|
|
|
Tiptup
Skeptic Friend
USA
86 Posts |
 Posted - 05/26/2001 : 20:58:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnPaul Slater:
A "God-man" is a Persian and not a Jewish concept. No "God-man" is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. (If he is in the OT that would show editorial work beyond the obvious rearrangement that we were looking for)
Go to the following web address:
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Bible/Isaiah9.html
Look on the 5th line and you'll find the following statement concerning the messiah:
For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom;
The first word "Pele" means miracle or wonder, and "joez" means to advise. This is translated in my Christian OT as "Wonderful Counselor".
Now notice the word "el" as one of the things this son is called. That is the general Hebrew term for deity. The word "gibbor" means powerful in the idea of a warrior or champion. My OT translates these words as "Mighty God". Sounds to me like a god-man thing going on in the Hebrew bible.
The word "ad" means a perpetual duration, and "Abi" means father. Thus we Christians get the phrase "Everlasting Father" as another name for the Messiah.
Last but not least "sar" means a head or chief person (of any rank or class), and "shalom" means a number of nice and happy things, most notably peace. So the Messiah's last name is translated "Prince of Peace" in my Christian bible.
To some up what I am communicating, this is not the only Hebrew bible reference of the Messiah that describes a God-type person. Also there are Jews other than "Jews for Jesus" that believe the Messiah is a God-man, even if they do not believe Jesus was Him. So I think I am safe in saying that the Jewish Messiah is my Everlasting Father and Mighty God.
Tiptup
-------------------------
I DON'T MAKE SENSE-I GOT MY PRIDE; DON'T NEED NO MEANING; I FEEL NO SHAME-I WILL NOT BELIEVE; I GOT NO CHOICE-I'M OUT OF CONTROL; AND I LOVE IT!! |
 |
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2001 : 21:00:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tiptup:
As I have stated many times. I do plan on researching on whether or not there was a “historical” Jesus.
To what end? You've made it quite clear that you will believe the Bible (your interpretation of it, at least) no matter what other evidence pops up. If you say otherwise, then how far will you go? How much evidence will you accept? If you find convincing evidence that there never was a god-man named Jesus, will you continue to be a Christian? Why? My point is, it has always amazed me how people can be totally rational and logical, and demand this from others in their arguments, until one questions their religion. You have no proof, no logic to back it up, it defies rationality, yet you claim it is Truth, and your only reason is that you "know" it, and "feel" it. This is not a good enough reason. If you haven't already, I recommend reading "The Case Against God" by George H. Smith. It is a very well laid out argument against the irrationality of religion.
------------
Gambatte kudasai! |
|
|
|
Tiptup
Skeptic Friend
USA
86 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2001 : 21:01:30 [Permalink]
|
Well Kurisu-san, all I can say is don't count your chickens before they hatch. As for what I believe, that is up to me alone. If I find sufficient evidence that there was nobody like Jesus that ever existed, then that is what I suppose I will have to switch my belief to. If all I am supposed to base my disbelief on is the fact that similarities exist between the person we know as Jesus and other pagan deities, then your right; I would not except that alone as a reason to disbelieve.
Tiptup
-------------------------
I DON'T MAKE SENSE-I GOT MY PRIDE; DON'T NEED NO MEANING; I FEEL NO SHAME-I WILL NOT BELIEVE; I GOT NO CHOICE-I'M OUT OF CONTROL; AND I LOVE IT!! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2001 : 21:03:01 [Permalink]
|
My goodness, what will it take to get a direct answer?!
quote:
Originally posted by Kurisu-san:
You have no proof, no logic to back it up, it defies rationality, yet you claim it is Truth, and your only reason is that you "know" it, and "feel" it.
I'm just curious as to why.
------------
Gambatte kudasai! |
|
|
|
Tiptup
Skeptic Friend
USA
86 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2001 : 21:04:11 [Permalink]
|
Look, after I finish my research and I actually do find that there is no logical basis for my beliefs, I will no longer support them. I suppose this might be difficult for certain atheists to understand, because they already assume before hand that Jesus was not real. I on the other hand am trying to be fair and research your claims before I decide on them.
