nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

PDN

This new 'catch-all' thread will operate similar to the Creationism and Protestant/Catholic Debate threads.

Too many threads are spoilt and dragged off topic when a non-Christian poster demands, "What evidence do you have for God?" While some may enjoy such discussion, it is frequently off-topic and derails discussion of other subjects (the very discussion that is the reason for this Forum's existence).

So, in order to protect the Forum and facilitate on topic discussions, all that stuff now belongs here. Anyone who keeps trying to derail other discussions by demanding evidence for God's existence will be warned, and if those warnings are ignored then swift infractions and bans will ensue.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Masteroid

Zombrex wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then commands them to secrecy?

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

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

And again, the disciples were sworn to secrecy.

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

I'd like to make this point here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is that what God intended?

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

Hmm! Some plan.

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

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

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

New friends are convinced and 'X' becomes revered.

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

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

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

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

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

One last thing.

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

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

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

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

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

Fanny Cradock

What unfulfilled prophecies are you talking about?

Zombrex

Masteroid wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Masteroid

Zombrex wrote: »

But then that makes sense because their messiah they believe is coming doesn't exist and won't exist, so like all supernatural prophecies it is not unusual or surprising that a person claiming to be the messiah couldn't actually fulfill all the prophecies. Even Christians recognize this by punting the big stuff to the second coming which conveniently hasn't happened yet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

philologos

Zombrex wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Given the nature of this claim - and it was dynamite back in the 1st century - what does an atheist appeal to when stating that a particular understanding of the role of a fictional messiah sent by an non-existent god is the correct one?

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

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

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

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

philologos

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.

nagirrac

philologos wrote: »

If you want to demonstrate that it is made up please do so, but the vast majority of accounts including Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus and even the Babylonian Talmud acknowledge the crucifixion of Jesus.

I've already pointed out my position on anti-Semitism from Christianity argument. It isn't even Biblical. Jesus said it had to happen. And it did. The Gospel is Jewish, Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, the apostles are Jewish. How the heck could they be anti-Semites?

I am not saying the crucifixion did not happen, and agree that other historical sources refer to it. I am saying there is no historcial evidence beyond the New Testament that the Jews were involved. Can you point me to any source other than the New Testament that says the Jews handed Jesus over to the Romans? The whole idea of a trial by the Sanhedrin makes no sense to me, I think far more likely is that this was inserted later into the gospels.

Yes, Christianity started out as a Jewish sect. However, Judaism and Christianity parted ways gradually between the first and fourth centuries. While the New Testament was authored by Jewish Christians and it can be argued that it was Jewish Christians blaming other Jews for killing Jesus, by the end of the first century / early second century this had changed to Gentiles blaming Jews. The most significant figure in this period is Justin Martyr, a pagan Gentile before converting to Christianity, his "dialogue with Trypho" redefined the context from the inter-Jewish debate of the gospels to a Gentile making the claim against all Jews. From the early second century the Jews were consistently blamed for the death of Jesus by Christian apologetics.

The effect was to transfer blame for the death of Jesus from the Romans to the Jews. The rationale behind it is blindingly obvious, to convert the Romans they had to be absolved.

philologos

nagirrac wrote: »

In fairness to phil I was the one who brought up the awkward nature of the Jewish argument, and I'm not an atheist just to add a bit more confusion.

The salient point here is that Christians regard the New Testament and their interpretation of older Herbew scripture as factual as opposed to a mixture of factual, drug induced mysticism, and makey uppy to suit your argument. While for Christians this can be an interesting religious discussion, for Jews it has been a life and death issue for 2,000 years at the hands of Christians, culminating in the holocaust. There are many Christians who are coming around to this point of view, and realize that they owe a belated apology to the Jews for stealing their messiah figure and making up a story about the Jews killing him. Some Christians are not at that point yet and may never get there, the truth is probably too painful.

If you want to demonstrate that it is made up please do so, but the vast majority of accounts including Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus and even the Babylonian Talmud acknowledge the crucifixion of Jesus.

I've already pointed out my position on anti-Semitism from Christianity argument. It isn't even Biblical. Jesus said it had to happen. And it did. The Gospel is Jewish, Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, the apostles are Jewish. How the heck could they be anti-Semites?

You're conflating the actions of certain people in history with what the Gospel actually says.

Which is why I point you to Jesus first.

nagirrac

marienbad wrote: »

To be honest I don't really understand why he wants to go down that road at all.

In fairness to phil I was the one who brought up the awkward nature of the Jewish argument, and I'm not an atheist just to add a bit more confusion.

The salient point here is that Christians regard the New Testament and their interpretation of older Herbew scripture as factual as opposed to a mixture of factual, drug induced mysticism, and makey uppy to suit your argument. While for Christians this can be an interesting religious discussion, for Jews it has been a life and death issue for 2,000 years at the hands of Christians, culminating in the holocaust. There are many Christians who are coming around to this point of view, and realize that they owe a belated apology to the Jews for stealing their messiah figure and making up a story about the Jews killing him. Some Christians are not at that point yet and may never get there, the truth is probably too painful.

FISMA

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Fine, if you're not willing to engage with me and continue with the evasions, on my ignore list you go.

Brian,
If you're going to make such demands on others, practice what you preach.

I have, in several posts, requested that you demonstrate which Laws of Physics God breaks.

In the closest attempt you came to what could be construed as a response, you offered up something about the speed of light.

The speed of light is a constant, not a Law. Plenty of people, Einstein included, worked hard on variable light speed and held out on the possibility of superluminal speeds.

Were you speaking colloquially in saying that God violates the Laws of Physics? If so, fair enough, just say so.

But if you really believe that God violates a Law of Physics, just name the Law to which you refer.

marienbad

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't get your point. What do you mean by sufficient? Sufficient for what?

My reading of the previous posts is that Phil is trying to start a debate on the Jewish non acceptance of the Messiah. I am just pointing out that there is no need for such a debate with atheists or others , it is sufficient just to point out that Jews don't agree with his point of view. Take it up with them .

To be honest I don't really understand why he wants to go down that road at all.

Fanny Cradock

marienbad wrote: »

It is of no concern to me at all Fanny except that Phil in post no 6920 (I think) and others seems to attach some importance to it.

I don't get your point. What do you mean by sufficient? Sufficient for what?

marienbad

It is of no concern to me at all Fanny except that Phil in post no 6920 (I think) and others seems to attach some importance to it.

Fanny Cradock

philologos wrote: »

Yes but not fulfilling the expectations of Jewish people is not the same as not fulfilling the Biblical prophesy concerning the Messiah.

I agree. As I've said already I'm coming into this discussion late and I'm a little confused as to why atheists are placing so much importance on the Jewish understanding of the role of the messiah. Presumably this is because people like Marienbad and Brian Shanahan think it a defeater to Christianity. If this is the case - and apologies if I've picked up the wrong end of the stick - what do we say about Jews like Paul, Peter, James and the Jewish crowds that began to follow Jesus post resurrection? I would argue that both Judaism and Christianity have, to one extent or another, always believed that their respective religion is one that is gradually revealed. This is why Christians have argued that the identity and purpose of the messiah was much more surprising then anyone had imagined.

Given the nature of this claim - and it was dynamite back in the 1st century - what does an atheist appeal to when stating that a particular understanding of the role of a fictional messiah sent by an non-existent god is the correct one?

marienbad wrote: »

It is sufficient to point out that the Jews themselves don't accept it. And for you to show how you are better equipped to interpret someone else's holy books.

Ignoring for a moment the Jews who have accepted the Gospel, can you tell me why it is sufficient to point out that orthodox Judaism (assuming there is such a thing) doesn't accept the Gospel?

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

Not at all. The Bible even the Old Testament is clear that God's word is for both Jews and Gentiles and that it would go into the whole world.

It isn't sufficient. What is honest and sufficient is to ask does Jesus stack up on examination irrespective of what people may claim?

It's not about how equipped I am, or they are, it's about what is actually true and what the Lird has revealed.

Over 2,000 years later Jesus is the only Messiah claimant who was born in Bethlehem of Judea who was nailed to a cross for the sin of humanity. That's only on the basis of 2 before we look into the other criteria.

This is just your opinion , you do accept I presume that others differ ?

philologos

marienbad wrote: »

Your missing the point by a country mile, non-believers don't need to spend any time proving that Jesus was or was not the Messiah.

It is sufficient to point out that the Jews themselves don't accept it. And for you to show how you are better equipped to interpret someone else's holy books.

