Why Jews Reject Christ?

[Clergicide]

Gullible?  hahahaha

The internet is now a valuable resource, many have done their homework and their blowing apart the stupidstitions of the last 1680 or so years.

 

http://www.jovialatheist.com/think.html

99564[/snapback]

 

That particular resource you should be very careful with. In other threads it's been shown to be pretty unreliable stuff. There's some good stuff in there, without proper references(which they don't provide), it's extreamly difficult for a layperson to sift through the bullshit.

[Guest Abram]

The NT Gospels was created by using the Greek OT version of the Hebrew OT, "If Jesus was the Messiah, how would he be?"

 

Well the Hebrew texts were translated into Greek in Egypt yes. And I agree that the gospel writers probably used the Septuigint.

 

The Jesus you know and love was Constructed from the OT verses quote-mined out of context and reformed to say what they want.

 

You are referring of course to Isaiah 7.14. And you are absolutely right. In the Hebrew it read 'almah', and it was rendered into 'parthenos' in the Septuagint, which some of the gospel writers used to assert the virginity of Mary. As I have stated before, I think the gospel of Mark is our best source for information on Jesus. Mark is devoid of the birth story, so I tend not to have much of a problem with the 'almah'/'betulah'/'parthenos' controversy.

 

The anon author of Mark makes Jesus to be a man, the authors of Matthew & Luke made him to be God, and John, well, did they have LSD back then?

 

Mark is my major source. Matthew and Luke are my secondary sources. John was a very strange man, probably writing somewhere in the desert heat of Egypt. Perhaps his brains were a little cooked. Revelations certainly hints at that possibility.

[Guest Abram]

Gullible?  hahahaha

The internet is now a valuable resource, many have done their homework and their blowing apart the stupidstitions of the last 1680 or so years.

 

http://www.jovialatheist.com/think.html

99564[/snapback]

 

Yes we are certainly in the information age. However, with it also comes the misinformation age. Before you disagree with me, go to www.tektonics.org, look around for a few minutes, and tell me you aren't absolute inundated with misinformation. The fundamentalists on both sides have their misinformation. And that essay I analyzed earlier is one example of skeptic misinformation.

 

There are plenty of genuine reasons to be skeptical of the bible, I don't see why people feel the need to manufacture fake ones.

[MQTA]

That particular resource you should be very careful with.  In other threads it's been shown to be pretty unreliable stuff.  There's some good stuff in there, without proper references(which they don't provide), it's extreamly difficult for a layperson to sift through the bullshit.

99568[/snapback]

Yeah, it has been? I missed that.

 

Seems to be in line with other sites I've read. What's unreliable about it?

[MQTA]

Yes we are certainly in the information age.  However, with it also comes the misinformation age.  Before you disagree with me, go to www.tektonics.org, look around for a few minutes, and tell me you aren't absolute inundated with misinformation.  The fundamentalists on both sides have their misinformation.  And that essay I analyzed earlier is one example of skeptic misinformation.

 

There are plenty of genuine reasons to be skeptical of the bible, I don't see why people feel the need to manufacture fake ones.

99575[/snapback]

 

Have you ever read Paul Tobin's Central Thesis? He uses references, maybe that'll be more to your liking

 

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/central.html

 

This is his Conclusions from his Jesus page:

 

[q]

 

Conclusions

 

What can we conclude from our look into the account of Jesus's life in the gospels? We see that:

 

The gospels were not written by eyewitnesses.

 

The names attached to the gospels are second century guesses.

 

The nativity accounts are 100% fiction.

 

The one account of his childhood is more likely a fictional creation by Luke based on Old Testament passages.

 

There are major problems with all the major events in his life: the Baptism by John, the temptation in the wilderness and even whether there were actually twelve apostles.

 

None of the miracle accounts seems credible. The nature miracles and the epiphanies are obviously false, while many of the healings are unimpressive and could be explained by non-miraculous means.

 

Jesus’s teachings were not that much different from the teachings of other major religious traditions and were well within the tradition of various contemporaneous Jewish itinerant preachers.

 

His personality was probably not that attractive: the evidence points to the fact that he was, like most Jewish preachers of his time, a xenophobic, rather fanatical, Jew.

 

He never claimed to be God.

 

Many events surrounding the "passion week" are of dubious historicity.

 

The account of Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin is obviously fiction as it contradicts everything we know about the procedures of the council.

 

The trial before Pilate is largely fictional as well.

 

The accounts of Jesus' crucifixion read like fiction.

 

The accounts of the burial and resurrection could not be true as they stand for they contradict one another openly.

 

 

 

 

In short, all we know about the events in the life of Jesus is this:

 

Jesus hailed from Nazareth, a small town in Galilee. We know nothing of his life before he started his public ministry. He preached initially in the small towns and villages of Galilee. He had some followers, thought the exact number is uncertain. His teachings, while radical, did not seem to involve a repudiation of Jewish laws. He came to Jerusalem with his disciples, was arrested and crucified. His disciples fled after he was arrested.

 

 

The above is not a summary but represents all that can be said for certain about his life.

 

[/q]

 

And other sites put Nazareth in question, saying it wasn't a town back then.

 

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/jesus.html

[Clergicide]

Yeah, it has been?  I missed that.

 

Seems to be in line with other sites I've read.  What's unreliable about it?

99581[/snapback]

 

You should beware of any site without references to primary text. You quoted something earlier that said the Romans weren't doing crucifixions which is patently false. Things like that raise red flags for me. I said elsewhere that Achyara S. and Kersey Graves are like these websites, if you track down the primary source info you tend find that they are full of shit. Just saying be careful what you choose to use in arguments, especially if you haven't verified it for yourself.

