Ok, judge. I thought that Christians believe that humans are not supposed to judge people, that was God's job. But hey, there are so many denominations that might just apply to some of them. By the way, the personal attacks are not neccessary. By looking in a concordance I meant looking in a concordance of the Bible and looking up that verse that was quoted from Isaiah. Comparing the translation in that verse to the translation of the same word in different places.
What putrid, puerile pomposity. Show me your proof that a savior named Jesus existed. The audacity! You really are pathetically silly ... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
************* M*W: Ebony, the book of Isaiah mentions nothing of Jesus. Many Christians think so, but this is not the truth. Isaiah was talking about his own son as being the Messiah. My intention was not to insult anyone. I've been a devout Christian, and I found out the truth. Believe me, it was a loss for me. I was soooo catholic that I blindly believed. When I found out the truth, I was stunned. The Catholic Church hid what I finally found. I don't so much as blame the RCC, I blame the early church fathers for lying. I grieved over losing Christianity. It simply doesn't exist!
That's not even the question I asked in the first place. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Thank you for displaying great ignorance. Bye Bye.
All sorts of gods existed before Jesus, but from everything I have been able to read about them, most of the attendant phenomena which resembles the life of Jesus was added hundreds of years later, after Christianity was on the rise. For one example, Mithras was originally said to have been born when a rock was broken open. The Jesus-like details came much, much later. From all that I can gather (and I am gathering still) it appears that this is the case with all of the pagan Christs about which I can find any information. I am always interested to find as much information as possible as I enjoy learning, but so far the process re-inforces my belief, it does not detract from it. The Dead Sea Scrolls also contain some Isaiah prophecies from 125BC which indicate the Messiah will have his hands and feet pierced, along with other details pertaining to specifically to Jesus. It is true that He is not mentioned specifically by name, but wouldn't such an identification lend itself to further reverse engineering and not less? Anyone and everyone who knew the name of the Messiah would simply start giving their children that name in the hopes that he might be the one. Or authorities could have simply outlawed the name.
One more thing, When St Paul began writing his letters there were still some five hundred living witnesses to the crucifixion and subsequent resurrection.
FR, Yes, I have read some of the work of J Campbell, who really uses the Jungian idea of the archetype. I believ ethat the archetype is simply a structure or pattern, but the exact content of that structure comes from one's culture. My statement thus means to look at religious ideas that were popular in the cultures from Jesus's time and locale. The archetype, or structure, in this case, is not so important as is it's exact content (i.e. A Virgin birth, or a parent who is a god). SS, Regarding your Isaiah quotes, when did Jesus have the mantle of government on his shoulders ? The content of that quote alone seems to rule out Jesus as a possible candidate. That particular quote sounds as if it is a reference to a King or political leader. And Yes, Pauls claims that Jesus appeared to 500 people at once, a little detail that the NT gospel writers never mention. Why is that, do you suppose ? If we take the NT gospels as somewhat historical (that is legend), it looks as if Jesus causes a stir at the temple with the money changers, then gets arrested and executed for sedition. The 3 synoptic gospels all seem to come from Mark, or some version of it, but then each of them adds and subtracts meterial. John's gospel refers to Jesus as the Logos, which was a concept that had become recently popular in the second temple period, from which we still have the literature of Philo Judaeus of Alexandria, who in his Creation treatise, expounds the idea of a lesser god, the logos. john identifies Jesus with this god, whereas the synoptic writers only call him "son of God" and "son of man". The "son of man" concept can be found in Daniel and Enoch. Think about it for a moment. A people who believe that they are a god's chosen people, and who believe that this god demands blood sacrifice at the temple in Jerusalem, lose their temple, their city, and many of their numbers. Through a slow process of development, they assign the Logos to Jesus, claim that he was sacrificed, and that no more sacrifices are necessary (Coincidentally, their place of sacrifice has been destroyed, they have been sorely beaten, and now struggle for a sense of an identity as a people).
Sorry, I should really have been more thorough about that Isaiah quote. Here it is, as posted here ; ....."For unto us a child is born,unto us a son is given. The government will be upon His shoulders. His names shall be Prince of peace,wonderful counselor,Everlasting Father,the Mighty God. And his kingdom shall have no end. As I had said in the post above, this quote specificaly says, "government will be upon His shoulders". I have never read that the Jesus of the NT was ever involved with the government. And notice that "his kingdom will have no end". Well, in 70AD the beaten remnants kingdom of Judea went up in flames. I also agree with another poster, in that a concordance would be helpful here, and I would like to see how JPS (Jewish Publication society) translates this same section. MW made the observation that the NT gospels really converge on an "empty tomb" story, which would be a natural consequence of a ressurection, but could also be from other causes (body stolen and moved). Maybe someone else here can look this one up, but did not some of the early Christian patriarchs (maybe Justin Martyr or Tertullian), talk about these earlier god/man/saviour stories/archetypes and attribute them to satan ?
Fortuna, I did not say Jesus appeared to 500 people at once. How did you get that? These were a combination of witnesses to the crucifixion and also to people who had seen Jesus during the days after His resurrection.
Greetings all, Pardon? There is no evidence for this. All we have is a CLAIM by Paul that Jesus APPEARED to 500 un-named witnesses (who are never named or mentioned again.) Paul lists these appearances along with his own, SPIRITUAL vision, of Jesus - which argues these appearances were all spiritual visions. Paul's Iesous Christos was a spiritual being - he says nothing about a historical Jesus - no Mary, Joseph, no birth stories, no miracles, no healings, no Sermon, no triumphal entry, no TRIAL!, no empty tomb! This silence is found throughout the early Christian records - no mention of any historical details about Jesus until over a CENTURY afterwards. How do YOU explain that Paula? How do YOU explain that NOT ONE SINGLE Christian writer mentions e.g. the empty tomb story until over a CENTURY after it allegedly happened? How do YOU explain that the chronologically first 20 or so Christian books make NO mention of the Gospel events? (or the Gospels, or the Evangelists.) What did Christians writers know, when? Consider this revealing comment by Christian father Aristides, sometime between 138-161CE : "... the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them". This is clear and present evidence that the Gospel was NEW (and singular, and un-named) in mid-2nd century - which is supported by all the other evidence : * First mention of proto-Gospels : Papias early-mid 2nd century * First published Gospel : Marcion c.142CE * First quotes from un-named proto Gospels : Justin mid 2nd century * First to name the 4 Evangelists : Irenaeus c.185CE This all shows quite clearly that the Gospels were late productions and their contents unknown (even to CHRISTIANS!) until mid 2nd century. The Gospels are clearly derived from the OT (and some pagan myths, e.g. Virgin birth) not from history. Notable, when the Gospels arose, they were criticised by Celsus as follows : "Clearly the christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth...It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction" In short, the Gospels are myths, totally UNKNOWN until a CENTURY after the alleged events. Jesus was a myth. Iasion
Is there anything that is actually 2000 years old that mentions jesus? Be it a carving or sculpture or whatever? Some legit artifact from those times? I always assumed he was a real guy as well, but if the only 'evidence' of his existence is literature from well after his alleged death than I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to think he was even a real person. Let alone a real magic person.
Greetings all, Hiya CA Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Thanks for your welcome. Thanks for your reply Dr Lou Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Indeed, no, there is NO contemporary evidence for Jesus or the Gospel events what-so-ever. Even where you WOULD expect it, no evidence exists: http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/EarlyWriters.html The "evidence" usually cited is - * suspect, even forged (e.g. Josephus), * very late (Talmud) * late and not evidence for Jesus (Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius) * or just outright FALSE (Phlegon, Thallus) Most surprising is the total SILENCE of Christians about the Gospels and the Gospel events - e.g. the empty tomb story is NOT MENTIONED by any Christian until over a CENTURY after the alleged events. (Intriguingly, the empty tomb theme is found in a first century Roman work of FICTION of the 1st century - Chariton's Chareas and Callirhoe (sp?)) Iasion
True, but I still have difficulty with the following: I can see little reason to view the Jerusalem sect and its tension with Paul as fictive, nor a reason to presume that this cult congealed in the absence of a charismatic cult leader. In this sense, the historicity of Yeshua does not seem much of a stretch (particularly given the tumultuous/messianic times). While you are struck by the "total SILENCE" of the Christians, I am struck by the comparable silence of their detractors with respect to the issue of historicity. Where, for example, is 'Celsus the mythicist' or the equivalent? Why is not Jesus of Vermes or the Jesus of Crossan/Mack at least equally reasonable postulates?
Iasion, The first twenty eight books of the Bible are not prophetic books. All one has to do is look at the table of contents to see that. The Gospels were taken from extant writings from the time of Jesus. There was an abundance of material, not a deficiency and as such the fledgling Church decided to organize the information by what could be determined to be most authentic which books. The Law of Apostolic Origin meant that the Gospels could only contain accounts that were eyewitness or dictated by an eyewitness. They could be no more than one person removed. Many of the so-called lost gospels rejected by the Church did not meet that criteria, therefore they were never actually lost, simply not included. The Law of Liturgical Use meant that the material had to have been in use from the very beginning of the Curch's foundation, immediately after the Resurrection. Since many people were involved in the selection of the material that was to be incorporated into the Gospels, someone would have known if material did not meet this criteria or of the whole thing was a sham. We have examples of material that was rejected, so we know this part of the process took place. The Gospels were not actually called the Gospels until this process of organization but the texts containing the works and words of Jesus existed.
Dear Ebony, You generally come across as someone with good human intellect. don't let 'MEDICINE WOMAN"(She has no medicine!), mislead you into the emptiness,arrogance and hattred of Jesus she suffers from. Isaiah first of all never had a son mentioned anywhere in the bible. Some of these earlier prophets lived celibate lives completely. Medicine Woman is wrong to tell you that the prophet is talking about his own biological son. The prophet Isaiah calls male Child the everlasting father and the Mighty God. It is ignorant to say that Isaiah's son is the Mighty God and Everlasting father. We would have been told about him(Isaiah's son) numerous times in the bible if the Mighty God of the bible was Isaiah's son. Isaiah was prophesying(seeing into the future through the spirit of God.) Jesus was born 700 years after the death of prophet Isaiah. When Jesus began his earthly ministry at the age of 30years(in jewish culture its the age of full maturity for a man) , he went to the synagogue/like a church. He sat at the front and asked for the book of prophet Isaiah. He found the place where it is written " The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me.For he has anointed me to pronounce recovery of sight to the blind, deliverance to the captives,to preach the good news to the poor, and proclaim the year of the Lord's favour". Jesus read these words among others and said that that prophecy had then been fulfilled before their eyes. Isaiah chapters 53 from verse 1 continues to talk about the crucifixion of jesus in detail.Just read the book, don't say you have nothing to do with the bible coz you don't believe it. As police investigators/detectives there is training that says don't throw away all leads before you have evaluated them. Analyzing even what could otherwise seem illogical always sheds some light to mysteries.iin this case God is the mystery. So my buddy get the book of isaiah in the old testament and read chapter 53; it will tell you about the sufferings of christ,thats 700 years before it actually happened. (as for Medicine Woman, you are 1000 times more logical than that bitter, hostile,Jesus-bashing 60yrs old woman!!)
