Brian Shanahan wrote: » Why are you looking for evidence on well established fact? Oh, yes because the acknowledgement of this fact removes all scriptural basis for your religion. Well it's not my fault that your religious leaders were too stupid to remove the stuff disproving their religion (of which there is a lot in the bible, starting with the world creation myth in genesis; if you can't get how the universe began even remotely right how are we going to accept anything else as factual?) now is it? I'll repeat, the Jewish messiah was a temporal man, who would be sent to lead the Jews in a succesful rebellion against whomever was subjugating them when he came (and is a pretty popular myth amongst people who are small and weak {in a tribal power sense}).
JimiTime wrote: » You didn't actually put any flesh on the bones of your point there btw, you just said 'fact' a lot.
Brian Shanahan wrote: » I don't have to show evidence that the Jewish messiah is emphatically not what Jesus was, no more than I have to show evidence that I have access to an internet enabled device. Both facts are self-evident. When a person questions or demands evidence for a self-evident fact, it is because they are unable and unwilling to face up to the consequences resulting from the fact. So what is it that you cannot accept about the fact that Jesus is not the messiah as propheseyed in the Torah? It is a simple question, so I expect no further evasions.
philologos wrote: » You're the one evading. Please show me the passage in the Tanakh that backs up your point. There's no need for your petty rhetoric, just answer my question.
philologos wrote: » Genesis has two creation accounts, one which accounts the creation of the "heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1) and the other which accounts the "generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens" (Genesis 2:4). Notice the inversion. Creation account 1 is to account for God's sovereignty in creation, creation account 2 is looking at the creation from the earthly perspective. I have posted more extensively about how I understand the creation accounts in Genesis here, and here.
Brian Shanahan wrote: » Fine, if you're not willing to engage with me and continue with the evasions, on my ignore list you go. It's not like I'm losing anything anyway, your points are valueless.
philologos wrote: » I'm engaging by asking you that question. You're refusing to engage by not cooperating.
Brian Shanahan wrote: » That was a well written, cogently argued post. The only problem with it is tha the whole "virgin birth" thing is that the Greek speaking Jews translated the Aramaic for "young woman" (while "almah" can refer to a virgin, it is not exclusive to virgins as it is literally "young woman") into the Greek for "virgin" ("parthenos") in Isaiah, when they transcribed the Torah from Aramaic into Greek.
philologos wrote: » The only personal comment that you gave made is that my view is based on the Bible alone and that I don't read other books which is an absurd assumption to make I value what Scripture says because I'm able to see with my own two eyes that it is clearly true. Atheist thinking on this issue sounds fickle, it always stops short of engaging with the truth on this issue. I find the Bible is more honest and more real.
philologos wrote: » What passage in the Tanakh are you referring to?
JimiTime wrote: » Hint: saying 'fact', does not a fact make it.
Brian Shanahan wrote: » Certain facts are self-evident, and anyway if he was such a scholar of the bible as he claimed, "philologos" would have known chapter and verse on how much Jesus failed to live up to the Jewish concept of the messiah (for a view of someone who tried to be the proper messiah I point you towards Simon bar Kockhba, who was actually proclaimed by the Jews as such {well up until his rebellion failed}).
As Jesus was going along, people kept spreading their cloaks on the road. When he came to the descent of the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples began to celebrate and praise God at the tops of their voices" (Luke 19:36-37). The crowd went wild as he got nearer. This was the moment they'd been waiting for. All the old songs came flooding back, and they were singing, chanting, cheering, and laughing. At last their dreams were going to come true. But in the middle of it all their leader wasn't singing. "When he came near and saw the city, he wept over it" (v. 41). Yes, their dreams were indeed coming true. But not in the way they had imagined. He was not the king they expected. He wasn't like the monarchs of old who sat on their jeweled and ivory thrones, dispensing their justice and wisdom. Nor was he the great warrior-king some had wanted. He didn't raise an army and ride into battle at its head. He was riding on a donkey. And he was weeping, weeping for the dream that had to die, weeping for the sword that would pierce his supporters to the soul. Weeping for the kingdom that wasn't coming as well as for the kingdom that was. Jesus's arrival in Jerusalem a few days before his death is one of the best-known scenes in the gospels. But what was it all about? What did Jesus think he was doing?
