TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Why don't Jews believe in Jesus?
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

That was a very insightful article. It gives me much more respect for the Jewish people and not so much for the Christians.

quote:

Originally posted by eROs.au That was a very insightful article. It gives me much more respect for the Jewish people and not so much for the Christians.

You may wish to also consider this artical is completely one sided and does not discuss any of the prophesies concerning the mesiah that do ring true regarding Jesus. Additionally, much of this is based on interpretation... for example, the actual wording of Genesis 49:10 is "The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs[1] and the obedience of the nations is his." Joseph(according to the gospels) was a decendant of Judah. Interestingly, the jewish belief appears to enter a paradox here... they do not believe Jesus to be the son of god (therefore Joseph must be his biological father) but do state that he cannot be the mesiah because he is not a decendant of Judah.... well, if Joseph is his father then he's a decendant of Judah.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard This is where I take issue with athiesm... athiests state there is no god... they state this as fact, not belief. I can accept someone stating they do not believe there is anything that we would understand as a god, I can even appreciate there are sound reasons for that belief; however, belief is not knowledge nor is it fact. To state with absolute certainty that something does not exist is simply folly. This is why I state that any intelligent person who does not have faith is more probably to deem themself an agnostic and admit that they don't know one way or another.

I wouldn't be certain that Atheists state it as a fact, I would say that their 'beliefs' are the opposite of yours, i.e. You believe that there is a god, atheists would believe that there is no God...

I'm aware that there are different types / levels of atheism, so perhaps you were referring to 'Strong atheism' as those who state the non-existence of God as a fact. Agnosticism can also lean towards atheism, or lean towards the belief of a God. Being clearly a learned chap, I'm sure you realise that atheists beliefs or lack of beliefs are not always black and white ... much the same as Christians really.
It's the arrogant fools who claim themselves to be 100% correct, that I take issue with, be they religious or atheists. I think this was your point too, so we're probably agreeing.

At the minute I'd consider myself agnostic, leaning more towards the non-existence of a god. I would also consider the idea that there could be a god, but he does not make himself known to us, or interfere in anyway.
You mentioned before that you researched and read for a long time before finally settling on your religion...what differed about Christianity that made you choose it over other religions? If you don't mind my asking.

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM You mentioned before that you researched and read for a long time before finally settling on your religion...what differed about Christianity that made you choose it over other religions? If you don't mind my asking.

Very little, to be honest. The more familure I became with the various religions (to be fair I really only examined the great world religions... the Abrihamic and Vedic religious families) I studied the more it appeared to me that they were essentially telling the same story and proscribing the same ethical/moral codes. The differences that, on the surface, appear quite glaring are really little more then stylistic or interpretive differences... which appear to be consistant with an attempt by the diety(s) to tailor their revelations within a frame of referance that the persons to whom the revalation was being made would be able to understand (which seems like a logical move on the diety's part). This is probably why I have a great deal of respect for all the great religions and would never suggest that one is more correct then another. Ultimately, my decision was not between what image of God I thought was correct; rather, it was between what style of worship I found most appealing. Given that I grew up in a country that is predominately Christian (specifically Roman Catholic) I think it's only natural that this is the style of worship that I connected with most strongly.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I don't see how being unable to produce physical evidence of the existance of a thing is reason to believe it exists either, my faith is a result of reason. I don't have faith because the existance of God hasn't been disproven, rather, I have faith because I have deductively reasoned that God (in some fashion I cannot fully appreciate) exists. The key here is that I believe, I do not profess to know. This is where I take issue with athiesm... athiests state there is no god... they state this as fact, not belief. I can accept someone stating they do not believe there is anything that we would understand as a god, I can even appreciate there are sound reasons for that belief; however, belief is not knowledge nor is it fact. To state with absolute certainty that something does not exist is simply folly. This is why I state that any intelligent person who does not have faith is more probably to deem themself an agnostic and admit that they don't know one way or another.

FYI i DO accept the possibility that god does exist, just that it is incredibly unlikely. but in any case, my atheism is really more about opposing religion and its influence outside the self, rather than some unshakable "anti faith" in god. i think the existence of god is less important to human kind than the very real problems caused by worship and belief that we all see every day.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Very little, to be honest. The more familure I became with the various religions (to be fair I really only examined the great world religions... the Abrihamic and Vedic religious families) I studied the more it appeared to me that they were essentially telling the same story and proscribing the same ethical/moral codes.

i don't think that paraphrasing or plagiarising other belief systems is a reason to believe however.

