If Jesus Is God

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sure.  The bible was originally written in the Hebrew, not English, Mandarin, Greek, etc.  This was the original language and over the last 50 or so years, has brought out amzing insights into the bible, specifically about Jesus

 

 

The Jewish scriptures were written in Hebrew.  The Roman scriptures were written in Greek.  They are not from the same religion.

 

They are the same believes.  Christianity has twisted the New Testament into believing the Old Testament was the old wineskin, and now Christianity is the new wineskin.  Nothing is further then the truth. 

 

I believe the NT was written in Hebrew or Aramaic and then quickly translated into Greek.  As all the NT writers were Jews, it makes sense the NT was not written in Greek.

 

Evidence?

 

1) Evidence that the new testament was written firstly in Hebrew or Aramaic.

 

2) Evidence that the New Testament writers were Jews.

 

(the authors saying they are jews, isnt evidence.  I can write a book and in that book say I am a two-headed monster, but my claim doesn't serve as evidence that I am in fact a two-headed monster.)

 

The evidence the NT was written in Hebrew or Aramaic is just common sense.  Would you expect a historical record of events in Britain be written in French first if it was written by a native Brit?  The NT writers were Jews because it said they were. 

 

Is it so hard to believe the bible is a historical book as well?  Just because it isn't in the bible, do you believe Alexander the Great lived?  Why accept texts that say Sir Alex lived, yet not Jesus?

 

 

Funny thing about that.  Many years ago, in Ireland, I found a first edition copy of "A History of North Carolina", written in the 1600's by an Englishman, not a Tarheel.  "Common sense" is not the same as reliable, scientifically proven fact. 

 

Most of the scholars I have read have all agreed that the gospels were written in Greek.

 

What scholars think, and same with scientists, they will slant their ideas and views to their favor.  What we have is the NT in the Greek, I won't deny that.  But I bet my dad's house before the kingdom comes, a copy of a NT letter will be found in the Hebrew or Aramaic.  Just a hunch. 

 

 

I won't take that bet because you don't own the house you're betting; I have more respect for your father's possessions than that.  You should obey the commandments.  Honor your father and mother.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

 

 

Okay Fungi (am I pronouncing that correctly?), you believe that god loves us and wants to bless us for a thousand generations or whatever the phrase was, right?  You also seem to believe that you have some new information that we aren't privy to and the fact that you write on another site somehow lends credibility to your case.  With that in mind, I have one question for you:

 

If god is all he's cracked up to be, then why didn't he provide your "information" to some pastor or deacon in each of our churches so that it could be passed on to us before we became ex-christians? 

 

Are you going to try to tell me that he moves in mysterious ways?  Are you going to try to convince me that his ways are higher than our ways?  Oh, please tell me about how god has a plan for everybody and this is just part of his plan to use you as a troll in sheep's clothing to redeem us godless heathens.

 

So far, you've offered meaningless drivel; it's time you brought your big-boy game.

You can be an ex-christian and still believe in Jesus.  Some people take serious objections to being called a christian, even though they believe in Jesus.  Do you reject Christianity?  I can't defend that.  The Christian church has strayed very far from its Jewish roots.  Jesus did not come to this earth to begin a new movement called Christianity.  Christianity arose as a result of separating themselves from their Jewish roots.  Do we share the same message of Jesus dying for us?  Yes.  But after that, is a different story.  In the process, Christianity has lost a bunch of stuff from their roots. 

 

So is it Jesus you have an issue with?  Or is it Christianity?

 

 

This is your big-boy game?  Basically you're simply saying, "Ah come on, guys, give christianity a break.  The poor old bride of christ has just lost her way, is all.  She just ain't what christ intended her to be." 

 

How on earth could you possibly think that is a convincing argument?

 

I'm not saying give Christianity a break.  This is an ex-christian site.  So some of what ex-christians have been taught has been untruthful.  Thought you might like to know I agree with some things pointed out here by ex-christians.

 

 

And I agree with some of the things in the bible, so there we are.  My point being that just because you think the church has lost its way in no way, shape or form validates what you believe.  You say christianity was just a splinter group that came out of judaism and lost its way so now you believe in a splinter group that attempts to marry christianity with judaism.  The problem is, all three religions are based on a book of myths and fairy tales. 

 

I always just wondered why someone became an ex-christian.  Was it the inconsistencies in their bibles?  Incorrect teachings?  Don't know?  But if one says adamantly there is no God, what can I say or do?  If it has something to do with the bible and supposedly glaring inconsistencies in it, I want to know it and research it out.

 

 

Well, if this is the only way to stop us going around in useless circles: The god of the bible does not exist.  I don't care how your religion, or the christian religion, or the jewish religion interprets the bible; the god of the bible does not exist.  It is a lie and a myth.  The bible is a lie and a myth and the god of the bible is not, was not, and never will be in existence.

 

Is this adamant enough?  Should I use more capital letters and exclamation points?

[sdelsolray]

I pray scientists look into the deepest recesses of space and into the tiniest of the tiniest of atoms.  There they will find God.  I am trying to study up on agri-bio linguistics.  Should be interesting when I find the time.  In the mean time, I like the science in the bible.

 

1. Genesis 1:12

   The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.
2. Genesis 1:21
   God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
3. Genesis 1:24
   Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so.
4. Genesis 1:25
   God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

I look outside and I see apple trees making more apple trees, salmon making more salmon, monkeys making other monkeys, etc, etc.  So I tend to believe God who was there and told us how he did it as evidence, versus a bunch of evolutionary scientists who admit they all were not there billions and billions of years ago, and tell us how the world was created with no evidence.

 

 

Ancestry and reproduction are easily observed phenomena.  This was observed by humans well before the Bible was written.  Thus, apple trees reproduce through seeds in the fruit and an offspring is born.  Mammals reproduce is similar fashion.  It is reasonable to conclude that offspring will resemble the parent(s).  That is an example of applying rational thinking to empirical evidence and reaching a conclusion.

 

You claim you have "evidence" that your God exists because it is mentioned in certain writings, some of which you post above.  The actual empirical "evidence" is that the God is mentioned in the writings.  That cannot be disputed, just like the offspring of a monkey is a monkey.  This actual empirical evidence does support the claim that the God actually exists.  Human writings can be factual or fictional.  There is no inherent truthfulness to any human writing, based solely on the fact that it is a writing.  Whether or not this particular God actually exists is not demonstrated by naming it in a mere writing.  

 

 

…

So I tend to believe God who was there and told us how he did it as evidence….

 

No, you believe in your chosen sky fairy because of religious faith, not because of evidence.

 

…versus a bunch of evolutionary scientists who admit they all were not there billions and billions of years ago, and tell us how the world was created with no evidence.

 

Evolutionary scientists deal with the science of biology, not the science of cosmology.  Please provide relevant empirical evidence to support your claim that "a bunch of evolutionary scientists…tell us how the world was created without evidence."  Those are your words.  Your claim.  You can support your claim by naming some of the evolutionary scientists from the bunch (just a few will do) and providing direct references to their statements which support your claim.

 

Then again, it could simply be that your definition of the word "evidence" and use of it is different than nearly everyone else's definition and use.

 

Or it could be that you have little understanding of the Biological Theory of Evolution.

[Ravenstar]

FUCK YOU! and your excuse for rape, child slaughter, slavery and subjugation! Fuck your goat-herding barbarians and their immoral, misogynist bullshit.

 

Fuck the bible and it's genocides and incest and rape and pillage.. all god sanctioned, even commanded. Fuck 'context' and it's cheap excuse for atrocity. It was never right, it was never moral and it was NEVER from a benevolent god but from patriarchal bronze age narcissistic envious, insecure fucks.. and if you believe that it was good, sanctioned or from a creator that is supposed to be 'love', you are immoral as well as deluded.

 

You make me sick.. there is NO excuse, nor morality in making a RAPE VICTIM marry her RAPIST. There is NO excuse for dashing babies against rocks or ripping fetuses out of wombs, or killing the male children so you can keep the little girls to rape and make slaves for yourself - after making them watch you slaughter their parents and siblings. Your 'god' is a fucking monster above any psychopath that ever lived on earth and if he did exist I'd tell him to stick it too.

 

Fuck off.

[centauri]

 

 

 

God's justice system demands a life for a life.  Adam and Eve were cursed to go back to the ground they came from.  We are dead to our sins.  The reason for all the OT sacrifices was to point us to that fact.  Because we deserved to die for our sin, an innocent little animal dies in our place.  We are all under the condemnation of death because of our sins.  We all have to face the firing squad, but Jesus pushed us out of the way and said I will die in your place instead.  A perfect sacrifice could only redeem us from the penalty of death, and no animal could do that.  That is why Jesus laid his life down willingly.

 

Yes that was preaching.

Animal sin sacrifices in the OT were for unintentional sins.

Sin sacrifices weren't limited to animals but also included things like fine flour.

Intentional sins can be forgiven without an animal sin sacrifice.

The character "Jesus" did not conform to any of the regulations for an animal sin sacrifice, which yields his death as useless for atonement of sin.

 

The unintentional sin is not a good translation, it literally means unacceptable behaviour.

 

The word "unintentional" is used by many Bible translations.

It means done in ignorance or by mistake.

Sin committed in ignorance requires a sin offering.

The difference in treatment of unintentional sin and intentional sin is clearly outlined in Deut 15.

 

In short, sin sacrifices for this classification of sin was for an already redeemed people who made a "mistake."  God could only offer forgiveness for a people, or person redeemed to reconcile the relationship back between the person and the Creator.  The sin of the high hand, or what most refer to as intentional sin always required one to teshuvah or turn back from their ways.

Which means Jesus is not a valid sin sacrifice for unintentional sins, nor can he vicariously atone for intentional sins.

 

God offers forgiveness only to those He has already redeemed. There was no forgiveness extended to the Egyptians, Philistines, Canaanites, Assyrians, Babylonians, or Persians.

Only those who were constituted as God’s covenant people were in a place to receive God’s forgiveness.

God forgave the city of Nineveh.

Are you suggesting they were God's covenant people prior to being forgiven?

 

This is why Paul is concerned that the Gentiles realize they have been “brought near” to the commonwealth of Israel (Eph. 2:12-14). Having been redeemed through payment of the required price, those who constitute God’s family have forgiveness extended to them. God is able to forgive them because His justice has been satisfied in the price of their redemption. He remains righteous even though He declares the sinner righteous: He is “just and the justifier” of those who believe in Yeshua (Rom. 3:26).

