Was Jesus the true messiah?

[infinitelord1]

i was reading on a website that said there have been 16 proclaimed messiahs throughout history who all proclaimed to be the son of a god and the rituals were very similar to the ones catholicism uses (bread and wine representing body and blood to be eaten). I have always looked at jesus as proof that there is a god because of his word and miracles. Were any of these other messiahs portrayed as preforming miracles and such? If so, can you give reference? If not, reference to why would be nice. Why should we just believe that jesus truly is the son of god? Is there any reason?

[Socrates]

Jesus Christ was the only Messiah (or Christ), the Annointed One promised by God to the Jews.

Could you give some examples of these other alleged "messiahs"?

[Noel's angel]

The Old Testament contains over 300 references to the Messiah that were fulfilled in Jesus.

In "Science Speaks" by Peter Stoner the probabilities of a man fulfilling eight of the prophecies is 1 in 10 to the 17th power which is 100,000,000,000,000,000.

So now can you imagine the figure for all of the over 300 prophecies that were fulfilled in Jesus

[Semalsia]

Jesus is a myth just like all the other messiahs of that time. They are all repetition of the (almost) same story. The fact that these other messianic stories even exist disproves the whole of christianity.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='May 6 2005, 02:41 PM'] Jesus is a myth just like all the other messiahs of that time. They are all repetition of the (almost) same story. The fact that these other messianic stories even exist disproves the whole of christianity. [/quote]
I am sorry that you think that. Perhaps you could enlighten us on all of the repititions throughout history that prove without a doubt that our faith is false.

[Noel's angel]

yes, what other 'Messiahs' have fulfilled all those prophecies? I'm curious

[MilesChristi]

I think this passage from the Acts of the Apostles makes a good point.

[quote]34: But a Pharisee in the council named Gama'li-el, a teacher of the law, held in honor by all the people, stood up and ordered the men to be put outside for a while.
35: And he said to them, "Men of Israel, take care what you do with these men.
36: For before these days Theu'das arose, giving himself out to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him; but he was slain and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing.
37: After him Judas the Galilean arose in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him; he also perished, and all who followed him were scattered.
38: So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this undertaking is of men, it will fail;
39: but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!"
40: So they took his advice, and when they had called in the apostles, they beat them and charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.
41: Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name.
42: And every day in the temple and at home they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.
[/quote]

[jezic]

how could Jesus not be the true Messiah?

How can we still "feel" his true Presence in the Eucharist?

[Semalsia]

[quote name='Paphnutius']I am sorry that you think that. Perhaps you could enlighten us on all of the repititions throughout history that prove without a doubt that our faith is false.[/quote]

Jesus was not the only nor the first god-man to be born out of a virgin, heal the sick, get crucified and later ascend. It's an old story being repeated over and over again.

Apollonius is one example. Mithras was a popular one too, after Jesus I think.

Plus there is really nothing to support the idea that there even was an actual Jesus. There might have been some man upon which the legend was built upon, but it would still mean Jesus was just like King Arthur.


[quote name='Noel's angel']yes, what other 'Messiahs' have fulfilled all those prophecies?[/quote]

Fulfilment of any prophesies is meaningless, since we are talking about stories anyway.

[Pilgrim]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='May 6 2005, 02:41 PM'] Jesus is a myth just like all the other messiahs of that time. [/quote]
That's interesting, sir.

I am tempted to think that your presence on this discussion board betrays your hunger for spiritual enlightement that is as yet unfulfilled. This hunger you're experiencing, and the emptiness I suspect you'll feel until the hunger is satisfied, is a primative urge which has been written on your very heart by God. Yet being a sinful human, you are unable to find God on your own.

Luckily, Jesus has already cleared a path for you to follow and has provided the sacrifice necessary for your complete union with God. The sacrifice he provided was a singular event, profound and unrepeatable. Yet this is a matter that can be accepted only in faith, which is itself compelled by that hunger to which I referred. I can quote from the catechicm, doctrine, or sacred scripture in an attempt to convince you that God's incarnation was accomplished [i]only [/i]in Christ, but it will not make any difference if you are not first willing to succumb to the [i]faith [/i]to which your heart is compelling you. Your presence on this discussion board is a welcome first step toward accepting that faith. God bless you for your presence here.

Edited May 6, 2005 by Pilgrim

[Semalsia]

[quote name='Pilgrim']your presence on this discussion board betrays your hunger for spiritual enlightement[/quote]

I can assure you that my hunger won't be satisfied by faith.


[quote name='Pilgrim']Yet this is a matter that can be accepted only in faith[/quote]

In other words, this all-loving God wants everyone to believe blindly to that which is impossible and will sent those that don't, those that have doubts, those that somehow missed the cleverly hidden clues to "enlightenment" to eternal punishment in Hell. Your religion, sir, makes absolutely no sense.


But this is off-topic ...

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote]Jesus was not the only nor the first god-man to be born out of a virgin, heal the sick, get crucified and later ascend. It's an old story being repeated over and over again.

Apollonius is one example. Mithras was a popular one too, after Jesus I think.

Plus there is really nothing to support the idea that there even was an actual Jesus. There might have been some man upon which the legend was built upon, but it would still mean Jesus was just like King Arthur.[/quote]

Except there was no extensive religious history before these other "god-men" appeared. I mean that first there was Judaism, and then Jesus fulfilled that religion. These other "gods" were myths that started religions with no other background to base their "divinity" on. We have clear connections between the scriptures in the old testament time, and who Jesus was and did.

[scardella]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='May 6 2005, 03:56 PM'] Jesus was not the only nor the first god-man to be born out of a virgin, heal the sick, get crucified and later ascend. It's an old story being repeated over and over again. [/quote]
Erm...
You've got the thinking backwards. These stories exist because the features are imprinted upon our psyches precisely so that we CAN recognize Jesus as the Christ. When people didn't see Jesus around (or disbelieved in Him), they made up similar stories because Jesus is the person they're implicitly looking for.

In this line of reasoning, there's no wonder that the other messiah-type myth/legend/etc. exists. If God made us so that we would be implicitly looking for a Savior... it seems natural to grasp for it.

This is coming from some crackpot's ideas (mine) after reflecting on Jung's archetype theory. Of course it's a high Christology, which isn't what you're looking for.

BTW, there are numerous 3rd party accounts of Jesus that document His historicity. (I can't seem to remember anything specific at the moment, unfortunately.) However, the actions of His disciples are hardly rational if they made it up. That also does not explain numerous miracles, many of which are scientifically documented.

As a final note, I'd recommend Orthodoxy by GK Chesterton. It's available online for free. I found it at [url="http://www.hismercy.ca/content/ebooks/"]http://www.hismercy.ca/content/ebooks/[/url]

[Semalsia]

[quote name='fidei defensor']Except there was no extensive religious history before these other "god-men" appeared.[/quote]

They have their roots in roman, greek and egyptian mythologies and gods.

[quote name='scardella']These stories exist because the features are imprinted upon our psyches precisely so that we CAN recognize Jesus as the Christ.[/quote]

And what do you base that upon? Look, if all the other god-men are made up myths and Jesus doesn't differ from them (except that it is the only one that survived this long), then what does that make Jesus?


[quote]That also does not explain numerous miracles, many of which are [b]scientifically documented.[/b][/quote]

In the Bible? You are joking, right?


[quote]I'd recommend Orthodoxy by GK Chesterton. It's available online for free. I found it at [url="http://www.hismercy.ca/content/ebooks/"]http://www.hismercy.ca/content/ebooks/[/url][/quote]

"forbidden, You don't have permission to access /content/ebooks/ on this server."

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote]That also does not explain numerous miracles, many of which are scientifically documented.[/quote]
Yup this includes Eucharistic miracles, that of which turned into physical flesh. Scientifically proven.
[url="http://www.zenit.org/english/show_5.php"]http://www.zenit.org/english/show_5.php[/url]

[MilesChristi]

[quote]BTW, there are numerous 3rd party accounts of Jesus that document His historicity. [/quote]

Yes, respected ancient historians such as Tacitus and Josephus attest to this.

[Semalsia]

[quote name='MilesChristi']Yes, respected ancient historians such as Tacitus and Josephus attest to this.[/quote]

Tacitus lived from year 56 to 117. Josephus from 37 to 100.

Hardly any eyewitnesses.

Edit.
Also Tacitus refers to "christians", meaning that he is speaking of a religion and the followers of this "Christus". That does not differ from modern day people speaking of christians.

Edited May 6, 2005 by Semalsia

[MichaelFilo]

Semalsia, you would have to be a liar to think that Mithra was suffeciently like Jesus. Especially the fact that Mithra was post-Jesus (at least the Roman version of the religion, the Indian version is not at all in common with Christ).

Jesus couldn't have been just a story, for several reasons. One, the Bible speaks of him. The entire new testament, those letters from Paul, Peter, and John about Jesus. These were people who saw Him. It would be silly to have written about a story, and claim it is a real religion. These people lived it, they died for it, so could it truely be a story? Polycarp who was trained under John, wrote of Jesus as real.

Think about your reasoning for Tacitus. He records people speaking about Christ, who had seen Him. The people are just talking about a story.... and yet they speak of Christ as real. They worship Him, they praise Him, they die for Him, and claim to have saw Him, and yet it is a story. Think about the logic.... would they go so far as to die for a story that they saw? Would it make sense to be so devout to a person you have claimed to see but you know is a story... come on.. who are you kidding?

God bless,
Mikey

[Semalsia]

[quote name='MichaelFilo']you would have to be a liar to think that Mithra was suffeciently like Jesus.[/quote]

For a fast reference, here is what [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithras"]Wikipedia[/url] says about Mithras:

"The cult surrounding Mithras had many similarities to the early cult of Christianity. Mithras had had twelve followers with whom he had shared a last sacramental meal. He had sacrificed himself to redeem mankind. Descending into the underworld, he had conquered death and had risen to life again on the third day. His many titles included ‘the Truth,’ ‘the Light,’ and ‘the Good Shepherd.’ For those who worshipped him, invoking the name of Mithras healed the sick and worked miracles. Mithras could dispense mercy and grant immortality; to his devotees he offered hope. By drinking his blood and eating his flesh (by proxy, from a slain bull) they too could conquer death. In particular, Mithras's birth was celebrated on December 25 and his followers practiced baptism. Some, particularly secular scholars, see these similarities as evidence that Christianity is actually a religion that evolved out of pagan myths. Others however, point to the lack of evidence that any of these elements were present in the Mithras cult prior to the emergence of Christianity, as evidence that Mithras borrowed from Christianity."


[quote]Especially the fact that Mithra was post-Jesus[/quote]

I know, I said it myself. I was just pointing out that this is/was a continually occuring story. There are others which are pre-Jesus.

[quote]the Bible speaks of him.[/quote]

But no one else does. Jesus is the Bible. Trying to prove Jesus with the Bible is circular reasoning.



[quote]It would be silly to have written about a story, and claim it is a real religion. [/quote]

Oh I agree. But people will believe you anyway. Just look at mormonism or scientology.

People are very, very easy to fool. Especially when they want to be fooled. Do you know who John Edward is?

[quote]They worship Him, they praise Him, they die for Him, and claim to have saw Him, and yet it is a story.[/quote]

Yes. People sure are nuts. Remember Heaven's Gate?

[MichaelFilo]

Here is the problem though. Heaven's gate took their own life. They didn't suffer at the hands of others. Besides, even heaven's gate pooled off certain beliefs, that of the Christian message and twisted it with a lie, and the people took it. Jesus didn't take an old Truth and twist it. He IS Truth. And no, the people of heaven's gate didn't preach their message. The leaders did, the people didn't. The people weren't persecuted, and were not given capital punishment, they committed suicide. There is a difference.

Your claim that it was a story is still funny, because the people still saw him. would not someone who was with those people speak against it? John Smith was alone, Muhammed was alone, and whoever founded Scientology was alone. These people who made the claims were around other people, and those other people could have denounced them. Thousands of them, and not one denied seeing him. Think about this.. thousands, this isn't one or two, and not one who was there with the thousands said it wasn't true.


Using the bible to prove Jesus is NOT a circular arguement. Tacitus made references to Jesus, as did the Apostles. These are seperate documents about the same Man. Simply because most of the references about a man are bound in a book doesn't mean they are the same reference.

Your logic is skimpy. Simply Tacitus who recorded those who speak about JEsus and the fact that so manyw ho saw Jesus spoke about Him without any of them rising up to denounce that Jesus is just a story and that they never saw Jesus when they were with those people, should say something.

God bless,
Mikey