Evidence of Jesus in the entire bible.

The only 'Jesus' in the Old Testament is Joshua.Attempts to show that the God-Man Jesus is in the Old Testament is one of the most hilarious pursuits that Xians embark on. This should be entertaining.Brian.

Hi Mike,Well since he momentarily halted their business transactions then he did harm them in a way. Also, throwing tables around is a violent act is it not? There are many ways of harming someone without physically assaulting them. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. John 2:15It should be noted that it is money changers and not moneylenders, these people were providing a service that benefitted the whole community, and Jesus took it upon himself to break the law.I believe that this is just another glossing of the Jesus story though, what are the chances of one man clearing out all these traders from the Temple? I would suggest that traders would have put up a bit of a fight and especially the money changers who more than likely would have had 'minders' of some description protecting them against the threat of thefts.Another example of Jesus harming someone is when he sent Legion into the herd of pigs and they ran over a cliff and into the sea. Forget the problem of the nearest sea being 20 -odd miles away for a moment, but Jesus effectively took away the pig herder's source of income, what a nasty piece of work that Jesus character was.Brian

I am sure there's a place at Scotland Yard for you Mike.

Hi Bill,Regarding the 'Don't imagine that I came to bring peace. I came to bring a sword.' reference. The 'sword' in this reference is not to an actual weapon but is referring to the Word of God.The sword in this context is a sword that will divide people into followers of God's word. and those who choose not to follow. This 'sword' divides truth from lies, and darkness from light, it even divides families whose members diagree on the value of God's word. So the 'sword' is not wielded by Jesus and his followers against others, it is a sword that his followers have to suffer.But I agree that there is sufficient evidence in the gospels to support Jesus being a leader of a group of revolutionaries, for example his crucifixion is a roman punishment for sedition and not a Jewish punishment for blasphemy. His friends appear to be less that amicable too, Simon the Zealot for example and even Judas Iscariot's name can mean 'Daggerman' a type of assassin.I dont know if I agree with 'Turning over a few tables in the lobby of a church would be nothing to such a man.'I have been reading Paul Winter's On the Trial of Jesus, and apparently the incident wouldnt have been inside the Temple itself.According to Winter the incident happened on the Temple Mount and not in the Temple itself, he says that this is yet another mistranslation found in the New Testament.On page 200 he writes:In reality it denotes the precincts of the sanctuary, the Temple Mount, an extensive area comprising a vast complex of administrative buildings, offices, quarters for the accommodation of attendants, cages and pens for sacrificial birds and animals, besides several great courts. Around the sanctuary lay the Court of Priests which even Jewish men of other than priestly descent were normally not allowed to enter; on the Court of Priests bordered the Court of (Jewish) Men; beyond that lay the Court of (Jewish) Women. This was separated by a wall from the Court of Gentiles, these not being admitted beyond the wall of partition. In the south-eastern corner of the Court of the Gentiles, on the outskirts of the Temple Mount, in a place not considered hallowed ground, were the tables of the moneychangers who converted foreign coins carried by pilgrims from distant lands into Tyrian coinage, and the booths of vendors of sacrificial birds and animals. The spot was a public market-place, and the incident known as "The Cleansing of the Temple" could have amounted to little more than a brawl in an Eastern bazaar. Located at a considerable distance from the sanctuary, and even from the courts in which Jewish men and women assembled for worship, the booths of the moneychangers were not sacred objects - except, perhaps, to their owners. On the other hand, the right to sell doves etc. and exchange foreign coins for locally valid currency was reserved to relatives of the highpriests and other persons drawn from the ranks of hierarchic families. Hence a violent and unauthorized interference with the conduct of the legitimate business of the licensed vendors and bankers, possibly involving damage to their property, would outrage their sense of propriety, and if angry owners reported the incident to their influential kinsmen, the report would have contributed to incense the hierarchs against Jesus. So it seems that this is another exaggeration by the evangelists, another piece of propaganda to support Jesus' royalty as the maintenance of the santuary in Davidic times was the duty of the King.An interesting episode nonetheless, and one that I think whose historicty is impossible to prove or disprove.Brian.

Maybe you need to seriously read them.

