Total posts: 3,179
-->
@Reece101
Why, in a meaningless universe without intent or purpose, is there uniformity? Uniformity is inconsistent with chance happenstance. I like the analogy of throwing a dice. First, there is a cause and effect. The dice do not roll themselves, but supposing this is possible, would you expect a result of six every time to be sustained? There is no reason this would happen unless a mind was behind the roll, and it would be inconsistent to think it could be based on trial and error (i.e., you doing it and see how long you can sustain sixes, repeatedly. It works in theory but never in practice). To get a fixed result the dice would have to be fixed. The roll would have to be the same every time, the surface the same, the bounce the same, and you get the idea. I believe intent is needed for that to happen (fixed).
- Have you heard of the multiverse?
Yes. One of a myriad of possibilities.
1. I’m not saying that it’s true. If it were true, I think we would have to redefine what the “universe” is.
The point is how will you ever know? Will you go through your entire life and then just before you die someone comes up with another paradigm that totally refutes the one you adopted all this time? Then will you transfer your thinking to another meaningless piece of trivia that means nothing in the grand meaninglessness of a supposed universe devoid of God?
If there is no God, what is the purpose of finding out all these trivia things? It is inconsistent with meaninglessness.
- Matter/particles have combined to create more complex forms of matter over billions of years. We continue to observe this process.
I would say we discover things like laws, that do not depend on us thinking them, but laws describe the order and contain information. The same is said of the biblical God about the universe - it pours forth speech from the Mind of God.
Psalm 19:1-2 (NASB)
The Works and the Word of God.
For the choir director. A Psalm of David.
For the choir director. A Psalm of David.
19 The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
2 Day to day pours forth speech,
And night to night reveals knowledge.
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
2 Day to day pours forth speech,
And night to night reveals knowledge.
- Just incase you’re thinking of bringing up the teleological argument for life on Earth, keep in mind the universe is a big place. Tens of billions of light years across. It is estimated that there is 17 billion Earth sized planets in the Milky Way alone. Chance is all we need
Yes, a big place, which would speak to the omnipotence and omniscience of God. It all depends on how you look at it. Again, with God there is a reason and the "why" question is answered, or has an answer and makes sense. Without Him, it's all a guest and senseless.
When you say "chance is all we need" you can think that but the point is, you don't live your life thinking that. If you did, why look both ways when crossing the street? Just take a chance. Again, you believe things that are inconsistent with the way you live. That tells me something is wrong with such a way of thinking.
Then what about the laws of nature (i.e., gravity, for instance)? We discover these mathematically precise equations that explain things, we do not invent them. We use our minds in formulating them but they are outside of ourselves and independent of whether you or I believe them. The same with numbers. Two is a concept, yet we use twoness to make sense of things. Two does not depend on you or me believing in it, but without it, we could not convey mathematics. So it exists outside of your mind or my mind thinking it, yet it needs a Mind for its existence. Is twoness true always? Does 2+2=4 apply always? If so, then it seems we are not the necessary minds that give it its meaning.I think all you’re talking about are ways of thinking. We invent new ways of thinking all the time to explain the world we adhere to.Questions and answers only apply if there’s someone to convey them.
I'm speaking of a way of thinking (a system of thinking) that makes sense of life. Whether you want to do so is not up to me.
The variety and complexity of life and our understanding in part never reach a full understanding of any given thing.When you say "an infinite universe" are you saying time would be something we create for our limited existence?No. I’m saying the universe is eternal without a beginning. Something along the lines of the big bounce hypothesis or something. Yes, I know there’s problems with it.
Yes, there are problems with such thinking. If the universe is eternal, how do we get to the present? Everything is the eternal now, yet we humans have a beginning and live like time means something. Not only this, much of scientific opinion and thought points to a beginning of the universe in a variety of ways. That would confirm what the Bible reveals, the universe had a beginning.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
There are various things that don't make sense if there is no Mind behind the universe. The problem with these things is that we live inconsistently in denying God if God is true. Why live a life with meaning and purpose if it all doesn't matter? Without God our worldview or system of thinking will make us live inconsistently because of all the clues God has given us to inform us of His existence. Why look for meaning in a meaningless universe? Why are we searching for things to fulfill and give meaning to our lives? Ultimately, in such a universe devoid of God, nothing matters.***Humans have had meaning for hundreds of thousands of years before “God revealing himself” and we’ll continue to in the future. I think all animals have values which they mean to attain. Human just have more complex ones.
You misunderstand my point. Regardless of how long we have been on the planet, if there is no Mind behind the universe you are living inconsistently with what is behind your worldview - mindless chance happenstance, thus no meaning or purpose. Not only are you looking for meaning and finding it in a meaningless, random, chance happenstance universe, but you are making up mean ----- for what? Before you were born the universe devoid of God had no meaning and after you die it will still have none. What is the point of meaning when ultimately it is all meaningless?
You borrow from the Christian worldview that has meaning and that believes there is meaning in the universe because God has created us humans for a purpose. Not only that, our Christian worldview is consistent with what we believe. Yours, devoid of God is not. Furthermore, when you break it down to its very roots, to its presuppositional foundations that everything else rests upon, it can't make sense of itself logically because the inconsistency is at the heart of the belief.
How does consciousness come from something devoid of it?I can only tell you what I think consciousness is. Consciousness is the ability for matter to react to stimuli. That’s it. Is a rock aware of hitting the pavement if all it’s doing is obeying the laws of nature?
How does a rock react to stimuli?
What I understand you as saying is that our minds are the same as our brains (just physical matter), empirical. What you seem to be suggesting is that what makes you "you" is the cumulation of all the physical stimulus and conditioning that is determined by your environment, your genetic make-up, and how your particular molecular structure reacts that is different from mine.
With such a mechanical view how do you determine what is good or right? What is the standard that good is derived from?
Again, I believe as we go down this road of discovering your worldview that it will again start to unravel in inconsistency and contradiction.
Since we supposedly all originate from inorganic matter, how do we become organic beings? How does that happen?
You say,
"Is a rock aware of hitting the pavement if all it’s doing is obeying the laws of nature?"
A rock, which is inorganic is not aware of anything. Supposedly, we were at this point in our "evolution" at one time, long, long ago. So how do you explain how something devoid of consciousness, devoid of awareness, eventually acquires those traits of being organic, an organism? Do they just magically appear? They would have to since there is no reason and intent in creating them. So, "once upon a time, a long, long time ago..."
You can hit a rock a billion times against the pavement and still, it will not acquire personhood.
Then you say, "all it is doing is obeying the laws of nature?" Why? For what purpose? Again, there is no purpose there. Not only this, you give personal qualities to something (nature) devoid of them. We obey people. Do we obey inanimate objects? So, again, this is inconsistent and comes with a worldview devoid of God. You keep borrowing from my Christian standards to make sense of anything. You keep taking from a Christian standard to make sense of anything. Your inconsistency, you keep looking at things that are not "personal" or aware "being" as personal and being.
What do you think it is? Why do you think it’s special?
Consciousness? I think it is not only the awareness of ourselves and our surroundings but in the case of human beings the ability to reason, think, ponder existence, love, enjoy, desire, create, discover - the ability to know and be known. I am aware that I am different from you because something makes me "me" that is different from every other personal being. It is not a property I acquire but something that I have always been. As I grow older I am still the same "me" not some other kind of being or some other person. A rock or inorganic material object is not personal and can do none of these things that we as conscious beings do.
***
What I am saying is that theoretically you can believe such things but in the real world they just don't conform to what we see, witness, experience. All we ever see is minds coming from mindful beings, life coming from the living, personality coming from personal beings. So you live inconsistently. That should tell you something is wrong with such thinking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Harikrish
Yet he asked God to forgive the Romans after he insulted God.Luke 23:34 Then Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." And they divided up His garments by casting lots.During His first coming, He came to make atonement for the sins of those who would believe in Him. Thus, He forgave them for this sin, yet held them accountable during His Second Coming in AD 70 for their rejection of Him and all those He had sent to them.But his first coming was to save the house of Israel the Jews!!4.[1] Jesus was a liar before and after his death.Before: Matthew 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.[1] He was called many things by those who did not believe in Him. So what? What do the Scriptures teach? They teach the opposite of what you are teaching. Thus, if you lived during the 1st-century Galatians 1:6-8 would have applied to you.The scriptures tell us Jesus was rejected by the Jews. He was mocked, beaten and ridiculed by the Romans and finally crucifie.But scriptures tell us Jesus lives in his father's house and works as a house keeper preparing rooms for guests.John 14:My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.As a human, He lived in obedience to fulfill all God's righteous requirements of humanity. So what?Jesus said all authority was given to him, yet he ends up a housekeeper in heaven preparing rooms for guests.5. Jesus claimed he was sent by God to fulfill the laws of the prophets.True. He became human to do this. Thus, in addition to His godhood, He took on human nature. In the One Person of Jesus, there are two natures.Why did he pick the worst human qualities? Jesus was despised, ugly and held in low esteem. He behaved like a demon possessed madman.Daniel 9:25 “Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One,the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. 26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing.The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’In the middle of the ‘seven he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the templehe will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.The fulfillment of the seventy weeks of years is explained quite well and detailed by Philip Mauro (for anyone interested).When Jesus was asked when these things would happen he was clueless.He was acting in His humanity to fulfill all righteousness, thus as already explained in Philippians 2:5-8 and Hebrews 2, He acted solely in His before resurrection appearances as a human being, not using His godly prerogative but relying on the Father and the Spirit.Matthew 24:3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”And, in His human capacity, He explains to THEM all things that will happen but not the exact day or hour of the occurrence, just the signs that would lead up to His coming again.it was Daniels prophecy. Jesus was not aware of its details. He could only shrug his shoulders.Jesus also tells them elsewhere that when the Spirit, whom He will send, comes to them He [the Spirit] will guide them into all truth. He will take what is known by Him [Jesus] and the Father and transfer it to them.That was necessary because Jesus was incoherent and spoke mostly in parables that no one understood.Matthew 24:36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.Is it any wonder that Peter lied about Jesus and Judas betray him.Explained above.The Jews rejected Jesus and the Romans crucified him?Their hearts, ears, and eyes were not open to their Savior as stated over and over again in the NT, as prophesied in the OT.Daniels said the Romans would cut him off. The Jews met all the conditions set in Daniel. Jesus could not stop the Romans.Is it any wonder that 2 billion Christians picked a demon possessed madman a liar and lunatic to die for their sins. Only Christians believe an illegitimate Jewish bastard name Jesus died for their sins 2000 years ago.Never underestimate the stupidity of people in large groups.You are mistaken and do not know the Scriptures in your deception.Harikrish biblical scholar and spiritual leader. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > [Yours]Ah, yes, the great scholar who knows nothing and misleads any who would be daft enough to believe his lack of guidance! ----------> [Mine]My research data matches the conclusion. Jesus was rejected and crucified because he was a blasphemous liar and a lunatic. ------> [Yours]Even the Pope declared Jesus a failure and the cross the great failure of God.
