Sorry, I took a few days leave from the internet.
And sorry for my English too.
I can understand it fluenly, both written and spoken. I rarely have to speak it though.
And I haven't written in English for years.
So now it seems the spelling of even the most familiar words is lacking. And grammarwise I'm confused when to use "in" or "on" or "at", when to say "for" or "to" and so on
And Im not familiar with English religious terms or the names of the biblical characters in English. Add my typos that I make even when writing Finnish.
Finntrol statedAnd, according to Matthew...Isaiah.
Only Luke and Matthew mention the virgin birth.
You seem to be missing the point.
Which is while the evangelists surely did not and could not (and dared not) rewrite the Torah, in their own writings they twisted the meaning of many totally unrelated Torah verses to convince people that Jesus was the Messiah. So what if Matthew thought that Isaiah 53 is about Jesus? Why do you take the opinions of these men as "the Word of God"? They were just letters circulating around and it took years and years of purely human committee work to decide which ones to include to the book we now call the Bible.
Matthew was the sneakiest and most dishónest of them. Knowingly, I think.
Take Matthew 2
14 So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, 15 where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”
The prophet who said that was Hosea
1 “When Israel was a child, I loved him,
and out of Egypt I called my son.
2 But the more they were called,
the more they went away from me.
They sacrificed to the Baals
and they burned incense to images.
You can clearly see that is not a prophecy of Jesus and not a prophecy at all. Matthew lied.
It gets worse:
16 When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. 17 Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:
18 “A voice is heard in Ramah,
weeping and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted,
because they are no more.”
That comes from Jeremiah 31
15 This is what the LORD says:
“A voice is heard in Ramah,
mourning and great weeping,
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted,
because they are no more.”
16 This is what the LORD says:
“Restrain your voice from weeping
and your eyes from tears,
for your work will be rewarded,”
declares the LORD.
“They will return from the land of the enemy.
17 So there is hope for your descendants,”
declares the LORD.
“Your children will return to their own land.
That is not about the Herod massacre. That is about exiled children who come back home ALIVE!
Matthew lied again.
(And I'm not sure, but I remember checking once that Rama is not Bethlehem, but is situated at the other side of Jerusalem)
According to most theologians (including the fundamentalists) Luke wrote for the gentiles. So it would be understandable if he wanted to explain Jesus in a way that fitted the pagan mindset. You're right, but Mark and John refer to Jesus as the Son of God in such a way (only begotten) which suggests the Spirit impregnated Mary. “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” And Jesus said, “I am..." Mk.14:61
Matthew on the other hand is considered to have been through and through jewish and writing to the jews. So you got me there Mark and John make no such claim. Nor is Jesus himself reported saying he was born without sexual intercourse.
Like i said, it sounds very primitive thinking. My biologist side starts to ponder sperm and the chomosomes of the Holy Ghost
Claiming to be divine spiritually don't necessarily have to mean that you are fathered by God in the physical sense. Anyway Jesus is reported to have beeb quite evasive of that question. In the lines of "thou said it" like it depends of the relative interpretation. Only when pressed he blurted the above. John´s theology contains Jesus saying that his pupils can be "Son of Man" too.
But as I said previously, maybe Jesus really thought he was the son of God. That kind of thing was very popular in antiquity, but not among the jews. And then Matthew and Luke did their best to sell that very unjewish and heretic idea to the people. But if Jesus said that, Jesus could have been wrong and deluded. I mean The Egyptian Pharaos really thought they were gods. Galigula thought he was god. The Pope thinks he is Christ's substitute on Earth. Dalai Lama thinks he is reincarnated Buddha. I don't believe them either.
One thing is certain: Both natural science and historical research show that the stories of the Old Testament are not true. Therefore the God of the Bible described through those stories does not exist. So Jesus could not have been the son of Biblegod Yahweh.
And if these miracles of the nativity stories really happened, why Mary and Josef did not readily understand what the 12 year old Jesus was doing in the TempleWe have no idea to begin with how Mary and Joseph perceived Jesus as He was growing up.
and later tried to call Jesus home because they thought he had gone crazy?Don't know what you mean here.
20 Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21 When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”
Jesus didn't respect his mother much:
46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”
48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
You might think, that if Mary had really went through the divine insemination (sorry!
