For Athiests, answer a question? (gospel, quote, Pilate, Christian)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How often you people play the 100% card! I have what I think is convincing internal evidence of what I say,yes, and I think it would stand up to scrutiny - by any reasonable open -minded person. That doesn't mean -as I found - that some other explanation can be thought up.
Well I'm open-minded and believe you are incorrect and that your idea would not hold up in any court of law. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Quote:
That is funny,yes, I'm chuckling all the time. However it is nothing to to with Matthew's latching onto it inan effort to pretend that his unhistorical little tale of massacre had been predicted in scripture.
Obvious it was or he wouldn't have quoted it.
Isaiah wrote about Rachel who had long died many many years prior to him using her as an example. She was not really crying for her children. It isn't literally about Rachel. Rachel stands for the woman of Abrahamic promise.
Ok, I respect everyones views and try to be un-judgemental ( is that a word?) but answer one question: for non believers, do you believe that a man named Jesus was real and if so, was he just a self claimed profit? If so, how to you explain all the stories about him and his preachings?
Nonjudgmental would be the word to use.
It doesn't matter if Jesus was real or not.
The guy was charlatan huckster. Where in the New Testament does Jesus say he is the son of Yahweh?
Nowhere. He never says he is the son of Yahweh. He always referred to the very vague and ambiguous "Father." For all you know the "Father" could be Zeus. Or Satan. Or Nabu.
He could never give a straight answer either, and he was very good at moving the goal-posts....
Matthew 19:16 ... “Teacher, what good thing must I do to gain eternal life?” 19:17 He said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.” 19:18 “Which ones?” he asked. Jesus replied, “Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19:19 honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself.” 19:20 The young man said to him, “I have wholeheartedly obeyed all these laws.
....and so now Jesus moves the goal-posts...
Matthew 19:21 Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go sell your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
...so it didn't matter what they guy said.....Jesus always intended to move the goal-posts....
Matthew-Reality 19:22 Then the young man said, "But teacher, I already have sold all my possessions and gave the money to the poor." 19:23 Jesus then said to him, "Then you must hate your mother and father." The young man replied, "I hated my mother and father, so I sold them into slavery and gave the money to orphans." 19:24 "Then you must give away all of your possession to the poor," said Jesus. "I have no possessions," said the man. 19:25 "Then you must become like the wind," Jesus replied. "I am like the wind in every way," the man said. 19:26 Jesus thought for a moment and said, "Then you must be like a child." The man replied, "I am like a child." 19:27 "Then you must," continued Jesus, "be born-again....."
The point being Jesus doesn't really know, and isn't going to give a straight answer.
How do you explain all of the stories about Bull-El, or Ninurta, or Thor or Theodin, or the Thunderbird?
Where those real people, too?
Leviticus 16:29 “This is to be a perpetual statute for you. In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you must humble yourselves and do no work of any kind, both the native citizen and the foreigner who resides in your midst, 16:30 for on this day atonement is to be made for you to cleanse you from all your sins; you must be clean before Jesus.
See that?
I'm already saved. All I have to do is laze around on Yom Kippur sipping wine and eating cheese and listening to Genesis and I'm cleansed of my sins.So, tell me, again, why did Jesus have to die on the cross? To save people? But they already were saved.
Ok, I respect everyones views and try to be un-judgemental ( is that a word?) but answer one question: for non believers, do you believe that a man named Jesus was real and if so, was he just a self claimed profit? If so, how to you explain all the stories about him and his preachings?
My personal story on Jesus is that he existed, was a good, dynamic public speaker, and he gave reassurance to the poor, the conquered, etc. Rome decided they had heard enough and he was executed. He became a martyr to the people and after several generations of stories being enlarged, or even outright fabricated, Jesus became the son of god, at least in fiction.
No one knows actually one way or the other, so I'm going with my version. Obviously he is not a real son of god, but then, no one else is either.
Well I'm open-minded and believe you are incorrect and that your idea would not hold up in any court of law. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
You are so far from open -minded that even your remark above had put you in the right both times - 'I'm probably right, on the other hand, I'm almost certainly not wrong'. Oh,I get it, it was a joke, lighten up, Dood, or something like that?
