The Promised Messiah

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

This isn't about G-d leaving matters to chance...either Jesus fulfilled the prophecies pertaining to Messiah, or he didn't. In my mind I always viewed Isaiah 11 and Psalms 22 as the definitive prophecies, and it seems to me Jesus pretty well fulfilled them.

Roman influence may be an important point, it certainly prevails in the West to this day, and Palestine in Jesus' time was under Roman occupation and influence. Maybe that is a clue, Roman legal disposition versus Jewish cultural heritage...I don't know, merely thinking in script. What concerns me is the great dearth of maternal lineages throughout the whole rest of the Bible. It is a very rare thing where daughters are even mentioned, let alone named, going back to the early chapters of Genesis. Noah's wife had no name, and Noah's sons' wives are not named either, establishing a precedent that extends almost all the way through the Bible. So I think it is still a reasonable assumption on my part to stick with the paternal heritage argument, even though I am very aware of the maternal "you are Jewish if your mother is Jewish" cultural line of thought. Either way, I don't buy the argument of adoption when the prophecy explicitly states "from the root of."

LOL exactly, that is why the lineage to David is tracable back by both fahter and mother...nothing left to chance. Smart God.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by bob x

Quite the contrary. Jesus was widely described as the ******* son of a Roman soldier. That sounds a little like challenging his descent!

What a jack ass. Educated? Sophisticated? Cultured? Grow up man.

[marmalade]

There are various problems with claiming Jesus as a Messiah, but there is one basic one. There is no clear evidence that Jesus ever existed historically. He may have existed and he may have been the Messiah. We can't know at least not rationally. However, if its important to us, we can have faith. We can trust its true becasue it feels true to us. Or we could even hope for a vision from God to dispell all our doubts.

Arguing about historical details is a red herring. The real issue is about faith. You can believe in a savior without believing in a historical Christ such as the Gnostics did. Then we're talking about some interesting stuff.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, marmalade!

Originally Posted by marmalade

There are various problems with claiming Jesus as a Messiah, but there is one basic one. There is no clear evidence that Jesus ever existed historically.

I can grant there is *not a lot* of extra-Biblical historical evidence, but if Josephus is to be considered as a history of the era, Jesus *is* briefly mentioned. Seems I recall some other scant evidences pointed to...a census roll or something...but I could be mistaken. I am certainly not knowledgeable enough to verify any such evidence that might surface, so yes there is a degree of "faith" that I take Jesus' message on.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by marmalade

There are various problems with claiming Jesus as a Messiah, but there is one basic one. There is no clear evidence that Jesus ever existed historically. He may have existed and he may have been the Messiah. We can't know at least not rationally. However, if its important to us, we can have faith. We can trust its true becasue it feels true to us. Or we could even hope for a vision from God to dispell all our doubts.

Arguing about historical details is a red herring. The real issue is about faith. You can believe in a savior without believing in a historical Christ such as the Gnostics did. Then we're talking about some interesting stuff.

Sorry, that is actually false. Jesus is chronicled in the history of Roman dialogue, as well as secular Jewish "news" of the time. Josephus comes immediately to mind.

Gnosis, means to know...that doesn't seem apparent here.

[marmalade]

I've been involved in threads arguing about historical evidence and its a bit tedious. I'm in no mood for that kind of discussion. I don't know what to consider myself, but I do have faith that there is truth in the idea of a messiah even if its only an archetypal truth. Many religions besides Christianity have sought out savior figures. Its a universal impulse and I respect it for what it is.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by marmalade

I've been involved in threads arguing about historical evidence and its a bit tedious. I'm in no mood for that kind of discussion. I don't know what to consider myself, but I do have faith that there is truth in the idea of a messiah even if its only an archetypal truth. Many religions besides Christianity have sought out savior figures. Its a universal impulse and I respect it for what it is.

True, many other religions have sought out savior figures, some even claim to have found them.

That's why in my mind it seems incumbent to separate the wheat from the chaff, to wean the radical Judaism of Jesus from the Pagan pablum; so to speak.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by marmalade

I've been involved in threads arguing about historical evidence and its a bit tedious. I'm in no mood for that kind of discussion. I don't know what to consider myself, but I do have faith that there is truth in the idea of a messiah even if its only an archetypal truth. Many religions besides Christianity have sought out savior figures. Its a universal impulse and I respect it for what it is.

Nix.

Then you shouldn't be here discussing what is discussed. And It is known fact that Jesus is discussed in secular papers at the or about the time of His walk on earth. Since you are on the Christian forum, respect what Christians respect.

v/r

Q

[marmalade]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Nix.

Then you shouldn't be here discussing what is discussed. And It is known fact that Jesus is discussed in secular papers at the or about the time of His walk on earth. Since you are on the Christian forum, respect what Christians respect.

v/r

Q

Calm down. Yes, its a Christian forum in an inter-faith board. Anyways, you don't know that I don't consider myself Christian. All I have said was that I doubt the historical Christ and so did many Gnostic Christians.

