From: gn1@unix.brighton.ac.uk (newport)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Getting the facts!
Date: 21 Jan 93 13:56:56 GMT
Organization: University of Brighton, UK

There seems to be an argument about the legitemacy of the Christian`s claim to  Jesus being the Messiah. The arguement given by Gedaliah Friedenberg relies on  inaccurate dating of Jesus` death with the prophesies of Daniel. Such small     detail is unneccesary, far larger errors exist with a much greater impact than  if a mathematical equation shows Jesus was out by 38 years or not.

Let me correct Mr. Friedenberg on one detail, Jesus was NOT crucified in A.D.32,or more to the point, he could have been but we don`t know. To know this, peoplehave taken the fact that Jesus started his mission at 30 years old and died     after 5 years. The latest dating of his birth is taken as 4 B.C. so this gives  the magical date of 32 A.D.!

However, the birth is dated from the death of Herod (4 B.C.) and this is        accepted because both of the Nativity stories ( Matthew and Luke ) mention      Herod the Great. Yet Luke mentions Quirinous as well (`When Quirinius became    Ruler of all Syria'). Quirinius became Ruler in 6 A.D., 10 years after the deatho Herod. This shows a discrepancy in Luke's story. Luke could be excused for a  minor dating error if it were not for the fact that both tales revolve around a census. No census, until the ti
me of Quirinuis, was ever taken of the Jewish    state. In fact the Quirinius census caused a huge storm amongst the Jews who    considered it against their faith to be censused. Riots were commonplace and    made such an impact that they are recorded by many writers of the period. Any   previous census would have caused just such a storm so it is clear that no othercensus had been taken prior to the one of 6 A.D. 

Placing the Nativity within Quirinius destroys the story of Matthew`s which     gives us our touching Virginal birth, flight to Eygpt, Massacre of the Innocents and the Wise men. If Matthew`s story is accepted then Luke`s story must be     rejected. So the Christians have a problem, one of the Gospels is seriously at  fault, if not both. Since a large chunk of the claim to the Messiahship relies  on these two stories the claim is weak.

This is, in fact, a minor part of a much larger problem but the whole discussionof the nativity would take many more lines of text, which I am unwilling to     write at the moment.

Then, of course, you can move on to the teachings, the Essenes and finally onto the Crucifiction itself (for example, the Romans used this horrific form of     execution solely for terrorists, not peace loving religious personages so why   was Jesus killed in this fashion). The main areas of Christian faith are weak   enough when questioned without the need to go into fine detail. Be careful, too much detail and people lose the thread and discard your ideas however accurate  they are.

P.S. to clear a one thing up, the Jewish state had removed the Death sentence        from its Law many years before the Romans came along and since the arrival of the Romans, thousands upon thousands of Jews were crucified by them for      standing against their barbaric empire. NO Jew would have wished another to     suffer that form of death, no matter what.

P.S.S. And a final note: it was never Blasphemous to heal on the Sabbat, declareyourself the Messiah or give your own interpretation of the Scriptures. The     ONLY thing that was classed as blasphemy was saying the name of God, of which   Jesus was never accussed of!