Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jesus: Why I believe He was a failure.
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


(1)
Message 1 of 427 (539888)
12-20-2009 12:08 PM


I’ll make this fairly brief and list just a few reasons and examples of why I believe that Jesus was a failure. I dare say that a few more reasons will be added as the thread develops.
Anyway, the first issue is in relation to the aspirations of Jesus as the promised Messiah of the Tanakh. I have been constantly reminded by Christians that Jesus was the Messiah, but have they really examined the evidence or are they so blinded by faith that they cannot see the obvious?
What is the evidence then? Well the ONLY record of the life of Jesus is the text of the New Testament and of other biblical texts (such as The Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Barnabas) that did not make the cut when the editing committees constructed the NT. Since these texts are not normally referred to when making a case for Jesus’ Messianic claims we just need to look at the current NT texts.
We also have to look at another collection of texts, The Tanakh, since that is where the origins of messianic ideology begin. We need to look there to discover what the Messiah actually is then apply the verses to the life of Jesus we have in the NT.
Thirdly, we need to look at the historical evidence. The events that the Old and the New Testaments relate did not take place in a vacuum. Many of these events would have had a huge impact of the face of history so it is an important resource. Also, many of these events need to be examined for historical plausibility we cannot just accept something because it appears in writing.
Remember that these are some of my reasons for concluding that Jesus was not the Messiah, and I don’t expect any of the believers to be convinced by any of these conclusions. I was asked why I conclude that Jesus was a failure, and the following is just a brief outline.
Firstly, it is a basic understanding that the Messiah will be a descendant of King David, and in particular a descendant of David’s son Solomon (the so-called ‘Nathan prophecy’)
2 Samuel 7:8-13
"Now then, tell my servant David, 'This is what the LORD Almighty says: I took you from the pasture and from following the flock to be ruler over my people Israel. I have been with you wherever you have gone, and I have cut off all your enemies from before you. Now I will make your name great, like the names of the greatest men of the earth. And I will provide a place for my people Israel and will plant them so that they can have a home of their own and no longer be disturbed. Wicked people will not oppress them anymore, as they did at the beginning and have done ever since the time I appointed leaders over my people Israel. I will also give you rest from all your enemies.
'The LORD declares to you that the LORD himself will establish a house for you: When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.
So this is very straightforward, to be the Messiah you have to be a descendant of David through his son Solomon, does Jesus fulfil this criteria?
I’m not going to go into every detail here as this is just the opening post, but we should all be aware that there are a great many issues surrounding the two conflicting genealogies given in Matthew and Luke for Jesus’ father Joseph.
The first issue with these genealogies is that they are both artificial. Matthew arranges his in 3 groups of 14, if we include Jesus. Matthew quite clearly omits many of Jesus’ ‘ancestors’ to achieve this order, for example Matthew gives only a few names to cover centuries of time, Boaz, Obed and Jesses covers a period of over 350 years, so we know that names must be missing. Luke also arranges his genealogies in sets of 7, but does have a more realistic number of ancestors, although there are difficulties such as three generations covering a period of 430 years (Aminadab, Aram, Esron).
It is universally accepted, probably because it is so obvious, that the two genealogies of Jospeh are artificial. For me this sets off alarm bells. Why are these genealogies so different, and since they are artificial then they are artificial for a reason. This brings into question the reliability of the testimony of the authors of these Gospels, if they are tampering already with the evidence then we know that they are not completely reliable.
It has been suggested that the genealogy of Luke is that of Jesus’ mother Mary, but this causes more difficulties that it solves. If this is Mary’s genealogy it only goes back to David through his son Nathan, and as we know the Messiah is to come from the line of David but through Solomon, so this idea is useless. What I find very interesting regarding Luke’s genealogy being Mary’s is the fact that both genealogies were accepted as being Jesus’ for nearly 1500 years. The apologetic suggesting that this was Mary’s genealogy was only presented in the 15th century by Annius of Viterbo. Most damning of this proposal is the fact that Mary is NOT mentioned in Luke’s genealogy. So, if these are the genealogies of two different people then why did it take nearly 1500 to suggest this, surely it would have been accepted from the very start?
Then we have the oft discussed topic that if Jesus was born of a virgin then he is not Joseph’s son, and therefore not a descendant of David, so no Messiah. There are other issues with genealogies, I’m sure we will get to them, but these two superficial glances at His genealogies already bring into doubt the reliability of the written record of Jesus’ life.
The Nathan Prophecy is also one source that informs us that the Messiah would also sit on the throne of Israel. Jesus claimed to be a king:
Young’s Literal Translation John 18:37
Pilate, therefore, said to him, `Art thou then a king?' Jesus answered, `Thou dost say ; because a king I am , I for this have been born, and for this I have come to the world, that I may testify to the truth; every one who is of the truth, doth hear my voice.'
NIV
You are a king, then! said Pilate. Jesus answered, You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.
There is no mention of Jesus’ coronation in the NT or in secular sources, so Jesus lied, or the poor guy was so deluded that He actually believed that He had been crowned king of Israel.
There is no record of Jesus ever being crowned king of Israel, you think that the NT, and secular sources, would have mentioned His coronation, but Jesus was never crowned king of Israel, thus He was not the Messiah.
The Messiah would also set Israel free from her oppressors, and gather the Jewish nation back to Israel.
Isaiah 11:12
He will raise a banner for the nations and gather the exiles of Israel; he will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth.
Does this sound remotely like anything that Jesus achieved? Jesus failed here too because Israel was even more oppressed after Jesus’ birth arrival and death.
Next up, the Messianic age would witness the rebuilding the Temple on Temple Mount.
Isaiah 2:2
In the last days
the mountain of the LORD's temple will be established
as chief among the mountains;
it will be raised above the hills,
and all nations will stream to it.
Jesus did not build any Temple, in fact the Temple He knew was still standing during His lifetime so this makes it even more obvious that Jesus was no Messiah.
The Messiah will also bring to an end all war and establish peace on Earth.
Micah 4:3
He will judge between many peoples and will settle disputes for strong nations far and wide. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.
Where’s this peace that Jesus should have brought? Since His death we have developed weapons that can destroy the entire Earth! Once again Jesus has failed.
The long and the short of it is that Jesus failed to fulfil a single messianic prophecy, and is therefore a failed preacher. Feel free to call Jesus The Messiah if you want to, but He certainly was not The Messiah promised by Yahweh in the Tanakh, to think so is simply perverse.
Bible study please.
Edited by Brian, : spelin

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Jazzns, posted 12-21-2009 10:53 AM Brian has replied
 Message 27 by Buzsaw, posted 12-22-2009 8:11 PM Brian has replied
 Message 73 by Barabbas126, posted 12-26-2009 12:26 PM Brian has not replied
 Message 129 by Brad H, posted 01-06-2010 3:00 AM Brian has replied
 Message 264 by John 10:10, posted 01-25-2010 1:15 PM Brian has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 5 of 427 (539934)
12-20-2009 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Briterican
12-20-2009 5:38 PM


Re: Immaculate deception
Additionally, before Christians can even begin to tackle this apparent conundrum, they should first consider the apparent origin of the virgin birth story:
This is not the only problem with this though. The child mentioned in Isaiah 7:14 was born 700 years before Jesus!
Plus, according to the Nathan prophecy the Messiah will be an ADOPTED son of Yahweh, not an actual son.
Also, the Messiah was never seen as a divine being.
The whole thing is just a mess. Whoever wrote the Gospel of Matthew made a huge error here. It is assumed that the author was using a poor Greek translation of the Tanakh when he made this mistake.
There's a nice little clue in Paul's 1 Timothy 1:3-4 as to the construction of Jesus' ancestors.
As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer 4nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's workwhich is by faith.
To me this suggests that there have always been controversies surrounding Jesus' bloodline, PAul probably heard so many of them that he felt compelled to ask people to give it a rest.
He appears completely fed up with it all in Titus 3:9
But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.
I'm sure the usual apologetics will be trotted out here soon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Briterican, posted 12-20-2009 5:38 PM Briterican has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by hooah212002, posted 12-20-2009 8:34 PM Brian has not replied
 Message 13 by Jazzns, posted 12-21-2009 10:56 AM Brian has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 8 of 427 (539969)
12-21-2009 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Dawn Bertot
12-21-2009 1:30 AM


Re: Immaculate deception
During first century times, if a Jewish man adopted a son, that son receives the father's lineage. Therefore, according to Jewish tradition, Jesus would be given the genealogy of his adopted father."
I'd be very interested in seeing Breedlove's support for this claim because it is contrary to what the Tanakh says and and history tells us that Jewish adoption was unknown in the first century, did he reference it in his article?
Also, where in the New Testament does it indicate that Joseph adopted Jesus?
So, 2 things.
1. Scriptural support for the claim that Joseph adopted Jesus.
2. Evidence that adoption was a Jewish custom in the first century.
Thanks.
Edited by Brian, : Formating error

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-21-2009 1:30 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 10 of 427 (539978)
12-21-2009 9:06 AM


For those interested
Anyone who has been hit with the ‘Ah but Jesus was Joseph’s adopted son, so He qualifies for Davidic ancestry through adoption’ apologetic that many Christians uncritically accept, this is an interesting article:
Levin, Yigal (2006) Jesus, ‘Son of God’ and ‘Son of David’: The ‘Adoption’ of Jesus into the Davidic Line. Journal for the Study of the New Testament 2006; 28; 415-442
Here are some extracts from it.
p.422
But when pressed for either precedence or proof of such adoption, the vast majority of commentators simply refer to ‘Jewish custom’ or ‘Jewish Law’. As early as 1930, Machen stated that in the Jews’ ‘Semitic way of thinking’, they looked upon ‘adoptive fatherhood in a much more realistic way than we look upon it’ (Machen, J.G. (1930) The Virgin Birth of Christ p.129 (New York: Harper & Brothers).
p. 423
However, while adoption is known in some Ancient Near Eastern legal codes, Jewish law, both in antiquity and in the modern era, has no such legal institution.
In addition, as summarized by Tigay, ‘if adoption played any role at all in Israelite family institutions, it was an insignificant one’. Also ‘for the post-Exilic periodthere is no reliable evidence for adoption at all’ (Tigay, J.H. 1971 ‘Adoption’, EncJud, II: p. 300).
p.424
While, presumably, a man’s taking in a foundling and raising him as a son would be considered ‘a good deed’, such de facto adoption does not give the child any inherited status. For example, the ‘adopted’ son of a priest would not be considered a priest, and a boy and girl adopted by the same parents would be allowed to marry each other without fear of incest. (Gold, M. 1987 ‘Adoption: A New Problem for Jewish Law’, Judaism 36: p. 443)
p.425.
In a nutshell, there is nothing in Jewish law, in either the Hebrew Bible or in later Halakhah, which can be seen as the model by which Jesus, Son of God, could have been considered the legal, but not genetic, heir to the Davidic throne.
Therefore, if anyone tells you that Jesus was adopted and that made him a direct descendant of David then ask for their evidence that this custom actually existed.
You may also wish to mention that the Nathan Pophecy negates Jesus' bloodline if He was adopted as it says:
2 Samuel 7:12
When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom.
What more evidence is required that the Messiah HAS to be a blood descendant of David. Adopting is, without doubt, a very noble act, but it does not pass on any blood. Thus Jesus was not the Messiah.