I suppose if you really want a discussion about a historical Christ, then I could participate. I'm sure it must have been discussed to death around here many times before. However, as this subject is a perennial favorite, bringing it up one more time can't hurt.

If you wish to present your evidence, then I'll give you a response. Give me the specific quotes to which you're referring.

I'm getting ready for bed and I might be busy tommorrow. I'll get back to this thread no latter than Sunday.

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

What a jack ass. Educated? Sophisticated? Cultured? Grow up man.

Troll.
I did not invent the uncomplimentary things early non-believers had to say about Jesus' parentage; I am just reporting them, in response to Mee's totally false claim that the non-believing Jews all agreed that Jesus was of royal descent.

[bob x]

Originally Posted by marmalade

All I have said was that I doubt the historical Christ and so did many Gnostic Christians.

Not until the 20th century, no.

[marmalade]

Docetism. The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-07

early heretical trend in Christian thought. Docetists claimed that Christ was a mere phantasm who only seemed to live and suffer. A similar tendency to deny Jesus’ humanity appeared in the teachings of Simon Magus, Marcion, Gnosticism, and certain phases of monarchianism.

Docetism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Docetism was an early Christian heresy. The term is derived from the Greek word dokein, meaning "to appear." Docetism proposed that Christ only "appeared" to have a real human body. This belief was a prevalent feature of Gnosticism, which held that matter and spirit are antagonistic. For the Gnostics, salvation consisted in liberation from the bondage of matter; consequently, while accepting Christ as Saviour, Gnosticism could not logically accept a real incarnation. Another common Docetistic tenet was that Christ's sufferings on Calvary were an illusion or that someone else was substituted for Him.

The origins of Docetism are obscure. Some indications of its existence and repudiation are found in the New Testament. By the early 2d century, Ignatius of Antioch had condemned it. More detailed refutation were given by Irenaeus and Tertullian.

Sermon - Sky-Writing by Robert M. Price

"In the beginning was the word... and without him nothing came into being. And the word was made flesh." These are the words of the Logos hymn, the prologue of the Gospel of John, on which I happen to be teaching a course this semester. One of the major concerns on which these verses have historically been brought to bear is that of Docetism, or the reality of the incarnation. Did Jesus Christ, a heavenly being, actually assume a body of flesh and blood for his appearance on earth among mortal men and women? Or did it merely appear (Greek: dokeo) so?

On one level these verses seem to return a positive answer about the incarnation, that he did really bear a body of solid flesh like you and I do. And so this text has been brandished like a talisman to ward off the theological spook of Docetism, the doctrine that Jesus was a spook.

There are other points as well at which John's gospel seems to want to address and refute Docetism. But each time it cannot seem to help contradicting itself. In the very same moment it draws back and by the very same stratagem of refutation reopens the very question it seems to be trying to close down.

New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash by Robert M. Price

5. Jesus Appears to Mary Magdalene (20:1, 11-18)

This story owes much to the self-disclosure of the angel Raphael at the climax of the Book of Tobit (Helms, pp. 146-147). When Tobias first saw Raphael, he “did not know” he was really an angel (Tobit 5:5), just as when Mary, weeping outside the tomb, first saw Jesus there, she “did not know” who he really was (20:14). Having delivered Sarah from her curse, Raphael reveals himself to Tobit and his son Tobias and announces, his work being done, that “I am ascending to him who sent me” (Tobit 12:20), just as Jesus tells Mary, “I am ascending to my father and your father, to my God and your God” (John 20:17). Why does the risen Jesus warn Mary “Touch/hold me not, for I have not yet ascended to the father” (20:17a)? This is probably an indication of docetism, that Jesus (at least the risen Jesus) cannot be touched, not having (any longer?) a fleshly body (the story was not originally followed by the Doubting Thomas story with its tactile proofs, hence need not be consistent with it; note that in 20:17b Jesus seems to anticipate not seeing the disciples again). The reason for seeing docetism here is the parallel it would complete between John 20 and the Raphael revelation/ascension scene, where the angel explains (Tobit 12:19), “All these days I merely appeared to you and did not eat or drink, but you were seeing a vision” (i.e., a semblance).

Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius: No Proof of Jesus

Johnson considered "Chrestus" a distinction made to separate the "good god" of the Gnostics from the evil god Yahweh. This term, Chrestus, is thus traceable to Samaria, where Gnosticism as a movement took shape and where it may have referred to Simon Magus, whom we have seen to have been a god, rather than a "real person." Hence, these Chrestiani were apparently Syrian Gnostics, not followers of the "historical" Jesus of Nazareth. Confirming this assertion, that the first "Christians" were actually followers of the "good god" Chrestus, the earliest dated Christian inscription, corresponding to October 1, 318 CE, calls Jesus "Chrestos," not Christos: "The Lord and Savior, Jesus the Good." This inscription was found above the entrance of a Syrian church of the Marcionites, who were anti-Jewish followers of the second-century Gnostic Marcion. The evidence points to "Jesus the Chrestos" as a Pagan god, not a Jewish messiah who lived during the first century CE.

