The Jesus Itinerary

[DeistPaladin]

Do you find this excessively complex?
I think you are the one doing the contortion of scripture.

As I keep trying to explain to the apologists, skepticism is not an agenda.

Let's put the "no, you!" argument to rest right now. You are a Christian, yes? This means you have faith, yes? This means when you read the Bible, you have a preconception that must be satisfied, specifically, your faith.

The psychology of cognitive dissonance comes into play here. When you find a contradiction, you psychologically will be drawn to finding some rationalization, no matter how complex, instead of reading what's there.

William Lane Craig, a famous apologist, once blurted out that his belief in Christianity (mumbo jumbo about revealed truth from the Holy Spirit) comes first and any evidence comes second. No evidence can convince him that Christianity isn't true. He doesn't pursue the evidence wherever it leads but selectively looks for reasons to justify the beliefs he already has.





This is the essence of apologetics. It is not about trying to find what is true or not. It is about finding reasons to validate the conclusions you have already reached.

Compare this with the "agenda" of skepticism. I read what's there. I go where the evidence leads me. I also compare and contrast what I read in the Bible with what we know of the history of the time. You can accuse me of having preconceptions (I do not) but you can't deny that I lack any faith which must be defended without evidence and against all evidence.

No, one baptism is enough.

But not just one meeting, at least not according to what you've proposed.

1. Baptism by JtB according to the Synoptics.
2. 40 days in the wilderness according to the Synoptics.
3. Jesus has a second meeting with JtB in John's Gospel, "behold the lamb of God".
etc.

No, the Gospel of John is NOT entirely written with characters testifying what they themselves had done (past tense.)

But plenty of it is and there's nothing special about chapter 1 being in the past tense.

[DeistPaladin]

Jesus ministry never meet the expectations of the Jews because they were not paying attention to the prophecies written about Him, the same attitude that always got them into trouble with God in the OT.

Jesus' ministry never met the expectations of the Jews because the messiah (or "Christ") was supposed to be a glorious warlord that would lead the Jews from bondage and their nation Israel to ultimate victory over their enemies. The messiah was not supposed to be a meek and mild lamb of god being sacrificed for our sins to save all of humanity, chosen people and otherwise. Furthermore, the very notion of the intercessor with the divine is wholly blasphemous to Jewish theology. One pursued a relationship with Yahweh, a god who was hardly out of reach to the heroes of the OT and a god who was insanely jealous and ceded the center stage to no one (the whole need for the nonsense of the Trinity was to weasel out of the intercessor-deity-in-a-monotheistic-religion conundrum). Neither did the Jews have any concept of Hell or salvation. The OT speaks of Sheol, or "the grave". Satan was a tempter working for Yahweh, not the bitter enemy since the time of creation.

There's a reason the Jews rejected all this crap. Christianity is not the successor to and fulfillment of Judaism. It's the bastard child of Judaism and Paganism. The maladjusted little brat grew up to hate both parents, in defiance of the 5th commandment, and tried to snuff both of them out.

Christ meant that Peter would be an early leader of the church,

Which still would prove my point. This is not something that you would do for someone who is not already in your fold.

You are jumping to your own conclusions, you're not taking the scriptures as they are. Peter heard from Andrew that Jesus was the Messiah, Peter never acknowledges Jesus as the Son of God.

Both verses say "the Christ". This means "anointed one" or "messiah".

By the way, if Jesus is Yahweh, how is he an anointed one? Did Yahweh anoint himself? Seems rather pointless, don't you think?

[Godscreated]

Jesus ministry never meet the expectations of the Jews because they were not paying attention to the prophecies written about Him, the same attitude that always got them into trouble with God in the OT.

Jesus' ministry never met the expectations of the Jews because the messiah (or "Christ") was supposed to be a glorious warlord that would lead the Jews from bondage and their nation Israel to ultimate victory over their enemies. The messiah was not supposed to be a meek and mild lamb of god being sacrificed for our sins to save all of humanity, chosen people and otherwise. Furthermore, the very notion of the intercessor with the divine is wholly blasphemous to Jewish theology.

You want find the prophecies in the OT calling Him a warlord. The Jews could never get it through their heads that God was dealing with the spiritual. The Messiah prophecies in the OT were about Him being God's Lamb, a servant to man and a sacrifice for mankind. You surely do not know the OT, Moses was an intercessor for the Jewish people, as was Joshua and the prophets. I do not go by Jewish theology, I read God's word and find the answers there, the Jewish people never really understood or cared what God was trying to do through them, but He accomplished it nevertheless.

