FSTDT Forums

Rubbish => Preaching and Worship => Topic started by: Jacob Harrison on October 06, 2018, 08:52:57 pm

Title: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 06, 2018, 08:52:57 pm
This shows an extra biblical source that mentions the 10 plagues in Egypt.

https://www.gotquestions.org/evidence-ten-plagues.html

Scientists also conclude that the plagues happened.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/7530678/Biblical-plagues-really-happened-say-scientists.html

And here is evidence of the Exodus from Egypt.

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/exodus/exodus-fact-or-fiction/
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Skybison on October 07, 2018, 12:58:53 am
Okay I haven't even read your links yet but how does that make Christianity true?  Judaism, Islam, Mormonism and other Abrahamic religions also believe these events took place.  I could just as easily quote this as proof of Samaritanism.

 
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: dpareja on October 07, 2018, 01:04:54 am
Okay I haven't even read your links yet but how does that make Christianity true?  Judaism, Islam, Mormonism and other Abrahamic religions also believe these events took place.  I could just as easily quote this as proof of Samaritanism.

And it wouldn't be "proof" that any of those are true, either.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 07, 2018, 03:51:52 am
Okay I haven't even read your links yet but how does that make Christianity true?  Judaism, Islam, Mormonism and other Abrahamic religions also believe these events took place.  I could just as easily quote this as proof of Samaritanism.

Because Jesus fulfilled the Bible prophecies about the messiah.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on October 07, 2018, 05:08:43 am
This is where Christianity is on real shaky ground, on the one hand one of their selling points is that Jesus is an ordinary bloke, a carpenter, a street mystic and a man who rubbed shoulders with ordinary folks, not just the well to do. Then they go and claim that he's actually a scruffily dressed king. To claim messiahood Matthew and Luke posit contradictory genealogies which diverge from older Jewish texts and use that as the basis to claim his kingship and relation to the line of King David.

The people who believe this claim are Christians who still give a toss about genealogy (like someone we know.) It's notable that Jews who give a toss about genealogy don't believe a word of it. The most likely scenario is that the 'begat' lists in Matthew and Luke were tossed together post facto to justify the Christian claim that Jesus has the requisite ancestry to be a messiah. 
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 07, 2018, 08:05:46 am
This is where Christianity is on real shaky ground, on the one hand one of their selling points is that Jesus is an ordinary bloke, a carpenter, a street mystic and a man who rubbed shoulders with ordinary folks, not just the well to do. Then they go and claim that he's actually a scruffily dressed king. To claim messiahood Matthew and Luke posit contradictory genealogies which diverge from older Jewish texts and use that as the basis to claim his kingship and relation to the line of King David.

The people who believe this claim are Christians who still give a toss about genealogy (like someone we know.) It's notable that Jews who give a toss about genealogy don't believe a word of it. The most likely scenario is that the 'begat' lists in Matthew and Luke were tossed together post facto to justify the Christian claim that Jesus has the requisite ancestry to be a messiah.

This site explains the supposed contradictions between the genealogies in Mathew and Luke. https://www.google.com/amp/www.equip.org/bible_answers/do-the-genealogies-of-jesus-in-matthew-and-luke-contradict-one-another/amp/. The Mathew genealogy is the genealogy of Joseph and the Luke genealogy is the genealogy of Mary. And how does it diverge from the Jewish texts?
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on October 08, 2018, 07:36:12 am
Quote
Finally, just as there are different emphases in the genealogies, so too there are different explanations for the dissimilarities between them. Matthew traces his genealogy through David’s son Solomon, while Luke traces his genealogy through David’s son Nathan. It may be that Matthew’s purpose is to provide the legal lineage from Solomon through Joseph, while Luke’s purpose is to provide the natural lineage from Nathan through Mary.

Mary? The patriarchal old Israelites insisted that Messiah's came from a paternal Davidic line.

Or it could be that the two different authors didn't talk to each other and produced different excuses  genealogies. Occam's razor m8.

Quote
It could also be that Matthew and Luke are both tracing Joseph’s genealogy— Matthew, the legal line, and Luke, the natural line. As such, the legal line diverges from the natural in that Levirate Law stipulated if a man died without an heir his genealogy could legally continue through his brother (Deuteronomy 25:5–6). Obviously, the fact that there are a number of ways to resolve dissimilarities rules out the notion that the genealogies are contradictory.

Yeah, but guys the main problem ain't the brother-it's the mother. I have little doubt that Jacob buys all that virgin birth hooey, problem is-if he does it doesn't matter who Jacob's parents were, that legal line he's talking about is a patrilineal line, through the fathers. If the kid had a mum but not a dad then it doesn't matter who his stepdad was "natural lines" not withstanding.

Let it not be left unsaid that the "number of ways" to resolve the dissimilarities rely on hypotheticals that aren't explicitly there in the text. If you say X. Y and Z you haven't resolved the dissimilarities you've merely hypothesized that they aren't there because of new information you've no evidence for existing.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 08, 2018, 08:20:49 am
Quote
Finally, just as there are different emphases in the genealogies, so too there are different explanations for the dissimilarities between them. Matthew traces his genealogy through David’s son Solomon, while Luke traces his genealogy through David’s son Nathan. It may be that Matthew’s purpose is to provide the legal lineage from Solomon through Joseph, while Luke’s purpose is to provide the natural lineage from Nathan through Mary.

Mary? The patriarchal old Israelites insisted that Messiah's came from a paternal Davidic line.

Or it could be that the two different authors didn't talk to each other and produced different excuses  genealogies. Occam's razor m8.

Quote
It could also be that Matthew and Luke are both tracing Joseph’s genealogy— Matthew, the legal line, and Luke, the natural line. As such, the legal line diverges from the natural in that Levirate Law stipulated if a man died without an heir his genealogy could legally continue through his brother (Deuteronomy 25:5–6). Obviously, the fact that there are a number of ways to resolve dissimilarities rules out the notion that the genealogies are contradictory.

Yeah, but guys the main problem ain't the brother-it's the mother. I have little doubt that Jacob buys all that virgin birth hooey, problem is-if he does it doesn't matter who Jacob's parents were, that legal line he's talking about is a patrilineal line, through the fathers. If the kid had a mum but not a dad then it doesn't matter who his stepdad was "natural lines" not withstanding.

Let it not be left unsaid that the "number of ways" to resolve the dissimilarities rely on hypotheticals that aren't explicitly there in the text. If you say X. Y and Z you haven't resolved the dissimilarities you've merely hypothesized that they aren't there because of new information you've no evidence for existing.

Quote
It should be noted that Luke's list is composed of males (with the exception of Mary).Therefore she was clearly a descendant of David and Abraham. Today Jewish descent has to be through the mother - something which those Jews who use this objection must find hard to answer? Gen.3:15 describes the Messiah as the seed of the woman; it is fitting, therefore, that Messiah's matrilineal genealogy should be provided, and that his Messianic descent (i.e. as the seed of Abraham and David) should be shown through his mother's line. It should be remembered too that the daughters of Zelophehad had inheritance rights and were allowed to trace their inheritance, showing that it is not an immutable Divine principle that inheritance cannot go through women (consider Num.26:33; 27:1-7; 36:2-11).

There are other examples of this. Jair's father was of the tribe of Judah (1 Chron.2:22); yet in Num.32:41 he is described as " the son of Manasseh" , showing that his mother must have been of the tribe of Manasseh. His descent was reckoned for some reason through his mother rather than his father. 1 Chron.2:34 records that Sheshan " had no sons, but daughters" . According to the Jewish objection that genealogy cannot be reckoned through the woman, Sheshan would have no subsequent genealogy. However, he is described in 1 Chron.2:31 as having a son, presumably from the fact that he gave his daughter in marriage to his Egyptian servant (1 Chron.2:34). Thus his seed was still reckoned through a woman. Hiram is described as " the son of a woman of the daughters of Dan" (2 Chron.2:14). Other examples of this could be given.

http://www.aletheiacollege.net/dbb/5-3-1jewish_objections_to_the_ancestry_of_jesus.htm
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 08, 2018, 04:18:34 pm
Isaiah 53 is irrefutable proof of Christianity because it was written centuries before Christ and is an accurate prophecy of Christ. The reason that most Jews are unfamiliar with it, is because it deliberately not read in the synagogue readings, because the sinister Rabbis are covering up that Jesus is the messiah and that Judaism is a false religion.

Quote
A prophecy of the passion of Christ.

[1] Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? [2] And he shall grow up as a tender plant before him, and as a root out of a thirsty ground: there is no beauty in him, nor comeliness: and we have seen him, and there was no sightliness, that we should be desirous of him: [3] Despised, and the most abject of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with infirmity: and his look was as it were hidden and despised, whereupon we esteemed him not. [4] Surely he hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows: and we have thought him as it were a leper, and as one struck by God and afflicted. [5] But he was wounded for our iniquities, he was bruised for our sins: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his bruises we are healed.

[6] All we like sheep have gone astray, every one hath turned aside into his own way: and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. [7] He was offered because it was his own will, and he opened not his mouth: he shall be led as a sheep to the slaughter, and shall be dumb as a lamb before his shearer, and he shall not open his mouth. [8] He was taken away from distress, and from judgment: who shall declare his generation? because he is cut off out of the land of the living: for the wickedness of my people have I struck him. [9] And he shall give the ungodly for his burial, and the rich for his death: because he hath done no iniquity, neither was there deceit in his mouth. [10] And the Lord was pleased to bruise him in infirmity: if he shall lay down his life for sin, he shall see a long-lived seed, and the will of the Lord shall be prosperous in his hand.

[11] Because his soul hath laboured, he shall see and be filled: by his knowledge shall this my just servant justify many, and he shall bear their iniquities. [12] Therefore will I distribute to him very many, and he shall divide the spoils of the strong, because he hath delivered his soul unto death, and was reputed with the wicked: and he hath borne the sins of many, and hath prayed for the transgressors.-Isaiah 53 Douay-Rheims Version
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: dpareja on October 08, 2018, 04:36:04 pm
Cool story, bro. (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2015/04/isaiah-53-another-failed-prophecy-claim/)
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 08, 2018, 05:58:15 pm
Cool story, bro. (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2015/04/isaiah-53-another-failed-prophecy-claim/)

Cool attempted refutation bro. Prepare for my ultimate refutation of your refutation.

Quote
Verse 52:15: “so will many nations be amazed at him and kings will shut their mouths because of him.”

The nations will be amazed and the kings speechless? Nope, not only was Jesus not internationally famous during his lifetime, history records nothing of his life outside the gospels. True, we have evidence of his followers from historians such as Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius, but it is curious that we have nothing about the works of Jesus himself from prolific contemporary authors such as Philo of Alexandria, Seneca, and Pliny the Elder. Apparently he wasn’t as famous as imagined prophecy would have him be.
But he later became famous when Christianity spread so the prophecy was fulfilled.

Quote
53:10: “he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.” This is a nice thought—Jesus endures great trials but then, like Job, he is rewarded with children, prosperity, and long life. As Proverbs says, “Grandchildren are the crown of old men.”

Unfortunately, this isn’t how the gospel story plays out.

This article from http://www.hadavar.org refutes that.

Quote
Regarding Jesus not fathering children, the entire argument centers around whether the term seed, “zerah” has a metaphorical use or whether it is limited strictly to a literal use in Scripture. If the term can rightfully be viewed in a metaphorical sense then the “seed” of the suffering individual in Isaiah 53:10Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) can be spiritual descendants or disciples rather than literal offspring. If the term cannot be viewed metaphorically then it is a reference to children born to the suffering individual.

Firstly, let’s consider the context of Isaiah 53:10Open in Logos Bible Software (if available). The key question to ask is, “How can a dead man who has been sacrificed as a guilt offering (vs. 10), see his literal children and prolong his days?” It is affirmed by scores of respected Jewish commentators that the suffering individual of Isaiah 53:10Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) actually dies in verses 8-10. (See: The Suffering Servant of Isaiah, Driver and Neubauer, pages lxx-ixxii) The only way this can happen is if the individual is resurrected. So, there is something more going on here than the normal. God is intervening with the miraculous. This immediately should alert us to the possibility that normal, natural course of events may be superseded. The literal offspring of the servant may not be the intended thought. The context supports a metaphorical meaning of the word zerah.

Secondly, let’s explore the range of meaning found in the word “zerah.”[1]

The word can mean sowing as repeatedly happens each agricultural season (e.g. Gen. 47:24Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)).
The word often means the actual seed that is planted in the ground. (e.g. Gen. 47:19Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)).
Zerah occasionally means “semen.” (e.g. Lev. 15:16Open in Logos Bible Software (if available))
The term often means offspring. (e.g. Gen. 4:25Open in Logos Bible Software (if available))
Finally, is used to identify groups and individuals that are united by a common quality. (e.g. Pr. 11:21Open in Logos Bible Software (if available))
Already a number of metaphorical uses have made their appearance. It is self-evident that usage number one, sowing, does not mean “literal descendants.”

