Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

philologos

Then your argument is as much with the historians as it is with the evangelists. The gospel accounts also explain why the Jewish authorities wanted Jesus dead.

You're also still ignoring my point that the Bible says the death and resurrection of Jesus was a good thing and that it had to happen. If you're genuinely not going to listen to what I've already said and make a response on that basis, what's the point?

Please read my posts and you'll see I've already challenged your view that the Christian faith is inherently anti-Semitic.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

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?

If the early Christians didn't understand the writings that well (for example, didn't understand the your servant is using as a metaphor for Israel), then based their supernatural claims on these misunderstandings while still appealing to the authority of these writings (ie Jesus fulfilled these prophecies), well it should be obvious why atheists find that amusing.

How convincing these claims were at the time is rather irrelevant isn't it, I mean you don't think the Bible is wrong and God started out as a man just because there are a few million Mormons knocking around, do you?

I can look at Mormonism and I can look at the Bible and without believing in either I can say that the authors of the Bible clearly didn't mean to support the claims Mormons think are supported.

Likewise I can do the same with Christianity. And just like the Mormons have an "answer" for everything, so do Christians. It is up to the individual Christian if they find these answers convincing, I would imagine most Christians (like most Mormons) had already made their mind up about the correctness of Jesus long before they came to tackle any of these issues, and thus are more than happy to accept the cookie cutter "answers" without all that much examination.

philologos

Zombrex wrote: »

If the early Christians didn't understand the writings that well (for example, didn't understand the your servant is using as a metaphor for Israel), then based their supernatural claims on these misunderstandings while still appealing to the authority of these writings (ie Jesus fulfilled these prophecies), well it should be obvious why atheists find that amusing.

I don't care what atheists find amusing, I care about truth.

To claim that the early Christians didn't understand the Tanakh is simply not true. Paul was a Pharisee and you'll note that the New Testament quotes the Old Testament fairly extensively.

If you want to claim that the first Christians who were also Jewish didn't understand the Tanakh please explain how or your post has any substance.

I know that you regrettably put me on your ignore list but for other posters this point is important.

Masteroid

Zombrex wrote: »

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.

And if the 'magic' argument is invoked then the Messianic prophecy might be a warning rather than good news.

Suppose the prophecy was written in order to tempt and trap Satan.

Suppose that God has confided to the Jews that He will never send a Messiah on the basis that the only other 'force' that could bring about the fulfillment of the prophecy would have to emanate from Satan himself.

If we invoke magic then surely we have to consider this as a possibility?

Perhaps the fulfillment of this prophecy is by design a kind of 'burglar alarm' that identifies the devil incarnate.

If I was Satan and I knew that the Jews were genuinely expecting God to send the Messiah then I would seriously consider impersonation as a way to foil God's great plan.

Don't Christians effectively consider Satan the master of deception?

I wonder, what is really the best trick that Satan ever performed?

Zombrex

Masteroid wrote: »

And if the 'magic' argument is invoked then the Messianic prophecy might be a warning rather than good news.

Suppose the prophecy was written in order to tempt and trap Satan.

Suppose that God has confided to the Jews that He will never send a Messiah on the basis that the only other 'force' that could bring about the fulfillment of the prophecy would have to emanate from Satan himself.

If we invoke magic then surely we have to consider this as a possibility?

Perhaps the fulfillment of this prophecy is by design a kind of 'burglar alarm' that identifies the devil incarnate.

If I was Satan and I knew that the Jews were genuinely expecting God to send the Messiah then I would seriously consider impersonation as a way to foil God's great plan.

Don't Christians effectively consider Satan the master of deception?

I wonder, what is really the best trick that Satan ever performed?

Well the Old Testament says the messiah will to some amazing things, things Jesus obviously didn't do. I don't think Jews believe Satan could do those things either, and I've always found it amusing that the Old Testament contains warnings of false prophets who will claim to be the messiah but then not fulfill the prophecies or attempt to alter the adherence to the law (needless to say Jews don't think people stop following the law because it is "fulfilled").

