What will replace Christianity?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So I'll take my paragraph again. According to the experts I heard in the serious document I spoke about:

There were a lot of christian texts that they possibily could have been put in it. And the balanced people who were those who build the Bible, chose, for the NT, to put some texts giving different ways for Christianism in order to give to believers the most large vision of witnesses of Jesus' teaches. So, one can cite Mathew, the other John, the other Mark, and so on. Maybe it won't say the same thing, but that's all Christian, so that's all OK. Cool.

The only thing I could precise here is what is underlined. I meant according to historians I heard, the different evangiles don't say the same thing and some are not OK the one with the other one. Those who made Bible. Those who decided which christian texts will compose the NT decided to do that to give to believers the largest panorama of the witnesses of Jesus' teaches.

This plus the fact that these texts are just some witnesses of what said a Preacher who pretented or sincerely thought speaking in the name of what they called an only "God", to me, it really gives some relativity to what see as an only "truth".

Speaking about this, about texts, so about words and about the future of religions. I really tend to think that the relationship, the communication, between the human being and the "whole thing" which has passed for a long time, and maybe still for some times, in monotheist cultures, by words, by speaking, in monotheism we communicate with God by speaking to him with our language, I really tend to think we could go beyond this in the future, that we could give more importance to the energies we feel in our environment, and that could try to know better these energies, in order to canalize them and maybe to act on them, more than to supplicate or just speak to an only "God" for such or such thing.

Well, maybe that's not very clear, but I really think that it could be pertinent for humans to go over the "relation by words", for the communication with the energies that rule us, which were before symoblized by an only "God" in our societies.

let me give you a little advice:  stop listening to the so-called "experts", for they know very little because they have spent most of their time studying the opinions of other so-called "experts" and not enough time studying the subject matter itself - the bible.

I have been reading the bible for over 16 years, the only contradiction I have found is the following:

1KI 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

2CH 9:25 And Solomon had four  thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

Was it 4000 or 40000 stalls?  I don’t know nor is it a doctrinal matter.  Seems to be simply a copying error.

As far as the compiling of the New Testament…you don’t even need the New Testament to preach Jesus Christ, you can use the Old Testament to do so, as the Apostles did.  And I have yet to find a single doctrine in the New Testament that doesn’t have a basis in the Old Testament.  Yet I have never heard any of the so-called TV experts state that fact, because they’re too busy reading each other’s opinion to even realize that fact.

Also, don’t be a dofus, the vast majority of shows on TV about Christianity are only created to slander Christianity, and even a biblical novice can refute 99% of the claims TV makes against the bible.

[© tweed]

that is one of the many popular interpretations.  one of the problems with it is that he was addressing a group of disciples directly and constantly uses pronouns such as 'ye' and 'you' as if he is directly addressing those before him.

actually, he is NOT addressing the disciples directly, that's why you're getting hung up on trying to link "this generation" to the generation of ~30AD.

And it is easily provable that he is NOT addressing the disciples directly:

Matthew 24:15 "So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—..."

Mark 13:14 "When you see 'the abomination that causes desolation' standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains...."

So, the audience is everyone (past, present, and future) who reads the Olivet Discourse

well, you can't say I didn't try.  the compilers did a good job.  the thing isn't falsifiable. 

[Psychic Octopus]

Nothing

[12th Doctor]

I reject the very premise of this thread.  Christianity, particularly Catholicism, is growing faster than ever.  Just not in the West.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Eventually, Judaism.

I wonder if you're dumber when you're being a Moderate Hero, or not being one. Posts like this make it a tough call.

Care to explain that?  Eventually, all people will follow Judaism.

LMAO.

If you want me to explain by the way, you probably should as well (basically explain why all will one day follow Judaism instead of simply saying so.)

When the Moshiach comes, all people will return to G-d, and His religion, Judaism.  That is a basic part of the religion.

But the Messiah has already come. His name was Jesus Christ. And Judaism was replaced.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

So I'll take my paragraph again. According to the experts I heard in the serious document I spoke about:

There were a lot of christian texts that they possibily could have been put in it. And the balanced people who were those who build the Bible, chose, for the NT, to put some texts giving different ways for Christianism in order to give to believers the most large vision of witnesses of Jesus' teaches. So, one can cite Mathew, the other John, the other Mark, and so on. Maybe it won't say the same thing, but that's all Christian, so that's all OK. Cool.

The only thing I could precise here is what is underlined. I meant according to historians I heard, the different evangiles don't say the same thing and some are not OK the one with the other one. Those who made Bible. Those who decided which christian texts will compose the NT decided to do that to give to believers the largest panorama of the witnesses of Jesus' teaches.

This plus the fact that these texts are just some witnesses of what said a Preacher who pretented or sincerely thought speaking in the name of what they called an only "God", to me, it really gives some relativity to what see as an only "truth".

Speaking about this, about texts, so about words and about the future of religions. I really tend to think that the relationship, the communication, between the human being and the "whole thing" which has passed for a long time, and maybe still for some times, in monotheist cultures, by words, by speaking, in monotheism we communicate with God by speaking to him with our language, I really tend to think we could go beyond this in the future, that we could give more importance to the energies we feel in our environment, and that could try to know better these energies, in order to canalize them and maybe to act on them, more than to supplicate or just speak to an only "God" for such or such thing.

Well, maybe that's not very clear, but I really think that it could be pertinent for humans to go over the "relation by words", for the communication with the energies that rule us, which were before symoblized by an only "God" in our societies.

let me give you a little advice:  stop listening to the so-called "experts", for they know very little because they have spent most of their time studying the opinions of other so-called "experts" and not enough time studying the subject matter itself - the bible.

I have been reading the bible for over 16 years, the only contradiction I have found is the following:

1KI 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

2CH 9:25 And Solomon had four  thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

Was it 4000 or 40000 stalls?  I don’t know nor is it a doctrinal matter.  Seems to be simply a copying error.

As far as the compiling of the New Testament…you don’t even need the New Testament to preach Jesus Christ, you can use the Old Testament to do so, as the Apostles did.  And I have yet to find a single doctrine in the New Testament that doesn’t have a basis in the Old Testament.  Yet I have never heard any of the so-called TV experts state that fact, because they’re too busy reading each other’s opinion to even realize that fact.

Also, don’t be a dofus, the vast majority of shows on TV about Christianity are only created to slander Christianity, and even a biblical novice can refute 99% of the claims TV makes against the bible.

Well, I certainly, won't convince you about what I mean, and that's not my purpose at all, I was just exposing what I wanted to expose on it.

Concerning the TV documentaries I spoke about and the experts you don't agree with. In US, I don't how are TV shows which talk about Christianism but, the one I spoke about has been made in Europe, and, the historians which were in came from the whole West, even some from Israël, and they said things which went in the same sens.

It wasn't an attack against Christianism, they make searches, they take fact and they say: "Here's what we know on the topic, here's what is, here are the facts". They just show some results of research.

After, do they try to manipulate? Well, the objectivity is a myth, every human is subjective, and believers are maybe more than others given they don't care about facts that contradict their beliefs (Hy to creationists...).

So, I don't know, maybe you're sincere when you claim there isn't contradictions, but on the other hand I don't need you to tell me who I should trust. The experts I heard sounded honnest and non-militants, sounded they just wanted to make the best they can their job of historian. This plus the fact, that the tone of the documentaries wasn't militant at all, made that I gave some trust to what I heard.

Historians vs. Believers. Oh, one never know, I might be wrong, but pardon I give less subjectivty to historians, especially when it sounds they just wanna make their job.

I reject the very premise of this thread.  Christianity, particularly Catholicism, is growing faster than ever.  Just not in the West.

Euh, pardon, but, where the hell did you see that Catholisism were growing faster than ever?? Frankly, it's a mistake in your sentence or what??

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Historians vs. Believers. Oh, one never know, I might be wrong, but pardon I give less subjectivty to historians, especially when it sounds they just wanna make their job.

First, I didn't refute any "history", rather I rejected your suggestion that the New Testament was compiled to suit a wide range of contradictory beliefs.  And I did so by pointing out three facts:

1) There are no doctrinal contradictions within the bible, Old Testament or New Testament
2) Christianity can be taught without using the New Testament, by using the Old Testament instead
3) There are no doctrines in the New Testament that don’t have a basis within the Old Testament

Each one of those three facts, much less the sum of the three, totally refutes the idea that the New Testament was compiled to “give different ways for Christianism”.  For there is only ONE gospel:

Gal 1:8 “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!”
 
As for me telling you whom to listen to regarding what’s in the bible…I merely stated that you should  pick up a bible yourself if you are curious as to what the bible itself says it says and how the bible itself says it was written and why the bible itself says it was written.  And when you read the bible, do so WITHOUT using a study guide.

You'll find it the deepest, yet tightest, book ever written.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

that is one of the many popular interpretations.  one of the problems with it is that he was addressing a group of disciples directly and constantly uses pronouns such as 'ye' and 'you' as if he is directly addressing those before him.

actually, he is NOT addressing the disciples directly, that's why you're getting hung up on trying to link "this generation" to the generation of ~30AD.

And it is easily provable that he is NOT addressing the disciples directly:

Matthew 24:15 "So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—..."

Mark 13:14 "When you see 'the abomination that causes desolation' standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains...."

So, the audience is everyone (past, present, and future) who reads the Olivet Discourse

well, you can't say I didn't try.  the compilers did a good job.  the thing isn't falsifiable. 

should I interpret the smiley face to imply you have realized, once again, that you're arguing against God and not man when you attempt to falsify the bible

[© tweed]

'unfalsifiable' doesn't mean true.  some of the more absurd metaphysical fiction you can come up with in your own mind is unfalsifiable.  I do think the NT is flawed and false, at least in parts; its authors were geocentric, first of all, and that is somewhat clear in a number of verses unless you interpret all of them as documentations of the figurative movement of the stars throughout the sky and etc.  but what it isn't is blatantly false, such as the story of the nonexistent people of Nephi in the Book of Mormon, or even Genesis (although the latter may be technically unfalsifiable as well.  but if it is, so is the five minute hypothesis).

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

As for me telling you whom to listen to regarding what’s in the bible…I merely stated that you should  pick up a bible yourself if you are curious as to what the bible itself says it says and how the bible itself says it was written and why the bible itself says it was written.  And when you read the bible, do so WITHOUT using a study guide.

You'll find it the deepest, yet tightest, book ever written.

Yes, yes, for sure that would be the best way for me to speak about it, but, the few i know about Christianism and the few I know about the things in general make that I don't want spend time to give interest to the monotheist texts. May you can respect this will. That's why when I speak, I tell from where I speak, here historians of that TV documentary.

Speaking about the Bible, and about Jesus teaches, and about the witnesses of this, I don't doubt that we can find verry deep things in it. I also acknowledge that Christiannity has carried a lot of good things to human societies which followed it. We just have to watch the history of the societies who followed Christiannity to see it.

That said, for me, it remains a human thing, a deep one, maybe very deep, but human, and a thing beyond which humans will have to go if they don't want to stagnate, a thing which carried a lot but which has no more to carry for the future, except maybe some big destructions. In that way, I find the existence of that thread very pertinent.

Oh, you will probably think I'm an ignorant who doesn't know what he says because he hasn't read the Bible (hmm, my path in Christiannity is limited to 2 years of cathechism from 8 to 10 years) but I assume my possition. I can't claim I'm right. Can a human claim it? Can a human really claim he got "the truth"?? I don't claim it but, according to all what I know and what I feel, I follow some personal strong convictions which lead me to not believe in Christiannity, and so not look further in it. And I do all of that without asking the permission of anyone. If someone succed in showing me the pertinence of other ways, I'll listen to it, but by now I'm like that concerning Christiannity: I'm not interesting in going further in it.

Well outside of this, I've to tell you that I spoke during a long time with a Muslim girl who began to got interest in religion by Bible, and then, she's read Quran, since this she became a strong muslim believer, and she says about Quran, exactly all the same things you say on the Bible.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

'unfalsifiable' doesn't mean true.  some of the more absurd metaphysical fiction you can come up with in your own mind is unfalsifiable.

On a very small scale, perhaps.   But not on the scale of the bible, which is basically a small library.  There is no way even a closed committee of people could come up with such a large story spanning thousands of years and backed up with historical evidence.

Add to that the fact that the bible was NOT written by a closed committee, but was instead written by dozens of people over the span of at least 1000 years, yet is:
a)   infinitely deep
b)   infinitely intertwined
c)   perfectly exposes the motives of the human heart
d)   has the ability to make predictions about the future and explains the geopolitical climate
e)   and can be interpreted by unschooled novices better than “the experts”, demonstrating that it is God that gives the interpretation and not the wisdom of man
f)   and whose books contain a single commonality – interaction with the same invisible voice

…and you have your proof that it is the word of God.

---

  I do think the NT is flawed and false, at least in parts; its authors were geocentric, first of all, and that is somewhat clear in a number of verses unless you interpret all of them as documentations of the figurative movement of the stars throughout the sky and etc.

Is there a newspaper in America that doesn’t list the daily times of sun-“rise” and sun-“set”?  The bible doesn’t claim to be geocentric, anymore than your newspaper.  And if the bible did venture off and stray into future scientific knowledge not even fathomable in 2009AD, much less 1000BC, then it wouldn’t be a universal guide for all men across all ages.  The bible is simply meant to be a guide to human relationships.  The bible simply doesn’t even bother with things not pertaining to man’s relationship with God and man’s relationship to man and man’s relationship to the this world. 

---

  but what it isn't is blatantly false, such as the story of the nonexistent people of Nephi in the Book of Mormon, or even Genesis (although the latter may be technically unfalsifiable as well.  but if it is, so is the five minute hypothesis).

Post flood (I’ll limit my point to post flood since the world prior to the flood was destroyed), how does the picture of Genesis not match what we see today?  Is the “Table of Nations” listed in Genesis 10 wrong?  Are the remnants of the Tower of Babel listed in Genesis 11 not still visible in Iraq?  Did the call of Abram in Genesis 12 not define our current geopolitical and religious climate?  Beyond chapter 11, the rest of Genesis spans only four generations (Abraham-Isaac, Jacob, Jacob’s sons), and does not in anyway conflict with current knowledge of the world.  Is the conflict over the land given to Abram in Genesis chapter 12 not the very same piece of land that has become the epicenter of tension in the world today?  Is the Genesis story of Joseph not a perfect picture of Jesus’ relationship with his fellow Jews and with Gentiles?  And is the picture of Joseph saving the Jews after he saved the Gentiles after being rejected by the Jews not a prophecy of the timeframe spanning form 30AD up to the Second Coming?

Seems to me the book of Genesis hit the nail squarely on the head by laying out the complete plan of God’s salvation.  And the historical record of Genesis, and the prophecies gleaned through that historical record (since the stories in Genesis are both historical and figurative), encompass the timeframe of the entire bible – from creation through the Second Coming.  All in one book known as Genesis.

You could literally take each of the stories of Genesis and spend a lifetime before exhausting all the aspects of the story that relate to, or foreshadow, Jesus Christ.  That’s why Judaism no longer holds to many of its previous beliefs of depictions of the Messiah throughout Genesis (and the rest of the Old Testament), because those prior beliefs basically prove that Jesus is the Messiah.  For example, the Talmud records that the story of Joseph was widely accepted as paralleling the life of the coming Messiah, so much in fact that the Messiah was referred to as “the son of Joseph”.  But you rarely hear that in modern Judaism because the life of Jesus too closely mirrors the life of Joseph.

And, going back to your argument, the mere fact that the life of Jesus is infinitely and perfectly intertwined within the lives Old Testament characters proves that the story of Jesus could NOT have been made up by man, and certainly not by a loose gathering of Christians of different backgrounds who continued to disagree even after each compromised on which books should be included in the New Testament and which should not.  For the resulting canon of the New Testament is not a man-made conspiracy to create a perfect story, rather the canon was birthed out of “compromise” of unsolvable disputes. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

As for me telling you whom to listen to regarding what’s in the bible…I merely stated that you should  pick up a bible yourself if you are curious as to what the bible itself says it says and how the bible itself says it was written and why the bible itself says it was written.  And when you read the bible, do so WITHOUT using a study guide.

You'll find it the deepest, yet tightest, book ever written.

Yes, yes, for sure that would be the best way for me to speak about it, but, the few i know about Christianism and the few I know about the things in general make that I don't want spend time to give interest to the monotheist texts. May you can respect this will. That's why when I speak, I tell from where I speak, here historians of that TV documentary.

Speaking about the Bible, and about Jesus teaches, and about the witnesses of this, I don't doubt that we can find verry deep things in it. I also acknowledge that Christiannity has carried a lot of good things to human societies which followed it. We just have to watch the history of the societies who followed Christiannity to see it.

That said, for me, it remains a human thing, a deep one, maybe very deep, but human, and a thing beyond which humans will have to go if they don't want to stagnate, a thing which carried a lot but which has no more to carry for the future, except maybe some big destructions. In that way, I find the existence of that thread very pertinent.

Oh, you will probably think I'm an ignorant who doesn't know what he says because he hasn't read the Bible

exactly

---

she says about Quran, exactly all the same things you say on the Bible.

really?  then how come there is no trace of Islam prior to ~600AD?  The bible has many witnesses throughout history...where's the witness of Islam prior to 600AD? 

And, how come, in spite of the claims of Islam that a Jewish Temple never stood on the Temple Mount, 2500 year old Jewish artifacts relating to the temple are still being unearthed by Muslims who control the Temple Mount?

Islam is nothing more than a religion based off a bastardized bible made up by a single person and is easily disprovable within recorded human history.

[Matt Damon™]

Easy question, Islam.

LOL. Islam and protestantism will probably both be extinct soon after a massive series of nuclear wars.

[Matt Damon™]

Eventually, Judaism.

I wonder if you're dumber when you're being a Moderate Hero, or not being one. Posts like this make it a tough call.

Care to explain that?  Eventually, all people will follow Judaism.

You seriously think a mystery cult that takes generations to assimsilate and whose followers tend to end up educated/influential in media/rich will keep being tolerated in a west that's facing another round of 1914-45 crises? LMAO

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

she says about Quran, exactly all the same things you say on the Bible.

dude, Islam would drown in the flood of parallels between the life of Jesus and just the first two chapters of Genesis.  From the very first verse of the bble, the references to Jesus Christ begin to pour in:

Gen 1:1 "In the beginning, God created..."

John 1:1-3  "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.  3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

The subject of the bible, from beginning to end, is Jesus Christ, not Mohammad:

John 5:39 "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me."

[© tweed]

jmf, it's difficult to constructively reply to your post because you are taking your own conclusions and forcefully portraying them as fact (such as your use of the word 'infinitely').  and the process you outlined there isn't the one I usually use when I am attempting to determine something to be fact or fiction.



neither the bible nor the New York Times makes any 'claim' as to geocentrism.  but the NT does *operate under the assumption of* geocentrism while the NYT operates under the assumption of heliocentrism.  this does not mean that they are central themes of either.  you won't see "foundation of the Earth" nor "the world shall never be moved" in any modern newspaper.  is it possible that these are all figurative?  of course, but it seems unlikely.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

why?  this goes back to my first point, along with the strange use of the word 'infinitely'.  I could pick up a novel off of my shelf and write a sequel that intertwines characters quite nicely, if finitely.  that wouldn't make it divinely inspired.

this also assumes that your statement is true.  another individual might disagree - but I don't have the knowledge necessary to draw a conclusion.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

neither the bible nor the New York Times makes any 'claim' as to geocentrism.  but the NT does *operate under the assumption of* geocentrism while the NYT operates under the assumption of heliocentrism.  this does not mean that they are central themes of either. 

well, if geocentrism isn't a central theme of the bible and if no biblical doctrines depend upon geocentrism...then how can the bible be "operating" under the assumption of geocentrism?

as to the depth of the bible providing proof of its godly origin...name a work of literature that is deeper than the bible.

[© tweed]

neither the bible nor the New York Times makes any 'claim' as to geocentrism.  but the NT does *operate under the assumption of* geocentrism while the NYT operates under the assumption of heliocentrism.  this does not mean that they are central themes of either. 

well, if geocentrism isn't a central theme of the bible and if no biblical doctrines depend upon geocentrism...then how can the bible be "operating" under the assumption of geocentrism?

while writing this post, I am operating under the assumption that its readers will understand English.  yet that has little or nothing to do with the message I am trying to convey.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

emotional 'depth' is subjective - I can't speak for every person who walks the Earth.  for example, I can relate to several Jawbreaker songs far better than I can the New Testament.  but I do not think Blake Schwarzenbach is God, and I assume he doesn't, either.

[Yamor]

Jmfcst, I completely disagree with how you portray Judaism's position on the Messiah. Judaism never held that Joseph's life parallels that of the Messiah. The Talmud (which by the way was written hundreds of years after Christ, so by your reasoning shouldn't even mention the Joseph allegory) which you refer to, is actually speaking about a Jewish tradition, still fully believed today in Orthodox Judaism (and is actually a major topic discussed in Kabbalah texts), that there will be two Messiah's - "Moshiach ben Yosef" (Messiah from the line of Joseph) and "Moshiach ben Dovid" (Messiah from the line of David).

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Hmm jmfcst, just a few things. Once again, all what I hear from you on the Bible I heard it from this girl on the Quran.

The main argument you opposite to me is on the fact that Quran wouldn't have been here at what you consider as "the beginning" (6000 before Christ).

Well, I don't want to defend Islam, as I've already told, I don't take monotheism, but maybe you don't know how Islam places itself concerning this? Well, Islam says, to sump up, that it recognizes all prophets from the Jew and the Christian religion, but it opposes that their texts have been modified by men and it opposes that Mohamed had a direct full speech from "God" and that this speech is Quran. Well, that's all. A belief opposite to another one.

Why the hell some believers must feel they have "The truth"?? Don't they feel that it sounds impossible for a human to get the "The Truth"??

Can't you deal with something like: "I'm convinced I'm on a, or maybe the, good way, I've strong conviction about it, but, as the small human I am, maybe I'm wrong, I don't know, anyway I follow my convictions".

Would it be too hard to deal with such things, instead of losing so much time in trying to be sure to have "The Truth". Especially, when on the other side, you have other ones who spend so much times on doing the same thing with other versions of "The Truth" and that in the end, no serious debate can be accomplished, because in the end, we can't really now "The Truth", you're just here, all of you, with your different beliefs that you would like so much it to be the "good" one.

And, instead of trying to find an interest in other versions, something which could help you to go on, to have larger perspectives, a larger panorama of life, you prefer to stay alone with a kind of stupid "this or nothing". Sad, no?

Well, monotheists have already cooperate together in the past. Sounds just that the epoch is less and less to tolerance.