One pursued a relationship with Yahweh, a god who was hardly out of reach to the heroes of the OT and a god who was insanely jealous and ceded the center stage to no one (the whole need for the nonsense of the Trinity was to weasel out of the intercessor-deity-in-a-monotheistic-religion conundrum). Neither did the Jews have any concept of Hell or salvation. The OT speaks of Sheol, or "the grave". Satan was a tempter working for Yahweh, not the bitter enemy since the time of creation.

They did have the concept of hell and salvation, I showed this in a post about a month ago, can't remember which thread. As I said above intercessors were the only way the common Jew could find out God's will or what ever else He had for them. The OT speaks of Satan as the enemy of God and man, you should read and come to a basic understanding of the OT as it is written.

There's a reason the Jews rejected all this crap. Christianity is not the successor to and fulfillment of Judaism. It's the bastard child of Judaism and Paganism. The maladjusted little brat grew up to hate both parents, in defiance of the 5th commandment, and tried to snuff both of them out.

The Jews were famous for rejecting God period, this is why they couldn't see what God was doing through them and paganism has no place in Christianity nor the OT, it was the defiant Jews who keep bringing it into their worship and using it to push God out of their live, so trusting them to know what God was and is about is a fail on your part.

Christ meant that Peter would be an early leader of the church,

Which still would prove my point. This is not something that you would do for someone who is not already in your fold.

No, it does not, Peter was not in the fold at their first meeting, he was called to be a disciple at their second meeting. Then chosen as an apostle just before the Sermon on the Plain. It was after this that Jesus told Peter he would be a leader in the ministry. This is all from the scriptures.

You are jumping to your own conclusions, you're not taking the scriptures as they are. Peter heard from Andrew that Jesus was the Messiah, Peter never acknowledges Jesus as the Son of God.

Both verses say "the Christ". This means "anointed one" or "messiah".

You are correct in the meaning, however Peter never personally acknowledged that Jesus was the Christ in the first nor the second meeting.

By the way, if Jesus is Yahweh, how is he an anointed one? Did Yahweh anoint himself? Seems rather pointless, don't you think?

Yahweh is the Trinity, Christ being one part of Yahweh. To "anoint" means to consecrate which means to devote solemnly to a purpose, which the Christ was, seems completely appropriate to me, what say you.

GC

[Minimalist]

Jesus' ministry never met the expectations of the Jews because the messiah (or "Christ") was supposed to be a glorious warlord that would lead the Jews from bondage and their nation Israel to ultimate victory over their enemies.

Funny isn't it that the closest the jews ever got to a messiah was Cyrus the Great or Persia.

And jesus well....just a two-bit literary creation.

[Lion IRC]

Do you find this excessively complex?
I think you are the one doing the contortion of scripture.

As I keep trying to explain to the apologists, skepticism is not an agenda.

Methodological skepticism IS an agenda.
Answer me this. Are you skeptical of skepticISM?

...Let's put the "no, you!" argument to rest right now. You are a Christian, yes? This means you have faith, yes? This means when you read the Bible, you have a preconception that must be satisfied, specifically, your faith.

No. That is circular. What preconception MUST I have before reading the bible? Tons of people of faith read the bible and reach different conclusions and interpretations.
By your reasoning Jehovah's Witnesses have the same preconceptions as Mormons, as SDA, as Roman Catholics....
But they don't. So there goes your theory.

...The psychology of cognitive dissonance comes into play here. When you find a contradiction, you psychologically will be drawn to finding some rationalization, no matter how complex, instead of reading what's there.

Your theory falls over again by virtue of the fact that people don't need the bible to think God exists.
Need I remind you that the people IN the bible didn't have bibles to read. Abraham didn't had any cognitive dissonance because he didn't have the Torah.
John the Baptist didn't either.

[DeistPaladin]

Methodological skepticism IS an agenda.
Answer me this. Are you skeptical of skepticISM?

No. I can't doubt that I doubt.

No. That is circular. What preconception MUST I have before reading the bible?

Open-minded but skeptical inquiry, I'm guessing this is the same approach you have to anyone else's religious text.

Tons of people of faith read the bible and reach different conclusions and interpretations.

Your point? I said you approach the Bible with your faith as a preconception. Other people have their faiths. These are all preconceptions, upheld without reason and defended against all reason.

Your theory falls over again by virtue of the fact that people don't need the bible to think God exists.

Your point?

Need I remind you that the people IN the bible didn't have bibles to read. Abraham didn't had any cognitive dissonance because he didn't have the Torah.
John the Baptist didn't either.

Your point?

