Atonement

Author: keithprosser

Posts

Total: 126
#61
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,217
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
A 5000 year audit. ( is that the word ? ) 
Anyway. 
We should have you theists get allllllllllllllllll the proofs you guys have collected / gathered over the past few thousand years.
You got like a HQ somewhere right where you have all this  information right guys?
Get it all together then just BAMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Dump it on us.
Just like pow there it is guys.
A interesting read by all accounts.  Have the top 100 proofs for god numbered , a little scale of sorts. 
Like um ,
number 100. GOD on a piece of toast
From 100 tooooooo

NUMBER 1 PROOF THAT GOD EXISTS , and it reads.

#1 :  The Ultimate Reality exists , like it or not. Therefore God exists FULL FUKIN STOP. 
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.
Awesome.

Good game. 
Good game.
.







 
#62
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
All atheist arguments are contingent on making God into a god. That is, NOT The Ultimate Reality.


It is really a giant straw man.

So that being the case, doing anything other than addressing this strawman the God denier makes serves only to confuse the issue.

How can I even speak of Jesus when God isn't even accepted? The question of God's existence is not a religious issue, but a philosophical one. If you say there is no God, you are automatically a nihilist.


The truth is, most atheists don't know what God means. They are somewhat excused because they are ignorant.

If you know what God means and you still deny God.. there are no polite words that can be used to express the unfathomable depths of your stupidity..

#63
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,217
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Nice post. 

Ok . 
Having a belief in a god type thing is a okish with me. I can almost see it sensible.  ( don't tell anyone this ) 
But
You got ya having a belief in a god type thing andddddddddddďddddddd , for some strang reason unbeknownst to i .
People that have beliefs in a god type thing join these things called A RELIGIOUS GROUP. 
Sooooooooooooo.
Picture now if you will God.  GOD is a set of car keys. 
Look at the keys jingle jangly , jangly

God is real.

No he ain't.

He is. 

No 

Yes 

No way is god real .

Of course god is real 

And on and on and on. 

God's true.

Gods not true.

Is too 

Not.
A Jingle jangle.
Everybody look 
God isnt real. 

Anddddddd why we all look at the shiny keys making a awesome jangling sound.
A thing called RELIGIOUS GROUPS sits over there in the corner snickering over the fact that we carry on like PORK CHOPS watching the shiny adult car key ummmmmmm mesmerizing the crap out of us and old RELIGIOUS GROUPS doesn't even cop a mention. 
Like ummmmmmmm having groups on these such scales is just not woth talking about. 
( RANT MODE AVOIDANCE ACTIVATED )

No your right pacmo. 

Can i have your thoughts on these groups in the billions living a absolute lie to put it bluntly..
We both know Orthodox Christianity is the one true correct religion.
So ummmmmm yeah . 
You can " see " 2 billion people that have been flat out lied to.
Misled in a big way for there entire lives. 
It is most unfortunate hey pacmo ?
I feel bad for them believing a lie and totally ruining there chance of ever knowing the real Actual God ,  ' gives hand singles ' YAHW..

My question is.
Soooooooooo for example.... the ones they call Muslims.
For being sucked into and straight out lied to and  joining a false group with a false god what should happen to this lot of people when they die.
For living there wholeeeè life according to a lie.
What do you reckon they should get when the poor folks pass ?

I'm  thinking your thinking for being lied to they should burn in hell for eternity. 

Hey mopac ? 
I went to far with the post hey?
I did. 



.




#64
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,217
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Religious groups. i i don't like em.

#65
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Perhaps this is because you think you are beyond receiving direction?

If being deceived sends you to hell, is there really hope for anyone?



#66
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,625
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@disgusted
Then why did you lie here?


That depends on what you- now a believer in the historic Christ
-
-> .

You really have trouble understanding just about everything don't. 

This is what prosser has said :


@keithprosser post  #1. I can accept that Jesus was partly historical, and that he was very likely crucified.
Look at that line and digest it slowly. Prosser, you see,would not have claimed that Jesus was very  likely crucified on one hand and then deny his historical existence, on the other. Even the world most backward cretin would have worked that out for himself.

Also , he wouldn't have said;


@keithprosser    post #4  I think that Jesus was a person,.......   I think he probably did say some of the things ascribed to him,........   I think he probably was crucified, 



That is why I have stated that I agree with him. Your provocation is going nowhere. How anyone ever believed it was a good idea to allow such a vile person as you back on this forum is totally beyond me!!