Quote:
Obvious it was or he wouldn't have quoted it.
Isaiah wrote about Rachel who had long died many many years prior to him using her as an example. She was not really crying for her children. It isn't literally about Rachel. Rachel stands for the woman of Abrahamic promise.
How naive. It must be true or he wouldn't have said it. And the symbolism or whatever of the OT original is irrelevant and a red herring. Matthew used it as a prophecy to base his story - which neither history nor the Other gospels writers mention - on. Quite apart from it being unlikely that eyewitness, if they knew of a Herodian plot to kill Jesus, would not bother to mention it (an excuse offered in spades by apologists of your stripe, Eusebius me old mate) but there is internal evidence of a common synoptic text used by all three Synoptic writers,which means that anything not mentioned by at least TWO of the others was not in the original and HAS to be an addition by ONE on them.
Now, if you were truly open -minded, you should admit that this would be persuasive in a court of Law. Instead, I prophecy that you will simply dismiss it, perhaps with the 'Witnesses don't always agree' ploy.
P.s -Folks, friends and fellow -posters, I am still looking through The Jerusalem Talmud and Tractate Yoma Ch. 3 deals with the matter of 'Lots' but I see nothing yet about the lots going wrong forty years before the temple was destroyed. It seems hard to credit that something quoted so firmly would not be there and it might be. I only express doubts because the Talmud material seems to deal with other matters. However, I shall keep looking and let you - all know. And shall look up the Babylonian Talmud stuff about the scarlet goat -tether, too.
I should have read the Talmuds long ago, they are historically quite interesting.
'The rabbis taught: Forty years before the Temple was destroyed, the lot never came into the right hand, the red wool did not become white, the western light did not burn, and the gates of the Temple opened of themselves, till the time that R. Johanan b. Zakkai rebuked them, saying: "Temple, Temple, why alarmest thou us? We know that thou art destined to be destroyed. For of thee hath prophesied Zechariah ben Iddo [Zech. xi. 1]: 'Open thy doors, O Lebanon, and the fire shall eat thy cedars.'"
Forty years before 80 AD is 30 AD. I suppose that must be taken as a rough date because of course, there are doubts about whether the crucifixion was 30 AD or later - as late even as possibly 36 AD. But there it is. Snowball's post is correct. There were recorded problems with the rites around 30 AD.
Discuss? For instance why Jesus (using his divine prescience) never drew attention to these prophecies of his execution. Nor indeed, did any part of Acts. Thin as it is, it is the only part of Snowball's post that does stand up as some evidence for Jesus.
Update.
So to fix the date, which Simon was the 'Upright'? We have three possibles. Simon ben Boethus 23-5 BC "Simon son of Boethus (also known as Simon son of Boëthus,[1] Simeon ben Boethus[2] or Shimon ben Boethus[3]) was a Jewish High priest (ca. 23 - 4 BCE) in the 1st century BCE and father-in-law of Herod the Great.[4] Simon came from the House of Boethus originating from Alexandria in Egypt.[2] He succeeded Jesus, son of Fabus and was removed by Herod when his daughter, Mariamne II was implicated in the plot of Antipater against her husband in 4 BCE. As a result, Herod divorced her and removed her father (Simon Boethus) as high priest." (Wiki) He doesn't sound like our man. Simon ben Camithus 17-18 "Simon ben Camithus served as high priest
for one year (24-25 C.E.). He is often ridiculed in the Talmud [Yoma 47)" He sounds unlikely to be the 'Upright' but note that 'after him' is surely before the date of the crucifixion. Simon Cantatheras ben Boethus 41-43 (Sadducee)
I can find no mention about him, but he was High priest for three years thirty years (not forty) before the destruction of the temple. He sounds the most likely candidate for the 'Upright'.
Given that the Talmuds were written long after the events and frankly the opening doors and the little prophetic speech sound rather tall tales and given that none of the Evangelists or Christian fathers (maybe Bar - Serapion did (1) mention these signs of God's displeasure at Jesus' crucifixion (for all that it was part of His Plan), the 'forty years' begins to look a ritual date guess and actually the reported ritual problems began at a later date than Jesus' execution.
From what I have gleaned so far, it seems that the problems are associated with internal hatreds and poor judges after Simon's time rather than with the crucifixion.
(1) "Mara, son of Serapion , to my son Serapion , greetings."[4] The key passage is as follows:
“What else can we say, when the wise are forcibly dragged off by tyrants, their wisdom is captured by insults, and their minds are oppressed and without defense? What advantage did the Athenians gain from murdering Socrates? Famine and plague came upon them as a punishment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea and the Jews, desolate and driven from their own kingdom, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates is not dead, because of Plato; neither is Pythagoras, because of the statue of Juno; nor is the wise king, because of the "new law" he laid down[Wiki]
Again here, assuming that he is talking about Jesus, rather than Herod Agrippa, he hardly understands the Gospel Jesus and is (as I said before) just lifting a confused idea of the Christian Jesus of a King (of course he never was in temporal terms) executed by the Jews and the idea that exile and dispersion was their punishment.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-27-2013 at 04:37 AM..
For instance why Jesus (using his divine prescience) never drew attention to these prophecies of his execution. Nor indeed, did any part of Acts. Thin as it is, it is the only part of Snowball's post that does stand up as some evidence for Jesus.
Why should He use their tradition to prove He was going to be executed? He said to them "You by your traditions make the word of God of none effect."
And just where is the rule book which states for Jesus to have been true as to His crucifixion, He would have to tell everyone to read the traditions of the people outside the Bible?
Quote:
Again here, assuming that he is talking about Jesus, rather than Herod Agrippa, he hardly understands the Gospel Jesus and is (as I said before) just lifting a confused idea of the Christian Jesus of a King (of course he never was in temporal terms) executed by the Jews and the idea that exile and dispersion was their punishment.
When Jesus rode into Jerusalem He rode in as their King. The people knew this as well. But according to the Daniel prophecy He was to be cut off. When He comes back He will complete the Kingship and rule over the earth for 1000 years and then when the new earth comes He will continue to rule for many thousands of years until that final eon ends. Then as Paul states in 1 Corinthians 15:22-28, once He has ruled so perfectly as to rule out all rule, He will abdicate the throne, give up the kingdom and then God will be All in all. I think the one confused about Jesus is you (not meant to inflame ya ole friend )
Do you not see the obvious solution? The writers, even though the temple and Jerusalem was not destroyed yet, wrote the prophetic statement Jesus gave as to that destruction. The gospels were written contemporaneously with Jesus' life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Really? You have incontestable PROOF that would stand up in a court of law that absolutely proves your unprovable statement above? Really?
Why should He use their tradition to prove He was going to be executed? He said to them "You by your traditions make the word of God of none effect."
In that case, there would be no religious reason why he should not. In fact he used all manner of methods to predict his crucifixion. Since I have now read that it was rabbi Zakkai who knew about the temple doors opening, it was no secret and the only feasible reason that Jesus did not explain (in order to remove all doubt - I have raised doubts about the timing (1) that the signs were related to his death, was because they were not known at the time.
Quote:
And just where is the rule book which states for Jesus to have been true as to His crucifixion, He would have to tell everyone to read the traditions of the people outside the Bible?
Your crafty misrepresentation of an argument is well worthy of a religious apologist though not so much of an open - minded assessor of an argument. The only question here - and it is only a question - is whether, if in Jesus' time, ritual problems (signifying God's displeasure) were known, he would have made some comment about it - especially if he knew that it was a sign of his death (he mentioned the destruction, well enough) or when the evangelists wrote their gospels, they would have made some mention of it. I think that they surely would. But there is nothing.
Since reading on, the dating seems to miss Jesus by about ten years (if indeed 'Simon the Upright'-of whom the Internet can tell me nothing to identify him - is not just a symbolic character) and I increasingly suspect that these signs of the temple destruction (rather miraculous in themselves) were not only not associated with Jesus but may simply have been stories made up after the event, I think that there can be a case made for the temple signs 'proof' of a historical Jesus in Snowball's post #15 not really relating to Jesus at all.
Quote:
When Jesus rode into Jerusalem He rode in as their King. The people knew this as well. But according to the Daniel prophecy He was to be cut off. When He comes back He will complete the Kingship and rule over the earth for 1000 years and then when the new earth comes He will continue to rule for many thousands of years until that final eon ends. Then as Paul states in 1 Corinthians 15:22-28, once He has ruled so perfectly as to rule out all rule, He will abdicate the throne, give up the kingdom and then God will be All in all. I think the one confused about Jesus is you (not meant to inflame ya ole friend )
The Daniel prophecy relates to an earlier messiah - the High Priest Onias III (2) deposed by Antiochus Epiphanes, in fact (the proof is that the rest of the events fit the history exactly) not to Jesus.
I am inclined to credit that the one prophecy Jesus did try to fulfill was the one about the King on the donkey. It was not a sign of humility but the equivalent of arriving, Meek, and riding on a tank. So to get back to the topic, i am inclined to give some credit to a historical Jesus - a failed messiah - but to the divine Christ, no credibility. That Jesus never existed.
Your expectations for a second coming are neither here, nor there. When Fact seems to be such a complete cagmag, can anyone trust the fantasy?
(1) "Alexander of Macedon perceived from a distance the Jews. He asked, Who are these men? And the Samaritans told him: They are the Jews, who have rebelled against thee. As they reached the town Antipatris, the sun had risen, and they faced each other. As Alexander saw R. Simeon the Upright, he descended from his chariot, and bowed to him." Well, if Simeon the upright is placed in the time of Alexander, it is nothing to do with Jesus or the destruction of the Temple.
When the dated are so wildly discrepant as this, one has to ask whether anything in the Talmud can be taken literally. Some of the stories appear to me fanciful, improbable and a bit silly and may only be intended as making didactic points.
(2) (Onias III) The passages in Daniel 8:10-11("casting down some of the host and stars...the prince of the host"), 9:26("shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself") and 11:22("...and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant") are generally referred to the murder of Onias.[Wiki]
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-27-2013 at 06:39 AM..
Reason: some additions and further thots.
Since the Synoptics talks of a sign - and Jesus says (1) no sign will be given (other than people coming and making all manner of unsupported claims) when he (divinely) knew that the temple was crawling with Signs if this claim that the rites were going wonky or were about to in his time, unless he know but chose not to tell them. Which makes no sense as (as I said) he was spouting all manner of loose predictions.
(1) Matth 12. 38. Luke 11.29. Not in Mark, I think, which will make it 'Q' material (sayings and teachings in written form circulating in later times and seized on by Matthew and Luke and woven into their gospels.
(Later) no.It is synoptic original Mark has it at 8. 11 and in the same context as Matthew - the feeding of the thousands at Bethsaida. Though Matthew and Luke add to Mark's 'No sign will be given' the reference to the sign of Jonah. So maybe that add -on is 'Q'. That Luke moves this item (as he does a lot of other stuff - including the Lord's prayer') to the final trip to Jerusalem is just a habit of Luke's to move material about.
Interestingly, John also has requests for a sign so maybe the 'What sign was there?' was a matter that was bothering the gospel writers.
P.s So sorry I keep saying 80 AD for the temple destruction when I mean 70 AD. Something wrong with the old stodge...
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-27-2013 at 07:55 AM..
I think there was a man named Jesus, however, I think he was a con man. You look at guys like Jim Jones of the 70's. Man has always sought to control others. In the time of "Jesus" the majority of the population was uneducated and there was still so much we did not know or could not explain. It would have been easy to an extent, for an intelligent, crafty con-man to convince poor uneducated people who had no hope, stuck in poverty, that you were the son of God. People are always looking for hope. Even today, people fall for the obvous Nigerian email scam despite how connected we are and how quickly information is spread these days. Back then, you had what? Word of mouth? When you think about how stories morph and change (remember the game you played in school, whisper something in someone's ear and then they the next until it goes full circle. By the time it gets back around to the story starter, it's changed completely?) it's easy to see how with just a little bit of ingenuity, one could have pulled off a few tricks, that by the time everyone heard about them, they were tall tales. Yet, with a built following of gullable poor people, these tall tales are no longer tales, but "miracles" or heroics.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Talmud Update.
