Judaism as a Foundation for Christianity?

[Divine Insight]

I believe this topic is fundamental for discussions of Christianity and Apologetics.

Everyone knows that Jesus was a Jew. And he often referenced the Torah. But how did Jesus himself view the Torah and Judaism in general? Was there even a consistent view of Judaism in those days? According to the gospels I think it's fair to say that the Pharisees held a view of the Torah and God that Jesus did not support.

Were the views of the Jewish Pharisees the orthodox views of Judaism? Or did many Jews, like Jesus, hold views that were quite different from what the Jewish Pharisees held?

I would very much like to hear views on this question:

Question for debate: "Was there a consistent view of Judaism in the days of Jesus?"

And if so, what exactly did that view entail?

[Divine Insight]

You're letting conservative Christian views dictate how you try to understand the bible. There are at least two places in the Torah alone in which God is said to have regretted his mistakes or changed his mind:

It really doesn't matter to me personally for the following reasons:

A God who makes mistakes and regrets his own choices and actions, is a God who is unsure of himself. This reduces God from being a supreme being to being nothing more than an extremely powerful but-just-as-flawed human.

A God who makes mistakes isn't any better than us.

Moreover, if this God changes his mind, and makes errors in judgement, then two things follow from that:

1. His morality is in question as potentially being flawed too.
2. His system of justice is also in danger of being flawed.

How can we place our TRUST, in a God whose very system of Justice could potentially be grossly flawed?

We might fall through the cracks of his flawed system of justice before he even realizes that he's made yet another regrettable mistake.

How can we place our TRUST in a God who could fail us simply because he's imperfect and keeps making regrettable mistakes just like we do!

So, I thank you very much for pointed out the specific verses that you have pointed to. I'll definitely be including those in my arsenal to argue against this God myth.

Genesis 6:5. And the Lord saw that the evil of man was great in the earth, and every imagination of his heart was only evil all the time.
6. And the Lord regretted that He had made man upon the earth, and He became grieved in His heart.
7. And the Lord said, "I will blot out man, whom I created, from upon the face of the earth, from man to cattle to creeping thing, to the fowl of the heavens, for I regret that I made them."

Although, in truth, I actually remember arguing over this particular verse some years ago. The apologist was taking the position that God was not regretting that he had made a mistake, but rather he was regretting that mankind simply didn't rise to the occasion.

In fact, the apologist argued that God hadn't made any mistake at all, and that mankind was given everything he required to rise to the occasion, and simply failed to make proper use of what had been given to him.

So the apologist was arguing that God wasn't really having regrets about his own actions, but rather he was having regrets "for" mankind.

In other words, God was "regretting" for mankind that he had created him. God wasn't actually regretting that he had given man a chance.

You know how apologists can TWIST anything beyond recognition.

So according to this apologist Genesis 6:5-7 doesn't imply that God had made a mistake. God was simple regretting that mankind didn't rise to the occasion.

I will grant you the following verse is much more powerful:

Exodus 32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Here we have God himself repenting his own sins. That's really suggestive that God isn't any better than us.

~~~

I think the fact that the Biblical God is so dramatically human-like that there can be no doubt that he is nothing more than a fabrication of the imagination of men.

I agree with Albert Einstein on this point too:

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty." - Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein was raised as a Jew I might add. Although, he was no doubt highly influenced by the Christian culture around him as well.

[Mithrae]

I wonder why you're quoting Albert Einstein? By your reasoning above, a scientist who makes mistakes isn't any better than you or I. I'm not a fan of black and white thinking myself, but if in your view it's gotta be either perfect or no better than anyone else, it seems strange that you'd bother


However as I said, that's pretty much tangential to the topic. It seems clear that at least one of the two main gospels you're relying on for your argument does not support your views; Matthew clearly portrayed Jesus as upholding and strengthening Moses' law and its principles, not contradicting it. And while it's possible to get law-denying out of the earliest gospel Mark, or out of Luke, Mark in particular suggests (from the very first verse referencing Malachi 3:1, to Jesus' words at the last supper) that this relates to God's covenants with his people, as implied in some passages of the Prophets.

In short, besides a dubious interpretation of John 10:34 it seems that there is little or no reason to suppose a major eastern influence on Jesus' ministry. That verse is problematic for several reasons:

> Jesus says the quote ("I said you are gods") is written in "your law," but it actually comes from the Psalms (82:6). The term Tanakh, as Cnorman previous hinted at, is an acronym for Torah (law or instruction), Navi'im (prophets) and Ketuvim (writings), the three divisions of the Hebrew bible. Saying the quote was from "your law" might simply be a mistake by Jesus or John, but it does raise questions.

> Jesus calls it the 'word of God' and says that "the scripture cannot be broken" (v35), which would contradict your view of Jesus' mindset.

> Jesus still claims a privileged status compared to the others as "Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world," which again seems to contradict your view of him.


So while there may or may not have been some eastern influence on the thinking of Jesus or John, it so far seems that we have no good reason to suppose it had any central role. Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of religious pluralism and syncretic views in particular; I'd quite like to be shown that there's a solid connection between Christianity and Hinduism or Buddhism (as there may be between Judaism and Zoroastrianism) - but as far as I've yet discovered, such a connection remains in the realm of rather dubious speculation.

[cnorman18]

Thought I'd post a couple of remarks on the line of thinking outlined below.

A God who makes mistakes and regrets his own choices and actions, is a God who is unsure of himself. This reduces God from being a supreme being to being nothing more than an extremely powerful but-just-as-flawed human.

A God who makes mistakes isn't any better than us.

Rather an enormous overstatement, as Mithrae has pointed out; but more to the point, in Jewish teachings -- one more time, all together now -- God is not defined. Who SAYS God is perfect, or that a God, of whatever description, has to be? As God Himself (in the person of George Burns) said in Oh, God! -- "Of COURSE I make mistakes! Look at the avocado. Pit's too big."

That concept isn't a problem for Jews, who understand that (in our belief) God intentionally created the Universe imperfect and incomplete, in order that we humans might take part in the Creation process and work toward perfecting and completing it. Again I ask -- What do you expect? That the Universe would be flawless and perfect, with no pain or evil of ANY kind, and that humans would live out our lives as happy cartoon characters who never have to make a moral decision or take responsibility for anything? Is that kind of Universe even possible, and would it be worth existing in if it were?

Further still; The entire concept of Covenant is, of course, that of a contract; an agreement entered into by two parties, who are EQUAL in terms of the covenant. We get to argue with God. We get to call Him to account for what we perceive to be His failings -- His injustice, His unfair demands. The Jewish understanding of God is rather more undefined, again, and at the same time more qualified than the (fundamentalist) Christian understanding, wherein God is perfect, never to be questioned, and is to be praised and worshipped only, and depended upon for every decision, need, desire and aspect of life, world without end -- as if God had created a world filled with two-year-olds who are never allowed to grow up and think for themselves. Sorry, we remember Dachau. That attitude isn't gonna happen among US.

Moreover, if this God changes his mind, and makes errors in judgement, then two things follow from that:

1. His morality is in question as potentially being flawed too.
2. His system of justice is also in danger of being flawed.

Yep. That's why the sages of the Jews of old felt qualified -- nay, OBLIGATED -- to revise and rewrite the Law to make it more suitable, more realistic, more suited to the actual lives of actual, imperfect humans -- more humble, in a way; the reason that capital punishment was so very rare as to be all but nonexistent in ancient Israel was that no one felt qualified to speak for God to the extent of taking a human life, except in the most extreme circumstances. Mechanically following a law -- ANY law -- because it is supposed to be "perfect and unchangeable" is not RATIONAL, and thus not HUMAN.

In Jewish belief, you see, we were INTENDED to make those kinds of decisions. I've mentioned it before, but in Judaism, God is often as much adversary as King and Creator; He is that which we are to struggle AGAINST in order to become fully human. In the Bible, that struggle is depicted (in LITERARY images) as occurring face-to-face; Abraham, Jacob, Moses. Today the struggle is with the IDEA of God as infallible, perfect, and not-to-be-questioned-or-defied.

How can we place our TRUST, in a God whose very system of Justice could potentially be grossly flawed?

We can't -- but not because of THAT concern; it's because God doesn't sit on the bench or on the jury. WE still have to make those decisions when APPLYING the law. God isn't in the courtroom (and even if He were, he would still get only one vote).
[/quote]
We might fall through the cracks of his flawed system of justice before he even realizes that he's made yet another regrettable mistake.

How can we place our TRUST in a God who could fail us simply because he's imperfect and keeps making regrettable mistakes just like we do!
[/quote]
Whether God "makes mistakes" in the human sense is a bit beyond my purview or any knowledge I have; He might, he might not. But I can tell you this; NO ONE ever said that we humans have to take the apparent "Will of God," as in "what happens on Earth," lying down without complaining or expressing doubt. Many of us Jews are STILL shaking our fists at God over the Holocaust, and that isn't going to stop anytime soon. We had a COVENANT, and it doesn't look like God has held up His end of the bargain that we both agreed to. TRUST in God? Because God COULD fail us? Don't make me laugh.

Like I said; this kind of thinking is unfamiliar to Christians, and to atheists who assume that Christian attitudes and approaches are the only really "religious" ones.

You know how apologists can TWIST anything beyond recognition.

So can atheists. So can anyone.

These passages are ancient oral traditions, written down long after the fact, from multiple points of view and with multiple agendas. Whether it's explicit or not, you are STILL working from the assumption that the Bible should be the "infallible Word of God," and that if it's anything else, it's just fictional, irrelevant, utterly worthless nonsense. And THAT is as bogus as expecting Aristotle, or Homer, or Plato, or Shakespeare's plays to be discarded as worthless because they aren't flawless scientific treatises or objective factual reporting in the modern sense. So you think they shouldn't be regarded as the infallible Word of God and worshipped themselves? Well, neither do I.

Here we have God himself repenting his own sins. That's really suggestive that God isn't any better than us.

Hardly. That merely suggests that God isn't as "perfect," in human conception and understanding, as some expect or demand that He be. My physician makes mistakes and regrets them; that doesn't mean that she's no better a physician than I am. I don't know, or think, that God is "perfect," whatever that means; but I certainly don't think that I'd be just as good at being God.

I think the fact that the Biblical God is so dramatically human-like that there can be no doubt that he is nothing more than a fabrication of the imagination of men.

I think that most human conceptions of God -- like the one you keep insisting upon in this thread -- are, without question, fabrications of the imaginations of men. But that doesn't mean that those small, limited, carefully defined little boxes into which people try to stuff the Ein Sof, the "Totally Other," the unknown and undefined God, are the only ways to think about God -- or that because of the inadequacy of those primitive and simplistic conceptions, there might not be a REAL God, who, in the words of Richard Dawkins (!) is, if He exists, "a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed."

That has been the Jewish view for centuries. How dare any man declare that he knows the nature of God? Is that not a form of idolatry itself, a way of making a "graven image" that purports to show and explain God's nature and attributes?

You are arguing here against fundamentalist Christian perspectives and a literally-understood Bible. I have no problem with either of those perspectives; I share them. But I do NOT assume that all religious perspectives are or must be the same as that one, or even that I understand a particular religious perspective because I have read a little about it on an Internet forum.

[Divine Insight]

I wonder why you're quoting Albert Einstein? By your reasoning above, a scientist who makes mistakes isn't any better than you or I. I'm not a fan of black and white thinking myself, but if in your view it's gotta be either perfect or no better than anyone else, it seems strange that you'd bother

You're missing the point. Albert Einstein isn't the creator of the world, neither does he pass judgement on the objects of his creation. Therefore he has no need to be perfect.

A creator who passes judgements on the objects of his creation can only be 'righteous' if he is indeed perfect and cannot make mistakes. Otherwise, both his system of morality, and his system of judgement can be flawed, if he is flawed. Also his method of justification can be flawed as well.

If the biblical God created an eternal hell fire of torture to punish people for all of eternity based on how they had behaved during a few decades on planet Earth how is that reasonable? Perhaps this insanely flawed God will wake-up some day and realize that his supposed system of justice isn't anywhere near being righteous.

Then he's now only faced with regret of his mistakes, but he's also faced with the realization that his mistakes can often be extremely profoundly evil. And he would also need to realized that he must then necessarily be guilty of the epitome of stupidity.

However as I said, that's pretty much tangential to the topic.

I don't think it is. When asking if Judaism is a meaningful foundation for Christianity, we must necessarily look at what the Old Testament claims about God, and if those claims are absurd, then so must Christianity be absurd.

It seems clear that at least one of the two main gospels you're relying on for your argument does not support your views; Matthew clearly portrayed Jesus as upholding and strengthening Moses' law and its principles, not contradicting it. And while it's possible to get law-denying out of the earliest gospel Mark, or out of Luke, Mark in particular suggests (from the very first verse referencing Malachi 3:1, to Jesus' words at the last supper) that this relates to God's covenants with his people, as implied in some passages of the Prophets.

