Is there anything more disgusting than God?

[Ben Avraham]

I disagree... the reason for being of an earthly woman is to be legally in this earth fulfilling Gen 1. It was also declared by Isaiah, God's prophet. Not a Greek concept but rather prophesied from the beginning in Jewish scripture.

Prove to me a single prophecy mentioned to have been fulfilled in Jesus. If I fail to explain to you what the prophecy is pointing to, I'll reconsider my views. For a member of another religion to pick up a prophecy in the Tanach and to claim that it has been fulfilled in the NT is called plagiarism, vandalism and Replacement Theology.

 

[Repox]

Hardly. The NT historical accounts continue to be confirmed as true. NT is quite truthful.

It is easy to say, but impossible to prove. Where are the historical records for the authenticity of NT gospels? Don't bother to look, they aren't there.

 

[Ben Avraham]

I disagree... the reason for being of an earthly woman is to be legally in this earth fulfilling Gen 1. It was also declared by Isaiah, God's prophet. Not a Greek concept but rather prophesied from the beginning in Jewish scripture.

All right! I may agree with you if you declare publicly here for all posters to read, that Joseph, the husband of Mary was the biological father of Jesus. If you can't , it means that Mat. 1:18 is a Hellenistic text about the Greek myth of the demigod. Well, can I be the first to read your confession here about Mat. 1:18?

 

[Kenny]

All right! I may agree with you if you declare publicly here for all posters to read, that Joseph, the husband of Mary was the biological father of Jesus. If you can't , it means that Mat. 1:18 is a Hellenistic text about the Greek myth of the demigod. Well, can I be the first to read your confession here about Mat. 1:18?

Hmmm.... Let me see. Greeks came AFTER the Jewish Isaiah scriptures. So who stole the concept from whom?

 

[Kenny]

Prove to me a single prophecy mentioned to have been fulfilled in Jesus. If I fail to explain to you what the prophecy is pointing to, I'll reconsider my views. For a member of another religion to pick up a prophecy in the Tanach and to claim that it has been fulfilled in the NT is called plagiarism, vandalism and Replacement Theology.

Since the NT scriptures were almost ALL Jewish writers and therefore there is no plagiarism, let me see:

Micah 5:2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans[a] of Judah out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”
Jewish Matt 2:3 When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him.4 When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born. 5 “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you[a] a sign: The virgin[b] will conceive and give birth to a son, and[c] will call him Immanuel.
Jewish Matt 1:23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”[a] (which means “God with us”)

Hosea 11:1“When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son
Jewish Matt 2:14 So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt,15 where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.

How many do you want?

Incidentally to complete just 9 makes it a statistical impossibility but he fulfilled more than 40.

 

[Kenny]

It is easy to say, but impossible to prove. Where are the historical records for the authenticity of NT gospels? Don't bother to look, they aren't there.

First, there is more to prove that they are originals than we have than Shakespeare's evidence.

And certainly, those closest to the time would know best.

The most complete external evidence for Mark's authorship and his association with Peter comes in the church historian Eusebius, who quotes Papias (c. 60-130 AD), a bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor, as writing:

Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. {9} In addition, Justin Martyr quotes a passage from the book of Mark that he attributes to "the memoirs of Peter," {10} and in Acts 10:34-40, Peter's speech reflects the Gospel of Mark in "beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached."

What evidence to you have that it wasn't authentic?

 

[Repox]

First, there is more to prove that they are originals than we have than Shakespeare's evidence.

And certainly, those closest to the time would know best.


What evidence to you have that it wasn't authentic?

I don't have to prove inauthenticity. You have to prove authenticity because it is you making the claim.

What we have are church declarations about the gospels. We know, of course, church leaders had an agenda to promote their faith. They were not objective about Jesus stories. They didn't even know the authors. Author names were made up to make them appear authentic. From a scholars point of view, the evidence from church treatment of gospel material suggests it was contrived to promote a religious perspective.

They weren't closest to the time, it was several hundred years later when the four gospels were selected from many in circulation.

 

[Kenny]

We know, of course, church leaders had an agenda to promote their faith. they were not objective about Jesus stories.

you cannot make statements without supporting evidence. I gave you supporting evidence.

They weren't closest to the time, it was several hundred years later when the four gospels were selected from many in circulation

Nope. They were quoted in the second century

When they gathered them together and made them one is irrelevant.

 

[Repox]

you cannot make statements without supporting evidence. I gave you supporting evidence.

What supporting evidence?

 

[Kenny]

What supporting evidence?

Is there anything more disgusting than God?

I believe it was there...

 

[Repox]

Is there anything more disgusting than God?

I believe it was there...

Give it up. There is no evidence.

 

[Kenny]

Give it up. There is no evidence.

LOL... In your humble opinion.

it has withstood criticism for millenniums and it still stands quite strongly... even when nations like Russia and Cuba tried to stamp it out.

 

[Repox]

LOL... In your humble opinion.

it has withstood criticism for millenniums and it still stands quite strongly... even when nations like Russia and Cuba tried to stamp it out.

LOL... In your humble opinion.

it has withstood criticism for millenniums and it still stands quite strongly... even when nations like Russia and Cuba tried to stamp it out.

LOL... In your humble opinion.

it has withstood criticism for millenniums and it still stands quite strongly... even when nations like Russia and Cuba tried to stamp it out.

Beliefs in the tooth fairy have also survived.

Evidence is required.

As an example, there were critics of OT stories, and then archeologists found evidence of Solomon's temple, and other such evidence to validate Jewish stories about patriarchs. However, while archeologists have found evidence for cities Paul visited, and some other evidence for NT authors, there is no evidence for a single NT story. The reason is NT authors were like fiction writers, they were in the business of promoting myths and legends about Jesus.

 

[Kenny]

Beliefs in the tooth fairy have also survived.

Evidence is required.

There is more evidence that it is true than evidence of a missing link that people trust is there.

Then there are the changed lives like myself after realizing the need of a Savior. Like what happened in Cuba, from an atheistic nation where 15 in a church was a big deal to packed multiple services, standing room only and people on rooftops due to notable miracles that everybody saw and knew.

You just can't make it up! It's the power of the message of the Cross and the love of God towards mankind!

But you are free, of course, to believe in your own god.

 

[Repox]

There is more evidence that it is true than evidence of a missing link that people trust is there.

Then there are the changed lives like myself after realizing the need of a Savior. Like what happened in Cuba, from an atheistic nation where 15 in a church was a big deal to packed multiple services, standing room only and people on rooftops due to notable miracles that everybody saw and knew.

You just can't make it up! It's the power of the message of the Cross and the love of God towards mankind!

But you are free, of course, to believe in your own god.

As for miracles, they have been going on for a long time without evidence.

It's good that people have better lives, but, again, is it based on reality? Children love tooth fairy stories, but are they true?

I don't doubt Jesus lived, but I think he was God, not the son of God. I have researched it and found evidence doesn't support Jesus being the son of God. It supports Jesus being a wise man or sage. In prior gospels, he never said he was the son of God, he said he was from the Kingdom of Heaven. Church leaders invented sacrificial lamb stories to gain church members. It has become ridiculous! Just belief in Jesus and you're guaranteed salvation. Shoot your relatives and friends, but it's OK, you'll be saved by simple believing.

 

[Kenny]

As for miracles, they have been going on for a long time without evidence.

Well... I don't know what you call "no evidence" but usually people say "it was an act; somebody paid them; we just don't know what really happened or, it was just a mistake" and the like.

But when doctors give someone 4 months to live and the next visit they say its all gone, people tend to think that is evidence enough.

It's good that people have better lives, but, again, is it based on reality? Children love tooth fairy stories, but are they true?