Under usage number two we discover a figurative or metaphorical usage as well. The idolatry of Judah is likened to seed in Isaiah 17:11Open in Logos Bible Software (if available). In Psalm 126:6Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) the fortunes of Zion are likened to seed and sheaves (See also Ezk. 17:5Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)).

Another self-evident metaphorical usage is usage number three where seed means “semen” rather than literal descendants.

Usage number four is the usage the anti-missionary wants to emphasize. Zerah often means literal offspring, but it does not mean that exclusively. This is the fact that the anti-missionary is trying to obscure. One notable aspect of this usage is the fact that the word can refer to future generations[2] (e.g. Deuteronomy 28:46Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). To quote Dr. Michael L. Brown, from his book Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus (Vol. 3, page 84), “In the context of Isaiah 53:10Open in Logos Bible Software (if available), this would mean that the servant of the Lord would see future generations of his people serving the Lord.” This is a very apt description of the fulfillment of this verse in Jesus.

Finally, the fifth usage is highly metaphorical. One example is Proverbs 11:21Open in Logos Bible Software (if available). If you take Proverbs 11:21Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) as strictly meaning “literal descendants” that would mean that the literal descendants of a wicked person are doomed to punishment even if they live a Godly life. Why? Because they are not the children of a righteous man. You would be forced to interpret Proverbs 11:21Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) as teaching that your punishment or deliverance is decided by your forbears, no matter what your personal righteousness happens to be. Of course that is a ridiculous interpretation that is totally nullified by the lives of righteous individuals whose forbears were wicked. Godly King Hezekiah, the direct descendent of wicked King Ahaz comes to mind, as does Ezekiel 18:20Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) (Tanakh),

Quote
53:11: “my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.” So Jesus, a person of the Trinity and equal to God the Father, is now God’s servant?

The Jesus part of the trinity of God is a servant of the Father part of the trinity.

Quote
And here’s the big one: “Therefore I will give him a portion among the great [or many] and he will divide the spoils with the strong [or numerous]” (53:12). Like a warrior who gets a share of the spoils of the battle, the servant will be richly rewarded. This servant is just one among many who gets a portion.

Wait a minute—Jesus has peers? He’s one among equals, just “one of the great”? What kind of nonsense is this? Again, this bears no resemblance to the Jesus of the gospels.

http://www.bible-studys.org explains it.

Quote
“Portion with the great … divide the spoil”: The Servant’s reward for His work will be to enjoy the “booty of His spiritual victories during His millennial reign.

“Numbered with the transgressors”: The Servant assumes a role among sinful human beings, fulfilled by Jesus when He was crucified between two criminals (Luke 22:37).

“Made intercession for the transgressors”: This speaks of the office of intercessory High-Priest, which began on the cross (Luke 23:34), and continues in heaven (Heb. 7:25; 9:24).

So that Patheos article has been refuted.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on October 09, 2018, 01:00:41 am
Yeah prophecies regarding lineages are just the same as lineage prerequisites for messiahood, extremely flexible depending on the circumstances.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 09, 2018, 07:33:48 am
Yeah prophecies regarding lineages are just the same as lineage prerequisites for messiahood, extremely flexible depending on the circumstances.

But the prophecies about Christ are very specific.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on October 09, 2018, 04:52:06 pm
Yeah prophecies regarding lineages are just the same as lineage prerequisites for messiahood, extremely flexible depending on the circumstances.

But the prophecies about Christ are very specific.
Christ, Χριστός, Christós, meaning "the anointed one," Messiah in other words yeah?

So needs to be descended from King David, specifically from a paternal lineage?

Virgin birth, no dad-no paternal lineage. NOPE. Or you can just ditch the whole virgin birth thingy and open a brand new can of worms.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 09, 2018, 05:44:53 pm
Yeah prophecies regarding lineages are just the same as lineage prerequisites for messiahood, extremely flexible depending on the circumstances.

But the prophecies about Christ are very specific.
Christ, Χριστός, Christós, meaning "the anointed one," Messiah in other words yeah?

So needs to be descended from King David, specifically from a paternal lineage?

Virgin birth, no dad-no paternal lineage. NOPE. Or you can just ditch the whole virgin birth thingy and open a brand new can of worms.

Ugh, I already explained that in an earlier comment. Did you not read the comment? It says that women can inherit so the messiah does not have to follow an exclusively paternal lineage.

Quote
It should be noted that Luke's list is composed of males (with the exception of Mary).Therefore she was clearly a descendant of David and Abraham. Today Jewish descent has to be through the mother - something which those Jews who use this objection must find hard to answer? Gen.3:15 describes the Messiah as the seed of the woman; it is fitting, therefore, that Messiah's matrilineal genealogy should be provided, and that his Messianic descent (i.e. as the seed of Abraham and David) should be shown through his mother's line. It should be remembered too that the daughters of Zelophehad had inheritance rights and were allowed to trace their inheritance, showing that it is not an immutable Divine principle that inheritance cannot go through women (consider Num.26:33; 27:1-7; 36:2-11).

There are other examples of this. Jair's father was of the tribe of Judah (1 Chron.2:22); yet in Num.32:41 he is described as " the son of Manasseh" , showing that his mother must have been of the tribe of Manasseh. His descent was reckoned for some reason through his mother rather than his father. 1 Chron.2:34 records that Sheshan " had no sons, but daughters" . According to the Jewish objection that genealogy cannot be reckoned through the woman, Sheshan would have no subsequent genealogy. However, he is described in 1 Chron.2:31 as having a son, presumably from the fact that he gave his daughter in marriage to his Egyptian servant (1 Chron.2:34). Thus his seed was still reckoned through a woman. Hiram is described as " the son of a woman of the daughters of Dan" (2 Chron.2:14). Other examples of this could be given.

Nowhere in the bible does it say that the messiah has to be of exclusively paternal lineage.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on October 10, 2018, 09:03:33 am
Nowhere in the bible does it say that the messiah has to be of exclusively paternal lineage.

Quote
2 Samuel 7:12-16
And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

Quote
Psalm 89:29-36
His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven. If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgements;If they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments; Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless my loving kindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me

Quote
1 Chronicles 17:11 King James Version (KJV)
11 And it shall come to pass, when thy days be expired that thou must go to be with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons; and I will establish his kingdom.

Quote
1 Chronicles 22:10 King James Version (KJV)
10 He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever

Quote
2 Chronicles 7:18 King James Version (KJV)
18 Then will I stablish the throne of thy kingdom, according as I have covenanted with David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man to be ruler in Israel.

That's a sausage fest dude, more swinging dicks than a sauna in the seventies.

And that's not the end of it, Jesus fails Messiahood on a number of counts.  (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Messiah#Jesus_was_an_impostor)

Quote
Specifically, the Hebrew Scriptures (any translation will do) state that the REAL Messiah of the Jews will be recognized as the true one by fulfilling the following prophecies:

The Messiah will be totally human;

The Messiah will be an observant Jew,from the Tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10; Numbers 24:17; Deuteronomy 17:15);

The Messiah will be a direct male descendant of Davidic bloodline (2 Samuel 7:12-16; Jeremiah 39:17; Psalm 89:29-38; 1 Chronicles 17:11, 1 Chronicles 22:10, 2 Chronicles 7:18);

The Messiah will gather all the Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 11:11-12, 27:12-13, 43:5-6; Jeremiah 23:8, Jeremiah 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5);

The Messiah will restore the Jewish People to full observance of the Torah (Isaiah 2:2-4, Isaiah 11:10, Isaiah 42:1; Jeremiah 33:15);

The Messiah will build the Third Temple in Jerusalem (Micah 4:1; Jeremiah 33:18; Ezekiel 37:26-28);
THEN the Messianic Era shall begin,[5] and the Messiah will be recognized and enthroned as the King of Israel by the Jewish People in the Holy Land;

The Messiah will bring peace to the world and the God of the Jews will be recognized as the only one, true God (Isaiah 2:3-4, Isaiah 11:6; Micah 4:2-3; Zechariah 14:9); he will end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease.[5] As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore" (Isaiah 2:4);

The Messiah will spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel (Isaiah 11:9, Isaiah 40:5; Zephaniah 3:9-13), which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world – on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

Christianity is predicated on Jesus being part divine, therefore not totally human. Scratch one. Two, bloody doubtful, three nope-see "sausage fest." Four, never happened. Five, specifically Jesus led Jewish people away from full observance of the Torah because it's a new religion. Six, that temple-it's a mosque. Seven, unless the crown of thorns counts-spoilers it doesn't for the same reason that "crown of gold" doesn't donate kingship in GoTR. Eight, just lol. Nine, Christianity couldn't even stay united let alone the rest of the bloody world and it's divisions predate the Protestant reformation. Ten, courtesy of your favourite film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plZRe1kPWZw
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 10, 2018, 11:52:38 am
Nowhere in the bible does it say that the messiah has to be of exclusively paternal lineage.

Quote
2 Samuel 7:12-16
And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

Quote
Psalm 89:29-36
His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven. If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgements;If they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments; Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless my loving kindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me

Quote
1 Chronicles 17:11 King James Version (KJV)
11 And it shall come to pass, when thy days be expired that thou must go to be with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons; and I will establish his kingdom.

Quote
1 Chronicles 22:10 King James Version (KJV)
10 He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever

Quote
2 Chronicles 7:18 King James Version (KJV)
18 Then will I stablish the throne of thy kingdom, according as I have covenanted with David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man to be ruler in Israel.

That's a sausage fest dude, more swinging dicks than a sauna in the seventies.

And that's not the end of it, Jesus fails Messiahood on a number of counts.  (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Messiah#Jesus_was_an_impostor)

Quote
Specifically, the Hebrew Scriptures (any translation will do) state that the REAL Messiah of the Jews will be recognized as the true one by fulfilling the following prophecies:

The Messiah will be totally human;

The Messiah will be an observant Jew,from the Tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10; Numbers 24:17; Deuteronomy 17:15);

The Messiah will be a direct male descendant of Davidic bloodline (2 Samuel 7:12-16; Jeremiah 39:17; Psalm 89:29-38; 1 Chronicles 17:11, 1 Chronicles 22:10, 2 Chronicles 7:18);

The Messiah will gather all the Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 11:11-12, 27:12-13, 43:5-6; Jeremiah 23:8, Jeremiah 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5);

The Messiah will restore the Jewish People to full observance of the Torah (Isaiah 2:2-4, Isaiah 11:10, Isaiah 42:1; Jeremiah 33:15);

The Messiah will build the Third Temple in Jerusalem (Micah 4:1; Jeremiah 33:18; Ezekiel 37:26-28);
THEN the Messianic Era shall begin,[5] and the Messiah will be recognized and enthroned as the King of Israel by the Jewish People in the Holy Land;

The Messiah will bring peace to the world and the God of the Jews will be recognized as the only one, true God (Isaiah 2:3-4, Isaiah 11:6; Micah 4:2-3; Zechariah 14:9); he will end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease.[5] As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore" (Isaiah 2:4);

The Messiah will spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel (Isaiah 11:9, Isaiah 40:5; Zephaniah 3:9-13), which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world – on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

Christianity is predicated on Jesus being part divine, therefore not totally human. Scratch one. Two, bloody doubtful, three nope-see "sausage fest." Four, never happened. Five, specifically Jesus led Jewish people away from full observance of the Torah because it's a new religion. Six, that temple-it's a mosque. Seven, unless the crown of thorns counts-spoilers it doesn't for the same reason that "crown of gold" doesn't donate kingship in GoTR. Eight, just lol. Nine, Christianity couldn't even stay united let alone the rest of the bloody world and it's divisions predate the Protestant reformation. Ten, courtesy of your favourite film.


2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Chronicles is referring to David's son Solomon succeeding him after he dies. And what Psalm 89 means by his seed is any descendant of him. It doesn't say "his male seed," it says "his seed." The word "His" is referring to David, not male descendants.

Now I will address the points of rational wiki

1. They don't have a scriptural citation for the 1st one.
2. Jesus was an observant Jew from the tribe of Judah
3. I addressed this earlier in this comment.
5. Jesus fulfilled the law of the Torah with his new covenant. "Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. [18] For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled. [19] He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."-Mathew 5:17-19 Douay-Rheims version
4, 6, 7, 8, and 9. These unfulfilled prophecies will be fulfilled during Christ's second coming.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: dpareja on October 10, 2018, 02:26:30 pm
4, 6-9. How convenient.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on October 10, 2018, 05:04:05 pm
Quote
...be with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons;

Fathers, sons, dudes everywhere. Clearly the OT was all about the cock, we always knew it was but now we're getting specific.


