A Final Proof Against Christianity

[Jan Ardena]

c20H25N3o,

Jesus is God's humility. The Son obeys His Father as every good son should. Please remember here that Jesus was begotten of God. A plum seed produces a plum tree - nothing more, nothing less. It is important to know that Jesus is God and no I am not a fool for saying this

I undserstand your point, and I also believe that Jesus is as good a God in a qualitative sense, but a son and father relationtionship requires 2 distinct individuals, and Jesus alway maintained he was the 'son of God'.

1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


Here, it is clear that 'the word' and God both separate and the same.

Jan Ardena.

 

[MarcAC]

I undserstand your point, and I also believe that Jesus is as good a God in a qualitative sense, but a son and father relationtionship requires 2 distinct individuals, and Jesus alway maintained he was the 'son of God'.

1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


Here, it is clear that 'the word' and God both separate and the same.

I liken it to a chemical existing in its "triple state" as a wonderful scientific analogue. At a specific temperature and pressure the element will exist as an amalgam of gaseous, solid, and liquid form. So the same H2O but different phases.

 

[§outh§tar]

I liken it to a chemical existing in its "triple state" as a wonderful scientific analogue. At a specific temperature and pressure the element will exist as an amalgam of gaseous, solid, and liquid form. So the same H2O but different phases.

Rather inadequate..

A gas is however not a solid, and a solid is not a liquid. But God is Spirit so your argument crumbles there.

Secondly, the members of the Trinity are not even "phases" so your analogy is off by a mile there...

 

[§outh§tar]

c20H25N3o,



I undserstand your point, and I also believe that Jesus is as good a God in a qualitative sense, but a son and father relationtionship requires 2 distinct individuals, and Jesus alway maintained he was the 'son of God'.

1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


Here, it is clear that 'the word' and God both separate and the same.

Jan Ardena.

Jesus wasn't the one who said that, it is someone else's religious interpretation of God's nature.

 

[§outh§tar]

That is not the point, he is known as Jesus Christ, and you understand who i am reffering to.

Off course I know who you are referring to that is why I said it was an off topic-rant. The name Jesus Christ does not even make sense since Christ means Messiah; a contortion over the ages stemming from Paul's epistles most likely led to this. But please don't respond, I really don't care.

The point is you argued he was God Almighty even though he said he was the son of God Almighty, therefore your whole belief system was based on fawlty understanding. So how do you know that your present state of belief/unbelief is not based on fawlty understanding?

And I am telling you that if the Gospel writers were wrong on that point then there is simply no need to believe that the teachings and actions of Jesus attributed to him are any more accurate.

Again, this is besides the point. You believed, didn't you?

Jan Ardena.

It's actually not. Why don't you just answer the point since it is relevant.

 

[Dreamwalker]

1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Picking up on this; do you know that there are about 10 different words instead of "word" if it is translated from greek into whichever language?

 

[MarcAC]

Rather inadequate...

No analogues can be perfectly adequate Star. They are a means of simplifying a non-descript notion.

A gas is however not a solid, and a solid is not a liquid. But God is Spirit so your argument crumbles there.

There was no argument presented. An analogy was presented. Also, to clarify the analogy which seemed misunderstood as it seems has been the case with many biblical texts;

• God would be compared to H20... the divine quality
• The state God exists in, God's nature in a sense may be considered as the triple point... and here we assume no other state exists (as far as we can know)
• Solid, Liquid Gas may be substituted for Father, Son, Holy Spirit

At the triple point these phases exist at equilibrium... all three...

Secondly, the members of the Trinity are not even "phases" so your analogy is off by a mile there...

Nowhere did I state in my analogy that The Trinity exists in phases, 'phases' or "phases" but I stated it is a useful analogy that one may employ.

 

[§outh§tar]

Can't argue with that logic.

After all, since all phases are at equilibrium, Jesus must have been kidding when He said the father was greater than He and being schizophrenic when He prayed to Himself..

 

[anonymous2]

Can't argue with that logic.

After all, since all phases are at equilibrium, Jesus must have been kidding when He said the father was greater than He and being schizophrenic when He prayed to Himself..

Note he said greater, not better. So there's a hierarchical order to the triple point of water. What makes it more confusing is that if Jesus is equal to God because he shares God's nature, is he equal to us also cause he shares human nature (albeit without sin)? Oh the mysteries of the Incarnation and hypostatic union.

 

[MarcAC]

Can't argue with that logic.

Oh I'm sure you can find some way to do it.

After all, since all phases are at equilibrium, Jesus must have been kidding when He said the father was greater than He and being schizophrenic when He prayed to Himself..

Yes, that is one shortfall of the analogy in a sense (the heirarchy)... however it doesn't include the human aspect which anonymous touched on... that would be when Jesus prays.

But to a Christian who would think about something before discarding it as nonesense; we pray. God already knows what we'll pray for. So why pray? It is to communicate with God, to have a relationship.

Why would Jesus then pray? The fact it was recorded means it was witnessed... thus it is no great stretch of the intellect to assume the purpose of the prayer was of more relevance to us (the witnesses).

I would hope as a Christian one would not let such trivialities deter them from their life with God. I notice there has been no response to an earlier post I made. Rather intersting.

 

[§outh§tar]

Why would Jesus then pray? The fact it was recorded means it was witnessed... thus it is no great stretch of the intellect to assume the purpose of the prayer was of more relevance to us (the witnesses).

Is any Christian at all reading the first post? It was NOT witnessed. The people writing this were 40 years removed from the actual event and were NOT in any way observers of this event.

I would hope as a Christian one would not let such trivialities deter them from their life with God. I notice there has been no response to an earlier post I made. Rather intersting.

Could it be that we were afraid to face the truth? Will take a look when I do.

EDIT: Would it be about the blind man?

 

[David F.]

Is any Christian at all reading the first post? It was NOT witnessed. The people writing this were 40 years removed from the actual event and were NOT in any way observers of this event.

Yes, I've heard this old argument for years and it is not true. Care to show some proof?

 

[§outh§tar]

Their usage of the Old Testament so-called 'prophecies' to show that Jesus was the Messiah are indisputably wrenched out of context

The genealogies of Jesus contradict.

The resurrection accounts of Jesus contradict.

Judas betrayal of Jesus contradicts itself in the gospels.

The bit about the "saints rising up and entering Jerusalem" is an obvious and glaring fabrication.

Jesus' last words cant even be agreed upon.

There are anachronistic difficulties with the texts.

The "inspired" writers copy word for word extensively from the Markan accounts.

There are mistakes regarding Palestinian customs and geography.

Certain internal evidences suggests the Markan accounts were a mere compilation of anecdotes.

 

[MarcAC]

It was NOT witnessed. The people writing this were 40 years removed from the actual event and were NOT in any way observers of this event.

The point is; it was written about so obviously then, someone witnessed it? If there is disagreement then it must be contended that the writer was lying. Where is the atheistic, rational, repeatable, observable, proof of this?

 

[MarcAC]

Their usage... of anecdotes.

Even as a Christian, when I state; God exists, I attempt to provide some form of support. These are just statements to be taken on faith, from a faithless (in God) ex-Christian. It is suggested that some aid be presented from the bona fide atheists on this forum or maybe that the supporting texts be included in the essay for 'constructive dismantling'.

 

[David F.]

Quotes by §outh§tar:

Their usage of the Old Testament so-called 'prophecies' to show that Jesus was the Messiah are indisputably wrenched out of context. You may see the prophesies that way but prophecies, it seems, never work out as man envisions them. This does not make them invalid.

The genealogies of Jesus contradict. One is Mary and one is Joseph

The resurrection accounts of Jesus contradict. How?

Judas betrayal of Jesus contradicts itself in the gospels. More accusations without references

The bit about the "saints rising up and entering Jerusalem" is an obvious and glaring fabrication. Why is this a fabrication any more than Jesus' other miricles?

Jesus' last words cant even be agreed upon. I don't believe it says anywhere what his "last words" were.

There are anachronistic difficulties with the texts. What exactly?

The "inspired" writers copy word for word extensively from the Markan accounts. If you mean Mark was source material - so what?

There are mistakes regarding Palestinian customs and geography. What exactly, and how would anyone know 2000 years later anyway?

Certain internal evidences suggests the Markan accounts were a mere compilation of anecdotes. Specifics Please. Even if true - So what? Your point please?

 

[c20H25N3o]

It seems madness to me to argue about geneologies when every Christian knows that God is alive and is a constant source of Life to them. God is. He Lives. He says "Though shalt have no other gods before me" and the Christian man hears the Good Shepard and goes to Him.
To argue over geneologies is a fruitless exercise for the Christian. It is worthless in the light of Christ and of God's great love for you.

The atheist sees that commandment and thinks 'hocus pocus' and 'we die so f*ck it" and then the atheist condemns the Christian faith as worthless as if to make it 'go away'. The atheists who were Christians have much knowledge of scripture and now use that self-same knowledge to twist the Author of Life into something they have judged and condemned as being bad. They do this to make Christians stumble in their faith. To prove to Christians that the Christian God is evil.

The Christian has no answer for these people because the Christian knows Christ through the working of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is good. It is painful for the Christian to have the work of the Spirit of God maligned by some person because to blaspheme against the Spirit is unforgivable sin and the Christian knows this in their inner being. The Spirit is a complete delight to those who know Him and His coming was at a great price. A price that is also burnt into the Christian mind in a very special way. It is real and binding for the Christian. Nothing can seperate them from God's love.

Argueing about geneologies is fruitless.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Genesis 1:1
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
*************
§outh§tar: Jesus wasn't the one who said that, it is someone else's religious interpretation of God's nature.
*************
M*W: I believe that would be Moses who said that. Correctly translated from the ancient Egyptian language to today's American English, it means "In the beginning was the Sun, and the Sun was with God, and the Sun was God."

 

[Medicine*Woman]

§outh§tar: Is any Christian at all reading the first post? It was NOT witnessed. The people writing this were 40 years removed from the actual event and were NOT in any way observers of this event. Could it be that we were afraid to face the truth?
*************
M*W: I hope they listen to you, because they definitely don't want to listen to me, and if I tell the lost and hopeless to simply read something, they run in the direction of their false church!

 

[Medicine*Woman]

David F.: Yes, I've heard this old argument for years and it is not true. Care to show some proof?
*************
M*W: David, can you prove what you believe to be true? I'm having a hard time trusting your posts, because it appears you haven't done much factual reading about biblical history nor ancient religious thought.