The following is a debate which happened on Facebook over a two day period. Enjoy.
o Sam Jesus promised to rid the world of sin. Odin promised to rid the world of frost giants.
I see no frost giants.
Monday at 16:55 • Like • 8
o
Jack Probably because there never were any frost giants to begin with.
Monday at 20:45 • Like
o
Sam Says whom? :3
Monday at 20:45 • Like
o
Jack Let’s go with the usual: we have no evidence (to my knowledge) that there are or ever were Frost Giants. We have the myths and legends of a culture from the far North which originated out of a healthy hero culture.
Christ however, as I have made clear over the past three years, has overwhelming evidence, historically and philosophically. He promised not to rid the world of sin but to create a new world where sin was no more.
Sadly for Thor, he matches the typical war god of his day and his very ontological make up is shaky due to his polytheistic nature. He relies on both his father and mother, whilst my God relies on no one one but Himself. I’d be careful you don’t make a wise crack about the trinity here unless you actually know what you are talking about which you have told me multiple times you don’t due to your apparent lack of care for this subject.
Why the sudden interest now? Ready to read the book I offered you?
Monday at 20:54 • Like • 1
o
Sam You know Yahweh was originally part of a pantheon, right?
Plus, Yahweh is very much a military deity in the old testament: Exactly what the isrealites needed at the time, and typical to the day and age.
Yes, Christ the man has evidence for his existance. So does evolution, the big-bang theory and various other things you condemn. Nice bit of choosing. Christ the god… Well, different matter entirely.
Monday at 20:58 • Like • 1
o
Miles David wanted to see
Monday at 20:59 • Like
o
Jack Sadly those are what we call unsubstantiated claims.
Yahweh being part of a pantheon of gods is the usual trollop I have to deal with over in Shock’s chat so I’ll let you go ahead and go there if you really think it is a good argument. (Hint: it isn’t)
Christ the man is irrefutable, therefore take into account what He did and said. There you go.
Evolution and the Big Bang theory, unless I’m mistaken, are science – not theology, philosophy or history. The function differently therefore I do not plan to waste my time on them.
Nice bit of straw man argumentation you have going on there Sammy boy. Buck up and actually try this time. If you feel like a live debate, I’ll send you the link to a specific chat that has better facilities than a meme post on Facebook.
Monday at 21:10 • Like
o
Tobias ”We have the myths and legends of a culture from the far North which originated out of a healthy hero culture.”
Seriously man? The norse vikings weren’t a healthy hero culture, The norse vikings were living a harsh life far from a healthy hero culture. While It’s true that the belief in the Aesir is filled with heroic tales however opposite to modern belief alot of viking settlements were suffering from lack of proper food in the winter and they had hard times hunting in the summer often leading to the death of many villagers during hunts.
“Sadly for Thor, he matches the typical war god of his day”
Your abit off target there Jack, Thor was indeed the major god of war within the aesir however he was also the god of healing, trees and courage. Thor was often described a man living a life full of fighting against impossible odds that a normal human wouldn’t be able to.
“we have no evidence (to my knowledge) that there are or ever were Frost Giants.”
Here’s where it gets a bit tricky Jack, while there are no physical evidence of frost giants not exsisting, the modern description of a frost giant, is that of the winter coming down from the mountains to terrorize the people with a winter as close to the fimbulwinter, the never ending winter however once winter was over it was belived that Thor managed to beat back the frost giants and let spring/summer advance for the viking.
While it’s true that a frost giant is impossible to exsist however one way to make them sensible in today’s world is that of a spirit reprisenting winter and cold.
There are of course the solid fact we still have winter however since that would make logical as we still have four seasons while it’s also true that winter is stereotypical winter is that as soon as winter appers there is snow however not every year snow falls then you could logically say that there are no frost giants left but still, nature still have it’s odd way of reminding how small we are.
Monday at 21:16 • Like
o
Tommy Debunking Greek gods 101:
(1) A being that owes its existence to other beings cannot be the being than which none greater can be conceived.
(2) Thor owes his existence to other beings.
(3) Therefore, Thor cannot be the being than which none greater can be conceived.
By the way, for all of you who seem to like to gang up on one Christian and think you are winning something you make yourselves look rather pathetic.
Monday at 21:22 • Unlike • 1
o
Miles …Thor wasn’t a greek god. He’s a Norse God, just Sayin’
Monday at 21:27 • Like • 3
o
Tommy Excuse me you’re right. I was just in another debate about Greek gods and didn’t realize that. But either way there is a debunking of your viking god.
Monday at 21:29 • Like
o
Jimmy ”You know Yahweh was originally part of a pantheon, right?”
Please, do elaborate on the biblical pantheon of which you speak.
