I think that each one of those questions could and should be given it’s own thread for discussion.
Ask and ye shall receive!
Here and here are two examples with explanations, however they are taken from anti-missionary sites.
Here is a translation from a different source without the anti-missionary overtones.
I’ll go out on a limb here and say that any Christian translation site will stick with the “pierce” wording, while the Jewish sites will go with the “like a lion” wording.
Of course, I meant to address Dreamer, not Karallen. Apologies.
I see Puzzle Boy has addressed my fourth question. Many thanks.
JThunder:
:shrug: Maybe. I’m not certain how, exactly, but maybe.
It just seems to me that some folks seem to feel the deaths and carnage and suffering, because they are prophesied, are required for Christ’s return. Do you agree with that, JThunder? Dreamer?
Puzzle Boy:
Agreed.
I’ll just stick with the first, which was first mentioned by dreamer:
What prophecies are now being fulfilled?
See, that last link provided by ** ummm… yeahh…** showed all the OT prophecies supposedly fulfilled by the Christ’s death. That’s all well and good, but IMO irrelevant to the occurrences in the Middle East today.
andros, they’ve already provided evidence that Jesus the Nazarene existed, and that he was crucified. Flavius Josephus, an extremely well-respected historian, attests to both of these facts, as do the gospels and epistles themselves. Other sources include Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, the aforementioned letter by Mara bar Serapion, and many others.
Of course, an extreme skeptic could exclaim “But wait! How do we know that these people were all telling the truth? For all we know, every single one of them was mistaken!” However, that would betray an unreasonable bias against believing that Jesus existed. It is demanding an onerous amount of proof, far above what is typically expected for ancient historical events.
(FWIW, JThunder, I know the evidence quite well, and I apologize if I made it seem as though I didn’t. All I want is specifics to all the claims made in the thread, and those are being supplied. I don’t demand proof, I demand critical thought.)
Thanks for the cites. I’m glad you can back your claim. Although, as you mentioned I can claim the same bias for these translations as you do for mine. These are the times I wish I knew the language much better. I would also say that even if the passage does not refer to “Pierce”, there is still an incredible fulfillment in the rest of these verses. But this could start the debate all over again!
Many scholars question the validity of the writings attributed to Josephus about Jesus.
Pliny the Younger and Tacitus are sources that were written at least 70 years after Jesus died, enough to leave reasonable doubt. Same for a letter written 40 years after someones death.
Hell, there are many people who believe that the Life cereal kid died by eating pop rocks and people have walked into the bathroom with lipstick writing on the mirror saying “Welcome to the world of AIDS”. And that is the modern era. Doesn’t mean it actually happened.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
ThunderBug
I appreciate your educated and critical thinking, but here’s the bottom line: FAITH. Jesus said that unless we have “faith like a child we cannot enter the kingdom” and faith “like a mustard seed” can “move mountains”. This is not a cop out to your questions. This kind of debate is good, but what is the end result? Seems like every answer a Christian may give has a “yah but” attached to it. It also seems like the burden of proof is unfairly placed on Christians. I have yet to see someone disprove the bible with as much proof as some non-Christians put on believers. You say “How can you believe in something like that.” Easy. I choose to. My governor, “the mind” Ventura, once said that religion is “a crutch for the weak minded”. So I guess no matter what I say, in some people’s minds I am a feeble-minded fool. But the very thing that others consider my weakness I consider my strength. I consider my faith in my relationship with Jesus the thing that makes me strong.
I am going to continue to address the questions posed to me like “What prophecies are now being fulfilled?”, so please understand that I am not trying to cop out. I just wanted to throw the faith thing in there as the “wild card” in all of this.
As a matter of fact… no.
It’s like saying “You will reach a fork in the road before you reach Grandma’s house.” Is the fork in the road necessary for Grandma’s house to exist? Certainly not. However, the fork is one of the signs that you’re almost at that destination.
The New Testament says that Christ is supposed to return to judge the nations for their wrongful deeds. All this carnage happens to be part of that wrongdoing, but it’s by no means necessary, as there is plenty of wrongdoing to go around.
What is so extraordinary about claiming that a man named Jesus existed? Or that he was crucified? Remember, we are not talking about miraculous events here, although I believe there is convincing evidence for those as well. We are talking about whether Jesus of Nazareth really existed.
Do you really want extraordinary evidence for the mere existence of this man, even though it has been reported by a host of reliable historians? It seems to me that you are demanding far more evidence than what professional, scholarly historians typically accept.
In fact, if he did not exist, then one must concoct a scenario wherein Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, and a host of other scholars were so readily duped – along with the early church itself. That strikes me as a rather extraordinary claim itself!
Flavius Josephus’ account was, in all likely-hood, a forgery put in later by the Christian church. This is not an extraordinary claim, considering that the first time it is attributed to Josephus isn’t until 300 CE and the passages themselves are inconsistant with his writing styles and personal beliefs.
Tacitus wrote in 120 CE about the followers of Jesus, not about the existence of the man himself. I don’t doubt that there were followers or Jesus at that time, just as their were followers of Mithra and Ra.
Suetonius wrote 80 years after the death of Jesus, not an eyewitness account and was retelling stories told to him. The church was existent, but again, not proof of the man’s existence, only what his followers have retold.
Pliny the Younger was another who wrote about the followers of Jesus. Of course, Jesus was dead for over 70 years by the time he wrote the letter. Again, calling attention to who they follow is not the same as claiming the existence of the man himself.
I was referring to the gospel accounts of miracles and resurrection when I used the word extraordinary and wasn’t denying the existence of the man. However, I think there can be doubt of his existence.
I agree with JThunder greatly on this issue. What more do you need? As a matter of fact, I was just reading Tacitus’ account in (15.44) that I suggest you read. Not exactly a big plug for Christians is it? And it does indeed reference Christus as being executed by Pontius Pilate. What would lead Tacitus to lie in this? Or maybe he was taking Christian’s words for it? Doubtful as Tacitus is referred to as a very thorough and accurate historian. Insisting that this cannot be taken at face value is not a common sense approach!! Why is it that you cannot accept this? It seems to me that if you allow for error in this account then you must discount all his work. It is history! Would you have the same burden of proof for say ancient Japanese history? I am just at a loss for words. :eek:
I stated that it leaves room for doubt, but I’ll play the game here.
Let’s take a look at this quote, shall we…
Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus
Why doubt? Tacitus had not met Jesus, witnessed the events nor was even alive until Jesus had long been dead. Tacitus is referring to a group of people who follow Jesus, not of Jesus himself. Would reports of the followers of Mithra prove his existence? He points out that these people follow Christus, which was not his proper name. Why would the Romans refer to him as the Messiah? Pilate’s title was not a procurator, he was a prefect.
I claim to neither reject or accept Tacitus (or any other historians) claim here. I merely state there is room for doubt. Are you saying historians are always correct and that we shouldn’t have doubts about one man’s claims of history?
**
**
Absolutely not! 
But you are doubting many men’s accounts of history. It does leave room for doubt (where my faith soap box comes in), but very very little. But let me ask you, is the measuring stick you hold up to Christianity the same for other historical events?
Assume we are in a courtroom. The case is that of a man accused of murder. A man was killed in an abandon warehouse by a gunshot wound. No one else except the accused was in the warehouse. The accused is found with a matching weapon with one bullet missing and fingerprinting matches. blah blah…
Wouldn’t it be safe to assume this man would be convicted? Can we prove he murdered him? No. Is the burden of proof so overwhelmingly against him that he will be convicted? YES! you can pin me in a corner and I will have to say, no, I cannot prove that all this is 100% accurate. But I would like my chances against a jury better than your chances of proving all this is a conspiracy.
I am enjoying the diologue though!
BTW- The fact that Tacitus did not meet Jesus is not a reason to doubt. I have never met Nero or Nebuchadnezzar but I don’t doubt their existence.
Have we beat this into the ground enough yet!!!???
Well first of all, as ummm… yeahh… pointed out, he does refer to Jesus as having been executed by Pontius Pilate.
As for not having met Jesus… are you seriously suggesting that if he did not witness Jesus personally, his account should be disregarded? This is a common objection from layman skeptics, but it betrays a tremendous naivete regarding the nature of history. Do you have any idea how much history would have to be thrown away if we demand such an extraordinary, onerous standard of proof?
As for Josephus’ remarks about Jesus being “forgeries,” Tektonics addresses this point in detail. While there appear to be minor interpolations that were inserted into some of Josephus writings, the references to Jesus himself appear to be genuine, as does the oblique reference to his brother James.
There is a wealth of textual evidence that Jesus actually existed. To claim otherwise, one must concoct an elaborate scenario wherein all these authors were somehow duped or misrepresented. Such an extraordinary claim surely demands extraordinary proof in itself.
Once you play the faith card, all serious discussion ends.
No, I’m saying there is room for doubt in the interpretation of historical events, especially by people so far removed from the event themselves. Tacitus metions the followers of Christ and goes to explain who Christ is. The followers of Christ believed he was crucified under Pilate. Did Jesus exist? Well, the people who talked to Tacitus certainly believed so.
And yes, I think you should look at all historical records objectively. I don’t believe that sailors from the new world were dragged under by sea monsters, but yet there are quite a few accounts of this. I don’t believe the Illiad and the Odyessy describe actual events, yet the city of Troy has been found. Does the discovery of Troy prove the existence of Achilles? There is doubt that Pythagorus was an actual person despite the theories attributed to him. Not very many people believe in the existence of Atlantis, but there sure is a lot written about it.
So, for certain claims, I do require more than just a few passing quotes from men who lived when education was for the elite and the commonly held view was that the earth was flat, the emperor was a diety and that tomatoes were poisonous.
I’m saying no such thing. Am I saying there can be doubt that a person’s second or third hand account of an event (described in all of one sentance) is fool proof? Yes I am. When a bank is robbed, do they go to the teller who was robbed grandchildren 50 years later and ask for a description? Do they even go to just the teller himself? No. The interview as many people as posible who witnessed the event knowing full well that each description will be different, sometimes vastly different. To take the word of a few people years and years later and proclaim it as absolute truth would be foolish.
Do I believe there was a Jesus? Yes I do. Is the theory that he isn’t an actual person but more of an urban legend new? Absolutely not. The Christian Apologetic site that JThunder referenced is a discussion with a man who has written 5 books about it. Are there places that look at both sides? There sure are, this, is a good one.
Yeah, well there’s a huge difference between “Yay! There’s the fork! We’re almost to Grandma’s!” and “Yay! There’s children screaming! God’s almost here!”
Please tell me you understand what I’m saying.