Caladan
Agnostic Pantheist
Which still leaves me wondering why would someone who claims to have left Christianity behind, would quote the Christian scriptures in Christian context to a Jewish man in order to make a historical point.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why don't the Jews accept Jesus as their Messiah?
- Thread starter Misty
- Start date
kejos
Active Member
Just like yours.
Caladan
Agnostic Pantheist
Which was?Just like yours.
By the way im not impressed by men who lived in a Christian society following the religion of their society.
kejos
Active Member
'there is not much I can do for you history-education wise.'
Scientists of the past and today accept that the laws of physics and chemistry are subject to suspension if there is a deity who created those laws. Scientists of the past and today accept that the laws of physics and chemistry have been suspended by a deity who created those laws.
There has never been a large-scale Christian society, except for relatively brief periods- and there is certainly no large-scale Christian society in the West now.
Caladan
Agnostic Pantheist
Yes, and other than myself, what external authority did I use?
Stay on topic, we are not talking about scientists, nor chemistry, nor the laws of physics, nor whichever deity you believe in.
And yet the men you used to supposedly give more strength to your post, were born into a Christian environment, therefore there is nothing miraculous about their Christianity.
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
Very simply, the Jews reject Jesus because He didn't fulfill their prophecies literally, just as Christians reject Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith because He didn't fulfill theirs literally, either!
There's a virtually-guaranteed problem any time someone insists on taking scriptures literally!
Simple as that.
Peace,
Bruce
"literally" nothing.
He didn't fulfill prophecy. It's that simple. The Prophets spoke of the Messiah, and Jesus didn't fit the bill. In any way, shape, or form.
kejos
Active Member
None. Just yourself. Now if there is some argument based on fact and logic why resurrection or 'water to wine' disqualify the Bible, can we see it?
No claim for that was made. The fact is that many of the best scientists of history and the present have not seen the miraculous as barriers to faith. Certainly, no-one has ever proved that Pilate did not exist, or that he did not attempt to prevent the Sanhedrin from crucifying Jesus of Nazareth- despite strenuous attempts to disprove those claimed events. There is no reason at all not to accept them at face value, as Misty has done.
Caladan
Agnostic Pantheist
Disqualifies the Bible in what? if one is making a historical point, then people who adhere to 'fact and logic' are not going to approve of those standards. historians usually do not accept miracles.
And you truly believe that everyone accept the New Testament narrative at face value?
Many would point that there is an agenda to present Pilate washing his hands from the death of Jesus, despite being the authority which carries out the death penalty, many would also point to an agenda or bias to shift the blame to the Jewish priestly class, or even more generally on the Jews as a whole, as tragic history has shown for centuries, via people who took the narrative at face value.
kejos
Active Member
Disqualifies it as legitimate scripture.
That's not the case. Historians almost always restrain themselves (or their editors restrain them) and make no value judgment of miraculous claims, even when there may be reasonable grounds for discounting them, such as with the record of Constantine's sky vision. (One cannot afford to offend one's valued readers, you see.
)What I believe is neither here nor there. The fact is that there is no a priori reason to doubt what appears to be a simple chronicle. If people want to cast reasonable doubt, they need reasons. It may be that the whole NT is garbage, but one needs reasons to believe that it is. As it happens, fwiw, most historians believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed.
Ok- let them now point out the evidence for these agendas, rather than a possible motive for them. No police detective could hold down a job using that methodology.
kejos
Active Member
Other than by pointing it out.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
That's not true. By definition, miracles are the least likely events to occur. Historians recognize that.That's not the case. Historians almost always restrain themselves (or their editors restrain them) and make no value judgment of miraculous claims, even when there may be reasonable grounds for discounting them, such as with the record of Constantine's sky vision. (One cannot afford to offend one's valued readers, you see.
Historians do not restrain themselves from calling miracles what they are, unlikely. When talking about Constantine's sky vision, you would be hard to find a credible historian to state unequivocally that it truly happened. Many may admit that Constantine had a personal vision; which he believed happened the way he stated.
I would like to see some actual text books that accept miracles to be historical. Really, I think you're just making things up.
Whether or not historians believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed is neither here or there. Just because they believe he existed does not mean they accept the Gospel stories as fact. The leaders in the field discount much of the Gospel accounts as is needed to because they contradict each other.
There is much reason to doubt that simple chronicle though. First, the Sanhedrin would not have met when the Bible stated. It was against Jewish law. Second, there was never a tradition to release a prisoner on passover. Third, there is no reason to believe that Pilate cared about Jesus at all. He was a ruthless leader. He was so ruthless he was kicked out of power not very long after he would have had Jesus crucified. An understanding of Pilate would rule out that simple chronicle anyway, especially when one considers that Jesus truly was a criminal and deserving of death according to the Roman law. More so though, we know that Pilate would never have succumbed to the pressure of a mob, especially if it was a Jewish mob. He would simply have had them massacred.
The Gospel accounts can not be read for face value as they contradict known history, and each other. They can not be treated like modern histories, as they simply are not.
The first would be that there is a plethora of evidence showing that there was a lot of strife between Judaism and the Jesus movement/early Christians. We have evidence that the Jews were slowly trying to remove people of the Jesus movement from their synagogues. Simply, Jews as a whole rejected Jesus as the Messiah, and at the same time, was trying to unify the religion. The Jesus movement had not place there. It would have caused some bad blood.
It also wouldn't have been too intelligent to spread work demonizing Rome. That was basically a death wish, especially after Rome had had enough with uprisings. The Gospels were written in the shaky time after the first Jewish war. The writers knew what Rome was capable of doing and would have been silly to demonize Rome. Again, that would have been a death wish.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
There is no evidence that a thief was saved in the place of Jesus. The supposed ritual of releasing a prisoner on Passover is not backed up by any evidence. We don't even have multiple independent attestation of it in the Gospel accounts. Looking at Roman policy, there is no way they would have released a prisoner, especially one that was considered an insurrectionist.People, in general, are stupid. So Jesus died and a theif was saved in His place. But apparently Jesus' death was a good thing, so who really cares?
.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
There is more evidence for this trial than any other trial in ancient history. Where is Oberon when we need him?
it's_sam
Freak of Nature
Your right he was a murderer, a thief, and a rapist.
So it's impossible that the leader thought his people would choose jesus if he put up the worste person in prison? Maybe he was doing it during this time as a excuse to get jesus out of his injustice, wich BTW he was said to have compassion toward him during this time.
jml03
Member
I have to say, when I pray or am researching something about God, I get a wonderful uplifting feeling in my heart - almost like butterflies in my heart, if that can explain it. I know that is God giving me some more peace.
On another note, putting Jesus as the same as God is troubling to me. I believe Jesus was with God, in some form, at creation. However, I do not agree with some of my sister sects of my religion, which say they are one and the same. I feel like that is disobedient to God's law of having no others before Him. I'm still learning and asking for guidance on this subject, however.
I do have a prayer that was thankfully answered by God. My brother is in the military. He has 4 children and a wife. He was scheduled to go to a war zone, again, after having already been there. It really affected him when he was there before. Anyway, I know God has all the power and control, and I knew He, and only HE could do something about this. I prayed for God, in Jesus name, to intervene. I prayed that God would change my brother's orders. God answered my prayers this week. My brother was given new orders, and since he has only 3 years until retirement, it is unlikely he will have to go to a war zone again. Thank You God.
On another note, putting Jesus as the same as God is troubling to me. I believe Jesus was with God, in some form, at creation. However, I do not agree with some of my sister sects of my religion, which say they are one and the same. I feel like that is disobedient to God's law of having no others before Him. I'm still learning and asking for guidance on this subject, however.
I do have a prayer that was thankfully answered by God. My brother is in the military. He has 4 children and a wife. He was scheduled to go to a war zone, again, after having already been there. It really affected him when he was there before. Anyway, I know God has all the power and control, and I knew He, and only HE could do something about this. I prayed for God, in Jesus name, to intervene. I prayed that God would change my brother's orders. God answered my prayers this week. My brother was given new orders, and since he has only 3 years until retirement, it is unlikely he will have to go to a war zone again. Thank You God.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
Actually no. If we want to get technical, Mark calls him an insurrectionist who had been accused of murder during a riot. Matthew simply calls him a notorious prisoner, which gives us no real information. The earliest copies of Luke actually don't mention it, and it is believed that the brief mention we now have of the ordeal was simply added later to make the account conform with the others. However, again, it simply states that he was an insurrectionist and a murderer. John also agrees with this, by saying that he was a person who was involved with a rebellion. There is no mention of raping or thievery. All Gospels pretty much agree that he was an insurrectionist. Which is important as we will see.
Yes, it is impossible. As we saw above, Barabbas was an insurrectionist. Rome would not have just let him go. We know this because we have records of how Rome dealt with insurrectionists. They massacred them. They simply did not mess around. So no, they would not have let some insurrectionist free to just go do it again.
The Bible says that it was a tradition. There was no such tradition during the 1st century. The Gospels can't even agree who's tradition it was. We see Gospels claiming that it was both the Romans tradition and the Jewish tradition. The fact is, we have no evidence for either. Plus, a Jewish tradition like that would not have mattered. Rome would not have succumbed to it.
Twig pentagram
High Priest
Because they are'nt christians.:jam:
Rakhel
Well-Known Member
That is the best answer by far.