Another Challenge For Chris: Explain The Connection Between The Ten Commandments And

[scotter]

Chris,

 

You quoted OT the Ten Commandments, and if I steal, lie, cheat and more, I have broken the Ten Commandments and I should ask for God’s forgiveness and return to God.

 

Yes, I did stumble and fall in the eyes of God, and I reconcile with God and ask for forgiveness.

 

The rules of the game were set by you: if I break one or more of the Ten Commandments, you ask me to believe Jesus, and ask for forgiveness by the death, grace and salvation of Jesus.

 

Why could I not ask God directly for forgiveness? Why do I need to believe Jesus and ask for forgiveness in his name?

 

Contemplating my above questions, Chris you can work on the directions to educate me:

1. please explain the connection between OT and NT

2. please explain why Jesus is the Messiah

 

I cannot accept, “Scotter you have to believe Jesus because (the NT says) Jesus is the Messiah…” – I reiterate, the rules of the game were set by you, I did not set them.

 

This is a sincere and serious question, it is about saving a soul here.

 

If Chris is not available, evangelicals who like to help out Chris are welcomed.

[scotter]

Thanks Serene for your kindness.

 

Will PM you meanwhile we wait for Chris and Christians' responses.

[Ziggy]

A good question.. Back when I was trying to be as Christian as humanly possible I always struggled with the fact that salvation seemed to rely on belief in Christ rather than the actual just the cross Surely if you're saved you're saved .. whether you believe it or not?

So I was always worried about how much i felt I believed when i was supposed to be happy with the fact I was saved because if i didn't belive enough then I was damned Nightmare frame of mind!

 

Its maybe slightly different to the question raised If its off topic sorry ..ignore!

[triv]

Scotter,

 

"Why could I not ask God directly for forgiveness? Why do I need to believe Jesus and ask for forgiveness in his name?"

 

I'll try and answer this before the other 2 points. The whole idea of law and gospel answers this question. Like you were talking about, if we break the commandments, and just sin in general, we have fallen in the eyes of God. More specifically, Christianity asserts that you are born this way and not some neutrality or anything. So the law is that we have sinned against this God of the Bible and something is owed and the relationship has been torn. Now everyone will agree that they have done something bad in their life (unless you believe that there is no morality at all) and you can call that whatever you like. The Bible clearly teaches this idea of being broken away from God. You ask why do we have to believe in Jesus and not just go to God directly. First off, the trinity is part of essential Christian doctrine so Jesus and God are one. Secondly, it is through Jesus that we find reconciliation to God. The whole way it works is called propitiation and substitutionary atonement. Essentially, God is written of as being perfect and cannot look upon sin with favor. This is key because as laid out before, we've all sinned. Jesus' role is to propitiate the wrath of God as a substitute in our place. This is the gospel because there is nothing we can do to dig ourselves out the hole that we're in. An example would be if someone tried to get out of punishment for a murder by saying that hes done good by not murdering everyone else. There is nothing we can do to merit a good standing before God. A common question is why God just can't forgive us of our sins. The answer is he can and did through Jesus.

 

"1. please explain the connection between OT and NT"

 

The OT and the NT are essentially connected as one large story of creation and redemption throughout history. Christian theology centers on God and his redemption of mankind. Jesus is the focal point, clearly in the NT and set up by the OT. This also answers the 2nd question. Jesus is the messiah because he fits into this huge overarching story that starts in the OT. He is the one who will crush the serpents head in the creation story, He is the one who bring peace and salvation to the world that the Israelites prophesied about. The NT is just the fulfillment of the OT in the person of Jesus.

 

Of course this is all systematic theology. It all works within the system that is set up around it. To believe that you need Jesus you first have to believe that sin seperates you from God and whatnot. Im not getting into any apologetics with this post, I'm just telling you how it works in the system that the Bible lays out. If Jesus really was who he said he was, then there is reason to believe that this system is the truth of reality. The major debate point is over Jesus, whether there he was a myth made up by the church or something else.

 

Hope that makes sense.

[scotter]

Thank you Triv for taking the time to share and write this.

 

Although other members may have further inquiries, I humbly request other members not getting into "attack" mode towards Triv's answer - I don't want Triv to feel getting baited.

[SkepticOfBible]

Thank you Triv for taking the time to share and write this.

 

Although other members may have further inquiries, I humbly request other members not getting into "attack" mode towards Triv's answer - I don't want Triv to feel getting baited.

 

As you wish, but I'll just one quick remark, that many of the assertions that Triv forward is not supported by the Hebrew Bible, and at many times CONTRADICTS it.

 

The NT is NOT a harmounous message from the same god. It has however quite a few pagan influences. Jesus was NOT the Jewish Messiah(if he existed off course)

 

I'll let you handle him

[scotter]

 

(if he existed off course)

 

 

Thanks for the input Skeptic.

 

Triv, from my understanding of your post, God is Trinity because of additional scriptural inferences from NT right?

 

And the validity of the NT/Gospels weighs in on the historicity of Jesus. And allow me to deduce, Triv you would not be a Christian if Jesus is a myth; you would not be a Trinitarian Christian if Jesus is not divine.

 

Expanding from this "major debate point" as you said, please tell me how you understand the historical Jesus and the divine Jesus.

 

One more hurdle: why should I believe Paul's conversion experience and his letters?

 

Thanks.

[triv]

For skeptic's reply, Jesus does fit very well into this Jewish messiah figure that was set up in the OT. Matthew is good resource because everytime Jesus does or says something it is followed with OT prophecies and whatnot. You'd have to be specific about what pagan influences you were talking about. The only thing I've heard coming out of the Jesus Seminar and other liberal circles is that somehow Jesus was an Essene of some sort.

 

"Triv, from my understanding of your post, God is Trinity because of additional scriptural inferences from NT right?"

 

The trinity is inferenced from the NT. The OT doesnt have too much to say about any trinitarian doctrine, maybe only some references to the Spirit of God. This is why the Jews of Jesus' time had trouble believing that Jesus was divine. They said he was blaspheming when he forgave sins and also called himself "I am" like how God identified himself in the OT. Of course with this revelation from Jesus, we can look back and see the prophesy and everything else in the OT pointing to Jesus.

 

"And the validity of the NT/Gospels weighs in on the historicity of Jesus. And allow me to deduce, Triv you would not be a Christian if Jesus is a myth; you would not be a Trinitarian Christian if Jesus is not divine."

 

Paul says it best in 1 Corinthians 15 about if Jesus essentially didn't rise from the dead, then our faith is futile and we are to be pitied most among men. Of course the implication is that if Jesus did rise from the dead then he was who he said he was. The whole reason for being trinitarian is that God is the only one who can take away sin. God didnt just punish some good guy for our sins. Essentially he had to take it upon himself to make ramifications. Jesus is the second person in the trinity and there is only one God according to this view and this way God is able to poor out his wrath on a perfect subject. There are a whole bunch of heresies that arose throughout history that the church has defended against on this issue of how exactly the trinity works such as modalism.

 

"Expanding from this "major debate point" as you said, please tell me how you understand the historical Jesus and the divine Jesus."

 

The whole idea of a historical Jesus is that the gospel accounts are to be taken as accurate. The debate about Jesus historicity has three sides to it. The first side claims that a man named Jesus never existed at all. The people who argue this will claim that all the sources about Jesus were made up at a later time in church history. All the stuff from Josephus and many others were attempts to write Jesus into verifiable history. There are plenty of arguments on these message boards where people give a whole bunch of examples of how the Jesus stuff was interpolated into these texts. There are arguments for and against this.

 

The second view is that Jesus did exist but people made up stuff about him. These are the liberal christians/pluralists and some others. Again, the church, and Jesus' earlier followers made up stuff about Jesus, or were even decieved by him. The Jesus Seminar is a good example because what they do is go back through the gospels and try to pick out what Jesus really said and scratch out stuff that they think he didnt say. They come with the presupposition that Jesus was not divine so they browse through tht text and select stuff by that standard.

 

The third view is the Christian view that the gospels are reliable accurate accounts of Jesus. The major debate point here, as seen on these forums, is that the apparent contradictions should invalidate any truth claims made about Jesus. Apologetics come in to show that these people who wrote about Jesus did in fact do just that. Paul and his conversion, which gets into the last hurdle, is seen as a very important piece in apologetics. He was a persecutor of the church then had a huge turnaround to become one of the greatest preachers of the gospel. If Paul really did have this conversion, what would it take for someone to switch around completely.

 

It pretty much comes down to whether there was corrabaratory evidence, the gospels accounts were accurate, and this issue of contradictions. Each are debated about vigorously by both sides. I'd say that the debates on this forum aren't and end all to what each side has to say.

[crazy-tiger]

For skeptic's reply, Jesus does fit very well into this Jewish messiah figure that was set up in the OT. Matthew is good resource because everytime Jesus does or says something it is followed with OT prophecies and whatnot. You'd have to be specific about what pagan influences you were talking about. The only thing I've heard coming out of the Jesus Seminar and other liberal circles is that somehow Jesus was an Essene of some sort.

<-- gets some popcorn...

[scotter]

Triv I appreciate you have this knack of summarizing the essentials of Christianity in several succinct paragraphs.

 

About the arguments on Paul: Paul's experience must be real (we are not talking about his dogmatics yet) since he transformed from a Christian persecutor to a Christian.

Adding to that is: since his experiences were real => his writings must be real.

 

About Muhammad: how do you think of Muhammad's experience, that he was a simple-life trader who became a brilliant leader uniting the Arab nations at that time? (We don't get to the contents of the Quran yet). And Joseph Smith's too: a 15 year old boy who became a leader of a subtantial, vibrant Church, which is still around and more vibrant today than ever.

 

Three possibilities:

their experiences were not real;

or their experiences were real, but the sources of revelation were from something else

or their revelations were from the Divine/God also.

 

Discussing case by case, personally I think Muhammad has a stronger case that the Quran is from God. If we get to that I can tell you what I think.

 

Your comments on Muhammad and Joseph Smith, individually case by case?

 

I just saw our friend SkepticofBible wrote responses to your post (just below my post), Triv you would be quite busy for a while. Your responses to Skeptic would be beneficial towards the dialogues.

 

Scotter.

[SkepticOfBible]

Hi Triv,

 

I wish to make to make a request. If you want me to read any of your links, I expect that you read the ones which I present.

 

For skeptic's reply, Jesus does fit very well into this Jewish messiah figure that was set up in the OT.

Have you ever been to Jewish Counter Missionary site, and seen why they reject JC as their Messiah?

 

Here let me guide you.

 

Messiah Wanted!

 

It is true that the OT talks about a Jewish Messiah(not a Saviour), but there are a very few messianic verses, not 300 of them as Xtians claim.

 

Jesus infact failed to fulfill many messianic prophecies and something did complete opposite thing that he was supposed to do.

 

He did even have the proper pedigree/genealogy to sit on the throne

 

Geneology Debate

 

Matthew is good resource because everytime Jesus does or says something it is followed with OT prophecies and whatnot.

 

One common accusation that Xtians make of skeptics is that they take verses out of their context. However they don't realise that the NT writers did exactly that with the Hebrew text, especially the unknown author of Matthew. He created prophecies out of verses when they were none.

 

A good example would Matt 2:14-15, where he turned the Hosea 11:1 into a prophecy, when infact Hosea 11:1 is nothing more than past tense declaration . There is no need of fulfillment, as it's not a prophecy or prediction of anything.

 

Not only that, the author of Matthew made a prophecy out a misunderstood verse (Jesus riding two donkeys)

 

If you wish to respond to the above please do so here, since the last Xtian never replied

 

You'd have to be specific about what pagan influences you were talking about.

Ok before I start with the pagan influences of the bible, do you mind telling me why do you celebrate easter and christmas when they are clearly pagan in orgin?

 

Do some Christmas traditions have pagan origins?(Gotquestions.org)

 

Here is a good heads up of the pagan influences in the bible that I will bring up

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...533;entry149598

 

The trinity is inferenced from the NT.

Wow, for a God who allegedly created the universe, he can't even inspire a single verse where directly say he is a trinity.

 

The irony is that the Trinity doctrine wasn't decided by "The Word", but by a Pagan king.

 

The Nicene Creed and Truth about the Trinity

 

The OT doesnt have too much to say about any trinitarian doctrine, maybe only some references to the Spirit of God.

 

The Ot doesn't have much say about the about the trinitarian doctrine, because there is NONE. The OT makes it very clear that he is a singular being not triune fountainhead like the pagan gods. (Deut 6:4)

 

Trinity Debate(Post 65)

 

This is why the Jews of Jesus' time had trouble believing that Jesus was divine.

 

What makes you think the Jews had trouble believeing that Jesus was divine?

 

The OT made it quite clear that God was not a man.

 

Verses that fundies ignore:G-d is not a man

 

The Jews weren't gonna enticed by God-man idea, anymore they would be enticed by the Greek god(who were known to have virgin birth), especially since their God made it quite clear to them that he doesn't hide any important doctrines from his prophets.

 

Amos 3:7

Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

 

Thus if God was trinity, you would have bet he would have told one of the prophets in OT.

 

They said he was blaspheming when he forgave sins and also called himself "I am" like how God identified himself in the OT.

 

And they were right, because Jesus fitted the description Deut 13:1, 18:15 of a false prophet as laid down in , because he was trying to lead them from a God that their forefathers were unaware of.

 

Prophets and Prophecy

 

Of course with this revelation from Jesus, we can look back and see the prophesy and everything else in the OT pointing to Jesus.

Where is the prophecy from the OT which says the following

 

1)God would take a human form and be born of a virgin

2)That obeying the law would be replaced in faith in illegal human sacrifice

3)the Messiah would require 3 turns to complete his job which he was supposed to do in his first turn.

4)The Messiah would be sacrificed

 

The whole reason for being trinitarian is that God is the only one who can take away sin. God didnt just punish some good guy for our sins. Essentially he had to take it upon himself to make ramifications. Jesus is the second person in the trinity and there is only one God according to this view and this way God is able to poor out his wrath on a perfect subject.

 

So in otherwords, Jesus was really God, and God sacrificed himself to himself so he could pay the price which he himself sets up in the first place.

 

Such is a the kinky theology of Xtianity

 

BTW since you have no proof from the OT or NT, that God is a trinity, your point about Jesus is sacrificing himself is moot.

 

Here is an interesting comment from Hastings Dictionary of the Bible

 

TRINITY--The Christian doctrine of God as existing in three Persons and one Substance IS NOT DEMONSTRABLE BY LOGIC or SCRIPTURAL PROOF.

 

So there you go, you believe in something unscriptural and illogical

 

Is God a Closed TRINITY or an Open FAMILY?

 

There are a whole bunch of heresies that arose throughout history that the church has defended against on this issue of how exactly the trinity works such as modalism.

 

Would one of the heresies also include Protestantism?

 

Obviously if the Catholic Church declared the competing ideas as heresies, it is therefore logical to assume they are right about the Protestants.

 

Obviously you haven't read your history. The Church used the political power to wipe out the heretics through FORCE. There was no DEFENSE only ATTACK. So much for religion based on LOVE

 

The whole idea of a historical Jesus is that the gospel accounts are to be taken as accurate.

 

Accurate!!!!!!!the Gospels contradict each other on so many occasions.

 

Heck for starters no one has able to tell what happened after Jesus rose. There are like over 200 different stories that many denomination put forward regarding this event, and that usually happens by adding qualifiers, ignoring verses, and rewriting the bible

 

Gospel Inconsistencies-The Risen Jesus Appears To The Eleven Disciples

The third view is the Christian view that the gospels are reliable accurate accounts of Jesus. The major debate point here, as seen on these forums, is that the apparent contradictions should invalidate any truth claims made about Jesus. Apologetics come in to show that these people who wrote about Jesus did in fact do just that.

 

Apologetics who come over here make bad arguements. If Muslim/Mormon started to make the kind of arguements that apologetic make for their belief, I can assure YOU will not accept them.

 

The contradictions aren't apparent, they are for real.

 

Which is one of the reasons why Jews reject the NT as a progressive revelation from their God.

 

And I don't see how you call the Gospels as reliable considering they are not even first hand eyewitness account.

 

Paul and his conversion, which gets into the last hurdle, is seen as a very important piece in apologetics. He was a persecutor of the church then had a huge turnaround to become one of the greatest preachers of the gospel.

 

He also contradicted Jesus and OT God many times.

[triv]

I'll get to scotter's post first then to skeptics in a post when I have more time.

 

I've heard on these message boards alot about people compairing Joseph Smith and Muhammad to Paul. The way it goes is that if you can trust Paul why do you not trust these other two guys? As far as the experiences that Smith and Muhammad had, I can't tell you what went on there. They both could've had some genuine experience where they thought that God was speaking to them or something else. Even though it may have been genuine, this does not mean it is correct. They both could have been mistaken but the thing is, what they were preaching about wasn't anything that could be verifiable. Actually, Joseph Smith's teachings are something that can be verified and were proven completely wrong (Jews in South America). Paul stands out from the other two because what he preaches about is directly verified by the people that lived during his time. He writes about Jesus' ressurection during a time when people had witnessed him ressurected. Muhammad, I think, writes about Jesus, he lived centuries after Jesus and no one around could call him on it. I've written about this before and the response I've got is that Paul was against the disciples and proves against what I just said. Paul was not against the disciples at all, he repremanded one but not because of the teachings of Christ. The idea behind the "eyewitness" accounts of the gospels as compared to other revelatory scriptures is this, people die for what they believe in all the time, people do not die for what they know is false. The disciples and early church were persecuted and even killed for standing up for Jesus. Did they make it up and die willingly for a lie? The case for Muhammad and Joseph Smith is not the same. Paul taught about Jesus at a time when people actually knew him.

 

Ok I'm off to school. I got midterms this week so I'll try and find some time between studying to do justice to skeptics post.

[nick5]

Paul stands out from the other two because what he preaches about is directly verified by the people that lived during his time. He writes about Jesus' ressurection during a time when people had witnessed him ressurected.

 

Haha, good one.

[Antlerman]

Paul stands out from the other two because what he preaches about is directly verified by the people that lived during his time. He writes about Jesus' ressurection during a time when people had witnessed him ressurected.

If Paul was speaking of a spritual ressurection about a celetial Christ with no earthly existence as it put forth by the Gospels penned at a latter date beyond Paul's writtings, then this argument falls flat. The only "witnesses" there would be would be those who had transcendent, mystical visions. Paul never references any of the accounts of the latter literary vehicles of the Gospel "accounts", a rather curious ommission for such an avid aplogist as Paul to avoid using.

 

The idea behind the "eyewitness" accounts of the gospels as compared to other revelatory scriptures is this, people die for what they believe in all the time, people do not die for what they know is false. The disciples and early church were persecuted and even killed for standing up for Jesus. Did they make it up and die willingly for a lie? The case for Muhammad and Joseph Smith is not the same. Paul taught about Jesus at a time when people actually knew him.

This argument makes an assumption that the early martyrs died because they were all eyewitnesses, and to die under those circumstances validates what they "saw". You argue that this is not simply dying for a belief, but for an eyewitness account.

 

Do you believe every early church martyr was an eyewitness? I will assume your answer to be no. So those who were not "eyewitnesses" that died as martyrs would be no different than any other martyr for any other cause or belief. Now as far the "eyewitnesses", what did they see and who claims they saw it? Joseph Smith claims to have witnesses who saw the gold tablets. What if these eyewitnesses all shared some sort of spiritual vision? That would be enough to convince someone it was worth dying for, but says nothing of the objectivity of the belief.

 

One last comment: I found it revealing and amusing how you dismiss non-literalist Christians as you did above referring to them as liberal christians (small c), then later when speaking of yourself and those who think like you, you called them "Christians", with no qualifier and with a capital C. Accidental or a bit of arrogance showing throught the cracks? Skeptics post was very substantial, especially in pointing out that Protestantism likewise would be considered heresy, along with Modelsim, etc. If you're going to use the Church’s political engine as proof of the truth of God, you've just shot yourself in the foot.

 

I look forward to responses those points.

[triv]

"I found it revealing and amusing how you dismiss non-literalist Christians as you did above referring to them as liberal christians (small c), then later when speaking of yourself and those who think like you, you called them "Christians", with no qualifier and with a capital C. Accidental or a bit of arrogance showing throught the cracks?"

 

wow, really? sometimes I forget to capitalize my "I"s. Grow up.

 

"Messiah Wanted!

 

It is true that the OT talks about a Jewish Messiah(not a Saviour), but there are a very few messianic verses, not 300 of them as Xtians claim.

 

Jesus infact failed to fulfill many messianic prophecies and something did complete opposite thing that he was supposed to do.

 

He did even have the proper pedigree/genealogy to sit on the throne"

 

OK, after looking at just the first link, it's going to have to be a much longer answer than I thought. When you summarize a whole argument with just this statement above, what you're asking me to do is argue against the whole thing. If I were to give a similar reply in summary, I'd say the writer of this first page knows alot about Judaism, but not too much about Christianity. An example would be the claim he makes about how this Jewish messiah would have to be married and have kids. The passage he shows doesn’t even talk about marriage. It says his sons will get his inheritance. Even if he got his verses right, it is clear in the NT that believers are sons and daughters of God, the whole teaching on adoption and grafting into the tree. Even if there was mention of a wife, the church is Jesus’ bride. So in fact he does fulfill this “so called” (if you read it, I don’t think anyone would really claim this verse to be about that) prophecy. Of course you don’t want a summary argument to a broad general question. After, looking at some more of the arguments on the page, I retract my earlier statement about the person knowing a lot about Judaism. He doesn’t even give passages for some of his qualifications. My next post will be the first real long one showing how bad this page really is and I will give verses. Then I’ll move on to the next topic.

 

 

P.S. for future reference, I haven't been on message boards for awhile, to quote someone do you put

...

or is there an easier way with that quote button at the bottom of the posts?

 

ok i guess it worked after seeing that post

[Asimov]

Another thread of hacking away at branches when we should be chopping at the trunk.

[SkepticOfBible]

OK, after looking at just the first link, it's going to have to be a much longer answer than I thought. When you summarize a whole argument with just this statement above, what you're asking me to do is argue against the whole thing. If I were to give a similar reply in summary, I'd say the writer of this first page knows alot about Judaism, but not too much about Christianity. An example would be the claim he makes about how this Jewish messiah would have to be married and have kids.

 

And he makes it quite clear this is isn't neccessary requirement

 

Although marriage and children are not stated pre-requisites for being the Messiah, there is a clear indication that the Prince, who is the Messiah/King [see Ezek 34:23-24, 37:24], will have children (via marriage) at some point in time during his reign, and they will be entitled to inherit his property:

 

 

The passage he shows doesn’t even talk about marriage. It says his sons will get his inheritance.

 

Ezekiel 46:16-17 – (16) Thus says the L-rd G-d: "If the Prince gives a gift to any of his sons, it is his inheritance to remain in their possession; it is their property by inheritance. (17) But if he gives a gift of his inheritance to one of his servants, then it shall be his [the servant's] until the year of liberty, and then it returns to the Prince; only to his sons shall his inheritance belong.

 

Hello......if he is talking about sons, then obviously he is talking about legimate one, not Bastards. Or do you want to imply that God's chosen representative have the license to screw around without marriage,

 

Show me a case from the OT where illegimate children are allowed inheritance.

 

 

Even if he got his verses right, it is clear in the NT that believers are sons and daughters of God, the whole teaching on adoption and grafting into the tree. Even if there was mention of a wife, the church is Jesus’ bride.

 

And I can see you are already going into your apologetic mode. The verse in question clearly mentions about blood relatives, not believers in the messiah.

 

Please read the verses for what they say, and not what you want them to say.

 

BTW, in my request of verses, could you also present me a verse from the OT, where it says that the Messiah would be worshipped.

 

So in fact he does fulfill this “so called” (if you read it, I don’t think anyone would really claim this verse to be about that) prophecy.

 

Well he didn't say it is requirement, however the NT does a great job of making prophecies out verses when they are NONE.

 

Of course you don’t want a summary argument to a broad general question. After, looking at some more of the arguments on the page, I retract my earlier statement about the person knowing a lot about Judaism. He doesn’t even give passages for some of his qualifications.

 

That's because this is summary of his arugements. If you browse more in the site he gives a very well explanation for most of the passage he cited.

 

My next post will be the first real long one showing how bad this page really is and I will give verses. Then I’ll move on to the next topic.

 

I'll make life easier for you. Just answer the one regarding genealogy in the link I gave you, since that alone proves that JC cannot be the messiah.

 

Or if you want, we can do this one "prophecy" at a time.

 

Paul stands out from the other two because what he preaches about is directly verified by the people that lived during his time. He writes about Jesus' ressurection during a time when people had witnessed him ressurected.

 

You are talking about a time when gentiles were used to hearing stories about God-men dying to save to save the world. Paul sold his theology to the uneducated, unwashed masses, who were a hotbed of ignorance, willing following any and all charlatans unquestioningly.

 

There is huge difference between our world and the ancient rome, major difference being , - speed of communication. Top Speed, a horses gallop, it took days and weeks for information to get from one area of the Empire to another. Very few people traveled more than 30-50 miles from home. Many people living in the same place their entire life with little or no interaction with the rest of the world. Conditions like this are very conducive to the creation of a new religion, one without a real personage attached.

 

A good example of this would be the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, an entire different take on Christianity, involving Jews migrating to American, splitting into two different peoples (culturally and physically), being visited by the Resurrected Christ, one peoples being destroyed by the other, and the Angel Moroni bringing all this information to Joseph Smith on Golden plates (later removed by the Angel). This all happened during the 19th century when communication was much faster and still this new religion was born and grew and is still growing.

 

Now consider how long it took to get from Jerusalem to Alexandria in the 1st century CE – conservatively 2 weeks. Makes checking facts rather hard. Now lets talk from Jerusalem to Rome. And do you mind telling me who will goto Jeruesulam to verify what Paul told?

 

Just as modern Christianity the early Church was heavy into control of it’s members and heavy into brainwashing. You have to want to check facts before you will. People are gullible then and now

 

The disciples and early church were persecuted and even killed for standing up for Jesus.

 

And where did you get this information from?The bible doesn't say anything about the disciples getting martyred.

 

The early mormons were also ere also persecuted for their beliefs, including their "eyewitnesses"

[Antlerman]

Grow up.

Ever hear of a Freudian slip? If you look at your comment it seemed to show a predisposition to arrogance by your distinctions between liberals and yourself. I questioned it. Your response above to me betrays something about you.

 

BTW, at first I thought you actually might be someone with some intelligence to speak with about these views, but your comment about has just shown me you are what I have come to expect again and again from fundamentalists. Your christianity is showing.

 

One last thing: You completely bypassed addressing the real questions I posted in response to your apologetics. I'm sorry I made it too easy for you to be distracted from offering comments of substance. But we did accomplish exposing light on the real value of all of this theology.

[dibby]

Grow up.

Ever hear of a Freudian slip? If you look at your comment it seemed to show a predisposition to arrogance by your distinctions between liberals and yourself. I questioned it. Your response above to me betrays something about you.

 

BTW, at first I thought you actually might be someone with some intelligence to speak with about these views, but your comment about has just shown me you are what I have come to expect again and again from fundamentalists. Your christianity is showing.

 

You made some good points antlerman. Maybe you will get the answer to your question.......just hang on in there bro

[Antlerman]

You made some good points antlerman. Maybe you will get the answer to your question.......just hang on in there bro

...still hangin' in there...... (day 2)

[Antlerman]

You made some good points antlerman. Maybe you will get the answer to your question.......just hang on in there bro

...still hangin' in there...... (day 3)

[dibby]

You made some good points antlerman. Maybe you will get the answer to your question.......just hang on in there bro

...still hangin' in there...... (day 3)

 

Has the rapture happened? maybe he got taken away!

[triv]

Messiah Wanted!

 

It is true that the OT talks about a Jewish Messiah(not a Saviour), but there are a very few messianic verses, not 300 of them as Xtians claim.

 

Jesus infact failed to fulfill many messianic prophecies and something did complete opposite thing that he was supposed to do.

 

He did even have the proper pedigree/genealogy to sit on the throne

 

Ok you said to explain the genealogy because Jesus doesn’t seem to fit this. The argument is that Jesus does not fill the role of the prophesied messiah at this point because if he came from Mary, then then he had no tribal descent because that comes only from the males. First off, the site claims that Numb 1:18 and recent genetic research prove that “a blood right - is passed exclusively by a father to his biological sons (via the Y-Chromosome) and, therefore, cannot be transmitted in any other manner, including adoption.” Well if you read Num. chapter one that’s not what you find. The site says it is “Jewish Law”, read the text and the answer is right there. The first chapter of Numbers is taking a census of only males to go to war. Its not some systematic way of showing lineage. Verse 2-3, “Take a census of all the congregation of the sons of Israel, by their families, by their father’s households, according to the number of names, every male, head by head from twenty years old and upward, whoever is able to go to war in Israel, you and Aaron shall number them by their armies.”

 

So this idea of only male lineage does not derive from some Jewish law in the OT. This “recent genetic research” must be the source then. Since this is not really backed up, there’s no argument for or against it needed.

 

The next part about genealogies is the discrepencies between Matt and Luke’s lists. The page claims that Christians can’t decide on who the genealogies belong to. Well, that’s not true, its pretty much accepted that Luke gives Mary’s lineage. When he says that Heli is the father of Joseph, it means he is the father in-law. Early Jewish Talmud is where it was found that Heli was Mary’s father. Again it is stated that it shouldn’t matter because it’s not supposed to be traced through women anyways. This has not been shown to be true still. So, for Jesus, he has a biological trace to David (Mary) and a legal trace (Joseph).

 

Here is a site with listed genealogies from both Matt and Luke as well as some OT genealogies to help show how Matt. Abridged areas in the list.

 

http://www.bcbsr.com/survey/sgosp1.html

 

The last part of the genealogy section goes off on how Paul claims that we shouldn’t follow “genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.”

 

The site says this I Paul perhaps commenting on these genealogies. The more probable conclusion is that he is talking about early forms of Gnosticism which is built off OT genealogies with myths and other things.

 

 

One common accusation that Xtians make of skeptics is that they take verses out of their context. However they don't realise that the NT writers did exactly that with the Hebrew text, especially the unknown author of Matthew. He created prophecies out of verses when they were none.

 

 

Here is good site that describes every way in which the NT writers referenced the OT.

 

http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/OTinNT.htm

 

I don’t really have much to say on this topic just that the NT writers didn’t have a need to find OT evidence to support their claims. Its more of an after-the-fact situation. This guy they followed did all these things that made them believe he was who he really was. A lot of the references that are made, are in fact new discoveries to them of how Jesus fits into the OT. They weren’t necessarily looking for a checklist of things. One example from the site is pesher interpretation which finds eschatological meanings in verses that weren’t originally perceived as eschatological. Does this mean that NT writer’s were scrambling to make connections so that they could prove Jesus was the God of Israel? I don’t think so because they had seen him risen after a gruesome death and now they interpret everything according to that. Also, another form of interpretation used fits very well into that period of time called midrashic interpretation. The site has examples for each kind of interpretation that is used.

 

QUOTE

You'd have to be specific about what pagan influences you were talking about.

 

Ok before I start with the pagan influences of the bible, do you mind telling me why do you celebrate easter and christmas when they are clearly pagan in orgin?

 

Do some Christmas traditions have pagan origins?(Gotquestions.org)

 

Here is a good heads up of the pagan influences in the bible that I will bring up

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...533;entry149598

 

This is not really a problem for Christianity. The whole Easter Christmas thing is irrelevant. Christianity changed a pagan holiday into their own. Easter is actually based of Jewish holiday but that doesn’t matter. If Christ wasn’t really born on Dec, 25th what does that show? There was a specific intent on taking a holiday and specifically changing the meaning of it. And of course neither of these examples show any influence on biblical writings. That argument is for the second link you gave me.

 

The link you gave also contains a bunch of irrelevant issues. Most of them point out trivial similarities between some symbols and other things. Similarities do not mean plagiarism at all. Also, another poster is quick to point out that wicca didn’t even precede Christianity. Again though, similarities are not an issue for the most part. Christianity is pretty much Jewish influenced with its themes and motifs.

 

That’s it for part one of the response. I’ll answer the rest in the next post. But I’ll take a side note for antlerman since he seems to be a little impatient.

 

If Paul was speaking of a spritual ressurection about a celetial Christ with no earthly existence as it put forth by the Gospels penned at a latter date beyond Paul's writtings, then this argument falls flat. The only "witnesses" there would be would be those who had transcendent, mystical visions. Paul never references any of the accounts of the latter literary vehicles of the Gospel "accounts", a rather curious ommission for such an avid aplogist as Paul to avoid using.

 

Paul wasn’t speaking of some spiritual resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15. It’s pretty clear he says that if Jesus did not rise from the dead than we are to be pitied. The question that he is answering is to the Corinthians who wrote him about people saying that there is no resurrection of the dead. His answer, the dead will rise, if they do not, then Jesus did not rise from the dead, if he did not rise, then we are still in our sins and to be pitied. So the argument still stands because a physical resurrection is something verifiable and was verified by the disciples and many others. This whole mystical resurrection concept and its following conclusions does fall flat on its face and is not biblical.

 

This argument makes an assumption that the early martyrs died because they were all eyewitnesses, and to die under those circumstances validates what they "saw". You argue that this is not simply dying for a belief, but for an eyewitness account.

 

Do you believe every early church martyr was an eyewitness? I will assume your answer to be no. So those who were not "eyewitnesses" that died as martyrs would be no different than any other martyr for any other cause or belief. Now as far the "eyewitnesses", what did they see and who claims they saw it?

 

You’re right, not every martyr had eyewitnessed the resurrected Jesus. The word for someone who has is apostle. Peter is a good example. He was crucified upside down for his beliefs that he knew not to be false.

 

Joseph Smith claims to have witnesses who saw the gold tablets. What if these eyewitnesses all shared some sort of spiritual vision? That would be enough to convince someone it was worth dying for, but says nothing of the objectivity of the belief.

 

It doesn’t matter if there were gold tablets or not. What was written on them was not verifiable. I forget who, but even one of the supposed “eyewitnesses” of the golden tablets stopped believing in Mormonism later in his life. I think South Park actually did a very good episode on how that whole situation worked. I’m not gonna start to get into any Mormonism apologetics though.

 

 

QUOTE(triv @ Mar 22 2006, 02:20 AM)

 

Grow up.

 

 

Ever hear of a Freudian slip? If you look at your comment it seemed to show a predisposition to arrogance by your distinctions between liberals and yourself. I questioned it. Your response above to me betrays something about you.

 

BTW, at first I thought you actually might be someone with some intelligence to speak with about these views, but your comment about has just shown me you are what I have come to expect again and again from fundamentalists. Your christianity is showing.

 

One last thing: You completely bypassed addressing the real questions I posted in response to your apologetics. I'm sorry I made it too easy for you to be distracted from offering comments of substance. But we did accomplish exposing light on the real value of all of this theology.

 

Grow up. What is this Psychology 101? Even though Freud has been highly influential, he is still seen as a hack in that field. And that’s not just my opinion. That’s a secular psychology view of Freud. Quit being trivial with any kind of ad hominem you can bring up against me.

 

 

 

One more midterm then I should have some more time.

[Skankboy]

Does this mean that NT writer’s were scrambling to make connections so that they could prove Jesus was the God of Israel? I don’t think so because they had seen him risen after a gruesome death and now they interpret everything according to that.

 

I'm sorry, but you actually believe the authors of the books of the bible were eye witnesses of the suppossed ressurection? Now that's faith!

[SkepticOfBible]

Thanks for your reply.

 

Ok you said to explain the genealogy because Jesus doesn’t seem to fit this. The argument is that Jesus does not fill the role of the prophesied messiah at this point because if he came from Mary, then then he had no tribal descent because that comes only from the males. First off, the site claims that Numb 1:18 and recent genetic research prove that “a blood right - is passed exclusively by a father to his biological sons (via the Y-Chromosome) and, therefore, cannot be transmitted in any other manner, including adoption.” Well if you read Num. chapter one that’s not what you find. The site says it is “Jewish Law”, read the text and the answer is right there. The first chapter of Numbers is taking a census of only males to go to war. Its not some systematic way of showing lineage. Verse 2-3, “Take a census of all the congregation of the sons of Israel, by their families, by their father’s households, according to the number of names, every male, head by head from twenty years old and upward, whoever is able to go to war in Israel, you and Aaron shall number them by their armies.”

 

Pedigree are established by the fathers in OT. This is obvious since the whole bible is patriachal system and in the OT men were allowed multiple wives. It would be easier to track pedigree according to the males than a female.

 

Please show me eg of women passing down tribal identities and priesthood. There are no woman priest or Queen in the OT.

 

Aside from that verse, there is more evidence that a paternal (not maternal) link is required for king.

 

Psa 132:11

The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; OF THE

FRUIT OF THY BODY will I set upon thy throne.

 

2 Sam 7:12

And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I

will set up thy seed after thee, WHICH SHALL PROCEED OUT OF THY BOWELS, and

I will establish his kingdom.

 

So this idea of only male lineage does not derive from some Jewish law in the OT. This “recent genetic research” must be the source then. Since this is not really backed up, there’s no argument for or against it needed.

 

There is enough OT scripture to backup that Tribal Identity/thrones are passed through Males, however you have no scriptural evidence where Kingship is passed through females. If you do, then please present it.

 

The next part about genealogies is the discrepencies between Matt and Luke’s lists. The page claims that Christians can’t decide on who the genealogies belong to. Well, that’s not true, its pretty much accepted that Luke gives Mary’s lineage. When he says that Heli is the father of Joseph, it means he is the father in-law.

 

I haven't seen one mainstream Bible which states Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli, nor have I seen any footnote saying that although the text states Joseph was the son of Heli, it really means son-in-law.

 

Luke 3:23-25(Darby)

And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years old; being as was supposed son of Joseph; of Eli(Heli), of Matthat, of Levi, of Melchi, of Janna, of Joseph, of Mattathias, of Amos, of Naoum, of Esli, of Naggai,

 

The phrase "Joseph of Heli" doesn't mean son-in-law of Heli any more than "Heli of Matthat" means Heli was the son-in-law of Matthat. Every mainstream Bible translates "of Heli" to be "son of Heli".

 

For example, this is verbatim(word for word) from Young's Literal Translation:

 

Luke 3:23-24

And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, son of Joseph,

the [son] of Eli, the [son] of Matthat, the [son] of Levi, the [son] of Melchi, the [son] of Janna, the [son] of Joseph,

 

From the KJV:

Luke 3:23-24

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,]

 

If you desire to engage in special pleading that the genealogy in Luke 3 has been mistranslated(i.e. doesn't mean what it says), then you should provide at least one mainstream Bible as evidence for this assertion, otherwise it's simply an unsupported claim.

 

Early Jewish Talmud is where it was found that Heli was Mary’s father.

 

The Talmud is not part of Holy Word, so bringing it is useless. And I have read that part in the Talmud and it isn't talking about Jesus's mother. The Talmud reference of a Miriam the daughter of Heli shows this woman. Miriam to be a sinner.Mary couldn't be this woman.

 

Mary in the Talmud

 

Again it is stated that it shouldn’t matter because it’s not supposed to be traced through women anyways. This has not been shown to be true still. So, for Jesus, he has a biological trace to David (Mary) and a legal trace (Joseph).

 

A short answer would be, if either of the genealogy are true, then that proves Jesus was NOT the messiah because

 

1)The Genealogy in Matthew is cursed line

2)The Genealogy passes through Nathan, which makes it irrelevant.

 

For more detailed explanation check out my post on this

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...533;entry100964

 

And if you wish to respond on Genealogy please respond here

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=4541&st=0#

 

 

Here is a site with listed genealogies from both Matt and Luke as well as some OT genealogies to help show how Matt. Abridged areas in the list.

 

Yes at both Matt and Luke contradict the genealogy given in the OT

 

The last part of the genealogy section goes off on how Paul claims that we shouldn’t follow “genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.”

 

Well off course, Paul doesn't want to bother about Genealogies, because it proves Jesus is not the messiah. And if they are important, then why are they present in the two books

 

 

 

 

Here is good site that describes every way in which the NT writers referenced the OT.

 

http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/OTinNT.htm

 

Pretty much the site talks about "Typological parallels" and foreshadowment. However "Typological parallels" and "foreshadowings" can be easily created by simply using whatever scripture remotely relates to a story you are trying to validate.

 

It's Amazing...Martha Stewart Fulfilled Old Testament "Prophecy"

 

 

I don’t really have much to say on this topic just that the NT writers didn’t have a need to find OT evidence to support their claims. Its more of an after-the-fact situation. This guy they followed did all these things that made them believe he was who he really was. A lot of the references that are made, are in fact new discoveries to them of how Jesus fits into the OT.

 

They were fitting Jesus into verses, which weren't even prophecies at all.

They weren’t necessarily looking for a checklist of things.

Off course not, what they were trying to do is try to build credibility for their "saviour". Just like the Muslim and Mormons do for their scripture

 

 

This is not really a problem for Christianity. The whole Easter Christmas thing is irrelevant. Christianity changed a pagan holiday into their own.

 

Hello!!!!! bringing in Heathen Traditions in the religion is violation of huge proportions

 

Lev 20:23,26

And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nations, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.

And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine.

 

. Adopting the birthday/holiday of a pagan God like Mithra/Winter Solistice as the birthday of Jesus in order to, , "change a pagan holiday into their own" most certainly does qualify as blasphemy!!!

 

Jesus never instructed that his birthday be celebrated, nor is there any birth date given in the New Testament.

 

Apparently Christians want an excuse to celebrate without authority to do so. They set up trees, decorate them with silver tinsel, gold balls and religious ornaments, gather around it, put up lights, put on pageants, and engage in exactly the things God told them NOT to do.

 

Jer 10:2-5

Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.

For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.

They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.

They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.

 

How are Christians serving God by following and adopting the custom of recognizing a pagan god's birthday as the birthday of Jesus??? These actions laugh in the face of the instructions God gave in the Old Testament.

 

Easter is actually based of Jewish holiday but that doesn’t matter.

If Christ wasn’t really born on Dec, 25th what does that show?

The fact is that no one knows when Jesus Christ was born, because once again the stories of Jesus birth in Matthew and Luke contradict history

 

And of course neither of these examples show any influence on biblical writings. That argument is for the second link you gave me

 

If Xtians could adopt pagan customs for their tradition it presents very a good case for pagan idealogies entering their scriptures. We'll discuss that later.