News:

Unnecessarily argumentative

Main Menu

Bible study for the atheist

Started by Firebird, February 03, 2012, 01:21:02 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Ecurb Noselrub

Quote from: Too Few Lions on February 10, 2012, 10:43:37 AM
And once you destroy Yahweh and the OT, I think you take away the foundation upon which the gods of Christianity and Islam are built.

Well, maybe you undermine the fundamentalist construct of Christianity this way, but Christianity itself rests upon the events of Jesus' life, especially the crucifixion/resurrection. To truly destroy Christianity, you would have to prove either that Jesus didn't exist historically, or at least that the crucifixion/resurrection account is false.

Stevil

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 10, 2012, 06:43:11 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on February 10, 2012, 10:43:37 AM
And once you destroy Yahweh and the OT, I think you take away the foundation upon which the gods of Christianity and Islam are built.

Well, maybe you undermine the fundamentalist construct of Christianity this way, but Christianity itself rests upon the events of Jesus' life, especially the crucifixion/resurrection. To truly destroy Christianity, you would have to prove either that Jesus didn't exist historically, or at least that the crucifixion/resurrection account is false.
That doesn't seem right to me. Of course you cannot prove that a person didn't exist. Can you prove to me that Xylonbythepylon didn't exist?
You cannot prove that an event that has no residual effect, nothing lasting, nothing tangible never happened. Can you prove that Xylonbythepylon didn't drown and his friend Sandypants didn't pull him out of the water where Xylonbythepylon miraculously came back to life?

Ecurb Noselrub

Quote from: Stevil on February 10, 2012, 06:58:33 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 10, 2012, 06:43:11 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on February 10, 2012, 10:43:37 AM
And once you destroy Yahweh and the OT, I think you take away the foundation upon which the gods of Christianity and Islam are built.

Well, maybe you undermine the fundamentalist construct of Christianity this way, but Christianity itself rests upon the events of Jesus' life, especially the crucifixion/resurrection. To truly destroy Christianity, you would have to prove either that Jesus didn't exist historically, or at least that the crucifixion/resurrection account is false.
That doesn't seem right to me. Of course you cannot prove that a person didn't exist. Can you prove to me that Xylonbythepylon didn't exist?
You cannot prove that an event that has no residual effect, nothing lasting, nothing tangible never happened. Can you prove that Xylonbythepylon didn't drown and his friend Sandypants didn't pull him out of the water where Xylonbythepylon miraculously came back to life?

But if I wanted to undermine the ancient and venerable faith of Xylonbythepylonism, the burden would be on me to show that the account of him as told in the Gospel of Sandypants was not true, or else show that X. himself didn't exist. I personally don't care to do this, so I have no burden.  My point was simply to show that Christianity itself is based on the account about Jesus, and is not dependent upon the OT presentation of Yahweh. The OT could be totally wrong, and the account about Jesus could still be accurate. The latter is not essentially dependent upon the former. Just undermining the OT still leaves the core of Christianity intact.

history_geek

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 10, 2012, 06:43:11 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on February 10, 2012, 10:43:37 AM
And once you destroy Yahweh and the OT, I think you take away the foundation upon which the gods of Christianity and Islam are built.

Well, maybe you undermine the fundamentalist construct of Christianity this way, but Christianity itself rests upon the events of Jesus' life, especially the crucifixion/resurrection. To truly destroy Christianity, you would have to prove either that Jesus didn't exist historically, or at least that the crucifixion/resurrection account is false.

QuoteBut if I wanted to undermine the ancient and venerable faith of Xylonbythepylonism, the burden would be on me to show that the account of him as told in the Gospel of Sandypants was not true, or else show that X. himself didn't exist. I personally don't care to do this, so I have no burden.  My point was simply to show that Christianity itself is based on the account about Jesus, and is not dependent upon the OT presentation of Yahweh. The OT could be totally wrong, and the account about Jesus could still be accurate. The latter is not essentially dependent upon the former. Just undermining the OT still leaves the core of Christianity intact.

But now wait, Jesus claimed divinity based on his connection to the "god" of the OT,namely YHWH. If that connection is taken away, what exactly is making him any different from the gladiators that followed Spartacus and were crucified, or anyone else that me that horrifying fate? I mean he had some good ideas that people Zarathustra had also talked about centuries before, but his divinity hangs on the basis that he was the "Son" part of the trinity. Otherwise he is just another philosopher, albeit one with some delusions of grandeur for thinking himself as a Messiah and "god"...

And Ecurb, the burden of proof is always on the person that makes the claim, not on the person that challenges it. You say Jesus existed and was a real person. I say that I don't believe that he ever existed as a real person. The burden of proof is on you. I say that Gandalf the White was actually mistaken to be Merlin, and he lived and died somewhere around 700 AD. You say that you do not believe that he ever existed as a real person. The burden of proof is on me.

More to the topic, I've just gotten to the Moses part of the Brick Bible. I think I'll finish it and try to find my old bible, and read them side to side (and most likely use an online bible as well, since mine is in finnish, but it should be interesting to compare the traslations  ;D )
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C Clarke's Third Law
"Any sufficiently advanced alien is indistinguishable from a god."
Pierre-Simon, marquis de Laplace:
Je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothése - I do not require that hypothesis[img]http://www.dakkadakka.com/s/i/a/4eef2cc3548cc9844a491b22ad384546.gif[/i

Gawen

Quote from: history_geek on February 10, 2012, 09:18:14 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 10, 2012, 06:43:11 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on February 10, 2012, 10:43:37 AM
And once you destroy Yahweh and the OT, I think you take away the foundation upon which the gods of Christianity and Islam are built.

Well, maybe you undermine the fundamentalist construct of Christianity this way, but Christianity itself rests upon the events of Jesus' life, especially the crucifixion/resurrection. To truly destroy Christianity, you would have to prove either that Jesus didn't exist historically, or at least that the crucifixion/resurrection account is false.

QuoteBut if I wanted to undermine the ancient and venerable faith of Xylonbythepylonism, the burden would be on me to show that the account of him as told in the Gospel of Sandypants was not true, or else show that X. himself didn't exist. I personally don't care to do this, so I have no burden.  My point was simply to show that Christianity itself is based on the account about Jesus, and is not dependent upon the OT presentation of Yahweh. The OT could be totally wrong, and the account about Jesus could still be accurate. The latter is not essentially dependent upon the former. Just undermining the OT still leaves the core of Christianity intact.

But now wait, Jesus claimed divinity based on his connection to the "god" of the OT,namely YHWH.
And that's the entire crux of the problem. Some yokel can claim all he wants to claim. But he can't claim Messiahship. The Jews had criteria for their Messiah, but Jesus fulfilled none of it. Hypothetically speaking, anyone can claim divinity or others can claim it for someone else...and who cares? But when a so called saviour of the world comes along and there's criteria for that saviour to fulfill...and does not, well....you've pretty well shot yourself in the foot. Not only is the foundation nonexistent, so are the walls. This has been done for many years now, thanks to critical Biblical scholars.
The essence of the mind is not in what it thinks, but how it thinks. Faith is the surrender of our mind; of reason and our skepticism to put all our trust or faith in someone or something that has no good evidence of itself. That is a sinister thing to me. Of all the supposed virtues, faith is not.
"When you fall, I will be there" - Floor

Ecurb Noselrub

Quote from: history_geek on February 10, 2012, 09:18:14 PM
But now wait, Jesus claimed divinity based on his connection to the "god" of the OT,namely YHWH. If that connection is taken away, what exactly is making him any different from the gladiators that followed Spartacus and were crucified, or anyone else that me that horrifying fate? I mean he had some good ideas that people Zarathustra had also talked about centuries before, but his divinity hangs on the basis that he was the "Son" part of the trinity. Otherwise he is just another philosopher, albeit one with some delusions of grandeur for thinking himself as a Messiah and "god"...

Jesus referred to God as "Father." If he was the Father's Son, his claim to that connection was confirmed by the resurrection. To destroy Christianity, you have to destroy the historicity of the resurrection.  Undermining the OT doesn't do the trick.  It doesn't matter if he ends up being the Jewish Messiah or not.  He claims that he is the Son of God, and that is confirmed by the resurrection (if that occurred).  If the OT is destroyed (as the post above implied), then Jewish concepts of Messiahship don't matter, anyway. 

Quote from: history_geek on February 10, 2012, 09:18:14 PM
And Ecurb, the burden of proof is always on the person that makes the claim, not on the person that challenges it. You say Jesus existed and was a real person. I say that I don't believe that he ever existed as a real person. The burden of proof is on you. I say that Gandalf the White was actually mistaken to be Merlin, and he lived and died somewhere around 700 AD. You say that you do not believe that he ever existed as a real person. The burden of proof is on me.

In this context, I was responding to the claim that undermining the OT also undermines Christianity. The person who made that claim assumed the burden of proof. I merely responded that this is not correct.  I was not trying to establish Christianity - I was refuting a claim that it had been undermined by an attack on the OT.


history_geek

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 10, 2012, 10:42:44 PM
Quote from: history_geek on February 10, 2012, 09:18:14 PM
But now wait, Jesus claimed divinity based on his connection to the "god" of the OT,namely YHWH. If that connection is taken away, what exactly is making him any different from the gladiators that followed Spartacus and were crucified, or anyone else that me that horrifying fate? I mean he had some good ideas that people Zarathustra had also talked about centuries before, but his divinity hangs on the basis that he was the "Son" part of the trinity. Otherwise he is just another philosopher, albeit one with some delusions of grandeur for thinking himself as a Messiah and "god"...

Jesus referred to God as "Father." If he was the Father's Son, his claim to that connection was confirmed by the resurrection. To destroy Christianity, you have to destroy the historicity of the resurrection.  Undermining the OT doesn't do the trick.  It doesn't matter if he ends up being the Jewish Messiah or not.  He claims that he is the Son of God, and that is confirmed by the resurrection (if that occurred).  If the OT is destroyed (as the post above implied), then Jewish concepts of Messiahship don't matter, anyway. 

Quote"But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." (Matthew 22:31-32, cf. Mark 12:26, 27, Luke 20:37-38)

Moreover He said, "I am the God of your father—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God. (Exodus 3:6)

Quote"Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: 'These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'" (Matthew 15:7-9, cf. Mark 7:6, 7)

Therefore the LORD said: "Inasmuch as these people draw near with their mouths and honor Me with their lips, but have removed their hearts far from Me, and their fear toward Me is taught by the commandment of men..." (Isaiah 29:13)

http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/newsletter/2008_09/05

Jesus also makes references to Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Exodus, Genesis, and many other books that are in the OT. Another point is that some of the gospels if not all of them (I'm not quite that familiar with the book(s)), point out that he fulfills prophesies mentioned in the OT of the Messiah.

So Jesus is tied to the OT by his hands and legs. That is simply how it is. Once the OT goes out of the door, so does his claim for divinity, and the possible resurrection doesn't change that. Because without the OT account, it has no meaning, since the sins that he supposedly died for were committed against YHWH of OT, the "god" of Abraham.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C Clarke's Third Law
"Any sufficiently advanced alien is indistinguishable from a god."
Pierre-Simon, marquis de Laplace:
Je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothése - I do not require that hypothesis[img]http://www.dakkadakka.com/s/i/a/4eef2cc3548cc9844a491b22ad384546.gif[/i

Gawen

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub

Jesus referred to God as "Father." If he was the Father's Son, his claim to that connection was confirmed by the resurrection. To destroy Christianity, you have to destroy the historicity of the resurrection.  Undermining the OT doesn't do the trick.  It doesn't matter if he ends up being the Jewish Messiah or not.  He claims that he is the Son of God, and that is confirmed by the resurrection (if that occurred).  If the OT is destroyed (as the post above implied), then Jewish concepts of Messiahship don't matter, anyway. 

Resurrection means nothing. Several people were resurrected. Does this mean they are all God's sons? Nope.

Christians just cannot seem to get it in their heads. It sort of goes like this...

God, the same god of Christianity, makes several covenants, deals, commandments (what have you) with his "chosen people". These covenants, etc., last for eternity. The Jews have criteria for the Messiah they have been waiting for. Some guy comes along and claims to be or others claim him to be that Messiah. This so called Messiah does not fulfill Jewish requirements for Messiahship. God is not going to dump his covenants with his chosen people. I have gone over this in this discussion board.

Now, a few people take up the cause of this "messiah" and make many miracle claims about him as does the so called messiah as well. But none of the miracle claims proves the alleged messiah is divine, divine from the Jews God, God's son, his mother divine or any of the miracles actually happened. It's no wonder the Jews never believed it.

Enter Paul who preaches his own theology and usurps control from the new Jerusalem church. Even Paul makes mention that if the resurrection never happened, what good are his words?

Of course, this is assuming/presupposing any single itty bitty part of it actually happened and happened just the way the Bible says it does.

If Jesus is connected to the OT in any way (as Christians are so fond of claiming) and the OT can be fairly well trashed (as it has been) then that should cast a very dim light on the NT, if any light at all.
The essence of the mind is not in what it thinks, but how it thinks. Faith is the surrender of our mind; of reason and our skepticism to put all our trust or faith in someone or something that has no good evidence of itself. That is a sinister thing to me. Of all the supposed virtues, faith is not.
"When you fall, I will be there" - Floor

fester30

I have talked to a lot of Christian preachers.  I've been a confirmed member of 6 different denominations at one time or another, and attended many of the smaller "non-denominational" churches in strip malls.  Not once have I heard that Christianity could even exist without the OT.  In every case, undermining the entire OT undermines the importance behind the Lamb.  OT prophesies played such a large part behind what Matthew and Luke wrote about Jesus.  Why was he Jesus of Nazareth but born in Bethlehem?  This is why I think there was some guy who got a little popular and whose followers made him a legend.  If they just went with the prophesy, why not just name him Jesus of Bethlehem?  Why make up some story about a census that historically did not happen?

While some communist named Jesus may have existed, it doesn't prove anything.  Yeshua (Joshua) was an extremely common name.  There may have been a lot of Jesuses.  Every denomination preaches parts of the OT that supports their ideas, and ignores parts that do not.  If you take away the OT, the NT doesn't mean anything because the prophesies don't have fulfillment and the Jews don't have their savior.  There is a reason most Jews have not accepted Jesus as the Messiah in their prophesies... and the followers of Jesus realized this and had to take their savior to the gentiles to gain any traction.  The prophesies mark the messiah as the savior of the Jews.  If the OT has any weight, Jesus is not that savior.

Sandra Craft

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 10, 2012, 06:43:11 PM
Well, maybe you undermine the fundamentalist construct of Christianity this way, but Christianity itself rests upon the events of Jesus' life, especially the crucifixion/resurrection. To truly destroy Christianity, you would have to prove either that Jesus didn't exist historically, or at least that the crucifixion/resurrection account is false.

I find it hard to believe that this is true.  Even if Jesus did not exist as a specific individual, much less one who rose from the dead, there are still the teachings which must surely be worth something on their own to Xtians, just as the Buddhist teachings would be worth something even if the Buddha did not really exist.  Does Xtianity really come down to nothing more than a bet to escape death?  (I assume the promise of immortality for followers is the reason the resurrection is such a big deal)
Sandy

  

"Life is short, and it is up to you to make it sweet."  Sarah Louise Delany

Stevil

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 10, 2012, 10:42:44 PM
Jesus referred to God as "Father." If he was the Father's Son, his claim to that connection was confirmed by the resurrection. To destroy Christianity, you have to destroy the historicity of the resurrection. 
There is no historicity of the resurrection, only myth. For historicity there needs to be evidence.

Sweetdeath

Quote from: Stevil on February 11, 2012, 04:23:42 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 10, 2012, 10:42:44 PM
Jesus referred to God as "Father." If he was the Father's Son, his claim to that connection was confirmed by the resurrection. To destroy Christianity, you have to destroy the historicity of the resurrection. 
There is no historicity of the resurrection, only myth. For historicity there needs to be evidence.

And who SERIOUSLY believes in zombies? :) I don't.
Law 35- "You got to go with what works." - Robin Lefler

Wiggum:"You have that much faith in me, Homer?"
Homer:"No! Faith is what you have in things that don't exist. Your awesomeness is real."

"I was thinking that perhaps this thing called God does not exist. Because He cannot save any one of us. No matter how we pray, He doesn't mend our wounds.

Gawen

So you see, critical Biblical study goes much deeper than the usual Christian apologetic type of study such as looking for and making up false prophecies like the Isiah 53 stuff. An example of shoddy study:
http://www.thingstocome.org/silence.htm

Deals with Paul's commands that women should be silent in church - I Corinthians 14: 34-37
After what seems much thoughtful study into the Greek language to find terms for "laleo" ("to speak,") or "sigao" ("be mute"), for example, the end result in the summary is:

QuoteOf course, while doing any of these things, they should be careful to observe the instructions our Lord has given regarding the exercise of spiritual gifts, including those that relate specifically to women.

Where is the problem? Well, the "Lord" didn't say that...Paul does. Then, on top of that, some scholars consider verses 34 and 35 interpolations. And the website uses the Bible in other areas to prove the Bible meanings it is studying. Still, after all that the author comes to his own conclusions to shore up his belief system. So where is the critical study in that webpage? I couldn't find it either.
The essence of the mind is not in what it thinks, but how it thinks. Faith is the surrender of our mind; of reason and our skepticism to put all our trust or faith in someone or something that has no good evidence of itself. That is a sinister thing to me. Of all the supposed virtues, faith is not.
"When you fall, I will be there" - Floor

history_geek

Quote from: Gawen on February 11, 2012, 12:22:00 PM
So you see, critical Biblical study goes much deeper than the usual Christian apologetic type of study such as looking for and making up false prophecies like the Isiah 53 stuff. An example of shoddy study:
http://www.thingstocome.org/silence.htm

Deals with Paul's commands that women should be silent in church - I Corinthians 14: 34-37
After what seems much thoughtful study into the Greek language to find terms for "laleo" ("to speak,") or "sigao" ("be mute"), for example, the end result in the summary is:

QuoteOf course, while doing any of these things, they should be careful to observe the instructions our Lord has given regarding the exercise of spiritual gifts, including those that relate specifically to women.

Where is the problem? Well, the "Lord" didn't say that...Paul does. Then, on top of that, some scholars consider verses 34 and 35 interpolations. And the website uses the Bible in other areas to prove the Bible meanings it is studying. Still, after all that the author comes to his own conclusions to shore up his belief system. So where is the critical study in that webpage? I couldn't find it either.
'
And that's one of the things that has always made me scratch my head. Why are the alleged letters of Paul and the others equally treated as the word of "god" along with the other books of the OT and NT, when it's rather obvious that they are just writing their own opinions? Further more, wasn't it that only prophets could pass down "the word of god", because of their special connection or whatever phrase they use to imply that they have a phone line to upstairs? And wasn't John the Baptist the last prophet according to the NT? ???

On the other hand, if we think that they were included to the cannon because of political motivations and agendas of the rulers of a certain empire....


Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on February 11, 2012, 03:06:22 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 10, 2012, 06:43:11 PM
Well, maybe you undermine the fundamentalist construct of Christianity this way, but Christianity itself rests upon the events of Jesus' life, especially the crucifixion/resurrection. To truly destroy Christianity, you would have to prove either that Jesus didn't exist historically, or at least that the crucifixion/resurrection account is false.

I find it hard to believe that this is true.  Even if Jesus did not exist as a specific individual, much less one who rose from the dead, there are still the teachings which must surely be worth something on their own to Xtians, just as the Buddhist teachings would be worth something even if the Buddha did not really exist.  Does Xtianity really come down to nothing more than a bet to escape death?  (I assume the promise of immortality for followers is the reason the resurrection is such a big deal)

His teaching might not be so lose much of their meaning, apart from those that require him to be what he claims: the son of "god" or "god" in physical form, who through death and and resurrection cleanses mankind of its sins against a specific "god". And when you take that out, as I said, he is little more then another philosopher who taught much of the same things in the centuries before him. But the irony is that most of those ideas, like the golden rule, are still pretty much ignored by most believers, who instead focus on his "divinity" and promise of an eternal after life....
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C Clarke's Third Law
"Any sufficiently advanced alien is indistinguishable from a god."
Pierre-Simon, marquis de Laplace:
Je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothése - I do not require that hypothesis[img]http://www.dakkadakka.com/s/i/a/4eef2cc3548cc9844a491b22ad384546.gif[/i

Sandra Craft

Quote from: history_geek on February 11, 2012, 02:48:41 PM
His teaching might not be so lose much of their meaning, apart from those that require him to be what he claims: the son of "god" or "god" in physical form, who through death and and resurrection cleanses mankind of its sins against a specific "god". And when you take that out, as I said, he is little more then another philosopher who taught much of the same things in the centuries before him. But the irony is that most of those ideas, like the golden rule, are still pretty much ignored by most believers, who instead focus on his "divinity" and promise of an eternal after life....

Then it may well actually improve Xtianity to take the divinity out and leave only the philosophy so that people can concentrate on that rather than the selfish and questionable goal of personal immortality.
Sandy

  

"Life is short, and it is up to you to make it sweet."  Sarah Louise Delany