Why Jesus was not the Messiah

Quote from: wgzero on August 05, 2007, 12:48:59 AM

Ah, theist, my apologies. I thought I was dealing rational argument. You use the bible as evidence, which invalidates all arguments founded upon said evidence, as there is no evidence backing your fairy tale collection. However, against my better instinct, I have decided to respond to your edit. And don't even try to say "The bible is true because the bible says the bible is true", as that's a Bare Assertion Fallacy.

I'm afraid that YES, I know exactly how i would react. Unlike you, with your Australopithecan-like logistic capabilities, I can accurately simulate the most extreme situations and great emotional strain. But that wouldn't even be necessary, as I do not fear death, so any situation where I am confronted with unavoidable death would logically cause no fear in me. I don't even see why I'm leveling with you on this. Hara made my point much better than even I could.

Is that a fancy way of putting "lol bible iz not tru!"? I still think you are a liar, you don't know.

Quote from: Hara Taiki on August 04, 2007, 09:24:19 PM

Your evidence is wrong, theist. I suggest you look over your source again. And again. And again.

This time, with the blinders off. Then speak. For thy tongue is a foul beast that knows not of that which it speaks.

Quote from: wgzero on August 04, 2007, 09:07:23 PM

First of all, you claim that no one can be sure of their future actions. In this case, how can I be lying about it if no one actually knows what I would do. You continue contradicting yourself.
And again, let me completely assure you: I am not afraid of death; would I postpone it, yes. But not fear it, mainly because I believe there is nothing to death. Death is merely the end. Thus there is nothing to fear, no judgment, no ambiguity, just subtle passage out of consciousness, never to return.

I only listed AP Psych for credibility of analysis, not credibility of thought.

You continue to assert that I would fear death if I were faced with it, without any logical reasoning. Given your arguments thus far, may I safely conclude that your statements are completely groundless, with neither fact nor observation as backing?

Only if you are willing to stipulate that your assesment is equally groundless.

My evidence, here it is:

Since then the children are sharers in flesh and blood, he [Christ] also himself in like manner partook of the same; that through death he might bring to nought him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and might deliver all them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage Heb. 2:14-15

According to the Bible, we are all supposed to fear death, as our enemy. Since there are no lies in the Bible (I've checked), you must be lying about your fear of death.

EDIT: This fear of death is conquered by faith in out Lord, and his Heavenly Kingdom. Without this, it is impossible.
I claimed you are lying in saying you know how you would react to the situation, you don't.

Quote from: The Bright Theist on August 05, 2007, 05:52:54 AM

Quote from: wgzero on August 05, 2007, 12:48:59 AM

Ah, theist, my apologies. I thought I was dealing rational argument. You use the bible as evidence, which invalidates all arguments founded upon said evidence, as there is no evidence backing your fairy tale collection. However, against my better instinct, I have decided to respond to your edit. And don't even try to say "The bible is true because the bible says the bible is true", as that's a Bare Assertion Fallacy.

I'm afraid that YES, I know exactly how i would react. Unlike you, with your Australopithecan-like logistic capabilities, I can accurately simulate the most extreme situations and great emotional strain. But that wouldn't even be necessary, as I do not fear death, so any situation where I am confronted with unavoidable death would logically cause no fear in me. I don't even see why I'm leveling with you on this. Hara made my point much better than even I could.

Is that a fancy way of putting "lol bible iz not tru!"? I still think you are a liar, you don't know.

theist, you call me a liar, based on evidence in the bible. All I ask is that you show me logical (i.e. deductive) proof that the bible is infallible. And don't give me that "Teh bible is tru cz teh bible sez teh bible iz tru!!!111!!1!11!!!!" shit, as that is not proof, merely a logical fallacy. The problem is, you can't prove that the bible is infallible, because we already know that it is only one version of a series of Hebrew oral traditions, passed down and changed over generations, mottled together into that sad collage of fairy tales you call your 'holy text'. It was written by old, bigoted men, attempting to pass on their twisted morals as the 'word of god'. In short, it is a collection of short stories, with no historical accuracy, nor anything worthwhile inside. You want proof of the bible's numerous lies, try googling "bible" and "contradictions" (or visit http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/), for, if the bible is always true, then how can it claim to opposing facts? Or, is it that one is incorrect, which means the bible is lying? (Of course, by far the most probable reason is that both are incorrect, as they were both written by old men who knew nothing other than to fear a god that they were taught to fear.)

You are avoiding my response, simpleton. I demand a proper rebuttal.

Quote from: Hara Taiki on August 05, 2007, 08:22:02 PM

You are avoiding my response, simpleton. I demand a proper rebuttal.

Your message is insubstantial. I casually overlook it every time I browse this thread, like I do with most of your postings.

Quote from: wgzero on August 05, 2007, 07:53:15 PM

Quote from: The Bright Theist on August 05, 2007, 05:52:54 AM

Quote from: wgzero on August 05, 2007, 12:48:59 AM

Ah, theist, my apologies. I thought I was dealing rational argument. You use the bible as evidence, which invalidates all arguments founded upon said evidence, as there is no evidence backing your fairy tale collection. However, against my better instinct, I have decided to respond to your edit. And don't even try to say "The bible is true because the bible says the bible is true", as that's a Bare Assertion Fallacy.

I'm afraid that YES, I know exactly how i would react. Unlike you, with your Australopithecan-like logistic capabilities, I can accurately simulate the most extreme situations and great emotional strain. But that wouldn't even be necessary, as I do not fear death, so any situation where I am confronted with unavoidable death would logically cause no fear in me. I don't even see why I'm leveling with you on this. Hara made my point much better than even I could.

Is that a fancy way of putting "lol bible iz not tru!"? I still think you are a liar, you don't know.

theist, you call me a liar, based on evidence in the bible. All I ask is that you show me logical (i.e. deductive) proof that the bible is infallible. And don't give me that "Teh bible is tru cz teh bible sez teh bible iz tru!!!111!!1!11!!!!" shit, as that is not proof, merely a logical fallacy. The problem is, you can't prove that the bible is infallible, because we already know that it is only one version of a series of Hebrew oral traditions, passed down and changed over generations, mottled together into that sad collage of fairy tales you call your 'holy text'. It was written by old, bigoted men, attempting to pass on their twisted morals as the 'word of god'. In short, it is a collection of short stories, with no historical accuracy, nor anything worthwhile inside. You want proof of the bible's numerous lies, try googling "bible" and "contradictions" (or visit http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/), for, if the bible is always true, then how can it claim to opposing facts? Or, is it that one is incorrect, which means the bible is lying? (Of course, by far the most probable reason is that both are incorrect, as they were both written by old men who knew nothing other than to fear a god that they were taught to fear.)

If any of that post implies the Bible is not true, than I can tell you that you are mistaken. Other than that, your attention is wasted on me, the more verbose your posts get, the less I feel like reading them.

Where is that coy little bean? I miss his "ACME Coporation" type explanation on things.

If you are unable to understand the above paragraph (or else mentally censoring everything you read which may disprove your ideals), please have fun immediately, and save us the trouble of having to deal with your trollish habits.

An unofficial forum rule is that you have to actually know something about your subject. Comply, and you'll be fine. Don't, and Narc will google that subject, find some weak counters and use your incompetance as a way to prove FE.

Yes, living is all I have, and I do enjoy living, and yes, I would attempt to postpone my death if I had the option, but I don't fear death. If, for example, I were captured, bound, and lined up on a wall with others, and one-by-one we were systematically killed, I doubt I'd be afraid. I would probably be disappointed that I couldn't live longer or accomplish more (unless I were extremely old and had age-related handicaps, in which death would probably be a nice alternative to suffering), but definitely not afraid.
<snip>

I read through several of the pages and I haven't really seen anyone give a legitimate response to the OP (especially from a Christian perspective). I apologize ahead of time if I've made a mistake and overlooked someone's post.

Roundy, the arguments you bring forth have been blah blah blah blah blah blah zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz blah blah blah blah

He has been waiting for you.

in love,
>>zack

There are no legitimate inconsistencies in the Word of God. It is inspired and infallible in its original autographs. Things may seem to be inconsistencies at first, but this is (more often than not) because a person doesn't understand the given context. Knowing that the Bible is what it is, I know that if I ever come across something that doesn't look right at first, it is not the Word that is insufficient...it is my understanding of it.

Regardless of all of that...Nothing I've presented you is a rationalization in any way. It is simply what the text states. Nothing more...nothing less.

Never meant to be a divine figure? Try reading the OT again. Especially the Psalms and Isaiah.

That is a false presumption. Read the book of Daniel.

