Was Jesus the true messiah?

[Semalsia]

I've been through my pc trying to find the stuff I've read on this. Here are few links to some sources:

[url="http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa.htm"]S1[/url]
[url="http://www.truthbeknown.com/christmyth.htm"]S2[/url]
[url="http://www.africawithin.com/jgjackson/jgjackson_pagan_origins_of_the_christ_myth3.htm"]S3[/url]
[url="http://home.earthlink.net/~pgwhacker/ChristianOrigins/PaganChrists.html"]S4[/url]

[Semalsia]

[quote name='fidei defensor']But we have to first atleast agree he existed.[/quote]

It seems somewhat likely that there was some man who is the basis for this legend to be formed upon. But I still think it's irrelevant whether it is so or not.


[quote name='fidei defensor']Any creditable historian would agree that a man, Jesus of Nazareth, existed.[/quote]

And on what do they base that? As far as I know, no one has confirmed that there even was a town called Nazareth back then.

[Melchisedec]

It seems that the thread has strayed, it has become a debate on the historical accuracy of the existence of Jesus. Now Semalsia has reason to doubt Jesus ever existed. For one, Philo of Alexandria lived during the time of Jesus and Paul, introduced the concept of the logos, considered to be a hugely important historian. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ's miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. Yet, never once mentions Jesus. Hes not alone, there are around 20+ historians who lived in that area aswell who did not ever mention Jesus. If we turn to Josephus, a man who chronicled the Jew's history in large expansive volumes. Josephus did not spare detail, he would write exhaustively on even petty theives. Yet, only dedicated one paragraph to Jesus. Why would Josephus only dedicate one paragraph to someone who he considered the Messiah, considering the massive volumes he wrote? The debate rages.

I just want to touch upon matrydom. Many people have died for their beliefs, and many still do. We have countless muslims who died for Mohammed, along side him and long after his death. Buddhist like tibetans, have died and are still being persecuted for their beliefs. I dont see these indivuals any different than the christians who have died for the very same reasons. Your argument validates their beliefs as much so as christianity.

Lastly, we know Mohammed and Buddha did exist. Yet there is still alot of myth surrounding the stories about them. When Buddha was born, a flower sprung after every step he took. If we are to say Jesus existed, it does not in any way give credence to the various supernatural occurences found in the bible and in other folklore. If it does, than it can be applied in the same manner to Islam. At the end of the day, it all amounts to faith, nothing more.

[Noel's angel]

How many Biblical prophesies did Buddha fulfil?

[Timothy]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='May 8 2005, 02:39 PM']
Irrelevant. Do you know how many different kind of snowflakes there is possible to exist? When you find a snowflake, the odds that you found exactly that kind of snowflake are extremely low. Still, I doubt you scream "miracle" every time you find a snowflake.



Irrelevant. We just happen to be that kind of planet which did have Jupiter with it's neighbor.



Not true. Earth's distance from the sun varies millions of miles during one year. Do you know when it is the closests? Yeah, in the winter. And the furthest? Yep, in the summer.



That's exactly what I'm telling you. [/quote]
Semalsia, you rely on the notion that the universe is in random chaos? The opposite is what physicists call the anthropic principle, that the creation, order, mechanics, and purpose of the 15 billion (approx.) year old universe was created for one purpose, life namely human life. That there is no chance in the universe as a whole and that the universe is of necessity. Thus far the great weight of scientific evidence sharply points in favor of this and is rapidly becoming scientific fact. If looking at the Earth in all it's form and beauty isn't enough to convince you that there is order in the universe and causation and purpose, let's examine the evidence of the material universe more closely.



If the universe is random then how can you explain the structure of matter and the mathematical constants of forces in the universe? Why are many of these constants mathematically related to the age of the universe? Moreover, these "ingredients" all combined precisely, are all required in order to have life in the universe. If any of these varied by even a minute degree, on the sub atomic level, the universe would be a drastically different place if it would exist at all. Take a few examples:



gravity is roughly 10 to the 39th power (I will present these in this fashion: 10 (39) as I cannot find the appropriate font) times weaker than electro-magnetism. If gravity had been 10 (33) weaker, stars would be a billion times less massive and would burn a million times faster
the nuclear weak force is 10(28) times the strength of gravity. Had the weak force been slightly weaker, all hydrogen in the universe would have turned to helium (making water impossible)
a stronger nuclear strong force (by as little as 2%) would have prevented the formation of protons--yielding a universe without atoms. Decreasing by 5% would have left us without stars
the very nature of water (so vital to life) is a mystery. Unique among the molecules, water is lighter in it's solid state than liquid form; ice floats. If it did not, the oceans would freeze from the bottom up and the Earth would immediately have been covered with solid ice


The list goes on. What's more compelling is that all these factors had to have been "in place" during the first nano-seconds of the Big Bang. The case for design is the only logical conclusion. All these factors leave no scientifically viable explanation for the case of randomness.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Noel's angel' date='May 9 2005, 11:02 AM'] How many Biblical prophesies did Buddha fulfil? [/quote]
Did Jesus fulfill all the prophecies of the Messiah?

And is it possible that the writers of the gospels, especially Matthew, interpreted prophecies in such a manner as to have Jesus fulfil them?

[scardella]

[quote]"Somehow or other an extraordinary idea has arisen that the disbelievers in miracles consider them coldly and fairly, while believers in miracles accept them only in connection with some dogma. The fact is quite the other way. The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them."
- GK Chesterton in [i]Orthodoxy[/i][/quote]

Just something I ran across

[scardella]

here's another one (I like to call him the Quotesmith)

[quote]A false ghost disproves the reality of ghosts exactly as much as a forged banknote disproves the existence of the Bank of England -- if anything, it proves its existence.
- GK Chesterton[/quote]

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='scardella' date='May 9 2005, 11:49 AM'] here's another one (I like to call him the Quotesmith)

[/quote]
so which one should we place our beliefs in?

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='May 9 2005, 12:18 PM'] so which one should we place our beliefs in? [/quote]
i wanna know why we should place our beliefs in specifically jesus christ and not some other messiah or religion. What is it that distinguishes jesus christ from everything else? Does anybody really know enough aboout this stuff to make an arguement? I wanna hear a good arguement from a scholar or something(from the catholic point of view). of course, everyone's input is greatly appreciated.

[Noel's angel]

[quote]Did Jesus fulfill all the prophecies of the Messiah?[/quote]

No one said that he had to fulfill them in the first-coming:

If I were to look down the road and try to tell you what was coming, I might say that ahead of us lay a tree, a house, a lake and a mountain. Does that imply that we would reach them all at the same time as we travel down the road? After all, I mentioned them all in the same sentence! Would I need to explain to you that there is space between these things? Prophecy can be considered a look down the road of time. Many things may be mentioned together, although the actual fulfillments may be separated by great spans of time. We may come to the “tree” very soon, but the mountain much later. The prophecies concerning Messiah are such that it would not make sense for all of them to come to pass at once. We have seen the first signs matched exactly, so it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the rest will come in their own time.
(David Brown)

[Noel's angel]

This topic made me think: I can tell you my name, date of birth, when i was born, where I was born and show you my birth certificate and you would probably believe I was telling the truth and I am who I claim to be. What is the difference here with Jesus being the Messiah? We have shown mountains of evidence that Jesus is the Messiah, why don't you believe?

[scardella]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='May 9 2005, 12:18 PM'] so which one should we place our beliefs in? [/quote]
erm, what do you mean? Your question didn't seem to follow from the quote. (Apparently the system is buggy in picking up the quotes from a reply.)

Edited May 9, 2005 by scardella

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Noel's angel' date='May 9 2005, 11:02 AM'] How many Biblical prophesies did Buddha fulfil? [/quote]
Why does Buddha need to fulfill old testament prophecies? Absurd.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='May 9 2005, 09:57 AM'] If we turn to Josephus, a man who chronicled the Jew's history in large expansive volumes. Josephus did not spare detail, he would write exhaustively on even petty theives. Yet, only dedicated one paragraph to Jesus. Why would Josephus only dedicate one paragraph to someone who he considered the Messiah, considering the massive volumes he wrote? [/quote]
Just a quick word on this.

Did Josephus really consider Christ the Messiah? If the answer is no, then it is understandable.