Your posts are hard to follow and tedious because you never properly separate the commentary between the two parties involved. The very last paragraph above is an example. See the brackets after each sentence as an example of who said what.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
We will not agree. You have already made up your mind. You want me to discuss the issue by discounting God's existence. Why don't you start by discounting that the universe is haphazardly here by a random chance process?My question to you is how would you ever believe God exists if you will not believe what He tells you?Hmm good question, hearing a voice inside my head that’s not my own.How would I know it’s not my mind deceiving me?Historically many people have done bad things who have heard voices in their head.
The Bible teaches that God has chosen to speak to us through a people and from them via a written revelation. Thus, according to that revelation, if something does not comply with its teachings it is not something to be believed. It also teaches that His Word is its own interpreter. Thus, He provides the meaning just like if I am to get what you are saying I have to understand what you said and not read something into your words that they do not convey.
Lots of people have voices in their heads that they think is God speaking to them (like David Koresh), but these voices do not comply with the written revelation. Thus, we have a blueprint and a discernment within what He says.
Hebrews 11:6 (NASB)
6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.Do you think God is going to reward you with an intimate knowledge of Himself when you doubt He exists since you will not trust Him? Having said that, I believe there is reasonable and logical evidence for the biblical God that is contained not only in the Bible but also in what God has made, the universe. It declares His knowledge and wisdom.If he did exist, I think he would understand why I would be suspicious about hearing voices in my head.
There again, He has given you everything you need to know Him via His word (the Bible). He has given everything we need for salvation/to be right with Him. During the 1st-century, there was a warning for those who tried to add to His word because everything needed was already contained in it.
As I have said many times, faith in God is not blind faith, an irrational faith, but a reasonable faith.God knows the end from the beginning. He knows what will happen in our time-space continuum before it happens. Thus, He tells His people things that will happen before they do (prophecy), sometimes hundreds and thousands of years before they happen. I ask you, is this reasonable to believe? I say - yes - and I would challenge you to dispute prophecy. There are a number of ways you can do this. One is to discredit that the OT was written before the NT. Another is to discredit that the NT is written before AD 70. See if you can do that and have a more reasonable and logical argument by presenting your "evidence" and I will present mine. If you do not want to do this, then don't tell me there is no evidence that gives reasonable proof of God. It is just evidence you do not WANT to believe, so you deny its reasonableness.If you’re mostly referring to the Book of Isaiah, it’s verses make no claim about predicting anything. The verses do not mention Jesus. Modern scholars do not think there is any OT prophesies about him. They should know more than anyone.
There are many sections of Isaiah that are prophetic. The OT contains types or shadows. Do you understand what I mean by that? The many passages of the "suffering servant" speak of Jesus. Isaiah 53 speaks of His crucifixion and resurrection plus many other things. Passages that speak of the "last days" usually speak of the NT times. If you do not know or ignore the history of the times the passages can get confusing as to their fulfillment.
And that is my whole point. No matter how reasonable the evidence is, people will continue to dismiss it because it is offensive to them that they are not in control.What about if I wasn’t the only one who heard his voice? I would start to give in then. Better yet, what if we all saw his powers as well. I would certainly say I was wrong.
Again, He has given you everything needed. Jesus said, "It is finished." The work of making us right with God was accomplished by Jesus and His promised Second Coming (I believe the Bible teaches AD 70 is complete) is fulfilled. That means the judgments spoken of that concern OT Israel have been fulfilled also. It also means the Old Covenant is no longer active. We now live under a "new covenant." That is the one Jesus made for all those who would believe in Him. Thus, any voice that does not confirm and conform to His word is sketchy, IMO.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
You have to start somewhat. Either you start with God exists or you start with a random chance universe as to why you are here, or you ignore the issue altogether. So you beg the question either way, with God or with chance happenstance. Either the universe has a mind behind it, thus intention and purpose, or it is a chance, chaotic happenstance process, or it doesn't matter to you.Are you going to beg the question that the universe started without God? Let me turn the tables on you to show you it works both ways when you get to foundational presuppositions.Eventually, IMO, an argument, if pushed far enough will fall back on itself.You want to prove the universe started and exists without God. You start the argument by assuming that the universe had no Creator, that God does not exist or is not necessary when you ignore that issue of God altogether. Do you understand? So you beg the question. You can't have your foundation be chance happenstance when that is the case you're trying to build. You are jumping the gun.See, using your logic I turned the argument around to you begging the question of origins.How about I don’t know. I don’t know the origins of the universe if there is one.If I do think up an idea, I’m not going to claim it as truth as many people do with God.For me, I think the universe is infinite.
There are various things that don't make sense if there is no Mind behind the universe. The problem with these things is that we live inconsistently in denying God if God is true. Why live a life with meaning and purpose if it all doesn't matter? Without God our worldview or system of thinking will make us live inconsistently because of all the clues God has given us to inform us of His existence. Why look for meaning in a meaningless universe? Why are we searching for things to fulfill and give meaning to our lives? Ultimately, in such a universe devoid of God, nothing matters.
***
How does consciousness come from something devoid of it?
Why, in a meaningless universe without intent or purpose, is there uniformity? Uniformity is inconsistent with chance happenstance. I like the analogy of throwing a dice. First, there is a cause and effect. The dice do not roll themselves, but supposing this is possible, would you expect a result of six every time to be sustained? There is no reason this would happen unless a mind was behind the roll, and it would be inconsistent to think it could be based on trial and error (i.e., you doing it and see how long you can sustain sixes, repeatedly. It works in theory but never in practice). To get a fixed result the dice would have to be fixed. The roll would have to be the same every time, the surface the same, the bounce the same, and you get the idea. I believe intent is needed for that to happen (fixed).
Then what about the laws of nature (i.e., gravity, for instance)? We discover these mathematically precise equations that explain things, we do not invent them. We use our minds in formulating them but they are outside of ourselves and independent of whether you or I believe them. The same with numbers. Two is a concept, yet we use twoness to make sense of things. Two does not depend on you or me believing in it, but without it, we could not convey mathematics. So it exists outside of your mind or my mind thinking it, yet it needs a Mind for its existence. Is twoness true always? Does 2+2=4 apply always? If so, then it seems we are not the necessary minds that give it its meaning.
The variety and complexity of life and our understanding in part never reach a full understanding of any given thing.
When you say "an infinite universe" are you saying time would be something we create for our limited existence?
People should be more comfortable saying I don’t know.
How will you ever know? What would be necessary for you to know?
I contend that it would be God, a necessary and self-evident Being, or else you never will make sense of such things as life's ultimate questions. Being on a site like this (Religious forum) would suggest that you are curious about such things, however.
I further believe that God (having created us in His image and likeness) has created a void in us (due to our sin) in which we never receive satisfaction unless we perhaps find Him and discover the meaning of life.
So, you either build your worldview upon God or you build it apart from God. You either believe Jesus or you deny Him. You can't serve two masters. Or as Jesus Himself put it, you build your worldview/system of thinking upon a foundation that is sinking sand. When trials come, the foundation crumbles.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Now, what foundation other than ‘God exists’ that we can both agree to so that you can build your case?
I get it. You referred to my last comment in Post 41 in your dialogue with TradeSecret.
***
The Bible. Logic. Prophecy. Morality. Uniformity of nature. Why there is something rather than nothing. Epistemology. Truth. Purpose.
Those things pop into my mind.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Your last notification redirected me to your first post (OP). What do you want me to glean from this and in reference to what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Harikrish
Yet he asked God to forgive the Romans after insulting God.Luke 23:34 Then Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." And they divided up His garments by casting lots.
During His first coming, He came to make atonement for the sins of those who would believe in Him. Thus, He forgave them for this sin, yet held them accountable during His Second Coming in AD 70 for their rejection of Him and all those He had sent to them.
4.[1] Jesus was a liar before and after his death.Before: Matthew 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.
[1] He was called many things by those who did not believe in Him. So what? What do the Scriptures teach? They teach the opposite of what you are teaching. Thus, if you lived during the 1st-century Galatians 1:6-8 would have applied to you.
But scriptures tell us Jesus lives in his father's house and works as a house keeper preparing rooms for guests.John 14:My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.
As a human, He lived in obedience to fulfill all God's righteous requirements of humanity. So what?
5. Jesus claimed he was sent by God to fulfill the laws of the prophets.
True. He became human to do this. Thus, in addition to His godhood, He took on human nature. In the One Person of Jesus, there are two natures.
Daniel 9:25 “Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One,the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. 26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing.The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’In the middle of the ‘seven he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the templehe will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.
The fulfillment of the seventy weeks of years is explained quite well and detailed by Philip Mauro (for anyone interested).
When Jesus was asked when these things would happen he was clueless.
He was acting in His humanity to fulfill all righteousness, thus as already explained in Philippians 2:5-8 and Hebrews 2, He acted solely in His before resurrection appearances as a human being, not using His godly prerogative but relying on the Father and the Spirit.
Matthew 24:3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”
And, in His human capacity, He explains to THEM all things that will happen but not the exact day or hour of the occurrence, just the signs that would lead up to His coming again.
Jesus also tells them elsewhere that when the Spirit, whom He will send, comes to them He [the Spirit] will guide them into all truth. He will take what is known by Him [Jesus] and the Father and transfer it to them.
Matthew 24:36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.Is it any wonder that Peter lied about Jesus and Judas betray him.
Explained above.
The Jews rejected Jesus and the Romans crucified him?
Their hearts, ears, and eyes were not open to their Savior as stated over and over again in the NT, as prophesied in the OT.
Is it any wonder that 2 billion Christians picked a demon possessed madman a liar and lunatic to die for their sins. Only Christians believe an illegitimate Jewish bastard name Jesus died for their sins 2000 years ago.Never underestimate the stupidity of people in large groups.
You are mistaken and do not know the Scriptures in your deception.
Harikrish biblical scholar and spiritual leader.
Ah, yes, the great scholar who knows nothing and misleads any who would be daft enough to believe his lack of guidance!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Harikrish
So, even though Scripture gives these honest examples of dissent it does not present an unfavourable reading of who Jesus is and what He came to do overall, but more of what some of the JEWS of the day perceived Him.Let us test your conclusion.
Your whole presentation is full of fallacious, esoteric reasoning and dishonest cherry-picking, conflating and collapsing context, and reading into Scripture things it does not teach in the fuller context.
I invite anyone who will follow the links to see that Harikrish is conflating and confusing the teachings of Scripture, thus, he is a false teacher, someone to be wary of and ignore.
1. Jesus said he was sent only to save the lost sheep of IsraelMatthew 15:24 He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
That is true. He was sent to the lost sheep, to save the remnant and bring judgment on those who REJECTED Him as their Messiah, Redeemer, and Savior.
But we know the Jews rejected Jesus and asked that he be crucified.Luke 23:21 but they kept shouting, "Crucify Him! Crucify Him!"
2. [1] Jesus divided the Jews even further. [2] The Romans replaced judaism the religion that Jesus followed with The Roman Catholic Church. [3] They replace the Holy Temple with the Roman Catholic Church. They destroyed Jerusalem and scattered the Jews from their homeland.
[1] Exactly! He divided them because most were against God. For centuries they practiced idolatry and would not follow God's ways, even after He sent multiple prophets and teachers to warn them of coming judgment and wrath if they did not repent. (Matthew 10:34; Mark 2:17).
[2] The means of the Romans were God's chosen means of judgment.
[3] No, God replaced the Old Covenant with a new and better covenant because the people were incapable of living up to that which they had agreed to do. The Old Covenant was ready to pass away and did 40-years after Jesus was crucified, per God's grace and mercy.
3. Jesus blamed God for his failures.Matthew 27:46 About the ninth hour, Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" which means, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?"
Jesus became a human being to fulfill everything that humanity had not been able to fulfill in regard to God's word and the Old Covenant. Thus, taking on humanity He did not use His godly prerogatives or else what was done would not be done solely in the power and righteousness of a human being.
Thus, acting in His human capacity He was subjected to judgment and God's wrath to fulfill God's righteousness and appease His wrath for sinfulness. Over and over in the NT, we read of what Jesus did on behalf of those who would believe in His righteous sacrifice. Not only that, there is a juxtaposition between the OT of works of righteousness and God's grace through Jesus Christ in doing what we could not do - meet the righteous standard of God on our own accord.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The "omnibenevolent" claim is the weakest of the three "omni" claims because even by "the fount of all gospel truth" god is a vindictive, murderous, and jealous thing.
You are wrong.
God is pure and holy (in His nature). He demonstrates that we cannot live up to these attributes of His by showing it to the people He chooses to make Himself known to the world through. As a righteous Judge, He judges sin and evil in His time. If He permits it, He allows it for a time and season to demonstrate His purposes. He examines the inner being and the motives of our hearts.
Without an objective absolute, universal reference point, everything is relative and subjective, mere preference. Preference makes nothing good. All it does is say, this is my view, and you will follow it because I have the power or charism to achieve my desire. Thus you have the monsters of history who exterminate whole classes of people (i.e., the Jews during Hitler's reign; religious factions during Mao's reign; dissidents during Kim Jong Un's reign; Venezuela's corrupt regime; Cubas corrupt regime, and so on). Not only this, with a subjective reference point, you get good being called evil and evil good. Abortion is condemned then permitted. Once it was considered evil, now it is acceptable. Go figure? The laws of identity are circumvented. A=A; A no longer equals A. There is an inconsistency in all subjective judgment. Unless there is an objective, omniscient, absolute reference point to compare "good" to what is "best," we just make it up and label it "good." One man's good is another man's evil/poison.
So, while you live in this world, you say all kinds of things that you do not live by. You can't live consistently within your worldview. You keep stepping into the Christian worldview to make sense of anything. So carry on denying the only Being who can make sense of this and give it meaning and purpose. That is your choice. But don't tell me what you believe is "good" just because you think it. When it comes to the end of the day, you still have to explain why some things are evil from your subjective standpoint. It is worth as much as any other myriad of opinions unless you have an ultimate and unchanging source that is good by nature (because goodness is an attribute of a personal being/Being).
Even the "revealed itself to humanity" is highly suspect, because even the holy scripture itself claims that "no one can know nor has anyone ever known god".
And what that means is we cannot know God comprehensively since we are limited beings. We can know of Him because we live in His creation and are part of His creation - i.e., the physical existence of things displays His mindfulness and information about Him from the macros to the micros. We can know Him to the extent He reveals Himself to us by His Word, Son, Spirit - i.e., His personal revelation of Himself.
Thus, it would be good to teach your children the truth.It seems we need to define Standards-of-Evidence.
Go ahead. I'll take the simple meaning of evidence as a starter.
As soon as you raise this red flag it brings to mind why what you believe is true and how you teach the truth to children?Precisely.Thus, how do you justify your epistemology?With logic.
Where does logic come from? Is it a physical thing?
To get to that aspect we would have to examine your belief system/worldview. Care to divulge what that is and why it is true?I am a logiczombie.I seek logical coherence in all things.
Does your worldview/system of belief provide such a standard? If you do not believe God is the answer to why we exist, then the answer would be unintentional, mindless, produced by random chance happenstance. That would eventually create logical and conscious beings. There are a lot of presuppositions here. There would be no ultimate purpose. Is that correct, or would you like to argue otherwise?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Truth is what we fight for, not indoctrination.I agree 100% and I do the same myself.
I'm sure you believe that. It does not necessarily make what you believe true.
If God exists, He is good, and He has revealed Himself then we can know the truth.(IFF) god exists (AND) god is good (AND) god has comprehensibly revealed itself to humans (THEN) we can know the truthYou're missing a few definitions here. Please explicitly define god, good, and truth.
God - the God revealed in the Bible and described therein, which explains His character, attributes, and nature.
Good - the nature of God and His revelation to humanity that conveys this goodness. The foundation for morality is God. We have a standard to compare what is right and better by - the best, the ultimate, the absolute.
Truth - that which is not false. That which conforms to reality, to things as they are.
That is the biblical claim, that God does exist, that He is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, and has revealed Himself to humanity.I'm actually pretty sure "The Bible" claims no such thing. The "omniscient" claim is extrapolated from "god knows when a sparrow falls" which simply means that god is obsessed with sparrows.
On God's being and omnipresence -
Exodus 3:14 (NASB)
God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” transcending all spacial limitations in that He is, and He is omnipresent by transcending past present and future in being eternally here and now (Psalm 139:7-10; Proverbs 15:3; Jeremiah 23:23-24).
The "omnipotent" claim is extrapolated from "our god is an awesome god" which simply means the Jews thought their god was pretty cool.
It means more than that. It means that God does it. He speaks, and it occurs in His prescribed time for His people. Prophecy is a demonstration of this. He made all created things, everything physical, spiritual beings such as angels, the universe, you, I, nature, His power is omnipotent, above and beyond that of any other being. Genesis 18:14; Isaiah 45:18-21; Isaiah 46:10-11; Isaiah 48:3-7; Jeremiah 32:17; John 1:3; Colossians 1:15-17.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
There is no neutrality. We all hold biases that start with some foundational presuppositions that tend to lead us to what we will believe. We all start somewhere. You start somewhere holding that something is true before you can have knowledge of anything else. The question comes down to what is reasonable and what is the truth.Here we go again. We all start somewhere, and that somewhere is "here I am." That's the only fair starting block. You're starting with "Here I am...and so God's there too."
I'm starting with somehow I am here. I'm starting with what began the process of me being here, to the beginning of things. What is more reasonable to believe that I'm here because of random chance happenstance or intentional Being? Is it more reasonable to believe that the uniformity of nature is intentional or by chance is sustained, so that we can actually do science? Is it more reasonable to believe that morality comes from a moral and absolute, objective source, or relative subjective beings? If you say the latter then explain why your moral views are "better" than mine instead of just your PREFERENCE. Explain how consciousness evolves from the non-conscious. Explain how the laws of logic that are intangible and abstract are produced by a physical, empirical, tangible universe? What is the simplest explanation?
From a necessary Mind comes all other minds. From the living comes what is alive. From the intelligent, wise, reasonable Being comes other at times intelligent, wise, rational beings. Without God what purpose is there to our lives other than some contingent and fleeting purpose that you choose to create for yourself that in the end means nothing. From a moral Being comes our sense of morality, that there is a good that can be referenced from the best. Without the best how do you ever know you have arrived at the better? Without God, it is just one massive personal opinion and preference that you push to achieve what you and those you can convince like.
There is nothing earned to arrive at, or demonstrably gained from, your addition of small g god. Prophecy is weak evidence: you still haven't told me why the 2014 SI cover predicting the Houston Astros would win the 2017 World Series isn't proof of the supernatural, but some weird non-specific, math twisting stupidity about a temple means an entire screed of myths is true.
The 2017 World Series? A mathematical probability that happened to come about despite the odds.
The biblical prophecy including numerous factors regarding both the Messiah and the change of covenants that took place in AD 70 written in different centuries and decades by numerous people, as the claimed, dictated by God - phenomenal!
Created:
-->
@Reece101
There is no neutrality. We all hold biases that start with some foundational presuppositions that tend to lead us to what we will believe. We all startsomewhere. You start somewhere holding that something is true before you can have knowledge of anything else. The question comes down to what is reasonable and what is the truth.Okay, let’s say you want to prove that God exists. You don’t start your argument by assuming that God already exists. Do you understand? It’s begging the question. You can’t have your foundation be ‘God exists’ when that’s the case you’re trying to build. You’re jumping the gun.