[John V]

Jesus' ministry never met the expectations of the Jews because the messiah (or "Christ") was supposed to be a glorious warlord that would lead the Jews from bondage and their nation Israel to ultimate victory over their enemies. The messiah was not supposed to be a meek and mild lamb of god being sacrificed for our sins to save all of humanity, chosen people and otherwise.

First, there's a lot more to this than you realize. Jewish scholars did indeed recognize messianic verses involving a suffering and dying messiah. Since these conflict with the victorious messiah, some proposed that there would be two messiahs: Messiah ben David (victorious) and Messiah ben Joseph (dying).

So, Jews came up with two messiahs, one advent each. Christians have one messiah with two advents. It's not so different as you think.

[Minimalist]

Need I remind you that the people IN the bible didn't have bibles to read

Fictional characters NEVER read the books that create them.


And I have to think that Maimonides is a better rabbi than you, johnny.

And if there should arise from the House of David a king, who studies the Torah and occupies himself with the commandments as his father David had, according to the written and oral Torah; and if he forces all Israel to follow the Torah and observe its rules; and if he fights the wars of the Lord—then he must be presumed be the Messiah. And if he succeeds in his acts, and rebuilds the Temple in its place, and gathers the exiled of Israel—then he certainly is the Messiah. And he will repair the whole world to serve the Lord together, as it is written, For then will I turn to the peoples a pure language that they may call upon the name of the Lord to serve Him with one consent (Zeph. 3:9)

[John V]

Furthermore, the very notion of the intercessor with the divine is wholly blasphemous to Jewish theology. One pursued a relationship with Yahweh, a god who was hardly out of reach to the heroes of the OT and a god who was insanely jealous and ceded the center stage to no one (the whole need for the nonsense of the Trinity was to weasel out of the intercessor-deity-in-a-monotheistic-religion conundrum).

Jews today would like you to believe this, and that the messiah is just a normal man who would liberate Israel through military might, but that's not the whole story. One example:
Isaiah 9
For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

A child born who is mighty god and everlasting father? Fits pretty well with the trinity.

---

Neither did the Jews have any concept of Hell or salvation.

Sure they did. They didn't focus on it as much as Christians, but it was there. A couple examples:

Daniel 12
2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,
Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Psalm 16
9 Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoices;
My flesh also will rest in hope.
10 For You will not leave my soul in Sheol,
Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.
11 You will show me the path of life;
In Your presence is fullness of joy;
At Your right hand are pleasures forevermore.

Job 19
25 For I know that my Redeemer lives,
And He shall stand at last on the earth;
26 And after my skin is destroyed, this I know,
That in my flesh I shall see God,
27 Whom I shall see for myself,
And my eyes shall behold, and not another.
How my heart yearns within me!

[Lion IRC]

… One has to either assume that the Mandaens stubbornly refused to listen to their religious leader even as he, on no uncertain terms, told them he wasn't the messiah, or the Christians were using the same tactic of assimilation that the Muslims would later use on Jesus.

No, one has to assume that DeistPaladin knows something more about John the Baptist than the Mandeans or Jesus or the early Christians. Do you?

Not all Jews believed Jesus was the Messiah. Not all Jews thought John the Baptist was the Messiah. Not all atheists are Jesus mythers. The Mandeans thought stuff that was heretical to Christianity.
So what?

Pointing this out doesn’t help your case and it doesnt affect the internal harmony of the New Testament – which is what you started out with as the basic claim.
You said;

...I'm painstakingly mapping out all of the events in the Gospels and comparing them to one another.

I want to see text versus text and mutually exclusive error/contradiction within the Gospels.
Not….text says “A” and the minority heretical Mandean sect claims “B”

---

Methodological skepticism IS an agenda.
Answer me this. Are you skeptical of skepticISM?

No. I can't doubt that I doubt.

See! you are so committed to skepticism that it biases you towards doubt of what you read in the bible.
Thats an "ISM" which forces you to read in disbelief.

---

No. That is circular. What preconception MUST I have before reading the bible?

Open-minded but skeptical inquiry, I'm guessing this is the same approach you have to anyone else's religious text.

[hide]

Tons of people of faith read the bible and reach different conclusions and interpretations.

---

Your point? I said you approach the Bible with your faith as a preconception. Other people have their faiths. These are all preconceptions, upheld without reason and defended against all reason.

---

Your theory falls over again by virtue of the fact that people don't need the bible to think God exists.

---

Your point?

---

Need I remind you that the people IN the bible didn't have bibles to read. Abraham didn't had any cognitive dissonance because he didn't have the Torah.
John the Baptist didn't either.

---

Your point?

Asking me "whats your point" instead of answering the point itself sounds like a stalling tactic.