My view on Jesus.

[ChristineM]

I believe when you start seeing fantasy as history you have a problem.

And you believe the bible... nuf said

 

[ChristineM]

I believe it isn't any more terrifying than Snow White and fits in the same category.

Again you are welcome to your beliefs, try reading some roman history and see if are od the same mind afterwards

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are welcome to your beliefs, personally not making sense of a bronze age fairy tale doesnt require ego, just logic

But it makes for such a pithy insult

 

[InChrist]

LOL!! No, no no. You have it all backwards.

Your so called "prophecies" are mostly just verses quoted out of context. They are not prophecies. They are not evidence for Jesus. In the same way what I would be doing is merely abusing the Bible. I used that example to show the fallacy of your reasoning. I would not make that mistake. You did.

No, you are mistaken. The prophecies and their fulfillment are much too detailed to be a coincidence or just verses used out of context. The entire theme and message of the Bible, which is actually 66 different books written by 40 various people over approximately 1500 years is to point to the Messiah, Jesus Christ the Savior.

“One of the authenticating proofs for the inspiration of the Bible, which at the same time authenticate the claims of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the only Savior of the world, are the many fulfilled prophecies which find their fulfillment in the person and life of Christ, Jesus of Nazareth. We have in the Holy Scripture, an array of prophecies which extend over hundreds of years and yet find their complete fulfillment in the short thirty-year life span of one person, Jesus of Nazareth, many being fulfilled in one day. These prophecies truly accomplish the purposes of the Gospel writers as they carefully pointed to the person, words, and works of Christ.”
Messianic Prophecies | Bible.org

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, you are mistaken. The prophecies and their fulfillment are much too detailed to be a coincidence or just verses used out of context. The entire theme and message of the Bible, which is actually 66 different books written by 40 various people over approximately 1500 years is to point to the Messiah, Jesus Christ the Savior.

“One of the authenticating proofs for the inspiration of the Bible, which at the same time authenticate the claims of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the only Savior of the world, are the many fulfilled prophecies which find their fulfillment in the person and life of Christ, Jesus of Nazareth. We have in the Holy Scripture, an array of prophecies which extend over hundreds of years and yet find their complete fulfillment in the short thirty-year life span of one person, Jesus of Nazareth, many being fulfilled in one day. These prophecies truly accomplish the purposes of the Gospel writers as they carefully pointed to the person, words, and works of Christ.”
Messianic Prophecies | Bible.org

Linking to likely lying sources does not help you. You would need to copy and paste applicable passages. This also ignores the fact that the writers of the Gospels were Talmudic scholars themselves and they rather wrote some of the Gospels so that it appeared that 'prophecies" were fulfilled. The attempts were rather ham handed at times. Look at both failed Nativity stories as an example.

 

[InChrist]

What? Where did you get the idea that everyone was registered back then? If you are talking about for tax purposes you would need to show that genealogy was part of that registration. And you do realize that the Nativity in Luke was a made up story, at least I hope that you do. He made some huge errors in it.

The Gospel of Luke is not made up, Nativity account or otherwise. Luke intended to present an accurate detailed account and that is what he did. There are no errors, other than minor, but nothing that impacts the facts.


“First, the key word is eyewitnesses, which in Greek is autoptai (plural of autopt?s) (v. 2). Today we get the word autopsy from it. However, in Luke’s preface it is not a medical term, nor does it have a legal meaning per se, but a historiographical one (history writing). It means those who are first hand observers. One scholar translates it as “those with personal / firsthand experience: those who know the facts at first hand” (Alexander, p. 120). ”


10. Eyewitness Testimony in Luke’s Gospel | Bible.org

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Gospel of Luke is not made up, Nativity account or otherwise. Luke intended to present an accurate detailed account and that is what he did. There are no errors, other than minor, but nothing that impacts the facts.


“First, the key word is eyewitnesses, which in Greek is autoptai (plural of autopt?s) (v. 2). Today we get the word autopsy from it. However, in Luke’s preface it is not a medical term, nor does it have a legal meaning per se, but a historiographical one (history writing). It means those who are first hand observers. One scholar translates it as “those with personal / firsthand experience: those who know the facts at first hand” (Alexander, p. 120). ”


10. Eyewitness Testimony in Luke’s Gospel | Bible.org

You really should study the Bible someday. Luke has a ten year pregnancy for Mary in it.

 

[InChrist]

Linking to likely lying sources does not help you. You would need to copy and paste applicable passages. This also ignores the fact that the writers of the Gospels were Talmudic scholars themselves and they rather wrote some of the Gospels so that it appeared that 'prophecies" were fulfilled. The attempts were rather ham handed at times. Look at both failed Nativity stories as an example.