Not at all. The Bible even the Old Testament is clear that God's word is for both Jews and Gentiles and that it would go into the whole world.

It isn't sufficient. What is honest and sufficient is to ask does Jesus stack up on examination irrespective of what people may claim?

It's not about how equipped I am, or they are, it's about what is actually true and what the Lird has revealed.

Over 2,000 years later Jesus is the only Messiah claimant who was born in Bethlehem of Judea who was nailed to a cross for the sin of humanity. That's only on the basis of 2 before we look into the other criteria.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

Yes but not fulfilling the expectations of Jewish people us not the same as not fulfilling the Biblical prophesy concerning the Messiah.

That's why we've seen fumbling on this issue. The fumbling also shows a lack of intellectual honesty. Instead of genuinely considering from the prophesy we have concerning the Messiah in Scripture we have non-believers rushing to google searching for even a fraction of an excuse to reject Him.

That's what's honestly saddening for me about this whole thing.

Your missing the point by a country mile, non-believers don't need to spend any time proving that Jesus was or was not the Messiah.

It is sufficient to point out that the Jews themselves don't accept it. And for you to show how you are better equipped to interpret someone else's holy books.

philologos

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Admittedly I'm coming in halfway through the, eh, discussion, but I don't think that Philologos claimed to be a Biblical scholar, so it would seem that you are tilting at windmills.

That Jesus failed to live up to the Jewish understanding of who the Messiah would be and what he would do is exactly the point of Christianity. It's almost amusing to see the followers of Jesus still not get it after everything they have seen and been through. Hence why in Acts 6 they kept asking exactly when he was about to really begin Messianic type things. Tom Wright talks about this in his book Simply Jesus. The opening words in the book reads as follows -

Yes but not fulfilling the expectations of Jewish people is not the same as not fulfilling the Biblical prophesy concerning the Messiah.

That's why we've seen fumbling on this issue. The fumbling also shows a lack of intellectual honesty. Instead of genuinely considering from the prophesy we have concerning the Messiah in Scripture we have non-believers rushing to google searching for even a fraction of an excuse to reject Him.

That's what's honestly saddening for me about this whole thing.

Fanny Cradock

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Certain facts are self-evident, and anyway if he was such a scholar of the bible as he claimed, "philologos" would have known chapter and verse on how much Jesus failed to live up to the Jewish concept of the messiah (for a view of someone who tried to be the proper messiah I point you towards Simon bar Kockhba, who was actually proclaimed by the Jews as such {well up until his rebellion failed}).

Admittedly I'm coming in halfway through the, eh, discussion, but I don't think that Philologos claimed to be a Biblical scholar, so it would seem that you are tilting at windmills.

That Jesus failed to live up to the Jewish understanding of who the Messiah would be and what he would do is exactly the point of Christianity. It's almost amusing to see the followers of Jesus still not get it after everything they have seen and been through. Hence why in Acts 6 they kept asking exactly when he was about to really begin Messianic type things. Tom Wright talks about this in his book Simply Jesus. The opening words in the book reads as follows -

As Jesus was going along, people kept spreading their cloaks on the road. When he came to the descent of the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples began to celebrate and praise God at the tops of their voices" (Luke 19:36-37). The crowd went wild as he got nearer. This was the moment they'd been waiting for. All the old songs came flooding back, and they were singing, chanting, cheering, and laughing. At last their dreams were going to come true.
But in the middle of it all their leader wasn't singing. "When he came near and saw the city, he wept over it" (v. 41). Yes, their dreams were indeed coming true. But not in the way they had imagined.
He was not the king they expected. He wasn't like the monarchs of old who sat on their jeweled and ivory thrones, dispensing their justice and wisdom. Nor was he the great warrior-king some had wanted. He didn't raise an army and ride into battle at its head. He was riding on a donkey. And he was weeping, weeping for the dream that had to die, weeping for the sword that would pierce his supporters to the soul. Weeping for the kingdom that wasn't coming as well as for the kingdom that was.
Jesus's arrival in Jerusalem a few days before his death is one of the best-known scenes in the gospels. But what was it all about? What did Jesus think he was doing?

Brian Shanahan

JimiTime wrote: »

Hint: saying 'fact', does not a fact make it.

Certain facts are self-evident, and anyway if he was such a scholar of the bible as he claimed, "philologos" would have known chapter and verse on how much Jesus failed to live up to the Jewish concept of the messiah (for a view of someone who tried to be the proper messiah I point you towards Simon bar Kockhba, who was actually proclaimed by the Jews as such {well up until his rebellion failed}).

JimiTime

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Fine, if you're not willing to engage with me and continue with the evasions, on my ignore list you go.

It's not like I'm losing anything anyway, your points are valueless.

Its not about losing anything. Its about you backing up your claim (Hint: saying 'fact', does not a fact make it). You made the claim, Phil asked you to back it it up, and then you laughably, and ironically accused HIM of evasiveness. Bizarre

nagirrac

philologos wrote: »

What passage in the Tanakh are you referring to?

The attached link spells out the Jewish position on the claims for Jesus as the messiah. Of course Christians can argue that Jews have it wrong and don't understand the relevant scriptures. As with all evidence we have to examine it based on which version is the more likely, the interpretation of Jews who are reading the original text in their own language, guided by the oral tradition passed on for hundreds of years, or Christians who base their interpretation on translated text and who had already decided that Jesus was the messiah.

http://www.aish.com/jw/s/48892792.html

You haven't answered my question on Jewish involvement in the death of Jesus. Other than the New Testament where is the historical evidence that the Jews handed Jesus over to the Romans for trial and ultimate execution? It's quite the important question as the claim that the Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus led to 2,000 years of persecution of Jews by Christians.. and it wasn't because certain Christians did not understand the gospels, it is actually because they believed the gospels.

Fanny Cradock

Sorry, but what exactly do you mean by the human condition? It's rather a loose term, no?

Sacksian

philologos wrote: »

The only personal comment that you gave made is that my view is based on the Bible alone and that I don't read other books which is an absurd assumption to make

I value what Scripture says because I'm able to see with my own two eyes that it is clearly true. Atheist thinking on this issue sounds fickle, it always stops short of engaging with the truth on this issue. I find the Bible is more honest and more real.

I didn't intend coming back to this, despite my interest in the topic, as this is getting quite repetitive. However, the bit in bold above is a wilful misinterpretation of what I asked.

I asked:

Do you believe it is possible to understand the human condition through studying the bible alone?

Also, above, you say your view is not based on the Bible alone, what other books have added to your understanding of the human condition?

Zombrex

This is a good summary of why Jews do not believe Jesus was "The messiah"

http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/jewsandjesus/#1

Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.
Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.
Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations.
Jewish belief is based on national revelation.
Christianity contradicts Jewish theology
Jews and Gentiles
Bringing the Messiah

Of course to an atheist this is a bit like Star Wars fans arguing over how Darth Vaders helmet works "in real life" (ie it doesn't, its made up), but I can certainly see the Jewish position, Jesus is quite different to the messiah that they believe is still coming.

But then that makes sense because their messiah they believe is coming doesn't exist and won't exist, so like all supernatural prophecies it is not unusual or surprising that a person claiming to be the messiah couldn't actually fulfill all the prophecies. Even Christians recognize this by punting the big stuff to the second coming which conveniently hasn't happened yet.

Or to put it another way, no one has ever actually fulfilled supernatural prophecies that require events beyond the scope of things actually achievable naturally, so it is not much of a surprise to this atheist that Jesus didn't either.

Rule number one of a prophecy, don't make a prophecy that is hard to do

Masteroid

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

That was a well written, cogently argued post. The only problem with it is tha the whole "virgin birth" thing is that the Greek speaking Jews translated the Aramaic for "young woman" (while "almah" can refer to a virgin, it is not exclusive to virgins as it is literally "young woman") into the Greek for "virgin" ("parthenos") in Isaiah, when they transcribed the Torah from Aramaic into Greek.

Thank you.

I think that considering the law and the politics of the time, it is evident that the 'Godliness' of Jesus was added retrospectively.

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

I'm engaging by asking you that question. You're refusing to engage by not cooperating.

We all know Christian posters are never evasive or refuse to cooperate!

philologos

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Fine, if you're not willing to engage with me and continue with the evasions, on my ignore list you go.

It's not like I'm losing anything anyway, your points are valueless.

I'm engaging by asking you that question. You're refusing to engage by not cooperating.

philologos

[Quote=[-0-];83717787]

This does not explain why they are conflicting accounts, however.[/Quote]

The question is are they conflicting or are they complementary?

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