Was Mary asked to come get Jesus for being mad
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-03-2016, 12:32 PM
Was Mary asked to come get Jesus for being mad
(24-03-2016 12:13 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 12:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  So he wasn't just a normal rabbi, but the leader of a possibly violent Jewish revolt against Rome?

What was this Rabbi teaching?
I don't know I'd Simon was or not a rabbi but he was one of several failed hopeful messiahs at the time.

The rabbi that became Jesus could of been teaching the status quo and letter of the Torah. And just maybe saw it as Rome being the modern babalyon or asyria and the Jews would regain more strength in control again.

So nothing even remotely resembling the Yeshua of the gospels, not even in teachings?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 12:36 PM
RE: Was Mary asked to come get Jesus for being mad
(24-03-2016 12:32 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 12:13 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I don't know I'd Simon was or not a rabbi but he was one of several failed hopeful messiahs at the time.

The rabbi that became Jesus could of been teaching the status quo and letter of the Torah. And just maybe saw it as Rome being the modern babalyon or asyria and the Jews would regain more strength in control again.

So nothing even remotely resembling the Yeshua of the gospels, not even in teachings?

That actually is pretty identical to NUMEROUS sayings and teachings held within his supposed quotes.

Except for like all of John but that being later written and of a different angle is pretty clearly contrasting in ideas from the others. Hell, most claims you would stake his lunacy or liar attitude come from John where the whole playing up god element does come out way more.

It's not farfetched to think the legend could just be as possible as liar/lunatic/lord connections.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 02:09 PM
RE: Was Mary asked to come get Jesus for being mad
(24-03-2016 11:38 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 09:39 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Lewis gave 3 options: liar, lunatic, or lord. There are really 4 options and Lewis either didn't think of the legend or he blatantly left it out. The legend possibilty also can be for a ficticious person thereby negating the liar or lunatic possibilty. You did not take that possability into account. Legends such as Count Dracula are based on a real person who was very disturbed. That is why legend is also a valid possibility because it can be for either a real or ficticious person.

You objection here would only work if the position of liar lunatic, or lord was suggested by a fundie literalist. If you were to claim that certain aspects of the Gospel accounts are not historical, were created by their respective communities and authors, etc...Lewis would agree with you.

Pointing out that certain aspects of the Gospel accounts are unlikely to be historical, does not address whether the historical persons behind it was either a liar, or a lunatic, or lord.


As your own possibility already suggest, that it was possibly based on a historical lunatic, here you're not taking a forth option, but the lunatic option.

However, the pure legend option still remains. I don't think for one second that Lewis would agree with me either. He utterly dismissed 2/3 of the options he presents without any real analysis and ignored/omitted the 4th option. I don't think that most, if any of the gospels are historical beyond the mentioning of people like Pilate or Caesar. And if there was a historical lunatic or historical liar, that can STILL become legend as what they said or did was exaggerated. The legend option still is an option even if there was a historical Yeshua. You don't seem to understand how legends can work.

Elvis was a real person. He said and did real things. But the legend of the King is much larger than his life was. The same goes for Washington and the cherry tree, Lincoln and the slaves......

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 02:17 PM
RE: Was Mary asked to come get Jesus for being mad
(24-03-2016 12:36 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  It's not farfetched to think the legend could just be as possible as liar/lunatic/lord connections.

Ummmmm, no. They are all not as likely. The lord option is the least likely by a long, long, loooooooooonnnnggggg shot. No supernatural element has ever been demonstrated as even possible. If you want to look at it from a pure probability stance, (i.e. #of known ways/total #of ways) the number of possible known outcomes for the supernatural is 0. I don't even have to know the denominator to know that the probability is 0 or near 0. We know for a fact that there are loons and liars. Just look at the christian apologists, lots of liars and loons there.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes The Organic Chemist's post
24-03-2016, 02:39 PM
Was Mary asked to come get Jesus for being mad
(24-03-2016 02:09 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  However, the pure legend option still remains. I don't think for one second that Lewis would agree with me either.

The pure legend option is only marginally better that the 5th option, that Jesus was a space alien.

