You guys are forgetting about David Blaine......

Actually many people (from different religions or atheists even) like Jesus or at least his teachings.
Things go awfully wrong when you say that he is God, the only son of God.

Persuing "education" in the Bible... you may as well persue education in The Lord of the Rings. The fantasy is the same, one's just pimped as reality when it's even more unbelievable than hobbits and magic rings. In a thousand years I wonder if there will be a religion based on the LotR books. "It's written right here, the truth! Praise be to Frodo!"


Please present a few of these misquotes and their proper contexts (as you see them), as I am interested to see your evidence.

It is really off-topic, but it was in regards to "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." I happened to watch both the original quote and Dawkins use of it back to back in videos freely available on the web. It must be nice to be so arrogant.

Dawkins use of it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQYGkuHFNuU...feature=related

....and Darwin even though I don't follow that.

Dawkins uses it often. In that video he gets it pretty right. Feyman certainly doesn't mean we can't understand it (like it is too complex). It is more like we just don't want to--it is strange to us. Feyman himself though is partially responsible for many understanding it quite naturally now--in that sense the quote is pretty much irrelevant now.

agreed.






I read that C.S Lewis book too. It was okay, though the charcter of a perfect, both in beauty and spirit, girl is pretty poor. All the characters were rather black and white come to think of it.

They come off as if the author is judging them.

Again you use my vocabulary. I am happy we are getting somewhere.

The problem with your "beliefs," Alessandro, is that you are quoting the gnostic gospels as if they are legitimate, alternative sources of credible information. That's like using a tabloid newspaper against an authentic piece of journalism.

Even gnostic scholars date the gnostic gospels to second century at best. If you even read them as literature, whether you believe in the canonical gospels or not, they are radically different.

New Testament Jesus spoke of sin and redemption from sin. Gnostic Jesus spoke of enlightenment and spiritual awakening.

The other problem is that you have a misunderstanding of Christianity and what it teaches, and a misunderstanding of Jesus and what he taught. More on this below.

You can't force anyone to believe anything.

There are so many factions because the Bible was removed from the "authority" of the Catholic church, and every Christian is allowed to read and interpret it for themselves. Some are more apt at Greek and Hebrew and cultural studies than others, and are better at exegeting the texts than someone who just reads it in a translation, without compensating for exegetical considerations such as contemporary culture of the text.

People have different fringe beliefs, but everyone agrees on one thing: Jesus of Nazareth.

(1) Jews use strictly the Old Testament (first half) of the Bible, they do not use the Bible.
(2) Christians use the Bible.
(3) Muslims use the Bible, and then add a totally separate book of Mohammad on top. It is the book of Mohammad that is inconsistent with the consistency of the Bible.

Once again, it appears that your misunderstanding of the subject is the only thing that is hindering here. When the facts are revealed for what they are, it very clearly and easily dispells any confusion.

This is my point made once again. I don't even have to use hypothetical arguments or situations, you are literally feeding all of this straight to me to illustrate to you.

SubZero spreads some misinformation (as I have displayed immediately above), and you all jump to say "Huzzah!," without any analysis or critical evaluation of the information.

Misinformation is spread like rampant, when you simply need to study the subject.

Dawkins is not a manuscript scholar. Dawkins is not a theologian. Dawkins knows a very mediocre amount about the subject matter, and there are thousands of people that know infinitely more than he does. As a matter of fact, his book is so fallicious that it has sparked an entire wave of rebuttals.

Actually, this is the chief argument AGAINST his book- that he has gone off the deep end. He has abandoned sound reason, and has become what is now being called a "fundamentalist atheist." His first chapter of his book sets this tone, proclaiming "very religious anti-religionism". It is extremely correct to say that his work is downright irrational, as has been pointed out over and over again.

Let me make a more pointed remark- even many ATHEISTS have discarded this book and distanced themselves from Dawkins, due to his fundamentalist-like rantings.

-3nigma

So I can basically make up any old cobblers and people like you will believe it in 2000 years?

Oh (your) god this is so cool.

Do I need to write it down on regular paper, then do the old coffee stained trick I did to create medeival documents in third year of secondary school? Do I need a large wooden box that looks ancient? Where should I bury the box?

This is awesome, I'm off to set to work on my religion :D

Jesus said he is God, the only Son of God.

So how good is Jesus, then?

C.S. Lewis put it this way:

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

Jesus is either:
(A.) Lying, therefore worthless
(B.) Insane, therefore worthless
(C.) Telling the truth

So which is it?

(We have already discussed the fourth option, that we don't have an "accurate record of Jesus," but this has been refuted conclusively, as displayed during this thread).

Jesus had a very strong message. It was so strong that he was killed for it.

He said that there is a God.
He said that this God is a righteous and just God, and a loving God.

He said that every human is in a state of alienation from God, because people reject him and live their lives going against God's ways, and pursue evil in their deepest innermost parts of their heart. For God, the punishment for evil is death. God, because he is righteous and just, demands a punishment for the evil that people perpetuate.

However, God is also a God of love

Jesus said that he is the son of this God. Because of Jesus' divinity, he lived the 100% perfect life, that no one else would be able to do. Because he lived a perfect life, he did not need to bear the punishment for evil, which is death.

God loves the world very much. He doesn't want it to die in evil, and he wants to bring people back into relationship with him.

However, because God is fully just and righteous, evil must be paid for- he cannot allow it to just go free.

Jesus said that he will be the punishment. He will die an excruciating death, in order that anyone who would put their trust in him and live in his ways, would not have to bear that punishment. God provided Jesus as a substitution in our place, to satisfy the justice, and yet extend his great love for us.

After being buried, Jesus' displayed his divinity by being resurrected from death. He also displayed how his life and death paid the ultimate sacrifice by defeating evil and death altogether, and that he would not die.

Jesus said that if you believe in what he said, and put your trust in him and that he is who he says he is, you would be adopted into God's family, embraced by God who wants to be with you.

THIS is Jesus' message. His Sermon on the Mount is his teachings on how to live according to his ways in the Kingdom of God (or "rule" of God in your life).

Jesus said to give up your old life. Give up your life of pursuing self-centered things and going against God's ways.
He said believe in him. He said that he is the only way to bridging the gap to restoring relationship with God. If you put your trust in him, and believe that he is who he says he is, you will live with him in relationship forever.

This is his message. We can accept it or deny it.

True, this is his message.

But what god did he mean?
There are thousands of gods in thousands of religions. How do we know which one(s) is/are real?

The answer: we don't.

Jesus was referring to the God as displayed in the Old Testament, who claims to be the one and only true God of the universe.

I'm not saying you have to believe it's true, but I am saying without question that this is the God that Jesus was referring to.

But the topic of this discussion is Jesus, and his message. If Jesus is real, and if this is his message, then this is what we are left with.

Jesus cannot be accepted as merely a "good teacher." He is either worthless to be cast aside, or he is who he says he is, and what he says is true.

But it is you that has to make the decision. Jesus leaves it up to us to put our trust in him and who he says he is, and what he did as a substitution for our place.

This is his message. We can accept or deny it.

All those "Gods" are the same.

Here is an interesting story.

Paul of Tarsus converted from Judaism to Christianity. He was traveling in Greece, and came to Athens. He came to the marketplace and was discussing Jesus with some of the local Epicurean and Stoic philosophers. Jesus was new at that time (rather than "old" compared to the modern ear), so they were interested in hearing what Paul was talking about.

Paul went to the Acropolis, and saw many altars to many 'gods.' So he met with the people there. Luke of Antioch recorded the events, and Paul said this-

"Men of Athens, I notice that you are very religious in every way, for as I was walking along I saw your many shrines. And one of your altars had this inscription on it: ‘To an Unknown God.’"

These people were so religious with so many 'gods,' that they even made an altar for an "unknown god" that they maybe missed, and still wanted to honor. Paul goes on, to say:

"This God, whom you worship without knowing, is the one I’m telling you about.

“He is the God who made the world and everything in it. Since he is Lord of heaven and earth, he doesn’t live in man-made temples, and human hands can’t serve his needs—for he has no needs. He himself gives life and breath to everything, and he satisfies every need... he created all the nations throughout the whole earth. He decided beforehand when they should rise and fall, and he determined their boundaries.

“His purpose was for the nations to seek after God and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him—though he is not far from any one of us. For in him we live and move and exist. As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’ And since this is true, we shouldn’t think of God as an idol designed by craftsmen from gold or silver or stone, or an image formed by the art or imagination of man.

“God overlooked people’s ignorance about these things in earlier times, but now he commands everyone everywhere to repent of their sins and turn to him. For he has set a day for judging the world with justice by the man he has appointed, and he proved to everyone who this is by raising him from the dead.”

Paul here is referring to Jesus.

The account ends with the following:

When they heard Paul speak about the resurrection of the dead, some laughed in contempt, but others said, “We want to hear more about this later.” That ended Paul’s discussion with them, but some joined him and became believers. Among them were Dionysius, a member of the council, a woman named Damaris, and others with them.

This is who Jesus said he was. Some denied him, others followed him. But these are the only options left to us.

Here is what Jesus himself said:

“For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him.

“There is no judgment against anyone who believes in him. But anyone who does not believe in him has already been judged, for not believing in God’s one and only Son. And the judgment is based on this fact: God’s light came into the world, but people loved the darkness more than the light, for their actions were evil. All who do evil hate the light and refuse to go near it, for fear their sins will be exposed. But those who do what is right come to the light so others can see that they are doing what God wants."

Jesus left no room for being on the fence. He left no room for merely saying he is a good teacher, or a good person.

He said that he is the one and only way to have a relationship with the one and only God. He is either a counterfeit, or he is serious.

Jesus said to give up the darkness, and welcome the light. He said that he is the "Light of the World." He made these bold claims, but it is left up to us to accept or reject it.

And I reject his claims for more veritable ones

That's your decision to make. But bear in mind that there are men and women in every field of academia and science, that acknowledge that Jesus' claims are veritable ones. Just make sure you dig deep and hard for who Jesus is and what he said, because as this forum has shown, there is an unlimited amount of fake misinformation spewed out there.

If Jesus' claims are legitimate, it is not an issue to take haphazardly or lackadaisically. Set aside the time to find out, it could prove to be the most crucial thing to devote any time to.

Jesus made bold claims. Everything he said is either nonsense or the truth, but he seriously cannot be taken on the fence. Another thing Jesus said is "Anyone that is not for me is against me," so there is no middle-ground as far as he is concerned. You have to either reject him altogether, or accept him altogether.

All his messages of love are practical whether he was the son of god or not. Maybe he didn't leave room for thinking he is merely a human teacher, but that doesn't mean he wasn't.



And I simply can't accept some of his teachings when it comes to god and religion. The idea that people aren't saved because they belief in a different god is horrible. If you believe hes the son of god and all that he said is true, your believing that all Jews are damned. Clearly a rediculas, horrible belief. It isn't in line with his teachings of love and forgiveness at all.



He also asks everyone to belief in a vengeful, violent god. The old testament....

So why did you start this topic by writing:

"For conversation's sake, let's assume Jesus of Nazareth was real, and that the New Testament accurately renders his life and teachings."

As if you wanted to tell us only about his moral teachings (which, as I said, can be accepted by many of us)?

And besides, we are all God according to the Advaita Vedanta: Tat Tvam Asi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tat_Tvam_Asi




QFE

Oh, ok. That makes perfect sense. No, not really.

The entire thing? There's parts of the Bible you'll *never* hear read at Sunday church. I think if your typical "I like the good parts" Christian trimmed out all the parts they don't like, they'd end up, like the Jews, not using the Bible.

The Bible has no consistency. Translated wrong, interpreted wrong, that's not really what it means. Excuses, excuses.

What misinformation?

I'm glad you understand how religion works!

People issue rebuttals against everything. If you wrote a book about your personal beliefs, you can bet other Christians would not necessarily agree with it. Dawkins is a nice big target since Christians, and religious people in general, are genuinely afraid of what he says. The more they whine and bend words and issues, the more silly they look.


In The God Delusion he credits the term "radical atheist" to Douglas Adams. He is very anti-religion, and it's a good stance to have. Religion overlays common sense and human instincts with a pretend story to explain it all, and then tries to wrestle those senses away. It's an unnecessary thing, and it causes a lot of strife and grief in the world.

Such as who?

You are correct. The modern American church is guilty of what is called the "seeker-sensitive" movement, and the only part read on Sunday is "topical preaching," such as topics of God's love and happy thoughts. This is an attempt to be "sensitive" to "seekers," who might stroll in on a Sunday morning, so they don't want to preach the tough parts.

However, this is a modern development that is not consistent with historical Christianity. Historical Christianity utilizes what is referred to as "expository preaching," where a preacher systematically goes through the entire book, cover to cover.

You are correct in your assessment of modern, faulty Christianity. Just bear in mind that this is not what historic or proper Christianity is about, nor is it what ever Christian believes in.

This site was a lot of fun putting my exegetical skills to work.

With even minimal exegesis, these passages are not contradictory. The author of the site himself even says that these are not contradictory, they are merely "inconsistent." However, with looking at every one for more than 2 seconds, it is extremely evident the differences.

The Bible is not one book, it is 66 "books" by over 40 authors, in multiple languages. "Inconsistencies" are actually corroborative of the factuality of the Bible.

In a court of law, if there are 6 witnesses to a crime, each will give testimony. If all of them said the same story word for word, it would be fishy, to say the least. But if they all reveal different facts from different perspectives, even some that appear to be "inconsistent," they always are reconcilable, because the source is always the same. The fact that there are differences in accounts is actual an argument used to corroborate the Bible, not disprove it.

The tiniest bit of exegesis, again, eliminates every single one. The problem is, again, going to the wrong, uneducated source on the subject. See my comments on Dawkins as an example of this, below.

This is exactly correct. Which is why it's so scary that Dawkins has become religious in his anti-religiousness- it has overlayed his common sense and human instincts with a pretend story to explain it all. "Life will all be great as long as all religion is wiped out." "The world will finally be free if religion is wiped out." etc.


Michael Ruse, Professor of Philosophy- "The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist"
Lawrence Krauss, physicist - "[Dawkins] should have continued to play to his strengths"
H. Allen Orr, biologist, professor
etc.

Dawkins is a biologist. He is bad at physics. He is horrid at philosophy. He is terrible at New Testament criticism.

He said that the book of "Hebrews" was written by Paul of Tarsus. That is basic elementary New Testament 101: Paul didn't write Hebrews. Everyone knows that, and nobody would try and say that Paul wrote it for even a moment.

Find yourself some really good sources for New Testament criticism, like people that know the New Testament.

I said "his life and teachings," not his moral teachings.

The topic of this thread is Jesus' life and teachings. Jesus taught that he was God. He taught that the one and only way to a relationship with the one and only God is through him.

Let's just say, hypothetically for a moment, that one God is real, one and only. Whether you believe it or not, let's just hypothetically for a moment assume this is the case.

If there is a God, and there is only one true God, why would anyone be saved by worshiping a different, fake God?

This isn't "horrible," it's common sense. If what Jesus is saying is true, then this is common sense, it's not horrible whatsoever. However, you are free to disagree with Jesus, but you can't say that his situation he proposes is "horrible." It's just simple.

If you are married to a specific woman, you don't get credit for just expressing love to any woman. It has to be the woman you're married to. Otherwise, the opposite happens- you get in trouble for loving a woman that is NOT the woman that you're married to.

It's not a perfect analogy, because in this instance nobody is "married to" or "committed to" God, but it serves to make the simple point. You don't get credit for just believing and worshiping some fake God, if indeed God is real. The opposite happens. You only get credit for worshiping the real God.

Jesus' teaching is that God is loving and forgiving. But if God were only loving and forgiving, then heaven would also be full of murderers, rapists, and criminals, who have no remorse or regret.

What Jesus presents is a very consistent message. God is loving and forgiving, but he is also just and righteous.

No matter where you go on the world, regardless of society, culture, time period, or anything else- every society has a concept of justice, and punishment for wrongdoings. God punishes evil. God punishes sin. It's as simple and fundamental as that. You may call it vengeful, but for God (and most ordinary people) it's simple justice.

For God, the punishment for evil is separation from him. He is pure good, and cannot be in the presence of evil.

The most important part of this is that it DOES NOT END HERE. This is not the end of the description. The most important part is that God is a loving and forgiving God. His love and forgiveness is so great that he extended that to humanity even in the midst of their going against him, in order that he can bring people into relationship with him.

Rather than give people justice, Jesus took it on himself instead. Jesus did that for you, so that you would not have to bear the punishment for sin.

God is perfectly just, but his love has curved his justice on Jesus instead, substitutionally in our place. Not only does Jesus take off all of our bad baggage, but he gives us all of his good baggage- he makes us in right-standing with God. He gives us a clean slate, and credits his perfect-sinless-life to us.

Here is a YouTube video that I found, that illustrates this very well in 3 minutes. It is very cheesy, but it uses cheesy humor to make a point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrLzYw6ULYw

Jesus did all the work. The only thing left is to throw away life's bad baggage, and believe that Jesus is telling the truth.

Nope. The title you gave to this topic is "Teachings of Jesus - Sermon on the Mount"

Can you be coherent at least with that?

You're feathers are getting ruffled a bit, Allessandro.

You are correct, the original post began with his Sermon on the Mount. However, as has been demonstrated by this thread, the teachings of Jesus cannot be taken a la carte like an all-you-can-eat-buffet. His Sermon on the Mount was one part of his greater teaching, which is what is being discussed.

We are not straying radically off topic, like many other of these threads. We have not derailed into tangents, even though many people have tried to. We have taken a step backward and seen the bigger picture of the puzzle that it all fits into, of Jesus and his message.

Jesus' message is about sin, about salvation, and eternal life. Jesus' taught that he was God, and the only son of the only God. His Sermon on the Mount is about how to live and walk out life with Jesus as the King over life, and entering into the "ruleship" or Kingdom of God. He wants to reconcile man from his self-centered life to God, and to have an eternal relationship in eternal life with us.

If Jesus were a mild teacher to pick-and-mix from, he wouldn't have the historical end that he had. Jesus was so bold he was crucified. The same is true today. He says to give up the life of darkness and pursuit of ungodliness, and to believe that he is who he says he is, and be in relationship and fellowship with him forever. The rest lies on us- we either crucify him as a liar, or accept him for what he says he is. But every person has to decide where they stand.

And lets say, hypothetically, that their is a perfect god, who could not be more just or loving or understanding.


Do you think he would reward people based on whether they worship him or not? Do you think he wouldn't realize that what religion you are is based on your surroundings? Do you think he would have less understanding of human nature then any modern man that realizes that people cling to Christianity for hope of a better world? Do you think he would put anything above how they acted?

And why would someone be damned for rape, killing, etc when its largely because they're the product of terrible conditions. Who's to say anyone would be different if they came from the same background.



The traditional concept of justice and free will are myths, I think. And if free will is real, then god would have to use an extremely complex algorithm to determine who goes to heaven or not.



And as for the old testament, it is obviously not good to anyone but the faithful to go killing people based on their religion to make way for another...religion. Or killing off a whole family because the husband did something wrong. Damning homosexuals, and telling them people should be killed for working on a certain day of the week. This is the god Jesus asked us to worship.

Whether anyone worships him or not, every human being is in the same boat. Every single person has done wrong, and every single person needs God to pull us out of the sinking ship.

I am extremely sypmathetic with this view point, but one cannot deny human responsibility for wrongdoing. Our culture is obsessed with blameshifting, and always putting the blame on someone else. "Oh, I only did it because I was raised that way, so really it's my parents' fault, not mine." People trip on the sidewalk and sue the owner of the home, because they can't take responsibility for watching where they are going, and it happened to be on someone else's property.

People are responsible for their actions, even though their environment plays a huge influence on them.

In the Bible, there is a principle known as "Progressive Revelation." This refers to the fact that God doesn't all at once say, BAM, here's the story. He unfolds it over time, with progressive steps that build atop one another. It is likened to a seed that begins in the first book of the Bible, then sprouts a stem in the second book, then buds in a few more books, etc. The blossom of the flower, in this analogy, is Jesus of Nazareth. He is the fulfillment of the Old Testament, and progressively reveals and shines more light on the Old. It is important to note that it is not "cancelling out" the old, or "overwriting" the old, but "fulfilling" the old, and bringing it to completion.

How can a person know mercy, if they don't know justice? How can a person understand grace, if they don't understand condemnation?

God, as revealed in the Old Testament, is a partial revelation of God. Before God can display his mercy and grace and love in Jesus, he has to show humanity what mercy and grace and love are FOR- to redeem and save us from the death that comes from sin.

The Old Testament is half the picture. Many people look at the Old Testament and stop there. That is half the story. The whole point of the Old Testament was to pave the road for Jesus. Jesus is the whole point of the whole book, and Jesus ushers in the FULL revelation of God as a loving and forgiving and merciful God.

God's wrath is not one of his attributes. God's wrath is the natural outworking of his holiness. God is holy, and therefore cannot make accommodation for evil. His wrath is simply the getting rid of evil, but it is not an inherent attribute of God.

On the flip side, God's love is one of his inherent attributes. This is why he chose to reconcile the world to himself, through Jesus.

Jesus lived the perfect life that nobody could, without any sin. He didn't deserve death. But Jesus decided to take on the punishment for sin on himself substitutionally in our place, so that we would not have to. Jesus removes our sin from us, and imparts to us his life of perfection, so that we are "birthed anew," with a clean slate.

But Jesus said that the only way for this transaction to take place is by putting our trust in him. We have to believe that he is the son of God, and that he took on the penalty that we deserved, so that we wouldn't have to. But the decision is in our hands- we reject him, or we accept him.

So then you admit that Christianity, like a used car, can be easily sold if you only point out the good parts. Religion can't sell itself on the whole, it's required to trim away parts that may scare people off. Of course, determination of what gets trimmed and how much relies solely on the person who wants *their* particular version to be what people learn. If there's a problem.. hey it was mistranslated!

To fall back on what I just said, I'm sure I could easily say something, which is presented "factually" in the Bible, and you would insist that it's not factual at all.

The Bible should be a special case, as it's supposedly being divine inspired. If God was directly interacting with the 6 witnesses, and telling them the exact details, then all six had *better* say the same thing!

You seem to be implying that God tells different people different things.


http://dir.salon.com/story/books/int/2005/...ruse/index.html

He contradicts even himself. Tho I see no source for your quote.

He spoke on the Beyond Belief 2006 thing I watched. He's a bit more accepting of religion existing (whereas Dawkins is far less accepting) and he prefers to tread lightly. It's no big surprise that not all atheist or agnostic people, especially people in positions of big exposure, are not exactly rallying behind him. Going against religion is scary. Religious people can be very abusive, verbally and physically, if you get on their bad side. Krauss plays the "No I.. well he can say what he wants but it's not what *I* would say" card, which may be what he is required to do.


Really?
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/W...ote-Hebrews.htm

http://www.acns.com/~mm9n/heb/who.htm

http://www.bible.ca/sola-scriptura-pro-tra...sciple-john.htm

Even Google has some input on the matter:


Because the people worshipping the fake God (or any) were convinced by a very good used car salesm... I mean preacher.


In the Bible he "supposedly" initiates a flood and wipes out the entire population of earth save for Noah, his family, and some animals in a very, very large boat that might have been the Doctor's TARDIS. I don't know where the 'pure good' of this occurs. That's just one spot where I'm very confused on the whole good/evil thing. God does things in the Bible that are pretty much the epitome of evil.

http://WhyWontGodHealAmputees.com/ (totally random, I do love this site)

Oh, and obligatory youtube: http://youtube.com/watch?v=y3VAEYEG53w

Each of these have been thoroughly, systematically, and exhaustively rebutted.

You can find everything here:
http://brainisignorant.blogspot.com/2008/0...l-amputees.html
http://brainisignorant.blogspot.com/

It's very funny that you went through all the effort of finding those miscellaneous pages that actually do purport that Paul wrote Hebrews, and copy and pasted all the little quotes from each.

With a simple Google search of "Hebrews," the first pages that all pop up say the exact opposite. Each of those pages that you found are the equivalent of, "Of course it's true, I read it on the internet!" One of the pages you linked even at the end said that it was NOT likely Paul, which I found particularly funny.

If we must go into off-topic details, I'll simply spell it out. Every letter that Paul ever wrote, he began by saying it was from him. Every letter without exception. This is not true of other authors, such as John, but of Paul this is without exception. Hebrews is not written by Paul.

Also, the Greek vocabulary employed in Paul's letters versus Hebrews is different, whereas the vocabulary in all of Paul's letters is consistent. Hebrews is not written by Paul.

Also, Paul often cites passages of the Old Testament in his writings. The letter to the Hebrews often cites passages from the Old Testament, but in a totally different manner. Paul's citations of the Old Testament are consistent in all of his writings, but Hebrews is not. Hebrews was not written by Paul.

Here's the bottom line. The fact that you are even defending Dawkins' statement that "Hebrews" was written by Paul is a perfect example of what you earlier described as "religious." Here is your quote:

Religion overlays common sense and human instincts with a pretend story to explain it all, and then tries to wrestle those senses away.

You have gone against all scholarship, and common sense, to defend your religion of Dawkinsism. You have found obscure sources to "corroborate" your point of view, which are honestly laughable. You are trying to wrestle the facts away, when you literally don't even know them!

Just relax and breathe a little, your feathers are getting ruffled too much. None of this is real anyway, right?

You only read and quoted half of my point =).

I said that this is not what historical or biblical Christianity does, this is a modern fault of North American Christianity. This is not true of the church in other nations, and this was not true of the North American church a generation or two ago.

Again- you are correct. Modern, North American Christianity has become a religion of B.S. However, this empty shell posing as Christianity has nothing to do with true, historic, New Testament Christianity.

In that respect, you are incorrect. Normal Christianity (non-American-21st-century-Christianity) has nothing to do with what you are describing. You are describing the people that Christians can't stand, because they water-down everything, as you point out. It is referred to as "Christless Christianity."

Again, this is another example of simply misunderstanding the Bible, Christianity, and what they teach.

The Bible, and Christianity, do not teach what is called the "Oral Dictation Theory," which is what you describe. God did not sit down next to the biblical authors and whisper word-for-word what to write. The Bible, and Christianity, teach what is called the "Verbal Plenary Theory," which is that the authors wrote the text, which has all the culture and flavor of each of their individual backgrounds, but that God had his guiding hand on the authors, that everything would tell the same story.

God doesn't tell different people different things. People write down different things, all guided by the hand of God, and they all line up perfectly, each from a different and unique perspective.

I can understand the confusion.

Again, this is simply a misunderstanding of what the Bible teaches.

The Bible does not teach that people are inherently good, and that they just need to awaken their potential and do what is right. The Bible teaches that humanity has corrupted itself with sin, and that people are constantly doing and choosing the wrong thing over and against choosing the right things. People don't want to do what is right and good, they want to do what is wrong and bad.

Every single human being is guilty of doing bad things in their life. In the deepest secret corner of our hearts, we are not genuinely good people. On the contrary, our hearts are full of all kinds of bad things- lust, envy, hatred, malice, etc. We just keep all this stuff tucked away and put on a happy face.

A dead tree doesn't produce healthy fruit. A corrupted human heart does not produce a righteous lifestyle.

God is a just and righteous God. He is perfect and pure good, called "holiness." Because of this, he cannot be in the presence of evil.

When you work at a job, you get a paycheck. Your paycheck is not considered a gift from your employer, it is what you have rightfully earned, according to your labor.

As far as God is concerned, the paycheck for living an evil life of rejecting him is death. This isn't his arbitrary decision on a whim, it is what we have rightfully earned, according to our lives of rejecting him and pursuing evil.

What is most important is that God's love has redirected his justice. Instead of giving us our paycheck that we have earned, he is reaching out to us in grace. He has sent his son Jesus to substitutionally accept what we deserve, in order that he may deal with us in pure mercy and love.

Charles Spurgeon put it well when he said,

O sinner, the fact that you are alive proves that God is not dealing with you according to strict justice, but in patient forbearance; every moment you live is another instance of omnipotent long-suffering. It is the sacrifice of Christ which arrests the axe of justice, which else must execute you.

Jesus has done all the work. Jesus has paid the price. But Jesus said that the only way is to trust in him. Jesus said that you have to give up running from and fighting God, and put your trust in him as the only hope of salvation from sin and death. He said if you do this, you will join him in eternal life.

The decision is ours to make. God has done this in a supernatural act of love and grace to us. But we have to either reject it, or accept it.

The added bold are my replies.

These are pretty funny since the main point of their weak "rebuttals" involve the typical "that site is wrong because Jesus/God said..." You don't fight your point of the existence of an imaginary being by using that being as the evidence. By that logic we could say Santa Claus exists, because every Christmas there's presents under the tree, so obviously Santa put them there.

First off, I tried simply typing "Hebrews" in Google, and I looked through a couple of pages of results, and found nothing of the controversy, just information on the Hebrew people. Secondly.. bible.ca looks pretty hardcore. The other sites had religious significance also. At least one of them is a church. Is it that it's not *your* church, so it's not to be taken seriously?

The fact that you attempt to twist Dawkins into some sort of religion is pretty funny. At the end of the day, he's just a guy. A guy that writes interesting books. I respect him as a scientist and an author, and I respect his solid foundation in reality, and he's not afraid to talk about it. That's as far as it goes really, and I don't dwell on him past the time I open and close his books (tho the Afghani kid I work with loves discussing it, a fellow atheist who gave me The God Delusion as a gift). I'd say I think about him less than you do.

I see the 'now' as all that I have. Unfortunately the 'now' is also bombarded by religion sticking it's nose in everything and trying to set the standards it wants to set. It's bad enough when it's some oppressive regime on the other side of the world.. there's people in my own country, my own state, my own town that base laws and decide "punishment" based on ancient books.

Civilization could not exist if this was the case. Civilization pre-bible (ie. ancient Egypt, ancient Greece) and places where the Bible was never known but civilization flourished (Japan, any Pacific island, most of Asia, all of America (oh wait Mormons scratch that), most of Africa, and a good portion of Europe) didn't seem to do too badly for never having met Jesus or read Genesis.

Japan is a shining example of what effectively removing the 'magical' aspects of religion can do. Shintoism and Buddhism in Japan are largely ceremonial, and while they are highly regarded and practiced, they have little of the mystery of actual religion to them. Your typical Japanese Shintoist has no doubt that there are no *real* gods, but enjoys the ceremonial concept of it. Going to the shrine is not so much a religious obligation as a social one.

It was when Shintoism was considered serious business, when the Emperor was descended from God, that Japan was it's most vicious and aggressive. I sometimes wonder if Christians would be happy the day that american citizens fly planes into mosques shouting GOD BLESS AMERICA!... sounds silly, but religion makes people act silly.

The rest of your post is not worth replying to as it just regurgitates stuff over and over. I will point out one thing though.. Feel free to "correct" this obvious misread, but Adam and Eve ate from a tree that had fruit of Knowledge. That was their crime. Their crime was.. wanting to know stuff. Ignorance is bliss. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Is it admirable to know evil?

The word "know" is also used rather broadly in the context. The context also suggest Adam and Eve and standing in place of at least some part of the pre-historical human race. There is a great deal of parallels between Genesis 3 (Adam and Eve) and 4 (Able and Cain). Both brothers go through religious ceremony, but Cain's problem is not heresy, but human envy.

Yahwey offers this advice to Cain:



Sin is not something God arbitrarily places on humans. It is a fact of human existence. A fact that might be personified well as serpents or crouching lions, but even in this myth, it is also described as homicide. Religious ceremonies don't help at all. Humans must master sin--rule over their evil desires, or else they are as good as dead.

Knowledge of evil seems to pretty universal. I think the big point is, how can we know the good?

You have mistakenly read it wrong. Every single reference to the Bible is from Marshall Brain, the person attacking the Bible. The rebuttals are the bold text that don't use any references. There is literally not a single one.

Simple mistake.

That's because I keep bringing the conversation back on topic, but you guys keep derailing it ;-).

Man's crime was disobedience to God.

God offered life in paradise, and life in fellowship with him. Humanity wanted independence from God, and his crime was going against what God had said.

Many commentators say that the Knowledge is a person's conscience, which differentiates for them wrong and right.

This is a wonderful example.

Japan is a dying, decaying society in every respect.

Japan is an island, with few natural resources- it's economy is driven by strong work ethic and importing of goods. Japan's work ethic has declined to the point of not being able to sustain the entire country's economy. The generational gap is tremendous, where there are not enough youths in the country to sustain and support the elderly, and the social structure is buckling. Japan's suicide rate is astronomical.

Have you ever been to Japan? I have.

This is not opinion, this is sociological fact.

Religion is an ugly thing, especially blind and violent religion. Christianity is not about religion, it is about reconciliation with God. It is about putting trust in Jesus, and living as he did.

Religion is ugly. Jesus doesn't offer a religion. He offers truth.

Civilization is perfectly capable of being built with humans being self-centered. Current civilization has even adapted to compensate for human self-centeredness.

Here is an interesting example. Why does Communism fail?

Communism is a fantastic system. It is a utopian system. It is an idealist system. It provides a society of perfect equality for all, where there are no poor of society, and likewise no rich to cause strife.

So why does it fail?

If you want to use history as your source, Communism always fails because its leaders always abuse the system. They are corrupt, they do not submit to the equality of the system, and take more for themselves than for everyone else.

If you use the Bible as your source, it says the same thing- humanity has corrupted itself with pursuing evil, rather than good.

The reason that Communism fails is because it is run by human beings.

Now look at the reverse example. Why does Capitalism succeed?

Capitalism is built on the concept of competition. Capitalism is built on supply and demand, and consumerism. Capitalism is built on greed. And you know what? Capitalism works.

Nobody thinks capitalism is a perfect system, not for a moment. But it is certainly the best we are utilizing with the current state of affairs.

Capitalism works because it dovetails perfectly with humanity's self-centeredness.

If he's just a guy, then it's no problem- he made a mistake. He mistakenly wrote that Paul wrote Hebrews. There's no need to defend a mistake. As you have pointed out, it's a mistake that even Christians have made. So therefore it's even understable that he made the mistake. It's not a big deal.

The only reason it is a noteworthy is because it shows how very little scholarship went into the point. I assure you, a man of Dawkins' intelligence and repute would never allow himself to make that same mistake, were he to have known about it before publishing it. He has been laughed at up and down for this representation of his scholarship on this.

It's a simple mistake, but don't blindly draw up random psuedo-scholarship to pretend that it's a legitimate suggestion. I assure you in the most lighthearted way, it is simply a joke to assert this point.

However, this is very illustrative of a very important epistemological point. This entire conversation boils down to your presuppositions. Your presupposition is that God is not real. Therefore, you must interpret everything to fit into this presupposition.

Your presuppositions will not allow you to critically evaluate any evidence presented to prove that the New Testament Jesus is real. Any true scholarship that is shown contrary to your presupposition is written off or explained away, in order to fit consistently within your presupposition.

If I were to show you film footage of Jesus coming down from heaven, you would call it special effects. If I were to tell you that five hundred people saw it, and testified to it, you would call it mass hysteria. If you were shown Old Testament manuscripts dating from many centuries B.C., that predicted many details about Jesus of Nazareth, and then that they were all true of Jesus many centuries later, you would say that they were dated incorrectly, or forged, etc.

Everything is interpretted in line with your presuppositions. I cannot prove to you, or present any evidence that will say anything, because of your presuppositions. You have limited yourself to what data can be utilized. Your presupposition that God does not exist prevents you from interpreting the evidence that proves Jesus' authenticity from the evidence.

Most thoughtful scientists/naturalists, or intellectuals that utilize the scientific method, will call themselves agnostic, rather than atheist. This is because the scientific method is literally incapable of proving or disproving God.

However, some people will take a leap of faith, to step from agnostic to atheist, based on what is presented to them.

As an atheist, you have taken a step of faith that there is no God. These are your presuppositions that you must make the data coherent with.

Would you call yourself an agnostic, thereby not limiting yourself? Or are you already committed enough to atheism that you don't think you can get around it's presuppositional limitations?

You are correct that condition plays a huge factor in shaping a person's life and identity. However, you cannot eliminate human responsibility for their actions. Everyone is responsible for their decisions.

You are correct: A person cannot be held responsible for their conditions- and God does not hold people responsible for their conditions.

But a person can be held responsible for their decisions, regardless of how affected it is by condition- and it is this that God holds people responsible for.

Even any atheist would agree with this- it's what underlies the the rehabilitative criminal justice system. But even this example makes it more complicated than necessary. It's pure, simple, unadulterated common sense- every person of every society of every time period understands that people are held responsible for their actions.

This is why Jesus said that everyone that understands his truth needs to go out into all the world to tell everyone about him. He said,

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

God's moral standards are unchanging and ultimate. He is perfectly holy, so his standard is perfect holiness. God's morals do, indeed, transcend all morals of every culture everywhere.

This touches back onto the concept of "Progressive Revelation." The Old Testament was not meant to stand on its own, it strictly serves the purpose to pave the way for Jesus. Jesus brings the full revelation of God's love and mercy and grace. But what is the love and mercy and grace for?

The Old Testament was the display of God's standards of holiness. He literally expected people to live a 100%, perfect, holy life. It is impossible. It is literally, completely impossible. God knew this, but it was put in place to be an illustration of the perfect life that Jesus would live. God also introduced the Old Testament sacrificial system. The sacrificial system was instituted so that death would still be paid as the punishment for sin, but it was substitutionally born by an animal on the behalf of the people. This sacrificial system is also an incomplete precursor to God's ultimate plan, which he reveals fully in Jesus.

Jesus fulfills God's unreachable moral standards- he lived the perfect life according to God's standards and holiness. Jesus did not deserve the punishment for evil.

However, Jesus also fulfills the sacrificial system- Jesus is the one and only ultimate and final sacrifice. His sacrifice is the perfect and true one, and he substitutionally stood in our place to bear the punishment for evil.

God did this in order to display his [ilove and mercy and grace[/i] on us, which was his ultimate point from the very beginning. It is not a plan B, and it is not a second thought.

The Old Testament is a display of life without the love and mercy and grace of God. The Old Testament is a display of us getting what we deserve.

However, the Old Testament is not meant to stand on it's own, or be taken as a simple piece of the puzzle- it comes attached to the New Testament, Jesus, and the full and complete revelation of God.

The New Testament is showing that the only way that a person can be saved is through the love and mercy and grace of God. Nobody can live up to his standards, we only can be saved through putting trust in Jesus.

God is not different in the Old Testament and New, he simply displays his justice in the Old, and love and mercy and grace in the New. Both are true attributes of God.

God is just, because every single human being deserves death for pursuing evil, and pushing away from God. Going back to my previous post, this is the "paycheck" that we have rightly earned for ourselves.

However, Jesus has taken our place substitutionally to bear that punishment for evil on himself, in order that we can have the opportunity for life. But Jesus said that the only way to apply this to our lives is by putting our trust in him.

Jesus said that he offers the truth, and that he is the one and only way to life- all other roads lead to death. But we have to permanently turn from our lives of chasing after self-centeredness and sin, and believe that he is who he says he is.

Found this on youtube
I found this argument and particular 'proof' very interesting. You can read it if you'd like, it basically quotes scripture to prove:

Yet when one prays to Jesus, he does not appear. I for one just prayed, asking for Jesus to appear, and then finished with Amen. Unfortunately nothing happened. What do some of you who are familiar with the Bible think of this?

I should point on that in Genesis 1 "what God said" is reality. One could say that "disobedience to God" is equivalent to human delusion--the creation of one's own false reality.

If you think that ultimate judgment of a perfect god can be compared to our judicial system then you must not understand the point of punishment. Our laws pertaining to punishment don't claim to be "fair" or perfectly just. Why? Because its utterly impossible. Laws are there for the good of the people, they aren't for giving someone what they deserve. And as for people that haven't heard of Jesus, you have not answered my question; you only said that were supposed to go tell people.

And thus all the solid laws that god gave would be bullshit. If he was truly being just and good to each person, he wouldn't be able to lay down laws like "if you do X your going to hell." Every persons situation has to be judged differently, and yet we have enough laws from god to be sure that some people will go to hell.


Then about the bible: Before the new testament, the old testament was all there was. So, did those people simply not get to know that he was also a loving and great god? The bible isn't just there as an illustration, its what happened. And the two pictures of god, the old one and Jesus, cannot be the same. If this god were real, he would be constant, not showing of different parts of his character and shutting off others. If Jesus had been in the same positions as god was in the old testament he would not have made the choices. He would not have proclaimed all gays and people who work on sunday as worthy of death.

And for justice to be objective, there can be no free will or choice given the same situation, or it isn't objective at all.

It's not human delusion or a false reality.
The fact is, there are stars out there that are 3x the age of the earth, contradicting what the bible says.

I think you've just proved what many of us believe is the problem with religion.
It teaches you to deny facts and logic where they contradict the bible, and even practising a great deal of doublethink.

Jesus teaching matches the teaching of the old testament. You seem to be confusing changing behavior with changing character. Nothing Jesus stated was even new to first century Judaism. Certainly he came down on a specific side of certain issues, but the Jews themselves identified him as a Jewish teacher.


I don't see where the Bible teaches any young age for the stars, so where is there a contradiction?

We're already discussed this thoroughly, and the many contradictions have been made obvious.

There is no evidence that the stars were formed after the creation of the earth, and copious amounts of evidence that the earth came a long time after most stars had formed.
The sun is a 3rd generation start, may I remind you, that means there were three generations of stars (at least) before the sun itself, and the earth did not form until the sun was nearly fully developed.

Sounds like stars have been around for a while.

So, you don't have a point. Okay, I agree.

Again it is surprising that these ancient near easterners who wrote Genesis managed to not write something that merely repeated the common at the time religious/supernatural notions of the creation of the world. In a good sense Genesis is rather humanistic and even ancient scientific. It recognizes some of the ordering of living things and even a progression from simple forms to