Many of the people on this board, when they see a creationist thread, they put it down saying that there is no proof that Creationism had taken place.

But i feel that many of you have missed out some of the most basic evidence pointing towards its validity. You also point out that the people defending it are blind and because they have faith that its virtually impossible to break there belief in a Godly creation act. Have you ever considered why??

All of the following are prophecies concerning Jesus:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

<LI>born of the tribe of Judah

<LI>from the family of David the son of jesse

<LI>born in Bethlehem

<LI>born of a virgin

<LI>children killed after his birth

<LI>called out of Egypt

<LI>presented himself for baptism and was anointed on schedule in 29c.e

<LI>one apostle unfaithful, betrays jesus

<LI>impaled

<LI>romans cast lots over his belongings after his death

</UL>

some of you may not believe in Jesus, even though he has been proved to be a real historical figure.

So maybe more archaeological prophecies may interest you:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

<LI>Temple to be destroyed if Israel turned apostate

<LI>Overthrow of ten-tribe kingdom of Israel

<LI>Destruction of Babylon by Cyrus, with the medes and Persians and the gates of Babylon to be left open.

<LI>City of Tyre to be destroyed by the Chaldean's under Nebuchadnezzar

<LI>Rebuilding of Jerusalem and temple by the returning Jewish exiles; Cyrus’ part in it

<LI>Split of Alexanders Greek empire into 4 separate kingdoms, the rise of Rome and the Anglo-American world power which is around today.

<LI>Island city of Tyre to be destroyed

</UL>

There are thousands of prophecies in the bible, all of which can be proved true.

If such a book does not lie about its future, why would it lie about its depiction of the past??

This is one of the biggest "proofs" of creationism, which i think is all too often overlooked by evolutionists in debates.

Really looking into the bible, you cant doubt that it wasn't inspired by something. Obviously something with a lot of knowledge inspired it, so why would it lie about a Spiritual being influencing the creation of earth??

What do you think?

haha!! even you say "proofs" with quotation marks! what an idiot.

Jesus: from the family of David the son of Jesse -&gt; not unless Joseph was his father, and that kind of messes up some of Jesus' other claims.

Island city of Tyre to be destroyed -&gt; and never to be rebuilt (hint: it has)

Life imititates art beautifully.

Here's what I think, not that I'm trying to force this view it's simply what I believe about Jesus.

2) JESUS DID NOT EMBODY THE PERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF MESSIAH

A. MESSIAH AS PROPHET

Jesus was not a prophet. Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry. During the time of Ezra (circa 300 BCE), when the majority of Jews refused to move from Babylon to Israel, prophecy ended upon the death of the last prophets -- Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.

Jesus appeared on the scene approximately 350 years after prophecy had ended.

B. DESCENDENT OF DAVID

The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father -- and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father's side from King David!

C. TORAH OBSERVANCE

The Messiah will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all mitzvot remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4)

Throughout the New Testament, Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. (see John 1:45 and 9:16, Acts 3:22 and 7:37)

3) MISTRANSLATED VERSES "REFERRING" TO JESUS

Biblical verses can only be understood by studying the original Hebrew text -- which reveals many discrepancies in the Christian translation.

A. VIRGIN BIRTH

The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 7:14 describing an "alma" as giving birth. The word "alma" has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as "virgin." This accords Jesus' birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by gods.

B. CRUCIFIXION

The verse in Psalms 22:17 reads: "Like a lion, they are at my hands and feet." The Hebrew word ki-ari (like a lion) is grammatically similar to the word "gouged." Thus Christianity reads the verse as a reference to crucifixion: "They pierced my hands and feet."

C. SUFFERING SERVANT

Christianity claims that Isaiah chapter 53 refers to Jesus, as the “suffering servant.”

In actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews ("Israel") are regarded as one unit. The Torah is filled with examples of the Jewish nation referred to with a singular pronoun.

Ironically, Isaiah's prophecies of persecution refer in part to the 11th century when Jews were tortured and killed by Crusaders who acted in the name of Jesus.

From where did these mistranslations stem? St. Gregory, 4th century Bishop of Nanianzus, wrote: "A little jargon is all that is necessary to impose on the people. The less they comprehend, the more they admire."

Read it all at http://www.aish.com/rabbi/ATR_browse.asp?s=jesus&f=tqak&offset=1

EDIT: And another thing, where are all your sources for these prophecies and where are your proofs. You can't just give points that's bad debating.

For example:

1. "Jesus wasn't the son of God"

What the fuck? I'm just a know-nothing moron.

2. "Jesus wasn't the son of God as in Numbers 23:19 God says so Himself and also Jesus breaks Deut. 13:1-4 which proves he wasn't the Messiah. I personally feel that Bar Kochba was increadibly closer to fulfilling the Messianic concepts than Jesus ever was."

I'm a smart human who includes quotes and sources to make what he is saying more forceful and clearly more reliable.

[This message has been edited by Aphelion Corona (edited 06-08-2004).]

Oh, and how has Jesus "been proved to be a real historical figure"?

Disclaimer: This is all off the top of my head, hence ignorance, lack of ref.'s etc.

MESSIAH AS PROPHET

Did the messiah need to be a prophet? (I'm probably showing my ignorance here)

The last of the Prophets all had their ministry whilst the "majority of Jews refused to move from Babylon". I'm pretty sure the entirety of Ezekiel's prophecy took place in exile. Hence, your claim that "Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry" is falsified by the text.

Jesus is considered to be a prophet by both Jews and Muslims- but not the messiah.

John the Baptist is also considered a prophet, c. the same period.

DESCENDENT OF DAVID

Another prophecy concerning the Messiah was that he would be "born of the seed of woman". I'm not sure if this is correct, by you are considered a Jew today if your birth mother was a Jew, but not your father (I could be very wrong about that though)

Jesus is attributed to having said that David considered the Messiah his Lord (one of the Psalms), and that how then could he be his son?

TORAH OBSERVANCE

Jesus affirms the importance of the Law, and in fact raises it from simple external observance to a wholistic observance. He states that not the least word or stroke of a pen willl disappear from the law. He also says that he has not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it.

Read Matt. 5 and 6 and tell me that this man has a low view of the law.

MISTRANSLATED VERSES REFERRING TO JESUS

This is a common charge Jews level at Christians. As far as I known, it is generally baseless.

VIRGIN BIRTH

If "alma" is taken alongside "born of the seed of woman". As far as I understand "alma" is also used interchangably with "virgin", however working off the top of my head, I have nothing to back that up.

CRUCIFIXION

There are other references to things that line up with crucifixtion- being "hung on a tree", "pierced for our transgressions" etc.- although I see some problems with the context of the second one I mentioned

SUFFERING SERVANT

Meh, I've got nothin' at this stage. Although this might be a case where there's a (I'm not sure what you call it), like a double allegory, which I've also genesis seen understood in terms of. As far as I understood Isaiah was talking about a particular bloke, (can't think of his name)- which wouldn't exclude understanding at as talking of not only his suffering, but Israel's/the Messiah's.

There are also prophecies that line up in part with the Jewish holocaust.

Sorry about the lack of ref's and quotes.

Edit: Omitted words

[This message has been edited by inquisitor_11 (edited 06-09-2004).]

BTW I don't think that anything you raised supports creationism.

Why? Because creationism is a flawed, yet fervently imposed, interpretation of the bible. In fact in some ways it is a very reactionist response to modernity telling the church that it was "uneccessary". The thing that pushed me furthest away from creationism has been the attitude of a lot of creationists.

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:



Jesus is considered to be a prophet by both Jews and Muslims- but not the messiah.



No. Jesus is considered a prophet by Muslims.

NOT by Jews.

And the Messiah will be a prophet, that's pretty much common knowledge.

Mat 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:



Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

HE JUST CHANGED THE LAW RIGHT THEN AFTER SAYING THAT HE WOULDNT!

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

Oh, and how has Jesus "been proved to be a real historical figure"?

because hes written about in history by historians from the same time as him??

Jesus isnt only written about in the Bible ya know..

edit-the historian Josephus wrote down the occurance of the stoning of "James, the brother of Jesus who was called the christ"

Tacticus, a roman historian also refers to him.

[This message has been edited by nevermind (edited 06-09-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

Jesus: from the family of David the son of Jesse -&gt; not unless Joseph was his father, and that kind of messes up some of Jesus' other claims.

Island city of Tyre to be destroyed -&gt; and never to be rebuilt (hint: it has)

The bible doesnt say it would never be rebuilt... it says that The city on the mainland would be picked up stone by stone and thrown into the sea. Which it did, as the ruins of the Mainland city were used to build a causeway to the Island city of Tyre.

I think you are confusing Tyre with Babylon, which still hasnt been rebuilt. In fact, everytime Babylon was been attempted to be rebuilt, events have conspired against it from ever happening. Alexander wanted to make it his captial city. He died before it ever started. Saddam Hussien wanted to rebuild parts of it for Tourism, and then the Gulf war 1 and sanctions started-the rebuilding stopped.

*** whoops forgot to answer the first part of the question-Mary was a descendant of the royal line of David. Joseph being his father would not affect this lineage at all.

[This message has been edited by nevermind (edited 06-09-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Aphelion Corona:

Here's what I think, not that I'm trying to force this view it's simply what I believe about Jesus.

2) JESUS DID NOT EMBODY THE PERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF MESSIAH

A. MESSIAH AS PROPHET

Jesus was not a prophet. Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry. During the time of Ezra (circa 300 BCE), when the majority of Jews refused to move from Babylon to Israel, prophecy ended upon the death of the last prophets -- Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.

Jesus appeared on the scene approximately 350 years after prophecy had ended.



Then why did all the prophets point to Jesus as the messaih and greatest prophet of them all, even stating the time period and city he was to come from. The religious leaders were looking out for the messiah at the time that Jesus was alive, this is seen in the fact that they asked John the Baptiser if he was the prophet, and the prophecies of the messiah were so widley belived in, that they were feared by Roman rulers. Thats why when Jesus was a child, they fled to Egypt to escape Herod (a vassel king of Rome) killing all infants-the propheices were belived in and the messiah was anticipated as coming.

quote:

B. DESCENDENT OF DAVID

The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father -- and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father's side from King David!



Both scriptures show Jesus' lineage.

Luke chapter 3 vs 24 says"Jesus....being the son of, as the opinion was,

Of Joseph

son of heli"

Jesus was raised by Joseph, and was considered the son of Joseph. Remember that to be a descendant of David, you have to be a direct descendant of one of his children. There is 42 generations between David and Joseph, and the Scripture at isiah 11 says "and there must come forth a twig out of the stump of jesse" (jesse being David's father). Obviously over many generations the birth of Jesus would just be yet another birth, and Mary is also part of the tribe of Judah and related to King David. Jesus's royal line is still preserved, yet he would not be direct in line for the kingship as the amount of heirs alive at the time of his birth would be immense.

quote:

C. TORAH OBSERVANCE

The Messiah will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all mitzvot remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4)

Throughout the New Testament, Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. (see John 1:45 and 9:16, Acts 3:22 and 7:37)



Jesus does not contradict the Torah in any way. Jesus did not break any of the laws in the Jewish religion, and followed them strictly. In fact, he often states that the Scribes and Pharisees made the law a burden on the people, as they enforced it beyond what was bareable. You were not allowed to hunt on the sabbath-the scribes and pharisees extended this to even killing a gnat. Jesus showed up the scribes and Pharisees to show that they were hypocrites and not using the law properly, yet he did not break the law.

As Jesus being the Messiah, to save the Jewish people and to be a ransom sacrifice for mankind, after his death (being the greatest sacrifice ever given) no more sacrifices had to be made to repent of sins. This negated the need for many of the Temple duties and Jewish rites. The Jewish law was there to keep the people in God's favour until the messiah's job was fullfilled, when he fullfilled its purpose indefinatly, the aspects of the law concerning what he fullfilled were not needed anymore. Therefore he didnt change the law, but set up new guidelines in the wake of his fullfilment of many of the laws in the Jewish system.

quote:

3) MISTRANSLATED VERSES "REFERRING" TO JESUS

Biblical verses can only be understood by studying the original Hebrew text -- which reveals many discrepancies in the Christian translation.

A. VIRGIN BIRTH

The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 7:14 describing an "alma" as giving birth. The word "alma" has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as "virgin." This accords Jesus' birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by gods.



EDIT******

right i have some stuff on this now:

You are right that the world Alma refers to young women, but looking at the scriptures in which it has been used before in the original hebrew-Genesis 24:43, Exodus 2:8, Proverbs 30:19, Psalm 68:25, Song of Solomon 1:3 and 6:8, and Isaiah 7:14-in some cases in these verses the word is applied to virgins.

The oldest hebrew testament is from the 3rd century, and in this translation by Jews themselves, they applied the word alma as virgin. They admitted that ‘al·mah´ could mean a virgin by rendering this Hebrew word as “virgin” at Genesis 24:43 and at Isaiah 7:14, using the Greek word par·then´os, meaning “virgin.” The Jews themselves gave the meaning of “virgin” to the Hebrew word ‘al·mah´ at Isaiah 7:14

Also, the Modern day hebrew-&gt;english dictionary defines the word alma as a young, maiden women ready for marriage, before the birth of her first child...in the days of Jesus, no contraception available-Mary was a virgin, in fact when Joesph learned that she was pregnant, he wanted to leave her as Mary would be stoned to death for sex outside of marriage. Proof enough that the birth according to the bible was a virgin birth?

quote:

B. CRUCIFIXION

The verse in Psalms 22:17 reads: "Like a lion, they are at my hands and feet." The Hebrew word ki-ari (like a lion) is grammatically similar to the word "gouged." Thus Christianity reads the verse as a reference to crucifixion: "They pierced my hands and feet."



Jesus wass not crucified, he was killed upon a torture stake.

The greek word which is interpreted as cross, is "stauros". In classical greek, this means an upright stake, or pole. The greek does not refer to a special torture stake being made of a crosspeice, this is a mistranslation and so the cross is not a symbol of Jesus's death. So the mistranslation you pointed out is a mistranslation as far as i can research.

quote:

C. SUFFERING SERVANT



Christianity claims that Isaiah chapter 53 refers to Jesus, as the “suffering servant.”

In actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews ("Israel") are regarded as one unit. The Torah is filled with examples of the Jewish nation referred to with a singular pronoun.

Ironically, Isaiah's prophecies of persecution refer in part to the 11th century when Jews were tortured and killed by Crusaders who acted in the name of Jesus.

From where did these mistranslations stem? St. Gregory, 4th century Bishop of Nanianzus, wrote: "A little jargon is all that is necessary to impose on the people. The less they comprehend, the more they admire."

Read it all at http://www.aish.com/rabbi/ATR_browse.asp?s=jesus&f=tqak&offset=1



****edit

Yes, the modern day church changes the bible to support its own theology. I am not putting this evidence forward from any classical interpretation of the bible, merley my own. In fact recently i have left the church of england as i disagreed with its inaccuracies in the teaching of the bible.

********

gimmie some time to look at these in some more detail.

and i'll include more quotes in the bullet points next time then :P

[This message has been edited by nevermind (edited 06-09-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by nevermind:

because hes written about in history by historians from the same time as him??

Yes, in a very minor way, usually referring to Christian beliefs rather than verifiable events.

Plato wrote about Atlantis as history, but it sure isn't proof that it really existed.

quote:the historian Josephus wrote down the occurance of the stoning of "James, the brother of Jesus who was called the christ"

Even Christian apologists admit that some of the references to Jesus in Josephus were added later by Christian scribes.

quote:Tacticus, a roman historian also refers to him.

Tactitus wrote the reference around AD 116, LONG after Jesus was gone.

Do you even know he says about Jesus?

quote:(Nero) punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius...

So basically he tells us what Christians believe. Not much of a proof.

quote:The bible doesnt say it would never be rebuilt... it says that The city on the mainland would be picked up stone by stone and thrown into the sea.

It's kind of sad that I know your holy text better than you do.

quote:I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the LORD have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD.

-- Ezekiel 26:14

quote:Mary was a descendant of the royal line of David. Joseph being his father would not affect this lineage at all.

Where does it say that Mary was descended from David?

For some reason Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke 3:21-31 go to lengths to trace Jesus back to David through Joseph.

The *really* interesting part is that the two geneologies contradict each other....

He couldn't have been the Messiah as the Messiah will be a great war leader and nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus lead an army to war.

I don't want to have to repeat this a million times but it is a simple proof that he wasn't the Messiah.

This is why Bar Kochba was nearer to fulfilling the Messianic phrophecies.

Jesus is the son of Jesse Helms?

I feel left out in this topic if I don't quote some scripture, so:

quote:Deut. 25:5-12:

5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.

6 And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.

7 And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother.

8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her;

9 Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house.

10 And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.

11 When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets:

12 Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.

Random, but funny.

quote:Originally posted by Aphelion Corona:

He couldn't have been the Messiah as the Messiah will be a great war leader and nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus lead an army to war.

I don't want to have to repeat this a million times but it is a simple proof that he wasn't the Messiah.

This is why Bar Kochba was nearer to fulfilling the Messianic phrophecies.

Could you cite some passages from scripture to support the above and also your claim that the messiah would be a prophet?

You still haven't shown that he wasn't a prophet, or that the "age of prophecy ended", especially considering that your proof is contradicted by the prophpetic texts.



You cite Matt 5:21-22 as a "changed law". In 21 he repeats the law they all know. In 22 he takes the law further than actually killing and sets it at a higher level where even wanting to kill someone becomes wrong.

Is this not a fuller obedience to the law of Moses and God?

Craftian:

Plato and Atalantis- there was something on TV a while ago hosted by Sabrina the Teenage WItch that reckoned that Atlantis was Cuba. Not exactly a reputable source though....

The extent of the interpolations in the Josephus text is unknown- some say it's only certain words, others contend that all of the passages concerning Jesus are fake.

Tacitus shows that Christian beliefs were well established by the 2nd century, which at one stage, was very important. Also Craftian you ommitted the fact that Tacitus was a historian. His writing was primarily concerned with the first century. As such, he would at least have a fairly good idea if it was all a fabrication.

"In short, Tacitus was a very careful historian - he would certainly not trust a source that he held in such disdain as he did Christians, and he would carefully check material that came to him, even from his friends." -J.P.Holding

The contradictory geneologies is what gave rise to the idea that one was through Joseph (legal descendent) and the other through Mary (Physical). I think Matt. was Jospeh, and Luke's was Mary.

Re: Tyre never being rebuilt

•I've previously posted a quote saying that the current city of Tyre exists on a different location. As far as I now know that quote is bullshit (making this a retraction- sorry).

Alternate explanations that I've seen:

1) Phonecian Tyre has never been rebuilt, the city that exists is Syrian Tyre, further ensuring that the Tyre that was will never be again.

2)That it was common military rhetoric/hyperbole. The same source went on to cite an egyptian passage that declared that a city they were razing would "be no more". The same egyptain who said that shortly began rebuilding a city on that site (from memory).

^ I don't find either of those particularly satisfying as they smell a lot like apologetic acrobatics, but there might be something to them.

For those that state Jesus never broke any torah laws or anything, if I may:

http://www.geocities.com/llfptfu/wwjd.html - Shows Jesus stole, insulted his mother, and other things.

http://www.geocities.com/llfptfu/tosm.html - Shows Jesus was not "sinless".

http://www.geocities.com/llfptfu/tgmet.html -Shows how Jesus's birth may not of happened, and that he is just a religion assimilating(sp?) the views of other religions and peoples.



All the above links have biblical referances if you are unsure as to what they are talking about or want to look it up yourself.



I apologuise if this offends anyone, and thank you for your time http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

What about the dead sea scrolls? don't they talk about jesus?

One geneology might be for Mary, but the Bible clearly says both are for Joseph.

quote:and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

-- Matthew 1:16

quote:Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph

-- Luke 3:23-24

So I guess you can say that one's Mary's, but it sure ain't supported...

[This message has been edited by Craftian (edited 06-10-2004).]

quote:

It's kind of sad that I know your holy text better than you do.



quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the LORD have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD.

-- Ezekiel 26:14



You are taking that scripture the wrong way. Read earlier into the bible and you see that the city of tyre was TWO cities, an Island city and the mainland city.

Nebuchadnezzer totaly destroyed the first city, but couldnt get to the Island city-the Island city inhabbitants had stockpiled everything of value onto it.

The Ezekiel 26:14 is reffering to ALEXANDER THE GREAT.

verse 12 reads:

"...and your stones and your woodwork they will place in the very midst of the water."

Alexander built a causeway to the Island city of Tyre. He then wiped it out and plundered it.

The Island city of Tyre, which this scripture refers to, has not been rebuilt. In fact the causeway is still there and a sandbank has built up around it to now connect it to the mainland.

Island city of tyre has never been rebuilt.

quote:Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry. During the time of Ezra (circa 300 BCE), when the majority of Jews refused to move from Babylon to Israel, prophecy ended upon the death of the last prophets -- Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.

Jesus appeared on the scene approximately 350 years after prophecy had ended.

What the crap kind of garbage is this? Prophecy ended? Absolute nonsense. Daniel was a prophet while there were NO Jews in Israel.

quote:The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father -- and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father's side from King David!

And if you knew enough of Jewish culture and actually read the bible, Joseph 'adopted' if you will, Jesus as his son, and that's enough for him to count as his blood.

quote:Throughout the New Testament, Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. (see John 1:45 and 9:16, Acts 3:22 and 7:37)

Have you actually checked these verses?

John 1:45

Philip found Nathanael and told him, "We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote - Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."

John 9:16

Some of the Pharisees said, "This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath."

But others asked, "How can a sinner do such miraculous signs?" So they were divided.

Acts 3:22

"...For Moses said, 'The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me among your own people; and you must listen to everything he tells you...'"

Acts 7:37

"This is that Moses who told the Israelites, 'God will send you a prophet like me from your own people.'..."

Those verses are so related to your point... I'm so amazingly convinced of your argument.

quote:The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 7:14 describing an "alma" as giving birth. The word "alma" has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as "virgin." This accords Jesus' birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by gods.

And what word is used to describe Mary?

quote:The verse in Psalms 22:17 reads: "Like a lion, they are at my hands and feet." The Hebrew word ki-ari (like a lion) is grammatically similar to the word "gouged." Thus Christianity reads the verse as a reference to crucifixion: "They pierced my hands and feet."

And logically, if you had a lion at your hands and feet, you'd have holes there too.

quote:Christianity claims that Isaiah chapter 53 refers to Jesus, as the “suffering servant.”

In actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews ("Israel") are regarded as one unit. The Torah is filled with examples of the Jewish nation referred to with a singular pronoun.

Actually, most of chapter 52 is talking about the splendour of Zion, and yes, chapter 53 does follow on from 52, because the section entitled 'The Suffering and Glory of the Servant' starts in chapter 52.

quote:Oh, and how has Jesus "been proved to be a real historical figure"?

In the 3rd Century AD, Emperor Constantine's mother was sent to the holy land to retrieve the headboard of Christ's cross. She did, and we still have it today, and amusingly for me, it proves to be the actual headboard. There was a 'Jesus of Nazareth' who was proclaimed on his crucifixion as 'King of the Jews'.

quote:it proves to be the actual headboard

Really, how?

OK I'm just gonna destroy your thesis but noone ever said the Messiah will be divine. He will die like a normal human after fulfilling his job.

End of story.

maybe people are missing the point here:

Whatever you say or think about the bible-it is an amazing book. So many prophecies have come true, something i was tying to highlight in my first post.

The main point is, if something can predict the future so well, why would it lie about what happened in the past?

That is proof for creationists, we as humans are so limited in our knowledge-that there is no way we could of produced the Bible and its amazing foresight.

So something else must of inspired us to record it down in written form.

Obviously whatever inspired us knows a shitload more than we do, so talking about a divine being influencing the formation of life on earth isnt that stupid after all....

Try to understand that reasoning before shutting down people with religious creationist beleifs and making it like you know so much more that anything that could inspire us to write down a book like the bible.

Nostradamus could also predict the future. The bible predicts a lot of things,very vage too.



Hey, my magic 8-Ball is able to predict the future! It can probably tell me the past too!

Aphelion Corona:

No one ever said the Messiah will be divine? Let's see what the man himself had to say:

' While the Pharisees were assembled, Jesus asked them a question: “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said, “The son of David.” He said to them, “How then does David by the Spirit call him ‘Lord,’ saying,

‘The Lord said to my lord,

“Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet”’?

If David then calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?”No one was able to answer him a word, and from that day on no one dared to question him any longer.' - Matt 22:41-46

The Messiah would be Immanuel (God with us), Isaiah 9:6-7, Isaiah 7:14

"There is no reason why we should take El in this name of the Messiah in any other sense than in Immanu-El; not to mention the fact that El in Isaiah is always the name of God..."- F. Delitzsch

Oh, I also found the passage that says that the Messiah would be a prophet: Deut 18:18.

Gyhth

Someones already beat you to it.

Craftian

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph , the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph

-- Luke 3:23-24 (Italics mine)



This might be of further use to you http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof4.html

nevermind

I agree that the bible is no mere human product. However, by your logic, things like fulfilled prophecy also support Hitler's and David Koresh's interpretation of the bible.

The_Reckoning

The prophecies contained in the bible are far less vague than Nostradamus' ramblings, which have relied on retrospective shoehorning (me thinks). From those being discussed in this thread you can see that they name specific cities, places and events.

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

Aphelion Corona:

No one ever said the Messiah will be divine? Let's see what the man himself had to say:

' While the Pharisees were assembled, Jesus asked them a question: “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said, “The son of David.” He said to them, “How then does David by the Spirit call him ‘Lord,’ saying,

‘The Lord said to my lord,

“Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet”’?

If David then calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?”No one was able to answer him a word, and from that day on no one dared to question him any longer.' - Matt 22:41-46

The Messiah would be Immanuel (God with us), Isaiah 9:6-7, Isaiah 7:14

"There is no reason why we should take El in this name of the Messiah in any other sense than in Immanu-El; not to mention the fact that El in Isaiah is always the name of God..."- F. Delitzsch

Oh, I also found the passage that says that the Messiah would be a prophet: Deut 18:18.



Jewish literature says that the Messiah won't be divine. End of Story. You can bring the New Testament into it as much as you like but the Judaic view is that he wont be divine.

Claiming that Jesus is God therefore makes no sense at all if you are trying to claim that he is the Jewish Messiah.

inquisitor_11: Yeah, that's exactly my point. We've no reason to think that Jesus was of the line of David (unless you can show me where Mary's geneology is given).

quote:Originally posted by Aphelion Corona:

Jewish literature says that the Messiah won't be divine. End of Story. You can bring the New Testament into it as much as you like but the Judaic view is that he wont be divine.

Claiming that Jesus is God therefore makes no sense at all if you are trying to claim that he is the Jewish Messiah.

wtf? don't you count Isaiah as a Jewish text?

Line of David- I can't show you where it is, that's why I posted the link as I've got NFI.

Cyrus the Great kicked arse

quote:Really, how?

Well, there was a greek abbreviation used on it that was only used around that time, the wood matched up to woods used at the time (I'm referring to rings and dendrochronology), and it was found in a room with graffiti dating from the same time... among a few other proofs.

[This message has been edited by VampireSlaya (edited 06-12-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

wtf? don't you count Isaiah as a Jewish text?



Not the altered version you are quoting from.

Check out my post in the Judaism thread for a great site with the Hebrew-English accurate translation.

You will then see that you were amusingly mistaken as you interpreted "vayikra" as "veyikre".

Hebrew ארקיו ומכש-לע הרשמה יהתו ונל-ןתנ ןב ונל-דלי דלי-יכ

:םולש-רש דע-יבא רובג לא ץעוי אלפ ומש

Translit ki-ye led yu lad-la nu ben ni tan-la nu va te hi ha mis ra al-shikh mo va yik ra she mo pe le yo ets el gi bor a vi-ad sa ro-sha lom:

English For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom;

[This message has been edited by Aphelion Corona (edited 06-12-2004).]

As I don't read hebrew, that wasn't much help. Even with the transliteration. What does "vayikra" and "veyikre" mean?

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

As I don't read hebrew, that wasn't much help. Even with the transliteration. What does "vayikra" and "veyikre" mean?

I swear I explained... If not I apologise it must've been another post.

Vayikra and veyikre are two different tenses for called. Vayikra means he called, veyikre means he will be called.

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

inquisitor_11: Yeah, that's exactly my point. We've no reason to think that Jesus was of the line of David (unless you can show me where Mary's geneology is given).

To the response:

Where does it say that Mary was descended from David?

