Jews and Jesus

[Bikewer]

The brilliant move of the architects of Christianity (not Jesus...) was that they traded the Jewish idea of a Messiah physically delivering them from the Romans and into a nice, pleasant new Jewish Kingdowm... To a spiritual Messiah that would save his follower's souls.
That's much easier to manage... You don't actually have to do anything.

 

[DOC]

Christians make much of Jesus fulfilling bible prophecy which proved that he was the messiah. For example he was born in Bethlehem, rode into Jerusalem on an ass, cleared the money lenders out of the temple and so on. All of these events in his life are used as evidence of Jesus fulfilling prophecies from the Old Testament and therefore proving that he was the messiah.

So why didn't the Jews at the time accept him as the messiah?...

Very many did.

All the 12 apostles (and Paul) were all Jewish. And of course Jesus, Mary and Joseph were all Jewish. The bible reports 3000 people were converted on Pentecost. And Acts Chapter 4 written by Luke (a man called a great historian regarding non-supernatural events by Sir William M. Ramsay) reports 5000 "men" were converted shortly after that. And if you add woman and teenagers to that the number it would be much higher. So if you add the 3000, plus the 5000, plus woman and teenagers, the number of Jews converted within weeks after the crucifixion could have been 10,000 or more.

ETA: And remember Matthew 27: 52-54 says this occurred after the crucifixion:

And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked, rocks were split, tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many.

The above could also account for 10,000 or more people being converted so quickly.

All of this could explain the growth of the church all over the Roman empire within a relatively short time. If you believe what the bible says, there is no doubt about it, something very big was happening in Jerusalem around the the time of the death and resurrection of Christ.

 

[HansMustermann]

DOC, repeating the same lies over and over again won't magically make them true. It does however make you yet another liar.

 

[DOC]

DOC, repeating the same lies over and over again won't magically make them true. It does however make you yet another liar.

Which part of my post was a lie, be specific.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It seems that compared to all the other claimants, Jesus was the only one who was so successful in convincing enough people that he was the Messiah, that two thousand years later, a very large portion of the world's population still accepts this claim.

A very large portion of Jesus' early followers were from among the Jewish people.

He didn't convince all of them, of course, but I don't see how it was to be expected that he would. No matter how good one thinks the proof is for one claim, there will always be those who reject that claim anyway, either because they sincerely do not believe that the “proof” proves what the claimant says it does, or because they have some vested interest in rejecting the claim, such as that of the Jewish leaders at the time whose own positions of power and influence were endangered by acceptance of any “Messiah”, whether real or not.

It could be argued that other false messiahs, e.g. John of Giscala or Menahem ben Judah, were more successful by that, and other criteria.

I've never heard of them. I doubt if the vast majority of other people today have either. Yet the vast majority of people have at least heard of Jesus, and even if they do not themselves believe that he was the Messiah, they certainly have to be aware that there are a great many people who do.

It seems to me that you've disproven whatever point it was you were trying to make.

 

[Resume]

If you believe what the bible says,

If you believe what the quran says, what the bhagavad gita says, what the book of mormon says . . . etc.

 

[Wolrab]

Of all the things in the Bible that would have had outside confirmation, an earthquake that cracked the Temple and a zombie plague of saints would be at the top of the list. I see a few options here. First, it never happened. Second, it happened, but nobody bothered to record it. Third, the PTB suppressed the story and destroyed all accounts of it.

 

[HansMustermann]

A world-wide eclipse, or for that matter a solar eclipse on a full moon, would also make the top list. They already knew it's impossible and why, and it would have been a major blow to all the knowledge of the heavens they had. SOMEONE would write it down.

And not just the Romans. The Persians, the Chinese, etc, would be very interested in that too. No organization had enough reach and authority to destroy records for ALL those.

 

[Craig B]

It's interesting to observe the development of Thomas Paine's thoughts regarding Jesus. We may start with his famous eulogy in Ch 3 of "The Age of Reason"

Nothing that is here said can apply, even with the most distant disrespect, to the real character of Jesus Christ ....

and then observe how the implausibility of the material, and its obvious dependence on concocted or misinterpreted "prophecies" finally reduces him to exasperation in the much later "Examination of the Prophecies", and he bursts out:

These repeated forgeries and falsifications create a well- founded suspicion that all the cases spoken of concerning the person called Jesus Christ are made cases, on purpose to lug in, and that very clumsily, some broken sentences from the Old Testament, and apply them as prophecies of those cases; and that so far from his being the Son of God, he did not exist even as a man -- that he is merely an imaginary or allegorical character, as Apollo, Hercules, Jupiter, and all the deities of antiquity were. There is no history written at the time Jesus Christ is said to have lived that speaks of the existence of such a person, even as a man.

