Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 27

• 0%

  tehranchik5 months ago

  fta

  "Hagee's affection for Israel derives from a belief that for the Second Coming of Christ to occur, the Jews must return to Israel and rebuild the Temple destroyed by the Romans. The catch in this belief is that once the End Times roll, practicing Jews will be killed off during a period called the Tribulation â;; only those who convert to Christianity will survive."

  Is this what the Jewish people believe? They will someday have to become christians to survive?

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    Thinker225 months ago

    > Is this what the Jewish people believe? They will someday have to become christians to survive?

    ...but of course! If Jesus will come and prove that He is the Messiah every Jew will folow Him. No question about it.

    Reply
• 0%

  mmrhe5 months ago

  ...And why don't they believe Jesus to be the Messiah in the first place?

  (Honest question....I really don't know)

  Reply

  20 Replies

  • 0%

    Thinker225 months ago

    For the same reason Jews did not believe some other people were the Messiah (yes, there were several people in history who declared themselves Messiah but were unable to support these claims).

    It is interesting that among many thousands of documents, books, records, etc. from the beginning of the 1st Century AD not a single one mentioned Jesus Christ. The only source of information about Jesus is the New Testament that was written many years after Jesus' death. To me it suggest that during His lifetime Jesus was not considered important enough to write about, certainly not a Messiah.

    Remember, the Messiah MUST PROVE that He indeed IS a Messiah in the first place. Only then people in general (and Jews in particular) will follow him.

    Reply

    19 Replies

    • 0%

      PsychoHosebeast5 months ago

      But then, Jesus never did claim to be the Messiah...

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%

        Thinker225 months ago

        > Jesus never did claim to be the Messiah...

        How do you know? The very first Christians (who were all Jews, by the way) believed that HE actually WAS the Messiah. If He did not make this claim he would probably explain to His followers that they were mistaken.

        Reply
    • 0%

      Georgia505 months ago

      'Mornin, Thinker.

      As an evangelical Christian who's been to Israel 2x and considers himself a staunch supporter of Israel and its essential Jewish character, for reasons that include common sense, rule of law, international law, the rules of war--all in addition to Christian eschatology--I have to take exception to some of your points. However, I enjoy our common ground even more so will forego commentary for now.

      Hear O Israel

      The Lord thy G-d

      The Lord is One

      Gives me goosebumps every time I type/say/read it.

      Reply

      16 Replies

      • 0%

        Thinker225 months ago

        > I enjoy our common ground even more so will forego commentary for now.

        I, on the other hand, would enjoy reasing and responding to your commentaries as I believe that the best way to find the truth is through debate and discussion.

        Reply

        15 Replies

        • 0%

          Georgia505 months ago

          Fair enough, and I appreciate your sentiments.

          Both Tacitus and Josephus refer to Christ or to his followers. Tacitus gave instructions on how to deal with Christians--release them after a whipping or two--Josephus describing what little he knew.

          Also, if you're familiar with the terms "internal evidence" and "external evidence" with regard to the dating of ancient manuscripts, allow me to point out there is no internal evidence that any of the NT manuscripts were penned after 70 AD. And one or two refer to the temple in Jerusalem, placing them before 70 AD.

          I believe also the tidal wave of Christianity that overtook and Roman Empire and its pagan/temple belief system speaks for itself. Not that a belief system is justified by its ability to transform society; but clearly Christianity did not emerge from thin air.

          If the NT is a concoction by men to deceive others, then there are a host of questions raised that defy reasonable explanation.

          Reply

          14 Replies

          • 0%

            Thinker225 months ago

            > Both Tacitus and Josephus refer to Christ or to his followers.

            I did not argue that a man names Jesus Christ did not exist. To the contrary, I've mentiioned His very first followers and that they all were Jews.

            Further, Tacitus was born 22 years after Jesus' was crucified so at best his writings were about events that happened at least 40 years earlier. Still further, I'm not aware of Josephus mentioning Jesus.

            Referring to the Temple does not necessarily prove that the documents mentioning it were written when the Temple still stood there. Just like it was possible to write about Jesus many years after His death.

            As far as I know the oldest known copies of New Testament documents are dated several hundred years after Christ.

            I fully agree that Christianity did not (and could not) emerge from thin air. There certainly was a real basis to it. Christians believe that this basis was divine. Jews do not.

            Reply

            13 Replies

            • 0%

              Georgia505 months ago

              Yes...Tacitus' comments deal with Christian followers, which by extension bespeak the social phenomena of his time, the generation after.

              Internal references to the temple, yet ignoring its destruction, would be unlikely. And at least one reference--in Hebrews, I believe--refers to the then-current sacrifices (per my argument) made at the temple.

              Josephus' two comments follow below.

              The earliest known extant manuscript is c. 125 AD, Alexandria. Given that early missionary focus was Northward and Westward to Rome and Spain, this speaks to the rapid, radiating acceptance of Christian doctrine outward from Jerusalem.

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • 0%

                Thinker225 months ago

                > And at least one reference--in Hebrews, I believe--refers to the then-current sacrifices (per my argument) made at the temple.

                I believe that it is pretty likely to describe past events (including sacrifices made when the Temple still stood there) about Christ and not mention the destruction of the Temple that happened 30 years later. Similarly, one would describe WWI in a book written in 1980 and wound not necessarily mention that Germany lost WWII.

                > The earliest known extant manuscript is c. 125 AD, Alexandria.

                This makes it almost 100 years after Christ.

                Reply
            • 0%

              Georgia505 months ago

              Antiquities 20.9.1

              But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

              Reply
            • 0%

              Georgia505 months ago

              Antiquities 18.3.3

              Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

              Reply
            • 0%

              Georgia505 months ago

              Note: The commentaries by Josephus are not without controversy. I'm not asking for your unqualified acceptance merely because I scored a hit on Google.

              Reply

              8 Replies

              • 0%

                Thinker225 months ago

                I would like to see a link to the source of Josephus' comments as my late uncle (a History Professor and an internationally respected scholar of the history of Christianity) insisted that there were no known comments by Josephus about Christ.

                Reply

                7 Replies

                • 0%

                  Georgia505 months ago

                  The citations from Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, above, is all you need to google. Then simply choose from the resulting list the translation you prefer. You should find ample discussion for and against acceptance of the two passages above.

                  Reply
                • 0%

                  Georgia505 months ago

                  Probably what your esteemed late uncle meant is that the evidence for the actual life of Christ remains unproven by references to him in certain works of antiquity.

                  Indeed, one must be careful to distinguish between proof, of which there is none (of the purely analytical variety), and evidence that must be sifted, measured, and weighed against many factors.

                  Reply

                  5 Replies

                  • 0%

                    Thinker225 months ago

                    > Probably what your esteemed late uncle meant is that the evidence for the actual life of Christ remains unproven by references to him in certain works of antiquity.

                    Hardly. He meant exactly what he had said, that the Josephus' writings did not mention Jesus Christ. The citations available for 'googling' are, most oribably, fakes fro one simple reason:

                    If it was proven that Josephus who lived at the same time with Jesus DID write about Jesus Christ it would prove without any doubt that Jesus LIVED.

                    Reply

                    4 Replies

                    • 0%

                      Georgia505 months ago

                      All well and good, but I note with interest that a similar standard is never adopted for other persons of antiquity. When Plato is taught, his life is assumed. When Socrates is taught, his life is assumed.

                      Yet skeptics of Christ's life never get around to contrasting the abundance of evidence Christ lived to the paltry evidence that either of these two Greek philosophers lived.

                      And there's another problem with this analysis. The working assumption is that having conceived a major world religion, Christ would have enjoyed worldly acclaim among the scholars and writers of his day. Yet our record of his ministry indicates he went out of his way to avoid notoriety. When the Jews paraded into Jerusalem intent on making him king, thinking his was a physio-political kingdom, he actively opposed the move. When selecting apostles, he chose 12 no-names with little or no schooling, including a traitor. He refused purely human acclaim for its own sake repeatedly.

                      Reply

                      3 Replies

                      • 0%

                        Georgia505 months ago

                        So I believe the burden of proof that Christ's level of notoriety in his own day is a valid analytical tool regarding whether or not Christ lived rests with those who claim that scholarly or academic acceptance is lacking in his life. And that burden is first to demonstrate a person ought to have had a high level of social standing or import when in fact that person is said to have rejected social standing or import.

                        Reply
                      • 0%

                        Thinker225 months ago

                        > When Plato is taught, his life is assumed. When Socrates is taught, his life is assumed.

                        This is correct, however, there are at least two valid reasons for such different standards. One is the AVAILABLE WRITINGS of Plato and Socrates. There are no writings proven to be authored by Jesus Christ himself.

                        Another reason for additional scrutiny is that neither Plato nor Socrates claimed to be God's sons or God himself.

                        > ...skeptics of Christ's life never get around to contrasting the abundance of evidence Christ lived to the paltry evidence that either of these two Greek philosophers lived.

                        I have to disagree. The evidence Christ lived (not that I'm saying that He did not live, to the contrary) is in stories written at least 100 years after His death. On the other hand, we have Plato's and Socrates' writings.

                        Reply

                        1 Reply

                        • 0%

                          Georgia504 months, 3 weeks ago

                          I've taken some time off and regret not following up. This is the best discussion I've ever had in here.

                          Socrates comes to us only through the writing, it is believed, of Plato, who claimed to be a student of Socrates. And if you compare the period extant between Plato and his manuscripts vs. Christ and biblical manuscripts, and the numbers of manuscripts, even using liberal estimates of time between Christ's life and biblical manuscripts, the analysis results in greater evidence that Christ lived than that Plato lived. It would take some time, but I can get you links for this.

                          Reply
• 0%

  JamesMarcus5 months ago

  Hagee's interest in the Jews is predicated entirely on his millennial fantasies. So the short answer to the question posed by this article is: no.

  Reply

  2 Replies

  • 0%

    Thinker225 months ago

    Well, we know your answer. Now, what was the question?

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 0%

      JamesMarcus5 months ago

      See headline above :).

      Reply
• 0%

  mmrhe5 months ago

  Thinker/Georgia

  Thanks for that illuminating discussion.

  Reply