A challenge to christianity.

[ANDY-J]

The morality of the new testament is clear for all to see.However does it's apparent perfection not rest upon the interpretation which we place upon various metaphors and allegories?The laws of nature are fixed and this makes a belief in miracles incredible and no sane man could believe in them without some very clear evidence.The veracity of the gospels must be questionable given that they differ in many important details which cannot simply be attributed to the usual inaccuracies of eye witnesses.It is not known with any degree of certainty who wrote them or when they were written.Let us assume that God were to make a revelation to the Hindus.Would he permit it to be connected to a belief in Vishnu and Shiva?I don't believe so.Yet christianity is connected with the old testament.I find this incredible.The worst flaw in christianity however is the portraying of God as a vengeful tyrant.The christian message is clear-adhere to our ideology or face eternal damnation.This is an atrocious doctrine and I can hardly see how anyone would want christianity to be true.

[JoshMC]

May i ask what religion are you?


why is christianity so hard for you to believe? Where did you hear god as a tyrant. If anything god is too merciful.
God is LOVE simple as that. I'm a christian and that's what i was taught not that he was a tyrant. The christian doctrine has been bashed and thought to be false for a long time but science has proven that it could not be false for two simple reasons

1. The impact the bible has on people's lives and the change they undergo when thay accept christ as their savior. People do complete 180's when they accept christ as their savior and most of the time they stay saved and righteous until they die.

2. It is a proven fact the gospels were written long after the crucifixion of jesus. The four gospels were written in different lands at diferent times yet they are all similar. How can this be if they aren't describing actual events. Even the words of christ are pretty much the same.

Don't think i'm coming off as a religious freak. You are entitled to your own opinions on the subject. That's between you and God. I just don't see where you get your info on these things.

[ANDY-J]

JoshMc.
I don't adhere to any religious faith although in the distant past I was a christian.I don't accept that science has proven anything with regards to christianity in fact it was a study of science which forced me to re-examine my christian beliefs in the first place.Life is very often filled with hardship and I while I do believe in God,I find it difficult to believe in a God which intervenes in human existence however much I might try to convince myself otherwise.

[annamac]

Good exchange, hope you don't mind my input.

Andy,

In your original post you wrote: "The morality of the new testament is clear for all to see.However does it's apparent perfection not rest upon the interpretation which we place upon various metaphors and allegories?"

You may be assuming too much here friend. There is a time and place for allegorical and literal interpretation. Jesus was being quite literal when He said His murder and resurrection is the only way to salvation. Also, He was extremely adamant about caring for the down-trodden, the afflicted, and the poor. There is no room for personal interpretation when a thirsty child asks for a cool drink of water; give the child a literal cool drink, because if one allegorizes such a pure plea, he or she can forget about figuring out the big picture. But, in other instances, a more allegorical approach is warranted, the key is knowing when and where to employ the proper exegesis. Such wisdom is the difference between truth and heresy. Please understand that there is clear, established art and logical approach to biblical interpretation. One important thing to keep in mind is that when we read scripture, it can not mean to us what it never meant to the original writers. To gather about a round table and ask, "What does this passage mean to you," is academically fruitless, for such unscholarly inquiry is a nagging reason so many goofy interpretations have arisen in these last days. Instead, one ought to ask, "What did this passage mean to Peter, Paul, John, James". . . and so on, for in doing so, we can correctly discover what the passage means to annamac, andy, josh, and the world.

You go on to say: "The laws of nature are fixed and this makes a belief in miracles incredible and no sane man could believe in them without some very clear evidence."

What kind of evidence would suffice? Can I ask you a question, is the world's most sophisticated computer smarter than the person who built it, programed it, and fixes it? This is an important point Andy, and if we can lean the conversation in this direction for a while, I believe the brute facts will favor the Judeo/Chistian model.

You continue: "The veracity of the gospels must be questionable given that they differ in many important details which cannot simply be attributed to the usual inaccuracies of eye witnesses."

Huh?

You continue: "It is not known with any degree of certainty who wrote them or when they were written."

Saul of Tarus, who was raised a strict pharisee, prided himself on his rabid obsession with the oppression of the faithful, was humbled and converted to the faith by overwhelming evidence, and later ordained to write some 3/4 of the New Testament. This is an accepted fact that is not challenged by any major university in the world, so let's not start here. Since there is no real internal confusion or contradictions within the canon of sacred scripture, there is no good reason to assume that the authors who autographed the documents are knowingly deceptive. Such an assertion is unprovable and unreasonable, and as I said before, assumes too much. . . way to much!

You continue: "Let us assume that God were to make a revelation to the Hindus.Would he permit it to be connected to a belief in Vishnu and Shiva?I don't believe so.Yet christianity is connected with the old testament."

The entire OT pointed to one thing (ultimately), the coming of the Messiah. The OT was like an ellipsis is to a sentence, the NT is the exclaimation point. Look how perfectly the OT is fulfilled by the New:

1. His Birth place was the Town of Bethlehem.

Micah 5:2 -----------------> Matthew 2:6
690 B.C.


2. He will be born of a virgin.

Isaiah 7:14 --------------> Matthew 1:23
695 B.C.


3. He will make His entry on a donkey.

Zechariah 9:9 -------------> Matthew 21
519 B.C.


4. He will preach in parables.

Psalm 78:2 -------------> Matthew 13:35


5. He will be rejected.

Isaiah 53:3 -------------> Matthew 21:42
Psalm 118:22 -------------> Matthew 15:8-9


6. Even His friends will forsake Him.

Zechariah 13:7 -------------> Matthew 26:31
519 B.C.


7. He will be beaten and disfigured.

Isaiah 53:4:10
Isaiah 52:14 --------------> John 19:1
695 B.C.


8. He will be ridiculed.

Psalm 22:7, 8 -------------> Matthew 27:39, 43


9. Soldiers will gamble for His garments.

Psalm 22:18 -------------> Matthew 27:35


10. His hands and feet will be pierced.

Psalm 22:16 -------------> John 20:25


This is the reason they belong together, because they are one in theme and substance.

You conlude with: "The worst flaw in christianity however is the portraying of God as a vengeful tyrant.The christian message is clear-adhere to our ideology or face eternal damnation.This is an atrocious doctrine and I can hardly see how anyone would want christianity to be true."

This is completely wrong. Christianity is about the perfect love of God reaching out to humanity with the touch of forgiveness, not the sword of vengence. You have much misinformation Andy-j, please read more closely. The Bible clearly reveals a Creator who is deeply concerned with his creation, and always ready to forgive and accept us.

I am shocked that with all the communications we have in the 21st century, such misinformed statements like, "The bible portray's God as a vengeful tyrant are actually believed and furthered. Please do not be fooled by such staements. Read the bible for yourself and see for yourself that God is very patient, very caring, and ready to forgive any one willing to come to Him.















[Edited by annamac on 4th April 2001 at 05:39]

Originally posted by annamac

The entire OT pointed to one thing (ultimately), the coming of the Messiah. The OT was like an ellipsis is to a sentence, the NT is the exclaimation point. Look how perfectly the OT is fulfilled by the New:

1. His Birth place was the Town of Bethlehem.

Micah 5:2 -----------------> Matthew 2:6
690 B.C.


2. He will be born of a virgin.

Isaiah 7:14 --------------> Matthew 1:23
695 B.C.


3. He will make His entry on a donkey.

Zechariah 9:9 -------------> Matthew 21
519 B.C.


4. He will preach in parables.

Psalm 78:2 -------------> Matthew 13:35


5. He will be rejected.

Isaiah 53:3 -------------> Matthew 21:42
Psalm 118:22 -------------> Matthew 15:8-9


6. Even His friends will forsake Him.

Zechariah 13:7 -------------> Matthew 26:31
519 B.C.


7. He will be beaten and disfigured.

Isaiah 53:4:10
Isaiah 52:14 --------------> John 19:1
695 B.C.


8. He will be ridiculed.

Psalm 22:7, 8 -------------> Matthew 27:39, 43


9. Soldiers will gamble for His garments.

Psalm 22:18 -------------> Matthew 27:35


10. His hands and feet will be pierced.

Psalm 22:16 -------------> John 20:25


This is the reason they belong together, because they are one in theme and substance.

It all seems a bit too pat to me! To my way of thinking, the authors of the NT knew their OT well enough to be able to write their stuff in such a way that it did fulfil the OT prophesies. That way their guy (JC) would gain extra authority and credibility.

[annamac]

And they were willing to suffer ridicule, incarceration, torture, and finally murder to advance a lie? This is more unbelievable than one should even be asked to consider. While it is true that people have died for some pretty hair-brained things throughout the ages, it is also true that these people all had one thing in common, they genuinely "believed" in what they were dying for, even if it was wrong, they thought they were doing the right thing, so they gave all for their misplaced hopes, e.g. Chales Manson's followers committed unspeakable murdered because they "believed" Charlie. Doe Applegate's cult, Gates of Heaven convinced twenty something people to committ mass suicide because they "believed" in Doe. Jim Jones' disciples committed mass suicide because they "believed" the lie of Jones. But consider this important fact, those who did not "believe," attempted to escape, not perish with the believers, which is real life evidence of what a person will do if asked to die for something they know is a lie. This evidence, unfortunate for you, is true and powerful, and delivers a fatal blow to your theory. Let me explain.

You are maintaining that the disciples and some 500 people who claimed they saw the risen Christ, didn't really see Him, but got together, concocted a story based on OT scriptures, and then allowed their children to be fed to lions and dogs, and then submitted their bodies to Nero's flames to insure that a big lie survived. Such presumption is implausible, no ludicrous, for it denies everything we know about human nature which finds support not only from scripture, but general and social psychology as well. I'm not sure that you have objectively reasoned this thing out, for the implications that your positon suggests flies directly in the face of reason and reality.

If I lived 2000 years ago, and did not see the resurrected Christ, but was part of this great hoax that you allege took place, it would take only one punch in my face and the threat of further abuse for me to gladly say, "We lied! We never saw him alive after you killed Him!" Such a denial was really what certain hostile Jews and Romans were seeking, so this new proclaimation would just disappear. If Christians would just deny the resurrection, most could just walk away with their lives, and the lives of their children and grandchildren. But they refused. Beating after beating after beating, they refused to deny what their eyes witnessed. Why? Only one explanation is reasonable, they saw the risen Lord, and He spoke to them, and denying this was not an option.




















[Edited by annamac on 4th April 2001 at 17:37]

I did not say that the early Christians did not believe. I said that those who wrote their story down were educated enough to ensure that the story contained all the right elements which, in turn, would ensure that even more people believed as they did.

In this day and age it would be called a manifesto; promise what you believe will gain you support and put it to the people. The people who write manifestos already believe in their cause, the purpose of the manifesto is to convert the rest of us.