Monday at 21:29 • Unlike • 2
o
Jack He is Norse… but the argument still stands. I’ll be back in a little while.
Monday at 21:29 • Like • 1
o
Miles ..My viking god? But I don’t believe in “Thor”. I don’t believe in your god either. I don’t believe in ANY gods. I take The lovecraft view of the universe, which is that everything is a complex machine, and that what we see is an illusion created by the mind. cosmic horrors, or a glimpse of the TRUE universe, are enough to drive a man insane, thus proving mankind is a pathetic species, and should be wiped out for their own good, before we do something we ALL regret. Of course, you people are all to wrapped up in your “gods” to see the harm your fights cause, so I’ll just leave the children to it.
Monday at 21:32 • Like • 1
o
Tobias ”But either way there is a debunking of your viking god.”
Well the same can be said be for christianity you know? it’s just harder to prove as there is you know three splits in christianity and those being Catholic, lutherian christian and Ortodox with diffrent view of the trinity so really there are ways to debunk God
Monday at 21:32 • Like
o
Tommy Miles, please when you are in a debate or conversation do not straw man the topic.
Monday at 21:37 • Like
o
Tommy Tobias, you simply stating that the same thing can be done for Christianity doesn’t prove anything.
P.S. Im not a Christian im a Messianic Jew.
Monday at 21:38 • Like
o
Jason Catholic, Orthodox and Protestants are pretty united on the Trinity. The Filioque Controversy is a dispute over how the members of the Trinity relate, but that there are three persons in one being is agreed upon. I really don’t see why such a dispute would make it harder to accept the evidence for Christianity (i.e. the resurrection of Jesus).
Monday at 21:40 • Unlike • 1
o
Tobias Well that’s good to know that your a messianic jew, I can respect that. Heck I’m a modern Aesir beliver as I find the belief in the Aesir to be more logical then how the bible describes how mankind came to be after.
Monday at 21:40 • Like
o
Tommy Mmkay then….. But im still waiting to see you apply the argument i made towards my beliefs.
Monday at 21:42 • Like
o
Jason I am not wanting to cause a distraction, but why would you not want to identify yourself as a Christian, Tommy?
Monday at 21:43 • Like
o
Tobias I’m not trying as that Tommy, I respect the beliefs that Jews hold. I really do however It’s also fair to say everyone is entitled about their opnions on various religons heck some of my friends of Jews.
Monday at 21:45 • Like
o
Tommy Im not saying that people are not entitled to opinions. But when people attack one person for posting a picture that doesn’t seem very fair now does it?
Monday at 21:47 • Like
o
Tommy
Jason, The term “Christian” originally meant “follower of the Christ” or “follower of the Messiah.” In and of itself, it
is a good term. Unfortunately, over time, the term “Christian” came to mean more than simply “follower of
the Messiah. Many people today have this dichotomy in their minds, that on the one hand, there are Jews
and Judaism, and on the other there are Christians and Christianity. You are either one or the other.
Accordingly, when a Jew accepts Yeshua he “switches over” from the Jew-Judaism side to the Christian-
Christianity side and is no longer a Jew but a Christian. For all intents and purposes, the term “Christian”
has become synonymous with “non-Jew” or “Gentile.”
Obviously, we believe that just the opposite has occurred. Messianic Jews believe that we have found the
Jewish Messiah and we are now “completed Jews” in Him. Consequently, we choose to call ourselves
“Messianic Jews” which identifies us as Jewish people, who believe and follow the Messiah Yeshua.
(Interestingly, there is no commandment in the New Covenant to call ourselves “Christians.” Early
Messianic Jews had many names for themselves e.g. believers, elect, remnant, The Way, followers
disciples, etc.)
Monday at 21:47 • Like
o
Jimmy
”The norse vikings weren’t a healthy hero culture, The norse vikings were living a harsh life far from a healthy hero culture.”
Ironically, I recently wrote an essay on Beowulf which included much study of the Norse culture effect on the initial peoples of England. Contrary to your description, the Norsemen were obsessed with a life of heroism and glory due to their strict code of futility and ultimate death. The Norse philosophy was that the world is a dark harbinger of one’s oncoming doom and people ought to live a life of sublimity to leave behind history that could trumph death (seeing as it belief in an eternal soul was not an attribute of Norse paganism). In fact, the scops who sung of Beowulf did so in a reverent elegy of woe and tragedy – being the general bleak outlook of life – that the Swedes had lost a great king and warrior and protecter of their peoples. So, yes, they were poor, boorish clans, but they were very obsessed with being strong warriors who accomplished feats worthy of historic account.
