Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

lmaopml

recedite wrote: »

I said "conferences like this one" Nicaea is only the most famous and lavish one, having been organised by the Emperor. You are quite right, they were mainly trying to decide whether or not Jesus was the son of God at that one.

No, they weren't. The divinity of Christ was already a fact; the council just declared it properly, and protected truth for posterity and future generations. All one has to do is read the Scriptures to see just how much a foregone conclusion it was from the earliest times, that Jesus not only fulfilled the old law, but gave it depth and understanding, and also stated very very clearly who 'HE' was in his earthly ministry....but then I guess that you would have to be interested in the first place in knowing the King of Kings.

So, no his divinity was never in doubt.

lmaopml

marienbad wrote: »

Oh dear oh dear yourself - a shorthand discription for you -History is the discipline that records and interpret past events. Can we agree on that ?

You are again dodging the question , why is there no one denying the existence and/OR ARCHIEVEMENTS of Alexander as they do with Jesus ?

Answer the capitalised portion if you can please .

The historic records of Jesus, the most biased scholar would agree are without doubt agreed to the fact that he lived and died and was crucified. Jesus, is as far as any Historic record is concerned, most certainly an historic figure who lived, and was crucified, and obviously had a deep impact.

Now, after that, you have the biblical records, which ARE 'historical' records too, along with all the archealogical sites etc. recorded therein, and the impact the man made when he was crucified - it's the age old question whether you believe he was only a good man who proclaimed the 'golden rule' - but who also claimed to be the son of God, the Messiah too? - alongside the fact that people actually put themselves through sheer torture, and death to stay true to the Gospels they preached. I wonder what drove them to such lengths and for at least 300 years, those early martyrs...

That's always and forever more entirely the invitation to find out for yourself Marien where you stand, just like everybody else. As for me, I stand with the King of kings, no excuses necessary, no regrets offered.

marienbad

lmaopml wrote: »

No, they weren't. The divinity of Christ was already a fact; the council just declared it properly, and protected truth for posterity and future generations. All one has to do is read the Scriptures to see just how much a foregone conclusion it was from the earliest times, that Jesus not only fulfilled the old law, but gave it depth and understanding, and also stated very very clearly who 'HE' was in his earthly ministry....but then I guess that you would have to be interested in the first place in knowing the King of Kings.

So, no his divinity was never in doubt.

Except for the Jews of course who decided to continue the wait. I wonder why that was ?

lmaopml

marienbad wrote: »

Except for the Jews of course who decided to continue the wait. I wonder why that was ?

Well, that story is contained within the Scriptures too....all the rhymes and reasons, everything. It's worth noting that with the rise and threat of Christianity that the Jews closed their canon a lifetime afterwards..

It only takes a lifetime to choose Christ, or a moment to begin to get to know him properly - He did live, he was here - If God exists, and he had a son, as far as I am concerned than Jesus Christ was no other but what he claimed to be...It just depends on whether you believe him or not. It's really really that simple at the end of the day, along with whether it's been given any kind of serious consideration too, of course.

marienbad

lmaopml wrote: »

Well, that story is contained within the Scriptures too....all the rhymes and reasons, everything. It's worth noting that with the rise and threat of Christianity that the Jews closed their canon a lifetime afterwards..

It only takes a lifetime to choose Christ, or a moment to begin to get to know him properly - He did live, he was here - If God exists, and he had a son, as far as I am concerned than Jesus Christ was no other but what he claimed to be...It just depends on whether you believe him or not. It's really really that simple at the end of the day, along with whether it's been given any kind of serious consideration too, of course.

So you agree then to the dis-interested observer the proof of the Divinity of Jesus etc cannot be proved but is taken on Faith ?

Doc Farrell

There are many books on the subject but if the observer is truly disinterested it is unlikely he or she will go to the effort of investigating the subject.

The Quadratic Equation

marienbad wrote: »

So you agree then to the dis-interested observer the proof of the Divinity of Jesus etc cannot be proved but is taken on Faith ?

You mean like the proof you have of his non divinity ?

Zombrex

marienbad wrote: »

Except for the Jews of course who decided to continue the wait. I wonder why that was ?

Probably because the god Jesus described is not like the God in the Old Testament and the messiah Jesus claimed to be is not like the messiah described in the Old Testament, and the commandments Jesus and Paul instructed people to live buy are not like the commandments in the Old Testament.

Deuteronomy 13
1 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death for inciting rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. That prophet or dreamer tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.

