Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-10-2023, 10:23 AM
 
18,250 posts, read 16,917,013 times
Reputation: 7553

Advertisements

Eddie, your post raises an excellent question--a "which came first, the chicken or the egg" question:


Is it possible--is it remotely possible that rather than the prophecies being about Jesus, instead what happened was the "prophecies" were about someone else and the gospel writers lifted them and assigned Jesus to their fulfillment?


For example, look at the most famous text attributed to Jesus: Isaiah 53.

"Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?"


How do we know all this isn't about Cyrus the Persian. Cyrus was an "arm of the Lord". He freed the Jews from Babylonian captivity to allow them to return to Judea to rebuild the Temple. God refers to Cyrus as "My servant".


So if Cyrus is the subject of Isaiah 53 then everything is about Cyrus. This question is for Compwiz: COULD Isaiah 53 be about Cyrus?


"He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him."


We have no reliefs or drawings or busts or anything of Jesus so how do we know what this Jesus really looked like. Maybe in real life he looked like Adonis. Who knows?


"He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
4
Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5
But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed."



Here's where my chicken or egg question starts: how do we know that Matthew, the real perpetrator of all this prophecy nonsense didn't have Isaiah 53 in front of him when he was writing his gospel? How do we know he didn't just whole cloth lift these Isaiah passages about being stricken for our sins and write them into his text, "So they crucified Jesus. They whipped him and then crushed him." etc etc?


So over the centuries we constantly hear "Jesus was despised and rejected. He was stricken. He was crushed. He was pierced for our sins, that's why he is our redeemer--because he suffered and died for our sins. bla bla. People hear this meaningless flowery poetry thousands and thousands of times over and over and soon they begin believing it. They automatically assign a particular personality to the language. That's what happens when we read this stuff--we automatically think "Jesus" because it's been pounded into our consciousness for decades that Isaiah 53 is all about Jesus.


How about

"He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth."


So Matthew reads this passage and then thinks, "Hmmmmm....that's good stuff." So Matthew writes into his text, "When Pilate questioned Jesus and asked "Are you the Messiah" Jesus remained silent. Then Pilate condemned him to death and Jesus was led led like a lamb to the slaughter...er, to be crucified."


This is pure church propaganda of the highest order--a propaganda ploy worthy of Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's chief propagandist who wrote all the propaganda for the Nazi war machine and whose job it was to make Hitler look benevolent and a savior of the German people when of course in reality Hitler was a monster. Christianity's supreme propaganda triumph was to take a mythical man god who was based on a nobody Jewish anti-Roman zealot and turn this zealot into Jesus the Christ, the son of God who died for our sins...you know the rest of the spiel.


Make sense?

Last edited by thrillobyte; 04-10-2023 at 10:45 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-10-2023, 11:05 AM
 
Location: Middle America
11,097 posts, read 7,154,662 times
Reputation: 16999
The Old Testament is of Jewish writings, strictly for Jews.

The New Testament is post-Judaism, for all 'gentiles' / all non-Jews.

It makes no sense to try to use both together. Two very different approaches and 'covenants'
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2023, 11:19 AM
 
1,341 posts, read 654,531 times
Reputation: 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
Comp, do you actually make the leap from "It could be Jesus" to "It IS Jesus?"



"Could be" could refer to Simon bar Kochba. Did you know that Simon bar Kochba thought himself the Messiah? Technically the person in the verse "COULD" be anybody from that period. When you buy a lottery ticket you COULD be a winner. Does that mean you ARE a winner?
I am saying it could be Jesus, not it is Jesus. The verse says "he", not Jesus as I mentioned in my previous post.

So I agree that it could be Jesus....or anybody else. This does not mean I agree that it is NOT Jesus. Your argument is that it is not Jesus. If someone made an argument that it is Jesus, I will ask them to defend their argument and listen to what they think. Maybe they know something I don't.

No disrespect but comparing the lottery with this verse is a bad example. If I have the numbers "3 5 9 2" and the winning lottery matched my numbers, it is objective. I AM the winner. There is nothing vague about it unless the machine displaying the winning numbers was showing the wrong numbers or there was a problem displaying one of the numbers. This would be a technological error. But lets assume everything was working as it should. It would be specific, not vague. You know who the winner is. There is no "could be".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2023, 11:49 AM
 
18,250 posts, read 16,917,013 times
Reputation: 7553
Quote:
Originally Posted by compwiz02 View Post
I am saying it could be Jesus, not it is Jesus. The verse says "he", not Jesus as I mentioned in my previous post.

So I agree that it could be Jesus....or anybody else. This does not mean I agree that it is NOT Jesus. Your argument is that it is not Jesus. If someone made an argument that it is Jesus, I will ask them to defend their argument and listen to what they think. Maybe they know something I don't.

No disrespect but comparing the lottery with this verse is a bad example. If I have the numbers "3 5 9 2" and the winning lottery matched my numbers, it is objective. I AM the winner. There is nothing vague about it unless the machine displaying the winning numbers was showing the wrong numbers or there was a problem displaying one of the numbers. This would be a technological error. But lets assume everything was working as it should. It would be specific, not vague. You know who the winner is. There is no "could be".

Maybe it was a bad comparison but what I meant was when you have a lottery ticket in your hand and the numbers have not been announced, you COULD be the winner holding the winning ticket. We're in that same predicament in that historians have not determined who the "he" is in all these OT verses. A logical mind with a working knowledge of the OT though would know that these he's are referring to hundreds of different people depending on the period in Jewish history they are being written; they cannot possibly be about Jesus. A logical mind knows that predictions cannot be made hundreds to thousands of years of years before they happen and then then hundreds or thousands of years later they happen with pinpoint accuracy. That's supernatural paranormal stuff and logical minds know that the supernatural paranormal doesn't exist in this natural normal earth.



So if you want to stretch it to "It could be Jesus" I think that's a subjective argument. Objectively the rational mind says "No, this cannot be about Jesus because we are talking near-500 diverse verses from a span of roughly 4000 years of Jewish history (if you want to count Genesis 3:15 as a prophecy of Jesus) and saying that ALL these verses pertain to one unique being that is Jesus, the son of God. Combine that with the verses that could not possibly be about Jesus such as Micah 11:5-6 and we are not in "Could" territory--we're in "That's impossible" territory. But take just the 400+ verses that Christians attribute to being predictions about Jesus and the odds of that skyrocket into the deepest reaches of spaces if we're going to write out the 0's. In short, all these verses cannot possibly be about Jesus. The odds are so infinitesimal against all these OT verses being about Jesus that it's not even worth discussing, except to say that Christians are propagandizing the OT to try to con people into believing something that is loony tunes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2023, 01:45 PM
 
1,480 posts, read 479,838 times
Reputation: 512
I see Jesus Christ in God's first spoken words "Let there be light". And I referenced that in my first post in this thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2023, 02:47 PM
 
18,250 posts, read 16,917,013 times
Reputation: 7553
Quote:
Originally Posted by chief scum View Post
I see Jesus Christ in God's first spoken words "Let there be light". And I referenced that in my first post in this thread.

I don't doubt it, chief. Anyone as deep into Jesus as you are is going to see Jesus in everything. Question: what does any of this have to do with the topic?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2023, 05:17 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
19,999 posts, read 13,475,998 times
Reputation: 9938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoreau424 View Post
The Old Testament is of Jewish writings, strictly for Jews.

The New Testament is post-Judaism, for all 'gentiles' / all non-Jews.

It makes no sense to try to use both together. Two very different approaches and 'covenants'
The problem for you then is that Matthew (for example) and Paul (for example) cite the OT to substantiate their assertions about Jesus. The early church affirmed the OT as part of the inspired word of god -- largely to provide a patina of ancientness / venerability to their brand spanking-new religion. So ... you can't really separate them as you suggest. They are deeply intertwined.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2023, 09:37 PM
 
1,341 posts, read 654,531 times
Reputation: 524
This is just a random thought and not a response to anything in this thread. Obviously, there's a lot of Christians out there that love to assert their knowledge on religion but do not have strong academic backgrounds. I do know that out of the large population of Christians, there is the small group of Christians that do have strong academic backgrounds. They have masters degrees and possibly doctorate degrees and very strong expertise in both ancient biblical scripture and ancient history.

I'd love to see thrillo as well as a few other people in this thread sit in a room with these Christian historians and have a nice discussion on the Old Testament. No joke....I love seeing Christians with strong academic backgrounds who actually research this stuff on a daily basis talk about it and to do it with atheists would be more interesting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2023, 09:50 PM
 
18,250 posts, read 16,917,013 times
Reputation: 7553
Quote:
Originally Posted by compwiz02 View Post
This is just a random thought and not a response to anything in this thread. Obviously, there's a lot of Christians out there that love to assert their knowledge on religion but do not have strong academic backgrounds. I do know that out of the large population of Christians, there is the small group of Christians that do have strong academic backgrounds. They have masters degrees and possibly doctorate degrees and very strong expertise in both ancient biblical scripture and ancient history.

I'd love to see thrillo as well as a few other people in this thread sit in a room with these Christian historians and have a nice discussion on the Old Testament. No joke....I love seeing Christians with strong academic backgrounds who actually research this stuff on a daily basis talk about it and to do it with atheists would be more interesting.

I'll respond to this:


Your average atheist could talk circles around your average Christian when it comes to the Bible. A large percentage of atheists got that way by reading the Bible and studying it. Your average Christian cracks a Bible about twice a year. How many Christians in here outside of yourself, compwiz have even bothered to attack my assertions in this thread with some hard evidence that I am wrong? None. I ask a question about Micah 5:5-6 about Jesus and the Assyrians, what did I get in response? Nothing. Why? because I'm right and they're wrong and they know it. It sounds presumptuous, it sounds pompous, it's sounds conceited, but all it is is the truth. You've heard me say, "Atheists don't have to lie, all they have to do is tell the truth." I've challenged a dozen Christians in here to point out to me where I have ever told a lie about Christianity. None have ever done so even though I know they'd love to. Why? Because they cannot find one.



Am I wrong?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2023, 11:40 PM
 
1,341 posts, read 654,531 times
Reputation: 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
I'll respond to this:


Your average atheist could talk circles around your average Christian when it comes to the Bible. A large percentage of atheists got that way by reading the Bible and studying it. Your average Christian cracks a Bible about twice a year. How many Christians in here outside of yourself, compwiz have even bothered to attack my assertions in this thread with some hard evidence that I am wrong? None. I ask a question about Micah 5:5-6 about Jesus and the Assyrians, what did I get in response? Nothing. Why? because I'm right and they're wrong and they know it. It sounds presumptuous, it sounds pompous, it's sounds conceited, but all it is is the truth. You've heard me say, "Atheists don't have to lie, all they have to do is tell the truth." I've challenged a dozen Christians in here to point out to me where I have ever told a lie about Christianity. None have ever done so even though I know they'd love to. Why? Because they cannot find one.



Am I wrong?
I've read some of the responses you've gotten. In my opinion, some of the responses very actually pretty valid. Here's my point of view: I can tell right away when a person starts to get pompous. they think they know the truth and they dismiss the other person's argument with a snap of a finger. it's basically "i'm right. you're wrong so **** off and get out of my space."

Quote:
because I'm right and they're wrong and they know it. It sounds presumptuous, it sounds pompous, it's sounds conceited, but all it is is the truth.
this is a perfect example. you will not accept that the other person has a valid argument. you will only accept that your ideas, your thoughts, and your knowledge as the truth. the other person genuinely thinks they have a point but you think you are more superior than them.

I've actually seen multiple back-and-forth discussions between you and other people and you just flat out told them they were idiots and the discussion went straight down the drain.

The only reason why I responded back to you is because I place myself in the middle. I see the point of view from both the Christian side and the atheist side and I am humble enough to say "I don't know". I just like to learn about things. When a person disagrees with me, I try to learn things from their point of view instead of stomping them to the ground.

A very famous atheist once said that one of the worst things that atheists do in a debate is forgetting to smile. why? nobody likes having a discussion with someone who doesn't smile.

Regarding Micah 5:5-6, make a post in the Christian sub-forum, you might get more response there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top