You're misunderstanding my position. I have absolutely no need to uphold and support or justify every jot and tittle of the New Testament. On the contrary, I hold that many of the things stated in the New Testament are actually contradicted right within those same gospels, and this is true even if we limit the Gospels to just Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John.

In short, besides a dubious interpretation of John 10:34 it seems that there is little or no reason to suppose a major eastern influence on Jesus' ministry. That verse is problematic for several reasons:

> Jesus says the quote ("I said you are gods") is written in "your law," but it actually comes from the Psalms (82:6). The term Tanakh, as Cnorman previous hinted at, is an acronym for Torah (law or instruction), Navi'im (prophets) and Ketuvim (writings), the three divisions of the Hebrew bible. Saying the quote was from "your law" might simply be a mistake by Jesus or John, but it does raise questions.

Well, that's a huge problem with this religion to begin with. Nobody can agree on precisely what constitutes The Law of this God. This is why the Protestants protested against the Catholic Church which was supposed to be The Body of Christ.

This is why there are a myriad of different Christian denominations. No one can agree one the Message of Jesus, or what constitutes "The Law" of the OT even.

> Jesus calls it the 'word of God' and says that "the scripture cannot be broken" (v35), which would contradict your view of Jesus' mindset.

Like I say, I'm viewing the New Testament as nothing more than superstitious rumors about the life of some man named Jesus. Therefore I do not need to accept every single solitary quote as thought it came from the mouth of Jesus verbatim. I believe that the authors of the New Testament often used Jesus as a dead marionette doll. They could make him say whatever they pleased. At least to a point.

If these rumors were genuinely sparked by some guy who actually did go around preaching to the masses, then they would also be stuck with having to keep in line with some of the things that Jesus was known to have taught by the masses of the time. But they could certainly twist his dead tongue to support their superstitious claims about they believe Jesus stood for.

So I have no reason to defend or make excuses for every single verbatim verse attributed to Jesus. Besides, as I've already points out, I can show where there are contradictions associated with claims being made about Jesus in these rumors. So I have proof positive right in the rumors themselves that every jot and tittle within them cannot possibly be true.

> Jesus still claims a privileged status compared to the others as "Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world," which again seems to contradict your view of him.

First off, I can actually work this in with the idea that Jesus as coming from a mindset of Mahayana Buddhism. I have no doubt that Jesus may have very well said things along these lines. But that doesn't suggest that he is privileged compared with others, other than perhaps he had been spirituality enlightened whereas other may not have been.

Secondly, when Jesus referred to "The Father" he was referring to his concept of God. Not necessarily to the God portrayed in the Old Testament. Especially in a verbatim sense.

So while there may or may not have been some eastern influence on the thinking of Jesus or John, it so far seems that we have no good reason to suppose it had any central role. Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of religious pluralism and syncretic views in particular; I'd quite like to be shown that there's a solid connection between Christianity and Hinduism or Buddhism (as there may be between Judaism and Zoroastrianism) - but as far as I've yet discovered, such a connection remains in the realm of rather dubious speculation.

But you can't even compare Jesus and John in the same breath. Jesus never endorsed John to speak on his behalf. John's superstitious view of Jesus are totally irrelevant. Moreover, I can show clearly where John and Jesus are in gross disagreement with each other on at least two concepts:


In John 3:18 John proclaims that to merely not believe in the name of the only begotten Son of God is grounds for condemnation.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

But in Luke 23:34 we see Jesus asking that these people who not only do not believe in his name, but who are currently mocking him, beating him, and nailing him to a pole to kill him, should be forgiven.


Luke.23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.

So clearly John and Jesus disagree on what constitutes grounds for condemnation.

Here's another contradiction between John and Jesus:

John proclaims that the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgement unto the Son.

John.5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

Again looking at Luke 23:34 we have Jesus appealing to the Father to forgive people.


Luke.23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.

This implies that Jesus is totally unaware that the Father judgeth no man and that all judgement has been committed to him.

So again I see a major conflict between John's ideas and what Jesus might have believed.

Also, in terms of Mahayana Buddhism it makes sense to me that Jesus would say that the Father judgeth no man and all judgement has been committed to the "son". Where the "son" simply refers to men in general. We are the ones who judge ourselves. This is a core belief of Buddhism. Obviously misunderstood by John who was trying to make out like Jesus was special and that the "Son" refers to Jesus and not to just men in general.

I can also back this up with other verses that had been attributed to Jesus:

Luke.6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

See, here Jesus is making it rather clear that we will be judged as we judge. We are the ones who are doing the judging. Not some imagined deity.

And again here:

Matt.7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

