Jesus as Savior

Debate Room
61

Thanks, Walter, for your softer tone and willingness to dialogue a bit. I really do appreciate that. Honestly I do. With regards to your questions, after 60+ years of Bible study–carefully examining the various books of the Old and New Testaments–it seems clear to me that the One Who inspired men to write those books knew ahead of time what would happen after creating the earth. His Omniscience and Omnipotence are not mutually exclusive or in contradiction to each other.

Thus, when I read what happened in Genesis, even there I see “prophecies” if you will with regards to the need for a Deliverer, which is called Messiah in the O.T. and Christ in the N.T. Two of these passages are found in Gen. 3:15 and 3:21. The first one talked about the “Seed of Woman crushing the head of the serpent” (which, as you know, we believe is the devil) and the covering of Adam and Eve’s nakedness with “coats of skin” in v.21 is a picture of the coming “Lamb of God” as seen in Jn. 1:29, 36.

Likewise, when I read the 300+ Messianic prophecies about the coming Messiah/Christ (e.g., Is. 53)–that were perfectly fulfilled in Jesus–it’s clear that these were not coincidence or accident; instead, again, they were a perfect fulfillment of the prophecies written hundreds (and even thousands) of years before His arrival.

Thus, my beliefs are rooted in the historical evidence and systematic ways in which the Bible maintains its cohesiveness and central message of the “anointed-and-appointed, Promised Deliverer sent from God:” Jesus (Jn. 1:1; 14:6, 9).

Even in reading the Gospel accounts of His teachings and actions, it seems clear that He was the “God-Man” (Jn. 1:14; fully God and fully man, which is a Mystery). The only part of His Godhead that was lacking while here on earth was His omni-presence (since He was in a body); it’s clear He still possessed full omniscience and omnipotence during his time here. How He could be here and still be in Heaven is definitely a Mystery: which is why Augustine said “trying to understand the Trinity is like trying to pour the ocean in a hole on the beach with a conch shell.”

Anyway, I’ll stop there–for at times my verbosity tends to cloud the simplicity of the message. Hope this helps you to better understand why I believe as I do. Thanks again for asking.

62

As for your question about the earth appearing as a blue dot in the vast darkness of outer space, yes, that’s what I’d see if I was simply look at that with just my human eyes. But, thankfully, we’re not limited to that–or, as the tabloid at the supermarket checkout line used to say “Inquiring minds have a right to know.” :slight_smile:

63

Two claims and no evidence, and this omniscient and omnipotent inspirer either can’t even relate the most basic scientific facts correctly, or hasn’t the power to make sure it’s human pets get it fucking right, would you like me to phrase it in a softer tone?

Yes they are, but only if you mean them to mean literally unlimited knowledge and unlimited power. If they’re defined that way, then unlimited knowledge must know exactly what the future will be, not just all possible outcomes, but the exact one that will happen, and that would mean it could not have any autonomy, let alone limitless power, it violates the law of non-contradiction.

The Genesis myth contains demonstrably erroneous claims, that alone is at odds with the claim it is inspired by omniscience, or one accepts that it contains human error, in which case omniscient inspiration is a) irrelevant, and b) not evidenced.

Claim 1, evidence 0. You seem to be preaching again, not debating.

Someone allegedly wrote claim a) and then later someone else allegedly wrote claim b), and you are saying claim b) happened exactly as described in claim a) . I see the claims, I see no objective evidence for any of them?

There is no historical evidence to support prophecy, and you have presented none? They’re mutually exclusive ideas as well, if one knows a) the criteria used to support historical claims, and b) that prophecy has a supernatural claim at its core.

It’s not a mystery, it’s two unevidenced claims.

No indeed we have science and the technology that produced that image, and that’s rather the point that has escaped you.

64

Oh I dont know, Tertullian made up a grand story for it. And then became a Montanist…which was why he was never beatified…cant do that to an heretic eh…

1 Like
65

Oh dear. :slightly_frowning_face:

JC if you look back at the message from me that you just responded to I made it quite clear that the subject under discussion between us was the apologetic arguments that you have presented in this forum for the existence of an intelligently designing creator.

I didn’t ask anything about the length of time you’ve studied the Bible, because that has no bearing on these apologetic arguments. Nor did I ask you anything about God’s omnipotence and omniscience, because they have no bearing of the apologetic arguments in question. The same is true about Messianic prophecies, historical evidence for the Bible and its teachings.

None of that is relevant or pertinent to the apologetic arguments you have presented for there being an intelligently designing creator. So, as well being verbose, you are also completely off-topic in your reply.

But, once again, I will cut you some slack and give you the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, please confine your reply to me to the subject under discussion between us - the apologetic arguments you’ve made for the existence of any intelligently designing creator. Here are the questions again and I request that your next reply to me consists of answers to them.

How do you arrive at the conclusion that the identity of this creator is Jesus Christ?

Do you prove it by logic? Do you infer or deduce it somehow? Or do you believe it by faith?

Please tell me how you know that it’s Jesus.

Thank you,

Walter.

1 Like
66

Thank you.

I applaud your honesty and brevity.

Now that we are in agreement that our human eyes tell us that the Earth appears as a tiny, pale blue dot in the immense void of space, I can ask you a further question that flows naturally from this agreement.

Do we agree that science can tell us nothing about why the Earth and the entire universe exist and what the purpose of creation is?

67

Oh oh oh me me me, I know this one, pick me….:wink:

1 Like
68

The problem with typology like you are citing here, and with prophecy itself, is that you will simply see prefigurings and predictions wherever you want to due to motivated reasoning.

For example you might read of “a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief” in Isaiah 53:3 and as a Christian you say, “bingo, that is obviously speaking of Jesus”.

But a Jewish scholar or modern historian will look at it and say, “bingo, that is obviously the nation of Israel, that has suffered at the hands of Gentiles throughout history”.

Meanwhile a historical-critical scholar will say, “bingo, that is obviously either Isaiah speaking of himself, or of the collective society of true prophets”.

And then you research and find early Jewish scholars, including Rashi, who say “bingo, that is obviously King Hezekiah, a suffering leader if there ever was one”, and yet others who say, “bingo, that is obviously King Josiah, for he died a tragic death at the battle of Megiddo”. And still others who say it is an archetype of all oppressed or persecuted individuals, and represents the human condition. And on and on.

Why all these different interpretations? Because of different perspectives and assumptions coupled with the fact that the text itself is vague. It doesn’t say it’s the Messiah. It doesn’t say it’s a distant future figure (or a contemporary one, or one from history before Isaiah) It’s just a bit of lovely prose that all comers project their hopes, dreams, beliefs and assumptions on. That’s how prophecy and types work.

Christianity came along some 2,000 years ago and appropriated the Torah and took passages like that and retconned them to fit their needs. And then called it “prophecy”. Modern Jews would laugh if they weren’t so offended by said appropriation.

Then you can study the early competing Christian sects and find the story of Marcion, who believed that Jehovah and Jesus were different deities, Jesus being the superior one, who came in essence to save mankind from cranky, mean old Jehovah. Marcionism is regarded by modern Christianity as heresy, of course, because the winning dogmatists got to write subsequent history. But the real story here is that the flavor of Christianity that evolved into modern orthodoxy succeeded in part precisely because it appropriated Judaism and claimed to be its fulfillment. That made it an evolution of a long-established religion, which was more palatable to the thinkers of that era than some new upstart religion. The thinking in those days was that anything new can’t be true or we’d already know it and it wouldn’t be new.

Finally there’s the matter of hermeneutics – the interpretive lens you choose to understand all this. Yours probably is something along the lines of Schofield-style dispensationalism / inerrantism / literalism. But other Christians belong to other systems and draw very different conclusions about all sorts of things with practical policy outcomes like affirming and accepting gay rights or not, having your clergy wear funny hats or not, allowing women to be clergy or not, pear-clutching or not about this or that “sin”. Considering the stranger among us a candiate to be treated kindly or with suspicion or even hatred. And so forth.

So for you to make all these confident pronouncements about all the detailed things you see in scripture, as if any random Christian would see the same thing … and then using that as a reason for unbelievers to give any of it credence … is just naive at best and willfully ignorant at worst. Sorry!

2 Likes
69

Any clown can predict the future, someone will predict precisely 6 numbers that are drawn in umpteen lotteries every single day. The so called prophecies of course are usually unevidenced and often pretty vague. And of course such claims abound in multiple religions, for multiple deities.

