Evidence for Jesus/Messiah

We have plenty of examples of "bad news" that people accepted with sufficient proof. Like the link between cigarettes and lung disease, for example. It's true that if we're delivering bad news (i.e. news folk don't want to hear), then the evidence needs to be solid. But it's not true that good evidence fails to persuade, given time and the opportunity to consider it.

Click to expand...

People may accept the link between cigarettes and lung disease but they don't quit. Accepting the evidence that Jesus is the Messiah is not like accepting the evidence that DNA is arranged in a double helix; whether that is true or not will not change anything in my life. But to accept that Jesus is messiah means I must change the way I live.

I could conceive (in improbably remote circumstance) a situation where a person calling himself Joshua ben Joseph could demonstrate miracles consistent with messianic prophecies and a life in biblical Jerusalem... That might lead me to call him the Christian messiah, but it wouldn't necessarily lead me to call myself a Christian. Missing is the moral argument for me to submit to an absolute power just because it's absolute.

Ruv Draba said:

Missing is the moral argument for me to submit to an absolute power just because it's absolute.

Click to expand...

I don't think it was originally a moral argument. I think that a fear of being instantly slain by a deity (and then later in Christian history, being damned to eternal hell) was a primary motivator for the non-zealous.

That which likes you probably won't turn you into a pillar of salt.

Guffy said:

People may accept the link between cigarettes and lung disease but they don't quit. Accepting the evidence that Jesus is the Messiah is not like accepting the evidence that DNA is arranged in a double helix; whether that is true or not will not change anything in my life. But to accept that Jesus is messiah means I must change the way I live.

Click to expand...

That's not really a fair comparison.

I can look into a powerful microscope and see an arrangement of DNA any time I want.

I can't look through a timescope, aim it at ancient Jerusalem, and confirm ancient miracles.

Okay, I'm here to throw my recently obtained messianic hat into the ring here. The very real possibility of me being the prophesied (Book of the Law, Book of Babalon) Thelemic Messiah, a magickal being brought into existence by mad scientist/Thelemic wizard (and newly discovered relative of mine--great uncle, or something like that) Jack Parsons.

See, if your Christian messiah (or other) is like me, they won't know for sure that they are the messiah until they've done something saviory. So, when they do go on Lettermen or The View, it will have already been established that their messiah credentials are valid, to most people. Or, so one would think.

I, personally, wouldn't go around saying, "I'm the Messiah" unless I was pretty damned sure I was. Otherwise, I'd say, "I might be a messiah, but I might not be too." Keeps things clear.

I can look into a powerful microscope and see an arrangement of DNA any time I want.

I can't look through a timescope, aim it at ancient Jerusalem, and confirm ancient miracles.

Click to expand...

but what miracles would you accept as proof of the messiah if they happened in front of you, no tricks no mirrors.

My contention is that if you don't like what he says you wont accept him as savior no matter what miracles he can preform.

Guffy said:

but what miracles would you accept as proof of the messiah if they happened in front of you, no tricks no mirrors.

My contention is that if you don't like what he says you wont accept him as savior no matter what miracles he can preform.

Click to expand...

What if such a messiah were to save the world from hostile alien invasion? Would that do?

When we talk about messiah we are not talking about someone who can cure cancer or stop an alien fleet from landing on earth, we are talking about our God and creator. As creator God has the right to expect his creation to behave the way he designed it to behave. If I built something I would expect it to what I built it to do, if it didn't I would tear it up and start over.

Guffy said:

When we talk about messiah we are not talking about someone who can cure cancer or stop an alien fleet from landing on earth, we are talking about our God and creator. .

Click to expand...

You are, of course free to use any word anyway you like, however, you don't get to go all "we" in order to universally invalidate other definitions (this being not the Christian sub-forum, but the Comparative Religious sub-forum), for example that's not necessarily how dictionaries define the word:

Mes·si·ah (m

-s

) n. 1. also Mes·si·as (m

-s

s) The anticipated savior of the Jews.
2. also Messias Christianity Jesus.
3. messiah One who is anticipated as, regarded as, or professes to be a savior or liberator.

[Middle English Messias, Messie, from Old French Messie, from Late Latin Mess

s, from Greek, from Aramaic m

i

, the anointed one (from m

a

, to anoint) or Hebrew m

îa

, anointed (from m

a

, to anoint); see m

in Semitic roots.]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Messiah [mɪˈsaɪə]
n 1. (Non-Christian Religions / Judaism) Judaism the awaited redeemer of the Jews, to be sent by God to free them
2. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) Jesus Christ, when regarded in this role
3. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) an exceptional or hoped for liberator of a country or people [from Old French Messie, ultimately from Hebrew māshīach anointed]
Messiahship n


Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

Click to expand...

So, actually no godhead required for messiahship as it turns out, no matter what your God thinks about it. And, although not as old as Christianity the religion of Thelema (which I do not happen to belong to, btw, but others do and who are you or I to say I'm not their hoped for and expected messiah--I mean Jesus wasn't Christian, either) is every bit as valid a source for inspiration, messiahs, and religious definitions.

JimmyB27 said:

I reckon, though, that even the most fervent believer is unlikely to just believe any old schmuck who claims to be a messiah without at least something to back up their claim.
So what would you need to see to believe them?

Click to expand...

I'd need to see him descending from the sky in clouds like he said he would and raising people from the dead. I wouldn't believe anyone else.

But why is raising from the dead such a significant thing?

According to Matthew 27: 50-53, on the weekend that Jesus was risen from the dead plenty of other people rose from the dead too!

Being raised from the dead might be pretty impressive the first time it happened - but it was so common around the time of Jesus that dozens of people being raised from the dead wasn't even worth including in the other gospels.

It must have been so common that it didn't rate a mention when Josephus was writing an account of the era - and this is a guy who gave tedious details on what Herod had for breakfast.

Mac

The evidence for any historical jesus actually existing is so flimsy in the first place, that i personally would need some serious convincing. A true miracle could do it, wouldn't have to be large scale, but something that's impossible by any non-miraculous means.

Guffy said:

but what miracles would you accept as proof of the messiah if they happened in front of you, no tricks no mirrors.

My contention is that if you don't like what he says you wont accept him as savior no matter what miracles he can preform.

Click to expand...

Most of what we've recorded Jesus saying is admirable, at least from my moral point of view. I see nothing wrong with devoting oneself to a higher power, and giving thanks for sacrifices.

An omnipotent, omniscient being should have no trouble convincing me of his version of the truth. I'm not sure why such a being would want to convince me, and I'm not sure why I'd want to be convinced.

I have no idea what you mean by "accept him as savior."

You are, of course free to use any word anyway you like, however, you don't get to go all "we" in order to universally invalidate other definitions (this being not the Christian sub-forum, but the Comparative Religious sub-forum), for example that's not necessarily how dictionaries define the word:

Click to expand...

Sorry about the "we" I was being lazy with my words. What I meant was, when we consider what Jesus himself said about being the messiah; "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6, then that makes believing in him more than just believing that some historical event happened. Believing what Jesus said about himself, the actual definition of messiah not withstanding, requires a response from the believer.

By quoting from John I'm not trying to say that the case is closed. John is just a letter presumably written by an eye witness who was with Jesus during the time of his ministry in Palestine. Fragments of this letter have been found that date back to the first hundred years after the death of Jesus, but its just evidence not proof. And what this thread is about is what would a Jesus type need to do today to convince us we was this messiah not some generic messiah.

My contention is that no matter what he did people would believe in this modern day person only as much as they believed his message. The same as the people that presumably witnessed the first set of miracles.

I'm only making this argument for the arguments sake, not anything else.

Guffy said:

By quoting from John I'm not trying to say that the case is closed. John is just a letter presumably written by an eye witness who was with Jesus during the time of his ministry in Palestine.

Click to expand...

I had the impression that the author of the big John text was offering his story in counterpoint to the earlier texts (such as Matthew, Mark, and Luke). Your impression is that John is a very big letter from an eyewitness? If John was an eyewitness, he must have been very confused or miss-informed about what he was witnessing since he has the Pharisees in postions of power in Jerusalem. Had I been there, I would have at least gotten that part right or might have checked with somebody who might have some idea what was going on before I wrote a very large letter full of rather poorly informed assumptions about local conditions. Where did this guy John come from? Who was he writing this letter to? Certainly not to anyone in Judea or Galilee or Idumea or any place neighboring those provinces. Even in Alexandria or Antioch they would have known who was who in Jerusalem.

