Was Jesus the messiah?

[Rye]

A friend of mine in a chatroom recently posted reasons why Jesus wasn't the messiah, going by the prophet Isiah's prophecies of what the messiah would do in his lifetime, which got me thinking what made everyone think he was the messiah in the first place?

Here's what he was prophecied to do, but didn't:

evilunleashed : Amongst the most basic missions that the Messiah will accomplish during his lifetime (Isaiah 42:4) are to:


Oversee the rebuilding of Jerusalem, including the Third Temple
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Judais ... emple.html
in the event that it has not yet been rebuilt (Michah 4:1 and Ezekiel 40-45)

Gather the Jewish people from all over the world and bring them home to the Land of Israel http://www.jewfaq.org/israel.htm> (Isaiah 11:12; 27:12-13)

Influence every individual of every nation to abandon and be ashamed of their former beliefs (or non-beliefs) and acknowledge and serve only the One True God of Israel (Isaiah 11:9-10; 40:5 and Zephaniah 3:9)

Bring about global peace throughout the world (Isaiah 2:4; 11:5-9 and Michah 4:3-4).

none of this has come to pass, let alone by Jesus, so how does he fit the prophecy?

The response to this was that it would happen in the time described in revalations, however, this wouldn't have been in the messiah's lifetime, as jesus apparently died on the cross and overcame death for us.

So this leads me to think something else: He didn't die, and did not overcome death, OR he did die and was not the messiah as he did not fulfil the prophecy.

Thoughts?

[Robert Treder]

I thought the deal was that Jesus wasn't the messiah, but he was gonna come back someday, and then he'd be the messiah.

[SyntaxVorlon]

'E's NOT the messiah, 'E's a VERY NAUGHTY BOY!!!

[Ted C]

Just to put all the cited passages in perspective...

He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.

Righteousness will be his belt and faithfulness the sash around his waist.
The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them.
The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
The infant will play near the hole of the cobra, and the young child put his hand into the viper's nest.
They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.
In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his place of rest will be glorious.
In that day the Lord will reach out his hand a second time to reclaim the remnant that is left of his people from Assyria, from Lower Egypt, from Upper Egypt, from Cush, from Elam, from Babylonia, from Hamath and from the islands of the sea.
He will raise a banner for the nations and gather the exiles of Israel; he will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth.

In that day the LORD will thresh from the flowing Euphrates to the Wadi of Egypt, and you, O Israelites, will be gathered up one by one.
And in that day a great trumpet will sound. Those who were perishing in Assyria and those who were exiled in Egypt will come and worship the LORD on the holy mountain in Jerusalem.

And the glory of the LORD will be revealed, and all mankind together will see it. For the mouth of the LORD has spoken."

"Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him
and he will bring justice to the nations.
He will not shout or cry out, or raise his voice in the streets.
A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out. In faithfulness he will bring forth justice;
he will not falter or be discouraged till he establishes justice on earth. In his law the islands will put their hope."

In the last days the mountain of the LORD's temple will be established as chief among the mountains; it will be raised above the hills, and peoples will stream to it.

He will judge between many peoples and will settle disputes for strong nations far and wide. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.
Every man will sit under his own vine and under his own fig tree, and no one will make them afraid, for the LORD Almighty has spoken.

"Then will I purify the lips of the peoples, that all of them may call on the name of the LORD and serve him shoulder to shoulder.

* This is too much to quote*

[jegs2]

There are over 100 OT prophecies that point toward Jesus as the Messiah. I'll look for references this evening when I get home.

[Baron Scarpia]

First prove to me that Jesus actually existed (using non-Biblical, documentary evidence), and then we can deal with the Messiah bits.

[Ted C]

First prove to me that Jesus actually existed (using non-Biblical, documentary evidence), and then we can deal with the Messiah bits.

I asked for such evidence myself in the Easter Bunny thread. I believe that jegs2 refused, saying "Nothing I can say would convince you anyway", or words to that effect.

[Baron Scarpia]

First prove to me that Jesus actually existed (using non-Biblical, documentary evidence), and then we can deal with the Messiah bits.

I asked for such evidence myself in the Easter Bunny thread. I believe that jegs2 refused, saying "Nothing I can say would convince you anyway", or words to that effect.

I've had the argument before, and invariably it comes down to trying to assert the Gospels are somehow documentary (when they aren't by any stretch of the imagination), and that Tacitus's one brief mention of Christians somehow validates Jesus's existence, which is an inexplicably bizarre assertion.

[Rye]

According to a reliable source friend of mine (no, not a christian) there were approx 12 Terrorist threats in jesus's area at that time, called Jesus. Several had followers. I believe the egyptian records of the time may have a few jesuses around that time.

[Baron Scarpia]

According to a reliable source friend of mine (no, not a christian) there were approx 12 Terrorist threats in jesus's area at that time, called Jesus. Several had followers. I believe the egyptian records of the time may have a few jesuses around that time.

I've never heard anything remotely similar to this, so want sources. I'd think the theologians arguing this would bring it up in the debates, but this is the first I've seen it.

AFAIK, there are absolutely no documented accounts of Jesus from the time when he supposedly existed. The earliest are the writings of Paul, which come in 10-20 years after the crucifixion supposedly happens, and Paul never actually saw Jesus. And Paul isn't very reliable, either.

[Rye]

According to a reliable source friend of mine (no, not a christian) there were approx 12 Terrorist threats in jesus's area at that time, called Jesus. Several had followers. I believe the egyptian records of the time may have a few jesuses around that time.

I've never heard anything remotely similar to this, so want sources. I'd think the theologians arguing this would bring it up in the debates, but this is the first I've seen it.

AFAIK, there are absolutely no documented accounts of Jesus from the time when he supposedly existed. The earliest are the writings of Paul, which come in 10-20 years after the crucifixion supposedly happens, and Paul never actually saw Jesus. And Paul isn't very reliable, either.

I'll post them when i have them.

[RedImperator]

If Jesus didn't exist, you're left with the problem of who exactly all the stories came from. The Gospels, while not documentary proof, simply don't fit the pattern for fiction in the Classical era at all. They don't even match the style of storytelling used in Genesis. In particular, they pin Jesus' existance down to a specific time frame, while Abraham, Moses, Agamemnon, Aneias, and the rest all lived sometime "a long time ago". The Gospels, if they are made up, would have been a totally alien style of literature in a time where modern concepts of realism and suspension of disbelief didn't exist. Plus, you need to deal with the fact that there's only 1 degree of separation between Jesus and historical figures like Peter and James who knew him personally, and maybe two degrees between Jesus and Josepheus. Jesus is, in fact, about as well documented as most "second-tier" historical personalities (i.e., those that weren't kings or great generals and didn't have scribes following them around all day).

[paladin]

According to Christian dogma, he is the Messiah. According to Jewish Dogma, he was not the Messiah.

[Ted C]

If Jesus didn't exist, you're left with the problem of who exactly all the stories came from. The Gospels, while not documentary proof, simply don't fit the pattern for fiction in the Classical era at all.

They probably evolved out of any of the hundreds of Roman "mystery cults" circulating at the time. The Christ story actually has a lot in common with "sacrificial king" myths that occur in most religions (Osiris and Baldur being typical examples). Christianity actually has a lot of similarities to Mithraism, which was Christianity's main rival until the 4th century.

[RedImperator]

If Jesus didn't exist, you're left with the problem of who exactly all the stories came from. The Gospels, while not documentary proof, simply don't fit the pattern for fiction in the Classical era at all.

They probably evolved out of any of the hundreds of Roman "mystery cults" circulating at the time. The Christ story actually has a lot in common with "sacrificial king" myths that occur in most religions (Osiris and Baldur being typical examples). Christianity actually has a lot of similarities to Mithraism, which was Christianity's main rival until the 4th century.

That still doesn't explain the people who claimed to know him personally. And the sacrificial king myths never pin down a specific date that that king lived. As for Mithraism, Christianity's resembalance to that faith (some of which was deliberate, including moving Christmas near the Solstice) has no bearing on whether or not Jesus the man existed. Frankly, the evidence for Jesus Ben Joseph's existence is better than that for Homer or Socrates, and most scholars believe they existed. At any rate, you hardly need to disprove Jesus to disprove the literal truth of the Bible, and true believers will have faith that Jesus was a real person no matter how little evidence there is.

By the way, congratulations to me on my 2000th post. Mods, please note how I did not start a thread specifically to announce this. You may feel free to bathe in the warm light of my consideration for board policy and moderators' workloads.

[Ted C]

That still doesn't explain the people who claimed to know him personally.

And which people are these? I don't think the Gospels were personally penned by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Paul may be documentable, but he never actually met Jesus, and his writings date a couple of decades after Christ supposedly lived.

Quite frankly, there may have been thousands of people in the Middle East named Jesus around that time. Was it a common name?

[Beowulf]

Quite frankly, there may have been thousands of people in the Middle East named Jesus around that time. Was it a common name?

Who the hell knows? Only way to find out is to travel back in time.

[jegs2]

First prove to me that Jesus actually existed (using non-Biblical, documentary evidence), and then we can deal with the Messiah bits.

No. Believe in him or not, based on the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. If you don't believe in him, then anything you have to say of his life is irrelevant, moot and useless. Moreover, since you seem prepared to dismiss those books out of hand, prove that they are invalid.

[RedImperator]

That still doesn't explain the people who claimed to know him personally.

And which people are these? I don't think the Gospels were personally penned by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Paul may be documentable, but he never actually met Jesus, and his writings date a couple of decades after Christ supposedly lived.

Quite frankly, there may have been thousands of people in the Middle East named Jesus around that time. Was it a common name?

James and Peter are two I can think of off the top of my head. The Gospels themselves were probably written too late to have been written by anyone who knew Jesus personally.

[Ted C]

James and Peter are two I can think of off the top of my head. The Gospels themselves were probably written too late to have been written by anyone who knew Jesus personally.

I'm willing to concede this point. There could easily have been a real person named Jesus around whom the entire mythology was built.

[Baron Scarpia]

First prove to me that Jesus actually existed (using non-Biblical, documentary evidence), and then we can deal with the Messiah bits.

No. Believe in him or not, based on the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. If you don't believe in him, then anything you have to say of his life is irrelevant, moot and useless. Moreover, since you seem prepared to dismiss those books out of hand, prove that they are invalid.

Soitanly.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

"The Bible Gospels

The most "authoritative" accounts of a historical Jesus come from the four canonical Gospels of the Bible. Note that these Gospels did not come into the Bible as original and authoritative from the authors themselves, but rather from the influence of early church fathers, especially the most influential of them all: Irenaeus of Lyon who lived in the middle of the second century. Many heretical gospels got written by that time, but Irenaeus considered only some of them for mystical reasons. He claimed only four in number; according to Romer, "like the four zones of the world, the four winds, the four divisions of man's estate, and the four forms of the first living creatures-- the lion of Mark, the calf of Luke, the man of Matthew, the eagle of John (see Against the Heresies). The four gospels then became Church cannon for the orthodox faith. Most of the other claimed gospel writings were burned, destroyed, or lost." [Romer]

Elaine Pagels writes: "Although the gospels of the New Testament-- like those discovered at Nag Hammadi-- are attributed to Jesus' followers, no one knows who actually wrote any of them." [Pagels, 1995]

Not only do we not know who wrote them, consider that none of the Gospels got written during the alleged life of Jesus, nor do the unknown authors make the claim to have met an earthly Jesus. Add to this that none of the original gospel manuscripts exist; we only have copies of copies.

The consensus of many biblical historians put the dating of the earliest Gospel, that of Mark, at sometime after 70 C.E., and the last Gospel, John after 90 C.E. [Pagels, 1995; Helms]. This would make it some 40 years after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus that we have any Gospel writings that mention him! Elaine Pagels writes that "the first Christian gospel was probably written during the last year of the war, or the year it ended. Where it was written and by whom we do not know; the work is anonymous, although tradition attributes it to Mark..." [Pagels, 1995]

The traditional Church has portrayed the authors as the apostles Mark, Luke, Matthew, & John, but scholars know from critical textural research that there simply occurs no evidence that the gospel authors could have served as the apostles described in the Gospel stories. Yet even today, we hear priests and ministers describing these authors as the actual disciples of Christ. Many Bibles still continue to label the stories as "The Gospel according to St. Matthew," "St. Mark," "St. Luke," St. John." No apostle would have announced his own sainthood before the Church's establishment of sainthood. But one need not refer to scholars to determine the lack of evidence for authorship. As an experiment, imagine the Gospels without their titles. See if you can find out from the texts who wrote them; try to find their names.

