to Jesus, (and IF the Fathers of the Church, who no doubt did know about it, thought it made sense or could be useful, they would have used it, .. and they very well may have at some point).

I provided Christians who made that connection (the majority of bible commentators) along with a number of church fathers.

Now you want to move the goal post, and make it just Jews, and 1st century believers? And point out that the Gospel writers didn't even make this connection, even though I already stated this much already?

My point was that many Christians have connected these two stories, and I provided ample evidence of this, as early as the 2nd century. At this point I'm sure you realize this much at least.

Quote:Present-day Catholicism has no more a link to "early" anything than anyone else, (even though they CLAIM to). Catholic theology developed and CHANGED (as much as anything else did).

What I meant by link, is that catholicism still recognizes the writing of the Church fathers, and the early Christian understands as important aspect of their own understanding, and draw from the past as much as they do from the present in understanding catholic theology. While many strains of protestantism don't acknowledge the early writers to the same degree, and see much of their own theology as linked to the reformers, than the fathers, or the early traditions.

Quote: "And the only sort of "internal purification" taking place, is the changing of one's heart." That is nether what Paul meant nor what Jews meant. It's Not what Catholics TODAY mean.

Let's see what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say about the catholic view of atonement:

Quote:The word atonement, which is almost the only theological term of English origin, has a curious history. The verb "atone", from the adverbial phrase "at one" (M.E. at oon), at first meant to reconcile, or make "at one"; from this it came to denote the action by which such reconciliation was effected, e.g. satisfaction for all offense or an injury. Hence, in Catholic theology, the Atonement is the Satisfaction of Christ, whereby God and the world are reconciled or made to be at one. "

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm

One thing the Catholic Encyclopedia notes, is that Atonement theologies have always been speculative. And it's likely that Paul nor the Gospels writers had anywhere near a full concept of atonement either. While they all recognized that Christ death brought man into reconciliation with God, they themselves likely had no flushed out atonement theology, to explain the underlying mechanics of this. This is likely why, we sort of have to confess that our own understanding of atonement are more speculation, rather than one's we can subscribe to the NT writers as held with any real certainty. We might have some parameters to work with in terms of speculating, but we do not have the ability to argue for one exact atonement theology with a degree of confidence that rules out all other understandings of atonement completely.

With that said, I don't think penal substation, , or the sort of atonement theology professed by protestants, which seems to be the understanding you have in mind, is the best fit in describing the views of Paul. As this case has been made by a number of protestant NT Scholars, such as NT Wright, in the New Perspective on Paul.

But in regards to the Catholics views, i quote again:

Quote:"In any view, the Atonement is founded on the Divine Incarnation. By this great mystery, the Eternal Word took to Himself the nature of man and, being both God and man, became the Mediator between God and men. From this, we have one of the first and most profound forms of theological speculation on the Atonement, the theory which is sometimes described as Mystical Redemption." [...]

This speculation of the Greek Fathers undoubtedly contains a profound truth which is sometimes forgotten by later authors who are more intent on framing juridical theories of ransom and satisfaction. But it is obvious that this account of the matter is imperfect, and leaves much to be explained. It must be remembered, moreover, that the Fathers themselves do not put this forward as a full explanation. For while many of their utterances might seem to imply that the Redemption was actually accomplished by the union of a Divine Person with the human nature, it is clear from other passages that they do not lose sight of the atoning sacrifice. The Incarnation is, indeed, the source and the foundation of the Atonement, and these profound thinkers have, so to say, grasped the cause and its effects as one vast whole. Hence they look on to the result before staying to consider the means by which it was accomplished."

Quote:Clearly you are fully indoctrinated.

Well, i attend a protestant church, and was raised by Pentecostal parents, all of which despise Catholics. So me agreeing with the Catholics here, would in fact be the antithesis of whatever indoctrination I would have been a part of, lol. I agree with the Catholic views on atonement, as outlined above, only because it appears to make better sense of the scriptures, than the protestant understanding that I've been raised in.

Quote:You parrot the Christian line, and obviously have swallowed it, hook, line and sinker.

If you didn't spend so much time attaching various beliefs to me, and actually listened to what I had to say a bit more judiciously, you'd likely realize that i'm not someone who swallowed the Christian line, or merely parrots it.