Tiptup
-------------------------
I DON'T MAKE SENSE-I GOT MY PRIDE; DON'T NEED NO MEANING; I FEEL NO SHAME-I WILL NOT BELIEVE; I GOT NO CHOICE-I'M OUT OF CONTROL; AND I LOVE IT!! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2001 : 21:05:15 [Permalink]
|
It's just odd that you seem to be going backwards... Normally you hear a claim, research the evidence, then decide whether there is enough evidence to support that belief. You seem to have accepted Christianity and all that comes with it, and are now looking for evidence to support your beliefs? If you are sincere, then I look forward to welcoming another atheist here very soon, because there is no other rational conclusion but that god doesn't exist.
------------
Gambatte kudasai! |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2001 : 21:06:18 [Permalink]
|
Even if it were proved that Jesus did not exist, it does nothing to prove that God doesn't exist.
It's hard for me to imagine any evidence that could ever prove such a thing. However, it's also true that I find it hard to believe that there could ever be any evidence that proves the existence of God.
I thought that there were some interesting points made in that Bible show on PBS. A lot of insight on what is meant in the New Testament can be found by looking at the history of the writers. What was going on politically in their day, where they lived and who with and so on.
Why did Jesus make such a big deal about things that were simply not issues in his day? If you want to say that since he was the son of God, he knew what was to come, why didn't he come out and warn everyone about Adolf Hitler or something even farther in the future?
The Gospels had a lot to do with the authors. That much should be obvious. I went to Catholic school and that a lot was said about the writers of the Gospels and the times they lived in. Biblical scholars are well aware of the tone of the Gospels and how the Gospels were embellished.
Also....no one said that Christianity was created by the Romans. I think the point was that several beliefs near and dear to the Romans were added to what Christianity was at the time to make Christianity more palatable to the Roman population in general and the legions in particular.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Tiptup
Skeptic Friend
USA
86 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2001 : 21:10:59 [Permalink]
|
I think there is a misunderstanding here. I have researched the gospels as historical documents and they stand up better to skepticism than any other ancient accounts known to man. It is on this basis that I believe Jesus was real. If I find evidence that invalidates or overpowers my beliefs, then I will change them.
Now I suppose if I choose to, I can believe that the gospels were not real and that Roman bureaucrats made them up. But there is no hard evidence that this took place. In fact, as far as I know, there is quite a bit of evidence to the contrary.
Another thing that I see we have a misunderstanding on is a belief in miracles or God. (That's with miracles being an event beyond our understanding of how something like it may have taken place, and God being an all-powerful super intellect that brought everything into existence.) You seem to discount the possibility that either of them might exist. I on the other hand have experiences that lead me to believe there is a God. I do not expect you to believe or understand this, but I do expect you to understand that to discount miracles is not possible, especially in cases where we have testimonies as solid as the New Testament. If you wish to throw them out, then as far as I know, you must throw out every other historical account we have.
Tiptup
-------------------------
I DON'T MAKE SENSE-I GOT MY PRIDE; DON'T NEED NO MEANING; I FEEL NO SHAME-I WILL NOT BELIEVE; I GOT NO CHOICE-I'M OUT OF CONTROL; AND I LOVE IT!! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2001 : 21:12:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by @tomic:
Even if it were proved that Jesus did not exist, it does nothing to prove that God doesn't exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again it must be pointed out that there are different definitions of the word 'proof', just as there are different levels of 'fact'. Besides, it is impossible to prove god doesn't exist, just as it is impossible to prove that the invisible dragon in Carl Sagan's garage that only he could see doesn't exist. Heck, it can never be proven that WE exist, but I don't hesitate to say that me being here typing this is 'proof' that I exist; the meaning of 'proof' is different in each of my uses of the word in this sentence, but valid in both cases nonetheless.
------------
Gambatte kudasai! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2001 : 21:14:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tiptup:
I do not expect you to believe or understand this, but I do expect you to understand that to discount miracles is not possible, especially in cases where we have testimonies as solid as the New Testament.
I'm sorry, but if you think the NT is a 'solid' and reliable source for 'testimonies', there's nothing I can possible say to change your mind about Jesus, God, and miracles. And if you think it is not possible to discount miracles based on testimony, again, there is no point in continuing this discussion.
(oops, I don't mean this discussion is pointless, just that I don't have the knowledge and clarity to continue to try and argue my POV)
(but I may still try )
------------
Gambatte kudasai! |
|
|
|
Tiptup
Skeptic Friend
USA
86 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2001 : 21:16:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by @tomic:
Why did Jesus make such a big deal about things that were simply not issues in his day?
Like what specifically? I find all of Jesus sayings to be relevant even today in at least some ways. We can say that Rome changed them, but as far as I can see, Jesus sayings were that of a Jewish Rabbi that believed He was the Messiah.
The Gospels had a lot to do with the authors. That much should be obvious. I went to Catholic school and that a lot was said about the writers of the Gospels and the times they lived in. Biblical scholars are well aware of the tone of the Gospels and how the Gospels were embellished.
I don't know about embellished, but yes the Gospels do contain tones and references that align themselves with the particular writers and their experiences. To take the literary criticism as far as the people did on that PBS show, I believe is entering the realm of pure speculation. If you want to judge what the writers said, then look at the context and what they meant and then compare it to what the others said. I see a high degree of similarity from one writer to another, whether Paul's epistles or Luke's gospel. Even with the different styles, tones, and target audiences, they are all expressing one overarching message.
Tiptup
-------------------------
I DON'T MAKE SENSE-I GOT MY PRIDE; DON'T NEED NO MEANING; I FEEL NO SHAME-I WILL NOT BELIEVE; I GOT NO CHOICE-I'M OUT OF CONTROL; AND I LOVE IT!! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2001 : 21:17:37 [Permalink]
|
Tiptup, just a quick recommendation: "Who Wrote the Gospels?" by Randel McCraw Helms.
There's alot more than just 'the different styles, tones, and target audiences' to be critised about them.
------------
Gambatte kudasai! |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2001 : 21:19:18 [Permalink]
|
Tiptup, we are falling into this same trap again, and I must admit it is partly my fault for going along with it, of arguing minutia in the bible. I know "fundis" revel in this occupation, but it is not appropriate here. You will find many pastors who do this, but it is only what stage magicians call "the art of misdirection."
There are some fundamentalists who deal strictly in "faith." Luckily, for this conversation, you deal in a combination of both faith and logic.
What you have to understand is, as a skeptic, I do not deal in "faith" at all. The very concept of "faith" I find absurd. So to reach me, to make me understand you, you will have to traffic solely in logic. (It's like dealing with those damn European tourists—no matter how LOUDLY you speak to them they simply refuse to understand English)
You are (at least partly) basing the Messiahship of Jesus on prophecies in the OT.
My basic problems with accepting the OT as any kind of authority at all—
First we need to demonstrate that there even is such a creature as a god.
Then we need to demonstrate that this god is not one of the thousands of other gods worshipped by mankind over the years, but the God of Israel. (It would also be interesting to find out while you're at it why after creating billions of galaxies He should decide to disguise himself as the tribal god of a small group of Semites who lived in back of the beyond and ignore the rest of the planet.)
Then it needs to be shown that despite the physical evidence to the contrary this god did the creating talked about in the OT
Then we need proof of a "fall from grace"
Then we need proof that there is such a thing as a viable prophecy.
Then we need proof of an "historic" Jesus (all the prophecies in the world don't matter if the fulfiller was fictitious)
Then we need proof that he was a God-man
Do you see what I'm doing (in my tedious and annoying way)? I'm ticking off so called "articles of faith" and requiring evidence for them. The sole reason that it is valid for me to do so is that the base of this discussion is the "historic" Jesus. By stating the word HISTORIC as a condition of discussion we preclude any statements of "faith" and must deal solely with evidence.
What we need is an actual flesh and blood person who preformed some or all of the deeds attributed to Jesus Christ. Barring that we could use an actual person on whom the legend of the Christ is based.
" But if the gospels really are so unreliable, then none of you have given me any evidence to support this. Only vague statements about how they were made up by the Roman government. Well, I think the burden of proof belongs to your side in that case."
Vague? I've given you the time, the place, the "perps", the motive and the means (previously existing myths) I've even given you a reading list to check my findings. Granted, this is all circumstantial evidence. (If de codex don't fit you must acquit) That's the best you can possibly do when trying to demonstrate a negative proposition.
