Messiah prophecies

[King Alexander]

CurtSibling, the problem is that Pikachu made a valid point about the reliability of the Biblical text by reference to the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Jewish Scriptures. He wasn't arguing that the text is true, only that it has not been altered since the time of Jesus.

It hasn't been altered since the time of Jesus, because it's written purposely in a very unclear way, so that priests interpret the quotes the way they like each time.

 

[Plotinus]

I am under no obligation to sit and study a bible - There are no answers therein for me.

But if you make historical claims about the transmission and content of the text, then you are under some obligation to provide evidence for them and to counter the arguments of those who oppose you - at least, if you want your claims to have any weight. And since the evidence either way is going to revolve around what's actually in the Bible, I hardly see how you can avoid studying it.

Your flaming anger in defence of the dogma makes me wonder at your claim to be an 'atheist'.

This stance you present strangely reminds one of a fundamentalist ethos also.

Which dogma, precisely, do you think I'm defending?

All I'm doing is trying to argue for the truth. All I have argued for here is historical positions about the meaning and transmission of texts, and so on. I have said nothing about anything beyond that. If you think that all claims about the content or meaning of the Bible are "dogma", then you ought to accept that that applies to yours as well - at least until you provide evidence for them. You never seem to do this.

What is fundamentalist about what I have said? Please enlighten me. Give details.

 

[CurtSibling]

But if you make historical claims about the transmission and content of the text, then you are under some obligation to provide evidence for them and to counter the arguments of those who oppose you - at least, if you want your claims to have any weight. And since the evidence either way is going to revolve around what's actually in the Bible, I hardly see how you can avoid studying it.

The evidence of what I claim cannot be found in the bible.
If there is any evidence of edits made centuries ago...

Unless I can travel in time, I will remain a mystery - Sorry!

Which dogma, precisely, do you think I'm defending?

The bible.

All I'm doing is trying to argue for the truth.

What truth? - That the bible is true?

All I have argued for here is historical positions about the meaning and transmission of texts, and so on. I have said nothing about anything beyond that. If you think that all claims about the content or meaning of the Bible are "dogma", then you ought to accept that that applies to yours as well - at least until you provide evidence for them. You never seem to do this.

I argued that I reckon the bible has been edited heavily through history.

I have no way to prove this, as you surely know. The church would leave no pointers to this editing.

If you want to defend the bible and say it is a solid study of the divine -
Then please do so, but by doing that - You are then not an atheist, as you claim.

As an atheist - You are meant to deny the divine, remember?

And sadly, I do not have access to the forbidden library of the Vatican.
I have no access either to a time machine to transport me to witness the countless
instances of biblical misinterpretation and editing down through the ages.

I have no way to magically provide proof for you...

What else do you wish me to do?

What is fundamentalist about what I have said? Please enlighten me. Give details.

Are you fighting for or against religon here?

 

[CurtSibling]

I think any kind of prophecy is too open to a myriad of interpretations.

How do we know that the events that are supposed to have happened in
JC's life are not just eagerly exploited for their 'prophetic' value by later
generations of churches and clerics?

This could equally apply to other events and faiths.

 

[Plotinus]

The evidence of what I claim cannot be found in the bible.
If there is any evidence of edits made centuries ago...

Unless I can travel in time, I will remain a mystery - Sorry!

So how can you say it, if you have no evidence for it? How can you talk about "countless instances of biblical misinterpretation and editing" when by your own admission there is no evidence for them? Pikachu gave good reasons to suppose that there has been very little editing and interpretation through the ages, and you have not given a good reason to suppose that his reasons are mistaken.

The bible.

But "the Bible" is not a dogma. It's a collection of texts. What dogma *about* the Bible do you accuse me of defending? If you read my posts you will see that I do not think that the Bible is entirely true, in either Old or New Testament. I argued that the Biblical text has not been meddled with particularly since the first century, but that is not a dogma, it is a conclusion based upon looking at the evidence - evidence which you refuse even to consider. You're the one promulgating dogmas.

What truth? - That the bible is true?

You see, you're falling into the fundamentalist trap again of assuming that there are only two positions to take on any matter - complete agreement or complete falsity. I don't think that the Bible is completely true, but neither do I dismiss it as complete fiction. You must learn to distinguish between the Bible itself and views about the Bible that different groups have believed. As I have argued, the Bible contains much that is historically true - for example, no-one can convincingly claim that Jesus was not crucified by the Romans. You seem to think that the mere presence of something in the Bible makes it untrue. The Bible also mentions Caesar Augustus, you know - do you deny that he existed, simply because he comes in the Bible?

If you want to defend the bible and say it is a solid study of the divine -
Then please do so, but by doing that - You are then not an atheist, as you claim.

As an atheist - You are meant to deny the divine, remember?

And where have I said that the Bible is accurate in what it teaches about the divine? Where have I said anywhere that I don't deny the existence of the divine? Let me tell you again - it's not a matter of "defending the Bible" or "attacking the Bible" - those are not the only options going. I defend the account of, say, the disputes in the early church in Paul's letter to the Galatians, because it is probably fairly accurate (if biased). I deny that, say, the account of the Exodus is historically accurate, although it may have some kind of basis in history. The Bible is a collection of very different writings. They do not all stand or fall together.

Are you fighting for or against religon here?

I'm fighting against those who use obfuscation and rhetoric to present prejudice as fact and opinion as evidence, whatever side they may be on. The fact that I agree with you that there is no God doesn't mean that I agree with the way you argue for it.

 

[King Alexander]

As I have argued, the Bible contains much that is historically true - for example, no-one can convincingly claim that Jesus was not crucified by the Romans.

First: the man you refer as "Jesus", we don't know if he was a lunatic who pretended to be the Son of God, we have only his name(Jesus). Maybe he (probably)was a wise person who got misunderstood by the crowd around him. So what? My name is "King Alexander"; does this make me the Son of God?
I have no reason to debate that someone did actually got crucified from the Romans: after all, the Romans practiced crucifixion to an art(Spartacus revolt, etc..)

You seem to think that the mere presence of something in the Bible makes it untrue. The Bible also mentions Caesar Augustus, you know - do you deny that he existed, simply because he comes in the Bible?

I don't argue with you: I do believe that the Bible has some historical facts. However, 90% of the Bible tales exist only in the mind of the (ancient/modern)believers.

 

[cgannon64]

Exactly! - Boring job, no money, What else would they have to do but not be celibate?

This is true, but its irrelevant. I doubt there is some kind of magic Jesus blood coursing through some people's veins that makes them kind of like the Messiah. There probably are brothers and sisters of Jesus running around today, but who cares. I bet even they denied it back then because they didn't want to be raised to some demi-god status.

 

[Plotinus]

First: the man you refer as "Jesus", we don't know if he was a lunatic who pretended to be the Son of God, we have only his name(Jesus).

Well, we do have quite a lot of information about Jesus. The fact that it's in the Bible doesn't make it all necessarily false any more than it makes it necessarily true. Scholars have to sift the evidence very carefully, and most of them agree that there's a fit bit that we do know about Jesus other than just his name. We may disagree over whether Jesus really said this particular thing or that particular thing, but we do have a good idea of the sort of thing he said and did.

In any case, he certainly wasn't a lunatic who pretended to be the Son of God, because in the Gospels he does not call himself that. In fact, in the first century, "son of God" referred not to some divine being but to anyone who was close to God. It was applied to people like Honi the Circle-Drawer, for example, and by extension to the whole Jewish race. "Son of Man" is a much more important title in the Gospels, but again it's not clear precisely what that means. I think that if Jesus saw himself as anything, it was as an eschatalogical prophet.

 

[King Alexander]

Who says us, that Jesus wasn't making self-suggestion(self-hypnosis) to his followers, so that they believed that they had witnessed "miracles"?
In any case, we haven't a credible source for Jesus's beliefs(I wonder: did he believed himself to God?) other than his biased and brainwashed followers.

 

[cgannon64]

Who says us, that Jesus wasn't making self-suggestion(self-hypnosis) to his followers, so that they believed that they had witnessed "miracles"?
In any case, we haven't a credible source for Jesus's beliefs(I wonder: did he believed himself to God?) other than his biased and brainwashed followers.

Brainwashed by who, if not him? Biased to what, if not to him?

I can see the argument of bias being made about historical details or miracles stories, but not about beliefs. I doubt followers of Jesus would completely change a belief Jesus held purposely...

 

[Plotinus]

[cgannon] That's right. In fact the evidence suggests that Jesus' followers had problems with some of the things he told them. For example, 1 Thessalonians (the earliest book of the New Testament to be written) addresses the fact that some people were disturbed by the fact that some of them had died before Jesus returned. In other words, Paul, who had preached the gospel to them, had been so convinced that Jesus would return soon that he hadn't thought to tell them what happened if anyone died first. In the letter, he tells them that those who have died will rise to meet the Lord, followed by those who are still alive. Fast forward to John 21 - written decades later - and you find that some people had evidently argued that Jesus would return while at least one of his original disciples was alive. But he died, and they had to argue that Jesus had never said such a thing. Look at 2 Peter, probably the last book of the New Testament to be written, and you find the author pointing out that, with the Lord, a day is as a thousand years. In other words, by this stage people were arguing that when Jesus said the end was coming soon, he didn't mean it literally.

In other words, if you look at the evidence you can see the early church struggling to cope with what was evidently something potentially embarrassing for them. That makes it overwhelmingly likely that it was something they were taught by Jesus - because they wouldn't have made it up. And what is striking is that they seem to have been rather loath to alter the texts and the traditions to reflect what they were coming to think. For example, in Matthew 16:28 (written perhaps in the 80s), Jesus tells his followers that the end will come while some of his listeners are still alive. That would be a potentially embarrassing saying for a Christian near the end of the first century to attribute to Jesus, which suggests that Jesus really said it, or something like it. That in turn suggests that much of the material in the Gospels and elsewhere has not been changed as much as you might think it has.

The notion that Jesus thought he was God, though, is almost certainly anachronistic. In fact, it is very hard to find any idea in the New Testament that Jesus was actually God - which is why Christians argued about it for centuries to come. The speeches attributed to Jesus in John's Gospel, where he speaks about himself at great length and apparently claims closeness to God and pre-existence for himself, are almost universally recognised to be very unhistorical. The Synoptic Gospels are much more valuable as sources for the real Jesus, and as I have argued they actually are quite credible sources for Jesus, provided we treat them critically.

 

[NateDawgNY]

I think there is some misinterpretation here. When Curt said that he believes Jesus existed but not as you know him, he had a point. The Jesus who many people think of today, never existed. However, there was one called Yehoshua ben-Yosef who did exist. Based on that premise I will make the following argument.

Within the Tanak (slightly different from the Christian Old Testament), there are two images of Messiah. Some, like the Essene community of Qumran have interpreted this to mean there will be two Messiahs. Others have intrepreted this to be one Messiah who fills both roles. I will illustrate the difference between the two. You can draw your own conclusions.

Suffering Messiah:
Originate in Bet-Lechem
Micah 5:2
Make his appearance on a donkey
Zechariah 9:9
His purpose will be to attend to the needs of others
Isaiah 61:1-2; 11:13; 49:6
Suffer and die
Isaiah 53​

Victorious Messiah:
Originate in the heavens
Daniel 7:13
Make his appearance in the clouds
Daniel 7:13
His purpose will be judgement
Isaiah 11:4-5
He will be victorious over his enemies
Zechariah 14:1-9​

 

[King Alexander]

That's right. In fact the evidence suggests that Jesus' followers had problems with some of the things he told them. For example, 1 Thessalonians (the earliest book of the New Testament to be written) addresses the fact that some people were disturbed by the fact that some of them had died before Jesus returned.

He couldn't convince his own people, that's true. Poor believers, how could you understand what a Son of God was telling you with your human and unperfect mind?

Look at 2 Peter, probably the last book of the New Testament to be written, and you find the author pointing out that, with the Lord, a day is as a thousand years. In other words, by this stage people were arguing that when Jesus said the end was coming soon, he didn't mean it literally.

Here we go again: did he meant it literally or not? Perhaps he Jesus wanted to leave them be confused, who knows what the Son-of-the-God had in his mind? Anyone can intepret the Bible the way he wants, even non-believers.
It's much more convenient that, rather than facing the danger the people could possibly stop believing any more, and the church would loose it's power.

For example, in Matthew 16:28 (written perhaps in the 80s), Jesus tells his followers that the end will come while some of his listeners are still alive. That would be a potentially embarrassing saying for a Christian near the end of the first century to attribute to Jesus, which suggests that Jesus really said it, or something like it.

This proves how bad of a prophet, this "Jesus" was.

The notion that Jesus thought he was God, though, is almost certainly anachronistic. In fact, it is very hard to find any idea in the New Testament that Jesus was actually God - which is why Christians argued about it for centuries to come.

Almost certainly? It's difficult for anyone to admit that their Leader was a Coo-coo, what we today we'd call: SERIOUS PARANOIA and DOUBLE PERSONALITY.

 

[Birdjaguar]

A real page turner!! Nice work Plotinus.

 

[Abulafia]

How could JC's mother have a child without the usual human conception...?

The word you are looking for here is parthenogenesis which is a process in which the female is 'scared' into pregnancy. It usually only applies to smaller creatures.

 

[CurtSibling]

This is true, but its irrelevant. I doubt there is some kind of magic Jesus blood coursing through some people's veins that makes them kind of like the Messiah. There probably are brothers and sisters of Jesus running around today, but who cares. I bet even they denied it back then because they didn't want to be raised to some demi-god status.

And who would want demi-god status?

 

[CurtSibling]

So how can you say it, if you have no evidence for it? How can you talk about "countless instances of biblical misinterpretation and editing" when by your own admission there is no evidence for them? Pikachu gave good reasons to suppose that there has been very little editing and interpretation through the ages, and you have not given a good reason to suppose that his reasons are mistaken.

I also stated that to better protect their positions of power, the church
through the ages has preached or dispensed varying versions of the religious texts.

Are you denying this?

While I a unable to spend months gathering scant info to build a
prosecution at the behest of some stranger on a message board,

I think we can assume that many holy leaders and factions have created their own versions of the bible.

How do you explain the mormons and jehovas witness interpretation of the bible?

Do you argue that all versions of the bible and various faiths built from/around it are uniform?

But "the Bible" is not a dogma. It's a collection of texts. What dogma *about* the Bible do you accuse me of defending? If you read my posts you will see that I do not think that the Bible is entirely true, in either Old or New Testament. I argued that the Biblical text has not been meddled with particularly since the first century, but that is not a dogma, it is a conclusion based upon looking at the evidence - evidence which you refuse even to consider. You're the one promulgating dogmas.

You demand information from me that would be hard to even uncover.
Then attempt to stand in some kind of triumph - Well, I am unmoved.

I think if we look at history (from a non-religious viewpoint) we can see that
most religions using the bible or even koran have all splintered and formed their
own versions. I think if you see the very posts on some threads in this site
you can see that religious posters are seldom unified in interpretation.

I think it is safe to say the massive series of proclamations by the pope and other leaders since 100AD
do indeed indicate that various figures do change the message of the religious texts
to awe an ignorant and easily led population.

You see this otherwise?

Please give me the source to your conclusion that the bible has not been tampered with...

You see, you're falling into the fundamentalist trap again of assuming that there are only two positions to take on any matter - complete agreement or complete falsity. I don't think that the Bible is completely true, but neither do I dismiss it as complete fiction. You must learn to distinguish between the Bible itself and views about the Bible that different groups have believed. As I have argued, the Bible contains much that is historically true - for example, no-one can convincingly claim that Jesus was not crucified by the Romans. You seem to think that the mere presence of something in the Bible makes it untrue. The Bible also mentions Caesar Augustus, you know - do you deny that he existed, simply because he comes in the Bible?

This type of arguing is flawed.
You only think that I sound like a fundamentalist - In that you dictate what I think.

You are flinging around as many absolutes as I reputedly am here.

I could deny that it was the alleged JC on the cross.
What have you got to back you? A series of texts written by his followers?

Sure, we could argue the same for the Caesars, did they really exist?
Well, I would trust the people who laid the foundations of our culture in Europe
that those followers of a self-proclaimed son of a god. Or their fans.

At least the Emperors of Rome were politically cynical when they claimed godhood.

But I digress.
Your 'history' as you see it in the bible is not what I hold as the sole source.
What of the accounts of events from other cultures at the time?

You seem to find it impossible that later edits, forgeries could happen to documents for the 1st century.

Again, why do you assume that people are incapable of this?

And where have I said that the Bible is accurate in what it teaches about the divine? Where have I said anywhere that I don't deny the existence of the divine? Let me tell you again - it's not a matter of "defending the Bible" or "attacking the Bible" - those are not the only options going. I defend the account of, say, the disputes in the early church in Paul's letter to the Galatians, because it is probably fairly accurate (if biased). I deny that, say, the account of the Exodus is historically accurate, although it may have some kind of basis in history. The Bible is a collection of very different writings. They do not all stand or fall together.

I think we can agree that the bible tales may have a root in events - But the very
nature of the book skews all into a religious aspect, as is to be expected.

That the endless ramblings about the morality of man are bound to smother any non-biased content.

And the whole over-arching assumption that there is a god sends the whole thing into a realm of the non-lucid.

There may be history there, but the value is reduced - As it is seen from the eyes of the zealot.

I'm fighting against those who use obfuscation and rhetoric to present prejudice as fact and opinion as evidence, whatever side they may be on. The fact that I agree with you that there is no God doesn't mean that I agree with the way you argue for it.

And what is your goal?
Enlightenment? Wisdom?
Well, good luck in your fight.

Be careful - I could imagine you becoming religious at the end of it all.

 

[IglooDame]

I also stated that to better protect their positions of power, the church
through the ages has preached or dispensed varying versions of the religious texts.

Are you denying this?

