• 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 did the Jews reject their Messiah when he DID come?

shunyadragon

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Spartan said:
It also addresses alternative theories to the resurrection and shows why they're not viable.
Click to expand...

Only not viable from the believers perspective.

And for the record, Habermas and others have identified external sources that add various confirmations to the NT accounts. That's in "The Historical Jesus," also by Gary Habermas.
Click to expand...

. . . and for the record there are no identified external sources during the life of Jesus that even mention the existence of Jesus. If you believe there are, if so please cited specifically what these external sources are.
 
Last edited:
shunyadragon

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Spartan said:
Well give me your best alternative theory of what happened and substantiate it then. Can't wait to see it. :)
Click to expand...

There is no external evidence from the Bible that it did happen. It is simple a claim by the believers. Something like the claim of the existence of dragons, cyclops and Medusa.

Still waiting . . .

. . . and for the record there are no identified external sources during the life of Jesus that even mention the existence of Jesus. If you believe there are, please cited specifically what these external sources are.

Still waiting for this response, because it is key to whether the simple alternative that it did not happen, because there are absolutely no external sources that even mention the existence of Jesus Christ, nor the miraculous events supposedly witness by many, ie the Resurrection.
 
Last edited:
Spartan

Spartan

Well-Known Member
shunyadragon said:
There is no external evidence from the Bible that it did happen. It is simple a claim by the believers. Something like the claim of the existence of dragons, cyclops and Medusa.
Still waiting . . .
. . . and for the record there are no identified external sources during the life of Jesus that even mention the existence of Jesus. If you believe there are, please cited specifically what these external sources are.

Still waiting for this response, because it is key to whether the simple alternative that it did not happen, because there are absolutely no external sources that even mention the existence of Jesus Christ, nor the miraculous events supposedly witness by many, ie the Resurrection.
Click to expand...

This is hilarious. Jesus' resurrection didn't happen until after he died at Calvary. And there's numerous attestations of the Resurrection in the NT. The fallacy of your argument above is that the NT was not ONE BOOK in the 1st and 2nd centuries. What there were, were some two dozen INDEPENDENT MANUSCRIPTS floating around different localities in different countries which in numerous instances REPORT OR CONFIRM THE RESURRECTION.

THOSE ARE MULTIPLE, INDEPENDENT, HISTORICAL CONFIRMATIONS OF THE RESURRECTION.

Not surprised you are UNABLE to come up with any alternative explanation for the following information below:

"From this research (scholar Gary) Habermas has been able to show that of the 3,400 works (sources) studied, the majority of writers accept the following 12 events as historical fact:
  1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
  2. Jesus was buried.
  3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope, believing that his life was ended.
  4. The tomb was empty a few days later.
  5. The disciples had experiences that they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus.
  6. The disciples were transformed from doubters who were afraid to identify themselves with Jesus to bold proclaimers of His death and Resurrection.
  7. This message was the center of preaching in the early church.
  8. This message was especially proclaimed in Jerusalem, where Jesus died and was buried shortly before.
  9. The church was born in Jerusalem and grew rapidly.
  10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Jesus made Sunday their primary day of worship.
  11. James, the half-brother of Jesus, converted to the faith when he saw what he believed was the resurrected Jesus.
  12. Paul was converted to the faith after his experience which he believed was with the risen Jesus.
Resurrection of Jesus Christ Biblical Extra-biblical Evidences

You have NOTHING from history that provides an alternative explanation for the MULTIPLE, INDEPENDENT HISTORICAL NT DOCUMENTS.

You're busted.
 
sooda

sooda

Veteran Member
Spartan said:
This is hilarious. Jesus' resurrection didn't happen until after he died at Calvary. And there's numerous attestations of the Resurrection in the NT. The fallacy of your argument above is that the NT was not ONE BOOK in the 1st and 2nd centuries. What there were, were some two dozen INDEPENDENT MANUSCRIPTS floating around different localities in different countries which in numerous instances REPORT OR CONFIRM THE RESURRECTION.

THOSE ARE MULTIPLE, INDEPENDENT, HISTORICAL CONFIRMATIONS OF THE RESURRECTION.

Not surprised you are UNABLE to come up with any alternative explanation for the following information below:

"From this research (scholar Gary) Habermas has been able to show that of the 3,400 works (sources) studied, the majority of writers accept the following 12 events as historical fact:
  1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
  2. Jesus was buried.
  3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope, believing that his life was ended.
  4. The tomb was empty a few days later.
  5. The disciples had experiences that they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus.
  6. The disciples were transformed from doubters who were afraid to identify themselves with Jesus to bold proclaimers of His death and Resurrection.
  7. This message was the center of preaching in the early church.
  8. This message was especially proclaimed in Jerusalem, where Jesus died and was buried shortly before.
  9. The church was born in Jerusalem and grew rapidly.
  10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Jesus made Sunday their primary day of worship.
  11. James, the half-brother of Jesus, converted to the faith when he saw what he believed was the resurrected Jesus.
  12. Paul was converted to the faith after his experience which he believed was with the risen Jesus.
Resurrection of Jesus Christ Biblical Extra-biblical Evidences

You have NOTHING from history that provides an alternative explanation for the MULTIPLE, INDEPENDENT HISTORICAL NT DOCUMENTS.

You're busted.
Click to expand...

All that's well and good, but not proof of the resurrection. You have to take that on faith.
 
shunyadragon

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Spartan said:
This is hilarious. Jesus' resurrection didn't happen until after he died at Calvary. And there's numerous attestations of the Resurrection in the NT. The fallacy of your argument above is that the NT was not ONE BOOK in the 1st and 2nd centuries. What there were, were some two dozen INDEPENDENT MANUSCRIPTS floating around different localities in different countries which in numerous instances REPORT OR CONFIRM THE RESURRECTION.

THOSE ARE MULTIPLE, INDEPENDENT, HISTORICAL CONFIRMATIONS OF THE RESURRECTION.

Not surprised you are UNABLE to come up with any alternative explanation for the following information below:

"From this research (scholar Gary) Habermas has been able to show that of the 3,400 works (sources) studied, the majority of writers accept the following 12 events as historical fact:
  1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
  2. Jesus was buried.
  3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope, believing that his life was ended.
  4. The tomb was empty a few days later.
  5. The disciples had experiences that they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus.
  6. The disciples were transformed from doubters who were afraid to identify themselves with Jesus to bold proclaimers of His death and Resurrection.
  7. This message was the center of preaching in the early church.
  8. This message was especially proclaimed in Jerusalem, where Jesus died and was buried shortly before.
  9. The church was born in Jerusalem and grew rapidly.
  10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Jesus made Sunday their primary day of worship.
  11. James, the half-brother of Jesus, converted to the faith when he saw what he believed was the resurrected Jesus.
  12. Paul was converted to the faith after his experience which he believed was with the risen Jesus.
Resurrection of Jesus Christ Biblical Extra-biblical Evidences
Click to expand...

The reference you cite only provides Biblical references, and no Extra Biblical references to the life, death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

There is no external evidence from the Bible that it did happen. It is simple a claim by the believers. Something like the claim of the existence of dragons, cyclops and Medusa.

Still waiting . . .

. . . and for the record there are no identified external sources during the life of Jesus that even mention the existence of Jesus. If you believe there are, please cited specifically what these external sources are.

Still waiting for this response, because it is key to whether the simple alternative that it did not happen, because there are absolutely no external sources that even mention the existence of Jesus Christ, nor the miraculous events supposedly witness by many, ie the Resurrection.
You have NOTHING from history that provides an alternative explanation for the MULTIPLE, INDEPENDENT HISTORICAL NT DOCUMENTS.

You're busted.
Click to expand...

Because there are no references at the time of the life of Jesus Christ to even attest to his existence. All the known scrapes of the gospels are dated to the second century with some possibility that they are copied from early scriptures dated from 80 to 100 AD.

The reference to the marble Nazareth Inscription has no reference that can remotely interpreted to reference the 'empty tomb' claim your reference claims. It is simply an edict against tomb robbing, which traditionally in Rome has been a Roman Law for a long time,and inferences to the 'empty tomb'. are nothing more than Christian inferences to the 'empty tomb and not evidence to either the 'empty tomb' nor the Resurrection.


 
Last edited:
Spartan

Spartan

Well-Known Member
shunyadragon said:
The reference you cite only provides Biblical references, and no Extra Biblical references to the life, death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

There is no external evidence from the Bible that it did happen. It is simple a claim by the believers. Something like the claim of the existence of dragons, cyclops and Medusa.

Still waiting . . .

. . . and for the record there are no identified external sources during the life of Jesus that even mention the existence of Jesus. If you believe there are, please cited specifically what these external sources are.

Still waiting for this response, because it is key to whether the simple alternative that it did not happen, because there are absolutely no external sources that even mention the existence of Jesus Christ, nor the miraculous events supposedly witness by many, ie the Resurrection.


Because there are no references at the time of the life of Jesus Christ to even attest to his existence. All the known scrapes of the gospels are dated to the second century with some possibility that they are copied from early scriptures dated from 80 to 100 AD.
Click to expand...

My Post #445 Destroys your narrative.

Why did the Jews reject their Messiah when he DID come?
 
shunyadragon

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Spartan said:
My Post #445 Destroys your narrative.
Click to expand...

. . . Napoleon won the Battle of Waterloo.

Why did the Jews reject their Messiah when he DID come?
Click to expand...

Your post #445 does not provide any extra Biblical evidence for the Resurrection.

Again . . .

The reference you cite only provides Biblical references, and no Extra Biblical references to the life, death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

There is no external evidence from the Bible that it did happen. It is simple a claim by the believers. Something like the claim of the existence of dragons, cyclops and Medusa.

Still waiting . . .

. . . and for the record there are no identified external sources during the life of Jesus that even mention the existence of Jesus. If you believe there are, please cited specifically what these external sources are.

