• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

... and if you're wrong?

Brian2

Veteran Member
A member of one religion finds reasons from the framework of that religion to question another religion. Queue the "blind men and the elephant".

For the sincere, all religions are paths to the Divine. People should walk their path and let others walk the paths or pathless path of their choosing

People do walk their path and let others walk theirs even when pointing out to others that truth is truth and means that only one path can be right if indeed any one path is. Certainly not all so called truths can be correct.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
In the document you've presented this person writes enthusiastically that Jesus must be absolutely divine or an idol. He places ignorant kitchen wives into a difficult position, doesn't he? Here he is telling us that we haven't been practicing our religion right, that we aren't fervent enough, that we have brought upon ourselves all kinds of trouble. He's getting a reaction out of us. He's brow-beating us and making us feel like we're ignorant fools. He's telling us that if we don't swallow a particular version of Jesus that we are calling Jesus and his men liars. It is an unfair gambit and manipulative. For similar reasons I dislike C.S. Lewis and Josh McDowell.

Yes I guess he was assuming a particular brand of Christianity and the truth of the deity of Jesus and maybe the necessity for Christians to see Jesus as the Son of God. (something John seems to agree with John 20:31)
However we don't really know the context of the OP quote and it seems to be something written to Christians of his particular bent anyway, preaching to the choir, teaching them what their religion means.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
I have lots of thoughts, I assume you know where they are sourced from.

As that was the only question, I would offer that Jesus offered that in these days Christianity would be on shaky ground.

Regards Tony

Jesus offered that there would be many mockers and false prophets and false Christs but that we should endure to the end and not be persuaded that Jesus is the wrong way or obsolete.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Jesus offered that there would be many mockers and false prophets and false Christs but that we should endure to the end and not be persuaded that Jesus is the wrong way or obsolete.

Jesus also said in Matthew 7:22 "Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’"

A quandary indeed.

Regards Tony
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Jesus also said in Matthew 7:22 "Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’"

A quandary indeed.

Regards Tony

Not a quandary when we realise that head belief is not what true faith is all about and gifts from the Holy Spirit mean nothing. Having faith is shown through loving God and loving others.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
What if the small handful of men on whose backs rest the entirety of Christianity were actually liars?

View attachment 43145

It seems to me that this is greater issue for Christianity that most other religions as Christianity rests almost entirely on the back of a previous code of law that directly commands not to have the very belief that Christianity requires. Unlike Islam which denies that there was a previous code of law different to itself, Christianity says, yes, there were laws that prohibited Christian belief, but those were changed.

And while the Jewish people point to an entire generation of ancestors who received this code of Law via Divine revelation, the Christian must rely on a handful of individuals who are said to have witnessed some miracles which convinced them that this original law had been uprooted.

I've sometimes seen Pascal's wager given as an argument to believe in Christianity. I may be biased, but it seems to me that based on Pastor Noel's words wagering on Christianity is already a pretty heavy risk.

Thoughts?
The quoted passage strikes me as typical fire-and-brimstone hyperbole from a Victorian extreme Protestant. What sensible Christian really thinks that God would penalise his people for an honest error regarding the divinity or not of Jesus, especially since either way it is the same God they have been trying, albeit imperfectly, to worship?

If Jesus was not divine and not the Christ, I decline to believe God would be tremendously displeased. Though He might sigh and chuckle a bit at the foolishness of Man, I suppose.
 
Last edited:

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
There is a difference between lying and simply being wrong about something.

The latter can be the result of ignorance, misinterpretation, false knowledge, or honest mistakes, while lies are by definition deliberate.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
The quoted passage strikes me as typical fire-and-brimstone hyperbole from a Victorian extreme Protestant. What sensible Christian really thinks that God would penalise his people for an honest error regarding the divinity or not of Jesus, especially since either way it is the same God they have been trying, albeit imperfectly, to worship?

If Jesus was not divine and not the Christ, I decline to believe God would be tremendously displeased. Though He might sigh and chuckle a bit at the foolishness of Man, I suppose.

I sometimes feel the same.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
What if the small handful of men on whose backs rest the entirety of Christianity were actually liars?
Hello again....... :)
And ...... No!

You can't title a thread about folks possibly being wrong, and then in your very first sentence of OP ricochet off in to folks possibly being liars.
That is a cranked approach...... you surely can see that? I've been wrong about so much, all through my life...... but I wasn't a deliberate liar. :)

I believe that the turning of Jesus the protester in to Jesus the Christ was wrong, but the apostles were surely honest in their belief and that is shown by their inclusion of so many verses which opposed or made difficult their claims.

It seems to me that this is greater issue for Christianity that most other religions as Christianity rests almost entirely on the back of a previous code of law that directly commands not to have the very belief that Christianity requires. Unlike Islam which denies that there was a previous code of law different to itself, Christianity says, yes, there were laws that prohibited Christian belief, but those were changed.
Ah ha! Yes to this! The brilliance of the Christian Canons is that they can cherry-pick from and duck'n'dive amongst the old laws to suit their purposes. Christianity was surely a way of controlling multitudes of people through fear and favour.

I mean, the Romans could control by the ultimate punishment of three days of agonising shameful slow death, but Christians could offer an eternity of endless horrific torture and shame. Clever!

And while the Jewish people point to an entire generation of ancestors who received this code of Law via Divine revelation, the Christian must rely on a handful of individuals who are said to have witnessed some miracles which convinced them that this original law had been uprooted.
Well, Jesus had no intention of uprooting anything, he wanted to restore the lot. The Priesthood was totally corrupted. Christians needed to twist and crank the Jesus story somewhat, but they weren't liars, they clearly believed in what they were doing.

I've sometimes seen Pascal's wager given as an argument to believe in Christianity. I may be biased, but it seems to me that based on Pastor Noel's words wagering on Christianity is already a pretty heavy risk.

Thoughts?
Yes, of course it's a heavy risk, ion fact it's a no-brainer that Christianity was nothing to do with Jesus, which is a bit of a problem, but a believer is a believer.

I can acknowledge belief, I get grumpy when belief turns in to dominating controlling judging junk, which sadly can occur.

:)
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
I didn't understand this concept. Could you elaborate?
Well, Jesus and His stories have been made up by Satan. He manipulated the witnesses, Paul and all the others. With the intention to bring so many as possible to perdition, by believing in the wrong God. After all, he is not called the "master deceiver" for nothing.

Didn't you notice a sudden change in attitude in God, if He was indeed the same God of the Jews? That was rather strange.

Ciao

- viole
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
As a Christian; I don't believe we should let our faith rest on words no matter how wise they may seem. If we really have the faith then we should see it in our lives. Because if God is real then He should be able to do the same things as He used to do. Then you'll know the power of God for yourself and won't need to have blind faith. Because Pascal's wager is all about blind faith. But I believe the faith that the scriptures teach is answered by God now in this life. Like in the Bible. David's faith was answered in his life. He had faith God would help him defeat Goliath and so it was. And that's how real faith works. And real faith is built up over time like how David began with a lion and bear and finally defeated a giant all by building up his faith in what God could do.

Every religion has stories like these, about how the god(s) of those religions "manifest" in the daily lives of the worshippers of those gods.

Like back when Julius Ceasar commanded the roman legions. Multiple times, they completely beat the odds of battles. Multiple times, did they annihilate their enemies while being unimaginably outnumbered. 'Mars' was with them on the battlefield, giving them strength, courage and endurance and fighting along side them, making them invinsible.

Stories like David and Goliath are a dime a dozen.

They can't all be correct. But they can all be wrong.
 

Hermit Philosopher

Selflessly here for you
What if the small handful of men on whose backs rest the entirety of Christianity were actually liars?

View attachment 43145

It seems to me that this is greater issue for Christianity that most other religions as Christianity rests almost entirely on the back of a previous code of law that directly commands not to have the very belief that Christianity requires. Unlike Islam which denies that there was a previous code of law different to itself, Christianity says, yes, there were laws that prohibited Christian belief, but those were changed.