For some reason Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke 3:21-31 go to lengths to trace Jesus back to David through Joseph.

The *really* interesting part is that the two genealogies contradict each other....



I have the following scriptures for you, which predicate, in great detail, the lineage of Mary, mother of Jesus. As you will read, she DID in fact come from the line of David.

Her genealogy is given in Luke 3. She was of the tribe of Judah and the lineage of David (Psalm 132:11; Luke 1:32).

23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,

32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,

33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,

34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,

35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,

36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,

37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,



38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.



Mary was a direct descendant of King David which gave Jesus the right to ascend the Jewish throne, both through Mary and through adoption by his foster father, Joseph. Mary's genealogy is supplied in Luke 3:23-38. Dr. Henry Morris explains the genealogy in Luke:

"Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says 'son of Heli'] should be understood to mean 'son-in-law of Heli.' thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word 'son' is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either 'son' or 'son-in-law' in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David--Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon's line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah's sin" [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender's Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).].

Joseph's ancestry - Joseph was also in the line of King David and therefore held a legal right to the throne. However, because he descended from Jechonias (Matt. 1:11-12) (also called Jeconiah and Jehoiachin, he would have been disqualified by God from taking the throne. However, Mary's son would not (see: Mary).

1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;

3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;

4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;

5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;

6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;

7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;

8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;

9 And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;

10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;

11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:

12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;

13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;

14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;

15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;

16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

*bounce*

Well done. But now prove that Jesus was a great warrior and mighty warlord and I'll accept him as my Messiah.

Jesus wasn't prophesized to be a great warrior and a might warlord, that was just the ideal savior of the Jewish Pharisees and Scribes. The only think relatively close to that which was prophesized is that Jesus must be from the line of David.. which was just proven.

quote:Originally posted by Caucasian:

Jesus wasn't prophesized to be a great warrior and a might warlord

Yeh and the Jewish Messiah was so how on earth could he have been the Jewish Messiah??

quote:Originally posted by Aphelion Corona:

Yeh and the Jewish Messiah was so how on earth could he have been the Jewish Messiah??

I'd like to see a Bible excerpt =) All that was said is that Jesus was to be of the lineage of David. It was just expected that, being of David's line, he would be a warrior or a king or something. What is expected was not what was prophesized =)

Maimonides' view may be useful here.

The anointed King ("HaMelekh HaMoshiach") is destined to stand up and restore the Davidic Kingdom to its antiquity, to the first sovereignty. He will build the Temple in Jerusalem and gather the strayed ones of Israel together. All laws will return in his days as they were before: Sacrificial offerings are offered and the Sabbatical years and Jubilees are kept, according to all its precepts that are mentioned in the Torah. Whoever does not believe in him, or whoever does not wait for his coming, not only does he defy the other prophets, but also the Torah and our Rabbi Moses. For the Torah testifies about him, thus: "And the Lord Your God will return your returned ones and will show you mercy and will return and gather you... If your strayed one shall be at the edge of Heaven... And He shall bring you" etc. (Deuteronomy 30:3-5).

These words that are explicitly stated in the Torah, encompass and include all the words spoken by all the prophets. In the section of Torah referring to Bala'am, too, it is stated, and there he prophesied about the two anointed ones: The first anointed one is David, who saved Israel from all their oppressors; and the last anointed one will stand up from among his descendants and saves Israel in the end. This is what he says (Numbers 24:17-18): "I see him but not now" - this is David; "I behold him but not near" - this is the Anointed King. "A star has shot forth from Jacob" - this is David; "And a brand will rise up from Israel" - this is the Anointed King. "And he will smash the edges of Moab" - This is David, as it states: "...And he struck Moab and measured them by rope" (II Samuel 8:2); "And he will uproot all Children of Seth" - this is the Anointed King, of whom it is stated: "And his reign shall be from sea to sea" (Zechariah 9:10). "And Edom shall be possessed" - this is David, thus: "And Edom became David's as slaves etc." (II Samuel 8:6); "And Se'ir shall be possessed by its enemy" - this is the Anointed King, thus: "And saviors shall go up Mount Zion to judge Mount Esau, and the Kingdom shall be the Lord's" (Obadiah 1:21).

And by the Towns of Refuge it states: "And if the Lord your God will widen up your territory... you shall add on for you another three towns" etc. (Deuteronomy 19:8-9). Now this thing never happened; and the Holy One does not command in vain. But as for the words of the prophets, this matter needs no proof, as all their books are full with this issue.

Do not imagine that the anointed King must perform miracles and signs and create new things in the world or resurrect the dead and so on. The matter is not so: For Rabbi Akiba was a great scholar of the sages of the Mishnah, and he was the assistant-warrior of the king Ben Coziba, and claimed that he was the anointed king. He and all the Sages of his generation deemed him the anointed king, until he was killed by sins; only since he was killed, they knew that he was not. The Sages asked him neither a miracle nor a sign...

And if a king shall stand up from among the House of David, studying Torah and indulging in commandments like his father David, according to the written and oral Torah, and he will coerce all Israel to follow it and to strengthen its weak points, and will fight Hashem's wars, this one is to be treated as if he were the anointed one. If he succeeded {and won all nations surrounding him. Old prints and mss.} and built a Holy Temple in its proper place and gathered the strayed ones of Israel together, this is indeed the anointed one for certain, and he will mend the entire world to worship the Lord together, as it is stated: "For then I shall turn for the nations a clear tongue, to call all in the Name of the Lord and to worship Him with one shoulder" (Zephaniah 3:9).

[Added from mss.:]

But if he did not succeed until now, or if he was killed, it becomes known that he is not this one of whom the Torah had promised us, and he is indeed like all proper and wholesome kings of the House of David who died. The Holy One, Blessed Be He, only set him up to try the public by him, thus: "And from the seekers of wisdom there shall stumble, to purify among them and to clarify and to brighten until the time of the ending, for there is yet to the set time" (Daniel 11:35).