Quote:And BTW, the sacrifice "for forgiveness of sin" is NOT a Hebrew concept. When the young man in Matthew asked Jesus what he had to do to gain eternal life, he did not say "Just wait, I'll die for you", he said "Keep the commandments". You clearly don't even get the nuances of sacrifice.

Of course he didn't tell him to wait till he dies. On this point we're actually in agreement, and if you read my previous remarks a little more carefully you would have saw where I wrote that understanding Jesus's death in relationship to atonement, can only be done so in the context of Jesus's life and message, and can't be understood extrapolated from it.

In regards to the man's question about inserting eternal life, in the Luke 10 version of the story, the commandments are summarized as: What is written in the law? How do you read it?”
27
He said in reply, “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your being, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself."

So if we are to say anything about atonement, the meaning of Christ's death and resurrection, and it's bearing on us entering into a true relationship with God, it has to be understood in this background, with such teachings in mind. So any attempt to create an atonement theology that's extrapolated from this sort of context, is bound to failure.

Quote:"And the only sort of "internal purification" taking place, is the changing of one's heart." That is nether what Paul meant nor what Jews meant. It's Not what Catholics TODAY mean. Prove that that was ever what either group meant, with scholarly ORIGINAL references.

Well, I think you'd have to consider the role of repentence in relationship to atonement. We so far have only spoken of atonement with God and Jesus in mind, and not the actual person, or believer who is the recipient of that atonement, and what is required of him. And this, which pretty most christian traditions would agree, requires repentance.

Which is understood to mean "turning one's heart".

Again, referencing the Catholic Encyclopedia: "Contrition must be real and sincere sorrow of heart, and not merely an external manifestation of repentance. The Old Testament Prophets laid particular stress on the necessity of hearty repentance. The Psalmist says that God despises not the "contrite heart" (Ps. I, 19), and the call to Israel was, "Be converted to me with all your heart . . . and rend your hearts, and not your garments" " http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04337a.htm.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a christian of any stripe who disagree with this.

I noticed you keep asking that I narrow my references to scholars, but I don't see why I should do this, since we are speaking of the beliefs of actual christians, and not solely the views of NT scholars.

I think your understanding on this subject is crude at best. And while you may be able to regurgitate a quote or two, your actual ability to understand what is being written is lacking to say the least. You can't even seem to distinguish between Christian beliefs, and the views of NT Scholars, or Jews and 1st century christians, and the church fathers, or the relationship between atonement and repentence. I believe whatever leaves you confused in making these simple distinctions, is the source of what leads to misunderstandings, or incomplete understandings of christian theology, or even scripture as a whole.

I don't see why we should give much weight to your understanding of the NT, when you can't seem to understand even these small points.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2014, 11:41 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(25-10-2014 09:25 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  . all lead me to think, while we will never know for sure, Jesus probably never existed, and he was a conflated "meme" invented later.

Wow, I didn't realize you were a myther as well, which is odd. You seemed to have been arguing this whole time, that reading Jesus back into scripture took place after the fact. And that you decided to fight me over the whole allusions regarding Abraham and Isaac, something that a typical mythicist would have somewhat agreed with me over.

If I were inventing a fictional Messiah Jesus, what sense would it make to have to read aspects of his life back into scripture, when I could have just created his fictional life as faithful as possible to these scriptures? Why claim he was from nazareth, when I could have just made it that he was born in Bethlehem, rather that create some convoluted story about a census to attach his life to messianic prophecies?

It appears you're someone given to talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Was there already some non-messiah mythical Jesus story going around, whom the writers felt was the messiah, and they had to squeeze the early narratives of this pre-existent to fulfill OT prophecies? If so, why would they have needed to do this? Was the story of this early non-messiah fictional Jesus, well known by their early readers, that the writers couldn't deny elements such as him being fictionally born in Nazereth?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2014, 11:48 PM (This post was last modified: 26-10-2014 12:12 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(25-10-2014 11:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  lol, way to move the goal posts there. Let me quote my previous remarks here, to show you doing this:

Quote:ME: …..a person who believes Jesus's was the messiah, the son of God, will likely see allusions in Abraham and Issac to the Jesus story, just like they would see in the suffering servant passage of Isaiah, even if the writers themselves were not making any messianic suggestions.

And:

Quote:ME: Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac may not have been used by these writers, but any reader today reading the passage can see the illusion to the death of Jesus, of God sacrificing his only son.

I provided Christians who made that connection (the majority of bible commentators) along with a number of church fathers.

First of all you said "illusions" (twice), not "allusions", (which calls into question your education level).
You "provided" no such thing. You quoted a Wiki assertion, concerning a non-existent "majority" which you still have failed to provide support for. Then you quoted two "Church Fathers"that you claimed were "early" who were not "early".

There are no goal posts being moved here. The thread is concerning the Rabbi's understanding of the JEWISH concept of a messiah, not a Christian one. If you want to talk about Christian delusions, feel free to start your own thread, with your "illusions". He did not see any of the things you claim. We're talking about the JEWISH messiah, not the fake one that Christians invented much later.

(25-10-2014 11:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  My point was that many Christians have connected these two stories, and I provided ample evidence of this, as early as the 2nd century. At this point I'm sure you realize this much at least.

You quoted two, and asserted others with no proof. You failed. No one cares if LATER Christians connected the Abraham MYTH with the Christ MYTH. It's not what this thread is about. JEWS did not see the connection. We're talking about the JEWISH messiah.

(25-10-2014 11:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  What I meant by link, is that catholicism still recognizes the writing of the Church fathers, and the early Christian understands as important aspect of their own understanding, and draw from the past as much as they do from the present in understanding catholic theology. While many strains of protestantism don't acknowledge the early writers to the same degree, and see much of their own theology as linked to the reformers, than the fathers, or the early traditions.

Catholicism is appropriately capitalized.
Totally false, and assertions with no evidence. Some CLAIM they do. Clearly you have never studied either Catholic or Protestant anything. Biblical Studies does not even recognize the difference. You have a very rudimentary knowledge of both, apparently.

(25-10-2014 11:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Let's see what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say about the catholic view of atonement:

Let's not. I don't care what Catholics think. We're not talking about the Catholic messiah. Proof you have no clue what we're even discussing. We WERE talking about "sacrificial purification" and it's nuances, not atonement. YOU just moved the goal-posts.

(25-10-2014 11:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  But in regards to the Catholics views, i quote again:

[quote]"In any view, the Atonement is founded on the Divine Incarnation. By this great mystery, the Eternal Word took to Himself the nature of man and, being both God and man, became the Mediator between God and men. From this, we have one of the first and most profound forms of theological speculation on the Atonement, the theory which is sometimes described as Mystical Redemption." [...]

This speculation of the Greek Fathers undoubtedly contains a profound truth which is sometimes forgotten by later authors who are more intent on framing juridical theories of ransom and satisfaction. But it is obvious that this account of the matter is imperfect, and leaves much to be explained. It must be remembered, moreover, that the Fathers themselves do not put this forward as a full explanation. For while many of their utterances might seem to imply that the Redemption was actually accomplished by the union of a Divine Person with the human nature, it is clear from other passages that they do not lose sight of the atoning sacrifice. The Incarnation is, indeed, the source and the foundation of the Atonement, and these profound thinkers have, so to say, grasped the cause and its effects as one vast whole. Hence they look on to the result before staying to consider the means by which it was accomplished."

Bla bla bla bla ..
You can stop preaching any time. I know what they say. It's garbage. There is no "divine" anything, there was no "incarnation". It's all made up crap.

(25-10-2014 11:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I noticed you keep asking that I narrow my references to scholars, but I don't see why I should do this, since we are speaking of the beliefs of actual christians, and not solely the views of NT scholars.

Christians is appropriately capitalized, Ms "Illusions".
I don't care what the delusional think. I only care what scholars think, which clearly you have no clue about, and have no background in. We are talking about what JEWS thought about a messiah. The 33,000 sects of Christians believe all sorts of garbage. Most of them, (like you) know nothing of real scholarship in any of the related fields.

(25-10-2014 11:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I think your understanding on this subject is crude at best.

Then you haven't read any of the links I provided, Ms Newbie. I could care less what you think. You have demonstrated all you can do is quote the Catholic Encyclopedia, and are unable to discuss the nuances of anything by thinking for yourself. I know all about it. I REJECT it. It's all garbage. Invented garbage, with not a shred of evidence for any of it.

(25-10-2014 11:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I don't see why we should give much weight to your understanding of the NT, when you can't seem to understand even these small points.

