Author Topic: Why Jesus was not the Messiah  (Read 14930 times)

Offline nicolin

  • Posts: 196
  • Romania
    • View Profile
Re: Why Jesus was not the Messiah
« Reply #160 on: August 09, 2007, 03:19:37 AM »
Quote from: zackallen
The very specific prophecies given in Scripture that come to pass are a good indicator that this is no ordinary book.

That's just BS.
The argument that a book is in fact a true account (of somethng) if THAT book that says somethnig may/will/has come to pass/happen and then, a few chapters later, says that a. or b. HAS in fact come to pass, is PURE bull.

LE:
« Last Edit: August 09, 2007, 03:31:09 AM by nicolin »
Curat murdar, Coane Fanica!

Offline Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27125
  • I'm the boss.
    • View Profile
Re: Why Jesus was not the Messiah
« Reply #161 on: August 09, 2007, 10:38:10 AM »
Loved the comic.  ;D

Offline zackallen

  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Why Jesus was not the Messiah
« Reply #162 on: August 10, 2007, 12:40:26 AM »
Roundy,

I know this is pretty much a dead topic for you all now, but I was scanning through some articles today and found a couple that pertain to your ideas about Christianity borrowing from pagan religions.

They are pretty quick reads...

Did Christianity Borrow from Pagan Religions?
http://www.probe.org/cults-and-world-religions/cults-and-world-religions/did-christianity-borrow-from-pagan-religions.html

Paul and the Mystery Religions
http://www.probe.org/content/view/781/77/



I also noticed a few comments that I never gave responses to. My apologies. I was not deliberately ignoring you.


Midnight,

My absolute favorite argument from people who support the Bible's veracity is this:

"Well then you are taking it out of context."

In the words of Gulliver: THIS is a straw man statement.


I'm not sure that you understand what a "straw man argument" is. Reading something out of context will often times lead to a misunderstanding of a given text. Not just the Bible.

For instance:
You said,
"My ass...has been in more hands than a hooker's breasts!"

Context is of the utmost importance when trying to discern the actual intent of someone's words. It is ignorant to argue otherwise.


Quote
First of all, who in the living fuck made you the 'supreme translator droid' for mankind, to make such an egotistical, self-deluded defense of a manuscript, which, might I add, has been in more hands than a hooker's breasts?


The individuals aren't making a "supreme translator claim." What they are doing is, based on their belief about the Scriptures being inspired and inerrant, stating the obvious. If God's Word is inerrant then there can be no contradictions. It boils down to a different argument altogether.

Just so you know...what you have done here is a perfect example of a straw man argument.  ;)

Quote
One example. Some idiot says something like this:

"So you are telling me that God basically made Jobe's life a LIVING HELL, because he loves him?"

and the rebuttal: "You are taking it out of context".

Sorry, wrong answer, bucko. The words are plain as day. What context is there to mistake? It specifically states that a man's life was turned into melted ice cream at the whim of a sadistic, infantile, childish entity, who, by all intents and purposes, represents not an almighty power to me personally, but a petulant child tantrum collage.


God didn't make Job's life a living hell. Satan did.

Job 2:7 - "So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD and afflicted Job with painful sores from the soles of his feet to the top of his head."

So, Yes. You were taking it out of context, and as you said, "The words are plain as day."

God is about as real as the multiverse theorem. You can't be 100% sure.


So tell me...what CAN you be 100% sure about? I'd say the existence of one's own mind is about the only thing...if even that.

The point is that people go around, like the fag-o-tron bible humper above, as if they are 100% sure. How can they be 100% sure? They rely on a book, but cannot reproduce anything in it as proof. So it's impossible, in my eyes, to be 100% sure, otherwise, you just become a zealous bigot.

I love how they can walk around going 'cuz da bible says so', but then when they are faced with documented science they refuse to accept it. Even though the science texts say so too.

It's hypocrisy at it's finest.


Hara Taiki, no one insulting you. There is no need for that.

Certainty is a funny thing. Anyone claiming 100% certainty is either foolish or misled or both. What we can do is "know beyond a shadow of a doubt." The evidences for something can be so overwhelming that it is highly unlikely that the opposite is true. This "proof" thing though, is a sketchy thing at best on best both sides of the ballgame. We do rely on a book, but relying on a book did not bring us to the point of relying on a book. That place has been come to through logic and reason by many millions of men. It is only after we have come to that point we have determined this book to be the inspired, infallible, inerrant, Word of God that we rely on it.

Well my personal view is that if you have absolute faith then you ARE absolutely sure, but you still can't say you 'know' it to be tru because you can't prove it. You can be sure without proof, but not know without proof. If that makes sense.


This is a particular topic that I've always enjoyed studying. Something I've learned is that God never calls anyone to "blind faith." Faith is not "believing in God" as many people claim. You demonstrate your faith in things everyday. Faith is trust. Your legs when you walk, an airplane when you fly, your mind when you rationalize...all require you to take advantage of something at some point. The faith that the Bible talks about is faith that God is who He says He is and that He will do what He says He will do. Faith is trust. Faith is obedience.

Quote from: zackallen
The very specific prophecies given in Scripture that come to pass are a good indicator that this is no ordinary book.

That's just BS.
The argument that a book is in fact a true account (of somethng) if THAT book that says somethnig may/will/has come to pass/happen and then, a few chapters later, says that a. or b. HAS in fact come to pass, is PURE bull.


No, it certainly isn't BS. Let us assume that in your mother's biography is a chapter about the day before you were born. The next chapter tells of the day you were born. Does this mean that her biography is not a true account of your birth?

Besides, no one is making that claim. It is much more complex than that. You are throwing grenades at the wrong fort, friend.

About the comic...I'm not going to be offended by anything that you say or do. It just isn't going to happen. You might find it to be humorous, but you know good and well that I will not. I would ask that you show at least a little respect and carry yourself with some dignity rather than stooping to meaningless insults and taking shots.

in love,
>>zack

Offline divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • *****
  • Posts: 6948
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
    • View Profile
Re: Why Jesus was not the Messiah
« Reply #163 on: August 10, 2007, 01:43:22 AM »
For a guy who is seemingly intelligent, you should know that organized religion is a crock and completely unnecessary. If you can't understand what this statement means, may God have mercy on your soul.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

Offline nicolin

  • Posts: 196
  • Romania
    • View Profile
Re: Why Jesus was not the Messiah
« Reply #164 on: August 10, 2007, 02:10:44 AM »
Quote from: zackallen
No, it certainly isn't BS. Let us assume that in your mother's biography is a chapter about the day before you were born. The next chapter tells of the day you were born. Does this mean that her biography is not a true account of your birth?
Maybe I didn't explain myself clearly.
Suppose I write a book prophecising that "if, in the year 2000, nicolin will go take a pee at home, then this means that nicolin is god" and then in another chapter I write "hallelujah, today nicolin, in the first day of the year 2000, took a pee at home. Praise unto him for, as it has per the prophecy, nicolin is indeed the one and true god".
This would in fact mean that, by my own acount, I AM GOD.
So, please bow down and worship me.
Circular arguments...
Curat murdar, Coane Fanica!

Offline Masterchef

  • Posts: 3904
  • Rabble rabble rabble
    • View Profile
Re: Why Jesus was not the Messiah
« Reply #165 on: August 10, 2007, 07:49:24 AM »
How can you be god if I am god? Need proof that I am god? Read below:

I am god.

You know that statement is true, because I am god, and that means that my word is infallible. Because my word is infallible, you can therefore use the statement itself as proof that it is true. If I ever appeared to you to be wrong, it was not me, it was your understanding of the subject, or your interpretation of my post that was wrong.

Good day,
GOD


PS. Jesus was a fraud, and is now burning in hell for his sins, and every one of his followers will eventually join him.

Offline nicolin

  • Posts: 196
  • Romania
    • View Profile
Re: Why Jesus was not the Messiah
« Reply #166 on: August 10, 2007, 07:56:55 AM »
Sir,

I regret to inform you that I, G_O_D, as having FIRST publishied MY book about ME, can in no way accept that you, as a possible, albeit possibly a probbable copycat, claim that you are (a) god.

G_O_D day,
G_O_D
Curat murdar, Coane Fanica!

Bushido

  • Guest
Re: Why Jesus was not the Messiah
« Reply #167 on: August 10, 2007, 10:37:49 AM »
PS. Jesus was a fraud, and is now burning in hell for his sins, and every one of his followers will eventually join him.

If you call the place where Jesus is now Hell, then I would be glad to go there any time.

Offline zackallen

  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Why Jesus was not the Messiah
« Reply #168 on: August 10, 2007, 11:15:01 AM »
For a guy who is seemingly intelligent, you should know that organized religion is a crock and completely unnecessary. If you can't understand what this statement means, may God have mercy on your soul.


Well let us see if I can understand what that statement means.

It seems to me to say,

1. Because I seem intelligent
2. I should know that organized religions is a crock and completely unnecessary.

implying that...

1. Intelligent (or at least seemingly intelligent people) people know that organized religion is a crock and completely unnecessary.
2. I seem to be an intelligent person.
3. Therefore I should know that organized religion is a crock and completely unnecessary.

I think I understand that much. However, what I am unclear on is your definition of "organized religion". You need to clear this up for me.

Further, while this is certainly sound reasoning, it is far from valid. Your first premise is a HUGE assumption based on nothing more than your opinion. If you have evidence for this claim then please show me. This also requires you to define what you mean by "intelligent." There have been "intelligent" people who could run figurative circles around us on both sides of this argument.

Maybe I didn't explain myself clearly.
Suppose I write a book prophecising that "if, in the year 2000, nicolin will go take a pee at home, then this means that nicolin is god" and then in another chapter I write "hallelujah, today nicolin, in the first day of the year 2000, took a pee at home. Praise unto him for, as it has per the prophecy, nicolin is indeed the one and true god".
This would in fact mean that, by my own acount, I AM GOD.
So, please bow down and worship me.
Circular arguments...


No, you didn't explain yourself very clearly. This is much better.

