Boss jj's Silly Miracle Post

[David Sklansky]

I'm pretty much done with the religion stuff because a lot of very smart people on these forums, plus Matt Ruff, seem to think I am just using this subject as a vehicle to show off against opponents with few weapons.

But there is one loose end I want to tie up. Bossjj wrote that God told the Jews that they should not follow a false leader or messiah even if he performed miracles to entice them. I said that if the story was true, God must have said (or meant) "even if he APPEARED to have performed miracles". Bossjj later disputed that.

Boss jj CANNOT be right. Unless the words did not come from God. Because only God can perform miracles. That statement is something that Jews, Christians, Muslims, and educated atheists all agree on. Only subhumans think otherwise (and believe in astrology, mysticism etc.)

Now it is possible God didn't make this clear in his statement because he was afraid that Jews would be tricked into believing they saw a real miracle. So instead he admonished them to not follow what he knew to be magic but which some would think was legitimate. But there is no way the real God, if there is one, actually was referring to a true miracle not performed by him.

That being the case, if in fact a true miracle did occur, one must give the credit to God, even it it appears to mean he broke a promise. Because an apparent broken promise from God, is not nearly as farfetched as a miracle not performed by God.

It is reasonable for Jews to believe that Jesus was not truely ressurected. (That is an understatement.) But it is not reasonable for Jews to believe that even if Jesus was resurrected, the Christian religion is still hogwash. BECAUSE RESSURECTIONS ARE MUCH MORE INCREDIBLE THAN EVEN AN APPARENT LIE FROM GOD. Prove that Jesus was truely resurrected (Or have him come flying down atop an elephant and turn water into wine again) and all sane atheists and agnostics will become Christians. So should all Jews. If Boss jj disputes that, he wasted an awful lot of words on this forum.

[JoshuaD]

[ QUOTE ]
Only subhumans think otherwise (and believe in astrology, mysticism etc.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Subhuman is a terrible word to use there. It's a minority of people who are able to completely accept and embrace logical arguments. It only makes sense to define "human" as the majority of creatures who are classifed that way.

That is, we're in the minority. If anything, they're the humans and we're the subhumans.

[spoohunter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Only subhumans think otherwise (and believe in astrology, mysticism etc.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Subhuman is a terrible word to use there. It's a minority of people who are able to completely accept and embrace logical arguments. It only makes sense to define "human" as the majority of creatures who are classifed that way.

That is, we're in the minority. If anything, they're the humans and we're the subhumans.

[/ QUOTE ]


The ability to understand, contrast and think critically about abstract ideas is such a infintesimally tiny part of what makes someone human.

[JoshuaD]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Only subhumans think otherwise (and believe in astrology, mysticism etc.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Subhuman is a terrible word to use there. It's a minority of people who are able to completely accept and embrace logical arguments. It only makes sense to define "human" as the majority of creatures who are classifed that way.

That is, we're in the minority. If anything, they're the humans and we're the subhumans.

[/ QUOTE ]


The ability to understand, contrast and think critically about abstract ideas is such a infintesimally tiny part of what makes someone human.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hence me saying "subhuman" was a bad word for Sklansky to use.

[David Sklansky]

I was obviously exaggerating to make a point. Please don't hijack the thread.

[Zeno]

Your posts assumes that God, if He exists, is 'perfect', consistent, and/or wholly beneficial in regards to mankind and that He would 'break' a 'promise' to assure His continued beneficial ways. He also does not 'lie' - If I am reading all this correctly. This is all by a priori definition, I assume.

Is there no room for a God with a sense of humor?

Or a God with an unbeneficial attitude towards mankind? Or one that is ambivalent? Or partly dastardly? This would certainly make God a much more interesting character, instead of the boring and bland all goodness being always paraded about by the theists.


I would much rather live in a universe run by an insane God. Life would be much more eventful and worthwhile in my opinion.

-Zeno

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]

I would much rather live in a universe run by an insane God. Life would be much more eventful and worthwhile in my opinion.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think observable evidence hints to this being true. If there is a god, his chance of sanity, by our definition, is virtually zero.

[JoshuaD]

[ QUOTE ]
It is reasonable for Jews to believe that Jesus was not truely ressurected. (That is an understatement.) But it is not reasonable for Jews to believe that even if Jesus was resurrected, the Christian religion is still hogwash. BECAUSE RESSURECTIONS ARE MUCH MORE INCREDIBLE THAN EVEN AN APPARENT LIE FROM GOD. Prove that Jesus was truely resurrected (Or have him come flying down atop an elephant and turn water into wine again) and all sane atheists and agnostics will become Christians. So should all Jews. If Boss jj disputes that, he wasted an awful lot of words on this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think by defintion, the jews would have to accept this Jesus as the Messiah, and would become christians.

I've never seen any jew say that it's impossible for a Messiah to come, it's one of their prophecies. They just don't believe Jesus was the Messiah.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I said that if the story was true, God must have said (or meant) "even if he APPEARED to have performed miracles".

[/ QUOTE ]
Doing a miracle and appearing to do a miracle are the exact same thing since miraculousness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Nobody can literally do a miracle in the sense of violating physical laws. Since physical laws are just correct descriptions of what happens and what doesn't happen, to say that physical laws can't be violated is a tautology.

So a miracle can't denote something that literally violates the laws of nature, or else miracles are just a non-sense concept. It must be something that appears to violate a law of nature -- something that we, in our limited knowledge, have no explanation for.

Therefore, an event is miraculous if and only if it appears miraculous after we've examined all the evidence -- just like a thing is beatiful if and only if it appears beautiful after we've examined it from every angle.

[bossJJ]

I've already addressed this. First, in the Hebrew bible, God does tell not to follow someone who tells us to follow other gods, even if he produces a miracle (Deuteronomy 13:1-5, NRSV (http://bible.oremus.org/browser.cgi?passage=Deuteronomy+13)). There are several verses where God says that the Torah is to be observed forever and He forbids us from changing it. He also tells us not to follow anybody who tells us not to follow it, or who tells us to follow other gods. It also says that God doesn't lie or change His mind.

God spoke to the entire Jewish nation we He gave us His Torah. If He really did lie or change His mind, if He really wants us to do what He had previously forbidden as idolatry; if He really wants us to follow someone that He told us not to follow; if He really want us to stop following laws that He said were eternal - then it makes more sense that we should get another national revelation. How else can we be sure the message is from Him? Why should we believe that He gives us His new truth through an alleged personal revelation to some violent, spiteful so-called miracle worker that no one even noticed during his alleged lifetime?

Second, if the truth is with whoever has the biggest miracle, then it's impossible, in practice, to know what the truth really is. There are thousands of claims of miracles in various religions, as well as thousands of individuals who have claimed to have a personal revelation from God. It would be impossible to examine them all and know which, if any, are true. In most cases, it would be just one person, or a small group of people, who claimed to see the alleged miracle. How can you know if they are telling the truth? Or maybe they believe it really happened, but they were deceived.

It's highly unlikely that Jesus was resurrected. No one even made the claim until several decades after his alleged death, and no one from his alleged lifetime even noticed him. But an alleged resurrection could be easily faked 2000 years ago. Maybe he wasn't really dead, or maybe it was somebody else that they saw after his death. Lots of pagan gods (allegedly) had virgin births and were resurrected from the dead. The early Christians just made the same claims for their god.

You talk about, "if Jesus really was resurrected..." Well, in reality, it's impossible to know either way. We need (and we actually have) a better way of knowing who has the truth. We have God's word in the Hebrew bible, and anybody who contradicts it (like Jesus, Mohammed and Joseph Smith) is obviously not from God, no matter how many miracles he allegedly performs.

The whole idea that God keeps changing His mind, and that He expects us to discover the current "truth" by investigating all miraculous claims, is ridiculous and unworkable. If it were true, and we really were supposed to follow Jesus, then Christians have no way of knowing if their religion is still true. God may have been lying about that, or maybe He changed His mind again, and their program of "salvation through Jesus" is no longer be in effect. Maybe they are actually supposed to be Muslims now, which is why God sent Mohammed. If Christians believe that God will lie or change His mind, and that the truth is with whoever has the biggest miracle, then they should be investigating all the claims of miracles in other religions.

In reality, or course, Christians don't do that. Instead they reject all religions that contradict the gt (as they understand it), and just dismiss out of hand all claims of miracles in other religions. They are hypocrites; They criticize us for rejecting religions (like Christianity) that contradict our bible, and they claim that we should seriously study Christianity, and investigate it, because it is true, and the miracles prove it. Yet they do not study or investigate other religions and their miracles. However, Christianity can be true only if God lied or changed His mind, and only if the resurrection proves that Christianity is true. Therefore, since God changes His mind, He may have done so again. Christianity may no longer be the correct religion to follow.

Third, even if Jesus really was resurrected from the dead, how does it follow that therefore everybody should become Christians? Why assume that the Christians' interpretation of the event is correct? And that our interpretation is wrong? We believe that God told us not to follow such people even if they produce a miracle. That certainly implies that false prophets can have real miracles. Why would God say this if He really intended us to follow whoever has the biggest miracle? How could that possibly work in practice? How can we know who has real miracles?

Why not believe that Jesus was a man who God resurrected from the dead for some reason? As I've mentioned before, we believe that the prophet Elijah resurrected a boy from the dead (I Kings 17). God worked through the prophet. We don't assume that either Elijah or the boy were God, or even the messiah. We will know the messiah because he will fulfill the messianic prophecies. Why should we believe that God was lying about what the messiah will be and do?

But if you want to believe a Christian interpretation, which one? How do you know which denomination is correct? How do you know what the resurrection really means? And how do you know that God hasn't since then changed His mind about that? Maybe God sent Mohammed to explain to the Christians that they had it all wrong, that Jesus was only a prophet that they were never supposed to worship.

Even in the gt, Jesus didn't claim to be God. So why should we believe it? How can that interpretation be correct?

Did Jesus Claim to be God? (http://www.outreachjudaism.org/claimgod.html)

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
I think observable evidence hints to this being true. If there is a god, his chance of sanity, by our definition, is virtually zero.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting.

Here is another conjecture, take the duality nature of light and use that to suggest that the Universe is run by two Gods, each at odds. Each deity vies for ultimate control but is unable to completely dominate and this results in the dual nature of light, or the conundrum of double-slit experiments for example. The universe is played out as a sort of stalemate between two Gods for an undetermined period of time. When one God finally 'wins', the universe collapses in on itself and then another big bang starts the game all over again. This cycle continues indefinitely.

Just something fun to think about.

-Zeno

[BluffTHIS!]

I was out of town for a few days and so haven't posted in the religion threads for a week or so, but I have tired of trading barbs with bossJJ, not because as he would like to think, that he has made so many brilliant refutations and arguements, but because of what David has pointed out in this thread, and what is also recorded as the response of so many Jews in the New Testament. That is, that no matter how many people might have seen an astounding miracle of any kind, they just won't attribute it to God and admit that God just might, not have changed His mind or lied in the past, but have given new and further revelation. (Note that the Jews not believing in Satan as we Christians do can't attribute such a miracle to an evil demonic source.)

Further evidence of boss' refusal to see anything remotely contradicting his beliefs to the point of distorting the views of others is given by this quote from his post above and a link to a Jewish source that supposedly proves it:

[ QUOTE ]
Even in the gt, Jesus didn't claim to be God.

[/ QUOTE ]

That this statement is false, and thus if repeated will be evidence that boss is a liar, is shown by the following New Testament quote from the RSV:

John 8:58 "Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.' "

Since "I AM" is the direct equivalent of the name of God in Hebrew, it is clear that Jesus is claiming to be God. Spin away Boss.

[mosquito]

[ QUOTE ]
I was obviously exaggerating to make a point. Please don't hijack the thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

The mere fact that you would knowingly do that, and admit it, seriously detracts from any value your post may otherwise
have. That you have done so before and will undoubtedly
do so again is a flaw that you need to reckon with.

[BluffTHIS!]

I want to make one other post regarding something else BossJJ mentioned in his post above and has constantly harped on. That is the "national revelation" that the Jewish nation supposedly received. Note that I believe in the Hebrew Bible as a Christian and do believe that through Moses and the other prophets the Jewish nation did in fact receive a national revelation, but not in the way Boss has asserted. The point of this will be how BossJJ has contradictory standards for evaluating evidence for differing views, as also shown by his miracle views. He has asserted frequently that a reason not to believe in the New Testament is that is wasn't written during Jesus' lifetime. I of course stipulate that. But I believe that the writers of the NT, writing 30-100 years after his death, and having personally seen what they wrote of, or in the case of books with multiple redactors recording the same oral information given to them by their apostolic teachers, is extremely close in time to the events narrated and thus worthy of being given chronological credence, even if what they record is not actually given overall credence by outside evaluators for other reasons.

But now contrast his criticisms of the difference of a little more or less than 100 years between events and their being recorded, with how much credence he gives to Jewish beliefs that God gave them a national revelation because the entire nation supposedly heard the first two commandments spoken by God. The Torah does not support this, and I don't believe Boss has said otherwise (hearing thunder don't count). Thus what he is basing his belief on is the oral traditions passed on and written down later. But how much later? Less than the 100 year difference he criticizes regarding Christian writings? No. How much then? Well the written source of such Jewish traditions is the Talmud, and I would assume specifically the Mishnah in this case. But when were talmudic writings asserting the entire nation heard the first two commandments first recorded after God giving same? Try over 1000 years after the events in question.

This all clearly shows that BossJJ is unable or unwilling to use the same standards of evidence evaluation for beliefs other than is own. So how credible then can his own evalutations of any of these questions be?

i can see you're somewhat joking so i won't get too serious, but a christian god is essentially defined as all knowing, all loving and all powerful. being all knowing and all loving is a combination that should not permit insanity, perhaps eccentricity, but not insanity.

[bossJJ]

If Jesus was resurrected, that doesn't prove that everything in the gt is true, or that a certain interpretation is correct, or that Christianity is true.

Many scholars (who believe that Jesus existed) believe that the historical Jesus didn't claim to be God, and he didn't intend to start a new religion. Rather, he just wanted to reform Judaism, or he was some sort of political or religious leader or revolutionary.

According to the gt, he said that he didn't come to abolish the law (MT 5:17-18), and that the Pharisees should be followed because they sit in Moses' seat (Mt 23:2-3). The Ebionites, the early Jewish followers of Jesus, didn't believe that Jesus was God, and they continued to follow Torah law. They believed that he was the messiah (as Jews understand it, so he wasn't God). They thought he was a man who was resurrected from the dead (by God), and that he would return soon to fulfill the messianic prophecies.

It was Paul who made Jesus into a pagan god, and he made Christianity into a pagan religion that completely contradicts Judaism.

So it makes no sense to say, "if Jesus really was resurrected, then you should become a Christian." Why assume that their interpretation is correct?

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
...that no matter how many people might have seen an astounding miracle of any kind, they just won't attribute it to God and admit that God just might, not have changed His mind or lied in the past, but have given new and further revelation. (Note that the Jews not believing in Satan as we Christians do can't attribute such a miracle to an evil demonic source.)

[/ QUOTE ]

First, we do attribute some miracles to God, such as when Elijah raised the boy from the dead. We also believe that God answers prayers (of people of all faiths) and that some events, miraculous or not, are from God. We have no way of knowing which are from God and which aren't. God has probably miraculously cured sick people of many faiths. Of course, there's no way to prove this. The point is that even if God answers someone's prayer, or provides a miracle, that doesn't prove that their faith is true. People of many different faiths have such experiences; however, those different religions can't all be true.

Therefore, we don't look at "miracles" (even if real, and from God) and subjective personal experiences to determine what is true. It's not practical, and it simply doesn't work. God already gave us His truth in the Hebrew bible, so that is the standard of what is true, not whoever has the biggest miracle.

You claim that the gt doesn't contradict the Hebrew bible, that it just gives "further revelation." This is nonsense. That you can believe this, despite so much evidence to the contrary, just shows that you are a brainwashed Christian who just rejects out of hand any evidence that proves him wrong. I've already proven (with dozens of bible verses) that gt Christianity completely contradicts the Hebrew bible on just about every theological point.

Christianity actually denies many things that the bible clearly states. For example, that a blood sacrifice isn't required to atone for sin (and that Jesus' alleged death weasn't a proper sacrifice in any case); that God is not a man, that we Jews should go to our own sages for questions of interpretation, that there is no trinity, and that the Torah is to be observed forever, even after the real messiah comes. In believing that Jesus was the messiah and God, you deny what the bible says the messiah will be and do.

"Further revelation" from God, such as from the Prophets and the Writings (of the bible) didn't contradict the Torah in any way.

None of you have given a good reason why I should believe the Christians "interpretations" of our bible (which "interprets" the verses to mean the exact opposite of what actually they say). None of you have given any good reason why I should believe the gt, yet reject the Koran and the Book of Mormon. Nor have you given any good reasons for your own rejection of the Koran. If God gives "further revelation," that contradicts His word in the bible, then the Koran could indeed be revelation from God.

None of you have answered these questions:
Since God told us to reject people like Jesus, why should we follow him?

Since Jesus didn't fulfill any messianic prophecies, why should I believe that he's the messiah? Why should I believe that God also lied or "changed his mind" about what the messiah will do?

If Christianity is true, why will everybody be coming to the Jews for the truth in the messianic age? That's what God says in the Hebrew bible. Do you deny the word of God?

[Timer]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty much done with the religion stuff because a lot of very smart people on these forums, plus Matt Ruff, seem to think I am just using this subject as a vehicle to show off against opponents with few weapons.

[/ QUOTE ]

To show off what?

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
Further evidence of boss' refusal to see anything remotely contradicting his beliefs to the point of distorting the views of others is given by this quote from his post above and a link to a Jewish source that supposedly proves it:



[ QUOTE ]
Even in the gt, Jesus didn't claim to be God.

[/ QUOTE ]



That this statement is false, and thus if repeated will be evidence that boss is a liar, is shown by the following New Testament quote from the RSV:


John 8:58 "Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.' "


Since "I AM" is the direct equivalent of the name of God in Hebrew, it is clear that Jesus is claiming to be God. Spin away Boss.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your interpretation of the verse is simply wrong. In other verses, Jesus says that God is separate from him, and greater than him. This was explained in the article. Two contradictory statements can't both be true. For this verse not to contradict other gt verses and the Hebrew bible, your interpretation must be wrong.

If you insist that your interpretation is correct, that means that there are contradictions within the gt, and between the gt and the Hebrew bible. In either case, then Christianity is proven false.

Scholars who study the historical Jesus believe that the gospel of John was written last and is the least accurate. It portrays Jesus as the biggest egomaniac, the most "God-like." The process of turning him into a pagan God has begun.

The gospel of John is also the most antisemitic. If Jesus did exist, it's unlikely that he really was so antisemitic.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Your interpretation of the verse is simply wrong. In other verses, Jesus says that God is separate from him, and greater than him. This was explained in the article. Two contradictory statements can't both be true. For this verse not to contradict other gt verses and the Hebrew bible, your interpretation must be wrong.

If you insist that your interpretation is correct, that means that there are contradictions within the gt, and between the gt and the Hebrew bible. In either case, then Christianity is proven false.


[/ QUOTE ]

I seem to remember BossJJ, you asserting that Jews were the only competent interpreters of the Hebrew Bible as it was your sacred scripture. Well guess what, you also in your quotes are asserting that the New Testament is also only to be interpreted by the same Jews who don't believe in it, and not by Christians. Further evidence of your double evidence standards, shown previously in part by those on evaluating truthfullness of scriptures by how close to the events they were transcribed and by your views on miracles.

These things, lack of use of the same standards for evaluating differing beliefs, which are merely evidence of logical lapses and crossing the threshold of "preposterousness", show the sand upon which your whole system of argumentation rests. It really isn't necessary to pour over the minutiae of all the points you have made, when they rest on preposterous and logically unsound standards of evalutation and interpretation.

[PairTheBoard]

Satchel Page --
"1000 years from now, all this contentiousness over nothing will be viewed as little more than grunts and groans with infinitesimal substance."

PairTheBoard

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Scholars who study the historical Jesus believe that the gospel of John was written last and is the least accurate. It portrays Jesus as the biggest egomaniac, the most "God-like." The process of turning him into a pagan God has begun.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, the "historical Jesus" scholars. The same scholars who also question the historicity and origins of the beliefs espoused in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible. Do you have no intellectual shame in using such two-faced argumentation?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Scholars who study the historical Jesus believe that the gospel of John was written last and is the least accurate. It portrays Jesus as the biggest egomaniac, the most "God-like." The process of turning him into a pagan God has begun.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, the "historical Jesus" scholars. The same scholars who also question the historicity and origins of the beliefs espoused in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible. Do you have no intellectual shame in using such two-faced argumentation?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not only two faced but ridiculously so since the great majority of such historical scholars accept the historiocity of the man Jesus while rejecting the historiocity of the Moses magical miracles. The historiocity of the man Moses is much more open to debate among scholars than that of the man Jesus.

PairTheBoard

[bossJJ]

The bible says that all (Dt 5:22) the people heard God speak. It states in several verses that they heard God speak - they heard His voice (Dt 4:9-13, 32-36, 5:1-45, 23-26). Read all of Deuteronomy, chaper 5, NRSV (http://bible.oremus.org/browser.cgi?passage=Deuteronomy+5). It describes how the people were frightened, and they approached Moses, wanting God to speak to him alone. The written text doesn't specify when exactly this occurred. Our oral tradition tells this happened after the first two commandments were spoken. But what difference does it make? The written text alone clearly stated that all the people heard God speak. Why should we "interpret" it to mean something else? As far as I know, even Christianity doesn't deny this.

As for the Oral Torah, in another thread (the first "Why do Jews Reject Jesus?), I listed several references to the Oral Torah in the written one, showing that it dates to the same time.

You are lying and misrepresenting what I've been saying. My reasons for believing that we received a national revelation have nothing to do with when it was written down. I have never given that as a reason, and I specifically mentioned that it was not a reason several times in the other thread.

You falsely claim that I've "asserted frequently that a reason not to believe in the New Testament is that is wasn't written during Jesus' lifetime." That is completely false, and I have never said that. What I did say is that the fact that no one from Jesus' alleged lifetime wrote anything at all about him or any of his alleged miracles makes it probable that he didn't exist at all. Jesus lived at a time when the average Jew was literate, and there were several writers and historians who wrote about 1st century Israel in great detail. Had he really existed, somebody would have mentioned him.