You have to start somewhat. Either you start with God exists or you start with a random chance universe as to why you are here, or you ignore the issue altogether. So you beg the question either way, with God or with chance happenstance. Either the universe has a mind behind it, thus intention and purpose, or it is a chance, chaotic happenstance process, or it doesn't matter to you.
Are you going to beg the question that the universe started without God? Let me turn the tables on you to show you it works both ways when you get to foundational presuppositions.
Eventually, IMO, an argument, if pushed far enough will fall back on itself.
You want to prove the universe started and exists without God. You start the argument by assuming that the universe had no Creator, that God does not exist or is not necessary when you ignore that issue of God altogether. Do you understand? So you beg the question. You can't have your foundation be chance happenstance when that is the case you're trying to build. You are jumping the gun.
See, using your logic I turned the argument around to you begging the question of origins.
Now, what foundation other than ‘God exists’ that we can both agree to so that you can build your case?
We will not agree. You have already made up your mind. You want me to discuss the issue by discounting God's existence. Why don't you start by discounting that the universe is haphazardly here by a random chance process?
My question to you is how would you ever believe God exists if you will not believe what He tells you?
Hebrews 11:6 (NASB)
6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.
6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.
Do you think God is going to reward you with an intimate knowledge of Himself when you doubt He exists since you will not trust Him? Having said that, I believe there is reasonable and logical evidence for the biblical God that is contained not only in the Bible but also in what God has made, the universe. It declares His knowledge and wisdom.
As I have said many times, faith in God is not blind faith, an irrational faith, but a reasonable faith.
God knows the end from the beginning. He knows what will happen in our time-space continuum before it happens. Thus, He tells His people things that will happen before they do (prophecy), sometimes hundreds and thousands of years before they happen. I ask you, is this reasonable to believe? I say - yes - and I would challenge you to dispute prophecy. There are a number of ways you can do this. One is to discredit that the OT was written before the NT. Another is to discredit that the NT is written before AD 70. See if you can do that and have a more reasonable and logical argument by presenting your "evidence" and I will present mine. If you do not want to do this, then don't tell me there is no evidence that gives reasonable proof of God. It is just evidence you do not WANT to believe, so you deny its reasonableness.
And that is my whole point. No matter how reasonable the evidence is, people will continue to dismiss it because it is offensive to them that they are not in control.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
The Bible claimsI do not care about claims I care about sufficient evidence. Any claim which cannot be demonstrated can and should be dismissed.
You are under the impression that the Bible is not evidenced-based. Not only that, you will not listen to or agree with the evidence. It is a waste of my time.
I would start with prophecy as reasonable evidence.
I have no idea what avoltronism means.It is the belief that Voltron the galaxy defending robot made of smaller robot lions does not exist outside of fiction. It is not a worldview it is just a lack of belief on a particular issue. If however you can demonstrate Voltron I will have no choice but to accept him. At the moment however I reject him in much the same way and for much the same reasons that I reject god(s)
Created:
-->
@Reece101
It is not a trick question, just a hunch since when you quoted "Corinthians 2:5" you never stated 1st or 2nd Corinthians.Also your analogy of a dragon and God. There is plenty of evidence for God.In making sense of anything I begin with God as the reason. If this is God's creation and He has revealed Himself then we must think God's thoughts after Him to make sense of any of it. And we make sense of it when we look to Him first.Have you heard what begging the question is? It’s when the premise(s) that is meant to support an argument already assumes that the conclusion is true. If you start from a place where the conclusion being argued is already assumed true, then you're not really making an argument at all. There is no supporting evidence.
There is no neutrality. We all hold biases that start with some foundational presuppositions that tend to lead us to what we will believe. We all start somewhere. You start somewhere holding that something is true before you can have knowledge of anything else. The question comes down to what is reasonable and what is the truth.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
So, does that mean you are not a believer in God?No. Why do I feel like it’s a trick question.
It is not a trick question, just a hunch since when you quoted "Corinthians 2:5" you never stated 1st or 2nd Corinthians.
Also your analogy of a dragon and God. There is plenty of evidence for God.
In making sense of anything I begin with God as the reason. If this is God's creation and He has revealed Himself then we must think God's thoughts after Him to make sense of any of it. And we make sense of it when we look to Him first.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
What does the dragon have to do with God? Do you believe there is no verifiable evidence that confirms God exists?Not from what I’ve come across.
So, does that mean you are not a believer in God?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Strip your explanations back to the basicsWhat explanation are you referring to? I readily admit that I do not know our origins. To say otherwise is the very definition of an argument from ignorance. If for example I claimed that some omnipotent being had created the entire vastness of the universe for the sole purpose of using a tiny speck in one corner of a smallish galaxy as a testing ground for humans to see which of them get an eternal hallpass and which will get eternal detention that would be am argument from ignorance.
What explanation? Your core beliefs. The origins of what everything else you believe rests upon. If you believe there is no God you are going to live your life differently from someone else who does. You are going to believe that perhaps you frame your own destiny or you decide what is true and what is false (relativism). The problem is without God you are going to live a life that is inconsistent with that belief. You are going to continually borrow from the Christian framework.
As imperfect limited beings, we are all ignorant of something. The Bible claims to be the revelation of the one true God. Now, for your benefit, IF this God is real and true there is an ultimate meaning to life and a reason why we sin/do evil, why we die. Without such a loving, caring God who sustains this universe, the question becomes why is it sustained? Why is the past and present uniform? What meaning is there ultimately. Why are you making meaning up if it doesn't ultimately matter? Again, inconsistency.
If there is no mind behind the universe there is no intent, no purpose. Explain to me why you look for purpose and do science???I do not look for purpose that is a fools errand. Instead I simply accept that in the absence of inherent purpose we must make our own. In any case it is not the concern of science to find purpose in our lives but only to explain the world around us to the best of our knowledge and based on the best availbleevidence.
A fool's errand is to ignore (be ignorant of) the purpose.
Evidence comes with biases and limited conceptions unless God has revealed it. We interpret data. Without God, it does not come already interpreted. Where you start is where you usually end up unless someone questions the reliability of that interpretation. You, as an atheist, will look for evidence that confirms and supports your worldview. You will attempt to translate everything apart from God.
Hebrews 11:6 (NASB)
6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.
The Christian faith is a reasonable faith, although many believe it is blind because they do not trust God's word and have not latched onto the comfort and sensibility of faith in Him.
If you don't believe He exists you will not believe what He says, no matter how reasonable the evidence is. You will try to justify your belief no matter how inconsistent it is with real-life living.
Ow did you want to talk about sciences best current cosmological models (which cannot explain the origin of the universe and do not claim to) or about the entirely separate topic of avoltronism.
I have no idea what avoltronism means.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Scientifically testable would eliminate origins.That's right we do not know our origins.
Then you can't trust science about how you got here. You have to rely on faith. The question is whether it is reasonable or blind?
Would you deny logical or reasonable evidence?the only evidence it is reasonable to accept is that which is independently verifiable. This is because logic is only efficacious if you have sufficient knowledge. In any case it is not reasonable or logical to accept a form of evidence which has been proven unreliable under laboratory conditions and testimonial evidence has been proven unreliable.
How do you independently verify origins?
Again, you are here because of only a few possibilities of origins. Either a mindful Being is responsible or some illogical, unreasoning chance happenstance is irresponsible, or you are living an illusion. Maybe you have another possibility?
With a mindful being, you have intent and purpose.
With chance happenstance, you have neither. If that is your scenario, why are you looking for evidence? Why do you want some? Why would there be any?
Furthermore, why is logic, an abstract, possible if all we are is matter? How do you get the intangible from something that is only tangible?
You first have to start with a necessary belief or truth to prove any other belief. Logic is such a necessary belief. Scientism is not.
If you compare an atheistic and Christian worldviewAtheism is not a world view any more than avoltronism is and christianity is not a single world view but rather many sometimes mutually exclusive and contradictory worldviews.
Yes, it is. It has the same basis any other belief system has. It tries to answer life's ultimate or basic questions such as why are we here? What or who are we, what does it matter, and what happens to us when we die.
I do not believe you can make sense of an atheistic worldviewThis is exactly what I'm talking about. Atheism is not an attempt to make sense of anything. Like avoltronism it is merely the lack of belief on a particular issue. Different atheists have different reasons for their beliefs.
Sure it is or else you hold to no beliefs at all that makes sense. Atheism is a transfer of beliefs about existence, life's most important questions. Although you may have different beliefs you hold to a universe that is uncreated or a belief that is unsure of whether it is created but you chose to believe it is not. That in itself is a belief. No worldview hold exactly the same beliefs about all things or else we would be omniscient beings, which we are not.
For instance, if the universe is a product of blind chance happenstanceThis is, as it has always been, a straw man. I no more believe in chance than in fate. I believe in causation because it has been demonstrated. Fate, chance, divine intervention and freewill have not been demonstrated.
There are only a few possibilities for why we exist. How you look at existence shapes how you look at everything else.
There is reasonable evidence for Christianity.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
True for the believer, but how does that translate to the unbeliever who demands evidence but will accept none, or will manipulate the evidence to suit his/her purposes?"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin[4]) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!...An unbeliever doesn’t have to do that.
What does the dragon have to do with God? Do you believe there is no verifiable evidence that confirms God exists?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Start the indoctrination at a young age and you more than likely have a convert.Good point. Perhaps Christians should wait until kids turn 18 before teaching them about the holy scriptures.
Truth is what we fight for, not indoctrination. If God exists, He is good, and He has revealed Himself then we can know the truth. That is the biblical claim, that God does exist, that He is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, and has revealed Himself to humanity. Thus, it would be good to teach your children the truth.
As soon as you raise this red flag it brings to mind why what you believe is true and how you teach the truth to children?
Thus, how do you justify your epistemology? To get to that aspect we would have to examine your belief system/worldview. Care to divulge what that is and why it is true?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
True for the believer, but how does that translate to the unbeliever who demands evidence but will accept none, or will manipulate the evidence to suit his/her purposes?I have always been very clear about what evidence I will and will not accept. Scientifically testable and independently verifiable. If your 'evidence' does not this criterion then no manipulation is necessary to dismiss it and no amount of manipulation will render it valid.
Scientifically testable would eliminate origins. All science begins with logic. Would you deny logical or reasonable evidence? It appears so by your statement. Thus, it would be a waste discussing such evidence with you.
Definition of evidence
(Entry 1 of 2)
1a: an outward sign: INDICATION
b: something that furnishes proof: TESTIMONY specifically: something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2: one who bears witness especially: one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against one's accomplices
If you compare an atheistic and Christian worldview the evidence is more reasonable for the Christian worldview. I do not believe you can make sense of an atheistic worldview when you strip away the outer structure to get to the inner nuts and bolts of what holds it together.
For instance, if the universe is a product of blind chance happenstance, why would you expect to see consistency and uniformity of nature? There is no reason. Strip your explanations back to the basics that it rides upon and there is no intent or purpose to such a universe, yet you consistently see it. In fact, uniformity of nature and consistency is something science is built upon.
1. Why should the past be the same as the present?
2. How do you know it is?
Answer: You presuppose it to be.
If there is no mind behind the universe there is no intent, no purpose. Explain to me why you look for purpose and do science???
These one time events lack testability in the sense that you can't recreate them. All you can do is speculate about them (unless an omniscient God has revealed), form models based on your starting points, and operate on the assumption that the present is the key to the past.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
Concerning your OP, I have a different view.
"What, then, is the real reason young Christians (and other religious believers) leave the faith? The answer lies in a prior, 2016 Pew Research Center survey which allowed respondents to answer in their own words. In this study, most “nones” said they no longer identified with a religious group because they no longer believed it was true. When asked why they didn’t believe, many said their views about God had “evolved” and some reported having a “crisis of faith.” Their specific explanations included the following statements:"“Learning about evolution when I went away to college”“Religion is the opiate of the people”“Rational thought makes religion go out the window”“Lack of any sort of scientific or specific evidence of a creator”“I just realized somewhere along the line that I didn’t really believe it”“I’m doing a lot more learning, studying and kind of making decisions myself rather than listening to someone else.”
IMO, people like Oz Guinness, Alan Bloom, Ravi Zacharius, and many more have identified why the American mind has shifted and shut down in its position on God. The gatekeepers of society, the intellectual elite, education/colleges/universities (higher learning), the media, Hollywood, the Arts, and politico (i.e., 3. a person who uses public office to advance personal or partisan interests --> mostly in the form of Democrats), all have adopted a somewhat atheistic agenda.
The same hidden agenda and undercurrent that is now taking place and guiding the impeachment process by the Democrats (say the lie long enough and hard enough and in as many different levels of society that can be accessed) can change the thinking of the populous and has regarding Christianity, despite its reasonableness. This mindset is called propaganda or groupthink where an idea is gradually introduced and melded into the hearts and minds of America and the rest of the world so that they can no longer think for themselves or separate truth from fiction.
Start the indoctrination at a young age and you more than likely have a convert.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Harikrish
Regarding your first post (OP), you take verse after verse and misrepresent the teaching of Scripture by collapsing contexts, insinuating that it was a main teaching and not an aberration of the apostles and teachings regarding Jesus. Next, you compile a list of liberal activists (appeal to authority - or those who present a favourable to your position article) and refer others to that article or person. Third, you swamp the threads with biased, unfair and misrepresentations of what Christianity teaches to sway minds to your biased position (a bombarding of posts, 12 so far in your war against Christianity). Fourth, your eisegesis concerns nothing of the audience of address (you present an entirely new audience that you make up) or the timeframe (apply it as primarily addressing those today or pay little attention to what the authors meant in time statements) and what it meant to that audience.
For instance, John 10:20 with more of the context:
19 A division occurred again among the Jews because of these words. 20 Many of them were saying, “He has a demon and is insane. Why do you listen to Him?” 21 Others were saying, “These are not the sayings of one demon-possessed. A demon cannot open the eyes of the blind, can he?” (NASB)
***
What of the Jews of the 1st-century? Many of them were looking for a Messiah who would fulfill their corrupted view of Scripture. The NT makes it clear that their minds, ears, eyes, were closed in understanding, blocked, and blind to the spiritual truth of Scripture, just as I claim yours are, Harikrish.
More of the passage reveals why they were so upset - they were not His sheep. They were in rebellion against God as Isaiah pointed out in that He [Jesus] would speak in parables (Hosea 12:10; Ezekiel 20:49; Matthew 13:9-11, etc) and present types and anti-types, and they would not understand Him. Remember the context of the NT is one of a soon-coming judgment on Israel for their idolatry.
Matthew 13:14-17 (NASB)
14 In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says,
‘You will keep on hearing, but will not understand;
You will keep on seeing, but will not perceive;
15 For the heart of this people has become dull,
With their ears they scarcely hear,
And they have closed their eyes,
Otherwise they would see with their eyes,
Hear with their ears,
And understand with their heart and return,
And I would heal them.’
16 But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear. 17 For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.You will keep on seeing, but will not perceive;
15 For the heart of this people has become dull,
With their ears they scarcely hear,
And they have closed their eyes,
Otherwise they would see with their eyes,
Hear with their ears,
And understand with their heart and return,
And I would heal them.’
***
More of the context of John 10,
11 “I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep. 12 He who is a hired hand, and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. 13 He flees because he is a hired hand and is not concerned about the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, 15 even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd. 17 For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. 18 No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.”
So, even though Scripture gives these honest examples of dissent it does not present an unfavourable reading of who Jesus is and what He came to do overall, but more of what some of the JEWS of the day perceived Him.
***
Now, regarding my experience in dialogue with Harikrish and a likely scenario, based on these previous encounters. He will swamp the next posts with all kinds of superficial and irrelevant quotes from Scripture that have nothing to do with this John 10:20 passage like he did on the discussion I had with him on John the Baptist. On that particular argument, he centred on one saying of John the Baptist and read into Scripture and built all kinds of innuendo that had nothing to do with the content or explanation given in the context.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
1 Corinthians 2:5 ESV
Corinthians 2:5 ESV
That your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
***
True for the believer, but how does that translate to the unbeliever who demands evidence but will accept none, or will manipulate the evidence to suit his/her purposes?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Yes, I've heard that. It is somewhere I would like to see also. Are you located in Istanbul? So many of the Turkish shows I've watched have a panorama of the city.- I was in Istanbul, & I fly there frequently, but I'm located in Ankara now. I'm moving there soon though.
No, I'm not very familiar with Ankara except I know it is the capital.
The biblical and historical evidence is strong to say He already has. Argued any other way shows many inconsistencies.- What biblical & historical evidence?
The destruction of the temple and city in AD 70, for instance. The promised Messiah coming to an Old Covenant people that no longer exist in covenant relationship as specified in the (written) Torah after AD 70, for another.
No, I believe the OT was abolished in AD 70.- What does that mean? Why do you believe that?
I mean the Old Covenant can no longer be followed as specified per the (written) Torah. The priesthood no longer offers sacrifice as specified. Many are dispersed across the Roman world. The feast days no longer are met as specified. The temple no longer exists in which the sacrificial offerings for the sins of the people on the Day of Atonement were offered to God. The scrolls that contained the lineage details are destroyed. Various passages of Scripture cannot be fulfilled after AD 70 concerning the Messiah.
Hebrews 8:13 (NASB)
13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.
13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
His reputation goes before him. He has gained support. Thus, harder to win against.So does the truth of the Koran depend on how many friends a debater has ?
No, with Ragnar, he has gained support because he knows how to argue well, spot fallacious thinking, and exploit weaknesses. Thus, the arguments against his have to be that much better.
The truth claims of the Muslim regarding the Qur'an could very well depend on who judges the debate. If the majority of the population is Muslim then the bias could affect the outcome. Minority positions (things that go against the norm) could receive a negative vote for a number of reasons, to my thinking. One could be understanding. If you are judging an argument that you know very little about it could sway your thinking negatively (lack of education on a particular subject). Truth in arguments is based on whether the premises (one or both in the case of a syllogism) are true and whether the conclusion is sound or cogent. For some, perhaps most, that could be hard to determine in some arguments unless it is very obvious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
I enjoyed it. A really good series! I actually speak and recognize a few words of Arabic (i.e., Inshallah and of course the most common greeting "Salam Alaikum")- Oh yeah, 40% of Turkish vocabulary is Arabic. I moved to Turkey recently, wonderful people.
Yes, I've heard that. It is somewhere I would like to see also. Are you located in Istanbul? So many of the Turkish shows I've watched have a panorama of the city.
It means that everything predicted about the Jewish Messiah was fulfilled by Jesus. It means that the whole OT is a type and shadow of a greater truth, a spiritual truth. Jesus is revealed in most pages of the OT. Not only this, what was predicted of Israel is fulfilled too.- We too believe Jesus (pbuh) is the Messiah, & that he will descend at the end of time.
The biblical and historical evidence is strong to say He already has. Argued any other way shows many inconsistencies.
Yes, I know.2 Corinthians 3:14-16 (NASB)
14 But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil [a]remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. 15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; 16 but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.- Do you abide by the OT?
No, I believe the OT was abolished in AD 70.
His reputation goes before him. He has gained support. Thus, harder to win against.- He's a good debater too.
Yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
I finished watching the whole thing. Now I'm waiting for Osman. I believe they start filming in June and the first episodes are available in November.- All my friends finished watching it & are excited about Osman. What a marathon.
(^8
I enjoyed it. A really good series! I actually speak and recognize a few words of Arabic (i.e., Inshallah and of course the most common greeting "Salam Alaikum").
Christianity is the fulfillment of the OT prophecy.- What exactly does this mean?
It means that everything predicted about the Jewish Messiah was fulfilled by Jesus. It means that the whole OT is a type and shadow of a greater truth, a spiritual truth. Jesus is revealed in most pages of the OT. Not only this, what was predicted of Israel is fulfilled too.
Unfortunately, they say contrary things. You do not accept some of the Christian teachings about Jesus. I have studied the Judaic teachings of the OT for a long time and, as I said before, Jesus is a fulfillment of them.- The thing is though, Judaic teachings according to the Jews do not support such a position. As you know, Jews reject Jesus (pbuh). We don't reject anyone. We reject the claim of divinity of course.
Yes, I know.
2 Corinthians 3:14-16 (NASB)
14 But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil [a]remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. 15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; 16 but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
14 But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil [a]remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. 15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; 16 but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
Are you saying we are both right?- I'm saying I would argue the opposite, as in I would argue that it is your belief that is wrong.
Okay, understood.
Okay, after I attempt a debate with Ragnar.- Good luck with that. The guy likes to be sure he could win before he attempts.
His reputation goes before him. He has gained support. Thus, harder to win against.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
I would just like to say that I enjoy watching Turkish TV series such as Resurrection Ertugrul https://www.netflix.com/ca/title/80127001, What Happens To My Family (Baba Candir - turkish drama | turkish (very funny), and Kurt Sejik and Sura https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Seyit_ve_%C5%9Eura.- Ertugrul is the BEST. Still haven't finished it, damn long show.
I finished watching the whole thing. Now I'm waiting for Osman. I believe they start filming in June and the first episodes are available in November.
Although we share much in common regarding religious values (and I appreciate this) I still believe your religion largely borrows from Christianity and misrepresents it in various ways.- Indeed, well appreciated. You could say Christianity borrow from Judaism too.
Christianity is the fulfillment of the OT prophecy.
But it isn't really like that, we Muslims believe equally in the truth of all revelations to God's messengers ["We make no distinction between any of His messengers." (2:285)], be it Abraham or Moses or Jesus (pbut) or all the other prophets. So we don't really see it as a borrowing, rather than the same continuous divine message & tradition, concluded by the Quran. As to beliefs today, Islam is much more closer to the Judaic tradition than the Christian tradition.
Unfortunately, they say contrary things. You do not accept some of the Christian teachings about Jesus. I have studied the Judaic teachings of the OT for a long time and, as I said before, Jesus is a fulfillment of them.
I think you would agree that one of us is wrong in our belief and I would argue that it is your belief.- I would of course argue the opposite... We could have a debate about this if you wish.
Are you saying we are both right?
If I find the time I would like to delve into a few of your comments posted in this thread.- Any time. Thank you ;-)
Okay, after I attempt a debate with Ragnar.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Of course God had changed as far as the Jews were concerned! God had been 'one' for thousands of years, then the Christians made Him 2, or 3. In all sorts of ways Christianity diverged from traditional Judaism.
God has revealed more of Himself, His nature, who He is, over time.
I agree that prophesy would be strong evidence for God. What we disagree on is whether what is claimed to be prophesy is genuine.
Would you say there is strong evidence that the OT was written before the 1st-century?
Would you say that the OT gives strong evidence in its wording for another destruction of Jerusalem and the temple after the Babylonian conquest?
Would you say that the OT gives strong evidence of coming judgment on these Old Covenant people if they did not repent?
Would you say the OT gives strong evidence that if Israel was disobedient to God He would bring curses upon them?
Would you say there is strong evidence that the OT promised a Messiah to come?
Is there strong evidence these things happened?
Do these prophetic messages appear genuine?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Jesus came to His own, but His own did not receive Him, thus the covenant is with the New Israel, spiritual Israel, not fleshly Israel. Remember Jesus said that those who worship God must do so in spirit and in truth and that time had now come. These Old Covenant people rejected the chief cornerstone. Jesus was a stumbling stoneto them. They stumbled over Him with their lack of faith in God's word.Do you talk like that IRL?
And how is that?
It is obviously true that Christianity succeeded with gentiles more than it did with the Jews. Perhaps that is not surprising, as while Jesus' teachings were an attractive novelty to many non-Jews, the Jews were being required to accept the god they had worshipped for thousands of years had changed.
He does not change. He warned them repeatedly of the consequences of disobedience. I could give you hundreds of OT warnings about judgment if they did not repent.
Why did He send all the prophets to them?
I do not believe the god of the Christians destroyed the jewish nation and scattered them across the world.to punish the jews' faithfulness to the ways yhwh had demanded of them for countless generations. I don't believe that because gods don't exist. I think the Jews rebelled against Rome and lost.
Prophecy is convincing, reasonable evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Nothing about gentiles in there that I can see!30Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, and I will form a covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, a new covenant.31Not like the covenant that I formed with their forefathers on the day I took them by the hand to take them out of the land of Egypt, that they broke My covenant, although I was a lord over them, says the Lord.32For this is the covenant that I will form with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will place My law in their midst and I will inscribe it upon their hearts, and I will be their God and they shall be My people.
Hebrews 8 (NASB)
A New Covenant7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. 8 For finding fault with them, He says,
“Behold, days are coming, says the Lord,
When I will effect a new covenant
With the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;
9 Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers
On the day when I took them by the hand
To lead them out of the land of Egypt;
For they did not continue in My covenant,
And I did not care for them, says the Lord.
10 “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
After those days, says the Lord:
I will put My laws into their minds,
And I will write them on their hearts.
And I will be their God,
And they shall be My people.
11 “And they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen,
And everyone his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
For all will know Me,
From the least to the greatest of them.
12 “For I will be merciful to their iniquities,
And I will remember their sins no more.”
13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.When I will effect a new covenant
With the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;
9 Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers
On the day when I took them by the hand
To lead them out of the land of Egypt;
For they did not continue in My covenant,
And I did not care for them, says the Lord.
10 “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
After those days, says the Lord:
I will put My laws into their minds,
And I will write them on their hearts.
And I will be their God,
And they shall be My people.
11 “And they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen,
And everyone his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
For all will know Me,
From the least to the greatest of them.
12 “For I will be merciful to their iniquities,
And I will remember their sins no more.”
That covenant that Jesus lived under was about to disappear. God was not pleased with it. The people were seldom obedient to it. Per Daniel 9:24 and Daniel 2:44, God was going to set up the New Covenant in the blood of Messiah. Jesus initiated this covenant by His offering. Remember God said that He would call those who are not "His people" His people (the New Israel).
Romans 9:25 (NASB)
As He says also in Hosea, “I will call those who were not My people, ‘My people,’ And her who was not beloved, ‘beloved.’”
“And it shall be that in the place where it was said to them, ‘you are not My people,’ There they shall be called sons of the living God.”
Hosea 2
25 And I will sow her for Me in the land, and I will have compassion upon the unpitied one, and I will say to them that are not My people, "You are My people," and they shall say, "[You are] my God."
Jesus came to His own, but His own did not receive Him, thus the covenant is with the New Israel, spiritual Israel, not fleshly Israel. Remember Jesus said that those who worship God must do so in spirit and in truth and that time had now come. These Old Covenant people rejected the chief cornerstone. Jesus was a stumbling stone to them. They stumbled over Him with their lack of faith in God's word.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
I'm not sure what you think you are presenting as a different understanding. The text describes his service to God and is a model for such service and for the later giving of a tithe to temple priests. This is nothing new or different.As to your second post, the original statement was about the existence of priests. I'm not arguing that the temple no longer exists, so questioning that half of the sentence and ignoring the rest is not especially useful.
Well, I question both.
1. After the destruction of the temple, how did the priesthood trace its lineage?
2. You have already admitted the priesthood could not follow the covenant as stated in the Torah (i.e., below).
3. Did they still follow the feast day sacrifices as required in the Torah?
As to your next questions:"Did God bring judgment to Israel in AD 70?"Yes, as he does every day.
Not like in AD 70. He sent the nation into captivity. Their whole world revolved around temple worship that was destroyed.
For instance, can Israel still follow this command from Exodus 27:20:
20 And you shall command the children of Israel, and they shall take to you pure olive oil, crushed for lighting, to kindle the lamps continually.
21 In the Tent of Meeting, outside the dividing curtain that is in front of the testimony, Aaron and his sons shall set it up before the Lord from evening to morning; [it shall be] an everlasting statute for their generations, from the children of Israel.
21 In the Tent of Meeting, outside the dividing curtain that is in front of the testimony, Aaron and his sons shall set it up before the Lord from evening to morning; [it shall be] an everlasting statute for their generations, from the children of Israel.
How about the priestly garments? Are they still used?
Can the priests be consecrated in the same manner as required in Exodus 29 as a perpetual offering before the LORD?
43 They shall be worn by Aaron and by his sons when they enter the Tent of Meeting or when they approach the altar to serve in the Holy, so they will not bear iniquity and die. It shall be a perpetual statute for him and for his descendants after him.
Is Leviticus 4 still followed in the required manner? You say no.
"Do you still practice the animal sacrifice for the atonement of the sins of the nation?"No -- without a temple we do not offer sacrifices (though there has been a lot of text written about the issues and whether any sacrifices can be offered today, especially the Passover offering) but this has no effect on the existence of priests. There are other ways to effect atonement for the small group of sins that sacrifice atoned for during temple times.
Remember what the people said in Exodus 24:
3 So Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord and all the ordinances, and all the people answered in unison and said, "All the words that the Lord has spoken we will do."
7 And he took the Book of the Covenant and read it within the hearing of the people, and they said, "All that the Lord spoke we will do and we will hear."
8 And Moses took the blood and sprinkled [it] on the people, and he said, "Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord has formed with you concerning these words."
Did not God promise curses if Israel was not obedient to that covenant? (i.e., Deuteronomy 28)
Did that not happen in Daniel 9? And did God not promise once again to revise the sins of the people?
27 Seventy weeks [of years] have been decreed upon your people and upon the city of your Sanctuary to terminate the transgression and to end sin, and to expiate iniquity, and to bring eternal righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies.
Well, I contend that the everlasting covenant God promised for both Jews and Gentiles (Jerimiah 31:30-32) has arrived with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. It was veiled to many during the 1st-century and it is veiled to many today because they deny Jeshua/Jesus.
2 Corinthians 3:14-16 (NASB)
14 But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. 15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; 16 but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
2 references which point out that he worshipped God. That's not much, but it is enough to establish a template for service. That's about it.
The Septuigent, which Jesus and many 1st-century Jews accepted as Scripture, has a different interpretation of Genesis 14:18 onwards.
18And Melchisedec king of Salem brought forth loaves and wine, and he was the priest of the most high God.
