Is Jesus the Circular Messiah?

Brian, lets take the Biblical accuracy argument a step further. You mention that much of the book cannot be verified, and i agree with you that we Christians tend to believe without questioning or studying the source materials much.But what about the Orthodox Rabbi's? They spend a lot of time immersed in books and learning concerning the Torah and the Rabbinic commentaries. I respect the amount of scholarly time that they invest, and wanted to ask you if their beliefs can be as easily dismissed by secular scholars as can the Christian Fundamentalists?

One thing you have to realize when it comes to the Jewish attitude towards the writings, is the Jewish faith has a much different attitude towards the scriptures than Christians. The scriptures for the most part are considered the story of a peoples search to get closer to God, and many of the stories are considered Midrash, not literal. The fundamentalist Christian take sections of scripture that are quite obviously Midrash and make it literal, and they rip parts of the very book that isn't GOOD enough for them out of context, mistranslated and misinterpreted to justify 'prophecies' in Jesus.Part of the Jewish tradition in studying Torah and Talmud is by arguing the different interpretations of what the various passages could mean and what lessons/principles do those passages teach. It is a lot more flexible in accepting alternate explainations than fundamentalist Christanity, nor does it consider the Torah and Talmud a science book.

Sure, the world of fill of Ron Wyatt's, who make up "evidence" as they go along -- anything to corroborate the Bible. But that doesn't mean that abuse is to blame for all or most of it. There is no verification for any private chat that Pilate had either. You have to go by what is known. The conversation that Pilate had with Jesus isn't only found in the gospels, as if they should fall under immediate suspicion. The extra-biblical account of Tacitus also recorded it. A ton of evidence was only begun to be known because of the Bible, which after careful reading, uncovered many things. That's absolutely false. There are at least 4 separate sources of Jesus alone, let alone the corresponding figures and companions with him. If there was one source of Plato, would you be as incredulous, or does bias factor in? Are you referring to the Roman census? Why and how is that stupid, when Romans did take censuses? There are a lot of people who believe in the account because that's what was taught to them. And they will do no kind of investigating their whole lives. But there are a lot who did not grow up in a church. I grew up in a secular home. I grew up thinking that it was a collection of fables, and was rather dismissive. It was only through investigation that I saw the Bible as an important collection of books for many reasons -- its historical context, its spiritual and context, and its moral context. Does that mean that I wholeheartedly believe every thing in the Bible? No. Does it mean that I no longer have questions about internal or external difficulties? No. Does it mean that I toss it all to the wayside because I don't quite understand something? No. It's a journey. And its most valuable lessons are the ones placed side by side personal experience. Of course not. I get it. You read about this guy who walked on water. Obviously no one has ever seen a human being walking on water because everyone knows that it defies the laws of physics that govern the planet. However, the point of the story is that it is special, and that Jesus is special. The only reason it was mentioned is that it is supposed to be recognized as a special event. The fact that it doesn't happen is the very reason why it made it in the gospel to begin with.Did it actually happen? I don't know. Is that really what matters to me? No. I don't think that it has been falsified at all. At most, the scope and magnitude are questionable. That doesn't mean none of it actually took place. Well, taking your flood example as a reference, based upon physical evidence and innumerable accounts, I have concluded that an enormous deluge did in fact occur. The scope, I think, was no where near the magnitude of what creationists assert. I do think, however, that an enormous flood was absolutely catastrophic to what is known as Mesopotamia. I don't believe that every human being, except 7 people, survived the flood. But I do believe most people in that region did die. The exact number, though, I wouldn't presume to know. They obviously don't believe that it is as untrue as the tooth fairy. So it's ridiculous to compare the two. Does this somehow indict the Bible or Jesus?

---

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

Merely claiming that something is circular reasoning does not make it so. What you have described as "circular reasoning" would only be so if all relevant portions of the Bible were written at the same time. In other words If a group of people in the first century wrote the entire Hebrew portion of the Bible in order to fit the facts and events of Jesus' life, then that would be circular reasoning. However we have manuscripts today which are dated from before the time of Christ which contains prophesies about him which he would have no control over him, such as the town where he was born, that his family would have to flee to Egypt and be called back from there and that he would be known as growing up in another specific town, are all things which are not circular. Using one portion of the Bible to support another is linear if the portion containing the prophecy is older than the portion which records the fulfillment of that prophecy. Apparently your prejudice has clouded the difference between linear and circular, or perhaps I am mistaken and you can explain it to me by quoting a definition and proving this by examples from the Bible to show how it is one, and can not be the other. Here is a definition I found:http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~shagin/logfal-pbc-circular.htm" DEFINITIONCircular Reasoning - supporting a premise with the premise rather than a conclusion.
Circular reasoning is an attempt to support a statement by simply repeating the statement in different or stronger terms. In this fallacy, the reason given is nothing more than a restatement of the conclusion that poses as the reason for the conclusion. To say, “You should exercise because it’s good for you” is really saying, “You should exercise because you should exercise.”It shares much with the false authority fallacy because we accept these statements based solely on the fact that someone else claims it to be so. Often, we feel we can trust another person so much that we often accept his claims without testing the logic. This is called blind trust, and it is very dangerous. We might as well just talk in circles."This last point seems to address the "my dear ols grand pa" line of argument. No doubt this is true in most cases since I for one often meet people who have a strong belief based on emotional considerations rather than because it is something which they can explain, much less prove. However, in saying this, I have in mind both people who believe in Creation or Evolution.It just depends on which authority and viewpoint makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside, or maybe which one you are the most prejudiced against. How many people question either viewpoint if that is what they want to believe? If the scientist is your "dear old grand pa" and he tells you that the chalk cliffs of Dover are 2.5 million years old do you ask him what proff he has for that date, or if he is just using "circular reasoning" i.e. "since evolution is true and I assume it happened over a long time" then this is my guess, but I'm not going to let you know that it is a guess.On the other hand if your "dear old grand pa" is a hell fire preacher and he tell you that if you don't do as he says you will live forever i a firery torment do you study the Bible to see if it is true? (There is no such thing-the Bile says that the dead are unconscious.)There are a few things in your original post where you are mistaken about what the Bible says. One example of this is that Jesus did not take his physical body to heaven with him; to do so would have been to take back his sacrifice, and if he had been resurrected in the same body as he had before that his close disciples would have recognized him, but they didn't except at his last appearance. For a detailed explanation of the evidence on this last point here is a link: http://groups.msn.com/evolutioncreationismandtheBible/...Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Shorten display form of very long URL, to restore page width to normal.

Here is Brian's entire argument:12:00----There is no God or Divine Jesus.12:15----Anyone who says they exist is a liar or deluded.12:30----Because no such Divine beings exist.12:45----Anyone who says they exist are crazy.12:00----Because there is no God or Divine Jesus.What is this argument called?Arguing in a circle.Ray

The Bible is also filled with claims of what persons were thinking. Of course the claim of the canon is that each Book was Divinely inspired. The fact of claiming to know what someone was thinking supports Divine inspiration OR total fraud; logically these are the only two options.The issue in this context, that is, the context of public internet discussion between Christians, Atheists and presumably an audience of undecided onlookers, is settled by establishing credibility and reliability.Who is more credible and reliable? St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, St. John, St. Paul, author of Hebrews, Moses, Jeremiah, Isaiah, David, etc, etc.Or:Your typical axe-grinding Atheist-evolutionist "scholar"?Hundreds of millions of persons since the 15th century AD, from every ethnic backround, economic status and level of education, have sided with the Biblical authors.Ray

Since there is actual evidence for what the scholars are claiming, I'd have to go with them. Popularity has NOTHING to do with something being true or not.

---

I hunt for the truth

Are you aware that in many different context census occur in the Bible?Of course we know that census occur in real life----abundantly.We also know that Roman rulers were nothing less than diabolical; and they gave orders effecting the populace that made no sense (except to them and the continual establishment of their power).Based on these facts the census that you question is more than sound.Ray Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

Hundreds of millions of persons since the 15th century AD, from every ethnic backround, economic status and level of education, have sided with the Biblical authors. This massive group of persons disagree. Point evasion. Except when it is the Theory of Evolution and the number of scientists that support, of course.Ray

Popularity has NOTHING to do with something being true or not. No it isn't, it addresses the point perfectly. If I take a bunny, and let millions of people vote on what sex it has, does this change the actual sex of the bunny to whatever the people voted for most? No, this also goes for the theory of evolution. We accept it to be true because of the evidence supporting it, not because eveerybody keeps saying it is true.

---

I hunt for the truth

Of course, these are not the only two options.

Any other option is a subset belonging to one of these two.Boiled down: the authors either lied or told the truth.RayEdited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

Or, they lied about some bits, and told the truth about others.

---

I hunt for the truth

I'll go with the "scholar" at least there is some verification instead of old stories handed down through generations in which have most likely been altered. Also if one looks at the Biblical stories in the context of what what thought to be, at the time of these stories, one should be able to see that most is pure mythology.Talking animals, the sun stopping, people living over 900 years, tey are just myths.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

But we are not talking about your ridiculous straw men. The fact that hundreds of millions of diverse persons recognize the veracity of the textual evidence exposes the "evidence" of Atheists and Evolutionists to be non-credible and unreliable axe grinding. Evolutionists commonly support evolution by saying evolution is true because the vast majority of scientists support.Ray