There is no atonement or redemption attained through an invalid sacrifice.

Jesus met none of the requirements for such a sacrifice.

The regulations are laid down in Lev 4.

[mymistake]

First of all, the instructions given in Torah brought rights to women, children and slaves.  Think about it this way.  Back then they didn't have welfare, unemployment insurance, food stamps, etc.  If a tragedy befell the family and they lost their source of income, servitude to another family was the only way to provide food on the table.  That was a reality back then, however; God gave Israel the first nation on how to treat their slaves as they were slaves themselves at one point.  So to stop the cycle of abuse, he gave instructions on how to treat one who is in servitude to another.  But not only that, every 7th year, the slaves could leave if they wanted to.  It was their choice.  If they and the family were treated great, then they could stay and would be treated like family. 

 

God sanctioned war is one of the most difficult areas in the bible to wrap our minds around.  How is it that women and children who had little to do with military affairs, be the subject of military targets?  The answer is in God's holiness and the lack of understanding with his justice system.  In the passage from Numbers, previous to that the Midianite women seduced the men of Israel causing a great loss of lives in the camp of Israel.  Midian hated Israel so much they prostituted their own daughters in an effort to seduce the Israelite men.  Off to war they went invoking the Abrahamic vow of "...I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you..." clause.  They defeated the Midianites, and returned back to the camp with the same women who had come to seduce the men of Israel.  Moses was mad and ordered the women and male children killed sparing the young girls.  Essentially rendering Midian to ever mount an army against Israel again.  However the virgin girls left, were assimilated into the tribes of Israel and would have been granted full rights under Exodus 22:21; Deuteronomy 21:10-14.

 

See God was the first to give rights to orphans, widows, the disadvantaged and gave instructions for war, criminals, property rights, business practices, etc.  Some of his ways are not our ways, that is the reality.  But they are perfect and just.

 

And the passage you cited in Judges was essentially a dark time as everyone saw as they did fit.  Essentially what they were doing was trying to find a legal loophole in the Torah to give the daughters of the tribe they decimated to continue on the name of the tribe of Benjamin.  It all started over a Levite who married a woman, but she was unfaithful to him.  If he just would have divorced her, then the story wouldn't had got to that level.  The deeper truth is Levites, who are God's ministers need to hold themselves to a higher standard.  God said so for their protection.  Nowadays how many preachers have been caught doing who know's what?  Their sin affects the greater community.  That was the principle laid out in the Torah.

 

 

 

Listen to yourself.  If God tells me to kill you, your wife, your parents, your wife's parents and your sons then I should keep your daughters as sex slaves out of charity.  It's welfare.  I would be like food stamps to your daughter.  Sanctioning slavery does not stop the cycle of abuse.  Humans had to figure out slavery was wrong on our own because the Bible never said that it is wrong for one human to own another.

 

God sanctioned war is easy to understand;  very, very easy to understand.  It is the easiest thing to understand.  It is only hard for you to wrap your mind around it because you are reading the Bible as if it is the word of God.  When you realize the Bible is the word of men then of course kings need gods to sanction the king's conquests.  And what better motive for the king to find volunteers for the war than God sanctioning those volunteers to keep the captive girls as sex slaves?  It makes perfect sense.  Allowing rape draws the right kind of solders for a war of genocide.  I really don't care about the other propaganda that was made up to justify war.  Did it occur to you that the stories about seduction could be fiction?

 

It is not perfect and just that some nation be exterminated except for it's little girls who will be used as sex slaves just because that nation lives in a land that the Israelites desire to own.  That is called murder, kidnapping, rape and theft.

 

Don't give me "a dark time".  In the Old Testament the stories make it look like God dictated the law and God would smite those who offended God.  God could have told these people "Don't own other humans", "Respect a woman's right to decline sex", "Don't commit genocide" or I will smite you.  Instead we see God telling Israel to commit acts of genocide and rape and giving them instructions on how to own slaves.  Your Old Testament does not have any moral authority.

 

I have cited the passages where the Bible sanctions rape.  If you wish to reject reality and live in a fantasy that is up to you.

[centauri]

 

His death was necessary as revealed in Passover. Israel was redeemed only by the death of the lamb and the angel of the Lord passing over their houses. “…When I see the blood, I will pass over you.” Exodus 12:13

Passover has nothing to do with sin sacrifices.

The Passover lambs/goats (plural) commemorate an event, they are not sin sacrifices used to make atonement.

The people were saved by following instructions and using blood to mark their doors, not from the death of lambs as sin sacrifices.

Where do you find the OT telling people that a human sacrifice would be needed to celebrate Passover?

Passover also requires that the lambs be roasted and eaten.

Why does Jesus not have to be roasted and eaten if his death was necessary?

Why is it that Christianity makes up new rules as they go along?

 

Without the shedding of blood there is no atonement.

In the Old Testament there are different types of sins that require different types of sacrifices or atonement. Forgiveness does not always require bloodshed. Offerings of fine flour(Lev 5:11), money(Exo 30:15-16), jewelry(Num 31:50) and prayer(Hos 14:1-4) can also atone for sin.

As noted earlier, there is an important distinction between unintentional sin and intentional sin (Num 15:27-30).

Unintentional sin or sins not committed willfully can be atoned for with a sin sacrifice involving blood.