Now I will address the points of rational wiki

1. They don't have a scriptural citation for the 1st one.
2. Jesus was an observant Jew from the tribe of Judah
3. I addressed this earlier in this comment.
5. Jesus fulfilled the law of the Torah with his new covenant. "Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. [18] For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled. [19] He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."-Mathew 5:17-19 Douay-Rheims version
4, 6, 7, 8, and 9. These unfulfilled prophecies will be fulfilled during Christ's second coming.

Number one, Christians believe Jesus was at least semi divine but the OT begs to differ. "Numbers 23:19 King James Version (KJV)
19 God is not a man"
Jesus said nobody comes to the father except through me, that's not classic Judaism son! Jesus isn't coming back, you lot have been predicting his second coming for the last two thousand years plus, you've always been wrong!
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 10, 2018, 05:57:43 pm
Quote
...be with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons;

Fathers, sons, dudes everywhere. Clearly the OT was all about the cock, we always knew it was but now we're getting specific.
And, “thy sons” is referring to David’s successors as Kings of Israel, not the messiah.  Yes the OT emphasizes Fathers and Sons because it was the fathers that determined tribal status and it was mainly sons who inherited, but that does not prove that the messiah has to be a paternal descendant, since daughters could inherit in the absence of sons.
Quote
Number one, Christians believe Jesus was at least semi divine but the OT begs to differ. "Numbers 23:19 King James Version (KJV)
19 God is not a man"
Jesus said nobody comes to the father except through me, that's not classic Judaism son! Jesus isn't coming back, you lot have been predicting his second coming for the last two thousand years plus, you've always been wrong!

1. Numbers was written before Jesus incarnated himself in a human body.

2. It is unknown when Jesus will return, so it taking 2000 years is not proof that he isn’t coming back.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: dpareja on October 10, 2018, 06:59:23 pm
2. How very convenient.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Art Vandelay on October 10, 2018, 07:03:27 pm
He's not coming back for the same reason Ragnarok isn't going to happen. Because it's all make believe, you fucking gullible little mouth breather.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Skybison on October 11, 2018, 01:59:04 am
How do we know Jesus is going to do that stuff when he comes back?  You only say he will because he's the messiah, but the only messiah predictions he fulfills are the easy ones that thousands, if not tens of thousands of people fulfill, (namely being a Jewish gut descended from David).  If he hasn't done any of the hard stuff yet why should I assume he will?

Also note that the Jewish predictions of the messiah don't say anything about dying and coming back to life, Jesus's big claim to fame.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on October 11, 2018, 02:09:12 am
1. Numbers was written before Jesus incarnated himself in a human body.

We get take backsies with the bible now? Hello even bigger can of worms, for you!

2. It is unknown when Jesus will return, so it taking 2000 years is not proof that he isn’t coming back.

Yeah, yeah he's always coming soon. It's not "proof" but it doesn't add credibility to your claim that it'll ever happen given that we've had two grand plus eighteen years of Xtian's breathlessly predicting it'll be "soon."

And Jacob, the Messiah is supposed to be a king-you of all people should know how this stuff works, a king in a culture where kingship was transferred through a paternal bloodline. You're real keen on boring genealogy when it comes to demented plots to kidnap hapless Aussies and force them to fap for mother England but seem to lose interest when those same genealogical rules are applied to whoever the fuck the Messiah is supposed to be!
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 11, 2018, 08:18:51 am
How do we know Jesus is going to do that stuff when he comes back?  You only say he will because he's the messiah, but the only messiah predictions he fulfills are the easy ones that thousands, if not tens of thousands of people fulfill, (namely being a Jewish gut descended from David).  If he hasn't done any of the hard stuff yet why should I assume he will?

Also note that the Jewish predictions of the messiah don't say anything about dying and coming back to life, Jesus's big claim to fame.

As I said before, Isaiah 53 predicts Jesus dying for our sins. And there were more prophecies Jesus fulfilled as shown in the New Testament than merely being a Jew descended from David.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 11, 2018, 08:21:36 am
1. Numbers was written before Jesus incarnated himself in a human body.

We get take backsies with the bible now? Hello even bigger can of worms, for you!

2. It is unknown when Jesus will return, so it taking 2000 years is not proof that he isn’t coming back.

Yeah, yeah he's always coming soon. It's not "proof" but it doesn't add credibility to your claim that it'll ever happen given that we've had two grand plus eighteen years of Xtian's breathlessly predicting it'll be "soon."

And Jacob, the Messiah is supposed to be a king-you of all people should know how this stuff works, a king in a culture where kingship was transferred through a paternal bloodline. You're real keen on boring genealogy when it comes to demented plots to kidnap hapless Aussies and force them to fap for mother England but seem to lose interest when those same genealogical rules are applied to whoever the fuck the Messiah is supposed to be!

I said and proved before that in Ancient Israel, women could inherit in the absence of sons. Mary didn’t have any brothers.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on October 11, 2018, 10:05:54 am
1. Numbers was written before Jesus incarnated himself in a human body.

We get take backsies with the bible now? Hello even bigger can of worms, for you!

2. It is unknown when Jesus will return, so it taking 2000 years is not proof that he isn’t coming back.

Yeah, yeah he's always coming soon. It's not "proof" but it doesn't add credibility to your claim that it'll ever happen given that we've had two grand plus eighteen years of Xtian's breathlessly predicting it'll be "soon."

And Jacob, the Messiah is supposed to be a king-you of all people should know how this stuff works, a king in a culture where kingship was transferred through a paternal bloodline. You're real keen on boring genealogy when it comes to demented plots to kidnap hapless Aussies and force them to fap for mother England but seem to lose interest when those same genealogical rules are applied to whoever the fuck the Messiah is supposed to be!

I said and proved before that in Ancient Israel, women could inherit in the absence of sons. Mary didn’t have any brothers.
You struggle with the definition of this word "proof" don't you?

It's not "can inherit at all" it's "can inherit the Davidic kingship."
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 11, 2018, 10:56:43 am
1. Numbers was written before Jesus incarnated himself in a human body.

We get take backsies with the bible now? Hello even bigger can of worms, for you!

2. It is unknown when Jesus will return, so it taking 2000 years is not proof that he isn’t coming back.

Yeah, yeah he's always coming soon. It's not "proof" but it doesn't add credibility to your claim that it'll ever happen given that we've had two grand plus eighteen years of Xtian's breathlessly predicting it'll be "soon."

And Jacob, the Messiah is supposed to be a king-you of all people should know how this stuff works, a king in a culture where kingship was transferred through a paternal bloodline. You're real keen on boring genealogy when it comes to demented plots to kidnap hapless Aussies and force them to fap for mother England but seem to lose interest when those same genealogical rules are applied to whoever the fuck the Messiah is supposed to be!

I said and proved before that in Ancient Israel, women could inherit in the absence of sons. Mary didn’t have any brothers.
You struggle with the definition of this word "proof" don't you?

It's not "can inherit at all" it's "can inherit the Davidic kingship."

Well the Bible never says that nobody can inherit the throne through maternal descent so therefore since women can inherit, they can inherit the throne since it does not say otherwise.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: dpareja on October 14, 2018, 12:16:47 am
Quote
Finally, just as there are different emphases in the genealogies, so too there are different explanations for the dissimilarities between them. Matthew traces his genealogy through David’s son Solomon, while Luke traces his genealogy through David’s son Nathan. It may be that Matthew’s purpose is to provide the legal lineage from Solomon through Joseph, while Luke’s purpose is to provide the natural lineage from Nathan through Mary.

Mary? The patriarchal old Israelites insisted that Messiah's came from a paternal Davidic line.

Or it could be that the two different authors didn't talk to each other and produced different excuses  genealogies. Occam's razor m8.

Quote
It could also be that Matthew and Luke are both tracing Joseph’s genealogy— Matthew, the legal line, and Luke, the natural line. As such, the legal line diverges from the natural in that Levirate Law stipulated if a man died without an heir his genealogy could legally continue through his brother (Deuteronomy 25:5–6). Obviously, the fact that there are a number of ways to resolve dissimilarities rules out the notion that the genealogies are contradictory.

Yeah, but guys the main problem ain't the brother-it's the mother. I have little doubt that Jacob buys all that virgin birth hooey, problem is-if he does it doesn't matter who Jacob's parents were, that legal line he's talking about is a patrilineal line, through the fathers. If the kid had a mum but not a dad then it doesn't matter who his stepdad was "natural lines" not withstanding.

Let it not be left unsaid that the "number of ways" to resolve the dissimilarities rely on hypotheticals that aren't explicitly there in the text. If you say X. Y and Z you haven't resolved the dissimilarities you've merely hypothesized that they aren't there because of new information you've no evidence for existing.

Quote
It should be noted that Luke's list is composed of males (with the exception of Mary).Therefore she was clearly a descendant of David and Abraham. Today Jewish descent has to be through the mother - something which those Jews who use this objection must find hard to answer? Gen.3:15 describes the Messiah as the seed of the woman; it is fitting, therefore, that Messiah's matrilineal genealogy should be provided, and that his Messianic descent (i.e. as the seed of Abraham and David) should be shown through his mother's line. It should be remembered too that the daughters of Zelophehad had inheritance rights and were allowed to trace their inheritance, showing that it is not an immutable Divine principle that inheritance cannot go through women (consider Num.26:33; 27:1-7; 36:2-11).

There are other examples of this. Jair's father was of the tribe of Judah (1 Chron.2:22); yet in Num.32:41 he is described as " the son of Manasseh" , showing that his mother must have been of the tribe of Manasseh. His descent was reckoned for some reason through his mother rather than his father. 1 Chron.2:34 records that Sheshan " had no sons, but daughters" . According to the Jewish objection that genealogy cannot be reckoned through the woman, Sheshan would have no subsequent genealogy. However, he is described in 1 Chron.2:31 as having a son, presumably from the fact that he gave his daughter in marriage to his Egyptian servant (1 Chron.2:34). Thus his seed was still reckoned through a woman. Hiram is described as " the son of a woman of the daughters of Dan" (2 Chron.2:14). Other examples of this could be given.

http://www.aletheiacollege.net/dbb/5-3-1jewish_objections_to_the_ancestry_of_jesus.htm

Y'know, it's really convenient that Jewish tradition is relevant when it "explains" a contradiction in the Bible but irrelevant when it proves that the Bible orders abortion in certain cases.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 14, 2018, 11:20:21 am
Quote
Finally, just as there are different emphases in the genealogies, so too there are different explanations for the dissimilarities between them. Matthew traces his genealogy through David’s son Solomon, while Luke traces his genealogy through David’s son Nathan. It may be that Matthew’s purpose is to provide the legal lineage from Solomon through Joseph, while Luke’s purpose is to provide the natural lineage from Nathan through Mary.

Mary? The patriarchal old Israelites insisted that Messiah's came from a paternal Davidic line.

Or it could be that the two different authors didn't talk to each other and produced different excuses  genealogies. Occam's razor m8.

Quote
It could also be that Matthew and Luke are both tracing Joseph’s genealogy— Matthew, the legal line, and Luke, the natural line. As such, the legal line diverges from the natural in that Levirate Law stipulated if a man died without an heir his genealogy could legally continue through his brother (Deuteronomy 25:5–6). Obviously, the fact that there are a number of ways to resolve dissimilarities rules out the notion that the genealogies are contradictory.

Yeah, but guys the main problem ain't the brother-it's the mother. I have little doubt that Jacob buys all that virgin birth hooey, problem is-if he does it doesn't matter who Jacob's parents were, that legal line he's talking about is a patrilineal line, through the fathers. If the kid had a mum but not a dad then it doesn't matter who his stepdad was "natural lines" not withstanding.

Let it not be left unsaid that the "number of ways" to resolve the dissimilarities rely on hypotheticals that aren't explicitly there in the text. If you say X. Y and Z you haven't resolved the dissimilarities you've merely hypothesized that they aren't there because of new information you've no evidence for existing.

Quote
It should be noted that Luke's list is composed of males (with the exception of Mary).Therefore she was clearly a descendant of David and Abraham. Today Jewish descent has to be through the mother - something which those Jews who use this objection must find hard to answer? Gen.3:15 describes the Messiah as the seed of the woman; it is fitting, therefore, that Messiah's matrilineal genealogy should be provided, and that his Messianic descent (i.e. as the seed of Abraham and David) should be shown through his mother's line. It should be remembered too that the daughters of Zelophehad had inheritance rights and were allowed to trace their inheritance, showing that it is not an immutable Divine principle that inheritance cannot go through women (consider Num.26:33; 27:1-7; 36:2-11).

There are other examples of this. Jair's father was of the tribe of Judah (1 Chron.2:22); yet in Num.32:41 he is described as " the son of Manasseh" , showing that his mother must have been of the tribe of Manasseh. His descent was reckoned for some reason through his mother rather than his father. 1 Chron.2:34 records that Sheshan " had no sons, but daughters" . According to the Jewish objection that genealogy cannot be reckoned through the woman, Sheshan would have no subsequent genealogy. However, he is described in 1 Chron.2:31 as having a son, presumably from the fact that he gave his daughter in marriage to his Egyptian servant (1 Chron.2:34). Thus his seed was still reckoned through a woman. Hiram is described as " the son of a woman of the daughters of Dan" (2 Chron.2:14). Other examples of this could be given.

http://www.aletheiacollege.net/dbb/5-3-1jewish_objections_to_the_ancestry_of_jesus.htm

Y'know, it's really convenient that Jewish tradition is relevant when it "explains" a contradiction in the Bible but irrelevant when it proves that the Bible orders abortion in certain cases.

This article debunks your claim that the bible orders abortion. https://www.catholic.com/qa/does-numbers-5-mean-abortion-is-ok
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 14, 2018, 11:25:03 am
Isaiah 7:14 is irrefutable proof of Christianity.

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel. [15]" Isaiah 7:14-15 Douay-Rheims Version
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: KingOfRhye on October 14, 2018, 11:38:26 am
But if you look at the preceding verses, it's clearly talking to Ahaz.  He's the "you" who is going to be given a sign.  How could Jesus's birth be a sign TO HIM?
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 14, 2018, 11:47:12 am
But if you look at the preceding verses, it's clearly talking to Ahaz.  He's the "you" who is going to be given a sign.  How could Jesus's birth be a sign TO HIM?

Because it was a sign about the House of David since Jesus is a descendant of David.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on October 14, 2018, 04:51:54 pm
Quote
Finally, just as there are different emphases in the genealogies, so too there are different explanations for the dissimilarities between them. Matthew traces his genealogy through David’s son Solomon, while Luke traces his genealogy through David’s son Nathan. It may be that Matthew’s purpose is to provide the legal lineage from Solomon through Joseph, while Luke’s purpose is to provide the natural lineage from Nathan through Mary.

Mary? The patriarchal old Israelites insisted that Messiah's came from a paternal Davidic line.

Or it could be that the two different authors didn't talk to each other and produced different excuses  genealogies. Occam's razor m8.

Quote
It could also be that Matthew and Luke are both tracing Joseph’s genealogy— Matthew, the legal line, and Luke, the natural line. As such, the legal line diverges from the natural in that Levirate Law stipulated if a man died without an heir his genealogy could legally continue through his brother (Deuteronomy 25:5–6). Obviously, the fact that there are a number of ways to resolve dissimilarities rules out the notion that the genealogies are contradictory.

Yeah, but guys the main problem ain't the brother-it's the mother. I have little doubt that Jacob buys all that virgin birth hooey, problem is-if he does it doesn't matter who Jacob's parents were, that legal line he's talking about is a patrilineal line, through the fathers. If the kid had a mum but not a dad then it doesn't matter who his stepdad was "natural lines" not withstanding.

Let it not be left unsaid that the "number of ways" to resolve the dissimilarities rely on hypotheticals that aren't explicitly there in the text. If you say X. Y and Z you haven't resolved the dissimilarities you've merely hypothesized that they aren't there because of new information you've no evidence for existing.

Quote
It should be noted that Luke's list is composed of males (with the exception of Mary).Therefore she was clearly a descendant of David and Abraham. Today Jewish descent has to be through the mother - something which those Jews who use this objection must find hard to answer? Gen.3:15 describes the Messiah as the seed of the woman; it is fitting, therefore, that Messiah's matrilineal genealogy should be provided, and that his Messianic descent (i.e. as the seed of Abraham and David) should be shown through his mother's line. It should be remembered too that the daughters of Zelophehad had inheritance rights and were allowed to trace their inheritance, showing that it is not an immutable Divine principle that inheritance cannot go through women (consider Num.26:33; 27:1-7; 36:2-11).

There are other examples of this. Jair's father was of the tribe of Judah (1 Chron.2:22); yet in Num.32:41 he is described as " the son of Manasseh" , showing that his mother must have been of the tribe of Manasseh. His descent was reckoned for some reason through his mother rather than his father. 1 Chron.2:34 records that Sheshan " had no sons, but daughters" . According to the Jewish objection that genealogy cannot be reckoned through the woman, Sheshan would have no subsequent genealogy. However, he is described in 1 Chron.2:31 as having a son, presumably from the fact that he gave his daughter in marriage to his Egyptian servant (1 Chron.2:34). Thus his seed was still reckoned through a woman. Hiram is described as " the son of a woman of the daughters of Dan" (2 Chron.2:14). Other examples of this could be given.

http://www.aletheiacollege.net/dbb/5-3-1jewish_objections_to_the_ancestry_of_jesus.htm

Y'know, it's really convenient that Jewish tradition is relevant when it "explains" a contradiction in the Bible but irrelevant when it proves that the Bible orders abortion in certain cases.

This article debunks your claim that the bible orders abortion. https://www.catholic.com/qa/does-numbers-5-mean-abortion-is-ok
Your understanding of "debunked" is on the same level as your understanding of "proof" and "truth," cloud cuckoo land!

Quote
As strange as this matter is in the Old Testament, it also has no real attestation from the biblical period. It's never mentioned again in the Bible, and it's mentioned by only a few historical figures and writings—but always as something that they have heard about, never about an actual case they witnessed. 

Pish, tosh and bollocks. (https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html)

Quote
What the Bible says about Abortion

Abortion is not murder. A fetus is not considered a human life.

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23

The Bible places no value on fetuses or infants less than one month old.

And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. -- Leviticus 27:6

Fetuses and infants less than one month old are not considered persons.

Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. -- Numbers 3:15-16

God sometimes approves of killing fetuses.

And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. -- Numbers 31:15-17
(Some of the non-virgin women must have been pregnant. They would have been killed along with their unborn fetuses.)
Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. -- Hosea 9:14
Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. -- Hosea 9:16
Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. -- Hosea 13:16

God sometimes kills newborn babies to punish their parents.

Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. -- 2 Samuel 12:14

God sometimes causes abortions by cursing unfaithful wives.

The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28

God's law sometimes requires the execution (by burning to death) of pregnant women.

Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. -- Genesis 38:24
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 14, 2018, 06:07:16 pm
Quote
Finally, just as there are different emphases in the genealogies, so too there are different explanations for the dissimilarities between them. Matthew traces his genealogy through David’s son Solomon, while Luke traces his genealogy through David’s son Nathan. It may be that Matthew’s purpose is to provide the legal lineage from Solomon through Joseph, while Luke’s purpose is to provide the natural lineage from Nathan through Mary.

Mary? The patriarchal old Israelites insisted that Messiah's came from a paternal Davidic line.

Or it could be that the two different authors didn't talk to each other and produced different excuses  genealogies. Occam's razor m8.

Quote
It could also be that Matthew and Luke are both tracing Joseph’s genealogy— Matthew, the legal line, and Luke, the natural line. As such, the legal line diverges from the natural in that Levirate Law stipulated if a man died without an heir his genealogy could legally continue through his brother (Deuteronomy 25:5–6). Obviously, the fact that there are a number of ways to resolve dissimilarities rules out the notion that the genealogies are contradictory.

Yeah, but guys the main problem ain't the brother-it's the mother. I have little doubt that Jacob buys all that virgin birth hooey, problem is-if he does it doesn't matter who Jacob's parents were, that legal line he's talking about is a patrilineal line, through the fathers. If the kid had a mum but not a dad then it doesn't matter who his stepdad was "natural lines" not withstanding.

Let it not be left unsaid that the "number of ways" to resolve the dissimilarities rely on hypotheticals that aren't explicitly there in the text. If you say X. Y and Z you haven't resolved the dissimilarities you've merely hypothesized that they aren't there because of new information you've no evidence for existing.

Quote
It should be noted that Luke's list is composed of males (with the exception of Mary).Therefore she was clearly a descendant of David and Abraham. Today Jewish descent has to be through the mother - something which those Jews who use this objection must find hard to answer? Gen.3:15 describes the Messiah as the seed of the woman; it is fitting, therefore, that Messiah's matrilineal genealogy should be provided, and that his Messianic descent (i.e. as the seed of Abraham and David) should be shown through his mother's line. It should be remembered too that the daughters of Zelophehad had inheritance rights and were allowed to trace their inheritance, showing that it is not an immutable Divine principle that inheritance cannot go through women (consider Num.26:33; 27:1-7; 36:2-11).

There are other examples of this. Jair's father was of the tribe of Judah (1 Chron.2:22); yet in Num.32:41 he is described as " the son of Manasseh" , showing that his mother must have been of the tribe of Manasseh. His descent was reckoned for some reason through his mother rather than his father. 1 Chron.2:34 records that Sheshan " had no sons, but daughters" . According to the Jewish objection that genealogy cannot be reckoned through the woman, Sheshan would have no subsequent genealogy. However, he is described in 1 Chron.2:31 as having a son, presumably from the fact that he gave his daughter in marriage to his Egyptian servant (1 Chron.2:34). Thus his seed was still reckoned through a woman. Hiram is described as " the son of a woman of the daughters of Dan" (2 Chron.2:14). Other examples of this could be given.

http://www.aletheiacollege.net/dbb/5-3-1jewish_objections_to_the_ancestry_of_jesus.htm

Y'know, it's really convenient that Jewish tradition is relevant when it "explains" a contradiction in the Bible but irrelevant when it proves that the Bible orders abortion in certain cases.

This article debunks your claim that the bible orders abortion. https://www.catholic.com/qa/does-numbers-5-mean-abortion-is-ok
Your understanding of "debunked" is on the same level as your understanding of "proof" and "truth," cloud cuckoo land!

Quote
As strange as this matter is in the Old Testament, it also has no real attestation from the biblical period. It's never mentioned again in the Bible, and it's mentioned by only a few historical figures and writings—but always as something that they have heard about, never about an actual case they witnessed. 

Pish, tosh and bollocks. (https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html)

Quote
What the Bible says about Abortion

Abortion is not murder. A fetus is not considered a human life.

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23
Fruit departing from her is referring to her giving a premature birth, which is in other bible translations. In fact “life for life” means if there is harm to the mother or the baby.
Quote
The Bible places no value on fetuses or infants less than one month old.

And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. -- Leviticus 27:6

Fetuses and infants less than one month old are not considered persons.

Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. -- Numbers 3:15-16
https://wels.net/faq/bible-passages-used-to-support-abortion/
Quote
God sometimes approves of killing fetuses.

And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. -- Numbers 31:15-17
(Some of the non-virgin women must have been pregnant. They would have been killed along with their unborn fetuses.)
Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. -- Hosea 9:14
Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. -- Hosea 9:16
Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. -- Hosea 13:16
Your taking those verses out of context. In those situations God ordered for everyone to be killed including newborn babies but that does not mean that it is ok to murder newborn babies in other situations. Same thing applies for fetuses.
Quote
God sometimes kills newborn babies to punish their parents.

Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. -- 2 Samuel 12:14
In that specific situation, it was GOD killing the baby for a specific reason which was to punish David and Bathsheba for their sin. That does not mean that he allows human mothers to kill their babies. Abortion is a human act not Gods punishment for sin.
Quote
God sometimes causes abortions by cursing unfaithful wives.

The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28
Already addressed this. https://www.catholic.com/qa/does-numbers-5-mean-abortion-is-ok
Quote
God's law sometimes requires the execution (by burning to death) of pregnant women.

Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. -- Genesis 38:24
It was Judah who ordered that to happen, not God.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on October 15, 2018, 12:02:32 am
Like that makes a difference, you just made clear God's the abortionist in chief but it's ok because reasons, reasons including "collateral damage of massacres, no biggie."
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Art Vandelay on October 15, 2018, 12:06:52 am
Like that makes a difference, you just made clear God's the abortionist in chief but it's ok because reasons, reasons including "collateral damage of massacres, no biggie."
Not to mention, unless God's not actually all powerful, "collateral damage" is only a thing because he chooses it to be a thing.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 15, 2018, 11:45:35 am
Like that makes a difference, you just made clear God's the abortionist in chief but it's ok because reasons, reasons including "collateral damage of massacres, no biggie."
Not to mention, unless God's not actually all powerful, "collateral damage" is only a thing because he chooses it to be a thing.

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/why-did-god-command-children-israel-kill-every-man-woman-and-child-promised-land/
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Art Vandelay on October 15, 2018, 12:05:38 pm
Quote
When our thoughts or feelings bristle under God’s Word, He is right and we wrong.
Yeah, I'm sure. Go on then, this should be good.
Quote
There are at least two reasons why God did this. The first is evidenced in what came to pass when Israel did not obey God in this command. God wanted the land cleared of all temptations to His people to turn from Him, His worship and His law. The Canaanites were a threat to the purity of God’s people. He had set them apart, consecrated them, adopted them. In giving this order, He was protecting them.
Oh, well isn't that classy. Ethnic cleansing so God's personal cheer squad wouldn't be tainted by new ideas. Presumably, ideas such as not worshipping the cruel and abusive father in the sky. No, I'm sure it's actually a good thing.
Quote
Of course one might understand this motive, and still be horrified. These Canaanites were not mere abstractions, but real people. Is it not still rather cruel to kill them all simply for seeking to protect the moral purity of Israel? Perhaps, were that God’s only motive. The second reason God commanded them all to be put to death is because they were all, every man, woman and child of them, sinners. And the wages of sin is death.
Oh, okay. Fair enough. No, really. It's not like he's an all powerful deity who made up these rules in the first place or anything. He had to do it, honest injuns. It's not that he wanted to commit genocide so that his personal sycophants wouldn't get any ideas about not stroking his ego. He had no choice, his hands were tied, truly.
Quote
In short, God did this for the same reason He does all that He does, for the good of His people, and for His own glory.
Gotta validate that massive ego, even if it means genocide. Totally reasonable, I'm sure. I guess it's totally different when Idi Amin does it.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 15, 2018, 12:16:45 pm
Quote
When our thoughts or feelings bristle under God’s Word, He is right and we wrong.
Yeah, I'm sure. Go on then, this should be good.
Quote
There are at least two reasons why God did this. The first is evidenced in what came to pass when Israel did not obey God in this command. God wanted the land cleared of all temptations to His people to turn from Him, His worship and His law. The Canaanites were a threat to the purity of God’s people. He had set them apart, consecrated them, adopted them. In giving this order, He was protecting them.
Oh, well isn't that classy. Ethnic cleansing so God's personal cheer squad wouldn't be tainted by new ideas. Presumably, ideas such as not worshipping the cruel and abusive father in the sky. No, I'm sure it's actually a good thing.
Quote
Of course one might understand this motive, and still be horrified. These Canaanites were not mere abstractions, but real people. Is it not still rather cruel to kill them all simply for seeking to protect the moral purity of Israel? Perhaps, were that God’s only motive. The second reason God commanded them all to be put to death is because they were all, every man, woman and child of them, sinners. And the wages of sin is death.
Oh, okay. Fair enough. No, really. It's not like he's an all powerful deity who made up these rules in the first place or anything. He had to do it, honest injuns. It's not that he wanted to commit genocide so that his personal sycophants wouldn't get any ideas about not stroking his ego. He had no choice, his hands were tied, truly.
Quote
In short, God did this for the same reason He does all that He does, for the good of His people, and for His own glory.
Gotta validate that massive ego, even if it means genocide. Totally reasonable, I'm sure. I guess it's totally different when Idi Amin does it.
1. Well the Canaanites performed human sacrifice so it is a good thing that God ordered them killed, so that the Israelites would not convert to their wicked religion.
2. They are saying that everyone’s a sinner and the wages of sin is death, meaning that God is justified in killing anyone including the Canaanites.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Eiki-mun on October 15, 2018, 03:51:54 pm
And that's quite frankly horrifying. Anyone and everyone can be killed in the name of God, because it's justified because they're sinners. That's one hell of a good reason not to subscribe to a belief system like that.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on October 15, 2018, 03:54:20 pm
1. Well the Canaanites performed human sacrifice so it is a good thing that God ordered them killed, so that the Israelites would not convert to their wicked religion.
Quote
Does God approve of human sacrifice?
Yes.
God told Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac as a burnt offering.

And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. Genesis 22:2

He commanded the Israelites to give him their firstborn sons.

Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me. Exodus 22:29
He said that every "devoted thing ... both of man and beast ... shall surely be put to death."

No devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the LORD of all that he hath, both of man and beast ... shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD. None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to death. Leviticus 27:28-29
Moses commanded his officers to kill every Midianite male and non-virgin female, but to keep the virgin females alive for themselves -- except for one in a thousand which were to be given to God. After examining the females, the soldiers found 32,000 virgins, 32 of which were God's "booty". Sixteen of these were sacrificed to God as a "heave offering."

And Moses was wroth with the officers ... which came from the battle. And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
...
And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Take the sum of the prey that was taken, both of man and of beast ... And divide the prey into two parts; between them that took the war upon them, who went out to battle, and between all the congregation: And levy a tribute unto the Lord ... one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep: Take it of their half, and give it unto Eleazar the priest, for an heave offering of the Lord. ... And Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the Lord commanded Moses. And the booty ... was ... thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him ... of which the LORD's tribute was thirty and two persons. Numbers 31:25-40

The Spirit of the Lord inspired Jephthah to to sacrifice to God whatever came out to greet him when he returned from slaughtering the Ammonites. When his daughter came out to greet him, Jephthah kept his promise to God by killing her as a burnt offering.

Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah ... And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering. So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the LORD delivered them into his hands.... And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child.... And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back. And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the LORD, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth.... And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed. Judges 11:29-40
God sent a famine is sent on David's kingdom for three years. When David asked God why, God answered: "It is for Saul, and his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites." To appease God and end the famine that was caused by his predecessor (Saul), David agreed to have two of Saul's sons and five of his grandsons killed and hung up "unto the Lord." God stopped the famine after they were killed and hung up for him.

Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David enquired of the LORD. And the LORD answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites.... The king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul ... And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the LORD....And after that God was intreated for the land. 2 Samuel 21:1, 8-14
Josiah "did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord" when he killed "all the priests of the high places" and burnt their bones upon their altars.

And, behold, there came a man of God out of Judah by the word of the LORD ... And he cried against the altar in the word of the LORD, and said, O altar, altar, thus saith the LORD; Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall be burnt upon thee. 1 Kings 13:1-2
Josiah ... slew all the priests of the high places that were there upon the altars, and burned men's bones upon them. 2 Kings 23:20

Josiah ... did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord ... And he burnt the bones of the priests upon their altars. 2 Chronicles 34:1-5

Jesus was the ultimate human sacrifice, redeeming us all with his precious blood.
(Now God doesn't have to torture us all after we die, since he tortured Jesus to death as a substitute for us.)

Christ our passover is sacrificed for us. 1 Corinthians 5:7
Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things ... But with the precious blood of Christ. 1 Peter 1:18-19

For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God ... that by means of death ... they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator ... and without shedding of blood is no remission. Hebrews 9:13-22

We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Hebrews 10:10

No.
At least God doesn't want us to sacrifice our children for any other god. That would be evil in the sight of the Lord.
And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD. Leviticus 18:21
Every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. Deuteronomy 12:31

He [Manasseh] made his son pass through the fire, and ... wrought much wickedness in the sight of the LORD. 2 Kings 21:6

If we sacrifice our children to another god, we must be stoned to death.
There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire. Deuteronomy 18:10
Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. Leviticus 20:2

Yahweh loves his human sacrifices, just doesn't like it if you do it for anybody else!

2. They are saying that everyone’s a sinner and the wages of sin is death, meaning that God is justified in killing anyone including the Canaanites.

Which only makes sense to cowards and authoritarians, to the rest of us any moral system worthy of it's name is consistent and applies to all.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 15, 2018, 04:45:35 pm
1. Well the Canaanites performed human sacrifice so it is a good thing that God ordered them killed, so that the Israelites would not convert to their wicked religion.
Quote
Does God approve of human sacrifice?
Yes.
God told Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac as a burnt offering.

And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. Genesis 22:2

He commanded the Israelites to give him their firstborn sons.

Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me. Exodus 22:29
He said that every "devoted thing ... both of man and beast ... shall surely be put to death."

No devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the LORD of all that he hath, both of man and beast ... shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD. None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to death. Leviticus 27:28-29
Moses commanded his officers to kill every Midianite male and non-virgin female, but to keep the virgin females alive for themselves -- except for one in a thousand which were to be given to God. After examining the females, the soldiers found 32,000 virgins, 32 of which were God's "booty". Sixteen of these were sacrificed to God as a "heave offering."

And Moses was wroth with the officers ... which came from the battle. And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
...
And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Take the sum of the prey that was taken, both of man and of beast ... And divide the prey into two parts; between them that took the war upon them, who went out to battle, and between all the congregation: And levy a tribute unto the Lord ... one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep: Take it of their half, and give it unto Eleazar the priest, for an heave offering of the Lord. ... And Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the Lord commanded Moses. And the booty ... was ... thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him ... of which the LORD's tribute was thirty and two persons. Numbers 31:25-40

The Spirit of the Lord inspired Jephthah to to sacrifice to God whatever came out to greet him when he returned from slaughtering the Ammonites. When his daughter came out to greet him, Jephthah kept his promise to God by killing her as a burnt offering.

Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah ... And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering. So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the LORD delivered them into his hands.... And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child.... And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back. And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the LORD, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth.... And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed. Judges 11:29-40
God sent a famine is sent on David's kingdom for three years. When David asked God why, God answered: "It is for Saul, and his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites." To appease God and end the famine that was caused by his predecessor (Saul), David agreed to have two of Saul's sons and five of his grandsons killed and hung up "unto the Lord." God stopped the famine after they were killed and hung up for him.

Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David enquired of the LORD. And the LORD answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites.... The king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul ... And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the LORD....And after that God was intreated for the land. 2 Samuel 21:1, 8-14
Josiah "did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord" when he killed "all the priests of the high places" and burnt their bones upon their altars.

And, behold, there came a man of God out of Judah by the word of the LORD ... And he cried against the altar in the word of the LORD, and said, O altar, altar, thus saith the LORD; Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall be burnt upon thee. 1 Kings 13:1-2
Josiah ... slew all the priests of the high places that were there upon the altars, and burned men's bones upon them. 2 Kings 23:20

Josiah ... did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord ... And he burnt the bones of the priests upon their altars. 2 Chronicles 34:1-5

Jesus was the ultimate human sacrifice, redeeming us all with his precious blood.
(Now God doesn't have to torture us all after we die, since he tortured Jesus to death as a substitute for us.)

Christ our passover is sacrificed for us. 1 Corinthians 5:7
Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things ... But with the precious blood of Christ. 1 Peter 1:18-19

For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God ... that by means of death ... they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator ... and without shedding of blood is no remission. Hebrews 9:13-22

We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Hebrews 10:10

No.
At least God doesn't want us to sacrifice our children for any other god. That would be evil in the sight of the Lord.
And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD. Leviticus 18:21
Every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. Deuteronomy 12:31

He [Manasseh] made his son pass through the fire, and ... wrought much wickedness in the sight of the LORD. 2 Kings 21:6

If we sacrifice our children to another god, we must be stoned to death.
There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire. Deuteronomy 18:10
Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. Leviticus 20:2

Yahweh loves his human sacrifices, just doesn't like it if you do it for anybody else!

2. They are saying that everyone’s a sinner and the wages of sin is death, meaning that God is justified in killing anyone including the Canaanites.

Which only makes sense to cowards and authoritarians, to the rest of us any moral system worthy of it's name is consistent and applies to all.

1. This is what Exodus 22:29 means. It does not mean sacrificing Firstborn sons. https://www.str.org/blog/god-didn’t-command-child-sacrifice#.W8T4zRYpDYU

2. The Bible does not say that God approved of Jephthah sacrificing his daughter. Wikipedia says this.
Quote
Unlike other instances of burnt offerings that were in fact in line with Mosaic law, there is no divine acknowledgement of this offering.

Some writers have observed that the Israelites of the time were decidedly barbarous; that Mosaic law (which forbade human sacrifice) was at this time widely disrespected; and that there are several other examples of rash vows to God with similarly terrible consequences.[10] Of course, the barbarism of the Israelites says nothing about why the God of the Bible would accept a child sacrifice. David Janzen argued that the story was an integral part of the Deuteronomist picture of moral decline through adoption of non-Israelitic practices such as child sacrifice.[11] Solomon Landers believed that the absence of express judgement implies that the sacrifice was not acceptable to God, notwithstanding the fact that the sacrifice nevertheless happened.[12] The Book of Judges has been seen as teaching a cycle of pride associated with rejection of God's law and subsequent suffering of the people.

3. The other people sacrificed were God’s and Israel’s enemies.

4. God’s moral system is consistent and applies to all. We are all sinners which is why he sent his son to sacrifice himself for us.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 15, 2018, 04:49:32 pm
And that's quite frankly horrifying. Anyone and everyone can be killed in the name of God, because it's justified because they're sinners. That's one hell of a good reason not to subscribe to a belief system like that.

It DOES NOT MEAN that we are allowed to kill anyone. We are all sinners so we are not justified in killing others. However God is justified in killing anyone or ordering people killed because he is an omnibenevolent being without sin so he has the moral high ground unlike us.

So in regards to abortion, it is evil for humans to kill babies, however God can do so, or order the killing of babies like he did to the Canaanite babies in the Bible because babies are born in original sin due to the curse on mankind after the first evolved Homo sapiens Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on October 15, 2018, 04:56:53 pm
Benevolence, omni or otherwise is not consistent with genocide!
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 15, 2018, 05:04:58 pm
Benevolence, omni or otherwise is not consistent with genocide!

My previous comment explains why it is.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on October 15, 2018, 05:31:06 pm
Benevolence, omni or otherwise is not consistent with genocide!

My previous comment explains why it is.
No, it doesn't. The apologetics field on theology only exists because the god of the bible is monstrous and the religious invent excuses for its abominable behaviour to help them sleep at night.

See atheists don't need all that crap, we understand that gods are metaphors for nature that can be pretty fucked up and reflections of the societies that invented them which can also be fucked up. Yahweh being a douche makes as much sense as Zues being one.

It's entirely consistent with understanding gods as metaphors for an uncaring universe and projections of their creators own screwed up, unreflective morality, of course your morality will be unreflective if you put all your stock in imaginary friends and thank/blame them for everything.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 15, 2018, 05:39:46 pm
Benevolence, omni or otherwise is not consistent with genocide!

My previous comment explains why it is.
No, it doesn't. The apologetics field on theology only exists because the god of the bible is monstrous and the religious invent excuses for its abominable behaviour to help them sleep at night.

See atheists don't need all that crap, we understand that gods are metaphors for nature that can be pretty fucked up and reflections of the societies that invented them which can also be fucked up. Yahweh being a douche makes as much sense as Zues being one.

It's entirely consistent with understanding gods as metaphors for an uncaring universe and projections of their creators own screwed up, unreflective morality, of course your morality will be unreflective if you put all your stock in imaginary friends and thank/blame them for everything.

But I explained how everyone’s a sinner which justifies God’s genocide of the Canaanites.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Art Vandelay on October 15, 2018, 11:07:42 pm
1. Well the Canaanites performed human sacrifice so it is a good thing that God ordered them killed, so that the Israelites would not convert to their wicked religion.
Oh yeah, because it's not like an all powerful diety had other options besides genocide.
2. They are saying that everyone’s a sinner and the wages of sin is death, meaning that God is justified in killing anyone including the Canaanites.
Once again, "everyone's a sinner" and "sinners deserve death" are only things because God says so, according to your own religion. He's just saying "I want to kill you and I'm totally right to do so because I said so".
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Art Vandelay on October 15, 2018, 11:27:28 pm
Of course, arguing theology is kind of irrelevant because all of it is bullshit in the first place, regardless of morality. Much like ghosts, flat Earth, unicorns, fairies, seances, divination and magic in general, it's all just woo, and the sooner we all start to treat it as such, the better.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: davedan on October 15, 2018, 11:38:12 pm
Magic is woo although I suspect lots of 'magic' works for perfectly explicable reasons. My favourite example of this is enchanted swords. The enchantment made by the smith as they beat the sword into shape is a means of keeping time. As the sword is worked that timing is important as it will determine the amount of carbon introduced to the iron. The result being that you end up with a steel sword far superior to an iron sword. People hear the smith making the incantation and wrongly assume its the words and not the introduction of carbon which has made the sword so strong. You might even get a person who has learned but not realised which bit is the effective part.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Art Vandelay on October 15, 2018, 11:51:52 pm
Wait, what? You mean there exist people who think the blacksmithing equivalent of sea shanties are magic spells? I didn't even realise "enchanted" swords were a thing at all outside of fiction.

Jesus fuck, that is ridiculous.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: davedan on October 16, 2018, 12:00:00 am
Well I hope they don't now but it was a big thing in Late Antiquity.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Art Vandelay on October 16, 2018, 12:08:56 am
Huh. You learn something new every day.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Eiki-mun on October 16, 2018, 12:43:09 am
And that's quite frankly horrifying. Anyone and everyone can be killed in the name of God, because it's justified because they're sinners. That's one hell of a good reason not to subscribe to a belief system like that.

It DOES NOT MEAN that we are allowed to kill anyone. We are all sinners so we are not justified in killing others. However God is justified in killing anyone or ordering people killed because he is an omnibenevolent being without sin so he has the moral high ground unlike us.

So in regards to abortion, it is evil for humans to kill babies, however God can do so, or order the killing of babies like he did to the Canaanite babies in the Bible because babies are born in original sin due to the curse on mankind after the first evolved Homo sapiens Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit.

And there you have it. "God can order the killing of babies." As in he can order people to kill babies if it's in the name of God. And since there's no way of telling who's actually obeying God's will and who's just crazy, a good Christian would have to assume that anyone claiming to be killing babies in the name of God is telling the truth, meaning anyone can kill anyone else in the name of God and it's justified.

And that's horrifying.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on October 16, 2018, 01:25:47 am
Benevolence, omni or otherwise is not consistent with genocide!

My previous comment explains why it is.
No, it doesn't. The apologetics field on theology only exists because the god of the bible is monstrous and the religious invent excuses for its abominable behaviour to help them sleep at night.

See atheists don't need all that crap, we understand that gods are metaphors for nature that can be pretty fucked up and reflections of the societies that invented them which can also be fucked up. Yahweh being a douche makes as much sense as Zues being one.

It's entirely consistent with understanding gods as metaphors for an uncaring universe and projections of their creators own screwed up, unreflective morality, of course your morality will be unreflective if you put all your stock in imaginary friends and thank/blame them for everything.

But I explained how everyone’s a sinner which justifies God’s genocide of the Canaanites.
Yeah Borat but you know that won't fly here, you're just being a gobshite to Trigger Da Libz!
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 16, 2018, 08:20:17 am
1. Well the Canaanites performed human sacrifice so it is a good thing that God ordered them killed, so that the Israelites would not convert to their wicked religion.
Oh yeah, because it's not like an all powerful diety had other options besides genocide.
2. They are saying that everyone’s a sinner and the wages of sin is death, meaning that God is justified in killing anyone including the Canaanites.
Once again, "everyone's a sinner" and "sinners deserve death" are only things because God says so, according to your own religion. He's just saying "I want to kill you and I'm totally right to do so because I said so".

No he’s not. He gives a reason for his actions which is that everyone’s a sinner.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 16, 2018, 08:22:37 am
And that's quite frankly horrifying. Anyone and everyone can be killed in the name of God, because it's justified because they're sinners. That's one hell of a good reason not to subscribe to a belief system like that.

It DOES NOT MEAN that we are allowed to kill anyone. We are all sinners so we are not justified in killing others. However God is justified in killing anyone or ordering people killed because he is an omnibenevolent being without sin so he has the moral high ground unlike us.

So in regards to abortion, it is evil for humans to kill babies, however God can do so, or order the killing of babies like he did to the Canaanite babies in the Bible because babies are born in original sin due to the curse on mankind after the first evolved Homo sapiens Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit.

And there you have it. "God can order the killing of babies." As in he can order people to kill babies if it's in the name of God. And since there's no way of telling who's actually obeying God's will and who's just crazy, a good Christian would have to assume that anyone claiming to be killing babies in the name of God is telling the truth, meaning anyone can kill anyone else in the name of God and it's justified.

And that's horrifying.

No, the killer has to give proof that God ordered for the killing to happen.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Art Vandelay on October 16, 2018, 08:27:56 am
No he’s not. He gives a reason for his actions which is that everyone’s a sinner.
Which is his own fault in the first place. Both for coming up with the idea of sin and its death penalty and for making humans inclined to do things that he finds oh so sinful. Once again, your all knowing, all powerful god contradicts your own theology if you think about it for more than ten seconds. I have to say, it's absolutely hilarious how often that happens.

Not to mention, your entire religion contradicts reality itself, which I feel is what you should really be taking note of right now.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 16, 2018, 08:58:36 am
No he’s not. He gives a reason for his actions which is that everyone’s a sinner.
Which is his own fault in the first place. Both for coming up with the idea of sin and its death penalty and for making humans inclined to do things that he finds oh so sinful. Once again, your all knowing, all powerful god contradicts your own theology if you think about it for more than ten seconds. I have to say, it's absolutely hilarious how often that happens.

Not to mention, your entire religion contradicts reality itself, which I feel is what you should really be taking note of right now.

He gives humans free will. Unfortunately humans use their free will to commit sin. God is our creator so he obviously makes rules for his creation to follow. 
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Skybison on October 16, 2018, 01:55:33 pm
No, the killer has to give proof that God ordered for the killing to happen.

Why should I believe the killers in the Old Testament had any proof?  All we have to go on is some books written long after the fact by their fan boys.

I don't see any reason not to think they were lying.

God is our creator so he obviously makes rules for his creation to follow. 

Why?
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 16, 2018, 02:27:40 pm
No, the killer has to give proof that God ordered for the killing to happen.

Why should I believe the killers in the Old Testament had any proof?  All we have to go on is some books written long after the fact by their fan boys.

I don't see any reason not to think they were lying.

Because the many proofs that Christianity is true proves that the Bible is true.

Quote
God is our creator so he obviously makes rules for his creation to follow. 

Why?

Because he’s our creator so he wants us to worship him and obey him.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Art Vandelay on October 16, 2018, 04:36:19 pm
He gives humans free will. Unfortunately humans use their free will to commit sin. God is our creator so he obviously makes rules for his creation to follow. 
As we've been over before, that's a bullshit excuse. If he's all knowing, he knew full well what every last human to ever exist was going to do over the course of their lives, from the moment of creation. Not to mention, even if he didn't, he's perfectly capable of creating a rule set that doesn't involve genocide and mass torture solely for the crime of existing has he supposedly created as to exist in the first place.

Of course, it's all bullshit in the first place. Thinking this character is a good guy is one thing, believing he actually exists is a whole other level of retardation.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on October 16, 2018, 05:05:40 pm
Because the many proofs that Christianity is true proves that the Bible is true.

Quote
proof
noun
evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement

You haven't done this, not with one of your annoying "proofs" at best you've presented arguments for the plausibility of some sections of the biblical record "proving that the Bible is true" would require establishing that the world was five thousand years old, that there was in fact a world wide flood, that the Exodus happened, that you could repeatedly and blatantly break the laws of conservation of mass and energy, that you could cure leprosy by fondling someone and that you could revive someone scourged, stabbed, starved, dehydrated and nailed on a cross to die and that the person could gain the powers of flight. The task of "proving" the "Bible is true" requires nothing more or less than establishing the fact of every single statement in that contradictory mass of fables, legends, laws and lineages. The task of proving Christianity true requires you to prove things that are impossible to prove like predictions of the future. You have not done any of these things, you can not do them as it is impossible.

No, the killer has to give proof that God ordered for the killing to happen.

Why should I believe the killers in the Old Testament had any proof?  All we have to go on is some books written long after the fact by their fan boys.

I don't see any reason not to think they were lying.

Because the many proofs that Christianity is true proves that the Bible is true.

Quote
God is our creator so he obviously makes rules for his creation to follow. 

Why?

Because he’s our creator so he wants us to worship him and obey him.
No mate, morality applies to all or it's worthless. At least admit that even if you don't agree with my statement that you won't convince anybody here, as evidenced by your utter failure to convince anybody with the same tired crap you keep piling on and no, you can't get us to by into your religion by sheer persistence. This isn't a Hollywood Rom Com.

Go back to your fetishes and fantasies, your missionary work is boring and pointless!
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 16, 2018, 07:07:33 pm
He gives humans free will. Unfortunately humans use their free will to commit sin. God is our creator so he obviously makes rules for his creation to follow. 
As we've been over before, that's a bullshit excuse. If he's all knowing, he knew full well what every last human to ever exist was going to do over the course of their lives, from the moment of creation. Not to mention, even if he didn't, he's perfectly capable of creating a rule set that doesn't involve genocide and mass torture solely for the crime of existing has he supposedly created as to exist in the first place.

Of course, it's all bullshit in the first place. Thinking this character is a good guy is one thing, believing he actually exists is a whole other level of retardation.

But as I said before, God is omniscient by being beyond time meaning that he observes people making decisions which has no effect on people’s decisions. His rule set of the wages of sin being death is a fair rule, given that sin is a serious crime against God, making the genocide of the Canaanites justified.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 16, 2018, 07:12:43 pm
Because the many proofs that Christianity is true proves that the Bible is true.

Quote
proof
noun
evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement

You haven't done this, not with one of your annoying "proofs" at best you've presented arguments for the plausibility of some sections of the biblical record "proving that the Bible is true" would require establishing that the world was five thousand years old, that there was in fact a world wide flood, that the Exodus happened, that you could repeatedly and blatantly break the laws of conservation of mass and energy, that you could cure leprosy by fondling someone and that you could revive someone scourged, stabbed, starved, dehydrated and nailed on a cross to die and that the person could gain the powers of flight. The task of "proving" the "Bible is true" requires nothing more or less than establishing the fact of every single statement in that contradictory mass of fables, legends, laws and lineages. The task of proving Christianity true requires you to prove things that are impossible to prove like predictions of the future. You have not done any of these things, you can not do them as it is impossible.
I gave many proofs that Jesus Christ is real as well as Christian miracles, thus proving Christianity, and the Bible.
Quote
No, the killer has to give proof that God ordered for the killing to happen.

Why should I believe the killers in the Old Testament had any proof?  All we have to go on is some books written long after the fact by their fan boys.

I don't see any reason not to think they were lying.

Because the many proofs that Christianity is true proves that the Bible is true.

Quote
God is our creator so he obviously makes rules for his creation to follow. 

Why?

Because he’s our creator so he wants us to worship him and obey him.
No mate, morality applies to all or it's worthless. At least admit that even if you don't agree with my statement that you won't convince anybody here, as evidenced by your utter failure to convince anybody with the same tired crap you keep piling on and no, you can't get us to by into your religion by sheer persistence. This isn't a Hollywood Rom Com.

Go back to your fetishes and fantasies, your missionary work is boring and pointless!

God’s moral system applies to all. Everyone’s a sinner which is why God sent his son to sacrifice himself to atone for our sins so that we can be saved if we confess our sins and have faith and do good works.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Art Vandelay on October 16, 2018, 07:23:52 pm
But as I said before, God is omniscient by being beyond time meaning that he observes people making decisions which has no effect on people’s decisions. His rule set of the wages of sin being death is a fair rule, given that sin is a serious crime against God, making the genocide of the Canaanites justified.
As I said before, that's bullshit. Regardless of the specific mechanics of decision making, he created humans himself knowing full well the choices they would make, all while being perfectly able to have create them differently, should he prefer they make a different set of choices. That means he's responsible for everything humans do. "It's different because free will" ain't gonna fly. Furthermore, the concept of sin is completely arbitrary. It's nothing more than "I'm going to kill and torture you because I want to and it's totally fine and dandy because I say it is". If it's bullshit when, say Pinnochet does it, it's no different for your magical space wizard.

Of course, God could be the most perfect example of morality in literature and it wouldn't make him not be fictional. So, this whole line of inquiry is completely unnecessary.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: dpareja on October 16, 2018, 07:30:22 pm
How can a finite being, whose actions have finite effects, sin meaningfully against an infinite being?
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 16, 2018, 07:43:46 pm
But as I said before, God is omniscient by being beyond time meaning that he observes people making decisions which has no effect on people’s decisions. His rule set of the wages of sin being death is a fair rule, given that sin is a serious crime against God, making the genocide of the Canaanites justified.
As I said before, that's bullshit. Regardless of the specific mechanics of decision making, he created humans himself knowing full well the choices they would make, all while being perfectly able to have create them differently, should he prefer they make a different set of choices. That means he's responsible for everything humans do. "It's different because free will" ain't gonna fly. Furthermore, the concept of sin is completely arbitrary. It's nothing more than "I'm going to kill and torture you because I want to and it's totally fine and dandy because I say it is". If it's bullshit when, say Pinnochet does it, it's no different for your magical space wizard.

Of course, God could be the most perfect example of morality in literature and it wouldn't make him not be fictional. So, this whole line of inquiry is completely unnecessary.

But him interfering with the choices people make would be interfering with their free will. The concept of sin is not arbitrary. Sin is an act of disobedience towards God.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 16, 2018, 07:45:58 pm
How can a finite being, whose actions have finite effects, sin meaningfully against an infinite being?

Because it is an infinite offense to disobey the laws of an infinite being who is our creator.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Art Vandelay on October 16, 2018, 08:01:56 pm
But him interfering with the choices people make would be interfering with their free will. The concept of sin is not arbitrary. Sin is an act of disobedience towards God.
Taking this bullshit seriously is an act of disobedience towards reality.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: dpareja on October 16, 2018, 08:32:17 pm
How can a finite being, whose actions have finite effects, sin meaningfully against an infinite being?

Because it is an infinite offense to disobey the laws of an infinite being who is our creator.

Divine command theory at its finest.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on October 17, 2018, 01:46:30 am
How can a finite being, whose actions have finite effects, sin meaningfully against an infinite being?

Because it is an infinite offense to disobey the laws of an infinite being who is our creator.

Divine command theory at its finest.

Nice summary of that here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlETz4b40yU

Cliff notes version, how do we define good? Is something good because God says it is, or is it good because it's good? Jacob holds that good is defined by God saying something is good but that position only leads to absurdities because when God orders, commits or condones acts like murder, rape and torture, as happened many times in the bible, we're left with a dilemma. We can either judge these acts as evil or judge "good" as something entirely separate from having good intentions or committing good deeds rendering the term "good" meaningless.

A possible out is if we separate the terms piety from good, if we interpret piety as simply something a god or gods like or want but then we're still left with the conclusion that piety isn't necessarily good.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 17, 2018, 07:30:44 am
How can a finite being, whose actions have finite effects, sin meaningfully against an infinite being?

Because it is an infinite offense to disobey the laws of an infinite being who is our creator.

Divine command theory at its finest.

Nice summary of that here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlETz4b40yU

Cliff notes version, how do we define good? Is something good because God says it is, or is it good because it's good? Jacob holds that good is defined by God saying something is good but that position only leads to absurdities because when God orders, commits or condones acts like murder, rape and torture, as happened many times in the bible, we're left with a dilemma. We can either judge these acts as evil or judge "good" as something entirely separate from having good intentions or committing good deeds rendering the term "good" meaningless.

A possible out is if we separate the terms piety from good, if we interpret piety as simply something a god or gods like or want but then we're still left with the conclusion that piety isn't necessarily good.

Good is defined by whether there is a rational reason why it is good. God gives rational justified reasons for his actions.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on October 17, 2018, 04:55:48 pm
Good is defined by whether there is a rational reason why it is good. God gives rational justified reasons for his actions.

OK, so you subscribe to natural law-or maybe you just do when divine command theory inevitably starts popping out absurdities. Lets have a look at one of your favourite genocides from the bible, the great flood and the stated reason for it.

Quote
6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Note he's not just talking about humans, he's talking about bunny rabbits, cows, molluscs and let's not forget all those unborn children (violent, violent unborn children). Because there are a few violent douches douching around Yahweh will violently douche on everything but Noah's floating zoo.

Yes he gives a reason, no it is not rational or justified. It makes no sense to combat the existence of violence with greater violence that does more lasting harm.

In Genesis 32:25 God enters a wrestling match with Jacob and loses so he uses magic to break his leg. Now you could argue in a sense that's rational, if all you want to do is show you can win but it's not justified - wrestling is matching ability and skill and cheating just shows you're a dirty, rotten cheater. In Exodus 9:16 God tells the pharaoh that he put him there just to show him his power. Rational? You have literally infinite power and resources, is raising up a dynasty just to bring it down the most rational way to go about this? Why not just do the Jesus trick and pop out some Merlot and mudskipper from thin air? Justified? Come on, set aside all the plagues, misery, dismembered cattle, fermenting frogs and dying children and just make Moses pharaoh-get the other guy to be chamberlain of the royal stool or something!

Unless you're defaulting back to divine command theory and calling it rational and justified because it comes from the creator and therefore in must be, blah blah blah it isn't possible to call all of the actions of a notoriously jealous and wrathful deity both justified and rational. Unless of course you're just here to troll, and you enjoying defending perversity merely to annoy. The thought has crossed my mind...

 
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 17, 2018, 07:31:40 pm
Good is defined by whether there is a rational reason why it is good. God gives rational justified reasons for his actions.

OK, so you subscribe to natural law-or maybe you just do when divine command theory inevitably starts popping out absurdities. Lets have a look at one of your favourite genocides from the bible, the great flood and the stated reason for it.

Quote
6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Note he's not just talking about humans, he's talking about bunny rabbits, cows, molluscs and let's not forget all those unborn children (violent, violent unborn children). Because there are a few violent douches douching around Yahweh will violently douche on everything but Noah's floating zoo.

Yes he gives a reason, no it is not rational or justified. It makes no sense to combat the existence of violence with greater violence that does more lasting harm.

In Genesis 32:25 God enters a wrestling match with Jacob and loses so he uses magic to break his leg. Now you could argue in a sense that's rational, if all you want to do is show you can win but it's not justified - wrestling is matching ability and skill and cheating just shows you're a dirty, rotten cheater. In Exodus 9:16 God tells the pharaoh that he put him there just to show him his power. Rational? You have literally infinite power and resources, is raising up a dynasty just to bring it down the most rational way to go about this? Why not just do the Jesus trick and pop out some Merlot and mudskipper from thin air? Justified? Come on, set aside all the plagues, misery, dismembered cattle, fermenting frogs and dying children and just make Moses pharaoh-get the other guy to be chamberlain of the royal stool or something!

Unless you're defaulting back to divine command theory and calling it rational and justified because it comes from the creator and therefore in must be, blah blah blah it isn't possible to call all of the actions of a notoriously jealous and wrathful deity both justified and rational. Unless of course you're just here to troll, and you enjoying defending perversity merely to annoy. The thought has crossed my mind...

1. The region of the Middle East that was flooded was filled with violence because it was full of Nephilim who committed violence against the non Nephilim humans till Noah and his family were the only survivors.

2. It was not cheating, it was showing that he was more powerful and could win the match.

3. Showing off his power would cause the Israelites to believe in him and worship him.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on October 17, 2018, 09:49:31 pm
1. Not the stated reason, the stated reason was in the verse I cited, chapter and verse citation pls. Also, the bible says nothing about it being confined to one geographic region. Chapter and verse citation for this contention if you don't mind.

2. It's still cheating. If a match organiser enters the ring for a boxing bout and shoots the other contestant in the leg because he didn't take a fall he only demonstrates his power and cheats. The two are not mutually exclusive.

3. Merlot and mudfish, produced from thin air, works just as well, just ask Jesus.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 18, 2018, 09:33:41 am
1. Not the stated reason, the stated reason was in the verse I cited, chapter and verse citation pls. Also, the bible says nothing about it being confined to one geographic region. Chapter and verse citation for this contention if you don't mind.

2. It's still cheating. If a match organiser enters the ring for a boxing bout and shoots the other contestant in the leg because he didn't take a fall he only demonstrates his power and cheats. The two are not mutually exclusive.

3. Merlot and mudfish, produced from thin air, works just as well, just ask Jesus.

1. Yes them being violent was the reason for the flood, and I was saying that they were violent against the non Nephillim because they were Nephilim. The flood has to be local because there is no geological evidence of a global flood.

2. But a gun is not a demonstration of physical strength because it is an extra aiding object. God displayed his physical strength.

3. But God wanted to show off his power to punish the Egyptians for enslaving the Israelites in the first place.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on October 18, 2018, 04:15:53 pm
1. Thank you Jacob, you've just contended that the bible is wrong about something. Nowhere in the bible does it say that the flood was confined to a specific geographic region and Genesis 6:7 has Yahweh say he'll destroy humankind from the face of the Earth, period. If what you contend is true, then the bible must be false. Thanks, it's easier when you do my work for me, ta.

2. So are eye-gouging, spitting, kicks to the balls and sneak attacks - still cheating. He couldn't overpower him so he resorted to magic. That's cheating.


3. You want to impress people, the most rational and justified path involves child murder, plague and making an entire ethnic group refugees? And you have infinite power and resources? No, it just isn't.

And we're back to debating the minutia of the wholly babble because that's your safe zone even though you suck at it. You'd much rather do that than articulate precisely what your understanding of ethics is because divine command types like yourself inevitably starts popping out absurdities. Your cosplaying at natural law ethics isn't very convincing either as your understanding of what's rational is way off base.

Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 18, 2018, 05:28:32 pm
1. Thank you Jacob, you've just contended that the bible is wrong about something. Nowhere in the bible does it say that the flood was confined to a specific geographic region and Genesis 6:7 has Yahweh say he'll destroy humankind from the face of the Earth, period. If what you contend is true, then the bible must be false. Thanks, it's easier when you do my work for me, ta.

2. So are eye-gouging, spitting, kicks to the balls and sneak attacks - still cheating. He couldn't overpower him so he resorted to magic. That's cheating.


3. You want to impress people, the most rational and justified path involves child murder, plague and making an entire ethnic group refugees? And you have infinite power and resources? No, it just isn't.

And we're back to debating the minutia of the wholly babble because that's your safe zone even though you suck at it. You'd much rather do that than articulate precisely what your understanding of ethics is because divine command types like yourself inevitably starts popping out absurdities. Your cosplaying at natural law ethics isn't very convincing either as your understanding of what's rational is way off base.

1. Kol, the Hebrew word for Earth can also mean land, country, or ground so it does not have to refer to the entire planet.

2. Ancient wrestling did not have the rules that modern day wrestling has.

3. But it is a rational and justified punishment of the Egyptians for enslaving the Israelites.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Skybison on October 19, 2018, 12:28:50 am
3. But it is a rational and justified punishment of the Egyptians for enslaving the Israelites.

If during the US civil war, Abraham Lincoln ordered that the oldest child in every southern white family be killed, would that have been justified?
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: dpareja on October 19, 2018, 03:38:58 am
3. But it is a rational and justified punishment of the Egyptians for enslaving the Israelites.

If during the US civil war, Abraham Lincoln ordered that the oldest child in every southern white family be killed, would that have been justified?

Something something God's Chosen People something something no doubt.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on October 19, 2018, 04:59:27 am
1. Thank you Jacob, you've just contended that the bible is wrong about something. Nowhere in the bible does it say that the flood was confined to a specific geographic region and Genesis 6:7 has Yahweh say he'll destroy humankind from the face of the Earth, period. If what you contend is true, then the bible must be false. Thanks, it's easier when you do my work for me, ta.

2. So are eye-gouging, spitting, kicks to the balls and sneak attacks - still cheating. He couldn't overpower him so he resorted to magic. That's cheating.


3. You want to impress people, the most rational and justified path involves child murder, plague and making an entire ethnic group refugees? And you have infinite power and resources? No, it just isn't.

And we're back to debating the minutia of the wholly babble because that's your safe zone even though you suck at it. You'd much rather do that than articulate precisely what your understanding of ethics is because divine command types like yourself inevitably starts popping out absurdities. Your cosplaying at natural law ethics isn't very convincing either as your understanding of what's rational is way off base.

1. Kol, the Hebrew word for Earth can also mean land, country, or ground so it does not have to refer to the entire planet.

2. Ancient wrestling did not have the rules that modern day wrestling has.

3. But it is a rational and justified punishment of the Egyptians for enslaving the Israelites.

1. In the original Hebrew the phrase used is "hā·’ă·ḏā·māh," meaning "of the earth" (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/6-7.htm) and the full translated phrase is "He was grieved on the earth man - He had made that Yahweh And was sorry (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/6-6.htm) birds and creeping thing to beast and from man of the earth the face from I have created whom man I will destroy. (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/6-7.htm)" - that's a translation of the original Hebrew. The word "kol" is nowhere to be found.

2. If you can't overpower someone by wrestling, which is what happened, other means aint wrestling. Magic is not wrestling even to confused cavemen.

3. Child murder and wanton slaughter are only "rational and justified" to divine command theorists like you because it came, allegedly, from your skydaddy who you're terrified of. "Might makes right" isn't rational or justified to anybody else save for fascists and tyrants.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Svata on October 19, 2018, 05:19:55 am
*mumbles about how outside of the holy book with an agenda to push there's no records of the Israelites being enslaved in Egypt ever*
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 19, 2018, 07:48:18 am
1. Thank you Jacob, you've just contended that the bible is wrong about something. Nowhere in the bible does it say that the flood was confined to a specific geographic region and Genesis 6:7 has Yahweh say he'll destroy humankind from the face of the Earth, period. If what you contend is true, then the bible must be false. Thanks, it's easier when you do my work for me, ta.

2. So are eye-gouging, spitting, kicks to the balls and sneak attacks - still cheating. He couldn't overpower him so he resorted to magic. That's cheating.


3. You want to impress people, the most rational and justified path involves child murder, plague and making an entire ethnic group refugees? And you have infinite power and resources? No, it just isn't.

And we're back to debating the minutia of the wholly babble because that's your safe zone even though you suck at it. You'd much rather do that than articulate precisely what your understanding of ethics is because divine command types like yourself inevitably starts popping out absurdities. Your cosplaying at natural law ethics isn't very convincing either as your understanding of what's rational is way off base.

1. Kol, the Hebrew word for Earth can also mean land, country, or ground so it does not have to refer to the entire planet.

2. Ancient wrestling did not have the rules that modern day wrestling has.

3. But it is a rational and justified punishment of the Egyptians for enslaving the Israelites.

1. In the original Hebrew the phrase used is "hā·’ă·ḏā·māh," meaning "of the earth" (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/6-7.htm) and the full translated phrase is "He was grieved on the earth man - He had made that Yahweh And was sorry (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/6-6.htm) birds and creeping thing to beast and from man of the earth the face from I have created whom man I will destroy. (https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/6-7.htm)" - that's a translation of the original Hebrew. The word "kol" is nowhere to be found.

2. If you can't overpower someone by wrestling, which is what happened, other means aint wrestling. Magic is not wrestling even to confused cavemen.

3. Child murder and wanton slaughter are only "rational and justified" to divine command theorists like you because it came, allegedly, from your skydaddy who you're terrified of. "Might makes right" isn't rational or justified to anybody else save for fascists and tyrants.

1. The Hebrew word hadamah can also mean ground. https://biblehub.com/hebrew/haadamah_127.htm

2.
Quote
[24] He remained alone: and behold a man wrestled with him till morning. [25] And when he saw that he could not overcome him, he touched the sinew of his thigh, and forthwith it shrank.-Genesis 32:24-25 Douay Rheims Version

So it was an angel disguised as a man, and he touched the sinew of his thigh so I don’t know where you got that he used magic to break his legs. So it was a fair match.

3. But I explained how the plagues on Egypt was rational and justified because the Egyptians enslaved the Israelites.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 19, 2018, 07:51:50 am
*mumbles about how outside of the holy book with an agenda to push there's no records of the Israelites being enslaved in Egypt ever*

My original post contains links that show proof of the plagues on Egypt both with Egyptian historical records and scientific proof and also contains proof of the Exodus.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on October 19, 2018, 08:05:56 am
1. Whatever dude, you can pretend he's talking about dirt but 'man' in the plural sense is pretty unambiguous.

2. Seriously who cares if you're cheating through a proxy? Cheating is cheating.

3. Infinite resources and power remember, you can get the same result with less grief unless you just enjoy being an asshole.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 19, 2018, 08:20:35 am
1. Whatever dude, you an pretebd he's talking about dirt but 'man' in the plural sense is pretty unambiguous.

2. Seriously who cares if you're cheating through a proxy? Cheating is cheating.

3. Infinite resources and power remember, you can get the same result with less grief unless you just enjoy being an asshole.

1. Yes I know that man refers to mankind. He is saying he is going to cleanse the ground of humans.

2. But I quoted the bible verse showing that you were mistaken that he broke Jacob's legs.

3. But any punishment with less grief is a lesser punishment. The Egyptians deserved to be punished severely for enslaving God's chosen people.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on October 19, 2018, 09:48:11 am
1. Whatever dude, you an pretebd he's talking about dirt but 'man' in the plural sense is pretty unambiguous.

2. Seriously who cares if you're cheating through a proxy? Cheating is cheating.

3. Infinite resources and power remember, you can get the same result with less grief unless you just enjoy being an asshole.

1. Yes I know that man refers to mankind. He is saying he is going to cleanse the ground of humans.

2. But I quoted the bible verse showing that you were mistaken that he broke Jacob's legs.

3. But any punishment with less grief is a lesser punishment. The Egyptians deserved to be punished severely for enslaving God's chosen people.

1. Genocide. Mankind, all humans save Noah's inbred hillbillies.

2. Wrenched hip, broken leg. Tomato, tomato.

3. Mass murder of innocents.

Lets not forget, I'm just arguing the fantasy story on its merits as it's written and you're inserting stuff in like localised floods because unlike me you want to believe that the entire depraved fantasy is good and real. Jacob, I pity you.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 19, 2018, 01:34:06 pm
1. Whatever dude, you an pretebd he's talking about dirt but 'man' in the plural sense is pretty unambiguous.

2. Seriously who cares if you're cheating through a proxy? Cheating is cheating.

3. Infinite resources and power remember, you can get the same result with less grief unless you just enjoy being an asshole.

1. Yes I know that man refers to mankind. He is saying he is going to cleanse the ground of humans.

2. But I quoted the bible verse showing that you were mistaken that he broke Jacob's legs.

3. But any punishment with less grief is a lesser punishment. The Egyptians deserved to be punished severely for enslaving God's chosen people.

1. Genocide. Mankind, all humans save Noah's inbred hillbillies.

2. Wrenched hip, broken leg. Tomato, tomato.

3. Mass murder of innocents.

Lets not forget, I'm just arguing the fantasy story on its merits as it's written and you're inserting stuff in like localised floods because unlike me you want to believe that the entire depraved fantasy is good and real. Jacob, I pity you.

1. The flood happened a long time ago before humans spread all over the entire Earth.

2. But touching the sinew of his thigh is a display of physical strength rather than using magic as a form of cheating.

3. The Egyptians were not innocent because they enslaved the Israelites.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Skybison on October 19, 2018, 02:19:49 pm
The Children were innocent.  They were children.  I ask again:

If during the US civil war, Abraham Lincoln ordered that the oldest child in every southern white family be killed, would that have been justified?
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 19, 2018, 02:48:18 pm
The Children were innocent.  They were children.  I ask again:

If during the US civil war, Abraham Lincoln ordered that the oldest child in every southern white family be killed, would that have been justified?

The difference is that the Israelites were God’s chosen people before Christ came so enslaving them was a much bigger crime so the Egyptian parents deserved the harsh punishment of having their first born children killed. And previously when discussing God’s genocide of the Canaanites, I explained that God is justified in killing anyone because everyone’s a sinner and the wages of sin is death.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: dpareja on October 19, 2018, 02:57:58 pm
And what the fuck did the children do to deserve being killed? Seems like forcing them into, say, permanent adoption by the Israelites would have had much the same effect.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Jacob Harrison on October 19, 2018, 03:10:45 pm
And what the fuck did the children do to deserve being killed? Seems like forcing them into, say, permanent adoption by the Israelites would have had much the same effect.

As I said before when discussing God’s genocide of the Canaanites, God is justified in killing anyone because everyone’s a sinner and the wages of sin is death.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on October 19, 2018, 05:53:43 pm
You're inserting stuff that's not there into the bible, again because your little fundie brain can't handle the fact that it's mythology written by people who's understanding of the world was the borders of their horizon and who's understanding of morality was "don't piss off the chief, if the chief says it's good-cower appreciatively."

Which is why everybody else here holds your morality in utter contempt and why you will never win any converts and should stop trying. Liberal Christians are a lot more tolerable because they see the bible as broad strokes penned by fallible humans, you don't. It's all or nothing, if the bible is wrong there has to be a hidden biblical caveat that makes it right or plausible such as use of an ancient noun or an improbable way of unique angel touching that somehow isn't magic. What's very telling is that you're perfectly happy with the parts about murdering innocents so long as their parents or leaders were part of an out-group. That's straight up evil, another reason why the only person here you'll ever convince is "right" is yourself but probably not the only one here who doesn't loathe you.
Title: Re: More proof that Christianity is true.
Post by: dpareja on October 19, 2018, 09:11:59 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHirweOnthA

As Ireland nears a referendum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-seventh_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_Bill_2018) on whether to repeal its blasphemy law (not opposed by the Irish Catholic Bishops' Conference, incidentally), the Freedom from Religion (remember, freedom from religion is the very first guarantee of the First Amendment to the US Constitution; freedom of religion is second) Foundation would like to remind you that blasphemy laws are still on the books even in some US states.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo

The rant that got Stephen Fry investigated for blasphemy in Ireland, on The Meaning of Life on RTÉ One, hosted by Gay Byrne. (Transcript follows, but watch it just for Byrne's reactions.)

Quote
Byrne: Suppose what Oscar believed in as he died, in spite of your protestations, suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the Pearly Gates and you are confronted by God. What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?

Fry: I will basically--that is the odyssey, I think--I'll say, bone cancer in children? What's that about? How dare you. How dare you create a world in which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right. It's utterly, utterly evil. Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid god who creates a world which is so full of injustice and pain? That's what I'd say.

Byrne: And you think you're going to get in?

Fry: No, but I wouldn't want to. I wouldn't want to get in on his terms. They're wrong.

Now, if I died and it was Pluto--Hades--and it was the twelve Greek gods, then I would have more truck with it, because the Greeks were, they didn't pretend not to be human in their appetites and in their capriciousness and in their unreasonableness. They didn't present themselves as being all-seeing, all-wise, all-kind, all-beneficent, because the god who created this universe, if it was created by a god, is quite clearly a maniac. Utter maniac. Totally selfish, tot--we have to spend our life on our knees thanking him? What kind of god would do that? Yes, the world is very splendid, but it also has in it insects whose whole life cycle is to burrow into the eyes of children and make them blind. They eat outwards from the eyes. Why? Why did you do that to us? You could easily have made a creation in which that didn't exist. It is simply not acceptable.

So, you know, atheism is not just about the not believing there's a god, but on the assumption that there is one, what kind of god is he? It's perfectly apparent that he's monstrous, utterly monstrous and deserves no respect whatsoever. The moment you banish him, your life becomes simpler, purer, cleaner, more worth living in my opinion.

Byrne: That sure is the longest answer to that question that I ever got in this entire series.

Remember: Blasphemy is a victimless crime.