The source started out as an opponent to christian belief, as did I. (I was convinced intellectually, and I'm not weak in that regard.) That's one of the problems you'll encounter if you ever get serious in your study: the evidence is overwhelmingly in support of the christian evidences. Many of the sources started out as opponents and wanted to give a serious refutation to the christian claims. Anybody that serious is in danger of having his beliefs shattered. I've yet to find someone who is opposed who has done what I would call any sort of in-depth study of the available facts from all sources.
Thank you for taking the time to read it. I bet you will be the only one. Between the 2 accounts, the one you propose is much more difficult to believe. Are you presenting an alternative with the idea that we should reject the evidences we have if there is ANY other possible explanation? Consider what you propose: some heathens scare off armed guards of the Roman legion, the penalty for which is death to the guards. The jews weren't allowed to carry weapons nor could they put anyone to death (which is why they had to appeal to Pontius Pilate to put Jesus to death). As a result, any such group would have to be unarmed, or be found out and face certain death. They moved a 3,000-4,000 pound stone maybe a hundred yards (if each supported 100 pounds the group would have to be 30-40 people). They broke the official Roman seal on the tomb, an event which would have caused every Roman law enforcement agency to search for the culprit and crucify him upside-down. And they hid a body that later is seen by over 500 people over a 40 day period, walking around, eating and drinking and having conversations. And this delusion of seeing him alive persists for the rest of their lives, even in the face of certain death of they and their families. This drunken group then carefully and with precision reformed the grave clothes to make it look like Jesus evaporated out of them. That's a tough one, my friend. I think what a reasonable person should do is compare your version -- or any other alternative -- and compare it to knowledge we have, exposed to the light of day. If you haven't already rejected supernaturalism then the evidences are ineluctable. If you ever get into these studies, the data is overwhelming -- really. And I mean *really.* Only a presupposition that it's impossible would prevent an honest person from seeing it. How is it, for example, that the Septuagint -- the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament -- written 300 years before the birth of Jesus -- has over 30 prophecies which were literally fulfilled by Jesus, many of which could not have been fabricated or fulfilled by purpose. For example, the city of his birth. Herod asks the Jews where this king is supposed to come from and massacres all the boys 2 years old and under in that city. There are historical references to this event (which was also prophesied). Other prophetical fulfillments: Sent to the gentiles (unclean to the jews) Resurrection Betrayed by a friend Sold for 30 pieces of silver Hands and feet pierced Crucified with thieves Garments parted and lots cast Bones not broken (Romans always broke the legs of the crucified to get them to die faster) Side pierced All predicted more than 300 years before the event which would have been difficult to fulfill purposely. Very, very tiny tip of the iceberg of evidences.
many of these are what are know as the isaiah prophecies. these prophecies have been debunked by modern scholars and by jewish experts who should know because the old testament is a Jewish document. modern scholars have determined that the isaiah prophecies were about the nation of israel not about jesus. http://www.truthseeker.com/truth-seeker/1993archive/120_2/ts202g.html Prophecy is a muddy science, and Bible prophecy muddier than most. Take those Old Testament prophecies. Evangelists never tire of telling us that hundreds were fulfilled in the life of Jesus, far too many to be called coincidence. But how many of these are real, and how many are prophetia ex eventuÃprophecies constructed after the fact, products of careful selection and interpretation? To get an idea, let's look at the most famous, the prophecy of the child Immanuel as presented in the Gospel of Matthew (Matt. 1:22- 23): "Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." (KJV) Most good Christians take this at face value, assured that the prophet Isaiah did indeed describe Jesus's miraculous conception and birth seven hundred years before. But did he? Authorities are nearly unanimous. The answer is no. What did Isaiah really say? Turning to Isa. 7:14 (Masoretic text), we find his precise words: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, (the ha'almah) shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." The Matthew interpretation of Isaiah has several problems, the largest hanging on the Hebrew word 'almah. Writing in Greek, the gospel author turned 'almah into parthenos, a word usually (but not always) meaning "virgin". In fact he had a precedent for this; the Septuagint, a translation of the Old Testament used by Greek- speaking Jews of the day, did indeed use parthenos in the Isaiah passage. But the Septuagint was for the most part a notoriously sloppy translation, and its version of Isaiah was more error- ridden than the rest. By the Middle Ages the Jews had abandoned the Septuagint, and other Greek translations, by Aquila, Theodotion, Lucien and others, did not use the word parthenos. (The Septuagint, affectionately known as the LXX, is still favored by Eastern Orthodox churches.) (more) http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1999/5/995isai.html The Failure of Isaiah's Prophetic Rantings Farrell Till Biblical inerrantists never seem to tire of looking for vindication of the Bible in prophecy fulfillments. No skeptic discussing the Bible with a biblicist can question its divine origin for very long without hearing the biblicist say, "Well, what about all of the prophecy fulfillments?" The best way to answer this question is with a question of your own: "What