Really? Are YOU in Divinity School at Harvard.
Guess who is ?
The problem is I see through the usual Christian believer bullshit, and you don't like it, as you are totally indoctrinated and are unable to think for yourself.
"We" ? We ? Who is WE ? You are on an atheist site and all you can do is cut and paste from the Catholic Encyclopedia, and betray don't have a clue about the real sources, history scholarship of your own cult.

The fact is, as the thread title says, the mythical Jesus of Nazareth failed in every way to complete the tasks that the Jewish messiah was to get done, and the fact that some delusion Christians say he did, is irrelevant to the facts. Nothing was accomplished that the JEWISH messiah was to get done, and JEWS don't think he did.

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
26-10-2014, 12:08 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
Hey Bucky just wondering, for your biblical courses did you ever use the Oxford History of the Biblical World as a textbook?

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2014, 12:08 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(25-10-2014 10:12 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Do you see any possibility that the writers of the NT gospels used the OT stories as inspiration for their own works?

Well clearly they did in many parts of their own work, particularly in aspects of Jesus's life outside of his short few years of ministry, like when it came to his birth narratives. The writers, and likely jesus's own followers new very few biographical details of his earlier life, and that's likely why Mark left a birth narrative out completely from his gospel.

It's evident that the whole story of Mary and Joseph fleeing from Egypt, and Herod's killing of the innocent, rather than expressing historical facts, were adapted from the story of Moses. So yes in some parts, the writers did exactly this.

Quote:In other words, it isn't that the stories of Abraham and Isaiah allude to Jesus but rather that the story of Jesus is (intentionally) patterned after the older stories? The allusions that Christians make are being made backwards.

While this seems to have been the case with certain aspects of the birth narratives, it doesn't seem to have been the case with Abraham and Isaac. The similarities exists only between the notion of Fathers having to sacrifice their own Sons, and that's pretty much where it stops. The fact that Jesus died at the hands of mob violence, and was crucified by the Romans, in ways unlike a typical jewish sacrifice indicates that the source of this story wasn't borrowed from the OT, but rather a historical predicament, and an unexpected one at that, that they had to make sense of after the fact.

It's sort of like how early african americans saw allusions to the cross in the lynching tree, and their own suffering and struggle with that of Jesus. Many black preachers and poets even used the story of black simon, who was compelled to carry the cross against his own will, as foreshadowing of their own predicament. This is kind of what takes place when Christians read the Isaac story as foreshadowing Jesus death on the cross. These allusions were likely not intentional, but rather us reading certain circumstances back into the text.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2014, 12:13 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
In regards to the point about Jews not seeing the prophets as being prophetic, one problem I've always had with this is that Matthew was a Jew and he was very much writing for a Jewish audience, yet he is the one who brings out the Isaiah prophecy the most. So he's at least one Jew who saw it as prophecy and I think it wouldn't be hugely improper to assume his audience thought similarly.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2014, 12:19 AM (This post was last modified: 26-10-2014 12:25 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
I have Coogans book, and have had him for class. Yes, we are acquainted with it.
The view of prophecy CHANGED which you would know if you had ever really studied it with a real scholar. Towards the change of the Millennium, it became popular (by the time Matthew was assembled) to use the peshers as predictions, which was NOT the case in Ancient Israel.

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
26-10-2014, 12:23 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(25-10-2014 11:41 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Wow, I didn't realize you were a myther as well, which is odd. You seemed to have been arguing this whole time, that reading Jesus back into scripture took place after the fact. And that you decided to fight me over the whole allusions regarding Abraham and Isaac, something that a typical mythicist would have somewhat agreed with me over.

If I were inventing a fictional Messiah Jesus, what sense would it make to have to read aspects of his life back into scripture, when I could have just created his fictional life as faithful as possible to these scriptures? Why claim he was from nazareth, when I could have just made it that he was born in Bethlehem, rather that create some convoluted story about a census to attach his life to messianic prophecies?

It appears you're someone given to talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Was there already some non-messiah mythical Jesus story going around, whom the writers felt was the messiah, and they had to squeeze the early narratives of this pre-existent to fulfill OT prophecies? If so, why would they have needed to do this? Was the story of this early non-messiah fictional Jesus, well known by their early readers, that the writers couldn't deny elements such as him being fictionally born in Nazereth?

Yes, there were all kinds of other messiah stories/figures around, (which you are obviously totally ignorant of, as well as most everything about this subject).

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: