Was Jesus the true messiah?

[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

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote]A similarity between Mithra and Christ struck even early observers, such as Justin, Tertullian, and other Fathers, and in recent times has been urged to prove that Christianity is but an adaptation of Mithraism, or at most the outcome of the same religious ideas and aspirations (e.g. Robertson, "Pagan Christs", 1903). Against this erroneous and unscientific procedure, which is not endorsed by the greatest living authority on Mithraism, the following considerations must be brought forward. (1) Our knowledge regarding Mithraism is very imperfect; some 600 brief inscriptions, mostly dedicatory, some 300 often fragmentary, exiguous, almost identical monuments, a few casual references in the Fathers or Acts of the Martyrs, and a brief polemic against Mithraism which the Armenian Eznig about 450 probably copied from Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. 428) who lived when Mithraism was almost a thing of the past -- these are our only sources, unless we include the Avesta in which Mithra is indeed mentioned, but which cannot be an authority for Roman Mithraism with which Christianity is compared. Our knowledge is mostly ingenious guess-work; of the real inner working of Mithraism and the sense in which it was understood by those who professed it at the advent of Christianity, we know nothing. (2) Some apparent similarities exist; but in a number of details it is quite probable that Mithraism was the borrower from Christianity. Tertullian about 200 could say: "hesterni sumus et omnia vestra implevimus" ("we are but of yesterday, yet your whole world is full of us"). It is not unnatural to suppose that a religion which filled the whole world, should have been copied at least in some details by another religion which was quite popular during the third century. Moreover the resemblances pointed out are superficial and external. Similarity in words and names is nothing; it is the sense that matters. During these centuries Christianity was coining its own technical terms, and naturally took names, terms, and expressions current in that day; and so did Mithraism. But under identical terms each system thought its own thoughts. Mithra is called a mediator; and so is Christ; but Mithra originally only in a cosmogonic or astronomical sense; Christ, being God and man, is by nature the Mediator between God and man. And so in similar instances. Mithraism had a Eucharist, but the idea of a sacred banquet is as old as the human race and existed at all ages and amongst all peoples. Mithra saved the world by sacrificing a bull; Christ by sacrificing Himself. It is hardly possible to conceive a more radical difference than that between Mithra taurochonos and Christ crucified. Christ was born of a Virgin; there is nothing to prove that the same was believed of Mithra born from the rock. Christ was born in a cave; and Mithraists worshipped in a cave, but Mithra was born under a tree near a river. Much as been made of the presence of adoring shepherds; but their existence on sculptures has not been proven, and considering that man had not yet appeared, it is an anachronism to suppose their presence. (3) Christ was an historical personage, recently born in a well known town of Judea, and crucified under a Roman governor, whose name figured in the ordinary official lists. Mithra was an abstraction, a personification not even of the sun but of the diffused daylight; his incarnation, if such it may be called, was supposed to have happened before the creation of the human race, before all history. The small Mithraic congregations were like masonic lodges for a few and for men only and even those mostly of one class, the military; a religion that excludes the half of the human race bears no comparison to the religion of Christ. Mithraism was all comprehensive and tolerant of every other cult, the Pater Patrum himself was an adept in a number of other religions; Christianity was essential exclusive, condemning every other religion in the world, alone and unique in its majesty. [/quote]

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10402a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10402a.htm[/url]

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote]"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]

Using such statements as this, the uneducated mind would think "I guess christianity is pagan". This kind of statement is exactly what atheists use to try to generalize Christianity into "just another religion". You can do this to anything. But if you truely read about Mithras, while vaguely similar, they are not that alike.

[journeyman]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='May 6 2005, 05:23 PM']
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]

"forbidden, You don't have permission to access /content/ebooks/ on this server." [/quote]
try the main address: [url="http://www.hismercy.ca"]http://www.hismercy.ca[/url]

then click on side menu "ebooks"

[Pilgrim]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='May 6 2005, 04:46 PM'] Your religion, sir, makes absolutely no sense. [/quote]
You are ignoring the rules of civil discourse. Blatent and tasteless attacks upon our faith are not welcome here. This is an INTER-FAITH discussion board, not a soapbox from which to attack Christianity.

[cmotherofpirl]

I suggest you read "Mere Christianity" by C. S. Lewis.
Then we'll talk about myths.

[Semalsia]

[quote name='Pilgrim'] You are ignoring the rules of civil discourse. Blatent and tasteless attacks upon our faith are not welcome here. This is an INTER-FAITH discussion board, not a soapbox from which to attack Christianity.[/quote]


I'm sorry if I have somehow offended you. It has not been my intention.

I was somewhat annoyed by your post so I was not exactly very friendly with you, but still I fail to see where I attacked you personally. I've understood this forum as a "debate forum" and debate is all about making arguments againts each other's positions. If I can't make arguments agains you position (that would be catholicism), then I don't really see what this forum is supposed to be about.

Now, I fail to see how stating that christianity makes no sense to me and explaining why would be considered rude behavior.

If this is a subject you don't want to talk or hear about, then I can quite well shut up about it. Just say a word. I'm not here to harass you.

[Fidei Defensor]

I have one question for you -
How do you explain Eucharistic miracles - hosts becoming physically, visibly, real flesh.

Science cannot explain it.

Can you?

[Socrates]

There's a huge difference between Jesus Christ and mythical figures likje Mithras. Jesus is a well-documented historical figure (whether you beleive He was God or not). He lived during a specific historical time-period (born in the reign of Caesar Augustus, and lived and died in a specific place. His life is recorded by eye-witnesses within 50-90 years of his death (an extremely short period by ancient standards).

Using the standards of those who would deny the existance of Christ, we would have to disregard the evidence for almost all figures of ancient history, including Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great! (Earliest written histories were written generations later.)

The figures of pagan myth however, lived in no specific historical time, and no witnesses claimed to have seen them. They are just that, myth.

[Paphnutius]

So your arguement is that because Jesus resembles ancient myths, He must not of existed, or if so then He must of only been the basis for legends. Seems like a leap in logic to me.

Please line out point for point how Christ resembles such mythological figures and why you think that this points out that He must not be real.

[scardella]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='May 6 2005, 05:23 PM'] 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?

...

In the Bible? You are joking, right?

...

"forbidden, You don't have permission to access /content/ebooks/ on this server." [/quote]
first, sorry about the messed up URL, here's one that works: (sorry, I didn't check it last time)
[url="http://www.hismercy.ca/content/HM_ebooks.html"]http://www.hismercy.ca/content/HM_ebooks.html[/url]
It's about 1/2 to 2/3 the way down.


Second, regarding the first part:
It doesn't prove or disprove anything. I do think it's telling, though, that it alone has survived and thrived.

Third, regarding miracles:
There have been scientifically studied miracles, among which
-Eucharistic miracle at Lanciano, Italy (bread turned visibly into flesh, flesh hasn't decomposed)
-St. Juan Diego's tilna w/ miraculous image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Mexico (Tilnas usually deteriorate in ~20-30 years. This one has lasted several hundred. Also, scientists don't know how the image got onto the tilna.)
-Numerous healings at Lourdes
-Miracle of the sun at Fatima, Portugal (Sun seemed to wobble, etc. The area had been soaked by rainfall, and afterwards, everything was dry.)
-Incorruptible bodies, particularly St. Bernadette, St. Rita of Cascia, St. Vincent de Paul, among others... (all three died before 1900 and they aren't decomposing)