if jesus didnt rise from the dead or even exist....

[Deum_quaerens]

good points, I wonder why nobody replied to this

Let alone the article that I referred to above, ie, Edwards, William D., et al., “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ”, Journal of the American Medical Association (March 21, 1986), 1455–63.

Or, how modern medical science confirms that the ludicrously outdated apparent death hypothesis firmly belongs in the past.

 

[simplynoone]

nah, they blame Jesus for being blasphemous.

Strange… Luke 4:15

 

[JJ59]

Strange… Luke 4:15

We’re getting a little off topic here, but Luke 4:15 proves nothing. It looks to me like hyperbole, but even if it’s not, this was before Jesus claimed to be the Son of God.

We see just a few verses later (Luke 4:28-29), he applies a Messianic prophecy to himself in Nazareth. Immediately after, they are enraged and want to throw him off of a mountain!

But of course, the topic is Jesus’ crucifixion. Do you still adhere to the Swoon Theory?

God Bless.

 

[simplynoone]

We’re getting a little off topic here, but Luke 4:15 proves nothing. It looks to me like hyperbole, but even if it’s not, this was before Jesus claimed to be the Son of God.

We see just a few verses later (Luke 4:28-29), he applies a Messianic prophecy to himself in Nazareth. Immediately after, they are enraged and want to throw him off of a mountain!

But of course, the topic is Jesus’ crucifixion. Do you still adhere to the Swoon Theory?

God Bless.

Regardless, he ALWAYS had plenty around him who esteemed him. This is contradictory to what is said in Isaiah 53… a fact. It is clear that Jesus was not the servant of Isaiah 53.

As for the swoon theory, I am unsure exactly what this theory entails. Perhaps explain it to me and then I can tell you if I ever did subscribe to it and if I still do. I have not changed my views that I stated earlier and so, if this is the swoon Theory, then I guess I still adhere to it.

 

[JJ59]

Regardless, he ALWAYS had plenty around him who esteemed him. This is contradictory to what is said in Isaiah 53… a fact. It is clear that Jesus was not the servant of Isaiah 53.

As for the swoon theory, I am unsure exactly what this theory entails. Perhaps explain it to me and then I can tell you if I ever did subscribe to it and if I still do. I have not changed my views that I stated earlier and so, if this is the swoon Theory, then I guess I still adhere to it.

True, true. What part of Isaiah 53 does not apply to Jesus? (It’s beyond me how someone can look at that chapter and not feel like they’re at the foot of the Holy Cross itself, seeing the crucifixion. )

The Swoon Theory is the idea that Jesus did not die on the cross, but was merely unconscious. On the third day, his “resurrection” was really just him, who had always been alive, going to his disciples. Of course, this theory holds very little water, and has been refuted countless times.

God Bless.

 

[simplynoone]

True, true. What part of Isaiah 53 does not apply to Jesus? (It’s beyond me how someone can look at that chapter and not feel like they’re at the foot of the Holy Cross itself, seeing the crucifixion. )

1. verse 2: Obviously people were attracted to him from the time of his birth until now, 2000 years later
2. verse 3: see the above. Even Pilate, the Roman Centurion, and one of the thieves (which goes to show a falsifying of the story… if taken, literally and not metaphorically that is) did not despise him. Not once was he w/out those who admired him.
3. verse 4: there has been another that has fit this verse much more profoundly that too many are over looking. By the way, I had to bear my own griefs and to the point that I LITERALLY had no one else, not even Jesus, who was willing to carry them for me. Explain that.
4. verse 5: As with every single verse in this chapter, we can find where the matching parallel is in the Tanakh. I cared enough to know what God meant by saying that He declared these things… the end from the beginning… and He did. See? Jeremiah 30:12
5. verse 6: Psalm 44:11, 13-15
6. verse 7: Do I really need to pull up all the verses where Jesus opened his mouth when he was brought before the authorities… however, you are overlooking the ones in whom we have not heard from… the others who were crucified.

Seriously, need I go on? READ WHAT IS BEFORE YOUR EYES AND YOU WILL KNOW THE TRUTH! Quit letting others dictate by “power of suggestion” the Word of God… they are taking away and adding in their own interpretations. Either you trust what has been declared or you trust what you were told to believe.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Regardless, he ALWAYS had plenty around him who esteemed him. This is contradictory to what is said in Isaiah 53… a fact. It is clear that Jesus was not the servant of Isaiah 53.