19And he blessed Abram, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, who made heaven and earth,
20and blessed be the most high God who delivered thine enemies into thy power. And Abram gave him the tithe of all.
"you certainly have been wrong about things we believe before."Have I? I don't recall making any statements about any particular branch of Christianity."From what I have been told, Temple Judaism does not exist anymore, and so the priesthood is not really a thing"You have been told wrong. The role is different but it certainly exists and is a part of practice every single day.
Where is the temple?
Did God bring judgment to Israel in AD 70?
Do you still practice the animal sacrifice for the atonement of the sins of the nation? If yes, how long has this been going on for?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Malki-tzedek might have been some sort of king and some sort of "kohen" but he wasn't in the Jewish tradition. The fact that his mode of worship was admirable in that he served God doesn't mean he was operating under rules that were to be given to a particular group hundreds of years later. It might have created an archetype for the writer, but its use creates a theological problem.
Then what do you think his significance was since he receives quite a mention?
18 And Malchizedek the king of Salem brought out bread and wine, and he was a priest to the Most High God.
4 The Lord swore and will not repent; you are a priest forever because of the speech of Malchizedek.
I think it was Augustine of Hippo that said (paraphrasing), "In the old contained; in the new explained."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Gary Habermas has identified (I think if my memory serves me and not reading the chapter again) nineteen external non-Christian references to Jesus as a historical person.It could well be 19 - or even more - but the point is not whther there was a 'Historical Jesus' at all but whether the historical Jesus was a mere mortal.If you review the Habermas material, there is nothing to suggest anything miraculous - and as you say,The miracles are what separates Jesus from mere mortals.
Well, there is lots to suggest not only miraculous and unique but not in that article. That would be the Resurrection as well as the supernatural claims in the NT and those who believed in Jesus. The Christian faith is vested in the Resurrection of a Man from the dead, as Paul pointed out in 1 Corinthians 15:12-15.
As an atheist, I deny the existence of gods. I do not deny the existence of religions, nor the existence of religious belief nor the existence of charismatic characters who inspire religions.
As a Christian, I deny the existence of gods as anything other than man-made creations or substitutes for God. I acknowledge the existence of religious beliefs, including atheism as man-made beliefs that do not conform to reality (what really is).
I can believe Jesus spoke the sermon on the mount - why not? It does not require a god to address a crowd. But I don't believe Jesus revivified Lazarus. The evidence for both is the same - they are described in the bible. So its not really about evidence at all - despite what people say on forums!
It is about faith and every belief has faith involved. But Christianity is based on evidence. I point to prophesy as reasonable evidence. Jesus was/is a historical Person. That is reasonable to believe. It is reasonable to believe God created the universe. It is reasonable to believe that life comes from the living.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
The genealogies given in Matthew and Luke clearly address the issue of Jesus' connection to the House of David, and in Hebrews jesus is said to be a priest of the 'order of Melchizedek', ie he belonged to a non-levite line of priests.The writers of the NT were clearly aware of theological criticisms being levelled at Christianity (mainly by mainstream Jews) and came up with 'creative solutions'.
2 Corinthians 3:14-17 (NASB)
14 But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. 15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; 16 but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
14 But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. 15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; 16 but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
There isagreat deal for theolgians to argue over, but not much for historians because there are so few corroborated facts. I think it's probable tht Jesus was a charismatic apocalyptic preacher, but I don't deny it's possible he is no realler than, say Robin Hood.
Gary Habermas has identified (I think if my memory serves me and not reading the chapter again) nineteen external non-Christian references to Jesus as a historical person.
Yet most external references to Him reveal more about Him than just His preaching. On top of those secular/non-Christian writers and Jewish writings, there are the gospels, the epistles, the apocryphal writings, false gospels and teaching who claimed they were Christians, Gnostic writings, and the early church fathers that speak of him.
I'm surprised that Stephen manages to have firm views without being a believer in the traditional sense. After decades of (admitedly sporadic)reading, there is still nothing I am sure of regarding the life and death of Jesus - other than the magic/miracle god stuff is nonsense, but that's because I don't believe in gods or the supernatual in any form, not because of historical evidence because there is next to none.
The miracles are what separates Jesus from mere mortals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I think it is worth noting that in Orthodoxy, we do not teach that man inherited Adam's guilt.
No, not his guilt. We are judged on our own guilt and sin. We inherited the penalty for his sin, thus Adam was our representative before God. Through one man, Adam, sin entered into the world, and through sin - death. So what Adam did effects us. Humanity was separated from God via Adam.
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—
We inherit the nature that was in Adam after the fall, thus, we need a new nature/spirit restored to us. Thus, we need to be born again, renewed by God. Our nature in Adam is hostile to God. Our nature in Christ loves God. Jesus Christ is the Second Adam for good reason. He is the One who represents us before God as Adam did, yet Jesus was/is without sin.
If you are dead in your sins what can you do? What can a dead man/woman do? He/she is helpless. He/she needs the grace and mercy of God to transform him/her.
Ephesians 2:1-2 (NASB)
Made Alive in Christ
2 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.
Made Alive in Christ
2 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.
That is why Jesus taught that we MUST be born again to see and enter into the kingdom. We need the transforming power of God working in our lives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
So are you saying that Jesus was or wasn't God in Mary's womb?
No, that is not what I'm saying. Jesus was both human and God in Mary's womb. What I am saying is that God, as an eternal Being, cannot be born. He always is. You are birthing the two natures together in the birth process. The child is born, the Son is given.
Isaiah 9:6 (NASB)
6 For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
John 3:16 (NASB)
16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
What I'm asking you to explain is how an eternal Being can have a beginning? The humanity of Jesus had a beginning. His godhood never did.
The Word became flesh. He took on humanity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
As I understand it, the OT scapegoat ritual was not a very powerful spell - it did not take away all guilt and only worked for a year. Hence in order to take away the guilt for Adam's disobedience permanently it was necessary for a human - ie not an animal - to be sacrificed.
The scapegoat was the goat they released into the wilderness yearly. It was the one alienated from God, the one that took the punishment of the nation for their sin by being sent into desolation. There were two goats chosen, one for sacrifice and one for desolation. They are both symbolic and a shadow or type of Jesus Christ. The sacrificial goat was a substitutionary offering that cleansed the sins of the nation by its blood, for it was without spot or blemish, a perfect offering; the other took the wrath of God which was separation and judgment (since the soul that sins will die).
In the same token, Jesus lived a perfect life before God by His sacrificial life. He lived it on behalf of the believer. Since God is just, He requires punishment for sin. The scapegoat represented the sins of the people. The High Priest laid his hands upon it, identifying that it should have been the people that received punishment, then sent it into desolation (judgment). Jesus was judged by God, on the cross (for the penalty for sin is death which is separation from God). He received the wrath that should have been that of His people (the New Israel or the Israel of God) that sinned, just like the scapegoat was a substitution for OT Israel that experienced God's wrath and judgment.
Remember this, the blood (lifeblood) represents a life. When the blood is drained so is the life ended. Jesus gave His life as a ransom for many (those who will believe and again this teaching would be understood by OT Israel - the people that Jesus Christ came to).
The question remains - if God wanted to relieve mankind of the guilt acruing from Adam's sin, why not just do that? Why was Jesus' sacrifice required? indeed,why was a sacrifice of any sort required?
A man sinned, thus, a man was responsible for sin and had to answer for it. Adam placed a curse on humanity for his sin separated us from God and polluted our consciousness with evil (as we grow we show we have received what was present in Adam - sin).
A man, in the garden, was the federal head (he represented humanity) and his choice had an impact on the rest of us. After Adam sinned humanity knew the difference between right and wrong (Adam only knew what was good before this) and we inherited that knowledge and acted on it throughout the rest of human history. Thus, since Adam, we are not right with God but separated from His glory and majesty. Jesus Christ offered Himself as a man who lived a perfect life before God to once again restore that relationship lost in Eden.
But there is more to this.
If all Jesus did was live a perfect life that would not satisfy God's wrath or anger for all the wrongs already acted on by humanity. A just Judge legally requires a penalty for sin or else He would not be good. Thus, the separation or penalty (wages for sin) that humanity incurred was also dealt with by Jesus on the cross when God forsook Him). Jesus died our death, the death we deserve as believers. Sacrifice is also a peace offering before God.
A sacrifice was needed because it brings home to us the terrible cost of sin. The substitutionary offering represents our death. It should have been us who believe. Sin or separation from God is a wrong done against God that God judges with spiritual separation or spiritual death for Adam was told as soon as he ate of the fruit he would surely die. God is HOLY, perfect, pure, righteous, without sin, and He will not tolerate sinful relationship in His presence. That very day that Adam sinned Adam died to that close relationship with God. He was barred from the Garden (where he walked with God) and not allowed to partake in the tree of life where he would live forever (Jesus restored that separation).
To this non-theologian, it is clear what happened is that the execution of Jesus threw the early church into crisis - the unexpected loss of their leader had to be explained and it came to be explained by portraying Jesus as a 'super-scapegoat', based on the OT tradition.
It was prophesied and shadowed throughout the OT in all kinds of symbolic and spiritual teaching that is developed in the NT. So, the loss is explained throughout the OT. This is what the NT author's use to explain what happened. They employ all kinds of OT teachings regarding OT history, priesthood, sacrifice, and worship, to show the spiritual significance of the OT reality in a new and greater spiritual significance and way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
A man lived perfectly before God to restore the relationship lost in Eden.Can you say that Mary carried God in her womb and gave birth to Him?
I can't say Mary give birth to the eternal God. I can say that God, in Jesus, took on humanity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
17 For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives. 18 Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood. 19 For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you.”
24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
Thus, the verse explains the sufficiency of Jesus atoning sacrifice. A man lived perfectly before God to restore the relationship lost in Eden. Not only this, but Jesus is the tree of life, the living water, the Lamb without spot or blemish. His one sacrifice put away sin on behalf of the believer. What is more, Jesus is also our High Priest before God. He is the One who represents us before God. And not only this, His death paid the penalty for those who believe. His life was offered in exchange for theirs. Thus, God does not judge us upon our own merit as believers but as Paul said, we have been crucified with Christ and Christ now lives in the believer. We have identified and been counted in His sacrifice! Thus, the atonement, which the OT foreshadowed, is the greatest news the world has ever heard, for those who believe!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
It seems we agree that the bible makes the Jews out to be the bad guys. But.... the Christianity that really took off was Paul's 'gentile friendly' version rather than the more othodoxly Judaic version promoted within Israel.
