Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

PopePalpatine

Well, technically speaking that would make Israel's first president the Jewish Messiah.

JimiTime

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

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}).

You didn't actually put any flesh on the bones of your point there btw, you just said 'fact' a lot. You're welcome to your Anti Christian bitterness, and indeed your ignorance, but Phil is quite right to ask you to flesh out this 'well established fact of yours', probably so that he can bring some light to your darkness, and dispel this particular bit of your ignorance.

philologos

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

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}).

I don't want you to repeat. I want you to answer my question without this petty rhetoric.

What passage in the Tanakh are you referring to?

That's where Biblical prophesy concerning the Messiah comes from.

Why am I pulling you up on your claims? Because they are incredibly important.

Brian Shanahan

JimiTime wrote: »

You didn't actually put any flesh on the bones of your point there btw, you just said 'fact' a lot.

I don't have to show evidence that the Jewish messiah is emphatically not what Jesus was, no more than I have to show evidence that I have access to an internet enabled device. Both facts are self-evident.

When a person questions or demands evidence for a self-evident fact, it is because they are unable and unwilling to face up to the consequences resulting from the fact.

So what is it that you cannot accept about the fact that Jesus is not the messiah as propheseyed in the Torah? It is a simple question, so I expect no further evasions.

philologos

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I don't have to show evidence that the Jewish messiah is emphatically not what Jesus was, no more than I have to show evidence that I have access to an internet enabled device. Both facts are self-evident.

When a person questions or demands evidence for a self-evident fact, it is because they are unable and unwilling to face up to the consequences resulting from the fact.

So what is it that you cannot accept about the fact that Jesus is not the messiah as propheseyed in the Torah? It is a simple question, so I expect no further evasions.

You're the one evading. Please show me the passage in the Tanakh that backs up your point. There's no need for your petty rhetoric, just answer my question.

Brian Shanahan

philologos wrote: »

You're the one evading. Please show me the passage in the Tanakh that backs up your point. There's no need for your petty rhetoric, just answer my question.

Fine, if you're not willing to engage with me and continue with the evasions, on my ignore list you go.

It's not like I'm losing anything anyway, your points are valueless.

[-0-]

philologos wrote: »

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.

This does not explain why they are conflicting accounts, however.

philologos

[Quote=[-0-];83717787]

This does not explain why they are conflicting accounts, however.[/Quote]

The question is are they conflicting or are they complementary?

Another question to consider is why there are two creation accounts in Genesis?

philologos

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Fine, if you're not willing to engage with me and continue with the evasions, on my ignore list you go.

It's not like I'm losing anything anyway, your points are valueless.

I'm engaging by asking you that question. You're refusing to engage by not cooperating.

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

I'm engaging by asking you that question. You're refusing to engage by not cooperating.

We all know Christian posters are never evasive or refuse to cooperate!

Masteroid

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

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.

Thank you.

I think that considering the law and the politics of the time, it is evident that the 'Godliness' of Jesus was added retrospectively.

Zombrex

This is a good summary of why Jews do not believe Jesus was "The messiah"

http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/jewsandjesus/#1

1. Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.
2. Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.
3. Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations.
4. Jewish belief is based on national revelation.
5. Christianity contradicts Jewish theology
6. Jews and Gentiles
7. Bringing the Messiah

Of course to an atheist this is a bit like Star Wars fans arguing over how Darth Vaders helmet works "in real life" (ie it doesn't, its made up), but I can certainly see the Jewish position, Jesus is quite different to the messiah that they believe is still coming.

But then that makes sense because their messiah they believe is coming doesn't exist and won't exist, so like all supernatural prophecies it is not unusual or surprising that a person claiming to be the messiah couldn't actually fulfill all the prophecies. Even Christians recognize this by punting the big stuff to the second coming which conveniently hasn't happened yet.

Or to put it another way, no one has ever actually fulfilled supernatural prophecies that require events beyond the scope of things actually achievable naturally, so it is not much of a surprise to this atheist that Jesus didn't either.

Rule number one of a prophecy, don't make a prophecy that is hard to do

Sacksian

philologos wrote: »

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.

I didn't intend coming back to this, despite my interest in the topic, as this is getting quite repetitive. However, the bit in bold above is a wilful misinterpretation of what I asked.

I asked:

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

Also, above, you say your view is not based on the Bible alone, what other books have added to your understanding of the human condition?

Fanny Cradock

Sorry, but what exactly do you mean by the human condition? It's rather a loose term, no?

nagirrac

philologos wrote: »

What passage in the Tanakh are you referring to?

The attached link spells out the Jewish position on the claims for Jesus as the messiah. Of course Christians can argue that Jews have it wrong and don't understand the relevant scriptures. As with all evidence we have to examine it based on which version is the more likely, the interpretation of Jews who are reading the original text in their own language, guided by the oral tradition passed on for hundreds of years, or Christians who base their interpretation on translated text and who had already decided that Jesus was the messiah.

http://www.aish.com/jw/s/48892792.html

You haven't answered my question on Jewish involvement in the death of Jesus. Other than the New Testament where is the historical evidence that the Jews handed Jesus over to the Romans for trial and ultimate execution? It's quite the important question as the claim that the Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus led to 2,000 years of persecution of Jews by Christians.. and it wasn't because certain Christians did not understand the gospels, it is actually because they believed the gospels.

JimiTime

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Fine, if you're not willing to engage with me and continue with the evasions, on my ignore list you go.

It's not like I'm losing anything anyway, your points are valueless.

Its not about losing anything. Its about you backing up your claim (Hint: saying 'fact', does not a fact make it). You made the claim, Phil asked you to back it it up, and then you laughably, and ironically accused HIM of evasiveness. Bizarre

Brian Shanahan

JimiTime wrote: »

Hint: saying 'fact', does not a fact make it.

Certain facts are self-evident, and anyway if he was such a scholar of the bible as he claimed, "philologos" would have known chapter and verse on how much Jesus failed to live up to the Jewish concept of the messiah (for a view of someone who tried to be the proper messiah I point you towards Simon bar Kockhba, who was actually proclaimed by the Jews as such {well up until his rebellion failed}).

Fanny Cradock

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Certain facts are self-evident, and anyway if he was such a scholar of the bible as he claimed, "philologos" would have known chapter and verse on how much Jesus failed to live up to the Jewish concept of the messiah (for a view of someone who tried to be the proper messiah I point you towards Simon bar Kockhba, who was actually proclaimed by the Jews as such {well up until his rebellion failed}).

Admittedly I'm coming in halfway through the, eh, discussion, but I don't think that Philologos claimed to be a Biblical scholar, so it would seem that you are tilting at windmills.

That Jesus failed to live up to the Jewish understanding of who the Messiah would be and what he would do is exactly the point of Christianity. It's almost amusing to see the followers of Jesus still not get it after everything they have seen and been through. Hence why in Acts 6 they kept asking exactly when he was about to really begin Messianic type things. Tom Wright talks about this in his book Simply Jesus. The opening words in the book reads as follows -

As Jesus was going along, people kept spreading their cloaks on the road. When he came to the descent of the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples began to celebrate and praise God at the tops of their voices" (Luke 19:36-37). The crowd went wild as he got nearer. This was the moment they'd been waiting for. All the old songs came flooding back, and they were singing, chanting, cheering, and laughing. At last their dreams were going to come true.
But in the middle of it all their leader wasn't singing. "When he came near and saw the city, he wept over it" (v. 41). Yes, their dreams were indeed coming true. But not in the way they had imagined.
He was not the king they expected. He wasn't like the monarchs of old who sat on their jeweled and ivory thrones, dispensing their justice and wisdom. Nor was he the great warrior-king some had wanted. He didn't raise an army and ride into battle at its head. He was riding on a donkey. And he was weeping, weeping for the dream that had to die, weeping for the sword that would pierce his supporters to the soul. Weeping for the kingdom that wasn't coming as well as for the kingdom that was.
Jesus's arrival in Jerusalem a few days before his death is one of the best-known scenes in the gospels. But what was it all about? What did Jesus think he was doing?

philologos

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Admittedly I'm coming in halfway through the, eh, discussion, but I don't think that Philologos claimed to be a Biblical scholar, so it would seem that you are tilting at windmills.

That Jesus failed to live up to the Jewish understanding of who the Messiah would be and what he would do is exactly the point of Christianity. It's almost amusing to see the followers of Jesus still not get it after everything they have seen and been through. Hence why in Acts 6 they kept asking exactly when he was about to really begin Messianic type things. Tom Wright talks about this in his book Simply Jesus. The opening words in the book reads as follows -

Yes but not fulfilling the expectations of Jewish people is not the same as not fulfilling the Biblical prophesy concerning the Messiah.