Example: suppose we were trying to show that there was no such thing as an "historic" leprechaun, could you tell me how we could go about that using anything other than circumstantial evidence?
You are mistaken about the "burden of proof." It always rests solely on those who are making a positive assertion.
The multiple interpretations of the bible–besides the one true one that you hold (do you think that there is any Christian anywhere who doesn't consider his interpretation to be the correct one?) is a phenomena even older than your bible. Aristotle addressed it when he said, "Men create gods after their own image, not only with regard to their form but with regard to their mode of life."
"…we fundies at least try to get the bible's meanings right and don't change them on purpose" You fundies are as human as anyone else. You focus on the parts that reflect your personalities and skim over the parts that don't. It doesn't matter, it isn't really the word of any God, you can do what you want with it.
Last "rally round the schoolyard flag and scoff the separation of church and state" day, I received an E-mail list of the dirtiest parts of the bible. It is so vile that I can't include it here for fear of being thrown out of cyber space for obscenity. Who would have thought that there was oral sex in ancient Israel? And you don't even want to hear about the sheep. Yikes!
In your one true interpretation of the bible do you fundis ever deal with these naughty bits? I wouldn't blame you if you didn't. My personality would have me skip right over them, I hope yours would too.
Kurisu-san has a good point, to what end are you doing this? I went on a search for the historic Jesus when I was only a year or so younger than you. The effects of this search were devastating. To remain an honest man I was forced to revise my entire worldview. Not an easy thing, I'll tell you. There's an old expression—don't ask questions that you don't want to know the answers to.
Then again there's another old saw that says—the truth shall set you free.
Are you prepared for freedom? It isn't all fun.
"I admit that reason is a small and feeble flame, a flickering torch by stumblers carried in a starless night,—blown and flared by passion's storm,—and yet, it is the only light. Extinguish that, and naught remains."
— Ingersoll
A reply to the Rev. Henry M. Field, DD (1887)
When the dead talk -- they talk to him |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2001 : 21:19:59 [Permalink]
|
@tomic–you said"...it does nothing to prove that God doesn't exist.
It's hard for me to imagine any evidence that could ever prove such a thing. However, it's also true that I
find it hard to believe that there could ever be any evidence that proves the existence of God."
If you keep such an open mind about this particular God, do you feel the same way about the thousands of other Gods? For instance, what is your opinion on Apollo?
Apollo was ruled false by the same statute that ruled that JC wasn't. Are civil laws all it takes to make the immortals vanish?
When the dead talk -- they talk to him |
|
|
|
Tiptup
Skeptic Friend
USA
86 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2001 : 21:24:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JohnPaul Slater:
Tiptup, we are falling into this same trap again, and I must admit it is partly my fault for going along with it, of arguing minutia in the bible. I know "fundis" revel in this occupation, but it is not appropriate here. You will find many pastors who do this, but it is only what stage magicians call "the art of misdirection."
Actually I think you might be accidentally misdirecting me into being misdirected away from your original argument. As I remember, you stated that Jesus is just a compilation of other religions ideas of a God-man. I answered this by saying that whatever Jesus may or may not have come from, just by following the Jewish religion, the bible's history of Israel, and its idea of a messiah, we can easily piece the life of Jesus together in even greater detail then if we used your quoted pagan religions. If that reply somehow misdirected you then I guess I'm sorry.
You are (at least partly) basing the Messiahship of Jesus on prophecies in the OT.
No I am totally basing my claims that Jesus was the messiah off the Old Testament. If it truly spoke of a messiah that could not have been Jesus, then whoever this man spoken of in history was, He and His pupils would be seen as confused people or liars. Many people have claimed to be the Jewish messiah, but as far as I know, Jesus is the only one that has fulfilled what the Hebrew bible said.
First we need to demonstrate that there even is such a creature as a god.
Then we need to demonstrate that this god is not one of the thousands of other gods worshipped by mankind over the years, but the God of Israel. (It would also be interesting to find out while you're at it why after creating billions of galaxies He should decide to disguise himself as the tribal god of a small group of Semites who lived in back of the beyond and ignore the rest of the planet.)
Then it needs to be shown that despite the physical evidence to the contrary this god did the creating talked about in the OT
Then we need proof of a "fall from grace"
Then we need proof that there is such a thing as a viable prophecy.