Where is that in the Bible? Yes, the line of Solomon is the royal line and Joseph was descended from this line. Joseph is Christ's adopted father and this makes Christ Joseph's firstborn. Simple. IfBUT! If I recall correctly, the only definitive BLOOD connection was to neither David nor Solomon, but to Jesse.

No it is not stated explicitly. However, given seeming contradiction that pops up after David in the lineages, the fact that historians such as Eusebius have attested to this, and that the Israelite tribes were not to intermarry it is a rather logical conclusion to come to is it not?

I think that's the first true statement you've made so far, bro. However it is not complete. He was also supposed to be a priest "in the order of Melchezidek," or a Priest-King. His role was a dual one. It was actually believed by many of the Jews that "the Messiah" would actually be TWO men. They couldn't imagine one man doing everything that the Messiah was supposed to do. He had a role to fulfill as King and as Preist. He came as One Man and eliminated the distinction between the Kings and the Preists and became a preist "in the order of Melchezidek." If you don't know who Melchezidek is I'd suggest looking into that. It is some fun reading and study.

Well if you knew the truth and told the opposite you'd be lying. So in order for you to be lying you would have to know the truth. I said I was assuming this was not the case...that you don't know the truth.

I was an atheist until I was 17. I'm now 21. Thanks for the sympathy though. I would have loved to have that kind of upbringing. Unfortunately I did not. I came to this on my own (not without God's grace)...with a complete bias against the supernatural. How a man goes from atheism to being a tongue speaking, signs and wonders preaching, charismatic Christian is beyond me.

I'd be glad to help. Firstly, I don't see the necessary connection in Jesus having existed and the details of His life sharing similarities with pagan religions.

But anyway...

There have been many pagan practices adopted by Christianity throughout the ages. The celebration of Christmas and Easter are good examples. I don't have a problem with that. Paul states in Romans that we have this type of freedom to worship Christ and that God true worship does not come from form but from the base level of the heart. But to address your specific question I'll take you back to the beginning of creation. You see I don't see Christianity borrows specifics from pagan mythology (such as the virgin birth) but that pagan mythology has taken from the original plan of God. Since the Creation there have always been people in communion with the One True God, YHWH. The interesting thing to take notice of in Scriptures is that people lived a long time in the pre-flood days. It was normal for a man to see the birth of his great great great great great great great grandson. Catch my drift? Even though man had fallen they still lived in recognition and communion with God. I can imagine Adam having a conversation with Enoch (Adam's great great great great grandson) about what it was like walking and talking with God in the Garden.

This type of thing continued up until the flood when only Noah and his family were left alive. Noah's sons were Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Shem's descendants are known as the "Shem-ites" or Semites or Semetical peoples who populated the Middle-East.

Ham would be the ancestor of the people who populated the land of Canaan (the Canaanites) through his son Canaan who were later pushed out of Canaan into the African continent when the Israelites entered the Promised Land. The rest of Ham's sons populated much of the Asian continent.

Japheth's descendants migrated westward and would become the Indo-European peoples. So most "white Americans" could trace their lineage back to Noah's son Japheth. That doesn't really matter in this context...just a neat side-note.

So by these three men the rest of the world was populated. So it comes as no surprise to me that practically every culture worships some god and more specifically so many cultures have some "flood story." Why wouldn't they? I can imagine that the story of the flood and how God saved "our great grand-dad Noah." I can imagine a little kid asking his dad, "Hey dad, tell me the story of the flood again." Generation after generation the story changes and receives new twists and turns and thus while the flood stories have many similarities they are indeed different. You can even see this type of thing in Japanese evident in Japanese writing. Many of their more complex characters are made up of other less complex characters. I can't remember the exact characters off of the top of my head, but a couple of examples are the character for "ship" is made up of the symbol for "boat" or "vessel," the symbol for "man," and the symbol for the number "8." The Ark was was a big boat "ship" that transported 8 people. I think the symbol for "garden" is made of of two "man" symbols a "tree" symbol and a "serpent" symbol. Those kinds of similarities are abundant. These things are too similar for them to just be coincidence.

However through all of this, I believe the only Culture to get the flood story exactly right was the people group that was chosen by God and thusly kept that continual communion with Him, the Israelites-the preservers of the Word of God.

Given that long story that might've seemed irrelevant...I believe that most cultures and their pagan practices find their origins in the original plan of God and became corrupted and incomplete. That is not to say that some (probably most) pagan practices were not self-originating, but that the instances you are speaking of most likely fall into the latter category.

... sadistic, infantile, childish entity...