Can Christianity really be considered a Monotheistic Religion?

[Realist]

The prophecy was fulfilled when Judas was paid thirty pieces of silver for betraying Jesus. Thus Jesus was worth 30 pieces of silver.

I see. Not the greatest connection maybe, but makes sense. Still falls under the other problems I put in my reply to Dev.

[Jeffery]

did not work. he healed. that is different. it is just like preaching in a sence. it was makeing people belive in him as bieng the messiah
Yes, and catholic researchers consider that healing (as did the Pharisees of the time) as work.
For someone who WAS NOT a rabbi of the church to be preaching and leading teachings on the Sabbath was considered working.

[Devlin777]

Except that 1) many of the prophesies you mentioned here were not very difficult ones to fulfill and 2) it is not contended whether writers of the NT believed that Jesus was the Messiah, the question is whether the OT predicted Jesus specifically. The writers of the NT were obviously going to say that Jesus fulfilled the OT prophesies, otherwise their claim meant nothing. As I pointed out to Prophet, however, there are real differences between the OT perception of the Messiah and the NT perception of Jesus which leads me to believe that the case made by the NT for Jesus' prediction in the OT is weak.

I would whole-heartedly agree with you in each instance (and there are plenty more) but even in a court of law, the preponderance of circumstantial evidence is enough to convict. Jesus met the requirements of ALL the OT prophecies re: Messiah. Taking one step is not difficult at all, but running a marathon is quite hard, yet made up of individual steps. It's not just the writers of the NT that have confirmed the fulfillment of prophecy. Many an archiological study has been done to prove the existance and trace the life (as best we can) of the historical Jesus.

You have to put it into historical context. Isreal was looking for instant gratification (as most all are sadly). They wanted a deliver to bring them out from under RIGHT NOW!

[Realist]

I would whole-heartedly agree with you in each instance (and there are plenty more) but even in a court of law, the preponderance of circumstantial evidence is enough to convict.

Unless the evidence is false or insufficient.

It's not just the writers of the NT that have confirmed the fulfillment of prophecy. Many an archiological study has been done to prove the existance and trace the life (as best we can) of the historical Jesus.

Show me an OT prophecy which we know Jesus fulfills from historical evidence.

There is no proof of Jesus' existance, by the way.

[Lonely Tylenol]

i was forced to go to church, i walked out.

But I'm an atheist, and I occasionally go to the church across the street to listen to their sermons.

In fact, I've also read through the Bible's OT and most of NT.

Perhaps my own bias might have played a role (despite my insistence on keeping an open mind on the matter), but despite all my attempts to figure it out, I have never understood what makes Christianity so appealing that it has over 2 billion followers. I'm sure there's probably some grand revelation that I missed out on when I read and listened, but I'm not seeing it. The Bible's just another book, and the priest's just another guy people cling to. And as Realist said...

The evidence is simply against this. It makes me unhappy. Sometimes it even makes me depressed. But I simply can't believe something which is so obviously false.

[old_man_killer]

I see. Not the greatest connection maybe, but makes sense. Still falls under the other problems I put in my reply to Dev.

I see your point of the Bible not proving the existence of GOD or proving beyond a shadow of doubt that Jesus was the true Messiah. But by the same token, there is no proof in this world that can convince me that they don't exist.

You made a off-handed remark about Jesus "if he even existed" in your text. Jesus's existence has been noted in Roman documents of the time period. A source totally independent of the NT. If you'll bear with me, I will find that reference for you. so he did exist, but that leaves you with your original problem of finding solid verification that he is the true Messiah.

[The Prophet]

But I simply can't believe something which is so obviously false.
Now listen here Realist, because I am The Prophet j/k :) . It is not obviously absolutely false. It boils down to your lack of faith.

No one can deny fact that Jesus was and is the most controversial person to walk the Earth. There was and has to be something different about this man.

It is so easy to justify how the prophecies are in literal terms and pinpointing. You can also justify how the prophecies are geared up by the NT writers

On the same note is just as easy to justify how the prophecies are actual in their predictions of Christ.

Christianity and really all religions are soley based on faith. We, in all religions, worship God & gods who can not be literally seen or touched.

So, now if have to leave this thread and hope a seed was planted that someone will read this, and some good will come out of it.

[Swartzstrom]

The best thing about Atheists who claim not to believe in God is that they expend all the energy they can trying to prove God doesn;t exist. The problem is that they are not really trying to prove it to others, but are constantly trying to prove it to themselves in an effort to not be afraid of what might happen when they are wrong.

Nope, not me. I honestly believe that God doesn't exist. He hasn't shown me any confirmation that he/she/it actually exists. My father preaches about how God's given me everything I have, that Life exists because of him. If God created humans in his image, then why do we act the way we do? Would he not want us to be in perfect harmony? I sense a fourth party at work, which causes me not to believe in God. Maybe it's not something so much as believe, but lack of trust. I cannot trust something that I cannot see or talk to. That's like trusting clean air to be everywhere on the planet. The one question that cannot be answered is the only thing that can have me believe in God. "Where did 'God' come from? You've proved through your religions that nothing exists without something to have created it, right? Then 'God' had to have come from somewhere else? If you cannot answer this question, then do not even respond."

[Devlin777]

Courtesy of: http://www.sundayschoolcourses.com/histjesu/histjesu.htm

Historical Evidence - Contemporary Secular Sources

It is interesting to hear how secular contemporaries of Jesus described Him. In Acts 25:13-20, we get some clues from the New Testament itself. But is Jesus mentioned by contemporary secular sources outside the New Testament? While the number of references are probably fewer than you might imagine, they do exist! The primary source material is from Jewish turncoat-Roman historian Flavius Josephus.

Flavius Josephus
-37 A.D. (?) - 100 A.D.
-Josephus was a Jewish aristocrat that led rebel troops against the Romans in Galilee during the First Jewish Revolt (66-73 A.D.)
-He later betrayed the Jews, and served the Romans
-He wrote two massive historical works: "The Jewish War" and "Jewish Antiquities"
-John the Baptist, James the Just (brother of Jesus), and Christ are all mentioned in "Jewish Antiquities"
-Jesus is mentioned twice by Josephus. One time is in reference to his brother James the Just (head of the Christian church in Jerusalem). Some interesting points regarding this passage:
* Ananus, a Sadducee, was high priest of the Sanhedrin. He was "...very rigid in judging offenders..."
* "...Jesus, who was called Christ..."
* "brother of Jesus...whose name was James"
(Josephus identifies James by his more well-known brother)

"But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:" (Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1)

- "The Testimonium" - The primary secular reference to Jesus Christ is in what is now known as the Testimonium, in the 18th book of "Jewish Antiquities". Note that many Bible scholars consider the bracketed passages to be later Christian interpolations. However, even without the italicized parts, we learn a great deal about the life of Jesus:
* Jesus lived
* He was a teacher and miracle worker
* He had followers both among the Jews and the Gentiles
* He was condemned to the cross by Pontius Pilate
* His followers didn't stop following him even after the crucifixion
* The "tribe" of Christians, founded in Jesus' name, still existed at the time of the writing of "Jewish Antiquities" (93-94 A.D.)

"3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, [if it be lawful to call him a man]; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. [He was [the] Christ.] And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; [for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him]. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." ("Jewish Antiquities", 18.3.3)

Copyright 1997 by Robert C. Jones

This material may be reprinted free of charge for use by non-profit church groups, as long as the author and copyright information is retained.

[old_man_killer]

Nope, not me. I honestly believe that God doesn't exist. He hasn't shown me any confirmation that he/she/it actually exists. My father preaches about how God's given me everything I have, that Life exists because of him. If God created humans in his image, then why do we act the way we do? Would he not want us to be in perfect harmony? I sense a fourth party at work, which causes me not to believe in God. Maybe it's not something so much as believe, but lack of trust. I cannot trust something that I cannot see or talk to. That's like trusting clean air to be everywhere on the planet. The one question that cannot be answered is the only thing that can have me believe in God. "Where did 'God' come from? You've proved through your religions that nothing exists without something to have created it, right? Then 'God' had to have come from somewhere else? If you cannot answer this question, then do not even respond."

To answer this question fully, you must be able to think outside the realm of height, length, width and time. The four physical dimensions. GOD didn't come from anywhere, he just is.

[Realist]

I see your point of the Bible not proving the existence of GOD or proving beyond a shadow of doubt that Jesus was the true Messiah. But by the same token, there is no proof in this world that can convince me that they don't exist.

Well, since I don't believe that the OT is true either, the argument wasn't really whether Jesus was the true messiah or not, just whether he was predicted by the OT. Even if he was predicted by the OT I would not be a Christian.

You made a off-handed remark about Jesus "if he even existed" in your text. Jesus's existence has been noted in Roman documents of the time period. A source totally independent of the NT. If you'll bear with me, I will find that reference for you. so he did exist, but that leaves you with your original problem of finding solid verification that he is the true Messiah.

I'd like to see such documents. Let me warn you, though:

I want documents from contemporaries of Jesus. Jesus did a whole lot of miraculous things according to the NT, there should be some documents by his contemporaries about these miracles if they really were so great.

Documents from after Christianity already gained a foothold mean little, even from non-Christians. A lot of ancient world historians were bad with this sort of stuff.

[Swartzstrom]

"He Just Is." That is why I cannot believe in him. I find it unacceptable that something that exists in another dimension has influence on this one. I cannot accept this, because I am more close-minded than I'd like to be. "He Just Is." is my definition of a bullshit answer. I am a scientist, an answer without proof is like a grilled cheese without the cheese. Make no mistake, I think that the Big Bang Theory is bullshit as well.