), angelic visitation, then shepards bowing to her child with an angelic choir, then eastern magi or kings bowing again to the child bringing gold and mirha, she would kind of have accepted anything Jesus was doing. And they would have been in more cordial relationship.
And the people of Nazareth would have spoken at least: "Hey that´s the dude some eastern magi or kings brought gold when he was a baby. They must be rich!" Instead they said like: "Nah, ain't that guy the son of some builder?"
(btw the nativity stories of Luke and Matthew can't be harmonized...You gonna leave me hangin bro? Gotta get some sleep.
I´m saving my strenght and my keyboard. Read this:
(I had a better link in mind, can't find it now. This is fom a kind of a sister-site of this forum. I´m not registered there)http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/35238-the-amazing-christmas-story/
Jews at the time of Jesus believed that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem. Based on
"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."
So the evangelists "had" to write it so. Funny thing that Jesus was from Nazareth. For that Luke has the story of the taxation. However Roman history has no record of Luke´s taxation/census unlike taxation before and after. And it would be unheard that the Romans should have forced people to travel to their ancestral cities. Millions of people travelling around. The way was to send the taxmen to the people, not the other way round.
And "Bethlehem Ephratat" might not be a town but a clan. Brief note http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
(Don´t know, I must study that later myself) "Bethlehem Ephratah" in Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb's second wife, Ephrathah (1 Chr.2:18, 2:50-52, 4:4)."
Then who else than Matthew tries to tie even Nazareth to prophecies.
"2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene."
There is no such prophecy. I think it might refer to the "nazirs" and Samson. But unlike Jesus they did not drink wine and eat meat.
But maybe Jesus really did say that he was the Son of God? And that was the final proof to execute him. Actually quite justly according to jewish law! But even being a or the son of God should not necessarily mean he was physically inseminated by God. Sounds like a primitive explanation of primitive minds to me. The confusion is shown when the gospels include Joseph to their versions of the Jesus genealogy.The writers avoided calling Joseph Jesus' father. How was it just to kill the Messiah acording to Jewish law? "Only Begotten" means God was literally His Father.
if Joseph was not his father, there goes the Davidian lineage of Jesus. And of course it was not O.K. to kill a Messiah. But what I have read about judaism, "messiah" means somebody annointed by god. Originally quite literally pouring oil on his head. And there were several "real" accepted messiahs thorough history. Even the pagan Cyrus the Great was called messiah, because he was so nice to the jews. But all messiahs were mortal men. On the other hand to claim to be "The SON of God" would have been unbiblical heresy, pagan polytheism. And the penalty would be death. Even in the gospels the Sanhedrind gets very angry, tearing their clothes etc, when they during interrogation finally get Jesus to say he is the Son of God. And then consider the case proven.
For the Romans it was simpler. Some guy causing havoc during festivities in the Temple, pissing off their friendly Jewish allies, gathering a large following and claiming to be the KING of Jews. Rebel--> execute. No need to understand Jewish theology.
And early on there was unsubstantiated rumors that Jesus was an illegitimate child of a Roman soldier. I don't take that very seriously, but that would be a natural explanation. And a root to his identity crisis.There are some who believe this tale is in the Talmud, but the names were changed to protect the innocent.
The Talmud discussions i have read concerning this subject are very blurred, they are not even in agreement which Jesus they are talking about.Could be in code, because the christians had a nasty habit of kikking jews.
The roman Celsus, adversary of christianity, mentions this "Pantera" as Jesus' father too.
Funnily enough, a roman soldiers grave has been found in Germany, nicknamed "Panthera" and records show he was stationed just outside Nazareth, in Sephoris, during Jesus´s supposed birth years. Google that if you want. I don't dig into that now, because I think that as a proof it is as lame as Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code". Which was stupid.