Hi Bill,Can I just start by saying that my own reading of the Gospels urges me in the direction of Jesus being a social reformer who endorsed militant action, rather than a divine being who was sent to unite mankind with God again. I’m not sure if the use or the word ‘word’ would apply here, ‘ 'Don't imagine that I came to bring peace. I come to bring the word of God’ I think one of the reasons that Jesus used the word sword here was to catch people’s attention; ‘sword’, in a way, contradicts the word ‘peace’. It makes people sit up and take notice, here was Jesus promoting the Golden Rule and yet he says he isn’t bringing peace, he is bringing a sword, people would be surprised by this. What I think he means is that he is bringing peace but it will take time for this peace to become a reality, for it to become a reality you have to believe in God’s word, and believing in God’s word will divide communities and even families because not everyone will believe it, it will divide them, split them like a sword splits its target. I think this is just another example of Jesus’ esoteric teachings, but this is only one interpretation, and I acknowledge that yours is every bit as acceptable as mine, although I believe that mine would be more accepted by the Christians.Next paragraphs I accept, then: I actually think that this supports my argument because from Micah 5-8 is describing the poor conditions that Israel (nation and people) have degenerated into, their state of impiety and the punishment that will be dealt out when the Messiah comes. Jesus’ time in Palestine reflects perfect conditions for the advent of the messianic kingdom and I believe that it is implied that unless you follow the ‘Word’ then you will be punished, you will suffer for all eternity in hell, and this will divide you from your loved ones. So I believe, and I admit I could be wrong, that the ‘sword’ Jesus talks about is the ‘word’, this word is available to all, some people will be so taken by it that they will forsake everything else, even their families, to follow this ‘Word’.Interpretation seems to be the key to this dispute, as it is the key to all disputes over Bible verses, but this could be another example of a verse being taken out of context. Perhaps it does refer to Micah but in a different context, the gospels are full of references to the Old Testament that are out of context, the virgin birth for example, and the ‘out of Egypt I have called my son.Finally, I think that this verse could be used to support a variety of arguments, and I agree that it could be taken to support a militant Jesus, I just think that there are more convincing verses that can be used for a proactive ‘Che Guevaraesque’ Jesus.One verse that would support this, you are probably aware of this, is Matthew 10:38: and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me The mention of the cross here is interesting because it definitely isn’t a Christian symbol yet, so why is it mentioned. Jesus is clearly referring to the cross as a symbol of crucifixion, and crucifixion, as we all know, was a Roman punishment reserved for serious crimes against the state, so was Jesus aware that what he and his followers were doing was dangerously close to sedition? Yes, this does sound like a real sword, but it can also sound like something else. It can also sound like being divided from your horse and cities and weren’t 50 million people cut off from their electricity this week, and this wasn’t down to a sword. It could be a real sword but it could also be something else. I am going to tentatively disagree with this for one reason. Paul’s ‘armour of God’ was written before any of the Gospels were and Paul’s ‘sword’ was a metaphor for the work of the Holy Spirit, I would go further and say that the ‘sword’ of the spirit is the Word of God. Yes, and the evangelists would be well aware of this, the Gospels were written a long time after Paul wrote and I believe they were primarily interested in grounding Paul’s lamb of God firmly into a historical setting. Yes without a doubt! But let me qualify this.Undoubtedly the word of God brings its followers untold joy, however, there is a flip side. Imagine you have found the secret to eternal life and eternal happiness, do you keep this information to yourself or do you wish to share it with your loved ones so that you can all spend eternity together in peace and harmony? I can only answer for myself, but if I had the secret to eternal life and eternal peace I would want my family and friends to share this with me. But what happens if they don’t believe you, all they have to do is believe in their hearts that one thing is true and they are in paradise with you forever but they turn their back on this. This is bound to cause suffering, imagine that you are going to paradise but some, and maybe even all, of your family and friends are going to a place of eternal torment, how would you really feel? Sure you would be happy that you are ‘saved’ but surely there would be some pain in knowing that someone you love dearly is going to suffer for all eternity while you lay around on fluffy clouds without a care in the world.Remember that we only know about heaven and hell through the Bible, so although the Bible brings us the Good News ,that all who believe in Jesus will have eternal life, it also informs us that our nearest and dearest may be suffering in the big burny fire whilst we are having a grand old time with JC , his dad, and the HS. Judas Iscariot could mean ‘Judas the Sicarius (Greek ‘sikarios), there’s literally thousands of returns for a google on ‘Judas and Dagger man’.I know that boarnerges was a name given to James and John on account of their temper, the ‘Sons of Thunder’ could be good guys to have on your side during an uprising.Best Wishes.Brian.

Hi TL, This depends on which version you read, here are the stories from the KJV.Matthew 8:18-34. 28When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men coming from the tombs met him. They were so violent that no one could pass that way. 29"What do you want with us, Son of God?" they shouted. "Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?"
30Some distance from them a large herd of pigs was feeding. 31The demons begged Jesus, "If you drive us out, send us into the herd of pigs."
32He said to them, "Go!" So they came out and went into the pigs, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and died in the water. 33Those tending the pigs ran off, went into the town and reported all this, including what had happened to the demon-possessed men. 34Then the whole town went out to meet Jesus. And when they saw him, they pleaded with him to leave their region. Mark 5: 1They went across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes. 2When Jesus got out of the boat, a man with an evil spirit came from the tombs to meet him. 3This man lived in the tombs, and no one could bind him any more, not even with a chain. 4For he had often been chained hand and foot, but he tore the chains apart and broke the irons on his feet. No one was strong enough to subdue him. 5Night and day among the tombs and in the hills he would cry out and cut himself with stones.
6When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and fell on his knees in front of him. 7He shouted at the top of his voice, "What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? Swear to God that you won't torture me!" 8For Jesus had said to him, "Come out of this man, you evil spirit!"
9Then Jesus asked him, "What is your name?"
10"My name is Legion," he replied, "for we are many." And he begged Jesus again and again not to send them out of the area.
11A large herd of pigs was feeding on the nearby hillside. 12The demons begged Jesus, "Send us among the pigs; allow us to go into them." 13He gave them permission, and the evil spirits came out and went into the pigs. The herd, about two thousand in number, rushed down the steep bank into the lake and were drowned. Ignoring the obvious contradiction of whether there were two possessed men or only one, there is also a contradiction of where this happened. Here is a map that shows the area: Apparently Gadara is about 6 miles from the Sea of Galilee and Gerasa is about 30 miles. From here: http://www.geocities.com/ilgwamh/inerrancy.html Raymond Brown highlights the problem with this account quite well in his Introduction to the NT (p. 134 n. 17) There is a major geographical problem in Mark’s location of the scene where the pigs can run down the embankment and drown in the sea. Gerasa is a site over thirty miles from the Sea of Galilee, and the alternative reading Gadara is no real help since that is about six miles from the sea. Regarding Jesus having just got off a boat, well he couldn’t have since the scene would needed to have taken place at the shoreline and we know that he at least would have to have walked up a steep bank to get to where the possessed man/men were. The Bible doesn’t say how far he walked but it does mention two different towns/cities where it was supposed to have happened. But these are two different places, ‘region of the Gadarenes’ and ‘region of the Gerasenes’, I chose to select Mark’s account since it is the oldest and Matthew apparently copied most of Mark. Perhaps when the author of Matthew was copying Mark he realised that Gerasa was too far away and decided to replace it with somewhere more plausible. From the map it looks difficult to see how Jesus could have stepped out of the boat and immediately have been in the region of Gerasa, perhaps the region of Gadara would be plausible as the region could extend from the city to the Sea, but where does the region of Gerasa end and the region of Gadara begin? I suppose it could, but it doesn’t explain the reference in Mark to Geresa.The point that I was trying to make was that Jesus did harm people during his time on earth, if the stories about him are all true that is. I didn’t realise that there were as many as two thousand pigs killed by Jesus in the story, how devastating would it have been for a few people to lose that number of pigs? They must have been very distraught that their livelihood was taken away from them by Jesus, do you think he compensated them in some way?Best WishesBrian.PS, still working on the trial text.