I was just sort of poking fun at the idea of writing "G-d" as if not to write "God" when its obvious what is being written.

But OK, this is pretty interesting. I'm with Moral Hazard

I thought this was interesting about Jesus as the messiah from the texts..

quote:

Born of a Virgin Isaiah 7:14, "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." Matt. 1:18,25, "This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about : His mother Mary...was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit... But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus." ================================================================= Son of God Psalm 2:7, "I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: He said to me, 'You are my Son, today I have become your Father.'" Matt. 3:15, "And a voice from heaven said, 'This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.'" ================================================================== Seed of Abraham Gen. 22:18, "and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me." Matt. 1:1, "record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham." ================================================================== Son of Isaac Gen. 21:12, "But God said to him, 'Do not be so distressed about the boy and your maidservant. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.'" Luke 3:23-34, "Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli...the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor." =================================================================== House of David Jer. 23:1, "The days are coming, declares the LORD, 'when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land.'" Luke 3:23-31, "Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli...the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David." =================================================================== Born at Bethlehem Micah 5:2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times." Matt. 2:1, "After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem." =================================================================== He shall be a Prophet Deut. 18:18, "I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him." Matt. 21:11,"The crowds answered, 'This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee.'" ==================================================================== He shall be a Priest Psalm 110:4, "The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind: 'You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.'" Heb. 3:1, "Therefore, holy brothers, who share in the heavenly calling, fix your thoughts on Jesus, the apostle and high priest whom we confess." Heb. 5:5-6, "So Christ also did not take upon himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him, 'You are my Son; today I have become your Father.' And he says in another place, 'You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.'" ==================================================================== He shall be a King Psalm 2:6, "I have installed my King on Zion, my holy hill." Matt. 27:37, "Above his head they placed the written charge against him: THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS." ================================================================ He shall judge Isaiah 33:22, "For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; it is he who will save us." John 5:30, "By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me." =================================================================== He would be preceded by a Messenger Isaiah 40:3, "A voice of one calling: 'In the desert prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God.'" Matt. 3:1-2, "In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the Desert of Judea and saying, 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.'" ================================================================ Rejected by His own people Isaiah 53:3, "He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not." John 7:5, "For even his own brothers did not believe in him." John 7:48, "Have any of the rulers or the Pharisees believed in Him?" ========================================================= His side pierced Zech. 12:10, "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one mourns for an only son." John 19:34, "Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water." ================================================================== Crucifixion Psalm 22:1, Psalm 22:11-18, "For the director of music. To the tune of "The Doe of the Morning." A psalm of David. My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?...Do not be far from me, for trouble is near and there is no one to help. Many bulls surround me; strong bulls of Bashan. Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet. I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing." Luke 23:33, "When they came to the place called the Skull, there they crucified him, along with the criminals -- one on his right, the other on his left." John 19:33, "But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs." John 19:23-24, "When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom. 'Let's not tear it,' they said to one another. 'Let's decide by lot who will get it.' This happened that the scripture might be fulfilled which said, 'They divided my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.' So this is what the soldiers did."

"I give hope that this will clear the clouds of your blurred thought." (Leon TA:COR) :O
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/jews-...esus-index.html

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I thought this was interesting about Jesus as the messiah from the texts..

Seems like almost all of those are from books written after Jesus' death.

quote:

Originally posted by eROs.au Seems like almost all of those are from books written after Jesus' death.

The first one wasn't written until 30 years after Jesus death.

quote:

Originally posted by eROs.au Seems like almost all of those are from books written after Jesus' death.

Are you suggesting that no biography (certainly calling the gospels a biography is over simplistic) can be accurate if written after the death of it's subject?

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Are you suggesting that no biography (certainly calling the gospels a biography is over simplistic) can be accurate if written after the death of it's subject?

It does seem quite strange that it took 30 years before the first one was written though.

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM It does seem quite strange that it took 30 years before the first one was written though.

It only seems strange if you don't know the context. A few points to keep in mind:
a) the Jews had a very strong tradition of verbal storytelling. This was the cornerstone of their faith for thousands of years and the primary method of teaching. This makes a great deal of sense since most people could listen to stories; however, very few could read. The value of writing something down is deminished if there are few people to read it. Most of the books of the old testament were written until hundreds of years after the events they describe occured... the new testament on the otherhand was completely written by 100AD.
b) Christianity was illegal within Judea and later the Roman Empire for a few hundred years followint it's inception. Christians met in secret and hid from the authorities in order to avoid punishment of death. Given this climate it's pretty understandable that few would take the risk of making or keeping a written record of their faith in any form... the fact that the books of the new testament were written so early is actually quite remarkable given the risks in doing so.
c) Writing was not exactly a common skill in Judea during the first century thus you have a small pool of people who could record a written account of Jesus' life. This pool would have been made even smaller by the fear of punishment and death as noted above.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard It only seems strange if you don't know the context. A few points to keep in mind: a) the Jews had a very strong tradition of verbal storytelling. This was the cornerstone of their faith for thousands of years and the primary method of teaching. This makes a great deal of sense since most people could listen to stories; however, very few could read. The value of writing something down is deminished if there are few people to read it. Most of the books of the old testament were written until hundreds of years after the events they describe occured... the new testament on the otherhand was completely written by 100AD. b) Christianity was illegal within Judea and later the Roman Empire for a few hundred years followint it's inception. Christians met in secret and hid from the authorities in order to avoid punishment of death. Given this climate it's pretty understandable that few would take the risk of making or keeping a written record of their faith in any form... the fact that the books of the new testament were written so early is actually quite remarkable given the risks in doing so. c) Writing was not exactly a common skill in Judea during the first century thus you have a small pool of people who could record a written account of Jesus' life. This pool would have been made even smaller by the fear of punishment and death as noted above.

i always hesitate to get in an argument with you concerning theology, but i do enjoy having my undies pulled up over my head by attractive, intelligent men, so here goes...

why wasn't ANYONE writing (even negatively) about jesus at the time of his life? i mean, given his miracles he should've been (to plagiarise pat condell) "more famous than elvis". surely historians of the time would have at least made a passing comment on the "charlatan corrupting the people of judea"?

even if he didnt exist that doesn't mean he doesn't have wisdom to impart (not so dissimilar from our friend raistlin ) but christian teachings (or at least practice) are such a world away from what he taught and the message he conveyed (at least in the states) which i think that is far more important than an argument concerning his existence.

Religions all a load of bollocks no offense to anyone is religious in here btw.

In Europe especially you see people becoming Christians etc after the fall of the Roman Empire. There was no control over the population so I think religion was used a form of population control back in dark/feudal ages.

I thought Bin Laden and those kinda creeps don't believe in Jebus either. Don't want to cast the lot of non-believers in with Bin Laden though, because the world has some Buddists, Hindus, Aborigines, jungle men in Indonesia and other dudes who are in the same non-believing category. Besides Bin Laden and bunch, they're not necessarily bad guys and neither are the Jews.



[[[smoke]]]

quote:

Originally posted by eROs.au Seems like almost all of those are from books written after Jesus' death.

Well, the gospels are written accounts of Jesus's life from eye-witnesses. The central theme of Christianity it Jesus's death on the cross, so the gospels couldn't be written while he was still doing his ministry! His teachings weren't complete until after the resurrection. You gotta to admit, believe in it or not, it's a great story!

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I thought this was interesting about Jesus as the messiah from the texts..

The fact that the accounts of the gospels are superficially consistent with prophecies made in the Old Testament isn't really anything to get excited about. The gospels (Mark and Luke especially) were written with the aim of accommodating these prophecies into the biography of Jesus, even in instances where the two were incompatible.

Take the place of Jesus' birth for instance. The first problem for the authors is that the prophecies place the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem, when it was apparently common knowledge and a source of controversy (John 7:41-42) that Jesus was from Nazereth. Mark and Luke go to convoluted and completely irreconcilable lengths to explain this problem (Mark and John - wisely - avoid addressing this at all). Luke presents what has since become the traditional nativity account: Mary and Joseph originally from Nazereth, go to Bethlehem for a census, no room at the inn, Jesus born in a manger, shepherds pay heed and they move back whence they came. Matthew, however, suggests that Mary and Joseph were originally from Bethlehem and had Jesus there, but they were then chased into Egypt by Herod, told by an angel to go back to Israel and then decided to move to Nazereth because Joseph was too scared to go back to Bethlehem. While I'm sure that an inerrantist could explain the discrepencies with the right sort of mental calisthenics (in fact, I'd love to see them try) the best explanation here is that Jesus was from Nazereth, the prophecies said Bethlehem, and two Christians came up with contradictory explanations to reconcile the two.

There are other examples, but this is the most striking.

*serious microphone announcer voice*
renegade VS moral hazard

celebrity deathmatch! tnite on TA!

people should tune in, you might actually learn something.

i think the fundamental issue here is spelling..... the jews think that Jewsus was the messiah, and since they are gramatically anal retentive, Jesus doesnt exist because its spelled wrong


im talking out of my ass right now..... while eating porridge at work because i slept in / had great morning sex, so im in an impeccably good mood today.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN why wasn't ANYONE writing (even negatively) about jesus at the time of his life? i mean, given his miracles he should've been (to plagiarise pat condell) "more famous than elvis". surely historians of the time would have at least made a passing comment on the "charlatan corrupting the people of judea"?

They have found a handfull of references to Jesus from Nazarith that are non-biblical and fit the period of time we're looking for...
Most noteable of these would be Josephus (c.37-100CE)... "About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks." (taken from his text "the Antiquity of the Jews). This is a rather interesting source as Josephus was a jewish high-priest.
There is also a notation regarding Jesus (presumably) in The Talmud Sanhedrin 43a that notes; "On the eve of passover, Yeshu was hanged." The Talmud is a written record of rabinnic discussions about issues of the day. Now, the name Yeshu although being similar to Yeshua (which is the Hebrew equivalent of Jesus) actually an ancronym for an expression that means "may his name be erased from history" which is a term generally reserved for rabbi that have mislead their people. It is quesionable whether or not this is Jesus the text references; however, the date of the eve of passover certainly fits with the biblical account of his execution.
There are several greco-roman historians that reference Jesus in a cecular fashion; however, since it's arguable that most of these were writen as a response to Christianity they probably aren't very credible and certainly aren't first hand.
Additionally, there are a number of accounts by Roman historians that reference Pilate's own records regarding the charges against Jesus, his interigation of Jesus and the subsequent execution. Unfortunately, the actual records from Pilate that these historians reference were either destroyed or lost.

Of all that I mentioned above, the accounts date from within a few years of Jesus's death to 50 years after with the exception of the records of Pilate which would have been written shortly after the execution as part of his regular report to the Emperor.

As far as why there are no records (that we've found) written during his life... probably due to the remote and inconsequential nature of Gallalia and Judea within the Roman Empire. This was not an area that Rome found to be incredibly important and likely wouldn't have been keeping detailled records of the comings and goings of it's peoples. Moreover, there really were not a great deal of people that were able to write in the region at that time, nor was keeping written record of such things important to the Jews since only the religious classes could read.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade The fact that the accounts of the gospels are superficially consistent with prophecies made in the Old Testament isn't really anything to get excited about. The gospels (Mark and Luke especially) were written with the aim of accommodating these prophecies into the biography of Jesus, even in instances where the two were incompatible.

I absolutely agree, it is probable that many things had been written into the gospels to fulfill pre-existing prophies. To think that any narrative of any event that happened 60-100 years prior to when the record was written and of which the writer did not experience first hand would be 100% accurate is pure folly. What we do know for certain; however, is that there was a census and two years later Harod ordered all the male children of Bethleham under the age of two be killed. This would seem to corroborate that Jesus was born in Bethleham. Additionally, the biblical story of the Magi paying homage to Jesus in Bethleham approximately 2 years after his birth certainly suggests that Joseph and Mary continued to live in Bethleham for at least 2 years following his birth. The bible is also quite clear that Joseph and Mary returned to Nazereth following their flight to Egypt and that Jesus was raised in Nazareth. The birth in Bethleham satisfies one prophesy and being raised in Nazareth satisfies another. To be honest, I don't imagine too many Christians care if all of the messianic prophesies are fulfilled by the accounts of Jesus' life, I certainly don't care.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard What we do know for certain; however, is that there was a census and two years later Harod ordered all the male children of Bethleham under the age of two be killed.

Actually, this is not "known for certain" at all. There is no evidence -- none -- outside the Gospel of Matthew that this actually happened. People who argue for its historicity are arguing from silence. There is also no evidence outside the Gospel of Luke that the alleged "census" took place during the end of Herod's reign, as Luke alleges.

nothing can be known for certain with jesus.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.