Religion Jesus could not be the SOG(Son of God)

[Mycernius]

Why is Sabro san the only Christian currently defending his views on these various religious threads? Surely there must be some others that can put there points over.
Just felt I had to say that.

 

[Revenant]

If one is to buy the seemingly more rational and logical criticisms of the Bible, which is to say the criticisms don't refute the Bible, but simply challenge the conception that the gospels were eye accounts of Jesus' life.

These higher criticisms would put Mark as the earliest gospel, and one that was written some forty years after Christ's death. The author of Mark wouldn't have been a witness to the events of Jesus' life. According to higher criticisms of the Bible, John is the only gospel that could've possibly been an eye account witness, and even that is debatable.

That's of course if you have read and agree with these higher criticisms.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Matthew 21:7- "them" refers to the cloaks. The donkey and the colt (A mother donkey and its colt) were brought, the cloaks were placed on the animals and the colt was ridden. It is a reference to Zech 9:9. The mother was kept with the colt as the colt had never been ridden and it was a way of calming the animal.

Yes, I was having fun with the "snicker snicker," targeting it at your "trick" comment. Still wondering about a man surviving three days in the belly of a big fish. That is a "trick," too, huh? And many more.

As for the bodies being brought down on the Sabbath- there is absolutely no indication that this was common practice at all. All indications are that bodies were usually left up as long as possible. But the text gives explanation for this that is not easily dismissed. There seem to be some politics between Herod, Pilate, and the Jewish religious authorities designed to keep all parties happy and prevent an uprising. Leaving the bodies up during the Passover Sabbath could have been cause for unrest. As there were no daily newspapers or surviving Roman records- we can never no for certain but common practices of the day do not give a reason to doubt the gospel authors' account.

Sure it does. Because you have not shown us any instance where bodies were taken down before the passover.

[/quote]you dug a hole[/quote]

Sabro, the whole Bible is a hole and only those who do not use reason can continuously cling to it as Truth just for the point that it makes them feel good. Truth is devoid from the BWOG and those who believe it to be true, such as yourself have a serious problem with intellectual honesty. The BWOG is no truer than Zeus, for as he and his pantheon were based on superstition, myth, and legend, so, too, is the Bible. Whether I make a mistake on a point once in a while does not change that point. For, I have not claimed inerrancy -- but supporters do so of the Bible and see their BGOD as perfect in some sense -- of which is hard to understand no matter how you slice it.

You have proven nothing.

I am under no burden to prove anything. He who asserts that which is a positive carries the burden of proof. I don`t assert that the Bible is the WOG -- Xtians do. I am merely pointing out the many weaknesses it has and those points that give it up to the probability of not being the WOG.

You don't like the Bible, don't buy one. Don't read it.

Yes, we know Xtians want those who reject it as truth to not buy it or read it and therefore not be knowledgable enought to criticise it. They want only the believers to comment on it. That way no criticism is leveled at it or call it into question for the fraud it is.

But if you claim that you can prove that it is not the Word of God,...

Have I claimed that I can prove it is not the word of God? I don`t think I have. I have said it could not be the word of God. But, that is different from proving. I am perfectly right in claiming it cannot be the WOG if the Xtians have not proven it yet in the light of all its contradictions, falshoods, and superstitions. Do you have some concrete data recognized by all showing a proof that it is the WOG? Please bring it forth if you do.

Strike three...you're out.

lol. Why don`t we let the jury of lurkers judge for themselves before making judgements. I care more about their inner voices than you posting declarations. Sorry, I`m not going anywhere. I`m more than still in.
Funny, though how "three" is equated with being "out." You go "Trinity." Sabro says you are out.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

The other thing I wonder is if it was so unusual, then why would so many people have bought the story? There were Roman, Greek, and people of many other races that all lived under Roman rule, and if such an occurance was so ridiculous, I doubt that people would've bought it, and even more, that some of the intellectuals would have bought it.

Good questions, Revenant. Why would they have bought it?