Intentional sin or sin committed on purpose cannot be atoned for by a sin sacrifice.

Some intentional sins require a guilt sacrifice(Lev 5:14-26) to be made.

Other forms of intentional sin may be forgiven by the act of contrition and repenting(Ezek 18:20-30).

 

He recognized that no man could keep His Law perfectly. But at the center of the Law is God’s gracious provision: Life for life.

People weren't required to keep the law perfectly, that's why provisions for sin sacrifices exist in the law.

People could keep the law, as Luke 1:5-6 indicates.

 

In each of the homes of the Israelites and Egyptians that first Passover night, an innocent life had to be taken to spare the life of the firstborn of each family. Here again is a fundamental principle of the Good News—all have sinned and are guilty.

The Passover meal was not and is not a sin sacrifice.

Exo 12 doesn't say anything about sins being atoned for by the death of the animals whose blood was used to mark the dooors.

 

God has pronounced judgment on all. He makes no distinction between Jew or Gentile. It is not by works that we obtain right standing before God. It is a gift of God himself. The wages of sin is death. This was God’s judgment upon the inhabitants of Egypt—Egyptians and Israelites alike.

 

That night the Angel of Death was to smite the firstborn, including the Israelites. But the blood was to be a token upon the houses. God promised: “When I see the blood, I will pass over...” (Ex. 12:13). This is the very center of Passover and the Good News—in this the Gospel is summed up.

Where do you see Exo 12 telling Moses that the people are to expect a human sacrifice to come along and atone for their sins during the Passover?

Where do you see Moses being told that future generations were to wait for a human sacrifice to come along and turn the Passover celebration and meal into ritual that atones for sin?

 

I never learned these things growing up. Although I was taught about the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and learned about the biblical figures, I never understood that God is alive and His Word is alive and I am a sinful being in need of atonement. I never appreciated that deliverance in a deep and meaningful way.

If you believe in the OT God, then your salvation is to do what he asks.

The recipe for salvation is given in Ezek 18:20-27.

Have a contrite heart and keep his law.

 

The Church also lacks that appreciation. If we don’t appreciate the Old Covenant Scriptures, then we have missed the deep understanding of God’s character as Deliverer and Provider.

 

We are told by the Prophets 750 years before Yeshua was born that One without sin would come and die for our sins. Although He was sinless, it pleased God to bruise Him and to lay upon Him the iniquity of us all (Isaiah 53).

Isa 53 is about the servant, who is defined as Israel in Isa 49.

Israel is personified throughout Isaiah with a liberal use of metaphors.

An actual, literal sin sacrifice cannot be a human being because such a sacrifice is illegal according to God's law.

 

Yeshua said, “I am the door; by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved” (John 10:9 KJV). Why? Because He is the Passover Lamb who has shed His blood so that when we apply it to the doorposts of our heart, the Angel of Death passes over.

There is no singular Passover lamb.

The Passover celebration calls of each household to kill a lamb or goat and eat it.

It is not a sin sacrifice.

Jesus cannot be what you want him to be because it violates God's rules.

[mymistake]

 

 

And from the very beginning, it is clear that sin requires payment. This is so because sin is an affront to God’s holiness and glory. God’s justice demands payment for sin, and any lack of proper payment would reveal God to be less than just.

 

When the prohibition is given to Adam and Eve regarding the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, the penalty for disobedience is clearly given: “in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die” (Genesis 2:17). Death was the payment for sin. God would not allow His image in mankind to be falsely portrayed. Yet there was a way of redemption—a way for mankind to return to his noble status as the bearer of God’s image. Foreshadowed by the death of the animal necessary to cloth the naked Adam and Chavah, the principle of substitution in God’s plan of salvation was revealed. A life in exchange for a life—that was God’s plan.

 

Uh no.  This is not what justice means.  When my kids spill milk and make a mess I might yell at them a bit (if they were doing something stupid that I had already asked the to stop) and I would clean it up.  I would not have to kill something.  I certainly would not kill my kids unless they sacrificed their pet cat or goldfish to repay the sin of the spilled milk.

 

The Bible is Bronze Age problem solving.  This way of thinking is barbaric.  It isn't justice.

 

Don't kill your children please.  They don't deserve it. 

 

 

I guess you didn't see the negatives the first time.  I enlarged them so they are easier to see.  Don't worry, I am much more moral than Yahweh.

[mymistake]

 

The bible is where modern day civilizations get their code of ethics from.  Judeo-Christian something or another.  Based on biblical principles. 

 

 

If that is true then why is it illegal for me to sell my daughter?  We don't get our ethics from the Bible.  Unless you are a criminal you don't either.

[Ouroboros]

Am referring to the triple point of water....where all states can theoretically exist as one.....and attaching that to the verse in Mark or John  maybe that relates the Sprit to water.

It's a good analogy (I think), except that it suggests "modes" of God. And seeing the trinity as different modes of God was thought of by 3rd century Sabellius. Sabellianism was considered a heretical form of belief. How or why, I don't know. But the triple point idea does come close to the modal view which wasn't approved by the church.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

The story of God’s deliverance for sinful mankind unfolds throughout the Torah and Prophets. And from the very beginning, it is clear that sin requires payment. This is so because sin is an affront to God’s holiness and glory. God’s justice demands payment for sin, and any lack of proper payment would reveal God to be less than just.

