Maybe Jesus was not so unique???

I think Bugs "Bunny" was also really a hare, with those long ears and all . . .

 

So you are saying before Jesus was born, He made sure He was born in Betlhem.
Many of the prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus, He had little control over. And if He had control, it was because He was God.

 

The New Testament was finished around 90 A.D. And there are other historical accounts about Christ, that mirror the scriptures.

 

Is there any proof, other than the book, to suggest he was born in Betlhem? As was said, it's easy to say that a proficy came true if you're inventing the story yourself.

 

This reminds me of the 'Mythras = Jesus' Hoax that flew about the internet a year ago.

Virtually everything in that David Icke quote is either highly exaggerated and or blatantly false.

(See BlackBillBlakes post)

Most of these are pure ficticious hoax's which take advantage of readers who are not educated enough to know any better.

Might be worth mentioning - The Jewish Messiah is recorded and events of his (future) life on Earth are prophesied Lonnnnnnng before 1AD.

It would not be surprising to see 'Versions' springing up around the Holy Lands (though i dont know of many except maybe the 'Mystery Cults' in that area)

Its also helpful to consider the laws of Probability.
There are literally thousands of things Jesus said or 'did'.

If you pick a guy like Mythros... and ALL the various legends from ALL the regions over ALL the centuries - Probability says you can certainly find a handful of 'Hits'.

In one region, one group, in one time, among all their legends has a part of a story where Mythros travels somewhere on a Donkey.

Jesus once rode a Donkey into town!!

Considering that was as common a mode of transport as car... what a coincidence!!! Never mind HUGE differences in almost every other aspect of life, teaching, locations... They BOTH rode a Donkey into a town!!!

Obviously Jesus is plagiarised from Mythros!

 

i want to add something about the prophecies...i havent read them, and don't even know much of them...but this is an interesting one...about the Messiah beng born in the City of David [what King David called jerusalum] well as we all know, jesus was born in bethlahem...where David is from...i love how the outcome can be mixed round to fit your need...

no offence to anyone though...also, much of the NT was written areoung the time of Chirst, unless all his diciples who wrote the many gospels of His life and ressurection all lived to be extremly old like in the OT...

 

Yes a second century document written by Origen titled Against Celsus. Volume 1 chapter 51 speaks of the birth place of Jesus Christ in Bethlehem, and the cave where He was born. The document states that even among the enemies of the Christian faith, it is stated this is where Jesus was born.

Early Roman Writings Testimonium stated. That Jesus Christ lived. That He was a teacher and miracle worker. That He had followers both Jews and Gentiles. That He was condemned to the cross by Pontios Pilate. That His followers didn't stop following Him after the crucifixion. There is historical evidence which supports the reality of Jesus Christ. Some of the evidence comes from those hostile to the faith, yet even in their hatered of Christians they reveal the truth of the Bible. Roman writings could care less about supporting the scriptures, yet they do.

 

To turn this around to make a point.

I do not believe Mohammed was a prophet.
ok.

I can just as easily insist Mohammed never existed anyway.
I could set up a false dichotemy (popular on CNN specials, Time and Newsweek, A&E)
"The Historical Mohammed"
"Who was the Real Mohammed"

It would give the impression there is a lot of 'Question' about it and I could even find Scholars who would say "We dont have any proof Mohammed was a real person"

Then in a JosephCampbellian 'back handed compliment' I would smugly 'give credit' to the Islamic 'Mohammed' as a 'Valuable Myth'.

I remind you that a 'Myth' doesnt mean its untrue!

But let me tell you one reason why that is a bunch of Bullshit - You may not have the bones of Mohammed (stamped 'I am Mohammed') but you DO have Millions of followers.
You have a million historical witnesses that, for some reason armies of men were sweeping across the middle-east in the name of "Muhammed'.

Obviously (by any standard of common sense and wisdom) that there was a real historical Mohammed.

This same goes for Jesus.
Real Historians know very well that you simply do not have a sudden and dramatic explosion of people in the Roman Empire declaring they follow a person named Jesus!

They most definately will not be persecuted and even killed for someone they cant verify existed.

Now im not just rambling on about this - Historians take this into very serious consideration when they try and determine the real identity of historical figures.

Mohammed is a real historical person beyond a reasonable doubt.
Jesus is too.

Now you can doubt whether they were messengers of Gods word - but if you try and demonstrate they were 'fictional' you will run into all kinds of problems and have a far more difficult time explaining how everything else fits into place.

 

The city of David was not Jerusalem, it was Bethlehem. Bethlehem was Davids ancestral home. Nobody is mixing anything around, you need to study the Bible.

The diciples would of lived to be a lot older but 1. Peter was Crucified 66A.D. 2. Andrew was bound to death 74 A.D. 3. James Beheaded 4. John banished to the Isle of Patmos 96A.D. 5. Phillip Crucified 52 A.D. 6. Bartholomew Beaten Crucified Beheaded 52 A.D. 7. Thomas Run through by lance 52 A.D.
8. Matthew slain by the sword 60 A.D. 9. James Beaten to death. 10. Thaddeus shot to death by arrows 72 A.D. 11. Simon Crucified 70 A.D.

These men could of spared their lives if they would of just stated that Jesus Christ was a Liar. It's hard to believe they all died for a lie.

 

Its even harder to explain why all of them were willing to 'cover' for the other Eleven.
I mean.. IF you are going to insist they were willing to live out a big lie for their entire lives - then surely it was for some gain?

Can you imagine, no matter how much you were getting paid for telling everyone Jesus was resurrected ... you would recieve a FORTUNE from Rome if you were willing to publically expose the whole scam.

One, Two or maybe even three people.. but twelve people going through what they did for something they knew was false?

 

no, im just saying...its slighlty amusing when Jerusalum was called the City of David...that was its name, yet to fulfuilthe prophicies, they used his birth home

 

No. Micah 5 specifically identifies Bethlehem.

 

Yes, it does, but does this sound like Jesus?
Micah 5:6 "And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders."
Micah 5:15 "And I will execute vengeance in anger and fury upon the heathen, such as they have not heard."

They may have got the city right, but the life of Jesus does not fit at all with the prophecied ass whooping that follows.

 

poo, imade myself the fool...ok, so Jerusalem was never the city of David...my mistake

 

joseph campell was very good at making people think that we had to create a new mythical story, to create a new religion. he also made good soups. i'd still trust jesus over osiris and vishnu though, thats just me, but then again, i used to read too much.

 

i hope thats what jesus does to the nimrods. i just hope i can hold out on my own until then. jesus probably has come to whoop ass, he just had to show people how to live first, im sure he'll get around to whoopin the ones who want it.

 

The actual chapter about Bethlehem is Micah 5:2. as far as the rest of the chapter. There is going to be a controversy in the world about the existance of Israel. This will arise out of nations from Israels north. These nations will be powerful, and they will not reguard America or it's world view. They will attempt through military action to change the political landscape, by destroying the State of Israel. At this time, America will choose not to commit suicide by rushing to Israels aid, and will remove itself from the conflict. It will be at this time, that Jesus Christ the same one the Jews rejected, will step forward to defend the Jews from certain catastrophe. Five sixths of the invading army will be destroyed by Christ. Zechariah 12:9,10,11,12,13,14, And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. 10. And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: AND THEY SHALL LOOK UPON ME WHOM THEY HAVE PIERCED, AND THEY SHALL MOURN FOR HIM, AS ONE MOURNETH FOR HIS ONLY SON, AND SHALL BE IN BITTERNESS FOR HIM, AS ONE THAT IS IN BITTERNESS FOR HIS FIRSTBORN. 11. In that day shall there be great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the vally of Megiddon. 12. And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; 13. The family of the house of Levie apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart; 14. All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart. This will happen on the day when Jesus Christ rescues the Jews from their enemies, and the Jews recognize who it is that saves them. If you only pick and choose the kind of Jesus that you want from the scriptures you can make your Jesus anything you want. Yet if you look at all the scriptures, you will see Jesus for who He is. He is a God of power, and justice.

 

I don't embrace Campbell's comical pop eschatology (see http://www.christiancounterculture.com/cc_30304.html) but there's a much simpler answer to your objection. In Luke 4, Jesus read from Isaiah 61 and claimed to be fulfilling it, but he stopped reading in mid-sentence. Why? The part he left out - "the day of vengeance" - would not come until he returns. His first coming had an entirely different purpose.

 

Well Huckfinn I see you got your cheap shot in. "I don't embrace Campbell's comical pop eschatology" Then you give a web adress that's talking about Sam Waldron, who is pushing His book. HOW COULD EVERYONE BE SO WRONG? Well that is everyone, but Sam Waldron. Sam believes that Israel is a nation that appears at this time by accident and has nothing to do with the Bible. Well long ago, there were other ministers who actually believed the prophecies of the Bible, and made some pridictions of their own. In 1864 Dr. John Cumming said of the future of Israel: "How comes it to pass that as a nation they have been dispersed over every land, yet insulated, separated, and alone amid the nations? The predictions of their restoration are in words as definite only not yet fulfilled. As a nation they were cut off and dispersed, and it is as a nation that they shall be gathered and restored. But one closing act in this great dramatic history of an extraordinary people is yet wanting to complete the whole. Their restoration is predicted and demanded. Who will stretch out his hand to move the scene and call forth the actors.
In 1866 James Grant who was an English Bible scholar wrote about the restoration of the Jews back to Israel and stated: The personal coming of Christ, to establish His millennial reign on earth, will not take place until the Jews are restored to their own land, and the enemies of Christ and the Jews have gathered together their armies from all parts of the world,and have commenced the siege of Jerusalem...now the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, and the mustering and marshalling of these mighty armies, with a view to capturing Jerusalem, must require a considerable time yet." ( This was written eighty-two years before Israel was made a nation.) Now I'm not sure what you believe, but please don't give me another web adress. If you believe what I'm saying is comical, tell me why in your own words. Don't hide behind someone trying to sell a book.

 

I don't expect to be able to have a rational dialogue with you; the links I've referred you to are mainly for the benefit of others.

Right, your dispensationalist gurus never think of book sales . . .