Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rob Instigator
making the fallacious mistake of assuming that the old testament exists solely as a precursor to jesus is EXACTLY the kind of shit that irks me about christianity.
|
I never made the assumption that the jewish scriptures were solely written as a precursor to Jesus Christ, after all, i only made reference to 130 old testament verses out of the thousands in the texts, so clearly there is much more to the 'old testament' then an introduction to jesus christ.
Quote:
The Bible is a construct of over 100 different writings by hundreds of authors. it includes things that have nothing to do with jesus' divinity or with jesus, such s geneology, history, songs, poems.
as far as we know Jesus the man was ILLITERATE
he wrote nothing down. his foloowers and the descendants of his original followers wrote the gospels as a combination of history, lessosn, and allegory.
|
I never made the assumption that the jewish scriptures were solely written as a precursor to Jesus
how is jesus illiterate?
16He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. 17The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
18"The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
19to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."[
e] 20Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, 21and he began by saying to them, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."
and further, regarding Judaism, whether or not Jesus Christ is the hebrew Messiah, it is clear that the intention of much of the jewish writings is to explain the messiah, through poetry, motiffs, allegories, songs, prayers, fables, parables, anecdotes, etc. I didn't make this up, go as a rabbi.
http://www.moshiach.com/questions/to...s_moshiach.php
and further, by the logic of 'his followers wrote it all down..', how could we even be sure he exists and so why even debate about him? if we are going to have a debate about jesus christ, it must be either as a character in a book, or as a man who actually existed in the past, I can accept either reasoning, but there must be some mutually accepted ground rules, universals. if jesus christ is a man from the past, then we must accept what we have written about him. If we do not accept what we have written, from a historical perspective, it is all nonsense because as far as jesus christ is concerned, we have no other historical evidence. The indirect evidence we have supports much of the text. From book of the Acts we find a rather accurate account of everyday life in roman palestine in the 1st century, as much of the gospels. Whether they are truth is regardless to their accuracy, so we can at least treat them the same we do historical novels, as a valuable insight to what people who were contemporary to jesus thought and how they lived.
What is the point of debating about a theoritical Jesus when we have an actual one, be it a character in a book, to examine and interpet?