As for Jeshua of Nazareth, who claimed to be the anointed one and was killed by the court, Daniel had already prophecied about him, thus: "And the children of your people's rebels shall raise themselves to set up prophecy and will stumble" (Ibid. 14). Can there be a bigger stumbling block than this? All the Prophets said that the Anointed One saves Israel and rescues them, gathers their strayed ones and strengthens their mitzvot whereas this one caused the loss of Israel by sword, and to scatter their remnant and humiliate them, and to change the Torah and to cause most of the world to erroneously worship a god besides the Lord. But the human mind has no power to reach the thoughts of the Creator, for His thoughts and ways are unlike ours. All these matters of Jeshua of Nazareth and of the Ishmaelite who stood up after him (Mohammed) are only intended to pave the way for the Anointed King, and to mend the entire world to worship God together, thus: "For then I shall turn a clear tongue to the nations to call all in the Name of the Lord and to worship him with one shoulder."

How is this? The entire world had become filled with the issues of the Anointed One and of the Torah and the Laws, and these issues had spread out unto faraway islands and among many nations uncircumcised in the heart, and they discuss these issues and the Torah's laws. These say: These Laws were true but are already defunct in these days, and do not rule for the following generations; whereas the other ones say: There are secret layers in them and they are not to be treated literally, and the Messiah had come and revealed their secret meanings. But when the Anointed King will truly rise and succeed and will be raised and uplifted, they all immediately turn about and know that their fathers inherited falsehood, and their prophets and ancestors led them astray."

(From Wikipedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mashiach

But the simple fact is that Jesus didn't fulfill the expected prophecies of gathering the exiles and rebuilding the Temple and restoring the Sanhedrin.

Caucasian, I'm willing to accept that the Jews may have assumed that the Messiah would be a warrior, but from Maimonides above it is clear that he will be a king, and Jesus was no king.

And the Messiah will not be God, where did the concept of Jesus being God come from in the New Testament? It certainly isn't backed up in the Torah and anyone claiming to be part of God is a heretic.

Can I introduce here that when Jesus was asked if he was God he answered "You have said that I am" because he knew that in Jewish belief the Messiah wasn't God. I think the early Church introduced this but feel free to correct me.

Sorry, if I'm a bit slow on the up take, but how does that post show that the Messiah will be an overtly militaristic, human-type king? Does it preclude Jesus' claims that his kingdom was not of this world?

As I've said before Isaiah 9:6 and 7:14 both state that the Messiah will be Immanuel.

Technically, a theologically correct christian understanding of the Messiah's divinity is that he wasn't completely "God" i.e. It was not God (the 'God-head') suffering on the cross (although I don't think I've articulated that real well). At the same time Jesus still claimed that "before Abraham was, I AM" , and his claim to sonship was in effect, putting himself on the same level of God.

From my limited understanding of hebrew, am I right in saying that an expression like "son of ..." is, in english, roughly the same as "in the likeness of..."or "is like..." ?

OK, so you're just assuming that the geneology in Luke is Mary's, despite the fact that it clearly says otherwise.

2 things here. One, it's easy to read old prophecies and interpret them as applying to the past. I.e. Nostradamus's prophesies concerning the Hister and people's interpretation of that meaning Hitler as opposed to a portion of the Lower Danube actually called the Hister. Slightly bending prophesy and selective interpretation does not support Jesus as Messiah, nor does it refute it.

Two, and this is the biggest problem with using biblical support for the idea of creationism. Look at the first 2 chapters of Genesis, they offer different creation stories. The sequence of events differ in each of the two stories. If your logic behind believing in creation is a book that isn't even consistent, you need to rethink your approach.

quote:Originally posted by Aphelion Corona:

Well done. But now prove that Jesus was a great warrior and mighty warlord and I'll accept him as my Messiah.



When was it said that He was a warlord, and a great warrior ? You are asking these things to be proven in a human sense, but one thing you must consider is that loving is much harder than hating.

Is it not much harder to say, "It's ok, go ahead" and wave with a smile when some jerk cuts you off and almost kills you and your children than it would be to flip them off, whip out your oozie and blow their heads off ? Right ?

Most people see love as a weakness...it is more "honorable" and "admirable" for someone to shoot the jerk, instead of forgiving them for risking the life of your family.

My point to this is that God has chosen to be a God of love...He was once a God of law (old testament).

He will, in fact, be the defeator in Armeggedon, but until then, He remains the passive encourager of His people.

Your reasoning for accepting JESUS (not God) as your Messiah lies under false pretenses. First, though Jesus and God are one entity (along with the Holy Spirit), they are still separate in their function in relation to humans.

Imagine the three of them as you would water. Water can come in three forms...steam, ice, and fluid. Each has it's own separate function, and none can perform the function of another, without a molecular manifestation.

Jesus is the Messiah, but it is to God that you would dedicate your soul. Jesus is called the Messiah, because His function in the trinity (Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit) was to cover the sins of man, so that God could stand to be in our presence (thus our ability to join Him in heaven).

Had Jesus been, in fact, a mighty warlord, what about that would make you want to serve Him ?

Does it not strike you that the Creator of the universe could destroy it in one fell swoop, if He so desired it ? That knowledge alone should nullify the need for a proven warlord. That kind of power needs no proof, and cannot be questioned.

quote:Originally posted by Aphelion Corona:

Jewish literature says that the Messiah won't be divine. End of Story. You can bring the New Testament into it as much as you like but the Judaic view is that he wont be divine.

Claiming that Jesus is God therefore makes no sense at all if you are trying to claim that he is the Jewish Messiah.

The Judaic view does not recognize Jesus as the Christ, the son of God. And early in the Old Testament, God curses the Jews to be blind to the truth of His purpose. This curse was a result of their hard hearts, and adulterous nature.

So, if you base your opinion of Jesus' divinity upon the Judaic view, you will be basing it upon a blind standpoint. Their eyes will not be opened until after the second coming of Christ.

Christians do not CLAIM that Jesus is God because that is merely what they think (something infallibly contrived), rather both God the Father, and Jesus the Son stated this on numerous occasions throughout the Bible. If you'd like the scriptures, I would be more than happy to supply them, but you must first recognize the Bible as a valid, historical/spiritual document. Otherwise, you cannot accept it as a basis for irrefutable proof, and every point made hereafter would be considered moot.

In which case, I am wasting my time...am I ? :-)

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

OK, so you're just assuming that the geneology in Luke is Mary's, despite the fact that it clearly says otherwise.

No, I am not assuming anything. Mary came from a different line of David than did Joseph. If they had come from the exact same line, they couldn't possibly have married, now could they ?

I explained that she came through the line of Nathan, who is of the line of David, while Joseph came from the line of Jacob, who is also of the line of David.

Is that more clear ?

quote:Originally posted by xaresx:

2 things here. One, it's easy to read old prophecies and interpret them as applying to the past. I.e. Nostradamus's prophesies concerning the Hister and people's interpretation of that meaning Hitler as opposed to a portion of the Lower Danube actually called the Hister. Slightly bending prophesy and selective interpretation does not support Jesus as Messiah, nor does it refute it.

Two, and this is the biggest problem with using biblical support for the idea of creationism. Look at the first 2 chapters of Genesis, they offer different creation stories. The sequence of events differ in each of the two stories. If your logic behind believing in creation is a book that isn't even consistent, you need to rethink your approach.

Can you quote the verses that you think are contradictory for me ? I cannot try and explain what I am not given to explain.

quote:Originally posted by Caucasian:

I'd like to see a Bible excerpt =) All that was said is that Jesus was to be of the lineage of David. It was just expected that, being of David's line, he would be a warrior or a king or something. What is expected was not what was prophesized =)

David was a King of war, and it was generally anticipated that anyone from his line would be as well.

However, Solomon was a king of Wisdom, so there goes that theory.

I do not recollect a scripture that says Jesus would be a mighty warlord.

:-(

quote:Originally posted by Aphelion Corona:

Yeh and the Jewish Messiah was so how on earth could he have been the Jewish Messiah??

I would be worried about believing in the Jewish Messiah to begin with, as he has not yet come, will never come, and even if he did, he is not prophecized to be the savior of the entire race of man, but only the Jews.

That would be a pretty depressing prospect. How would such a Messiah be of a God of love, which is what Christianity is based on ?

If anyone claims Jesus to be the Jewish Messiah, they are seriously mistaken. He was the Messiah of the entire race of man. It is merely up to us to accept Him, or not.

Not to step on any toes, or anything...

idiot. messiah translates into 'king in waiting'... so let him wait, it ain't ever going to happen. the belief in jesus is a uniquely cultural phenomenon, and not the norm for the species... THANK GOD.

[This message has been edited by Eil (edited 06-18-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by nevermind:

If such a book does not lie about its future, why would it lie about its depiction of the past??



What do you mean by "its future"?

Who's it?

Does this mean your basic asumption is

If one part is right all of it must be.

I think the problem here is that you are trying to convince me that the Messiah was Jesus, even though there are numerous problems with this theory. Did any of you actually read that quote from Maimonides?

quote:Originally posted by Aphelion Corona:

I think the problem here is that you are trying to convince me that the Messiah was Jesus, even though there are numerous problems with this theory. Did any of you actually read that quote from Maimonides?

When I have the word of God to go by, why would I seek the word of man ?

Now here is where you say, "The Bible was written by men !"

But you are flawed in this opinion, because though their hands wrote the letters, the Bible was God inspired. Have you ever had a vision ?

Have you ever been consumed by a spirit (of the non-oppressive sort) that you could not deny ?

If the answer is no, which I certainly believe to be the answer (otherwise you would be able to envision what it is I am speaking of), then you cannot possibly fathom what it was to be motivated to write such a book.

Many people sit around complaining that the Christians use the Bible as the foundation for their belief, because they believe it to be infallible, though the pagan view sees it as so...please start providing proof of actual flaws.

I have seen posts that indicate sections that are to be considered flawed, but they are not even reading the scripture correctly, and certainly not associating the particular verses they are attacking with the rest of the chapter in which they are contained.

How can you read three pages of a book, and claim to know the whole story ?

*shakes head*

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

idiot. messiah translates into 'king in waiting'... so let him wait, it ain't ever going to happen. the belief in jesus is a uniquely cultural phenomenon, and not the norm for the species... THANK GOD.

[This message has been edited by Eil (edited 06-18-2004).]

Perhaps waiting for the second coming ? Do you ignore prophecy entirely when coming to your conclusions ? If so, then you shouldn't have an opinion at all.

So, because I don't agree with you, I'm an idiot ?

*laughs*

Religion...the legal drug for the masses...

And thought this creationism seems to fuck ones head pretty well,I think I'll stay with the illegal ones...hahaha

^haha... beautiful. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

i was thinking the same shit when i read his post, but you said it better than i would have.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

How you read three pages of a book, and claim to know the whole story ?

*shakes head*

Have you read the Talmud? Then how can you talk to me about the Torah?

quote:Originally posted by Aphelion Corona:

Have you read the Talmud? Then how can you talk to me about the Torah?

How do you know I haven't read them ?

*curious*

Meh, whether or not you consider Yeshua to be the Jewish Messiah or not is your own conclusion to come to. I say he is, you tried to tell us otherwise, and on every point you've raised it appears that there is still a strong case for the Christian claim.

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

Meh, whether or not you consider Yeshua to be the Jewish Messiah or not is your own conclusion to come to. I say he is, you tried to tell us otherwise, and on every point you've raised it appears that there is still a strong case for the Christian claim.

Who are you directing that post to ?