My point was that even Christians recognize that Jesus didn't do these things, but attempt to explain this away with the concept of the second coming. Which I suppose just shows the silliness of supernatural prophecy, believers will find any method, no matter how convoluted, to attempt to explain why person X did or will actually fill prophecy even when he clearly doesn't.

Fanny Cradock

What unfulfilled prophecies are you talking about?

Masteroid

Zombrex wrote: »

Well the Old Testament says the messiah will to some amazing things, things Jesus obviously didn't do. I don't think Jews believe Satan could do those things either, and I've always found it amusing that the Old Testament contains warnings of false prophets who will claim to be the messiah but then not fulfill the prophecies or attempt to alter the adherence to the law (needless to say Jews don't think people stop following the law because it is "fulfilled").

My point was that even Christians recognize that Jesus didn't do these things, but attempt to explain this away with the concept of the second coming. Which I suppose just shows the silliness of supernatural prophecy, believers will find any method, no matter how convoluted, to attempt to explain why person X did or will actually fill prophecy even when he clearly doesn't.

I was referring to the Christian view of Satan but even in the OT, Satan was able to trick God into delivering Job's entire family into death's hands.

And as far as I know, Satan has dominion over the earth.

For an example of what I'm trying to get at, consider the crippled woman of Luke 13.

In this story, Jesus attributes the woman's condition to being bound by Satan. It appears that Jesus recognises Satan's ability to afflict humans by inflicting terrible suffering.

And since Christians believe every word attributed to Jesus, Christians recognise this too.

My point is that if Satan can afflict people then he can un-afflict people too simply by unbinding them.

And people suddenly becoming 'un-afflicted' would appear as an unexplainable miracle.

If Satan was masquerading as the Messiah then such miracles would be well within his compass and he could garner credibility and popularity.

And if Satan was clever, and he was clever enough to manipulate God of Job, he might have appeared as Jesus, performing miracles and behaved exactly as Jesus behaved in the Gospels in order to glorify himself.

I am simply saying that if God's plan relied on the Messianic prophecy being fulfilled then Satan would have to be a fool in order not to exploit this giant hole in the logic.

Discretion is the better part of valour - doesn't God know this?

I don't see the logic or reason in publishing your war-strategy and making it available to your enemy. If humans can discern God's plan from the bible then why should we suspect that Satan cannot?

It's not as if Satan is famous for not interfering with God's creation, is it?

And when a non-Christian asks why God doesn't just deal with Satan and remove evil from the world, the usual answer is that God created Satan to be a free-willed eternal being.

If Satan is famous for being a thorn in God's side then God is famous for not interfering with free-will.

So there is as much limitation by God on the extent of Satan's admininstration of evil as there is on ours.

And according to the news, that looks like none - no limitation to the evil that can be done.

It seems to me that in terms of a narrative that can be applied to the Gospels as they are written, Satan masquerading as Jesus and being identified as an imposter by the Jews is much more plausible than God impersonating a human and failing to convince the Jews that He was their Messiah, the One for Whom they had been waiting.

And coming back to nagirrac's point, there are a number of reasons to suppose one narrative over the other.

In Matthew 16, Peter confesses Jesus is the Christ. Now from the text, we can see that Jesus is pleased with this but

20 Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ.

Why? (And I wonder if this had been what was in Peter's mind as he 'thrice denied Jesus'.)

No doubt the disciples were impressed by the miracles but why assume it's the work of God rather than the work of Satan?

Indeed, why would God have the need to perform parlour tricks such as turning water into wine in order to convince a dozen people that He was Divine?

And then commands them to secrecy?

And again, in Matthew 17, the disciples experience another miracle that makes them think that they had seen and heard God.

Wasn't the Tranfiguration simply an act of guilding the lily?

And again, the disciples were sworn to secrecy.

Even so, their faith is criticized by Jesus in the very same chapter when He talks about the mustard seed.

I'd like to make this point here:

Can we agree that at least up to chapter 17 of Matthew's gospel, Jesus was keeping His Divinity under wraps?

I ask this of all the posters here. If Jesus intended for the disciples to keep His divinity secret until after the Resurrection, isn't it reasonable to suppose that the secret was intended to be kept?

In other words, it would appear that Jesus intended to go to the cross not as the Messiah, but as a man.

Why would Jesus tell His disciples to reveal not that He is the Son of God and then tell the San Hedrin He is? (Which I don't think He did.)

I don't see how there can be any doubt that the only accounts of Jesus' Divinity were provided by the disciples and that this must necessarily have been done anecdotely.

And another little thing is that Jesus was always happy to preach and philosophize and perform miracles with bread and fish but somewhat reticent in putting on a similar kind of show for those whom were prophesied to reject Him, His people, The House of David.

Apart from showing good knowledge of scripture and the law, Jesus did nothing to try and convince the Jews that He was the Son of God.

How could the Son of God be rejected if His existence was a secret?

Or, to put it another way, why would the Jews want to execute Jesus if they did not know that there was even a suggestion that He was claiming to be the Son of God?

Did God really need to trick the Jews into thinking that Jesus was not the Messiah? Surely He could have got them to reject Him in the knowledge that there was a Messianic claim?

Jesus did not want to be revealed as the Messiah until He was risen so why should we think that He was being tried for blasphemy?

It seems to me that there is no evidential basis to suppose that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God while He was alive since this is how He wanted it to be.

And even if you consider that Jesus was betrayed by Judas who revealed to the Jews that He claimed to be the Messiah, since Judas hanged himself and therefore could not appear as a witness, the Jewish court had nothing at all in the way of evidence that was either direct or, since it was a secret still being kept by the likes of Peter, anecdotal.

Okay, now these people may have been somewhat primitive in relation to laws but I think that there would have been at least some requiirement for evidence in their courts and the Gospels do indeed seem to indicate that the court did search for a witness to attest to a crime of which Jesus could be accused.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the story of Jesus was designed to promote a new religion and in that respect it has be a total success but if one thinks of Jesus as anything other than a particularly enlightened and brave human being acting as figurehead of a philosophy, in much the same way as one might consider Aristotle, then one runs into the problem of Satan again.

How can the Jews believe that Jesus was sent by their God to save them from their sin?

How can the Jews believe that God prophecied that He would send His son to create a religion that would result in the worst persecution that they would ever suffer?

Is that what God intended?

"Rise up ye Gentiles and slaughter my chosen ones!"

Hmm! Some plan.

No, empirically, Satan's agenda is better served by the events described in the New Testament.

'X' managed to convince a small group of simple minded folk that he could perform miracles and enlists their help in order to convince more people.

'X' becomes very popular and tells his new friends that the old ways have gone and that God has put His plan into the next phase.

New friends are convinced and 'X' becomes revered.

The priests and acolytes of the old ways don't like the new ways and kill 'X'.

'X' gets up two days later and is never seen again except in dreams.

New friends resent priests and acolytes of the old ways and begin a reign of persecution which has lasted for nearly two-thousand years so far.

Priests and acolytes of the old ways don't like new friends.

Looking at the Gospels in these terms, who is most likely to be 'X', God or Satan?

One last thing.

God was so interventionist at the time of Jesus, poking here, tweaking there, but He didn't lift a hand to protect the children of Bethlehem.

Considering that the Messiah was not supposed to be revealed until Jesus was risen, why bother with the three stooges?

God didn't stop the three wise men from blabbing to Herod which is what got those kids killed but He sent an angel to warn them to go home a different way and avoid reporting to Herod.

Why would God sacrifice the children ? Why not just tell the wise men to keep their mouths shut about prophecy?

Isn't it just possible that given the 'magic' circumstances, the greatest trick ever performed by Satan is convincing over two-billion of us that he is God?

