Thread Rating:

FrGamble
FrGamble
Joined: Jun 5, 2011
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 790
February 9th, 2014 at 3:39:02 PM permalink
Quote: Nareed

if you read the Hebrew prophecies about the Messiah you'll realize none of that came true either before, after or during the time of Jesus. Ergo the Messiah has not come. Ergo Christianity is patently false, according to the Jewish scriptures. BTW, any number of devout, semi-devout, and even non-practicing Jews will testify to the effect that God is one, and that belief in God being three, or there being three gods, or God being some kind of three-in-one entity is just wrong.



I'm not sure which version of the Hebrew Scriptures you are reading but here is just 10 of the hundreds of prophecies about the Messiah Jesus fulfilled.

Here are ten prophecies from the Old Testament, fulfilled in the coming of Jesus:



1. Jesus will come from the line of Abraham. Prophecy: Genesis 12:3. Fulfilled: Matthew 1:1.

2. Jesus’ mother will be a virgin. Prophecy: Isaiah 7:14. Fulfilled: Matthew 1:18–23.

3. Jesus will be a descendent of Isaac and Jacob. Prophecy: Genesis 17:19 and Numbers 24:17. Fulfilled: Matthew 1:2.

4. Jesus will be born in the town Bethlehem. Prophecy: Micah 5:2. Fulfilled: Luke 2:1–7.

5. Jesus will be called out of Egypt. Prophecy: Hosea 11:1. Fulfilled: Matthew 2:13–15.

6. Jesus will be a member of the tribe of Judah. Prophecy: Genesis 49:10. Fulfilled: Luke 3:33.

7. Jesus will enter the temple. This is important because the temple was destroyed in A.D. 70 and was never rebuilt. Prophecy: Malachi 3:1. Fulfilled: Luke 2:25–27.

8. Jesus will be from the lineage of King David. Prophecy: Jeremiah 23:5. Fulfilled: Matthew 1:6.

9. Jesus’ birth will be accompanied with great suffering and sorrow. Prophecy: Jeremiah 31:15. Fulfilled: Matthew 2:16.

10. Jesus will live a perfect life, die by crucifixion, resurrect from death, ascend into heaven, and sit at the right hand of God. Prophecies: Psalm 22:16; Psalm 16:10; Isaiah 53:10–11; Psalm 68:18; Psalm 110:1. Fulfilled: 1 Peter 2:21–22; Luke 23:33; Acts 2:25–32; Acts 1:9; Hebrews 1:3.


Also you are very correct that God is one - that is what every Christian also believes. To say that the Trinity somehow goes against there being one God is a gross misunderstanding of the Triune nature of God, found both in the New and Old Testaments.
s2dbaker
s2dbaker
Joined: Jun 10, 2010
  • Threads: 51
  • Posts: 3259
February 9th, 2014 at 3:55:53 PM permalink
Some of the pertinent bible entries are also annotated in this video:

Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
Twirdman
Twirdman
Joined: Jun 5, 2013
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 1004
February 9th, 2014 at 4:07:41 PM permalink
Quote: FrGamble

Either that or blinded by the devil.

Well, I don't know if that is actually the case, but there does seem to be something that blinds some non-believers from realizing the truth. Some of these truths are quite obvious, like the existence of God, aka Higher Power, Prime mover, uncaused cause, etc. Then there is the truth about Jesus Christ that does need revelation, prayer, and faith to discover. However, negative comments or immature ones like "Christianity is blatantly false" shows a real blindness to the facts and an unwillingness to actually discover or talk about them.



Using the uncaused causer for an argument is patently absurd since it does not necessarily imply any sort of thinking being. Clearly their is some sort of sugar God an unsweetend sweetener. That argument sounds absolutely ridiculous and so does arguing for the unmoved mover or the uncaused cause.
Nareed
Nareed
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
February 9th, 2014 at 4:25:37 PM permalink
Quote: FrGamble

I'm not sure which version of the Hebrew Scriptures you are reading



None. I don't waste my time with any of it.

But every rabbi I've heard talk on the subject says so.

Quote:

1. Jesus will come from the line of Abraham. Prophecy: Genesis 12:3. Fulfilled: Matthew 1:1.



I really need to say this: Well, duh! I mean, if you take the Torah seriously (and I repeat I do not), every Jew is descended from Abraham.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
FrGamble
FrGamble
Joined: Jun 5, 2011
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 790
February 9th, 2014 at 8:30:51 PM permalink
Quote: Twirdman

Using the uncaused causer for an argument is patently absurd since it does not necessarily imply any sort of thinking being. Clearly their is some sort of sugar God an unsweetend sweetener. That argument sounds absolutely ridiculous and so does arguing for the unmoved mover or the uncaused cause.



