jesus, part II

[Grazza]

pregnant with worms said:

i'm agnostic. religion is fine and all, and so is atheism, but they both seem to be based in assumptions which i can't accept.

An atheist is simply someone who lacks a belief in God. Atheism involves no claims. Having said that, you do find some very poor definitions of the term that suggest it does.

Agnosticism, on the other hand, does involve specific claims.

[sargebaldy]

doomedout said:

Personally, I do believe in religion and I have strong faith in the afterlife. Some people might admonish me on the grounds of believing lies, others will try to convince me oh why God doesn't exist.

or we don't have our beliefs. personally i think believing in something (or for that matter, believing in nothing) without any real evidence is a pretty silly idea, akin to [warning bbg! spoiler] 4 year olds believing in santa claus and the easter bunny[/spoiler].

[Kinsie]

I'm suprised no-one's posted it yet, so here goes...

He's not the messiah, he's just a very naughty boy.

[Lüt]

m0l0t0v said:

“According to Jewish law, tribal identification comes from the father's side, being Jewish, from the mother's side.
According to Matthew 1, Joseph was descended from David (Although there are many contradictions between his genealogy there and that listed in Luke...

The genealogy in Matthew is Joseph's line and the genealogy in Luke is Mary's line - obviously they're going to be different.

m0l0t0v said:

...however according to the same text, Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary, therefore Jesus was not related to Joseph, and not a descendant of King David.”

Tribal identification is based off genealogy, but does not define it. First, Mary is a descendant of King David, so Joseph didn't need to have sexual relations with Mary in order for Jesus to be descended of King David. Second, Joseph adopted Jesus as his own son, so Jesus is not out of place in Matthew's genealogy. According to Jewish law, the first-born son, whether natural or adopted, had the right of inheritance.

m0l0t0v said:

The New Testament claims Jesus is the only Son of God however the OT is filled with others called Son of God.

Jesus Christ is the "Only begotten" Son of God, the "monogenes", the unique, one
of a kind Son of God. The rest of us are not "begotten sons" but adopted sons of God, adopted into God's family through faith in Jesus Christ.

m0l0t0v said:

The decennia before Jesus was born, the temple was rebuild and growing. After his presence on Earth the temple was destroyed. “After Jesus' appearance, the Temple was destroyed, the Jews were exiled all over the world and we have not even had one day of peace in the past 2,000 years”

John 2: [19] Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." [20] The Jews then said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?" [21] But he was speaking about the temple of his body. [22] When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.

Also, I know many Jewish families in my town who have had many a peaceful day.

m0l0t0v:
”There is peace within his followers hearts”
In the last 2000 years, the Christians have left a mark on the world; not one of peace, but of war. The most horrific battle/ slaughters were fought in God/ Jesus’ name. For centuries pacifism was considered a sin punishable by death. I don’t think it’s necessary to list the wars fought in Jesus’ name, but it is clear the soldiers had no peace in heart.

As you say, "there is peace within his follwers hearts". Obviously these people you cite weren't his follwers, and won't be recognized as such by him. Always remember, judge people by the belief system they claim to uphold, not the belief system by the people who claim to uphold it.

[fodders]

They do say there are no athiests in a foxhole.

[geekmarine]

Heh, everyone should just believe whatever they want. We've already established that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. Thus, it matters not whether you choose to believe in Him or not. Just take whichever side makes you happier. We'll all find out when we die, and it's not like there's a prize if you guess right (well, maybe some Christians feel that way, but definitely not for atheists). Of course, the tricky part is to accept the fact that those who do not share your opinion are not wrong. That's a major problem in society, I think. Everyone is convinced that everything must either be "right" or "wrong". Well, for a lot of things, the God issue (and religion in general) included, there is neither right nor wrong, just different. If people would come to grips with this, the world would be a much better place.

[Scientist]

To further clear up the Jesus-David relationship.

Two bloodlines of Jesus are given; one by Luke 3:23-31 and one by Matthew. They're different yet both show blood relation with David.
So Lüt's source (christiananswers) assumes Matthew gives Joseph's bloodline and Luke gives Mary's bloodline. So both Mary and Joseph are related to David.

"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,"
-Luke 3:23
According to christiananswers "Joseph, which was the son of Heli" here really means "Joseph, which was the son in law of Heli."; Mary was Heli's daughter and was married to Jospeh. The bloodline given here is thus that of Mary.