[old_man_killer]

Courtesy of: http://www.sundayschoolcourses.com/histjesu/histjesu.htm

Historical Evidence - Contemporary Secular Sources

It is interesting to hear how secular contemporaries of Jesus described Him. In Acts 25:13-20, we get some clues from the New Testament itself. But is Jesus mentioned by contemporary secular sources outside the New Testament? While the number of references are probably fewer than you might imagine, they do exist! The primary source material is from Jewish turncoat-Roman historian Flavius Josephus.

Flavius Josephus
-37 A.D. (?) - 100 A.D.
-Josephus was a Jewish aristocrat that led rebel troops against the Romans in Galilee during the First Jewish Revolt (66-73 A.D.)
-He later betrayed the Jews, and served the Romans
-He wrote two massive historical works: "The Jewish War" and "Jewish Antiquities"
-John the Baptist, James the Just (brother of Jesus), and Christ are all mentioned in "Jewish Antiquities"
-Jesus is mentioned twice by Josephus. One time is in reference to his brother James the Just (head of the Christian church in Jerusalem). Some interesting points regarding this passage:
* Ananus, a Sadducee, was high priest of the Sanhedrin. He was "...very rigid in judging offenders..."
* "...Jesus, who was called Christ..."
* "brother of Jesus...whose name was James"
(Josephus identifies James by his more well-known brother)

"But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:" (Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1)

- "The Testimonium" - The primary secular reference to Jesus Christ is in what is now known as the Testimonium, in the 18th book of "Jewish Antiquities". Note that many Bible scholars consider the bracketed passages to be later Christian interpolations. However, even without the italicized parts, we learn a great deal about the life of Jesus:
* Jesus lived
* He was a teacher and miracle worker
* He had followers both among the Jews and the Gentiles
* He was condemned to the cross by Pontius Pilate
* His followers didn't stop following him even after the crucifixion
* The "tribe" of Christians, founded in Jesus' name, still existed at the time of the writing of "Jewish Antiquities" (93-94 A.D.)

"3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, [if it be lawful to call him a man]; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. [He was [the] Christ.] And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; [for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him]. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." ("Jewish Antiquities", 18.3.3)

Copyright 1997 by Robert C. Jones

This material may be reprinted free of charge for use by non-profit church groups, as long as the author and copyright information is retained.


Realist, it seems Devlin777 was quicker at finding this than I. (Good job Devlin) This is what I was refering to.

[Jeffery]

"He Just Is." That is why I cannot believe in him. I find it unacceptable that something that exists in another dimension has influence on this one. I cannot accept this, because I am more close-minded than I'd like to be. "He Just Is." is my definition of a bullshit answer. I am a scientist, an answer without proof is like a grilled cheese without the cheese. Make no mistake, I think that the Big Bang Theory is bullshit as well.
Fine Swartz. Since you want to be scientific about it.

Prove absolute 0 exists. So far there is no 100% proof it does, as it has been impossible to get anything that cold. So, according to yuor mindset, it should not be considered as possible.

[old_man_killer]

[QUOTE=Realist]Well, since I don't believe that the OT is true either,[QUOTE]

Can I get you to admit that some of it was true?

[Realist]

No one can deny fact that Jesus was and is the most controversial person to walk the Earth. There was and has to be something different about this man.

Does not logically follow. Lots of people are really controversial without actually doing anything themselves. Like Terry Shivo.

Christianity and really all religions are soley based on faith.

Yeah, thats why I don't believe in religions. I'm basically a rationalist. I don't believe in things without evidence. Reason works; faith does not. According to the NT, Jesus said if you had faith you could move mountains. This is simply false. Rationalist scientists inventing explosives and rationalist engineers using explosives is the only way to move mountains. Even people filled with faith suffer from the same stuff the rest of us do. On the other hand, using our rational abilities we can improve the world and actually help people's lives. Reason works, faith doesn't; therefore, I am a rationalist, not a theist.

[Devlin777]

Nope, not me. I honestly believe that God doesn't exist. He hasn't shown me any confirmation that he/she/it actually exists. My father preaches about how God's given me everything I have, that Life exists because of him. If God created humans in his image, then why do we act the way we do? Would he not want us to be in perfect harmony? I sense a fourth party at work, which causes me not to believe in God. Maybe it's not something so much as believe, but lack of trust. I cannot trust something that I cannot see or talk to. That's like trusting clean air to be everywhere on the planet. The one question that cannot be answered is the only thing that can have me believe in God. "Where did 'God' come from? You've proved through your religions that nothing exists without something to have created it, right? Then 'God' had to have come from somewhere else? If you cannot answer this question, then do not even respond."


OO, oo! I can (try)

1. We "know" that there is a finite amount of matter/energy in the Universe.
2. We "know" that it was once in balance.
3. We hypothesise that something outside of this balanced Universe had to act upon it to set it in motion (entropy)
4. We have language
5. Let's call this outside force BOB.
6. BOB has to be independent of the universe to act upon it as an outside force.
7. Let's just rename Bob GOD for arguments sake and try to ignore the icons and images that man has made to put a face to Bob..er.. GOD.
8. For ages Scientific FACT was that the Earth was at the center of the universe
9. For ages Scientific FACT was that the Sun was at the center of the universe
10. Science changes, Bob doesn't..er.. GOD.

[old_man_killer]

"He Just Is." That is why I cannot believe in him. I find it unacceptable that something that exists in another dimension has influence on this one. I cannot accept this, because I am more close-minded than I'd like to be. "He Just Is." is my definition of a bullshit answer. I am a scientist, an answer without proof is like a grilled cheese without the cheese. Make no mistake, I think that the Big Bang Theory is bullshit as well.

OK, Question: Do you believe in cold or darkness? Prove to me either exists.

[Swartzstrom]

Let me put it this way, I am a Sub-Scientist. While I look for evidence to prove my beliefs, I do know my intellectual limits. I'm not so stubborn as to try and prove something when I know sub-conciously that it doesn't exist or isn't possible.

While I believe it is possible, perhaps we do not have the technology to access that type of cold yet? Or perhaps it isn't possible? What if no matter how close we get to 'Absolute Zero', it cannot be possible? What if we get to 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000001? Mutiply the number of zeros by a couple of millions, then, maybe you'll understand my thinking. It is not within my power to prove that 'Absolute Zero' exists, because I do not have the tools to experiment.

[Realist]

Dev,

Josephus was NOT a contemporary of Jesus. As your link stated, he was born in 37 AD.

[Swartzstrom]

OK, Question: Do you believe in cold or darkness? Prove to me either exists.

I cannot, because what we call "Darkness" or "Cold" could in fact be something else. I can tell you what I believe.

I believe that there is no such thing as "Darkness", because "Darkness" would be the complete absence of light, correct? I believe that the absence of light is impossible, because there are every day elements that contain light within them. Your eyes adjust to light scarceness, do they not?

Let's say that a brick room was built around you, with no exit at all. Then place objects in that room. If you walk around and trip over objects and the such, then your eyes dihilate to let in light, correct? Then you can see, no much, but you can see the general outline of the objects.

I believe that there is such a thing as "Cold" but "Cold"s definition is relevant only the the person who believes that it is cold. For example, let's say that it is 35 Degrees F out side. You may believe that it is Cold and begin to shiver, but I think it's warm and take off my jacket because of which. I believe that "Cold" is something that is not definite, but something that varies with the person.

[Swartzstrom]

Dev,

Josephus was NOT a contemporary of Jesus. As your link stated, he was born in 37 AD.

Devin=PWNED

[Realist]

Can I get you to admit that some of it was true?

What parts specifically?

[Devlin777]

Dev,

Josephus was NOT a contemporary of Jesus. As your link stated, he was born in 37 AD.

Well now you're just picking nits. How can something be written about before or even as it happens, you're going to call 37 years not a contemporary?

Do you know what a 'meme' is?

meme

<philosophy> /meem/ [By analogy with "gene"] Richard Dawkins's
term for an idea considered as a replicator, especially with
the connotation that memes parasitise people into propagating
them much as viruses do.

Memes can be considered the unit of cultural evolution. Ideas
can evolve in a way analogous to biological evolution. Some
ideas survive better than others; ideas can mutate through,
for example, misunderstandings; and two ideas can recombine to
produce a new idea involving elements of each parent idea.

The term is used especially in the phrase "meme complex"
denoting a group of mutually supporting memes that form an
organised belief system, such as a religion. However, "meme"
is often misused to mean "meme complex".

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=meme

37 years is not long enough to produce a mythological Jesus who's life and actions were so widely discussed, debated and chronicled.

I'm going to need your definition of contemporary.

[old_man_killer]

I cannot, because what we call "Darkness" or "Cold" could in fact be something else. I can tell you what I believe.

I believe that there is no such thing as "Darkness", because "Darkness" would be the complete absence of light, correct? I believe that the absence of light is impossible, because there are every day elements that contain light within them. Your eyes adjust to light scarceness, do they not?

Let's say that a brick room was built around you, with no exit at all. Then place objects in that room. If you walk around and trip over objects and the such, then your eyes dihilate to let in light, correct? Then you can see, no much, but you can see the general outline of the objects.

I believe that there is such a thing as "Cold" but "Cold"s definition is relevant only the the person who believes that it is cold. For example, let's say that it is 35 Degrees F out side. You may believe that it is Cold and begin to shiver, but I think it's warm and take off my jacket because of which. I believe that "Cold" is something that is not definite, but something that varies with the person.


The fact is, neither exist. Darkness and Cold cannot be measured and therefore do not have physical properties. Darkness as you have alluded to, is nothing more than the absence of light. Light intesity can be measured so it exists. The same applies to cold. Cold is a term we use in relationship to the lack of heat. Heat can be measured, cold cannot. A thermometer that registers -100 degrees is still measuring heat about absolute 0.