~~~~

For me, it's not about trying to justify every jot and tittle of the New Testament as though Jesus spoke the precise verbatim words that are being attributed to him in each verse. But instead, once these stories are recognized to be undependable rumors, we need to start rooting through them looking for threads of consistency or contradictions and they try to piece together what might have been true from that.

When I do that, I see far more support for believing that Jesus was supporting the overall philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism, and not really supporting many of the things that some of the authors of the New Testament apparently tried to shove into his dead mouth.

Jesus wasn't there to object when things were being written as supposed "quotes" from him. And many of those quotes contradict each other. So they can't all be true verbatim quotes. Unless, of course, Jesus himself was being inconsistent. But if that was the case then he clearly could not have been "The Word made Flesh". How could "The Word" be inconsistent? That would imply that the Holy Spirit itself is confused.

So these inconsistencies had to have either come from Jesus himself as a mere mortal man, or from the authors who were trying to construct rumors about Jesus.

Obviously I believe that most of the inconsistencies are due to the latter. The stories are mostly biased rumors that are trying to make Jesus out to be a demigod, when in fact, he wasn't.

[Divine Insight]

Thought I'd post a couple of remarks on the line of thinking outlined below.

A God who makes mistakes and regrets his own choices and actions, is a God who is unsure of himself. This reduces God from being a supreme being to being nothing more than an extremely powerful but-just-as-flawed human.

A God who makes mistakes isn't any better than us.

Rather an enormous overstatement, as Mithrae has pointed out; but more to the point, in Jewish teachings -- one more time, all together now -- God is not defined. Who SAYS God is perfect, or that a God, of whatever description, has to be? As God Himself (in the person of George Burns) said in Oh, God! -- "Of COURSE I make mistakes! Look at the avocado. Pit's too big."

That concept isn't a problem for Jews, who understand that (in our belief) God intentionally created the Universe imperfect and incomplete, in order that we humans might take part in the Creation process and work toward perfecting and completing it. Again I ask -- What do you expect? That the Universe would be flawless and perfect, with no pain or evil of ANY kind, and that humans would live out our lives as happy cartoon characters who never have to make a moral decision or take responsibility for anything? Is that kind of Universe even possible, and would it be worth existing in if it were?

I don't have time to read the rest of your post right now, but I would like to respond to the above by saying that you are missing the point of this thread.

This thread addresses "Judaism as the Foundation for Christianity"

I can fully understand your position as a Jew that God does not need to be perfect. In Judaism that is perfectly acceptable.

In Christianity it is not acceptable at all.

Why?

Because of the following reasons:

1. Mankind has fallen from grace from God. (Jews don't even believe that)
2. God will be judging men based on their behavior. (Jews don't necessarily believe that either)
3. The men who are judged unfit by God will be cast into eternal damnation. (Jews definitely don't believe this!)

So this is why in Christianity God must be perfect.

A God who is imperfect, makes mistakes, and has regrets, cannot be trusted to be a perfectly righteous Judge who knows what he's doing and cannot make mistakes in delving out extreme punishments (i.e. eternal damnation)

It's really that simple Charles.

This is not a problem for the original Judaism (as you see Judaism).

But an imperfect God would be the end of Christianity.

[cnorman18]

Thought I'd post a couple of remarks on the line of thinking outlined below.

A God who makes mistakes and regrets his own choices and actions, is a God who is unsure of himself. This reduces God from being a supreme being to being nothing more than an extremely powerful but-just-as-flawed human.

A God who makes mistakes isn't any better than us.

Rather an enormous overstatement, as Mithrae has pointed out; but more to the point, in Jewish teachings -- one more time, all together now -- God is not defined. Who SAYS God is perfect, or that a God, of whatever description, has to be? As God Himself (in the person of George Burns) said in Oh, God! -- "Of COURSE I make mistakes! Look at the avocado. Pit's too big."

That concept isn't a problem for Jews, who understand that (in our belief) God intentionally created the Universe imperfect and incomplete, in order that we humans might take part in the Creation process and work toward perfecting and completing it. Again I ask -- What do you expect? That the Universe would be flawless and perfect, with no pain or evil of ANY kind, and that humans would live out our lives as happy cartoon characters who never have to make a moral decision or take responsibility for anything? Is that kind of Universe even possible, and would it be worth existing in if it were?

I don't have time to read the rest of your post right now, but I would like to respond to the above by saying that you are missing the point of this thread.

This thread addresses "Judaism as the Foundation for Christianity"

I can fully understand your position as a Jew that God does not need to be perfect. In Judaism that is perfectly acceptable.

In Christianity it is not acceptable at all.

Why?

Because of the following reasons:

1. Mankind has fallen from grace from God. (Jews don't even believe that)
2. God will be judging men based on their behavior. (Jews don't necessarily believe that either)
3. The men who are judged unfit by God will be cast into eternal damnation. (Jews definitely don't believe this!)

So this is why in Christianity God must be perfect.

A God who is imperfect, makes mistakes, and has regrets, cannot be trusted to be a perfectly righteous Judge who knows what he's doing and cannot make mistakes in delving out extreme punishments (i.e. eternal damnation)

It's really that simple Charles.

This is not a problem for the original Judaism (as you see Judaism).

But an imperfect God would be the end of Christianity.

Okay, I see your point, and indeed I see no holes in your reasoning here; but then I can't speak for Christians, and I'd have to defer to their arguments on this score (or their rationalizations, as the case may be). I would note, though, that in the Christian religion, one is not judged by one's actions alone, but may be redeemed by repentance and faith in the sacrifice of Jesus, whatever one's actions. This might remove any problems with God's putative imperfections as well as man's; but I don't know how well that argument would set with most Christians, since I doubt they would concede that God even MIGHT be imperfect anyway. In any case, it's no concern or business of mine.

I would observe that I STILL don't think it's a productive approach to find fault with a given religious tradition by essentially redefining it, which redefining the nature of God would be. I won't allow non-Jews to redefine my religion, and I don't know why Christians would either. If you're going to criticize a religion, it seems plain to me that one ought to criticize what its followers ACTUALLY believe, and not what you think they SHOULD believe.

[Divine Insight]

I would observe that I STILL don't think it's a productive approach to find fault with a given religious tradition by essentially redefining it, which redefining the nature of God would be. I won't allow non-Jews to redefine my religion, and I don't know why Christians would either. If you're going to criticize a religion, it seems plain to me that one ought to criticize what its followers ACTUALLY believe, and not what you think they SHOULD believe.

Why not? Christianity is a religion that is innately structured to tell other people what they should believe. It incites its followers to do precisely this.

And this comes directly from the scriptures. It is indeed the essence of what much of the scriptures preach:


Romans 1:15-20
[15] So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.
[16] For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
[17] For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
[19] Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
[20] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Paul proclaims that you are without excuse Charles, if you do not accept the Gospel of the Christ.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John proclaims that you are condemned if you do not believe in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

And Paul has more to say about your despicable charter should you refuse to accept his gospel of the Christ:

Romans 1:28-30
[28] And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
[29] Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
[30] Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
[31] Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

You don't obey your parents Charles, and you are a backbiting God hater, without understanding, and without natural affection.

For so it is written in the inspired works of God.

How can I not response to those outrageous charges?

And this comes straight from "The Horses Mouth" (i.e. straight from the so-called "Holy Scriptures" themselves).

Shouldn't I have the right to rebuttal on charges being directed to all of humanity.

I'm a human too. Doesn't that give me the right to rebuttal?

I call people like John and Paul on the carpet. They have accused me of rejecting their "Christ". I accuse them of lying.

I think that's a fair case, and I'd be more than happy to take them to court over their slanderous accusations toward me. Especially when they have evidently gained many followers who have held these charges against their fellow man throughout history.

I think it's time for people to start recognizing that Paul is simply wrong. There are many quite rational reasons to reject these rumors about Jesus. And the people who find these rumors to be unbelievable do not only have valid "excuses", but their rejection of these rumors is fully justifiable in very rational and reasonable way.

So these are the kinds of accusations that I address in terms of Christianity.

I'm not trying to tell anyone what they need to believe. I'm just pointing out that there are many other rational explanations for these outrageous rumors, and that basically Paul is totally wrong. And therefore his teachings are totally wrong.

Errors in the Biblical cannon to be SURE.

And that's my only real point.

[cnorman18]

I would observe that I STILL don't think it's a productive approach to find fault with a given religious tradition by essentially redefining it, which redefining the nature of God would be. I won't allow non-Jews to redefine my religion, and I don't know why Christians would either. If you're going to criticize a religion, it seems plain to me that one ought to criticize what its followers ACTUALLY believe, and not what you think they SHOULD believe.

Why not? Christianity is a religion that is innately structured to tell other people what they should believe.

SOME varieties of Christianity take that approach, certainly. Not all.

It incites its followers to do precisely this.

And SOME of them do, certainly. Again -- not all.

And this comes directly from the scriptures. It is indeed the essence of what much of the scriptures preach:

(Deleted for brevity)

For so it is written in the inspired works of God.

How can I not response to those outrageous charges?

Easy. Ignore them. I do. I'm no longer a Christian, and those opinions and approaches don't matter to me. If you're not a fundamentalist Christian -- which you pretty clearly aren't -- why should they matter to you?

Many Muslims would call me an "Infidel" and declare that I richly deserve Muslim Hell because I do not worship Allah -- and even more outrageously, declare that as a Jew I am descended from apes and pigs -- but you don't see me getting all bent out of shape and feeling obligated to "respond" to them with more than an unspoken "Phfft." What's the problem with doing that?

And this comes straight from "The Horses Mouth" (i.e. straight from the so-called "Holy Scriptures" themselves).

And SOME varieties of Christianity emphasize those passages and read them in exactly the way you say. Not all.

Shouldn't I have the right to rebuttal on charges being directed to all of humanity.

Against those who actually believe and do the things that you describe here, which would include most conservative/fundamentalist/literalist Christians? Rebut away, if you feel that you HAVE to. I have no problem with it.

Just don't declare while you're doing it that this is the essential nature of Christianity and that all Christians HAVE TO take the position and attitudes that you describe here. You don't get to make that call. Besides -- isn't it a GOOD thing that not all do?

I'm a human too. Doesn't that give me the right to rebuttal?

I call people like John and Paul on the carpet. They have accused me of rejecting their "Christ". I accuse them of lying.

I think that's a fair case, and I'd be more than happy to take them to court over their slanderous accusations toward me. Especially when they have evidently gained many followers who have held these charges against their fellow man throughout history.

Good luck with finding someone to serve that subpoena. That isn't sarcasm; it's realism. They've been dead for two thousand years. What does being "more than happy to take them to court" actually mean?

Do you see my point? What you said there was a rhetorical flourish. Perhaps their words were too. Paul was no more in a position to condemn you to Hell than you are to drag him to court.

I think it's time for people to start recognizing that Paul is simply wrong. There are many quite rational reasons to reject these rumors about Jesus. And the people who find these rumors to be unbelievable do not only have valid "excuses", but their rejection of these rumors is fully justifiable in very rational and reasonable way.

So these are the kinds of accusations that I address in terms of Christianity.

I'm not trying to tell anyone what they need to believe. I'm just pointing out that there are many other rational explanations for these outrageous rumors, and that basically Paul is totally wrong. And therefore his teachings are totally wrong.

Errors in the Biblical cannon to be SURE.

And that's my only real point.

Of course, and a valid one it is. I just wonder who your audience is.

The hardshell fundamentalists are never -- repeat, NEVER -- going to accept that view. Everyone else either agrees with you or doesn't much care. Liberal Christians have already found their own ways around those passages, by considering them polemic hyperbole, symbolic in some way, or -- and this is worth noting -- by discounting the authority of Paul. Remember, not all Christians are literalists, and there's no law that says they have to be.

People who aren't fundamentalist Christians don't need to have this shown to us any more than we have to be shown that the world wasn't created in six 24-hour days, and people who are are perfectly prepared to stand by the literal truth of every verse that you quoted above with no internal conflicts or "cognitive dissonance" in what they believe.

Hey, different strokes. I myself spend a lot of time trying to tell some Christians that their religion isn't really "completed Judaism," but they don't listen to me either; I'm just wrong in their eyes, and that's it. I suppose I do it to show others who might be listening what actual Jews who have not become Christians think, and what the difference is. So I understand your impulse here; but what the point of it is, is less clear to me.

No offense intended. St. Francis used to preach to animals and birds -- and by more than one account, they listened. What do I know?

[Divine Insight]

Why not? Christianity is a religion that is innately structured to tell other people what they should believe.

SOME varieties of Christianity take that approach, certainly. Not all.

But I'm not really addressing any particular varieties. I'm addressing what the actual authors of the scriptures have proclaimed.

Varieties of Christianity that don't accept the words of John and Paul that I had posted previously basically have the same problem I have. They are basically not prepared to accept the whole biblical canon at face value either.

How can I not response to those outrageous charges?

Easy. Ignore them. I do. I'm no longer a Christian, and those opinions and approaches don't matter to me. If you're not a fundamentalist Christian -- which you pretty clearly aren't -- why should they matter to you?

To me, this is like asking a doctor who doesn't have cancer why he bothers to fight against cancer. It's not bothering him personally. He could just ignore it.

You are perfectly correct. On a personal level I could basically forget that Christianity exists altogether, and it's highly unlikely that I would ever be personally bothered by it ever again in my life.

And in truth Charles, that's probably a great idea actually.

I do have better things to do with my life. And I spend way too much time on here, like everyone else does.

These Internet forums truly are as addicting as Heroin.

And you almost set yourself free!

I think I may have been the evil influence that dragged you back on here.

Me bad. I should have encouraged you to go back to REAL LIFE like you were originally planning on doing.

[cnorman18]

Why not? Christianity is a religion that is innately structured to tell other people what they should believe.

SOME varieties of Christianity take that approach, certainly. Not all.

But I'm not really addressing any particular varieties. I'm addressing what the actual authors of the scriptures have proclaimed.

Which implies that the acceptance of a literal interpretation of the Bible as the Final Authority on what constitutes the Christian faith is not a characteristic of any particular variety of Christianity, but must necessarily be a common characteristic of all of them.

It isn't.

Varieties of Christianity that don't accept the words of John and Paul that I had posted previously basically have the same problem I have. They are basically not prepared to accept the whole biblical canon at face value either.

Show me the rule that says they have to -- and see if you can do it without citing a prooftext from the Bible, which of course begs the question.

How can I not response to those outrageous charges?

Easy. Ignore them. I do. I'm no longer a Christian, and those opinions and approaches don't matter to me. If you're not a fundamentalist Christian -- which you pretty clearly aren't -- why should they matter to you?

To me, this is like asking a doctor who doesn't have cancer why he bothers to fight against cancer. It's not bothering him personally. He could just ignore it.

Is it your JOB to correct what you perceive to be misconceptions about the nature of the Christian faith and argue against what you consider to be its essential tenets, whether Christians actually agree with your opinions or not? Is that what you have dedicated your life to, spent thousands of dollars and years of your life to educate yourself in order to become competent at doing, and does the rest of society agree that that function is vital and necessary? All that would be true of being a physician.

Can you see why the analogy is, shall we say, inapplicable? You could have said, with equivalent logic, "To me, this is like asking a police officer who hasn't been the victim of a crime why he bothers to seek out and arrest criminals. Crime is not bothering him personally. He could just ignore it."

Are you some kind of religious cop? Who appointed you such?

You are perfectly correct. On a personal level I could basically forget that Christianity exists altogether, and it's highly unlikely that I would ever be personally bothered by it ever again in my life.

And in truth Charles, that's probably a great idea actually.

I do have better things to do with my life. And I spend way too much time on here, like everyone else does.

These Internet forums truly are as addicting as Heroin.

And you almost set yourself free!

I think I may have been the evil influence that dragged you back on here.

Me bad. I should have encouraged you to go back to REAL LIFE like you were originally planning on doing.

I'll open to you the same offer I gave Kayky. When the time comes, we'll leave this place together and form a support group.

Who else is in?