Then we need proof of an "historic" Jesus (all the prophecies in the world don't matter if the fulfiller was fictitious)
Then we need proof that he was a God-man
From what I can tell, you are going at this discussion backwards. Whether or not miracles took place, whether or not God exists, and whether or not a person chooses to believe any of this, we are asking if history says these things happened. Then it is from history that we learn if the Hebrew God was the true one, and whether or not Jesus was their Messiah.
Your bringing up more philosophical questions like whether there is God or if He would do what the OT claims He did, are not relevant to this discussion, and are the definition of your misdirection. Maybe if we made a distinction between history and your preconceived philosophical views we wouldn't get sidetracked so often. In looking at any kind of science, one cannot come into the discussion of the data with the idea that something couldn't have happened as an a priori.
Your assertion that the creation story disagrees with observed data is rather sad from my point of view. It seems you too easily believe what creationists tell you the bible says. If your interested I will be going into great detail on this subject in the email I'm sending Tom Huxley. But suffice to say, the bible's statements in no way contradict science and in fact support scientific common sense.
Your requirement of evidence for our fall from grace is not reasonable. First the question of whether or not evil is intrinsic to humanity does not require hard historical evidence for a specific event. So even if we have no evidence for the actual fall, we can still scientifically decide through observation, whether humanity does or does not possess evil within its nature.
As for your question of whether or not there are viable prophecies, this is impossible to prove beyond a doubt. This is because we can never know for sure if it was just a guess, if the person actually knew it would happen, or if it is a true revelation from some higher source. In the end we must again use scientific judgment. The bible, especially the Hebrew bible, contains many prophecies and if they came true or not, we would then be able to reasonably say whether the bible is prophetically reliable or not.
Again we arrive back at the original question, was there a historical Jesus and do we possess enough evidence to say whether his claims are supported by history or condemned by it. I currently believe that history says there was a Jesus and that the historical evidence supports his miraculous nature. Whether or not I or anybody else personally believes this is a whole different question.
What we need is an actual flesh and blood person who preformed some or all of the deeds attributed to Jesus Christ. Barring that we could use an actual person on whom the legend of the Christ is based.
Yeah, you see, that is the problem with history. The people and events we learn about are in the past and we cannot go back and view the true "flesh and blood" versions of those things. That should be something a scientist should understand particularly well.
Granted, this [the idea that Rome made up Christianity] is all circumstantial evidence. (If de codex don't fit you must acquit) That's the best you can possibly do when trying to demonstrate a negative proposition.
Example: suppose we were trying to show that there was no such thing as an "historic" leprechaun, could you tell me how we could go about that using anything other than circumstantial evidence?
You are mistaken about the "burden of proof." It always rests solely on those who are making a positive assertion.
I am not mistaken. We are talking about whether or not the Christian bible's historical claims are reliable. I have said that the testimonies contained within the NT are reliable enough that we can say not only that Jesus existed but that the other data concerning his life is also reliable from a historical standpoint. If you want to say that the NT is unreliable because you believe history was faked, then prove it. Why don't you give me the data that your leprechaun existed so that I might consider the idea.
Last "rally round the schoolyard flag and scoff the separation of church and state" day, I received an E-mail list of the dirtiest parts of the bible. It is so vile that I can't include it here for fear of being thrown out of cyber space for obscenity. Who would have thought that there was oral sex in ancient Israel? And you don't even want to hear about the sheep. Yikes!
In your one true interpretation of the bible do you fundis ever deal with these naughty bits?
No I do not skip or look over those parts. They all have something useful to teach. But again, that is a topic for another discussion.
Kurisu-san has a good point, to what end are you doing this?
Many people believe a number of different and weird things about religion. I on the other hand believe that religion has only one purpose, truth. If my beliefs are out and out lies, then I do not want to believe them plain and simple. The other side of the coin is helping others not to believe things that are untrue. That is my end.
Tiptup
-------------------------
I DON'T MAKE SENSE-I GOT MY PRIDE; DON'T NEED NO MEANING; I FEEL NO SHAME-I WILL NOT BELIEVE; I GOT NO CHOICE-I'M OUT OF CONTROL; AND I LOVE IT!! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