[Fletcher`]

Aliotroph? said:

I have serious issues with God as the Christians depict Him. Most of it seems like it was designed to placate the mob. Anyway, I figure if you say God created the universe then you have to say "how did God get there?" and you're stuck right where you started, except with no faith in your own ability to understand what's around you or make your own decisions. There may be a god or gods who created everything but I'm not concerned with it. Most religions just seem to be there as a big comfort factor.

Heh. The trick is to NOT try to understand. If you do, your only going to get a headache and questions that cannot at this point be answered. Not at humanity's state of mind.

Don't bother with God's origin; she has no beginning, and no end. She just IS.

And yes I believe that God is a woman. Who else would make sex such a great joke?...




As a species, were' fucked. :P

[m0l0t0v]

Lüt:
The genealogy in Matthew is Joseph's line and the genealogy in Luke is Mary's line - obviously they're going to be different.

After rereading these parts and Scientists post: ok...

Jesus Christ is the "Only begotten" Son of God, the "monogenes", the unique, one
of a kind Son of God. The rest of us are not "begotten sons" but adopted sons of God, adopted into God's family through faith in Jesus Christ.

I suppose this is a matter of definitions of words.

John 2: [19] Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." [20] The Jews then said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?" [21] But he was speaking about the temple of his body. [22] When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.

ok, so Jesus could restore another temple, he still couldn't restore the temple the Messiah was prophesied to restore...

As you say, "there is peace within his follwers hearts". Obviously these people you cite weren't his follwers, and won't be recognized as such by him. Always remember, judge people by the belief system they claim to uphold, not the belief system by the people who claim to uphold it.

Yes, one could argue that believing in Jesus and acting in his name still doesn’t make you a ‘ follower’. Allow my to introduce Peter:

"Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant's name was Malchus.)" (John18-10)

Apparently at least one of the twelve disciples carried a sword. A sword is an instrument of violence, which tells us the (at least one of the) Apostels were not opposed to violence. Since they were (undoubtibly) the followers of Jesus it is safe to extrapolate Jesus wasn’t a pacifist either...

[Ichor]

In Luke 22:51, Jesus heals the servant's ear again. He also told Peter to put his sword away. Also, at that time, Peter's faith wasn't really that strong, because soon afterward, he had openly denied Jesus three times. It wasn't until Acts 2 that we see some of the best examples of Christian faith.

[m0l0t0v]

Still the fact that Peter carried a sword must mean something.

If Jesus was opposed to violence he would not have allowed his most loyal followers to carry swords. To them Jesus was the Messiah so the apostles would have obeyed.

Before he met Jesus, Peter was simple fisherman. After he joined his 'gang' he is described swinging a sword... Sound like a bad influence to me...

[edit] :-) [/edit]

[Grimm]

Give me a freaking break m0l0t0v. If you're not going to debate without massive bias and stupid nitpicking, don't debate at all. That is one of the most ludicrous statements in a "debate" I've ever heard.

'faith' only means 'belief in something without any evidence'.

No, it doesn't. If you've ever met someone with real faith, they always have vwery strong reasons and reasonable good "evidence" for their beliefes. You have the same "faith" you say Christians have--it's just on the other side of the spectrum.

[Job]

ravage said:

Heh. The trick is to NOT try to understand. If you do, your only going to get a headache and questions that cannot at this point be answered. Not at humanity's state of mind.

Don't bother with God's origin; she has no beginning, and no end. She just IS.

And yes I believe that God is a woman. Who else would make sex such a great joke?...




As a species, were' fucked. :P

Dude, that's so Dogma.

[m0l0t0v]

Grimm:
Give me a freaking break m0l0t0v. If you're not going to debate without massive bias and stupid nitpicking, don't debate at all. That is one of the most ludicrous statements in a "debate" I've ever heard.

I probably should have put a ' :-) 'at the bottom of my last post. I was just thinking out loud there...

Sorry if it offended anyone :-(

[Grimm]

Heh, it didn't offend me, it just pissed me off that you seemed to be putting that out seriously.

[Sharessa]

Trasher][ said:
I'm suprised no-one's posted it yet, so here goes...

He's not the messiah, he's just a very naughty boy.

Oh damn, I was going to post this quote a long time ago...better late than never:

"I'm not the Messiah!"

"Only the true Messiah would deny he is the Messiah!"

"Okay, then I am the Messiah!"

"See? He is the Messiah!"

"Oh, piss off!"

[Scabbed Angel]

m0l0t0v said:

BTW, I do consider myself an atheist, since I believe one day man will scientifically prove the non-existence of God. Just like the weather-gods, God will simply become an obsolete factor.

That's like proving that Satan Claus....er..Santa Claus doesn't exist. Explain how one would go about proving that a spiritual force that you CAN'T SEE doesn't exist.

Homer: "Hey Flanders, I was doing my tax returns, when I accidentally proved that God doesn't exist."

[Scabbed Angel]

Grazza said:

An atheist is simply somehow who lacks a belief in God. Atheism involves no claims. Having said that, you do find some very poor definitions of the term that suggest it does.

Agnosticism, on the other hand, does involve specific claims.

Actually he has a point in a way, Athiemism assumes that no spiritual higher power exists. They don't know for sure, but they believe that, theyfore in a way their "faith" that there is no God is kind of an assumption.

[Grazza]

No - there are no assumptions and no faith. One simply lacks any positive belief in a God. That is all.

It is the same state you'd be in if no one had ever suggested the idea of a God in the first place.

[m0l0t0v]

m0l0t0v:
I believe one day man will scientifically prove the non-existence of God. Just like the weather-gods, God will simply become an obsolete factor.

I always wanted to quote myself :-p

Scabbed Angel:
Explain how one would go about proving that a spiritual force that you CAN'T SEE doesn't exist.

The keyword here is scientifically. I agree there is no way we can 'absolutely' prove there is or isn't a god; God by definition is unreachable for the human intellect.

In science however one can prove the non-existence of a factor without 'absolute' prove. One can never be 'absolutely' sure there is/ are no Santa Claus, elves, weather gods, braincells in G.W. Bush's head, but one can be scientifically sure there aren't.

[edit]
Scientist once quoted "Can Science Prove that God Does Not Exist?" from Theodore Schick, Jr. in an older thread:

...Does that mean that one cannot prove that he (God) does not exist? No, for in order to prove that something does not exist, one need not show that it is logically impossible. One need only show is that it is epistemically unnecessary-that it is not required to explain anything. Science has proven the non-existence of many things in this way, such as phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, and the planet Vulcan. Scientific proofs, unlike logical proofs, do not establish their conclusions beyond any possibility of doubt. But they are proofs nonetheless, for they establish their conclusions beyond a reasonable doubt and that is all that is needed to justify them.

Phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, and the planet Vulcan are theoretical entities that were postulated in order to explain various phenomena. Phlogiston was postulated to explain heat, the luminiferous ether was postulated to explain the propagation of light waves through empty space, and Vulcan was postulated to explain the perturbations in the orbit of Mercury. Science has shown, however, that these phenomena can be explained without invoking these entities. By demonstrating that these entities are not needed to explain anything, science has proven that they do not exist
[/edit]

[geekmarine]

Okay... Sooooo... What, you just ignore the question of the origin of the universe altogether? Because that's how the whole concept of God got started. People looked around, and they were like "Where the hell did all this stuff come from?" Then, "Well, maybe some really important dude made it or something." "Nah man, that doesn't make any sense. Why and how would some important dude ever do that?" "I don't know, but it beats saying that it all created itself." "Eh, you got a point there. Important dude creation theory it is then."

[IMJack]

Jesus was a punk, a far-left-wing intellectual anarchist and ne'er-do-well. He probably didn't take too well to his dad's trade, since the Bible never talks about him doing any carptentry. He was trained to be a cleric, a rabbi, but the Judaic establishment shunned him for his ultra-radical beliefs.

So you've got this thirtysomething wanderer, the 1st century equivalent of a gen-X slacker, who gets it into his head to pull the rug out from under the stodgy conservative establishment. So he hooks up with a bunch of failed fishermen, disillusioned tax collectors, hookers, ethnic minorities, and other scum, and goes on a grand speaking tour of the Jewish world. After three years of raising hell, the feds finally corner him, convict him of being an anarchist and terrorist, and execute him in the slowest and most painful manner then available.

Where the nifty powers came up, nobody knows. To draw from another fantasy source, I think he has Cleric and either Monk or Sorcerer levels.

[Fredrik]

The universe has always existed.

[Lüt]

Scientist said:

So Lüt's source (christiananswers)

Hmm? I haven't visited there in a few months. I did check an old email discussion I had with a friend regarding this topic, but I probably should've checked there as well. Thanks for the reminder :)

...and what the heck, did you just... support me? :P

m0l0t0v said:

I suppose this is a matter of definitions of words.

Indeed, but the Bible is clear in their intended definitions, whether the word itself has taken on new meaning in recent years or not.

m0l0t0v said:

ok, so Jesus could restore another temple, he still couldn't restore the temple the Messiah was prophesied to restore...

No, like the verses said, the Jewish people didn't understand that the temple he was prophesied to restore was his body, not a building.

And apparently, they still don't :P

m0l0t0v said:

Yes, one could argue that believing in Jesus and acting in his name still doesn’t make you a "follower".

It's stated quite clearly numerous times that a followers can be identified by their deeds. In a few instances, it demands that liars be called out as such. 1 John covers this subject fairly in-depth, but the bottom line is that followers can be recognized as such by how well they measure up to Jesus' example.

m0l0t0v said:

Apparently at least one of the twelve disciples carried a sword. A sword is an instrument of violence, which tells us the (at least one of the) Apostels were not opposed to violence. Since they were (undoubtibly) the followers of Jesus it is safe to extrapolate Jesus wasn’t a pacifist either...

...and?

Job said:

Dude, that's so Dogma.

Heh, I've got to see that one of these days. I was going to, but this girl we were with flipped out, so we ended up watching The Pope Must Diet instead >_<

[edit]

m0l0t0v said:

[edit]Scientist once quoted "Can Science Prove that God Does Not Exist?" from Theodore Schick, Jr. in an older thread:

All that says is that scientific proof is not actual proof - why call anything a word when it is not the absolute definition of that word? Such "partial absolutes" seem rather nonsensical to me.

Also, because empirical studies can be conducted without any thought of God doesn't prove that God isn't upholding the laws being studied. If God is upholding the universe and all its laws, then His existence is quite necessary, whether you realize it or not.

Aslo, I apologize for such incredibly brief replies and for overlooking some major points of discussion, but unfortunately I haven't the time or resources to compile my usual 1 to 3-page essays :P

Also, something.

[Sharessa]

IMJack said:

Where the nifty powers came up, nobody knows. To draw from another fantasy source, I think he has Cleric and either Monk or Sorcerer levels.

Rofl. That gives me pictures of Ninja Jesus.

[jute]

Grazza said:

An atheist is simply somehow who lacks a belief in God. Atheism involves no claims. Having said that, you do find some very poor definitions of the term that suggest it does.

Agnosticism, on the other hand, does involve specific claims.

i've always understood atheism as belief that a god/s does not exist and agnosticism as just saying 'who knows?'. could you elaborate on this?

[Dingus Khan]

I'm pretty agnostic. I have had to listen to quite a few friends of mine discuss why they believe in god (i *do* live in the bible belt) and it keeps me pretty informed I'd say. Me believing in God is pretty impossible on my own, so I know that if all they say is true, then he'll reveal himself to me. Christianity is the only religion i truly care about anyhow, since it's the only one that goddamn threatens you for not believing in it.

[Grazza]

pregnant with worms said:

i've always understood atheism as belief that a god/s does not exist and agnosticism as just saying 'who knows?'. could you elaborate on this?

atheism: derivation is from Greek: a-theos. Prefix a- indicates without/lacking/absence/negation/removal. theos=god.
agnosticism: again from Greek: a-gnostos. gnostos=known/knowable.

I don't see the agnostic viewpoint as being useful or necessary. If you lack a belief in God, why not just leave it at that?

[EllipsusD]

Grazza said:
I don't see the agnostic viewpoint as being useful or necessary. If you lack a belief in God, why not just leave it at that?

To my knowledge, being agnostic does not mean that you don't believe in God. It simply means that you believe in a god in the general sense but don't know enough about that god to form any sort of religious basis. If you ask me, that is a very usefull viewpoint.

[Captain Red]

Jesus is pretty much Gandhi, 'cept Gandhi didn’t have a couple of thousand years for his word to be twisted out of context.