So, my point is, the Norse culture was preoccupied with accomplishing a history, which often ensued an obsession with heroism and glory and the worship of their clan warriors. My advice: do some actual research on the Norse people: http://www.slideshare.net/k8would/the-anglosaxons-and-beowulf-presentation
(Notice that I, and my friends when needed, will provide links to our claims.)
I think your claims about the nature of religious descriptions of Thor need to be substantiated. As we commonly say on facebook, link or lie.
“Thor was often described a man living a life full of fighting against impossible odds that a normal human wouldn’t be able to.”
Funny, this supports my above paragraph on the Norse culture.
Honestly, though, I think it is a little comical that you are belying Jack over the reality of a Frost Giant. XD
The Anglo-Saxons and Beowulf
www.slideshare.net
A brief lesson on the early history of the Anglo-Saxons and the influences on the early epic poem \”Beowulf.\”
Monday at 21:48 • Like • 1 •
o
Tobias
That much is true Tommy.
“the Norsemen were obsessed with a life of heroism and glory due to their strict code of futility and ultimate death”
There is truth to on how the norsemen were obessed to a life of heroism and ultimate death however there is alot of distinctions between the old beliefs of the Aesir and the modern Aesir but also for the sake of arguement would you want to follow the old beliefs or the modern beliefs where the rules are a bit diffrent but that’s just for the sake of the arguement
Monday at 21:52 • Like
o
Jason I am aware of all of that Tommy, and I have no problem with someone identifying themselves as a Messianic Jew. The only concern I have is that I don’t want to see a split between Jewish and gentile believers. We are all one in Christ.
Monday at 21:53 • Unlike • 2
o
Tommy
Well, gentiles are supposed to be grafted into the body of Christ actually. Now gentiles do not have to follow the Torah but if you read Matthew 5:17-19 it strongly suggest that we should follow it. Here i will copy paste a study i did earlier today.
We are to follow the Torah.
Matthew 5:17-19 says,
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle s in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore s break one of these least commandments, and s teach men so, he s be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever s do and teach them, the same s be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Then lets look at a few things that go with Matthew that is found in Deuteronomy. In Deuteronomy 30:11,16, &19 it states; (THE LAW OF GOD IS NOT DIFFICULT)
Deu 30:11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. (This verse is stating that whatever he has commanded us to do it is not too hard. After all would God really give us anything that is too hard to follow?)
Deu 30:16 In that I command thee this day to love Yahweh thy Elohim, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and Yahweh thy Elohim s bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it. (Now in this verse we see that it says to love the LORD your God. And to walk in obeddience to him and that we are too keep his commandments. And we read in the NT that to love the Lord is to follow His commandments.)
Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:(Choose LIFE. What is life you may ask. Well life is simply following the Word of God)
Now lets take a look at Revelation 21:1,5
Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.(Compare this with Matthew 5:18)
Rev 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. (Now here we see that God is saying He makes ALL things new. The only way to do this is to get rid of the old (pass away) and then created a new heaven and a new earth.)
So you are probably asking by now, “what are you trying to get at?” Well it’s simple really. Its that even though Yeshua (Jesus’ hebrew name) came and fullfilled prophecy it doesn’t mean that EVERYTHING is fulfilled. I will give 2 example which i have talked about thus far.
1.)Heaven and earth have NOT passed away (Matthew 5:18)
2.) All of the laws & prophets have not been fulfilled YET.
So in conclusion, we are to still follow the Torah until everything is fulfilled because that is what scripture says. And i want you to ask yourself this;
IF WE LOVE GOD, WHAT DOES HE WANT US TO DO? Joh 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
WHAT IS LOVE AS DEFINED BY SCRIPTURE?
2Jn 1:6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.
I hope that this study blesses you and that you learn from it. Pray that the Lord will open the eyes of your heart and that you may know the truth. Thank you for reading this. Shalom.
By,
Thomas
Monday at 21:55 • Like
o
Jason I think this is quite insightful. Let me know what you think Tommy:
The Christian and the Old Testament Law, Part 3
www.youtube.com
We close this series with a look at a couple of typical objections.
Monday at 22:00 • Like •
o
Sam Strawman? Please, do elaborate.
Monday at 22:11 • Like
o
Tommy Sam learn what a straw man is and you will understand. Dont be scared of research.
Monday at 22:13 • Like
o
Lee Tommy – I think you are confusing the terms Law/Commandment with the Torah and your switching contexts rapidly through several books of the bible all of which may mean different things by the same or similar words in those specific books.
Monday at 22:14 • Like
o
Tommy No , im going by what the original texts say.
Monday at 22:14 • Like
o
Jimmy Tobias, I have no preference as long as you back up what you posit.
Monday at 22:15 • Like • 1
o
Sam I know what a Strawman is. I was asking why you were using the term incorrectly.
Monday at 22:15 • Like
o
Tommy Show me how i was using the term incorrectly.
Monday at 22:15 • Like
o
Tommy Excuse me you were correct, i meant to say red herring. Im kinda off today :/
Monday at 22:17 • Like
o
Sam
On another note entirely:
Christ the man maybe ‘irrefutable’. But his miracles are not, and neither is his status as deity incarnate.
My point with the evidence was that you are only choosing the evidence which you want to be seen. You choose the evidence that supports christ, and say he is irrefutable. You made a hypothesis (Christ the man existed) And provided verification. That is a scientific method. You ignore the same methods viability repeatedly for subjects you deem ‘unfitting’. This is a terrible viewpoint to hold.
As for the whole ‘Debunking the greek./norse gods’: You’re using the wrong definitions. The old gods do not claim to be ‘the greatest imagninable being’. At all. Only your deity.
Please refrain from treating me as a petulant child. Implying I am ‘Scared of Research’ is extremely patronising, and does not create a good impression.
And to finish: Stop trying to goad me into a debate on your grounds. I know what will happen; You will invite a huge number of people whose minds are already made up into your point of view, and then try to convince me to convert. And if I am misinterpretting your actions, then I apologise: I’m still annoyed at being considered lesser by you and your ‘holier than thou’ brigade.
Monday at 22:35 • Like
o
Sam You know what? I’ll leave now. Go ahead and consider this a victory for you, in your little assumption that me walking away automatically makes you right,and rejoice: your saviour will appreciate the egos.
Monday at 22:39 • Like
o
Lee
Tommy – Well the passages in John about commandments do not necessarily mean the whole O.T. law. What we are probably talking about is the 10 commandments and/or the two principal commands of Jesus “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength and love your neighbour as yourself”. As Jesus stated in the sermon on the mount “Moses has said, but I say to you”, so Jesus was sometimes changing and improving the directions given in the O.T. So I do affirm that we are to keep the 10 commandments as Christians but as for the whole scope of rites such as circumcision and the passover etc… I think the new testament bears out (especially in Hebrews, Romans, Galatians) that such things are gone in the new covenant. The passage in Matthew again doesn’t necessarily mean all of the O.T. law and rites, many commentators have said that it refers in a more limited sense to the 10 commandments, and this would make sense when you look at the new testament as a whole and the teaching of Jesus as a whole (as mentioned before particularly in the sermon on the mount) and also “the whole sum of the law is Love the Lord your God….Love your neighbour as yourself. Another solution is to say that Matthew was reflecting his early Jewish Christian communities view of upholding the law and it’s rites and that a gospel like Mark which was written from a very Gentile/Pauline perspective (i.e. John Mark was a companion of Paul and probably Luke) actually gives a very different portrait of Jesus which seems to be less concerned with the law and seems to even cenge the dominant views about Sabbath observance and “the traditions of the elders”. However the latter view would necessarily lead to view of scripture which sees the humanity in the writing of the scriptures a bit more keenly than some may be comfortable with. (I would probably hold both views as expressed in this case).
Monday at 22:40 • Like
o
Jimmy ”But his miracles are not, and neither is his status as deity incarnate.”F
Great! Show this is demonstrable; refute them.
Also, I await clarification that Yahweh was part of a biblical pantheon.
Monday at 22:47 • Like
o
Sam
Okay then: Chris Angel can walk on water. Either he is christ, or he is a magician. Lazarus? Coma. Feeding of the five thousand? Metaphorical. Or just a couple of people bringing along lunches and contributing to a whole pot.
As for his deity-status? I’m with the muslims on this one: Compressing an 0omnipotent deity into one man is nigh-on impossible. And don’t open up that ‘he can do anything he likes’ stuff, that’s just a cop-out and you know it.
Again, I wsih to leave this exercise in futility. Please, make like a benevolent deity and know when to quit.
Monday at 22:51 • Like • 1
o
Jimmy – Speaking from probably most recent scholarship. Yes in the earliest writings and some fragments of the O.T. he probably viewed as this by some writers was but as time went on and the bible became more developed and got edited together then a monotheistic world-view emerged. However since Christians view revelation as progressing more and more from the earliest writings through to the New Testament (and Church Tradition which continues to develop through the guidance of the Spirit) then this fact doesn’t really bother me as a Christian. It may bother some though. The bible after all reflected the views of the communities and writers and it is recognised as both a human and divine book and I don’t hold the view that it is without error and that its accurate on everything upon which it speaks and so on.
Monday at 22:52 • Like
o
Jimmy , I think you mixed my claims up with someone else’s. ^,,^ Thanks for the note, though.
