Questions for Jesus-Freak

Foster Zygote said:
As the Jews see it, Christianity is a Jewish based heresy. There is plenty of evidence that Paul and the other early Christian writers were exposed to numerous pagan beliefs common to the period in which they wrote. It is painfully obvious to historians that they borrowed their stories as well.
Click to expand...

Modern Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity are sister religions both emerging from the same Ancient Jewish Religion. As for the claims of borrowing, substantiate that. I wouldn't go with the standard Mithraism claim, because only lackwits who knew nothing about Mithraism make that claim.
 
Beleth said:
Would that you apply the same level of critical thinking and study to the problems with Christianity that you do to the problems with Islam.

Let me guess. You were raised in a Christian neighborhood, weren't you?
Click to expand...

I thought you weren't talking to me anymore...I was beginning to hope.
 
mfaison said:
Bart Ehrman is a respected New Testament scholar at UNC who wrote Misquoting Jesus, which is about the problems of reconstructing the "original" New Testament from the earliest manuscripts-- it's an excellent book. He's also written on the historical Jesus and on the gospels that were left out of the NT canon.

Are you casting aspersions on Ehrman's work? If so, are they based on any evidence that is not based on your faith? If so, have you presented your opposing view to the community of religious scholars?
Click to expand...

Did you actually read Misquoting Jesus? The book was a pile of crap, not mention he cited himself in it like 45 times. His basic argument is that since the story of the woman caught in adultery is in our Bibles we can't trust them! That argument makes no sense, simply because we can identify that that passage does not belong! The very fact that we even know an errant passage is their proves the effectiveness of our textual criticism. Ehrman also has a habit of relying on D to prove his point, but even introductory TC students know that D is filled with all sorts of weird stuff, and given the poor quality of the Latin translations of the Greek also found in the text, the person who constructed it didn't do the greatest job. You are right in asking the question "Who are you to question Bart Ehrman!", and the answer is someone who has read Bruce Metzger and some of the work of the Alands. Their names appear on the most popular Greek manuscripts you can buy today, namely the NA27 and the UBS4.
 
simon dalton said:
As typical with religious people they only answer the questions that are not to hard. Once the going gets tough they will side step the question, or, as I got a lot at school, tell you that you are a bad person for not believing in the Bible.

I am still waiting for JF to answers Slingblade's question in the "JF challenge" thread
Click to expand...

What hogwash, the ratio in this thread of atheist to Christians must be 20:1, complaining about people getting overwhelmed is ridiculous. Especially when one must deal with an onslaught of the same old questions asked 10 different ways. Sometimes responding to atheist arguments is a mind-numbingly boring affair because you have addressed the same argument time and again. It also difficult to motivate oneself when it is clear the majority of people are interested only in winning arguments, and not in talking or having our faiths dialog. Do me a favor go to a Christian Philosophy forum and start a discussion proclaiming the utter lack of veracity to the Christian claim and see what happens.
 
nails3jesus0 said:
Im sure everyone is impressed with your debate skills at this point :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I'm sure everyone is impressed with your critical reading skills at this point :rolleyes:.

She said she wished I would examine my own faith the way I examined the claims of Islam. She was insulting me and calling me blind and ignorant. She has no way of knowing to what degree I have examined my faith or doubted it, and so such a claim is baseless. There is nothing to say really, because she believes me duped by upbringing, and frankly this is not the first thread where she has demonstrated nothing but hostility towards me. She should feel free to move on any time.
 
Hokulele said:
Sorry to be so pedantic, but I think I am going back to Ecclesiastes again. It does seem to make my original point. Here is the quote in context:

[One] generation passeth away, and [another] generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.

All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea [is] not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

So, it is meant to be a cyclical fact in a list of cyclical facts. Although today we can say "That's just a figure of speech, it is obvious that they did not mean that literally.", I think at the time it was written, it was meant literally. The author and the intended audience honestly believed the sun "hasteth to his place where he arose" since they knew they were operating in a geocentric system. In the 1500's this began to change. By around 1600, most people accepted a heliocentric model of the solar system. After 400 years of heliocentricity, we view this passage and similar ones much differently.

Would you agree that it is possible that some terms in the bible were originally meant in a literal sense, and we now interpret them to be figurative? Would you then further agree that it is possible that some phrases now read literally, after another 400 years have passed, may be viewed differently?
Click to expand...

The author of Ecclesiastes may very well have held a Geocentric viewpoint, but the point of the text is not to declare the veracity of the Geocentric viewpoint, but to make a point about the continuance of the age. The argument isn't whether the Bible uses Geocentric language, it clearly does, and moreover that language reflects the Near Eastern Cosmology, the argument is that while that language is used it is not used to teach, but to convey some other idea. For Example: Before the foundations of the earth were laid, you were chosen. The point of such a statement would not be that the earth rests on pillars, but rather that even before their was an earth God had a plan for you. (Note: the sentence used above is not a direct quote of a Bible passage, but is just used for convenience sake.) In that way the text makes a literal point using language we would not interpret literally. For more information on how we do this and how we tell, look up Hermeneutics, the Grammatical-Historical Method, etc.
 
fuelair said:
Not justice - you may think it is - and I do hope you are never in a situation where you find out how wrong that belief is.
Click to expand...

From the American Heritage Dictionary:
jus·tice (jŭs'tĭs)
n.
  1. The quality of being just; fairness.
    1. The principle of moral rightness; equity.
    2. Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.
    3. The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
    4. Law The administration and procedure of law.
    5. A judge.
    6. A justice of the peace.
    1. The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
    2. Law The administration and procedure of law.
    3. A judge.
    4. A justice of the peace.
  4. Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason: The overcharged customer was angry, and with justice.
  5. Abbr. J. Law
    1. A judge.
    2. A justice of the peace.
Seems like my usage is fully in accord with the definition of the word.
 
hgc said:
So the Jews who killed Jesus were evil and hypocrites? How so? Didn't God send his only son to die on the cross? Are you saying God's plan depends on evil hypocrites for fulfillment? I am sooooo confused.
Click to expand...

Just like they where.

Ossai said,
I did. It does not address the point raised.
Click to expand...

Take them friggen scales off your eyes and wake up.

Why don't you put up the messianic prophecies up here am I suppose to do everything for you!
 
RationalReverend, great avatar, I'm glad to see you here!
They are tiring.
Sometimes responding to atheist arguments is a mind-numbingly boring affair because you have addressed the same argument time and again. It also difficult to motivate oneself when it is clear the majority of people are interested only in winning arguments.
Click to expand...

I got to agree.
 
Ossai said:
And this is based on what? The absurdities contained in the bible, YHWH must be a real joker.
Click to expand...
Good argument thanks for opening my eyes. :rolleyes:

Then why bother repenting? As long as you’re Christian you can do anything and you get a free pass to heaven.
Click to expand...
Because repentance is the quality of a genuine Christian, a Christian who sins indiscriminately and without repentance and remorse is not a Christian at all. Christians have an obligation to obey the teachings of Christ, as the text says "Deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow me." It does not say "Say a prayer, go to church, and do what you like." I know you have probably seen that attitude and for that I am sorry.

Sorry, still god’s fault. God designed people in such a manner that they could not understand. Design flaw.
Click to expand...
This is a fallacious argument because it assumes their are people who can never understand and that therefore God must not want to be heard. Even those ignorant on their own can be instructed and taught, which is what the church is supposed to do. Again, your demand for universal language or for God to take hold of minds is an unfair standard by which to judge revelation.

No it’s not. God, being omnipotent could easily do so with no cost to himself. It’s sadistic that he doesn’t make the meaning clear.
Click to expand...
see above

You are directly contradicting the bible. Both Matthew 1:2-16 v. Luke 3:23-38 specifically (in translation and the original text) proclaim that the line is through Joseph.
Click to expand...
No I'm not, in Luke Joseph is the son of Heli by his marriage to Mary. Heli is his father-in law. Notice in Matthew his father is named Jacob. Mystery solved.

If either lineage (they’re both different) reported in the bible for Jesus is correct then God directly excluded Jesus from the Davidic lineage. Which in and of itself negates Jesus as the messiah.
Click to expand...
I'm trying to figure out why you would say this as David is in both lineages....Luke 3:31-32 and Matthew 1:6
 
RationalReverend said:
I thought you weren't talking to me anymore...I was beginning to hope.
Click to expand...
I said that discussion was over, sweetcheeks. This is a different discussion. And I have no doubt that you hoped that that discussion was over.

Were you raised in a predominantly Christian neighborhood?
What was the dominant religion in the Middle East at the time of Jesus's birth?
 
Last edited:
simon dalton said:
If God spoke so clearly, then how comes the Bible contradicts itself?
Click to expand...

The Bible has a multitude of witnesses, I would not call their minor variations contradictions (dun dun dunnnnnnn). And frankly, most discrepancies are easily explained through copying errors. However, if you want to view the difference in numbers of rooster crows as evidence of contradiction, then go ahead, that is your prerogative.
 
Beleth said:
I said that discussion was over, sweetcheeks. This is a different discussion. And I have no doubt that you hoped that that discussion was over.

Were you raised in a predominantly Christian neighborhood?
What was the dominant religion in the Middle East at the time of Jesus's birth?
Click to expand...

Yes, I was obviously afraid to continue the discussion with you, you personally terrify me, especially your inability to follow a logical progression. Maybe you should call Doctor X to come sort me out.
 
RationalReverend said:
She said she wished I would examine my own faith the way I examined the claims of Islam. She was insulting me and calling me blind and ignorant. She has no way of knowing to what degree I have examined my faith or doubted it, and so such a claim is baseless. There is nothing to say really, because she believes me duped by upbringing, and frankly this is not the first thread where she has demonstrated nothing but hostility towards me. She should feel free to move on any time.
Click to expand...
This post made me chuckle numerous times.

The hostility you perceive I have towards you has but one source: the hostility you have towards me. The only one calling you blind and ignorant is your own superego, darling.

When I read your critique of Islam, all I could think to myself was "you know, I could write the exact same paragraph and replace 'Islam' with 'Christianity', 'Mo' with 'Paul' or 'Peter' or 'Jesus', and 'Christianity' with 'Zoroastrianism', and it would still be true."

The fact that you don't realize that means that you haven't been as critical of the beliefs you were raised in as you have of others. That is how I know how deeply you have examined your beliefs.

And as for moving on, well, you have my permission to do so at any point.
 
RationalReverend said:
Yes, I was obviously afraid to continue the discussion with you, you personally terrify me, especially your inability to follow a logical progression.
Click to expand...
When you provide one, I'll be sure to follow it.

Maybe you should call Doctor X to come sort me out.
Click to expand...
Naah, I have realized that it doesn't take a heavyweight like him to deal with the likes of you. Even an ignoramus like myself can do it.

Now go play some more Gears of War, that's a good lad.
 
Beleth said:
When you provide one, I'll be sure to follow it.
Click to expand...
It would be an exercise in futility

Naah, I have realized that it doesn't take a heavyweight like him to deal with the likes of you. Even an ignoramus like myself can do it.
Click to expand...
So far all I see is recycled garbage, besides he would be ever so much more fun to talk to.

Now go play some more Gears of War, that's a good lad.
Click to expand...
Now go get an education in Religion, that's a good lass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom