Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

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

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

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

Zombrex wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

Masteroid wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zombrex wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then commands them to secrecy?

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

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

And again, the disciples were sworn to secrecy.

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

I'd like to make this point here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is that what God intended?

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

Hmm! Some plan.

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

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

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

New friends are convinced and 'X' becomes revered.

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

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

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

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

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

One last thing.

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

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

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

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

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

Masteroid wrote: »

Sorry.

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

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

nagirrac wrote: »

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

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

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

But then again for the Puritans that wasn't enough

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

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

philologos wrote: »

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

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

marienbad wrote: »

Philologos Is condoning equal to advocacy ?

What passages are you using to back up your argument?

Only if we evolve into androids

The rape discussion is silly. Atheists always point to the bad behavior described in the Old Testament as if it informs us what Jesus' teachings were. The Old Testament is a history of Judea and the surrounding region, where slaughters, taking captives, women as property was commonplace. The only real relevance to Christianity is what did Jesus say about these behaviors, if anything.

We shouldn't be too quick to condemn them as ancient savages either, given our own propensity as a species today for rape and pillage. The horrors of the last century and indeed much of what is going on today in terms of human trafficking, including child prostitution, make the ancients look quite civilized. Tackling human rights abuses today is the relevant discussion, not pointing fingers at those that lived 3,000 years ago. In general, the world would be a fairly decent place if people followed the teachings of Jesus and other spiritual teachers in a modern context.

marienbad wrote: »

Either put up or shut up and answer the question - you know full well the passages reffered to.

No, I'm honestly sorry, I'm not going to put up with this kind of nonsense.

You claimed something about the Bible, I have a right to ask you what you're talking about.

If you continue posting in this way I don't see what good can come from engaging with you. I'm more than happy to be reasonable and fair, but I'm perfectly entitled to ask you questions. This discussion is not an interrogation session, and I won't put up with it in that way.

You can have your discussion with someone else who is willing to engage with those tactics as I certainly won't be.

Being an atheist, or sceptical of the Bible doesn't give you a right to be rude to other people. Manners are obligatory if you want to have a constructive discussion.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I dunno about you, but forcibly marrying women sounds kinda rape-ish to me, considering that marriage probably led to sex in their time.

This topic has been discussed to death already and all the Christians here know that the Old Testament never specifically says "rape". Of course it does condone rape, but the issue is that the authors didn't considered it rape so obviously they don't state that it is rape (in the same way the Old Testament doesn't explicitly condone murder, but by definition they didn't consider it murder).

It is just like how you won't find any official Nazi documentation saying Lets murder the Jews, because the Nazi's didn't consider it murder (ie unlawful killing).

What you do have is soldiers taking brides from captured tribes and marrying them. But given that rape is never specifically commanded this gives Christians just enough make believe room to imagine that the women gave themselves willingly to their new husbands in order to avoid starving to death, so it isn't "rape".

So frankly the rape discussion becomes a bit pointless, because ultimately whether you view these passages as condoning rape depends not on what is actually said but on how honestly you read what is not said. Anyone with a vested interest in viewing these passages in the best possible light will be able to say that rape is never explicate stated, but if you are being honest you will also admit that the reason that is is because rape is considered a crime and the people who wrote these passages didn't consider these actions criminal, so obviously they aren't going to call it rape.

JimiTime wrote: »

You kidding me?? You say that the bible condones rape, and then don't refer to where this happens? Eh, I don't think its Phil that needs to put up just yet. Present your case for your accusation (Namely, that The Bible condones rape), and Phil said he'd deal with it. You either have the passages in mind, and you can provide them, or you are just parroting something you probably heard from someone. So yeah, put up or shut up;):)

Suppose that Satan wrote his own version of the bible.

Let me ask you, and please, anyone, try to answer this question honestly:

If Satan had inspired a bible to be written on his behalf in order that he may be glorified, in what qualitatively way would it differ from the bible inspired by God?

If Satan wrote a bible, wouldn't he want to appear in the lead role?

If you are honest, then you must concede that there is no happy ending to the bible.

Unless of course you think that the destruction of the earth is something to be prayed for.

Why would a right-thinking human being support a doctrine whose fulfillment depends on the total destruction of mankind?

Could Satan have come up with anything worse?

If so, then what?