Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

1. It's not because of what is "attractive". It's about what is a true perspective of the world. I think Jesus hits the nail on the head when he talks about the origins of evil. From deep within the human heart. That is the ultimate problem.

2. I don't believe it is bleak. Why? Jesus came to rescue us if we would only put our trust in Him. He will and indeed is the only one who can restore humanity back to the point prior to their rebellion if only they believe and trust in Him.

It's very humbling and very reassuring to think that this doesn't depend on anything else other than the sheer kindness and mercy of God towards us that He sent His Son Jesus into the world to stand in our place and take the punishment we deserved so that we could walk free. There isn't enough time in the week to praise God enough for what He has done for us.

I am not sure that man's good deeds outweigh the evil. Even if they did it doesn't make a jot of difference. If a man murders someone 30 years ago and never did a single thing wrong again (let's say that's possible), that man is still guilty of murder. The same is true of sin as a whole. We are still guilty of our sin even if we never do wrong again. The problem isn't resolved until restitution is made, and the only one who is sufficient to make that restitution is Jesus.

What an terribly negative view of humans and the human condition. It has no relation to the world I live in on a daily basis.

And please don't bother giving a list of terrible atrocities etc. Just look at the people you know personally, how many murderers rapists thieves etc are there among them ? I have never met one and I don't live in a bubble.

And the more developed the country the less likely you are to meet such people. It is the advance of reason and thus society that has caused this improvement and that is visible across the world. Nothing at all to do with such mumbo jumdo as original sin or fallen nature , but more to do with education and prosperity.

nagirrac

philologos wrote: »

Show me how it is a mistake

In the context of my complete post. What I'm saying is that most Christians imo appear to have an expectation of a personal heaven that awaits them, that the goal of this life is to escape suffering to a better life, and believe that the teachings of Christ validates this. I can't accept this from my reading of the gospels, but I could be wrong of course. It is obviously due to my liberal view of Christianity rather than how a conservative Christian sees things.

There is little description of an afterlife in the synoptic gospels and there is no agreement among biblical scholars on what the Kingdom of God refers to, it could be an afterlife or it could be living a specific lifestyle as Jesus described. I can't see how anyone can take seriously the concept of punishment for not being "saved" by believing in Jesus Christ, admittedly only suggested in John's gospel. The entire focus in the synoptic gospels appears to relate to how to make the world we live in better. They focus on good works, helping the poor, the sick, the needy, and are quite harsh on those that abuse power and wealth. One can see why this type of teaching got Jesus into trouble with the powers that be in Galilee.

There appears to be a lot of scholarly confusion as to why the gospel of John, most often quoted by conservative Christians, made its way into the Christian bible. It has far more in common with the gnostic teaching of the Essenes, who believed in a Jesus that was a spirit rather than a human. There is a lot of support for this view in St. Paul's writings. It is an interesting part of the story of how Christianity evolved, how the gospels that were finally chosen in the 4th century over the many that were excluded, and why.

The conflict I see is between mystical teachings that were symbolic but are taken literally, and practical teachings that were meant to be taken seriously but are ignored. How else can we explain the Christianity of Bush/Chaney which represents a fair chunk of conservative Christians? i.e. the ability to live your life in the opposite fashion to what Jesus taught, but be saved because you accept Jesus Christ as God.

tommy2bad

nagirrac;
How else can we explain the Christianity of Bush/Chaney which represents a fair chunk of conservative Christians?

Not going to say they are not Christian but it's possible that they were just posturing?
Another thing to consider is that American Christianity has taken a strange turn especially the evangelical end and they could well be sincere but mistaken. I don't think mainstream Christianity has embraced their viewpoint. Though its influence is gaining probably due to the spread of prosperity gospel tv god channels. Yes it's a heresy but it is what most people think of when they hear the word Christian and even catholic and Anglican and possibly methodist, Lutheran etc don't question it's validity as a Christian theology.

philologos

nagirrac: Mark 12:18-27 should help. Literally there are scores more I could quote from. Could you back up what you said about John?

tommy2bad: you think that people who actually believe what Jesus said about the afterlife aren't orthodox?

Moreover what about people like me who are Anglican and evangelical? Where do we lie?

Sacksian

philologos wrote: »

I think Jesus hits the nail on the head when he talks about the origins of evil. From deep within the human heart. That is the ultimate problem.

...He sent His Son Jesus into the world to stand in our place and take the punishment we deserved so that we could walk free. There isn't enough time in the week to praise God enough for what He has done for us.

Leaving aside the idea that someone sending their son to be killed is any huge sacrifice, if he is just going to be resurrected in a matter of days after which he goes to eternal paradise.

Lots of people have made similar or larger sacrifices, and have had more agonising deaths, without the guaranteed payout.