Am I supposed to believe the source I linked is “lying” because you say so or you don’t like their detailed, researched conclusions? I don’t and consider the website reliable.
I don’t see any failures in the Nativity accounts or know any “fact” about the Gospel writers being Talmudic scholars. You’ve probably read too much stuff by so called biblical scholars, textual critics such as Bart Ehrman and others.

https://crossexamined.org/wrote-gospels-2/

 

[InChrist]

You really should study the Bible someday. Luke has a ten year pregnancy for Mary in it.

No, he doesn’t.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Am I supposed to believe the source I linked is “lying” because you say so or you don’t like their detailed, researched conclusions? I don’t and consider the website reliable.
I don’t see any failures in the Nativity accounts or know any “fact” about the Gospel writers being Talmudic scholars. You’ve probably read too much stuff by so called biblical scholars, textual critics such as Bart Ehrman and others.

https://crossexamined.org/wrote-gospels-2/

I have yet to see an apologist site that is not a liar for Jesus. You should not ask others to do your homework for you. If there is a valid argument from that site you should copy and paste it.

There is an easy test to see if a site is honest or not. Do they support the Noah's Ark myth? If they do they are not very trustworthy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, he doesn’t.

Sure he does. Tell me, when does he imply that Mary got knocked up?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

To which you are welcome

*Slow hand clapping*

Possible but with just as much evidence as the alternative

Yeah - as I said - "it is impossible to prove the paternal lineage of the Lord Jesus Christ".

The difference between believing while accepting other religions can also have their place in non Jewish society and actively fermenting anti roman feeling, openly denying the gods of rome including the emperor as a god was treason.

If that were the case then every Jew who believed in and practiced their religion would have been crucified.

I can't believe I had to do this - but I did some digging - a basic search - and apparently the Romans had a special policy that they extended to the Jews called religio licita - which allowed them to practice their religion - which included believing in only the one God.

As long as the religious practices were not disruptive or subversive - it was fine - and I remember the Lord Jesus Christ telling His followers to "Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which be Cæsar’s," (Luke 20:25)

Yes,which is why i said "assume" at the start of that paragraph, and explained as much later in the thread
It is one scenario,however unlikely that explains why he was seen after his supposed death.

But it contradicts what we know about the Romans and how they treated those accused of treason - which you openly admitted.

Are you trying to have your cake and eat it too? Admit you are wrong and still insist that you are right?

Either He was crucified by Rome for being a traitor - or He wasn't.

I was specific,it is my belief he was a traitor, crucifixion says as much

You have every right to believe what you want - like how I believe that He was the Son of God - however - unlike your belief - mine has not yet been disproven.

We know that the Romans leave traitors to rot - but you ask us to "assume" that He was taken down - and still argue that He was crucified for being a traitor?

I feel that the OP is less about sharing your view and more about some personal agenda.

I put as much faith in NT claims as i do in Michael Mouse

I don't know who Michael Mouse is. Did you mean Mickey Mouse? Because if you did - I'd trust that guy with my life.

Anyways - it doesn't really matter - I was sharing the source of my information.

When you mentioned the Talmud I didn't respond in a tawdry way - it is a good source - even if I don't believe it is completely dependable.

Eh? Can you explain crucifixion any other way?

The New Testament claims that the Jews demanded it of Pilate.

Even though Pilate reportedly said that he believed that the Lord Jesus Christ had done nothing to "pervert the people" - as the Jewish elders claimed - they still demanded He be crucified.

Pilate feared the people - and another Jewish revolt would not look good for him in Rome - so what's a guy to do?

In the same way the NT is far from unbiased.

No one ever said that the New Testament was not biased.

However as @cOLTER has indicated, there are other sources, celsus/origen

What do these sources claim?

I am sure you read my op

I did and it did not make sense.

You openly admit that there is a huge glaring hole in your argument - and yet you still continue to defend that hole.

Makes no sense to me.

Thank you for your magnanimous gesture, appreciated

God bless. Dieu bénisse

 

[ChristineM]

If that were the case then every Jew who believed in and practiced their religion would have been crucified.

Not if they didn't impose their faith on others, not if they didnt openly deny other religion

I can't believe I had to do this - but I did some digging - a basic search - and apparently the Romans had a special policy that they extended to the Jews called religio licita - which allowed them to practice their religion - which included believing in only the one God.

See my above comment

As long as the religious practices were not disruptive or subversive -

Bingo

"Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which be Cæsar’s," (Luke 20:25)

The bible says a lot of things, many people take third person claims of other peoples claimed speeches as 100% valid, that ia up totheir own faith and gullibility.

But it contradicts what we know about the Romans and how they treated those accused of treason - which you openly admitted.

Yes, hence the assume, there are a couple of reasons to assume, rome often recruited its soldiers from locals, bribery, riot. So the assumption is valid as a possible explanation, even if typically unlikely. I did not say this happened, i said assume.

but you ask us to "assume" that He was taken down

See above comment.

I don't know who Michael Mouse is.

Yes you do. And if you would trust your life to a fictional character, that explains much

The New Testament claims

Many, many things, unlike you i so not trust the claims of a book that self references itself to simulate validity

What do these sources claim?