Can I make a general observation about some of your posts?Using the one about Isaiah 9 as an example, what you now need to do is say why Jesus is hinted at in this text.I notice that you do this quite a lot, it is not a big problem but one that you need to address as your skills develop. If you post something that you believe supports an argument that you are making you need to say why that text supports your particular argument.For example, say you believe that Isaiah 7:14 is specifically about Jesus being born of a virgin, then you really need to say that the virgin birth mentioned in Isaiah 7:14 is talking about Jesus because......, and then say why you believe that this is the case.I know this can be a pain and that most of the things you post are recognised by the people who are well-versed in biblical studies, and we know exactly what you are on about without further explanation. However, there are people reading who may not have a clue what you are talking about and you need to elaborate a little on why a particular text supports your stance so these people are not confused.This saves quite a bit of time as invariably a respondent to your post will have the job of explaining your reference for you.With that said, why do you think that Isaiah 9 is referring specifically to Jesus and what are the reasons for your conclusions?Brian.

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [2] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."Where is Jesus in this text?You seem guilty of the very offence that you accuse others of, i.e. not reading and/or undertsanding the Bible.I know you are still very young but a little exegesis on the texts that you are quoting wouldn't go amiss.Brian

HI,The book of Genesis is a Jewish text, they do not believe in the trinity so who can it be referring to?Are you sure that US and OUR are in fact indicating a plural here?Have a look into it before you answer, keep in mind that the Book of Genesis is a Jewish text, and that the word for God here is 'Elohim'.Brian.

Soon equals before this generation passes, or some people who read this message will still be alive, and before you can walk through all the cities in Israel Jesus will return.That is soon.On the other hand...... LOLBrian

You said he would rule soon, an hour is soon but how can 2000 years be soon?I thnk theres has to come a time when we realise that Jesus simply wasn't the messiah, we can make excuses for him until the cows come home, he may have been a nice guy but the was no messiah.Brian.[This message has been edited by Brian, 08-23-2003]

hi,What about a response to the 'soon' question? Eh, yeah exactly. Where is your proof? Well the theological claims can only be affrimed or denied, because there is no way to test them.I believe that the vast majority of the histrorical claims made in the Bible are false, and whats more, archaeology and history have preoven a lot of the Bible false.I believe especially that the historical claims made in the primary history books of the Bible (Genesis through 2 kings) are pure fiction.The more I study Syro-Palestinian archaeology and the Old Testament, the more convinced I am that there was no Patriarchs, no enslavement, no Exodus, no desert wanderings, no conquest of Canaan, no Saul, no David, no Solomon, no united monarchy.I would even go as far as to claim that since the advent of the 'New Archaeology' in the 1970's that EVERY archaeological find has undermined the Bible account of the primary history of Israel.Brian.

Hi, nice to meet you. It may be soon to God but why speak to your audience in terms that do not apply to them, why tell them 'soon' if the context ofthe word soon doesn't apply to them? Why not say, 'for me it will be soon but it will be long after you are dead and gone', you know something along the linesof telling the truth? The person who posits the positive stance has the burden of proof, why should we go out of our way to disprove every unsubstantiated claim. If these people cannot prove these things happened then why are they surprised that cynics do not believe them? I don't quite get this. I can visit Israel today, also, if you are speaking of the past, Israel is well-documented in external sources from the 8th century BCE onwards. Maybe I am misunderstanding your point? I think most arguments are over whether Jesus is actually God. As to his messianic claims, I really do not see where he has fulfilled any of the Jewish messianic prophecies.Brian.

Hi again,Could I just comment on this: I don't think it is reasonable to ask someone to disprove something that someone may have just made up. For example, could you disprove that last night I was visited by aliens from another planet and they told me that Jesus was an escaped prisoner from their civilisation and that they produced a double of him that was crucified by earthlings whilst they took the real alien Jesus back to their planet and they still have him in prison there?I could make up all sorts of nonsense to support my claim and you still couldnt disprove it, I think it is reasonable that the burden of proof is on me to prove that these things happened.If we have to accept that anything that we cannot disprove may be true then we wouldn't have time for anything else, we would be preoccupied with trying to disprove all sorts of nonsense.I think if someone says that something happened or that something exists then they have to bring the proof to the table. Perhaps, after they have brought that 'proof' then we can examine it for accuracy.Brian.