Jesus: God, Man or Myth?

In 1950, mythicist Herb Cutner published his excellent work, Jesus: God, Man or Myth?, which not only explores the mythical nature of Jesus Christ but also provides a rare and much-needed summarization of the debate between mythicists and historicizers over the past few centuries. Contrary to popular belief, the idea that Jesus Christ is a mythical character is not new: In fact, the questioning and doubting of the gospel tale started at the beginning of the Christian era and has been continued by thousands, if not millions, since then. The historicization and carnalization of the Christ character was fought by the Docetic Gnostics, and the disbelief was addressed by early orthodox Christians as well, including the writers of the canonical epistles of John. Indeed, 1 John 4 condemns as "antichrists" those "spirits" who do not confess that "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh," as does 2 John 7, which says:

"For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist."

Many, says 2 John, have contested the historicity of Jesus Christ, even by his day. Obviously, therefore, this dissension began with the dawn of the Christianity, which is understandable. If, for example, the average American today were approached with wild tales about some obscure religious fanatic who lived decades ago in, say, Mexico, and who purportedly did many miracles, from manifesting food and raising the dead, including himself, to ascending to heaven, would the person simply believe it, without any proof whatsoever? And be willing to accept this obscure preacher as the "Son of God" and God Almighty Himself? Such is the case with the story of Jesus Christ. In reality, the doubting of Christ as a historical character is not a "new fad"; those who argue otherwise are not informed on the subject.

[mee]

Originally Posted by flowperson

Mee...

WHAT IS YOUR PERSONAL OPINION ABOUT ALL OF THIS ?
*hint...ask Iggy, he might know*

flow....

Iggy says , As for me and my household we go along with what Jehovah says.



The testimony of Jehovah God is a another line of evidence supporting Jesus’ Messiahship. Jehovah sent angels to let people know that Jesus was the promised Messiah. (Luke 2:10-14) In fact, during Jesus’ earthly life, Jehovah himself spoke from heaven, expressing his approval of Jesus. (Matthew 3:16, 17; 17:1-5) Jehovah God gave Jesus the power to perform miracles. Each one of these was further divine proof that Jesus was the Messiah, for God would never give a fraud power to perform miracles. Jehovah also used his holy spirit to inspire the Gospel accounts, so that the evidence of Jesus’ Messiahship became part of the Bible, the most widely translated and distributed book in history.—John 4:25, 26.

[mee]

Originally Posted by bob x

Troll.
I did not invent the uncomplimentary things early non-believers had to say about Jesus' parentage; I am just reporting them, in response to Mee's totally false claim that the non-believing Jews all agreed that Jesus was of royal descent.

Jewish historian Josephus, in presenting his own lineage, makes it clear that such records were available before 70 C.E. These records were apparently
destroyed with the city of Jerusalem, making all subsequent claims to Messiahship unprovable.

so it was well known that Jesus was in the line of david.

In the sixth century B.C.E., the prophet Daniel foretold that "Messiah the Leader" would appear 69 "weeks" after the order went forth to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. (Daniel 9:24, 25) Each one of these "weeks" was seven years long.

The ancient Jews commonly thought in terms of weeks of years. For instance, just as every seventh day was a Sabbath day, every seventh year was a Sabbath year.—Exodus 20:8-11; 23:10, 11.

According to the Bible and secular history, the order to rebuild Jerusalem was issued in 455 B.C.E. (Nehemiah 2:1-8) So the Messiah was to appear 483 (69 times 7) years after 455 B.C.E. That brings us to 29 C.E., the very year that Jehovah anointed Jesus with holy spirit. Jesus thus became "the Christ" (meaning "Anointed One"), or Messiah.—Luke 3:15, 16, 21, 22.

Of course, not everyone accepted Jesus as the promised Messiah, and the Scriptures had foretold this. As recorded at Psalm 2:2, King David was divinely inspired to foretell: "The kings of earth take their stand and high officials themselves have massed together as one against Jehovah and against his anointed one." This prophecy suggested that leaders from more than one land would unite in order to attack Jehovah’s Anointed One, or Messiah. And so it was. The Jewish religious leaders, King Herod, and the Roman governor Pontius Pilate all played a part in having Jesus put to death. Former enemies Herod and Pilate became fast friends from then on. (Matthew 27:1, 2; Luke 23:10-12; Acts 4:25-28)

[bob x]

"Docetists claimed that Christ was a mere phantasm who only seemed to live and suffer."
Yes, yes, but they did agree that people did see Jesus walking around (even if they disagreed about what that "Jesus" actually was). The notion that Jesus was just a story-figure is a peculiarly 20th-century invention.