The NT writers didn't write the Talmud:
"The Messiah --what is his name?...The Rabbis say, The Leper Scholar, as it is said, `surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God and afflicted...'" (Sanhedrin 98b)
They were quoting Isaiah 53
Of course they did not write the Talmud and would not have dared to commit forgery of texts everybody knew. Instead they wrote their own twisted interpretations, making stuff up, taking a verse here, a verse there.. just like modern Christians can prove their factions dogma by hopping from verse to verse, not respecting their original purpose at all. I Bet with the same method someone could "prove" that Barack Obama is prophecised in the old Mickey Mouse comics
And take Nostradamus. Funny how his "prpohecies" seem to fit AFTER somehing has happened. Or the enviromental activist group Greenpeace (I think not too seriously) are keen to an old Hopi Indian prophecy about "Rainbow Warriors" who save the Earth. I once checked and among Hopi legends there really is one that resembles their version. But I still don't think the Hopi prophecied Greenpeace. Greenpeace just identifies with it.
About Isaiah 53 I don't really mind if that refers to the Israeli nation, the prophet himself or if it is a messianic prophecy. All interpretations are common. And the Talmud is just discussions and differing opinions of jews, not a Holy Book. What matters is that even it it was a messianic prophecy, it really doesn't fit Jesus. Allthough it might have been an inspiration to him and many people.
In many cases here you're comparing suicide with martyrdom, even terrorist suicide. Those people aren't martyrs, but there are people who are martyred for many different reasons. Buddhist monks were killed by the Chinese government because they wouldn't become communist. It doesn't mean they were wrong. The point is, the disciples of Jesus may not have feared death because they were convinced of the resurrection.
Even if it is suicide, the muslim terrorists are sure of Allah rewarding them after death. So they don't fear death. That nutcase cult Heaven´s Gate filmed a video before their suicide, all happy and smiling because they knew they were getting a ride in an UFO. Come on, they testified how they saw their leader glowing divine light! In christian martyrtom there was a suicide element too. Sorry, the source is out of hand, but a respectable history magazine had an article how some christians confessed and QUEUED to be executed. Sometimes it got so bad the romans got bored and ordered them home. Later on christians, both catholic and protestant, surely have terrorized people and died in wars defending their faith.
I don´t find it psychologically strange at all if the discibles collected themselves and continund to believe even after Jesus got killed. After all, he had told them that he must die and he will come back. No modern cult, however idiotic, is discouraged even when everything goes wrong. They always find a way to continue their delusion. Now, the disciples expected or at least hoped to see Jesus again. So they may have started seeing things. In the gospels half of the sightings are so vague, that disciples are not even sure it is Jesus. And those stories contradict each other badly. Some or all of them have to be invented by the Gospel writers. http://ffrf.org/legacy/books/lfif/?t=stone
(note that in my mind that does not prove that Jesus did not resurrect. Maybe he did. But it means that if somebody is a biblical literalist who claims that the Bible has no contradictions and claims that the gospels are fit-for-court hard evidence of the resurrection... and if he reads that, can't solve that including the biggies like where did Jesus appear (nobody can)... and continues to claim what he claims.. then he knows he is a liar.But maybe he doesn't care. The whole purpose of such christianity seems to be lying. What if God sees them lying?
That Jim Lippard page was just a quick way to show something from the Internet. I have though those profecies long before that. The only thing that I personally could suspect to be a propechy about Jesus, is psalm 22. But the translation about piercing hand and feet is disputed by the jews (even in the Finnish translation that bit is about lions) , Jesus ate notoriously well so his bones were not showing, theologically it don´t fit because the guy in the psalm wants to get out of there and anyway it is not said to be a propechy, just a suffering man. Jesus could very well have quoted the psalm or the evangelist written like he did even if he didn´t.I think it's interesting that the rendering of Psalm 22 in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint which precede the birth of Jesus both say the hands and feet were pierced, but the Masoretic text (after Jesus was executed) say lion. Funny, isn't it?
I knew that. That´s why the psalm is the only plausible to me. But all piercing is not crucifixion. Then there is the bit about the clothes.A coincedence, common habit when the victim has nice clothes, or a real case of precognition? But I think it would not be below the evangelists just to invent that detail, either. But that cant'be proven with text analysis, like most other claimed "Jesus- prophecies"can.
But the character of psalm 22 does not get pierced/gaped by lions willingly, like Jesus is said to have done. He is desperately begging God to get him out of there the whole time. There is not a clear death. Certainly no resurrection. He is not depicted as Messiah or Son of God. No universal meaning in his suffering. So if it would be the one real prophecy of Jesus in the OT, it is only about him suffering, no more. And then the usual praises of God at the end. Remember Nostradamus and the Hopi legend? Sometimes even the blind hen finds the grain, as the Finnish saying goes. Or a broken clock shows the right time twice a day.