Europe has killed itself in nationalism, I think monotheism could kill itself in "religionism". Nations thought that each one was the best one and so it could eradicate the other ones, I think it could become the same between Christianity and Islam.

But with a far bigger scale, because these both things claim to be universalistic, they exclude the existence of other ones, they are international, and they concern Men far deeper than nations did, plus there is on both side a fascination for apocalypse and the means for a possible apocalypse could be here.

Well, once again, the question of the replacement of all of this is really interesting, and, to me, surely unavoidable for Men to continue, risks of apocalypse or not.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jmfcst, I completely disagree with how you portray Judaism's position on the Messiah. Judaism never held that Joseph's life parallels that of the Messiah. The Talmud (which by the way was written hundreds of years after Christ, so by your reasoning shouldn't even mention the Joseph allegory) which you refer to, is actually speaking about a Jewish tradition, still fully believed today in Orthodox Judaism (and is actually a major topic discussed in Kabbalah texts), that there will be two Messiah's - "Moshiach ben Yosef" (Messiah from the line of Joseph) and "Moshiach ben Dovid" (Messiah from the line of David).

well, if Judaism never believed that Joseph's life parallels that of the Messiah, then why did they refer to Messiah that was to die as "Moshiach ben Yosef" (Messiah from the line of Joseph)?

the belief (or tradition) was widely held, and for good reason - the story of Joseph parallels much of the prophecies concerning the Messiah.  And the belief (or tradition) was pretty much on the mark, for it is written:

Luke 3:23 "Jesus was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph..."


...it was no freak coincidence that Jesus' earthly "father" was named Joseph!!!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Islam says, to sump up, that it recognizes all prophets from the Jew and the Christian religion, but it opposes that their texts have been modified by men and it opposes that Mohamed had a direct full speech from "God" and that this speech is Quran.

I am fully aware of this very - shall we say – “convenient” Muslim theory.  Of course, it is flatly contradicted by recorded human history since the Dead Sea Scrolls (which are dated prior to the time of Jesus) prove that the bible wasn't "modified" after the life of Jesus in some “Joint Christianity-Judaism Grand Conspiracy”.

The Muslim theory holds no more weight than if I created my own religion with my own scripture that claimed the real bible was “modified” in a grand conspiracy prior to 1600AD and that I alone was chosen by God to “restore” the truth to mankind.

…come to think of it, that’s pretty much what Joseph Smith did with Mormonism.

---

Why the hell some believers must feel they have "The truth"?? Don't they feel that it sounds impossible for a human to get the "The Truth"??

Can't you deal with something like: "I'm convinced I'm on a, or maybe the, good way, I've strong conviction about it, but, as the small human I am, maybe I'm wrong, I don't know, anyway I follow my convictions".

Would it be too hard to deal with such things, instead of losing so much time in trying to be sure to have "The Truth"…

The whole premise of your argument is misguided; for neither choice nor conviction is the basis of my faith in Jesus Christ.  Rather I became a Christian when Christ chose to reveal himself to me. 

[Yamor]

As far as I know, there is no Jewish tradition anywhere which states that the story of Joseph parallels that of the Messiah. The Messiah from the line of Joseph in Jewish tradition is a completely different thing, with absolutely nothing to do with there being any comparison between the Messiah and the story of Joseph.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

As far as I know, there is no Jewish tradition anywhere which states that the story of Joseph parallels that of the Messiah. The Messiah from the line of Joseph in Jewish tradition is a completely different thing, with absolutely nothing to do with there being any comparison between the Messiah and the story of Joseph.

well, if the recorded life of Joseph wasn't the basis, then what was?

[12th Doctor]

I reject the very premise of this thread.  Christianity, particularly Catholicism, is growing faster than ever.  Just not in the West.

Euh, pardon, but, where the hell did you see that Catholisism were growing faster than ever?? Frankly, it's a mistake in your sentence or what??

Catholicism is growing fast than ever in Africa and Asia.  Thousands of new converts every day.