Belonging to an audience ignored or dismissed, Lewis argument is addressed to an audience, Christians, atheist or otherwise, who accepts the view of most historians and scholars that there was a historical Jesus, not those belonging to the fringe that imagined otherwise.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 02:41 PM
Was Mary asked to come get Jesus for being mad
(24-03-2016 02:17 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 12:36 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  It's not farfetched to think the legend could just be as possible as liar/lunatic/lord connections.

Ummmmm, no. They are all not as likely. The lord option is the least likely by a long, long, loooooooooonnnnggggg shot. No supernatural element has ever been demonstrated as even possible. If you want to look at it from a pure probability stance, (i.e. #of known ways/total #of ways) the number of possible known outcomes for the supernatural is 0. I don't even have to know the denominator to know that the probability is 0 or near 0. We know for a fact that there are loons and liars. Just look at the christian apologists, lots of liars and loons there.

No supernatural element can be demonstrated as possible, if we were to observe an actual supernatural event, we'd either define it as a product of an unknown natural cause, or label whatever new found properties being observed as natural.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 02:59 PM
RE: Was Mary asked to come get Jesus for being mad
(24-03-2016 02:39 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 02:09 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  However, the pure legend option still remains. I don't think for one second that Lewis would agree with me either.

The pure legend option is only marginally better that the 5th option, that Jesus was a space alien.

Belonging to an audience ignored or dismissed, Lewis argument is addressed to an audience, Christians, atheist or otherwise, who accepts the view of most historians and scholars that there was a historical Jesus, not those belonging to the fringe that imagined otherwise.

I see this a little differently. Lewis's argument implicitly assumes not only that there was a historical Jesus, but that the Gospels are an accurate representation of what he said and did. I find the second of those to be a huge assumption, given that the Gospels were probably written 40 years or more after the death of Jesus, and probably by people who never knew him or even saw him. They are hearsay. And this is not a fringe or minority opinion. It is the general consensus of Biblical scholars.

The legend hypothesis doesn't have to be "pure" legend. I am willing to concede that there probably was a historical itinerant preacher named Jesus who got on the wrong side of the Romans and was crucified by them. But I think the Gospels are likely to be considerably embellished, and I take everything in them with a huge grain of salt. I don't share Lewis's assumption that they are historically accurate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
27-03-2016, 08:22 PM
RE: Was Mary asked to come get Jesus for being mad
(22-03-2016 09:21 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(20-03-2016 10:43 AM)Aliza Wrote:  The Jews had been forbidden to study Torah, so they selected writings from the prophets that they felt mirrored the lessons taught in the Torah. The Haftorah serves a purpose. Isaiah 53 does not fulfill the Haftorah’s purpose. That’s why it’s not included. The Haftorah was arranged prior to Jesus, so I don’t know why you’re bothering with this at all.

If I was selling you a house, and I neglected to point out the mailbox (which we will assume is a perfectly normal, functioning mailbox), was I being dishonest? No, it’s just not regarded as an important feature in purchasing a house. Isaiah 53 doesn’t help the Haftorah achieve its goal. People who wanted to read it could read it at any time. The books were right there in the synagogue. -And they did read it (outside of the haftorah reading), they did discuss it, and they never saw Jesus anywhere in it.

If it was Isaiah 52 that didn’t serve the function established for the Haftorah, then the Christians would have painted Jesus all over that chapter instead and still accused us of dodging him. It doesn’t matter which chapter wasn’t included. The Christians will use anything to discredit us. (and then they wonder why we won’t convert!)

Can you give me the passages from my book where it says that G-d plans to come down to earth as a human and die for our sins, and that we’d better believe in this event otherwise we’ll burn in eternal hell? In the words of Mark Fulton, this is not rhetorical. Please actually do this for me. I don't want any peek-a-boo prophecy, either. My eternal soul is on the line here, so I want plain, unambiguous language that I can't misinterpret or misunderstand.

I understand the Haftorah construction, process, thanks. The lessons chosen began the move away from personal atonement from God to personal atonement on one's own behalf. But this is logical, since when Torah sacrifices are halted/obstructed SOMETHING has to be done for sin.

I was trying to point you to the suffering servant passages that you feel are about the nation of Israel. If you read verses that are clearly about Y'shua (or at least an individual and not a nation) as being about a whole nation... why would you choose to understand any unambiguous prophecy?