The same is not true of Abraham and Moses. There were no historians writing about Israel then, and illiteracy was widespread.

I've given several reasons why I believe that the Torah is from God; the claim of a national revelation is only one of them. Since I do believe in the Hebrew bible, of course I reject anything that contradicts it, like the gt and the Koran.

You have never been able to refute any of my posts that show how Christianity contradicts the Hebrew bible. You have never been able to provide any good reasons why I should believe the Christians' "interpretations" of our bible, which actually deny what the bible actually says.

For example, I've listed several verses where God says that prayer, repentance or charity atones for sin, proving that a blood sacrifice was not required. Yet you just insist that's not possible, claiming that we're interpreting the verses incorrectly. When I list actual examples of people who had their sins atoned for without bring a blood sacrifice, you still maintain that a blood sacrifice was required. What kind of ridiculous "interpretation" is that? You insist that the verses mean the opposite of what they actually say! That is simply not a valid way to interpret the bible. Yet that's the way you "interpret" the bible regarding everything else as well: you have your contradicting beliefs from the gt, and so thats what you believe, regardless of what the Hebrew bible actually says.

Another example, the bible says in several places that our covenant with God is forever and eternal, and that the Torah is to be observed forever, even after the messiah comes. Again, you just deny all this, and insist that "forever" and "eternal" don't really mean "forever" and "eternal." Rather, "forever" is "interpreted" to mean "temporary." That's ridiculous!

Nor have you given any good reasons why I should accept the gt, yet reject the Koran, or any other alleged "holy book."

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
The bible says that all (Dt 5:22) the people heard God speak. It states in several verses that they heard God speak - they heard His voice (Dt 4:9-13, 32-36, 5:1-45, 23-26). Read all of Deuteronomy, chaper 5, NRSV (http://bible.oremus.org/browser.cgi?passage=Deuteronomy+5). It describes how the people were frightened, and they approached Moses, wanting God to speak to him alone. The written text doesn't specify when exactly this occurred. Our oral tradition tells this happened after the first two commandments were spoken. But what difference does it make? The written text alone clearly stated that all the people heard God speak. Why should we "interpret" it to mean something else? As far as I know, even Christianity doesn't deny this.

As for the Oral Torah, in another thread (the first "Why do Jews Reject Jesus?), I listed several references to the Oral Torah in the written one, showing that it dates to the same time.

You are lying and misrepresenting what I've been saying. My reasons for believing that we received a national revelation have nothing to do with when it was written down. I have never given that as a reason, and I specifically mentioned that it was not a reason several times in the other thread.

You falsely claim that I've "asserted frequently that a reason not to believe in the New Testament is that is wasn't written during Jesus' lifetime." That is completely false, and I have never said that. What I did say is that the fact that no one from Jesus' alleged lifetime wrote anything at all about him or any of his alleged miracles makes it probable that he didn't exist at all. Jesus lived at a time when the average Jew was literate, and there were several writers and historians who wrote about 1st century Israel in great detail. Had he really existed, somebody would have mentioned him.

The same is not true of Abraham and Moses. There were no historians writing about Israel then, and illiteracy was widespread.

I've given several reasons why I believe that the Torah is from God; the claim of a national revelation is only one of them. Since I do believe in the Hebrew bible, of course I reject anything that contradicts it, like the gt and the Koran.

You have never been able to refute any of my posts that show how Christianity contradicts the Hebrew bible. You have never been able to provide any good reasons why I should believe the Christians' "interpretations" of our bible, which actually deny what the bible actually says.

For example, I've listed several verses where God says that prayer, repentance or charity atones for sin, proving that a blood sacrifice was not required. Yet you just insist that's not possible, claiming that we're interpreting the verses incorrectly. When I list actual examples of people who had their sins atoned for without bring a blood sacrifice, you still maintain that a blood sacrifice was required. What kind of ridiculous "interpretation" is that? You insist that the verses mean the opposite of what they actually say! That is simply not a valid way to interpret the bible. Yet that's the way you "interpret" the bible regarding everything else as well: you have your contradicting beliefs from the gt, and so thats what you believe, regardless of what the Hebrew bible actually says.

Another example, the bible says in several places that our covenant with God is forever and eternal, and that the Torah is to be observed forever, even after the messiah comes. Again, you just deny all this, and insist that "forever" and "eternal" don't really mean "forever" and "eternal." Rather, "forever" is "interpreted" to mean "temporary." That's ridiculous!

Nor have you given any good reasons why I should accept the gt, yet reject the Koran, or any other alleged "holy book."

[/ QUOTE ]

REPEAT POST WARNING
REPEAT
REPEAT POST WARNING

PairTheBoard

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your interpretation of the verse is simply wrong. In other verses, Jesus says that God is separate from him, and greater than him. This was explained in the article. Two contradictory statements can't both be true. For this verse not to contradict other gt verses and the Hebrew bible, your interpretation must be wrong.

If you insist that your interpretation is correct, that means that there are contradictions within the gt, and between the gt and the Hebrew bible. In either case, then Christianity is proven false.


[/ QUOTE ]

I seem to remember BossJJ, you asserting that Jews were the only competent interpreters of the Hebrew Bible as it was your sacred scripture. Well guess what, you also in your quotes are asserting that the New Testament is also only to be interpreted by the same Jews who don't believe in it, and not by Christians. Further evidence of your double evidence standards, shown previously in part by those on evaluating truthfullness of scriptures by how close to the events they were transcribed and by your views on miracles.

These things, lack of use of the same standards for evaluating differing beliefs, which are merely evidence of logical lapses and crossing the threshold of "preposterousness", show the sand upon which your whole system of argumentation rests. It really isn't necessary to pour over the minutiae of all the points you have made, when they rest on preposterous and logically unsound standards of evalutation and interpretation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely wrong. It's evidence of your double standards. Since you first rejected my interpretations of the Hebrew bible, why can't I reject your interpretations of the gt? You are the one who set this "double standard." And I least explained why you were wrong (in your "interpretations" of the Hebrew bible). But apparently you can't refute me. Instead, you just say I shouldn't be interpreting your bible. Why not? You do it to us!

In fact, I don't have this double standard at all. If some person or religion accepts that the Jews are the most competent to interpret the Hebrew bible, and that our interpretation is correct, then I give them the same courtesy towards their scripture. I may believe that other religions are false, but I never tell any non-Christian religions that they are interpreting their own scriptures incorrectly.

[bossJJ]

That was not a repeat post. I did repeat some of the same points which I've made before, but that is often necessary because so many Christians are so stupid. They keep repeating the same crap, which is indicates that they didn't understand me the first time (or the first ten times, whatever). When they repeat the same crap, I have to explain again why they're wrong. They have never been able to refute any of my points, yet they just cling to their false beliefs, and keep repeating them like the brainwashed morons they are.

[bossJJ]

You both missed the point, which was that there are many ways to interpret the gt. Therefore, if Jesus really was resurrected from the dead, it does not logically follow that we should become Christians. There is no agreement as to what his resurrection really means. Some who disagree with the Christian interpretation believe in the Hebrew bible, and some don't. It's irrelevant.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
That was not a repeat post. I did repeat some of the same points which I've made before, but that is necessary because I am so stupid. I keep repeating the same crap because repeating it the first 5 times (or the first ten times, whatever) was not enough. When I repeat the same crap I have to explain again why I'm not wrong. I have never been able to refute any of their points, so I just cling to my false beliefs, and keep repeating them like the brainwashed moron I am.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mirrored your post.

PairTheBoard

[bossJJ]

I've said many times that I believe that the Hebrew bible is true, and that's the standard by which I judge all religions. So I judge all religions by the same standard. And since you Christians supposedly believe that it's from God, you shouldn't have a problem with that.

In short, you Christians have never given any good reason why I should believe in the gt. Nor have you given any good reasons why I should accept your "interpretations" of our bible. You constantly attack me and disagree with what I say, but you've never given any good reasons why I should believe in Christianity. Nor have you addressed why it's better than Islam or any other "new revelation."

[bossJJ]

I see that you also are unable to refute any of my points. Seriously, can't you give a rational reason why somebody should believe in Christianity?

[David Sklansky]

"Therefore, if Jesus really was resurrected from the dead, it does not logically follow that we should become Christians."

Perhaps technically right. But do you agree with my contention that if he was truly resurrected that God did it? And that if he did do such a thing that he had a good reason to. And given the effects this particular ressurrection would have on people's beliefs it would make belief in christianity at least more reasonable?

Isn't easier to admit that I am probably right that God actually said or meant "appeared to do a miracle" (if he said anything at all.)

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
"Therefore, if Jesus really was resurrected from the dead, it does not logically follow that we should become Christians."


Perhaps technically right. But do you agree with my contention that if he was truly resurrected that God did it? And that if he did do such a thing that he had a good reason to. And given the effects this particular ressurrection would have on people's beliefs it would make belief in christianity at least more reasonable?


Isn't easier to admit that I am probably right that God actually said or meant "appeared to do a miracle" (if he said anything at all.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you're right at all. I think it's much more likely (and rational) that God doesn't keep changing His mind. He gave us His truth in the Hebrew bible, and it's still true. Therefore, I still wouldn't follow anybody (like Jesus) that God said not to follow.

The idea that we should follow whoever produces a big miracle is unrealistic and unworkable. In reality, we have have no way of knowing whether or not Jesus was resurrected. The same questions can be asked of the "miracles" claimed in all religions.

For example, if Mohammed really rode to heaven on a white horse, should everyone become a Muslim? The miracle must be from God. Therefore, Christians should accept the fact that God is giving "further revelation," and Islam is now the correct religion. After all, God must have a reason for giving Mohammed the miracle. It probably proves that the Christian interpretation about Jesus was wrong.

If an angel really did give some gold plates to Joseph Smith, should everyone become a Mormon? The miracle must be from God, so therefore it's rational to accept that their beliefs are revelation from God.

Since we lack the time to investigate all claims of miracles, and we have no way of knowing who really has produced a big miracle, it's more rational to believe that that's not how we are to determine who has the truth. The idea is just ridiculous, impractical and completely unworkable.

Nor is it rational to believe that God would keep changing His mind, sending prophets to start new religions that contradict what He had previously said.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
"Therefore, if Jesus really was resurrected from the dead, it does not logically follow that we should become Christians."

Perhaps technically right. But do you agree with my contention that if he was truly resurrected that God did it? And that if he did do such a thing that he had a good reason to. And given the effects this particular ressurrection would have on people's beliefs it would make belief in christianity at least more reasonable?

Isn't easier to admit that I am probably right that God actually said or meant "appeared to do a miracle" (if he said anything at all.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd first like to qualify my post by saying I am an atheist, so a natural skeptic on these matters and the motives of the people who recorded them or made them up, whatever.

If there was such an event as the resurrection of Christ, is it not entirely possible that he was just one of the lucky few to pass out from the pain (as opposed to dying), and then came round in his tomb 3 days later. Not only is this a distinct possiblity, its also a lot more likely than the dead rising.

[ QUOTE ]
Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
Arthur Conan Doyle

[/ QUOTE ]

Regards Mack

[David Sklansky]

"For example, if Mohammed really rode to heaven on a white horse, should everyone become a Muslim? The miracle must be from God. Therefore, Christians should accept the fact that God is giving "further revelation," and Islam is now the correct religion. After all, God must have a reason for giving Mohammed the miracle."

