aa5874

Now that you have presented your beliefs, you now need to show the information you used to support your beliefs. People can believe anything, but is a different matter to support a belief with credible information.

Where in the Gospels is it presented that Jesus was a mortal man and was not the son of the God of the Jews that rose from the dead? And where in the epistles is it not presented that Jesus was crucified on earth, buried and resurrected?

My position is clear. Jesus of the NT was mythical. In Mark 1.1 he is presented as a God and in the final chapter of the very same book, the writer claimed he had risen. Even the letter writer claimed that Jesus was a God in the very first chapter of Romans, and that over five hundred people saw Jesus after he was resurrected after his crucifixion in another letter.

And, if it is supposed Jesus was a man, he then becomes a stupid monstrous lie, where his disciples and the letter writer with a name Paul would have worshipped a man as a God, knowning he was executed for blasphemy, knowning that he had an earthly father as registered in the census, and that they themselves do not worship other men as Gods, knowing that the dead body of Jesus was removed probably to fake a resurrection, and knowing that Jesus had no power to forgive sin.

Jeffrey Gibson

I'm doing a good job of writing in such a way that no one would know that I'm the one who is writing, aren't I!

Jeffrey

Toto

John Loftus has left this thread, and it has become something of a mess.

I suggest starting a new thread on any active subject.

Doug Shaver

Not unless I'm trying to persuade someone of something, and I'm not trying to persuade you of anything.

aa5874

To support your claims or beliefs with evidence or credible information is not directly related to persuasion, support is necessary to show your claims or beliefs have credibilty or some validity.

I take it that your beliefs as stated in your previous post cannot be backed by any credible source and therefore has virtually no credibility or validity.

The information in the NT shows that the gospel writers were talking about a God, the son of the God of the Jews, born of a virgin according to so-called prophecy in Isaiah 7.14, and ascended through the clouds, and the letter writers, did call this creature by the name Jesus Christ, and claimed he was also a God, the Son of the God of the Jews that ascended.

That Jesus was a God, born of virgin and ascended, was also propagated by the church writers. And, further, there are hundredrs of writings about a creature called Jesus Christ the God, the begotten of God, his Son, yet equal in divinity.

Doug Shaver

To show whom? I don't care whether you think my claims have any credibility.

aa5874

If it is supposed Jesus of the NT was just human and existed in the time of Tiberius, then it would become very clear that his life story as presented by the authors of the NT and the church writers are fundamentally fictitious events, that Jesus had no "good news", no gospel, for the Jews, and that he did not even qualify to be considered a Messiah, and that he could have only been a blasphemer which in turn would have made it unrealistic for Jews to have worshipped him as a God and ask him to forgive their sins, in direct opposition to the Laws laid down by their God as written in their Scriptures.

If Antiquities of the Jews is examined, during the days of Pilate, effigies of the Emperor were brought in to be placed in the Temple, the Jews would rather die, have their necks chopped off, than allow these effigies to be placed in the Temple, yet, it is supposed that Jesus was just a man who was eventually crucified as a blasphemer, was asked, by Peter and the letter writer named Paul, to be worshipped as a God.

If Jesus was a man, why was he eventually called a Messiah?

There is informantion about a man considered to be a Messiah, Simon bar Kokchba who, with other Jews, fought the Romams to deliver the Jews from Roman control, but Jesus beat the Jews with rods, cursed the local authorities and called them agents of the devil, and even spoke to the Jews in such a manner that they would remain in ignorance.

If Jesus was a man, it is inexplicable how he could have been called a Messiah of the Jews and worshipped as a God with the power to forgive the sins of Jews.

jeremyp

He didn't.

Jews don't worship Jesus as a god.

Because Christians (not Jews) believe Jesus is God. It doesn't mean he actually is.

He wasn't.

Lugubert

The Jews didn't and don't think the alleged Yosefson, man or not or just partially man, was/is the Messiah of the Scriptures.

Christians who think that this (proposed) guy is the Messiah of the Scriptures, should imply that he is the Saviour etc. of all mankind. So, he would thus be a Messiah of the Jews, but certainly not the Messiah of Jewish Scripture.

bacht

I think aa's point was that Christians used the concept of the Messiah but changed its meaning from the contemporary Jewish understanding.

According to the gospels Jesus was neither a pretender to the Jewish monarchy nor a military leader planning to free his people from foreign domination (like bar-Kochba)

According to the epistles Jesus was the pre-existent supernatural Son of God, not a human chosen to do God's work of saving Israel politically.

There were prophecies about the universal kingdom, but they were usually prefaced by wars and natural portents.