…

How many were around Him when he was led off from the
Garden? At the Sanhedrin trial? At Pilate’s?

 

[simplynoone]

How many were around Him when he was led off from the
Garden? At the Sanhedrin trial? At Pilate’s?

Hmmm… do you have a Bible? Why do you ask me this? It does not give exact numbers… how would you expect me to know? We know that his disciples were there when he was led away… heck, Peter even cut off an ear. OUCH! Some of the high priests were there and Romans were as well.

As far as the trial, it makes it sound as though there were A LOT of people present, no? I really take this whole scene as an allegory though to be honest with you. From my research, they did not crucify common criminals (which the thief would have been). Thus, this seems to me more an allegory than anything else. Honestly, I take much of the unnatural claims and the natural claims that are not consistent with history to be allegorical. It is the way that the Tanakh speaks and thus is the only way I can find consistency.

 

[Deum_quaerens]

From my research, they did not crucify common criminals (which the thief would have been). Thus, this seems to me more an allegory than anything else. Honestly, I take much of the unnatural claims and the natural claims that are not consistent with history to be allegorical. It is the way that the Tanakh speaks and thus is the only way I can find consistency.

What precludes those thieves from having, eg, participated in Barrabas’s sedition?

How can you believe that the Crucifixion is allegorical?! Even John Dominic Crossan acknowldges it to be historical fact!

And how can you still adhere to the swoon theory despite the conclusion of modern medical science?

It is clear that you have so great a presuppositional bias against Christianity that you will not even hold to be true what is recognized as such by all serious historians on the basis of a reasonable assessment of the documents.

 

[simplynoone]

What precludes those thieves from having, eg, participated in Barrabas’s sedition?

How can you believe that the Crucifixion is allegorical?! Even John Dominic Crossan acknowldges it to be historical fact!

And how can you still adhere to the swoon theory despite the conclusion of modern medical science?

It is clear that you have so great a presuppositional bias against Christianity that you will not even hold to be true what is recognized as such by all serious historians on the basis of a reasonable assessment of the documents.

I did not say that Crucifixion was allegorical. I was referring to the two thieves on either side. Have you ever studies the right side vs left side of the brain? Have you ever taken note of all the references to the left side and right side spoken of the bible? How about the fact that Egypt and Assyria are both considered the birth parents of Israel? Have you taken into consideration that Jesus was a Jew who confirmed the Tanakh and the religion Judaism and yet here are these two thieves on either side of him? There are two religions that both try to claim that they are the rightful heirs “ordained of God”… though the Tanakh is clear on this issue.

Isaiah 9:20; Isa 54:3; Eze 4; Eze 16:46; Eze 21:16

This is being proved even amongst these thread here: Psa 21:8; Psa 26:10;

And one of my favorites: Isaiah 30:20-21

It was not until I saw TRUTH that I could understand mercy. I sought after Truth with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength and I did it without the promise of anything… as far as I knew, according to what I had been taught since before my earliest memories (which “brainwashing” - for lack of a better term- is not something that is overcome in one day), I WOULD spend eternity in hell for letting go of the faith and seeking after the answers to the questions I had asked all my life. But I did it regardless and here is what I found:

“Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other.” Psa 85:10 <---- God is a Creator and it was in this creative Spirit that I found what it is I was looking for. I discuss Christianity because it is what I knew… I was not raised in Islam and could research it all I like, but it will still never be the mote that was in my eye the way that Christianity was.

 

[Deum_quaerens]

I was not raised in Islam and could research it all I like, but it will still never be the mote that was in my eye the way that Christianity was.

Your practice of Christianity was no mote in your eye compared to your blind faith in its falsity. Shamelessly you purport to seek the truth, when you bear so little to hear it that you hold to fanciful hypotheses of times past, which no self-respecting sceptic would dare produce in a serious debate, and which no honest sceptic could adhere to in the privacy of his conscience. You, however, have clearly shown yourself to be no honest sceptic, but literally to have deceived yourself into theories outlandish and untenable, solely that you may flee the Truth.

 

[simplynoone]

Your practice of Christianity was no mote in your eye compared to your blind faith in its falsity. Shamelessly you purport to seek the truth, when you bear so little to hear it that you hold to fanciful hypotheses of times past, which no self-respecting sceptic would dare produce in a serious debate, and which no honest sceptic could adhere to in the privacy of his conscience. You, however, have clearly shown yourself to be no honest sceptic, but literally to have deceived yourself into theories outlandish and untenable, solely that you may flee the Truth.

So, in other words, you judge my heart based on my lack of blind faith in something that I was told to believe or else spend eternity in hell, correct?

Have you read Job? What about doubting Thomas? Doubtless you would make the same judgments on them since I was no different in my questionings. Are you trying to say that though I fulfilled the conditions of Proverbs 2:1-7, the understanding that God has given to me is a lie? Do you really view Him that way? HE SAID SEEK… NOT BUY INTO WHATEVER YOU ARE TOLD TO BUY INTO.

Did you know that the story of Moses, though based on real events was not actually as fantastical as it seems? Did you know that I still consider it Truth? Why can I not do the same the for Jesus… view it in the same way that is… real events that have the typical mythological spin (the same as many of the stories in the Tanakh) to bring forth Truths. It is the only way TO view it unless you are willing to take the events as literal… in which case, those who worshiped other sungods should also be seen as right in their worshiping of their gods.

 

[Deum_quaerens]

HE SAID SEEK… NOT BUY INTO WHATEVER YOU ARE TOLD TO BUY INTO.

He said: “Seek”, indeed, not: “Desperately espouse untenable opinions, under the veneer of truth-seeking, so as to appear a singular individual having come to opinions which ought somehow to be held credible on account of their peculiarity.”

If I bought whatever I were told to buy into, I would still be an atheist.

Did you know that the story of Moses, though based on real events was not actually as fantastical as it seems? Did you know that I still consider it Truth? Why can I not do the same the for Jesus… view it in the same way that is… real events that have the typical mythological spin (the same as many of the stories in the Tanakh) to bring forth Truths.

Quite simply because those events which you view as mythological are historical.

The Oxford historian A. N. Sherwin-White examined the rate at which legend accrued in the ancient world, and determined that not even two full generations was enough time for legend to develop and to wipe out a solid core of historical truth; that is to say, that it takes at least fifty years for fact to be obfuscated by mythological developments.

The creed in I Corinthians xv, which proclaims Jesus’s death, burial, Resurrection and post-mortem appearances, was surely received by Paul some time between AD 33 (the date of his conversion) and AD 36 (when he met the Apostles), ie, it was already formulated within five years of the Crucifixion.

Of the Passion narrative used in Mark, Dr William Lane Craig writes (bold emphasis mine):

Whereas most of Mark’s Gospel consists of short anecdotal stories strung like pearls on a string, when we get to the final week of Jesus’ life we encounter a continuous narrative of events from the Jewish plot during the Feast of Unleavened Bread through Jesus’ burial and empty tomb. The events of the Last Supper, arrest, execution, burial, and empty tomb were central to the identity of early Christian communities. According to James D. G. Dunn, “The most obvious explanation of this feature is that the framework was early on fixed within the tradition process and remained so throughout the transition to written Gospels. This suggests in turn a tradition rooted in the memory of the participants and put into that framework by them” (J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 2003, pp. 765-6.) The dominant view among NT scholars is therefore that the Passion narratives are early and based on eyewitness testimony (Mark Allen Powell, JAAR 68 [2000]: 171). Indeed, according to Richard Bauckham, many scholars date Mark’s Passion narrative no later than the 40s (recall that Jesus died in A.D. 30) (Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 2006, p. 243). So we’re dealing here with an extraordinarily early source.

Need I go on?

The Gospels were all written before the end of the first century AD, and there is good reason to think that not only that of Mark, but also that of Luke, were written before AD 60. And when do the legendary apocryphal gospels appear? From the beginning of the second century onwards, ie, slightly more than two generations after the facts — as expected.

It is the only way TO view it unless you are willing to take the events as literal… in which case, those who worshiped other sungods should also be seen as right in their worshiping of their gods.

The alleged parallels which you allude to, and which dishonest sceptics have multiplied in order to create the illusion that there is some credible comparison to be made with Christianity, are quite simply spurious, and none stand up to scrutiny.

bringyou.to/apologetics/ParallelChristPaganSavior.htm
bringyou.to/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCrucifiedSaviors.htm
tektonics.org/copycat/copycathub.html

 

[simplynoone]

He said: “Seek”, indeed, not: “Desperately espouse untenable opinions, under the veneer of truth-seeking, so as to appear a singular individual having come to opinions which ought somehow to be held credible on account of their peculiarity.”

If I bought whatever I were told to buy into, I would still be an atheist.

Actually, I was an atheist (in lip service) for a good 5-6 months. Let me show you why:

There were 28 generations from David to Jesus. Mt.1:17.
There are 4 names missing in I Chr. 3:6-10
There were 43 generations from David to Jesus. Lk.3:23-31.

Jacob was Joseph’s father. Mt.1:16.
Heli was Joseph’s father. Lk.3:23.
He was to be called Emmanuel. Mt.1:23.
He was called Jesus. Mt.1:25.

Joseph, Mary, and Jesus flee to Egypt while Herod slaughters all males under 2 years old. Mt.2:13-16. (Note: Jesus’ cousin, John, was also under 2 and survived without having to flee.)
Joseph, Mary, and Jesus did not flee to Egypt, but remained for temple rituals. No slaughter of infants is mentioned! Lk.2:21-39.

John knew of Jesus before he baptized him. Mt.3:11-13; Jn.1:28,29.
John knew nothing of Jesus at all. Mt.11:1-3.

Jesus begins his ministry after John’s arrest. Mk.1:13,14.
Jesus begins his ministry before John’s arrest. Jn.3:22-24.

Immediately after the baptism, Jesus spent 40 days in the wilderness. Mt.4:1,2; Mk.1:12,13.
Three days after the baptism, Jesus was at the wedding in Cana. Jn.2:1.

Jesus went to Bethphage and the Mt. of Olives, then left for Bethany. Mt.21:1,17.
Jesus went to Bethphage and Bethany at the Mt. of Olives. Mk.11:1; Lk.19:29.
Jesus went to Bethany and then Jerusalem. Jn.12:1,12.

Peter was chosen, with Andrew, by the Sea of Galilee. Mt.4:18-20; Mk.1:16-18.
Peter was chosen, with James and John, by the lake of Gennesaret. Lk.5:2-11.
Andrew chose Jesus and then got Peter to join. Jn.1:35-42.

Jesus cured Simon Peter’s mother-in-law after he cleansed the leper. Mt.8:1-15.
Jesus cured Simon Peter’s mother-in-law before he cleansed the leper. Mk.1:30-42; Lk.4:38 to 5:13.

Peter’s mother-in-law was healed before Peter was called to be a disciple. Lu.4:38,39; 5:10.
Peter’s mother-in-law was healed after Peter was called to be a disciple. Mt.4:18,19; 8:14,15; Mk.1:16,17,30,31.

Jesus cursed the fig tree so that it would not bear fruit. Mt.21:19; Mk.11:14.
It wasn’t time for the fig tree to bear fruit. Mk.11:13.
The fig tree withers immediately, and the disciples are amazed. Mt.21:19,20.
The disciples first notice the withered tree the next day. Mk.11:20,21.

Jesus is the mediator of the “Father”. 1 Tim.2:5; 1 Jn.2:1.
Jesus sits on “his” right hand. Mk. 16:19.
Jesus and the “Father” are one in the same. Jn.10:30.

Jesus said to honor your father and mother. Mt.15:4; Mt.19:19; Mk.7:10; Mk.10:19; Lk.18:20.
Jesus said that he came to set people against their parents. Mt.10:35-37; Lk.12:51-53; Lk.14:26.
Jesus said to call no man father. Mt.23:9.

Anger by itself is a sin. Mt.5:22.
But not necessarily. Eph.4:26.

Jesus is thankful that some things are hidden. Mt.11:25; Mk.4:11,12.
Jesus said that all things should be made known. Mk.4:22.

Jesus said that no sign would be given. Mk.8:12.
Jesus said that no sign would be given except for that of Jonas. Mt.12:39; Lk.11:29.
Jesus showed many signs. Jn.20:30; Acts 2:22.

Repentance is necessary. Acts 3:19; Lu.3:3.
Repentance is not necessary. Rom.11:29.

Non-believers obtain mercy. Rom.11:32.
Only believers obtain mercy. Jn.3:36; Rom.14:23.
Only baptized believers obtain mercy. Mk.16:16.
Mercy cannot be predetermined. Rom.9:18.

All who call on the “Lord” will be saved. Rom.10:13; Acts 2:21.
Only those predestined will be saved. Acts 13:48; Eph.1:4,5; 2 Thes.2:13; Acts 2:47.

Jesus said he would not cast aside any that come to him. Jn.6:37.
Jesus said that many that come to him will be cast aside. Mt.7:21-23.

Salvation comes by faith and not works. Eph.2:8,9; Rom.11:6; Gal.2:16; Rom.3:28.
Salvation comes by faith and works. Jms.2:14,17,20.

The righteous have eternal life. Mt.25:46.
The righteous are barely saved. 1 Pet.4:18.
There are no righteous. Rom.3:10.

Believe and be baptized to be saved. Mk.16:16.
Be baptized by water and the spirit to be saved. Jn.3:5.
Endure to the end to be saved. Mt.24:13.
Call on the name of the “Lord” to be saved. Acts 2:21; Rom.10:13.
Believe in Jesus to be saved. Acts 16:31.
Believe, then all your household will be saved. Acts 16:31.
Hope and you will be saved. Rom.8:24.
Believe in the resurrection to be saved. Rom.10:9.
By grace you are saved. Eph.2:5
By grace and faith you are saved. Eph.2:8.
Have the love of truth to be saved. 2 Thes.2:10.
Mercy saves. Titus 3:5.

God resides in heaven. Mt.5:45; Mt.6:9; Mt.7:21.
Angels reside in heaven. Mk.13:32.
Jesus is with God in heaven. Acts 7:55,56
Believers go to heaven. 1 Pet.1:3,4.
Heaven will pass away. Mt.24:35; Mk.13:31; Lk.21:33.

God leads you into temptation. Mt.6:13.
God tempts no one. Jms.1:13.

Jesus said that in him there was peace. Jn.16:33.
Jesus said that he did not come to bring peace. Mt.10:34; Lk.12:51.

On and on and SERIOUSLY on I could go. Either it was that NONE OF THIS WAS TRUE oooooorrrrrrrrrr there is something to the passages in the Tanakh… the foundation…

Gen 11:7; Job 6:19-21; Psa 35:3-5; Psa 40:13-15; Psa 70:2; Psa 97:7; Psa 129:5; Isa 41:11; Isa 45:16

Jeremiah 22: 21 I spake unto thee in thy prosperity; but thou saidst, I will not hear. This hath been thy manner from thy youth, that thou obeyedst not my voice.
22 The wind shall eat up all thy pastors, and thy lovers shall go into captivity: surely then shalt thou be ashamed and confounded for all thy wickedness.

It am glad that obeyed and “commanded” God to tell me of the things to come concerning His sons (Isa 45:11). I adamantly told Him that if questioning meant eternal punishment, than so be it because I NO LONGER would accept anything that I could not understand. It seemed to me that something was not right in the NT and that there MUST be a reason for it. And there is (as I have shown in the above list of passages).

He has set the foundation straight for me and so, I have no fear in the things that I have said in this and other threads; for they do not contradict that foundation the way the literal acceptance of the NT does… in fact, the literal acceptance contradicts itself… it is no wonder Christians are in such confusion concerning their doctrines.

 

[JJ59]

1. verse 2: Obviously people were attracted to him from the time of his birth until now, 2000 years later
2. verse 3: see the above. Even Pilate, the Roman Centurion, and one of the thieves (which goes to show a falsifying of the story… if taken, literally and not metaphorically that is) did not despise him. Not once was he w/out those who admired him.
3. verse 4: there has been another that has fit this verse much more profoundly that too many are over looking. By the way, I had to bear my own griefs and to the point that I LITERALLY had no one else, not even Jesus, who was willing to carry them for me. Explain that.
4. verse 5: As with every single verse in this chapter, we can find where the matching parallel is in the Tanakh. I cared enough to know what God meant by saying that He declared these things… the end from the beginning… and He did. See? Jeremiah 30:12
5. verse 6: Psalm 44:11, 13-15
6. verse 7: Do I really need to pull up all the verses where Jesus opened his mouth when he was brought before the authorities… however, you are overlooking the ones in whom we have not heard from… the others who were crucified.

Seriously, need I go on? READ WHAT IS BEFORE YOUR EYES AND YOU WILL KNOW THE TRUTH! Quit letting others dictate by “power of suggestion” the Word of God… they are taking away and adding in their own interpretations. Either you trust what has been declared or you trust what you were told to believe.

Oh, Isaiah 53 is about Jesus all right. I’d say you’re the one being dictated by others’ suggestion.

v1-2: This talks about physical attraction. No one looked at him and thought, “What a handsome young man!” There was nothing about the way he looked that was special, to make him look like a King, the long-awaited Messiah.

v3-4: This really talks about the Atonement, in my view. He became sin to redeem sin. He bore our iniquities, our sorrows, our sin on the Holy Cross. I am terribly sorry for what you must have gone through but we mustn’t expect God to intervene the way we expect him to. As they say, “The Lord works in mysterious ways”. I can explain this a little more, if you like.

v4-5: I don’t see a parallel here… Jer. 30:12 says, “For thus says the LORD, 'Your wound is incurable And your injury is serious.” compared to Is. 53:4-5 which says, 4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed."

v6-7: Actually, please do. I don’t want to have to go one verse at a time myself!!!

But, as you can see, from the ones I answered, Isaiah 53 is very much about Jesus. If you like, we can start a new thread about this chapter of Isaiah.

God Bless.

 

[JJ59]

Oh yeah, and for v2-3, I have here an excellent quote from internet apologist J.P. Holding:

“(I)t doesn’t take much historical knowledge to realize that such “positive” times were by far outweighed by the negatives. Simply making light of those who stayed on Jesus’ side and did not despise or reject him, and interpreting these few followers as meaning that Jesus had popular support overall, doesn’t do the job. (And really, it takes a lot of nerve to suppose that Isaiah is picturing someone whom everyone hates without exception: Isaiah’s servant is rejected by “men of high status” – to get to the point where such people know about you, you really have to start somewhere with at least a few well-placed people liking you!)”

 

[simplynoone]

Oh, Isaiah 53 is about Jesus all right. I’d say you’re the one being dictated by others’ suggestion.

v1-2: This talks about physical attraction. No one looked at him and thought, “What a handsome young man!” There was nothing about the way he looked that was special, to make him look like a King, the long-awaited Messiah.

v3-4: This really talks about the Atonement, in my view. He became sin to redeem sin. He bore our iniquities, our sorrows, our sin on the Holy Cross. I am terribly sorry for what you must have gone through but we mustn’t expect God to intervene the way we expect him to. As they say, “The Lord works in mysterious ways”. I can explain this a little more, if you like.

v4-5: I don’t see a parallel here… Jer. 30:12 says, “For thus says the LORD, 'Your wound is incurable And your injury is serious.” compared to Is. 53:4-5 which says, 4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed."

v6-7: Actually, please do. I don’t want to have to go one verse at a time myself!!!

But, as you can see, from the ones I answered, Isaiah 53 is very much about Jesus. If you like, we can start a new thread about this chapter of Isaiah.

God Bless.

I have actually thought about starting a thread concerning Isaiah 53. Perhaps a bit later this evening when I do not have my attention spread so thin, I will do so. I have only hesitated to do so because I quite enjoyed finding all the parallels for myself and did not want to take that away from others to do such. However, if this would be of interest to some, I do not mind.

 

[simplynoone]

Oh yeah, and for v2-3, I have here an excellent quote from internet apologist J.P. Holding:

“(I)t doesn’t take much historical knowledge to realize that such “positive” times were by far outweighed by the negatives. Simply making light of those who stayed on Jesus’ side and did not despise or reject him, and interpreting these few followers as meaning that Jesus had popular support overall, doesn’t do the job. (And really, it takes a lot of nerve to suppose that Isaiah is picturing someone whom everyone hates without exception: Isaiah’s servant is rejected by “men of high status” – to get to the point where such people know about you, you really have to start somewhere with at least a few well-placed people liking you!)”

My only problem with this statement is that all the times of his recorded life and beyond, Jesus has had more supporters for his tough situations than I have for situations I have gone through. It just does not make any sense to say that he was despised and rejected of men when clearly he never was compared to most people in the world. How unfair to think that there have been others, little children (who are innocent as well), who have had to face excruciating situations with NO ONE to lean on.

 

[Deum_quaerens]

Let me show you why: …

That those propositions be considered contradictory depends only on a presuppositional bias against their being compatible (ie, reading them disjunctively, or out of context).

 

[simplynoone]

That those propositions be considered contradictory depends only on a presuppositional bias against their being compatible (ie, reading them disjunctively, or out of context).

I would be interested in seeing you put them back into context in such a way as to be logical and yet at the same time showing how they do not contradict one another.The only way that I could make it happen was by looking at the story of Jesus as being allegorical (of course, this excludes the doctrinal contradictions of which most of that confusion comes from Paul’s Hellenistic literal interpretations and desire to have the Law discarded, which contradicted what Jesus said (Matt 5:17-19).