Your eternal soul and mine are on the line, yes. I think we can find what you are seeking in Tanakh, so let's take it one piece at a time. Let's start with this, and I'll add a few notes/questions for us to review:

For He was cut off from the land of the living; [either a person or Israel DIED]

For the transgressions of My people He was stricken. [either a person, a "He" was struck for Israel or Israel was struck to self-atone]

And they made His grave with the wicked— [Jesus was crucified between convicted thieves or else Israel died as a nation among wicked nations]

But with the rich at His death, [Jesus was entombed not in a family tomb but a wealthy man's donated, empty tomb or else Israel died among wealthy nations]

Because He had done no violence, [He was not a murderer/fighter/killer or else Israel, the nation, has never done violence in the Tanakh or since]

Nor was any deceit in His mouth. [Either the nation of Israel or a person has never lied]

Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; [God was happy to beat/bruise/kill one person or the entire nation of Israel]

He has put Him to grief. [God made Israel grieve or else one person was put to grief.]

When You make His soul an offering for sin, [Either one person, a "He," or the nation of Israel was sacrificed for the sin of others.]

He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, [Either one person or the nation of Israel revived from the dead, and then saw their children -- who are the children of Israel who are not Israel itself?]

And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand. [Either God's pleasure is being worked among Israel or from one person]

So, that's just some of Isaiah 53, not including the 53 passage or many other passages we can look at.

And if you can tell me you believe and understand this is referring to a prophecy that national, corporate, racial, Israel, a people with millions since the time of the writing of Isaiah, has DIED and RESURRECTED, and not that the "suffering servant", a singular person, has died and resurrected, then how can I ever share with you the "unambiguous" prophecy you seek?

Thanks for considering this all carefully.

I looked through your quotes, but I really can't begin to have a proper conversation with you about them until you use a reliable translation. I recommend a Tanakh from Judaica Press or from Art Scroll.

Just out of curiosity, who is the servant in this KJV verse? Please keep in mind, it's not separate from Isaiah 53. The chapter numbers are not native to the text.

Isaiah 54:17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aliza's post
27-03-2016, 08:46 PM
RE: Was Mary asked to come get Jesus for being mad
(24-03-2016 02:39 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 02:09 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  However, the pure legend option still remains. I don't think for one second that Lewis would agree with me either.

The pure legend option is only marginally better that the 5th option, that Jesus was a space alien.

Space alien is STILL more plausible than supernatural hippie who doesn't know the growing season for figs.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
27-03-2016, 08:49 PM (This post was last modified: 28-03-2016 08:08 AM by The Organic Chemist.)
RE: Was Mary asked to come get Jesus for being mad
(24-03-2016 02:41 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 02:17 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Ummmmm, no. They are all not as likely. The lord option is the least likely by a long, long, loooooooooonnnnggggg shot. No supernatural element has ever been demonstrated as even possible. If you want to look at it from a pure probability stance, (i.e. #of known ways/total #of ways) the number of possible known outcomes for the supernatural is 0. I don't even have to know the denominator to know that the probability is 0 or near 0. We know for a fact that there are loons and liars. Just look at the christian apologists, lots of liars and loons there.

No supernatural element can be demonstrated as possible, if we were to observe an actual supernatural event, we'd either define it as a product of an unknown natural cause, or label whatever new found properties being observed as natural.

Here I would agree with you sort of. While there could be a phenomenon that is currently unexplainable that is temporarily placed in the unexplained category, I do think that if the supernatural were observed, it may be completely unexplainable.

For example: if prayer actually did something observable like consistently grew limbs back or made bald men hairy again. We would try to explain it naturally but if prayer consistently worked, we would likely not be able to find a natural explanation.

Since you brought it up in this manner, what would you look for in terms of supernatural vs natural phenomenon that is not understood yet? (i.e. lightning 500 years ago).


Edit: something else, if prayer was testable, verifiable, and supernatural, we should see it's fruits and not be able to explain it. It would also prevent blasphemy, which would be flasely attributing or refuting things done by god. Why would a god NOT make it obvious of his presence unless it doesn't want to be seen?

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: