juliod wrote:hu? I think you've lost track of the discussion. we are talking about hints of the Messiah in the OT. If Jesus was Messaih that's at least a couple of hundred years between the writing and fulfillment. Or do I misunderstand your point?
Yes, what I'm saying (or rather the mythers) is that the "hints of the Messiah in the OT" is all there is.
If Jesus were real the
vast bulk of information about him would come from general knowledge of recent events. But Paul and the epistle writers say (in places such as this) that they got their information from the OT.
It does. the only stuff from the OT is what he would do as Messiah. who he was, who his family was, did he have sibs and all that comes from the events of his life. the only things form the OT are predictions of events the Messiah would fulfill. that's fiar we all know about prophesy and fufillment nothing about that that suggest he wasn't real.
You are suggesting that they were merely looking for support and illumination. But the mythers say that they were getting the whole story from scripture. Convinces me.
You know my opinion of them.
When God sent a prophet to Isreal and that propeht foretold the future they could read his words and say "O see Amos fortells the destruction of Israel by Assyria" so does that mean it was made up and just fictional because it's in the bible?
No, but it does mean that like all claims of prophesy it is a form of post-diction. Most or all of these works can be shown to be reactions to upheavals in the past.
that in no way means that the use of prophesy a prori indicates fiction
In any case, you have a Problem. If these prophesies in the OT were about Jesus, and not about what the Jews say they are, and if Jesus was intended to save the Jews, how is it that he failed? The jews still think their prophecies are about whatever they thought before.
he didn't fail. that's a fuflfillment. that's the "we accounted him stricken" stuff in Is53. he was to be rejected by his people, then come again for the second time. that's why the apostles ask him "when will the tmpel be destoryed and when is the time of your coming?" why ask that he was already there? He was he to have two comings. one at birth and one when he came back.
Now you can theorize that the story of Jesus was made up from things written but there is a ton of proof that Jesus was a real person. there's no question of that.
Nope. There's none. I've said before that if the apologists had evidence for the existance of Jesus they would be sure to tell us.
I told you in the previous post. you just don't know makes history. It does not take much to prove someone existed in history.
Pilate was thoguht to be finctional until they found one inscritpion about him and refernce in Jesphsus so now he's thoguht to be totally hsitoircal. tha's just two attestations. Just two.
Festus who was city teasurer of Ephesus is taken as a real man just one inscription on a wall in Ephesus.
Paul's statments that Jesus was flesh and blood (Rom 1:3, Phil 2:6) and his association with Peter, James, Andrew, and other eye witnesses. is enough to prove it. that is proof! that is solid proof good enough for any historian.
Paul met several people knwe hm. I I will never know why you don't get this.
Perhaps because Paul never says he met people who knew Jesus.
don't play that game. the oddso f two people being named Peter and beign improtant to the ealry chruch are less not greater. Tis' a dumb argument. the only pepople who were big wigs in the ealry chuch were peole who were with Jesus. Paul basically says they were when the says they pillars.
He sais by the creedal formula he quotes that James saw the risen Jesus then we know he met James from Acts.
There is one reference to a "brother of Jesus" (James), but it is a throwaway reference that is as likely to be a title rather than a reference of a sibling (if it is not indeed a later interpolation). Paul and the epistle writers speak of Jesus almost universally as a long-hidden mystery.
that's a ridiculous argument. that's what get's me about mythers anything that counts against their garbage they just pretend it's not there even they hae to lie ;ceat or steal all credility to do so. But their stuff the lie and make up their own facts and make up their own mythology; it's a cult of fantasy.
what are you refurring to? the Josphus quote? that is crtanily no throw away, wether he's the brother, the cousin or a friend it has to imply that Jesus lived.
Myths don't even have flesh and blood aquantences.
He knew people who knew Jesus, that proves it. He exists. Paul says so. he says he was a of a flesh and blood line and he had a life on earth Paul says that. so that's proven and we need not wonder.
No. I can agree that Paul existed, but for one reason: there are enough Pauline epistles that scholars can divide them into genuine and fake (oops, I meant pseudonymous). Someone wrote the corpus of genuine epistles, even if his name wasn't Paul.
no seoius scholar thinks Paul wasn't Paul. But if you know, if you read 1 cor backwrds it says "no six no six turn me on resurreced man!"
if you play Paul all his records backwards. and look at the cover of St. Peper...
Now the things in the OT that predut it are beyond the control of Jesus parents. they could not control where he was born. what he was named or how he died. so that is just a foolish argument. it could not have been made up.
But they could easily be made up by anyone making up the whole story.
Not really, they would never get away with it. First no one would follow a figure they never heard of and when they are told He was known to all of Jeruslaem but no one has heard of him taht would kill it there. But then there's the fact that Jews would search out his geneology. the proof of that is they did! It's in the Talmud, there are several passage saying "I foudn suc a one's genology." thats' what they call him after the sefl centorsing of the 16th century.
they would check it out to see that he was real and that he could be traced from the house of David and they would see there is no such person and they would kill the whole movment right then and there.
And there is much evidence of this. Is it Jesus of Nazereth? Why not Jesus of Bethlehem?
that's not an argument. It's a good qeustion it doesnt' prove anything.
There is a lot of ink spilled to explain away the fact that there were obviously competing stories about Jesus' origin. (But not, of course, among the epistle writers, since for them Jesus lives in a Platonic spirit realm and was crucified long ago.)
show me one! I have an arguemnt that there is only one Jesus story. that would seriously disprove it. Let's see the other storeis where are they?
Jospehus says James was his family memeber.
You need to absorb one thing: Josephus was not in a position to know the truth of that. And since the passages in Jo are obviously mucked-about with, they are likely to be interpolations in their entirety.
DanZ
Yes he was, get over it grow and learn the way they did things. Jews kept extensive records on geneology and they were real obcessed with who was from waht family. Joe's grnd father was in Jerusalem at the time and he was a good source of information. Joe also had access to all Jewish archives and all Roman archives were exitive.