One imagines that the tale of the zombie saints is one of Matthew's crazed interpretations of OT material, but Paine can't find a source for it there. Can anyone help?

 

[Brainache]

I've never heard of them. I doubt if the vast majority of other people today have either. Yet the vast majority of people have at least heard of Jesus, and even if they do not themselves believe that he was the Messiah, they certainly have to be aware that there are a great many people who do.

It seems to me that you've disproven whatever point it was you were trying to make.

I think the point was that John of Giscala and Menahem ben Judah both were very famous in their own lifetimes and managed to raise armies of people who declared them to be the Messiah, Jesus isn't even mentioned by any contemporary Historians.

If Jesus was even half as successful in his lifetime as those other guys, Josephus or Philo or someone would have noticed him.

All we have for Jesus is one crazy guy named Paul babbling about the voices in his head.

 

[HansMustermann]

One imagines that the tale of the zombie saints is one of Matthew's crazed interpretations of OT material, but Paine can't find a source for it there. Can anyone help?

AFAIK, it's based on the contemporary Pharisee expectation of a messianic age, which would involve the dead popping back to life. Matthew is probably trying to say "hey, it's happening already" and makes sure it comes across as connected to Jesus's death and subsequent resurrection.

I'm too lazy to do a whole research about the ancient Pharisee beliefs at this hour, but you can see what its successor, rabinic Judaism, expects there to happen, and what verses they base it on. E.g., from,

http://www.shemayisrael.com/publicat/hazon/tzedaka/age.htm
http://www.religionfacts.com/judaism/beliefs/afterlife.htm

 

[Loss Leader]

As a Jew, allow me to say:

The Jewish concept of the Messiah has exactly nothing to do with spiritual salvation. Jews don't believe that the spirit needs saving. Jews certainly do not and never did believe that the sins of Adman and Eve somehow removed humans from the grace of God. If that were true, there would be no reason for God to create a covenant with Abraham, or codify it with Moses.

Furthermore, Jews don't spend a lot of time thinking about the Messiah. Except for certain very, very small sects, we spend exactly zero time thinking about it. It's just not something we're holding our breath for. And, currently, there's a good reason:

The one and only job of the Messiah is to rebuild the Great Temple. That's it. That's all he does. There's nothing in the Jewish faith that says the messiah has to be revered or worshiped, and certainly not worshiped after death. We don't worship anybody; we're not allowed.

I, for one, would really not be thrilled about a new Great Temple. First of all, it would utterly destroy the nightclub where I had my first real kiss in 1986. Second, I don't want to move to Israel. Third, I certainly don't want to slaughter sheep.

Why didn't the vast majority of Jews accept Jesus as the Messiah? Here are a few reasons: 1) It's not even clear that the person of Jesus ever existed; 2) The Ten Commandments are pretty strict about putting one's faith in false gods; and 3) Nothing that the mythical Jesus said was in any way new, nor was his suffering in any way unique. But here's the most important reason: He didn't rebuild the Great Temple.

Utter messianic fail.

 

[DOC]

I think the point was that John of Giscala and Menahem ben Judah both were very famous in their own lifetimes and managed to raise armies of people who declared them to be the Messiah, Jesus isn't even mentioned by any contemporary Historians...

We have no contemporary historical writings concerning the Roman Emperor Nero or Alexander the Great, who conquered most of the known world. Does that mean they didn't exist?

And Jesus was mentioned by Josephus twice although one time is contested.

 

[HansMustermann]

Well, granted, after a couple of thousand years and the whole secularization in the West, it's easy to see why nobody is holding their breath nowadays.

But I think that historically, whenever they were collectively up crap creek without a paddle, a lot more Jews were hoping for a Messiah to come any time now. This applies both to the 1st century AD, and to nasty time periods for Jews like, say, the Renaissance.

I also think it's pretty supportable that a lot were expecting a bit more from the Messiah than just to buy a plot of land and pay builders to rebuild a temple.

Though it's also pretty clear that the expectations did include that, as the Christian fanfic... err... gospels, do make Jesus say that he could rebuild the temple in 3 days, if people take down the existing one. (Again, with Mark being the odd one in saying pretty clearly that Jesus DIDN'T say that, as he says those who claimed that were false witnesses.)

 

[HansMustermann]

We have no contemporary historian writings concerning the Roman Emperor Nero or Alexander the Great, who conquered most of the known world. Does that mean they didn't exist?

No, but the secondary sources cite the primary sources, and we can partially reconstruct that way writings of people who WERE contemporary to them. E.g., if two different people quote Aristoboulus as having said something about Alexander, then it's a fair assumption that he did. And we also know that he was a companion to Alexander, not just contemporary.