That's why we've seen fumbling on this issue. The fumbling also shows a lack of intellectual honesty. Instead of genuinely considering from the prophesy we have concerning the Messiah in Scripture we have non-believers rushing to google searching for even a fraction of an excuse to reject Him.

That's what's honestly saddening for me about this whole thing.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

Yes but not fulfilling the expectations of Jewish people us not the same as not fulfilling the Biblical prophesy concerning the Messiah.

That's why we've seen fumbling on this issue. The fumbling also shows a lack of intellectual honesty. Instead of genuinely considering from the prophesy we have concerning the Messiah in Scripture we have non-believers rushing to google searching for even a fraction of an excuse to reject Him.

That's what's honestly saddening for me about this whole thing.

Your missing the point by a country mile, non-believers don't need to spend any time proving that Jesus was or was not the Messiah.

It is sufficient to point out that the Jews themselves don't accept it. And for you to show how you are better equipped to interpret someone else's holy books.

philologos

marienbad wrote: »

Your missing the point by a country mile, non-believers don't need to spend any time proving that Jesus was or was not the Messiah.

It is sufficient to point out that the Jews themselves don't accept it. And for you to show how you are better equipped to interpret someone else's holy books.

Not at all. The Bible even the Old Testament is clear that God's word is for both Jews and Gentiles and that it would go into the whole world.

It isn't sufficient. What is honest and sufficient is to ask does Jesus stack up on examination irrespective of what people may claim?

It's not about how equipped I am, or they are, it's about what is actually true and what the Lird has revealed.

Over 2,000 years later Jesus is the only Messiah claimant who was born in Bethlehem of Judea who was nailed to a cross for the sin of humanity. That's only on the basis of 2 before we look into the other criteria.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

Not at all. The Bible even the Old Testament is clear that God's word is for both Jews and Gentiles and that it would go into the whole world.

It isn't sufficient. What is honest and sufficient is to ask does Jesus stack up on examination irrespective of what people may claim?

It's not about how equipped I am, or they are, it's about what is actually true and what the Lird has revealed.

Over 2,000 years later Jesus is the only Messiah claimant who was born in Bethlehem of Judea who was nailed to a cross for the sin of humanity. That's only on the basis of 2 before we look into the other criteria.

This is just your opinion , you do accept I presume that others differ ?

Fanny Cradock

philologos wrote: »

Yes but not fulfilling the expectations of Jewish people is not the same as not fulfilling the Biblical prophesy concerning the Messiah.

I agree. As I've said already I'm coming into this discussion late and I'm a little confused as to why atheists are placing so much importance on the Jewish understanding of the role of the messiah. Presumably this is because people like Marienbad and Brian Shanahan think it a defeater to Christianity. If this is the case - and apologies if I've picked up the wrong end of the stick - what do we say about Jews like Paul, Peter, James and the Jewish crowds that began to follow Jesus post resurrection? I would argue that both Judaism and Christianity have, to one extent or another, always believed that their respective religion is one that is gradually revealed. This is why Christians have argued that the identity and purpose of the messiah was much more surprising then anyone had imagined.

Given the nature of this claim - and it was dynamite back in the 1st century - what does an atheist appeal to when stating that a particular understanding of the role of a fictional messiah sent by an non-existent god is the correct one?

marienbad wrote: »

It is sufficient to point out that the Jews themselves don't accept it. And for you to show how you are better equipped to interpret someone else's holy books.

Ignoring for a moment the Jews who have accepted the Gospel, can you tell me why it is sufficient to point out that orthodox Judaism (assuming there is such a thing) doesn't accept the Gospel?

marienbad

It is of no concern to me at all Fanny except that Phil in post no 6920 (I think) and others seems to attach some importance to it.

Fanny Cradock

marienbad wrote: »

It is of no concern to me at all Fanny except that Phil in post no 6920 (I think) and others seems to attach some importance to it.

I don't get your point. What do you mean by sufficient? Sufficient for what?

marienbad

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't get your point. What do you mean by sufficient? Sufficient for what?

My reading of the previous posts is that Phil is trying to start a debate on the Jewish non acceptance of the Messiah. I am just pointing out that there is no need for such a debate with atheists or others , it is sufficient just to point out that Jews don't agree with his point of view. Take it up with them .

To be honest I don't really understand why he wants to go down that road at all.

FISMA

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Fine, if you're not willing to engage with me and continue with the evasions, on my ignore list you go.

Brian,
If you're going to make such demands on others, practice what you preach.

I have, in several posts, requested that you demonstrate which Laws of Physics God breaks.

In the closest attempt you came to what could be construed as a response, you offered up something about the speed of light.

The speed of light is a constant, not a Law. Plenty of people, Einstein included, worked hard on variable light speed and held out on the possibility of superluminal speeds.

Were you speaking colloquially in saying that God violates the Laws of Physics? If so, fair enough, just say so.

But if you really believe that God violates a Law of Physics, just name the Law to which you refer.

nagirrac

marienbad wrote: »

To be honest I don't really understand why he wants to go down that road at all.

In fairness to phil I was the one who brought up the awkward nature of the Jewish argument, and I'm not an atheist just to add a bit more confusion.

The salient point here is that Christians regard the New Testament and their interpretation of older Herbew scripture as factual as opposed to a mixture of factual, drug induced mysticism, and makey uppy to suit your argument. While for Christians this can be an interesting religious discussion, for Jews it has been a life and death issue for 2,000 years at the hands of Christians, culminating in the holocaust. There are many Christians who are coming around to this point of view, and realize that they owe a belated apology to the Jews for stealing their messiah figure and making up a story about the Jews killing him. Some Christians are not at that point yet and may never get there, the truth is probably too painful.

philologos

nagirrac wrote: »

In fairness to phil I was the one who brought up the awkward nature of the Jewish argument, and I'm not an atheist just to add a bit more confusion.

The salient point here is that Christians regard the New Testament and their interpretation of older Herbew scripture as factual as opposed to a mixture of factual, drug induced mysticism, and makey uppy to suit your argument. While for Christians this can be an interesting religious discussion, for Jews it has been a life and death issue for 2,000 years at the hands of Christians, culminating in the holocaust. There are many Christians who are coming around to this point of view, and realize that they owe a belated apology to the Jews for stealing their messiah figure and making up a story about the Jews killing him. Some Christians are not at that point yet and may never get there, the truth is probably too painful.

If you want to demonstrate that it is made up please do so, but the vast majority of accounts including Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus and even the Babylonian Talmud acknowledge the crucifixion of Jesus.

I've already pointed out my position on anti-Semitism from Christianity argument. It isn't even Biblical. Jesus said it had to happen. And it did. The Gospel is Jewish, Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, the apostles are Jewish. How the heck could they be anti-Semites?

You're conflating the actions of certain people in history with what the Gospel actually says.

Which is why I point you to Jesus first.

nagirrac

philologos wrote: »

If you want to demonstrate that it is made up please do so, but the vast majority of accounts including Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus and even the Babylonian Talmud acknowledge the crucifixion of Jesus.

I've already pointed out my position on anti-Semitism from Christianity argument. It isn't even Biblical. Jesus said it had to happen. And it did. The Gospel is Jewish, Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, the apostles are Jewish. How the heck could they be anti-Semites?

I am not saying the crucifixion did not happen, and agree that other historical sources refer to it. I am saying there is no historcial evidence beyond the New Testament that the Jews were involved. Can you point me to any source other than the New Testament that says the Jews handed Jesus over to the Romans? The whole idea of a trial by the Sanhedrin makes no sense to me, I think far more likely is that this was inserted later into the gospels.

Yes, Christianity started out as a Jewish sect. However, Judaism and Christianity parted ways gradually between the first and fourth centuries. While the New Testament was authored by Jewish Christians and it can be argued that it was Jewish Christians blaming other Jews for killing Jesus, by the end of the first century / early second century this had changed to Gentiles blaming Jews. The most significant figure in this period is Justin Martyr, a pagan Gentile before converting to Christianity, his "dialogue with Trypho" redefined the context from the inter-Jewish debate of the gospels to a Gentile making the claim against all Jews. From the early second century the Jews were consistently blamed for the death of Jesus by Christian apologetics.

The effect was to transfer blame for the death of Jesus from the Romans to the Jews. The rationale behind it is blindingly obvious, to convert the Romans they had to be absolved.