Masteroid

Sorry.

nagirrac

Masteroid wrote: »

Sorry.

Brilliant post Masteroid. It seems to escape a lot of atheists but the fact is Christianity can be seen to be the opposite of mystical belief. Jesus was the savior yet the Jewish chosen people decided he was a charlatan and deserved crucifixion, even though he was preaching what all mystical traditions had been preaching for centuries. If you believe they didn't think he was the messiah, then you have to believe they thought he was the anti-messiah or Satan.

Masteroid

philologos wrote: »

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.



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

Well this is quite an important point as it concerns over a billion 'Christians'.

If the RCC accepts that the Jews are not to be the subjects of conversion then doesn't that make St. Peter, apostle to the Jews, entirely redundant?

It is almost as if St. Paul shifted St. Peter to a metaphorical 'desk-job'.

Or else the RCC is wrong.

As a Christian, don't you think that a lot is riding on the truity of the Caholic position?

And if they are right then isn't it a sin to try and convert Jews?

nagirrac

Yes, but the CoE (Anglican Church) is based on a king who wanted to be done with his wife (one of 6) and didn't like that the pope said no. Of all the Christian offshoots it is the most ridiculous, as it is entirely based on a randy King who said read the scriptures the way I want them to look.

philologos

Masteroid wrote: »

Well this is quite an important point as it concerns over a billion 'Christians'.

If the RCC accepts that the Jews are not to be the subjects of conversion then doesn't that make St. Peter, apostle to the Jews, entirely redundant?

It is almost as if St. Paul shifted St. Peter to a metaphorical 'desk-job'.

Or else the RCC is wrong.

As a Christian, don't you think that a lot is riding on the truity of the Caholic position?

And if they are right then isn't it a sin to try and convert Jews?

I think they are mistaken. Although you'll have to show me that that is indeed their position.

It isn't my position because its not Biblical.

philologos

nagirrac wrote: »

Yes, but the CoE (Anglican Church) is based on a king who wanted to be done with his wife (one of 6) and didn't like that the pope said no. Of all the Christian offshoots it is the most ridiculous, as it is entirely based on a randy King who said read the scriptures the way I want them to look.

Please read some Reformation history. That's only a part truth. There were Reformers in England before Henry. Henry was merely a figurehead in the process.

Peregrinus

philologos wrote: »

Please read some Reformation history. That's only a part truth. There were Reformers in England before Henry. Henry was merely a figurehead in the process.

At the risk of oversimplifying, Henry didn't really reform the English church to any great extent, and certainly not doctrinally. He created the political and ecclesial conditions in which made possible the carrying through of reforms under Edward VI and (after a brief interruption) Elizabeth I.

There were of course reformers in England before Henry VIII. But, while their ideas and their witness was (and remains) important, I think we'd have to say that they didn't succeed to any great extent in actually carrying through reform of the English church. It wasn't until Protestant ideas acheived signficant traction with people in positions of secular power, and until those people found themselves as regents for Edward VI and exercising the ecclesiastical control taken for the crown by Henry VIII, that the conditions were right for reform of the English church actually to be carried through.

philologos

I would say that Henry was only behind structural change. People like Tyndale, Richard Hooker, and Thomas Cranmer carried reforms through. If you read the 39 Articles in particular you see the doctrine involved.

But then again for the Puritans that wasn't enough

Peregrinus

philologos wrote: »

I would say that Henry was only behind structural change. People like Tyndale, Richard Hooker, and Thomas Cranmer carried reforms through. If you read the 39 Articles in particular you see the doctrine involved.

Well, yes. But even what they acheived was mostly achieved after Henry's death. Prior to that they had to be very circumspect indeed. While Hooker, Cranmer and others were attracted by Lutheran ideas, the King was decidedly not.

The 39 articles date from 1563, well into the reign of Elizabeth. Henry's doctrinal policy, rather, is inecapsulated in the Six Articles of 1539, which were:

- The reality of transsubstantiation
- The rightness of withholding the cup from the laity during communion
- The value and importance of clerical celibacy
- Observance of vows of chastity
- The celebration of private masses
- The necessity of confession of sins to a priest

The Church of England at this time also affirmed the use of images in churches, the invocation of the saints, the observation of numerous rituals involving holy water, candles, ashes, etc, the doctrine of purgatory and the efficacy of prayers for the dead.

So, not very Lutheran, then. Cranmer and others must have had to keep their fingers firmly crossed in order to say the things they needed to say, and refrain from saying the things they couldn't say, if they were to keep there sees and quite possibly their heads. Cranmer himself was married throughout his entire period as Archbishop of Canterbury. He never dared to tell the King this - wisely, since in 1538 Henry introduced the death penalty for clerics who married. To his dying day, Henry never knew that his Archbishop was twice married, and had begotten four children.

Cranmer must have heaved a considerable sigh of relief when Henry died in 1547, to be replaced by Edward and a regency council favourable to Lutheran ideas. It's only after this happens that we get the removal of images from churches, the prohibition of the use of vestments, an end to clerical celibacy, the Book of Common Prayer in English, the replacement of altars with communion tables, etc.

philologos

That's true on an institutional level. There were also reforms happening on a grassroots level before this. For example people read the Bible in English and preached at the back of mass while the reading was happening in Latin. Also Wycliffe could be considered a pre-Reformer in Britain.

[-0-]

philologos wrote: »

The question is are they conflicting or are they complementary?

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

How would conflicting stories be complementary?

It screams of make believe.

philologos

Perhaps if you explain exactly why they conflict I can actually deal with it rather than guessing what it is.

marienbad

Philologos Is condoning equal to advocacy ?

[-0-]

philologos wrote: »

Perhaps if you explain exactly why they conflict I can actually deal with it rather than guessing what it is.

One of them says that man was created after the animals, the other says he was created before the animals.

philologos

Genesis 2:19 says that the Lord had formed the animals, not that they were formed after man.

Doesn't seem like a contradiction.

Edit: not sure if I agree with comparing both accounts because they are different and explain different things.

philologos

marienbad wrote: »

Philologos Is condoning equal to advocacy ?

What passages are you using to back up your argument?

[-0-]

philologos wrote: »

Genesis 2:19 says that the Lord had formed the animals, not that they were formed after man.

Doesn't seem like a contradiction.

Edit: not sure if I agree with comparing both accounts because they are different and explain different things.

I guess you need me to post it again.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1%3A25-27&version=KJV

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2%3A18-19&version=NIV

Both of these are conflicting. One account says man was created before the animals, the other says he was created after the animals.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

What passages are you using to back up your argument?

the dodge starts , always answer a question with a question eh ?

philologos

It says the Lord had formed. Past tense and it doesn't say it was after humanity. It is possible that God did this before from the second passage. Nowhere does it say then straight after that God did it

tommy2bad

[-0-] wrote: »

I guess you need me to post it again.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1%3A25-27&version=KJV

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2%3A18-19&version=NIV

Both of these are conflicting. One account says man was created before the animals, the other says he was created after the animals.

Eh? Not sure how you got man then animals from one and animals then man from the other.
This one http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1%3A25-27&version=KJV tells of the sequence and this one http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2%3A18-19&version=NIV dosn't mention the sequence of creation apart from using 'had' sugesting a previous time. It only tells of man naming the previously created animals.

Anyway this is not factual history, treating it as such puts you in the same camp as YEC. Most Christians and Jews don't read Genesis as history.

philologos

marienbad wrote: »

the dodge starts , always answer a question with a question eh ?

You claimed the Bible advocated rape. I'm asking you to show me what you're basing that on.

That's fair and I won't accept nonsense accusations.

lazygal

Where does the bible condemn rape? I'm interested in the specific passages. No nonsense dodging.

philologos

I'll tell you when marienbad gets back to me. Be patient. If someone makes a claim to me I have every right to ask for backup.