Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Masteroid

lmaopml wrote: »

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?

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.

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

I'll take that as a yes then.

So tell me, how does a passage from the bible earn the status of 'evidential support'?

And how did you decide that some passages don't deserve that status?

Masteroid

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 think it would be more constructive to examine how the Jews themselves caused the 'prophecty' to be fulfilled.

The Jews could have 'scuppered' the Christian ship on many, many occasions.

I already pointed out how any claim that Joseph was not the father of Jesus would have put Mary in great danger.

This suggests that either the claim was never made or that it served the Jewish agenda to allow the claim to go unchallenged.

There were other things that the Jews could have done to prove that Jesus was not the Messiah.

For instance, they could have ignored Judas and the arrest of Jesus could have waited until after the Passover.

It's not as if Jesus was hiding and trying to avoid the prophecied events, is it?

If the Jews were anxious to discredit Jesus they could have insisted that Joseph of Aramathea left Jesus on the cross for the whole weekend.

Indeed, by the standards of that time, Jesus died very quickly on the cross causing Pontius Pilate to remark on the swiftness of His death. Joseph obtained special and unusual permission to recover the body of Jesus and prevented a Roman soldier from making sure that Jesus was in fact dead by breaking His legs which was the usual practice.

The Jewish priests could have stopped Joseph from having any opportunity to 'choreograph' the fulfillment of the prophecy.

But they didn't. In fact, the behaviour of the Jews is what brought about the fulfillment.

It is as if the San Hedrin decided to run an experiment in which they ensure that all of their interactions with Jesus are in line with prophecy and treat Jesus as if He was in fact the Messiah.

And it is evident from the Gospels that this is indeed the case.

Jesus does not claim to be the Son of God, it is other people, Jews, who claim He is.

He offers no defence during His trial which indicates that He was more interested in being crucified than trying to spread the news. Everytime He speaks in the bible, Jesus is teaching His philosophy.

Except at His trial where He mentions nothing about loving your neighbour as you love yourself. If He had defended Himself against the charges He would have been acquitted but He didn't.

The point is that the Jews behaved exactly according to scripture and would have been aware of this as they were aware of the Messiah prophecy. If they had acted slightly differently then they could have prevented the fulfillment of prophecy.

I find it odd then that the Jews today deny that Jesus was the Messiah since it was the Jews themselves that orchestrated the events that make it appear as if Jesus was the Messiah.

In other words, the Jesus phenomenon appears to me to have been staged or 'set up' and I think that it was for the benefit of the Gentiles that it was done.

Do you see what I am getting at?

Why would the Jews at the time of Jesus deny that He was the Messiah whilst at the same time acting exactly in accordance with a prophecy they were aware of?

I believe that the answer is that they wanted some people to believe that Jesus was the Messiah.

Also, consider the fact that Catholicism exemps the Jews from attempts at conversion coupled with the fact that Catholicism holds that only Catholics and Jews are eligible for salvation.

Catholicism itself sets itself apart from the Jews by acknowledging a special relationship between God and the Jews and that Christianity does not apply to them and nor do Christians share that special bond with God.

Don't you find that a little odd?

Especially when you consider that the Gospel is to be preached to all the nations. I simply can't find the bit where it says 'except for Israel'.

It's as if the Vatican know something about the Messiah that is not written in the bible. I think that Catholicism, and Christianity, can only exist for as long as they keep that secret.

While Jesus' philosophy is laudible, the portrayal of Jesus in the bible is not.

It's there for you to see in the texts of the New Testament - The Jews went to a great deal of trouble in order to ensure the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecy so why would they now deny that the prophecy was fulfilled?

Masteroid

JimiTime wrote: »

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:

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'.

Well, not really. It's a little too perfect in its vaguness don't you think?

There is no mention of salvation, the cleansing of sin or of being seated at the right hand of God.

If prophecy was bound to be fulfilled by Christ then why did the Jews feel the need to agitate the crowd and stir up hatred for Jesus?

A sober, logical and reasonable mind should conclude that the Jews who marshalled the agitators were aware of this Psalm and actively manipulated events in order to make the Psalm appear prophetic to future generations.

Can't you see that?

Also, have you considered the fact that Satan too can perform miracles.

For one thing, he can't be killed.

Wouldn't it have been clever of Satan to make himself the Messiah? He could have exerted influence over the Gentiles and used them to help him fall out of favour with the Jews who simply didn't accept that dead men can come back to life and so they indulged him.

They crucified Satan in accordance with the prophecy full sure that he would play ball and stay dead and when he rose again on the third day they realised that they had been tricked by the devil and subsequently denied that he was the Messiah.

Is Satan stupid? Is the wisest of all the angels going to spurn an opportunity like that?

If you accept that Satan has dominion over the earth and that he is magic, that God could not directly protect Mary from Herod and that God could not protect the children of Bethlehem from Herod, then how could you not consider the possibility that there are two-billion or so people who are batting for the wrong team? That's about the same proprtion of the global population that is fated for destruction in the book of Revelation.