Even if the texts supported the notion that the apostles wrote them, consider that the average life span of humans in the first century came to around 30, and very few people lived to 70. If the apostles births occured at about the same time as the alleged Jesus, and wrote their gospels in their old age, that would put Mark at least 70 years old, and John at over 110.

The gospel of Mark describes the first written Bible gospel. And although Mark appears deceptively after the Matthew gospel, the gospel of Mark got written at least a generation before Matthew. From its own words, we can deduce that the author of Mark had neither heard Jesus nor served as his personal follower. Whoever wrote the gospel, he simply accepted the mythology of Jesus without question and wrote a crude an ungrammatical account of the popular story at the time. Any careful reading of the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) will reveal that Mark served as the common element between Matthew and Luke and gave the main source for both of them. Of Mark's 666 verses, some 600 appear in Matthew, some 300 in Luke. According to Randel Helms, the author of Mark, stands at least at a third remove from Jesus and more likely at the fourth remove. [Helms]

The author of Matthew had obviously gotten his information from Mark's gospel and used them for his own needs. He fashioned his narrative to appeal to Jewish tradition and Scripture. He improved the grammar of Mark's Gospel, corrected what he felt theologically important, and heightened the miracles and magic.

The author of Luke admits himself as an interpreter of earlier material and not an eyewitness (Luke 1:1-4). Many scholars think the author of Luke lived as a gentile, or at the very least, a hellenized Jew and even possibly a woman. He (or she) wrote at a time of tension in the Roman empire along with its fever of persecution. Many modern scholars think that the Gospel of Matthew and Luke got derived from the Mark gospel and a hypothetical document called "Q" (German Quelle, which means "source"). [ Helms; Wilson] . However, since we have no manuscript from Q, no one could possibly determine its author or where or how he got his information or the date of its authorship. Again we get faced with unreliable methodology and obscure sources.

John, the last appearing Bible Gospel, presents us with long theological discourses from Jesus and could not possibly have come as literal words from a historical Jesus. The Gospel of John disagrees with events described in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Moreover the book got written in Greek near the end of the first century, and according to Bishop Shelby Spong, the book "carried within it a very obvious reference to the death of John Zebedee (John 21:23)." [Spong]

Please understand that the stories themselves cannot serve as examples of eyewitness accounts since they came as products of the minds of the unknown authors, and not from the characters themselves. The Gospels describe narrative stories, written almost virtually in the third person. People who wish to portray themselves as eyewitnesses will write in the first person, not in the third person. Moreover, many of the passages attributed to Jesus could only have come from the invention of its authors. For example, many of the statements of Jesus claim to have come from him while allegedly alone. If so, who heard him? It becomes even more marked when the evangelists report about what Jesus thought. To whom did Jesus confide his thoughts? Clearly, the Gospels employ techniques that fictional writers use. In any case the Gospels can only serve, at best, as hearsay, and at worst, as fictional, mythological, or falsified stories.



Other New Testament writings

Doubts about the authenticity of other books in the New Testament such as Hebrews, James John 2 & 3, Peter 2, Jude and Revelation, got raised even in antiquity by Origen and Eusebius. Martin Luther rejected the Epistle of James calling it worthless and an "epistle of straw" and questioned Jude, Hebrews and the Apocalypse in Revelation. Nevertheless, all New Testament writings came well after the alleged death of Jesus from unknown authors (with the possible exception of Paul, although still after the alleged death).

Epistles of Paul: Paul's biblical letters (epistles) serve as the oldest surviving Christian texts, written probably around 60 C.E. Most scholars have little reason to doubt that Paul wrote some of them himself. However, there occurs not a single instance in all of Paul's writings that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does he give any reference to Jesus' life on earth. Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

Epistle of James: Although the epistle identifies a James as the letter writer, but which James? Many claim it as the disciple James from the Gospels, but there occurs several James mentioned in the gospels. There also exists the possibility that it comes from any one of innumerable James outside the gospels. James served as a common name in the first centuries and we simply have no way to tell who this James refers to. More to the point, the Epistle of James mentions Jesus only once as an introduction to his belief. Nowhere does the epistle reference a historical Jesus and this alone eliminates it from an historical account. [1]