First of all, (I'm not sure that you meant to do this) but the year 2000 has already come and gone. You would be "prophesying" about events that have already taken place. This is not prophecy. This is recalling historical facts. And while events in the past are certainly not "scientifically" verifiable they can be "historically" verifiable if you have good testimony to back up your claims. Regardless, this is not what takes place in the Bible.

If you aren't meaning to "prophesy" about events that have already taken place and just used 2000 as an arbitrary year then the claim that you've made would certainly be ludicrous. First of all, there is no known connection between you taking a leak and your own deity. You'd have to explain that. Second of all, this is also not what takes place in the Bible. To my knowledge the Bible does not record God as saying, "IF ______ takes place, THEN I am God." It does, however, record God as saying, "_______ will take place. I AM GOD!."

Thirdly, you "prophecy" of which you speak is very vague and general in nature. In fact it is "self-fulfilling."

Here are a few words from D. James Kennedy from his book Why I Believe:
Quote
Many people have despised the prophesies of God because they have never examined or proved them to determine if they are reliable and true. Perhaps this is because people suppose that prophecy is not real and genuine, or so commonplace that it can be easily explained. The biblical prophecies are quite specific, real, and genuine; they are unique because they do not exist anywhere else.

In all the writings of Buddha, Confucius, and Lao-tse, you will not find a single example of predicted prophecy. In the Koran there is on instance of a specific prophecy--a self fulfilling prophecy--that he, Mohammed, would return to Mecca. Quite different from the prophecy of Jesus, who said that He would return from the grave. One is easily fulfilled, and the other is impossible for any human being.


and

Quote
The prophecies of Scripture, on the other hand, are incredibly specific and detailed. They must be exactly fulfilled. The prophecies cannot possibly be just good guesses because they concerned themselves with things that had no likelihood of ever coming to pass. They predicted the very opposite of the natural expectations of human beings. They could not have been written after the events and pawned off as prophecies, because in hundreds of instances the fulfillment of the prophecy did not take place until hundreds of years after the death of the prophet. In many cases, the fulfillment came after the completion of the Old Testament, and even its translation into Greek in 150 BC.


I wrote an article about one of my favorite examples of such a prophecy that you can read at this link:

The Sabbath of the Seventh Year
http://thecontemplativecharismatic.blogspot.com/2007/03/sabbath-of-seventh-year.html

So, if the Bible were filled with prophecies such as the example you gave above, then I would certainly agree with your statement about that being an absurd reason to believe a book is from God. However, this is not the case.

Have a good day, guys.

in love,
>>zack
« Last Edit: August 10, 2007, 11:18:07 AM by zackallen »

Offline Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27125
  • I'm the boss.
    • View Profile
Re: Why Jesus was not the Messiah
« Reply #169 on: August 10, 2007, 12:37:06 PM »
The prophecies didn't need to be self-fulfilling.  All the NT writers had to do was make sure the bases were covered as they fabricated their book.   "We'll put some stuff that would be plausible to have already happened in the Gospels, and the other stuff we'll just say will happen at his Second Coming!"  Not that hard.  The prophecies that came true in the NT are ZERO rational evidence that Jesus was the Messiah.  ::)

I looked on the internet for a quote from the OT that mentions a second coming, by the way, and only came up with an apparently deliberate misinterpretation of Genesis 3:15.  Please, enlighten me.

You say that "some of the prophecies are now coming to pass".  In fact, I'm sure some of them have come to pass several times.  We're talking about 2000 years, here.  If you're vague enough with prophecy you can claim it's referring to any number of things, as evidenced by Nostradamus.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2007, 12:40:38 PM by Roundy is Invisible »

Offline Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27125
  • I'm the boss.
    • View Profile
Re: Why Jesus was not the Messiah
« Reply #170 on: August 10, 2007, 02:57:46 PM »
I have to say by the way that your source concerning Christianity being based on pagan myth (both quotes from the same place) is not exactly unbiased.

Offline divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • *****
  • Posts: 6948
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
    • View Profile
Re: Why Jesus was not the Messiah
« Reply #171 on: August 10, 2007, 03:31:10 PM »
Well let us see if I can understand what that statement means.

It seems to me to say,

1. Because I seem intelligent
2. I should know that organized religions is a crock and completely unnecessary.

implying that...

1. Intelligent (or at least seemingly intelligent people) people know that organized religion is a crock and completely unnecessary.
2. I seem to be an intelligent person.
3. Therefore I should know that organized religion is a crock and completely unnecessary.

I think I understand that much. However, what I am unclear on is your definition of "organized religion". You need to clear this up for me.

Further, while this is certainly sound reasoning, it is far from valid. Your first premise is a HUGE assumption based on nothing more than your opinion. If you have evidence for this claim then please show me. This also requires you to define what you mean by "intelligent." There have been "intelligent" people who could run figurative circles around us on both sides of this argument.

Organized religion, as in believing in and participating in the beliefs and values of Christianity, Judaism, Catholicism etc...

Religion is defined as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

If people identify themselves with an organized religion, I know they are ignorant for several reasons.

One, because participating and identifying with an organized religion is not required. I do not need to say I'm Catholic to believe in the same values and ideas as them. Next, there are so many contradictions, that people invoke selective reasoning or they are completely oblivious to those contradictions. They are essentially agreeing to something that they don't know everything about, and when/if they find out the actual details, they will simply pick and choose what they want. Those type of people, in my definition, are not intelligent.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

Offline zackallen

  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Why Jesus was not the Messiah
« Reply #172 on: August 10, 2007, 04:57:07 PM »
The prophecies didn't need to be self-fulfilling.  All the NT writers had to do was make sure the bases were covered as they fabricated their book.   "We'll put some stuff that would be plausible to have already happened in the Gospels, and the other stuff we'll just say will happen at his Second Coming!"  Not that hard.  The prophecies that came true in the NT are ZERO rational evidence that Jesus was the Messiah.  ::)

Do you actually read what I write, Roundy?

I know the prophecies didn't need to be self-fulfilling. I made it perfectly clear that the prophecies contained within the Bible are NOT self-fulfilling. First of all, the prophecies to which I am referring are primarily OT prophecies. However, Jesus own prophecy about Himself raising from the grave is incredible rational evidence with substantial eyewitness testimony.

You've left the realm of talking about prophecy to talking about whether or not the NT writers can be trusted. This is a different ballgame altogether.

From More Than A Carpenter by Josh McDowell:
Quote
I can trust the apostles' testimonies because, of those men, eleven died martyrs' deaths on the basis of two things: the resurrection of Christ, and their beliefs in Him as the Son of God. They were tortured and flogged, and they finally faced death by some of the cruelest methods then known:

1. Peter - crucified
2. Andrew - crucified
3. Matthew - the sword
4. John - natural [while in exile]
5. James, son of Alphaeus - crucified
6. Philip - crucified
7. Simon - crucified
8. Thaddeus - killed by arrows
9. James, brother of Jesus - stoned
10. Thomas - spear thrust
11. Bartholomew - crucified
12. James, son of Zebedee - the sword

The response that is usually chorused back is this: "Why, a lot of people have died for a lie; so what does it prove?"

Yes, a lot of people have died for a lie, but they thought it was the truth. Now if the resurrection didn't take place (i.e. was false), the disciples knew it. I find know way to demonstrate that they could have been deceived. Therefore these eleven men not only died for a lie - here is the catch - but they knew it was a lie. It would be hard to find eleven people in history who died for a lie knowing it was a lie.

and...

Quote
Harold Mattingly, in his history text, writes: "The Apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul, sealed their witnesses with their blood." Tertullian wrote that "No man would be willing to die unless he knew he had the truth." Harvard Law Professor Simon Greenleaf, a man who lectured for years on how to break down a witness and determine whether or not a witness is lying, concludes: "The annals of military warfare afford scarcely an example of the like heroic constancy, patience, and unflinching courage. They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidence of the great facts and truths which they asserted."

The Apostles went through the test of death to substantiate the veracity of what they were proclaiming. I believe I can trust their testimony more than most people I meet today, people who aren't willing to walk across the street for what they believe, let alone die for it.

Quote
Roundy-

I looked on the internet for a quote from the OT that mentions a second coming, by the way, and only came up with an apparently deliberate misinterpretation of Genesis 3:15.  Please, enlighten me.

Genesis 3.15 is the first Messianic prophecy directly from the mouth of God. It mentions nothing of a second coming. His heel has already been bruised and He has already crushed the enemy's head.

Look up information about the old Jewish wedding customs and then read John 15. That's a good place to start.

Quote
You say that "some of the prophecies are now coming to pass".  In fact, I'm sure some of them have come to pass several times.  We're talking about 2000 years, here.  If you're vague enough with prophecy you can claim it's referring to any number of things, as evidenced by Nostradamus.

Now I'm sure. You don't read what I write. The prophecies contained within the Bible are far from vague generalities. They are very specific.

I have to say by the way that your source concerning Christianity being based on pagan myth (both quotes from the same place) is not exactly unbiased.

It is impossible to not have a bias. No matter how much you try your communications will always be influenced by your preconceived bias. Talk about brainwashing, eh. All of us are to an extent. For instance, I assume you believe in evolution. A perfect example of what occurred in the fable, "The Emporer's New Clothes." People accept it to avoid the risk of not looking intelligent. But I digress...

I don't see anything biased about using two articles from the same website. They are from two different pens from two different hands from two different people who I am sure have some differing opinions. Further, it is hard to be biased when simply looking at facts. Their interpretations of those facts may have a bias, but the facts themselves do not.

If people identify themselves with an organized religion, I know they are ignorant for several reasons.

One, because participating and identifying with an organized religion is not required. I do not need to say I'm Catholic to believe in the same values and ideas as them. Next, there are so many contradictions, that people invoke selective reasoning or they are completely oblivious to those contradictions. They are essentially agreeing to something that they don't know everything about, and when/if they find out the actual details, they will simply pick and choose what they want. Those type of people, in my definition, are not intelligent.

Participating and identifying with an organized religions is not required for what??? Getting into heaven??? Holding the same values and ideas???

Your statement is foolish.

Not all world religions require that you have the same values and ideas. But the very foundation of Christianity is the confession that Jesus Christ is Lord of All Forever. If you uphold that to be the truth then you are a Christian...whether you like it or not. If you don't uphold that to be truth then you are not a Christian...period. There is no room for pluralism. You may not need to say you are a Christian to uphold certain moral principles, but you must uphold certain moral principles to call yourself a Christian. This is not so with religious truth claims. If you accept one's claim to truth then you automatically deny the other. Either one is right or they are all wrong. It is the simple Law of Non-Contradiction.

Tell me more of these contradictions that require selective reasoning.

in love,
>>zack

Offline Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27125
  • I'm the boss.
    • View Profile
Re: Why Jesus was not the Messiah
« Reply #173 on: August 10, 2007, 05:15:17 PM »
I know the prophecies didn't need to be self-fulfilling. I made it perfectly clear that the prophecies contained within the Bible are NOT self-fulfilling. First of all, the prophecies to which I am referring are primarily OT prophecies. However, Jesus own prophecy about Himself raising from the grave is incredible rational evidence with substantial eyewitness testimony.
I'm wondering if you're reading what I write.  I never said you said the prophecies need to be self-fulfilling.  My point is that the NT was written long after the events took place.  Eye-witness testimony in a folk tale means nothing, and as I'm sure you're aware, folk tales have a tendency to get more and more exaggerated as time passes.  I'll restate what I said: the NT writers made sure that what was plausible to have already passed was included in the Gospels, and what wasn't (world peace, etc) would take place during the Second Coming.  There is no rational evidence that Jesus was the Messiah in the NT.

Quote
You've left the realm of talking about prophecy to talking about whether or not the NT writers can be trusted. This is a different ballgame altogether.

Quote
From More Than A Carpenter by Josh McDowell:
Quote
I can trust the apostles' testimonies because, of those men, eleven died martyrs' deaths on the basis of two things: the resurrection of Christ, and their beliefs in Him as the Son of God. They were tortured and flogged, and they finally faced death by some of the cruelest methods then known:

1. Peter - crucified
2. Andrew - crucified
3. Matthew - the sword
4. John - natural [while in exile]
5. James, son of Alphaeus - crucified
6. Philip - crucified
7. Simon - crucified
8. Thaddeus - killed by arrows
9. James, brother of Jesus - stoned
10. Thomas - spear thrust
11. Bartholomew - crucified
12. James, son of Zebedee - the sword

The response that is usually chorused back is this: "Why, a lot of people have died for a lie; so what does it prove?"

Yes, a lot of people have died for a lie, but they thought it was the truth. Now if the resurrection didn't take place (i.e. was false), the disciples knew it. I find know way to demonstrate that they could have been deceived. Therefore these eleven men not only died for a lie - here is the catch - but they knew it was a lie. It would be hard to find eleven people in history who died for a lie knowing it was a lie.

and...

Quote
Harold Mattingly, in his history text, writes: "The Apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul, sealed their witnesses with their blood." Tertullian wrote that "No man would be willing to die unless he knew he had the truth." Harvard Law Professor Simon Greenleaf, a man who lectured for years on how to break down a witness and determine whether or not a witness is lying, concludes: "The annals of military warfare afford scarcely an example of the like heroic constancy, patience, and unflinching courage. They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidence of the great facts and truths which they asserted."

The Apostles went through the test of death to substantiate the veracity of what they were proclaiming. I believe I can trust their testimony more than most people I meet today, people who aren't willing to walk across the street for what they believe, let alone die for it.
I know the story behind this book, by the way; another fundie tried to send it to me after I told him I was Jewish.  I'm curious about what kind of evidence outside the Bible there is that these things actually happened, and whether there's more to the story than simply that they died as martyrs.

Quote
Look up information about the old Jewish wedding customs and then read John 15. That's a good place to start.
??? Can you provide one of the many (500!) quotes from the OT you mentioned earlier that speak of a second coming or not?  Honestly you're not making much of a case for your trustworthiness here.  And you accuse me of lying.

Quote
Now I'm sure. You don't read what I write. The prophecies contained within the Bible are far from vague generalities. They are very specific.
So tell me which of these are now coming to pass.  Give me a couple examples of original quotes, then examples of how they've been fulfilled in modern times.

Quote
It is impossible to not have a bias. No matter how much you try your communications will always be influenced by your preconceived bias.
I have no argument with this.  It boils down to "he-said, she-said" in this case so we'll just leave this issue alone.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2007, 05:25:19 PM by Roundy is Invisible »

Offline zackallen

  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Why Jesus was not the Messiah
« Reply #174 on: August 10, 2007, 10:30:42 PM »
I'm wondering if you're reading what I write.  I never said you said the prophecies need to be self-fulfilling.  My point is that the NT was written long after the events took place.  Eye-witness testimony in a folk tale means nothing, and as I'm sure you're aware, folk tales have a tendency to get more and more exaggerated as time passes.  I'll restate what I said: the NT writers made sure that what was plausible to have already passed was included in the Gospels, and what wasn't (world peace, etc) would take place during the Second Coming.  There is no rational evidence that Jesus was the Messiah in the NT.


You said: "The prophecies didn't need to be self-fulfilling." As if to be argumentative with a statement I made about prophecies being self-fulfilling. I had already stated that the prophecies were not self-fulfilling. Why you would say something like this confused me.

How long after the events took place was the NT written?

The eye-witness testimony is what assures us that it is not a folk-tale. It is the test of historicity.

There is rational evidence in the NT that Jesus was the Messiah. For the ump-teenth time Jesus Christ rose from the grave. Sources outside the NT attest to this.

Quote
I know the story behind this book, by the way; another fundie tried to send it to me after I told him I was Jewish.  I'm curious about what kind of evidence outside the Bible there is that these things actually happened, and whether there's more to the story than simply that they died as martyrs.


Why do you keep coming back to extra-biblical sources. I've given you plenty of extra-biblical sources to look into. If you were really curious about this you'd take a look at those and find the answers you seek.

Quote
??? Can you provide one of the many (500!) quotes from the OT you mentioned earlier that speak of a second coming or not?  Honestly you're not making much of a case for your trustworthiness here.  And you accuse me of lying.


I've never accused you of lying.

These passages speak of Christ's rejection as the Messianic Servant [Psalm 22; Isaiah 53; Zechariah 9:9; 12:10; 13:5-7].

These passages speak of Christ reigning as the Messianic King [Jeremiah 23:5-6; 30:1-10; Zechariah 14:3ff].

The OT is filled with prophecies of a rejected Messianic servant AND a reigning Messianic Priest-King. Christ fulfilled the former during His first coming. It is said in the NT that He will return to fulfill the latter. Whether or not that is true is what is being debated here. I say it is based on Christ's claims of divinity, His walking in signs and wonders, and His fulfillment of prophecy.

http://www.allaboutgod.com/the-second-coming.htm
http://biblia.com/jesusbible/prophecies.htm
http://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-old-testament-kingdom-prophecies-fulfilled.htm
http://www.valleybible.net/resources/AdultEducationClasses/Doctrine/Christ/prophecies.shtml

Quote
So tell me which of these are now coming to pass.  Give me a couple examples of original quotes, then examples of how they've been fulfilled in modern times.


Here's a hundred...
http://www.100prophecies.org/

Read these articles...

How Do We Know Jesus is the Messiah
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-r004.html

Messianic Prophecies
http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/messianicprophecies.html

An open letter to our non-Messianic Jewish friends
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/letter-judaism.html

Resurrection of Christ
http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/resurrectionofchrist.html

Some say that Christ's resurrection was a myth, not history. Is this possible?
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t009.html

How do we know that Jesus Christ really rose from the dead?
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t008.html

Check out Gary Habermas' website...this guy is brilliant
http://www.garyhabermas.com/
http://www.garyhabermas.com/qa/qa_index.htm#evi

in love,
>>zack

Offline Midnight

  • Posts: 7702
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
    • View Profile
Re: Why Jesus was not the Messiah
« Reply #175 on: August 10, 2007, 10:46:56 PM »
Midnight,

My absolute favorite argument from people who support the Bible's veracity is this:

"Well then you are taking it out of context."

In the words of Gulliver: THIS is a straw man statement.

I'm not sure that you understand what a "straw man argument" is. Reading something out of context will often times lead to a misunderstanding of a given text. Not just the Bible.

For instance:
You said,
"My ass...has been in more hands than a hooker's breasts!"

You misquoted me. This is not accidental, because you edited the entire sentence. Thus, not going to fly, son.

Context is of the utmost importance when trying to discern the actual intent of someone's words. It is ignorant to argue otherwise.

Warping my own statement to fit against itself will not work either, cuddles. I said people USE the context argument to make what they say to be truth, implying that anyone who disagrees with them is off the wall in terms of knowledge of whatever topic is being discussed. Nice try, but, again, no.


Quote
First of all, who in the living fuck made you the 'supreme translator droid' for mankind, to make such an egotistical, self-deluded defense of a manuscript, which, might I add, has been in more hands than a hooker's breasts?

The individuals aren't making a "supreme translator claim." What they are doing is, based on their belief about the Scriptures being inspired and inerrant, stating the obvious. If God's Word is inerrant then there can be no contradictions. It boils down to a different argument altogether.

Obvious to THEM, and not to those they preach it towards. Thus, the straw man, and blatant ad nauseam rebuttals based on "their personal view", which, incidentally, is not physical reality, but their personal view. No.

Just so you know...what you have done here is a perfect example of a straw man argument.

Incorrect. Changing the wording of my post (by what I am reading here, totally at a random point in my response) to insinuate that, is about as transparent as one can get. Try again.

God didn't make Job's life a living hell. Satan did.

Cute, but no. Either shortsighted, or intentionally obtuse to stir up an emotional response. Either way, you will learn I am emotionless most of the time. God 'enabled' Satan to do it to Job, as a test of his faith, thus he is the responsible party. Splitting hairs is only right when those who support fallacies do it? Again, no.

Job 2:7 - "So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD and afflicted Job with painful sores from the soles of his feet to the top of his head."

So, Yes. You were taking it out of context, and as you said, "The words are plain as day."

Another attempt at misleading a reader. You intentionally leave out the entire passage you just defended. So that basically means, in total honesty, you support the Bible's Assertion of X item, but only quote the portion of X item which represents your winning argument. And yet again, no.  :-*

Hara Taiki, no one insulting you. There is no need for that.

And yet your quoted posts above this portion of my rebuttal clearly show an intent or desire on your part to basically cause me to look like a moron, by not only directly editing a quote of my own text, but then smugly attempting to dissect my every possible error, ad hominem, and then duck out. Hara's post was not an insult, it was a documentary.  :-*

This is a particular topic that I've always enjoyed studying. Something I've learned is that God never calls anyone to "blind faith." Faith is not "believing in God" as many people claim. You demonstrate your faith in things everyday. Faith is trust. Your legs when you walk, an airplane when you fly, your mind when you rationalize...all require you to take advantage of something at some point. The faith that the Bible talks about is faith that God is who He says He is and that He will do what He says He will do. Faith is trust. Faith is obedience.

Semantics do not alter physical reality. You say faith is a trust. What you are stating is in fact, the identically same thing, in both thought and action. Making it appear more flowery does not alter the reality that Faith is based on dogmatic belief in something, without anything to support it. Thinking through it would require more work than blindly adhering it. Thus, no.


No, it certainly isn't BS. Let us assume that in your mother's biography is a chapter about the day before you were born. The next chapter tells of the day you were born. Does this mean that her biography is not a true account of your birth?

Besides, no one is making that claim. It is much more complex than that. You are throwing grenades at the wrong fort, friend.

Classic example of again, distorting a post to reflect a stance. What was quoted, has absolutely nothing, whatsoever, to do, with what was responded with. This is a transparent attempt to make the poster that was responded to upset, or feel foolish and put on the spot. It will not work here. Again, no.  :-*

About the comic...I'm not going to be offended by anything that you say or do. It just isn't going to happen. You might find it to be humorous, but you know good and well that I will not. I would ask that you show at least a little respect and carry yourself with some dignity rather than stooping to meaningless insults and taking shots.

"Do as I say, not as a do." Is that what you are saying?  :-*

In contempt,
Mids
« Last Edit: August 10, 2007, 10:51:49 PM by Midnight »
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

Offline Midnight

  • Posts: 7702
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
    • View Profile
Re: Why Jesus was not the Messiah
« Reply #176 on: August 10, 2007, 11:00:40 PM »
I don't know where you live, but back in my world we celebrate Easter every year.

So did Babylon.

/end your credibility
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

Offline Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27125
  • I'm the boss.
    • View Profile
Re: Why Jesus was not the Messiah
« Reply #177 on: August 10, 2007, 11:30:28 PM »
I'm wondering if you're reading what I write.  I never said you said the prophecies need to be self-fulfilling.  My point is that the NT was written long after the events took place.  Eye-witness testimony in a folk tale means nothing, and as I'm sure you're aware, folk tales have a tendency to get more and more exaggerated as time passes.  I'll restate what I said: the NT writers made sure that what was plausible to have already passed was included in the Gospels, and what wasn't (world peace, etc) would take place during the Second Coming.  There is no rational evidence that Jesus was the Messiah in the NT.


You said: "The prophecies didn't need to be self-fulfilling." As if to be argumentative with a statement I made about prophecies being self-fulfilling. I had already stated that the prophecies were not self-fulfilling. Why you would say something like this confused me.

How long after the events took place was the NT written?

The eye-witness testimony is what assures us that it is not a folk-tale. It is the test of historicity.

There is rational evidence in the NT that Jesus was the Messiah. For the ump-teenth time Jesus Christ rose from the grave. Sources outside the NT attest to this.

Quote
I know the story behind this book, by the way; another fundie tried to send it to me after I told him I was Jewish.  I'm curious about what kind of evidence outside the Bible there is that these things actually happened, and whether there's more to the story than simply that they died as martyrs.


Why do you keep coming back to extra-biblical sources. I've given you plenty of extra-biblical sources to look into. If you were really curious about this you'd take a look at those and find the answers you seek.

Quote
??? Can you provide one of the many (500!) quotes from the OT you mentioned earlier that speak of a second coming or not?  Honestly you're not making much of a case for your trustworthiness here.  And you accuse me of lying.


I've never accused you of lying.

These passages speak of Christ's rejection as the Messianic Servant [Psalm 22; Isaiah 53; Zechariah 9:9; 12:10; 13:5-7].

These passages speak of Christ reigning as the Messianic King [Jeremiah 23:5-6; 30:1-10; Zechariah 14:3ff].

The OT is filled with prophecies of a rejected Messianic servant AND a reigning Messianic Priest-King. Christ fulfilled the former during His first coming. It is said in the NT that He will return to fulfill the latter. Whether or not that is true is what is being debated here. I say it is based on Christ's claims of divinity, His walking in signs and wonders, and His fulfillment of prophecy.

http://www.allaboutgod.com/the-second-coming.htm
http://biblia.com/jesusbible/prophecies.htm
http://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-old-testament-kingdom-prophecies-fulfilled.htm
http://www.valleybible.net/resources/AdultEducationClasses/Doctrine/Christ/prophecies.shtml

Quote
So tell me which of these are now coming to pass.  Give me a couple examples of original quotes, then examples of how they've been fulfilled in modern times.


Here's a hundred...
http://www.100prophecies.org/

Read these articles...

How Do We Know Jesus is the Messiah
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-r004.html

Messianic Prophecies
http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/messianicprophecies.html

An open letter to our non-Messianic Jewish friends
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/letter-judaism.html

Resurrection of Christ
http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/resurrectionofchrist.html

Some say that Christ's resurrection was a myth, not history. Is this possible?
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t009.html

How do we know that Jesus Christ really rose from the dead?
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t008.html

Check out Gary Habermas' website...this guy is brilliant
http://www.garyhabermas.com/
http://www.garyhabermas.com/qa/qa_index.htm#evi

in love,
>>zack


I truly am finished here with this post.  You have made your intentions and your methods abundantly clear.  Lying to get your point across is not beneath you, nor is using circular reasoning when backed into a corner.  You've said several things that were plainly untrue and I'll be honest, I do not believe your claim that you converted when you were 17.  You quote scripture as if it is the be-all and end-all of your argument, forgetting that your audience doesn't buy it.  It's pathetic, and the scary thing is, as a fundie, you honestly believe you are putting up a worthy argument.

You did plainly state that there were some 500 references to a second coming in the Old Testament in one of your posts, but you can't produce a single one.  What you did was introduce something completely irrelevant to the issue as evidence of what you were saying.  The straw man fallacy is your friend.

Here are some facts about your historical references to Jesus.  Tacitus was born ca. AD 56.  Suetonius was born ca. AD 69 at the earliest.  Pliny the Younger was born in AD 63.  Epictetus was born ca. AD 55.  Lucien was born ca. AD 125.  It's not known when Aristedes (your source can't even spell for God's sake) was born but he died in 134.  See a pattern?  Not a single source quoted was around when Jesus purportedly was.  The issue at hand is whether Jesus was ever mentioned during his lifetime (or at least within a reasonable time afterwards).  Jesus was not even mentioned within five decades of his death at best, based on these dates.  It wasn't until after Christianity began establishing itself that he was ever mentioned.  You might try looking into this horseshit before you cite it as evidence.

You ask me when the books of the New Testament were written.  Fascinating that a Bible scholar such as yourself doesn't already know this.  The Gospel of Mark is widely considered to be the first Gospel to be written down, ca. AD 70, some 35-40 years after Jesus' death.  It is believed that the Gospel of John wasn't written down until AD 90.  The earliest written book of the New Testament is believed to be 1st Thessalonians, AD 51, or possibly Galatians in AD 49.  Of course, this is pretty much irrelevant to our discussion, since it's the life of Jesus as presented in the Gospels that we are speaking about, not the second-hand account of a man (or men; there is some doubt as to whether Paul actually wrote the epistles) who was trying to sell the religion.

Your link to the site with the 100 prophecies that are now coming to pass is a beautiful example of your lame attempts at misdirection.  Never mind that most of them either are not now being fulfilled, they either were fulfilled long ago (some in the very book we are questioning the authenticity of) or have yet to actually be fulfilled.  The salient point is that they were not messianic prophecies (except some that have already been fulfilled according to you and the NT and some relating to what you folks refer to as the End Times).  The foundation of Israel as a nation, for example?  A prophecy that was fulfilled, to be sure, but not one having anything to do with the Messiah whatsoever.  That was what we were talking about, remember?  In fact, they weren't necessarily fulfilled so specifically as you stated.  Israel has no king, for example (Ezekiel 37:21-22).    Once again, let this be a lesson to check your sources before citing them (or if it was intentional, give your competitor credit to have enough of a brain to do so himself).

You accuse me of either lying or not knowing what I'm talking about.  It's clear at this point that both apply to you.  You are an intellectual child compared to the people you are trying to debate with here.  Good day.

In love  :-* ,

Roundy
« Last Edit: August 11, 2007, 10:29:45 AM by Roundy is Invisible »

Offline cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • *****
  • Posts: 13206
    • View Profile
Re: Why Jesus was not the Messiah
« Reply #178 on: August 11, 2007, 11:30:07 AM »
I have an erection....

And I come with this:

The above posts showing manipulation, malcontextual statements, and twisting truths are the prime example of a belligerent, ignorant, zealous bigot.

When you can learn to take the bible out your ass and face the truths that are being exposed about your so called 'faith', then you will be permitted to make such statements as well.

You cannot preach truth without knowing it first. :-*
« Last Edit: August 11, 2007, 11:42:30 AM by Hara Taiki »

Offline Midnight

  • Posts: 7702
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
    • View Profile
Re: Why Jesus was not the Messiah
« Reply #179 on: August 11, 2007, 11:43:38 AM »
 ;)
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.