Monday at 22:54 • Like
o
Tommy Sam, equivocation Yeshua to Chris Angel shows your ignorance…. And you side with muslims about Yeshua. Okay but you leave out things such as the trinity. You don’t remember or take into account that he was God made in the flesh. You just deny it out of ignorance. 99% of historical scholars(believers and non believers) affirm that Yeshua lived and was divine.
Monday at 22:56 • Like
o
Jimmy
Sam, Chris Angel does not claim to be God, so, until he does, I am not interested; perhaps he is even an angel or a nephilim or a leprechaun, there is no way of knowing – but none of those possibilities matter to me. The problem with your second and third notes are that the bible disagrees with you. As for the Muslim projection, why is the infinite nature of God a cop-out? In that case, you might as well call Christianity a cop out and quit discussing it at all. … But I really doubt you believe that.
Monday at 22:56 • Like • 1
o
Sam
99%… How dare you. How dare you make such an outlandish, incorrect, biased claim. And he is only god made flesh according to the bible. Whose infallibility is massively in question due to the fact it is only validated by itself.
Bible disagrees with me? Big whoop. The qu’ran disagrees with you, and yet you aren’t surrendering your beliefs.
Christianity does not need an infinite god. I do not disregard the christian faith, I disregard the idea that you can account everything to god being omnipotent and/or ‘working in mysterious ways’. It’s a sentiment which basically says ‘ BECAUSE MAGIC!’.
Yesterday at 00:07 • Like
o
Tommy
Who ever said that we think that way…? You don’t know me but I was an atheist for most my life and I was a Muslim at one point. The Qur’an may disagree but it’s not correct due to historical precedent and they haven’t proven anything at all. Also im an evidentialist so I don’t go off ignorance. And if you want to talk about magic then lets talk about the cosmic fart that came from nothing and created the universe. Lets talk about abiogenesis. And lets talk about how Darwinian evolution is IMPOSSIBLE. Please if you want to talk about magic all you have to do is look at what atheist accept. Get over yourself. Your like what 17? I bet you haven’t even done any actually studies. Come back when you grow up and actually learn about what our beliefs are instead of spouting your ignorant claims.
Yesterday at 01:48 • Like
o
Sam
Again with attacking ME. Does it make you feel big? Does it make you feel like you have the upperhand? Is it what your messiah would do? I am sick to death of people like you cliaming that I know nothing about their beliefs purely and simply because I disagree with them.
Also, please: learn the difference between athiests and darwinists. Not all athiests follow the purely scientific creed. Buddhism, for example, is an atheistic religion. Actually, technically, you too are an atheist: There are many different gods you do not believe in.
‘Cosmic fart’? So you’re saying matter exploding from one point (after either being pulled there from a previous universe or even originally being energy, since the two are interchangable) is less likely than ‘The magic sky daddy did it.’? Abiogenesis? Life from nothing, I presume? Well, it wasn’t from nothing. All you would need is the formation of proteins and a phospholipid bi-layer for the cell membrane and the cells could easily begin forming. The chances of such things forming are small, yes, but due to the lovely nature of probability it’s entirely possible it happened on the first go. Darwinian evolution is impossible, you say? Perhaps his original theory, maybe, but science has adapted the theory to suit the evidence, and it seems very much likely at this point. London’s Peppered Moths, MRSA and HIV are good, current examples of this process taking place.
You’ve also just dismissed the Qu’ran purely because ‘it’s not correct’ and ‘they haven’t proven anything at all’. Your texts are hardly fact either, since they’ve been rewritten and editted countless times over the years. Yes, there are roman records of a man being crucified for preaching; so what? Maybe it was all Life of Brian style, and he didn’yt want to be the messiah. His follower’s wrote your book, so there’s going to be huge bias and possibly ‘creative liberties’. Here, such things as Higher Criticism, Historical Criticism and Source Criticism, courtesy of such great men as Schleiermacher and Feuerbach, are extremely useful.
Tell me, do you follow the propositional view of scripture or the non-propositional view? Considering how many different interpretations there are of your book, and then of those interpretations themselves, it’s a little tricky to understnad WHICH beliefs are yours. My christian mother certainly believes something different to you, yet has still accepted christ into her heart, for example. I mean, even some of the words you’ve been using have fallen victim to Ludwig Wittgensteins Language Games; you defined a god as ‘the greatest possible beinbg that could exist’ aka. Anselm’s definition, and attempted to apply it to the greek/norse gods. Since the greeks/norse never actually said that the gods were the greatest possible beings, your argument lost validity. If you had known their definition of god beyond your own, I have no doubt you’d have come up with something better. Don’t worry, it happens to all of us.
Oh, I’m sorry; what was that about me lacking studies?
Yesterday at 08:59 • Like
o
Jack
Sam I hate to remind you that even you admit that you don’t study this stuff. Let’s just check some history here as evolution is of no interest or importance here.
The Bible came about over a period of 2500 years, the New Testament itself came about only a few decades after the resurrection of Christ in 30 AD. Each of these 27 books of the New Testament have been shown to be accurate as auto graphical texts through the practise of textual criticism which wades through the some 27000 copies we have from the period, and tries to determine the original words of the author. Most modern day Bibles (not all) contain the most recent of these studies in there make up which is why I use certain translations. So they may have been copied out (never re-written entirely) but we have made it back to the auto-graphical texts.
Abiogenesis is life from non-life not life from nothing.
Dismissing the Qu’ran because it is not correct is hardly unreasonable. I don’t get marks in a history paper for giving incorrect information. The fact of the matter is that the Qu’ran itself is not in its original form. The Turkish government holds the oldest one around and refuses to let scholars study it. I wonder why. The Qu’ran also had several versions in print before a group of fanatics (sort of like KJV onlyists) decided the other versions where evil and burned both the versions and the people that used them.
Now lets look at your ludicrous claims that the Bible is entirely biased. Lets just go with the New Testament here because no one says the Old Testament is biased. Do you realise each and everyone of the authors of the New Testament DIED for what they wrote? If they themselves were reporting falsehoods then why did they not simply say they were LYING. Why die for a lie? They had nothing to gain at all from writing a load of lies simply to die in the most painful ways possible! Be reasonable, no one dies for a lie.
Could you please show how the “99% claim” is false? I’ve not seen it before but I assume you have in order to instantly call it as false.
You seem to think different interpretations makes the historical basis of Christianity shaky. Sadly you are wrong. It is quite the opposite. The many view points on the specifics of Christianity is what allows Christianity to weed out the truths from the untruths and grow. The Church is always aiming to learn more about our God and debate is the best way of doing that. Learning through debate is a Jewish practice and route, actually, so it fits quite well.
The Norse/Greek gods do not call themselves the greatest possible beings, you are correct. However this does not invalidate the argument used because by the Norse gods themselves not being any of the omnis then we see that Christ is instantly better than any of them, or all of them put together (which takes care of the original point in the poster). Word games eh? As far as I am aware using different words to describe one’s view is hardly a crime and on a topic where human language can only scrape the surface of the wonders then the many words used are entirely necessary.
Plus the fact that BECAUSE the norse/greek gods are not any of the omnis and are contingent on something ore other is the very reason why they cannot exist and why their ontology is messed up. The following implications are disastrous for any pagan faith. . THAT is what Tummeh was getting at, therefore his argument remains valid. You misread there Sammy boy.
Perhaps you would like to offer us something that actually cenges Christianity.
18 hours ago • Like
o
Jack I forgot something.
The Bible is not only validated by itself Sam. Just take a look at the most recent archaeological digs, spiritual searchings, science and literature that points to there being a God. The Bible is validated by history (you know, because that’s what it is.)
18 hours ago • Like
o
Sam
I will admit the Bible has some level of historic context, and a spiritual meaning. HOWEVER under no circumstances does this make it an absolute truth. We know it was written, when it was written and by whom, but those criteria do not make it fact. Take Tolkein’s massively expansive world of fiction: Do the supporting texts such as the Silmarion mean that the Valar should be worshipped?
As for your little quip about lying and death; If they did not know that they were illusioned, they would still die for it. Al Queda uses this to some effect.
I was not claiming that using different words was a crime, I was merely pointing out that he was applying the wrong definition of the word for in this particular sense. God is a god, but not all gods are akin to God.
‘Christ is instantly better’? What does that have to do with anything? Cthulhu is instantly better for some, but that does not vault him to the level of an absolute truth. And I also fail to see how deities being contingent on something else (Perhaps upon the belief of man, as per Terry Pratchett’s Anthropormorphic Personification) in anyway invalidates or weakens their position.
Give me a few minutes to use some quick google-fu to invalidate your support of his rather outlandish claim.
Finally, no. I will not ‘cenge Christianity’, for I respect it as a belief system. It’s message of love and tolerance is a shining becaon. Even if Yeshua was not the messiah, I respect the man fully. However, what I argue against is the fanatical approach which, on many an occasion, ignores the true message. I apologise if any good man here has felt offended or threatened buy anything I have said, but if anyone here who deems themself holier than me is offended, then my conscience will remain clean.
17 hours ago • Like
o
Sam Actually, I’m having a hard time finding a source for the original claim. Care to provide?
17 hours ago • Like
o
Tommy
The only reason i ‘attacked’ you is because you did the same exact thing so dont try playing the helpless little victim. And the ‘magic sky daddy’ is a very elementary way to attack an argument especially seeing how you are practically strawmanning that whole topic along with you not even putting YHWH into context. And abiogensis is life from non life. It is a hypothesis that has NEVER been proven. Evolution doesn’t even tell us the ORIGINS of life. That is where abiogenesis comes into play and that is where it fail. But don’t worry because Darwinian evolution fails as well.
