There are many anointed ones in the Hebrew bible and they are not speaking of Jesus (church, Israel)

[ivria66]

I haven't gone silent I have been working.

Yes, I know that first century Christianity was Jewish, which simply means that Jews thought Jesus was the Messiah, not some god man to be worshipped. Soon, the Jews of the time realized Jesus did not fulfill the Meissianic prophecies so they stopped believing he was the Messiah. Since you all know nothing about Jewish history, this sort of thing has happened a few times. Some Jewish guy comes along that a few Jews believe is the Messiah, they follow him around for a while waiting for him to fulfill the Messianic prophecies and then soon they stop following him because he doesn't appear to be the Messiah.

Some examples;

Simon bar Kokhba circa 135 CE

Theudas, died aroung 46 CE

Moses of Crete 440-470 CE

Feel free to look them up and look up many of the other Jews that claimed to be the Messiah. Jesus wasn't the first or last.


The idea of a Messiah is Jewish, not some Christianized guy, not a god man, not a diety. Just a king that will rule over Israel and the Jews during the Messianic age. Clearly Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies. Therefore the church made up a second coming and decided to mistranslate many OT verses to give them a Christological context in order to convince people that he was the one. They also turned him into a god man, it seemed easier at the time to convert people if they thought they were worshipping a god man, it was the hip thing at the time, they did away with the law, because no pagan wanted to be cut and give up certain foods, etc. No Jew would ever tell his people to drink wine as a symbol of his blood and eat bread as a symbol of his flesh, especially no rabbi or Messiah, that was a purely pagan practice, completely foreign to Judaism and Jews.

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by ivria66

I haven't gone silent I have been working.

Yes, I know that first century Christianity was Jewish, which simply means that Jews thought Jesus was the Messiah, not some god man to be worshipped. Soon, the Jews of the time realized Jesus did not fulfill the Meissianic prophecies so they stopped believing he was the Messiah. Since you all know nothing about Jewish history, this sort of thing has happened a few times. Some Jewish guy comes along that a few Jews believe is the Messiah, they follow him around for a while waiting for him to fulfill the Messianic prophecies and then soon they stop following him because he doesn't appear to be the Messiah.

Some examples;

Simon bar Kokhba circa 135 CE

Theudas, died aroung 46 CE

Moses of Crete 440-470 CE

Feel free to look them up and look up many of the other Jews that claimed to be the Messiah. Jesus wasn't the first or last.


The idea of a Messiah is Jewish, not some Christianized guy, not a god man, not a diety. Just a king that will rule over Israel and the Jews during the Messianic age. Clearly Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies. Therefore the church made up a second coming and decided to mistranslate many OT verses to give them a Christological context in order to convince people that he was the one. They also turned him into a god man, it seemed easier at the time to convert people if they thought they were worshipping a god man, it was the hip thing at the time, they did away with the law, because no pagan wanted to be cut and give up certain foods, etc. No Jew would ever tell his people to drink wine as a symbol of his blood and eat bread as a symbol of his flesh, especially no rabbi or Messiah, that was a purely pagan practice, completely foreign to Judaism and Jews.

1. If the Messiah was not to be some God man. Why does the Old Testament prophecy state His name would be Mighty God?

2. And do you understand, that one of the requirements of the Jewish Messiah, is that the Jewish people would reject Him?

[Thomas R.]

I've read about other Jewish messiah claimants. A story by author Lisa Goldstein titled "Split Light" was about Sabbatai Zevi. I liked it okay.

However these other claimants did not have the same importance. The Tanakh, even if it's our "fraudulent" Christian version, has been translated into most languages because of Christianity. Not because of Zevi or bar Kokhba or even any mainstream Jewish thinker. Christians played a significant role in their being a modern state of Israel. The ancient state was destroyed by Pagans not Christians.

Jews who accepted Jesus continued to exist into the third century and maybe even into the present day. The Knanaya (said to come from the word "Canaan") are said to be the descendants of original Jewish Christians who fled to India.

[TRANSPONDER]

[quote=Nikk;9642269][quote=AREQUIPA;9639956]

Originally Posted by Nikk

So, you think that your mind is superior to God's word. Who made you judge? You are fallible man and yet you attempt to disprove the bible. You show you ignorance of scripture. It is written that these things were written that you might believe. It is also written that if all the things that Jesus did were written down that the world would not be able to contain the books. So, the fact that some writters omit perticulars is not that they didn't happen. If the stories matched closer you would say that they are copies. So, just because the authors did not coroborate their stories you are going to reject them. I think it makes them more valid as an eyewitness account.

What you say does not make sense. You have to read the eyewitness accounts as being reliable.

They are clearly not eyewitnesses. John has the temple fracas before the baptism, but uses the same wording as the last-week temple bust - up in the other gospels. He is clearly fiddling with someone else's text. He does not know about a transfiguration. Luke has a miraculous haul of fish that the others overlook when describing the same event, yet he doesn't mention the walking on the water. Matthew records the sinking simon episode that the others don't mention. The gospels, to sum up, are so contradictory, that I can't take them as eyewitness.

These people had no reason to lie.

the reason they did what they did with the text that the synoptics had in common was to spread the views of Paul regarding Jesus and Judaism. They certainly had an agenda. They probably believed it, but that's no reason why I should or you should.

They were being persecuted by the Romans for being Christian at the time. To say they created a story around the person of Jesus Christ is absurd.

To say they created a story around Jesus Christ, whether they were being persecuted or not, is evident from evaluating the gospels.

The primary problem with this is that it is against Christianity (the nature of it). Christianity holds to the commandments and namely: Thou shalt not lie. So these men would not lie.

Paul lies and lies all the time. The Gospel writers lie and lie all the time. They probably believed that a few lies were ok so long as people were persuaded to believe. Christianity is still working the same way.

Further, these were Jews who were born into following the Law. So, the law was not foriegn to them.

Clearly, they were not, or if they were their grotesque misrepresentation of the law, the pharisees, the OT quotations and the Jewish people as a whole, makes them terribly renegade.

Not every eyewitness sees everything of every event. So the fact that some things are omited or included in the four gospels gives credibility to the veracity of the accounts themselves, not against them.

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say this; this is not about trivia or slightly different reports of eyewitnesses; this is about conflict and ommissions of the most serious kind that call their veracity or status as supposed eyewitness into serious question. the common wording in the synoptics, combined with the most flagrant rewriting of that common text, shows the open - minded Bible reader - which you ought to be - exactly what they were doing.

God is who he says he is in the bible. We do not add to the word of God. This is against what the bible teaches. In fact there is a curse associated with doing this (See revelation). I would never create God in my image because I am falible man. Rather I was created in his image.

Adding to the word of God is exactly what the Pauline gospels did.

You are not entittled to discredit the bible on absurdity. If you had a valid question that is fine. But to question the bible and remain ignorant of the scripture in not tolarable.

You are clearly shutting your eyes to my very valid and not at all absurd questions or points.

Luke 23: 46: And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

John 19:30: When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Matthew 27:46: And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
47: Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias.
48: And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink.
49: The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him.
50: Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

Mark 15:34: And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
35: And some of them that stood by, when they heard it, said, Behold, he calleth Elias.
36: And one ran and filled a spunge full of vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink, saying, Let alone; let us see whether Elias will come to take him down.
37: And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.

Lets compare the above references to Jesus' death.

Matthew, Mark and John all mention the vinigar. All mention he gave up the ghost (that he died). Luke, Matthew and Mark all mention that Jesus cried (yelled), where John says only that he said.

I can only see that the different accounts are of the same event, because just in these verses there is too much that are comparable. Luke matches more with Mathew and Mark, then to John, yet John matches more to Matthew and Mark instead of Luke.

So far, all you seem to be doing is endorsing my points. There was an original story - in the case of the synoptics, an original text, but you endorse my argument by showing that they rewrote it to suit themselves.

You say that John matches more to Matthew and Mark than to Luke. That is because, if you had looked at Luke, you'd see that he tinkered with the text more than did Matthew and Mark. You are proving my point.

But if we also consider that Luke was not an actual witness to the events, but rather interviewed people of the events surrounding the life of Jesus and compiled them like a biographer or a detective, then the variance between John and Luke becomes clear and inconsequencial.

But the fact that he uses chunks of the same wording shows that is not what he did; he worked from an existing text and revised it to suit himself.
But I'm glad you agree at least that Luke was not an eyewitness.

Luke begins by mentioning his methodology.

Luke 1: 1: Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2: Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
3: It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4: That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Luke shows that he has a perfect understanding but has received his information from the eyewitness. So your arguement that John and Luke are too different is moot. One is an eyewitness (John) and the other is one who got the information from the eyewitness. This gives some leeway for his compiling of the facts that he determined important a while after the event in order for Theophilus to "know the certinty of those things".

Let me give an example of what Luke is doing.

Mark 16 Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. 7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.
Matthew 28 Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. 6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. 7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.

Do you see that the basic text is identical but you see how 'Peter' was added to the disciples, and Mark has 'behold the place' because in Matthew, Jesus appears. Mark can do no better than to point out the empty place and hope that is good enough proof that Jesus rose. and finally "there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." is changed into " there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you."
I think I recall that is because Matthew can't find any account of Jesus telling the disciples that he would see them in Galilee.
Now, he wouldn't have that problem if he'd been a disciple. He'd have heard that prediction.

So we go onto Luke.
And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living F53 among the dead? 6 He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, 7 Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified,
As I said, he changes the text considerably, but this bit is still recognizable:
Matthew He is not here: for he is risen, as he said... he goeth before you into Galilee;
Mark he is risen; he is not here:... But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee:
Luke He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,
You may say this was just a mis-reporting, but we know WHY Luke changed it. It is because Luke has the disciples stay in Jerusalem so he can have Peter setting up the early Church instead of going back to their fishing jobs as John has it.
This is a telling example but the Gospels are full of it. Look for yourself, you don't need to take my word for it.

You still think I am 'ignorant of scripture?' Did you see this? Can you explain it other than to take refuge in excuses about 'witnesses don't always agree?'

Probably, yes. I don't mind. I doubt that I can get you to look at this stuff. You probably consider it irrelevant. All that matters is believing in 'The Big Picture' (did you have that term in mind? ) which means ignoring problems, having faith and telling Bible critics that they are ignorant.

[Thomas R.]

In ancient times histories were pretty often not purely literal retellings of events, but interpretations to make some point. Herodotus, Livy, Sima Qian, etc all put unlikely speeches in people's mouths. As I understand it many, probably most, of the Gospels were not written by eye-witnesses so much as people interviewing eye-witnesses. Different people likely got different witnesses or different stories from witnesses. Or they emphasized different parts of the stories.

Stuff about lying and agendas requires us to mind-read ancient people. Maybe it's true and maybe it's not. Most "revisionist" takes on the Bible require about as much, or more, ungrounded guesswork as anything else.

[TRANSPONDER]

You make a good point. It is generally thought that historians composed and inserted suitable - sounding speeches. If anything, of course, reservations about non-Bible histories is good reason not to trust Bible history. Inventing suitable - sounding speeches was considered legitimate.

I suppose in the end I have to say that my take is mine. I can't point to any historian who says the same. I have read a lot of redaction critics and
they certainly take it as unarguable that the synoptics all worked from an original text. That's not my idea. Even christian Bible critics agree that.

What I find odd is the reluctance to look at why they did it and what this does to the Jesus story and what we have left of the Jesus story afterwards.

I can tell you that: all that seems left is Jesus was a Galilean, he was baptised by John the Baptist and was crucified by Pilate.

I can't be sure why as all the bible reasons - Blasphemy charge, King of Jews charge - is questionable. However, the temple business does seem to have a lot of ...well, it persuades me. Both because of the weight all four gospel - writers put on it and also the way they try to fiddle around with it. I'd be tempted to put that down as the reason for crucifixion.

[Currency Pair Crocodile]

Message #31 just sent me into hysteric laughter

Oh please, milady, this is clearly falling apart. There's a ton of distortion you're blowing into your accusations that they simply don't hold water.

Originally Posted by ivria66

Yes, I know that first century Christianity was Jewish, which simply means that Jews thought Jesus was the Messiah, not some god man to be worshipped.

Fixative try speaking for the minds of the Jewish people 20 centuries later. Clearly, they liked the food from the fish and loaves on the mount of olives. Even the left-over baskets, so we will keep disputing whether He was considered God or a public food supplier the people loved.

Originally Posted by ivria66

Soon, the Jews of the time realized Jesus did not fulfill the Meissianic prophecies so they stopped believing he was the Messiah.

Time to call a spade a spade. Let's not indulge in non-sense. Straight to the point. The Jews are a racist group of people. Many still are, though they have melted themselves into the globalization-driven values of multi-culturalism and multi-ethnic oneness for fear of being left behind. The Jewish people have the idea of an exclusive Messiah, who will service their race only, and will have nothing to do with the Gentiles (aka the unclean). The very fact that Paul comes in to upset the applecart and tries to break that barrier is enough to jeopardize their primacy or higher league level in the Godly salvation order.

This is exactly what happened with Buddha. He sought to break the inter-caste barriers in his society with self-sacrifice and meditation. Let's take a survey of the number of folks who adhere to his so called cult in his hometown. None. Again, the stone the builders rejected became the corner stone, "somewhere else"

So, let's not fancy ourselves with bogus reasons of why the Jews of Early Times went disillusioned with Christianity.

Originally Posted by ivria66

Since you all know nothing about Jewish history, this sort of thing has happened a few times.

Poor us We were walled out of libraries and Jewish history books automatically caught fire in our hands when we touched them. At least, mine

Originally Posted by ivria66

The idea of a Messiah is Jewish, not some Christianized guy, not a god man, not a diety.

The term christian was largely unknown in the first two centuries, until Nicea in 324. I know how to count and that's fairly 300 years since Jesus. Well, perhaps I don't know how to unfairly count. But "christian", the term, was supposed to be derogatory and probably owes its origin to Roman elite who wrote missives between one another. The earliest official reference goes to Pliny the Younger who writes to Trajan. And it's around 110, and clearly, all Christians thought they were adherents of Judaism. Even Paul and John of Patmos

Originally Posted by ivria66

Just a king that will rule over Israel and the Jews during the Messianic age. Clearly Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies. Therefore the church made up a second coming and decided to mistranslate many OT verses to give them a Christological context in order to convince people that he was the one. They also turned him into a god man, it seemed easier at the time to convert people if they thought they were worshipping a god man, it was the hip thing at the time, they did away with the law, because no pagan wanted to be cut and give up certain foods, etc. No Jew would ever tell his people to drink wine as a symbol of his blood and eat bread as a symbol of his flesh, especially no rabbi or Messiah, that was a purely pagan practice, completely foreign to Judaism and Jews.

Brick over brick over brick on loose and wobbling foundations. Collapse it does, like Christ's parable of houses on steady ground and loose ground.

Now I gotta go silent and go work.

ivria66, <smooch> for you. Pardon this gentile Beside this tough conversation we have, I can be a very friendly dude. Ask Shalompeace

[ivria66]

C.A.,

Again, you don't really know what you are talking about. The idea of a messiah is exclusively Jewish, however he is for everyone, not just the Jews. The messianic prophecies speak of a universal knowledge of one G-d and universal peace. Maybe "universal" only means Jews.

The point is, that Christians think they know everything about Jews, they judge Jews, tell them what the Hebrew bible says when they can't even read Hebrew, basically they are quite arrogant and that has caused alot of tragedy for the Jewish people.

It is true some Jews are racist, just like with any group of people, there are racists. I really don't understand how any Jew could be racist, with all the awful hatred towards Jews for thousands of years. It is a shame really.

I have had several Christian books catch fire in my hands, so therefore I have stopped touching them.

Just think about it for a minute. Worshipping a divine god man is completely foreign to Jews, it is against Jewish law and always has been. In ancient times, (you are a student of history right?) the pagan/myth religions pretty much worshipped god men. Many of these god men had eartly mothers and a god for a father. Sounds like Jesus, doesn't it? They had supernatural powers, right? Some resurrected in the spring, right? It isn't that far fetched to say that the ancients borrowed from each other, culturally and religiously, including the Hebrews. I am pretty sure that the Hebrews animal sacrificial system, at least part of it, was adopted from the pagans. The Jews stopped short of worshipping god men. Christianity took Jesus and turned him into a god man and savior. They went from messiah to savior. Someone I used to work with who grew up Mormon told me he thinks Christianity is modern day mythology. Of course he isn't Mormon anymore, but he got me thinking.

A pretty cool website I would like to share is www.pocm.info

[Fullback32]

Originally Posted by Thomas R.

In ancient times histories were pretty often not purely literal retellings of events, but interpretations to make some point. Herodotus, Livy, Sima Qian, etc all put unlikely speeches in people's mouths. As I understand it many, probably most, of the Gospels were not written by eye-witnesses so much as people interviewing eye-witnesses. Different people likely got different witnesses or different stories from witnesses. Or they emphasized different parts of the stories.

Stuff about lying and agendas requires us to mind-read ancient people. Maybe it's true and maybe it's not. Most "revisionist" takes on the Bible require about as much, or more, ungrounded guesswork as anything else.

Good post. I would also say that this is somewhat true of more modern histories as well. The old "history is written by the victors" saying is true. Not to mention that there is ample evidence that some of the ancient histories were tampered with. Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus is a prime example of that.

[Thomas R.]

Originally Posted by ivria66

C.A.,

Again, you don't really know what you are talking about. The idea of a messiah is exclusively Jewish, however he is for everyone, not just the Jews. The messianic prophecies speak of a universal knowledge of one G-d and universal peace. Maybe "universal" only means Jews.

The point is, that Christians think they know everything about Jews, they judge Jews, tell them what the Hebrew bible says when they can't even read Hebrew, basically they are quite arrogant and that has caused alot of tragedy for the Jewish people.

Some Christians are jerks, some Christians are bigots. I also agree the Jewish understanding of the Messiah is quite different than the Christian one.

Still Jewish ideas of "chosenness" and the messianic-era I've heard do revolve around the fate of the Jewish people. Isn't it about universal knowledge of what the Jews mostly know and saving the Jewish people from oppression? It's universalist in the sense that all can be "saved", regardless of background or creed of origin, but it's particularist in that the focus is God's bond with the Jewish people. Or is that totally wrong?

And although the specific concept of "messiah" is Jewish the notion of a bringer of universal peace and knowledge isn't. The Zoroastrians have Saoshyant who is said will clean the world of falsehood and resurrect the dead. The Taoists had "messianic" movements that believed a leader would create a heavenly kingdom. Many Buddhists believe Maitreya will come one day to teach "the pure dharma." The Hindus have Kalki, the final avatar of Vishnu, who apparently will bring the "Satya Yuga" or Golden Age.