The title says it all, was Jesus the right choice? To give a little back ground Jesus was not the only Messiah during the firt century. There were many others claiming to be the child of God, so why was Jesus picked out of the hay stack?

Views: 1202

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

True, I think they should make it so the new comments appear on the first page.
I also put a post on my blog about this topic explaining my views a little more clearly.

"Was Jesus The Wrong Choice?"

Of course.  So is anyone else you could think of or make up.

There is, and can be, no Messiah.


we are just discussing it according to the bible ...

we know its not really true otherwise we wouldnt be atheists.

Ah, fair enough, then.

Well yes the wrong choice even under biblical grounds.  The messiah was supposed to end up the king of Israel, and then conquer all the neighbors, kicking ass and taking names.  This guy was nailed up with common criminals.

Jesus was the holy man that Paul selected. Paul and his teachings were largely responsible for the growth of Christianity. Some people say the the religion should have been called Paulianity.

Paul never met Jesus ...

If we were worshiping Paul instead of Jesus, christians would be wearing their crucifixes upside down ...

Well even so, Paul was a factor that made Jesus quite popular. Without Paul I don't think that Jesus would be as well known today.

A good case can be made that the Jesus of the Gospels (or actually the Jesus you see in the synoptics, and the somewhat different Jesus of John), and the Jesus described in Paul's epistles, are quite different.

In point of fact Paul doesn't talk much about Jesus as a living breathing being, really.

And I maintain, Angela, that the myth was specifically designed to fit the prophecy, the creation of a fictitious Roman census that required Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem is a perfect example of that.

Look up the word, "migdal," it may surprise you --

Archaeopteryx is quite correct here.

I personally hold the opinion that it's 60-75 percent likely some ordinary (other than religious mania) guy named Jesus (ok, that's an anglicization of Yeshua) actually lived, preached, and got executed for causing trouble.  And that then a legend got built up around him.  You can see the process at work if you consider the changes in the stories going from Mark, to Matthew, to Luke to John, the order of writing.  (It turns out ONLY John makes unambiguous claims of divinity for Jesus.)

Anyhow, 60-75% confident isn't really confident, but one thing I am sure of... IF he existed, he was NOT born in Bethlehem, that whole story is a later add on.  Actually it's TWO later add ons as the Matthew and Luke accounts are very dissimilar.  It was necessary, though, for the bullshitters to explain, somehow, how a man from Galilee could be the messiah when everyone knew the prophecy that the Messiah would come out of Bethlehem.  So the stories got made up.

Ironically the need to do this is fairly strong evidence for Jesus having actually lived.  If someone were going to make the story up completely from nothing, Galilee wouldn't have been a part of it, Jesus would simply have been from Bethlehem and would have grown up there and preached there.

Most ancient historians (including myself, although I am still a student) would agree that a man named Jesus lived and was crucified in the first century. I like the point you've made about that.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service