And NEVER once did i say the Qur’an was incorrect just because. I can give plenty of evidence to show that. And everything else you said about that topic was practically a red herring.
And When it comes to understanding scripture there are things that are both literal and metaphorical. I study theology so i know how to look at scripture and put it into context. And never once did i stated on here that God is the greatest being (even though i don’t deny that He is) So with that being said you are trying to bring in topic that are completely irrelevant. So how about you just approach things and not go off topic.
Yes lets all say it was an illusion…. I guess every single one of the 500 eye witnesses of Yeshua were ALL ucinating right…?
And once again you are bringing in irrelevant topics. And saying ‘well why can’t this god be worshiped’ have you ever heard of something called logical deduction? Have you ever actually studied these things? Or are you like the most of the people your age and simply jump on the bandwagon?
So far from what you have said shows that you know very little about God and the actual characteristics of Him and how He functions. Not only that but you have CONSTANTLY taken God out of context.
Sam, i want you to go here: http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 I have a feeling that if you actually talked to people who know what they are talking about and if you would try to stay on topic then you would actually learn something.
Conference, V3.2.8
login.meetcheap.com
To join our conferencing software you need to have Adobe Flash Player 9 or above…See more
16 hours ago • Like •
o
Jack
I wasn’t supporting the claim, I’ve never heard of it untill now and the way you attacked it sort of made me think you knew about it.
Look at the original picture. Christ having His omnis puts Him above Thor. I said this in regards to the original post.
Now you need to couple my “little quip” (which happens to be a scholarly argument used by two of the most respected scholars around, William Lane Craig and Strobel) with another little quip about the circumstances of the resurrection, such as the Roman seal on the tomb, the guards, the Jewish testimony of the day and the 500+ eye witness accounts.
Tell me then, how is the God of the Bible, the God that I believe in, is contingent on anything? Before you say anything you will have to take into account that He is eternal and that time cannot be applied to Him.
You claim that you have the truth of the message of Jesus of Nazareth, Son of the Living God. That is a huge claim Sam and from the look of your description of it is inaccurate. Let me go point by point here to show you what I mean.
1) Its a message of love and tolerance
It is indeed a message of Love, the greatest there is: God’s love for the elect and his love for the rest of the world. However I think you will find Christ to be very intolerant. You see He makes it clear that He will NOT tolerate sin nor will he tolerate those who do not follow Him, in the end. Read Matthew 7, Matthew 24 and John 6. The modern westernised idea of all tolerance being good tolerance is not what Jesus taught – He taught that God is good.
2) Fanatical approach which ignores the true message
There is your cenge against Christianity. You seem to think we do not have the true message but you do. I, personally, would regard you as unloving if you did not share this truth with is as for we here the message of the Gospel is not a matter of little arguments but a matter of life and death, hope and despair, love and hate.
You also seem to think that we here believe ourselves better than you. From a Calvinist perspective I think you will find that I consider myself the lowest of the low, unworthy of any mercy granted to me by the God of Heaven and Earth. No. I may be holy in the eyes of God, and may be better off in the long run due to my election and consequential salvation, but I am no better than you Sam and anyone who thinks they are is kidding themselves. We all sin. Read 1st John.
You’d be hard pressed to find a good man, Mr. Moral Relativist 
None of us here feel threatened by you (partially because this is a little bit on the mandatory argument side and partially because the arguments you’ve used are not the best) but we too return the hope that we have not offended you and that this discussion can continue as it has – in respect and intrigue. Discussion and debate is the best way to learn and it always has been. Don’t be afraid of a cenge Sammy boy. For all the years I have known you the one thing you have done is show me that backing down doesn’t teach anyone anything.
Now, let’s see where this goes. Share with us the true interpretation you mentioned.
(Tommy commented while I was typing, I have no idea what he has said)
16 hours ago • Like
o
Sam
Abiogenesis is a hypthothesis, yes: we can’t provew it due to the simple fact we can’t observe the thing, it happened long before recorded history. Mind you, creatiuon is also a hypothesis.
500 eyewitnesses, you say? How many of those wrote about it? How many of those were literate to behgin with? How many of those do we know to have existed? The PRinciple of Testimony is flawed; Houdini made an elephant disappear, and none alive know how he did it. Is he therefore a miracle worker?
No, I do not claim to know the mesaage of the Son of the ‘Living God’. I claim to be able to see the basic message of Yeshua, son of an ‘Almah’ (‘Young Woman’, which could easily be mistranslated as Virgin. And was, by the way.) who was a socialist and believed that all should be seen as equal unto one another. He is but a man in my eyes; a kindly man who preached that the weak should be aided and that the sinners forgiven, but a man nonetheless.
There are no good men, my boy. There are only pleasent consequences and eudaimonia. Which is far more likely to produce desired traits than blind optimism and following of a deity who will ‘make it all right in the end’. Sorry, Mr. Moral Absolutist, but human experience doesn’t like you.
Finally, I’d love to know why all this was necessary; I made a joke. A simple, little joke. A very obvious joke, at that. And yet you saw need to dissect that little joke. Why? Was it because it was a religion beyond yours? The man who must assert himself frequently is the man who is insecure in himself.
15 hours ago • Like
o
Jack
I seem to recall that little joke also containing other fallacious claims which you brought in after, along with the things said by Miles and Tobias. Your little jabs at my self security do little to worry me Sam. In fact I think seen as you made the joke in the first place your security is in question here. Though that little ad hominim is also a red herring. It is necessary because this is how we learn.
Again, morality is not the issue here. You used good in an absolute sense, I just picked up on it for funzies.
Abiogenesis is more than a hypothesis, its a flawed concept upon which many base their entire existence. One would think that people would like to know more about it before accepting it.
“In the few verses where almah appears, the word clearly denotes a young woman who is not married but is of marriageable age. Although almah does not implicitly denote virginity, it is never used in the Scriptures to describe a “young, presently married woman.” It is important to remember that in the Bible, a young Jewish woman of marriageable age was presumed to be chaste.” – http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/9_1/almah
Nice try with Hebrew there but it seems that you forgot that language in the Bible requires the use of grammatical analysis and contextual study in order to come to the correct conclusion of the word being used. Almah is a rare word, and thanks to our knowledge of history we know that it is used to imply virginity. Nice try.
Literate Jews were common. Unlike most civilisations of the day the Jewish people knew how to read and write both Hebrew and, to a lesser extent, Greek, due to it being the main language of the day. Theocracy encourages education in literature and mathematics, and 1st Century AD Jerusalem was renowned for its people’s ability to study and read and write. I provide more information here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwMWJPLvThQ&feature=g-upl
As for how many who wrote such testimonies, who knows? We don’t have any surviving copies because they were not as valuable to the people who heard them as the testimonies given by the Apostles – the head honchos of the Church of that time. I suppose you could list Josephus and Tacidus though. What is interesting to note is that the names of some of the 500 witnesses appear in the Book of Martyrs, written as a record of those who died and WHY they were killed for their faith in Christ. Obviously the 500 thought their testimony was true.
Harry Houdini also said that one year after his death he would raise himself from the dead. That means that 31 October 1927 should of witnessed his greatest trick ever – yet when they checked on him he was still very much… dead. Another difference between Christ and Houdini is that Christ CLAIMED to be God, and in the society of His time lying was bad. Therefore to be a good man He must of told the truth.
I’m interested to know whether or not you will go to the link that Tommy provided, and see how you do. Nice try with the Hebrew though. Your talking more like a scholar if you can actually use it AND cite your sources for it. Citations for your claims would be nice.
Almah: Virgin or Young Maiden? – Jews for Jesus
jewsforjesus.org
::FALSEhide_synopsis_in_full_
15 hours ago • Like •
o
Sam Citation? Simple: http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/uai8x/99_of_historical_scholarsbelievers_and_non/
/r/Atheism and it’s vibrant community.
I’m going to leave this debate, I’m afraid. Since this was started on a little joke which you almost certainly would have laughed off in your earlier years, I feel this entire thing to be a waste of my perfectly good revision time. Neither of us will move in our opinions.
15 hours ago • Like
o
Jack It isn’t about moving in your opinion Sam, its about learning. Sadly I’ve taken the time to look at that citation and I feel I need to inform you that I meant cite your source for the word “almah” (not sure if you read my whole post or not).
15 hours ago • Like
o
Sam *Shrug* I was stealing a bit from another’s argument. What am I, a linguist?
Next time, I think I might as well avoid the humour. It doesn’t seem to sit well with you, and I have a life to live without wasting it on the study of an epistemically transcendent being.
14 hours ago • Like
o
Jack Have it your way then Sam, I hope you come around.
14 hours ago • Like
o
Sam Nah. See you in Vala. Or Erebus. Or the Underworld. Maybe I’ll meet you next life. *Shrug* Whatever, it’ll be a pleasent surprise anywhich way.
14 hours ago • Like
o
Jack I thought you were going?
14 hours ago • Like
o
Sam And thus I am now. *Moonwalks off*
14 hours ago • Like
o
Jack …
And here we see the classic example of the unfinished debate where one side just gets up and goes.
14 hours ago • Like