You'll notice that the entire NT has a Jewish theme of warning to it. That is because the OT Mosaic Covenant they made with God was never kept. He sent prophets and teachers to them to warn them that if they did not turn from their apostacy He would bring judgment upon them.
“Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord.
Jesus told His disciples that John was the Elijah to come.
And if you are willing to accept it, John himself is Elijah who was to come.
John was the one calling in the desert, warning Israel to repent before the axe struck the tree and brought it down (Matthew 3:5-12).
Matthew 3:7
7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
10 The axe is already laid at the root of the trees; therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman FoundationSo, Israel sensed judgment was coming upon them. You can find the theme of soon coming judgment and warning throughout the NT.
I think Jews - especially Jews inside Israel - may have been sympathetic Jesus, but less so to Paul's reformulation. So the Paulines more or less gave up on converting Jews and focused on outsiders, hence in their version of history it was Romans good, Jews bad.
Paul built on Jesus' teaching and part of that teaching was the atonement. Paul explained what Jesus accomplished. No animal was sufficient to take away sin. An animal did not sin against God yet God permitted it as a covering for sin until a perfect Man could offer Himself in the place of an animal.
The animal represented the person and nation for God had said that the soul that sins would surely die. Thus, it was a substitutionary sacrifice until Jesus presented the sacrifice that could take away sin. The book of Hebrews, among others, conveys this message.
6 Now when these things have been so prepared, the priests are continually entering the outer tabernacle performing the divine worship, 7 but into the second, only the high priest enters once a year, not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance.
The animal sacrifices were a pattern of a greater truth, as is the whole OT worship system.
What is more, animal sacrifices had to be made every year on the Day of Atonement to cover the sins of the people (Israel) they had committed against God. But Jesus offered a far greater sacrifice and one that did not have to be repeated over and over again, thus, His sacrifice pleased God. His life was holy and His sacrifice paid the penalty (in substitution, just like the animal did in the OT) for the sins of the believer.
13 For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
As I said, the reason that animal sacrifice could not take away sin, only cover it until the covenant was abolished, was that it was not an animal that had sinned against God and destroyed the intimate relationship with God that Adam enjoyed in the Garden until the day sin was found in him.
Thus, Jesus, the Second Adam, restored that relationship by the merit of His life lived on behalf of the believer. So, one He [Jesus] had atoned for sin He sat down at the right hand of the Father in the greater sanctuary, the heavenly one. He also established a new covenant in His blood, just like God had made a covenant with Israel with blood. Throughout the NT we see the transition taking place between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. AD 70 marks the completion of the Old Covenant in which God judged and removed it in place of the eternal covenant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
While people can have faith in science (I do), science is not faith based. It is evidence based. It doesn't require ardor or faith. It requires empirical proof.The everyday matters of science can be verified and repeated empirically. The question of origins/beginnings is another matter. No one was there to witness the universe come into being or life arise from supposed nonliving physical matter alone. Since you can recreate origins you have to interpret the evidence. How you interpret it depends on the slant you start from. As I have said many times (using a Ravi Zacharius argument), atheists, agnostics, Christians all have a religious view in the sense the all three try to explain life's ultimate questions such as What are we, why are we here, how did we get here, what difference does it make, and what happens to us when we die.Thus, I would argue you have religious faith in this sense and faith in origins since science is interpreting data from long ago without being able to witness, verify, or repeat the origins. It builds on a particular model. In the past, many of the models have been replaced with a different paradigm. Thomas Kuhn has documented some of these paradigm shifts.100% certainty does not exist, of course.
Thanks for the response!
Are you 100% certain of that? You see, that statement is self-refuting. It defeats itself. It is a claim of certainty that if true means even that statement is uncertain.
We can never truly know.
Again, how do you know this?
But for me it's that science makes good guesses and religion makes bad guesses. Even science's theories on the origins of life or the universe are based on evidence. More evidence than religion can typically provide.
It is a matter of interpretation of the evidence or data. With origins, we are looking at the past through the eyes of the present assuming that what we see now was how it was then.
If asking human questions is your only qualifier of what is religious, I suppose I can see how science might qualify for you.
It qualifies in things that are repeatable and demonstratable particularly through empirical data but also through logic and deduction, IMO. Much of that can't be done with origins of life or the universe.
But I think that's an incomplete description of "religious." For science to be religious I would expect it to involve worship, claim the existence of deities, ask you to rely on faith, tell you what to do/how to live, or make value judgments about what is right or wrong.
I'll give you that. It is incomplete in a sense but it answers the same questions that religions do and it also has its worshipers; those who treat it as a god that provides them all their answers. The thing about origins is that even scientists need faith to believe what they do because they can't repeat origins. They can interpret the evidence and provide models that give the greatest number of probabilities to their particular paradigm or view until the paradigm meets with too many anomalies. Then a new paradigm is put forth and along goes scientism following after yet another tangent.
Religion is a big word with a lot of baggage. I'm not sure you can justly equivocate the two simply because humans have used both of them to pursue existential questions.
What questions does every religious attempt to answer? Basically those four or five questions I identified in my previous post to you. Science does the same.
What are we? Human animals that have evolved from a common ancestor.
Who are we? Biological machines.
How did we get here? Big Bang (or whatever view is held) and through an evolutionary process where life emerged from the non-living.
What difference does it make? Who cares? We are biological bags of atoms in a universe that is meaningless. There is no purpose to it. It just is.
How do we get morals? Various answers about behavioural traits that we use for the greater good in as much as we can determine what that good is.
What happens to us when we die? It is the end of us and our bodies go into a hole and rot away or we are cremated into ashes.
IMO, it is a nihilistic view of existence. It gives no hope for those who are close to death. It has no adequate explanation of morality. It can't supply any certainty, as you have noted (it doesn't have what is necessary). It has no ultimate purpose for life or the universe. People comfort themselves with their subjective views that mean nothing in the long run.
Created:
If you want to challenge me to a rematch for him, by all means issue the challenge. If you want to actually discuss why divine command theory fails to be the only possible source of human morals, stop acting like someone using Poe's Law.
By blocking me I will take it you are not interested in the discussion.
How am I using "Poe's Law"? Just by asserting something does not make it so.
Why would I challenge you for him?
I have about approximately a week's worth of work (rebuilding my fence) then I will think about the challenge.
Created:
-->
@Barney
I take it potatoes are a metaphor for supposed God-given morals since others can get their cultural moral preferences at the market (the smorgasbord).I take it that your reference to murdering the locals is the purge God commanded Israel to do when...Got to the point of your over-analysis of the potato...I was not sure if the potato analogy was something new you were bringing into the conversation or a playoff of some analogy I made since you did not provide a context.I could keep adding to that quotation, but you brought up potatos in your first post. Later you tried to turn them into something magical and possibly connected to Israel.
Okay, you are adding to this quotation by me then. My mistake. Here it is:
"Again, what makes what someone likes to do something good or right? I believe you are confusing what is with what ought to be. I believe you are confusing a moral right with a subjective preference or taste. There is a different, and I ask how you derive an ought from an is? If you could then if Joe liked potatoes (what he wants to eat) then should all people like potatoes and is eating potatoes "right"?
(And here is your response:
altruistsIt's good because it supports the group, creating more good than harm: Utilitarianism.
Good in whose eyes?
Hitler thought it good for his nation to exterminate 11 million undesirables. Because he thought so and convinced others (which is what the argument from "benefit of the greatest number" would involve) the policy was followed through. Would you argue that this was "good"?
Also, many different cultures and even subgroups and individuals within the cultures and subgroups object to what others name as "good." So, we have a disagreement on what is good and right and you say that appeal to popularity should determine the good.
And more of your response:
Within man made morals, Joe can run a strictly potato farm, and if he's not murdering all the other farmers people can get their preferences in the market. Blindly obeying divine command theory, Joe might believe potatoes are the divine and thus only allowed food, and go around inflicting this on everyone else. (within consequentialism, he might still try to inflict potatoes on everyone, but will more likely do so through subtle means, much like diamonds on engagement rings).: Utilitarianism.
"Within man-made morals?" What makes man-made morals anything more than preferences or personal tastes subjected onto others through force or emotional appeal? What makes preferences right/good? I like ice-cream. Is it right that you SHOULD like ice-cream too? Again, you confuse personal preference with what is morally right. Do you understand the difference between preference and a moral right?
Do you see how the is/ought fallacy applies? I am applying something I like (ice-cream) which is descriptive and a matter of personal taste to pass a moral judgment (prescriptive) of what should or ought to be.
You, in turn, are applying what should be (ought) to what is (what the majority of people like and think is beneficial).
Created:
-->
@Barney
If you want to challenge me to a rematch for him, by all means issue the challenge. If you want to actually discuss why divine command theory fails to be the only possible source of human morals, stop acting like someone using Poe's Law.
I do not dispute that God is the only source of human morality. I dispute that other sources are ultimate or reasonable sources. Unless you can show me that these other sources have what is necessary for morality I will continue to dispute them. So, I guess you should establish what is necessary and what makes sense of morality. Do you think "the greatest benefit" can? It begs how a subjective being with biases and preferences decides for others what the greatest benefit is and as I pointed out, history is replete with examples of conflicting views of what is best or the greatest benefit for the greatest number.
As for Poes Law, I am serious in what I state for the most part and place little value in "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article" because sometimes I see satire or irony as necessary to make a point.
Psalms state that a fool has said there is no God. Logically that makes no sense, right? How can a limited subjective relative being know God does not exist?
Proverbs gives advice on how to answer a fool. Here it is and this is why I use this method taken from the NASB translation:
Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him.
By contrasting the lack of sense of other worldviews I try to drive home a message of their folly.
Answer a fool as his folly deserves, That he not be wise in his own eyes.
I use irony and satire (and hopefully logic) to expose folly. I see such answers as the folly deserves.
Created: