Conquer Club

Continuation of Christianity debate.

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Postby MeDeFe on Wed Feb 28, 2007 3:53 am

nunz wrote:There is a problem with your logic .... the jews never accepted Jesus as messiah so this doesn't make sense as it didn't happen. To jewish Christian believers he was The Messiah but not the jewsih messiah .... blood atonement was never part of the messianic dream or expectations for Jews. They are still waiting.



Yeah, some jews didn't accept him as the Messiah, others did, those that did eventually developed into Christianity.
I don't see a problem, even though it was rather flimsically (is that a word btw?) formulated.
User avatar
Major MeDeFe
 
Posts: 7831
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:48 am
Location: Follow the trail of holes in other people's arguments.

Postby got tonkaed on Wed Feb 28, 2007 5:16 am

although this is merely a drop in the enormous bucket that this thread seems destined to become....as a former believer who turned away, i have to say one of the surprising things that i found through my examination of the NT and commentaries on it was that Paul doesnt ever seem to make mention of any specific miracle by Jesus. Seeing as how Paul is kind of the engine for this Christianity thing to go, it seems somewhat suspect that even through some type of word of mouth with the other church leaders, he never expresses the whole miracle aspect of Jesus ministry.
User avatar
Cadet got tonkaed
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:01 pm
Location: Detroit

Postby Skittles! on Wed Feb 28, 2007 5:33 am

If Sin is the cause of Death, and if Jesus never Sinned, and was perfect, then why did Jesus die? Yes yes, I know, you are going to say 'to Die for OUR Sins', but then there is the thing that Sin leads to Death, and Jesus never sinned.

Care to Explain, Jay, or Caleb, or whatever?

[quote='jay_a2j']But when Jesus comes back, He will come as a warrior. You are right, the Jews did expect the messiah to come as a warrior... which is to come.[/quote]

Why would Jesus need to come as a warrior when all he has to do is rise the dead believers and then the living believers. There shouldn't be any fighting, for all things shall stop and everyone will look at Jesus when he comes down.
So why a Warrior?
KraphtOne wrote:when you sign up a new account one of the check boxes should be "do you want to foe colton24 (it is highly recommended) "
User avatar
Private Skittles!
 
Posts: 14575
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 2:18 am

Postby unriggable on Wed Feb 28, 2007 7:03 am

nunz wrote:
heavycola wrote:
MR. Nate wrote:Most of the time, the fact that an ancient work has a large number of copies, .... Does it strike you at all odd that the 1st heresies Christians had to deal with were claims that Christ wasn't HUMAN? not that he wasn't God, that was pretty much given. People argued that He wasn't human. Anyone care to comment on that?


Why, yes :P


A few jews start to think jesus might be the messiah. He rides into jerusalem and starts espousing a new philosophy. The jews are waiting for a warrior, by the way, a messiah to come and challenge the romans and free teh jews, basically.
Instead, jesus is executed like a common criminal. This does not compute - so for teh 30 years after his death, the mythology of the blood atonement/resurrection etc grows as a way to reconcile his death with jewish messianic expectations.
30 years after his death the gospels are written, filled with the myths that had sprung up around jesus. Voila.


There is a problem with your logic .... the jews never accepted Jesus as messiah so this doesn't make sense as it didn't happen. To jewish Christian believers he was The Messiah but not the jewsih messiah .... blood atonement was never part of the messianic dream or expectations for Jews. They are still waiting.

Also to the non-jewish believer there is no messianic expectation. To them He was presented as The Word become flesh (John 1) Again he was presented as God, not as human as 'The Word' was part of a gentile spiritual belief.


Some jews accepted him to be the messiah, and they came to be the first christians. Also, they called him the son of god not because he was but because his logic at the time was bulletproof.
User avatar
Cook unriggable
 
Posts: 8037
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:49 pm

Postby MeDeFe on Wed Feb 28, 2007 7:12 am

Especially since there were no bullets.
User avatar
Major MeDeFe
 
Posts: 7831
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:48 am
Location: Follow the trail of holes in other people's arguments.

Postby vtmarik on Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:45 am

got tonkaed wrote:although this is merely a drop in the enormous bucket that this thread seems destined to become....as a former believer who turned away, i have to say one of the surprising things that i found through my examination of the NT and commentaries on it was that Paul doesnt ever seem to make mention of any specific miracle by Jesus. Seeing as how Paul is kind of the engine for this Christianity thing to go, it seems somewhat suspect that even through some type of word of mouth with the other church leaders, he never expresses the whole miracle aspect of Jesus ministry.


That shouldn't surprise you. Remember, all of these books were written separate from each other and are indelibly colored by the author's own personal views on the subject. Why do you think there are passages that talk about Jesus' lineage when we know he didn't have a lineage (being the Son of God born of the Virgin Mary)? Because these passages were written by people who didn't believe in the concept of the virgin birth.

You also have to remember that these are stories told by people who weren't around when Jesus was alive or when he was crucified. It's all hearsay and anecdotal. If it were introduced in court as evidence, it would be suppressed on the basis that no second source of information can corroborate any of the information held within it.

Isn't it convenient that only one book holds The Truth and only one group has It? Isn't it convenient that these same people have an answer for every valid issue that skeptics have with it? Makes you wonder how much of it is genuine and how much is rehearsed.
Initiate discovery! Fire the Machines! Throw the switch Igor! THROW THE F***ING SWITCH!
User avatar
Cadet vtmarik
 
Posts: 3863
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 9:51 am
Location: Riding on the waves of fear and loathing.

Postby jay_a2j on Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:51 am

Skittles! wrote:If Sin is the cause of Death, and if Jesus never Sinned, and was perfect, then why did Jesus die? Yes yes, I know, you are going to say 'to Die for OUR Sins', but then there is the thing that Sin leads to Death, and Jesus never sinned.

Care to Explain, Jay, or Caleb, or whatever?

[quote='jay_a2j']But when Jesus comes back, He will come as a warrior. You are right, the Jews did expect the messiah to come as a warrior... which is to come.


Why would Jesus need to come as a warrior when all he has to do is rise the dead believers and then the living believers. There shouldn't be any fighting, for all things shall stop and everyone will look at Jesus when he comes down.
So why a Warrior?[/quote]

Sin causes spiritual death. Jesus died sinless, went to hell for 3 days (to pay for our sin) and ascended from hell. He is very much alive.


Because when Jesus comes back the armies of the Earth will attack Him. He will destroy them and set up His kingdom on Earth.
THE DEBATE IS OVER...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.

JESUS SAVES!!!
User avatar
Lieutenant jay_a2j
 
Posts: 4293
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:22 am
Location: In the center of the R3VOJUTION!

Postby 2dimes on Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:08 pm

Skittles! wrote:If Sin is the cause of Death, and if Jesus never Sinned, and was perfect, then why did Jesus die? Yes yes, I know, you are going to say 'to Die for OUR Sins', but then there is the thing that Sin leads to Death, and Jesus never sinned.

Care to Explain, Jay, or Caleb, or whatever?


jay_a2j wrote:But when Jesus comes back, He will come as a warrior. You are right, the Jews did expect the messiah to come as a warrior... which is to come.

Skittles! wrote:Why would Jesus need to come as a warrior when all he has to do is rise the dead believers and then the living believers. There shouldn't be any fighting, for all things shall stop and everyone will look at Jesus when he comes down.
So why a Warrior?

jay_a2j wrote:Sin causes spiritual death. Jesus died sinless, went to hell for 3 days (to pay for our sin) and ascended from hell. He is very much alive.


Because when Jesus comes back the armies of the Earth will attack Him. He will destroy them and set up His kingdom on Earth.
You people sux at quoting. Edit: Because it's hard. What a mess that was
User avatar
Corporal 2dimes
 
Posts: 13085
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:08 pm
Location: Pepperoni Hug Spot.

Postby got tonkaed on Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:14 pm

vtmarik, through looking at all of the different creations of the gospels and NT as a whole i certainly agree with you...it is somewhat difficult to believe that the Christianity that exists today somehow is some form of "true doctrine" that somehow emerged from a social landscape that was almost entirely set up in a house church type setting, where early Christian doctrine was mixed and matched with local pagan belief or jewish custom depending on the specific area.
User avatar
Cadet got tonkaed
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:01 pm
Location: Detroit

Postby Backglass on Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:14 pm

Skittles! wrote:Why would Jesus need to come as a warrior when all he has to do is rise the dead believers and then the living believers. There shouldn't be any fighting, for all things shall stop and everyone will look at Jesus when he comes down. So why a Warrior?


Because it makes for a better story of course.
Image
The Pro-Tip®, SkyDaddy® and Image are registered trademarks of Backglass Heavy Industries.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Backglass
 
Posts: 2212
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:48 pm
Location: New York

Postby MR. Nate on Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:22 pm

jay_a2j wrote:Jesus died sinless, went to hell for 3 days (to pay for our sin) and ascended from hell

Could I see some biblical evidence for that? I'm not convinced of the "He went to hell" part. I tend to believe that the death of an infinite God was enough to pay for the finite sins of man.

vtmarik wrote:Isn't it convenient that only one book holds The Truth and only one group has It? Isn't it convenient that these same people have an answer for every valid issue that skeptics have with it? Makes you wonder how much of it is genuine and how much is rehearsed.


I would never claim to posses the Word of God in exclusion of others. I feel that if you read it for yourself with an open heart, God's going to speak to you through it. I may be able to point you in a better direction, one you hadn't thought of before, but I can never claim exclusive access to what God is saying. And we don't have an answer for every issue the skeptics have. It's just that if we say "I don't know, God does" you accuse us of copping out, so we have to try to give an answer for every question.
User avatar
Corporal MR. Nate
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:59 am
Location: Locked in the warehouse.

Postby Stopper on Wed Feb 28, 2007 2:30 pm

I've pondered long and hard on these important questions, and realised that:

MeDeFe wrote: flimsically (is that a word btw?)


even though it sounds right, it's actually "flimsily". It took me 15 minutes to realise that.
User avatar
Lieutenant Stopper
 
Posts: 2244
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 5:14 am
Location: Supposed to be working...

Postby MeDeFe on Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:37 am

Thanks Stopper, you don't know how much clearer things just got. I really appreciate your assistance.
User avatar
Major MeDeFe
 
Posts: 7831
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:48 am
Location: Follow the trail of holes in other people's arguments.

Postby Backglass on Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:39 am

MeDeFe wrote: flimsically (is that a word btw?)


Only to George Bush. :lol:
Image
The Pro-Tip®, SkyDaddy® and Image are registered trademarks of Backglass Heavy Industries.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Backglass
 
Posts: 2212
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:48 pm
Location: New York

Postby MeDeFe on Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:43 am

It's almost properly derived, though.
User avatar
Major MeDeFe
 
Posts: 7831
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:48 am
Location: Follow the trail of holes in other people's arguments.

Defence for Jesus preaching in hell

Postby nunz on Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:44 am

MR. Nate wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:Jesus died sinless, went to hell for 3 days (to pay for our sin) and ascended from hell

Could I see some biblical evidence for that? I'm not convinced of the "He went to hell" part. I tend to believe that the death of an infinite God was enough to pay for the finite sins of man.


Two places in the Nt that talk about it are:
Eph 4:8-9 and more directly
1 Pet 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
1 Pet 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
1 Pet 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

Now here comes the problem ... what was hell?
Hell often refers to the greek word sheol which is the grave but here we see him talking to souls or spirits who were in prison ... which means it wasn't the grave that was implied but tartus or something similar.

Catholics call it limbo and defend it as follows:
The fifth article of the apostles creed, a creed held to not just by catholics but also most protestent churches.


2 Q. What is here meant by hell?
A. Hell here means the Limbo of the holy Fathers, that is, the place where the souls of the just were detained, in expectation of redemption through Jesus Christ.

3 Q. Why were not the souls of the Holy Fathers admitted into heaven before the death of Jesus Christ?
A. The souls of the holy Fathers were not admitted into heaven before the death of Jesus Christ, because heaven was closed by the sin of Adam, and it was but fitting that Jesus Christ, who reopened it by His death, should be the first to enter it.

Source: The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X.

Q. 66. Is Limbo the same place as Purgatory?
A. Limbo is not the same place as Purgatory, because the souls in Purgatory suffer, while those in Limbo do not.
Q. 67. Who were in Limbo when Our Lord descended into it?
A. There were in Limbo when Our Lord descended into it the souls of all those who died the friends of God, but could not enter heaven till the Ascension of Our Lord.

Q. 403. Why did Christ descend into Limbo?
A. Christ descended into Limbo to preach to the souls who were in prison — that is, to announce to them the joyful tidings of their redemption.
Cook nunz
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:56 am

Postby nunz on Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:50 am

thelewis wrote:
And this is what I was after:
"After the missionary explained the Bible's superior civilized plan of salvation to several natives, one of them stood and said, "Like you, we love our gods and seek to love one another. What we do not understand is why your god tried to pin down sin by using His son as a voodoo doll."
Anon


genius :)

Errr ... this is an urban myth I think :-)
Cook nunz
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:56 am

Postby nunz on Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:58 am

Yeah, some jews didn't accept him as the Messiah, others did, those that did eventually developed into Christianity.
I don't see a problem, even though it was rather flimsically (is that a word btw?) formulated.[/quote]

Coming back to the original argument

This does not compute - so for teh 30 years after his death, the mythology of the blood atonement/resurrection etc grows as a way to reconcile his death with jewish messianic expectations.
30 years after his death the gospels are written, filled with the myths that had sprung up around jesus.


There is no way to reconcile Jewish expectations of messiahship with blood sacrifice.
Your argument says that some did and became christians. There is OT evidence the messiah would have to suffer (Isaiah and the psalms) but no Jewish Messiah would ever die. It is Christs resurrection that makes him the messiah to Jewish / Christian believers.[/quote]
Cook nunz
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:56 am

Postby nunz on Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:08 am

got tonkaed wrote:....i have to say one of the surprising things that i found through my examination of the NT and commentaries on it was that Paul doesnt ever seem to make mention of any specific miracle by Jesus....


Paul quoted the voice from heaven which converted him (Acts - the road to Damascus), claimed it was the Spirit of Christ who gave him thepower to perform miracles (vis a vis Acts - handkerchiefs laid on him and taken to heal the sick, raising the dead when they fell alseep, fel out the window and died.).

Pauls letters were mostly written to address specific needs after the 'Gospel' or story / good news of Christ was preached. He was correcting believers who were errant, encouraging those who he knew and expressing his thanks for the help he received.

The believers he addressed knew the stories of Christ, what they needed was some help sorting out daily life as a believer and the heresy's that were growing and being preached. THe letters were specific to events, not generic like the gospels or book of acts.

However, paul often mentions Christs greatest miracle, raising from the dead by the power of God and the ability to change a heart.
Cook nunz
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:56 am

Too many people quote the bible without reading it :-}

Postby nunz on Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:21 am

vtmarik wrote:.... Why do you think there are passages that talk about Jesus' lineage when we know he didn't have a lineage (being the Son of God born of the Virgin Mary)? Because these passages were written by people who didn't believe in the concept of the virgin birth.


Err ... incorrect sorry. The gospels which mention the lineage are not written by people who doubt the virgin birth ... Matthew wrote a gospel to tell the history of Christ to a Jewish audience. The Jewish audience knew the messiah would come from King David's lineage. Both Joseph and Mary were in the lineage of David.

The lineage actually shows a few other things as well but that is more theology than is required here.

Matthew called her a virgin in In Matthew 1:23, giving us the proper interpretation of Isaiah 7:14,

.....Thus the total number of generations from Abraham to David is fourteen generations; from David to the Babylonian exile, fourteen generations; from the Babylonian exile to the Messiah, fourteen generations. 5
18
6 Now this is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about. When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, 7 but before they lived together, she was found with child through the holy Spirit.
19
Joseph her husband, since he was a righteous man, 8 yet unwilling to expose her to shame, decided to divorce her quietly.
20
Such was his intention when, behold, the angel of the Lord 9 appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home. For it is through the holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her.
21
She will bear a son and you are to name him Jesus, 10 because he will save his people from their sins."
22
All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet:
23
11 "Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel," which means "God is with us."



Luke also has a genealogy (luke 3:23 ...) is considered one of the best historians of his time... He wrote as a doctor who had interviewed this involved in order to write a 'true and accurate' account of all that took place regarding Jesus, (luke 1:1-4) and called mary virigin several times. Luke 1:27 , Luke 1:34


vtmarik wrote:You also have to remember that these are stories told by people who weren't around when Jesus was alive or when he was crucified. It's all hearsay and anecdotal. If it were introduced in court as evidence, it would be suppressed on the basis that no second source of information can corroborate any of the information held within it.

Wrong .. they were recorded by luke who interviewed people who were there This is the same as a signed affidavit or taped testimony which is admissible in court :-)
Also Mark is believed to possibly be the person who ran naked from the garden of Gesthsemene, John was the friend of Jesus who rested his head on Jesus at the last supper, Peter (who write several of the NT books) was definitely there, James was the brother of Jesus (sorry Catholics I believe Mary had kids after Jesus ) ... need I continue?


Luke 1:
1 Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us,
2
just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us,
3
I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus,
4
so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.
....


10 In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth,
27
to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary.
28
And coming to her, he said, "Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you."
29
But she was greatly troubled at what was said and pondered what sort of greeting this might be.
30
34
But Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?" 12
35
And the angel said to her in reply, "The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.
36
Cook nunz
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:56 am

Postby unriggable on Thu Mar 08, 2007 6:53 am

I don't get how you can use the bible to prove...itself. It's a story. Not an autobiography. Don't take it too literally.

For those of you who enjoy the bible, I recommend reading the three little pigs. It's got everything you want - terror (especially when the pigs are about to get eaten), tension, and a happy ending.
User avatar
Cook unriggable
 
Posts: 8037
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:49 pm

Postby MR. Nate on Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:11 am

We can use Bible to prove itself the same way you use logic to prove itself.


by the way nunz, I'm protestant. I don't think Christ went into hell, and didn't limbo just get revoked?
User avatar
Corporal MR. Nate
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:59 am
Location: Locked in the warehouse.

Postby Kugelblitz22 on Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:19 am

MR. Nate wrote:We can use Bible to prove itself the same way you use logic to prove itself.


by the way nunz, I'm protestant. I don't think Christ went into hell, and didn't limbo just get revoked?


I think the point he is trying to make is that type of reasoning is running afoul of the circular logic fallacy.

If I wrote a book right now that said I am god and my proof was the book I had just written you would probably be skeptical. :roll:

Make the arguement fit the facts, not vice-versa. :wink:
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Kugelblitz22
 
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:36 pm
Location: Canton

Postby MR. Nate on Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:58 pm

My point is: The fact that you believe circular logic is a fallacy is that you prove it logical, but you can't prove that logic is logical without logic, making logic a result of circular reasoning.

If you use circular reasoning, I get to use circular reasoning.
User avatar
Corporal MR. Nate
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:59 am
Location: Locked in the warehouse.

Postby got tonkaed on Thu Mar 08, 2007 6:19 pm

Nunz....though i agree with the majority of your posts contentions...i still believe there should be a bit of detached surprise for any NT reader who observes paul not use the argument of the many miracles of healing amongst others that Jesus is purported to have done....as especially given the social context it is likely that this type of argument would have been very persuasive to the house church setting that dominated much of the earliest moments of the developing Christian Church.
User avatar
Cadet got tonkaed
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:01 pm
Location: Detroit

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users