The rest is rubbish as Jesus-prophecies. Even Isaiah 53 fits to anyone who is suffering unjustly. I´m sure it was an inspiration to many people, including Jesus. But Jesus is not mentioned to have been ugly. Even more so with "sick" in some translations. Nor was Jesus despised by all, according to the Bible he had lots of followers when he was alive. Nor does "Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong" really sound like God's Only Son who has been given all the power in heaven and earth.just somebody suffering and getting compensated at the end. And surely an inspiration for Jesus to go and suffer for others. He was not the first or the last messiah-claimant to do that and suffer a cruel end.
"...and he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death...and he shall divide the spoil with the strong..." Is.53:8,12
Tell me Finn, how can a person do anything after he's dead?
The jewish ideas about an afterlife or resurrection are varied and I think still unsolved. The original old jew religion was not much interested of that. Gradually thoughs of an afterlife (like in many other religions) or a resurrection gained support. So maybe Isaih was in a phase when he believed in an afterlife where his character would be compensated. What this Isaiah's person does after his death does not sound like Jesus who is supposed to rule all, not just hang out "with the strong". Nor is Jesus said to have had offspring (but I quess christians take that part allegorically). Jesus was not despised by all, he had thousands of followers. He was not silent, he spoke his mind. Noboby is said to mock him for being ungainly. There is no claim of the Isaiah persons physical resurrection from the grave. The carrying of other peoples sins can be quite practical thing there because other peoples' sin is directed at him.
Ha, that might be even me as well as Jesus. I'm rather ungainly (not much luck with the ladies, tall skinny 49-year old geek), I have been despised, bullied as a child, in adult life years and years I have been unjustly wronged by people and I have two victorious Court cases to prove it
But it still goes on.
Haven't killed me.. yet..
So I really don't care if Isaiah 53 is a messiah prophecy or not. It is far too vague to be Jesus or only Jesus and it doesn't fit Jesus very well. But surely the Isaiah was known to Jesus and might have been his self-chosen role model.
I admitted those two alleged Jesus-prophecies to have the right tune. Still: Close but no cigar.
The rest are worse. I mentioned some before. Then take that the cooking instructions of the Pastover Lamb are supposed to prophecise Jesus´s legs not to have been broken. That lamb was not a sacrifice to God. Not an atonement for sins. It was eaten by the household. And not only the bones were not broken, the lamb had to be unbruised. Jesus was bruised.
The archaeology link I showed was of course just about one book. But it was the best summary I could find. I understand that there is dispute on details such as was Solomon's kingdom totally insignificant or could he still have had a medium-size state for that period. But there is wide agreement in history research and among non-fundamentalist real university theologians that the Exodus never happened, it is a myth, made-up official history by later Hebrew kings. There goes a lot of the OT!I have yet to look at the site, but i will soon.
If you disagree the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan not happening, and you claim to KNOW that... Then please share that supernatural knowledge with archaeologists. They would be happy with new findings. Especially the jewish or christian archeologists. Or admid you DON'T know, you just WISH it to be true.
(Better so, the God depicted there is a mass-murdering monster. Why do you wish he exists? Are you a fan of slaughtering women and children?)No, when I decided to study the Bible, I viewed it through what the Bible says about God, not what I think God should do. The Bible claims that God created the universe and bestows life. If you read the Bible this way, you understand that God owns you and may take your life whenever He desires without apology. We are only lent to one another temporarily, but God can raise the dead.
Quit that typical Christian bullshit.
You are transferring you own moral or rather inmoral wishes and sick fantasies to your ancient tribal deity. When it gets tough, you back off claiming we can´t understand him, because he is God. In reality it is you who are closing your eyes, in fact lying, by trying not no see the common knowledge, science and history showing that your god does not exist. Your God does not exist. You just play excuses for your own desire for brutality and violence and maybe even other people burning in Hell forever. It is you, not your nonexistant God. The evil is in you and you are the evil.
Phew.. long post. I gotta get some sleep. And I need a beer.