Most damning of all, suppose someone made a very unlikely prediction, and it then happened exactly as predicted, all we’d have is a mystery we couldn’t solve, no evidence of divine intervention. Appeals to mystery are not evidence, and so far no one can demonstrate any objective evidence that any deity exists or is even possible.

2 Likes
70

There you go again with the “we”, we believe no such thing, it is a vague claim, interpretated by subjective bias, and no devil has ever been objectively evidenced to exist anymore than any deity.

I am reminded irresistibly of the scene from The Life of Brian, where a large group is following Brian, proclaiming him the Messiah, and while trying to escape their attention he first touches a gourd in a market, and then loses a sandal, the group immediately splits into two warring factions, with one lot praising the gourd as the long awaited sign / miracle, and the other focusing on the lost sandal. It’s hard to imagine a better satire of the capricious and subjective interpretations suggestible religious followers will leap to, it’s also pretty fkn hilarious.

1 Like
71

Agreed. Science is simply a tool by which man attempts to better understand the world around him and within him.

1 Like
72

It’s exponentially the most successful tool we have, this is manifest in the objective results. No one builds planes, or designs skyscrapers and bridges using the subjective bias of religious faith, and with good reason.

73

Thank you.

We therefore agree that science can say nothing about why the universe exists and what the purpose of creation is. That is not within science’s remit. The purpose and role of science is to tell us HOW the universe works and not WHY it exists.

That being so, any argument for an intelligently designing creator that uses scientific evidence must be limited in the same way. The evidence can tell us nothing about the identity of the creator because that is not within science’s remit.

This therefore leads us to the conclusion that all such apologetic arguments for an intelligently designing creator must use more than just scientific evidence to arrive at their conclusion. But the question is what?

What is needed to complete these apologetic arguments and give us the identity of the creator, JC?

Is it logic? Is it inference or deduction? Or is it faith?

Please tell me.

74

Good morning, Sheldon.
Per our response, when I used “we” in reference to believing in the devil, I was referring to those of us who believe in God and the devil–not you or the others in this forum. And, even though your likening the scene from The Life of Brian to me and my beliefs, that still doesn’t change the fact that I simply state what I know to be true.

As I mentioned to either Walter or Mordant, science is simply a tool man uses to try and better understand how things form and operate. Faith is also a tool by which one seeks to understand the meaning and mysteries of life that can’t be found in science or under a microscope.

Thus, in believing as I do, I’ve not sacrificed my mind (intelligence) or resorted to subjective wishful thinking because I want something to be true. Instead, from early childhood I knew there had to be more to life than what meets the eye and that began this 65+ year Journey that continues until today.

I know there’s nothing I or anyone else can say that can convince you that what I’m saying/ believing is true. That’s why it’s called “faith:” which isn’t a leap into the dark; it’s stepping into the Arms of the One Who created us and then finding our rest in Him.

75

Good morning, Walter.

I guess my response to your questions is also a question: “Why can’t we have both? Why can’t we use science to understand the nuts-and-bolts of HOW things work and Faith to explain WHY they exist?” To me, there is no conflict between the two.

Dr. George Washington Carver was an esteemed scientist who developed more than 300 uses of the peanut. When asked how he came up with so many uses, he smiled and said “By talking to the One Who created the peanut.” :slight_smile:

76

I realise that this was intended for Sheldon, but I would like to take issue with your last paragraph, JC.

If you want a proper definition of what faith is, then you should look to the Bible. Specifically Hebrews 11 : 1 - 3

*Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. *
2 This is what the ancients were commended for.
3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Do you see what the apostle Paul is saying here? Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. Neither the ancient people he mentions, nor Paul himself nor any human being actually saw God create the universe in 6 days. But by faith they believe that he did.

This then is how faith works. It means believing in things that you haven’t seen and didn’t witness. It means having hope that what you believe in will be rewarded. Other verses of this chapter confirm this.

*13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance, admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on earth. *
*14 People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. *
15 If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.

and…

39 These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, 40 since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.

All of the people Paul mentions did not have evidence of the things they believed by faith. They did not see with their own eyes what was promised for them - their rewards in heaven.

So, as regards the evidence of one’s own eyes faith IS a leap in the dark. Faith is belief without evidence. Just as Paul describes.

Would you agree?

77

This is a bit naughty of JC because I clearly requested that you answer my questions. Instead of answering them you’ve substituted a question of your own. But I will cut you some more slack and forgive you for doing this.

My answer to you is Yes. You can have both. That’s not a problem. Anyone is allowed to believe whatever they like and it’s not for me to disallow them that freedom.

But can you not see the problem of you using faith in your apologetic arguments to us?

By definition atheists don’t have any of the faith required to make these arguments work. Nor do agnostics and not do sceptics. These arguments cannot be used in outreach ministry to non-believers because they first require belief by faith to work. They strengthen the faith of people like yourself who already believe but they have no effect upon non-believers because these people do not have the necessary faith to make the arguments work.

Try thinking of it this way. If faith is a nail that must be driven into a piece of wood, then the best tool for the job is a hammer. But if you want to drive a screw into a piece of wood then the best tool is a screwdriver. Using a hammer will not work.

This is what you have been doing since you arrived here. You have been using the hammer of faith to try and get us to believe as you do. But only a screwdriver will do the job. In this case a screwdriver represents sufficient objective evidence for the claims you’ve been making.

You will only succeed in this forum if you use the right tool for the job. Hammering at us with faith will never succeed. That is why your apologetic arguments will never succeed. They use faith to work and so only work for those people who already have faith.

We, who do not have faith cannot be persuaded by them. Which is why we keep asking you (metaphorically) to stop using your hammer of faith and to start using the screwdriver of evidence.

Do you see what I’m saying here? You can’t keep asking us to believe by faith. We have none. The only thing that will change our minds is sufficient objective evidence.

Thank you,

Walter.

78

Of course, but perhaps stick to what you personally believe, after all there are over 45k different sects and denominations globally under the umbrella term Christianity. You also don’t seem to have addressed my core objections to your claims about prophecy and the devil? Or the point I made about prophecies being nothing more than appeals to mystery (argumentum ad ignorantiam reasoning), “we don’t know or can’t explain something, therefor god did it.” This is poor, or fallacious reasoning.

You keep stating bare subjective claims, beyond that you have offered no knowledge to be examined, you also seem to miss the point about the capricious and subjective interpretation suggestible religious followers use to claim prophecies are fulfilled, and for many religions and different deities of course.

So this is obviously a false equivalence as scientific ideas are testable, falsifiable and must be supported by objectively verifiable evidence, and the results demonstrate it is efficacious, whereas faith is demonstrably unreliable, as other religions claiming to “know” that other deities exist also use faith. Also religions don’t unravel mysteries, they appeal directly to them, when their claims are demonstrated as dubious, their deity is suddenly mysterious and cannot be tested.

You have relentlessly made irrational and poorly reasoned arguments, and have failed to address the objections that point this out, you have absolutely indulged in wishful thinking, I even quoted you doing this yesterday, and you failed to address it at all.

Yet all you can offer in support of the claim is subjective bias and poorly reasoned circular arguments, where your “evidence” for a deity, is as much in need of supporting evidence as the claim a deity exists.

That’s simply not true, you keep trying to project your closed mind (you alone have claimed to be certain) onto me, all anyone need do to convince a claim is true is support it with sufficient and sufficiently objective evidence.

Faith is useless in establishing the veracity of a claim, it is used by multiple religions to validate claims for countless different deities. I have also pointed out multiple times that humans were not created as it is an objective fact that like all living things we evolved, yet you ignore this scientific fact, and keep repeating your as yet unevidenced claim?

Because faith is an unreliable subjective belief.

This is simply an anecdote, and not reliable evidence for the claim.

79

Yes, wholeheartedly agree, Walter. :blush: :+1:

80

I am curious if you have ever examined other theistic foundational books or scriptures?

While the Tanakh and the Quran stay within the guardrails of Abrahamic monotheism, they do take a different avenue around Jesus.

Turning off the Abrahamic road, there is the Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads, Dhammapada, Lotus Sutra and the Guru Granth Sahib.

For reference, as an atheist, I have read them all…including your old and new testaments of the Bible.

I am curious, as if your only tool is a hammer…