The Fact is, Jesus is the prophesied Messiah

No, he was talking to me

.
Correct

He just doesn't know how to quote properly.

Very likely correct.

He also has a habit of taking verses out of context.

Yea, like just reading what the verse says.

You can see that in how he always bolds certain sections of certain verses as if to make the bolded parts one new verse.

Or maybe it's so you know exactly what the verse says.

it's like a hobby of his.

More like a learned necessity. It usually limits the times I need to repeat myself. USUALLY.

Just an observation, here. If you find yourself making entire posts that have nothing to do with the subject, but totally about the other poster(s), you're probably not on topic.

Let's get back to the meat of the subject instead of each other, ok? Thanks.

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
The facts say Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah. Can you prove it is not so?
Bring your facts.

messiah originally meant "king of the jews". so sure, he can be the king of the jews- since i'm not jewish.

Originally posted by aniiohsowtf

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
The facts say Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah. Can you prove it is not so?
Bring your facts.

messiah originally meant "king of the jews". so sure, he can be the king of the jews- since i'm not jewish.

Actually Messiah means:
n.

1. also Mes·si·as (m-ss) 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.


Not king.

Originally posted by OneGodJesus
Actually Messiah means:
n.

1. also Mes·si·as (m-ss) 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.


Not king.

i said the original meaning, those are the meanings now. in the old testiment, the messiah would simply be the king of the jews.

Originally posted by aniiohsowtf
messiah originally meant "king of the jews". so sure, he can be the king of the jews- since i'm not jewish.

Actually Messiah translates as "The Anointed One" which Jews associated as King, but of course if anyone reads the bible it is clearly written that Jesus, The Messiah, is King of the Jews *and* Gentiles. The Jews and Gentiles who believed Jesus the be "The Messiah" both attended Synagogue together to worship Him. Even Rome considered Gentiles- who believed Jesus was Messiah- to be Jew.

(Wednesdays are my busy outing days)

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
These are real questions:

When you say, in essence, "This is a fact, having nothing to do with opinion or experience." You are at least implying that any opposing opinions, beliefs, ideas on this subject are NOT fact or truth. Aren't you?

Not necessarily. I will happily share my love and belief in Jesus as Messiah with anyone, and I'm all ears to listen to anyone without stating to them that their opinions, beliefs and ideas do not hold fact or truth. I think a little bit of truth lies in all of us and we actually need one another to bring us 'together' and closer to knowing Jesus. Take Paul in the bible for example, He was an extraordinary person in my opinion, who continued to spread the Word. There are certain things Paul taught that I don't, myself agree with, but I do not dare say or even think that he was wrong.

I can almost guarantee that if I shared my beliefs with you, because they are drastically different than yours, you would say that I was mistaken, wrong, misinformed, unenlightened or something of the sort. Because I don't believe the same things that you do. Is that true?

Well then, you are preconsidering and prejudging me without even giving me a chance. Not that I think it is necessary to prove something to you, but I think everyone atleast deserves a chance to hear and be heard, even if their belief system is opposite to mine. I believe that I'm not so closed minded to recognise some parallels and carry on a civil conversation (or in this case writing/posting) with just about anyone, provided they show me the same respect.

When I say I'm defending my beliefs, I'm simply saying that your beliefs aren't the only valid ones. They're good for you, they work for you, but they don't apply to everyone. Do they?

This is true. Just like some of Pauls' teaching's do not apply to me, or atleast I feel they do not, not at this particular juncture of my life, I firmly believe he was doing the right thing for himself and those who listened. But again, I'm certainly not stating his way was not valid or correct!

I'm not telling you that my beliefs are fact, so you don't need to defend your beliefs. You've said what you believe and I have no problem with you believing that. I've said several times that I (in essence) don't care what you believe. But for you to say your beliefs are FACT, appears to me, anyway, that it applies to me as well, whether I agree or not.

That is the difference between you and me. I DO care what you believe, whether or not you think I have drawn some conclusion that you are wrong and I am right makes not difference to me. It's not "my" belief that is FACT. It is the Word that is fact.

This is an assumption on my part: You think your God somehow applies to me. That he's my God, too, I just don't know it - and that someday I might open my heart enough and learn the Truth... and that just feels really invasive of my beliefs. It tells me you have no respect for the idea that I can form my own belief system, even though it's different than yours. You apply your theology to me without my consent and that gets my hackles up.

Well that is one thing I have noticed about you, that you do carry a great deal of assumptions. I'm not invading on you or your beliefs, unless you have allowed me. So if you feel that way it is only because you've actually allowed my belief to invade you. By the fact that you've commented and responded on a few things I've written here at BTs, shows me that you have allowed me and my belief to, by the very least, affect you, not invade you deliberately. It's not as though I've entered your room or home without you allowing me- that's invasion.

Because I know my own beliefs are as true and precious to me as yours are to you. That's why I feel the need to defend my beliefs.

Defend your belief then. I'm all eyes and ears. You keep using that word "defend" but I don't feel as though we are in some courtroom. I'd more than appreciate rather that you share your belief system with me, as I have done with you and anyone else who reads my posts. I can promise you atleast one thing; and that is we can and will learn from eachother, if not for our beliefs, then at least for the fact that we know we can talk about something we are both passionate about, that may not be considered in full alignment with eachothers belief system.

I have asked 3 questions above. Maybe if you answer them, I can understand where you're coming from a little better. Maybe I'll find out that I was wrong.

And I have answered them...finally

Originally posted by magestica
Actually Messiah translates as "The Anointed One" which Jews associated as King, but of course if anyone reads the bible it is clearly written that Jesus, The Messiah, is King of the Jews *and* Gentiles. The Jews and Gentiles who believed Jesus the be "The Messiah" both attended Synagogue together to worship Him. Even Rome considered Gentiles- who believed Jesus was Messiah- to be Jew.

I believe aniiohsowtf is correct here. I think your thinking about the translation of christ. Christ meant the anointed one, not messiah.

Originally posted by Prot0n
I believe aniiohsowtf is correct here. I think your thinking about the translation of christ. Christ meant the anointed one, not messiah.

Check for yourself then: www.keyway.ca...

Messiah is the transliteration of the Old Testament Hebrew word pronounced maw-shakh, meaning Anointed One, which when translated into the New Testament Greek is Christos.

Originally posted by Prot0n
So, then why do you really believe in your god? Just belief and acceptance alone?

I'm guessing I believe in God and Messaiah because my spirit is moved to.
I haven't always been where I'm at, believe me, I have struggled and pondered and even swayed away from God. I've picked up the bible and read and just didn't get it, even though I wanted to. But again, I think God chooses us, we don't choose Him, we accept Him. I could write a book and still it be unfinshed until I die, on the reasons I believe in God and Messiah.

You already do worship a sun god. And a demi-god as well. Can't get much more "pagan" then that. Maybe I should start a thread.

I wish you'd have elaborated on this more. I worship God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, not a sun god. What do you mean by your surmise?

It is tangible evidence that men wrote the bible. Not that it is "Gods" word. And yes, I do enjoy debating with believer's. I don't expect any tangible evidence for something that doesn't exist. That's asking for the impossible.

Well you can't get any more tangible than the bible. It IS the Word of God *full stop*

How can you know God?

Through Jesus The Word.

You've never seen him or heard him, or are you misleading me?

Not in person no. But I have my own testimony, as do many others. I haven't required a face, vision or voice to know God. I know Him through His word, His son, The Messiah. I feel like I know you, but I can't see or hear you.

You know him through a book and a church. You really think Jesus was the Messiah? Where was it prophesied that there would be a second comming of the messiah in the OT? Where in the OT is god both mortal and immortal? Where in the OT is god considered as three? Where in the OT is it prophesied that the messiah will be god incarnate or the son of god?

You're right! He provided everyone His Word. I picked it up, began reading (still am) and began knowing Him(still am). To answer your first question, Yes, I really do know Jesus is Messiah. Have you read Isaiah? Chapter 53 talks about Messiah, mortal and immortal.

I don't know about the three part, I don't understand your question for one. Are you referring to the Holy Trinity?

You can find the answer to your last question in Genesis.

Thank you for answering my questions.

Originally posted by magestica
I DO care what you believe

Why?

It's not "my" belief that is FACT. It is the Word that is fact.

I don't believe that the bible is fact. You BELIEVE the word is fact, but I don't. I believe it's just a book like any other book. A fantasy at that. Written by regular men.

Well that is one thing I have noticed about you, that you do carry a great deal of assumptions.

We all do. I'm absolutely willing to recognize and state them as such. And many of my assumptions are based on what I've read of your posts.

By the fact that you've commented and responded on a few things I've written here at BTs, shows me that you have allowed me and my belief to, by the very least, affect you, not invade you deliberately.

Granted. I cop to allowing your beliefs about me (admittedly assumed) to have an effect on me. A negative one. Anyone who claims to know some universal "facts" about God that apply to me has an effect on me. Specifically the idea that the God you speak of is also my God and someday (hopefully) I will come around and realize the Truth.

If this assumption is incorrect, please let me know.

Defend your belief then. I'm all eyes and ears.

I won't go into detail about my personal beliefs because they're really nobody's business, and they apply to no one but me. They are 180 degrees out from yours, though, which I have a pretty good idea of from reading your posts. There may be a very few things we see the same, just by coincidence, but from reading your posts, I know we totally disagree on the bible and God.

You keep using that word "defend" but I don't feel as though we are in some courtroom.

I don't feel we're in a courtroom either. I would have been more accurate to say that I feel the need to defend the validity of any belief system that is contrary to yours, i.e paganism, atheisim, etc.

In my experience, people who talk about their beliefs as facts tend to apply them to everyone. I haven't even addressed the original poster of this thread because of the title of the thread.

I'd more than appreciate rather that you share your belief system with me, as I have done with you and anyone else who reads my posts.

I'm feel no need to share my belief system with anyone, but I will tell you that I don't believe in the bible or the bibleGod. So, if we do have anything in common in our beliefs, I'm going to guess that it's very little and perhaps even insignificant. Since (it seems to me) that your main foundation of belief system is the bible, I can't help but think that not only are we not in full agreement, we're not even on the same vector.

Feel free to correct this assumption as well. Or any assumptions I've made.

My Whole Point is this. I believe every person must find their own way in their spiritual journey. I don't believe there is ONE WAY to enlightenment, advancement or clarity, or that there is ONE GOAL or ONE GOD. OR that any belief system is more valid than any other. And when people assume that their belief system applies to everyone (including me), I allow myself to get ruffled. I think it's an arrogant stance and I'm not crazy about it.

I admit, I'm asking for too much. I'm asking people, for whom 'witnessing' (and bring others into alignment with their way of thinking) is one of the main purposes of their belief system, to accept that said belief system does not apply to everyone.

It's an oxymoron. Thanks for helping me to realize how silly it is for me to expect such from others. Really. You do what you gotta do and we'll just leave my beliefs out of it.

Some of the posters on this thread seem to be confusing facts with beliefs and opinions. Opinions are required to interpret ambiguous statements, events or circumstances. Beliefs are usually derived from these interpretations. Facts however, make beliefs and interpretations redundant, as a fact has no ambiguity, thus does not need to be interpreted. Facts do not have a time limit, they are indisputable and what is a fact 1,000 years ago is still a fact now and will be in another 1,000 years. If any alleged facts do not meet this criteria, they are not facts. Hopefully this has cleared things up for those of you that are confusing these elements.

The Bible is a book of factual truth. It has stood against all attempts to disprove it. You have choice to reject of believe the truth. It is my opinion that you don't understand this.

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
The Bible is a book of factual truth. It has stood against all attempts to disprove it. You have choice to reject of believe the truth. It is my opinion that you don't understand this.

Creation has not been proven. Not the biblical creation or ANY creation myth for that matter, and if we're going to use the not disproven argument in support of it; Well then, ALL creation myth's must be true as well as NONE have been disproven.

There was no global flood. That, and the story is a near rip of Gilgamesh's.

An historical Jesus is still very much debatable.

Forget which Gospel it was, but the geography is pretty screwy for someone who was supposedly an 'eyewitness' to Jesus.

Parting of the red sea, no such evidence that it was ever parted or that there's an army of egyptians at the bottom of it.

The bible has SOME fact's. Some fictitous stories. Some assumptions. Some opinions.

The bible as a whole is not factual. You need to learn how to differentiate between that.

Originally posted by mytym
Some of the posters on this thread seem to be confusing facts with beliefs and opinions. Opinions are required to interpret ambiguous statements, events or circumstances. Beliefs are usually derived from these interpretations. Facts however, make beliefs and interpretations redundant, as a fact has no ambiguity, thus does not need to be interpreted. Facts do not have a time limit, they are indisputable and what is a fact 1,000 years ago is still a fact now and will be in another 1,000 years. If any alleged facts do not meet this criteria, they are not facts. Hopefully this has cleared things up for those of you that are confusing these elements.

Science often disproves itsself with newer science. If science is considered factual why does it seem as though because something has not yet been proven it is not considered an unproven fact in science and opinion in religion?

Example1: Galileo Galilei use rolling balls to disprove the Aristotelian theory of motion - here you have one great thinkers "facts" disproved by another great thinker.

Example 2: Louis Pasteur disproves the theory of Spontaneous generation - another solid idea bashed

Example 3: a website that was interesting in this singular statement: "Note that you cannot prove any theory to be true"

www.johnpratt.com...


And this is my favorite as it applies to todays "thinkers": Solomon Asch shows how group pressure can persuade an individual to conform to an obviously wrong opinion...


Funny little statement I found when searching for examples of science "facts".

"Science, by its very nature, is never capable of proving the non-existence of anything."

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
The Bible is a book of factual truth. It has stood against all attempts to disprove it. You have choice to reject of believe the truth. It is my opinion that you don't understand this.

Well, cool. Then Atheism is fact, too. For it has stood against all attempts to disprove it.

In fact, if your statement is true, then all religions and belief systems in the world are facts, because they have stood against all attempts to disprove them. The Torah is a fact, the book of Satanism is a fact, the book of Wicca is a fact, Astrology is a fact, Hindu Mysticism is a fact, the Qur'an is a fact, Sufism is a fact, the book of Urantia is a fact, the Holy Books of Thelema are a fact. Gosh, this is very exciting, isn't it?

Well Bible fact or fiction aside,
I have one question that I havent found a proper answer to. Since there are many believer here, I thought I would put it out in the open.

Probably the most detailed part of Christs life was the time of his death that is described in great detail but I have a problem with accepting that the sacrifice of Christ's crusifications was truly a sacrifice. Because in 1BC the practice of Crusification was common wansnt it and so was the torture that Christ went through. These punishments were meted out to many people during that period and thousands died worse deaths at the hands of the romans, what makes Christ's ordeal special. Granted he was innocent, but so were many who were nailed to the cross. And I am not taking into account the previous miracles of curing leppers etc.

The assumption is that Christ undertook this ordeal as recompense for the sins of man but even though he was a messaiah his punishment was no different than many others of his period. He prayed for forgiveness for his captors but what difference does that make ? It could also be interpreted as the dillerium of a dying man.
Also they claim that his body was never recovered the next day but from what I read of roman practices it was common for the bodies to be taken down after sundown and then thrown away. If there were many bodies Christ's body could most probably have been lost.

Another thing I dont understand is that why is the cross, a symbol of death, taken as a symbol for the faith ? What would have happened if Christ was nailed on a circle or a just staked on a big pole in the ground ? Would these become our symbols ? They say it was Christ's sacrifice okay I get that then why not take some other form of his sacrifice ? Because to claim the cross would also mean the thousands upon thousands of other including criminals, slaves etc who were also crucified as people of his order. The symbol just seems to be against what he taught, compassion, love etc. Also I would think that his teaching reflect more on the value of life than death and thus the cross is not a good example.
Also these days, in the christian faith with the advent of these evangelists and others, its become into some pagan worship with all these claims of miracles etc and people actually worshipping the planks of wood at the altar rather than what they are supposed to.

BTW I my mother is catholic but despite her attempts I was averse to sunday school, thus you may find some of my facts wrong.

Granted he was innocent, but so were many who were nailed to the cross.

No, he was not innocent. He had broken Roman law and that is what he died for. Not for anything else.

Also I would think that his teaching reflect more on the value of life than death and thus the cross is not a good example.

I agree with you there, his teaching's were more on the value of life in the here and now. How you act today determines whether you get into heaven or not. Most Christians don't bother with that aspect of Jesus' teaching's.

Also these days, in the christian faith with the advent of these evangelists and others, its become into some pagan worship with all these claims of miracles etc and people actually worshipping the planks of wood at the altar rather than what they are supposed to.

The First commandment forbids against ANY graven images. Yet Christians proudly display them everywhere. It's sad when they claim to profess so much faith only to turn around and break their God's laws.

Not sure why the cross was chosen, but many other religous belief's also incorporate cross' into the belief systems too. Nothing special really.

Originally posted by Prot0n

Granted he was innocent, but so were many who were nailed to the cross.

No, he was not innocent. He had broken Roman law and that is what he died for. Not for anything else.

Well, you know what I mean about innocent. They say his punishment was harsh or some such.

In anycase, I get the feeling that form the death that he was just a normal man who faced standard punishment. Like that guy on death row in California who was killed despite massive pleas to pardon him. Something like that. Had Christ been born in this century he would have gotten say the electric chair by contrast then would they put that up as a symbol ?
That would be bizarre to say the least, it would almost be called a cult !

Sun Matrix:
The very existence of different versions of the Bible is proof that it is ambiguous, thus requires opinions to interpret. As I have already explained several times, opinions and facts are not compatible. The only choice is to believe the interpretation, not the truth. It is my opinion that you don't understand this.