For anyone that has any doubt as to the identity of Jesus Christ

Originally posted by racasan
reply to post by XplanetX

 

And since that “morphing” included creating the bible then aren’t you just going along with the program?

Or are you saying this Jesus character was the embodiment of the Age of Pisces and you have no problem with that?

edit on 19-8-2011 by racasan because: (no reason given)

No.

My original post explains why Jesus must be the messiah.

reply to post by XplanetX


But don’t you find it interesting that the entire Jesus thing happened during start of the astrological age of Pisces

That Roman Catholic symbolism looks like it’s linked to the sun or sun worship

That the holy Roman Catholic Church created or decided what books the bible should contain and what constitutes the Christian beliefs such as the trinity and the divinity of Jesus – basically The Roman Catholic Church made Christianity

That Christian holy days fall on pagan holy days – Christmas and Easter for example and that those pagan holy days are linked in some way to the sun

That early Christian symbolism can be linked to pagan astrological signs such as the Ichthys or Jesus fish

The bible and fish/fishing:

Mark 1:17 "Come after Me, and I will make you become fishers of men."
Matthew 12:40 "...Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
Matthew 14:17 "And they said to Him, 'We have here only five loaves and two fish.'"
Luke 5:6 "And when they had done this, they caught a great number of fish, and their net was breaking."
Luke 24:42 "So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb."
John 21:6 "And He said to them, 'Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and you will find some.' So they cast, and now they were not able to draw it in because of the multitude of fish."

the feeding of the multitude with two fish

Pisces two fish:
philologos.org...

reply to post by racasan



Don't get me wrong. I do find it interesting and you have obviously taken the time to look at this in detail. The Roman Catholic Church latched onto all of these pagan rituals (including astrology) in order to confuse the message.

Jesus! God! Religion!

Please dont make me laugh! Mankinds been around form at least 10,000 years before all this toilet crutch developing control nonsense ever came into the minds of sheeple!

Look and see things for what they really are if you want the truth. Dont follow what is prescribed or indoctrinated because there is always a loaded purpose/agenda when anything comes that way!!!

Originally posted by Cataka
Jesus Christ = Osiris..

Or MANY other names that came *before* Jesus and had the same story. He is just a character that was created and re-told many times thousands of years before the name was changed to Jesus.

It reminds of today's entertainment. We have a 1980's version of Conan with AH-NOLD, now we have a 2011 Conan with a new guy. Same basic story...different lead character.

I wonder if it ever occurred to anyone of the possibility that "Osiris" or any of these others that came "before" Jesus were just.. made up? I mean, there were prophecies about Jesus' death for centuries before his actual birth. Wouldn't it be likely that some people wanted to fulfill that prophecy with their own "gods"?

Just a thought.

reply to post by Lionhearte


That whole dying reborn saviour thing is older than civilisation

Du-zi, Tammuz, Dummuzi, Orisis, Mithras, Adonis, Tamheur, Attis, Dionysus, jesus and many more

all of them dying-and-reborn sun-gods

They all have some kind of celebration or holy day around the winter solstices

The winter solstice fell within the Saturnalia and was referred to as the “Natalis Solis Invicti” (the “Nativity of the unconquered Sun”). Saturnalia was celebrated from December 17th to January 1st in the Roman Empire. The Roman Emperor Aurelian blended Saturnalia with a number of birth celebrations of savior Gods from other religions, into a single holy day: December 25th. In Roman mythology

>The Cross< of the Zodiac is one of the oldest 'conceptual images' in human history
lh3.googleusercontent.com...

the circle form the 12 constellations of the zodiac
the line running top to bottom - winter to summer solstices
the line running across left to right the spring and autumn equinoxes

Put a human figure on that cross as a personification of the sun and what do you get?
4.bp.blogspot.com...

reply to post by Lionhearte

I wonder if it ever occurred to anyone of the possibility that "Osiris" or any of these others that came "before" Jesus were just.. made up? I mean, there were prophecies about Jesus' death for centuries before his actual birth. Wouldn't it be likely that some people wanted to fulfill that prophecy with their own "gods"?

I wonder if it ever occurred to you that the Christian converts in Rome in the time of Paul were worshipers of Isis?
Or that the observances Paul talked about not being judged for, are in fact the festivals of Isis?

You must also remember that the Messiah was supposed to be the "seed of David" (Romans 1:3). Both Matthew and Luke trace Jesus' lineage through Joseph, whom everyone knows isn't Jesus' real father. Since kinship was traced throuh the males, and Jesus supposedly had no male father, well you can see how that prevents Jesus from being the Messiah.

Before you say Luke was tracing Mary's lineage, he clearly mentions Joseph (Luke 3:23).

reply to post by XplanetX

Jesus Christ qualifies as the messiah as he fulfilled nearly all of the scriptures in the old testament.

Not entirely, He fulfilled over 300 during His first coming. Yet for every prophecy concerning His first coming in the OT there are between 7-8 concerning His 2nd coming.

reply to post by XplanetX


Krishna, Dionysus, Horus, and a host of other gods fulfilled many of the same thing Jesus supposedly did as well.

The Judaic religion borrowed the ideas of what a god should be from early pagan religions that predate anything written in the Bible.

The many authors of the old testament were heavily influenced by these early pagan stories, many of which came from Babylonia. Stories in the bible such as creation and the flood were clearly derived from the Babylonian creation story and The Epic of Gilgamesh.

What you have here is a list of self fulfilled 'prophecies' created by a small cult who broke off from Judaism and eventually had their religion spread by the sword and cast civilization into the dark ages.

reply to post by novastrike81

. . .and Jesus supposedly had no male father, well you can see how that prevents Jesus from being the Messiah.

I'm not too surprised by the silence over your question.
It seems to me that there is a particular sect of supposedly Christians who I would classify as "Apocolyptics", where the adherents to that sect are encouraged to promote the ideology of that sect to unsuspecting would be Christians. One of the doctrines of this ideology apparently is the belief that God somehow sired Jesus.
I would go a step further in classifying this sect as the False Prophet of Revelation that teaches the spirit of antichrist in that they deny that Jesus is the Christ who came in the flesh. Instead they believe he never relinquished all his powers and so was unable to be corrupted as what happens to most men in this world of a corrupted culture of sin.
So this antichrist spirit closes their mouth and makes them unable to answer.

Originally posted by shaneR
reply to post by FriendlyGopher

 

there are Roman sources that mention Jesus...

see Tacitus (Annals) XV chapter 44 (written about 114AD)

"Christ executed during reign of Tiberius...by Governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate..."

Jesus was recognised by the Romans as being real...

see also : Celcus;

+ Pliny

etc


seeya

edit = correct chapter ref for Tacitus...= chapter 44

edit on 18/8/2011 by shaneR because: edit = correct chapter ref for Tacitus...

I would just like to add to this information. Shane R. is correct that "Christus" is mentioned in writings of Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and even Suetonius. They are used by many zealous Christians to prove the existance of Jesus Christ. These sources do suggest that the one known as "Christus" by his followers actually existed. They DO NOT however prove that the Christus mentioned was indeed a real messiah in the sense that Christians today believe he was.

In fact, these sources allude to Christus as a political well as a religious rebel, who was instigating uprisings and riots (not promoting his views by peaceful means as many believe). In Tacitus' account, he mentions that the Christians were "hated for their abominations." He also says that after Christus was executed that , (referring to the Christian movement) "a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular." - Annals 15.44
Suetonius mentions unrest brough about by believers of "Chrestus" when he wrote: "Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome." -Life of Claudius, 25.4
Pliny the Younger verifies in his Letter to Trajan that followers of Christ existed. -Letters 10.96–97

As for the works of Celcus, I have not found a good online translation of his "True Word," but regardless, his writings are anti-Christian in nature and focus on the religious/political movement as a whole. Celcus also believed that ancient followers of Christus posed a danger to the stability of society.

These sources cannot be used to prove that Christ is the messiah, only that there may have been a revolutionary individual that created his own following of fans. In these ancient sources, there is no reference to any miraculous doings on the account of this Christus, but only disturbance among the people.

Thanks!

reply to post by XplanetX


I do enjoy a healthy discussion of Jesus as the Messiah.

Christ's Birth - Virgin Birth

In Matthew, there is a prophecy stating that Jesus would be born of a virgin birth:

Matthew 1:22-23
22Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23"Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."

Matthew was referrencing Isaiah 7:14 which is summed up as saying that a virgin woman would bear a child and name him Immanuel. The problem here is that "almah" is the word used meaning "young woman" in Hebrew. In Greek; however, it was incorrectly translated into "parthenos" which means virgin and is the word the author of Matthew quoted from Isaiah.

Continuing a few verses later in Isaiah 7:16, it mentions that, "For before the child shall know to refuse evil, and choose good". Now if you believe Jesus was completely sinless (1 John 3:5), you have an issue. If Christians took time to read the next chapter they would realize that Isaiah is referring to his own son and not Jesus.

Isaiah 8:3-4
 3And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.
 4For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria.

It's clear that Jesus did not fulfill that prohpecy of a virgin birth. Plus he wasn't the seed of David as he had no male father.

Originally posted by novastrike81
You must also remember that the Messiah was supposed to be the "seed of David" (Romans 1:3). Both Matthew and Luke trace Jesus' lineage through Joseph, whom everyone knows isn't Jesus' real father. Since kinship was traced throuh the males, and Jesus supposedly had no male father, well you can see how that prevents Jesus from being the Messiah.

Before you say Luke was tracing Mary's lineage, he clearly mentions Joseph (Luke 3:23).

What was conceived in Mary was conceived through the holy spirit. Trying to discredit the genealogy of Jesus because it fails to mention Mary is a failure in itself. Neither Mary nor Joseph had any genetic influence over Jesus. Mary was simply the vessel for Jesus (Something Satan was not expecting, Satan was expecting a genetic descendant). Joseph and Mary were married before the birth of Jesus (the Angel confirms with Joseph that Mary has not been sexually immoral). So the genealogy is valid for the purpose of fulfilling Christ as the son of David in a spiritual context. Jesus later claims that he is not of this world and is actually the son of God (born of the holy spirit).

To reinforce this, read the following prophecy very carefully:

ISA 7:13 Then Isaiah said, "Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

The outcome of Jesus birth matches scripture perfectly. He had to be born through a virgin and yet be a descendant of David at the same time. This just reinforces my belief that Jesus must be the messiah, he fulfilled what seemed to be impossible to fulfill. God's seed was planted in Mary through the holy spirit. Joseph was a descendant of David and was married to Mary.

reply to post by XplanetX


The post above yours goes through the prophecy you just listed. Maybe you missed it, or ignored it?

Isaiah 7 is about his son and not Jesus. It's also not a dual prophecy. The author of Matthew took this prophecy out of context due to a faulty translation. Isaiah 7's prophecy is not about a virgin birth and nor does the context allow for it to be even remotely close to Jesus.

reply to post by novastrike81


Yes, I understand the confusion. Christians believe this verse is about Jesus why it is about a son born upon a maiden who is not a virgin. I will like to post a source by Rabbi Tovia Singer. He has been asked about the controversy of Isaiah 7:14 many times and this questions by a Christian asking if the verse is a dual prophecy.

Dear Rabbi Singer, One of the methods you used in your tape series to refute missionary claims is to point out the context of the prophecy. For example, you point out that the seventh chapter of Isaiah cannot be a prophecy about Jesus’ virgin birth because it suggests that the prophecy was to have been fulfilled in Ahaz’s lifetime, some 700 years before Jesus. Still, maybe this is a “double prophecy,” a prophecy about a boy to be born in the days of Ahaz and also a prophecy to the birth of Jesus. The context is only for the first application of this double prophecy. Rabbi, do you have any comments?

When missionaries are confronted with the glaring problem that the context of Isaiah 7:14 is unrelated to the messiah or a virgin birth, they often argue that Isaiah 7:14 is a “dual prophecy.” In order to fully grasp the massive theological problem missionaries are seeking to escape with using this response, I will first describe the traumatic events that are unfolding in the seventh chapter of Isaiah which are completely inconsistent with Matthew’s application of these passages to his virgin birth story. To begin with, the word “virgin” does not appear in the seventh chapter of Isaiah. The author of the first Gospel deliberately mistranslated the Hebrew word הָעַלְמָה (ha’almah) as “a virgin.” This Hebrew word, however, does not mean “a virgin.” It simple means “the young woman,” with no implication of virginity. Most modern Christian Bibles1 have corrected this erroneous translation, and their Bibles now correctly translate this Hebrew word as “the young woman.”

Matthew, however, not only changed the meaning of the word הָעַלְמָה to apply this verse from the Jewish scriptures to the virgin birth, he also completely ripped Isaiah 7:14 out of context in order to apply it to his birth narrative of Jesus.

The seventh chapter of the Book of Isaiah begins by describing the military crisis that was confronting Ahaz, King of the Southern Kingdom of Judah. In about the year 732 B.C.E. the House of David was facing imminent destruction at the hands of two warring kingdoms: the northern Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Syria. These two armies had laid siege to Jerusalem. The Bible relates that the House of David and King Ahaz were gripped with fear. Chapter seven relates how God sent the prophet Isaiah to reassure King Ahaz that divine protection was at hand – the Almighty would protect him, their deliverance was assured, and these two hostile armies would fail in their attempt to subjugate Jerusalem. In Isaiah 7:1-16 we read, And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz son of Jotham, son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin, king of Aram, and Pekah son of Remaliah, king of Israel, marched on Jerusalem to wage war against it, and he could not wage war against it. It was told to the House of David, saying, “Aram has allied itself with Ephraim,” and his heart and the heart of his people trembled as the trees of the forest tremble because of the wind. The Lord said to Isaiah, “Now go out toward Ahaz, you and Shear-Yashuv your son to the edge of the conduit of the upper pool, to the road of the washer’s field, and you shall say to him, ‘Feel secure and calm yourself, do not fear, and let your heart not be faint because of these two smoking stubs of firebrands, because of the raging anger of Rezin and Aram and the son of Remaliah.

Since Aram planned harm to you, Ephraim and the son of Remaliah, saying: “Let us go up against Judah and provoke it, and annex it to us; and let us crown a king in its midst, one who is good for us.” So said the Lord God, “Neither shall it succeed, nor shall it come to pass . . .’’ The Lord continued to speak to Ahaz, saying, “Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord, your God; ask it either in the depths, or in the heights above.” Ahaz said, “I will not ask, and I will not test the Lord.” Then he said, “Listen now, O House of David, is it little for you to weary men, that you weary my God as well? Therefore the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign: Behold the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good; for, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned.” It is clear from this chapter that Isaiah’s declaration was a prophecy of the unsuccessful siege of Jerusalem by the two armies of the Kingdoms of Israel and Syria, not a virgin birth more than 700 years later. If we interpret this chapter as referring to Jesus’ birth, what possible comfort and assurance would Ahaz, who was surrounded by to overwhelming military enemies, have found in the birth of a child seven centuries later? Both he and his people would have been long dead and buried. Such a sign would make no sense.

Verses 15-16 state that by the time this child reaches the age of maturity (“he knows to reject bad and choose good”), the two warring kings, Pekah and Rezin, will have been removed. We see, in II Kings 15-16, that this prophecy was fulfilled when both kings were assassinated. With an understanding of the context of Isaiah 7:14 alone, it is evident that the child born in Isaiah 7:14 is not referring to Jesus or to any future virgin birth. Rather, it is referring to the divine protection that Ahaz and his people would enjoy from their impending destruction at the hands of these two enemies, the northern Kingdom of Israel and Syria. This is where the Christian response of a dual prophecy comes in. Missionaries attempt to explain away this stunning problem of Matthew’s complete indifference to the biblical context of Isaiah 7:14 by claiming that Isaiah’s words to Ahaz had two different applications. They concede that the first application of Isaiah’s prophecy must have been addressed to Ahaz and his immediate crisis. That child that was born contemporaneously and the first leg of this dual prophesy was fulfilled at the time of Ahaz, 2,700 years ago.

Missionaries insist, however, that the second leg of this dual prophecy applied to Jesus’ virgin birth 2,000 years ago. Using this elaborate explanation, missionaries maintain that Matthew’s use of Isaiah 7:14 is entirely appropriate. In short, these Christians claim that Isaiah’s prophecy was fulfilled twice: once in 732 B.C.E., and a second time in the year 1 C.E. Problem solved. Or is it? The self-inflicted problems created by this far-reaching explanation are manifold. To begin with, the proposal of dual prophecy is entirely contrived and has no basis in the Bible. Nowhere in the seventh chapter of Isaiah does the text even hint of a second fulfillment. The notion 2 of a dual prophecy is thoroughly unbiblical and was fashioned in order to explain away a stunning theological problem.

Moreover, if, as missionaries argue, the word ha’almah means a “virgin,” and, as they insist, Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled twice, who was the first virgin to conceive in Ahaz’s time? Were there two virgin births? That is to say, if these Christians claim that the virgin birth of Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled twice, who then was the first virgin having a baby boy in 732 B.C.E.? Bear in mind that these missionaries insist that the word ha’almah can only mean virgin. Are they claiming that Mary was not the first and only virgin to conceive and give birth to a child? Furthermore, if they claim the seventh chapter of Isaiah is a dual prophecy, how does Isaiah 7:15-16 apply to Jesus when these verses continue to speak of this lad? Remember, Isaiah 7:15-16 reads, Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good; 16for, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned.” If Isaiah’s words are the substance of a dual prophecy, at what age did the baby Jesus mature? Which were the two kingdoms during Jesus’ lifetime that were abandoned? Who dreaded the Kingdom of Israel during the first century when there had not been a Kingdom of Israel in existence since the seventh century B.C.E.? When did Jesus eat cream and honey? Does any of this make any sense? It doesn’t because this argument of a dual prophecy was born out of the desperation of Christian missionaries and essentially makes a mockery out of the Book of Isaiah.

Source!

I had to use the Q&A to get a clear picture. Stay faithful to HaShem!!

Originally posted by novastrike81
reply to post by XplanetX

 

The post above yours goes through the prophecy you just listed. Maybe you missed it, or ignored it?

Isaiah 7 is about his son and not Jesus. It's also not a dual prophecy. The author of Matthew took this prophecy out of context due to a faulty translation. Isaiah 7's prophecy is not about a virgin birth and nor does the context allow for it to be even remotely close to Jesus.

Hahahahahaha.

The Jewish people twist their own scriptures in order to deny Jesus is the son of God.

They have to do this, otherwise they are forced to recognise him as their King.

God will leave them with no choice in the future anyway:


ISA 45:23 By myself I have sworn,
my mouth has uttered in all integrity
a word that will not be revoked:
Before me every knee will bow;
by me every tongue will swear.

ISA 45:24 They will say of me, `In the LORD alone
are righteousness and strength.' "
All who have raged against him
will come to him and be put to shame.



PHP 2:8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death--
even death on a cross!

PHP 2:9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,

PHP 2:10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

PHP 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.


He is coming back as the true King:


REV 19:11 I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter." He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:

KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.


As a christian I recognise that I am merely grafted into the olive tree, while the jews are the natural branches. When the natural branch recognises that the messiah is Jesus they become powerful spiritual warriors for God. The apostle Paul is a prime example of this.


RO 11:13 I am talking to you Gentiles. In as much as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.

RO 11:17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

RO 11:22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!

RO 11:25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

"The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.

RO 11:27 And this is my covenant with them
when I take away their sins."

RO 11:28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable. Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you. For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

reply to post by ManOfGod267

. . .questions by a Christian asking if the verse is a dual prophecy.

I don't see any problem here. I read your post and all I can think is that it is difficult for a person of one religion to understand someone else's religion if they were not brought up in it.
Christianity has a way of seeing spiritual meanings beyond the physical, meaning the concepts behind events and how those events can be recounted and reapplied to current situations. People in a purely concrete concept see this being done by spiritual people and understand it in only a concrete way, so they miss the point and imagine the spiritual people are doing something that they are not.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Well I guess anyone would see it differently. Trying to influnce someone to become a Muslim, or Jewish, or Christian; or just say fudge it and become an Atheist.

Originally posted by ManOfGod267
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

Well I guess anyone would see it differently. Trying to influnce someone to become a Muslim, or Jewish, or Christian; or just say fudge it and become an Atheist.

I have no idea what you mean.
I would not try to get you to become a Christian. all I need to do is present my case and it is up to you what to do with that information. Don't need to try to make you feel bad about yourself for being Jewish. You have plenty of laws to use as you see fit and to me the Holy Spirit knows no barriers. Be good and do not harm others or condone anyone else doing harm to anyone, and you will go to heaven.