Perhaps the preaching of fear of going to hell is a strong inducement to ancient people to believe something. It still is today. I would guess it would have been amplified back then. Sometimes fear just over rides reason.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

As far as proving that Christ was taken down from the cross as described... in a legal sense, we have four separate witnesses and their testimony. You are refuting the testimony. The burden of proof is now yours.

No, the burden of proof is not mine. First of all, what they are witnessing to has not been proven to be an actual historical character. 2nd, it has never been proven that what was written by each of these four persons was indeed written by them. Some think these are words attributed to them by others. 4th, all their identities have not been accurately nailed (no pun intended re. the story) down. 5th. many of their accounts as to what happened contradict each other. 5th, "refuting" is still a negative (i.e. to show something is not). 6th they were members of a group who resorted to breaking the law and violence.

They are characters of suspect and their word is not reputable until you can prove otherwise.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Why not ask these questions:
Why does the individual believe these things?
a) If their choice was a free one, we have no reason to question it, IMO.
What impact does that belief have on their life?
b) If the impact on their lives is positive, let them be.
What impact does their belief have on society?
c) If their believing it doesn't stop me believing what I like and living as I like let them be.

a) First, how do you know it was free. Xtians indoctrinate (a polite word for brainwash) their children from a very early age. Is there freedom of choice for those children. What if someone brainwashes their children from a very early age that violence to solve problems is their family`s belief system and they have a book that they base that on? Do we have "no reason" to question it? I think we do. Why don`t you?

b) Because the impact of lies, fear, falsehoods, deception, and fraud is not something that is good for society. As you know, they do not keep to themselves. They are constantly trying to 'sell' their "book." If they kept to themselves and agreed to believe falsehoods and fraud without indoctrinating others into the lie, then I would have no problem with that. But they don`t.

c) That is an "if" that has been played out in history. You think it is in the past, and it is in some respects -- but who is to say the pendellum will not swing back. Xtians already get indignant when some shows on TV portray their beliefs negatively and then pressure stations to not run those shows out of respect for their sensitivities. In that case mine or yours life has been affected and imposed upon if we had wanted to see those shows.

I think it is more wise to be pro-active in preventing abuse of freedoms before they are curtailed, rather than trying to fight to regain them once they have been impposed upon. If that imposing force is in all probability based on a lie and falsehood, it best it be exposed and sent to the dustbin as soon as possible.

 

[No-name]

The burden of proof is still yours, since you are the one refuting the "official" version. So far it is simply based on speculation. Are there solid reason- actual verifiable evidence to refute the Gospel account? As the only surviving accounts of the actual events the Gospels remain the best and most reliable sources.

As far as living in a whale or fish or other large aquatic creature- it can't be done. You also can't raise from the dead, feed a multitude with five fish or walk on water or turn water into wine. Parting the Red Sea, the burning bush, manna from heaven- are all contrary to what we know as physical laws-- and the Bible contains dozens of such events. They are called "miracles." There is a version of the Bible by Thomas Jefferson with all the miracles edited out.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Let Christians choose to believe something they can't prove - if they can agree not to proselytise, I'll agree not to convince them of the virtues of being a vegetarian.

Sure, if they agree to keep to themselves and not brainwash the young innocent still yet incapable of using reason to combat fear.

They won`t agree to "not proselytise." Their religion is an aggessive one that calls its believers to spread the "Bad News."

Your "if" Tsuyoiko are based on wishful thinking (not said to insult you -- just an observation) because the nature of their doctrines is one of saving souls and they would view you as a candidate for that. So, you had better get your arguments for vegetarianism honed and ready.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

The burden of proof is still yours, since you are the one refuting the "official" version. So far it is simply based on speculation. Are there solid reason- actual verifiable evidence to refute the Gospel account? As the only surviving accounts of the actual events the Gospels remain the best and most reliable sources.

Sorry, the characters are all in suspect. They are not reputable and their identities are not fixed. I listed I think 6 reasons why they are not trustworthy as witnesses. The burden of proof is still yours because you are offering up violent lawbreakers who tell conflicting stories. "Refuting" is a negative dressed up as a positive. I am under no burden to prove a negative.