If prosser believes I have lied about him, then he can take it up with me. he is far,far more smarter than you and i am sure he doesn't need the forums vile buffon to speak on his behalf.


NOW HAVE SOME FUCKING RESPECT FOR SOMEONE ELSE'S THREAD INSTEAD OF USING IT AS A BATTLEGROUND FOR YOUR PERSONNEL ATTACK ON ME.

 


#67
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,625
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
--> @Stephen, @disgusted

As what 'Historic Christ' means is open to interpretation, what I believe is that the divine Jesus is a fictional character based on a real human being.

Stop with your fkn semantics  FFS! You know I /we are talking about a  Jesus the crucified one,. Whether he was an anointed i.e a Christ is -  I agree -  debatable if  one choose to ignore that he was anointed three fkn times in the NT. Christ does not mean "divine" it simply means anointed. he was anointed king and priest.  I DON'T BELIEVE IN A FKN DIVINE CHRIST EITHER. <<<<<<<<<<  is that fkn clear enough for you both!???


I have made my position very clear , many times on what I believe about Jesus THE CHRIST - anointed.   You may be trying to play both sides of the fence in not wanting to disagree with that vile agitating bastard, disgusted, but you know exactly what we have been discussing. So you keep encouraging and appeasing the vile bastard to derail your thread, he just laps it up.
And I haven't lied about you either.

#68
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Stephen
Let's examine the language of our respective posts and see who is vile, oh look you win.
Don't conflate the possibly historical Jesus with the mythical Christ and you may seem less dishonest than you do.
Why are you so hateful?
Topic's author
#69
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
Yes they have and it all boils down to the fact - in short and simplified - that he was a legitimate heir to the High Priesthood this was heresy in the eyes of the serving Roman appointed high priesthood, not to mention that this claim threatened their lucrative positions as "false priests", which they were more concerned about..   And his pedigree put him up as the legitimate king of the Jews, but this only niggled the Romans and could  have brought charges of lese majesty as they had installed their own puppet king, Herod , whom was an Arab. The truth here though is that the Romans didn't actually care who was "king of the Jews" as long as he buckled down and kept his people in order.  They all between them conspired to rid themselves of the legitimate  Priest King  Jesus.
I haven't seen anything that sets out the case for jesus being a legitmate priest-king, but there is plenty in the bible to sugest Jesus was anti-Priest and of course the romans would not hesitate to eliminate a troublesome rabble rouser.  

I'd be very interested in studying material that relates to Jesus being 'legitimate' (by bloodline?) - my assumption is that he was personally charismatic.



#70
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 818
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@keithprosser
Side note --
Under Jewish law, the roles of priest and king are very distinct (in fact, the Hashmonean rule after the Channukah story was heavily criticized as trying to be both). One cannot be a "priest-king" in Judaism. One component must be from the tribe of Levi, and the family of Aaron while the other must be from the tribe of Judah, from the Davidic line.
#71
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Only freedom hating bigots go on about proof being necessary for a belief. 
#72
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Historical Jesus? No proof of that, LOL
Topic's author
#73
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@rosends
The genealogies given in Matthew and Luke clearly address the issue of Jesus' connection to the House of David, and in Hebrews jesus is said to be a priest of the 'order of Melchizedek', ie he belonged to a non-levite line of priests.

The writers of the NT were clearly aware of  theological criticisms being levelled at Christianity (mainly by mainstream Jews) and came up with 'creative solutions'.

There isagreat deal for theolgians to argue over, but not much for historians because there are so few corroborated facts.  I think it's probable tht Jesus was a charismatic apocalyptic preacher, but I don't deny it's possible he is no realler than, say Robin Hood.

I'm surprised that Stephen manages to have firm views without being a believer in the traditional sense.  After decades of (admitedly sporadic)reading, there is still nothing I am sure of regarding the life and death of Jesus - other than the magic/miracle god stuff is nonsense, but that's because I don't believe in gods or the supernatual in any form, not because of historical evidence because there is next to none.

 





#74
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 818
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@keithprosser
The gospel genealogies present their own problems under Jewish law (and this is assuming that one can trace through Joseph who, in terms of the story, is not the biological father). The term in Hebrew for "priest" is "kohen" but that same word is used for a communal leader or even a spiritual leader of a non-Jewish group. Since the word is a generic term, it is imported to apply to Jesus in that generic sense which then is expanded upon erroneously. There are additional laws defining the "kohen" role within Judaism. For this role, a familial link to Aaron is required.
Topic's author
#75
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@rosends
One cannot be a "priest-king" in Judaism.
Yet we read in Gen 14:18 "And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine: and he was [is] the priest of the most high",
so melchizedek was both king and priest!   There is nothing else about M. in the OT, but that brief mention gave the writer of Hebrews his material. 
#76
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser
The genealogies given in Matthew and Luke clearly address the issue of Jesus' connection to the House of David, and in Hebrews jesus is said to be a priest of the 'order of Melchizedek', ie he belonged to a non-levite line of priests.

The writers of the NT were clearly aware of  theological criticisms being levelled at Christianity (mainly by mainstream Jews) and came up with 'creative solutions'.
2 Corinthians 3:14-17 (NASB)
14 But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. 15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; 16 but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

There isagreat deal for theolgians to argue over, but not much for historians because there are so few corroborated facts.  I think it's probable tht Jesus was a charismatic apocalyptic preacher, but I don't deny it's possible he is no realler than, say Robin Hood.
Gary Habermas has identified (I think if my memory serves me and not reading the chapter again) nineteen external non-Christian references to Jesus as a historical person.



Yet most external references to Him reveal more about Him than just His preaching. On top of those secular/non-Christian writers and Jewish writings, there are the gospels, the epistles, the apocryphal writings, false gospels and teaching who claimed they were Christians, Gnostic writings, and the early church fathers that speak of him. 


I'm surprised that Stephen manages to have firm views without being a believer in the traditional sense.  After decades of (admitedly sporadic)reading, there is still nothing I am sure of regarding the life and death of Jesus - other than the magic/miracle god stuff is nonsense, but that's because I don't believe in gods or the supernatual in any form, not because of historical evidence because there is next to none.



The miracles are what separates Jesus from mere mortals. 
Topic's author
#77
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Gary Habermas has identified (I think if my memory serves me and not reading the chapter again) nineteen external non-Christian references to Jesus as a historical person.
It could well be 19 - or even more - but the point is not whther there was a 'Historical Jesus' at  all but whether the historical Jesus was a mere mortal.

If you review the Habermas material, there is nothing to suggest anything miraculous -  and as you say, 


The miracles are what separates Jesus from mere mortals. 
As an atheist, I deny the existence of gods.  I do not deny the existence of religions, nor the existence of religious belief nor the existence of charismatic characters who inspire religions.

I can believe Jesus spoke the sermon on the mount - why not?  It does not require a god to address a crowd.  But I don't believe Jesus revivified Lazarus.  The evidence for both is the same - they are described in the bible.  So its not really about evidence at all - despite what people say on forums!  
  
#78
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 818
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@keithprosser
Malki-tzedek might have been some sort of king and some sort of "kohen" but he wasn't in the Jewish tradition. The fact that his mode of worship was admirable in that he served God doesn't mean he was operating under rules that were to be given to a particular group hundreds of years later. It might have created an archetype for the writer, but its use creates a theological problem.
Topic's author
#79
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@rosends
maybe,but the writer of Hebrews (I am told it wasn't Paul, so I have to say 'writer of Hebrews'!) doesn't draw attention to any such problem!

But of course he doesn't - he is trying to 'sell' Christianity to the Jews!  He seems to have had limited success with the Hebrews themselves, but at least Stephen seems to accept Jesus as the legitimate king and high priest of the Jews!  
#80
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
@rosends
"A Psalm of David. The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

The Lord shall send out a rod of power for thee out of Sion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.

With thee is dominion in the day of thy power, in the splendours of thy saints: I have begotten thee from the womb before the morning.

The Lord sware, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec.

The Lord at thy right hand has dashed in pieces kings in the day of his wrath.

He shall judge among the nations, he shall fill up the number of corpses, he shall crush the heads of many on the earth.

He shall drink of the brook in the way; therefore shall he lift up the head."

Brenton Septuagint Translation, 1884.




God is both our high priest and king. 





#81
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 818
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
Psalm 110 proves my point. From David will come the kings, but God will also call his descendants "kohanim" in the same way that Malkitzedek was called a kohen, not in the aaronic-priestly sense. Notice that the verse doesn't say "you will be a priest like Aaron" -- it specifically cites a type of "kohen" which was not a proper Jewish priest. Cf II Sam 8:18 which calls David's sons "kohanim" but this is understood by everyone from the Aramaic translation on down to mean "prominent leader". Also, look at what the text calls Yitro, the Midianite father-in-law of Moses. He is called a "kohen" also. Clearly, the word has different uses. By contextualizing it as Malkitzedek, the text is attesting to the non-priestly understanding.
#82
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@rosends
Jesus Christ certainly isn't a priest in the Aaronic priestly sense.

The real thing here to take home is that The Word of God is our king and high priest, not a man here on Earth.

Do we still have Earthly kings? Certainly, under God. Do we still have priests? Certainly. But we do not have a man here on Earth as a supreme pontiff. This is actually part of what makes Roman Catholicism a heretical offshoot of Orthodox Christianity(in case you were curious, because Orthodox Catholicism often gets confused with Roman Catholicism despite us having a very different experience).






#83
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 818
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
If he isn't of the Aaronic priesthood then all claims to that become metaphorical and impossible to either confirm nor deny. One could also say that his being "king" is completely symbolic and not real. Or that his being a messiah, or "God" is likewise not to be taken literally. Even any claim that he is a leader can be written off as a literary device.

Separate from that is the idea that in Judaism (the mantle he seemed initially to claim), there is a human king, and a human high priest (and many human priests). Interestingly, while there are textual references to God as a king, I don't recall one which ever calls God a priest.
#84
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@rosends
No one is claiming the Aaronic priesthood. The Rabbinic Judaism that by the way, is not temple Judaism, does not even have a priesthood.

God is obviously king, even you should know this.

We The Orthodox Catholic Church certainly do have a priesthood(it is not the Aaronic priesthood, though in the earliest days of the church there were many Aaronic priests who converted), technically we are all priests. What people usually identify as priests are in fact presbyters, which are elders and leaders of the community. The Church is not intended to be a secular government, so secular kings do exist. Even they, as you I am sure agree, only have their authority insomuch as it has been granted by God.










#85
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser
Gary Habermas has identified (I think if my memory serves me and not reading the chapter again) nineteen external non-Christian references to Jesus as a historical person.
It could well be 19 - or even more - but the point is not whther there was a 'Historical Jesus' at  all but whether the historical Jesus was a mere mortal.

If you review the Habermas material, there is nothing to suggest anything miraculous -  and as you say,  


The miracles are what separates Jesus from mere mortals.



Well, there is lots to suggest not only miraculous and unique but not in that article. That would be the Resurrection as well as the supernatural claims in the NT and those who believed in Jesus. The Christian faith is vested in the Resurrection of a Man from the dead, as Paul pointed out in 1 Corinthians 15:12-15. 



As an atheist, I deny the existence of gods.  I do not deny the existence of religions, nor the existence of religious belief nor the existence of charismatic characters who inspire religions.
As a Christian, I deny the existence of gods as anything other than man-made creations or substitutes for God. I acknowledge the existence of religious beliefs, including atheism as man-made beliefs that do not conform to reality (what really is). 


I can believe Jesus spoke the sermon on the mount - why not?  It does not require a god to address a crowd.  But I don't believe Jesus revivified Lazarus.  The evidence for both is the same - they are described in the bible.  So its not really about evidence at all - despite what people say on forums!   


It is about faith and every belief has faith involved. But Christianity is based on evidence. I point to prophesy as reasonable evidence. Jesus was/is a historical Person. That is reasonable to believe. It is reasonable to believe God created the universe. It is reasonable to believe that life comes from the living. 
#86
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 818
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
You wrote, "The Rabbinic Judaism that by the way, is not temple Judaism, does not even have a priesthood."

Why do you think that? It happens to be very wrong.
#87
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@rosends
Well, I am not Jewish.
#88
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 818
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
Understood -- but then you shouldn't try to make unequivocal statements about Judaism. Ask if you don't know something. If you are wrong about this, you might wonder what else you might be wrong about.
#89
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@rosends
Malki-tzedek might have been some sort of king and some sort of "kohen" but he wasn't in the Jewish tradition. The fact that his mode of worship was admirable in that he served God doesn't mean he was operating under rules that were to be given to a particular group hundreds of years later. It might have created an archetype for the writer, but its use creates a theological problem.
Then what do you think his significance was since he receives quite a mention?

18 And Malchizedek the king of Salem brought out bread and wine, and he was a priest to the Most High God.

4 The Lord swore and will not repent; you are a priest forever because of the speech of Malchizedek.

I think it was Augustine of Hippo that said (paraphrasing), "In the old contained; in the new explained."
#90
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@rosends
I could of course, tell you the same about Orthodox Christianity, and you certainly have been wrong about things we believe before. I am not offended.

From what I have been told, Temple Judaism does not exist anymore, and so the priesthood is not really a thing. There are people alive today who would be able to resume that role should the temple be rebuilt.