Still waiting for this response, because it is key to whether the simple alternative that it did not happen, because there are absolutely no external sources that even mention the existence of Jesus Christ, nor the miraculous events supposedly witness by many, ie the Resurrection.

You have NOTHING from history that provides an alternative explanation for the MULTIPLE, INDEPENDENT HISTORICAL NT DOCUMENTS.
Click to expand...

You're busted,

Because there are no references at the time of the life of Jesus Christ to even attest to his existence. All the known scrapes of the gospels are dated to the second century with some possibility that they are copied from early scriptures dated from 80 to 100 AD.

The reference to the marble Nazareth Inscription has no reference that can remotely interpreted to reference the 'empty tomb' claim your reference claims. It is simply an edict against tomb robbing, which traditionally in Rome has been a Roman Law for a long time,and inferences to the 'empty tomb'. are nothing more than Christian inferences to the 'empty tomb and not evidence to either the 'empty tomb' nor the Resurrection.
 
Last edited:
P

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Flankerl said:
Cyrus the Great is an acknowledged Moshiach by Jews. Not just some Jews.

I of course realise that this rubs Christians the wrong way.
Click to expand...

It actually rubs a lot of Jews the wrong way.
Particularly those who read their Tanakh (bible)
And it rubs those who thought the Moshiach, as
King, would do a bit more that Cyrus did.
 
Flankerl

Flankerl

Well-Known Member
PruePhillip said:
It actually rubs a lot of Jews the wrong way.
Particularly those who read their Tanakh (bible)
And it rubs those who thought the Moshiach, as
King, would do a bit more that Cyrus did.
Click to expand...

Show me those Jews.
Cyrus was anointed by God, it literally is in the TNK.

He brought the Jews back from exile and allowed them to rebuild the Temple.
There wasn't much more he could've done.
 
P

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Flankerl said:
Show me those Jews.
Cyrus was anointed by God, it literally is in the TNK.

He brought the Jews back from exile and allowed them to rebuild the Temple.
There wasn't much more he could've done.
Click to expand...

All those Jews who believed that Jesus was the Messiah didn't buy that Cyrus thing.
Nor did Daniel, Hezekiah, Malachi, Ezekiel etc..
And, unlike the Jewish Messiah King who would reign forever, Cyrus died.
 
Rival

Rival

se Dex me saut.
Staff member
Premium Member
PruePhillip said:
All those Jews who believed that Jesus was the Messiah didn't buy that Cyrus thing.
Nor did Daniel, Hezekiah, Malachi, Ezekiel etc..
And, unlike the Jewish Messiah King who would reign forever, Cyrus died.
Click to expand...
It would be useless trying to tell you what the word 'messiah' means, wouldn't it?
 
rosends

rosends

Well-Known Member
PruePhillip said:
All those Jews who believed that Jesus was the Messiah didn't buy that Cyrus thing.
Nor did Daniel, Hezekiah, Malachi, Ezekiel etc..
And, unlike the Jewish Messiah King who would reign forever, Cyrus died.
Click to expand...
That's not accurate. Jesus' being the messiah would have had no relationship to Cyrus's (except that it would make the case for Jesus STRONGER so those who believed that he was the Messiah would be MORE likely to accept that Cyrus was). I feel that your mistake is in the belief that there was to be only one messiah so if they believed in Cyrus, they couldn't believe in Jesus and vice versa. But that's not right.
 
Spartan

Spartan

Well-Known Member
Flankerl said:
Cyrus the Great is an acknowledged Moshiach by Jews. Not just some Jews.

I of course realise that this rubs Christians the wrong way.
Click to expand...

Ha. He may have been "an" anointed one, but he's not "THE" anointed Messiah.

Skeptics of Christianity continue to point to "unfulfilled" Messianic prophecies as proof Jesus is not the Jewish Messiah (they ignore the part where Jesus will return at the end times to fulfill the remaining prophecies). But somehow these same pundits are remarkably silent about Cyrus not fulfilling the exact same prophecies they refer to when bashing Jesus.
 
P

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
rosends said:
That's not accurate. Jesus' being the messiah would have had no relationship to Cyrus's (except that it would make the case for Jesus STRONGER so those who believed that he was the Messiah would be MORE likely to accept that Cyrus was). I feel that your mistake is in the belief that there was to be only one messiah so if they believed in Cyrus, they couldn't believe in Jesus and vice versa. But that's not right.
Click to expand...

These multiple Messiahs: I read of only two in the OT - Redeemer and King.
Zechariah, among others, shows they are one and the same. But that this
realization will come to the Jews too late. That is, the Jews will see their
King coming to restore Israel and rule in the earth, but He will be the one
who came lowly and riding upon a donkey, and whose hands and feet they
had pierced.
 
Rival

Rival

se Dex me saut.
Staff member
Premium Member
Spartan said:
(they ignore the part where Jesus will return at the end times to fulfill the remaining prophecies).
Click to expand...
Because this isn't part of the prophecies. It's not anywhere. Find the 'he'll die and come back a second time' bit in the Tanakh. Don't worry, I'll wait.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top