I don't know where you got your information from. When ever the Romans took over a place they ran the big stuff but always put a local in charge of the day to day stuff. In Jerusalem the most powerful person below the Roman rulers was the Jewish High Priest of Herod's temple. At the time of Jesus, the Romans had replaced the original high priest Annas with Caiaphs his son-in-law. These two men could control who got to go to the temple. They could bar people from the worship if they wanted to. The high priests and the Jewish Sanhedrin where given authority by the Romans to decide most matters up to but not including the death penalty among themselves. The Pharisees controlled the worship within the Jewish synagogues where the Jewish people would gather on the Sabbath. This gave them great power over the people of their communities. It is a lot like the power the priests had in medieval Europe. In fact the small glimpse of social life we see in John and the other eye witness accounts of Jesus have been proved through other historical text including Josephus to be very accurate.

As for who John is, according to the biblical text he was a fisherman, the brother of James the sons of Zebedee, called by Jesus to be an apostle at the beginning of his ministry. In John's first book he describes himself as "the apostle whom Jesus loved". He also wrote three other books contained in the Christian canon. From the text that have been found so far, he is the most quoted writer of the Christian canon by other Christians during the first three centuries after the death of Jesus.

But I am off track again. This thread is not about the historical Jesus but a modern Jesus.

Guffy said:

I don't know where you got your information from. When ever the Romans took over a place they ran the big stuff but always put a local in charge of the day to day stuff. In Jerusalem the most powerful person below the Roman rulers was the Jewish High Priest of Herod's temple.

Click to expand...

What big stuff were the Romans running in Judea in the time around 1 AD? They had left the place the control of a local Idumean clan and not the Pharisees (who after all had been friendly with Pompey the Great).
The Pharisees weren't in charge of anything and had been crucified by the hundreds by the Hasmonean-Idumean clan in charge only a few decades earlier. You mention the Temple as Herod's Temple --something that would have made any Pharisee very angry. It wasn't Herod's Temple to them, it was Jehovah's. Herod was an Idumean and it was the Herodian clan of Idumeans who were in charge when Jesus was around in really, not the Romans or the High Priest or the Pharisees. if John had been there (as our primary source for the period, Josephus, was), he would have known that.

the big stuff, taxes, commerce, rioting, protecting Roman citizens, war. Like the priest of Medieval Europe who were not part of the government they could still influence the people. They tried to help the people live up to the Law of Moses. They were in charge of the local synagogues and controlled community worship. Though they were persecuted they were the only Jewish political party to survive the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. I called it Herod's temple only to place at a time in History.

But perhaps we should start a new thread to continue this discussion.

Guffy said:

the big stuff, taxes, commerce, rioting, protecting Roman citizens, war. Like the priest of Medieval Europe who were not part of the government they could still influence the people. They tried to help the people live up to the Law of Moses. They were in charge of the local synagogues and controlled community worship. Though they were persecuted they were the only Jewish political party to survive the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. I called it Herod's temple only to place at a time in History.

But perhaps we should start a new thread to continue this discussion.

Click to expand...

Well, were the pharisees a "political party" or were they "priests"? They absolutely were not priests since that role was reserved for priests of the temple. Were they trying to get people to live up to the Law of Moses? Certainly not in their own minds. In their own minds they were making the law live in day to day life. What a Pharisee might have said he was trying to do was to help the simple people of the land do (enact) Torah, ie live in the way of the law.

Did the Romans control things in and around Judea? No. All the big things you name (except for some taxes) were controlled by the Idumeans. If John had actually been anywhere near Judea in 50 BC - 50 AD he would have known that.

But why is raising from the dead such a significant thing?

According to Matthew 27: 50-53, on the weekend that Jesus was risen from the dead plenty of other people rose from the dead too!

Being raised from the dead might be pretty impressive the first time it happened - but it was so common around the time of Jesus that dozens of people being raised from the dead wasn't even worth including in the other gospels.

It must have been so common that it didn't rate a mention when Josephus was writing an account of the era - and this is a guy who gave tedious details on what Herod had for breakfast.

Mac

Click to expand...

I'd be pretty impressed by somebody being raised from the dead... if he didn't try to eat my brains.

I have no idea what you mean by "accept him as savior."

Click to expand...

this is short hand and I'm not sure I can even explain what it means to me and I certainly wouldn't presume to explain for someone else. But I do think it means more than just believing the facts.

Bartholomew said:

I don't think it was originally a moral argument. I think that a fear of being instantly slain by a deity (and then later in Christian history, being damned to eternal hell) was a primary motivator for the non-zealous.

Click to expand...

But human history challenges that. Many autocrats have held the absolute power to torture and destroy their citizens, and we generally think it a good thing for citizens to resist them.

So as I said, routinely performing miracles might get me to believe in something akin to magic, but wouldn't command my submission or devotion. On the other hand, a decent person with a clear understanding of good, bad and human nature is likely to get a lot of respect and support from me, even without the miracles -- though I still wouldn't call such a person a "messiah".

Ultimately, I think that responsibility for our consciences vests in ourselves, while accountability for our endeavours is owed to our fellow man. So from that perspective, blindly serving a messiah without exercising one's own conscience moment by moment is irresponsible (consider how badly "I was obeying orders" goes down in war-crimes trials).

From John Hogue:

http://deoxy.org/critmass.htm

Name That Messiah!

Click to expand...

The Christian Messiah: Second coming of Jesus Christ.

Click to expand...

The Islamic Messiah: (Orthodox Sunnis) Muntazar: The successor to Mohammed who at the 'end of time' will unite the races of the world through understanding.

The Aztec/Mayan Messiah: The return of Quetzalcoatl -- an olive-skinned man with a white beard and followers in red.[ Diana's note: or a gaint flying serpent]

The Sioux Messiah: A man in a red cloak coming from the East.

The Indonesian Messiah: the twelfth-century Indonesian prophet, Djojobojo, foresaw the coming of a great Spiritual King from the West to come after the Dutch and Japanese occupations, and what sounds like the severe end of the rule of Indonesian dictatiors, Sukarno and Suharto.

The Hopi Messiah: Pahana the 'true white brother' from the East will wear a red cap and cloak and bring two helpers holding the sacred symbols: The swastika, the cross and the power symbol of the Sun. He will restore the Indian version of the Dharma.

The Buddhist mainstream Messiah: Maitreya: Meaning either 'The World Unifier' or simply 'The Friend.' A very human God-Man whom Buddha predicted will be a greater Buddha than himself.

The Mahayana Buddhist Messiah: Amida: A great Christ-like Bodhisattva.

The Japanese Messiah: Several sects of Japanese Buddhism and Shintoism foresee a variant of the Buddhist Maitreya appearing after 8 August 1988 (8/8/88).

The Maori Messiahs: Over a dozen Maori cheiftains in New Zealand from the nineteenth through the early twentieth centuries have laid claim to the title.

The Messiah of Central Asian nomads: The White Burkhan. He will come when the people of the steppes have abandoned their ancient gods (Communist Russia was atheist). He will come to offer them and the entire human race a spiritual rebirth.

The Jewish Messiah: "The" (sic) Messiah. The true messenger of Yahweh, the god of the jews, who will restore them to their status as the Chosen People. Know his time has come when Israel is restored and the temple of Solomon is rebuilt (interest in rebuilding the temple is at an all-time high during the 1990s)

The Hindu Messiah: Kalki or Javada: The ninth and last Avatar of this yuga cycle. His final incarnation will appear from the West.

The Shiite Messiah: The twelfth Imam: The final religious leader of the Shiite sect of Islam. He has never died but will reappear beside Jesus prior to Judgement Day to complete the Holy Qur'an (Koran).

The Sufi Messiah: Khidr, the mysterious guide of the Islamic spiritual underground. He is the Sufi's version of the Shiite twelfth Imam and Muntazar of the Sunnis.

The Zoroastrian Messiah: Saoshyant: Like Zarathustra, he's scheduled to come at the Zoroastrian twelfth millennium (AD 2000) The Eskimo Messiah: the prophets of the Arctic foresee him to be an olive-skinned man with long beard and white hair who comes from the East.

Click to expand...

A very interesting question.

I think a Messiah would have to save us from sure annihilation in a way we cannot fathom before it happens. And he would have to save all of us, every human being.