And here's the fun part, we actually have at least two different eyewitness sources we can rebuild that way, and we can see that they're independent because they're quoted as saying slightly different versions of the same event or putting a different spin on it.

So basically, comparing that to the utter lack of anyone even mentioning having first hand sources about Jesus, is, frankly, stupid. They're not even remotely the same thing.

And Jesus was mentioned by Josephus twice although one time is contested.

One of them is a blatant forgery, and the other is contested.

 

[Craig B]

We have no contemporary historian writings concerning the Roman Emperor Nero or Alexander the Great, who conquered most of the known world. Does that mean they didn't exist?

And Jesus was mentioned by Josephus twice although one time is contested.

The fact that Alexander conquered the world has left traces, to put it mildly, like destroyed empires and new cities. There are innumerable contemporary writings concerning Nero ... On coins, which have been found in abundance. We even have his house.

Both references to Jesus in Josephus are manifest interpolations. The "Testimonium Flavianum" in Book 18 of the Antiquities is unknown to pre-Eusebian commentators, and the reference in Book 20 is to another Jesus (son of Damneus) but some later Christian copyist has misunderstood it and added a gloss referring to the Christ. There is a huge literature on all this, much of it easily found on the Internet.

 

[Resume]

We have no contemporary historical writings concerning the Roman Emperor Nero or Alexander the Great, who conquered most of the known world. Does that mean they didn't exist?

Did Nero or Alexander claim to be the messiah, the son of god? Were either alleged to rise from the dead with a bunch of other zombies?

No?

 

[Leumas]

DOC's GAFFS....again

DOC, repeating the same lies over and over again won't magically make them true. It does however make you yet another liar.

Which part of my post was a lie, be specific.

Every time I see a DOC posting or a reply to a posting I cannot help but remember the ELIZA computer Artificial Intelligence program.

I am proposing that DOC is in fact an automated computer program that goes around posting threads or responding to threads with stock GAFFS (see below) based on keywords here and there.

If you are familiar with the AI program from the 70s called ELIZA you might get a very strong insight of what DOC is doing.

The ELIZA program managed to convince quite a few people that they were in fact conversing with a real psychiatrist. It worked by scanning the responses from the human and picking up on keywords and then used a database of stock sentences or in more sophisticated versions created sentences out of stock phrases to reply back with what appeared to be quite insightful responses.



I am fully convinced that DOC is nothing more than a

GAFFS..... Generator of Automated Fetid Fundamentalist Spam​

The acronym also makes up a word that is quite apt to the whole thing

Gaff
Noun

• a gimmick or trick, often used in a hoax or attempt at fraud or in a swindle or to rig a game
• a pole with a hook on the end, used for pulling large fish out of water
• nonsense or meaningless conversation

Verb

• to take in or defraud; swindle.
• to rig or fix in order to cheat
• to hook a fish out of water

 

[Leumas]

I am being Gaffed

We have no contemporary historical writings concerning the Roman Emperor Nero or Alexander the Great, who conquered most of the known world. Does that mean they didn't exist?

And Jesus was mentioned by Josephus twice although one time is contested.

OK.... I am responding to this GAFFS. I am being gaffed....but I had to.


Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Verification.


Alexander is believed to have been a brilliant Juvenile Hooligan who went around doing DRIVE BY conquering.

Nero was a MAD roman emperor.

Is there anything extraordinary there? So normal proof to their existence from various INDEPENDENT sources does NOT STRETCH INCREDULITY

But Jesus claimed FABULOUS claims and thus we would require AMAZING PROOF.....there is no independent proof and none of it is amazing.

Jesus stretched incredulity and only the chronic habitual credulous imbecile would accept the feeble claims of the NT.

Alexander also claimed to have been born after a god impregnated his mother and that he conquered with the aid of the gods after having been told so by the Soothsayers from Egypt and Greece. None take his claims seriously and other than him being called “great” due to cultural bias and due to his conquering, which is verifiable fact, no one nowadays calls him a god nor do we have churches were he is worshiped and little boys are buggered in his name….but that would have been in keeping with his motto.

So if you are proffering Jesus as a man who claimed to be a god and did NOTHING ELSE other than be killed for it…..OK…. but then we should treat him the same way as we treat Alexander….on actual historical basis.

Even if we were to grant Jesus a historic existence…he would be nothing more than a TRAGIC PATHETIC example of what would befall a stupid deluded Messiah-Aspirant who had more delusion than ability.

So let’s label Jesus as we do Alexander…… Jesus the Great….great FOOL that is.

 

[Mudcat]

Which part of my post was a lie, be specific.

I don't know which are 'lies' to be exact Doc, but first provide evidence for existence of the disciples. And second I have a hard time believing that they were all Jewish even if they did exist.