I don't doubt Jesus lived, but I think he was God, not the son of God. I have researched it and found evidence doesn't support Jesus being the son of God. It supports Jesus being a wise man or sage. In prior gospels, he never said he was the son of God, he said he was from the Kingdom of Heaven. Church leaders invented sacrificial lamb stories to gain church members. It has become ridiculous! Just belief in Jesus and you're guaranteed salvation. Shoot your relatives and friends, but it's OK, you'll be saved by simple believing.

But when is reality, reality?

Many people much smarter than me started out trying to disprove the information but end up believing and giving their lives to Jesus.

I find the message quite transforming as have countless others.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I am an atheist, and believe in no god or gods. BUT.....

If I did believe in a god, in the way that I have seen most often defined, then I would fully expect to know that god's will, whether I wished to know it or not, and whether I wished to follow it or not. How could I not know, if there really is a god who is God?

I would also fully expect that everybody else would also know God's will, but be free -- like me-- not to follow it, or even to lie about it for their own purposes. Therefore, I would never, ever accept anything written by humans as being something that I need to pay more attention to than the dictates of my own conscience -- which, if truly informed by God, really does know right from wrong.

And oddly, even though I do not believe in any such god or gods -- that is precisely how I live my life anyway. Which kind of suggests that if there really is such a god or gods, I couldn't be in trouble with it or them at all, as long as I've done what I honestly knew was right, and refrained from (or at least atoned for as I could after-the-fact) doing anything I knew was wrong.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

@PopeADope, my message above was really meant to say, "you already know God's will" if there is a God and if He has a will. Therefore, get on with your life to the best of your ability, do what you honestly feel to be right (and have fun doing it, too!), and don't do what you honestly feel to be wrong (even if it's fun). And if you don't know -- then think carefully and honestly for a while -- it'll come to you.

 

[Repox]

Well... I don't know what you call "no evidence" but usually people say "it was an act; somebody paid them; we just don't know what really happened or, it was just a mistake" and the like.

But when doctors give someone 4 months to live and the next visit they say its all gone, people tend to think that is evidence enough.

But when is reality, reality?

Many people much smarter than me started out trying to disprove the information but end up believing and giving their lives to Jesus.

I find the message quite transforming as have countless others.

I don't discount the testimonies, I just doubt NT stories. I don't think there would be as many converts if it weren't for those marvelous stories. I don't believe, however, God will change just because of new or improved fairy tales.

 

[Ben Avraham]

I am an atheist, and believe in no god or gods. BUT.....If I did believe in a god, in the way that I have seen most often defined, then I would fully expect to know that god's will, whether I wished to know it or not, and whether I wished to follow it or not. How could I not know, if there really is a god who is God?

I would also fully expect that everybody else would also know God's will, but be free -- like me-- not to follow it, or even to lie about it for their own purposes. Therefore, I would never, ever accept anything written by humans as being something that I need to pay more attention to than the dictates of my own conscience -- which, if truly informed by God, really does know right from wrong.

And oddly, even though I do not believe in any such god or gods -- that is precisely how I live my life anyway. Which kind of suggests that if there really is such a god or gods, I couldn't be in trouble with it or them at all, as long as I've done what I honestly knew was right, and refrained from (or at least atoned for as I could after-the-fact) doing anything I knew was wrong.

All right EH, there are two options; you either caused yourself to exist or someone else who preceded you did that job for you. For the first option, to have caused yourself to exist, you had to exist to have done it. If you already existed, you had no further need to still cause yourself to exist. If you did not exist, how could you have caused yourself to exist if you were not there? Now, for the second option, someone else caused yourself to exist. Of course, your parents; and your parents, their parents; and their parents... Well, you must have figured by now that we are talking about the genetic concept of Causality as we analogically walk back to the very first couple of parents who, again, according to Logic, were caused to exist by the Primal Cause. Now, I give myself a break here to give you the chance to tell me what you think the Primal Cause is. Go ahead sir, for I am all ears.