Ask @cOLTER

You openly admit that there is a huge glaring hole in your argument - and yet you still continue to defend that hole.

No, i still continue to research, and base my conclusions on that research.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Not if they didn't impose their faith on others, not if they didnt openly deny other religion

That just isn't true.

The Jews didn't force anyone to be Jewish - obviously - but they did deny Gentiles access to the Temple and its grounds. The Romans allowed this.

The Jews openly kept the Law of Moses - which denies the existence of all other gods - which is why they took issue with the Lord Jesus Christ claiming to be the Son of God.

And there is no proof that the Lord Jesus Christ "imposed" anything on anyone and He openly kept the Law of Moses - which was allowed by the Romans.

There is just no grounds to assume that Rome considered the Lord Jesus Christ a traitor and the Jews demanding the crucifixion explains why they would let Him down rather than leave Him to rot.

The very narrative you are trying your best to reject better explains your conclusion than any argument you've made.

See my above comment

You're still wrong.

Bingo

Disruptive or subversive to Roman rule - not Jewish elder's "version" of the Law of Moses.

That was the Lord's biggest beef - that the Jewish religious leaders were not actually living according to the Law - that they were liars and hypocrites.

The bible says a lot of things, many people take third person claims of other peoples claimed speeches as 100% valid, that ia up totheir own faith and gullibility.

Someone referencing the Bible is not a claim that it is %100 valid.

Remember when you referenced the Talmud?

Does that mean you believe the Talmud is 100% valid?

That wouldn't jive with your evangelical atheism.

I only mentioned the New Testament because the narrative it tells makes more sense than what you are arguing.

And it correlates with what we know about history - rather than your version of Romans allowing a traitor to be taken down from the cross and nursed back to health.

Yes, hence the assume, there are a couple of reasons to assume, rome often recruited its soldiers from locals, bribery, riot. So the assumption is valid as a possible explanation, even if typically unlikely. I did not say this happened, i said assume.

When you ask someone to "assume" something - you are asking them to "believe" that it happened.

Your narrative is no different than the New Testament. You're no better.

See above comment.

Still makes no sense.

Yes you do. And if you would trust your life to a fictional character, that explains much

I still don't know anyone named "Michael Mouse".

But Mickey Mouse - that guy has a heart of gold.

And doesn't your argument hinge on the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ was a real person?

Your narrative has more provable fiction in it than the New Testament does.

Many, many things, unlike you i so not trust the claims of a book that self references itself to simulate validity

Again - sharing a reference is not a claim that it is 100% valid.

Or are you saying that you believe that God is real and that He gave authority to the Jewish Rabbis because you referenced the Talmud?

Ask @cOLTER

No thanks. I'm not really interested.

You were the one who brought up that other RF member and those sources.

So - why bring them up if you aren't willing or able to talk about them?

No, i still continue to research, and base my conclusions on that research.

You also base your conclusions on provable falsehoods.

That is not the scholarly approach.

You know that the Romans would not have let any traitor down from the cross until he rotted - therefore - you should "conclude" that the Lord Jesus Christ was not crucified for being a traitor to Rome.

Something else happened and the New Testament gives a very compelling and plausible explanation.

Pilate - even though he did not believe that the Lord Jesus Christ was worthy of death - did not want to cause another Jewish revolt (of which there had been many) - so he decided to let the Jewish people have their way - and they wanted Him crucified

 

[ChristineM]

That just isn't true.

Not,

And there is no proof that the Lord Jesus Christ "imposed" anything on anyone

Works both ways. But that is not the point, historical facts are the point and you agree how rome acted towards terrorists/traitors. And that crucifixion was reserved for traitors

There is just no grounds to assume that Rome considered the Lord Jesus Christ a traitor

Crucifixion... Nuf said

You're still wrong.

Not

Disruptive or subversive to Roman rule - not Jewish elder's "version" of the Law of Moses.

That was the Lord's biggest beef - that the Jewish religious leaders were not actually living according to the Law - that they were liars and hypocrites.

And?

Someone referencing the Bible is not a claim that it is %100 valid.

Another bingo moment there i think

Remember when you referenced the Talmud?

Does that mean you believe the Talmud is 100% valid?

No more than the bible but the bible does not have the name and address of JCs father. Oh wait a moment, god dun it so that make the bible infallible, right???

I only mentioned the New Testament because the narrative it tells makes more sense than what you are arguing

Not to anyone who has studied Roman history it doesn't

rather than your version of Romans allowing a traitor to be taken down from the cross and nursed back to health.

Assume, remember?

When you ask someone to "assume" something - you are asking them to "believe" that it happened.

Not, it is asking them to consider [a possible] scenario

No thanks. I'm not really interested.

You asked so you are interested but its not my problem.

You also base your conclusions on provable falsehoods

Wrong, prove Roman history wrong and would consider what you say but you cannot so...