Happy Atheist Forum

According to the Bible, the mission of the messiah includes:
•   Returning the world to God and His teachings. (Zechariah 14:9) He will rule at a time when the Jewish people will observe God's commandments (Ezekiel 37:24). The Torah is the Jewish guide to life, and its commandments are the ones referred to here. Do all Jews observe all the commandments? Probably not...but Christianity discourages observance of the commandments in Torah, in complete opposition to this prophecy.
•   Restoring the royal dynasty to the descendants of David.
•   Oversee the rebuilding of Jerusalem.
•   Oversee the rebuilding of the Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28) There is NO Temple in Jerusalem and some years after Jesus’ alleged death, the Temple was DESTROYED.
•   Gather the Jewish people from all over the world and bring them to Israel. (Isaiah 43:5-6)
•   He will rule at a time of world-wide peace (Micah 4:3).
•   Reestablish the Sanhedrin.
•   Restore the sacrificial system.
•   Restore the Sabbatical year and Jubilee.
•   He will rule at a time when all people will come to acknowledge and serve one God (Isaiah 66:23, Ezekiel 37: 24-28).

Why is it not clear to everyone that the Messiah was for the Jews and of the Jews? Why is it not clear to everyone that Paul's authors developed the biggest hoax the world has ever seen?

So far, one of the above has happened. Judaism has no notion of a messiah not doing these things on the first visit, let alone needing a second visit to complete them. Whenever these things are described in the Tanakh, the description says that a messiah will come and do these things…once. If an individual fails to complete even one of these conditions, he cannot be the Messiah.

A central theme of prophecy is the promise of a future age of perfection characterized by universal peace and recognition of God. Look at: (Isaiah 2:1-4; Zephaniah 3:9; Hosea 2:20-22; Amos 9:13-15; Isaiah 32:15-18, 60:15-18; Micah 4:1-4; Zechariah 8:23, 14:9; Jeremiah 31:33-34). From these comes the idea of a Messiah. However, Jews (through the Torah) never speak about "believing in" a/the Messiah because he will be a historically verifiable reality and self-evident to everyone. It does not require belief or faith. No person has ever fulfilled the prophecy, and therefore, all Messianic claims have been rejected.

I have to admit that I have not researched this much but I may have more time next month.

First your post is similar to what Jews have been claiming for two thousand years...

http://www.thejidf.org/2010/06/for-over ... ected.html (http://www.thejidf.org/2010/06/for-over-2000-years-jews-have-rejected.html)

They rejected Jesus then and are in some respects still politically motivated to reject Him now.

On a side note guess what is back and re-established: http://www.thesanhedrin.org/en (http://www.thesanhedrin.org/en)

In your biblical research why have you discounted these verses?

Quote*  Messiah was to be born at Bethlehem: Micah 5:1
    * Messiah would be from the tribe of Judah: Genesis 49:10
    * Messiah would present himself by riding on an ass: Zechariah 9:9
    * Messiah would be tortured to death: Psalm 22
    * Messiah would arrive before the destruction of the Second Temple: Daniel 9:24-27
    * Messiah's life would match a particular description, including suffering, silence at his arrest and trial, death and burial in a rich man's tomb, and resurrection: Isaiah 52:13-53:12

http://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers/jesus/proofessay (http://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers/jesus/proofessay)

Let us not forget the Trilemma : http://www.greatcom.org/resources/aread ... efault.htm (http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadydefense/ch21/default.htm)

But then with your positive assertion that..

QuoteWhy is it not clear to everyone that Paul's authors developed the biggest hoax the world has ever seen?

 I guess you have the Quadlemma then.  And the idea that Paul needed participation of a large group of people all knowing the message so as to all stay on the same page is indeed a massive but clever hoax if you can pull it off.  Presuming some did not know it was a hoax there where living witnesses all around that had to corroborate parts of this.  Not to mention the fact that Paul started off persecuting and sending Christians to there death.  Also that Paul was a Pharisees and technician in all things regarding Judaic law.  Paul was also on his way up the hierarchy and had good chances at the top post.  In summation this conspiracy of Paulism is professed by Muslims and others but has a definite problem with Occam's Razor.

Yet even if the Jews and Muslims have failed to squash Christianity I have no doubt you have a strong commitment to your faith based assertion that Jesus was not the messiah.  I look forward to your replies as it will challenge me.  I already know I have more to learn.

Quote from: "freeservant"And the idea that Paul needed participation of a large group of people all knowing the message so as to all stay on the same page is indeed a massive but clever hoax if you can pull it off.  Presuming some did not know it was a hoax there where living witnesses all around that had to corroborate parts of this.  Not to mention the fact that Paul started off persecuting and sending Christians to there death.  Also that Paul was a Pharisees and technician in all things regarding Judaic law.  Paul was also on his way up the hierarchy and had good chances at the top post.  In summation this conspiracy of Paulism is professed by Muslims and others but has a definite problem with Occam's Razor.

No it doesn't. In fact it makes a lot of sense to me, the way you put it.

What if, just try to suppose for a moment, what if Paul and his followers were political activists whose goal it was to weaken Roman occupation of their land by unifying their people with some pretty compelling propoganda?

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "freeservant"...snip   Occam's razor.

No it doesn't. In fact it makes a lot of sense to me, the way you put it.

What if, just try to suppose for a moment, what if Paul and his followers were political activists whose goal it was to weaken Roman occupation of their land by unifying their people with some pretty compelling propaganda?

http://www.ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/home.html (http://www.ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/home.html)

Here is a good book that puts into perspective the forces out there that where trying to kill Christianity.  It is remarkable to think that by the third century half the Roman empire was Christian at the time of Constantine.  If you where to read the first few chapters you would see the vast terrorist effort to suppress and defeat Christianity.  I think the biggest effort to kill off Christianity stands today and is known as The Holy Roman Empire.

So again the idea that you start a conspiracy only so that you will face torture and death does not make sense. It tends to point to this religion not being man made. It tends to point to a Higher Power helping the Christians to service and prosper in spite of all the efforts to stop it.

As there is no contemporary secular evidence of Jesus, especially not Jesus performing miracles, it seems to me that it would be more reasonable to think that Jesus of the Bible (while he may have existed) had evolved into a tall tale by the time his story was put onto paper 50 plus years after his death.

Quote from: "Whitney"As there is no contemporary secular evidence of Jesus, especially not Jesus performing miracles, it seems to me that it would be more reasonable to think that Jesus of the Bible (while he may have existed) had evolved into a tall tale by the time his story was put onto paper 50 plus years after his death.

During the first century there where living witnesses that would naturally share any supernatural occurrences that they could empirically have verified.  But as you know there are a wealth of resources about the historicity of Jesus.

http://www.garyhabermas.com/ (http://www.garyhabermas.com/)

Gary Habermas is one of the experts on this and has a great deal of documentation.

But then we don't need the evidence to be contemporary or have it be from a secular source as most Historians agree that there was an actual historical figure that was Jesus Christ.

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/jesus_extrabib.html (http://www.rationalchristianity.net/jesus_extrabib.html)

Remember that when it gets to be 50 or 60 years after the death of JFK there will still be living witnesses or people related to living witnesses that will give testimony to what was seen and experienced.  This was no different in the time of Jesus so trying to discount His existence doesn't really work.

Quote from: "freeservant"Remember that when it gets to be 50 or 60 years after the death of JFK there will still be living witnesses or people related to living witnesses that will give testimony to what was seen and experienced.  This was no different in the time of Jesus so trying to discount His existence doesn't really work.

I think this is a bad comparison.  There were news reels and definitive first hand accounts of the JFK assassination whereas the only somewhat verifiable accounts that I am aware of of the existence of Jesus are, like Whitney said, from about 50 years after his death.  The biblical accounts are not really admissible in this instance because the Bible is where the story of Jesus originated and since you can't use a source to verify itself, the Bible can't verify the Bible.  We can literally watch the instant JFK was shot and he exists in countless forms of verifiable records before and after his death.  Jesus is a plausible but unverified entity who doesn't exist historically until 50 years after he died except in the bible which, as I mentioned before, can't be considered when trying to figure out the accuracy of itself.  I don't see how you could possibly compare the two instances as if they are similar.  The memories of JFK's death will add to an already overflowing abundance of evidence concerning his existence.  I don't think it's reasonable to compare that to the questionable memories of a few people 50 years after the supposed son of god died.

Quote from: "freeservant"Remember that when it gets to be 50 or 60 years after the death of JFK there will still be living witnesses or people related to living witnesses that will give testimony to what was seen and experienced.  This was no different in the time of Jesus so trying to discount His existence doesn't really work.

I'll consider that when people start trying to claim that JFK was the son of god, healed the sick and walked on water  

Reading to learn.

Quote from: "freeservant"I have to admit that I have not researched this much but I may have more time next month.

I can wait. Sad part is very few Cristians research their own religion.

QuoteFirst your post is similar to what Jews have been claiming for two thousand years...

Could it be because it may be true...at least to them? After all, it was a JEWISH messiah that they were waiting for...not Paul's.

QuoteOn a side note guess what is back and re-established: http://www.thesanhedrin.org/en (http://www.thesanhedrin.org/en)

Makes no difference to me or the Jews as far as a Messiah is concerned. At any rate, 1 out of ten requirements for Messiahship isn't something I would base a Messiah upon...especially when it wasn't a bonafied living Messiah.

QuoteIn your biblical research why have you discounted these verses?

I'll get to these tonight when I'm home. These prophecies do not conform to the supposed Jesus Messiahship anyway.

Quotehttp://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers/jesus/proofessay

Even Jews can become decieved.

QuoteLet us not forget the Trilemma : http://www.greatcom.org/resources/aread ... efault.htm (http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadydefense/ch21/default.htm)

Does not pertain to this topic. C.S. Lewis's apologetics are not that good and have been refuted.

QuoteI guess you have the Quadlemma then.  And the idea that Paul needed participation of a large group of people all knowing the message so as to all stay on the same page is indeed a massive but clever hoax if you can pull it off.  Presuming some did not know it was a hoax there where living witnesses all around that had to corroborate parts of this.  Not to mention the fact that Paul started off persecuting and sending Christians to there death.  Also that Paul was a Pharisees and technician in all things regarding Judaic law.  Paul was also on his way up the hierarchy and had good chances at the top post.  In summation this conspiracy of Paulism is professed by Muslims and others but has a definite problem with Occam's Razor.

I will cut quite a bit through this tonight

QuoteYet even if the Jews and Muslims have failed to squash Christianity I have no doubt you have a strong commitment to your faith based assertion that Jesus was not the messiah.  I look forward to your replies as it will challenge me.  I already know I have more to learn.

[/quote]
You make me chuckle. I'll explain later tonight.

Ummmm...where was I?
Oh yeah...

Quote from: "you"I guess you have the Quadlemma then.

I reckon you read a bit from Michael L. Love and how Celestrialism can integrate the Quadlemma. Apologetics at its worst.

QuoteAnd the idea that Paul needed participation of a large group of people all knowing the message so as to all stay on the same page is indeed a massive but clever hoax if you can pull it off.

First, Paul taught his own doctrine which was in conflict with the proto-Jerusalem Church. Paul teaches Paulanism. Not all of Paul's epistles were written by him.
Secondly, there was no large group of people knowing the message. There were very small groups that believed various things in the new proto-Christian theology.
Let the Councils of Nicaea and Constantine make the new religion mandatory.

QuotePresuming some did not know it was a hoax there where living witnesses all around that had to corroborate parts of this.

Sadly, their witness is no longer available. Most Scholars now think that the Gospels were not eye witness accounts. And Mark, which most scholars think had a hand in starting the rest of the gospels reads like a poorly written Greek tragedy.
 

QuoteNot to mention the fact that Paul started off persecuting and sending Christians to there death.

A wonderful hook...plot device, if you will. The authors of Paul and Paul himself used coercion, threats and even threat of death to get his theology through to people.  

QuoteAlso that Paul was a Pharisees and technician in all things regarding Judaic law.

This is laughable. Why is it that 'Paul' uses the Torah out of context and basically trashes it to make his points?

QuotePaul was also on his way up the hierarchy and had good chances at the top post.

He was on the way up by usurping the Jerusalem Church.

QuoteIn summation this conspiracy of Paulism is professed by Muslims and others but has a definite problem with Occam's Razor.

Not really. I submit that if you know of Occam's Razor, you're not shaving enough...*grinnin*

In Christianity, the role of the messiah was redefined/recreated/re manufactured/reassigned. It had to be because the Gospel role of Jesus was as a "THE END IS NEAR!!!" preacher. Jesus' theology was apocalyptic in nature. The claim that Jesus will fulfill the Messianic prophesies when he returns does not give him any credibility for his “first” coming. The Torah never speaks about the Messiah returning after an initial appearance. Simply, the “second coming” apologetic is a desperate apologetic to explain away Jesus’ failure. The sad end result of all of this was to shift the Messiah's function from a visible level where it could be tested (as in Tanakh, what Christians call the "Old Testament") to an invisible level where it could not (Enter Paul, who never speaks of a living Jesus). This is a reworking and redefinition of a Tanakh theme from the redemption of Israel to the atonement for "original sin".  

QuoteIn your biblical research why have you discounted these verses?

I haven't discounted anything. Yet I can ask you the same thing. Why haven't you responded to my 10 applications? All you have given us is a counter that the Sanhedrin are back...but not by a Messiah's doing.

As for Biblical prophecy concerning Jesus, none of the alleged prophecies are about him nor did they come true. Only Christians think they do by wishful thinking and special pleading and reworking Jewish Scripture to fit their need...much like Paul did.

QuoteHere is a good book that puts into perspective the forces out there that where trying to kill Christianity. It is remarkable to think that by the third century half the Roman empire was Christian at the time of Constantine.

I find it amazing that many Christians think they have been and still are persecuted. Well, I suppose they can say it. They are ignorant of history and their own Bibles. They do not seem to know that Constantine crammed the new religion down people's throats. To think of all the harm done to innocent people over the last 1700 years in the name of Jesus is sickening. Inquisitions....several crusades...lying...false witnessing...burning people for witchcraft and other assorted crap....paedophiles...I could go on and on. And to think that Christianity is (now, loosely) based on a Jewish tribal mountain war deity that knows no bounds when causing mayhem, death and suffering, whether by himself or condoning it or ordering it from others.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv298%2FGawen%2F74e9084e0e297146.jpg&hash=ecb79830f0ddf9f674d79433daf9546f90ebee37)

Jesus was no Messiah. Even if he was, disregarding Jewish Messiah attributes, his father was a conniving, psychopathic mass murderer and Jesus himself committed [strike:ozw9qlbt]suicide[/strike:ozw9qlbt] vicarious atonement, which we all know is not a good thing.

But I'll go one step up, just to show you I can do it.

Quote* Messiah was to be born at Bethlehem: Micah 5:1

Micah 5:1 “And you, O Bethlehem of Ephrath, Least among the clans of Judah, From you one shall come forth to rule Israel for Me.”
Good grief. What does the scripture say here? "Least among the clans of Judah". Bethlehem of Ephrath was a clan within the tribe of Judah...not a place. So your question remains, who does this refer to if does not refer to Jesus? Well, it refers to King David. David was of Bethlehem of Judah, the least of the clans. David fits the description much better than Jesus. AND it can be argued that Jesus was neither from Bethlehem of Ephrath, nor ruled Israel. The best Christians have to go on this is a loose, metaphorical interpretation.

