First time I've seen this, so many questions!
-
raif-1 — 9 years ago(January 16, 2017 02:30 PM)
Mamu, perhaps most believers say like you ie "belief without evidence" but most believe with evidence in that they see and seem to perceive existence of GOD. Most will say the creation of the universe and the creation of the creatures and us humans are "good" enough proof of GOD's existence. Most just don't just believe but "believe with evidence" even though some may question those evidences.
-
FirstBlood1982 — 9 years ago(January 16, 2017 08:42 PM)
No, it doesn't.
https://www.gotquestions.org/is-Jesus-God.html
+++by His wounds we are healed. - Isaiah 53:5+++ -
mamu2 — 9 years ago(January 17, 2017 09:49 AM)
The apologist article may state this, but the Bible does not.
Looking at the text where Jesus and the NT authors indicate he is separate from God
Matthew 19:17, Mark 10:18 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Mark 16:19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
John 8:40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God.
John 14:28 My Father is greater than I.
John 20:17 I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
1 Corinthians 11:3 The head of Christ is God.
1 Corinthians 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
Colossians 3:1 Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
1 Peter 3:21-22 Jesus Christ: who is on the the right hand of God.
How can God sit at the right hand of himself?
How can God forsake himself?
Why does God need a God?
How can God know things that God doesn't know?
How can God be greater than himself?
Why would God pray to himself?
And looking at John 10, Jesus actually clarifies what he meansthat God the Father grants Jesus the power to do these works, not that he is God himself.
John 10:25-38 "Jesus answered, I did tell you, but you do not believe.
The works I do in my Fathers name testify about me
, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.
My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all ; no one can snatch them out of my Fathers hand. I and the Father are one.
Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them,
I have shown you many good works from the Father
. For which of these do you stone me?
We are not stoning you for any good work, they replied, but for blasphemy,
because you, a mere man, claim to be God.
Jesus answered them,
Is it not written in your Law, I have said you are gods ? If he called them gods, to whom the word of God cameand Scripture cannot be set aside what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, I am Gods Son? Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.
He makes it very clear that to call men 'gods' is not blasphemy because God calls men that in the old Scriptures. Jesus then says since it is not blasphemy to call men gods, it is certainly not so for "God's son" to say so. Especially because God is revealing himself to the world through Jesus via the works Jesus is performing. The power of God resides in Jesus, so to see Jesus is to see God's handiwork and power.
Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, I am Gods Son?
It's very clear. Jesus claims to be God's son in the Biblenot God. Big difference. That's why men had to vote on his divinity.
Cherry picking one innocuous verse out of context does not support that case. Especially when looking at the entirety of the passage and all the other verses that contradict that premise. -
Rumble_McSkirmish — 9 years ago(January 14, 2017 01:49 PM)
its not appealing. You wont do it. Millions wont do it.
Because you can't force people to believe. And many people either never heard of him or require more evidence than a bunch of nitwits thumping their bibles around like they are the supreme authority on god and Christianity.much like you do.
Panzer vor! -
FirstBlood1982 — 9 years ago(January 16, 2017 08:36 PM)
Humanity has been corrupt in nature since rebelling against God in the Garden of Eden in Genesis.
Jesus was the 'second Adam' that came to repair the damage done between God and humanity caused by the first Adam.
The level of brutality inflicted upon Him was necessary because sin is horrible, and hence the punishment for sin has to be horrible. Christ was willing accepting that punishment upon Himself on our behalf
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah+53%3A5&version=NLT
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+9%3A12&version=NLT
"Did I detect a second of doubt in him just before he died on the cross?"
No, "God, why have You forsaken me?" was a reference to Psalm 22. If you read the entire psalm, it begins sorrowfully but ends triumphantly for those that hold true to their faith in God
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm+22&version=NLT
It was also showing how apart He felt from God in that moment with the full weight of sin being cast upon Him.
"Why are humans still so evil?"
Because many people choose to reject God/Christ and just live their own way apart from His commands that were meant for our benefiteven many that profess faith in God/Christ aren't living according to it.
+++by His wounds we are healed. - Isaiah 53:5+++ -
bastasch8647 — 9 years ago(January 16, 2017 09:18 PM)
Humanity has been corrupt in nature since rebelling against God in the Garden of Eden in Genesis.
Except there is no evidence that the Eden story ever happened. Granted, it's psychologically effective for eliting guilt and a perceived need for forgiveness and ultimately for some kind of savior-from-sin. But it has no actual explanatory power, because all natural and human evil is fully explicable by understandable means - no deity, or sin against a deity, is necessary. -
lennys_here — 9 years ago(January 17, 2017 08:12 AM)
Except there is no evidence that the Eden story ever happened. Granted, it's psychologically effective for eliting guilt and a perceived need for forgiveness and ultimately for some kind of savior-from-sin.
No need to overthink it then.
But it has no actual explanatory power, because all natural and human evil is fully explicable by understandable means
But the worldly explanation of the origins of man do not explain how sin is so consistent in each and everyone of us. Variation of sin would occur in the humanistic model.
no deity, or sin against a deity, is necessary.
It only makes sense if there is a continuation beyond this realm.
The Lord hides his gifts in plain sight -
FirstBlood1982 — 9 years ago(January 17, 2017 07:27 AM)
Question: "Why did Jesus have to experience so much suffering?"
Answer: Isaiah 52:14 declares, Just as there were many who were appalled at HimHis appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness. Jesus suffered most severely throughout the trials, torture, and crucifixion (Matthew 27; Mark 15; Luke 23; John 19). As horrible as His physical suffering was, it was nothing compared to the spiritual suffering He went through. Second Corinthians 5:21 says, God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. Jesus had the weight of the sins of the entire world on Him (1 John 2:2). It was sin that caused Jesus to cry out, My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? (Matthew 27:46). So, as brutal as Jesus' physical suffering was, it was nothing compared to His having to bear our sins and die to pay the penalty for them (Romans 5:8).
Isaiah predicts Jesus suffering in clear language: He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed (Isaiah 53:3, 5). Psalm 22:14-18 is another powerful passage predicting the suffering of the Messiah: I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart has turned to wax; it has melted away within me. My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth; you lay me in the dust of death. Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet. I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.
Why did Jesus have to suffer so badly? Some think that Jesus' physical torture was part of His punishment for our sins. To some extent, this is true. At the same time, the torture Jesus underwent speaks more of the hatred and cruelty of humanity than it does of God's punishment for sin. Satan's absolute hatred of God and Jesus was surely a part of the motivation behind the relentless torture and abuse. The suffering heaped on Jesus is the ultimate example of the hatred and rage sinful man feels toward a holy God (Romans 3:10-18).
+++by His wounds we are healed. - Isaiah 53:5+++ -
mamu2 — 9 years ago(January 17, 2017 11:06 AM)
Some think that Jesus' physical torture was part of His punishment for our sins.
Doesn't that line of thinking seem morally bankrupt? Our vicarious redemption through the blood sacrifice of an innocent person? That's abhorrent. -
bastasch8647 — 9 years ago(January 17, 2017 02:07 PM)
Doesn't that line of thinking seem morally bankrupt? Our vicarious redemption through the blood sacrifice of an innocent person? That's abhorrent.
It's not only abhorrent, it's not called for or expected in the Hebrew Bible. It's an invention of Paul and John, later to be embellished by Augustine and Anselm of Canterbury.
The Hebrew Bible never once stipulates that a bloody "atoning sacrifice of the perfect God-Man" would or should be necessary for salvation. Quite the opposite: it stipulates that Yahweh has made a covenant with Jews and Gentiles that is to last
forever
, never to be replaced. The anti-biblical notion of replacement is a foreign import of Johannine/Pauline thought.
And isn't it funny that fundamentalists continue to cite Isaiah's Servant Song as referring to Jesus - when in fact, it doesn't even refer to the Messiah. It refers to "my Son, Israel/Jacob", not to a future God-Man. Moreover, it doesn't say that the Servant must die. The entire point of the fundie soteriology is that Jesus must die for human sin, whereas Isaiah merely says that the Servant's example of righteous suffering is a continuing - not final, not fatal - example for the Gentile nations. The Suffering Servant doesn't die. Jesus did die. Therefore the Suffering Servant and the crucified Jesus are two entirely separate entities. -
marty-130-840283 — 9 years ago(January 23, 2017 04:57 AM)
Some think that Jesus' physical torture was part of His punishment for our sins.
Doesn't that line of thinking seem morally bankrupt? Our vicarious redemption through the blood sacrifice of an innocent person? That's abhorrent.
maybe God could quit, and you can take his job Mamu, you've got your own ideas about how things should be.