It is pretty difficult to argue that Christianity has not turned people away from the commandments in the Old Testament. It is difficult to argue that the concept of God Christians worship, with the trinity and the godhead, is the same as the understanding of the Israelites.

Christians say that is ok because Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament so these commands no longer apply and that he expanded upon human knowledge of what God is actually like. But then the idea this would happen isn't found in the Old Testament either, just lots and lots of warnings against it.

For example

Deuteronomy 4
15 You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, 16 so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, 17 or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, 18 or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below.

This is stating that God is formless, and thus you should not worship any imagine or shape of God, be it a fish, land animal, woman or man, lest you end up worshipping the thing rather than God.

The idea that God would appear as a man when God has already stated he has no form and does not appear in any form so you better not worship any form of him, is non-sensical to Jews.

Is it any wonder Jews were not impressed.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

Oh dear oh dear yourself - a shorthand discription for you -History is the discipline that records and interpret past events. Can we agree on that ?

We can. and in this "interpretation" it is your contention that what could have and maybe and might have happened is meaningless?
My point is - if the interpretation of the past is not the actual past do you mint accept that the interpretation might in fact be "what could have and maybe and might have happened"?

You are again dodging the question , why is there no one denying the existence and/OR ARCHIEVEMENTS of Alexander as they do with Jesus ?

Answer the capitalised portion if you can please .

I assumed the question was rhetorical based on the prior premise that it is your contention that what could have and maybe and might have happened is meaningless.
But the premise is false and the argument circular.
If the achievements of Alexander the Great are accepted as fact then all you are asking is "why does anyone not deny something they already accept as a fact"
As I stated I think the answer to that is obvious - because they accept it as a fact.
All I am saying is in terms of how we gauge history, Jesus has as much or more evidence as Alexander or Socrates two people who nobody ever doubts existed.
The achievements of Jesus are as readily examinable as the achievements of Alexander.

If you are asking "why do people attack the historical existence of Jesus and not that of Socrates or Alexander" you are robbing my question which again I think is obvious but the people who do it are reticent to admit their agenda and usually try to defend the historicity of Alexander or Socrates and end up in a mess doing so because the same arguments they apply to Jesus can be applied to most anyone in ancient times. the scholarship of classical antiquity is slightly different to that of recent times in terms of " contemporaneous evidence" which is usually their jumping off point.

ISAW

Zombrex wrote: »

Probably because the god Jesus described is not like the God in the Old Testament and the messiah Jesus claimed to be is not like the messiah described in the Old Testament,

Oh but he is/ they are

and the commandments Jesus and Paul instructed people to live buy are not like the commandments in the Old Testament.

Oh but they are exactly the same ones that they are asked to live by . And then a new covenant is made and the dietary laws and the like of salvation only for the Jews were jettisoned.

Deuteronomy 13
...That prophet or dreamer tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.


It is pretty difficult to argue that Christianity has not turned people away from the commandments in the Old Testament. It is difficult to argue that the concept of God Christians worship, with the trinity and the godhead, is the same as the understanding of the Israelites.

It is pretty easy actually if you accept the Jews constantly rejected the plan - which they do. Ever heard of Messianic Jews by the way? It is also easy to argue that many expected a different type of Messiah a Barabbas/ warlord type. Which is what they got- just not the warlord they expected. What they got was a sword struggle and suffering - as any soldier gets.

Christians say that is ok because Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament so these commands no longer apply and that he expanded upon human knowledge of what God is actually like. But then the idea this would happen isn't found in the Old Testament either, just lots and lots of warnings against it.

And he said,
I've been very jealous
for the Lord God of hosts:
for the children of Israel
have forsaken Thy covenant,
thrown down Thine altars,
and slain Thy prophets with the sword;
and I, even I only, am left;
and they seek my life, to take it away.
I Kings 19:10
Guess where that was said? which brings us to Horeb/Sinai

Ill leave that "difficult argument" to others but you are incorrect that the Jewish Messiah was ruled out by OT in bringing a new deal or in expanding on the old one. There is also the Messianic Jews argument by the way so beware of a "false dichotomy" or "excluded middle" fallacy.

For example

Deuteronomy 4
15 You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, 16 so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, 17 or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, 18 or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below.

Which refers to the word of the Lord speaking from the fire. It is believed that this was the voice of God . In the New Testament the Word of the Lord is God so worshiping him isn't breaking a commandment against idolatry.

This is stating that God is formless, and thus you should not worship any imagine or shape of God, be it a fish, land animal, woman or man, lest you end up worshipping the thing rather than God.

And if the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us?

The idea that God would appear as a man when God has already stated he has no form and does not appear in any form so you better not worship any form of him, is non-sensical to Jews.

Is it any wonder Jews were not impressed.

Nonsensical to Jews who expected otherwise. But not against the Old Testament.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Re these "eyewitness accounts"....

I didn’t call them “eyewitness accounts”. You put the phrase in inverted commas, as though you are quoting me, and are about to debunk me. But in fact the phrase is yours. Can you say “straw man tactic”?

recedite wrote: »

As you point out above, Matthew, Mark, Luke appear to be all versions of the same story. And John is contradictory in places to the other three. Scholars generally agree that they were all written 50-100 years after Jesus' death. Not exactly eyewitness accounts then; more like the varying versions of either an eyewitness account or an urban legend, such as you would expect to find in different geographical regions after that length of time.

Scholars don't completely agree, but the earliest scholarly estimates put the composition of the earliest gospel - Mark - about twenty years after the death of Jesus, and the latest estimates put the composition of John about seventy years after the death of Jesus.

John doesn’t so much “contradict” the synoptic gospels as offer a different version of the same story. John puts in lots of details that the synoptics omit, and vice versa, but there are relatively few contradictions between the two.

The gospels were produced by a culture that was accustomed to oral transmission, and had techniques and conventions to ensure its reliability. We cannot read the gospels as newspapers, obviously, but equally we don’t dismiss them as “urban legends” (unless, perchance, we have an ideological motivation for doing so). The degree of variation we find among the gospels is entirely consistent with the fact they tell a historically true story, as remembered in probably more than one eyewitness account, and with the benefit of some reflection and some consolidation. I don’t think any scholar seriously suggests that the entire thing is, or could be, made up out of whole cloth. When the first of the gospels was written, there were numerous people still living who had been in Jerusalem at the time of the events narrated. If there had never been a Jesus of Nazareth, or he had never preached or been crucified, their would have been thousands of people able to point that out.

There are techniques that scholars employ for assessing the historicity of various elements of the gospel. For example:

Embarrassment. If something in the story is awkward for the Christians, then it’s probably true. E.g. it would have suited the evangelists admirably if Jesus had been known as “Jesus of Bethlehem”, since this would tie in with the well-known prophecy of where the Messiah would come from. In fact they all agree that he was Jesus of Nazareth, and this probably points to a well known fact that they couldn’t get around or conceal; he was in fact known, in his own time and to his own circle, as Jesus of Nazareth. If he were an urban legend, then he probably would be Jesus of Bethlehem.

Discrepancy: Although Matthew and Luke give closely similar accounts of the public ministry and death of Jesus, they give almost completely different accounts of his birth (and Mark, the earliest gospel, says nothing at all about it). Scholars therefore see the nativity narratives as likely to be constructions, intended to convey something about the community’s understanding of the significance of the birth of Jesus, than recorded memories of actual events.

recedite wrote: »

No doubt the gospels would have continued to diverge if the early church authorities hadn't decided to standardise and write down what they already had at that stage. And of course there were many more gospels circulating at the time which they decided to leave out.

The gospels - the four canonical gospels, that is, were “standardized”, as you put it, long before there were any church “authorities” to standardise them. And the claim that “there were many more gospels circulating at that time which they decided to leave out” is flat-out untrue. With I think one exception (Thomas), the apocryphal gospels are all much later than the canonicals, and they fell out of favour not because the church authorities, as you put it, decided to leave them out, but because nobody took them very seriously in the first place.

A good deal of the debate and discussion around the formation of the canon of scripture survives, because it was conducted in writing. We know the criteria that were invoked to judge the authority of the various candidates for canonicity - age (how close in time was composition to the events described), authority (were there good grounds for thinking that the author was an apostle, or someone closely connected to an apostle), coherence (how well did the work fit with other works, and with the beliefs and practices of the Christian community) and universality (how widely was this work employed in liturgy, worship, etc by local Christian communities). And modern scholars judge the outcome of the process to have been pretty sound; the books accepted as canonical are, by and large, the oldest ones, and the ones which can most reliably connected to the early Christian community and authentically reflect its traditions and memories.