Plotinus cited information that the Dead Sea Scrolls, as translated, have Old Testament works that very closely match modern handed-down-through-history versions of those Old Testament works.

While I a unable to spend months gathering scant info to build a prosecution at the behest of some stranger on a message board,

Curt, if you spent half the time researching as you spend on OT claiming that the bible is completely mythical, you would be an acknowledged expert on the bible's myths by now.

I think we can assume that many holy leaders and factions have created their own versions of the bible.

How do you explain the mormons and jehovas witness interpretation of the bible?

Do you argue that all versions of the bible and various faiths built from/around it are uniform?

I don't think Plotinus was talking about interpretation of it, just translation, given his references that the Old Testament literally hasn't been significantly changed over the course of two thousand years.

You demand information from me that would be hard to even uncover. Then attempt to stand in some kind of triumph - Well, I am unmoved.

He, like I, expect you to have references at hand to defend your own broad statements. That you do not is a significant and apparently recurring flaw in your arguments.

I think if we look at history (from a non-religious viewpoint) we can see that most religions using the bible or even koran have all splintered and formed their own versions. I think if you see the very posts on some threads in this site you can see that religious posters are seldom unified in interpretation.

I think it is safe to say the massive series of proclamations by the pope and other leaders since 100AD do indeed indicate that various figures do change the message of the religious texts to awe an ignorant and easily led population.

You see this otherwise?

You are talking about interpretation, where Plotinus has been talking about the actual text of the Old Testament. In my mind it is clear that various church leaders emphasize different portions and interpret meanings differently, but then again people interpret the US Constitution differently as well and that was written only 200-some years ago.

Please give me the source to your conclusion that the bible has not been tampered with...

Well, here's a link to a Christian site that points out many differences between the historical Old Testament and the Dead Sea Scrolls, and what they see as differences is pretty illuminating in its nitpickiness. http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/sources/deadseascrolls.htm

Here's a link to a decidedly critical site regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls (and indeed the entire bible): http://www.cesame-nm.org/Viewpoint/contributions/bible/DSS.html and it will probably serve you well in your crusade against the religionista.

Perhaps Plotinus could provide more informative (and less biased) links.

This type of arguing is flawed.
You only think that I sound like a fundamentalist - In that you dictate what I think.

You are flinging around as many absolutes as I reputedly am here.

I could deny that it was the alleged JC on the cross.
What have you got to back you? A series of texts written by his followers?

Sure, we could argue the same for the Caesars, did they really exist?
Well, I would trust the people who laid the foundations of our culture in Europe that those followers of a self-proclaimed son of a god. Or their fans.

At least the Emperors of Rome were politically cynical when they claimed godhood.

But I digress.
Your 'history' as you see it in the bible is not what I hold as the sole source.
What of the accounts of events from other cultures at the time?

You seem to find it impossible that later edits, forgeries could happen to documents for the 1st century.

Again, why do you assume that people are incapable of this?

He never said that people are incapable of this, he merely presented an argument that the Old Testament has largely stayed intact through the last two millenia, which (IMHO) at least presents the possibility that other religious texts might also have little textual adjustment.

I think we can agree that the bible tales may have a root in events - But the very nature of the book skews all into a religious aspect, as is to be expected.

I think we can agree that the part above that I've bolded amounts to the usual half-step-back clarification of his original sweeping statement by Curt that we get when we press him after he makes such statements.

That the endless ramblings about the morality of man are bound to smother any non-biased content.

And the whole over-arching assumption that there is a god sends the whole thing into a realm of the non-lucid.

There may be history there, but the value is reduced - As it is seen from the eyes of the zealot.

I'm still amazed at your presumption to make declarative statements about the contents of a book which you have not read.

And what is your goal?
Enlightenment? Wisdom?
Well, good luck in your fight.

Be careful - I could imagine you becoming religious at the end of it all.

I'm also amazed at your presumption that everyone who does not agree with everything you say must be a "friend of the religionists" or in this case a potential convert.

 

[CurtSibling]

@Igloo:

I take it that Plotinus has been rendered incapable of answering his own posts?

 

[CurtSibling]

@Igloo:
@Plotnius:

The crux of the matter seems to be that you oppose the idea that the bible has been edited.

OK, I will play your game.
While the Dead Sea scrolls do present what some see as evidence of sources for some biblical content,
Please give conclusive proof that no church or holy leaders have ever misinterpreted the biblical texts for their own advantage.

I am interested to see what you have to convince me of my great error in doubting the integrity of the bible.

PS
When did I say I have never read a holy book?
I just said I would not sit and study one.