Epistles of John: The epistles of John, the Gospel of John, and Revelations appear so different in style and content that they could hardly have the same author. Some suggest that these writings of John come from the work of a group of scholars in Asia Minor who followed a "John" or they came from the work of church fathers who aimed to further the interests of the Church. Or they could have simply come from people also named John (a very common name). No one knows. Also note that nowhere in the body of the three epistles of "John" does it mention a John. In any case, the epistles of John say nothing about seeing an earthly Jesus. Not only do we not know who wrote these epistles, they can only serve as hearsay accounts. [2]

Epistles of Peter: Many scholars question the authorship of Peter of the epistles. Even within the first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote it. Most scholars consider the second epistle as unreliable or an outright forgery (for some examples, see the introduction to 2 Peter in the full edition of The New Jerusalem Bible, 1985, and [3]). In short, no one has any way of determining whether the epistles of Peter come from fraud, an unknown author also named Peter (a common name) or from someone trying to further the aims of the Church.

Of the remaining books and letters in the Bible, there occurs no other stretched claims or eyewitness accounts for a historical Jesus and needs no mention of them here for this deliberation.

As for the existence of original New Testament documents, none exist. No book of the New Testament survives in the original autograph copy. What we have then come from copies, and copies of copies, of questionalbe originals (if the stories came piecemeal over time, as it appears it has, then there may never have existed an original). The earliest copies we have got written more than a century later than the autographs, and these exist on fragments of papyrus. [Pritchard; Graham] According to Hugh Schonfield, "It would be impossible to find any manuscript of the New Testament older than the late third century, and we actually have copies from the fourth and fifth. [Schonfield]"

[jegs2]

Based on the source and author(s) of your information, you'll have to forgive me if I look on it with the same dubious eye that you and your ilk readily ascribe to the four books in question. Moreover, speculation is not the same thing as proof.

[Jonathan]

And which people are these? I don't think the Gospels were personally penned by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Why?

Craig L. Blomberg of the University of Scotland, Cambridge University and Denver Seminary is a pretty big figure in this area and thinks they were.

Papias (AD 125) said the Mark and Matthew had faithfulyl recorded details of Jesus' life. Irenaeus (AD 180) mentions Matthew, Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter, Luke the follower of Paul and John the disciple of Jesus all wrote Gospels.

Liberal datings for the Gospels (i.e. late datings) are Mark in the 70s, Matthew and Luke in the 80s and John in the 90s, thought there are arguments for Luke being late 50s as it was written before Acts and Acts does not mention Paul's death. Luke incorporates part of Mark, making Mark even earlier - early to mid 50s, or even before. Even with the later dates though, that's pretty close, certainly witihn the lifetime of eye-witness and the immeditate descendents, including hostile witnesses.

If we take Alexander the Great as a comparison, the earliest biographies are from over 400 years after his death in 323 BC, yet are considered trustworthy. Legendeary material didn't appear until 500 years after his death.

Paul may be documentable, but he never actually met Jesus, and his writings date a couple of decades after Christ supposedly lived.

Actually, I'm pretty sure he claimed to have met the risen Christ.

Quite frankly, there may have been thousands of people in the Middle East named Jesus around that time. Was it a common name?

Yes, it was. It is also translated Joshua, a common name.

[Baron Scarpia]

Based on the source and author(s) of your information, you'll have to forgive me if I look on it with the same dubious eye that you and your ilk readily ascribe to the four books in question.

If you'd rather attack the source than the content, that's your choice, but it doesn't lend your argument any creedence. Just makes you evasive.

Moreover, speculation is not the same thing as proof.

Thanks. That's precisely why I don't view the gospels as historically accurate documents. Their authorship is pure speculation.

And the onus of proof is on you, as it is the responsibility of he who asserts the affirmative to prove his case. Now, prove Jesus existed, sans hearsay or speculation.

[Darth Wong]

I don't believe the Bible was ever meant to be a documentary. I see it as a set of stories with messages, like Aesop's fables. If you have faith, then those stories were meant to guide you. If you don't, then they're just fables written by primitives.

That's how I see it, anyway