 

 

If it is true that all have sinned and that humans are born with a sinful nature, because of Adam eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then that means every human that is born is programmed to sin. If this god of yours is such a holy, glorious, and just god, then why would he allow humans to be born with a programming to sin, while blaming all humans for doing exactly what they are programmed to do?

 

If your god is real and all of this is true, then no payment should be required because your god would be fully responsible for allowing humans to be programmed to sin from the moment they were born. It wouldn't matter if the people who sin enjoy their sin or are disgusted by it, your god would still be fully responsible.

[centauri]

 

 

 

...Mary and Elizabeth were relatives, but the bible doesn't go into detail.  Although tribal heritage was usually passed through the father's heritage.  Elizabeth and Mary were descendants of Aaron and Davd, by way of their father's ancestry, not necessarily of their mother's.

Just curious, where in the Bible do you find the genealogy of Mary that shows her being descended from David?

The genealogy in Luke never mentions Mary at all.

In any case, women cannot pass kingships and adoption doesn't meet the requirement for direct blood connection to David and Solomon.

Jewish identity is passed maternally but tribal affiliation is passed paternally.

Jesus had no biological father, which cuts the connection to David.

 

Heli was Miriam’s father. It was no accident that in Jewish writings of the first and second centuries that Yeshua is referred to by the Rabbis as the son of Heli, because they recognized this. It was not unusual in the Jewish system of genealogy to trace a woman’s origin through her husband. Two examples of this in the O.T. (Ezra 2:61 and Nehemiah 7:63) where a woman’s origin was not traced by her real lines but through her husband’s line. This was because of the Jewish Law concerning mentioning women in genealogy. So, Luke was following Jewish practice in the manner in which the Jews did it. He wants to trace Miriam’s line, but he can’t mention her name. So, he uses Joseph’s name

 

Unfortunately, there is nothing in Luke 3 that indicates Heli was the father of Mary.

It states that Joseph was the son of Heli.

Luke, who used the in-law classification in his gospel, does not say Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli.

Nor does it say anywhere in the text that the genealogy is about Mary, rather than Joseph.

Genealogies used to pass titles don't pass them from females.

Mary could never pass on that which she could not possess herself, even if Luke 3 was revised and Mary is inserted into the text.

[centauri]

 

By the time Jesus came on the scene, the Sadducees and Pharisees had completely corrupted his commandments, with their own man made traditions that forsook the Torah.  He accurately and fulfilled the Torah and showed us how to live one's life.

This is a very popular claim made by Christians, vilifying the Pharisees and Sadduces with claims that they completely corrupted the commandments.

Would you please demonstrate how Jesus fulfilled the law when he taught against the dietary regulations in Mark 7:18-19?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Oh I'm going to hate myself for doing this but I guess I can live with that.

 

Fungi, you have written at great length concerning the contraversies surrounding the genealogies of jesus.  Mind you, that's not the same as answering the question "If jesus is god, why bother with a genealogy," but I will give you credit for at least addressing one paragraph from the original post.

 

However, you also made the claim that jesus did not intend to start a new religion.  Again, I ask the question: why bother including a genealogy in the gospels?  If it was not jesus' intent to start a new religion, then who would give a damn who was included in his lineage?  If on the other hand, the inventors of the christ myth wanted to start a new religion, and validate that new religion within the context of judaism, wouldn't including a genealogy that tied jesus back to king david be a reasonable method of doing so?  What if the simple truth is that jesus never existed and that the myth-crafters simply used simple tricks to make him seem plausible?

 

Secondly, while I have given you your due props for addressing one of the points I made in the original post, I have to say you have come up short on addressing any of the other points made in the original post.  I wrote the original post in order to raise serious questions concerning the divinity of jesus.  I have my own answers to the questions I raised which I intentionally left out, in order to give the reader the opportunity to answer the questions themselves.  However, for all your scripture-mining, rhetoric, apologetic, and use of the logical fallacies that we expect from christians, you still have not addressed any of the other fine points in the original post.

 

It's not that I mind engaging you; I just don't like going in circles with people who can only use circular logic.  I need you to do more than just quote scripture and prattle simple rhetoric.  I made what I believe was a logical case against the divinity of jesus.  So far, your arguments simply take for granted that jesus is god and that the bible is true.  I need you to offer proof for both of these assumptions before you and I can move forward.

[Fernweh]

 

FUCK YOU! and your excuse for rape, child slaughter, slavery and subjugation! Fuck your goat-herding barbarians and their immoral, misogynist bullshit.

 

Fuck the bible and it's genocides and incest and rape and pillage.. all god sanctioned, even commanded. Fuck 'context' and it's cheap excuse for atrocity. It was never right, it was never moral and it was NEVER from a benevolent god but from patriarchal bronze age narcissistic envious, insecure fucks.. and if you believe that it was good, sanctioned or from a creator that is supposed to be 'love', you are immoral as well as deluded.

 

You make me sick.. there is NO excuse, nor morality in making a RAPE VICTIM marry her RAPIST. There is NO excuse for dashing babies against rocks or ripping fetuses out of wombs, or killing the male children so you can keep the little girls to rape and make slaves for yourself - after making them watch you slaughter their parents and siblings. Your 'god' is a fucking monster above any psychopath that ever lived on earth and if he did exist I'd tell him to stick it too.

 

Fuck off.

Read and understand the bible first.  Blaming God for what you think happened in the bible (of which God never sanctioned rape, or told rape victims they had to marry their rapist which is lunacy in itself) would be like me yelling at God for you telling me to eff off.  Ravenstar told me to eff off, so I will shake my finger at you God.  Doesn't make sense. I don't understand the vitriolic hate here, but I hope you come to resolve it one day. 

 

 

 

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

 

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

 

It took me about two seconds to find this with google. Now please, tell me how I'm taking this out of context.

[slave2six]

Read and understand the bible first.  Blaming God for what you think happened in the bible (of which God never sanctioned rape, or told rape victims they had to marry their rapist which is lunacy in itself) would be like me yelling at God for you telling me to eff off.  

 

You arrogant prick. We know the Bible. Explain to me all those passages where god tortures and murders people, commands his "chosen people" to kill a whole hell of a lot of other people, puts it in his laws that if a dude rapes a woman who is not engaged that he has to pay the dad and marry the victim, etc.

 

Clearly you have never read the bible. If you had read it and you had an ounce of decency about you, you'd recoil in horror.

[slave2six]

Hmmm...let's kill the man who picked up sticks, yet allow all this raping to happen?  No, that is not the bible, and that is not God. 

 

How obtuse can you possibly be? Hmmm.... Jesus is all about love and forgiveness but his first act after magically disappearing into the sky is to kill a couple of people for lying about their finances.

 

"I love you and I died for your sins. What? You lied to me? Die evil scum! Now, the rest of you, hand over the dough."

 

That's your god in a nutshell.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

 

Hmmm...let's kill the man who picked up sticks, yet allow all this raping to happen?  No, that is not the bible, and that is not God. 

 

How obtuse can you possibly be? Hmmm.... Jesus is all about love and forgiveness but his first act after magically disappearing into the sky is to kill a couple of people for lying about their finances.

 

"I love you and I died for your sins. What? You lied to me? Die evil scum! Now, the rest of you, hand over the dough."

 

That's your god in a nutshell.

 

 

It's a little worse than that, I'm afraid. He knew they were going to lie about their finances even before they did it. Hell, he allowed them to be born so that they were programmed to lie to begin with. Then, when they did what he already knew they were going to do, he said, "Die evil scum!"

 

And for some reason, he also gets really butthurt over people picking up sticks on the wrong day. I can't imagine why it would be a big deal, regardless of what reason they did it. Sounds like someone should put Yahweh in a rubber room somewhere that he can't hurt anyone else.

[mymistake]

Funguyrye, how about you show us where in the Bible God tells men that they shall not sleep with a woman without her consent.  Show us where the Bible spells out the penalty for sleeping with a woman without her consent.  Yes, even without the consent of a wife.

[Fernweh]

 

 

 

FUCK YOU! and your excuse for rape, child slaughter, slavery and subjugation! Fuck your goat-herding barbarians and their immoral, misogynist bullshit.

 

Fuck the bible and it's genocides and incest and rape and pillage.. all god sanctioned, even commanded. Fuck 'context' and it's cheap excuse for atrocity. It was never right, it was never moral and it was NEVER from a benevolent god but from patriarchal bronze age narcissistic envious, insecure fucks.. and if you believe that it was good, sanctioned or from a creator that is supposed to be 'love', you are immoral as well as deluded.

 

You make me sick.. there is NO excuse, nor morality in making a RAPE VICTIM marry her RAPIST. There is NO excuse for dashing babies against rocks or ripping fetuses out of wombs, or killing the male children so you can keep the little girls to rape and make slaves for yourself - after making them watch you slaughter their parents and siblings. Your 'god' is a fucking monster above any psychopath that ever lived on earth and if he did exist I'd tell him to stick it too.

 

Fuck off.

Read and understand the bible first.  Blaming God for what you think happened in the bible (of which God never sanctioned rape, or told rape victims they had to marry their rapist which is lunacy in itself) would be like me yelling at God for you telling me to eff off.  Ravenstar told me to eff off, so I will shake my finger at you God.  Doesn't make sense. I don't understand the vitriolic hate here, but I hope you come to resolve it one day. 

 

 

 

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

 

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

 

It took me about two seconds to find this with google. Now please, tell me how I'm taking this out of context.

 

Uh, again that is a horrible translation and inserted there by the writers for whatever reason.  The Torah already made it clear rape is a capital offence:

 

²⁵ “But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. ²⁶ But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. ²⁷ When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her.

 

Nothing ever, ever said rape was for God's people.  In verses 28-29 it is simply considering a case out of wedlock between a man and an unmarried woman.  Since he acquired her in an ignoble fashion, he is never allowed to divorce her.  However, if he doesn't provide her matrimonial rights, she has every cause to bring him to court and write him a writ of divorcement.  If the girl's father refuses the match, the seducer must still pay the 50 shekels. 

 

I used to believe the NIV was a bad translation as well. I was what you would call an AV1611 only type fundy. But the truth is, there's plenty of rape, incest, infanticide, genocide, and tall tales any any translation.

[mymistake]

 

You have proven nothing.  The passages you cited was children of a defeated nation being given to families to be raised as their own.  If they did not do so, if they raped and murdered these children, would God not have intervened and drew attention to this matter as he did to the man who was picking sticks up on the Sabbath as a show of defiance against God.  Hmmm...let's kill the man who picked up sticks, yet allow all this raping to happen?  No, that is not the bible, and that is not God. 

 

 

This is cringe worthy.  Really?  Invade another country and as a reward I will give you extra daughters to raise and feed and marry off?  The ignorance is astounding.

 

Deuteronomy 21:11-13

 

¹¹ And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;  ¹² Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;  ¹³ And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

 

 

Now remember her whole nation was slaughtered and the only people who were spared were the little girls who were too young to have been married off.  So who are these solders seeing among the captives?  It is captive little girls.  Take one for your wife.  Do you ask her out on a date?  Do you try to impress her first?  Do you ask her for consent?  Do you ask her to marry you?  

 

NO!  The solders are free to take any little girl they desire.  Taking her makes her your wife, your property.

 

 

Rape is sanctioned by the Bible.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

 

 

 

FUCK YOU! and your excuse for rape, child slaughter, slavery and subjugation! Fuck your goat-herding barbarians and their immoral, misogynist bullshit.

 

Fuck the bible and it's genocides and incest and rape and pillage.. all god sanctioned, even commanded. Fuck 'context' and it's cheap excuse for atrocity. It was never right, it was never moral and it was NEVER from a benevolent god but from patriarchal bronze age narcissistic envious, insecure fucks.. and if you believe that it was good, sanctioned or from a creator that is supposed to be 'love', you are immoral as well as deluded.

 

You make me sick.. there is NO excuse, nor morality in making a RAPE VICTIM marry her RAPIST. There is NO excuse for dashing babies against rocks or ripping fetuses out of wombs, or killing the male children so you can keep the little girls to rape and make slaves for yourself - after making them watch you slaughter their parents and siblings. Your 'god' is a fucking monster above any psychopath that ever lived on earth and if he did exist I'd tell him to stick it too.

 

Fuck off.

Read and understand the bible first.  Blaming God for what you think happened in the bible (of which God never sanctioned rape, or told rape victims they had to marry their rapist which is lunacy in itself) would be like me yelling at God for you telling me to eff off.  Ravenstar told me to eff off, so I will shake my finger at you God.  Doesn't make sense. I don't understand the vitriolic hate here, but I hope you come to resolve it one day. 

 

 

 

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

 

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

 

It took me about two seconds to find this with google. Now please, tell me how I'm taking this out of context.

 

Uh, again that is a horrible translation and inserted there by the writers for whatever reason.  The Torah already made it clear rape is a capital offence:

 

²⁵ “But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. ²⁶ But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. ²⁷ When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her.

 

Nothing ever, ever said rape was for God's people.  In verses 28-29 it is simply considering a case out of wedlock between a man and an unmarried woman.  Since he acquired her in an ignoble fashion, he is never allowed to divorce her.  However, if he doesn't provide her matrimonial rights, she has every cause to bring him to court and write him a writ of divorcement.  If the girl's father refuses the match, the seducer must still pay the 50 shekels. 

 

 

 

23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

 

24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

 

25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

 

26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

 

27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

 

Deuteronomy 22: 23-27 KJV (I really don't know which is the most accurate version to use, but this is the version that I usually use to find scriptures.)

 

 

But, if it happens in the city and she doesn't cry out, the victim must die too. It doesn't matter that she might have been too frightened to cry out, simply because crying for help is what makes the act an act of rape.

 

I call bullshit, buddy.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

 

 

 

You have proven nothing.  The passages you cited was children of a defeated nation being given to families to be raised as their own.  If they did not do so, if they raped and murdered these children, would God not have intervened and drew attention to this matter as he did to the man who was picking sticks up on the Sabbath as a show of defiance against God.  Hmmm...let's kill the man who picked up sticks, yet allow all this raping to happen?  No, that is not the bible, and that is not God. 

 

 

This is cringe worthy.  Really?  Invade another country and as a reward I will give you extra daughters to raise and feed and marry off?  The ignorance is astounding.

 

Deuteronomy 21:11-13

 

¹¹ And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;  ¹² Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;  ¹³ And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

 

 

Now remember her whole nation was slaughtered and the only people who were spared were the little girls who were too young to have been married off.  So who are these solders seeing among the captives?  It is captive little girls.  Take one for your wife.  Do you ask her out on a date?  Do you try to impress her first?  Do you ask her for consent?  Do you ask her to marry you?  

 

NO!  The solders are free to take any little girl they desire.  Taking her makes her your wife, your property.

 

 

Rape is sanctioned by the Bible.

 

Rape is a fact of war.  As long as mankind has taken up arms to conquer, there has been loot, pillage and rape.  The people of God however are to be different.  The Torah acknowledges the soldiers are likely to be tempted and take women captive, but it forbids the impulse.  She is to be granted the dignity of mourning her parents.  She is to be granted the honor of marriage, not be taken forcibly and be given the status of a wife.  She cannot be treated like a slave, nor can she be sold.  Women are protected against the savagery of men.  He demands a higher standard of his people. 

 

What other option did women have if their husbands were killed in war and they had no means of survival.  God gave even captured people in war rights and dignity, not slavery and rape.

 

 

So their only options are to either live in the wilderness and die or marry one of the soldiers who killed her whole family and community. Not much of a choice there.

 

"Marry me and be my wife after you mourn your dead family, or go out and try to survive in the wilderness, on your own, where you will likely die a horrible death."

 

Instead of using force to get women they capture, in cities they destroy, in the bed, they need to use extortion and manipulation. So much for demanding a higher standard...

[mymistake]

 

 

Rape is sanctioned by the Bible.

 

Rape is a fact of war.  As long as mankind has taken up arms to conquer, there has been loot, pillage and rape.  The people of God however are to be different.  The Torah acknowledges the soldiers are likely to be tempted and take women captive, but it forbids the impulse.  She is to be granted the dignity of mourning her parents.  She is to be granted the honor of marriage, not be taken forcibly and be given the status of a wife.  She cannot be treated like a slave, nor can she be sold.  Women are protected against the savagery of men.  He demands a higher standard of his people. 

 

What other option did women have if their husbands were killed in war and they had no means of survival.  God gave even captured people in war rights and dignity, not slavery and rape.

 

 

 

Right right.  God command you to slaughter a lamb and pour the blood everywhere and you have to do it or you DIE!   But God has to let Israeli troops rape the littler girls of conquered nations because rape is a fact of war.  Who is God to command His people or to give them rules?

 

I just quoted to you that she is to be taken.  Deuteronomy 21 does not give the captive girls a choice.  If a solder sees her and wants her he takes her.  That is rape.  He is told he cannot sell her because she is damaged goods.  It wouldn't be fair to the buyer because the solder took the captive's virginity.  These rules are about how men controlled women.  And yes, denying women any way to earn a living without being owned by a man was also part of that control.

 

Your empty denials are not going to fool anybody.  The Old Testament was barbaric.  Barbarians created Yahweh in their own image.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

 

 

 

 

 

FUCK YOU! and your excuse for rape, child slaughter, slavery and subjugation! Fuck your goat-herding barbarians and their immoral, misogynist bullshit.

 

Fuck the bible and it's genocides and incest and rape and pillage.. all god sanctioned, even commanded. Fuck 'context' and it's cheap excuse for atrocity. It was never right, it was never moral and it was NEVER from a benevolent god but from patriarchal bronze age narcissistic envious, insecure fucks.. and if you believe that it was good, sanctioned or from a creator that is supposed to be 'love', you are immoral as well as deluded.

 

You make me sick.. there is NO excuse, nor morality in making a RAPE VICTIM marry her RAPIST. There is NO excuse for dashing babies against rocks or ripping fetuses out of wombs, or killing the male children so you can keep the little girls to rape and make slaves for yourself - after making them watch you slaughter their parents and siblings. Your 'god' is a fucking monster above any psychopath that ever lived on earth and if he did exist I'd tell him to stick it too.

 

Fuck off.

Read and understand the bible first.  Blaming God for what you think happened in the bible (of which God never sanctioned rape, or told rape victims they had to marry their rapist which is lunacy in itself) would be like me yelling at God for you telling me to eff off.  Ravenstar told me to eff off, so I will shake my finger at you God.  Doesn't make sense. I don't understand the vitriolic hate here, but I hope you come to resolve it one day. 

 

 

 

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

 

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

 

It took me about two seconds to find this with google. Now please, tell me how I'm taking this out of context.

 

Uh, again that is a horrible translation and inserted there by the writers for whatever reason.  The Torah already made it clear rape is a capital offence:

 

²⁵ “But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. ²⁶ But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. ²⁷ When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her.

 

Nothing ever, ever said rape was for God's people.  In verses 28-29 it is simply considering a case out of wedlock between a man and an unmarried woman.  Since he acquired her in an ignoble fashion, he is never allowed to divorce her.  However, if he doesn't provide her matrimonial rights, she has every cause to bring him to court and write him a writ of divorcement.  If the girl's father refuses the match, the seducer must still pay the 50 shekels. 

 

 

 

23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

 

24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

 

25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

 

26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

 

27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

 

Deuteronomy 22: 23-27 KJV (I really don't know which is the most accurate version to use, but this is the version that I usually use to find scriptures.

 

 

But, if it happens in the city and she doesn't cry out, the victim must die too. It doesn't matter that she might have been too frightened to cry out, simply because crying for help is what makes the act an act of rape.

 

In verse 23 and 24 it is a scenario of a woman who is already betrothed, or committed to marry another man, and she engages in sexual relations with another man not her fiance.  In God's eyes, a betrothed person is already married, so in essence, they committed adultery.  In this case, both the adulterer and adulteress would be liable for the same punishment.  The harsh nature of these punishments speaks to God's perspective on sexual immorality. 

 

However in verse 25, it makes very clear a man raping a woman is liable for the death punishment.  Period.  And further in verse 26 it reinforces and states the woman has done absolutely nothing wrong to incur any guilt for getting raped.  Sound familiar?

 

 

Yeah, it sounds familiar. It sounds like only the man is punished if the rape victim is out of ear shot when she screams for help, but if she is in a city, which I assume means she is probably within ear shot, but does not scream for help, then she is equally as guilty as the rapist.

 

What if the woman is raped in the city, but she doesn't cry for help because she's too afraid to do so? According to this, because she didn't cry out for help, that automatically means that it wasn't rape.