“Messianic Jews” are Christians. The only reason they’re called “messianic Jews” is anti-antisemitism (we want them to convert but we don’t want them in OUR church).
Someone who believes Jesus is the messiah is a Christian. If the only time you distinguish the prior religion of a convert is when that convert is Jewish then you’ve just admitted that you don’t really want Jews to join your club and you don’t believe them when they do convert.
Which reminds me of the scene in Horsefeathers where Groucho providing a football team a play. Zeppo runs up and tells him that he’s talking to the wrong team.
Groucho: “I know I am, but our team wouldn’t listen to me.”
Of the many world religions, Christianity is the only one that claims its founder was resurrected. From what I have studied and believe, the resurrection is a true event in history. Therefore, no other religious organization has a (claimed) “god” that can be described as powerful as God (YHWH or Yahweh). He is the First and the Last and besides Him there is no (other) God. (Isa 44:6).
I also have a more personal faith in God but that is not what this board is about.
A demigod that can be killed by mere mortals?
Doesn’t sound like a very strong god to me.
So
But you have yet to provide any evidence or proof.
I apologize if I offended you. Of course they are Christians. I disagree that Messianic-Jews is an anti-semitic term. I have seen them describe themselves in that manner. One of the Christian members in my church converted from Judaism, who is one that I mentioned in an earlier post. The other I mentioned in that post was an invited speaker and tour guide for a group of church members. They are welcome in my church.
And what about that definition of “spiritual evidence”?
“As powerful as” because he can be resurrected after he is killed?
Seems to me that a god that can not be killed would be more powerful!
CMC fnord!
Osiris, Mithras, Odin, Quetzalcoatl, and Zeus would like a word with you.
As others have noted, this is decidedly untrue. Do you also believe that a virgin birth is unique? Or do you accept that much of the legend of Jesus comes from stories co-opted from pagan beliefs?
The only mention of those 500 alleged witnesses is in Corinthians, as you quoted in an earlier post. Do you know why it is called Corinthians? Because it was a letter to Corinth. Corinth is in Greece.
Now, please tell me how someone living in 1st century Greece could possibly check the veracity of a story about something that was allegedly witnessed nearly a thousand miles away at some unnamed location in Palestine (and for some reason, these things always seemed to happen out in the countryside, rather than in the Temple Square), at a time not named but probably at least 20 years ago, and by people not named?
They had no idea whether it was true, just as they had no idea whether Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies Matthew claimed for him, because they weren’t Jews, and knew nothing about Jewish prophecy. They just believed it, for whatever reasons other people believe other religious dogma. And so Christianity grew rapidly in places like Rome, Greece, and Asia Minor.
Oddly, almost all the people living in Palestine, who could possibly check the anecdotes about Jesus, and who did know something about Jewish prophecy, rejected the Christian claims. As would anyone reading about the zombie invasion of Jerusalem described by Matthew.
Quetzals are such pretty birds. If I felt like worshipping an animal, that one would be pretty high on the list.
I rest my case, but may exercise the right of rebuttal.
The Bible is a historical document in that it was written a long time ago. But that does not mean what it says is true - which is also the case for other historical documents.
In 500 years today’s novels will be historical documents, and will accurately portray our time, but that doesn’t mean the events in them happened.
Plus when you get further back, to before when the Bible was written, the “history” falls apart. For instance the Exodus and the Davidic empire. And I’m not even including fairy tales like Adam and Eve and the Flood.
No doubt. Vishnu would never have put up with that shit.
As I said on page 1, ignored by our friend. Matthew mistranslated the Bible and thought it mentioned a virgin birth (which it does not) and so made up the entire Virgin business.
All my Hebrew School teachers, who can actually read the original Hebrew, and did, thought the whole Jesus thing was bushwa.
(fixed nested quote tag)
You haven’t presented a ‘case’ to rest.
You’ve certainly stated what you believe - and why you believe it - resting primarly upon the beliefs of others.
You have yet to present any evidence or ‘proof’ as to why these things are factual.
That is a pious tradition, not supported by fact. The Gospel attributed to John is anonymous, and even devout Christian scholars date it late first century or early second century, which means that if a contemporary of Jesus wrote it, he must have been 90 or so. Not very likely.
Many of your type of Christian have become Mormons. Is that evidence that the Book of Mormon is correct (book, not musical) and that LDS is correct?
If not, explain why their conversions count less than the ones you’ve mentioned.
Just in case it’s not familiar to anyone,
That is the “Spider-man Fallacy”.
CMC fnord!