How can you be sure that the greatest trick performed by Satan isn't the New Testament itself?

Have you ever considered this?

And suppose that Abraham was Satan's first disciple. That would make the Messianic prophecy a Satanic prophecy.

Would Satan lie about something as important as that?

And then there is David. How many commandments did he break? Could Satan have possessed David? Why not? God gave Satan license to inflict himself on humanity. Why would Satan pass up the opportunity to corrupt God's peculiar favorites?

I'm sorry but as soon as you invoke 'magical beings' then you open the door to such possibilities as outlined above that simply must be considered as possibilities regardless of what one considers to be preferable.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Why can't this whole debate just be moved to the Atheist/Agnostic forum? They seem to only demean and disparage organised religion over there anyways.

They don't want a balanced medium to express themselves, for instance if I voiced a Christian view over there I'd be banned out of it..

In some ways you'd think the only joy in life these people have is bashing the religious...

Worztron

Christopher Hitchens: "Once you assume a creator and a plan, it makes us objects, in a cruel experiment, whereby we are created sick, and commanded to be well. And over us, to supervise this, is installed a celestial dictatorship, a kind of divine North Korea."

nagirrac

JimiTime wrote: »

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.

What's a Jewish Christian:)? One cannot be both Jewish and Christian.

The author was raised Jewish and converted to Christianity in his mid teens. He is thus a Christian apostate who has a missionary zeal to convert Jews to Christianity. I'm sure he makes a good case for Christianity but then there are countless books from Jewish scholars that dismiss his view.

The problem with this whole debate is there are truly few facts, just interpretation of scripture. If scripture were factual then there would be no division in beliefs between Jews and Christians, and we would not have dozens of different Christian faiths. I have a lot of sympathy for the Jewish side of the discussion, as it is their scriptures that are being interpreted by Christians to argue for Jesus as not alone being the Jewish messiah but also God, something that is blasphemous to Jews.

I believe one has to try and leave aside religious bias to attempt to get at an understanding of the true historical Jesus. It is an area of study I am quite interested in but I am not that widely read. From what I have read it certainly appears that Jesus was an observant Jew who preached the Hillel school of Judaism. His philosophy seems very much in keeping with this more liberal Jewish thought, which makes it very unlikely the Jews themselves were involved in his death. It does not appear he was trying to set up a new religion, that happened after his death. To understand why or how that happened I think one has to study Christian, Jewish and Gnostic sources from the first century.

philologos

Good morning.

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.

Christianity is also a monotheistic religion. I can show you from the Hebrew Scriptures indications that both God is a Trinity and that the Messiah is divine. Again, I'm not going to list multiple examples for the sake of time but I can provide far more.

Even in the beginning if you look to the language by which God is referred to it implies a Trinity:

Genesis 1:2 wrote:

The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

Genesis 1:26 wrote:

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

Let's look at the Messiah being divine. We need look no further than what is cited in Isaiah 7:14, and in Isaiah 9:6

Isaiah 7:14 wrote:

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Isaiah 9:6 wrote:

For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Matthew quotes the start of this passage to indicate that it is Jesus who fulfils this passage by going to Galilee of the nations. See Matthew 4:12-17.

nagirrac wrote: »

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.

Why are you assuming that Jesus couldn't be descended from David if Mary was his mother? - Please quote the specific passage you are using. If you're discussing the Bible this is helpful for others to be able to look up what you're talking about.

Let me touch on your objection to a virgin birth when I refer to the Mithras, Horus stuff later on. I don't believe this is true. Why would you risk your life for no gain for a lie? There was no gain for Peter, Paul or any of the others, in fact much suffering came as a result of being an apostle for Christ.

This is one of the conspiracy theories I mentioned.

nagirrac wrote: »

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.

As above, please give me a citation.

nagirrac wrote: »

4. The messiah was supposed to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple after its destruction, it was standing in the time Jesus was alive.

As above, please give me a citation.

nagirrac wrote: »

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.

Was Isaiah a Christian or a Jew?

I might as well quote the whole of Isaiah 53:

Isaiah 53:1-12 wrote:

Who has believed what he has heard from us?
And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
For he grew up before him like a young plant,
and like a root out of dry ground;
he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
and no beauty that we should desire him.
He was despised and rejected by men;
a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;
and as one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he opened not his mouth.
By oppression and judgment he was taken away;
and as for his generation, who considered
that he was cut off out of the land of the living,
stricken for the transgression of my people?
And they made his grave with the wicked
and with a rich man in his death,
although he had done no violence,
and there was no deceit in his mouth.
Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him;
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.
Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,
because he poured out his soul to death
and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors.

I'll need to spend some more time on the Resurrection, looking to what the New Testament writers cite in respect to it.

nagirrac wrote: »

6. The messiah was to bring world peace and end all wars, have you checked your history since the time of Jesus?

Please provide a citation for this claim.

nagirrac wrote: »

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

JimiTime has already dealt with this.

nagirrac wrote: »

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.

They don't seem to hold up on examination. Pending the ones you are yet to provide.

Unless you believe and trust in Jesus as Lord, and as the Saviour of the entire world and believe and trust in Him, you have rejected Him. There's no middle ground. The reason I've gone into half as much depth into these posts is not because I want to condemn you, it's because I hope that you will see Jesus for who He really is and be saved.

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.

Not really. Their own prophets say that the word of God will go out to all nations, and through Jesus it did. Christians (and as Jimi has mentioned many Jewish Christians) have every right to examine this.

Moreover, it is a poor argument for authority to suggest that only Jewish people have the right to interpret the Old Testament. What matters more than any "authority" is whether or not the Scriptures actually say what they want to.

With more than 2,000 years passed and only one Messiah claimant having been born in Bethlehem and having been nailed to the cross for our transgression as Isaiah 53 states in addition to the many many prophesies Jesus fulfilled it is entirely logical to believe that they have missed and have rejected their Messiah.

nagirrac wrote: »

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.

As for Horus, and Mithras, all of the written accounts that we have of these post-date Jesus. Unless they pre-date we can't accuse Christianity of plagiarism. Also in the case of Mithraism Mithras was born as a fully grown man from a rock, not through a virgin birth.

This is one of the conspiracy theories.

JimiTime

nagirrac wrote: »

What's a Jewish Christian:)? One cannot be both Jewish and Christian.

The author was raised Jewish and converted to Christianity in his mid teens. He is thus a Christian apostate who has a missionary zeal to convert Jews to Christianity. I'm sure he makes a good case for Christianity but then there are countless books from Jewish scholars that dismiss his view.

The problem with this whole debate is there are truly few facts, just interpretation of scripture. If scripture were factual then there would be no division in beliefs between Jews and Christians, and we would not have dozens of different Christian faiths. I have a lot of sympathy for the Jewish side of the discussion, as it is their scriptures that are being interpreted by Christians to argue for Jesus as not alone being the Jewish messiah but also God, something that is blasphemous to Jews.

I believe one has to try and leave aside religious bias to attempt to get at an understanding of the true historical Jesus. It is an area of study I am quite interested in but I am not that widely read. From what I have read it certainly appears that Jesus was an observant Jew who preached the Hillel school of Judaism. His philosophy seems very much in keeping with this more liberal Jewish thought, which makes it very unlikely the Jews themselves were involved in his death. It does not appear he was trying to set up a new religion, that happened after his death. To understand why or how that happened I think one has to study Christian, Jewish and Gnostic sources from the first century.

Well the book was an answer to this, so why not read them both

Also, he's a Jew in blood, and Christ is his Jewish messiah, as prophesied in the Hebrew scriptures. Anyway, I digress...

I agree that Jesus was a law observant Jew. As for him trying to start a new religion, I think such a concept as religion is a more modern, political thing. Christ fulfilled the ceremonial law, being the person it pointed to, and also took the moral law even higher in that he talked about inviting sin into ones heart. Rather than trying to start a new religion, he was the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham that through his seed ALL the nations would be blessed. He was the revealing of The God of Abraham to the Jews. He was the fulfillment of their ceremony and ritual. The sacrificial lamb prophesied in the passover ritual.

Christianity and modern Judaism are certainly incompatible. However, the Hebrew scriptures, are certainly not incompatible with Christ.

J C

nagirrac wrote: »

What's a Jewish Christian:)? One cannot be both Jewish and Christian.

They can of course ... they are Messianic Jews ... and their numbers are increasing ... which is again in line with prophecy.

J C

Worztron wrote: »

Christopher Hitchens: "Once you assume a creator and a plan, it makes us objects, in a cruel experiment, whereby we are created sick, and commanded to be well. And over us, to supervise this, is installed a celestial dictatorship, a kind of divine North Korea."

That's a very negative interpretation of how things are ... it also presents no reason for denying that God exists ... even if Christopher hated Him ... indeed the fact that Christopher hated Him and created acres of type doing so indicates that, at some level, he recognised that God exists ... surely Christopher didn't expend all of this energy and precious time, on denying and expressing hatred for a phantom?

Anyway, I would correct Christopher Hitchens quote from a Christian perspective as follows:-
Once you know there is a Creator and a plan, it makes us Children of God, in an amazing world, whereby we are free, and commanded to be well and do good. And over us, to supervise this, is installed a celestial kingdom of love and justice, a kind of divine democracy ... where each person can determine their own eternal destiny.

tommy2bad

Masteroid;
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.

Thats exactly what I meant. They could be just using the trappings of faith to further their own agenda just as much as they could be mistaken in what that faith required of them.
Doubting someones faith because of their sins would be silly, faith isn't a on or off thing it waxes and wains, we all have weak moments when faith fails us. Thats why saying religion causes war or that failings disproves faith is nonsense.

philologos

Masteroid wrote: »

I think it would be more constructive to examine how the Jews themselves caused the 'prophecty' to be fulfilled.

Well if the events happened as a result of the Lord's ordering, that's what we'd expect. These things had to happen. God preordained the death and resurrection of Jesus according to Christian belief.

Masteroid wrote: »

There were other things that the Jews could have done to prove that Jesus was not the Messiah.

For instance, they could have ignored Judas and the arrest of Jesus could have waited until after the Passover.

Yes, there were. However, Jesus fulfilled these prophesies to the tee. The Jewish authorities could have done otherwise, yet they didn't. Why? Because it was the Lord's will for this to happen.

Masteroid wrote: »

It's not as if Jesus was hiding and trying to avoid the prophecied events, is it?

What's your point? I guess the main question is would it have been possible for Jesus to avoid this if the Father was simply fulfilling His sovereign will by the crucifixion and the resurrection?

Masteroid wrote: »

If the Jews were anxious to discredit Jesus they could have insisted that Joseph of Aramathea left Jesus on the cross for the whole weekend.

They could have, yet they didn't

Masteroid wrote: »

Indeed, by the standards of that time, Jesus died very quickly on the cross causing Pontius Pilate to remark on the swiftness of His death. Joseph obtained special and unusual permission to recover the body of Jesus and prevented a Roman soldier from making sure that Jesus was in fact dead by breaking His legs which was the usual practice.

The Jewish priests could have stopped Joseph from having any opportunity to 'choreograph' the fulfillment of the prophecy.

There's nothing about choreography. They pierced Jesus' side, sealed Him in a tomb and put a military guard outside. The reason they didn't break His legs wasn't because of Joseph as you imply, but it was because He was already dead (John 19:33).

Masteroid wrote: »

But they didn't. In fact, the behaviour of the Jews is what brought about the fulfillment.

Your point is?

You seem to be suggesting that Jesus fulfilled the Messianic prophesies too well.

Masteroid wrote: »

It is as if the San Hedrin decided to run an experiment in which they ensure that all of their interactions with Jesus are in line with prophecy and treat Jesus as if He was in fact the Messiah.

Or that the Father fulfilled His sovereign plan in Jesus as the Bible foretold.

Masteroid wrote: »

Jesus does not claim to be the Son of God, it is other people, Jews, who claim He is.

This isn't true. Even Wikipedia have a section dealing with Jesus' own assertions that He was the Son of God.

Masteroid wrote: »

He offers no defence during His trial which indicates that He was more interested in being crucified than trying to spread the news. Everytime He speaks in the bible, Jesus is teaching His philosophy.

Or, Jesus was fulfilling the prophesy in Isaiah 53:

Isaiah 53:7 wrote:

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he opened not his mouth.

Masteroid wrote: »

Except at His trial where He mentions nothing about loving your neighbour as you love yourself. If He had defended Himself against the charges He would have been acquitted but He didn't.

See above. Jesus knew that He had to die to stand in the place for sin.

Masteroid wrote: »

The point is that the Jews behaved exactly according to scripture and would have been aware of this as they were aware of the Messiah prophecy. If they had acted slightly differently then they could have prevented the fulfillment of prophecy.

Where are you getting this from, or is this speculation without Biblical basis?

Masteroid wrote: »

I find it odd then that the Jews today deny that Jesus was the Messiah since it was the Jews themselves that orchestrated the events that make it appear as if Jesus was the Messiah.

In other words, the Jesus phenomenon appears to me to have been staged or 'set up' and I think that it was for the benefit of the Gentiles that it was done.

Set up by whom is the question. I agree that it was set up, but I think it was set up (preordained) by God Himself so that many would come to believe and trust in Him both of the Jews and of the Gentiles as the rest of the New Testament and Biblical prophesy suggest.

Do you see what I am getting at?

Masteroid wrote: »

Why would the Jews at the time of Jesus deny that He was the Messiah whilst at the same time acting exactly in accordance with a prophecy they were aware of?

I believe that the answer is that they wanted some people to believe that Jesus was the Messiah.

Or, that God's word is true and it came to pass with such excellent precision.

Masteroid wrote: »

Also, consider the fact that Catholicism exemps the Jews from attempts at conversion coupled with the fact that Catholicism holds that only Catholics and Jews are eligible for salvation.

Catholicism itself sets itself apart from the Jews by acknowledging a special relationship between God and the Jews and that Christianity does not apply to them and nor do Christians share that special bond with God.

Don't you find that a little odd?

I find a number of things in the RCC a little odd, but there are many Christians who do reach out to Jewish communities such as Jews for Jesus.

Masteroid wrote: »

Especially when you consider that the Gospel is to be preached to all the nations. I simply can't find the bit where it says 'except for Israel'.

I couldn't agree with you more. I'm a huge supporter of efforts to share the Gospel with all people including Jewish people.

Masteroid wrote: »

It's as if the Vatican know something about the Messiah that is not written in the bible. I think that Catholicism, and Christianity, can only exist for as long as they keep that secret.

This is where we get to the Dan Brown conspiracy theory stuff. Or maybe it is because that in prescribing that teaching they have departed from Scripture?

Masteroid wrote: »

While Jesus' philosophy is laudible, the portrayal of Jesus in the bible is not.

How do you know what Jesus' philosophy is without consideration of Scripture.

I'd be very interested in how you disagree with the portrayal of Jesus in the Bible by the by.

Masteroid wrote: »

It's there for you to see in the texts of the New Testament - The Jews went to a great deal of trouble in order to ensure the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecy so why would they now deny that the prophecy was fulfilled?

Or, God's will came to pass with immense precision

nagirrac

philologos wrote: »

Why are you assuming that Jesus couldn't be descended from David if Mary was his mother? - Please quote the specific passage you are using. If you're discussing the Bible this is helpful for others to be able to look up what you're talking about.

As above, please give me a citation.

I might as well quote the whole of Isaiah 53:

Moreover, it is a poor argument for authority to suggest that only Jewish people have the right to interpret the Old Testament. What matters more than any "authority" is whether or not the Scriptures actually say what they want to.

On the genealogy question, the Messiah must be descended from King David on his father's side, according to Jews at least. Matthew clearly and unequivically ends his genealogy with "Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born". There are major discrepencies between the genealogies of Matthew and Luke, Luke does not even go through Solomon for instance, he goes through Nathan. It would be interesting to know when the idea of a lineage through Mary came in, but the serious question is why do the two genealogies not match and why do neither of them mention Mary's lineage? It seems a bit of a stretch.

Ths gets to the heart of the interpretation issue. Of course Christians are entitled to interpret Jewish scripture, anyone is. The question is who is more likely to get the interpretation right. My understanding is that ancient Hebrew texts are extremely difficult to translate, let alone interpret (Hebrew has no vowels and ancient text would have had no vowel markers, so the oral reading is what adds meaning). Who is more likely to get this right, Jewish experts or non-Jewish interpretations of Greek translations?

This is why I say its important to study Jewish, Christian and Gnostic sources and try and keep an open mind. I understand it is hard to do this once you have strong faith in one interpretation. If interpretation was straightforward why would there be so many interpretations of the New Testament let alone the Jewish scriptures; Eastern Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholics and the large number of Protestant faiths?

As for citations regarding the other claims and prophecies of the messiah that are not met according to Jews, you know as well as I do that they exist and that Christians can argue their interpretation to refute them. The most serious issue by far for Jews is the divinity claim. All Jews believe that we are all sons of God, but no Jew believes that a son of God can be God. If a Jew accepts Jesus as God then he is no longer a Jew. When I speak of Jews, I mean in terms of religion and not ethnicity, as just like Christians, Jews from a religious standpoint can be any ethnicity. In my opinion it is disingenuous for Jews who have converted to Christianity to refer to themselves as Jews from a religious standpoint. All demonimations of Judaism reject Messianic Judaism as part of Judaism, to them it is Christianity.

As for Isaiah 53 which you referenced, Jews would say that the suffering of the "Servant of God" is referring to the suffering of the Jewish people. They say this is entirely consistent with earlier chapters of Isaiah where the "Servant of God" is used many times to denote the people of Israel. As with everything in the bible, you can take individual passages to argue one side or the other, so the debate eventually becomes pointless.

I mean no offense to Christians in any of my remarks. I am genuinely interested in the true historical Jesus. I personally regard the synoptic gospels as the most credible Christian sources for the historical Jesus as they are largely in agreement in their historical account. John and much of the rest of the New Testament to me reads like gnostic literature, a view confirmed by the contents of gnostic gospels such as the gospel of Thomas.

MrPudding

Sacksian wrote: »

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?

As someone on boards, whos name escapes me, once said, "if I knew I would come back in three days I would die for my cat."

MrP

lmaopml

nagirrac wrote: »

On the genealogy question, the Messiah must be descended from King David on his father's side, according to Jews at least. Matthew clearly and unequivically ends his genealogy with "Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born". There are major discrepencies between the genealogies of Matthew and Luke, Luke does not even go through Solomon for instance, he goes through Nathan. It would be interesting to know when the idea of a lineage through Mary came in, but the serious question is why do the two genealogies not match and why do neither of them mention Mary's lineage? It seems a bit of a stretch.

Ths gets to the heart of the interpretation issue. Of course Christians are entitled to interpret Jewish scripture, anyone is. The question is who is more likely to get the interpretation right. My understanding is that ancient Hebrew texts are extremely difficult to translate, let alone interpret (Hebrew has no vowels and ancient text would have had no vowel markers, so the oral reading is what adds meaning). Who is more likely to get this right, Jewish experts or non-Jewish interpretations of Greek translations?

This is why I say its important to study Jewish, Christian and Gnostic sources and try and keep an open mind. I understand it is hard to do this once you have strong faith in one interpretation. If interpretation was straightforward why would there be so many interpretations of the New Testament let alone the Jewish scriptures; Eastern Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholics and the large number of Protestant faiths?

As for citations regarding the other claims and prophecies of the messiah that are not met according to Jews, you know as well as I do that they exist and that Christians can argue their interpretation to refute them. The most serious issue by far for Jews is the divinity claim. All Jews believe that we are all sons of God, but no Jew believes that a son of God can be God. If a Jew accepts Jesus as God then he is no longer a Jew. When I speak of Jews, I mean in terms of religion and not ethnicity, as just like Christians, Jews from a religious standpoint can be any ethnicity. In my opinion it is disingenuous for Jews who have converted to Christianity to refer to themselves as Jews from a religious standpoint. All demonimations of Judaism reject Messianic Judaism as part of Judaism, to them it is Christianity.

As for Isaiah 53 which you referenced, Jews would say that the suffering of the "Servant of God" is referring to the suffering of the Jewish people. They say this is entirely consistent with earlier chapters of Isaiah where the "Servant of God" is used many times to denote the people of Israel. As with everything in the bible, you can take individual passages to argue one side or the other, so the debate eventually becomes pointless.

I mean no offense to Christians in any of my remarks. I am genuinely interested in the true historical Jesus. I personally regard the synoptic gospels as the most credible Christian sources for the historical Jesus as they are largely in agreement in their historical account. John and much of the rest of the New Testament to me reads like gnostic literature, a view confirmed by the contents of gnostic gospels such as the gospel of Thomas.

I think one of the most interesting claims that Christ made was that some would see him as an 'offense' and happy are those that don't, and he mentions that the purpose of the whole of the 'law' was a divine desire for 'mercy' not sacrifice - In that era there were great expectations of the Messiah. He was to be of the line of David and would restore the nation to something better than it was under King Solomon. You had the exile in Babylon and then the Maccabian dynasty that had extended the boarders to somewhat closer to the time of King Solomon - but they were Levites, not of the right line for the Messiah, then you had the Herodian time when the boarders were being extended further, but still no joy insofar as a 'Son of David' - Herod wasn't even Jewish ( although apparently he concocted a geneaology because he was so paranoid of the prophesy of a new King ) He worried that the people would see the times and revolt.

You must remember that Christ claimed to be the cornerstone that builders rejected as foretold ages before. In other words, a cornerstone is the part of the building that keeps everything else standing. It's the funny weird shaped stone that doesn't look 'usual'...but is imperative to the structure because it stands at the top and all the others press apon it. Just like a Temple.

He mentioned, 'happy are those who are not offended by me...', probably because he knew people would be offended - he said he was a 'stumbling block' for many ...and said he came that the blind may see; and even went on to say that the whole of the law was about 'desiring mercy' just 'mercy'. He really shook things up obviously..

A person worth knowing and investing some time in methinks.

There's a really good talk here on 'Genealogy' that is worth a listen, that speaks of the historic period, and the zeitgeist of the time, and the Genesis and the Genealogy of Mathews Gospel. I think it's a pretty accurate and honest depiction of Matthew and his Gospel if you would like to listen. It's a Podcast, so all voice no pictures, but if one has an hour it's worth a listen, even for the curious - it does start off with a short prayer, like most honest study of Scripture.

http://www.salvationhistory.com/audio/podcasts/16%20The%20Genesis%20of%20Jesus%201.mp3

philologos

nagirrac: just think about your argument that you gave presented. If the suffering servant was Israel then why dies it say "by His wounds we were healed" or that He was wounded for our transgressions. If it was referring to all in Israel who is the we or the our in the passage and why is the servant singular and why does Jesus look a lot like this servant.

Your argument makes no sense.

Just think about what you are actually saying. By the by I've read this with an open mind.

Masteroid

philologos wrote: »

nagirrac: just think about your argument that you gave presented. If the suffering servant was Israel then why dies it say "by His wounds we were healed" or that He was wounded for our transgressions. If it was referring to all in Israel who is the we or the our in the passage and why is the servant singular and why does Jesus look a lot like this servant.

Your argument makes no sense.

Just think about what you are actually saying. By the by I've read this with an open mind.

Phil, nagirrac's argument does make sense.

I have every intention of answering your direct post to me but it needs consideration... for the sake of respect.

But what nagirrac has said should alarm you in respect of the empirical argument that you must overcome.

I recognise that he and I are coming from different sides but it is apparent from what nagirrac says that his is a considered point of view and therefore should not be dismissed lightly.

Read again what he said and try to consider his view with a more open mind.

He does in fact raise a challenge.

How could the Jews have missed this? is the real question.

He says, in effect, why would the Jews deny the Messiah and I say why did the Gentiles misunderstand the Jewish scriptires.

I have a feeling that nagirrac and I will converge on the same view, but it is disconcerting to me that there are people who cannot have this discussion based on what is written as opposed to what they think it means.

I would be the first to admit that fact and fiction are immortalised within the text of the bible.

It just seems that sometimes Christians are not even willing to consider what is written and what it could mean and I think that that makes our souls available at a pretty low price.

Masteroid

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

In some ways you'd think the only joy in life these people have is bashing the religious...

Or you could suppose that teachers tend to teach?

nagirrac

philologos wrote: »

nagirrac:
Your argument makes no sense.
Just think about what you are actually saying. By the by I've read this with an open mind.

..except its not my argument phil, it's the Jewish argument. What you are saying in essense is that the Jews are misinterpreting their own scripture.
If you look at what Jewish scholars complain about, the #1 thing they say is that Christians misrepresent their scripture based on mistranslation. They say read the scripture in its entirety from the original Hebrew, get some help from people who have passed the oral translation down for many hundreds of years before Jesus was born, and stop picking out pieces to match your Jesus was the messiah argument.

While this seems like a semantic argument, it has been a life or death argument for Jews for 2,000 years. Christian antisematism has a long and ugly past. It started with the gospel of John where Jews were associated with the devil, continued for almost 2,000 years, and culminated with the holocaust. I would urge you to read the attached article and reflect on the suffering endured by God's chosen people for the past two millenia.

http://www.ushmm.org/research/center/church/persecution/persecution.pdf

Christians need to accept that Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian. It is long past time for Christians to admit that the founders of their faith turned internal squabbles between schools of Judaism into condemnations of Judaism for killing "their" messiah and eventually rebranding God's chosen people as God's rejected people. This is the most ugly truth of all to confront for Christians.

philologos

Either quote the Jewish scholars or make your own argument because it sounds like your shifting and changing the goalpost.

Please explain to me in your own words who the our and the we are in Isaiah 53 or find me an Orthodox Jew who will argue for you. Please don't dodge the question again.

You can't just keep making the logical fallacy from authority. If the assahe is saying what it is saying it doesn't matter what others say surely?

Jesus was Jewish, and He was the Jewish messiah. That's what Christians believe no doubt about it. One really can't deny that all the prophesies that we have looked at have been satisfied by Jesus. 2,000 years later only one Messiah claimant was born in Bethlehem and was pierced for our transgressions and that's Jesus.

If you're going to make an argument that the New Testament is anti-Semitic please present it in your own words.

[-0-]

I was asked to come here to post this, so here I am: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83694162&postcount=20

tommy2bad

[-0-];
Why does the bible, the true word of God, have so many contradictions? Is it because it was written by a bunch of sand farmers without any influence from a super natural being?

Way to go! nothing like throwing a cat among the pigeons!
Lets see racism, anti religion, want to add some homophobia and sexism too, why hold back?

nagirrac

philologos wrote: »

Either quote the Jewish scholars or make your own argument because it sounds like your shifting and changing the goalpost.

If you're going to make an argument that the New Testament is anti-Semitic please present it in your own words.

This is the Jewish position on Isaiah 53:

http://www.aish.com/sp/ph/Isaiah_53_The_Suffering_Servant.html

You don't think its anti-semitic to blame the Jews for killing Jesus? The whole idea of the Jews being responsible for the death of Jesus is completely contrary to history, Jewish law and the political realities of the time. There were many messiah claims before and after Jesus and the Jews never sought to kill any of them. There is no evidence whatsoever in Jewish history of them handing anyone over to the Romans for execution. Jesus was a threat to the Romans, they crucifed thousands of Jews for the exact activities that Jesus was executed for. The whole concept that the Romans were appeasing the Jews in executing Jesus is ridiculous, given they were executing people they regarded as agitators left, right and center.

What is described in the New Testament in terms of the trial of Jesus by the Sanhedrin simply could not have happened, as anyone with knowledge of Jewish law and customs of the time would attest. This account could only be believed by Gentiles who were unaware of Jewish law.

As for specific New Testament phrases that are anti-semitic, the attached article summarised them well. The only conclusion I can come to from studying the history of the time, is that the early Christian founders shifted blame for the death of Jesus away from the Romans to the Jews, to make Christianity palatable to those they were trying to convert. How can you read John 8:39-47 where Jesus is claimed to have spoken to his fellow Jews and referred to them as "of the devil" and not regard that as anti-semitic? This rhetoric and phrases like it is what led to centuries of characterization by Christians of Jews as agents of the devil, the blood libel, etc. It is denying history to deny Christian demonization of Jews.

http://www.christianity-revealed.com/cr/files/antisemitisminthenewtestament_1.html

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

As someone on boards, whos name escapes me, once said, "if I knew I would come back in three days I would die for my cat."

MrP

... but would you die for your cat in the sin-filled horror that was Christ's crucifixion?
I bet you wouldn't.

Anyway, the important point is that God loved us so much that He humbled himself and took on Human form ... and died for our sins ...
... and please don't under-rate the suffering He underwent ... for a Holy God ... it would be infinite.

God was faced with a terrible dilemma ... in order to Save anybody who asked for His mercy from His perfect justice ... He had to pay the full just 'punishment' for their sins ... and pay it He did, on the cross.

He not only 'talked the talk' ... He also 'walked the walk'.

He even forgave His executioners ... but they would have to accept His forgiveness in order to be Saved.
I'm sure that some did ... and some didn't ... just like the rest of Humanity.

philologos

nagirrac wrote: »

You don't think its anti-semitic to blame the Jews for killing Jesus? The whole idea of the Jews being responsible for the death of Jesus is completely contrary to history, Jewish law and the political realities of the time. There were many messiah claims before and after Jesus and the Jews never sought to kill any of them. There is no evidence whatsoever in Jewish history of them handing anyone over to the Romans for execution. Jesus was a threat to the Romans, they crucifed thousands of Jews for the exact activities that Jesus was executed for. The whole concept that the Romans were appeasing the Jews in executing Jesus is ridiculous, given they were executing people they regarded as agitators left, right and center.

You clearly don't understand my views about the crucifixion. I think that the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus was God-ordained, meaning God predestined it to happen. The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus are a good thing. Sin was atoned for and people who believe and trust in Jesus would be saved.

It was thanks to the Jewish authorities and the Roman authorities crucifying Jesus that Biblical prophesy came to pass.

It is historical that the Pharisees and the Sadduccees had Jesus sent to Pilate for trial. There's nothing anti-Semitic about it. Jesus was Jewish, the apostles were Jewish, and the Gospel is a Jewish idea. It's found right throughout the Hebrew Scriptures.

nagirrac wrote: »

What is described in the New Testament in terms of the trial of Jesus by the Sanhedrin simply could not have happened, as anyone with knowledge of Jewish law and customs of the time would attest. This account could only be believed by Gentiles who were unaware of Jewish law.

You keep throwing chestnuts like this in. You make a claim and do not substantiate it in any way. Why do you expect your arguments to be convincing if you don't give me any reason to believe what you're saying.

If you can't provide backup for what you say from the Hebrew Scriptures it can only be regarded as unsubstantiated.

nagirrac wrote: »

As for specific New Testament phrases that are anti-semitic, the attached article summarised them well. The only conclusion I can come to from studying the history of the time, is that the early Christian founders shifted blame for the death of Jesus away from the Romans to the Jews, to make Christianity palatable to those they were trying to convert. How can you read John 8:39-47 where Jesus is claimed to have spoken to his fellow Jews and referred to them as "of the devil" and not regard that as anti-semitic? This rhetoric and phrases like it is what led to centuries of characterization by Christians of Jews as agents of the devil, the blood libel, etc. It is denying history to deny Christian demonization of Jews.

I asked you to make your own case in your own words.

I don't deny that in the past many Christians particularly in the Medieval period misunderstood the Gospel. Not surprising considering that the church authorities did not allow for the Gospel to be preached in the vernacular.

My point isn't whether or not many people who professed to be Christians were anti-Semitic, it is whether or not the Gospel itself is anti-Semitic.

Moreover, how is it anti-Semitic for a Jew to criticise the lack of faith of his co-religionists. By that logic it would be anti-Christian for me to point out that some professing Christians deviate from Scripture. How the heck does that work

philologos

[-0-] wrote: »

I was asked to come here to post this, so here I am: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83694162&postcount=20

Genesis has two creation accounts, one which accounts the creation of the "heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1) and the other which accounts the "generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens" (Genesis 2:4).

Notice the inversion. Creation account 1 is to account for God's sovereignty in creation, creation account 2 is looking at the creation from the earthly perspective.

I have posted more extensively about how I understand the creation accounts in Genesis here, and here.

Brian Shanahan

Masteroid wrote: »

<snip>

That was a well written, cogently argued post. The only problem with it is tha the whole "virgin birth" thing is that the Greek speaking Jews translated the Aramaic for "young woman" (while "almah" can refer to a virgin, it is not exclusive to virgins as it is literally "young woman") into the Greek for "virgin" ("parthenos") in Isaiah, when they transcribed the Torah from Aramaic into Greek.

This mistranslation was kept in the bible and used to "prove" the divinity of Jesus long after he had died.

Of course this whole issue neatly sidesteps the fact that to be the Jewish messiah, i.e. the one actually promised by "god", that Jesus would have had to be a King Arthur figure, uniting his people and driving out the foreign invaders who had subjugated them.

philologos

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Of course this whole issue neatly sidesteps the fact that to be the Jewish messiah, i.e. the one actually promised by "god", that Jesus would have had to be a King Arthur figure, uniting his people and driving out the foreign invaders who had subjugated them.

Can you quote the passage in the Tanakh please?

nagirrac

philologos wrote: »

It is historical that the Pharisees and the Sadduccees had Jesus sent to Pilate for trial. There's nothing anti-Semitic about it.

I'll have to come back to this later phil but point me to one source other than the New Testament where it says the Pharisees and the Sadduccees had Jesus sent to Pilate for trial.

Brian Shanahan

philologos wrote: »

Can you quote the passage in the Tanakh please?

Why are you looking for evidence on well established fact?

Oh, yes because the acknowledgement of this fact removes all scriptural basis for your religion. Well it's not my fault that your religious leaders were too stupid to remove the stuff disproving their religion (of which there is a lot in the bible, starting with the world creation myth in genesis; if you can't get how the universe began even remotely right how are we going to accept anything else as factual?) now is it?

I'll repeat, the Jewish messiah was a temporal man, who would be sent to lead the Jews in a succesful rebellion against whomever was subjugating them when he came (and is a pretty popular myth amongst people who are small and weak {in a tribal power sense}).