[MQTA]

You should beware of any site without references to primary text.  You quoted something earlier that said the Romans weren't doing crucifixions which is patently false.  Things like that raise red flags for me.  I said elsewhere that Achyara S. and Kersey Graves are like these websites, if you track down the primary source info you tend find that they are full of shit.  Just saying be careful what you choose to use in arguments, especially if you haven't verified it for yourself.

99585[/snapback]

 

Gee, nobody seems to have taken objection to any of the quotes. Did you read his ENTIRE site? One of the best I've been reading, so far. Why do the JWs think he was killed in that way? Oh, right, the JWs are totally clueless, eh?

[Clergicide]

Gee, nobody seems to have taken objection to any of the quotes.  Did you read his ENTIRE site?  One of the best I've been reading, so far. 

99589[/snapback]

 

Nobody here would object to them. The same way nobody at TWeb objects to TekTon. And that's really my point.

 

Why do the JWs think he was killed in that way?  Oh, right, the JWs are totally clueless, eh?

 

That's what your weblink said. I said..damnit I can't find the post. I said that with the number of crucifixions going on the premise in the Passion seemed unlikely, because bring the crosses back and forth from the hill for each group just seemed too tedious and stupid to be plausible.

[Checkmate]

...................

There are plenty of genuine reasons to be skeptical of the bible, I don't see why people feel the need to manufacture fake ones.

99575[/snapback]

While I won't agree that anyone is manufacturing fake reasons, I will readily agree that the bible gives MORE than enough reasons for one to be skeptical.

 

My own apostasy came through personal bible study, combined with "Christian" teachings. I never once read any atheist literature, nor internet resources until well AFTER I left Christianity behind. Dealing with all the nonsense of Catholics, Baptists, Protestants and Charismatics was MORE than enough evidence for me.

 

That's what makes you, Abram, such a strange duck to me. From reading your posts, you seem to have soured on Christianity and the bible as MUCH as we, and yet you still claim to be Christian. I just CANNOT fathom this. (You remind me very much of John Shelby Spong. Big critic of the church and Christianity, and yet...?)

 

For me, once the bible (and the church) had been proven fanciful, false, and forged, there was no REASON to stick with any of it. I don't understand why people who have a similar grasp on the false nature of Christianity remain with it.

 

Why waste time propping up an obvious lie? Why defend the indefensible? What is so WRONG with atheism and secular humanism? Humanists are not out to destroy mankind, but to help mankind achieve greatness. Is this evil? How can this be wrong?

[Guest Abram]

Why waste time propping up an obvious lie?  Why defend the indefensible?

 

I don't prop it up, and I don't defend it. I'm searching for truth, just like everybody else. Parts of the Bible seem like wisdom to me, while admittedly, most of the rest consists of priestly instructions on the proper way to slaughter herd animals, raze cities, and stone people to death. Perhaps someday I'll tear out all of the pages that I think are crap, and come up with my own version of the Bible. Undoubtedly an 80 page pocket sized version, lol. But those 80 pages would be worth keeping.

 

What is so WRONG with atheism and secular humanism?

 

Not a darn thing. But I find that you can change more minds when your part of the 'group'. For example, on T-Web, when secularists criticize the bible, the theists don't take them seriously. And now I have witnessed that at ex-christian, when theists criticize skeptical scholarship, the secularists don't take them seriously. It's as if a switch goes off in the brain, and cognition collapses while emotion takes over.

 

In a perfect world, we would judge anothers ideas on merit, and not on what group we have categorized them in.

[Checkmate]

..................

Perhaps someday I'll tear out all of the pages that I think are crap, and come up with my own version of the Bible.  Undoubtedly an 80 page pocket sized version, lol.  But those 80 pages would be worth keeping.

.................

99609[/snapback]

LOL! You and Thomas Jefferson would get along just fine!

[SkepticOfBible]

I don't prop it up, and I don't defend it.  I'm searching for truth, just like everybody else. 

99609[/snapback]

 

Well that's a very healthy attitude. Each one of us have to make our decisions as how much truth is there in christianity.

 

Do stick around, because over here you will hear things that christians don't even want to think about.

[Gnosis of Disbelief]

....(You remind me very much of John Shelby Spong.  Big critic of the church and Christianity, and yet...?)....

99601[/snapback]

 

 

Yup....Spong is who he reminded me of when I got through reading his posts.

[MQTA]

I don't prop it up, and I don't defend it.  I'm searching for truth, just like everybody else.  Parts of the Bible seem like wisdom to me, while admittedly, most of the rest consists of priestly instructions on the proper way to slaughter herd animals, raze cities, and stone people to death.  Perhaps someday I'll tear out all of the pages that I think are crap, and come up with my own version of the Bible.  Undoubtedly an 80 page pocket sized version, lol.  But those 80 pages would be worth keeping.

 

Just like all the New Age writers. They all seem to quote a Bible verse here and there, but 99.9999999% of their books are not related to the Bible, or Christianity, at all. Some prefer to not have any labels, just Spiritual Beings having a Human experience.

 

So, if, as they say, my spirit, from where ever it was before, is in me, and will leave me when I'm dead, and go where ever spirits go after, then in the (parenthesis) of my life, I want to have as many Human experiences as possible.

 

 

 

Not a darn thing.  But I find that you can change more minds when your part of the 'group'.  For example, on T-Web, when secularists criticize the bible, the theists don't take them seriously.  And now I have witnessed that at ex-christian, when theists criticize skeptical scholarship, the secularists don't take them seriously.  It's as if a switch goes off in the brain, and cognition collapses while emotion takes over.

 

In a perfect world, we would judge anothers ideas on merit, and not on what group we have categorized them in.

99609[/snapback]

 

I think the point was, you can say what you're saying, but you've put yourself into the group, not us.