Jewish/Christian Prophecies

[davewhite04]

Huh. I'd say they are VERY different. The first has a lot in it about all the things you should be put to death for. If men are gay, they must be put to death. (Not women, interestingly.) Having sex with your wife during her period - death. Cursing your parents - death. Working on the Sabbath, whenever you think that is - death....

This thread is about prophecies of the old/new testaments.

 

[gmilam]

Excellent question.

Of course, you were the one who asked it first.

My point is that they are ALL made up.

 

[billvon]

This thread is about prophecies of the old/new testaments.

And in that thread you asked why anyone would make a religion up. I answered your question.

 

[davewhite04]

-Money. Religious leaders are experts at separating people from their money.
-A sincere sense of doing good. If you really believe that your new religion will save people from hell, and only through believing will they go to paradise, surely it's a good thing to push your new religion as hard as you can.
-Personal reasons. Henry VII created a new religion because his old one wouldn't let him get a divorce from a wife he disliked.
-Theological reasons. Martin Luther created a new religion because he disagreed with Catholic doctrine.
-Political reasons. There are several branches of religion that have been modified to better align with a government (the Russian Orthodox Church for example.)
-Simple personal fame/greed. Scientology is a good example here.

Money - Early Christianity obviously didn't.
A sense of doing good - I think Christians wanted to spread the good news, Jesus lives!
Personal reason - Not Christianity
Theological reasons - Like Christianity moving from Judaism I guess.
Political reasons reasons - Not Christian
Fame/greed - Not Christianity

I think what we have left are good points for Christianity.

Apologies for not answering your question, I singled you out for starting religion related posts, I was wrong.

 

[davewhite04]

My point is that they are ALL made up.

I don't think you could make up Jesus, or more specifically what He stood for and what He said, how He spoke. I think along you lines however that religions are man made.

 

[billvon]

Money - Early Christianity obviously didn't.

Early Christianity tried. It took them a while to get good at it.

Personal reason - Not Christianity

The example I gave here was the Church of England, a Christian sect created (in part) due to personal desires of Henry VIII - namely, he wanted a divorce and the Pope wouldn't give him one.

Theological reasons - Like Christianity moving from Judaism I guess.

Yes, and the dozens of other sects that have sprung up since.

Political reasons reasons - Not Christian

Again, both the Russian Orthodox Church and the Church of England were created for political reasons. In the case of the Church of England, it both fulfilled a personal desire of the king (to get a divorce) and some very fundamental political reasons (Henry wanted control of all the money that was once going to Rome, and control of the church properties within England.) In the case of the Russian Orthodox church, it was a fear that the primacy of the Pope would interfere in Russia's government.

Fame/greed - Not Christianity

One of the stated reasons that Henry VIII created the Christian Church of England was to get the money that was previously flowing to Rome.

 

[gmilam]

I don't think you could make up Jesus, or more specifically what He stood for and what He said, how He spoke.

Well, maybe other writers aren't hindered by your lack of imagination.

 

[davewhite04]

Well, maybe other writers aren't hindered by your lack of imagination.

How original.

Do you know how many people the story of Jesus inspired?

You just don't want to give any credit to Jesus/God or the bible.

You have to take into account that the New Testament was 2600 years in the making, and it's true.

 

[davewhite04]

Early Christianity tried. It took them a while to get good at it.

The example I gave here was the Church of England, a Christian sect created (in part) due to personal desires of Henry VIII - namely, he wanted a divorce and the Pope wouldn't give him one.

Yes, and the dozens of other sects that have sprung up since.

Again, both the Russian Orthodox Church and the Church of England were created for political reasons. In the case of the Church of England, it both fulfilled a personal desire of the king (to get a divorce) and some very fundamental political reasons (Henry wanted control of all the money that was once going to Rome, and control of the church properties within England.) In the case of the Russian Orthodox church, it was a fear that the primacy of the Pope would interfere in Russia's government.

One of the stated reasons that Henry VIII created the Christian Church of England was to get the money that was previously flowing to Rome.

The early church was all about survival, eventually it became about power/money/politics, do you think Jesus wanted that?

 

[Pinball1970]

All I see in the gospels is stories about Jesus, nothing about setting up a religion. Except maybe Jesus calling Simon/Peter His rock.

Not setting up a new religion but making sense of Jesus and his ministry. The Messiah was not meant to die, he was meant to save the Jews from Roman Tyranny not be killed by them. The Gospel writers who believed the stories of Jesus had to make sense of that.
They were writing decades after the death of Jesus.
The Jews knew the Messiah was not meant to die from their scripture so Matthew and the others worked that in.
We are discussing him now after 2000 years after his time on earth.
I agree he is as important as you said he was
What would Western civilization be if Jesus would have died at birth?

I do not think he was the Messiah or a god.

 

[exchemist]

What would be "attractive" about starting a religion that would ostracize you from your current religion, even put you in direct conflict with your old religion, put your life at risk(still the same today) people must of heard about Jesus, some must of heard him speak, he must of inspired many(I mean He has inspired billions since and they didn't even know Him, not for self gain, or an easy life the opposite). You don't seem to get it, there is no advantage of following Jesus' teaching unless you truly believe they're true, and after reading through both testaments, it reads like one book. It is divine imo.

Matthew 7:13-14

This does not address my point. I said nothing about anything being attractive, so I don't understand why you introduce this idea, and put it in quotes as if it is something I said.

The earliest Christians would have been opposed - and in some quarters reviled - as heretical, no doubt, but that is irrelevant to consideration of what techniques, arguments and supporting stories they might have resorted to, to gain converts. And they were strongly motivated to gain converts, as Jesus had issued strong instructions on that point. In fact by claiming that OT prophecies had been fulfilled, they would be arguing they were not being heretical at all, but were simply good Jews who were in possession of a new insight, that the Jewish Messiah had actually arrived, as foretold in Jewish scripture.

I don't necessarily suggest a coordinated, cynical attempt to make stuff up. What can happen is rumours start or ideas occur to people, and these can thus become part of a folklore, and they can be adopted without there being much scrutiny of whether they are really true or not.

The virgin birth is a classic. How could anyone have really known that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus? It's a very intimate piece of information. The only people who would really know would be Mary, Joseph and Jesus himself. Who, among these 3, would have talked about it with the evangelists? Or if not with them directly, then with whom? If there had been an actual conversation, surely that would have been quoted with attribution to the speaker, to make the story convincing. Yet there is no first hand account of where this information about Mary's virginity came from. It is just stated, with no supporting story. One has the suspicion therefore that this idea could have become believed by people predisposed to believe - and became retrofitted to enable a claim that an OT prophecy had been fulfilled.

 

[davewhite04]

Not setting up a new religion but making sense of Jesus and his ministry. The Messiah was not meant to die, he was meant to save the Jews from Roman Tyranny not be killed by them.

This is what my dad used to think, he told me once that "Jesus failed", so he thought along the same lines as you, and he was a Catholic! The Jews(and perhaps my dad) would agree with you but I don't. His teachings of peace and love are a much stronger and needed message then bloody/political wars then to sit on a throne and dictate(No thanks, we know that doesn't work). I think He makes sense. The British Empire ruled over 400million people at its height(The greatest empire the world has seen) under Christ, Jesus didn't lift a finger.

The Gospel writers who believed the stories of Jesus had to make sense of that.

Agreed. But they still thought He was the Messiah because they knew He rose from the dead as He promised.

They were writing decades after the death of Jesus.

Which isn't long as far as religious texts goes. Still followers who saw or even met Jesus were alive.

The Jews knew the Messiah was not meant to die from their scripture so Matthew and the others worked that in.

They were wrong, and they still are. Though millions over the years realised they were wrong, most don't because they only listen to their Rabbi's, they don't think or make decisions for themselves.

We are discussing him now after 2000 years after his time on earth.
I agree he is as important as you said he was
What would Western civilization be if Jesus would have died at birth?

The Romans, Hitler or some other power-mongers would be in charge.

I do not think he was the Messiah or a god.

I know Pinball

 

[davewhite04]

This does not address my point. I said nothing about anything being attractive, so I don't understand why you introduce this idea, and put it in quotes as if it is something I said.

Your point:

The evangelists might have been motivated to embellished their accounts to strengthen the argument that the OT Messiah had actually arrived. This would have made it more convincing for Jewish potential converts, would it not?

It did address your point in a round about fashion. Basically why would Christianity be attractive enough(after so called embellishments) for new followers who gain from their own religions but still give it all up and get ostracised from their own communities for doing so? Why would they do it? Promise of eternal life perhaps, or the simple message of love thy enemy, peace on Earth.

The earliest Christians would have been opposed - and in some quarters reviled - as heretical, no doubt, but that is irrelevant to consideration of what techniques, arguments and supporting stories they might have resorted to, to gain converts. And they were strongly motivated to gain converts, as Jesus had issued strong instructions on that point. In fact by claiming that OT prophecies had been fulfilled, they would be arguing they were not being heretical at all, but were simply good Jews who were in possession of a new insight, that the Jewish Messiah had actually arrived, as foretold in Jewish scripture.

Could you give an example of a lie that would make people give away all their possessions, get ostracised from their communties and perhaps there families, and criminalise themselves with the penalty being death? They had to hide all their lives and live on next to nothing to boot. Truth about a God that loved them would, and love and peace, which was all true of course. Unless you think the whole bible is made up?

I don't necessarily suggest a coordinated, cynical attempt to make stuff up. What can happen is rumours start or ideas occur to people, and these can thus become part of a folklore, and they can be adopted without there being much scrutiny of whether they are really true or not.

See above.

The virgin birth is a classic. How could anyone have really known that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus? It's a very intimate piece of information. The only people who would really know would be Mary, Joseph and Jesus himself. Who, among these 3, would have talked about it with the evangelists? Or if not with them directly, then with whom? If there had been an actual conversation, surely that would have been quoted with attribution to the speaker, to make the story convincing. Yet there is no first hand account of where this information about Mary's virginity came from. It is just stated, with no supporting story. One has the suspicion therefore that this idea could have become believed by people predisposed to believe - and became retrofitted to enable a claim that an OT prophecy had been fulfilled.

I'm sure whether or not Mary was a virgin(which I think she was, because I believe it could be done by God obviously) wasn't high on the agenda for early followers. Can you think of another example?

 

[exchemist]

Your point:

The evangelists might have been motivated to embellished their accounts to strengthen the argument that the OT Messiah had actually arrived. This would have made it more convincing for Jewish potential converts, would it not?

It did address your point in a round about fashion. Basically why would Christianity be attractive enough(after so called embellishments) for new followers who gain from their own religions but still give it all up and get ostracised from their own communities for doing so? Why would they do it? Promise of eternal life perhaps, or the simple message of love thy enemy, peace on Earth.



Could you give an example of a lie that would make people give away all their possessions, get ostracised from their communties and perhaps there families, and criminalise themselves with the penalty being death? They had to hide all their lives and live on next to nothing to boot. Truth about a God that loved them would, and love and peace, which was all true of course. Unless you think the whole bible is made up?



See above.



I'm sure whether or not Mary was a virgin(which I think she was, because I believe it could be done by God obviously) wasn't high on the agenda for early followers. Can you think of another example?

I merely chose the virgin birth as it was an example of a prophecy that you had chosen to discuss.

As to the rest of your post, you continue for some odd reason to argue an entirely different point from the one I have been making.

1) You emphasise the personal disadvantages of choosing to become a Christian, back in the early days of the new religion. None of that is disputed.

2) What I am suggesting is that the evangelists may have sought to make their story more compelling.

There is no conflict, or even necessary connection, between these two propositions.

 

[davewhite04]

I merely chose the virgin birth as it was an example of a prophecy that you had chosen to discuss.

Fair enough. Well I can't prove it and it goes against known science so I guess you don't believe it and perhaps never will, so discussing wise, there really isn't a discussion between us two on that prophecy.

As to the rest of your post, you continue for some odd reason to argue an entirely different point from the one I have been making.

I think there is some crossed wires here. I felt I answered it in my way, which is the wrong way to you so I'll try to answer it differently a bit.

1) You emphasise the personal disadvantages of choosing to become a Christian, back in the early days of the new religion. None of that is disputed.

Okay. So you get the picture, now imagine this...

2) What I am suggesting is that the evangelists may have sought to make their story more compelling.

There is no conflict, or even necessary connection, between these two propositions.

I thought this would mean to lie?

If not, can you think of an example of how these evangelists or apostles/disciples could make the story more compelling?

How can you make something "compelling" if not by lying?

 

[exchemist]

Fair enough. Well I can't prove it and it goes against known science so I guess you don't believe it and perhaps never will, so discussing wise, there really isn't a discussion between us two on that prophecy.



I think there is some crossed wires here. I felt I answered it in my way, which is the wrong way to you so I'll try to answer it differently a bit.



Okay. So you get the picture, now imagine this...




I thought this would mean to lie?

If not, can you think of an example of how these evangelists or apostles/disciples could make the story more compelling?

How can you make something "compelling" if not by lying?

See post 51.

 

[davewhite04]

This does not address my point. I said nothing about anything being attractive, so I don't understand why you introduce this idea, and put it in quotes as if it is something I said.

I used the "" to emphasise the word which was a collection of words you wrote, saved me quoting more. Just the way I write.

A more detailed reply:

The earliest Christians would have been opposed - and in some quarters reviled - as heretical, no doubt, but that is irrelevant to consideration of what techniques, arguments and supporting stories they might have resorted to, to gain converts.

What I'm saying is, what embellishments could they say to make disciples give up everything, gain nothing and lose all earthly possessions? I call myself a Christian(not part of a Church, protestant by birth, my mothers side) I would do it back then even if they simply told the truth. How times change... Now it's all about gaining money is good(prosperity gospel) so I guess this is an embellishment! But the disciples lived the life Jesus taught, as it's written in the New Testament, gospels.

And they were strongly motivated to gain converts, as Jesus had issued strong instructions on that point. In fact by claiming that OT prophecies had been fulfilled, they would be arguing they were not being heretical at all, but were simply good Jews who were in possession of a new insight, that the Jewish Messiah had actually arrived, as foretold in Jewish scripture.

Exactly, and we have a name for them, messianic Jews. There are over 300k of these, which isn't many I think due to the bottle neck that is the Rabbi's. The vast amount of Jews haven't read or even heard of the New Testament, Jesus is a curse word in at least western Jewish vocabulary, it is almost a sin to even think or say His name never-mind read the New Testament.

I don't necessarily suggest a coordinated, cynical attempt to make stuff up. What can happen is rumours start or ideas occur to people, and these can thus become part of a folklore, and they can be adopted without there being much scrutiny of whether they are really true or not.

So the New Testament is part of folklore to you? Or did this folklore you speak of just remained verbal?

The virgin birth is a classic. How could anyone have really known that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus? It's a very intimate piece of information. The only people who would really know would be Mary, Joseph and Jesus himself. Who, among these 3, would have talked about it with the evangelists? Or if not with them directly, then with whom? If there had been an actual conversation, surely that would have been quoted with attribution to the speaker, to make the story convincing. Yet there is no first hand account of where this information about Mary's virginity came from. It is just stated, with no supporting story. One has the suspicion therefore that this idea could have become believed by people predisposed to believe - and became retrofitted to enable a claim that an OT prophecy had been fulfilled.

Maybe Jesus told His apostles? It is a bit far fetched so He wouldn't of advertised it. He obviously told them the geneologies or one apostle at least spoke to Mary and/or Joseph. What more detail do you want. I get your point, but religious faith in such things is mostly enough to cover this, remember to us(Christians) God can do anything.

Information about where Mary's virginity came from? I would suggest Jesus. And that's objectively speaking, maybe Luke looked further into it to verify this, but I don't see why it would need to be added to a religious text, but my mind works different to yours I guess.

 

[Pinball1970]

This thread is a good example of how rational reasonable people should discuss religion. This type of discussion would be a powder keg on youtube and would descent quickly into a slanging match. This hasn't despite the fact there are atheists, theists, cultural Christians and a few inbetweeners.
Just throwing that in.

 

[davewhite04]

This thread is a good example of how rational reasonable people should discuss religion. This type of discussion would be a powder keg on youtube and would descent quickly into a slanging match. This hasn't despite the fact there are atheists, theists, cultural Christians and a few inbetweeners.
Just throwing that in.

I highly regard sciforums, I've been a member for years, always come back to it, Long live sciforums!

 

[Pinball1970]

I highly regard sciforums, I've been a member for years, always come back to it, Long live sciforums!

21 years!? Wow!