I appreciate your understanding of the argument and I grant that it is possible that the uncaused cause or unmoved mover is an impersonal force without thought or intellect. Now take a look around you and see how absolutely ridiculous you sound in trying to argue that this uncaused causer is not a thinking being.
FrGamble
FrGamble
Joined: Jun 5, 2011
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 790
February 9th, 2014 at 8:35:17 PM permalink
Dear Nareed,
Reading the Sacred Hebrew Scriptures is the opposite of a waste of time and the Torah in particular is one of the most important texts in the history of the world and demands to be taken very seriously. I hope your day got better. Peace!
Twirdman
Twirdman
Joined: Jun 5, 2013
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 1004
February 9th, 2014 at 8:46:10 PM permalink
Quote: FrGamble

I appreciate your understanding of the argument and I grant that it is possible that the uncaused cause or unmoved mover is an impersonal force without thought or intellect. Now take a look around you and see how absolutely ridiculous you sound in trying to argue that this uncaused causer is not a thinking being.



An argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy. If you're saying that an impersonal force can't create the universe then you need a lot more then well the world doesn't seem like its created by any impersonal force. What reason do you have for suggesting the uncaused causer is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity which is what is required for it to be used as a proof for the Christian God. How does Aquinas's argument apply any better to the Christian god then it does to Parabrahman, some as of yet unknown god, the Force, or simply an impersonal force. The answer is it doesn't and thus it is a fatally flawed attempt at proving the Christian god.
Nareed
Nareed
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
February 9th, 2014 at 8:52:11 PM permalink
Quote: FrGamble

Dear Nareed,
Reading the Sacred Hebrew Scriptures is the opposite of a waste of time



Mind the run-on sentences ;)

Seriously, I read enough of it in school to have had enough. Especially when I met my one true intellectual love in high school: History

Quote:

and the Torah in particular is one of the most important texts in the history of the world and demands to be taken very seriously.



I take it as seriously as any other book of myths. All societies, after all, have their myths. Some make books about them, some don't. In either case they tell you how they view themselves, and in some cases how they remember history.

BTW as mythology the whole of the Old Testament is distinctly second rate. Way, way away from the Greek myths. Third rate honors would go to the Mayan mythology, because one can clearly see whoever wrote the Popol Vuh was on drugs a lot of the time (drugs were common in religious practices in pre-Columbian America). Granted some of the imagery is bizarre enough to appear alien, which it interesting in and of itself, but aside from that the book is far from memorable.

Quote:

I hope your day got better. Peace!



It kind of did, thanks. I managed a workout session, and even made lunch for the very long week ahead.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
FrGamble
FrGamble
Joined: Jun 5, 2011
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 790
February 9th, 2014 at 9:06:35 PM permalink
Quote: Twirdman

An argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy. If you're saying that an impersonal force can't create the universe then you need a lot more then well the world doesn't seem like its created by any impersonal force. What reason do you have for suggesting the uncaused causer is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity which is what is required for it to be used as a proof for the Christian God. How does Aquinas's argument apply any better to the Christian god then it does to Parabrahman, some as of yet unknown god, the Force, or simply an impersonal force. The answer is it doesn't and thus it is a fatally flawed attempt at proving the Christian god.



The answer is only fatally flawed if it was an attempt to prove the Christian understanding of God, which it was not. I'm just happy you really do grasp the argument and for a Sunday evening I'm tempted to feel content at the consensus that there is a "God" (be it the Trinity or a divine watchmaker or FSM) and call it a night. To go the next step will require some openness to faith, revelation, and the supernatural because it is not as obvious and right under our noses like the existence of "God".

If your open I'd be happy to share some of my reasons for believing in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God who is fully revealed in the person of Jesus Christ the incarnate God.
onenickelmiracle
onenickelmiracle
Joined: Jan 26, 2012
  • Threads: 212
  • Posts: 8277
February 9th, 2014 at 9:09:39 PM permalink
Response to the Kravitz argument:

My belief is any religion seeking physical proof is Just doing it wrong. You can't win this game in my opinion and have to just admit there isn't proof and never will be. It doesn't prove you're wrong with this approach, but trying the witness idea does. I'd just say it is scientifically impossible to ever know everything about the universe, and you either accept it or you don't. If you accept the intellectual limitations of man, the door is open for there to be something untouchable outside our universe. God could be there waiting, but you'll have to wait until you depart to find out. An approach would be possibly acceptable by the design of man, to not be responsible for actions we cannot comprehend and you can call this weakness defense Jesus. Jesus doesn't have to ever existed for the Jesus defense to exist. I just don't think trying unprovable proof is a winning argument. Your intentions may be good, but they grasp a self-defeating argument claiming proof which isn't there scientifically.
I am a robot.

  • Jump to: