The Jews were looking for a militant leader who would free them from oppression, and not some lovey-dovey turn the otehr cheek guy.
What the Jews were looking for is one thing. What the prophecy says is what is important.
There may be many Americans "looking for" Jesus to come and vindicate the NRA. So what? The Messiah of thier expectations were in many cases self serving rather than God serving.
Besides there was more than one prophecy concerning the Messiah. And they all did not emphasize the same characteristics. Some characteristics were mentioned in one prophecy and other characteristics in other prophecy.
Of course most of us only care to hone in on the ones which serve our self interests the most.
To them Jesus was just some dude that angered the Romans and got killed for it, end of. So for you to claim that Jesus fulfilled the Jewish prophecy is contrary to the belief of the writers of that prophecy.
No, Jesus to them was not just some dude who angered the Romans. He was a man who spoke as no other man they had ever heard speak who raised the dead, healed the sick, exposed the religionists, and cast out demons with great authority.
And many of these actions were those which they expected to come with the coming of the kingdom of God.
Now as to propaganda after the fact, the claiming of Jesus as the Messiah in the bible, by the cult of Christianity is subsequent to his death.
There is no argument that the New Testament is propoganda. Now there is true propoganda and there is false propoganda.
For example, I saw a propoganda film about the Holocaust in Germany. It detailed how millions of Jews were killed. It was clearly propoganda. But it was propaganda of the true kind. It was propoganda based on something that has historical fact behind it.
Why should not men propogate the words and deeds of someone like Jesus?
So we believe that the New Testament is propaganda of the true kind.
And why would they NOT be excited to tell the world of such a Person as Jesus? Did you expect everyone to yawn and go home to their lives and forget it all? Maybe your reaction at hearing and being with such a person would be to go home and continue your life as usual telling no one.
Thank God there were some who saw the value in His life and words. And yes they passed on to future generation true propoganda about the actual Person.
Thus it's pretty simple to say 'oh, here's a guy that was born in Bethlehem, he was executed and we'll use him as a figurehead to encourage people to join our faith.
So you exclude everything from His birth to His death as not being significant.
It is not simply the fact that Jesus among many others was born in Bethlehem. It is that He acted as God "from everlasting" would act as a man. Micah's prophecy was that the one born in Bethlehem would be One who was from everlasting.
Christ's foreknowledge of events and the divine authority with which He raised the dead and taught manifested the characteristics of God everlasting.
They even took the Jewish religious books as basis for this to help exact that post-prophecy. Herod's knowledge of the prophecy and his subsequent actions do nothing to prove that Jesus was the son of God, how hard is that for you to understand?
The issue here is not absolute proof. The issue is supporting evidence. I find the evidence adaquate to indicate I am on the right track.
You have not mentioned the name of another person born in Bethlehem who acted as a divine Savior who was from everlasting. You have only lamely said "Lots of guys were born in Bethlehem."
Rather ridiculous critique. We all know lots of guys were born in Bethlehem. Not lots of guys like Jesus were born in Bethlehem.
Originally posted by jaywillYou are confused and confusing. I'd like to stay and chat, but I've got more exciting things to do, like work on my sodomy.
[b]The Jews were looking for a militant leader who would free them from oppression, and not some lovey-dovey turn the otehr cheek guy.
What the Jews were looking for is one thing. What the prophecy says is what is important.
There may be many Americans "looking for" Jesus to come and vindicate the NRA. So what? The Messiah of thier expectations ...[text shortened]... of guys were born in Bethlehem. Not lots of guys like Jesus were born in Bethlehem.[/b]
Originally posted by jaywillFailing to penetrate...my, my, what a Freudian choice of words. 😀
Here is the verse you are refering to:
"You have heard that it was said, You shall not commit adultery. But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman in order to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
So if your righjt eye stumbles you, pluck it out and cat it from you; for it is more profitable for you that ality among humans on earth by the indwelling empowerment of the Father.
In all seriousness, the concept of 'purity' you have described is a crock. Lust is natural and healthy. It keeps our species alive, and provides a source of pleasure. Sex, like any other form of pleasure (eating, drinking, etc.), it can be abused, but to forbid mere thoughts and fantasies is ridiculous and clearly out-of-sync with how almost all humans naturally behave. It is self-defeating to ask people to live up to a standard that no one can meet.
Originally posted by jaywillThe Bible mentions real people and therefore everyone the Bible mentions is real and everything happened as it says. Just like the Da Vinci Code.
In the meanwhile you can contemplate the number of people mentioned in the New Testament which are confirmed by non Christian sources:
Jesus
Agrippa I
Agrippa II
Ananias
Annas
Aretas
Bernice
Caiaphas
Ceasar Agustus
Claudius
Drusilla (wife of Felix)
A certain Egyptian false prophet
Erastus
Felix
Gallio
Herod Antipas
Herod Archalaus
H ...[text shortened]... o are mentioned in the New Testament are confirmed in writings of ancient non-Christian sources.
Originally posted by XanthosNZNice generalization. Nice blanket statement. Nice attempt to put words in my mouth.
The Bible mentions real people and therefore everyone the Bible mentions is real and everything happened as it says. Just like the Da Vinci Code.
The list of people mentioned in the New Testament mentioned in non-Christian writings is used by me as supporting evidence that the gospel is not myth writing.
It does not prove Christ is who He taught He was. But it an adaquate supporting evidence that the writings are based in historical realism.
I am not out to prove to anyone the truthfulness of the gospel message. I am only supplying some of the supporting external evidence that leads me to reasonably believe the gospel is reliable.
As for internal rather than external evidence, that is something one could only have by meeting Christ for himself. Just as the apostles indicated:
"In this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, that He has given to us of His Spirit" (1 John 4:13)
"And in this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He gave to us." (1 John 3:24)
And of course this indwelling Spirit of Christ Christ Himself taught would be Himself in His pneumatic form manifesting Himself to His believers:
"And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Comforter, that He may be with you forever, Even the Spirit of reality, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him or know Him; but you know Him, because He abides with you and shall be in you.
I will not leave you as orphans; I am coming to you" (John 14:16-18)
The internal witness is the Spirit of reality which He promised to send to His believers. The world cannot know such a Spirit of reality. Only those who receive Christ as Lord can know this Comforter, Who is Christ coming to the believers - "I will not leave you as orphans; I am coming to you"
In His resurrection form He comes to His believers as the divine life giving Spirit. By this we who have been called out of the world to be the Body of Christ know that He abides in us:
"The last Adam became a life giving Spriit" (1 Cor. 15:45).
As the life giving Spirit He manifests Himself from within to the believer:
" ... and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will manifest Myself to him" (John 14:21)
"If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make an abode with him." (John 14:23)
But the world has adaquate supporting evidence that they are on the right track to trust in Jesus Christ, if they repent of being rebellious sinners to do so. The reliability of the New Testament document is one such supporting evidence.
Originally posted by jaywillIf you aren't out to prove what you have been attempting to prove then you've done a good job.
Nice generalization. Nice blanket statement. Nice [b]attempt to put words in my mouth.
The list of people mentioned in the New Testament mentioned in non-Christian writings is used by me as supporting evidence that the gospel is not myth writing.
It does not prove Christ is who He taught He was. But it an adaquate supporting eviden ...[text shortened]... so. The reliability of the New Testament document is one such supporting evidence.[/b]
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemSelf control goes more to the healthy preservation of the human race than the lust which leads to recreational sex, children out of wedlock, abortions, fornications, adulteries, unfaithfulness, pornography, and the utilization of women as merely pleasure objects in a dehumanizing way.
Failing to penetrate...my, my, what a Freudian choice of words. 😀
In all seriousness, the concept of 'purity' you have described is a crock. Lust is natural and healthy. It keeps our species alive, and provides a source of pleasure. Sex, like any other form of pleasure (eating, drinking, etc.), it can be abused, but to forbid mere thoughts and fan ...[text shortened]... ally behave. It is self-defeating to ask people to live up to a standard that no one can meet.
When one is in a garlic room too long one can no longer smell the stench of garlic. One gets use to it.
I think you have gotten use to the moral decay of modern society. Your conscience has been made dull to the degradation. PLus you have embraced some philosophies which reduce humans to be merely another kind of animal rather than creatures created in the image of God.
I regard humanity as connected to the other creatures and yet transcendent over them as made in God's image.
Originally posted by XanthosNZYou've done a superb job to demonstrate that you have nothing superior to the experience Jesus Christ and of the gospel of Christ.
If you aren't out to prove what you have been attempting to prove then you've done a good job.
Just another petty and empty dying liar.
Originally posted by jaywillProve that I am a liar. Prove that I have nothing superior to the experiences of Jesus. I contend that I am superior to him in that no one was taking a crap when I was born.
You've done a superb job to demonstrate that you have [b]nothing superior to the experience Jesus Christ and of the gospel of Christ.
Just another petty and empty dying liar.[/b]
Originally posted by jaywillI think you enjoy preaching and standing on your soapbox so much that you have forgotten how to talk to people one-on-one, on a human level.
Self control goes more to the healthy preservation of the human race than the lust which leads to recreational sex, children out of wedlock, abortions, fornications, adulteries, unfaithfulness, pornography, and the utilization of women as merely pleasure objects in a dehumanizing way.
When one is in a garlic room too long one can no longer smell the ste ...[text shortened]... nity as connected to the other creatures and yet transcendent over them as made in God's image.
Originally posted by jaywillPlease give us an example of Myth Writing that does not include any historical details.
The list of people mentioned in the New Testament mentioned in non-Christian writings is used by me as supporting evidence that the gospel is not myth writing.
It does not prove Christ is who He taught He was. But it an adaquate supporting evidence that the writings are based in historical realism.
If a non-Greek writer mentioned Hercules does that prove that the tale is non-myth writing?
How do you explain the fact that many of the historical events/people in the new testament are inaccurate?
Please give one non-Christian source that mentioned Jesus who was not simply reporting what he was told by Christians.
Originally posted by twhiteheadPlease give us an example of Myth Writing that does not include any historical details.
Please give us an example of Myth Writing that does not include any historical details.
If a non-Greek writer mentioned Hercules does that prove that the tale is non-myth writing?
How do you explain the fact that many of the historical events/people in the new testament are inaccurate?
Please give one non-Christian source that mentioned Jesus who was not simply reporting what he was told by Christians.
I don't think I need to do that. I never claimed anything like this:
"All Myths NEVER contain any actual historical details."
I don't need to defend an argument that I never made.
I merely said that the there is supporting evidence that the I am on the right tract to believe that the New Testament is a historically sound document. The existence of many of the figures are confirmed by non-Christian writings.
If a non-Greek writer mentioned Hercules does that prove that the tale is non-myth writing?
No. I don't have to defend that Hercules must be real because for example actor Steve Reeves played Hercules Unchained in a movie created by non-Greeks.
How do you explain the fact that many of the historical events/people in the new testament are inaccurate?
I don't accept that you have a collection of inaccurate events and people in the New Testament. I would consider the events and facts mentioned in the New Testament which have been since confirmed.
For example, higher critcs were sure that Luke was mistaken about the Pavement on which Christ was said to have stood judged before Pilate. Then in the last 100 years or so archeologists found the Pavement.
What was previously boldly affirmed as error in Luke's writing was found out to be not an error at all. I am condident that those facts which you question, if possible to confirm, may well be confirmed one day, like the existence of the Pilate's Pavement. You and I may be long gone when it is confirmed.
I think we are on the right track to believe the New Testament.
Please give one non-Christian source that mentioned Jesus who was not simply reporting what he was told by Christians.
I doubt that Pliny had only in his opinion of Jesus what he heard Christians say about Jesus. I think it is obvious that Pliny was not himself a disciple.
Josephus was not a disciple so he certainly did not record who Jesus was in His Deity in Josephus' history. Tacitus was not a disciple of Jesus and he mentioned Christ.
If they passed on simply what they were taught by Christians they would have said that Jesus was the Son of God.
My second point is that those who did believe the claims of Jesus wrote as well. I see no reason to discount Paul's writings simply because he believed, eventually, the teaching of Christ.
I mentioned some [non] Christian writings. By doing so I do not mean that Christian writings must therefore be ignored.
And the tone of many of the Christian writings is challenging the reader of the time to confirm through multiple sources the accuracy of what is being told. For example the writer Luke tells Theophilus to add to his collection of narratives Luke's own account as well.
"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to draw up a narrative concerning the matters which have been fully accomplished among us.
Even as those who from the beginning became eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us,
It seemed good to me also, having carefully investigated all things from the first, to write them out for you in an orderly fashion, most excellent Theophilus,
So that you may fully know the certainty ofthe things concerning which you were instructed." (Luke 1:1-4)
This doesn't sound like a person trying to propogate half truths and hearsey legends. Luke says he "carefully investigated" the matters.
It seems arrogant to me that some skeptics would think it impossible for intelligent men who have been convinced of the varacity of Jesus would not want to carefully pass on accurately the matters about Him.
There is this arrogance of "We and we only are concerned with what really happened in history." If modern men would want to investigate carefully the actual facts about the explosion of Challenger, the assasination of Kennedy, the destruction of the World Trade Center, etc. why would not ancient witnesses want to pass carefully on the facts regarding a person who spoke and acted as Jesus of Nazareth?
I believe the simple truth is they thought to themselves "This is Big. This is Real Big. Others not yet born need to know about this Man Jesus."
Originally posted by jaywillYou said:
I don't think I need to do that. I never claimed anything like this:
"All Myths NEVER contain any actual historical details."
I don't need to defend an argument that I never made.
I merely said that the there is supporting evidence that the I am on the right tract to believe that the New Testament is a historically sound document. The existence of many of the figures are confirmed by non-Christian writings.
The list of people mentioned in the New Testament mentioned in non-Christian writings is used by me as supporting evidence that the gospel is not myth writing.
But how can the existence of real people in a story be supporting evidence that it is not myth writing unless you first claim that all myth writing contains no historical details?
Originally posted by jaywillPlease give us links to information on what they said and see if you can back up your claim that they had independent evidence that Jesus actually was a real person.
I doubt that Pliny had only in his opinion of Jesus what he heard Christians say about Jesus. I think it is obvious that Pliny was not himself a disciple.
Josephus was not a disciple so he certainly did not record who Jesus was in His Deity in Josephus' history. Tacitus was not a disciple of Jesus and he mentioned Christ.