Discussing the Messiah from an Historical Perspective

Why do we get these people on here? They come on all keen to show use where we're wrong wthout any real understanding. The whole of the New Testament is built on a background of Roman Laws and Jewish religion. And then they expect us to do their study for them.AAGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH. Drives you mad.

 

1. Luke's Nativity story is based on 'Roman Laws' that do not exist. For any census (usually for Roman Citizens only)
if this were to include all nations, no-one was expected to leave their homes. A Roman census in their Egyptian territory tells us this. Therefore both Matthew and Luke were wrong to place Jesus in Bethlehem.
2. Taxing was done on property and Josephs property was in Nazareth, not Bethlehem
3. Joseph and Mary had no reason to be in Bethlehem.

Which rather questions the rest of the story in Matthew.

To go through the whole business of the Real New Testament would take ages. Christianity reads the NT as it is written. Once you add an understanding of the background of the Romans ruling with their laws, and the religion of Judaism and its effect on the stories you get a different picture - the real picture. Paul uses the OT and Judaism often in his Epistles.

It takes years of study and you want it explained in a few sentences.

The Jews were, in fact, in a better position religiously with the Romans than many other nations. The Romans knew the ferocity with which the Jews held on to their beliefs and allowed them more freedom in certian matters.
The Jews religion did not allow images, or images on shields. The Romans knew this and respected their wishes rather than face Jewish uproar. When Pilate one night had his soldiers decorate Jerusalem with shields under cover of darkness and these shields had the image of Tiberius the Emperor, the Jews caused uproar. They complained to Tiberius himself who ordered Pilate to remove them. This isn't the first time the Emperors had intervened ON BEHALF of the Jews, against their own Roman rulers.

Roman rule and Judaism permeates through the NT if you understand it.

 

I do not know that Paul is a liar and you do not know that Paul is telling the truth.

Countless people have claimed to have visions or messages from God. How many people claim to have been abducted by aliens ? Do you believe all these people just because they said so.

At least with alien abductions we can put the person under hypnosis. We can not do this with Paul. Paul can not even get his story about his encounter with Jesus Straight. The 3 versions given in the Bible are different.

Do you think these words from Paul, Romans 13, are from God ?

Do you think that women should not be allowed to teach the Gospel or speak in Church as Paul says. Is this what God thinks ?



Jesus came to preach the gospel. The Jews were given privilege to receive it first and this was Jesus’ initial mission (cf. e.g., Rom 1:16). But the mission did not end there since Jesus continued his mission to the Gentiles when he rose from the grave and spread his gospel through his Church.



Whatever that means. The facts are that most denominations believe other denominations are going to hell. Plain and simple.
[/color

 

You previous claimed that the Message of Jesus was only for the Jews as a way to try and escape the fact that Jesus preached salvation by works.

Now you are contradicting yourself by claiming that the message is in fact for the Gentiles.

Also, you have given no scriptural proof from Jesus that his works salvation formulation was only for the Jews. I on the other hand posted scripture that shows Jesus separating people (all people) at the end of days on the basis of works.

You have not refuted the words of Jesus I provided, and you have not provided any scripture from Jesus that backs up your claim.

 

You keep bringing up what Jesus is preaching over and over again. Then when I bring up Paul, you scoff at him. Yet, you refuse to say whether Paul is right or wrong. You're see-through, and I can see the game you're playing a mile away. Until you give an answer about Paul, then you cannot bring up what Jesus is saying. Period.

 

But we know that Josephus, a historian who lived in that Age, wrote about Jesus and called him a supposed messiah.
Then the Jews,themselves, mention and defame Jesus and Mary, in their Talmud which is the basis for all the Jewish responses even now.

So it is very clear this weak criticism is wrong here.

 

The message of Jesus was and still is to he Jews.

The message is that Christ was The Elijah returned in 32AD at the moment when John baptized him.
That is still the message to the Jews, in spite the Gentile Christians account that Jesus was the messiah ben David.
Jesus was the messiah ben Joseph, though.

You try to gnore the dozens of verses which indicate the OT reveals what I say to be correct, as you smash at Christianity with nonsense.

 

Except we already established that Jesus was dead long before Josephus wrote anything so everything Josephus said was SECOND HAND.

That makes it hearsay, which our courts of law are smart enough to dismiss.

 

What are you asking for. Did you want me to come over to your place and push the Codex Sinaiticus link button for you. The link takes you directly to the passage in Mark in that text.

There is no "long ending of Mark". It does not exist in these early copies of Mark. Someone added these verses in later Copies.

So which then is correct ?

Is the version of Mark with the stories about Jesus walking around in a physical body after death correct ?

or

Is the version of Mark without the stories of Jesus walking around in a physical body after death correct ?

 

You can keep trying t analyze the NT and find ideas which seem to support what you say, but you can not deny that the Revelation is a Jewish writing which Jesus merely announced that Christians, too, need accept and study.

As you deny that Christ was The Elijah even in the face of dozens of miracles and events replicated again in 32AD, you are stuck with Book of Revelation as a Jewish End of Days. (The first 3 chapters excluded, since those were directly from Jesus to the seven churches).

 

?
Doesn't ALL history wait before writing things...?

Josephus was born in 37AD, a Jew and certainly he had Matthew available too, which was written in 54AD.
But what what happening in Israel was Christians were being forced out of synagogues, and the Jews were mounting their protests against them.
No Jew, living then, could have been unaware of the "Jesus matter."

Josephus simply wrote about what he saw happening, which is the Non-religious Histroical support people ask for.

 

Well, Josephus certainly didn't see "Jesus" happening anywhere. He only heard the secondhand stories that came from religious sources. So, that's all he could record.

Now, if you could show us that Josephus got his "history" from a non-religious source, you might have something.

 

You are making false claims again. I have never scoffed at Paul's "Sola Fide" preaching.

The only one playing games is you because you are in denial over the fact that Jesus contradicts Sola Fide.

I have never denied that Paul preaches Sola Fide.

You ask the question "Is Paul Right". The only correct answer to that question is "WE DONT KNOW".

You can not prove that Paul was right. You were not present at the time when Paul claims to have had his vision.

The only thing that can be proven is that the Jesus of Matt/Mark contradicts "Sola Fide".

Can you prove that Paul's vision was something different than stories people tell of Alien encounters ?

If you want to accept Paul words as "Gods Truth" that is fine but you are deluding yourself if you think you can prove it.

What is fact is that if you do accept that Sola Fide is Gods truth, then you must also claim that Jesus was lying because Jesus contradicts "Faith alone" as the only method of salvation.

You must also reject the epistles of James (brother of Jesus) as he also rejects sola fide.

 

You are the one making nonsense out of Christianity.

In this case you are not even addressing the topic under discussion. Are you claiming that the message of Jesus was not for people other than Jews ?

What are you claiming here and where is your scriptural proof ?

Quit talking nonsense.

 

The Gospel of Mark in Codex Sinaiticus: Textual and Reception-Historical Considerations

"The Greek text of the Gospel of Mark is certainly the worst attested of all the canonical gospels. It is extant in only three papyrus manuscripts, none of which are by any means complete, and of which only one is definitely earlier than the fourth century uncials; while one other is perhaps contemporary with them ( 8. Thus our knowledge of the text of Mark is more dependent on the early uncial texts than is the case with the other gospels, where early papyri and more substantial comments in church fathers supplement the early uncial texts."

http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/v13/Head2008.pdf

 

Matthew is not thought to have been written in 54 AD. Where is this coming from ?

Not even Clement - (Head of the Church around 95-100 AD) has Matthew like we know it today ?

The consensus is that the author of Matt was writing (80-100AD) after the destruction of the Temple around 70 AD. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html

 

Yes, the message of Jesus was to convert the Jews to using Truth as the lord between how they behaved in the Reality they needed to recognize as almighty.

We KNOW this is true, because Deuteronomy 18 told us that a great prophet who would do miracles like Moses did was coming.

15 The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;

The same passage said if the Jews did NOT listen, (ears but hear not, eyes but see not), they would be forced into seeing and hearing.
Elijah came, but the Jews returned to their old ways.
So Elijah came back.

 

Consensus may be the case, but my own Bible says 54AD.
And the actual date depends upon which great modern educated seer of the moment you might device to go with.

But I recognize the date 54 AD as the right one, because the holy comforter had to come before the 1000 year reign of Jesus was to begin.
Since you need accept the Revelation as a Jewish writing, one stated in Hebrew, which makes it very old, we can analyze that book to support the views here:

Rev. 20:4
And I saw thrones (of Universal Christian authority) and they, (the 144,000 monks of Catholic monasticism: [Rev14:4]), sat upon them (Christianity mandated as the ONLY legal religion in the Empire, in 380AD), and (theocratic) judgment was given unto them (in the days of Catholic Monasticism): and I saw the souls, (the spirit-like psyches), of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, (Old Testament and New), and which had not worshiped (by participation in the paganistic practices and sexual excesses fueling) the beast (of the Roman economic system which had been based upon selfish self-interest), neither his image(on his coinage), neither had received his mark (of ledgered accounts recorded) upon their foreheads, or in (wages in) their hands; and they lived (as angels in the minds of Christians who have followed, these beheaded saints, in the memories of congregations who worshipped in churches built upon the bones of their remains)...
.... and (they) reigned (in Monasticism) with Christ a thousand years, (from 54 AD upon the appearance of the Holy Comforter, until 1054 AD with the first Schism of Greek Orthodoxy).

 

Did you have some comment to make ? It is no secret that we do not have extant copies of any of the gospels (in their entirety) prior to the time of Eusebius (fourth century BC) who was the fellow that put the first Bible together.

What is your point ?

- - - Updated - - -

What is your problem?? No one is questioning the fact that the message of Jesus was for the Jews.

 

That's nice that you recognize something as true on the basis of fallacy. Who is the "holy comforter" and why does his reign start in 54 AD and how does this relate to when Matt was written.

 

Who's arguing with that? Most of Revelation is taken from the OT. Prophecy can mean what anyone wants it to mean.
Much of OT prophesy is simply saying 'this will happen if you keep on the way you're going'. Not what is definitely going to happen. Some of it didn't need a prophet to tell them. It was commonsense. Some prophecies

I've 'prophesied' several times in my life when people have told me what they were going to do, and the prophesies have come true. Prophecies? No, I could simply see consequences that they had not thought about. I bet you've done the same.

Some of the OT prophecies were written after the event - as history.

I.e. Daniel. The first half is probably of previous legends. The second half written in the 2-1st century which fits in with the Maccabean period.

The book of Revelation has been interpreted many ways. You choose which you want to believe.

 

?
Josephus is a world wide known and respected Historian.
He not only lived during the very time of the apostles, but he wrote history about the events like any historian might do.

The only testimonies we have of people who actually saw and lived in contact with Jesus were the Jews,who wrote their histories against him, and the Christians, who wrote their gospel reports for him.
These people you did not want to accept because they are religious.
Now you won;t accept a CONTEMPORARY historian either.

Just drop the issue and admit you are wrong here.

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah...
But a 1000 years of mandatory Roman World Christianity DID come, as was predicted.

 

Faith in Truth is the only salvation for us, though.

 

Not according to Jesus but you are welcome to your opinion.