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-21-2009 10:55 AM Brian has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 29 of 427 (540266)
12-23-2009 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by slevesque
12-22-2009 4:49 PM


Re: Jesus, Interrupted
And the most logically reasonable is that Luke was doing Mary's genealogy, but had to write Joseph's name due to tradition.
If Luke wrote Mary's genealogy why did it take 1500 years to discover this?
The most fatal flaw in this claim is that the genealogy in Luke goes back to David's son Natha, and it is quite clearly atated in the prophecy of Nathan that the Messiah would come from the bloodline of David through his son Solomon.
2 Samuel 7:11-13
and have done ever since the time I appointed leaders over my people Israel. I will also give you rest from all your enemies.
'The LORD declares to you that the LORD himself will establish a house for you: When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.
So, there you have it. Yahweh promised to establish David's bloodline forever, from David's body, and as you see it is through the person whi built the Temple (God's house) who will have his kingdom established forever. As we know it was Solomon who built the Temple, therefore Nathan's bloodline is of no use. Also, Nathan was never crowned king, so Luke's genealogy does not work.
I think the easiest way to solve this is to recognise that the author of Matthew made a huge blunder when he misunderstood Isaiah 7:14. It has been suggested that the author of Matthew was using the septuagint when constructing his genealogy and the Hebrew 'almah' was mistranslated. The Virgin Birth is unnecessary, the Messiah was just a man there was nothing divine about him, if we accept that the author of Matthew blundered and that Joseph was indeed Jesus father it at least make things a little more plausible.
This shows that they are not doing the same person. Which gives support to Luke's genealogy been Mary's.
How can they possibly have shared 3 ancestors, dont you find this unusual? What about the ancestors that Matthew leaves out?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by slevesque, posted 12-22-2009 4:49 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 30 of 427 (540268)
12-23-2009 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Jazzns
12-21-2009 10:53 AM


Re: Jesus, Interrupted
The biggest problem I have with assigning one of the geneologies to Mary is that both of them mention Joseph explicitly. I never quite understood where that argument came from although I admit I haven't look very hard. Who's idea was that?
The idea that it was Mary's genealogy was presented by Annius of Viterbo in the 15th century. He was quite a character and it is worth a google to read some articles about him.
It seems painfully easy to refute right there in the text. Either they literally meant to describe the geneology of Joseph or if one of them really meant Mary then the text itself is in fact wrong.
If the author of Luke lists women in his genealogy then it is fairly obvious that he would have had no problem listing Mary. The whole idea is just silly.
Both genealogies are of Joseph, they were probably just two of many genealogies 'doing the rounds'.
We also have to consider the reliability of the Gospel of Matthew given the whole range of errors that the author of Matthew makes regarding the OT prophecies, he pulls so many out of context and invents quite a few of his own that we really need to question how useful this book is for reconstructing the past. We also have the added possiblity that the Gospel of Matthew that we have is not the one that was named by Papias in 169 CE. Papias said that Matthew was written in Hebrew, the gospel we have is written in Greek and shows no sign of having been translated, so we might not even have a copy of th original Matthew!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Jazzns, posted 12-21-2009 10:53 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Jazzns, posted 12-23-2009 9:19 AM Brian has replied
 Message 77 by Iblis, posted 12-27-2009 4:07 AM Brian has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 31 of 427 (540270)
12-23-2009 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Buzsaw
12-22-2009 8:11 PM


Hi Brian. The virgin happened to be betrothed to Joseph who was to become through marriage, the father of Mary's son. Genesis bears this out:
And what is the legal basis for this Buzz?
Jesus reminded his desciples betimes that he was to die for the sins of the world, that he would be resurrected and at the Mt of Olives that the times of the Gentiles would be fulfilled before he would return in the clouds, send his angels to gather up his elect before the great day of Gods wrath etc when he would come to rule and reign on earth. It's all through the OT prophets as well as the NT.
So you agree with me that Jesus was never crowned King of Israel or anywhere else?
Perhaps, Brian, if you would diligently and objectively study up on scripture, you would come to understand it's true message and it's value.
I have studied it Buzz. I think perhaps you need to take your Jesus glasses off and study it diligently and objectively, you will be amazed how obvious it is that Jesus was no messiah.
Though he was not prophesied to become king of Israel at this time,
The Messiah was prophesied to be King. There is no other prophecy, certainly no prophecy saying that the Messiah would be killed and resurrected, that’s just perverse Buzz.
he was crowned on the cross by Pilot, the governor, over the objections of the Jews.
Jesus was never anointed king Buzz, but don’t let the OT get in your way. Why do you ignore so much of the Bible Buzz?
As well, when he rode into Jerusalem on the foal of an ass as his followers hailed him as Hosannah, he fulfilled Zechariah 9:9,10, one of the scores of messianic prophecies as follows:
And your proof that Jesus rode in to Jerusalem is what exactly Buzz?
Let’s have a wee look at your reference:
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy king cometh unto thee; he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, even upon a colt the foal of an ass. 10And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem; and the battle bow shall be cut off; and he shall speak peace unto the nations: and his dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth.
Behold thy king, and we know Jesus was never king, thus this part of the prophecy has failed.
I see no relation to Jesus in any of the rest of this reference Buz, what is it exactly that akes you think that this parallels Jesus’ life in some way?
LOL. According to the OT prophets, messiah must die for the people must have his garments parted by the soldiers, must be brutally beaten and rejected, must ride into Jerusalem on the foal of an ass, etc, etc, etc.
What book are you reading Buz?
Where does the OT say that the Messiah must die and have his garments parted by the soldiers, or even be brutally beaten and rejected!!!!
The Jews must be scattered worldwide, Israel must become a desolate wasteland and at the time of the advent of the messianic kingdom, a ISRAEL MUST BE RESTORED, THE PEOPLE REGATHERED FROM THE NATIONS FAR AND WIDE AND ALL OF THE CORROBORATING EVIDENCE PROPHESIED MUST COME TO PASS.
Again, nothing like anything relating to Jesus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Buzsaw, posted 12-22-2009 8:11 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Buzsaw, posted 12-23-2009 9:29 AM Brian has replied
 Message 34 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-23-2009 10:36 AM Brian has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 35 of 427 (540289)
12-23-2009 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Buzsaw
12-23-2009 9:29 AM


Buz.
Psalm 22 is about King David, it is David who is beseeching God in the entire psalm.
Isaiah 52 and 53 are not messianic and are not about one man. Isaiah 52 and 53 are about the suffering servant Israel, the nation of Israel and nothing to do with a Messiah who was to suffer.
Try again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Buzsaw, posted 12-23-2009 9:29 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-23-2009 10:50 AM Brian has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 38 of 427 (540309)
12-23-2009 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Dawn Bertot
12-23-2009 10:36 AM


Blind leading the blind
Are you so ignorant that you cannot see that most if not all the prophcies had nothing to do with a literal kingdom, in a WORLDLY since, hence jesus said, "my kingdom IS NOT OF THIS WORLD, IF IT WERE MY SERVANTS WOULD FIGHT". Paul said "we preach jesus to the Jews a stumbling block and to the greeks follishness". the Jews were looking for a literal kingdom to over throw thier oppressors
They expected a literal kingdom because thats what they were promised in the OT by Yahweh. This spiritual kingdom nonsense is just a sill apologetic to try and explain Jesus' failure. There is no scriptural evidence in the Tanakh that even hints at a spiritual kingdom or of the messiah's 'second coming', it is utterly alien to Jewish thought.
When questioned as to whether he was king of the Jews, he said, "IT IS AS YOU HAVE SAID"
Jesus also said that He was a king. But we know He wasn't.
When charges were brought against him, one was that he claimed to be a king and they presented this as evidence as insurrection against the ruler of Rome.
Well, personally, I am not convinced at all by Jesus' arrest and trial narratives. Historically speaking they are a shambles and really could not hav happened in the way described. It is best to put the arrest and trial down to fictional propaganda.
Ofcourse, they did not understand his meaning or those of the prophets. Quit being simplistic brian and looking for some fact of history suggesting Christ might have had some physical kingdom
Quit being blind and gullible and waken up to the fact that the spiritual kingdom is a fantasy. Jesus did not fulfil a single messianic prophecy.
I love reading much of Buzzsaws material but he dead wrong in thinking Christ is not now a King or that he does not now have a Kingdom. read Matt 16 and Acts cahpter 2.
You should like it since both of you have a very childlike and naive understanding of the Bible. It is quite cute in a way, like the Sunday School kid who never looked at the Bible for himself, just accepted whatever they were told. In another way, of course, it is very sad that grown adults can take the Bible as a serious historical document. It is also very sad that people who claim to love the Bible never actually do it any justice by never studying it to any depth at all.
You'll also find that Buz is mistaken 99% of the time so don't be too concerned.
Only someone not paying any attention at all reading the scriptures New or Old would make such a nonsensical statement.
Well, show me the OT texts that say the Messiah will be killed and resurrected. Shouldn't be too difficult if it is such an obvious teaching.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-23-2009 10:36 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-24-2009 1:39 PM Brian has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 39 of 427 (540310)
12-23-2009 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Jazzns
12-23-2009 9:19 AM


Re: Jesus, Interrupted
I mentioned the wrong gospel re the women. Too much whisky at staff party I think!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Jazzns, posted 12-23-2009 9:19 AM Jazzns has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


(1)
Message 41 of 427 (540314)
12-23-2009 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Dawn Bertot
12-23-2009 10:36 AM


