I Want Proof Jesus Even Existed

by Farkel 199 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  mP

  YOu have completely missed the point that the Romans, did know the Bible. They were not idiots, Josephus by himself is probably more qualified about jewish than nay modern scholar, simply because he was there, and had access to material we can only dream of. Living at the time he would have seen and heard things that have been lost through time and our modern shcolars can never hope to know. TO continue on and on hardly disproves the possibility that the Romans wrote the gospels. They were educated, they had the resources.

  They knew which scriptures to use and promote and which to leave out. We all know that Mt badly twists many scriptures like the riding on the two donkeys and others, because he must find parallels to prove jesus in prophecy even if the references are wrong and dishonest. We have the same dishonesty in the twisting of Micah 5 which supposedly predicts the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem. The gospels writers tried really hard to impress prophecy on the reader that i will agree. They tried their best, it would be hard to imagine anyone else doing better with what they had to work with.

  The fact that jews rejected Jesus today, shows that he did not match the criteria of the prophecies but the authors used the text anyway.
• 

  mP

  Leo:

  The concepts of the kingdom and the Son of Man judging the world at Judgment Day are derived from Daniel , pertaining to the eschatological kingdom that replaces the present political order. The "fourth kingdom" of Daniel , responsible for the persecution of God's people and the defiling of the Temple, is the kingdom in power that is destroyed and wiped out when God's kingdom is given to the holy people (ch. 7). The synoptic gospels clearly identify that kingdom with Rome, which was the standard Jewish interpretation once Judea came under Roman rule. Thus the "great tribulation" at the close of the fourth kingdom, with its installation of the abomination of desolation

  MP:

  Im not disputing this, all im saying is the Romans knew their text and took advnatge of these ideas which were part of the religion. The jews also believed in violence to achieve their goals. Obviously these aspects were incompatible with the Roman agenda, so they left those bits out. I think the R write the best stories with a message that is totally comaptible with their wishes.
• 

  mP

  Im not disputing the sources of all the ideas inthe gospels. YOu have again failed to address a single point that shows why it is impossible for the Romans to write this text. You have failed to show any passage from the gospels are is a compelte fail for Titus.

  You have failed to explain the pro Roman attitude and directions from Jesus.

  * to be peaceful, while not unique is an important aspect of the message.

  * pay taxes

  * be obedient slaves

  * JC never rebukes anything that hte romans say.

  * all romans are good, honourable etc. Nothing bad is ever said of the Romans.

  * jc tells the jews to help the roman soldiers carry their stuff in his "go the extra mile" speech.

  * The texts blame the jews for JC crucifiction, which is v strange.

  * cameo appearnces of jospehus embedded in character naming puns.

  * constant references to prominent jewish rebels, as peaceful, iscariot==sicarri etc.

  * Jesus is more concerned about protecting Roman interests than encouraging social change that would actually help the jews or poor slaves.
• 

  mP

  Leo:

  nor do I think it needs rebutting. You asked what my opinion was of the thesis, and why I thought it was a streeeetch , and so these are the reasons why. And I'm not really interested in having more to say that what I've written here (which I spent a few hours putting together).

  mP:

  You have spent way to much time away from the gospels, discussing jewish religious development and messianic expectations. Not once did you actually discuss anything about Titus campaign and its parallels with Jesus ministry which is what the entire theory is about.

  I would give you a fail because of this. Its your privlege to not reply, but if someone asks you a question, then reply to that, dont talk about other stuff even if it is interesting. Not once have you actually addressed or shown how a single passage in the gospels is not a parallel to titus. I dont know what to say, your reply is completely utterly off the point. You talk about everything but the gospels in your reply.

  Sure peaceful nice thoughts are not unique to the gospels, never claimed they were. Did the ROmans leverage greek and other past philosophies , of course. Why wouldnt they, they werent sutpid.?

  The easist example of the pun on Arimathea= Josephus you have completely ignored. I suppose its unanswerable which is why you avoided it.
• 

  mP

  Leo:

  When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne; a ll the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats" (v. 31-32).

  mP:

  This text easily fits with Titus. Angels are just messengers of a ruler which is a fit. In fact in Genesis for example God is hardly a heavenly figure but at times appears to be a man albeit a powerful king which contrasts significantly with our thoughts of an omnipresent god which most xians believe. Well if the R wrote this text, they couldnt hardly replace "all the nations" with "all the nations ruled by Rome" that would be silly.
• 

  mP

  Leo:

  It's easy to come up with meaningless "parallels" like these. Joseph of Arimathea being modeled on Josephus rests on only a superficial sound resemblence that isn't convincing ( Harimathea < Hebrew Ha-Ramathaim , not bar-Matityahu ), not on any substantive narrative connection; Josephus did not offer to bury Titus in his Jerusalem tomb, or anything vaguely resembling the Joseph character of the gospels

  mP:

  Some scholars have noticed this resemblance, there are plenty of refs on wiki for example. If J of A is Josephus he doesnt have to bury Titus. Titus doesnt have to die because Jesus died. That wouldnt make sense.

  You have missed the point that, that the gospels tell a story of a peaceful messiah. The R are trying to show the jews that their messiah has come and he is telling them not to fight, but accept their lot, pay taxes etc. You also havecompeltely ignored any attempt to show that the gospels are not beneficial to the Romans.
• 

  mP

  people plz include the name of the person your quoting,, its not hard!
• 

  mP

  Leo:

  You have also completely ignored the close family connection between xianity and the flavians. no commentary about the 2nd pope being Clement, or the first cath saint being Vespasian sister or cousin(sorry cant recall exaclty the realtionship) and all the sheer volume of saints.

  I suppose this is undefensible, which is why you avoided it. I would be too, because i really cant see how anyone could defend these points. Honest no, unwinnable yes.
• 

  Xanthippe

  mP you said :-

  'This of course all depends on who the "others" are. Lets not forget the Jews back then wouldnt even eat dinner with gentiles. I guess if you dont count them as others or even equals then you dont have to be kind to them. This was repeated in America where we have the quandry where Jefferson writes all men are equal and free etc, but kept slaves. I guess he didnt seee blacks are men or equal enough to have these rights.'

  Of course even though Plato, Confucius, Buddha and others spoke over 2000 years ago about showing love and compassion especially to strangers or those who dont seem to deserve it, it doesn't mean that the vast majority have done this. They always say in ancient Greece all people were equal except for the women and the slaves.

  As you say Jews wouldn't eat with gentiles in the first century, surely this is why the teachings in the NT are held up as being so ahead of its time because the whole point was that not only can we eat with gentiles now but they can be part of God's Kingdom?

  Jesus is seen as special by believers not just for miracles or a supposed resurrection which no one can prove but also because he taught people to love one another and treat everyone with compassion. This however is not a new teaching at all as I gave evidence for in my previous comment.

  It is just that it has taken humans so long to see that enlightened self interest requires that we treat one another well if we want to socially evolve and have a comfortable lifestyle for everyone on this planet. But those individuals who have realised this throughout history have been variously held up as prophets, heretics or insane.

  Buddha, Confucius, Plato and others said very enlightening things that were clearly ahead of their time but never claimed to be the Son of God.
• 

  mP

  xan:

  As you say Jews wouldn't eat with gentiles in the first century, surely this is why the teachings in the NT are held up as being so ahead of its time because the whole point was that not only can we eat with gentiles now but they can be part of God's Kingdom?

  mP:

  Your reply assumes that jesus was different in this regard. In reality he was quite the opposite. The facts are pretty obivous about this. He only went about Judea. He only preached to jews. We have the Samaritian women miracle story, where he is extremely rude and downright racist equating her to dogs. Have you ever seen a religious Muslim have a pet dog ? I have travelled pas tthe largest mosque in my country, passing parks, walking down streets there in those areas i have never seen a religious Muslim with a Dog. They hate dogs, like the jews consider the pigs unclean. Its a very big insult to call someone a dog in those countries, approaching or superpassing the N word.

  I know your going to quote mat 24 where he says to preach to all nations, but there are many otherscriptures where he says quite the opposite. On shear numbers the mat 24 is the exception. IN fact in later parts such ass the Paul stories, the apostles have no knowledge about preaching to gentiles, which is the source of much anger to them. Were they aware of Mat24 obviously not. THe apostles rather felt the message was the exclusive domain of the jews. After all that one can hardly be impressed by Jesus teaching as something has been lost if he really did say mat 24.