prophecy fulfillments?" This alone may be enough to stop the biblicist in his tracks, because he may well be a typical Christian who is uninformed in the Bible and is simply repeating something he has heard but doesn't know enough about to discuss intelligently. If, however, the biblicist is someone who does have specific prophecy fulfillment claims in mind, they can usually be rebutted by just analyzing the alleged prophecy in context to point out parts of the prophecy that seem to be missing in the fulfillment event. Such missing parts can almost always be identified. I have discussed in past articles this approach to debating prophecy-fulfillment claims, so I won't rehash it here. Another effective method to use in such discussions is to turn the tables on the biblicist and ask him, "Well, what about all of the prophecy failures?" To do this, of course, one would have to be familiar with specific examples of prophecy failures. Several of these have been discussed in past articles, the most frequently mentioned one being Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre. A simple way to make this prophecy failure more problematic for the biblicist is to compare it to Isaiah's prophecy against Tyre and focus on the inconsistencies in the two. We have seen in prior discussions of Ezekiel's prophecy that he predicted that Tyre would be destroyed and never rebuilt (26:14,21; 27:36,19), but in his many tirades against the nations around Israel, Isaiah uttered a prophecy against Tyre that predicted a destruction that wasn't quite as harsh as Ezekiel's. In 23:1, he said, "The burden of Tyre. Howl you ships of Tarshish; for it is laid waste, so that there is no house, no entering in: from the land of Kittim it is revealed to them." The prophecy continued in typical fashion through the chapter, predicting waste and devastation, but beginning in verse 13, Isaiah clearly said that the destruction of Tyre would be only temporary, not permanent: (more)
you must be very sheltered. maybe you should read something from the other side instead of sites just preaching to the choir.
Bitstream, Well said. Absolutely. I know the feeling, raised a southern baptist w/that crap shoved down my throat all my childhood. It's a kind of child abuse, and it took me till I was in my 30's to finally find the truth and to have the courage to face that truth. It's hard, bringing oneself out of that dreamworld, wrapped as we are in that cocoon of fantasy. (Kinda like Neo waking up in The Matrix...) And yes, I too am still dealing w/the mental, emotional, and spiritual hangover from my "good Christian upbringing". Harold
Ridiculous on the face of it. Are you saying that the jews have no belief in a coming messiah? Any jew worth his salt knows there is a prophesied messiah. If Jesus is this messiah, then itâs obvious the prophecies are about him. Jewish source: Targum Jonathan, on Genesis 49:10-11 states, âKings shall not cease, nor rulers, from the house of Jehuda, nor sapherim teaching the law from his seed, till the time that the King, the Meshiha, shall come, the youngest of his sons; and on accout of him shall the peoples flow together. How beauteous is the King, and Meshiha who will arise from the house of Jehuda!â Jewish source: Targum Pseudo Janathanon Genesis 49:11, âHow noble is the King, Messiah, who is going to rise from the house of Judah.â Isaiah is not held to a single interpretation, either. If Jesus was born of a virgin, then this is a prophecy about Jesus, as is the remainder of the prophecies that were obviously fulfilled. Nothing except a presupposition could prevent you from seeing this. Jacob had 12 sons, 11 of which are eliminated from the lineage of the messiah by this prophecy. Jesusâ lineage was through Judah.
hcour and bitstream, I agree with you. Denominations have little to do with the God of the Bible. As a result, there is a lot of false humility and aberrant control that damages many of the people who follow blindly.
sure do. the jews reject jesus as the messiah. http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_lib.htm In addition, the author of Matthew uses a mistranslation of an Old Testament prophecy to reinforce his belief in the virgin birth. He quotes from Isaiah, "therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (Isaiah 7:14). The original Hebrew text of Isaiah uses the word "almah" which refers to a young woman of marriageable age, not the word "bethulah" which means virgin. However, the author of Matthew was using the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures. It inaccurately used the Greek word "parthenos" for "almah", thereby strongly implying virginity. The actual text of Isaiah, however, makes no reference to a virgin becoming pregnant other than by normal means. Some modern translations of the Bible, which are based on the original Hebrew text, replace the word "virgin" with the more accurate translation, "young woman". Moreover, Isaiah's prophecy, when read in context, clearly refers only to the time surrounding a political and military crisis which faced ancient Judah, and not 700 years later during the time of Jesus. Nor does the appellation "Immanuel" (God with us) imply that the child so named is divine, but rather in the context of the Old Testament passage, it acknowledges God's presence in delivering Judah from its enemies (Is. 7:14-17). Nor was Jesus ever called Immanuel. It is evident, therefore, that Matthew takes liberties with the Isaiah text to justify his belief in Mary's virginal conception. (more) http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_c/bl_jesus.htm Ask Rabbi Lerner Jesus as the Messiah Question Why don't Jews accept Jesus as the Messiah? Answer In brief: No Jew accepts Jesus as the Messiah. When someone makes that faith commitment, they become Christian. It is not possible for someone to be both Christian and Jewish. Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah because he didn't fulfill Jewish expectations of the Messiah. The Hebrew Bible (called the Old Testament by the non-Jewish world) is not proof for anything in the New Testament regarding a Messiah. (more)