propaganda
I thought I better support my claim that the arrest and trial of Jesus appears to be historically implausible. The following is in regard to the claim that the crowd had a choice between two prisoners who had been sentenced to death, Jesus and Barabbas, and the chosen prisoner would be set free. This episode looks completely fictional and should encourage researchers to check the veracity of the related events.
One of the most tragic pieces of propaganda that can be found in the New Testament is the Priveligium Paschale . The Priveligium Paschale is the claim that there was a custom that at Passover the Roman administration would release any prisoner at the request of the population of Jerusalem. The reason that this is so tragic is that this piece of propaganda didn’t only place the blame for Jesus’ death onto the shoulders of the Jewish authorities, but by indicating that the Jewish population of Jerusalem could have saved Jesus and didn’t, then they are equally guilty of killing Jesus.
We all know the horrific atrocities that the Jewish people have suffered because they ‘killed’ God, but I do not think for one minute that the evangelists realised what far reaching consequences their propaganda would have for the Jewish people.
I think it is safe to assume that our Bible believing friends would disagree with me in calling the Priveligium Paschale a piece of propaganda, and that they are content that this custom is an established fact. However, I believe that it is fairly easy to prove that this piece of Bible ‘history’ is nothing more than a work of fiction, and sadly, a work of fiction that has had heartbreaking results.
The first thing that should send alarm bells ringing is that there is no evidence outside of the Gospels that confirms this custom as happening in Jerusalem or indeed in any other part of the Roman Empire. This doesn’t automatically mean that the Gospels are incorrect, but the evidence against such a practice is overwhelming. I believe that one piece of evidence stands out above all others in regard to the authenticity of this custom, and that is the fact that Josephus is silent about this practice.
Anyone who is familiar with Josephus knows that he was particularly enthusiastic about recording all the privileges that the Roman government had given to the Jews, it seems highly unlikely that Josephus would have failed to mention this notable privilege if it had existed (Brandon. p. 259).
Surely if there was such a custom, anywhere in the Roman Empire, or even in Jewish tradition, then there would be some record of it? This deafening silence is only one reason why many historians conclude that the Priveligium Paschale is pure fantasy.
The custom alluded to is wholly unknown (Montefiore. p.363).
‘There is absolutely no evidence that the pardoning or release of a prisoner had ever occurred, even once, before the time of Pilate’ (Husband. p.111)
and
There seems to be no instance on record, either from Rome or from the provinces, in which a Roman officer pardoned any person who had been convicted of a crime (Husband. p.112).
Also,
Now this custom is not attested to anywhere outside of the New Testament, whether in connection with Pilate or in connection with some other governor of Judea (Legasse. p.68).
As should be expected, Christian apologists have been plying their trade over this custom in an attempt to justify its historical accuracy. There have been various attempts to uphold the historical veracity of the Gospel accounts, Roman and Jewish records have been ransacked in the search for supporting evidence, but the results of these efforts have been negative (Winter. p.131). Their apparent favourite piece of ‘evidence’ is a reference to a document referred to as Papyrus Florentinus 61.
There is evidence in the papyrus that a Roman official in Egypt stopped the scourging of a certain suspect at the population’s request but we do not know whether legal proceedings had already been instituted when the culprit's release was ordered. But this is immaterial since the person in question had not been accused of a capital offence. It is clear that this incident does not reflect a custom similar to the Priveligium Paschale .
The supposed custom of setting a prisoner free at the feast of the Passover is referred to in a different manner by the Matthew and Mark on the one hand, and by John on the other. Luke nowhere mentions such a custom, in fact Luke 23:17 is a very late interpolation made at a time when the belief had come to exist that a legal obligation compelled Pilate to comply with an established custom. The late interpolation of 23:17 into Luke is unanimously recognised as a gloss (Legasse p.143). The Barabbas episode exists in Luke only in abbreviated form and without the slightest preparation and in a context in which is nothing more than a recasting of Mark (Legasse. p.67-68). This is very significant, why did Luke avoid mentioning a custom of granting pardon to a prisoner at the Passover festival? I believe that this shows that, although Luke knew about the account in Mark and made use of it in his own Gospel, he was also in possession of other information which convinced him to question the trustworthiness of certain items Mark’s account.
If we actually read the two references to the ‘custom’ in Mark 15:6-8 and Matthew 27:15-17, (KJV) we find that there isn’t any mention of a Jewish custom, or a Roman concession, that would make it binding on the governor to set a prisoner free.
Mark 15:6-8: Now at that feast he released unto them one prisoner, whomsoever they desired. And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection. And the multitude crying aloud began to desire him to do as he had ever done unto them.
Matthew 27:15-17 Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would. And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas. Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?
These references give no background of how, why, or when the practice of releasing a prisoner at Passover came into being. The claim that Pilate was in the habit of ingratiating himself with the provincial population is contrary to the image bloodthirsty tyrant that we get of Pilate from other sources.
The description in John’s Gospel is different. The telling of the Priveligium Paschale fable had become so embedded in the imagination of Christians that the author of John’s Gospel shows a development from a gratuitous gesture by Pilate in Mark and Matthew, to a fully fledged custom. For John, Pilate’s nature would have to take a back seat as he would have had to comply with all established customs. John informs us that it wasn’t in fact the ‘wont’ of the governor to release a prisoner it was a Jewish Custom :
John 18:39 But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?
Apologists have picked up on this subtle difference and claim that there was an established Jewish custom that proves that the Priveligium Paschale is accurate. They believe that the mention of a Jewish custom in the Mishnah Pesahim 8:6, which says that Jews in Jerusalem who were discharged from prison on the eve of the Passover celebration were permitted to take part in the eating of the paschal lamb. But this regulation has not the slightest bearing on the case reported in the Gospels. It refers to an unspecified number of people who were let out of jail too late to be present at the slaughtering of the lamb, but in time to attend the evening meal.
So as far as the Priveligium Paschale being an established custom is concerned, this Jewish custom was so well known that the Jews, usually meticulous about recording the details of national observances, have failed to preserve any trace of, or reference to, this ‘custom’ (Winter. p.134).
The stipulation provides for the admission of such people to the festive table on the night of the fifteenth Nisan. The synoptic Gospels report that Barabbas as released after that night. Also, in all four canonical narratives it is a question of liberating just one prisoner. Mishnah Pesahim specifies no number, but it is clear that the ordinance refers to any quantity of persons who happened to be discharged from prison in time to participate in the meal (Winter. p. 132).
There is only one thing in the Gospel accounts that is agreed upon by all evangelists.
Mark 15:6 Now at that feast he released unto them one prisoner, whomsoever they desired.
Matthew 27:15 Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would.
Luke 23:25 And he released unto them him that for sedition and murder was cast into prison, whom they had desired; but he delivered Jesus to their will.
John 18:39-40 But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?
Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.
The one single thing that they all agree on is that it was entirely the free choice of the Jewish population who was to be set free. If this is true then it is surprising to find that Pilate should have limited the people's choice to two possibilities, the release of Jesus or Barabbas. We read in the Gospels that there were at least two other prisoners in Pilate's hands, awaiting crucifixion, namely the two men who were eventually crucified with Jesus. Why weren’t these two included if the people could choose any condemned prisoner at all?
Whilst the evangelists state explicitly that the crowd was free to demand from Pilate the pardon of any prisoner, yet at the same time they imply that the choice was limited to two individuals. The offer to choose between two persons only in fact denies the free exercise of the privilege of the people's will. On this point the Gospels are self-contradictory in their reports.
Imagine if the Priveligium Paschale was actually true, what would the practice of such a custom do to the efficient governing of a Roman province? Can you imagine the scenario? Hypothetically speaking, this custom allows the possibility that a man who is the leader of a massive group of revolutionaries, who may have murdered dozens of Roman soldiers, could simply be allowed to go free at the request of a sympathetic population! This is stretching the credibility of this claim well beyond the boundaries of reality.
If we transpose this scenario to the Jesus and Barabbas situation, it implies that Pilate is little more than a moron! Pilate, who is already convinced of Jesus’ innocence, has to resort to an otherwise unknown tradition in order to do what he knew was right! If Pilate really wanted Jesus released he could simply have released him, after all it was he that ruled over Judea and not the Sanhedrin. Remember that Mark has portrayed Jesus as a pro-Roman pacifist, Jesus justifies the paying of tribute money, and Pilate sees no danger from Jesus, yet Pilate asks the crowd who they want to free, this broken man Jesus or the patriotic leader Barabbas. We are asked to believe that Pilate was stupid to condemn to death a man he knew to be innocent and release a popular resistance fighter, how on earth would he justify this to his officers and more importantly, how could he justify this to Tiberius? How people can fail to see how historically impossible this story is, really is beyond my comprehension.
The conclusion is an easy one to make, the Priveligium Paschale is nothing but a figment of the imagination. No such custom existed, it was invented to show that the Jews ultimately had the chance to save Jesus and not only did their leaders conspire to have Jesus arrested and executed, but the Jewish population in general are equally guilty of murdering the Lord God Jesus.
This deceptive episode is just one of many imaginary narratives that have caused untold suffering to the Jewish people, but this episode portrays the Jews as being relentless in their objective of having Jesus removed. It claims that Pilate could find nothing criminal about Jesus, but the Jewish authorities kept pressing him to deal with Jesus, they wanted rid of Jesus and would do anything to achieve this. The evangelists claim that Pilate was so convinced of Jesus’ innocence that he reminded the Jews that they could have a prisoner released at Passover, of course this was simply another tale made up by the authors to heap even more blame onto the Jewish people, they had one final chance to save Jesus but what did they do, they chose a robber/murderer over the Son of God. I truly do not believe that the evangelists could have ever imagined the carnage that their propaganda has caused, they could not have blamed the Romans for the execution of their God as they were trying to spread their faith through the Roman Empire, so they had to shift the blame onto another group and the Priveligium Paschale proved to be an ideal mechanism.
Brandon S G F. Jesus and the Zealots Manchester Uni Press 1967.
Danby H. The Mishnah Oxford Uni Press, 1933.
Husband R W. The Pardoning of Prisoners by Pilate ,
American Journal of Theology , vol.21, 1917, pp.110-116.
Legasse S. The Trial of Jesus SCM Press LTD, London 1997.
Montefiore C G. The Synoptic Gospels London, 1909.
Winter P. The Trial of Jesus Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 1974

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-23-2009 10:36 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Iblis, posted 12-23-2009 6:17 PM Brian has replied
 Message 45 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-24-2009 12:36 PM Brian has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 43 of 427 (540348)
12-24-2009 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Iblis
12-23-2009 6:17 PM


Re: propaganda
Oh, are we back on fictionality now?
It appears that we have never been off it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Iblis, posted 12-23-2009 6:17 PM Iblis has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 48 of 427 (540373)
12-24-2009 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Dawn Bertot
12-23-2009 10:50 AM


The real Suffering Servant
The Suffering Servant mentioned in Isaiah has wrongfully been identified by certain Christians (not all) with an individual person, namely Jesus.
But, on closer inspection, we can see that Isaiah’s Suffering Servant is not an individual at all, but the personification of a remnant of Israel.
**In Judaism, Isaiah 53 is NOT viewed as a messianic prophecy.**
To understand the context of Isaiah 53 it should be noted that this is only a small part of one of four servant songs that can be found in Isaiah.
The four songs can be found in Isaiah 42:1-4, Isaiah 49:1-6, Isaiah 50:4-9, and Isaiah 52:13-53:12.
We can see that the song in which Buz and EMA and hordes of other unenlightened xians quote can be found actually at Isaiah 52:13 and ends at 53:12. So, it would be a good idea to read the entire song to understand the context of the partial quote.
Servant Song 52:13-53:12
Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.
As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:
So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.
Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

If we go back to the beginning of Isaiah 521:12, we can understand the context of the Servant songs.
Isaiah 52
Awake, awake, O Zion, clothe yourself with strength. Put on your garments of splendour, O Jerusalem, the holy city. The uncircumcised and defiled will not enter you again. Shake off your dust; rise up, sit enthroned, O Jerusalem. Free yourself from the chains on your neck, O captive Daughter of Zion.
For this is what the LORD says: "You were sold for nothing, and without money you will be redeemed." For this is what the Sovereign LORD says:
"At first my people went down to Egypt to live; lately, Assyria has oppressed them.
"And now what do I have here?" declares the LORD .
"For my people have been taken away for nothing, and those who rule them mock," declares the LORD . "And all day long my name is constantly blasphemed. Therefore my people will know my name; therefore in that day they will know that it is I who foretold it. Yes, it is I."
How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news, who proclaim peace, who bring good tidings, who proclaim salvation, who say to Zion,
"Your God reigns!"
Listen! Your watchmen lift up their voices; together they shout for joy. When the LORD returns to Zion, they will see it with their own eyes. Burst into songs of joy together, you ruins of Jerusalem, for the LORD has comforted his people, he has redeemed Jerusalem. The LORD will lay bare his holy arm in the sight of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth will see the salvation of our God.
Depart, depart, go out from there! Touch no unclean thing! Come out from it and be pure, you who carry the vessels of the LORD . But you will not leave in haste or go in flight; for the LORD will go before you, the God of Israel will be your rear guard.
This reference speaks about Israel and not an individual. Israel has been oppressed by Assyria, and sold for nothing and their rulers mock them. But God has declared that things are going to improve for the Israelites, in fact, the LORD will deliver Israel into a better future as He shows his salvation to the ends of the earth.
Keep in mind that the next line is 52:13 is the beginning of the servant song many Christians wrongly identify with Jesus. But, of course, the Hebrew texts do not have the chapter and verse divisions and this Song is still speaking of the persecution that Israel has been under, and the promise of deliverance. It does not just suddenly jump forward to speak of some future messiah, neither does it just start referring to another event, it is referring to the oppression of Israel, who is God’s servant:
Isaiah 49:3 And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.
The ‘he’ of Isaiah 53 is a personification of Israel, it does not speak of an individual.
Look at 53:3: He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief:
What nation has been more despised and rejected throughout history than Israel? Although Jesus was said to be despised and rejected, he still was loved by many others at the same time. He was followed by huge crowds of people, people even grieved at his execution, he was NOT despised and rejected of men, there was never a time when he was rejected by all.
In 53:7: He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth. Like a lamb that is led to slaughter
This, again is obviously talking of the nation of Israel. Isaiah 52:4
Assyria has oppressed them.
‘Yet he did not open his mouth’ when being oppressed and afflicted!
Jesus hardly shut up for a minute during his alleged oppression and affliction.
In John 18:22-23 for example And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?
Jesus also chattered away on the cross, so he can hardly be compared to the suffering servant.
‘Like a lamb to the slaughter’ has been likened to Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross but Israel has been described as such in Psalm 44:22 Yea, for thy sake are we killed all the day long; we are counted as sheep for the slaughter. .
Isaiah 53:9 because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
How can anyone convince themselves that Jesus had done no violence?
Matthew 21:12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves
Jesus’ tantrum at the Temple is well-known; he certainly was violent on this occasion, so how can this be the servant of Isaiah 53?
There are other facts from Isaiah that negate the possibility that the servant is Jesus, but two facts stand out above all others. First, the servant ‘shall see his seed, and ‘he shall prolong his days’ (53:10).
The Hebrew word for ‘seed’ is ‘zera’ and always refers to children who are direct offspring, and, as we know, Jesus never had any children.
Finally, ‘he shall prolong his days’ cannot apply to Jesus as he died relatively young, in his early 30’s. Christians usually counter this by saying that Jesus is eternal, but this has problems. Firstly, how can an eternal being prolong his days to beyond eternity?
Secondly,
To begin with, the Hebrew words ya’arich yamim (long life) in this verse do not mean or refer to an eternal life which has no end, but rather a lengthening of days which eventually come to an end. These Hebrew words are therefore never applied in Tanach to anyone who is to live forever. In fact, the words ya’arich yamim appear in a number of places throughout Jewish scriptures, including Deuteronomy 17:20, Deuteronomy 25:15, Proverbs 28:16, and Ecclesiastes 8:13. In each and every verse where this phrase appears, these words refer to an extended mortal life, not an eternal one.
When the Jewish scriptures speak of an eternal resurrected life, as in Daniel 12:2, the Hebrew words used are l’chayai olam.

Therefore, read in context, it is obvious that the Suffering Servant refers to the remnants of Israel, and in no way can it be referring to Jesus or any individual at all.
My Christian friends here at EvC are not really putting up much of an effort to try an convince me that I am mistaken in my claim. It has been a bit boring actually.
What do we really have so far in the way of counter arguments?
1. There’s some vague 1st century custom of Jewish adoption that no one appears to be able to bring forth any evidence for that apparently passes blood on to a non-blood descendant.
2. We have some airy fairy spirit kingdom that Jesus is king of apparently and this somehow fulfils a prophecy of a physical kingdom.
3. We have a claim, again unsupported, that there’s some ‘double-fulfillment’ of prophecy jive going on.
4. If we suspend all our free thinking ability then there’s a chance we will see the light of Jesus.
Been a bit of a letdown so far this thread. Hopefully the Christians will up the quality of their research and post something worthwhile soon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-23-2009 10:50 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-24-2009 2:27 PM Brian has not replied
 Message 57 by Buzsaw, posted 12-24-2009 8:58 PM Brian has not replied
 Message 59 by Iblis, posted 12-24-2009 11:02 PM Brian has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 51 of 427 (540380)
12-24-2009 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Dawn Bertot
12-24-2009 12:36 PM


Re: propaganda
Brian, Brian, brian, brian. But that is excally the point, you didnt support your point you only suggested that it may have not been a custom as suggested by the gospels.
A long established custom that is not supported in ANY external source and is very doubtful by just using common sense.
As a matter a fact you did point to a custom much like our president going out of office in a sense, that allows pardons.
Yes, and this is nothing like what the Gospels claim.
it may have very well been the case that this was a sub custom not necessary or relevant to mentionas a part of larger cerimonies.
So even more of this ‘it may have been’ or ‘we do not have evidence for yet’, or’ just because there’s no evidence doesn’t mean it didn’t happen’ excuses.
Do you realise that all these if and buts and maybes that you and other xians trot out simply strengthens my position. There’s tons of evidence, strong evidence against Jesus being the messiah, and what is the evidence for it? Wishful thinking that’s about all. Stuff like unknown adoption laws and invisible kingdoms do not support Jesus claims.
You can have Jesus as a messiah, but don’t confuse Him with the Messiah of the OT, He clearly wasn’t.
As is always the case with the scriptures, they are usually substantiated at some point, maybe someday on this very issue, with regaurd to this custom.
But the thing is EMA what you have swallowed hook, line and sinker about the Bible being substantiated at some point is actually the complete opposite of the truth.
I’ll stick my neck out here and say that roughly 95% of the archeological evidence unearthed in the last 100 years actually undermines the Bible.
The enslavement in Egypt — disproven.
The Exodus — disproven.
The Desert Sojourn — disproven
Conquest of Canaan — Disproven
United kingdom of David — disproven.
The list goes on and on and on.
besides this you are making the worst assumption in indicating that the gospels are not a reliable source in relating this custom.
The Gospels are not really reliable at all EMA, certainly not reliable for reconstructing an accurate past.
I suppose we all study the Bible in different ways. Some of us want to discover the truth about it, others are scared from the truth and study it as if it is some magical document, come into the light EMA
saying that the jewish people killed Jesus, demonstrates alot about yourself brian. its almost as if you wish to create prejudice before you even get started.
For the love of God EMA the NT blames the Jews for killing Jesus. Stop being so ignorant.
Prove? I doubt it as I have indicated. What will be your attitude if one day a piece of evidence surfaces to support this as it is mentioned in the scriptures, will you then convert to belief in the scriptures as the word of God or accurate overall, I doubt it
Prove is the wrong word I agree. Highly implausible is better.
Here’s a question, try and answer it honestly.
How likely is it that the Barabbas episode was an actual historical event?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-24-2009 12:36 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-24-2009 3:31 PM Brian has not replied
 Message 53 by Iblis, posted 12-24-2009 4:01 PM Brian has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 71 of 427 (540566)
12-26-2009 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Dawn Bertot
12-24-2009 1:39 PM


Re: Blind leading the blind
They also complained about not having a King, and told them they already had a king, Himself and he gave them the desires of thier heart.
Let’s get this straight, when Yahweh told Nathan to inform David that his house would last forever and that the Messiah would come from the bloodline of Solomon, then that’s not really what Yahweh meant?
Why would God tell the Jewish nation to expect a physical kingdom and then give them many prophecies that would allow them to identify the Messiah, and then send a Messiah that is NOTHING at all like the Messiah foretold in the prophecies that Yahweh gave?
It is not only ludicrous, it is appalling that a nation’s scriptures are corrupted by a bunch of chancers whose leader achieved nothing at all, and still appalling that there’s so many people that are blind to the obvious mismatch between what the NT authors wrote and that which was promised in the OT. To keep saying that 1000 years of Jewish understanding of THEIR OWN scriptures was 100% incorrect is very insulting to that nation, especially so when it is glaringly obvious that this new interpretation is an obvious reinterpretation to try and explain away why their leader was a failure.
The Jews had been promised a Messiah who would free them from their enemies and set up his throne in Jerusalem, a great warrior, and when Jesus FAILED to achieve any of this you are seriously saying that the Jewish people are at fault for not understanding their own scriptures?
For centuries the Jewish nation was expecting someone who was 100% different from Jesus because that was what they were told to expect and somehow they are at fault!
Can you find a single OT reference to the Messiah that suggests that he would be king of a spiritual kingdom, and not king of the physical nation of Israel?
Have you ever considered that this whole spiritual kingdom is an excuse for someone who failed to fulfil the messianic expectation of Israel?
its interesting how you use the scriptures as a weapon to support your own point then decry them as unreliable when it suits your purposes. How and where did you find out jesus said he was a King?
I found out in the NT, which is a different collection of book to that of the OT.
The thing that you appear to be unaware of is that we can check the validity of the text when it makes claims that would leave a ‘fingerprint’ on the historical record. When we see that the Messiah would sit on the throne of Israel then we can look at the historical record as a way of verifying this particular criterion.
There are very good records for the time and area that Jesus was living in, we know for a fact that there was no king of Israel during His time, so your thinly veiled claim of antithesis on my part is irrelevant. I am not using the scripture to deny scripture. I am using historical records to show that a claim made in scripture is historically inaccurate. This doesn’t mean that the entire collection of books are inaccurate because each claim has to be scrutinized on its own merits. Now when the OT claims that the Messiah will be crowned king of Israel then there is no need to reject this as it is not implausible that there could be future kings of Israel, this is not a remarkable claim, and this claim may indeed still come true. But, when someone makes a claim that they are a king we can check this out. Now the Messiah is to be king of Israel, Jesus claimed to be a king and he was not king of Israel, thus He was not the king promised in the OT.
Do you remember him saying "my kingdom is NOT of this world, if it were my servants would fight" the word FIGHT implies the nature of a physical kingdom and how it is maintained.
Hey, have your spiritual kingdom with the fairytale messiah, just don’t confuse that with anything that was promised in the Jewish scriptures.
Since inspiration was involved here one is completely justified in assuming that may things didnt always go according to the standards and practices that were established
So yet another incident that has no support in the historical record, but does have a huge amount of evidence against it, yet you will accept the one that suits your faith even although it is the weakest position.
We seem to have this constant supply of unsupported incidents that may be true if this or that was the case. Your Jesus guy seems to rely on this ambiguity quite a lot doesn’t He?
As i stated before brian you are responding to an apologetic in the nature of prophecy and the way prophecy has been used, for which it was never intended. As Peter says the prophets themselves searched diligently as to manner and time and nature of the person in the prophetic utterance. since the prophets were guided by direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it would stand to reason that the other people may have missed the ultimate message in the nature of spiritual verses physical
But you are claiming that every messianic prophecy in the OT is mistaken!
There is nothing at all in the OT to imply that the messianic kingdom would be spiritual. I keep saying this and you keep ignoring it. There is no justification for a spiritual kingdom in the OT. You can have wee Jesus in His fairytale castle but don’t keep corrupting the scriptures of another faith to support it.
here is the sad part, you are making the same mistake and missing the point for which the Messaih and the prophecies concerning him
But I’m not, this is the thing. Since Jesus failed in His messianic mission the apologists went into overdrive to make excuses for Him. I’m afraid it is you and your fellow xians who completely misunderstand the OT and have been suckered into the biggest scam in history.
I cant believe any person that studies the scriptures cannot see that God always desired it to be a spiritual king and kingdom. it was always about god from finish to start.
You keep making these unsupported assertions.
I’ll ask again. Where in the OT does it even imply a spiritual messianic kingdom?
Where does it say this EMA, is it in the NT by any chance?
Brian, you reasons for believing jesus was a failure are misguided do to a lack of understanding of Gods purposes even in the Old testament.
You have yet to demonstrate this EMA.
Have you shown that Jesus is an ancestor of David through Solomon, no you haven’t. Have you shown that the OT concept of the messianic kingdom is a spiritual kingdom, no you haven’t. You haven’t really provided a single decent argument, you are continually relying on reinterpretation of the OT to fit a guy that failed. You obviously have to do this because Jesus was no messiah and you cannot come to terms with the fact that you have wasted your life away on a con.
therefore your contentions about jesus are nonsensical and invalid
They are perfectly valid. Just because you stick your fingers in your ears and shout la la la doesn’t make these facts go away.
Jesus did not fulfil a single messianic prophecy, it is as clear as the nose on your face, you just need to escape from the myth of Christ to see it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-24-2009 1:39 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-27-2009 2:56 AM Brian has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024