And while the Jewish people point to an entire generation of ancestors who received this code of Law via Divine revelation, the Christian must rely on a handful of individuals who are said to have witnessed some miracles which convinced them that this original law had been uprooted.

I've sometimes seen Pascal's wager given as an argument to believe in Christianity. I may be biased, but it seems to me that based on Pastor Noel's words wagering on Christianity is already a pretty heavy risk.

Thoughts?


Dear Tumah

It is not so much the rituals you may follow, what your beliefs are [called], if they are correct or not, that lead to spiritual consequences. It is what you do about what you believe - how you interact with (and in) this world ...how you contribute.

Life is a perspective; the experience of an attitude. Whether consciously or not, we (are free to) choose our outlook on life.

If what we believe leads us to violence, then, regardless of whether our belief is “right” or “wrong”, we will suffer ...and spread suffering ...and harden the perspectives and attitudes of self and others.

We create and spread “hells” and “heavens”. There can be no spiritual peace for one who spreads hell.

Humbly
Hermit
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
And while the Jewish people point to an entire generation of ancestors who received this code of Law via Divine revelation, the Christian must rely on a handful of individuals who are said to have witnessed some miracles which convinced them that this original law had been uprooted.
Despite the clever wording, you describe two, evidence free, faith-based claims. If Christianity is more vulnerable than Judaism, it is largely because their faith-based claims rest precariously upon the shoulders of ours.
 
Last edited:

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Well, Jesus and His stories have been made up by Satan. He manipulated the witnesses, Paul and all the others. With the intention to bring so many as possible to perdition, by believing in the wrong God. After all, he is not called the "master deceiver" for nothing.

Didn't you notice a sudden change in attitude in God, if He was indeed the same God of the Jews? That was rather strange.

Ciao

- viole
Do you believe in the difference between Good and Evil?
If you do, explain this difference to me.
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
And if you're wrong then you rejected your Messiah, two can play at this game!!

Actually, your statement is a bit minamalist.

You are assuming that a Jew can only be wrong about a "messiah." If a Jew is wrong then so is the Christian. Here, let me make this as expansive as I can.
  1. The NT (new testament) quotes the Jewish texts that predate it in order to make it's [NT's] case, even if incorrectly. One of the reasons for this is because the Jewish produced Hebrew text does not make mention of a "messiah." The word used only means anointed one and that's it.
  2. Further, a Jew could be wrong about the entire Hebrew Tanakh that was produced and prerserved by Jews. Thus, then Christians are wrong both about their OT and about their NT. Thus, the NT requires that the Jews of the past, and present, had correctly transmitted, copied, and spelled out the Tanakh text. If prior to Jesus the Jews of the previous generations had not copied the prophets correctly than all NT quotes would also be wrong.
  3. Also, there are Christians and Messianics who have been going to Jewish texts such as the Talmud and Midrashim in order to prove out Jesus. So, if the Jews are wrong then so are all of the Christians and Messianics who have been using Jewish texts to prove out NT ideas.
  4. There are also Christian universities and seminaries that have paid top dollar to acquire Jewish texts in order to further their "biblical programs." So if the Jews are wrong those Christian universities and seminaries are also wrong.
  5. Lastly, if the Jews were/are wrong then so was Jesus and his disciples. The reason is because the NT authors claim that both Jesus and his original disciples were Jews. So if the Jews were wrong that includes Jesus and his disciples into the equation.
See how deep it can get if we don't minimize things? ;)
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
Despite the clever wording, you describe two, evidence free, faith-based claims.
That's irrelevant to the topic in the OP, no?
If Christianity is more vulnerable than Judaism, it is largely because their faith-based claims rest precariously upon the shoulders of ours.
That was what I was saying, although I suspect you intend something else with your words.

Curiously, you call it "our" faith in a post that makes it seem like we don't have the same faith at all. But i think that discussion is outside the bounds of this thread as well.
 
Top