The point is that scientific proof is not all there is in the universe. You should open up all your senses to the possibilities.

[Realist]

Contemporary=lived at the same time.

Its very simple.

The NT talks clearly about miracles Jesus did.

When people hear about miracles they often write them down. Especially stuff like bringing the dead back to life and curing lots of sick people.

Yet, there are no documents from the time Jesus is supposed to have done these things which would suggest that anyone was doing such things.

Why not?

[old_man_killer]

What parts specifically?

The question was, do you believe that any part of the OT was true.

[Realist]

The fact is, neither exist. Darkness and Cold cannot be measured and therefore do not have physical properties. Darkness as you have alluded to, is nothing more than the absence of light. Light intesity can be measured so it exists. The same applies to cold. Cold is a term we use in relationship to the lack of heat. Heat can be measured, cold cannot. A thermometer that registers -100 degrees is still measuring heat about absolute 0.

This is a silly argument you're making, just warning you.

Cold is lack of heat. It therefore exists.

Same with darknenss.

[Devlin777]

When people hear about miracles they often write them down. Especially stuff like bringing the dead back to life and curing lots of sick people.

Would you kindly produce one of these documents so I know you're not making an assumption based on your beliefs? If it happens "often" I'm sure there are many.

[Realist]

The question was, do you believe that any part of the OT was true.

Sure.

I believe there was an actual nation of Israel at one point, for example.

[old_man_killer]

Contemporary=lived at the same time.

Its very simple.

The NT talks clearly about miracles Jesus did.

When people hear about miracles they often write them down. Especially stuff like bringing the dead back to life and curing lots of sick people.

Yet, there are no documents from the time Jesus is supposed to have done these things which would suggest that anyone was doing such things.

Why not?

Well, lets look at his contemporaries. Most of those that could write were either Roman or Jewish leaders. I can't see either wanting to document these miracles. It is easy for some of us to take paper and pencils for granted.

[Devlin777]

Cold is lack of heat. It therefore exists.

Same with darknenss.

Logically speaking, the absence of something is not "something".

[Realist]

Would you kindly produce one of these documents so I know you're not making an assumption based on your beliefs? If it happens "often" I'm sure there are many.

So I was being a bit sarcastic.

There are no miracles.

Therefore, no one ever actually writes about real miracles.

However, I think its safe to assume that if someone was raised from the dead it would be written about. That is a pretty major event, don't you think?

[old_man_killer]

This is a silly argument you're making, just warning you.

Cold is lack of heat. It therefore exists.

Same with darknenss.

you cannot measure cold nor darkness. You can only measure levels of heat and levels of light.

[old_man_killer]

Sure.

I believe there was an actual nation of Israel at one point, for example.

OK, so you don't believe that the OT is false in its entirety.

Do you believe that the city of Sodom existed? As you know, this place was only mentioned in the Bible.

[Devlin777]

However, I think its safe to assume that if someone was raised from the dead it would be written about. That is a pretty major event, don't you think?

It WAS written about. See Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Revelation, etc.

We know from generally accepted as reliable historical records that many of Christs followers were killed for their beliefs. Why would someone choose to die for something they knew was a lie? They could've abandoned their beliefs and been safe.

[Realist]

Well, lets look at his contemporaries. Most of those that could write were either Roman or Jewish leaders. I can't see either wanting to document these miracles. It is easy for some of us to take paper and pencils for granted.

Not true. Most upper class Jews and Romans were literate, not only the leaders. It would be pretty hard to keep out the news of Jesus considering the absolutely astounding miracles ascribed to him.

[Realist]

you cannot measure cold nor darkness. You can only measure levels of heat and levels of light.

Yes, and a lower level of heat is colder than a higher level of heat. Cold is a descriptive term for a real phenomenum. Just because it can be expressed in other terms doesn't mean that cold doesn't exist.

[Realist]

OK, so you don't believe that the OT is false in its entirety.

Do you believe that the city of Sodom existed? As you know, this place was only mentioned in the Bible.

I neither know nor particularly care. Why does it matter? I don't see what you are getting at.

[Realist]

It WAS written about. See Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Revelation, etc.


Again...not written while Jesus was supposedly doing his work. Everything was written decades after. Why nothing right after, but then a sudden appearance a few decades later? Thats generally not how news works.

We know from generally accepted as reliable historical records that many of Christs followers were killed for their beliefs. Why would someone choose to die for something they knew was a lie?

There are martyrs in many religions, including those persecuted by the Christians. I'm not saying the average Christian knew their beliefs were false. I'm just saying that they were false.

[Northwind]

I believe that there is no such thing as "Darkness", because "Darkness" would be the complete absence of light, correct? I believe that the absence of light is impossible, because there are every day elements that contain light within them. Your eyes adjust to light scarceness, do they not?

Let's say that a brick room was built around you, with no exit at all. Then place objects in that room. If you walk around and trip over objects and the such, then your eyes dihilate to let in light, correct? Then you can see, no much, but you can see the general outline of the objects.
Swartz,

I'm trying (my hardest) to stay out of this discussion as once I get sucked in, I find it very hard to get out. However, I will tell you that there can be the absolute absence of light. I used to go caving a fair amount when I was younger. When you switch off your lights in the back of a cave, you are in absolute blackness. Complete and total. You can see the outlines of nothing, you eyes literally cannot distinguish your hand in front of your face. Darkness exists. Darkness is the lack of photons. This is not only easy to imagine, it is easy to prove experimentally.

Similarly, absolute cold exists. It is the absence of molecular motion. I agree with Realist -- those trying to argue that cold or darkness cannot be proven are mistaken.

These phenomenon have nothing to do with the arguments for or against God. It would be best not to conflate them.

[TheBlazedAce]

An incredibly interesting topic has arisen.

Imagine a spider moving across a screen and a very large screen far away from it a shadow can be seen of the spider moving across. The shadow is moving faster then the bug actually does. Therefore if something moved at nearly the speed of light it is not impossible to imagine its shadow might be able to move faster then the speed of light. Fortunetly, this doens't contradict Einstein's special theory of relativity because a shadow has no mass and contains no information. It is a very odd concept to ponder.

Note I have not read of this in a book, but someone brought it up in another forum and he knew what he was talking about. Just wondering what you guys think.

[falco88887]

Sorry blazed, but i wanna talk more about temperature. I have always wondered, since there is an absolute zero, where molecular motion stops, is there a temperature so cold that atomic motion stops? Like, a temperature so cold that electrons halt their motion around the nucleus. I would think that such a cold temperature might be possible, but then, it also seems pretty crazy that something can actually freeze the force of an atom in place.

[old_man_killer]

I neither know nor particularly care. Why does it matter? I don't see what you are getting at.

The point is, you have made a blanket statement about the OT being false. I am proving that there are portions KNOWN to be true. You claim it is false because of lack of proof. Well it stands to reason that if portions are proven true, and that no evidence exists "other than speculation" proving any falsehood, then the document could be considered TRUTH.

As for Sodom, in the fairly recent discovery at the ancient city of Ebla, a records room was discovered containing 1000's of clay tablets. Most were merely municipal records. Dealings these people had with other cities. One of the cities mentioned was none other than Sodom. Here a Biblical city confirmed by a secular "contemporary" document.

[old_man_killer]

Not true. Most upper class Jews and Romans were literate, not only the leaders. It would be pretty hard to keep out the news of Jesus considering the absolutely astounding miracles ascribed to him.

Seeing as most upper level Jews and pretty much all of the Romans would have found Jesus to be a threat, I doubt such documents would have existed. Also lets look at the fact the Pharisees were doing their best to disprove the claims of Jesus. Any such documents would have been destroyed on purpose and those hidden away would have long since crumbled to dust.

[Jeffery]

http://www.digbible.org/tour/index.html

A small list of Archeological digs that have been linked to the Bible. In some cases, drawings of the temple layouts themselves EXACTLY match the actual layout of ruins 1000's of years old.

[Realist]

The point is, you have made a blanket statement about the OT being false. I am proving that there are portions KNOWN to be true. You claim it is false because of lack of proof. Well it stands to reason that if portions are proven true, and that no evidence exists "other than speculation" proving any falsehood, then the document could be considered TRUTH.

Uh...no it doesn't. Not at all.

The Epic of Gilgamest contains true statements about Sumer. The Koran contains true statements. Are these books true? Can you disprove more about these books than you can about the OT?

For that matter, every movie procuded in the world today contains elements of truth. Are all movies truth? How much in them can you disprove? Star Wars. How do you know there isn't all this stuff happening in a galaxy far far away? We know that Star Wars contains some elements of truth--humans really do have two eyes, just as they do in Star Wars. And we don't for certain know that anything else is false. So should we assume that Star Wars is correct?

Do your realize how ridiculous your argument is?

And if the OT was true, which version was true? You do know about the multiple versions of many stories in the OT don't you? And what happens when it contradicts the NT?

As for Sodom, in the fairly recent discovery at the ancient city of Ebla, a records room was discovered containing 1000's of clay tablets. Most were merely municipal records. Dealings these people had with other cities. One of the cities mentioned was none other than Sodom. Here a Biblical city confirmed by a secular "contemporary" document.

Uh...and this proves?

We know the Assyrian Empire exists too, and Egypt, does that prove the Bible?

So people had tales about the cities located near them...what news.

I think they discovered Troy a few/bunch of years ago...I guess now we should believe everything written by Homer.

[Realist]

http://www.digbible.org/tour/index.html

A small list of Archeological digs that have been linked to the Bible. In some cases, drawings of the temple layouts themselves EXACTLY match the actual layout of ruins 1000's of years old.

What drawings of temple layouts? I don't understand what you mean by that.

