lukethethird
unknown member
Jesus and certainly in the same sentence seems a bit of a stretch.How so? Jesus was almost certainly born in Nazareth. Why do you think that he was born in Bethlehem?
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Jesus and certainly in the same sentence seems a bit of a stretch.How so? Jesus was almost certainly born in Nazareth. Why do you think that he was born in Bethlehem?
Are you sure?The stories in the NT contain several disqualifiers. Like this one:
John 6:51-56
Jewish people do not drink blood.
Jesus and certainly in the same sentence seems a bit of a stretch.
If that's true then it weakens the rest of the claims made in the NT. At best Jesus would be a metaphorical messiah, a metaphorical savior, a metaphorical king. Not a literal messiah, a literal savior, a literal king.Jesus was speaking in parables and metaphors. Vampirism is forbidden in both the Old Testament and the New Testament.
Why would he have been in Bethlehem? The author of Matthew wrote that because he knew the prophesy, not because Jesus was born there. For example one cannot navigate by stars that way. They do not hang over a particular town much less a particular building. Sit up one night and follow what the stars do at night. Nor is there any record of Herod's murder of the innocents. A story filled with holes is not good evidence.Matthew 2:1-12
If that's true then it weakens the rest of the claims made in the NT. At best Jesus would be a metaphorical messiah, a metaphorical savior, a metaphorical king. Not a literal messiah, a literal savior, a literal king.
Perhaps the entire story is metaphorical then, and the miracles weren't real either.
See how that works?
You said "prophecies they didn't believe were rejected out of pride and religious traditions."
Pride? No. It's based on what is said in the NT. If you claim that it's metaphorical, then that makes a weak basis for claims that Jesus is the literal Jewish messiah.
Why would he have been in Bethlehem? The author of Matthew wrote that because he knew the prophesy, not because Jesus was born there. For example one cannot navigate by stars that way. They do not hang over a particular town much less a particular building. Sit up one night and follow what the stars do at night. Nor is there any record of Herod's murder of the innocents. A story filled with holes is not good evidence.
Why would he have been in Bethlehem? The author of Matthew wrote that because he knew the prophesy, not because Jesus was born there. For example one cannot navigate by stars that way. They do not hang over a particular town much less a particular building. Sit up one night and follow what the stars do at night. Nor is there any record of Herod's murder of the innocents. A story filled with holes is not good evidence.
The point is:In the context Jesus was talking about either communion or him being the vine. Jesus also called himself the bread of life. He wasn't talking about cannibalism.
Why would he have been in Bethlehem? The author of Matthew wrote that because he knew the prophesy, not because Jesus was born there. For example one cannot navigate by stars that way. They do not hang over a particular town much less a particular building. Sit up one night and follow what the stars do at night. Nor is there any record of Herod's murder of the innocents. A story filled with holes is not good evidence.
The point is:
Rejecting Jesus is not about pride. It's about what is said in the NT.
Saying that he knew the prophecy is cryptic like the Nostradamus prophecies.
Actually the Jews based their rejection on the messianic prophecies that Jesus did not fulfill.The Jews interpreted the prophecies based on their expectations of the Messiah being a political Savior and that was not the mission of Jesus. It was to save us and to teach us how to live.
The Jews interpreted the prophecies based on their expectations of the Messiah being a political Savior and that was not the mission of Jesus. It was to save us and to teach us how to live.
The point is:
Rejecting Jesus is not about pride. It's about what is said in the NT.
Did I say that? Actually the author of Matthew goth the "prophecy" that he relied on wrong in at least two different ways. First off it was not a prophecy. Read it in context. It is talking about an event that was occurring at that time. Second it does not claim that the mother would be a virgin. It only said "young woman". The source that the author of Matthew used was the Septuagint. A work in Greek and the word "almah" was mistranslated.
Actually the Jews based their rejection on the messianic prophecies that Jesus did not fulfill.
Yet the author of that piece did use the Hebrew word for virgin elsewhere. And it still was not a prophecyA maiden is a young woman who was assumed to be a virgin in those time periods.
Um . . . no. That is only what the Bible claims. You would need some reliable evidence to support your claim.The Pharisees interpreted the prophecy based on their pride.
Yet the author of that piece did use the Hebrew word for virgin elsewhere. And it still was not a prophecy