Is Jesus the Circular Messiah?

Over on the Patterns and tautologies thread, Binary and I had a tiny off topic discussion about circular reasoning and the Bible.In message 29 Binary said: If I say that "the Bible is infallible and any facts which contradict it must not be true," I'm using circular reasoning--this isn't acceptable for rational people. Which is why I can't think like that anymore. Binary recognises that some people use the Bible to support the Bible and Binary realises that this is employing circular reasoning.I suggested that it is also circular reasoning to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, Lord and Saviour.Binary gave a very interesting response when s/he replied that this was correct, ”to some degree’.What I would like this thread to be about is to what degree is ”some degree’?Personally, I would argue that belief in Jesus as Messiah, Lord, and Saviour is 100% circular.I asked Binary if we could discuss this on another thread and s/he is interested.So to get the discussion started, I would state that Jesus is only the Messiah, Lord, and Saviour if you use circular reasoning.Here are a few examples from a site whose owner is overwhelmed at the amount of prophecies that Jesus fulfilled.The owner of this site claims that: There were over 360 prophecies foretold about the coming Jewish Messiah - hundreds of years before Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Jesus fulfilled all 365 of these prophecies. Of these 360+ prophecies, there are 109 that only Jesus (Yeshua) could have fulfilled. See complete list of 365 Messianic Prophecies here For the moment we can forget that there’s a great many prophecies that this site owner presents as messianic that aren’t messianic. I won’t present every prophecy because it only requires a few to make my point. But the entire list is here if anyone wishes to see them all.1. Genesis 3:15.....Seed of a woman (virgin birth).....Luke 1:35, Matthew 1:18-20
2. Genesis 3:15.....He will bruise Satan's head.....Hebrews 2:14, 1 John 3:18
3. Genesis 5:24....The bodily ascension to heaven illustrated....Mark 6:19
4. Genesis 9:26-27...The God of Shem will be the Son of Shem...Luke 3:3678. Psalms 22:14,15...Suffered agony on Calvary...Mark 15:34-37
79. Psalms 22:15........He thirsted........John 19:28
80. Psalms 22:16...They pierced His hands and His feet....John 19:34,37;20:27Isaiah 6:9-12...Blinded to Christ and deaf to His words...Acts 28:23-29
164. Isaiah 7:14...To be born of a virgin...Luke 1:35
165. Isaiah 7:14...To be Emmanuel-God with us... Matthew 1:18-23
166. Isaiah 8:8...Called Emmanuel...Matthew 28:20
167. Isaiah 8:14...A stone of stumbling, a Rock of offense... 1 Pet. 2:8
168. Isaiah 9:1,2...His ministry to begin in Galilee...Matthew 4:12-17
169. Isaiah 9:6...A child born-Humanity...Luke 1:31I would imagine that any semi-sensible person would realise that every single one of these amazing prophecies are circular, the author has just used one part of the Bible to support another part of the Bible.So, to initiate the discussion, I’d like to ask if there are any prophecies concerning Jesus Himself, not prophecies uttered by Jesus that have yet to happen, that aren’t circular?

The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy, please Ned.

Since Ned has already approved this topic could any admin please promote it?

But this is circular reasoning Archer. Personally I don't think this happened to Saul at all, but imagine that it did. Saul's story comes to us solely from the Bible, thus we are back to circular reasoning.

But your faith is circular too Ian.Are you telling me that you had never heard of Jesus before your personal religious experience?All mystical experiences are premeditated.Now if you were dancing about your Irish croft singing the praises of Viracocha I would be impressed.How did you know you know you had a personal experience of Jesus?

Of course it is.You believe that you have experienced God.Your culture is deeply steeped in Christianity.Thus you make the leap in logic that the God you ”experienced’ must be Jesus.Completely circular. And from this you assume that this God is Jesus. So where do you get the idea from that Jesus is capable of saving anyone, and what is He saving them from, and what did He do that enables Him to save? So, you assume that the experience of God you had just had to be Jesus, if you were brought up in Delhi you’d have thought it was Brahman. But I was a Christian, until I realised that Jesus really was no Messiah.But there’s a fair chance if I had a PRE I’d assume it was Jesus at the helm because of my social conditioning. It is a central feature though. You fill in the dots with your prior knowledge, ”Oh I experienced God, therefore I experienced Jesus because Jesus is high profile in my society.’ Simple circular reasoning. Keep Jesus away from my bread! More circular reasoning Ian.With your mindset Ian you could convince yourself of just about anything, and this isn’t a dig at you, there are hundreds of millions of people like you, it is an interesting phenomenon.

So out of the myriad of celestial beings, the one that just happened to pick you was Jesus, the predominant one of your culture. A little bit of a coincidence Ian don’t you think? So you are assuming that your external reality is real. Your assumption doesn’t make it real however. Ah here is the rub, why did you start reading the Bible? Wonderful. This evil entity of yours can save whoever He wishes and chooses not to save countless millions. I wonder why He picked you Ian? This is the circular reasoning I am on about Ian.You wouldn’t know that Jesus was your saviour, you wouldn’t even know what you were saved from or what you were guilty of UNLESS you read the Bible.I am pretty certain if you picked up the Qur'an before the Bible you'd be a Muslim. A bit pointless all this arsing about Jesus done on a piece of wood for 3 hours then isn’t it?God can save you without you believing in Jesus conquering death, a bit unbiblical ian is it not? 1st: There was the experience of life before (lets call it) God turned up

​

2nd: Then there was the experience of (lets call it)God turning up (even though I didn't know it was God turning up at first) So you somehow go from these 2 event to . .. 3rd: Then there was the reading of the Bible and finding that the Bible described the experiences I had before and after God turned. Via parable, allegorically, via others experiences etc. But precisely for all that. So why did you read the Bible and not the Qur’an, or the Vedas, or the Guru Granth Sahib? I am afraid it is circular reasoning Ian, whether you realise it or not.You had an experience, you for some reason decided to read the Bible, because of your experience you believe the Bible to be true. How did you know Jesus saved you, the Bible tells you why. How did you know that there was an original sin, the Bible tells you that.
I wonder why you even need the Bible if you were saved without any knowledge of what it was about? Much of it depends on the mind of the ”hearer’. I wasn’t desperate to believe in an external entity that would look after me forever.Some people have shitty lives and Jesus is a great friend, doesn’t judge you, gives you a fresh start, this is why so many ex junkies, alcoholics, criminals, and people down on their luck come to Jesus. As I said before, it is a fact that there’s no such thing as an unmitigated mystical experience. People see and hear the gods/goddesses that they think they will see and hear. It’s a bit of a long shot Ian. So why does it follow that you then have to go to the Bible to find out all about this God? Why not just be happy that you have done nothing to be saved, whilst others devote a lifetime hoping to achieve this, and toodle along on your way?

Okay.Grandpa never lies.
Grandpa says Jesus is Lord and Saviour
You believe Jesus is Lord and Saviour because Grandpa says so
Grandpa never lies.You are caught in the circle. It's the process of bonding that has led you to believe that grandpa never lies, so whatever you believe to be true that grandpa says is circular if you ONLY take his word for it.If grandpa said the world's largest pyramid is in Egypt, and you believe that the world's largest pyramid is in Egypt based solely on grandpa's say so, then this is circular reasoning. The persecuting bit must have given me a short circuit.If the above happened, and the being identified himself as Jesus, how would you know who Jesus was/is?I need to answer your final point tomorrow, I am busy for the rest of the day.Cheers.Edited by Brian, : No reason given.

Hi A, sorry about the delay in replying. Here’s the way I see it, and I am more than capable of being incorrect. This emotional bond, IMO, is circular because of the internal thought process of the grandchild.Fair enough, the child has been conditioned into believing that everything grandpa says is true, the child believes that grandpa would never lie, thus we enter a circular argument. Everything grandpa says is true, he says Jesus is the Messiah, Jesus must be the Messiah because everything grandpa says is true.Am I explaining it correctly or have I misunderstood the argument? This is where I tend to disagree, rightly or wrongly.IMO, surely the trust in grandpa didn’t just happen in regard to Jesus as Messiah, the child has been conditioned into thinking grandpa always tells the truth. If the child is accepting the proposal because the child believes everything grandpa says is true then this is circular. This is what I have a problem with. How do you know it is post hoc and that the child hasn’t used circular reasoning to accept Jesus as Messiah? I wouldn’t say this about all religious beliefs, for the reasons, and more, that you outlined in the rest of the paragraph. I do see where you are coming from, but I still think it is possible that the reasoning behind accepting an ”irrational’ belief could be circular at the moment of acceptance. This still doesn’t mean that the acceptance wasn’t circular at the time. Just because at a later time it is explained away as circular doesn’t negate that it was circular reasoning at the time that led to acceptance of a particular belief. I did a unit on Mysticism at Stirling Uni about ten years ago, and mystics do know that their experiences are not real life, which is the main difference between them and psychotics. And symbolism plays a big part, I still don’t know how Theresa of Avilla got away with telling the church that Jesus entered His spear into her.Another thing about mystical experiences was highlighted in one of the course books. Stephen Katz’s research shows that all mystical experiences are premeditated. The mystic essentially experiences the absolute reality that they expect to experience. If Theresa had united with Brahma I would have found that a tad more convincing. The one over riding feature of mysticism is the problem of language, these experiences are ineffable. Meister Eckhart in particular got into a lot of trouble through his explanations being misunderstood. Perhaps this is what I meant, and perhaps this is where my misunderstanding is coming from. Okay, thanks for pointing this out, I’ll chew it over today and get back to you tomorrow, although the more I read your points the more the clouds are rising.I wont be able to post until tomorrow, I am playing in a pool tourney today and wont be home until late.If we win it will probably be Monday before I can post!

If anyone took this approach then yes it would be circular. Personally, I don't know anyone who does take this approach, although I don't doubt that they exist somewhere. I am quite happy to admit that, I have no problem with biblical claims that have been empircally verified by external evidence. The problem I have is the abuse of history and archaeology by people who don't know much about these disciplines in their attempts to turn the Bible into something that it isnt. There's much of the Bible that is beyond the scope of verification. The private conversations between characters are never going to be verified, Jesus' chat with Pilate is a good example. I would argue that it is.What is known from history about the Bible is very little, certainly far outweighed by the evidence against the Bible. Again I'd mention the 'messianic prophecies' that were allegedly fulfilled by Jesus.As wee know, outside of the Bible Jesus is invisible in history, so any evidence supporting His life and actions will be circular, which doesn't mean they never happened of course. What it does mean is that we have to investigate the plausbility of the claims made for Jesus and decide if they are plausible or not. I mentioned earlier the events surrounding Jesus' birth in Bethlehem as a fulfillment of Micah 5:2. When we examine the internal and external evidence surrounding this story the only reasonable conclusion is that this didn't happen, the whole census idea is historically ridiculous, registering at the city of a distant ancestor is plain stupid. This doesn't stop people accepting everything about this story though, probably because they have already made up their mind that Jesus was the Messiah.I acknowledge that it is very difficult for believers on Christ to study the Bible with any degree of objectivity, but to any reasonably objective researcher the majority of the Bible, the early books of the OT in particular, are indeed fables.Can you really blame people for not taking much of the Bible seriously? Fruit that imparts knowledge upon digesting, people living for nearly a thousand years, the Flood has been falsified beyond all reasonable doubt, the Exodus and Conquest have similarly been falsified beyond all reasonable doubt, the Bible account of the Exodus isn't even being considered by scholars who are looking for the origins of Israel.Of course it doesn't follow that just because there was no Flood, or people have never lived for almost a thousand years, that everything else in the Bible is untrue, no historian would ever take that stance. Equally, just because we know there was a King Omri that doesn't mean that anything else in the Bible is true. What we do have to do is to investigate each event on its own merits and then decide the historical plausibility of each individual claim. But this is when the investigator's approach to history takes over, because what is good evidence for one historian isn't necessarily good evidence for another historian. This is one reason why academic papers are peer reviewed before publishing. It's perfectly understandable that anyone who believes that Jesus is Lord and Saviour that they would want their children to be saved too. But children do tend to believe what their parents say is true, we have probably all believed in the tooth fairy at some stage of our life. But our parents, or siblings, eventually tell us that there is no Santa or tooth fairy, but some Christians don't take that extra honest step and tell their kids that most of the Bible is about as true as fairies at the bottom of the garden.What chance did the Hovind of Phelps children have of being encouraged to look at the Bible objectively? These kids have been psychologically abused by retarded parents, goodness knows what damage has been done. I'll never forget those poor tiny Phelps children at those funeral protests, or the 'child preachers' whose parents should be in jail.

Islam has more followers than any other faith, therefore Islam is the one true faith.Refute that fundy boy!

Evidence please. As soon as you provide evidence of this support I will answer.How do you explain that over 50% of Christians do not take the Bible at face value?

So, does this mean that He did exist?

Dear God Almighty Ray, your understanding of the discipline of history is about as poor as your understanding of science.What people accept as being true about the past is purely by degrees of plausbility and NOT by certainty, this is especially true abut ancient history.The existence of Jesus is taken on faith. That there was a wandering preacher called Jesus in first century Palestine is not at all implausible, in fact, given that Jesus was a very popular name and that religious preachers of a huge range of religions were active as well, then it is highly likely that there was a preacher called Jesus wandering around Palestine 2000 years ago.However, when we look at the claims made for Jesus in the New Testament then it is a different matter. Many of the stories about Jesus, from an historical perspective, are highly implausible, and this is where the doubts come in.Jesus the wandering preacher may have lived, big deal, so what.Jesus of the New Testament, from an historical perspective, is more likely to be a fictional character that may or may not be based on a real person.The thing is, again from an historical perspective, we will never know for certain which, if any, actually did exist.This is the nature of historical research Ray, it is much the same as scientific research, as in the fact that historical and scientific theories are NEVER proven.Maybe when you are finished your Earth shaking, much anticipated anti-evolution diatripe, you could take an introduction to history course at you local college, then perhaps you can see the basic errors you are making.Edited by Brian, : spellin

To be pedantic, I would disagree with this.There is indeed evidence for everything Jesus is said to have done in the Bible, it is the quality of the evidence that is the problem.There is, of course, no EXTERNAL evidence for anything Jesus was said to have done in the NT.