Quote* Messiah would be from the tribe of Judah: Genesis 49:10

Genesis 49:10: "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, UNTIL Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be" . Jesus didn't do that at His FIRST coming, which is why the disciples ask him "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6)

Quote* Messiah would present himself by riding on an ass: Zechariah 9:9

The verse is also (Messianically...if that's even a word) quoted in Sanh. 98 a, in Pirqé de R. Eliez. c. 31, and in several of the Midrashim. And here is why...in context:
Zech 9:1-8 is indicative of an advancing military campaign which begins to the north-east of Jerusalem, sweeps through Syria (9:1-2), then towards Tyre (9:3-4) before advancing to attack Philistia (9:5-7) and coming into Israelite territory to set up the throne in Jerusalem, probably in the Temple (9:8). This passage (9:9) sits at the end of this advance and details the entry into the city of the conquering king. It does not prophecy Jesus but is used as an allegory, however the context is all wrong. Jesus conquered nothing. Reading on...in context:
Zech 10:9 proclaims that the people of Jerusalem are to ‘rejoice greatly’ and to ‘shout aloud’ when the ‘triumphant and victorious’ king approaches the city riding not at the head of his military forces and neither on a horse which was indicative in these times of a conquering liberator, but sitting an ass.
No Jesus here, I'm afraid.

Quote* Messiah would be tortured to death: Psalm 22

Psalm 22:2 “My God, my God, why have You abandoned me; why so far from delivering me and my anguished roaring?” (JPS)

Psalm 22:1 “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?” (KJV)

Mark 15:34 “And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (KJV)

Matthew 27:46 “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (KJV)
The Gospel authors would have us believe that Jesus quotes this Psalm. However, Jesus citing a Psalm is no evidence that he fulfilled a prophecy, or that Psalms 22 was a prophecy for Jesus at all. The fact is, there is no way to conclude from the Psalm or from the Gospels that it is a messianic prophecy â€" Christians essentially made this up.

Quote* Messiah would arrive before the destruction of the Second Temple: Daniel 9:24-27

The prophecy has to do with the restoration of the city of Jerusalem. The scope of this prophecy transcends the mere rebuilding of Jerusalem when it speaks of:
Finishing the transgression.
Making an end of sin.
Making atonement for iniquity.
Bringing in everlasting righteousness.
Sealing up vision and prophecy.

A lot of woo woo in that book. Jewish translations of Dan 9 do not substantiate the Christian claims about this prophecy fulfillment. And it can be shown that the bombastic Christian assertions about Jesus being the only possible fulfillment of Dan 9 rely primarily on wishful thinking combined with arrogance. Other fulfillment scenarios, that don't include Jesus, are just as valid.
Disregarding the mystical 7 years equals whatever days hokum...the Second Temple would be built, and after tribulations a golden age was to arrive and conclude this dorky timeline.
The Temple and the city were rebuilt, but the golden age never happened. Blah blah blah Babylon and exile etc etc etc....we fast forward to:
The word came from God that the city would be rebuilt.
Jer 30:18(JPS Tanach): Thus saith the Lord: Behold, I will turn the captivity of Jacob's(Israel) tents, and have compassion on his dwelling-places; and the city shall be builded upon her own mound, and the palace shall be inhabited upon its wonted place.
(also see Jer 31:38.)

If God revealed his word of restoration to Jeremiah fairly soon after the city and Temple were destroyed, then the starting point for the prophecy would be around the time of the destruction of the Temple and city.
The time frame between the word going out and the arrival of an anointed prince would be 49 years, which is 7 weeks (each week containing 7 years), 7 x 7 = 49.
The rebuilding is to be be associated with an anointed one that was also a prince. Babylon was then conquered and ruled by the Persians.  Cyrus was the king that reigned after the conquest.
This prince would fulfill the word of God that was given in Jer 29:10, 30:18, and 31:38. The word messiah means 'anointed' (masciach), which could apply to a king or a priest. A messiah or anointed one does not have to be Jewish:
Isa 45:1-3,13 (JPS Tanach): Thus saith the Lord to His anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him, and to loose the loins of kings; to open the doors before him, and that the gates may not be shut:
I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight; I will break in pieces the doors of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron;
And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I am the Lord, who call thee by thy name, even the God of Israel.
I have roused him up in victory, and I make level all his ways; he shall build My city, and he shall let Mine exiles go free, not for price nor reward, saith the Lord of hosts.
No Jesus here, I'm afraid.

Quote* Messiah's life would match a particular description, including suffering, silence at his arrest and trial, death and burial in a rich man's tomb, and resurrection: Isaiah 52:13-53:12

Ok...here goes...*sigh*...probably the most oft quoted quote taken from the Bible to fullfil Christian special pleading and wishful thinking:
Actually, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The singular form is used because the Jews ("Israel") are regarded as one unit. Isaiah states 11 times in the chapters prior to 53 that the Servant of God is Israel. Isaiah 53 clearly refers to the Jewish people suffering by other nations of the world. BUT... Isaiah 53 concludes that when the Jewish people are redeemed, the nations will recognize and accept responsibility for the suffering and death of the Jews.

Now...please tell me that you know that Jesus is the Messiah.

Quote from: "Gawen"Ummmm...where was I?
Oh yeah...

Quote from: "you"I guess you have the Quadlemma then.

I reckon you read a bit from Michael L. Love and how Celestrialism can integrate the Quadlemma. Apologetics at its worst.

I got the quadlemma from a book by Peter Kreeft.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/christ-divinity.htm (http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/christ-divinity.htm)

QuoteIn that case, who invented traditional Christianity if not Christ? A lie, like a truth, must originate somewhere. Peter? The twelve? The next generation? What was the motive of whoever first invented the myth (euphemism for lie)? What did they get out of this elaborate, blasphemous hoax? For it must have been a deliberate lie, not a sincere confusion. No Jew confuses Creator with creature, God with man. And no man confuses a dead body with a resurrected, living one.

Here is what they got out of their hoax. Their friends and families scorned them. Their social standing, possessions, and political privileges were stolen from them by both Jews and Romans. They were persecuted, imprisoned, whipped, tortured, exiled, crucified, eaten by lions, and cut to pieces by gladiators. So some silly Jews invented the whole elaborate, incredible lie of Chrisitanity for absolutely no reason, and millions of Gentiles believed it, devoted their lives to it, and died for itâ€"for no reason. It was only a fantastic practical joke, a hoax. Yes, there is a hoax indeed, but the perpetrators of it are the twentieth-century theologians, not the Gospel writers.

Quote from: "Gawen"

QuoteAnd the idea that Paul needed participation of a large group of people all knowing the message so as to all stay on the same page is indeed a massive but clever hoax if you can pull it off.

First, Paul taught his own doctrine which was in conflict with the proto-Jerusalem Church. Paul teaches Paulanism. Not all of Paul's epistles were written by him.
Secondly, there was no large group of people knowing the message. There were very small groups that believed various things in the new proto-Christian theology.
Let the Councils of Nicaea and Constantine make the new religion mandatory.

Yet you can not present to me where was the payoff?  Like above if you think this was a hoax you have to ignore history but then you have faith that your assertion of paulanism is truth or you would not make the claim.  I see that you have a strong faith.

Quote from: "Gawen"

QuotePresuming some did not know it was a hoax there where living witnesses all around that had to corroborate parts of this.

Sadly, their witness is no longer available. Most Scholars now think that the Gospels were not eye witness accounts. And Mark, which most scholars think had a hand in starting the rest of the gospels reads like a poorly written Greek tragedy.

And any evidence to the contrary would be ignored if you are fully invested in your view of what 'most scholars think'

http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibmanu.htm (http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibmanu.htm)

QuoteThe most significant find, however, is a manuscript fragment from the book of Matthew (chapt.26) called the Magdalene Manuscript which has been analysed by Dr. Carsten Thiede, and also written up in his book The Jesus Papyrus. Using a sophisticated analysis of the handwriting of the fragment by employing a special state-of-the-art microscope, he differentiated between 20 separate micrometer layers of the papyrus, measuring the height and depth of the ink as well as the angle of the stylus used by the scribe. After this analysis Thiede was able to compare it with other papyri from that period; notably manuscripts found at Qumran (dated to 58 AD), another at Herculaneum (dated prior to 79 AD), a further one from the fortress of Masada (dated to between 73/74 AD), and finally a papyrus from the Egyptian town of Oxyrynchus. The Magdalene Manuscript fragments matches all four, and in fact is almost a twin to the papyrus found in Oxyrynchus, which bears the date of 65/66 AD Thiede concludes that these papyrus fragments of St. Matthew's Gospel were written no later than this date and probably earlier. That suggests that we either have a portion of the original gospel of Matthew, or an immediate copy which was written while Matthew and the other disciples and eyewitnesses to the events were still alive. This would be the oldest manuscript portion of our Bible in existence today, one which co-exists with the original writers!

Quote from: "Gawen"

QuoteNot to mention the fact that Paul started off persecuting and sending Christians to there death.

A wonderful hook...plot device, if you will. The authors of Paul and Paul himself used coercion, threats and even threat of death to get his theology through to people.

Yes any negative sinario will do. amiright?  The coercion and threats so that Christans could face coercion and death threats... got it.  I will not be able to present a good enough defense as your faith is to strong.  

More from the link above:

QuoteWhat is of even more importance is what it says. The Matthew 26 fragment uses in its text nomina sacra (holy names) such as the diminutive "IS" for Jesus and "KE" for Kurie or Lord (The Times, Saturday, December 24, 1994). This is highly significant for our discussion today, because it suggests that the godhead of Jesus was recognised centuries before it was accepted as official church doctrine at the council of Nicea in 325 AD There is still ongoing discussion concerning the exact dating of this manuscript. However, if the dates prove to be correct then this document alone completely eradicates the criticism levelled against the gospel accounts (such as the "Jesus Seminar") that the early disciples knew nothing about Christ's divinity, and that this concept was a later redaction imposed by the Christian community in the second century (AD).

Quote from: "Gawen"

QuoteIn summation this conspiracy of Paulism is professed by Muslims and others but has a definite problem with Occam's Razor.

Not really. I submit that if you know of Occam's Razor, you're not shaving enough...*grinnin*

I bet every clue and bit of evidence can be defeated and thought refuted by one who is invested in only tearing others beliefs down.  Is there enough material that I could present that would falsify your view enough to convince you?  I don't think so.  I admit defeat right now.  Not a defeat of Christianity or the divinity of Christ.  But rather a defeat in that what you are undertaking to do is a vital function of the non-believer.  The non-stamp collector who must tear up all other stamps so that non-stamps are the great achievement.  I may have more to add later but this is my last day at my current job and you should be happy with what you have presented so far.  

freeservant, if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen.  It is absolutely unnecessary for you to attack a person and a whole group of people simply because you can't refute an argument against Jesus as the Messiah.  I suggest you take a few moments to think about how your words here have tended to be scattered with derogatory language towards anyone who is not SDA.  I also suggest that you read the forum rules because you aren't following the guideline of acting civilly towards others.....use your head and think quit hiding behind your hate.

Well...another one bites the dust using the Bible to refute the Bible.


*ala lil 'ol woman in Poltergeist style* ...  
I pronounce this thread clean...*laffin*

QuoteI bet every clue and bit of evidence can be defeated and thought refuted by one who is invested in only tearing others beliefs down.

You're absolutely right.  There are more important things to do than think about deities.

Quote from: "Whitney"freeservant, if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen.

I may need to do just that. [/quote]
 

Quote from: "Whitney"It is absolutely unnecessary for you to attack a person and a whole group of people simply because you can't refute an argument against Jesus as the Messiah.

I think the argument against Jesus has been constantly refuted over the last two thousand years by a Higher Power then any earth bound defender.  But that in no way means that others are not free to have there view.  When I imply that someone is deeply invested in there view it naturally turns around on myself as well.  I believe my view can be falsified with a proper mix of clues and evidence.  One of those clues would be something like first/second century text about getting the doctrinal story strait as we have to keep up the lies...    

Quote from: "Whitney"I suggest you take a few moments to think about how your words here have tended to be scattered with derogatory language towards anyone who is not SDA.  I also suggest that you read the forum rules because you aren't following the guideline of acting civilly towards others.....use your head and think quit hiding behind your hate.

I know some Christians who would never want to get out of there bubble and echo chambers to consider views that my contradict there own.  I have been chastised by some who think it pointless to debate or defend the Christian viewpoint as there are some in the church who are somewhat anti-intellectual and think no atheist will change there mind.  The problem is that I was once an atheist who changed his mind.  Whitney I would ask if you think it really derogatory or that any discomfort it might give is how it is interpreted to be derogatory?

QuoteThe authors of Paul and Paul himself used coercion, threats and even threat of death to get his theology through to people.

I certainly see this as derogatory and there are other instances in other threads about the horrible wickedness of Christians and crimes committed over two hundred years ago.  We are not all Catholics you know.

Quote from: "Whitney"It just so happens that christian attempts to ferry non-believers away from hell can really annoy the non-believers as there is no oncoming traffic and the nonbelievers see that they are being pushed for no reason

Yes Whitney I can see how you would believe this.  It is good that you understand the motivation involves saving everybody for the Kingdom as we will all be adopted children of God.  I also understand that if you view yourself as having the correct truth then you may not see derogatory blanket attacks against Christians as anything derogatory at all.  It is a given that all Christians are deluded right?

Quote from: "Gawen"Well...another one bites the dust using the Bible to refute the Bible.


*ala lil 'ol woman in Poltergeist style* ...  
I pronounce this thread clean...*laffin*

  The spoils of victory?  http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibarch.htm (http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibarch.htm)

I did ask if there is anything I can present that would cause you to change your mind but I do pronounce this thread clean of any answer.  (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsmiliesftw.com%2Fx%2Fhsughup.gif&hash=90ad3af9f7d3c0f78340e589e1055c79c253d098) (http://smiliesftw.com)  Back to the echo chamber?

Who cares?!? One bit of ancient scripture fails to support another bit of ancient scripture.  That's what the Bible IS!  Writing from thousands of years ago, that some tribal simpletons came up with, THAT CANNOT BE VERRIFIED!  For Pete's sake, it's 2010, shouldn't people be done arguing over this nonsense by now?

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "Gawen"

QuoteIn summation this conspiracy of Paulism is professed by Muslims and others but has a definite problem with Occam's Razor.

Not really. I submit that if you know of Occam's Razor, you're not shaving enough...*grinnin*

I bet every clue and bit of evidence can be defeated and thought refuted by one who is invested in only tearing others beliefs down.  Is there enough material that I could present that would falsify your view enough to convince you?  I don't think so.  I admit defeat right now.  Not a defeat of Christianity or the divinity of Christ.  But rather a defeat in that what you are undertaking to do is a vital function of the non-believer.  The non-stamp collector who must tear up all other stamps so that non-stamps are the great achievement.  I may have more to add later but this is my last day at my current job and you should be happy with what you have presented so far.  

No one wants to tear others beliefs down.  While you preach your ancient superstitions, we're laughing. Laughing because we only believe in REALITY, and what the bible says is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo far away from that!  You talk about Occam's Razor, you don't think you're breaking that rule when you assume God exists, or assume that the Bible is credible, or assume that Jesus was the messiah?  This is a shining example of the Confirmation Bias.  You have drawn the conclusion, BEFORE you look for evidence to support it.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Femergencyblanket.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F02%2Fca230_1trever.gif&hash=10b22461d2ccc0be0962d74d96f58faac5b45850)

Of course every clue and bit of evidence can be defeated and refuted, because the evidence is entirely self confirming.  It's awful logic.  Is there enough material that I could present that would falsify your view enough to convince you?  How much evidence does it take before people realize the bible does not represent truth?

The Earth is millions of years old.
Evolution is a fact.
There was no Garden of Eden.
There was no Global Flood.
There was no migration across the Red Sea.
There was no Sodom and Gomorrah.
There was no walking on water.
There was no wine from water.
There is no hell.
and most importantly THERE IS NO INVISIBLE MEGALOMANIAC IN THE SKY!

If anyone or anything else in the world made claims so outrageous, with no external evidence, No one would take it seriously.  Talk about Occam's Razor, no story in the bible doesn't violate Occam's Razor.  I don't believe in God, because I don't believe in Mother Goose.  In terms of your stamp analogy, Atheists are non-Stamp collectors, who realized people are collecting IMAGINARY stamps.  We just want to show people that there's actually nothing in their stamp book, so they stop wasting their lives on imaginary stamps, and insisting on holding back everyone else in the process.

I'm curious freeservant, why did you join this forum?  Why would any Christian want to join an Atheist Forum, just to try to propagate ancient myths to people who have already moved beyond them?  I should have known when I joined we would be trolled, I just want to know why you felt the urge to come here.

(I know I'm being mean, but that's what people do when they're pissed off.  I stand by everything I say, but apologize in advance for being offensive...)

Quote from: "Gawen"B

Quote* Messiah would be tortured to death: Psalm 22

Psalm 22:2 “My God, my God, why have You abandoned me; why so far from delivering me and my anguished roaring?” (JPS)

Psalm 22:1 “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?” (KJV)

Mark 15:34 “And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (KJV)

Matthew 27:46 “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (KJV)
The Gospel authors would have us believe that Jesus quotes this Psalm. However, Jesus citing a Psalm is no evidence that he fulfilled a prophecy, or that Psalms 22 was a prophecy for Jesus at all. The fact is, there is no way to conclude from the Psalm or from the Gospels that it is a messianic prophecy â€" Christians essentially made this up.

I must say that while not attributing a lot of truth to the Bible, it being a propaganda document for a bunch of power mad delusionists, I have always wondered about the supposed last words of JC. To me it appears that it took being nailed to a cross to make JC realise he was really an atheist. It wasn't till that point that he finally realised what a pile of BS he had swallowed throughout his entire life. This BS led to the Messiah complex that dominated his life after his 40 days of self imposed desert introspection. He started to believe his own publicity, always a bad thing. And then finally he realised his humanity, I bet he was pissed off!

Can you imagine the realisation as he hung from the nails with his legs broken and a spear hole in his side 'Boy did I fuck up!'

Quote from: "KebertX"Who cares?!? One bit of ancient scripture fails to support another bit of ancient scripture.  That's what the Bible IS!  Writing from thousands of years ago, that some tribal simpletons came up with, THAT CANNOT BE VERRIFIED!  

Precisely. I took the long way to explain that, but believers can't just be told what you just said in a couple of sentences. Devout people, like Freeservant, would rather take us to Jesus than listen to us. They are afraid to think critically because their religion is based on fear. It makes me so glad that I never had to go through the deconversion process.

QuoteI'm curious freeservant, why did you join this forum?  Why would any Christian want to join an Atheist Forum, just to try to propagate ancient myths to people who have already moved beyond them?  I should have known when I joined we would be trolled, I just want to know why you felt the urge to come here.

He has already told us. He has failed. His God has failed him to help refute anything we told him. And I thought the Holy Spirit was in him. I guess not in this debate.

Quote from: "freeservant"I did ask if there is anything I can present that would cause you to change your mind but I do pronounce this thread clean of any answer.  (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsmiliesftw.com%2Fx%2Fhsughup.gif&hash=90ad3af9f7d3c0f78340e589e1055c79c253d098) (http://smiliesftw.com)  Back to the echo chamber?

You can possibly change my mind if you can answer my posts in detail and depth. So far all I've seen are lightweight ad hominems and links to apologetics with the very first link to a flavour of Christianity not even your own. I answered all your questions. Now it's your turn.

Quote from: "Tank"I must say that while not attributing a lot of truth to the Bible, it being a propaganda document for a bunch of power mad delusionists, I have always wondered about the supposed last words of JC. To me it appears that it took being nailed to a cross to make JC realise he was really an atheist. It wasn't till that point that he finally realised what a pile of BS he had swallowed throughout his entire life. This BS led to the Messiah complex that dominated his life after his 40 days of self imposed desert introspection. He started to believe his own publicity, always a bad thing. And then finally he realised his humanity, I bet he was pissed off!

Can you imagine the realisation as he hung from the nails with his legs broken and a spear hole in his side 'Boy did I fuck up!'

*laffin*
Christianity doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Quote from: "freeservant"I think the argument against Jesus has been constantly refuted over the last two thousand years by a Higher Power then any earth bound defender.  But that in no way means that others are not free to have there view.  When I imply that someone is deeply invested in there view it naturally turns around on myself as well.  I believe my view can be falsified with a proper mix of clues and evidence.  One of those clues would be something like first/second century text about getting the doctrinal story strait as we have to keep up the lies...    

I'm afraid, all you have is all you'll get. However, I'm sure the Vatican has some stuff that they've kept locked up for centuries they would not like the public to see.

I used the bible in this discussion to refute the bible. Why can't you do the same? Are you afraid I may be right? Or do you hold to Pascal's Wager just in case?

Quote from: "freeservant"It is a given that all Christians are deluded right?

Depends on what you think the word deluded means and whether I count in those who are just christians because that's what they are told to say they are....Regardless, I don't think it's a good idea to go around telling people they are deluded even if I think their views are misguided or wrong.

I also do not care if you claim you were once an atheist...not having a belief in god in your life at some point doesn't mean you automatically understand the the philosophical reasons for not having a belief in a god; some people just don't believe yet have put just as little thought into why as the masses of unreasoned theists.

Now...are you ready to quit trying to cram all atheists into a tiny box?

Quote from: "freeservant"It is a given that all Christians are deluded right?

Whitney is a bit more flexible and forgiving than I...bless her heart...*grinnin*

Remember I told you: delusion means - something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated and/or a persistent false and possibly psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite no evidence, no good evidence or indisputable evidence to the contrary. It's not just Christians. It's people who claim to be a prophet, or Napoleon or those that believe Washington chopped down a cherry tree or Paul Bunyan made the Grand Canyon.

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "freeservant"It is a given that all Christians are deluded right?

Whitney is a bit more flexible and forgiving than I...bless her heart...*grinnin*

I should be a diplomat

Rather than "delusion" (which I consider unnecessarily heated), I prefer "unsupported".

"Wrong" works, too.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Rather than "delusion" (which I consider unnecessarily heated), I prefer "unsupported".

"Wrong" works, too.

A lot of people don't like the word 'delusion'.  I reckon it's because it has such a negative connotation that rhymes with 'crazy' and might make it seem "heated" or heavy handed. Sort of like many people think 'atheist' rhymes with 'satanist'. As long as the word is properly defined in context, I really do not have a problem with using it.

