How do you defend Christ in this newer argument?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jas84173
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jas84173

Guest
It goes like this. Jesus of Nazareth was just one of many apocalyptic messiah claimants of the first century Palestine. He grew up in an era that was zealous and opposed to Rome. Others in the era were Simon of Peraea, Judas the Galilean, Theudas, Athronges, etc. I’ve even heard arguments that John the Baptist was a heavily followed leader who had very little to do with Christianity until decades later to assimilate followers of him. I’ve heard that Jesus proclaiming the Kingdom of God was a literal sense meaning the Kingdom of God would be established on earth, and also when he says " I have not come to bring peace but the sword" and others such as that families would be torn in his name. It’s interesting as Christian’s we tend to have an interpretation of this but in a certain way the sayings of Jesus many times could be taken in a completely differrent more literal form if one wanted too. Zealots were prominent in the era and I have some issues defending the view of the Church when this is so historically established by other historians of the era.
 
Is this a new objection? I would have imagined it to be one of the oldest arguments contra Christ.

Simple: Upon close examination the perfect coherence of the Word is revealed. Upon close inspection the false idols collapse.

Philosophical arguments cannot be equated with Divine revelation.

What rebel said: “Do unto others as you’d want others to do unto you” and, “turn the other cheek”. “For I tell you it is not enough to love your neighbour but you must love your enemy.” Even after we had been told to hate our enemies. Who dared say: “I am the Truth” and “Only through Me can you get to the Father” because “I AM”.

Who came to die for our sins?

And, ultimately, why Jesus “the Anointed”? Why choose someone who died on the cross? When the ancients inform us that crucifixion was so ghastly a subject that freemen would not discuss it in public. Why would we be told, then, to regard the Cross as our own symbol as followers of Christ?

Where are those false messiahs now?

Why would we be talking, now, my friend, two millennia after the death of a “mere subversive figure”, about the Incarnation and the Mysteries of the Faith?

Would ANYONE be willing to die for Iulius Caesar? For Sallustius? How about Catilina?

We know they existed. We know their deeds and their words. And, yet, no Roman emperor, no conspirator and no rebel could get us to listen if he said: “Sell everything you have, give the money to the poor”. “Abandon yourself, take your cross and follow me”.
 
Last edited:
There were many prophets and apocalypse cults in this time, but Jesus and Christianity are different.

To start with most Messianic Claimants would go to big cities, try to attract attention to themselves, and call for rebellion against Rome. Meanwhile Jesus traveled primarily in the countryside, usually told people he performed miracles for not to attribute the miracles to him, and did not preach political rebellion (he said “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s”, visited tax collectors [Jews who were seen by the majority of Israel as collaborators], and even healed a Roman Centurion’s servant).

With regards to John the Baptist, he openly stated that he is neither a prophet nor the Messiah and that a man will follow him “the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie”. When Jesus approached John the Baptist, he identified Jesus as the man he was talking about and baptised him. While one could argue “that was added afterwards”, the same rebuttal could be used to counter every written document or oral account of a story and then there’d be nothing to rely upon.

With regards to Jesus establishing a Kingdom on Earth, if that were the case his actions would not suggest it. As mentioned above he kept to the countryside and tried to keep his miracles a secret; not something a good way for a rebel hoping to overthrow Rome to gain supporters. He knew there was a traitor among his followers and did not remove the traitor beforehand, and he did not resist his arrest (Jesus claimed he could have summoned an Angel to kill the arresting mob, and his disciples had swords and knew how to use them - Peter even cut a man’s ear off). As for people who accept his resurrection, if he wanted to establish a Kingdom on Earth you’d think he’d have stayed on Earth after his resurrection to rule said Kingdom (instead of ascending to Heaven). There were many ways Jesus could have established a Kingdom on Earth (leading an uprising against the Romans, amazing the Romans into worship with his miracles, etc) but he did none of these - his actions only really make sense if he wanted to populate a Kingdom in Heaven with people from Earth.
 
Who is alleging this, and why engage them? If they are that ignorant of prophecy and history, they will only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

i.e. Just where, you “could” ask them are the Peraeans, Judean Gallileans, The Theudans, Athrongans, etc.etc.etc. today and what is their teaching? How has any of them changed or improved the world?
 
jas84173 said:
it goes like this. Jesus of Nazareth was just one of many apocalyptic messiah claimants of the first century Palestine. He grew up in an era that was zealous and opposed to Rome. Others in the era were Simon of Peraea, Judas the Galilean, Theudas, Athronges, etc.
Click to expand...
This is a true statement.
jas84173 said:
I’ve even heard arguments that John the Baptist was a heavily followed leader who had very little to do with Christianity until decades later to assimilate followers of him.
Click to expand...
I am having trouble understanding this statement, but it is true that John the Baptist had little to do with Christianity. He was the forerunner of the Messiah, and Christianity did not exist until after John died.
jas84173 said:
. I’ve heard that Jesus proclaiming the Kingdom of God was a literal sense meaning the Kingdom of God would be established on earth, and also when he says " I have not come to bring peace but the sword" and others such as that families would be torn in his name.
Click to expand...
Jesus did mean that the KIngdom had literally come. The time for Him to reign in our hearts as sovereign Lord here and now, on the earth, had arrived. He knew that his teachings would cause conflict between people.
jas84173 said:
Zealots were prominent in the era and I have some issues defending the view of the Church when this is so historically established by other historians of the era.
Click to expand...
It is best to acknowledge the truth of it, and move on. The Sanhedrin had the best criteria for discernment into how a movement of men was different than a movement of God.

34 But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, respected by all the people, stood up and ordered the men to be put outside for a short time. 35 Then he said to them, “Fellow Israelites, consider carefully what you propose to do to these men. 36 For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him; but he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and disappeared. 37 After him Judas the Galilean rose up at the time of the census and got people to follow him; he also perished, and all who followed him were scattered. 38 So in the present case, I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; because if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; 39 but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them—in that case you may even be found fighting against God!” Acts 5

We know that the “Jesus movement” was unlike all the others because every effort of humanity for the past 2000 years attempting to squelch it has failed. Only something of divine origin could have lasted.
 
jas84173 said:
It goes like this. Jesus of Nazareth was just one of many apocalyptic messiah claimants of the first century Palestine. He grew up in an era that was zealous and opposed to Rome. Others in the era were Simon of Peraea, Judas the Galilean, Theudas, Athronges, etc. I’ve even heard arguments that John the Baptist was a heavily followed leader who had very little to do with Christianity until decades later to assimilate followers of him. I’ve heard that Jesus proclaiming the Kingdom of God was a literal sense meaning the Kingdom of God would be established on earth, and also when he says " I have not come to bring peace but the sword" and others such as that families would be torn in his name. It’s interesting as Christian’s we tend to have an interpretation of this but in a certain way the sayings of Jesus many times could be taken in a completely differrent more literal form if one wanted too. Zealots were prominent in the era and I have some issues defending the view of the Church when this is so historically established by other historians of the era.
Click to expand...
Simply, Jesus rose from the dead. And performed many miracles.
 
What’s the date? 2018 or the age Jesus is today. I’d say that distinguishes Jesus from the other messiah’s and zealots.
 
Last edited:
Roseeurekacross said:
Simply, Jesus rose from the dead. And performed many miracles.
Click to expand...
And we know he rose from the dead because of the changed life of the Apostles. Prior to his Resurrection, the Apostles were in hiding, afraid that they, too might be arrested and crucified. After Jesus’ Resurrection, they went boldly about, preaching the Gospel of Our Lord. Only the Resurrection could have brought about such a change, considering the dangers they faced (all but John were martyred, and John was thrown into a vat of boiling oil).

None of the others mentioned rose from the dead.
 
2000 years down the road, Jesus is a major part of everyday life for billions of people around the world.
While all those other guys have been completely forgotten. In fact, they were probably forgotten millennia ago.
I don’t see thousands of martyrs having lined up to die gruesome deaths for their love of Simon of Peraea or Theudas, etc.

That settles the question for me.
 
Last edited:
ConstantLearner said:
Only the Resurrection could have brought about such a change, considering the dangers they faced (all but John were martyred, and John was thrown into a vat of boiling oil).
Click to expand...
Would you agree that willingness to be persecuted is not evidence for a claim? People of many different faiths have been willing to die for their false beliefs. Many Muslims today are willing to be martyred in the cause of Jihad, but this is no evidence for the truth of their religious beliefs.
 
KevinK said:
Would you agree that willingness to be persecuted is not evidence for a claim? People of many different faiths have been willing to die for their false beliefs. Many Muslims today are willing to be martyred in the cause of Jihad, but this is no evidence for the truth of their religious beliefs.
Click to expand...
Good point. However, there’s a subtle difference here that you’re glossing over:
  • Many Muslims are willing to die for the claims of a book written 1500 years ago
  • “People of many different faiths” have been willing to die for beliefs.
  • (By the same token, many Christians have been willing to die for their religious beliefs.)
However, the apostles were willing to die for a man with whom they’d had close personal experience over the course of a few years… whom they saw die (or who other witnesses vouched had died) at the hands of the Romans… and who appeared to them, alive, subsequently… and whom they understood to be God, based on their personal experiences with him.

This makes for a different standard than “I have a cause in which I believe”. This is evidence, I would assert, of a different kind of commitment than that of those who follow a religion.
 
KevinK said:
Would you agree that willingness to be persecuted is not evidence for a claim? People of many different faiths have been willing to die for their false beliefs. Many Muslims today are willing to be martyred in the cause of Jihad, but this is no evidence for the truth of their religious beliefs.
Click to expand...
Islam can be seen as a copycat of Christianity. It didn’t even get started until Christians had set the example by being martyred for 600 years.
 
So what? That has nothing to do with my point of people being willing to die for their religious beliefs. It also ignores the fact that were plenty of religions before Christianity.
 
Wow…advising you to grow spiritually and put Jesus in your heart.
He will give you all the answers with the help if Holy spirit
 
KevinK said:
It also ignores the fact that were plenty of religions before Christianity.
Click to expand...
Do any of them involve the other prophets whom the OP posted? Buddhism predates Christianity, but Buddha wasn’t from Palestine or anywhere near there. The only other religion from Palestine for which people have been consistently dying since before the time of Jesus, and which is still around, is the Jewish faith, which involves people dying for the same God that we worship.
 
Oh for sure. Islam is a heresy like many before it. Reminds me of Manichaeism where, like Muhammad, Mani claimed to be the paraclete. The difference is Islam spread by the sword and very quickly and hence why it is still around to this day and wasn’t stomped out like most other heresies.
Most stories in the Quran are biblical and also many include stories from Gnostic texts. Funny one time a Muslim was pointing out the “original stuff” in the Quran and I was like that’s not original that’s in the infancy Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Phillip. Very heavily influenced by Gnosticism and why wouldn’t It? Muhammad came from an area known to be where heretics were exiled.
 
You haven’t addressed Gorgias’ post which answered your question.
 
Yes its true that claimants to being the Messiah were popping up out of the woodwork, particularly in the years closest to Christ’s death on the cross, Barrabbas (Bar = son of + Abba = Father ===> whose notion of being recognized as the Messiah took the form of killing as many Romans as he could).

Whoever is explaining all this to you … do they NOT believe Jesus (1) was a historical “real” figure and (2) that he rose from the dead – or rising from the dead is not particularly noteworthy to them?

C.S. Lewis popularized the succinct assessment… Jesus was either Lord, Lunatic or Liar – that’s it - those are the only 3 possible choices. He either IS who says he is — and he is LORD, or he was touched in the head, had some sort of mental illness and is a Lunatic or he just flat-out lied and there was this huge coverup about the crucifixion and resurrection and 11 out of the 12 Apostles died horrifying, tortuous deaths proclaiming him Lord, rather than changing their witness and saying … "OK, we made it all up, we stole the body and then dumped the body in a riverbed…NOT! The Apostles died for what they BELIEVED, it’s doubtful they would have gone to their deaths as they did for something they all made up — particularly when they died in various regions of the world at different points of time, yet STILL proclaiming the Gospel (Good News) to their dying breaths.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top