In any case, it totally makes sense that there was a temple, in fact I'm pretty sure its a well established fact. And it also makes sense that the Israelites would build that temple to the specifications in the Bible. This still doesn't prove anything about the truth of the actually extraordinary claims of the Bible.

[Realist]

Seeing as most upper level Jews and pretty much all of the Romans would have found Jesus to be a threat, I doubt such documents would have existed. Also lets look at the fact the Pharisees were doing their best to disprove the claims of Jesus. Any such documents would have been destroyed on purpose and those hidden away would have long since crumbled to dust.

Society was freer than you think. There were lots of controversial writings. You know, the Christians were by no means the only Messianic sect of this era-there were tons of them, with lots of writings. We do have a fairly large amount of writings from this period. And once the Church did start spreading, they managed to spread their books pretty well didn't they? So why couldn't the news have spread when the miracles were actually happening?

Moreover, is there any Biblical evidence for your argument? Doesn't it say in the Bible (I don't have time to look it up) that people heard about Jesus and went to him to get healed? Also, that wherever he went people were willing to house him? This doesn't sound like an unknown man. There would be records if the NT is correct.

[Jeffery]

You have it backwards. The illustrations were made of the temple, not the temple to the illustrations.
Offhand I can not remember which temple it was, but the layout matched the illustrations found on scrolls from before the time of Christ.

http://www.bibleorigins.net/archaeologydatestexts.html

Here is a site of a man who spent A LOT of time (and cerified by others) on dating certain texts of the bible. Note how even even gives proof that some books of the Bible were written centuries after the life of Christ. He also dates some of the writings of the OT (exodus) within a very narrow parameter,

[old_man_killer]

Uh...no it doesn't. Not at all.

The Epic of Gilgamest contains true statements about Sumer. The Koran contains true statements. Are these books true? Can you disprove more about these books than you can about the OT?

For that matter, every movie procuded in the world today contains elements of truth. Are all movies truth? How much in them can you disprove? Star Wars. How do you know there isn't all this stuff happening in a galaxy far far away? We know that Star Wars contains some elements of truth--humans really do have two eyes, just as they do in Star Wars. And we don't for certain know that anything else is false. So should we assume that Star Wars is correct?

Do your realize how ridiculous your argument is?

And if the OT was true, which version was true? You do know about the multiple versions of many stories in the OT don't you? And what happens when it contradicts the NT?



Uh...and this proves?

We know the Assyrian Empire exists too, and Egypt, does that prove the Bible?

So people had tales about the cities located near them...what news.

I think they discovered Troy a few/bunch of years ago...I guess now we should believe everything written by Homer.

it proves truths about the OT, but you have not proved any falsehood. Whereas the other mediums you noted, the falsehood can easily be proved. Just because you cannot prove it all to be true, doesn't make any of it false. You will only believe that which you want to, so there is no need argue the point. I fear that the only way you will be convinced is when the heavens open up and the New Jerusalem decends from the sky.

[Realist]

it proves truths about the OT, but you have not proved any falsehood.

Irrelevent truths.

Whereas the other mediums you noted, the falsehood can easily be proved.

Disprove the Epic of Gilgamesh. Disprove Star Wars.

Just because you cannot prove it all to be true, doesn't make any of it false.

Nor does it make any of it true. So? What's your point?

You will only believe that which you want to, so there is no need argue the point.

No, I'll only believe what I have good reason to believe.

[Devlin777]

Realist, would you say that you are willing to be convinced? Or would it take Jesus Christ standing in front of you with you poking at his wounds and watching him heal blind folks and walking on water?

[The Cheat]

Realist, would you say that you are willing to be convinced? Or would it take Jesus Christ standing in front of you with you poking at his wounds and watching him heal blind folks and walking on water?


That would be so freaken cool!

[Realist]

I'm willing to convinced by reason.

[The Cheat]

I'm willing to convinced by reason.


Ummmmm......but knowing you that would be really hard. :p

[Realist]

True.

Because I'm already on the side of reason.

[Devlin777]

I'm willing to convinced by reason.

Are you familiar with the Mathematical Proofs of the Existence of GOD? Pure logic and reason based on accepted scientific priniples.

Reason has a side? :cool:

[Realist]

I'm familiar with them in that I've disproven a bunch.

Give me something and I'll destroy it.

(Unless it is correct of course.)

[Devlin777]

I'm familiar with them in that I've disproven a bunch.

Give me something and I'll destroy it.

(Unless it is correct of course.)


Well, there's this guy, Dr. William Hatcher (Ph.D in mathematics, self proclaimed Platonist philosopher and a follower of the Baha'i faith :( ). He's argued against Aristotle's "proof" of GOD because it relies on infinite regress or causes for the universe (which is too hard to prove in mathematical circles, since it makes assumptions and doesn't take into account nevagive integers).

He came up with a more sound explanation which goes something like:

Relational Logic (as laid out by Avicenna, an historical Muslim pholosopher) deals, oddly enough, with the relations between objects (any objects).

We'll start with the universal truths, since if you dismiss them, there's really no point....

1. The assertion that something exists (Even if we and the world are illusions, an illusury self, contemplating an illusury universe, is still something that exists (see also your insistence on cold and darkness)

2. Everything that exists does so because of some cause. The "prinicple of sufficient reason" states that every phenomenon is either caused by something external or caused by itself, but never both. Basically, everything that exists has a reason for existing.

....

[Realist]

Even if I accepted that everything had to have a cause, that doesn't prove that God is the cause.

EDIT: I see what you're doing...you want to walk me through this?

I would say that there is no evidence that everything must have a cause, and scientific reason to doubt it as well.

[Devlin777]

Even if I accepted that everything had to have a cause, that doesn't prove that God is the cause.

EDIT: I see what you're doing...you want to walk me through this?

I would say that there is no evidence that everything must have a cause, and scientific reason to doubt it as well.

I don't think you're reading"cause" in the correct context: All known physical phenomena are composites; that is they are made up of components (protons, electrons...quarks.... what have you) This is not debatable (with the exception of the mathematically theorized elementary particles of quantum mechanics).

If you know or think otherwise, I'd need to understand your views before proceeding.... :confused:

[Realist]

I don't think you're reading"cause" in the correct context: All known physical phenomena are composites; that is they are made up of components (protons, electrons...quarks.... what have you) This is not debatable (with the exception of the mathematically theorized elementary particles of quantum mechanics).

This I accept.

It is true for "all known physical phenomena"...but not necessarily for all unknown physical phenonema, and, as you said, there are theories of phenomena which do not have this quality.

[Devlin777]

This I accept.

It is true for "all known physical phenomena"...but not necessarily for all unknown physical phenonema, and, as you said, there are theories of phenomena which do not have this quality.

Um...WOW, I didn't think we'd get this far. That might be siggy worthy! ;)

Anyway...back on point. Since all the "things" in the known universe (We can't deal with the unknown from a rational, scientific point)...are composites: A is a component of B, then B is a composite, and a composite cannot be a cause of one of its components, because it could not exist without all its components in place.

From these definitions Dr. Hatcher infered that the universe is a composite of all phenomena. Thus (I love that word) it could not/can not bring any of its own components into being, as it could not have existed before the existence of the components.

I'll stop here to get your thoughts....

[Twelve]

Been busy lately, but I'll be baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!


12

[Realist]

I agree that the universe as the "sum of everything" did not create any of that "everything", yes.

[Devlin777]

I agree that the universe as the "sum of everything" did not create any of that "everything", yes.

...so, we will accept that the universe could not be self-caused, since it is caused by the aggregation of its components. Logically, there must be some object/thing/phenomenon (we'll call it N) that causes the universe but is not the universe itself. N must be universal, because it is the cause, either directly or indirectly, for every component in the universe. (This works no matter how you dissect it, but I'll assume otherwise and give you the opportunity to reply.)

[Realist]

That is true assuming that everything has a cause. I'm willing to make that assumption.

[Devlin777]

That is true assuming that everything has a cause. I'm willing to make that assumption.

THEREFORE (I really REALLY did not expect us to get this far, I have not given you enough credit for being rational :bigsmile: )....

N is the unique uncaused phenomenon, because, as the cause of everything, it can't be caused by something else.

Whatever the name given to N, based on the constraints of language and analogy, the proof of N is based on the fact that each assumption it rests on is empirically grounded and is "far more reasonable than its negation".

From there, we're all just giving different names to N, from which comes the mistake of arguing the MEANING of N rather than the existence of N.

Thank you, good night, I'll be here all week, try the veal.

*Note: the facts, theories and conclusions stated herein and in the earlier posts are taken from the discussion/dissertation given by Dr. Hatcher last year at Warren Hall, Columbia University as reported in the Columbia Spectator. I've tried to summarize, thought for thought, the ideas set forth in the speech. Where required, I tried to use quotation marks to show the words of Dr. Hatcher verbatim. :)

[Jeffery]

So you're willing to take that based on your FAITH in science.

[Devlin777]

So you're willing to take that based on your FAITH in science.

I thought science needed no faith. :confused:

It's truths are based on measurable, repeatable experimentation. But please lets not get started on TRUTH, that's a whole other meta-topic.

[Jeffery]

Science is based on a lot of faith. Assumptions are made, and theories are taken as fact even though they have not been proven. The faith just isn't based upon a supreme being.

That is true assuming that everything has a cause. I'm willing to make that assumption.

His willingness to make that assumption shows his faith in science being right.

[Devlin777]

Science is based on a lot of faith. Assumptions are made, and theories are taken as fact even though they have not been proven. The faith just isn't based upon a supreme being.

His willingness to make that assumption shows his faith in science being right.

I see what you mean, but I respectfully dissent. The difference between a theory and fact is that a fact has been tested to the extent of our abilities to do so, results measured and recorded, retested and rerecorded ad nauseum. Sure, the probability exists, no matter how miniscule that one time the result will differ, but until then its accepted as fact. This is as close as we can come, so we work with what we have. Its the whole preponderance of circumstantial evidence thing again. Individually they don't mean much, but taken as a whole its hard to argue against results. Facts are accepted because they haven't been DISPROVEN, that's more the case.

[Jeffery]

I see what you mean, but I respectfully dissent. The difference between a theory and fact is that a fact has been tested to the extent of our abilities to do so, results measured and recorded, retested and rerecorded ad nauseum. Sure, the probability exists, no matter how miniscule that one time the result will differ, but until then its accepted as fact. This is as close as we can come, so we work with what we have. Its the whole preponderance of circumstantial evidence thing again. Individually they don't mean much, but taken as a whole its hard to argue against results. Facts are accepted because they haven't been DISPROVEN, that's more the case.
Fine:
Disprove God exists.

[Devlin777]

Fine:
Disprove God exists.

Don't wanna, don't think I could. I CHOOSE to believe based on my meager, tiny faith. I think we're talking from the same side of the table here. I totally believe in GOD. And I'm continually trying to understand what GOD means. I have no doubt that GOD exists.

[Jeffery]

Facts are accepted because they haven't been DISPROVEN, that's more the case.

I was simply refering to your own statement that facts are accepted because they can not be disproven.
By that standard, God can not be disproven, so would he be accepted?

[X-Takhisis]

a verry wise persion once said to me, " I belive that God is real for u buy pleas under stand that God is not real to me ".

[Devlin777]

I was simply refering to your own statement that facts are accepted because they can not be disproven.
By that standard, God can not be disproven, so would he be accepted?

I don't think it's the same thing, since there's no measurable, repeatable experimentation that can begin to test the theories, since GOD is generally considered as the outside force for the universe (see earlier posts) and we are within that system (the universe) so we can't objectively test. This is all from a scientific standpoint mind you. Bringing beliefs and dogma into it muddies the waters considerably and brings us back to the meaning not the existence.

[Realist]

THEREFORE (I really REALLY did not expect us to get this far, I have not given you enough credit for being rational :bigsmile: )....

N is the unique uncaused phenomenon, because, as the cause of everything, it can't be caused by something else.

Since we have already agreed that everything has to have a cause (though I am still not certain this is correct), how can an exception be made for N? There is an escape from this problem though: If N is located outside our universe, perhaps it follows different rules than our universe and therefore can exist without cause.

So lets say, hypothetically, that you are correct so far. N is an uncaused phenomenon which caused the creation of our universe.

From there, we're all just giving different names to N, from which comes the mistake of arguing the MEANING of N rather than the existence of N.

Ok, but this does not at all mean that N is God. God is not simply defined as "the cause of the universe;" there are certain qualities a phenomenon needs to have to be God. Most importantly, God requires will. Otherwise, N is just another aspect of nature. Say, the big bang, or whatever caused the big bang.

You have not proven God.

[Realist]

His willingness to make that assumption shows his faith in science being right.

Actually, I don't think my assumption is scientific.

You are very right on science requiring faith though. Everything does. Nothing can be known or proven. But this is all philosophical babble. In real life, reason works and faith does not. Therefore, I put by trust in reason.

[Jeffery]

But there are many theories in science that are taken as fact, based on assumptions. Those assumptions are simply in the work of others who came before those making the assumptions now. And throughout history, many of those assumptions of fact have been proven wrong later by other assumptions of facts.

[Devlin777]

Since we have already agreed that everything has to have a cause (though I am still not certain this is correct), how can an exception be made for N? There is an escape from this problem though: If N is located outside our universe, perhaps it follows different rules than our universe and therefore can exist without cause.

So lets say, hypothetically, that you are correct so far. N is an uncaused phenomenon which caused the creation of our universe.

Ok, but this does not at all mean that N is God. God is not simply defined as "the cause of the universe;" there are certain qualities a phenomenon needs to have to be God. Most importantly, God requires will. Otherwise, N is just another aspect of nature. Say, the big bang, or whatever caused the big bang.

You have not proven God.


We agreed that everything in the known universe has a cause, either itself or something other than itself, but never both. If we apply these rules to N, N is self-caused because it cannot be caused by our universe, because our universe is caused by something other than it N. (It makes a pretty circle if you draw it out).

N=God=whateveryouwanttocallit. YOU are applying your beliefs to the word GOD and what that entails, going to meaning rather than existance. God is a word. If we accept that that word is the name for what caused the universe, the existence is proven. If you wish to call it a natural aspect, feel free, we were never discussing the nature of GOD, we were on the road to proving GOD's existence rationally. No? Please elaborate on "GOD requires will"

[Devlin777]

But there are many theories in science that are taken as fact, based on assumptions. Those assumptions are simply in the work of others who came before those making the assumptions now. And throughout history, many of those assumptions of fact have been proven wrong later by other assumptions of facts.

EXACTLY! It was long considered FACT that the Earth was the center of the universe, then it was the SUN, then oops! FACTS are not eternal, they are facts only as long as they have not been disproved. We can only get so close.

POOP! Double-posted again! Sorry.

[xerent]

POOP! Double-posted again! Sorry.

Ouch. That's a two week ban there. See you on the flip side of June!

^^

[Realist]

We agreed that everything in the known universe has a cause, either itself or something other than itself, but never both.

We said everything has as a cause something other than itself, or something inside itself...when did we say itself was a possible cause?

N=God=whateveryouwanttocallit. YOU are applying your beliefs to the word GOD and what that entails, going to meaning rather than existance. God is a word. If we accept that that word is the name for what caused the universe, the existence is proven.

God is a word with a definite meaning. God does NOT mean "the cause of the universe." In fact, the word God can refer to beings which had nothing to do with the creation of the universe. There is no necessary connection between causing the universe and being God.

In order for something to be considered God, it has to have certain qualities. Will, or purpose, is one of these qualities.

In order for your proof to work, you have to arbitrarily redefine the meaning of the English word God.

[Devlin777]

Please refer to posts #310 - 313, that's where we agreed. It was the whole composite portion.

As to the meaning of GOD, since you seem bent on pulling that into the existence of GOD, there are more than one belief systems which hold that GOD created the universe and then sat back. It's part and parcel of GOD to be something outside/greater than the universe. What is the DEFINITE meaning of the English word GOD?

There were, and I believe still are people who bow before statues in the belief that their "god" is in there? Golden Calf anyone? If that's all it takes to prove god's existence (note the lower case), that was easy, I have a tiki mug that came with the zombie I drank once. Can that be god?

[Realist]

Even the word "created" implies will.

There is nothing in your proof, even if 100% valid, which requires that N has any will. Say N is the big bang. That doesn't make the big bang a God.

Here is the dictionary.com definition of God (though I'm not a person who holds absolutely to dictionary definitions.):

God
1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
2. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.

Your N does not necessarily fulfill any of these definitions.

[Devlin777]

Even the word "created" implies will.

There is nothing in your proof, even if 100% valid, which requires that N has any will. Say N is the big bang. That doesn't make the big bang a God.

Here is the dictionary.com definition of God (though I'm not a person who holds absolutely to dictionary definitions.):

Your N does not necessarily fulfill any of these definitions.

Created does not imply will unless you take context clues (which clearly I did not include) from elsewhere. If a hydrogen atom bumps into a couple of oxygen atoms, water is created, where's the will to do so?

The big bang is the effect, not a cause. We've already agreed that something other than the universe created the universe. I'd say that's a good start to fulfilling your requirements of God. #4 is self-fulfilling as anything that is worshipped is consired a god by definition.

If somthing greater than the universe is not worthy of worship, I don't know how to continue with you on this.

Its quickly spiraling down to a matter of symantics.

[Hellblazer]

*Pops into this thread*

No, even I know that it's polytheistic and I'm atheist.
There's the father, the son, and the holy spirit.

*leaves*

[Devlin777]

*Pops into this thread*

No, even I know that it's polytheistic and I'm atheist.
There's the father, the son, and the holy spirit.

*leaves*

The Head, the body, the part that makes it alive....still one thing.

[Realist]

The big bang is the effect, not a cause.

Regardless of whether this is true or not, thats not the point. Something natural could have creted the universe, something which does not have the qualities of God. The big bang is only the example I used for one such thing.

We've already agreed that something other than the universe created the universe. I'd say that's a good start to fulfilling your requirements of God.

You would say falsely then. There is absolutely no necessary connection between causing the universe and being God. We think of the minor dieties worshipped by the Greeks as "gods", if these entities existed, they would not have created the universe. but would still be considered gods. Similarly, if the universe was created randomly, we wouldn't consider the random creation to be a god.

And I've said this before.

#4 is self-fulfilling as anything that is worshipped is consired a god by definition.

Well, this is why I'm not a dictionary absolutist. The dictionary defines words the way they are used; many worshipped entities are called gods whether the entity worshipped exists or not.

Its quickly spiraling down to a matter of symantics.

Nope! Its been a matter of symantics from the start. You said you could prove God, but you didn't prove God at all. You're mistaken symantics is what caused this entire argument.

[Hellblazer]

The Head, the body, the part that makes it alive....still one thing.
Whatever...

*goes to my Devil shrine and chants demonic rituals*

[Devlin777]

Regardless of whether this is true or not, thats not the point. Something natural could have creted the universe, something which does not have the qualities of God. The big bang is only the example I used for one such thing.

You would say falsely then. There is absolutely no necessary connection between causing the universe and being God. We think of the minor dieties worshipped by the Greeks as "gods", if these entities existed, they would not have created the universe. but would still be considered gods. Similarly, if the universe was created randomly, we wouldn't consider the random creation to be a god.

And I've said this before.

Well, this is why I'm not a dictionary absolutist. The dictionary defines words the way they are used; many worshipped entities are called gods whether the entity worshipped exists or not.

Nope! Its been a matter of symantics from the start. You said you could prove God, but you didn't prove God at all. You're mistaken symantics is what caused this entire argument.

Oh, I'm not arguing. :bigsmile: You just mislead me. What you wanted was for me to prove the existence of YOUR God.

Something natural is not incongruous with GOD, unless you're defining GOD as unnatural. Again, if that's you're assertion, I've been mislead as I didn't know the rules.

You didn't respond regarding your assertion that create implys will.

The universe is widely believed to have originated somehow. Did we somehow decide that it was random? I missed that part.

Within this universe there are certain immutable LAWS (physics, thermodynamics, etc.). To have created the universe would require the ability to transend these laws. If you reread the Greek mythology there was the creator(s) of the universe (Chaos?) and from that god came the lesser gods. But now you're bringing polytheism into it.

[Realist]

Oh, I'm not arguing. :bigsmile: You just mislead me. What you wanted was for me to prove the existence of YOUR God.

NO, you are WRONG. You stated that you could prove the existance of God. The word "God" has a definition; you IGNORED this definition in your proof. This is why your proof is invalid.

Something natural is not incongruous with GOD, unless you're defining GOD as unnatural.

God is defined as supernatural; i.e, beyond the rules of nature. But here. YOU define God. I should have asked you to define God before you ever made your proof, I knew it would come down to this.

You didn't respond regarding your assertion that create implys will.

I didn't want to get into another argument over words.

The universe is widely believed to have originated somehow. Did we somehow decide that it was random? I missed that part.

I never said that. Are my posts really this hard to understand, or do people just assume I say stuff I never do? I was just using the random creation as an example of something that could have caused the universe which we would not consider God. NEVER did I state that I believd in random creation.

But now you're bringing polytheism into it.

I'm bringing polytheism in because we are trying to define "god" and in order to define "god", we should look at what are generally considered gods.

In short, to sum up our argument now:

Your definition of God: Creator of the universe

My response:
1. The accepted definition of God does not require creation of the universe
2. The cause of the universe does not necessarily fall into the accepted definition of God.
3. Therefore, your definition is a bad one.

[Devlin777]

NO, you are WRONG. You stated that you could prove the existance of God. The word "God" has a definition; you IGNORED this definition in your proof. This is why your proof is invalid.

What's your complete definition of GOD? It seems to be a moving target. Let's just get that etched in stone so there will be no further misunderstanding.

God is defined as supernatural; i.e, beyond the rules of nature. But here. YOU define God. I should have asked you to define God before you ever made your proof, I knew it would come down to this.

Could GOD not use natural means if HE/IT wanted to? And that's only one definition. We need to agree as to which definition we're talking about. (moving target)

I'm bringing polytheism in because we are trying to define "god" and in order to define "god", we should look at what are generally considered gods.

And in each belief system where GOD or gods exist, they are credited with creating the universe. Would you kindly show me one generally known belief system which DOES NOT?

In short, to sum up our argument now:

Your definition of God: Creator of the universe

My response:
1. The accepted definition of God does not require creation of the universe
2. The cause of the universe does not necessarily fall into the accepted definition of God.
3. Therefore, your definition is a bad one.

Again, what is the "accepted" definition?

Have a great evening everyone, I'm off for the night! :)

[Hellblazer]

I will say one more thing before never posting on this thread again:
Jeffery is God...

[X-Takhisis]

what exactly are we descussin right now

[Realist]

What's your complete definition of GOD? It seems to be a moving target. Let's just get that etched in stone so there will be no further misunderstanding.

These are the qualities that I would classify as necessary for the accepted defitions:

1. An entity with:
2. Will
3. Extreme supernatural power
4. Immortality
5. Deserving of worship/recognition in some fashion

Could GOD not use natural means if HE/IT wanted to?

That is not the point; if god is USING natural means, he is still using them in a supernatural way; i.e, they wouldn't be happening if God did not will it.

And in each belief system where GOD or gods exist, they are credited with creating the universe. Would you kindly show me one generally known belief system which DOES NOT?

There is A GOD OR SET OF GODS which created the universe in every religion I know of, but not every single God participated in this creation. Therefore, it is not necessary to have created the universe to be considered a God. This alone destroys your proof.

[Doomed2Die]

Ive long since lost faith in most biblical teachings: stories invented to prove a point have been mixed together with actual events to create a biblical soup in which fact can not be seperated from fiction...

[Realist]

I will say one more thing before never posting on this thread again:
Jeffery is God...

Nope.

[Doomed2Die]

what exactly are we descussin right now

good question lol

[old_man_killer]

Ok, but this does not at all mean that N is God. God is not simply defined as "the cause of the universe;" there are certain qualities a phenomenon needs to have to be God. Most importantly, God requires will. Otherwise, N is just another aspect of nature. Say, the big bang, or whatever caused the big bang.

You have not proven God.

True, he has not proven GOD , but he has proven the rational, reasonable explaination for the possibility of GODs existence.

[Realist]

I never denied that it was possible that God existed.

[X-Takhisis]

i do not think we can prove how earth was created without haveing anny flaws. it is just like understanding hwere God came from ( if u belive there s a God )

[TheBlazedAce]

This long extensive prove relies on the assumption that the universe was "created". Why? Is it so hard to try and imagine the opposite? That every effect has a cause and this applies to everything, therefore nothing was ever created (sounds familiar doesn't it). Perhaps the universe was always there? Perhaps the universe was just once a single point that had so much packed energy it exploded and released itself outward? Most people don't understand the theory of the big bang. It was created to fit into the idea of the current laws of physics, not to contradict them.

I'm just going to say that I don't very much like people arguing that atheists are the ones without an open mind when it is always us willing to beleive the opposite, but most arguing for god's existance are the ones who aren't willing to believe anything else. Take your own advice people.

[X-Takhisis]

i hav never thought of that. the idea of the universe just bieng here has never bien mencioned to me. i guse it is just as easy to belive in as God

[old_man_killer]

This long extensive prove relies on the assumption that the universe was "created". Why? Is it so hard to try and imagine the opposite? That every effect has a cause and this applies to everything, therefore nothing was ever created (sounds familiar doesn't it). Perhaps the universe was always there? Perhaps the universe was just once a single point that had so much packed energy it exploded and released itself outward? Most people don't understand the theory of the big bang. It was created to fit into the idea of the current laws of physics, not to contradict them.

I'm just going to say that I don't very much like people arguing that atheists are the ones without an open mind when it is always us willing to beleive the opposite, but most arguing for god's existance are the ones who aren't willing to believe anything else. Take your own advice people.


Blazed, It was Christianity and any Religion that believes in a One true GOD that is being taken to task here. No body has denied the existance of the universe. No body has (at least I hadn't seen that post if they did) attacked Athiests for their beliefs. The question was about the existence of GOD. We have established that by all laws of reason and science that it is possible for this "entity" to exist beyond the realm of our physical universe. Even Realist admits that he doesn't deny the "possibility" of GOD. Thus if there is a possibilty, then no one can be 100% certain that GOD doesn't exist. I for one choose to believe, where as I respect your right not to. As for close-mindedness, I believe that ALL humans suffer that trait to some degree.

[Twelve]

12,



So Isaiah doesn’t believe in Jesus’ godhood, just that he will exist? I understand that Jesus didn’t come to Earth to be a great man, but shouldn’t the prophecy about him know that he is more than just one among a lot of greats?

Realist, that little segment in Isaiah 53:12 is only a TINY bit of the description of Jesus. Don't accuse Isaiah of something if you're not reading all that he has to say! Jesus is special here not because he is praised above all other people, he is special here because of his ability to forgive all iniquity.

Now let me take this a step further. As you can see by the format of this text, it is written in poetry form. Quite often in Hebrew poetry, the writer uses the art of the antithesis.

Look at verse 9 of chapter 53. Read it. I notice how you didn't jump on that. Here, Jesus is matched with the WICKED. Because that was as low as he had to become to become our sacrifice. The ANTITHESIS is that he is matched with the GREAT in verse 12.

You make broad judgements about the OT, yet you have not even come close to looking into Biblical format and style.

But the main point is, never take a verse out of context and hope to understand the message. This is not fair to the writer and it only leaves you confused.

Here, Jesus is rewarded as "great" because he must suffer...something that is striking and unusual.


Do you know how stupid this sounds? You’re asking ME to look up evidence to support YOUR argument! There is nowhere in the OT where it says the laws will be “fulfilled” and therefore will no longer need to be followed Your argument has no support.

Here is what you said, " OT leaves no room for a time when it would be allowed to stop following the OT laws." Since you spoke as if you know the OT so well, I assumed that I had nothing more to say to you. It's your attitude that needs adjustment. If you did indeed know your OT well enough to make such a broad statement, then you would know that the verse I added to my sig for the past THREE days was the verse that says exactly what you say doesn't exist.

Jeramiah 31:31-34 is such an obvious and well-known passage that it's almost comical that you can say such a thing about the OT. Read it.


Wow! Holding the Bible up to the standards of modern science? Why are you so sure that normal snakes couldn’t talk in Eden? Perhaps they simply lost that ability later.

I see that your defense has resorted to "perhaps" phrases. Come now. You and I both know that this won't hold any water.

I mean, are you, Realist, going against your namesake and trying to put up an argument claiming that normal snakes "perhaps" were able to not only talk but also TRICK human beings at one time? I mean....lol!

But let's pretend you didn't say that. Please. Yes, the Bible has so much time to waste with insignificant facts about life that it would take the time to say how men kills normal snakes. Wonderful.

If so, why isn't there a verse that talks about how men will kill...let's say, elephants? ("And his seed will step on your head, and your seed will cut off his trunk"). How about whales? ("And his seed will swallow you whole, and your seed will cut off your fat and make oil out of it") Hey, where is that verse about monkeys? ("And his seed will sling poop at you, and your seed will eat his brains.")

C'mon, Realist. Be real. This is a significant passage that, IN CONTEXT(a concept that I see you have trouble with), is speaking about Satan and what would happen to him at the end of time, a verse literally fulfilled in Revelations 20:2.


Obviously. I have read it carefully and understand it vastly better than most Jews and Christians who haven’t read it closely. How else do you think I know so much about it?

Really? I'm under the impression that you are well read in WEBSITES about the BIble. Because if you didn't know the verse in my sig and you claim to know the OT so well....I mean, Jeremian 31:31 is almost the John 3:16 of the OT!

Not my fault you don’t remember your own posts. You said that it was unknown what Biblical prophesies were referring to until they actually happened, and I explained that this was generally false. Usually it was quite well known what future events the prophets were referring to even while the prophets were prophesizing.

This is another one of your mighty assumptions and judgements that is totally un-provable. What IS provable is that nobody listened and/or believed what the prophets said. This is a common, repeated them in the OT. Recorded. Read Jeremiah. You REALLY need to read Jeremiah.

12

[Twelve]

Wrong. Beliefs and actions are two very different things. If someone touches a hot stove, then consequences are directly linked to their actions, because there is a physical reaction to this matter.

However, if someone, say, tells you not to believe the Earth is flat, then it is not necessarily a consequential action, so much as it is a belief, a mindset. The belief has no physical reaction and in fact doesn't adversely affect anyone, unless carried out violently. In fact, the only way to judge someone based on their beliefs is if you impose other beliefs ON them.

For God to judge someone based on a BELIEF is directly imposing his mindset on that of others, and is, yes, an infringement apon one's own free will.

And Warcow does hold another point... God's laws were created thousands of years ago, many were subject to change and have changed through the Church. Furthermore, some of these rules have no logical bearing or consequence in life and the only actual consequences are that it defies God's vision of humankind, which is really just in support of the same argument I had to begin with.

Your argument only holds ground under the assumption that blasphemy is a direct action, and is thus subject to direct consequence, but this is no such case.

Looking through this thread, I see that all legit points have been answered more or less except for this one.

You wrote, "For God to judge someone based on a BELIEF is directly imposing his mindset on that of others, and is, yes, an infringement apon one's own free will."

I'm not sure what game you're playing here, but it looks like you're taking the position (at the moment) that there is indeed a God.

If there IS indeed a God, then He has the right to impose whatever He wishes on anything. He is the Creator...his creations have to go buy His rules whether they like it or not.

But since He is a fair God, He has given everybody the free will to choose one fate or another.

You wrote, "God's laws were created thousands of years ago, many were subject to change and have changed through the Church."

First of all, what is this "Church" you're talking about and have your heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls? Google it.

You wrote, "Furthermore, some of these rules have no logical bearing or consequence in life and the only actual consequences are that it defies God's vision of humankind, which is really just in support of the same argument I had to begin with."

Please clarify and specify.

12

[DULA]

I ask this because I was flipping through channels and I saw a TV evagalist preaching how all the good things in your life are gifts from "god" and all the bad times were sent by Satan to try to get you to question "god"

It would seem like, even if Christians wont admit that Satan is a god, they give him god-like powers. So in essence you have the "good god" vs "evil god" which is a very common theme in many polytheistic religions.



When i first open this ithought you were going to talk about the holy trinty(God,the son,and the holy ghost) or aleast the fact that in the orignal context the ten commandments said have no gods higher then the god of abraham. but which implies or at least leaves a curious mind thinking were there more gods.maybe, maybe not, but yes if you consider the idea that satan is a god and only that idea then yes chistianty is a one god religon. but if you look past that one idea then the question is harder to answer.

[TheBlazedAce]

2. Everything that exists does so because of some cause. The "prinicple of sufficient reason" states that every phenomenon is either caused by something external or caused by itself, but never both. Basically, everything that exists has a reason for existing.

I was reffering more to this when I mentioned the assumptions of this proof. Why does everything that exists have to have a reason for existance? That's not logically sound at all. Every effect has a cause, but not everything created needs a reason to be. Using an example mentioned earlier if two hydrogens collide with an oxygen and bond to form water, does that mean the water has some hidden purpose? The cause-effect truth is created when we say that they collided, that's why water was then the product. It has nothing to do with reason for existance. Purpose is not inherent in all of us or in all things. That is why this proof is the exact same proof as Aristotle's and contained the exact same flaws.

OMK, I wasn't talking specifically to anyone. I guess I was just taking a little over from what some people were mentioning on another forum, where they began with the statement, evolution is crap and the bible is right, just live with it. Then at the end they called everyone arguing against them narrow-minded. The possibility of god is always there and I've heard the proofs for and against him time and time again. None of the proofs are valid because you truly can not proof or disprove his existance. Perhaps one day this will not be the case, but for now his existance only lives on by faith.

[Realist]

Twelve,

Realist, that little segment in Isaiah 53:12 is only a TINY bit of the description of Jesus. Don't accuse Isaiah of something if you're not reading all that he has to say!

If ANY part of the prophecy is false, it obviously means that the prophesy is not totally correct. That is what I am trying to say—since this verse does not apply to Jesus, the entire prophecy must not be applying to Jesus. Simple logic.

The rest of your response to me seems to suggest that you see the “reward” of Jesus as metaphorical. Am I correct?

Jeramiah 31:31-34 is such an obvious and well-known passage that it's almost comical that you can say such a thing about the OT. Read it.

I am familiar with the passage. Nowhere does it suggest what you are trying to say.


KJV
Jeremiah 31
31: Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

A new covenant; in other words, a new agreement between Israel, Judah and God. Note that this does not imply that the laws no longer need to be followed. In fact, it is written elsewhere in the OT that the laws are forever.

Deuteronomy 4
39: Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.
40: Thou shalt keep therefore his statutes, and his commandments, which I command thee this day, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, for ever.

“Forever.” The laws are forever, according to the OT. Nowhere does it say that the laws will be overturned. And:

KJV
Kings 2:17
36: But the LORD, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt with great power and a stretched out arm, him shall ye fear, and him shall ye worship, and to him shall ye do sacrifice.
37: And the statutes, and the ordinances, and the law, and the commandment, which he wrote for you, ye shall observe to do for evermore; and ye shall not fear other gods.

“Evermore” means “forever.” In other words, never stop observing the laws.

Perhaps Ezekial is referring to the same new covenant Jeremiah talked about:

KJV
Ezekial 37
21: And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land:
22: And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:
23: Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God.
24: And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.
25: And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.
26: Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.

See the last verse I posted? A covenant of peace; in other words, God will no longer punish them because they will no longer sin. This passage is clearly referring to the Messianic age. Now, look at the place I bolded in verse 24:
“they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them”

In other words, they should follow the OT laws! Even in the end times, even under the new covenant, the laws are still supposed to be followed occurring to Ezekiel’s prophecy.

Now lets go back to the rest of your Jeremiah passage.

KJV
Jeremiah 31:
32: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

According to this passage, the law isn’t going away. Now, I know Christians will claim that the verse is indicating that, since the law is written in the hearts of Israel, it no longer needs to be followed. But I see no evidence whatsoever for this. Nowhere does it say the law doesn’t need to be observed anymore, and as I demonstrated with the Ezekiel passage, it says the opposite in other places in the OT.

A more reasonable explanation: The law is written in the hearts of Israel means that Israel actually does the laws…it is in their heart to do the laws.

Now to the final verse of that Jeremiah passage:

34: And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Note the words “For they shall all know me.” At the time of the new covenant, everyone will know God! There will be no more sin! Does that describe life after Jesus? Did everyone know God after Jesus came? Is it no longer necessary for people to tell others “Know the LORD”?

I’m a perfect example.
1. I don’t know God
2. According to the OT, at the time of the new covenant everyone will know God.
3. Therefore, the new covenant has not arrived according to the OT.

Jeremiah 31 completely does not support your argument, Twelve. There is nothing in the OT that suggests that the laws will ever not need to be followed, and much which says the exact opposite.

I see that your defense has resorted to "perhaps" phrases. Come now. You and I both know that this won't hold any water.

I said perhaps because I WASN’T THERE! How would I know what life was like in Eden? I don’t even believe it existed! How would you know what life was like there either though? The OT claims that a snake could talk, who are you to doubt it?

I mean, are you, Realist, going against your namesake and trying to put up an argument claiming that normal snakes "perhaps" were able to not only talk but also TRICK human beings at one time? I mean....lol!

This was not just “any time!” Have you read the first few chapters of the Bible? Why are you so certain that animals couldn’t have spoken then? It was a different time.

About "acting like my namesake", true, I DON’T BELIEVE IT! But I don’t believe most of the Bible. I’m just reading it objectively for its clear meaning; and the clear meaning is that the snake talked.

But let's pretend you didn't say that. Please. Yes, the Bible has so much time to waste with insignificant facts about life that it would take the time to say how men kills normal snakes. Wonderful.

The OT spends pages going on and on about huge family lines and boring stuff like that! Now if you actually read the OT, you would know this. So don’t complain about how the bible is wasting its space here, it does it a lot worse in other places.

If so, why isn't there a verse that talks about how men will kill...let's say, elephants? ("And his seed will step on your head, and your seed will cut off his trunk"). How about whales? ("And his seed will swallow you whole, and your seed will cut off your fat and make oil out of it") Hey, where is that verse about monkeys? ("And his seed will sling poop at you, and your seed will eat his brains.")

I don’t know. Why don’t you ask God? The literal meaning of the verse is clear, even The Prophet agreed with me on this. Satan is not mentioned anywhere.

Really? I'm under the impression that you are well read in websites about the BIble. Because if you didn't know the verse in my sig and you claim to know the OT so well....I mean, Jeremian 31:31 is almost the John 3:16 of the OT!

I’ve read the entire OT. I recognize strange things about it that no one else seems to. I also have a page of NT biblical contradictions which contain contradictions in just the single book of Mathew that no one else seems to notice, some of which I have posted on this very forum. I’ve read the entire Bible carefully; I don’t trust websites, the vast majority of which are going from one silly perspective or another without any real care about objectivity.

And I knew the Jeremiah verse; it is nothing like John 3:16.

[Twelve]

Twelve,

If ANY part of the prophecy is false, it obviously means that the prophesy is not totally correct. That is what I am trying to say—since this verse does not apply to Jesus, the entire prophecy must not be applying to Jesus. Simple logic.

Why are you saying these things without any argument? How is this verse not correct? It's correct in so many ways...everytime I give it back to you it's correct in another way. I have to say, however, that by your constant questioning, you're understanding the nature of Jesure more than most.



The rest of your response to me seems to suggest that you see the “reward” of Jesus as metaphorical. Am I correct?

Nothing like "metaphorical" came from my fingertips to the keyboard. I was simply giving you a lesson in Hebrew poetry.

As for the color-coded lesson, thanx. I don't know HOW long it took you to do all of that, but the answer is simple, and we're going back to SQUARE ONE:

Jesus Christ is the fullfillment of all of these laws. All of them. Nothing is no longer being followed because if you follow Christ, you follow them ALL.

A

L

L.

Here is also a concept in Jeremiah 31:31 that you've ignored. "It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers...because they broke my covenant....

There's no problem making a "new" covenant when the old one is broken, first of all, and the all-repair is Christ.


Note the words “For they shall all know me.” At the time of the new covenant, everyone will know God! There will be no more sin! Does that describe life after Jesus? Did everyone know God after Jesus came? Is it no longer necessary for people to tell others “Know the LORD”?

I’m a perfect example.
1. I don’t know God
2. According to the OT, at the time of the new covenant everyone will know God.
3. Therefore, the new covenant has not arrived according to the OT.

Wroooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong.

This passage is specifically talking about God's people, which based on your first point, you aren't.


Jeremiah 31 completely does not support your argument, Twelve. There is nothing in the OT that suggests that the laws will ever not need to be followed, and much which says the exact opposite.

Proven to be wrong yet again, I'm afraid. Read Jeremiah!!!


I said perhaps because I WASN’T THERE! How would I know what life was like in Eden? I don’t even believe it existed! How would you know what life was like there either though? The OT claims that a snake could talk, who are you to doubt it?

LOL! You really crack me up. You say you don't believe in the OT, yet here you are believing it(as it suits you). Earlier, you were quoting the OT against me(as it suits you). What position do you take, Realist?

Realist. REALIST!

Snakes don't talk. They really don't! Honest!!!

But Satan does.


This was not just “any time!” Have you read the first few chapters of the Bible? Why are you so certain that animals couldn’t have spoken then? It was a different time.

Realist, you who know the OT so well, please provide for me the other example in the Bible where an animal talks. And then please think about the conditions by which that animal was able to speak.



The OT spends pages going on and on about huge family lines and boring stuff like that! Now if you actually read the OT, you would know this. So don’t complain about how the bible is wasting its space here, it does it a lot worse in other places.

Ooops. I'm afraid you've just sounded very ignorant of Jewish culture. It's downright insulting and insensitive to Jewish culture to say that these "huge family lines" are "boring stuff". To the Jew, the genealogy of a person was very, very, very important. It was no waste of space. This is why Matthew and Luke begin their books with the genealogy of Jesus.

So, no wasted space.



I don’t know. Why don’t you ask God? The literal meaning of the verse is clear, even The Prophet agreed with me on this. Satan is not mentioned anywhere.

Sheesh...*shakes head*

Since you're not currently in the mood to quote the NT, then what do you say to the fact that every Jewish person since Genesis was written knows that this snake represents Satan? Are you going to disagree with the people who themselves wrote this text?

Nevertheless, if your only defense is that "snakes were able to talk back then"...lol...then I can only leave you alone. I still can't believe you even said that...


And I knew the Jeremiah verse; it is nothing like John 3:16.

In its signficance and repetition of use in churches, it is.

12

[Realist]

Nothing like "metaphorical" came from my fingertips to the keyboard. I was simply giving you a lesson in Hebrew poetry.

Tell me then: Will Jesus actually be divided a portion among the great and strong?

As for the color-coded lesson, thanx. I don't know HOW long it took you to do all of that, but the answer is simple, and we're going back to SQUARE ONE:

I see you continue to ignore the majority of what I say. Its impossible to debate with someone who simply ignores my points….

Jesus Christ is the fullfillment of all of these laws. All of them. Nothing is no longer being followed because if you follow Christ, you follow them ALL.

We are not arguing over THIS! I know Christianity believes that! We are arguing over whether the OT predicts this. And I demonstrated clearly that the OT does NOT PREDICT THIS. That was what that “color coded lesson” was about, which you of course ignored because it destroys your point.

Now, I think I have a good suspicion of why you ignored my argument using OT quotations. You know some OT verses because you’ve studied them as part of your Christianity. However, you don’t care about most of the OT because most of the OT doesn’t support your point. Thus, when I quote passages from the rest of the OT which prove your point wrong, you have no way to respond and have to use evasion methods instead. This makes complete sense; since I already suspected that you never actually read most of the OT which you claim to know so well.

Here is also a concept in Jeremiah 31:31 that you've ignored. "It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers...because they broke my covenant....

Yes; it says numerous times in the OT that Israel broke the covenant. Nowhere does it say that this means the laws are now repealed.

Wroooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong.

This passage is specifically talking about God's people, which based on your first point, you aren't.

So all of God’s people currently know God? Hmm…but if you have to know God to be part of God’s people, and this verse is saying that all of God’s people will know God, then isn’t the verse simply stating the obvious???????

Proven to be wrong yet again, I'm afraid. Read Jeremiah!!!

I read it, and proved your interpretation of it false. Read the rest of the OT!!!

LOL! You really crack me up. You say you don't believe in the OT, yet here you are believing it(as it suits you). Earlier, you were quoting the OT against me(as it suits you). What position do you take, Realist?

Listen WELL and CLEARLY for once so I don’t have to repeat myself.
I do NOT believe in the OT. But I DO have reading comprehension skills. This means I can read a work objectively and understand the point it is trying to make even if I don’t agree with this point. We are not arguing personal beliefs here, we are arguing over whether the LITERAL meaning of “serpent” in Genesis 3 is “serpent” or “Satan.”

Snakes don't talk. They really don't! Honest!!!

People now don’t live for hundreds of years either! But the OT says that Adam did. People now don’t have sex with the sons of God! But the OT says they did in Adam’s time. Strange stuff happens in the OT, that’s why its such a fun book. If you read the OT, you would know this.

Ooops. I'm afraid you've just sounded very ignorant of Jewish culture. It's downright insulting and insensitive to Jewish culture to say that these "huge family lines" are "boring stuff". To the Jew, the genealogy of a person was very, very, very important.

It might have been very important to them, but why include it in the Bible? What is the purpose of putting it in a religious book?

Since you're not currently in the mood to quote the NT, then what do you say to the fact that every Jewish person since Genesis was written knows that this snake represents Satan? Are you going to disagree with the people who themselves wrote this text?

First, I’m not all that certain that “Jewish people” wrote the OT, and even if they did, their later interpretations massacre its meaning almost as much as the Christians’.

Second, we aren’t arguing over what the snake represents metaphorically. Dev claimed that the snake LITERALLY meant Satan; The Prophet, with a much more sensible explanation, said that Satan spoke through the snake.

[Twelve]

Tell me then: Will Jesus actually be divided a portion among the great and strong?

Yes.

Romans 8:17.


I see you continue to ignore the majority of what I say. Its impossible to debate with someone who simply ignores my points….

Make a noticeable point and it won't be ignored.



We are not arguing over THIS! I know Christianity believes that! We are arguing over whether the OT predicts this. And I demonstrated clearly that the OT does NOT PREDICT THIS. That was what that “color coded lesson” was about, which you of course ignored because it destroys your point.

Now, I think I have a good suspicion of why you ignored my argument using OT quotations. You know some OT verses because you’ve studied them as part of your Christianity. However, you don’t care about most of the OT because most of the OT doesn’t support your point. Thus, when I quote passages from the rest of the OT which prove your point wrong, you have no way to respond and have to use evasion methods instead. This makes complete sense; since I already suspected that you never actually read most of the OT which you claim to know so well.

Child, I'm a minister in a church. It's my profession to have read the entire Bible through and through so let's put that little thought of yours aside.

Your argument is not ignored. I completely accept all the OT verses that you wasted your time showing me. And I told you once again that they are all fulfilled through Christ, as prophesized by OT Scripture that you refuse to believe.




Yes; it says numerous times in the OT that Israel broke the covenant. Nowhere does it say that this means the laws are now repealed.

It says it nowhere in the NT either. Point is, the covenant and laws go together.

And is you read Jeremiah 31, you'll see that the law is now in the "minds" and "heart".



So all of God’s people currently know God? Hmm…but if you have to know God to be part of God’s people, and this verse is saying that all of God’s people will know God, then isn’t the verse simply stating the obvious???????

No.

An overwhelming idea in the time of Jeremiah was that ONLY the priests could "know&q