As I said above, I think you have a view of the human condition that is very bleak, which is not shared by religious or non-religious people I know.

These views tend to be informed by life experiences and reading, and I suspect there are specific experiences have led you to this view, but I apologise if that's considered a personal comment.

Do you believe it is possible to understand the human condition through studying the bible alone? Is the bible sufficient?

philologos

The only personal comment that you gave made is that my view is based on the Bible alone and that I don't read other books which is an absurd assumption to make

I value what Scripture says because I'm able to see with my own two eyes that it is clearly true. Atheist thinking on this issue sounds fickle, it always stops short of engaging with the truth on this issue. I find the Bible is more honest and more real.

tommy2bad

philologos wrote: »

tommy2bad: you think that people who actually believe what Jesus said about the afterlife aren't orthodox?

Moreover what about people like me who are Anglican and evangelical? Where do we lie?

Where did I say that? If thats what you read then my phrasing must be off.
I was referring to prosperity gospel type stuff that has become mainstream in America. Rapture and god n guns types.
Comfortably low and far from spikes :P

nagirrac

philologos wrote: »

nagirrac: Mark 12:18-27 should help. Literally there are scores more I could quote from. Could you back up what you said about John?
Moreover what about people like me who are Anglican and evangelical? Where do we lie?

I can't comment on evangelical Christians in Europe, and although I am not identifying you with them, I can comment on what I see in the U.S. A bunch of crazies who take selective passages from the bible to express their hatred for fellow humans. These can be summarized as follows:

Jesus is clearly White which justifies hatred for Obama who could not possibly be a Christian because he is not White.
Jesus loves the rich and prosperity and hates the poor, especially the poor that are not White and are on welfare.
Jesus hates women, they are clearly identified as subservient to men in the bible and thus must not be allowed into important roles.
Jesus hates gays, loves guns, hates muslims, sent AIDS because it kills gays, etc. etc.

No reading of the gospels could support these views, they are simply crazy.

As for John, I think even most Christians accept that the Jesus described in the synoptic gospels and the Jesus described in John are very different. I think there is general agreement that the synoptic gospels are based on an earlier lost document, possibly as early as 40AD. There is no mention of Jesus being God in the synoptic gospels. John's gospel which introduces the idea of Jesus being God is thought to date from at least 90AD or later. While I accept the likely historical truth of Jesus and find his teachings in the synoptic gospels generally positive, I can't help but be suspicious as to why he was elevated from human to God as the Christian church got established. The idea of Jesus as God seemed to take hold betwen the first and second centuries as John's gospel became more accepted. Surely you agree that large parts of John's gospel read like gnostic literature rather than the liberal Judaism in the synoptic gospels?

I cannot see the logic in accepting the complete bible literally as evangelicals do, rather than accepting it was written in different eras by individuals with very different beliefs.

philologos

nagirrac wrote: »

I can't comment on evangelical Christians in Europe, and although I am not identifying you with them, I can comment on what I see in the U.S. A bunch of crazies who take selective passages from the bible to express their hatred for fellow humans. These can be summarized as follows:

Jesus is clearly White which justifies hatred for Obama who could not possibly be a Christian because he is not White.
Jesus loves the rich and prosperity and hates the poor, especially the poor that are not White and are on welfare.
Jesus hates women, they are clearly identified as subservient to men in the bible and thus must not be allowed into important roles.
Jesus hates gays, loves guns, hates muslims, sent AIDS because it kills gays, etc. etc.

Just look up the basic definition of evangelicalism on Wikipedia.

My main point doesn't concern that. My main point concerns you saying that Jesus' teaching in the gospels doesn't concern the afterlife. Both John and the synoptics very clearly do.

No reading of the gospels could support these views, they are simply crazy.

This isn't what we were discussing. We were discussing whether or not Jesus mentioned an afterlife. The Scriptures show that He clearly did.

As for John, I think even most Christians accept that the Jesus described in the synoptic gospels and the Jesus described in John are very different. I think there is general agreement that the synoptic gospels are based on an earlier lost document, possibly as early as 40AD. There is no mention of Jesus being God in the synoptic gospels. John's gospel which introduces the idea of Jesus being God is thought to date from at least 90AD or later. While I accept the likely historical truth of Jesus and find his teachings in the synoptic gospels generally positive, I can't help but be suspicious as to why he was elevated from human to God as the Christian church got established. The idea of Jesus as God seemed to take hold betwen the first and second centuries as John's gospel became more accepted. Surely you agree that large parts of John's gospel read like gnostic literature rather than the liberal Judaism in the synoptic gospels?

Explain to me why you think the Jesus in John is very different. Give me clear reasons and we'll investigate it together.

I cannot see the logic in accepting the complete bible literally as evangelicals do, rather than accepting it was written in different eras by individuals with very different beliefs.

I can't see the logic in accepting generalisations about the Bible which don't have good reasoning behind them. If the Bible concerns the place of Jesus then if you make claims about Him that's where we need to go looking.

That's irrespective of what attacks you make on evangelical Christians.

nagirrac

philologos wrote: »

Explain to me why you think the Jesus in John is very different. Give me clear reasons and we'll investigate it together.

That's irrespective of what attacks you make on evangelical Christians.

You know your scripture much better than a heathen like me

John 1:1 - 14; John 1:17,18; John 8:24; John 8:58; John 10:30 - 33; John 20:28. Point me to where the same claims are made in the synoptic gospels. Not references to the Son of God but actual divinity claims.

How can you not admit that American evangelicals are completely in contradiction to the teachings of Christ?

tommy2bad

nagirrac;
How can you not admit that American evangelicals are completely in contradiction to the teachings of Christ?

Ahh woaw now, that's a big brush your taring with their! Evangelical is a wide range of Christians and they don't all take a con-evo line, even the ones that do don't all fall into the Westboro baptist church end of the market.

nagirrac

tommy2bad wrote: »

Ahh woaw now, that's a big brush your taring with their! Evangelical is a wide range of Christians and they don't all take a con-evo line, even the ones that do don't all fall into the Westboro baptist church end of the market.

Apologies, I meant some.. but if you lived here it seems like a lot.

tommy2bad

nagirrac wrote: »

Apologies, I meant some.. but if you lived here it seems like a lot.

Yeah, that's what I was getting at. The oddly american centrism version of christianity has become the straw man popular culture sees as 'christianity'. The 2000 years of tradition is forgotten or parsed through a lenses of yecci con-evoism to produce a target that's a distortion of a rich and varied christian culture.

philologos

nagirrac wrote: »

You know your scripture much better than a heathen like me

John 1:1 - 14; John 1:17,18; John 8:24; John 8:58; John 10:30 - 33; John 20:28. Point me to where the same claims are made in the synoptic gospels. Not references to the Son of God but actual divinity claims.

Let's start off with one. I don't need to go very far, it's on the first page of the New Testament:

Matthew 1:20-25 wrote:

But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
“Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and they shall call his name Immanuel”
(which means, God with us). When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

Actually, let's take another from the end of Matthew:

Matthew 28:19-20 wrote:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

The Son is a part of the Trinity.

nagirrac wrote: »

How can you not admit that American evangelicals are completely in contradiction to the teachings of Christ?

Because you're generalising. I know many great American evangelicals.

nagirrac

philologos wrote: »

Let's start off with one. I don't need to go very far, it's on the first page of the New Testament:

Because you're generalising. I know many great American evangelicals.

I suspected you would quote this passage from Matthew as it is the only passage from the synoptic gospels where a tenuous link claiming that Jesus was God can be made. In my opinion the only reasonable conclusion from this passage is the writer of Matthew was trying to convince his Jewish audience that Jesus was the Jewish messiah. If Jesus was the fulfillment of the Isaah prophecy why was he not called Immanuel? It is called trying to fit the facts after the fact. It is similar to the problem of claiming that Jesus was a direct blood descendent of David through Joseph, while also claiming he was born of a virgin. The early Christians tried every argument to show that Jesus was the Jewish messiah and according to every Jewish scholar then and since they failed.

I think this is where evangelical Christianity is open to serious question as it tries to fit Jewish scripture and beliefs into a Christian model. Why is it that the Jews rejected Jesus as the messiah during his lifetime, in the first century and indeed today? They say it is because Jesus does not match the requirements to be a messiah, and surely they have some basis for the argument. The Old Testament is Jewish scripture, Jesus was a Jew as were all his disciples, and one of a great number of Jews who were claimed in history to be the messiah and rejected by the Jews as such.

My original point is that nowhere in the synoptic gospels is Jesus quoted or indeed one of his disciples quoted in terms of a divinity claim. The only source you can draw on is a tenuous claim by the writer of Matthew, a claim which does not add up, no more than the genealogy claim. My reasoned conclusion is that the early Christians eventually had to give up on the messiah claim and started to develop the divinity claim. The simple fact is that Jews do not believe and never believed that the messiah would be divine and find no evidence in their scriptures for such a claim.

I should not have been so general regarding American evalgelicals, as come to think of it I know a few myself who are wonderful people. However, there is a serious undercurrent in the American evangelical movement that believes Jesus will save me and I will go to heaven, regardless of the fact that much of what I believe and support is in complete contradiction to what Jesus himself said in the gospels. Why do so many evangelicals almost always quote older Jewish scripture and almost never quote what Jesus himself said if they are followers of Jesus? How can you claim to be a follower of Jesus and support waging unjust wars, greedy corporations, lax gun laws, hatred towards those who have different beliefs to you, the death penalty? Was the message of Jesus not all about mercy and forgiveness, non-violence and loving others, or am I just reading the gospels wrong?

philologos

I quoted two passages. I did this because it is all I need to do to show you that your concept is mistaken. Your claim that it is tenuous is bizarre because you don't seem to present any good reason to the contrary. I can look for more, but I suspect I'd be quoting all evening . Your claim was that the synoptics don't present Jesus as God. I've shown you otherwise and even if I quote you one passage (and I quoted two) that's all that I need to do to refute your claim.

Oh, and the reason why the Hebrew Scriptures are important is because we find what the concept of the Messiah is there. By the by, there are many Jews that have accepted Jesus as their Saviour, but you're correct many have rejected Him as Scripture prophesies that they would. This rejection isn't a sign that the gospel has failed in any way. Indeed, this will depend on how we view the concept of election that we find in Scripture.

If you're interested in showing us how Jesus failed to fulfil the Messianic claims, please bring something that He has failed to do to the table so we can discuss it. It seems like your goalposts are moving.

I'm not going to argue with you about this stereotype of what an "American evangelical" looks like because I'm not American and I think that your view of what an evangelical in America is is very limited, but if your objection is that Jesus came to save sinners then you'll have to argue with Jesus Himself (Mark 10:45, Luke 19:10). Oh, and yes, Jesus is about mercy and forgiveness, that's why He stood in our place on the cross so that we might be forgiven and receive eternal life.

I guess I'd ask you, why do you make these absurd claims about Christianity without really looking into it? Why are you so sure that you're right about Jesus? You've presented a number of claims about Him that simply aren't true on examination. It seems like you are looking for reasons to reject Him rather than looking honestly to seek Him.

nagirrac

philologos wrote: »

If you're interested in showing us how Jesus failed to fulfil the Messianic claims, please bring something that He has failed to do to the table so we can discuss it. It seems like your goalposts are moving.

I guess I'd ask you, why do you make these absurd claims about Christianity without really looking into it. It seems like you are looking for reasons to reject Him rather than looking honestly to seek Him.

There are so many reasons why Jesus could not be the messiah as prophesied in the Hebrew bible it is hard to pick from them.

1. The first and most obvious is that Judaism is a montheistic religion and did not and does not believe in the concept of the messiah being divine.
2. The Hebrew scriptures say that the messiah would be descended from King David, how can Jesus be the Jewish messiah if his father was God and he was born from a virgin? Much more likely is the whole concept of a virgin birth comes from pagan beliefs and was intended to convert pagans (Romans) to Christianity.
3. The messiah was supposed to return the Jews to their holy land, when Jesus was alive they were there, before they were scattered to the winds.
4. The messiah was supposed to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple after its destruction, it was standing in the time Jesus was alive.
5. Nowhere in the Hebrew bible is there mention of a messiah who would come, die, and come again. This is entirely a Christian idea to get around the fact that Jesus died and the Jewish prophecies were not fulfilled.
6. The messiah was to bring world peace and end all wars, have you checked your history since the time of Jesus?

If Jesus was God why did he cry out on the cross "My God, why have you foresaken me?"

These are not absurd claims, they are perfectly reasonable and logical claims. I have not rejected Jesus by the way, I find his teachings as expressed in the synoptic gospels very worthy, just as I find the teachings of the Buddha very worthy. What I don't find worthy are what people have claimed for him when there is no evidence he claimed it for himself (I am God for example) and what people have done in his name.

lmaopml

Have to agree with Phil here. I think it's a very important and pertinent fact that from a small Jewish fellowship, to a much larger Jewish and Gentile fellowship we still see Christianity thriving today and still making total sense to so many sensible people.

Alongside this we have the Scriptures - The claim is that they are the inspired written Word of God. There is abundant proof that they have remained unchanged which in and of itself is an incredible feat covering thousands of years.

...now down to what they say...

The simple claim is that God has revealed himself, his plan, to his people throughout the ages. Jesus is the incarnate Word....Christianity is the only religion that claims that 'God' became man and is not 'out there somewhere about' that we need to be impersonal with or only know from a distance - he's an up close and personal God and he wants us to really fully live in this world with all it's imperfections....and that he made himself lowly and meek in order to reveal his purposes.

I remember hearing every Sunday as a child at Mass about Jesus from the Scriptures and had a fairly good basis ( I paid attention..lol...) - and I think the seed was sown long beforehand for me to finally grow up and eventually go and put it all together for myself.

There was an intermittent period of twenty odd years or so (not that long..ha ) and not a few encounters with people who read the Scriptures from sources not unlike 'evilbible.com' that made me shaky and grow into a type of Agnosticism, they sounded so convincing and put an odd spin, a type of seperation between Old and New Covenants, splitting and dividing and not really presenting what I had learned of God from years previous.

I remember reading the words, 'Seek and you shall find, Knock and the door will be opened onto you, ask and it will be given to you...' admittedly at a pretty gloomy period in my life, and I thought, 'Ok Jesus, here I am, I'm going to reconcile myself to you and go on a mission to understand if you will help me out that would be great...' I read the Scriptures for myself from the heart of the Catholic Church (and bty I'm not suggesting you have to do this) but it helps to read from one of the great traditions, and I found that yes there is a distinction between Old and New, but my goodness do they hold together too, there is no 'separation' only sheer beauty. There is a distinction but no separation - The Old Testament is revealed in the New and the New is shadowed in the Old. It's quite incredible.

From the beginning of Genesis all the way through, I found myself getting excited and saying, 'Ha' there's the Trinity, there's Baptism, there's the Holy Spirit, there's the adopted son, there's the real son, there's the Holy Eucharist, there's the Kingdom, there's where heaven and earth meet in the Jordan .....it just all 'fit' in such a huge magnificent tapestry.

If you do one thing in your lifetime give God a chance to speak to you and read the Scriptures and pray, and take him up on his offer with an open heart. There is a good reason why so many apparently 'sane' people actually believe and have faith in God, and it's not because we need a crutch or any such thing, that's a lazy kind of projection. It's really because it's tried and tested and it's absolutely totally and utterly beautiful both in Word and Practice this Christianity, a veritable minefield of never ending newness and freshness, and presents a coherent worldview that hangs together neatly and is very satisfactory.

I love being a Christian.

I'll stop ranting now..lol.....

Masteroid

tommy2bad wrote: »

Not going to say they are not Christian but it's possible that they were just posturing?

Why do you posit that?

How do you demarc inherently evil humans, which according to Christianity is all of us, and inherently evil human beings who are Christians?

It seems that your assessment of who is and who is not a Christians is dependent on the level of evil that they do.

By that logic, you must admit that there have been many non-Christian popes.

What about all the 'Christians' who were involved in the Crusades? They were killing in the name of Christianity. Were they not true Christians?

All the Christians posting here acknowledge their inherent evil and admit to being in sin. How evil does one have to be in order to be turned away from the church?

Weren't Bush and Chaney baptized? Do they not accept Jesus as their saviour? Have they ever indicated anything to the contrary?

Are you suggesting that all inherently evil Christian sinners are 'good' people? That a true Christian is not capable of a great sin such as genocide?

tommy2bad

Masteroid wrote: »

Why do you posit that?
Because it possible that what they believe and what they claim to believe are two different things.

How do you demarc inherently evil humans, which according to Christianity is all of us, and inherently evil human beings who are Christians?
:rolleyes: not the inherently evil thing, I'm not a TULIP Calvinist so go ask one of them.
It seems that your assessment of who is and who is not a Christians is dependent on the level of evil that they do.
When did I say that? but then again "by their fruits ye shall know them"
By that logic, you must admit that there have been many non-Christian popes.
Again it's not for me to say if they were or were not Christians.
What about all the 'Christians' who were involved in the Crusades? They were killing in the name of Christianity. Were they not true Christians?
Old, we both know the crusades were more about feudal expansion than Christian values but thats another thread.
All the Christians posting here acknowledge their inherent evil and admit to being in sin. How evil does one have to be in order to be turned away from the church?
First we are not inherently evil just likely to choose evil, second, evil enough to reject the church. It will never reject you because your a sinner
Weren't Bush and Chaney baptized? Do they not accept Jesus as their saviour? Have they ever indicated anything to the contrary?
Again, so??
Are you suggesting that all inherently evil Christian sinners are 'good' people? That a true Christian is not capable of a great sin such as genocide?

Thats kinda the gospel message for us Christians in case you didn't know.
A true Christian is as capable as anyone else given the circumstances, so?

Are you playing some kind of caught you out game here because some of us are discussing what it means to be Christian and explain that to people who asked about it. You OTOH..well whats your point?

Masteroid

philologos wrote: »

Let's start off with one. I don't need to go very far, it's on the first page of the New Testament:

Matthew 1:20-25 wrote:

But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
“Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and they shall call his name Immanuel”
(which means, God with us). When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

I'm sorry, what does this passage 'evidence'?

In order for Matthew to have known about the events he describes, he would have had to have been in direct communication with God.

Now, if the existence of God can be proved then consideration can be given to the notion of God telling Matthew what to write but until then, you can't argue that 'Matthews hand being moved by God proves the existence of God' any more than I can use the argument 'God not moving my hand proves the non-existence of God'.

So then we are left with the questions of how Matthew knew about the virgin conception and birth of Jesus and how did Matthew know about Joseph's dream?

How did he know about the questions that Pilate asked Jesus and the answers that Jesus gave?

Once we begin to consider these questions, we quickly realise that the 'Son of God' claim was added retrospectively.

According to Matthew, when Jesus is asked if He is the Son of God, He avoids the question by replying 'I am who I am'. This would be considered a clever reply because, if He addressed Pilate in Hebrew, He might have said, 'Yahweh'.

But He never publicly claimed that He is the Son of God and I do believe He was referred to as the Son of Man.

And this makes sense. Any claim that Jesus' father was anyone other than Joseph would have put His mother in great peril. The adultery laws were quite strict in those days Mary could face the possibility of being stoned.

So, Jesus would have had to be very careful about what He said in public.

Furthermore, the prophecy that Jesus fulfilled would mean that if Jesus claimed to be the fulfillment of that prophecy, there would be an inherent implication that Joseph is not His father.

The Jewish authorities would have been aware of this but they never tried Jesus on the basis parentage.

Obviously, since the San Hedrin were trying to prove that Jesus is not the Messiah, they could have put Jesus in the difficult position of having to answer the question,

"If you are not the Messiah then would that mean your mother committed adultery?"

So, the virgin birth and the Messianic properties of Jesus would have had to remain a closely guarded sectret for the entire lifetime of Mary.

Remember, a claim of Messiah implies a virgin conception.

Therefore, nagirrac's claim makes sense and Tommy is correct to support it.

Now you have to ask yourself, 'Why do you believe that Jesus is the Son of God, a claim that He Himself never made?'

Would you mind bringing some evidence to the table that can withstand a pounding from logic and reason?

lmaopml

Masteroid wrote: »

Why do you posit that?

How do you demarc inherently evil humans, which according to Christianity is all of us, and inherently evil human beings who are Christians?

It seems that your assessment of who is and who is not a Christians is dependent on the level of evil that they do.

By that logic, you must admit that there have been many non-Christian popes.

What about all the 'Christians' who were involved in the Crusades? They were killing in the name of Christianity. Were they not true Christians?

All the Christians posting here acknowledge their inherent evil and admit to being in sin. How evil does one have to be in order to be turned away from the church?

Weren't Bush and Chaney baptized? Do they not accept Jesus as their saviour? Have they ever indicated anything to the contrary?

Are you suggesting that all inherently evil Christian sinners are 'good' people? That a true Christian is not capable of a great sin such as genocide?

No, people are not 'inherently' evil...that is not what the 'Christians posting here acknowledged' at all in any type of universal fashion.

What the heck has Bush and Chaney got to do with anything?

JimiTime

nagirrac wrote: »

There are so many reasons why Jesus could not be the messiah as prophesied in the Hebrew bible it is hard to pick from them.

1. The first and most obvious is that Judaism is a montheistic religion and did not and does not believe in the concept of the messiah being divine.
2. The Hebrew scriptures say that the messiah would be descended from King David, how can Jesus be the Jewish messiah if his father was God and he was born from a virgin? Much more likely is the whole concept of a virgin birth comes from pagan beliefs and was intended to convert pagans (Romans) to Christianity.
3. The messiah was supposed to return the Jews to their holy land, when Jesus was alive they were there, before they were scattered to the winds.
4. The messiah was supposed to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple after its destruction, it was standing in the time Jesus was alive.
5. Nowhere in the Hebrew bible is there mention of a messiah who would come, die, and come again. This is entirely a Christian idea to get around the fact that Jesus died and the Jewish prophecies were not fulfilled.
6. The messiah was to bring world peace and end all wars, have you checked your history since the time of Jesus?

If Jesus was God why did he cry out on the cross "My God, why have you foresaken me?"

These are not absurd claims, they are perfectly reasonable and logical claims. I have not rejected Jesus by the way, I find his teachings as expressed in the synoptic gospels very worthy, just as I find the teachings of the Buddha very worthy. What I don't find worthy are what people have claimed for him when there is no evidence he claimed it for himself (I am God for example) and what people have done in his name.

Read the following. Seriously. If you want enlightening, it will put an end to pretty much all your objections relating to messianic prophesy.

http://www.amazon.com/Answering-Jewish-Objections-Jesus-Messianic/dp/0801064236

As for the line, 'My God, why have you forsaken me', well, check out this prophetic Psalm from King David:

Psalm 22 wrote:

[a]

For the director of music. To the tune of “The Doe of the Morning.” A psalm of David.

1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from my cries of anguish?
2 My God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,
by night, but I find no rest.
3 Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;
you are the one Israel praises.[c]
4 In you our ancestors put their trust;
they trusted and you delivered them.
5 To you they cried out and were saved;
in you they trusted and were not put to shame.
6 But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by everyone, despised by the people.
7 All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads.
8 “He trusts in the Lord,” they say,
“let the Lord rescue him.
Let him deliver him,
since he delights in him.”
9 Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you, even at my mother’s breast.
10 From birth I was cast on you;
from my mother’s womb you have been my God.
11 Do not be far from me,
for trouble is near
and there is no one to help.
12 Many bulls surround me;
strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
13 Roaring lions that tear their prey
open their mouths wide against me.
14 I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
it has melted within me.
15 My mouth[d] is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
you lay me in the dust of death.
16 Dogs surround me,
a pack of villains encircles me;
they pierce[e] my hands and my feet.
17 All my bones are on display;
people stare and gloat over me.
18 They divide my clothes among them
and cast lots for my garment.
19 But you, Lord, do not be far from me.
You are my strength; come quickly to help me.
20 Deliver me from the sword,
my precious life from the power of the dogs.
21 Rescue me from the mouth of the lions;
save me from the horns of the wild oxen.
22 I will declare your name to my people;
in the assembly I will praise you.
23 You who fear the Lord, praise him!
All you descendants of Jacob, honor him!
Revere him, all you descendants of Israel!
24 For he has not despised or scorned
the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
but has listened to his cry for help.
25 From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly;
before those who fear you[f] I will fulfill my vows.
26 The poor will eat and be satisfied;
those who seek the Lord will praise him—
may your hearts live forever!
27 All the ends of the earth
will remember and turn to the Lord,
and all the families of the nations
will bow down before him,
28 for dominion belongs to the Lord
and he rules over the nations.
29 All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;
all who go down to the dust will kneel before him—
those who cannot keep themselves alive.
30 Posterity will serve him;
future generations will be told about the Lord.
31 They will proclaim his righteousness,
declaring to a people yet unborn:
He has done it!

Thats some song to allude to wouldn't you think? As the Jewish folk looked on at what was happening, Watching Jesus, pierced through hands and feet, people insulting him, sarcastically telling him 'let God take you from this cross', casting lots for his garments etc. Yet he utters the title of a Davidian Psalm, that spoke of the very things the crowds were witnessing. And lets not forget his line, 'It is done'. Quite the parallel with the closing line of the Psalm. Its an absolutely amazing back story to the seemingly troubling line, 'My God why have you forsaken me'.

nagirrac

Masteroid wrote: »

Remember, a claim of Messiah implies a virgin conception.

Only if you reference the common Christian translation of Isaah which uses the word "virgin". According to Jewish scholars the correct translation of the Hebrew text is "young woman". The messiah according to other prophecies has to be directly descended from David and Soloman and thus cannot be born of a virgin. The virgin question has been very problematic for many Christians, so much so that the most recent Catholic bible uses "young woman" and not "virgin" in the Isaah passage.

philologos

Jesus was drawing attention to the Scripture He was fulfilling. If you map Psalm 22 to Mark 15 you'll see exactly how this was happening.

When you analyse the data we have about Jesus and compare it to Biblical prophesy you see exactly how overwhelming the case for Jesus as the Messiah is.

The other points can all be addressed and I'll do that in due course.

My hope and prayer is that nagirrac might start to see that maybe Christianity is true and that the conspiracy theories aren't.

lmaopml

Yeah that verse makes me choke up every time Jimi, while the lambs were being slaughtered inside the city walls in preparation for the yearly passover festival to commemorate deliverance from slavery in egypt - the real 'Lamb of God' was the innocent Son forgiving and reconciling everything onto himself, and still loving every sinner to the very end. That's what it's all about. That's the Cross.

nagirrac

philologos wrote: »

My hope and prayer is that nagirrac might start to see that maybe Christianity is true and that the conspiracy theories aren't.

I appreciate your prayers phil.. but..
Conspiracy theories?? What I have stated is what people of the Jewish faith and Jewish scholars believe about their scriptures. People of the Jewish faith do not believe Jesus is the their messiah because he fails to meet what their scriptures requires of a messiah. No amount of trying to shoehorn Jesus into Jewish scripture will change those facts. When it comes to interpreting Jewish scripture I think it makes most sense to go with the Jews.

In my very humble opinion it is long past time for Christians to accept that their religion is quite separate from Judaism and the concept of a Jewish messiah. Jesus as described in much of the New Testament has as much or more in common with Baal, Isis and Mithras than he has with the Jewish messiah. Christianity is literally a complete break with Judaism, regardless of the fact that the historical Jesus was a Jew.

Masteroid

lmaopml wrote: »

No, people are not 'inherently' evil...that is not what the 'Christians posting here acknowledged' at all in any type of universal fashion.

Are you of that opinion because you have decided that Genesis 8:21 is not to be considered as evidence.

It goes:

"And the Lord smelled a soothing aroma. Then the Lord said in His heart, “I will never again curse the ground for man’s sake, although the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done.""

He says a similar thing before the flood too.

When did that change? When did God acknowledge that the notion that 'the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth' is no longer true?

lmaopml wrote:

What the heck has Bush and Chaney got to do with anything?

Well, since you ask in such a polite and respectful manner, I suggest you take that up with the poster who brought them into it.

My reference was in response to something Tommy posted where he suggested that Bush and Chaney might simply be 'posturing' as Christians. I took this to mean they might be faking their Christianity.

While I accept that evil people could pretend to be Christians in order to serve an agenda, which is what I thought Tommy was getting at, Christian are capable of just as great evil as non-Christians.

The Crusades were sanctioned by a successon of popes for example, were they Christians?

In fact, I would suggest that religion could be defined as 'the mechanism through which evil people are sorted into teams'.

My point is that the fact that they are comfortable with bombing babies in Baghdad doesn't necessarily mean they are not Christians.

And I am not claiming that this is the opinion held by Tommy, I just wondered why he would doubt a man's religion on account of his sins.

lmaopml

Masteroid wrote: »

Are you of that opinion because you have decided that Genesis 8:21 is not to be considered as evidence.

It goes:

"And the Lord smelled a soothing aroma. Then the Lord said in His heart, “I will never again curse the ground for man’s sake, although the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done.""

He says a similar thing before the flood too.

When did that change? When did God acknowledge that the notion that 'the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth' is no longer true?

Well, I guess you would have to do more than post a type of God that you believe Scripture presents in a tiny few quotes from a very long saga, and not take notice of the whole of revelation, and stop sourcing quotes in isolation to pick up dirt? That might help.

Or indeed ignore the simple fact that your reason tells you that more often than not most people do have a sympathy, people are not entirely 'evil' or could be called so, believers or no? This is quite obvious and something you can observe? No?

Well, since you ask in such a polite and respectful manner, I suggest you take that up with the poster who brought them into it.

My reference was in response to something Tommy posted where he suggested that Bush and Chaney might simply be 'posturing' as Christians. I took this to mean they might be faking their Christianity.

While I accept that evil people could pretend to be Christians in order to serve an agenda, which is what I thought Tommy was getting at, Christian are capable of just as great evil as non-Christians.

Actually, that makes no sense - you don't believe there is such a thing as 'evil' or 'sin' surely because of your Atheism? Yet you speak of 'evil' Christians etc. etc. and so on..

So, it's like begging the question really.

The Crusades were sanctioned by a successon of popes for example, were they Christians?

In fact, I would suggest that religion could be defined as 'the mechanism through which evil people are sorted into teams'.

My point is that the fact that they are comfortable with bombing babies in Baghdad doesn't necessarily mean they are not Christians.

And I am not claiming that this is the opinion held by Tommy, I just wondered why he would doubt a man's religion on account of his sins.

So, you come to the conclusion that to be a Christian is 'evil' this sounds dreadfully like entering into runtothehills conspiracy theory territory - In other words, you claim to be an Atheist and logic is your philosophy of life, but you use this same logic to say that 'evil' exists, but only in those who claim Christianity, and not in 'my' group at all...

Amazingly enough, most Christians don't think every single person is perfectly Holy, and in that knowledge find themselves humbled.

Not you though - you know exactly what 'evil' is apparently, and where to find it too

JimiTime

nagirrac wrote: »

I appreciate your prayers phil.. but..
Conspiracy theories?? What I have stated is what people of the Jewish faith and Jewish scholars believe about their scriptures. People of the Jewish faith do not believe Jesus is the their messiah because he fails to meet what their scriptures requires of a messiah. No amount of trying to shoehorn Jesus into Jewish scripture will change those facts. When it comes to interpreting Jewish scripture I think it makes most sense to go with the Jews.

In my very humble opinion it is long past time for Christians to accept that their religion is quite separate from Judaism and the concept of a Jewish messiah. Jesus as described in much of the New Testament has as much or more in common with Baal, Isis and Mithras than he has with the Jewish messiah. Christianity is literally a complete break with Judaism, regardless of the fact that the historical Jesus was a Jew.

Sorry to just give you book recommendations, but you come across as a learned person who likes to have all the facts, but it just seems you've been reading the wrong books

http://www.amazon.com/Real-Kosher-Jesus-Revealing-mysteries/dp/1621360075

Its written by a Jewish Christian.