For the record, there were heated debates about some elements of the New Testament - expecially the Revelation of St John - but the four gospels were pretty much a shoe-in. No rival gospel was considered for inclusion. The text which came closest to making the cut, but didn't make it, was the Letter of Paul to the Laodicians. Modern scholars agree with the judgment of the church at the time; it is not an authentic letter of Paul, or of a follower of his.

recedite wrote: »

Paul's writings, as you point out, make no mention of the miracles. This seems to suggest that the miracles doctrine came later.

I don’t think it does. Paul doesn’t discuss the details of Jesus’s life or doings at all, and he has relatively little to say even about the teachings of Jesus. In this context, the fact that he doesn’t discuss the miracles of Jesus is not surprising. It wasn’t part of his agenda. Paul mainly devotes himself to theologizing about the significance of the sacrifice, death and resurrection of Jesus and where miracles are relevant to that agenda - e.g. the resurrection, the various theophanies - he doesn’t hesitate to mention them. There are a number of miracles which we only know about because Paul wrote about them, not least his own mystical encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus. The gospels describe miracles attributed to Jesus during his public ministry, but Paul never discusses Jesus’s public ministry.

recedite wrote: »

Even Paul, as the earliest written "source" never met Jesus; he was born around 5 years after Jesus' death. And considering he was a missionary, hardly an "independent" source either.

Paul is generally taken to have been born about AD 5, when Jesus was probably between seven and twelve years old. But, yes, you’re right; Paul probably never did meet Jesus, unless we count that road-to-Damascus encounter.

recedite wrote: »

What of the contemporary independent sources, eg the civil authorities? As the Roman governor or Prefect, Pontius Pilate would have been expected to keep Rome informed of any unusual occurrences; miracles occurring or any executed rebels coming back to life. But strangely...nothing.

You think Pilate would have been independent? You have a very odd notion of “independence”, so! A moment’s thought will show that Pilate, of all people, would have had powerful incentives to say nothing at all to his superiors in Rome about the death of Jesus, and even more powerful incentives to say even less than nothing about any claims that might have reached his ears that Jesus was still alive later on.

But the point is moot. The sum total of all the records we have of what Pilate reported to Rome on any subject at all is precisely zero. No report of his on any topic survives, and this is perfectly typical for a provincial governor of the period. So the absence of any record referring to Jesus is not strange at all. On the contrary, it is exactly what we would expect.

marienbad

Doc Farrell wrote: »

There are many books on the subject but if the observer is truly disinterested it is unlikely he or she will go to the effort of investigating the subject.

Not so Doc, that would be uninterested,one can be dis-interested in the outcome but be fascinated by the content and process. As I am say with Paradise Lost and The Divine Comedy.

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

Not so Doc, one can be dis-interested in the outcome but be fascinated by the content and process. As I am say with Paradise Lost and The Divine Comedy.

Good point. There is a significant difference in meaning between 'disinterested' and 'uninterested'.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Oh but he is/ they are

The Jews don't think so. And reading about why they think this they have some very good points.

ISAW wrote: »

Oh but they are exactly the same ones that they are asked to live by . And then a new covenant is made and the dietary laws and the like of salvation only for the Jews were jettisoned.

Which means they aren't the exact same ones they are asked to live by.

You appreciate I hope that throughout the Old Testament the Isrealites are warned again and again not to follow any false prophets who attempt to change the commandments, and God states again and again that the covenant is forever.

Jews see the new covenant as proclaimed by Christianity nonsensical in light of what is actually in the Old Testament. The "new" covenant in Jeremiah is simply a renewing of the current one, Israel will receive a new heart. None of the commandments, which are forever, will change.

ISAW wrote: »

It is pretty easy actually if you accept the Jews constantly rejected the plan - which they do. Ever heard of Messianic Jews by the way?

Sorry, what? How does that mean they have not abandoned the commandments. You yourself admitted that commandments were "jettisoned"

ISAW wrote: »

It is also easy to argue that many expected a different type of Messiah a Barabbas/ warlord type. Which is what they got- just not the warlord they expected. What they got was a sword struggle and suffering - as any soldier gets.

What they got was someone claiming to be God in human form. Something God said Jews should look out against and reject.

ISAW wrote: »

And he said,
I've been very jealous
for the Lord God of hosts:
for the children of Israel
have forsaken Thy covenant,
thrown down Thine altars,
and slain Thy prophets with the sword;
and I, even I only, am left;
and they seek my life, to take it away.
I Kings 19:10
Guess where that was said? which brings us to Horeb/Sinai

Actually it brings us to Jeremiah 31.

ISAW wrote: »

Ill leave that "difficult argument" to others but you are incorrect that the Jewish Messiah was ruled out by OT in bringing a new deal or in expanding on the old one.

Well it is not me who is incorrect, it is the position of Judaism. But it is a very strong position when you read it. The early Christians, some what understandably, appear to have not been aware enough of what exactly was in the Torah and shot themselves in the foot a little bit buy coming up with a religion that is fundamentally incompatible with what is described in the Torah.

This is hardly surprising, cults are constantly popping up claiming to expand upon Christianity (look at Moromism) but producing doctrine that contradicts what is in the New Testament.

ISAW wrote: »

Which refers to the word of the Lord speaking from the fire. It is believed that this was the voice of God . In the New Testament the Word of the Lord is God so worshiping him isn't breaking a commandment against idolatry.

Jesus appears as a man. So Jesus is either not God, in which case what he claims is a lie, or God has taken form as a man which is worshiped, something that is warned against.

ISAW wrote: »

And if the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us?

The point of that passage is that it wouldn't be. If you think it has been you are worshiping a false god.

Again is it any wonder Jews reject Christianity. It is an actual passage saying if you think God has appeared to you as a man this is false, God does not take the form of a man.

ISAW wrote: »

Nonsensical to Jews who expected otherwise.

Nonsensical to Jews who have read the Old Testament. Remember to a Jew they start with the Old Testament, and the New Testament must make sense in light of that. Not the way most Christians do it, starting with the New Testament accepting that as fact and then (maybe) having a read of the Old Testament if they could be bothered but with the knowledge that the New Testament is perfect and true so the Old Testament must reflect that.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

We can. and in this "interpretation" it is your contention that what could have and maybe and might have happened is meaningless?
My point is - if the interpretation of the past is not the actual past do you mint accept that the interpretation might in fact be "what could have and maybe and might have happened"?



I assumed the question was rhetorical based on the prior premise that it is your contention that what could have and maybe and might have happened is meaningless.
But the premise is false and the argument circular.
If the achievements of Alexander the Great are accepted as fact then all you are asking is "why does anyone not deny something they already accept as a fact"
As I stated I think the answer to that is obvious - because they accept it as a fact.
All I am saying is in terms of how we gauge history, Jesus has as much or more evidence as Alexander or Socrates two people who nobody ever doubts existed.
The achievements of Jesus are as readily examinable as the achievements of Alexander.

If you are asking "why do people attack the historical existence of Jesus and not that of Socrates or Alexander" you are robbing my question which again I think is obvious but the people who do it are reticent to admit their agenda and usually try to defend the historicity of Alexander or Socrates and end up in a mess doing so because the same arguments they apply to Jesus can be applied to most anyone in ancient times. the scholarship of classical antiquity is slightly different to that of recent times in terms of " contemporaneous evidence" which is usually their jumping off point.

No ISAW the could haves, should haves, might haves, in general have absolutely no place in history and where we dont't have primary sources or eyewitness accounts we don't speculate about how those we do have
could have might been rtc....

I don't fully understand your second paragraph but it appears to refer to cultural history as opposed to history where you can speculate all you want.

I personally by the way have little or no doubt of the existance of Jesus, it is his achievements that is the issue. And on that issue, what motive or agenda have those people you refer to who take the achievements of Alexander as fact and yet doubt the achievements of Jesus ?

By the way as I asked Impaoml but got no reply- do you believe in hell ?

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

Jesus appears as a man. So Jesus is either not God, in which case what he claims is a lie, or God has taken form as a man which is worshiped, something that is warned against.

Actually it isn't. The warning, as anyone who bothers to read it can clearly see, is against creating an idol, or image, in the form of a man:

so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman,

But, when you're desperate, I guess you can try to twist it to try to apply it to someone born as a man rather than an idol or an image.

Still, as far as atheist arguments against the existence of God go, this one (that the Jews are right and the Christians are wrong) probably takes the biscuit. We're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now.

recedite

PDN wrote: »

It wasn't bad for Christians, but it was bad for Jews in that Jerusalem was basically ripped up by the Romans.
This meant that there was no longer any centralised leadership in Jerusalem to which difficult questions could be referred. So discussion on doctrine, and the development of the Canon, occurred as a grassroots process in many different places rather than as a top down edict.

Early Christians were considered a heretical sect by more orthodox Jews because they didn't "keep the law" (and still don't, for example old testament rules on keeping the sabbath, circumcision, eating pork) Development of the religion was always going to be underground, whether or not a Jewish king was involved in the civil hierarchy.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I didn’t call them “eyewitness accounts”. You put the phrase in inverted commas, as though you are quoting me, and are about to debunk me. But in fact the phrase is yours. Can you say “straw man tactic”?

I'm happy to clarify that it was some earlier poster who used the phrase, not you. Your other points are all valid.

Why do you think Pilate would have wished to cover up the events? Surely he would be happy to participate in anything that would divide up the Jews and make them easier to conquer? Also he would be keen to keep a lid on any tensions arising from the majority groups which might lead to political upheaval. Therefore keeping the Sadducees and Pharisees happy (or else keeping them at each others throats) would be a priority.

Why do you think Paul's personal revelation and conversion is any more important than the innumerable modern personal revelations? For example PDN often tells us that he changed from being an unbeliever to a believer, and he tells us of his subsequent missionary involvement in China, yet we don't take his word as Gospel?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Actually it isn't. The warning, as anyone who bothers to read it can clearly see, is against creating an idol, or image, in the form of a man:

Yes, and why does that warning exist?

Let me help you with that one, it exists because God will not take the form of anything, man woman beast. God is formless.

God will not appear to you as man so do not make an idol of a man and say that it is God.

And then God went and appeared as a man....

PDN wrote: »

But, when you're desperate, I guess you can try to twist it to try to apply it to someone born as a man rather than an idol or an image.

In what way are the Jews desperate?

PDN wrote: »

Still, as far as atheist arguments against the existence of God go, this one (that the Jews are right and the Christians are wrong) probably takes the biscuit. We're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now.

Er, have you been reading any of the posts?

It is not an atheist argument against the existence of God, it is a theist argument (Jewish) for why Jesus was not the Jewish messiah nor God in flesh. These arguments from Judaism are interesting (and very convincing, at least to a neutral person like myself, for the argument that the New Testament is based on flawed translations and understanding of the Old Testament), but they are far short of atheist arguments.

Unless you some how think I'm a secret Jewish spy or something ...

tommy2bad

Yes, and why does that warning exist?

So that people are not misdirected twords false gods.
Nothing to do with the forms God may or may not chose to take.
Zombrex may I ask you what would convince you of God's existence? and conversely what would it take to prove He dose not exist because both options are equally possible.

PDN

recedite wrote: »

Early Christians were considered a heretical sect by more orthodox Jews because they didn't "keep the law" (and still don't, for example old testament rules on keeping the sabbath, circumcision, eating pork) Development of the religion was always going to be underground, whether or not a Jewish king was involved in the civil hierarchy.

What on earth are you talking about? What has a Jewish king got to do with anything?

The point is that the Church had no centralised hierarchy after 70AD, certainly nothing that could exercise control or dictate which books to accept. That only came much later - and even then it did not stretch beyond the Roman Empire. Yet we can plainly see that churches beyond the reach of the Church (eg the Syriac and Persian Churches) adopted the same four Gospels as the churches in the West. So it is obviously unhistorical bunk to claim that somehow an all-powerful hierarchy dictated which Gospels ended up in the Bible while suppressing others. Which is why genuine historians, as opposed to ones in Dan Brown novels, don't teach such nonsense.

Oh by the way, for at least the first 25 years of Christianity, all Christians did refrain from pork, observe the sabbath, and get circumcised. And, up unil 70 AD, the Church in Jerusalem continued to do so.

Why do you think Pilate would have wished to cover up the events?

Because that's how bureaucracy works. Managers don't advertise every problem on their watch to their superiors. It makes them look weak and ineefective.

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

Yes, and why does that warning exist?

Let me help you with that one, it exists because God will not take the form of anything, man woman beast. God is formless.

You do have this amazing habit of making authoritative sounding declarations without actually bothering to read up on what you're talking about.

The same night he arose and took his two wives, his two female servants, and his eleven children, and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. He took them and sent them across the stream, and everything else that he had. And Jacob was left alone. And a man wrestled with him until the breaking of the day. When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he touched his hip socket, and Jacob’s hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with him. Then he said, “Let me go, for the day has broken.” But Jacob said, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.” And he said to him, “What is your name?” And he said, “Jacob.” Then he said, “Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed.” Then Jacob asked him, “Please tell me your name.” But he said, “Why is it that you ask my name?” And there he blessed him. So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.” (Genesis 32:22-30)

Next time, I'll let somebody help me who actually reads the Old Testament. :pac:

In what way are the Jews desperate?

Desperate to halt conversions from Judaism to Christianity, as evidenced by the harrassment experienced to this day by Messianic Jews in Israel.

Indeed, one prominent rabbi described conversions to Christianity as being, in numerical terms, a greater tragedy for the Jewish faith than the Holocaust.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

You do have this amazing habit of making authoritative sounding declarations without actually bothering to read up on what you're talking about.

And you have an interesting ability to pretend because you have been a Christian for years and think you have spent a long time studying the Bible, you are not ignorant of some pretty basic things.

The common interpretation of Genesis 32 is that Jacob wrestled with an angel (Hosea 12:4), as seeing an angel is often referred to as seeing God (Judges 13), but it does not mean actually seeing God, an act that would kill you (Exodus 33), and God has stated he will not appear in any form.

This is a good example though of what Jews complain about, Christians distorting the Old Testament in order to make it fit Christianity better. I don't really blame you, you are a Christian for reasons other than you read the Old Testament properly and then the New Testament properly and then decided it all makes sense.

But equally I don't blame Jews either who do not like their religion and religious books being distorted to fit something they are in fact warned about in their own religion. I imagine it is how you feel about Mormonism claiming to be an extension of Christianity.

Of course if you all just became atheists, well then you wouldn't have this problem, would you.

PDN wrote: »

Next time, I'll let somebody help me who actually reads the Old Testament. :pac:

I doubt that some how, I don't think help in understanding the Old Testament is what you are seeking in this thread. Fire fighting for the sake of the faith of your fellow Christians seems more your motivation here.

PDN wrote: »

Desperate to halt conversions from Judaism to Christianity, as evidenced by the harrassment experienced to this day by Messianic Jews in Israel.

Indeed, one prominent rabbi described conversions to Christianity as being, in numerical terms, a greater tragedy for the Jewish faith than the Holocaust.

Considering the Jews view Christianity as an ignorant lie propograted by those who have not really read the Old Testament properly (ahem) I'm not sure one can really blame them for this (the concern about conversations of course, not the harassment).

Are you concerned when someone leaves Christianity?

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

And you have an interesting ability to pretend because you have been a Christian for years and think you have spent a long time studying the Bible, you are not ignorant of some pretty basic things.

The common interpretation of Genesis 32 is that Jacob wrestled with an angel (Hosea 12:4), as seeing an angel is often referred to as seeing God (Judges 13), but it does not mean actually seeing God, an act that would kill you (Exodus 33), and God has stated he will not appear in any form.

Oh for heaven's sake, rather than cherrypicking Google results and pretending that constitutes 'the common interpretation', go and look up 'Theophany' in any Bible Dictionary or Theological reference work.

Jacob said, "I have seen God face to face". You can dance around that any way you wish - but you're only going to make yourself look silly.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Why do you think Pilate would have wished to cover up the events? Surely he would be happy to participate in anything that would divide up the Jews and make them easier to conquer? Also he would be keen to keep a lid on any tensions arising from the majority groups which might lead to political upheaval. Therefore keeping the Sadducees and Pharisees happy (or else keeping them at each others throats) would be a priority.

It wasn't Pilate's job to "make the Jews easier to conquer"; they were already conquered. Pilate's job was to govern Judea (mainly for the purpose of raising taxes) without antagonising the notoriously sensitive Jews, too keep Jerusalem in particular placid so that trade would not be disrupted - Jerusalem was a major trading entrepot, and therefore a major source of revenue - and generally to keep the "pax romana". The more political troublemakers he had to crucify, the more delegations of protest demanding action that he received from the Temple authorities, the worse job he was doing. The crucifixion of Jesus was an embarrasment to Pilate, and it's unlikely that would have reported it to Rome. It's not that they would have felt in Rome that he shouldn't have crucified Jesus; they would have felt that he should have headed this problem off long before, preferably before Jesus came to Jerusalem, and preferably before passover time.

But Rome really didn't want to be bothered, in any event; what they liked to get from the provinces was tax returns. As long as tax receipts were uninterrupted, and there was no riot or rebellion and no protests to Rome, Pilate would be forgiven slip-ups like failing to spot that the Jesus movement was causing trouble until it came to a head. But there was no earthly reason why he would have reported the whole business to Rome. The less said about it, the better.

recedite wrote: »

Why do you think Paul's personal revelation and conversion is any more important than the innumerable modern personal revelations? For example PDN often tells us that he changed from being an unbeliever to a believer, and he tells us of his subsequent missionary involvement in China, yet we don't take his word as Gospel?

I didn't say it was any more important, or that it should be taken "as gospel". I mentioned it merely to refute the idea that Paul doesn't associate miracles with Jesus, and the implication that the miracle tradition is later than Paul, and therefore fictional. You don't have to accept that the various manifestations of the risen Christ that Paul describes were real, but you do have to accept that he described them.

marienbad

Peregrinus wrote: »

It wasn't Pilate's job to "make the Jews easier to conquer"; they were already conquered. Pilate's job was to govern Judea (mainly for the purpose of raising taxes) without antagonising the notoriously sensitive Jews, too keep Jerusalem in particular placid so that trade would not be disrupted - Jerusalem was a major trading entrepot, and therefore a major source of revenue - and generally to keep the "pax romana". The more political troublemakers he had to crucify, the more delegations of protest demanding action that he received from the Temple authorities, the worse job he was doing. The crucifixion of Jesus was an embarrasment to Pilate, and it's unlikely that would have reported it to Rome. It's not that they would have felt in Rome that he shouldn't have crucified Jesus; they would have felt that he should have headed this problem off long before, preferably before Jesus came to Jerusalem, and preferably before passover time.

But Rome really didn't want to be bothered, in any event; what they liked to get from the provinces was tax returns. As long as tax receipts were uninterrupted, and there was no riot or rebellion and no protests to Rome, Pilate would be forgiven slip-ups like failing to spot that the Jesus movement was causing trouble until it came to a head. But there was no earthly reason why he would have reported the whole business to Rome. The less said about it, the better.



I didn't say it was any more important, or that it should be taken "as gospel". I mentioned it merely to refute the idea that Paul doesn't associate miracles with Jesus, and the implication that the miracle tradition is later than Paul, and therefore fictional. You don't have to accept that the various manifestations of the risen Christ that Paul describes were real, but you do have to accept that he described them.

Do you have any sources for your speculations on Pilate ?

lmaopml

marienbad wrote: »

By the way as I asked Impaoml but got no reply- do you believe in hell ?

I didn't notice you ask me this question Marien ?

Anyway, why yes, of course I do. Do I know what it's like? No, I've never been there. Do I know if it's empty or full? Nah, don't know that either. Neither do I know who is going there, and I daren't guess because it's not my place to do so. There are many and varied thoughts on Hell. Some say the door is locked from the inside, others say that people who don't accept Christ are most certainly going there etc etc etc. In my tiny opinion, I think that hell would be stripped of the image of God, I imagine that very few would choose to do so voluntarily, I don't know how God judges, all I know is that he is perfect mercy and perfect justice.

marienbad

lmaopml wrote: »

I didn't notice you ask me this question Marien ?

Anyway, why yes, of course I do. Do I know what it's like? No, I've never been there. Do I know if it's empty or full? Nah, don't know that either. Neither do I know who is going there, and I daren't guess because it's not my place to do so. There are many and varied thoughts on Hell. Some say the door is locked from the inside, others say that people who don't accept Christ are most certainly going there etc etc etc. In my tiny opinion, I think that hell would be stripped of the image of God, I imagine that very few would choose to do so voluntarily, I don't know how God judges, all I know is that he is perfect mercy and perfect justice.

So how do you know it exists ?

lmaopml

Is this going somewhere? Can we take a short cut?

The same way I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God. If I accept the Son of God on faith, I accept everything he said too.

marienbad

lmaopml wrote: »

Is this going somewhere? Can we take a short cut?

The same way I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God. If I accept the Son of God on faith, I accept everything he said too.

It is going somewhere if you let it, I would like to understand why and how and what you think hell is and what are your sources for such ?

lmaopml

marienbad wrote: »

It is going somewhere if you let it, I would like to understand why and how and what you think hell is and what are your sources for such ?

I think I've covered all of those queries, the why, how, and what....as far as I personally can as another human being who happens to be a Christian Marien..

Is there something specific?

Hell has the same reality as Heaven does, the why, how and what, is derived for both, from both Scripture and the Church which is a living thing since it's debut, and faith in Jesus Christ.

However, interestingly hell is mentioned a lot more in Scripture than Heaven. Now, it's anybodies guess as to why....I'm not qualified to answer this. As a Christian, I follow Christ but presume very little about details of things that I couldn't possibly know about like judgement and hell and heaven, these things are not of this world - we're given guidance as Christians, but certainly God has the final word. I am far from perfect. Very far.