Fanny Cradock wrote: » Admittedly I'm coming in halfway through the, eh, discussion, but I don't think that Philologos claimed to be a Biblical scholar, so it would seem that you are tilting at windmills. That Jesus failed to live up to the Jewish understanding of who the Messiah would be and what he would do is exactly the point of Christianity. It's almost amusing to see the followers of Jesus still not get it after everything they have seen and been through. Hence why in Acts 6 they kept asking exactly when he was about to really begin Messianic type things. Tom Wright talks about this in his book Simply Jesus. The opening words in the book reads as follows -
philologos wrote: » Yes but not fulfilling the expectations of Jewish people us not the same as not fulfilling the Biblical prophesy concerning the Messiah. That's why we've seen fumbling on this issue. The fumbling also shows a lack of intellectual honesty. Instead of genuinely considering from the prophesy we have concerning the Messiah in Scripture we have non-believers rushing to google searching for even a fraction of an excuse to reject Him. That's what's honestly saddening for me about this whole thing.
marienbad wrote: » Your missing the point by a country mile, non-believers don't need to spend any time proving that Jesus was or was not the Messiah. It is sufficient to point out that the Jews themselves don't accept it. And for you to show how you are better equipped to interpret someone else's holy books.
philologos wrote: » Not at all. The Bible even the Old Testament is clear that God's word is for both Jews and Gentiles and that it would go into the whole world. It isn't sufficient. What is honest and sufficient is to ask does Jesus stack up on examination irrespective of what people may claim? It's not about how equipped I am, or they are, it's about what is actually true and what the Lird has revealed. Over 2,000 years later Jesus is the only Messiah claimant who was born in Bethlehem of Judea who was nailed to a cross for the sin of humanity. That's only on the basis of 2 before we look into the other criteria.
philologos wrote: » Yes but not fulfilling the expectations of Jewish people is not the same as not fulfilling the Biblical prophesy concerning the Messiah.
marienbad wrote: » It is sufficient to point out that the Jews themselves don't accept it. And for you to show how you are better equipped to interpret someone else's holy books.
marienbad wrote: » It is of no concern to me at all Fanny except that Phil in post no 6920 (I think) and others seems to attach some importance to it.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » I don't get your point. What do you mean by sufficient? Sufficient for what?
Brian Shanahan wrote: » Fine, if you're not willing to engage with me and continue with the evasions, on my ignore list you go.
marienbad wrote: » To be honest I don't really understand why he wants to go down that road at all.
nagirrac wrote: » In fairness to phil I was the one who brought up the awkward nature of the Jewish argument, and I'm not an atheist just to add a bit more confusion. The salient point here is that Christians regard the New Testament and their interpretation of older Herbew scripture as factual as opposed to a mixture of factual, drug induced mysticism, and makey uppy to suit your argument. While for Christians this can be an interesting religious discussion, for Jews it has been a life and death issue for 2,000 years at the hands of Christians, culminating in the holocaust. There are many Christians who are coming around to this point of view, and realize that they owe a belated apology to the Jews for stealing their messiah figure and making up a story about the Jews killing him. Some Christians are not at that point yet and may never get there, the truth is probably too painful.
philologos wrote: » If you want to demonstrate that it is made up please do so, but the vast majority of accounts including Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus and even the Babylonian Talmud acknowledge the crucifixion of Jesus. I've already pointed out my position on anti-Semitism from Christianity argument. It isn't even Biblical. Jesus said it had to happen. And it did. The Gospel is Jewish, Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, the apostles are Jewish. How the heck could they be anti-Semites?
![Photo of [-0-]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9fe3689003eb73770da7be6d014ea6d5.svg)