As far as living in a whale or fish or other large aquatic creature- it can't be done. You also can't raise from the dead, feed a multitude with five fish or walk on water or turn water into wine. Parting the Red Sea, the burning bush, manna from heaven- are all contrary to what we know as physical laws-- and the Bible contains dozens of such events. They are called "miracles." There is a version of the Bible by Thomas Jefferson with all the miracles edited out.

Miracles don`t exist either. Prove one. None ever have been proven. The concept of "miracles" are just there to explain why "fish stories" should be believed.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Parting the Red Sea, the burning bush, manna from heaven- are all contrary to what we know as physical laws-- and the Bible contains dozens of such events. They are called "miracles."

And would you believe the Fairy God story miracles of other religions and belief systems merely because they defy physical laws and can be called miracles?

Is it open season for believing in religions based on assertions of miracles?

Zeus has a headache, out jumps Athena. Miracle! Explained. Let`s believe it.

Why are your miracles believable attributed to your god but not others'?

 

[Tsuyoiko]

First, how do you know it was free.

How do you know it wasn't?

Because the impact of lies, fear, falsehoods, deception, and fraud is not something that is good for society. As you know, they do not keep to themselves. They are constantly trying to 'sell' their "book."

There's a church at the end of my street. As far as I can see, its impact on my bit of society is that they raise some money for local charities. They've never knocked on my door.

I think it is more wise to be pro-active in preventing abuse of freedoms before they are curtailed, rather than trying to fight to regain them once they have been impposed upon. If that imposing force is in all probability based on a lie and falsehood, it best it be exposed and sent to the dustbin as soon as possible.

It must be where you live. Churches where I live are basically community centres. Only the JWs knock on my door, and they leave if I ask them to.

They won`t agree to "not proselytise." Their religion is an aggessive one that calls its believers to spread the "Bad News."
Your "if" Tsuyoiko are based on wishful thinking

My 'if' is based on my experiences with Christians who are prepared to let me believe what I like, while they believe what they like. Can you prove that all Christians proselytise?

It seems like you have had some bad experiences with Christians, and you are basing your opinion of all Christians on that - a bit like the "All swans are white" fallacy. My experience of Christians is completely different, so its very hard for me to see things from your POV.

Your wish for everyone to recognise your idea of rationality is a bit too close to fundamentalism for my liking. Your generalisations are easy to disprove - I only have to quote a counter-example, of which I can see plenty, and have mentioned a couple already. Personally I get a lot of comfort from certainties, and faith holds no attraction for me. But other people's brains are wired differently, and that's fine - let them have their faith if it works for them. You're wrong that all Christians proselytise, since that assertion is based on your understanding of how Christians interpret 'such-and-such' verse - not all Christians interpret it that way.

 

[No-name]

Wow, you have convinced me. O-Sensei SVF sama...Such sound logic. (That was sarcasm do you need a smiley?)

Do you have a reason or evidence to believe the authors are not who they say they are, or just more baseless speculation? You have not successfully demonstrated any conflicts in their stories, nor will you find any save those common in separate witnesses to the same event, nor have you demonstrated that they are violent lawbreakers. Actually all you have done is accusation, taken words out of context, deception, ridicule, and spread a hate and bigotry directed at Christians and the Bible. If you want to spew baseless and unproven assertions you have succeeded. You don't have to prove anything...

The Catholic Church "proves" miracles all the time. I am of the opinion that if you can prove it, it is not a miracle.

Oh Chessmaster...All you have proven is that you are a sad, bitter, hatefilled person. You try to cloak your pitiful ridicule and bigoted attacks on Christianity in the clothing of debate, but fail over and over again to prove or to even try to prove any of your points. Anyone with half a brain can be offensive and demonstrate ignorance and attempt deception. It doesn't take a genius or "chessmaster" to cook up garbage and quote out of context. If you are under no burden to prove anything (or "put up"...), then shut up. Stop making these ridiculous and unfounded assertion or attack someone else's faith for a while. I'm certain there are Muslims, Jews and Buddhists you can offend.

I speculate that you had some tragic and painful episode as a child with some stupid miguided Christian who either "brainwashed" you or made some agressive attempt to prosletize you. It would account for the hate, bitterness and bigotry. Have you tried listening to rushing water and making low cooing sounds. Meditation can relieve feelings of this sort.

I am merely a pond. The ducks are gone for the winter and there is a thin sheet of ice today.

 

[No-name]

Revenant, I am under no obligation to prove a negative. He who asserts something has the burden of proof.

You asserted that the Bible is not the Word of God and Jesus is not the son of God. The burden of proof is yours. You have given us nothing but conjecture, words taken out of context, and exposed a general ignorance and misinterpretation of scripture. You have failed.

 

[Revenant]

Good questions, Revenant. Why would they have bought it?
Perhaps the preaching of fear of going to hell is a strong inducement to ancient people to believe something. It still is today. I would guess it would have been amplified back then. Sometimes fear just over rides reason.

Just as it does today, I think the same can be applied to those times as well. I certainly know without doubt that fear isn't a factor in many Christian's lives. My mother is a devout Protestant, and I grew up with devout Christians all around. All completely believed and were moved by Christ's example, and God's love for them. I do know fear has a part in some Christian lives, but it doesn't include even half in my opinion.

One can say that the crucifixion was fishy, and then give reasons why one believes so, but to ask for proofs from either side is beyond either side, and is a waste of time.

 

[No-name]

Also the other prisoner released was Barabas per custom which would not be recorded in the Old Testament (Please refrain from using Hijacked text as it is offensive) because as any second grade Sunday school student could tell you, the last books of the Old Testament were written well before the Roman occupation.

 

[Mars Man]

Boy was I surprized, I thought to myself, "Wow, these guys and gal (as far as I can see) are really going to town. . . what's up?" And then, I thought, oh, maybe a holiday? Yeah, that must be it. It's Tuesday Jan. 17th here now, 3:20 pm or so, and I'm just getting ready to eat lunch after going over graduation thesis all morning. AND THIS THREAD HAS GROWN. . . while I'm still debating the foundation of it all.

Hi Mars Man, what I meant in #28 is that I approach it skeptically from how the Xtians put it forth (i.e. as innerrant).

Thanks for the greater clarification strongvoicesforward san. Is the above to say that you first come to the Bible, as is today (as opposed to what each separate and individual writing contained in it originally had been) with the understanding that that collection of writings is an innerrant self-contained whole, then show it to contain error--against mainstream Christianity?

Unless it is quite clear that a metaphore is being used, I assume it means what it says.
For example, when Jesus speaks to God (i.e. himself) requesting that this "cup" (i.e. his fate) pass from him, we know it is not a real "cup" he is speaking about. In those cases, we can clearly see he is not speaking of a cup and I am quite willing to grant poetic licenses in cases like that.

I would say that your understanding process, in light of general hermeneutics, is proper, in the above, I, for one find no problem there. Only I would yet argue, for example (though in short) that it is unlikely that those words used in the example above had been known to have been spoken by Jeshua, even in the event of a likely similar scenario. Then, with that being the most probable case, argument on the degree of literal or meaphorical intent by either the claimed speaker in the story, or the writer of the story leads to little resolve. Wouldn't you reason such?

The latter part of that post, I do understand, yet would encourage that fair evaluation be given a bit more room, in order to not leave impressions of being unnecessarily negative--that would not do good for those who are looking on, yet have not yet made any personal conclusions as to which argument or understanding is seemingly more truthful or realistic. Remember that we in in the discussion are not necessarily the targets of our discussion.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Thanks for the greater clarification strongvoicesforward san. Is the above to say that you first come to the Bible, as is today (as opposed to what each separate and individual writing contained in it originally had been) with the understanding that that collection of writings is an innerrant self-contained whole, then show it to contain error--against mainstream Christianity?

The Xtians put forth that it is innerrant. I take issue with that proclamation.

As to the original parts containing errors, MM, we just don`t know, now, do we? The autographa no longer exist, so speculating on whether they were innerrant or not is meaningless. We could never possibly know. I am not going to argue on a phantom work. We have different Biblical versions and that is what we have to work with.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Only I would yet argue, for example (though in short) that it is unlikely that those words used in the example above had been known to have been spoken by Jeshua, even in the event of a likely similar scenario.

That is fine. I leave you to that conclusion. In that case you are looking for a different person to discuss it with. It is in the Xtian Bible and their scholars are the one who translated it, so if you would like to butt heads on points of tranlsations with Bible boards with 1000s of years of experience and study in ancient Biblical languages between them, then go at it. I won`t stop you if you want to tell them they are wrong and want to throw a monkey wrench into their verses.

Then, with that being the most probable case, argument on the degree of literal or metaphorical intent by either the claimed speaker in the story, or the writer of the story leads to little resolve. Wouldn't you reason such?

No, MM, I wouldn`t reason that because I don`t see that as the most probable case. I may, if only one or two persons translated each different version of the Bible, and they only 20, 30, or 40 years between them. But, when 50~100 experts in Biblical languages converge to translate the Bible over a period of years with their many years of experience combined together, and the fact that other denominational translators will scrutinize their translation -- I am prone to believe that those large membership translating boards used words for translations based on a high degree of professionalism. If you believe otherwise and think you would have the correct words or phrases to usurp their works, then I would suggest that there is a large market out there that would be willing to buy millions of your "correct" version.

This isn`t said in an aggressive tone, MM; merely as a way of informing you that I am not going to be hoodwinked into reinventing the wheel with translations with words that have multiple meanings and can be used to always try and give wiggle room when it should not be given.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

The latter part of that post, I do understand, yet would encourage that fair evaluation be given a bit more room, in order to not leave impressions of being unnecessarily negative--that would not do good for those who are looking on, yet have not yet made any personal conclusions as to which argument or understanding is seemingly more truthful or realistic. Remember that we in in the discussion are not necessarily the targets of our discussion.

Mars Man, I discuss and debate straight to the point. I do not engage in round about superficial niceties or with the intent to give "wiggle room" to those who I feel are not correct. Why would I want to give special quarter to my opponent?

Some do, because they want to play the political correct sensitive card. Fine for them and I will accept that if they offer it to me, but I am under no obligation to tailor my style to theirs. Some prefer to discuss and debate like beaurocrats -- I do not. I find that style of discussion and debate slow and tedious. Perhaps that is just me. I like to go straight to the heart of the matter.

The audience is varried and I am well aware that they are the target. Some audience members are sensitive and want the dancing around where no one steps on each others' toes like a symphony where all are polite and all notes are rigidly in place. Some others who are looking in want to feel like they are seeing a jam session where once in a while someone steps up and goes out of the predetermined notes. I prefer the latter.

If you have read a good deal of my posts, you will see I am of the latter. If I were discussing something not so important such as sports, or bubble gum, I may prefer to go much softer. But, superstition set forth in dogma is not an unimportant issue and therefore I do not feel a need to giggle like little girls and boys exchanging bubble gum already chewed between them.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Jesus shows coldness of heart -- even strains of racism and bigotry. A racist, would surely favor one?fs own group over another and while they may provide one with something, they would also think to or actually deny something to another based on their race or religion. If they did provide something to both, surely racists would make the ones they felt little for wait behind their own ?gin-group.?h

Jesus is no exception. He was even pleased that the woman accepted Jesus?f metaphore as her being a dog just waiting for crumbs -- some how less than those which BGOD was showing favoritism to.

See the rude nature and disrespect he refers to Gentiles as when it was a child that was suffering:

Mark 7:25?`29
But after hearing of Him, a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit immediately came and fell at His feet.
Now the woman was a Gentile, of the Syrophoenician race. And she kept asking Him to cast the demon out of her daughter.
And He was saying to her, "Let the children be satisfied first, for it is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs."
But she answered and said to Him, "Yes, Lord, but even the dogs under the table feed on the children's crumbs."
And He said to her, "Because of this answer go; the demon has gone out of your daughter."

Wow. Harsh. Not very feeling of Jesus to not want to immediately and voluntarily help this little girl after being begged by the mother repeatedly. Doesn`t sound very compassionate. And he calls them ?gdogs?h to boot.

Is that a good example of behavior from a role model you would want children to follow?