Quote from: "Gawen"Precisely. I took the long way to explain that, but believers can't just be told what you just said in a couple of sentences. Devout people, like Freeservant, would rather take us to Jesus than listen to us. They are afraid to think critically because their religion is based on fear. It makes me so glad that I never had to go through the deconversion process.

De-conversion isn't hard. At all.  I found it easy to De-convert myself from The Bible. Then Christianity. Then God.  I think I'm in the process of De-converting from belief in a soul (I'm not sure whether or not I want to keep that one).  Granted I wasn't taken to church very often as a kid, but I found the realization that God isn't real just as easy as it was to realize Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy were fake.  Hell, I was still convinced on Bigfoot when I quit God!

My point is, I came from a fundamentalist, anti-evolutionist, Ozzy-Hating, Protestant family, and I can personally attest to the fact that it isn't hard to give up on those things if you've been properly educated in Logic, Science, and Black Sabbath.  Actually, I thing Atheism is more enriching if you've gotten there from the other side.  It puts things in perspective, so to speak.

~

:bananacolor:  :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:  :bananacolor: :bananacolor: :bananacolor: Dancing Bananas ~ BECAUSE I CAN! :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:

Most of us believe there was a man named Jesus who lived around that time. None of us believe he was the foretold Messiah. Those Jews that did accept and believe in Jesus were the first Christians. Those Jews who did not remained Jewish.

Quote from: "jacobrock23"Most of us believe there was a man named Jesus who lived around that time. None of us believe he was the foretold Messiah. Those Jews that did accept and believe in Jesus were the first Christians. Those Jews who did not remained Jewish.

Most interesting indeed. The Jews were and still are looking for the Messiah. Most Christians say he was foretold, came and went. What Jesus do you believe in?

I believe there were TWO Jesus' figures.  One was a historic Jesus, a real Jewish teacher, who lived and taught, and was himself not a Christian but a practicing Jew.  Then, there is the "other" Jesus, the Mythical Figure, the Jesus who performed miracles, who was born of a virgin, and who rose from the dead.  This Jesus is a mythical construct by early Christians, his deeds, birth, and death/resurection were all embellished to give him "street creds" for the times.  Most early Christians didn't think that 2000 years later there would even be a world, much less a religion called Christianity.  Most early Christians were convinced that Jesus would return to earth in their lifetime, and guess what, that hasn't changed in 2,000 years.  Christians, today, are convinced that Jesus will come again in their lifetime.

Most of the Jesus Myth was borrowed from early Pagan Religions.  Early Christians were little more than a group of sects or cults, loosely woven together, at best, by the central belief in a Jesus, but other than that had little in common.  It wasn't until the Nicean Council in the fourth century, that the Catholic Church was formed and a central view of Christianity was formed.  And how was it formed?  By the same way early Christians formed their cults, but taking bits and peices from each sect or cult, and weaving a doctrine of Christianity that could be followed by all.  Each sect or cult had their own bible or writings, and it was decided by the council which would be included in the Christian bible and which books or writings would be discarded as too extreme.  The fact that Paul wrote to so many of the early churches/sects/cults, became a central part of the development of Christianity.  I believe that Paul actually had more to do with the development of Christianity that Jesus did.

Just some thoughts.

Quote from: "KebertX"Who cares?!? One bit of ancient scripture fails to support another bit of ancient scripture.  That's what the Bible IS!  Writing from thousands of years ago, that some tribal simpletons came up with, THAT CANNOT BE VERIFIED!  For Pete's sake, it's 2010, shouldn't people be done arguing over this nonsense by now?

Do you actually think millions of people would believe if there was not credible evidence and verification for Jesus Christ?

Have you explored the links I have posted?

Quote
 "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
     --HERBERT SPENCER

Do you have contempt of the clear and verified evidence?

QuoteThe Lukan papyrus, situated in a library in Paris has been dated to the late 1st century or early 2nd century, so it predates the John papyrus by 20-30 years (Time April 26, 1996, pg.8). But of more importance are the manuscript findings of Mark and Matthew! New research which has now been uncovered by Dr. Carsten Thiede, and is published in his newly released book on the subject, the Jesus Papyrus mentions a fragment from the book of Mark found among the Qumran scrolls (fragment 7Q5) showing that it was written sometime before 68 AD It is important to remember that Christ died in 33 AD, so this manuscript could have been written, at the latest, within 35 years of His death; possibly earlier, and thus during the time that the eyewitnesses to that event were still alive!

http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibmanu.htm (http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibmanu.htm)

I seem to see no way to refute this.  Yet those invested in their cognitive dissonance can just ignore it.

Quote from: "KebertX"No one wants to tear others beliefs down.  While you preach your ancient superstitions, we're laughing. Laughing because we only believe in REALITY, and what the bible says is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo far away from that!  You talk about Occam's Razor, you don't think you're breaking that rule when you assume God exists, or assume that the Bible is credible, or assume that Jesus was the messiah?  This is a shining example of the Confirmation Bias.  You have drawn the conclusion, BEFORE you look for evidence to support it.

Quote from: "KebertX"Of course every clue and bit of evidence can be defeated and refuted, because the evidence is entirely self confirming.

Oh?  And do you mean self confirming like if you witness something and need to pass it on and give it out so that it may be recorded and passed on?


 

Quote from: "KebertX"It's awful logic.

So if you then witness something significant then it should automatically be discounted because of your own investment in what you witnessed?

 

Quote from: "KebertX"How much evidence does it take before people realize the bible does not represent truth?

Apparently only cognitive dissonance is all that is needed to declare something by tautology alone.

QuoteThe Earth is millions of years old.
Evolution is a fact.
There was no Garden of Eden.
There was no Global Flood.
There was no migration across the Red Sea.
There was no Sodom and Gomorrah.
There was no walking on water.
There was no wine from water.
There is no hell.
and most importantly THERE IS NO INVISIBLE MEGALOMANIAC IN THE SKY!

Sweet tautology to live your life by as long as you keep your contempt prior to investigation.

Quote from: "KebertX"If anyone or anything else in the world made claims so outrageous, with no external evidence, No one would take it seriously.  Talk about Occam's Razor, no story in the bible doesn't violate Occam's Razor.  I don't believe in God, because I don't believe in Mother Goose.  In terms of your stamp analogy, Atheists are non-Stamp collectors, who realized people are collecting IMAGINARY stamps.  We just want to show people that there's actually nothing in their stamp book, so they stop wasting their lives on imaginary stamps, and insisting on holding back everyone else in the process.

I see... So like this claim:

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "KebertX"Who cares?!? One bit of ancient scripture fails to support another bit of ancient scripture.  That's what the Bible IS!  Writing from thousands of years ago, that some tribal simpletons came up with, THAT CANNOT BE VERRIFIED!  

Precisely. I took the long way to explain that, but believers can't just be told what you just said in a couple of sentences. Devout people, like Freeservant, would rather take us to Jesus than listen to us. They are afraid to think critically because their religion is based on fear. It makes me so glad that I never had to go through the deconversion process.

So with this joyful confirmation I can take it that you have evidence for atheism as no negative-atheist would make such a powerful claim.

Present your evidence.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHIIjfxr4o0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHIIjfxr4o0)

And of course there is no evidence on my side as has been repeated over and over as a tautological supreme truth!

Oh.. wait... I am too much of a cognitively dissonant simpleton, who is deluded so that any evidence you have is going to be a secret atheist thing where they say they have no burden as atheism is a negative-atheism...  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoch%C3%A9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoch%C3%A9)

Oh.. and don't forget I am too afraid for the truth.

Quote from: "KebertX"I should have known when I joined we would be trolled, I just want to know why you felt the urge to come here.

(I know I'm being mean, but that's what people do when they're pissed off.  I stand by everything I say, but apologize in advance for being offensive...)

[/quote]

Trolled?  I guess this must mean that anybody that wants to share and defend their worldview is a troll.  I get that you want an atheist echo chamber that does not challenge anybody to go beyond their contempt prior to investigation.

any link I produce of the significant work gone into the trustworthiness of the bible will be lost on the cognitively dissonant who have contempt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2inxJZJvs4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2inxJZJvs4)

There is a war of worldviews going on but don't watch the entire video as you need not test your assumptions.

Again I did ask if there is any of the wealth of information out there on the internet that would give you pause to consider the thousands of years of scholarship that has gone on to defend and provide clues and evidence that will lead you to the truth.  Or must everything be torn down and nothing built up by non-stamp collectors hoping, wishing, finding a bubble or echo chamber that will keep then sure in their no Santa means there is no God myth.

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "KebertX"Who cares?!? One bit of ancient scripture fails to support another bit of ancient scripture.  That's what the Bible IS!  Writing from thousands of years ago, that some tribal simpletons came up with, THAT CANNOT BE VERIFIED!  For Pete's sake, it's 2010, shouldn't people be done arguing over this nonsense by now?

Do you actually think millions of people would believe if there was not credible evidence and verification for Jesus Christ?

"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." - Abraham Lincoln

Your argument from popularity will, at some point in the future, have to change to the fact that most people will believe Mohamed was the last true prophet of Allah. When will you be converting to Islam?

People are generally not sceptical of their world view because they have no desire or requirement to be. They follow the norms of the culture they exist in simply because it's the easiest thing to do. If you are told (insert ideology of choice) is true by your parents and family and all the people around you will believe it as you will have no reason not to. But when what you have been told conflicts with reality you have to do one of the following a) ignore the dichotomy, b) rubbish the dichotomy, c) accept reality or d) pretend you don't believe the dichotomy. The logical thing to do is c) accept reality. But what if accepting reality will result in your ostracism from your family, friends and culture followed by endless ridicule? People would normally choose d). And thus the continuation of (insert ideology of choice) is confirmed.

If you don't think this works it has been shown to. In an experiment 4 chimps were put in a cage with a ladder with a banana on top. When the first adventurous chimp climbed the ladder all 4 chimps were hosed with cold water, which they do not like. A different chimp had a go and the same happened etc etc. Eventually the chimps stopped trying to get the banana. One chimp was swapped out with one that had no idea what would happen if they climbed the ladder, so he tried. The remaining three chimps beat the crap out of him, it took a few goes but the banana remained intact and uneaten. They swapped out another of the original chimps. The new chimp tried to get the banana and the other three, including the one who had never been soaked, stopped them. They then swapped out another original and the same process occurred. They then swapped out the final original chimp and the same thing happened, the three chimps who had never been soaked stopped the new one from climbing the ladder to get the banana. So you end up with 4 chimps who won't climb the ladder to get the banana yet none of them really knows why, they had formed a dogma 'don't get the banana!'

Religions are no different, they are a behaviourists dream. You are telling people Christianity is right, but you really don't know why. Not a nice thought is it? Accept reality.

Quote from: "Tank"Religions are no different, they are a behaviorists dream. You are telling people Christianity is right, but you really don't know why. Not a nice thought is it? Accept reality.

Then you have a burden to prove it's a behaviorists dream.  Some dream of the utopia that will happen if all religion is killed.  Ask that fine Jewish person Karl Marx about behavior and the opiate of the masses.  Your chimpanzee straw man would work good if we all had the intelligence of the chimp.  But it also works in my favor as believers in Jesus where often hunted, tortured, and killed in effort to hose that upstart religion down.  Do you think Nero fed enough Christians to the lions that they should not have gone for that banana?  Remember that the first century was when it was most inconvenient to be a Christian so those Christians kept going for the banana even if it killed them.  You would have to say that they must of had good evidence to be that convicted.

http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadydefense/ (http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadydefense/)

I had my IQ tested recently and it was quite healthy.  I do have the capacity to learn and study yet also know how to be a skeptic. I am convinced there is sufficient evidence.  And remember that evidence does not need to be extraordinary as it only need be sufficient.

http://www.bethinking.org/ (http://www.bethinking.org/)

Sufficient enough to know that ad-populum is not always a fallacy if my appeal was that people do in fact believe.  But then it goes beyond belief as Christians do feel the interaction and relationship with the Creator.  A personal revelation that you can not know if you keep your heart hardened and have contempt prior to investigation.

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "KebertX"Who cares?!? One bit of ancient scripture fails to support another bit of ancient scripture.  That's what the Bible IS!  Writing from thousands of years ago, that some tribal simpletons came up with, THAT CANNOT BE VERRIFIED!  

Precisely. I took the long way to explain that, but believers can't just be told what you just said in a couple of sentences. Devout people, like Freeservant, would rather take us to Jesus than listen to us. They are afraid to think critically because their religion is based on fear. It makes me so glad that I never had to go through the deconversion process.

QuoteSo with this joyful confirmation I can take it that you have evidence for atheism as no negative-atheist would make such a powerful claim.

The original claim is "Jesus was not the Messiah". You have yet to show that he was. I have shown you how he was not and you have yet to refute my statements. All you come up with is a lot of vitriolic off topic apologetics.

QuoteI had my IQ tested recently and it was quite healthy. I do have the capacity to learn and study yet also know how to be a skeptic.

Then you should be able to refute my statements.

QuoteI am convinced there is sufficient evidence. And remember that evidence does not need to be extraordinary as it only need be sufficient.

I thought you just said your IQ was healthy?
Refute my claims...if you will.

Freeservant:

Simply being able to throw around terms like "cognitive dissonance" roughly in context does not a thinker make.

Also, since you're very keen against tautologies, would you kindly quit citing the Bible as evidence for your view that the Bible is the inerrant word of God?

Quote from: "FreeServant"Sufficient enough to know that ad-populum is not always a fallacy if my appeal was that people do in fact believe. But then it goes beyond belief as Christians do feel the interaction and relationship with the Creator. A personal revelation that you can not know if you keep your heart hardened and have contempt prior to investigation.

If it cannot be reproduced, it is useless as evidence.  There is a "god module (http://www.naturalnews.com/023055_the_brain_religion_consciousness.html)" in the brain that provides a naturalistic explanation for your feelings of sublimnity and presence.  However, given your obvious emotional investment in belief, I doubt you will consider this as a factor.

QuoteSufficient enough to know that ad-populum is not always a fallacy if my appeal was that people do in fact believe.

Wow...in other words...

Just because 1 billion people believe in something with no evidence doesn't make it true....unless I also believe it.

Quote from: "Gawen"

QuoteSo with this joyful confirmation I can take it that you have evidence for atheism as no negative-atheist would make such a powerful claim.

The original claim is "Jesus was not the Messiah". You have yet to show that he was. I have shown you how he was not and you have yet to refute my statements. All you come up with is a lot of vitriolic off topic apologetics.

It is not off topic to ground your presuppositions that are required if your view that Jesus is not the Messiah is to be a positive truth claim on your part.  I have refuted you time and again with worthy links to scholarly evidence that early Christians knew Jesus was God because they directly witnessed this and it was consistent with the earliest known biblical fragments that back this up.  Biblical fragments that are clearly during the time when living witnesses existed.  I note you wont address this issue...

But as I said before and will say again:  You are not refutable as you refuse the clear evidence.  No one can beat stubborn intractability.

QuoteI had my IQ tested recently and it was quite healthy. I do have the capacity to learn and study yet also know how to be a skeptic.

Then you should be able to refute my statements.

But I have yet I can't falsify stubborn intractability.

QuoteI am convinced there is sufficient evidence. And remember that evidence does not need to be extraordinary as it only need be sufficient.

I thought you just said your IQ was healthy?
Refute my claims...if you will.[/quote]

http://www.greatcom.org/resources/aread ... efault.htm (http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadydefense/ch42/default.htm)

QuoteNow I had to apply these same two questions to my own subjective experience:

1. What is the objective reality or basis for my subjective experience-a changed life?

Answer: the person of Christ and His resurrection.

2. How many others have had this same subjective experience from being related to the objective reality, Jesus Christ?

The evidence is overwhelming. Truly millions of people, from all backgrounds, nationalities and professions, have seen their lives elevated to new levels of peace and joy by turning their lives over to Christ. Indeed, the professor confirmed this when he said, "I have met scores of people around the world who have been transformed by Christ."

I have an objective reality I have personally observed that backs up the above.  Yet I bet you will deny this as you are not truly wanting to find any evidence that confirms my epistemological experience.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Freeservant:

Simply being able to throw around terms like "cognitive dissonance" roughly in context does not a thinker make.

Also, since you're very keen against tautologies, would you kindly quit citing the Bible as evidence for your view that the Bible is the inerrant word of God?

Cognitive Dissonance is an interesting term that requires a truth position in order to work.  IE: Atheism is the positive claim that God does not exist thus those who deny the evidence are thus cognitively dissonant.  Do you see how it works that way?

http://www.answers.com/topic/cognitive-dissonance (http://www.answers.com/topic/cognitive-dissonance)

So if there is information that confirms that God does not exist then I may be cognitively dissonant but as long as I am debating weak-atheists/negative-atheists or agnostic atheists then this term can go only one direction.  That direction is of the one making a positive claim with evidence or clues that point to that persons positive claim.  ....Oh but I guess it does work both ways if both are making positive assertions and positive metaphysical claims.

a video that illustrates the issue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHIIjfxr4o0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHIIjfxr4o0)

also here is information that refutes gawen's claims about Paul: http://www.greatcom.org/resources/aread ... efault.htm (http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadydefense/ch43/default.htm)

Quote from: "freeservant"Cognitive Dissonance is an interesting term that requires a truth position in order to work.  IE: Atheism is the positive claim that God does not exist thus those who deny the evidence are thus cognitively dissonant.  Do you see how it works that way?

No, because you're ignoring an entire class of atheists.  

Also, I define myself, and reject your judgement.  You don't know me from a can of paint, so quit pretending you do.  You're fooling no one.

QuoteSo if there is information that confirms that God does not exist then I may be cognitively dissonant but as long as I am debating weak-atheists/negative-atheists or agnostic atheists then this term can go only one direction.  That direction is of the one making a positive claim with evidence or clues that point to that persons positive claim.  ....Oh but I guess it does work both ways if both are making positive assertions and positive metaphysical claims.

I'm not sure why you're talking about a positive disproof of god to me; I've never put one forth, and I doubt such an eventuality.  Aim this arrow elsewhere.

Quotealso here is information that refutes your claims about Paul

I'm not sure why this is directed at me either.  Kindly clarify.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"No, because you're ignoring an entire class of atheists.

Nope unless you wish to claim that atheism is not a rational position and thus can not be defined rationally.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Also, I define myself, and reject your judgement.  You don't know me from a can of paint, so quit pretending you do.  You're fooling no one.

Here you have illustrated my point.  Can you rationally define atheism or rather all of it's subclasses or denominations and other ephemera?

I can: http://www.investigatingatheism.info/definition.html (http://www.investigatingatheism.info/definition.html)

And you are free to define yourself as you wish but that does not mean you have a rational activator to establish an objective means for why you define yourself by yourself.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

QuoteSo if there is information that confirms that God does not exist then I may be cognitively dissonant but as long as I am debating weak-atheists/negative-atheists or agnostic atheists then this term can go only one direction.  That direction is of the one making a positive claim with evidence or clues that point to that persons positive claim.  ....Oh but I guess it does work both ways if both are making positive assertions and positive metaphysical claims.

I'm not sure why you're talking about a positive disproof of god to me; I've never put one forth, and I doubt such an eventuality.  Aim this arrow elsewhere.

This is very simple and black and white in that if you make a claim of cognitive dissonance on my part, then you are required to be a positive atheist with positive clues and evidence or you must withdraw any such claim.  Like the video said it is implied as necessary to your claim.

Quotealso here is information that refutes your claims about Paul

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I'm not sure why this is directed at me either.  Kindly clarify.

I have fixed this.    sorry

Still waiting to for you get back on topic, freeservant.

Quote from: "Gawen"Still waiting to for you get back on topic, freeservant.

you have not even come close refuting the wealth of website content I have already given you so unless I play games like you are obviously doing or just keep repeating the same stuff over and over until you finally give an answer I have decided I will no longer reply to you.

You are dishonest and will not address even the points I have made given you seeing that you are under the delusion that you have some how refuted me I declare your dishonesty as your means of victory.

You are by mental gymnastics the winnar!

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"No, because you're ignoring an entire class of atheists.

Nope unless you wish to claim that atheism is not a rational position and thus can not be defined rationally.

Nonsense.  There are atheists who believe that god(s) are logically impossible.  You also have atheists who do not claim to know the truth-state of any god, but deem the evidence lacking, and, lacking faith, give the idea no credence.

I am in the latter group.  I cannot say god doesn't, or cannot exist.  I can only say that I have no faith and your evidence is, to put it kindly, useless.

QuoteHere you have illustrated my point.  Can you rationally define atheism or rather all of it's subclasses or denominations and other ephemera?

I don't care about all the "classes" of atheism, or its "ephemera".  You don't know me, you cannot define me, and to do so is overweening on your part.

QuoteAnd you are free to define yourself as you wish but that does not mean you have a rational activator to establish an objective means for why you define yourself by yourself.

My logic, unlike yours, is internally consistent.  Additionally, it explains the world fine without invoking extra entities.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I'm not sure why you're talking about a positive disproof of god to me; I've never put one forth, and I doubt such an eventuality.  Aim this arrow elsewhere.

QuoteThis is very simple and black and white in that if you make a claim of cognitive dissonance on my part, then you are required to be a positive atheist with positive clues and evidence or you must withdraw any such claim.  Like the video said it is implied as necessary to your claim.

Please read for comprehension.  I was pointing out your use of "sciency" language, not attributing your accusations to your own character.

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "Gawen"Still waiting to for you get back on topic, freeservant.

you have not even come close refuting the wealth of website content I have already given you so unless I play games like you are obviously doing or just keep repeating the same stuff over and over until you finally give an answer I have decided I will no longer reply to you.

You are dishonest and will not address even the points I have made given you seeing that you are under the delusion that you have some how refuted me I declare your dishonesty as your means of victory.

You are by mental gymnastics the winnar!

Let's see here....

I open the thread with several points for you to refute and you come back with:
Jews for Jesus as evidence which I showed as false
LORD, LIAR OR LUNATIC? which has been refuted by others way before me
FOX's BOOK of MARTYRS which has nothing to do with Jesus as Messiah and incidentally, you cannot point out the relative points in this book. I don't have time to read the entire thing.
Gary Habermas web site, again you don't point out the relative portions
Extra-biblical references to Jesus and Christianity which you have been shown that these are false in other threads
Peter Kreeft, who, featured as an objective source for a very well known Christian apologist is really one of the worst crackpots there is to preach to the choir.

This is all in the first half of the first thread.

I almost think you're afraid I'm right.

And you have this tendency to go off topic.