Please simply answer two questions.

1. If Jesus was actually ressurected or Mohammed really did ride a white horse to heaven could those miracles have been caused by something other than God?

2. Say Tom McEvoy spends five years telling everybody he is the real messiah and follows that up with making the moon do a cha cha whenever he asks, or beating me in a two day hi lo regular freezout. If you answered no to question #1, I would like to know why God would help Tom to perform such miracles given the credibility it would add to his claims, if they weren't actually true.

[slickpoppa]

I doubt you will get a satisfactory answer. BossJJ has made a dozen replies to this thread already and still hasn't really responded to your first post yet. Instead he has continued his rants against Christianity. BossJJ, we get it, but this thread is not just about Christianity.

The issue that you still not have addressed is: Can people who act contrary to god's will perform miracles? If not, then why did god warn us against them? If yes, then why would god allow them to perform miracles?

[David Sklansky]

"The issue that you still not have addressed is: Can people who act contrary to god's will perform miracles? If not, then why did god warn us against them? If yes, then why would god allow them to perform miracles? "

You phrased the questions better than I did. That is not allowed. Where's the moderator here?

[kleos]

I don't know if you wanted to go in this direction, and I missed the previous thread, but why must people convert to christianity if Jesus was ressurected and/or the messiah?

If we were all supposed to be Christian wouldn't Jesus have founded christianity and not just be the focal point of it?

In addition, there were many other things that "God told the Jews" were to coincide with the start of the messianic era that now 2005 years later have yet to occur.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

To show off what?


[/ QUOTE ]

Check and mate.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
In short, you Christians have never given any good reason why I should believe in the gt. Nor have you given any good reasons why I should accept your "interpretations" of our bible. You constantly attack me and disagree with what I say, but you've never given any good reasons why I should believe in Christianity. Nor have you addressed why it's better than Islam or any other "new revelation."

[/ QUOTE ]

The entire point of David's starting this thread is that the attitude of yourself and fellow Jews is, no matter what miracles and signs might have been or could be performed in the name of God, that such signs and miracles would not alter your views. Since you have thus made it clear that even your ownself witnessing a clearly supernatural event would not alter your beliefs, why would I spend any time arguing to change your mind to Christianity since I can only use means clearly inferior to the supernatural?. I have never been attempting to "convert" you, but have only exchanged posts for the benefit of 3rd parties who are neither Christian nor Jew.

[kleos]

[ QUOTE ]
The entire point of David's starting this thread is that the attitude of yourself and fellow Jews is,

[/ QUOTE ]
David has written how many books? He needs you to speak for him? Why the stereotypes, is that really necessary?

[ QUOTE ]
no matter what miracles and signs might have been or could be performed in the name of God, that such signs and miracles would not alter your views.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would be wary of using a phrase like "in the name of god." I would have to say the most horrifying things done in humanity (EDIT: by humanity) were done "in the name of god".

[BluffTHIS!]

kleos, why don't you try reading an entire thread and the threads related to it before making out of context comments on one post.

[RJT]

1) I don’t know what Boss jj wrote, but I do know what is written in The New American Bible(for Catholics). Deut. 13.: “If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer who promises you a sign or wonder…even though the sign or wonder he has foretold you comes to pass…”

A dreamer is defined as a false prophet. ( As opposed to a real prophet. ) A real prophet could have received revelations from God though dreams. Here God is warning to not believe, certainly, the false prophet, but also the real prophet who preachers that such dreams are from a false god(s).

The wonder He speaks of is not a miracle. It is something that appears to be a miracle

Deuteronomy does not say that God warned of folk who can perform miracles.

2) David Sklansky is absolutely correct when he says,

“It is reasonable for Jews to believe that Jesus was not truly resurrected. (That is an understatement.) But it is not reasonable for Jews to believe that even if Jesus was resurrected, the Christian religion is still hogwash….Prove that Jesus was truly resurrected (Or have him come flying down atop an elephant and turn water into wine again) and all sane atheists and agnostics will become Christians. So should all Jews. If Boss jj disputes that, he wasted an awful lot of words on this forum. “


(Interesting is David’s use of the word “again” when he speaks of Jesus turning water into wine. Maybe, less doubtful than he portends? I know, I know, it was a slip of the tongue (keyboard).)

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
"The issue that you still not have addressed is: Can people who act contrary to god's will perform miracles? If not, then why did god warn us against them? If yes, then why would god allow them to perform miracles? "


[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps god is like the formulator of one of those darn multiple choice tests. Feels like they only care about tricking you, but conversely, they'd often much prefer if you always selected the right answer.

[kleos]

[ QUOTE ]
kleos, why don't you try reading an entire thread and the threads related to it before making out of context comments on one post.

[/ QUOTE ]
what exactly was out of context?

Maybe you shoud THINK before you insult for no reason.

[trying2learn]

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt you will get a satisfactory answer. BossJJ has made a dozen replies to this thread already and still hasn't really responded to your first post yet. Instead he has continued his rants against Christianity. BossJJ, we get it, but this thread is not just about Christianity.

The issue that you still not have addressed is: Can people who act contrary to god's will perform miracles? If not, then why did god warn us against them? If yes, then why would god allow them to perform miracles?

[/ QUOTE ]

does this remind anyone of A Few Good Men?

"if you gave an order that he wasn't to be touched...and your orders are always followed...why would he be in danger?"

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]
a lot of very smart people on these forums, plus Matt Ruff

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, you too noticed that Matt Ruff rarely posts to these forums anymore. Priceless!

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt you will get a satisfactory answer. BossJJ has made a dozen replies to this thread already and still hasn't really responded to your first post yet. Instead he has continued his rants against Christianity. BossJJ, we get it, but this thread is not just about Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I responded to his post directly, answering what he asked. I told him that we believe that God really did tell us not to follow someone who tells us to follow other gods, even if he produces a miracle. David apparently wanted me to agree that God could not have said this.

I explained why having the Torah as the standard of what is true, rather than who produces a miracle, is both more rational and more practical. It makes more sense, and it's also more consistent with what the bible tells us. The bible says in many places that we are to follow God and His Torah forever, and that we're never to change it or follow any other god or religion. Our Torah is the standard of what is true, not who produces the biggest miracle.

David seems to think that God (if He existed) could keep changing His mind, and that He would use miracles as the standard of truth, not the Torah. The idea is just ridiculous, as we have no way of knowing which miracles are real, nor the time to investigate all the claims. It's just not practical, workable or sensible. Because I can't agree with this ridiculous idea, you guys wrongly accuse me of not responding to his post.

It just doesn't make sense that God would tell us that He doesn't lie or change His mind, that we are to observe His Torah forever and not to change it, and that we aren't to follow any one who tells us not to follow Torah law or who tells us to follow other gods, even if he produces a miracle. Yet then He turns around and tells us not to follow laws that He said were eternal, to do what He said was forbidden, and to follow somebody He said not to follow. We are supposed to know this is from God because an antisemitic book that is full of lies claims that somebody allegedly produced a miracle. Then every so often God repeats this scenario with a new prophet, contradicting what He said through the previous one. Since Christians believe that this is how God operates, they should be investigating the miraculous claims of other religions.

We Jews believe that God doesn't lie or change His mind. So we believe Him when He said that Jews are to follow the Torah forever, and that our covenant with Him is forever. He commanded not to follow any other god or religion. Therefore, we have no need to investigate the miraculous claims of other religions.

While all are highly unlikely, one can't definitely disprove the claim that Jesus was resurrected, that Mohammed rode a white horse to heaven, or that an angel gave some gold plates to Joseph Smith. It just doesn't make sense that God would keep changing His mind, sending new prophets to start new religions that contradict His previous revelations. This also implies that there no absolutes in terms of right and wrong, if what was once a grievous sin is now God's will.

David just didn't like my answer, but that doesn't mean that I didn't answer it (even before he asked it in this thread).

David is the one who made it about Christianity, claiming that any rational person should become a Christian if Jesus really was resurrected from the dead. So I explained why that statement wasn't logical, that other explanations were possible, and we have no of knowing which is correct. Since Jesus' resurrection is a Christian belief, how can I avoid discussing Christianity when responding to this?

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
The issue that you still not have addressed is: Can people who act contrary to god's will perform miracles? If not, then why did god warn us against them? If yes, then why would god allow them to perform miracles?

[/ QUOTE ]

All miracles are from God, so it's not that any prophet, whether true or not, is performing miracles. His power comes from God. We have no reason to believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead, or that Mohammed rode to heaven on a white horse. The majority of miracles claimed either didn't happen or weren't miracles.

However, God does allow false prophets, and people who follow false gods, to experience real miracles. The bible says, in Deuteronomy 13:3 (http://bible.oremus.org/browser.cgi?passage=Deuteronomy+13), that God is testing us. I posted these verses before. If only Jews had miracles, there would be no free will, as it would be too obvious that we are right. This is discussed here (http://www.outreachjudaism.org/experience.html), which I've linked to before. So God allows people who are following false religions to experience miracles. These would include things like healing them when they are sick, saving them from danger or providing something that they personally need or want. As is the case with the more dramatic claims, there is no way of knowing which ones really are from God.

[Peter666]

"So God allows people who are following false religions to experience miracles."

If this is so, and the miracles experienced are attributed to the false religions, then God is evil as he is screwing with rational human beings, contradicting our very nature by making us believe that our false version of the truth is correct.

But maybe that is not your point. So to clarify, do you believe only God can perform a true miracle? Would this miracle then lead to the true God or is it subject to misinterpretation and attribution to a false god?

[David Sklansky]

Finally I got my answer. I read the link. So if Jesus was actually resurrected it was a test to see if Jews would follow false prophets. Evidently God doesn't mark on a curve.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So to clarify, do you believe only God can perform a true miracle? Would this miracle then lead to the true God or is it subject to misinterpretation and attribution to a false god?


[/ QUOTE ]


2 Corinthians 11
14 Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light

2 Thessalonians 2
8Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming;

9that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders,
10and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.

Mathew 24
24"For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect.

1 John 4
1Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
2By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God;
3and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.

[David Sklansky]

So maybe Satan resurrected Jesus.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
A dreamer is defined as a false prophet. ( As opposed to a real prophet. )

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. A dreamer is simply a lesser degree of prophecy. Real prophets sometimes received their revelation in dreams as well.

[ QUOTE ]
A real prophet could have received revelations from God though dreams. Here God is warning to not believe, certainly, the false prophet, but also the real prophet who preachers that such dreams are from a false god(s).

[/ QUOTE ]

A real prophet won't be preaching anything that is false. Any prophet who tells us to follow any other god is by a definition a false prophet that we must not follow.

[ QUOTE ]
The wonder He speaks of is not a miracle. It is something that appears to be a miracle

[/ QUOTE ]

The bible does not say this at all. It's simply your interpretation. For your interpretation to be correct, we have to be able to distinguish real from false miracles. In practice, that's impossible. How can we know whether it's a real miracle or not? For example, so-and-so claims to be a prophet who has a message from God. He then either produces a miracle, or he produces what appears to be a miracle. How can you know whether or not it's a real miracle?

The distinction between signs and wonders is that a sign is a miracle that the prophet foretells, and a wonder is a miracle that he performs spontaneously. Both are miracles by definition.

[ QUOTE ]
Deuteronomy does not say that God warned of folk who can perform miracles.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have no way of knowing which miracles are real miracles. Like many other verses, these verses warn us not to obey those who tell us to follow other gods, or who tell us not follow God's Torah. We must not follow such a person even if he produces a miracle. We can't tell if it's a real miracle or not, and we're not obligated to find out. Instead, we should always follow God and obey His Torah. God is testing us. Jesus and the gt authors qualify as false prophets, as they tell us to follow a false god (Jesus), and they tell us not to follow Torah law.

The bible does say that if a "prophet" makes a prediction that doesn't come true, then he is a false prophet, not from God. However, that doesn't mean a person who correctly predicts the future is definitely a prophet. As Deuteronomy 5 states, if he then goes on to claim that we should follow other gods, then he isn't a true prophet at all, and we must not follow him. As I've discussed in other threads, Jesus qualifies as a false prophet by this criteria as well, because he made some predictions that didn't come true.

[ QUOTE ]
2) David Sklansky is absolutely correct when he says,

“It is reasonable for Jews to believe that Jesus was not truly resurrected. (That is an understatement.) But it is not reasonable for Jews to believe that even if Jesus was resurrected, the Christian religion is still hogwash….Prove that Jesus was truly resurrected (Or have him come flying down atop an elephant and turn water into wine again) and all sane atheists and agnostics will become Christians. So should all Jews. If Boss jj disputes that, he wasted an awful lot of words on this forum. “


(Interesting is David’s use of the word “again” when he speaks of Jesus turning water into wine. Maybe, less doubtful than he portends? I know, I know, it was a slip of the tongue (keyboard).)

[/ QUOTE ]

Such an interpretation (that we should become Christians if Jesus were resurrected) makes sense only if we could be sure that he was really resurrected, and that the Christians' interpretations about what it means are correct. In reality, there is no way we can really know this.

In practice, we have no way of knowing which miracles are real. I've already explained why it's ridiculous and irrational to believe that the truth is determined by whoever has the biggest miracle, rather than by God's word in the bible.

[Peter666]

Hail Satan!

[Peter666]

Well, Catholic teaching says no true miracle can be performed except by God. Devils are only capable of performing pseudo-miracles that do not defy the laws of nature, but elaborate on existing ones. Only God can actually suspend the laws of nature. And He sure as Hell would not perform miracles for Satan's benefit.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
"So God allows people who are following false religions to experience miracles."

If this is so, and the miracles experienced are attributed to the false religions, then God is evil as he is screwing with rational human beings, contradicting our very nature by making us believe that our false version of the truth is correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe the article did a good job of explaining this: God did not start all the many religions that exist today. Do you think God told the Hare Krishnas, Jehova's Witnesses and the Mormons that their beliefs are from Him? It's not that God has "made you believe that your false beliefs are true." Rather, you have convinced yourself that your false beliefs are from God. We all have free will, and you made the choice to follow a false god. Nothing about Christianity makes any sense at all, and it contradicts the Hebrew bible on just about every theological point, yet you have let yourself be deceived into believing it. God didn't do that. It was your choice.

As the article stated:
[ QUOTE ]
God is truly testing you with the experiences and observations you have had and made. This is your choice in a world where free will hangs in its perfect balance. Will you worship the God of Israel alone or turn to gods whom the nation of Israel has not known? If we lived in a world where only one religion could produce spirituality and miraculous life-altering experiences, that precious balance of free will could not exist...


God permits man to become enraptured with false religions for the same reason He permits a married man to be attracted to women other than his wife. Free will is within your grasp. If this ordained tender balance of free will were ever compromised, virtue would remain beyond the reach of mankind. Don’t, though, look to spirituality and miraculous life-changing events as your guide to truth in faith. Look to the Bible alone for this eternal instruction. Once you have committed your life to truth in the God of Israel, joyously take part in the spiritual food it provides. Never permit spiritual expressions to become your barometer for truth. Your foundation must be the Jewish scriptures.

[/ QUOTE ]

Christianity is a great emotional crutch for you, and you want to believe it's true. Therefore, you simply refuse to look at the possibility that it might be false. You ignore God's word in the Hebrew bible, which commands us not to follow people like Jesus. You ignore His statements warning us that we shouldn't follow people like Jesus even if they produce a miracle.


[ QUOTE ]
But maybe that is not your point. So to clarify, do you believe only God can perform a true miracle? Would this miracle then lead to the true God or is it subject to misinterpretation and attribution to a false god?

[/ QUOTE ]

Only God can perform a true miracle. However, people can perform tricks that other people believe are miracles, and individuals can have experiences that they mistakenly believe are miracles. We have no way to tell the difference, and even real miracles can be misinterpreted.

People of many different religions claim miracles and wonderful experiences that they believe are from God. We have no way of knowing which miracles or experiences really are from God. All these contradictory beliefs can't all be true. This should be a big clue to you that such experiences can't logically be the source of truth. So that is why we don't look to miracles or subjective personal experiences to determine who has the truth.

God never told us to follow whoever has a real miracle. Rather, He told us to follow His Torah forever, and not to change it. The Hebrew bible is the standard of what is true. Any religion which contradicts God's word as given in the Hebrew is obviously false and not from God, regardless of how many miracles their followers believe they are experiencing.

[Steve Giufre]

[ QUOTE ]

2. Say Tom McEvoy spends five years telling everybody he is the real messiah and follows that up with making the moon do a cha cha whenever he asks, or beating me in a two day hi lo regular freezout.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats absolutely classic. Pretty good sense of humor, for a math stiff.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In short, you Christians have never given any good reason why I should believe in the gt. Nor have you given any good reasons why I should accept your "interpretations" of our bible. You constantly attack me and disagree with what I say, but you've never given any good reasons why I should believe in Christianity. Nor have you addressed why it's better than Islam or any other "new revelation."

[/ QUOTE ]

The entire point of David's starting this thread is that the attitude of yourself and fellow Jews is, no matter what miracles and signs might have been or could be performed in the name of God, that such signs and miracles would not alter your views. Since you have thus made it clear that even your ownself witnessing a clearly supernatural event would not alter your beliefs, why would I spend any time arguing to change your mind to Christianity since I can only use means clearly inferior to the supernatural?. I have never been attempting to "convert" you, but have only exchanged posts for the benefit of 3rd parties who are neither Christian nor Jew.

[/ QUOTE ]

Contrary to your claim, I never discussed what I personally would do if I saw a supernatural event. According to the Hebrew bible, any "prophet" who tells us to follow other gods, or not to follow God's Torah, isn't speaking "in the name of God." He is a false prophet, and God explicitly commanded us not to follow such people, even if they produce a miracle. That's all I've been saying. I'm simply believing what God told us in the Hebrew bible. Do you think God was lying?

The Torah is the standard of what is true, not who has the biggest miracle. So we don't have to investigate any claims of alleged miracles in other religions. God told us that He doesn't lie or change His mind. He said that we are to follow His Torah forever, and never follow any other god or religion. God's Torah is perfect, and His truths are absolute and eternal.

In Torah Judaism, we already have a religion that is perfect and complete. That is why God commands us not to follow any other god or religion. Any new religion is not from God; He got it right the first time, and He doesn't change His mind. So He never sends "prophets" to start new religions.

In criticizing me for not accepting miracles as the standard of truth, you assume that the truth really is with whoever has the biggest miracle. Why? How can you know if any miracle is real? Why not just believe what God tells us in the Hebrew bible? The idea that miracles point to the truth is just ridiculous, as we have no way of knowing which miracles are real, nor the time to investigate all the claims. It doesn't make sense that God would keep changing His mind, and that we are supposed to figure out who has the real truth (among thousands of claimants) by investigating all the competing claims of miracles. It's not rational or practical, and contradicts what God tells us in the Hebrew bible. In practice, it just doesn't work.

David's post was asking us to assume something (that Jesus was resurrected) that, in reality, is impossible to know either way. Because it's impossible to know which miracles are real, those who look for the truth in miracles (or their own subjective personal experiences) follow thousands of different religions. They can't all be true, so it proves that following "miracles" doesn't lead to the truth at all. We know they are false because they contradict God's word as given to us in the Hebrew bible. We Jews follow God's command to reject them all.

However, if God gave us another national revelation, I would have to accept that. For example, if God Himself spoke to all the Jews in the world and said, "Listen, I changed my mind. The Torah isn't forever, but it was only temporary. My new rules are that you must stand on your head every day at noon, and you must now believe that Bobo is the messiah, because he has yellow feet..." I would have to accept that and follow Bobo.

However, that never happened and never will happen. The idea is completely ridiculous and illogical. It's like claiming that God would tell us that two plus two equals five. It would mean that God is a liar and there is no absolute truth. It's just not possible that such a thing could happen.

The idea that God wants us to follow Jesus and Christianity (and that some miracles prove this) is equally ridiculous and irrational. GT Christianity completely contradicts everything God told us in the Hebrew bible, and God explicitly commanded us not follow people like Jesus and the gt authors.

There is no credible evidence that Jesus even existed, never mind that he was resurrected from the dead. Asking me to assume that Jesus really was resurrected from the dead is liking asking me to assume that two plus two equal five. Why should I assume that such nonsense is true? Why should anybody believe the Christian claims? If you believe it simply because of the alleged resurrection, why aren't you investigating the claims of miracles in other religions? You never did the address the issue of why anybody should believe the Christians' claims over those of the Muslims or anybody else.

[David Sklansky]

"Well, Catholic teaching says no true miracle can be performed except by God. Devils are only capable of performing pseudo-miracles that do not defy the laws of nature, but elaborate on existing ones. Only God can actually suspend the laws of nature. And He sure as Hell would not perform miracles for Satan's benefit."

This is what I've been waiting for. A debate between you and Not Ready. I make you about a dollar eighty favorite.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
It's just not possible that such a thing could happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

All this statement does is make my point. Thanks.

[ QUOTE ]
There is no credible evidence that Jesus even existed

[/ QUOTE ]

This from a guy who gives credit to talmudic writings describing oral traditions but not actually written down until 1000 years after the fact, but criticizes Christian and non-Christian accounts of Jesus written much closer to the events in question.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
In criticizing me for not accepting miracles as the standard of truth, you assume that the truth really is with whoever has the biggest miracle. Why? How can you know if any miracle is real? Why not just believe what God tells us in the Hebrew bible? The idea that miracles point to the truth is just ridiculous, as we have no way of knowing which miracles are real, nor the time to investigate all the claims. It doesn't make sense that God would keep changing His mind, and that we are supposed to figure out who has the real truth (among thousands of claimants) by investigating all the competing claims of miracles. It's not rational or practical, and contradicts what God tells us in the Hebrew bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with your argument is that it is based on the faulty assumption that there is 100% certainty that the Hebrew bible is true. But there is the possibility that the Hebrew bible is wrong. And if the Hebrew bible is wrong, then we would not have to worry about contradicting it. And IF some new god-like incarnation came along and performed fantastic miracles that could not be faked (let's say parting the Red Sea for the sake of argument) and said that the Hebrew bible is incorrect, wouldn't you have to abandon your belief in the Hebrew bible? How could the Hebrew bible still be true if some god-like creature is performing miracles and explicitly stating that the Hebrew bible is incorrect? Now you can argue that such miracles could be god testing us. But by making that argument, you are essentially saying that absolutely nothing could change your belief about the Hebrew bible. Or let me put it another way: If the real god were not the Hebrew god, what would he have to do to convince you to change your beliefs?


[ QUOTE ]
Why not just believe what God tells us in the Hebrew bible?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the Hebrew bible is probably largely false, just like the Upanishads or any other religious text for that matter.

And what has been your main argument in support of believing the Hebrew bible? God's national revelation to the Hebrew people, which is basically just a claim of a national miracle. So your stance that miracles cannot point to truth is extremely hypocritical since the foundation of your religion is based on a miracle or miracles. The only advantage that your religion has is that it is one of the oldest religions. So you try to claim that the first miracles (god's national revelation, etc.) must have happened and that any new miracles are meaningless because god told us during the first miracles that all other miracles are false.

But the problem is that none of the Hebrew miracles, even god's national revelation, are very believable. If anything, they are highly suspicious. Don't you think it is odd how many fantastic miracles were occurring thousands of years ago, but there are none occurring in modern times. The so called Gulf War miracles are unconvincing. Thousands of years ago god was parting the red sea, killing first born children, etc. and now all he will do is make imperceptible changes in the trajectories of scud missiles? And if god thought it was necessary to save the lives of some Jews during the Gulf War, where the hell was he during the Holocaust? If he is willing to intervene in the physical world, why the hell is he so selective now when he seemed to be so active thousands of years ago?

[Peter666]

Ok, good, then we agree only God can perform a true miracle. The "miracles" performed by false religions are mere chicanery. I don't know why the article didn't just say this.

I actually agree with your comment that Christianity is merely an emotional crutch for many many people. However, there is not just one form of Christianity. I will distinguish Catholicism from subjectively based Protestant religions and make the claim that this religion is naturally based on an intellectual rather than emotional foundation.

The Catholic religion says that suffering in life has a meaning, and one must accept that fact. The rewards for this acceptance are found in the afterlife. Judaism on the other hand does not believe in an afterlife per say, so suffering for them is pointless. And Protestants intellectually try to avoid all suffering (meaning not avoid sin) by saying Faith alone is enough to save one's soul and be rewarded. It is only true Catholics who base their relgious principles on a logical foundation of reward for one's good actions, and punishment for one's bad actions.

[David Sklansky]

"But the problem is that none of the Hebrew miracles, even god's national revelation, are very believable. If anything, they are highly suspicious. Don't you think it is odd how many fantastic miracles were occurring thousands of years ago, but there are none occurring in modern times. The so called Gulf War miracles are unconvincing. Thousands of years ago god was parting the red sea, killing first born children, etc. and now all he will do is make imperceptible changes in the trajectories of scud missiles? And if god thought it was necessary to save the lives of some Jews during the Gulf War, where the hell was he during the Holocaust? If he is willing to intervene in the physical world, why the hell is he so selective now when he seemed to be so active thousands of years ago?"

Bingo.

And this is just one of many arguments against whatever specific religion you might choose to address, that can only be refuted by tortured explanations. Explanations that at best will show that a particular religious belief is not logically impossible. Never will the explanations get to a threshhold where the beliefs could be considered even reasonably likely to be true.

[kleos]

[ QUOTE ]
This from a guy who gives credit to talmudic writings describing oral traditions but not actually written down until 1000 years after the fact, but criticizes Christian and non-Christian accounts of Jesus written much closer to the events in question.

[/ QUOTE ]
The manner in which the Torah has been handed down versus the original christian manuscripts, is extremely different. I see no reason why a process that has been around as long as any texts, had no counter part to ensure precise and accurate oral transmission. Even an area where Jews were supposedly isolated for a thousand years their Torah only divereged by 9 characters...

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
And this is just one of many arguments against whatever specific religion you might choose to address, that can only be refuted by tortured explanations. Explanations that at best will show that a particular religious belief is not logically impossible. Never will the explanations get to a threshhold where the beliefs could be considered even reasonably likely to be true.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are some of the most important points on this topic.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
And this is just one of many arguments against whatever specific religion you might choose to address, that can only be refuted by tortured explanations. Explanations that at best will show that a particular religious belief is not logically impossible. Never will the explanations get to a threshhold where the beliefs could be considered even reasonably likely to be true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could go on and on.

I wonder if BossJJ is a creationist. If god intended the Torah to be a perfect expression of what is true, it would seem odd for him to have intended the creation story to be read as allegorical.

[RJT]

You can’t get historical facts right. Who can expect you to interpret the Bible even close to the meaning?

A few of your epitomizing remarks:

“Many scholars (who believe that Jesus existed)…”

“If Jesus did exist, it's unlikely that he really was so antiSemitic(sic).”

“What I did say …Jesus' alleged lifetime… makes it probable that he didn't exist at all.”


Do you really want to get into such nonsense? Perhaps we should, also, then give credence to the idiots who embrace the theory that the Holocaust didn’t really happen?

Your ignorance is not only overwhelming, it is insulting.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
... Never will the explanations get to a threshhold where the beliefs could be considered even reasonably likely to be true.

[/ QUOTE ]

This might be an incorrect statement as written. Your lack of knowledge of Christianity is apparent and one cannot fault you for wording it in such a manner. I trust you mean to say something to the effect: Even after all the explanations, it still seems unlikely to be true. Such a wording is certainly correct

The reason it might or might not be correct as written stems from the use of the relative term “reasonably likely”.

1000:1, 1,000,000:1 A zillion to one, ad nausea are all relative to the beholder. For example when speaking of the Infinite, I.e., God, what the heck does a googolplex to 1 mean? Is that likely or unlikely?

One main point to understand ,though: The system of belief in the Christian Faith (well ,at least Catholic Faith of which I am familiar) is well thought out and flows very methodically. It is very easy to see for one who knows even a tad more than the basics of Christianity that, although farfetched, it is not necessarily unreasonable.

Yes, of course , for example miracles by definition are unreasonable. Therefore most the tenets of the Church are unreasonable. But, the basic premise of God Incarnate in Jesus and the whole theology leading up to the historical Jesus and following , for example, Jesus’ central message of “The Kingdom of God” is not the least bit unreasonable.

Yet, if we are defining even the notion of a god an unreasonable concept, then you are absolutely correct with your statement as written.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no credible evidence that Jesus even existed

[/ QUOTE ]

This from a guy who gives credit to talmudic writings describing oral traditions but not actually written down until 1000 years after the fact, but criticizes Christian and non-Christian accounts of Jesus written much closer to the events in question.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the other thread, I listed many refences to the oral torah in the written one. That shows that it dates to the same time.

I see you are unable to refute the fact that Jesus didn't exist. Why don't you address my points, instead of just attacking me?

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In criticizing me for not accepting miracles as the standard of truth, you assume that the truth really is with whoever has the biggest miracle. Why? How can you know if any miracle is real? Why not just believe what God tells us in the Hebrew bible? The idea that miracles point to the truth is just ridiculous, as we have no way of knowing which miracles are real, nor the time to investigate all the claims. It doesn't make sense that God would keep changing His mind, and that we are supposed to figure out who has the real truth (among thousands of claimants) by investigating all the competing claims of miracles. It's not rational or practical, and contradicts what God tells us in the Hebrew bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with your argument is that it is based on the faulty assumption that there is 100% certainty that the Hebrew bible is true. But there is the possibility that the Hebrew bible is wrong. And if the Hebrew bible is wrong, then we would not have to worry about contradicting it.

[/ QUOTE ]

My comments were directed at a Christian. They supposedly believe in the Hebrew bible, yet they tell me I’m wrong every time I quote it. If God Himself says something, in a book they believe to be His word, they should accept that as evidence.

Even if the bible is wrong, we have seen that miracles (and alleged personal revelations) clearly do not point to the truth, as it leads to people following thousands of different religions. My points about miracles not leading us to the truth are valid in any case. No one has been able to show or explain rationally why we should believe that the truth is with whoever has the biggest miracle. Just to start, how would you determine if a miracle is real?

[ QUOTE ]
And IF some new god-like incarnation came along and performed fantastic
miracles that could not be faked (let's say parting the Red Sea for the sake of argument) and said that the Hebrew bible is incorrect, wouldn't you have to abandon your belief in the Hebrew bible? How could the Hebrew bible still be true if some god-like creature is performing miracles and explicitly stating that the Hebrew bible is incorrect?

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I would accept that. I said I would accept a national revelation from God. I would have to accept it from any god. My point, that you all have missed, was that this (and David’s original post) presents a completely unrealistic scenario that hasn’t happened and most probably agree never will happen. It’s like if I asked you the same question, and added, “what if this god states explicitly that Bobo is the real god and 2+2=5”?

Lets say this god performs “fantastic miracles” and states “ is the correct religion.” Would [i]you then believe in that god? Would you then accept that everything he said must be true? Are you agreeing that the truth is with whoever has the biggest miracle? Or do you agree with me that such questions are silly because the whole scenario is completely unrealistic? Since we haven’t had such huge miracles that everyone can agree are miracles from God (or a god), in reality we need another way to determine what is true.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
Now you can argue that such miracles could be god testing us. But by making that argument, you are essentially saying that absolutely nothing could change your belief about the Hebrew bible. Or let me put it another way: If the real god were not the Hebrew god, what would he have to do to convince you to change your beliefs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, my comments were directed at those who claim to believe in the Hebrew bible. And I said I would accept a national revelation. If some god spoke to several million people, or performed what was definitely a miracle that could not be faked, and we could be sure it wasn’t faked, I would have to accept that too. What would it take to convince you that any god is real?

The problem is that we haven’t had any such big miracles, witnessed by thousands or millions, in thousands of years. It’s like speculating about what we would do if pink elephants starting flying across the sky. We do need another way to determine which religion, if any, is true. Since they supposedly believe that the Hebrew bible is the word of God, Christians should follow God’s command not to follow false prophets even if they produce a miracle. In any case, miracles (or apparent miracles) aren’t a good way to determine who has the truth. Besides contradicting God’s word, it hasn’t worked in practice, because it’s impossible to know which miracles are real.

Christians base their beliefs on a claim of a miracle - the alleged resurrection of Jesus. But their arguments aren’t convincing at all. There’s no evidence that the guy even existed, and no one apparently actually saw the alleged resurrection. They apparently saw somebody they thought was him after he allegedly died. Assuming the guy existed and was crucified, there are many ways to explain the apparent sightings, including that they were all just made up. In the Hebrew bible, God commanded us to reject people like Jesus and the gt authors, even if they produce a miracle. Christians, who claim to believe in the same bible, want us to disobey God and follow their false god, based on his alleged miraculous resurrection.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why not just believe what God tells us in the Hebrew bible?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the Hebrew bible is probably largely false, just like the Upanishads or any other religious text for that matter.


And what has been your main argument in support of believing the Hebrew bible? God's national revelation to the Hebrew people, which is basically just a claim of a national miracle. So your stance that miracles cannot point to truth is extremely hypocritical since the foundation of your religion is based on a miracle or miracles. The only advantage that your religion has is that it is one of the oldest religions. So you try to claim that the first miracles (god's national revelation, etc.) must have happened and that any new miracles are meaningless because god told us during the first miracles that all other miracles are false.


But the problem is that none of the Hebrew miracles, even god's national revelation, are very believable. If anything, they are highly suspicious. Don't you think it is odd how many fantastic miracles were occurring thousands of years ago, but there are none occurring in modern times. The so called Gulf War miracles are unconvincing. Thousands of years ago god was parting the red sea, killing first born children, etc. and now all he will do is make imperceptible changes in the trajectories of scud missiles? And if god thought it was necessary to save the lives of some Jews during the Gulf War, where the hell was he during the Holocaust? If he is willing to intervene in the physical world, why the hell is he so selective now when he seemed to be so active thousands of years ago?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, my comment was directed at a Christian, and they supposedly believe that the Hebrew bible is the word of God. I’ve given several reasons for believing in the Hebrew bible. The claim of a national revelation from God is only one of them. I did discuss it the most, but only because others kept asking about it, while my other points were largely ignored. The national revelation is described in the Hebrew bible, so Christians should believe it (and despite the posters here, I believe most Christian religions officially do believe it).

Still, it wasn’t my “main” argument, just one of many. The idea that some miracles happened thousands of years ago isn’t what we base our faith on. I’ve stated many times that I don’t believe that one can scientifically prove that the bible is true. Nor is it possible to prove that God exists. So I’m not being a hypocrite at all. I’ve just been pointing out that Christian beliefs contradict the Hebrew bible on just about every theological point, while Jewish beliefs are supported in it.

I do believe that it’s reasonable to believe in God. Assuming He exists, I believe that Judaism is the correct religion. It’s both rational and spiritual. Unlike Christianity, it’s at least internally consistent.

I also believe I’ve shown that having the Hebrew bible as the standard of truth is more rational and effective than looking to miracles for the truth. It’s kind of like what the constitution is to Americans – it really works as a guideline. Despite their claims that I should accept claims of miracles (or rather, their claims of miracles) as proof that something is true, Christians don’t do this themselves. They base their beliefs on the greek testament, and just dismiss out of hand any claims of miracles in other religions. They’re the real hypocrites.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets say this god performs “fantastic miracles” and states “ is the correct religion.” Would [i]you then believe in that god? Would you then accept that everything he said must be true? Are you agreeing that the truth is with whoever has the biggest miracle? Or do you agree with me that such questions are silly because the whole scenario is completely unrealistic? Since we haven’t had such huge miracles that everyone can agree are miracles from God (or a god), in reality we need another way to determine what is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

At this point in my life, I don't believe in any miracles. So for me, it is not about who performs the greatest miracles, but who performs ANY miracle. If I saw some god-like being perform miracles, I'd immediately adopt whatever religion he represents. But I agree with you that the likelihood of that happening is extremely small. But apparently we disagree with the likelihood that miracles ever occurred in the past. And I don't understand why I should be so skeptical of miracles now but not ones from thousands of years ago.

[bossJJ]

About the scud missiles in Israel – many buildings took a direct hit, and were completely destroyed, but the people inside survived. There were millions of dollars wroth of damage to buildings, but nobody was killed by the scuds. (There was a man who had a heart attack, and died from that the next day.) In contrast, just one scud hit a building in Saudi Arabia, and 19 U.S. soldiers were killed. I do not say that to diminish or dishonor their deaths in any way, but only to show that scuds aren’t as harmless as their lack of effect in Israel would seem to indicate.

Nevertheless, I didn’t make the claim to prove anything about God or Judaism, only to make the point that we consider spiritual pursuits as important and valuable to society as things like becoming a doctor or scientist. That was the context of my post. I never said, “this proves that Judaism is true,” or “this proves this was a real miracle,” or even, “this proves that prayer works.” Posters who made comments claiming I said stuff like that were just being morons. I do believe that God answers prayers, but since we can’t prove that He exists, we also can’t prove that He answers prayers.

I can’t explain why the Holocaust happened, or why God allows such evil. I can’t solve “the problem of evil.” However, I don’t believe that it disproves God either. It’s just something we don’t fully understand. I did discuss this in another thread (the first “Why do Jews Reject Jesus?” thread).

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
I do believe that it’s reasonable to believe in God. Assuming He exists, I believe that Judaism is the correct religion. It’s both rational and spiritual. Unlike Christianity, it’s at least internally consistent.


[/ QUOTE ]

Even if I temporarily grant you that the Torah is consistent with itself, it is not consistent with reality (unless you are willing to accept creationism). The creation story is probably not that important to Judaism, but once you accept the fact that certain parts of the Torah are allegorical, it becomes very difficult to justify a strict reading of other more important parts of the Torah. If Genisis is largely allegorical, then why should we accept the accounts of the national revelation as factual?

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, good, then we agree only God can perform a true miracle. The "miracles" performed by false religions are mere chicanery. I don't know why the article didn't just say this.

[/ QUOTE ]

You misunderstood. We believe that false prophets, and followers of false religions, can experience, even perform themselves, real miracles (through God's power). This may include healing somebody or God giving them what they requested in prayer.

However, I was saying that I believe that the claims made by the Christians, Muslims and Mormons didn't happen at all. It's not like thousands of people witnessed these things (i.e. - Jesus' resurrection, Mohammed's journey to heaven, etc), and we're trying to figure out it if they're real miracles. In these cases, there's no evidence that anything happened at all.

While I do believe God answers prayer, most times His answers won't be miraculous, and real miracles are relatively rare.

The situation described in Deuteronomy 13, where someone tells Jews that he is a prophet, produces a miracle (or what appears to be a miracle) to prove it, then tells them to follow another god (or not to follow Torah law), have been relatively uncommon. Usually, as in the cases of Christianity, Islam and Mormonism, no Jews witnessed any of the alleged miracles. Rather, later on someone will tell the Jews that the miracle occurred, and that the miracle proves that is a true religion from God. Deuteronomy 13 (and other verses) lets us know that we aren't obligated to investigated all these miraculous claims. Rather, we should just continue to follow God and observe His Torah. If the "prophets" are telling us to follow another religion, we can be sure that they're [i]not from God.

The real prophets never told us to follow another religion or god. They never said that we should stop following laws that God said were eternal. On the contrary, they urged the Jews to follow Torah, or they had a message about the future (which didn't contradict anything God had said previously).

[ QUOTE ]
I actually agree with your comment that Christianity is merely an emotional crutch for many many people. However, there is not just one form of Christianity. I will distinguish Catholicism from subjectively based Protestant religions and make the claim that this religion is naturally based on an intellectual rather than emotional foundation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. The comments about emotions are much more applicable to Protestants. I also think Catholicism is the most valid and consistent form of Christianity.

[ QUOTE ]
The Catholic religion says that suffering in life has a meaning, and one must accept that fact. The rewards for this acceptance are found in the afterlife. Judaism on the other hand does not believe in an afterlife per say, so suffering for them is pointless. And Protestants intellectually try to avoid all suffering (meaning not avoid sin) by saying Faith alone is enough to save one's soul and be rewarded. It is only true Catholics who base their relgious principles on a logical foundation of reward for one's good actions, and punishment for one's bad actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've discussed before that Judaism does believe in an afterlife. It's just that we have different beliefs about what it entails, and we put more importance on this life. This (http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm) article discusses the afterlife in Judaism.

I've also mentioned before that we believe that God reward goods and punishes evil, and that the reward may come in this life or the next. A major difference is that we believe that God considers a person's actions much more important than his beliefs. It's better to be a kind athiest than a cruel believer.

The Catholic position makes more sense than the Protestant one, but it still puts too much emphasis on faith.

[Peter666]

So to clarify once again: You believe if God wanted to perform a miracle through a false prophet, he could and would. But he has never done this in history. Yes?

I understand if you say Catholicism emphasizes Faith too much, because the whole basis of Catholicism rests on an arbitrary grace of Faith. Without this grace, one cannot have the Faith, so your intellectual position is sound and there is no need to debate.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
So to clarify once again: You believe if God wanted to perform a miracle through a false prophet, he could and would.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
But he has never done this in history. Yes?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea. I haven't heard any credible claims, but there are many religions I haven't researched. Even if I did, how could I know if they were real miracles? The point is, God tells us in the bible that it doesn't matter if they're real miracles or not. There's no way we could know for sure, and we're not obligated to research the matter.

[ QUOTE ]
I understand if you say Catholicism emphasizes Faith too much, because the whole basis of Catholicism rests on an arbitrary grace of Faith. Without this grace, one cannot have the Faith, so your intellectual position is sound and there is no need to debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Christianity is based on pagan myths. Your belief in the "arbitrary grace of faith" is how you delude yourselves into believing that such nonsense is from God. Part of you realizes that it doesn't make any sense, so you convince yourself that the belief is from God, and as such must be true. But it's still pagan nonsense.

You're basically saying that your beliefs are true because you believe them to be true. That's nonsense. People of other religions also believe that their beliefs are true. Just believing something doesn't make it true.

When I was talking about how Christians emphasize faith too much, I was referring to the belief that someone who is a mass murderer and rapist his whole life, who also tortures animals, molests children and burns people alive in buildings - he goes to heaven if he accepts Jesus before he dies.

OTOH, somebody who gives all his money to the poor, is kind to everybody he meets, spends his life helping and serving others, then dies while trying to save somebody else's life - he goes to hell to get tortured for eternity because he couldn't believe in Jesus. In Judaism, it would be the reverse (just substitute "the God of Israel" for "Jesus"). Also, hell isn't forever in Judaism.

I said Catholicism makes more sense because there is some recognition that actions are important (compared to the Protestant belief in "faith alone"), but still too much emphasis on faith.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
You can’t get historical facts right. Who can expect you to interpret the Bible even close to the meaning?


A few of your epitomizing remarks:


“Many scholars (who believe that Jesus existed)…”


“If Jesus did exist, it's unlikely that he really was so antiSemitic(sic).”


“What I did say …Jesus' alleged lifetime… makes it probable that he didn't exist at all.”



Do you really want to get into such nonsense? Perhaps we should, also, then give credence to the idiots who embrace the theory that the Holocaust didn’t really happen?


Your ignorance is not only overwhelming, it is insulting.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're the one who is ignorant. Why don't you present some of these "historical facts" that prove I'm wrong? The fact is that no one during Jesus' alleged lifetime wrote a single word about him. He lived in a time when most Jews were literate, and there were several Greek, Roman and Jewish historians and authors who wrote about Israel in quite a bit of detail, yet none of them even mention Jesus. Had he really been the person the gt claims, or had some of the amazing evens described in the gt really happened, somebody would have recorded something.

Get a clue! Not everybody believes the Christian claims about Jesus. Some very credible scholars believe that he didn't exist at all. Others think he did exist, but believe he was just a historical person, a man, not a god.

Assuming he existed, if you think Jesus really would have been an antisemite, then you're a moron. Why do you think that?

If you deny that the holocaust happened, then you're just an antisemitic a-hole. Unlike your mythical jesus, there's lots of evidence that it really happened.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's just not possible that such a thing could happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

All this statement does is make my point. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

What point do you think you are making?

[David Sklansky]

"When I was talking about how Christians emphasize faith too much, I was referring to the belief that someone who is a mass murderer and rapist his whole life, who also tortures animals, molests children and burns people alive in buildings - he goes to heaven if he accepts Jesus before he dies.

OTOH, somebody who gives all his money to the poor, is kind to everybody he meets, spends his life helping and serving others, then dies while trying to save somebody else's life - he goes to hell to get tortured for eternity because he couldn't believe in Jesus. In Judaism, it would be the reverse "

Expect a letter from my patent attorney.

[bossJJ]

Why Don't Jews Believe in Jesus? (http://www.aish.com/rabbi/ATR_browse.asp?s=miracles%20&f=tqak&offset=2)

A Primer: Why Jews Can't Believe in Jesus (http://www.angelfire.com/md3/baruchgershom/ynotj.html)

Why Couldn’t Jesus Have Been the Messiah? (http://www.geocities.com/shadow94492000/Messiah.html)

The Origins of Christianity (http://home.earthlink.net/~pgwhacker/ChristianOrigins/)

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can’t get historical facts right. Who can expect you to interpret the Bible even close to the meaning?


A few of your epitomizing remarks:


“Many scholars (who believe that Jesus existed)…”


“If Jesus did exist, it's unlikely that he really was so antiSemitic(sic).”


“What I did say …Jesus' alleged lifetime… makes it probable that he didn't exist at all.”



Do you really want to get into such nonsense? Perhaps we should, also, then give credence to the idiots who embrace the theory that the Holocaust didn’t really happen?


Your ignorance is not only overwhelming, it is insulting.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're the one who is ignorant. Why don't you present some of these "historical facts" that prove I'm wrong? The fact is that no one during Jesus' alleged lifetime wrote a single word about him. He lived in a time when most Jews were literate, and there were several Greek, Roman and Jewish historians and authors who wrote about Israel in quite a bit of detail, yet none of them even mention Jesus. Had he really been the person the gt claims, or had some of the amazing evens described in the gt really happened, somebody would have recorded something.

Get a clue! Not everybody believes the Christian claims about Jesus. Some very credible scholars believe that he didn't exist at all. Others think he did exist, but believe he was just a historical person, a man, not a god.

Assuming he existed, if you think Jesus really would have been an antisemite, then you're a moron. Why do you think that?

If you deny that the holocaust happened, then you're just an antisemitic a-hole. Unlike your mythical jesus, there's lots of evidence that it really happened.

[/ QUOTE ]


I was referring to your doubt that Jesus existed at all (not any claims relative to Him). To have further discussion regarding that is a waste of time.

Of course, He was not anti-Semitic. I was alluding to the words "If Jesus exisited" in your quote, not the use of the word “anti-Semitic”.

And of course there was a Holocaust. It is absurd to even discuss such things; like maybe it wasn’t an historical fact. That was my point. Get a grip.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
I was referring to your doubt that Jesus existed at all (not any claims relative to Him). To have further discussion regarding that is a waste of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, because you're simply unwilling to examine your beliefs or accept any evidence that contradicts them.

If it is so certain that Jesus existed, how come no one from his alleged lifetime recorded anything about him? That would be quite unusual and strange, if Jesus really was who the Christians claim.

If you're now an atheist (as you claim in another thread), why is the possibility that Jesus didn't exist so offensive and threatening to you?

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was referring to your doubt that Jesus existed at all (not any claims relative to Him). To have further discussion regarding that is a waste of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, because you're simply unwilling to examine your beliefs or accept any evidence that contradicts them.

If it is so certain that Jesus existed, how come no one from his alleged lifetime recorded anything about him? That would be quite unusual and strange, if Jesus really was who the Christians claim.

If you're now an atheist (as you claim in another thread), why is the possibility that Jesus didn't exist so offensive and threatening to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

It offends my and should offend anyone’s intelligence. Whether it offended my prior (than today) religious belief is irrelevant. (But, if you really want to know if it does or doesn’t, you might want to ask carlo from the other thread. I am sure he can give you the answer.)

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was referring to your doubt that Jesus existed at all (not any claims relative to Him). To have further discussion regarding that is a waste of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, because you're simply unwilling to examine your beliefs or accept any evidence that contradicts them.

If it is so certain that Jesus existed, how come no one from his alleged lifetime recorded anything about him? That would be quite unusual and strange, if Jesus really was who the Christians claim.

If you're now an atheist (as you claim in another thread), why is the possibility that Jesus didn't exist so offensive and threatening to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

It offends my and should offend anyone’s intelligence. Whether it offended my prior (than today) religious belief is irrelevant. (But, if you really want to know if it does or doesn’t, you might want to ask carlo from the other thread. I am sure he can give you the answer.)

[/ QUOTE ]

That's ridiculous. Why are you so easily offended? I think some Christians just like to imagine that they're persecuted, so they get offended over nothing.

I'm not offended when people tell me that they believe that Abraham or Moses didn't exist. Nor am I offended if they don't believe in my God. I understand that many people don't share my religious beliefs. What's the big deal? Do you really expect the whole world to agree with you? Why are you offended when people disagree with you? That's quite an arrogant attitude.

If you are so easily offended, then you must a miserable person.

[Timer]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact is that no one during Jesus' alleged lifetime wrote a single word about him. He lived in a time when most Jews were literate, and there were several Greek, Roman and Jewish historians and authors who wrote about Israel in quite a bit of detail, yet none of them even mention Jesus. Had he really been the person the gt claims, or had some of the amazing evens described in the gt really happened, somebody would have recorded something.

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="red"> Jesus Christ Almighty! For Christ's Sakes! Jesus [bleeping] Christ! Jesus Christ on a Crutch!</font> Hmmmm, why did I just say that? Why are those (probably) some of the most uttered phrases (in one form or another) heard around the world today? Why are those phrases some of the most popular forms of swearing that you'll ever hear?

My guess is because Jesus never existed.

[bossJJ]

Repeat post:

My view is in the minority but that doesn't mean it's wrong. With the huge numbers of Christians, it's inevitably a minority view, much smaller than would be the case if everybody would examine the position objectively.

The fact is that no one during jesus' alleged lifetime even noticed him. We have nothing written about from that time. Yet, we should, if he really did all the things the Christians claim.

The greek testament was written several decades after Jesus’ death, and all the references to him (outside of the gt) were written even later. Josephus wasn't born until the year 37, and most scholars believe then his refences to Jesus are forgeries inserted later by Christians. Outside of the gt, there are no references to Jesus at all from the first century. These later references just say something about how there is a group called the "Christians" who follow someone who was called "Jesus" or "the Christ." These writers are just assuming that Jesus must have existed, because the Christians follow him. In other words, they are repeating hearsay.

Philo, otoh, WAS a contemporary of jesus. He wrote extensively, in a very detailed manner, about Israel in the time of Jesus. Although he discusses Herod, Pilate and (briefly) John the Baptist, he never even mentions Jesus. As discussed in the links below, there were other Jewish, Greek and Roman writers and historians who also wrote about Israel during Jesus' alleged lifetime, and none of them mention him.

If any of the extraordinary events of the gt had really happened, then somebody else would have mentioned them. These include: the earthquake in Jerusalem that was so strong that the graves opened up and many dead people wandered around the city, the three hours of darkness in the middle of the day when Jesus allegedly died, the murder of all the baby boys in the Bethlehem area, and the Roman census that supposedly required everyone to return to the place of his birth.

And of course, like all the popular pagan gods of the time, Jesus was "resurrected" from the dead. Paul (1 Cor 15:6) claims that more than 500 people saw jesus after his death. This is obviously a lie. If this was true, we would have other sources (from those who saw him), but not even the gospel authors make this claim. Paul was writing several decades after the alleged event, to ignorant pagans several hundred miles away. He knew that he could get away with a lie like this, because there is no way that any of his readers could verify his claims. In other words, there were not 500 people who saw Jesus after his death; there is one person who claims that 500 people saw him.

I just want to clarify that my belief that Jesus probably never existed is my personal opinion, not the official view of Judaism. There is no offial or correct Jewish belief about Jesus. We agree that he's not God or the messiah (and that's our view of all other humans as well), but there's no "official" belief about him. Most Jews probably don't think about him much at all unless somebody else brings it up. If pressed, most would probably say that he existed or most likely existed. To me, it makes no difference theologically whether he existed or not. In fact, I used to think that he did exist, but after examining all the evidence I concluded that he more likely did not.

Did a historical Jesus exist? (http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm )

The Myth of the Historical Jesus (http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html)

Did Jesus Really Live? (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html)

Did Jesus Exist? (http://www.jesuspuzzle.org/)

[bossJJ]

So you think something must be true if a lot of people believe in it?

[bossJJ]

Repeat post: Why do Christians follow their false messiah?

[ QUOTE ]
Also from a mathematical “statistical or probability” viewpoint; it can be surmised that that Jesus did meet the requirements.

[/ QUOTE ]

From a Jewish POV, it makes no sense to view someone as the messiah "from a mathematical “statistical or probability” viewpoint". The messiah is the one who actually fulfills the messianic prophecies, not the most popular candidate.

Christianity survived and thrived because of all the gentile converts and their descendants. Had it been a Jewish-only group, it would have died out long ago along with the Sadduccees and Essenes. Or at best it may have survived as an extremely small minority, like the Karaites of today.

There have been other messianic contenders in the past, the two most prominent being Bar Kochba and Shabetai Zvi. During their respective lifetimes, a significant percentage of the Jews believed/hoped that he was the messiah (possibly even the majority). To a Jew, believing someone is the messiah doesn't mean worshipping him as God or stopping Torah observance. Nothing would change in their lives initially, but if the person is the messiah then it means that the messianic age of world peace is right around the corner. So they were hopeful.

However, when they failed to fulfill the messianic prophecies, their followers had to acknowledge that he could not have been the messiah. There was a tiny group that continued to follow Shabetai Zvi and still exists in Turkey. But the vast majority of Jews realized that he wasn't the messiah.

Had Christianity been only Jews, it too would have died out after jesus' death, because Jews are smart enough to realize that anyone who didn't fulfill a single messianic prophecy obviously can't be the messiah. However, Paul made Jesus into a pagan god-man/savior that was familiar and popular with pagans, and the early Christians very actively recruited converts. They were promised eternal life, and no need to get circumcised. So Christianity became very popular. They were illiterate pagans with no understanding of what the real messiah is supposed to be or do (and most remained illiterate until a few hundred years ago), so that is why they continue to follow a false messiah.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was referring to your doubt that Jesus existed at all (not any claims relative to Him). To have further discussion regarding that is a waste of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, because you're simply unwilling to examine your beliefs or accept any evidence that contradicts them.

If it is so certain that Jesus existed, how come no one from his alleged lifetime recorded anything about him? That would be quite unusual and strange, if Jesus really was who the Christians claim.

If you're now an atheist (as you claim in another thread), why is the possibility that Jesus didn't exist so offensive and threatening to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

It offends my and should offend anyone’s intelligence. Whether it offended my prior (than today) religious belief is irrelevant. (But, if you really want to know if it does or doesn’t, you might want to ask carlo from the other thread. I am sure he can give you the answer.)

[/ QUOTE ]

That's ridiculous. Why are you so easily offended? I think some Christians just like to imagine that they're persecuted, so they get offended over nothing.

I'm not offended when people tell me that they believe that Abraham or Moses didn't exist. Nor am I offended if they don't believe in my God. I understand that many people don't share my religious beliefs. What's the big deal? Do you really expect the whole world to agree with you? Why are you offended when people disagree with you? That's quite an arrogant attitude.

If you are so easily offended, then you must a miserable person.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, I wasn’t literally offended. It was a figure of speech. Why would I be offended by some stranger on an internet board? My second reference to offending my intelligence, although a serious comment, was more a take-off of the Seinfeld episode when he jokes about not being offended as a Jew, but as a comedian. Guess you had to be there.