Many times when the teachings of Jesus and his person are discussed, reference is made to a particular interpretation of what his words may be indicating. For example, I have read a discussion about a Jesus who denies or contradicts the Law of Moses. But that is an incorrect way of understanding Jesus, just like a political Jesus is or one who does not admit rich people among his followers, as if honest possessions were sin.
Can those who debate the teachings of Jesus at least begin to ascertain that the Jesus they suppose is the one that Scripture shows us and not an imaginary Jesus?
This topic is to analyze the need to be serious in the use of terms and premises, so that the debates adjust to the truth, and the conclusions are more accurate.
What is the Jesus you have in mind? Does it correspond to the Jesus of the Bible? Can you really know what Jesus was like?
The Jesus to whom atheists and others often refer
Moderator: Moderators
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: The Jesus to whom atheists and others often refer
Post #2Considering Bible Jesus can't be shown to've existed, and that human/god hybrids have never been shown to produce viable offspring, considering that folks can't walk on water, and how dead folk're awesome proud to be it, the most forgiving approach is to play along and discuss the imaginary.
To do otherwise - to assume a human/god hybrid existed to do the above is to do a severe harm to rational thought.
I see little need to be serious when discussing laughable claims.This topic is to analyze the need to be serious in the use of terms and premises, so that the debates adjust to the truth, and the conclusions are more accurate.
.
At best a carpenter who figured preaching was easier'n building.What is the Jesus you have in mind?
Only in name and chosen profession.Does it correspond to the Jesus of the Bible?
Only superficially.Can you really know what Jesus was like?
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- POI
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3286
- Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
- Has thanked: 1554 times
- Been thanked: 1051 times
Re: The Jesus to whom atheists and others often refer
Post #3Attention all... Looks as though the catalyst starts here: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39324&start=180
He has chosen to now block me. Well, you all can read the exchange and see for yourself.
Thanks, and carry on... I would respond to him, but he has 'blocked' me
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
-
- Banned
- Posts: 1775
- Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
- Has thanked: 43 times
- Been thanked: 213 times
- Contact:
Re: The Jesus to whom atheists and others often refer
Post #4The truth is everyone knows today that there is no need for a sexual act for a pregnancy to exist. Modern atheists have to update their way of thinking about the things that the Bible narrates. There is a lot of new knowledge that should change the way they look at biblical events.
Under "Miracles" in our Biblical Encyclopedia, we read:
Are miracles compatible with natural law?
Through study and observation, researchers have identified various uniform operations of things in the universe and have recognized laws covering such uniformity in natural phenomena. One such is ‘the law of gravity.’ Scientists admit the complexity and yet the reliability of these laws, and in calling them “laws” imply the existence of One who put such laws into force. Skeptics view a miracle as a violation of laws they accept as natural, irrevocable, inexorable; therefore, they say, a miracle never occurs. It is good to keep in mind that their attitude is that if it is not understandable and explainable to us as far as we discern these laws, it cannot happen.
However, capable scientists are becoming increasingly cautious about saying that a certain thing is impossible. Professor John R. Brobeck of the University of Pennsylvania stated: “A scientist is no longer able to say honestly something is impossible. He can only say it is improbable. But he may be able to say something is impossible to explain in terms of our present knowledge. Science cannot say that all properties of matter and all forms of energy are now known. . . . [For a miracle] one thing that needs to be added is a source of energy unknown to us in our biological and physiological sciences. In our Scriptures this source of energy is identified as the power of God.” (Time, July 4, 1955) Since this statement was made, further scientific development has made it more emphatic.
Scientists do not fully understand the properties of heat, light, atomic and nuclear action, electricity, or any of the forms of matter under even normal conditions. Even more deficient is their understanding of these properties under unusual or abnormal conditions. For example, it is relatively recently that extensive investigations have been made under conditions of extreme cold, but in this brief time, many strange actions of the elements have been observed. Lead, which is not an ideal electrical conductor, when immersed in liquid helium cooled to a temperature of −271° C. (−456° F.) strangely becomes a superconductor and a powerful electromagnet when a bar magnet is placed near it. At such supercold temperature helium itself appears to defy the law of gravity by creeping up the side of a glass beaker and over the edge, draining itself out of the container.—Matter, Life Science Library, 1963, pp. 68, 69.
This discovery is one of many that have astounded scientists, seeming to upset their former ideas. How, then, can anyone say that God violated his own laws in performing powerful works that seemed amazing and miraculous to men? Surely the Creator of the physical universe has perfect control of that which he created and can maneuver these things within the framework of the laws he has made inherent in them. (Job 38) He can bring about the condition necessary for the performance of these works; he can speed up, slow down, modify, or neutralize reactions. Or angels, with greater power than man, can do so in carrying out Jehovah’s will.—Ex 3:2; Ps 78:44-49.
Certainly the scientist is not superseding or going beyond physical laws when he applies more heat or cold, or more oxygen, and so forth, to speed up or slow down a chemical process. Nevertheless, skeptics challenge the Bible miracles, including the “miracle” of creation. These challengers are asserting, in effect, that they are familiar with all conditions and processes that ever took place. They are insisting that the operations of the Creator must be limited by the narrow confines of their understanding of the laws governing physical things.
This weakness on the part of scientists is acknowledged by a Swedish professor of plasma physics, who pointed out: “No one questions the obedience of the earth’s atmosphere to the laws of mechanics and atomic physics. All the same, it may be extremely difficult for us to determine how these laws operate with respect to any given situation involving atmospheric phenomena.” (Worlds-Antiworlds, by H. Alfvén, 1966, p. 5) The professor applied this thought to the origin of the universe. God established the physical laws governing the earth, sun, and moon, and within their framework men have been able to do marvelous things. Surely God could bring the laws to play so as to produce a result unexpected by humans; it would present no problem for him to split the Red Sea so that “the waters were a wall” on each side. (Ex 14:22) Though, to man, walking on water is an astounding feat, with what ease it could be accomplished in the power of “the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell.” Further, God is described as creating, and having control of, all the things in the heavens, and it is said that “due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them is missing.”—Isa 40:21, 22, 25, 26.
From https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003073
Under "Miracles" in our Biblical Encyclopedia, we read:
Are miracles compatible with natural law?
Through study and observation, researchers have identified various uniform operations of things in the universe and have recognized laws covering such uniformity in natural phenomena. One such is ‘the law of gravity.’ Scientists admit the complexity and yet the reliability of these laws, and in calling them “laws” imply the existence of One who put such laws into force. Skeptics view a miracle as a violation of laws they accept as natural, irrevocable, inexorable; therefore, they say, a miracle never occurs. It is good to keep in mind that their attitude is that if it is not understandable and explainable to us as far as we discern these laws, it cannot happen.
However, capable scientists are becoming increasingly cautious about saying that a certain thing is impossible. Professor John R. Brobeck of the University of Pennsylvania stated: “A scientist is no longer able to say honestly something is impossible. He can only say it is improbable. But he may be able to say something is impossible to explain in terms of our present knowledge. Science cannot say that all properties of matter and all forms of energy are now known. . . . [For a miracle] one thing that needs to be added is a source of energy unknown to us in our biological and physiological sciences. In our Scriptures this source of energy is identified as the power of God.” (Time, July 4, 1955) Since this statement was made, further scientific development has made it more emphatic.
Scientists do not fully understand the properties of heat, light, atomic and nuclear action, electricity, or any of the forms of matter under even normal conditions. Even more deficient is their understanding of these properties under unusual or abnormal conditions. For example, it is relatively recently that extensive investigations have been made under conditions of extreme cold, but in this brief time, many strange actions of the elements have been observed. Lead, which is not an ideal electrical conductor, when immersed in liquid helium cooled to a temperature of −271° C. (−456° F.) strangely becomes a superconductor and a powerful electromagnet when a bar magnet is placed near it. At such supercold temperature helium itself appears to defy the law of gravity by creeping up the side of a glass beaker and over the edge, draining itself out of the container.—Matter, Life Science Library, 1963, pp. 68, 69.
This discovery is one of many that have astounded scientists, seeming to upset their former ideas. How, then, can anyone say that God violated his own laws in performing powerful works that seemed amazing and miraculous to men? Surely the Creator of the physical universe has perfect control of that which he created and can maneuver these things within the framework of the laws he has made inherent in them. (Job 38) He can bring about the condition necessary for the performance of these works; he can speed up, slow down, modify, or neutralize reactions. Or angels, with greater power than man, can do so in carrying out Jehovah’s will.—Ex 3:2; Ps 78:44-49.
Certainly the scientist is not superseding or going beyond physical laws when he applies more heat or cold, or more oxygen, and so forth, to speed up or slow down a chemical process. Nevertheless, skeptics challenge the Bible miracles, including the “miracle” of creation. These challengers are asserting, in effect, that they are familiar with all conditions and processes that ever took place. They are insisting that the operations of the Creator must be limited by the narrow confines of their understanding of the laws governing physical things.
This weakness on the part of scientists is acknowledged by a Swedish professor of plasma physics, who pointed out: “No one questions the obedience of the earth’s atmosphere to the laws of mechanics and atomic physics. All the same, it may be extremely difficult for us to determine how these laws operate with respect to any given situation involving atmospheric phenomena.” (Worlds-Antiworlds, by H. Alfvén, 1966, p. 5) The professor applied this thought to the origin of the universe. God established the physical laws governing the earth, sun, and moon, and within their framework men have been able to do marvelous things. Surely God could bring the laws to play so as to produce a result unexpected by humans; it would present no problem for him to split the Red Sea so that “the waters were a wall” on each side. (Ex 14:22) Though, to man, walking on water is an astounding feat, with what ease it could be accomplished in the power of “the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell.” Further, God is described as creating, and having control of, all the things in the heavens, and it is said that “due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them is missing.”—Isa 40:21, 22, 25, 26.
From https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003073
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: The Jesus to whom atheists and others often refer
Post #5I just assume when folks block others they know they can't refute em - and that thought is so upsetting they prefer to ignore your very existence.POI wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 2:59 pmAttention all... Looks as though the catalyst starts here: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39324&start=180
He has chosen to now block me. Well, you all can read the exchange and see for yourself.
Thanks, and carry on... I would respond to him, but he has 'blocked' me
What you've written is hardly scandalous. Even if you're wrong, it reads like a sincere take on the issue.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: The Jesus to whom atheists and others often refer
Post #7Considering "natural law" is the only possibly conformable part of any 'miracle' that question is just goofy.Eloi wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 3:05 pm The truth is everyone knows today that there is no need for a sexual act for a pregnancy to exist. Modern atheists have to update their way of thinking about the things that the Bible narrates. There is a lot of new knowledge that should change the way they look at biblical events.
Under "Miracles" in our Biblical Encyclopedia, we read:
Are miracles compatible with natural law?
They're only 'implied' by folks who swear up and down a god they can't show exists is somehow involved - in ways they can't show he is.Through study and observation, researchers have identified various uniform operations of things in the universe and have recognized laws covering such uniformity in natural phenomena. One such is ‘the law of gravity.’ Scientists admit the complexity and yet the reliability of these laws, and in calling them “laws” imply the existence of One who put such laws into force.
As opposed to those who can't explain how they happened beyond, "Goddidit"?Skeptics view a miracle as a violation of laws they accept as natural, irrevocable, inexorable; therefore, they say, a miracle never occurs. It is good to keep in mind that their attitude is that if it is not understandable and explainable to us as far as we discern these laws, it cannot happen.
Good googly moogly, I'm an eighth grade dropout and since before I did, I knew the gaping chasm of a hole twixt impossible and improbable.However, capable scientists are becoming increasingly cautious about saying that a certain thing is impossible.
They're useful terms, and no scientist since at least the days of leeches ever confused the two.
Of course we can't say it's impossible for magic masses of levitating pasta noodles to gather together into a sentient entity, and magically raise a meatball off a plate. We don't even hafta to do the least bit of math though, to know it's improbable.
Well good for him. After having amassed him a mountain of learning, the difference twixt probable and possible woke him up from a deep slumber of a gap in his schooling, hit him with a frying pan, and now folks post his understanding as some deep insight into the ever present difficulties of trying to figure out how come probable ain't it the same as possible, when they're spelt so much alike.Professor John R. Brobeck of the University of Pennsylvania stated: “A scientist is no longer able to say honestly something is impossible. He can only say it is improbable. But he may be able to say something is impossible to explain in terms of our present knowledge. Science cannot say that all properties of matter and all forms of energy are now known. . . . [For a miracle] one thing that needs to be added is a source of energy unknown to us in our biological and physiological sciences. In our Scriptures this source of energy is identified as the power of God.” (Time, July 4, 1955) Since this statement was made, further scientific development has made it more emphatic.
Capillary action can make plain ol water scoot it up a shoelace.Scientists do not fully understand the properties of heat, light, atomic and nuclear action, electricity, or any of the forms of matter under even normal conditions. Even more deficient is their understanding of these properties under unusual or abnormal conditions. For example, it is relatively recently that extensive investigations have been made under conditions of extreme cold, but in this brief time, many strange actions of the elements have been observed. Lead, which is not an ideal electrical conductor, when immersed in liquid helium cooled to a temperature of −271° C. (−456° F.) strangely becomes a superconductor and a powerful electromagnet when a bar magnet is placed near it. At such supercold temperature helium itself appears to defy the law of gravity by creeping up the side of a glass beaker and over the edge, draining itself out of the container.—Matter, Life Science Library, 1963, pp. 68, 69.
Stuff acts according to it's properties ain't such a profound thing to find out, once ya do.
Who can show a god had anything to do with anything?This discovery is one of many that have astounded scientists, seeming to upset their former ideas. How, then, can anyone say that God violated his own laws in performing powerful works that seemed amazing and miraculous to men?
While you're carrying on how we oughta not discount a God's involvement, your doing nothing to show a god has an effect on anything - beyond the beliefs of humans anyway.
Then surely you can show such is the case.Surely the Creator of the physical universe has perfect control of that which he created and can maneuver these things within the framework of the laws he has made inherent in them. (Job 38) He can bring about the condition necessary for the performance of these works; he can speed up, slow down, modify, or neutralize reactions. Or angels, with greater power than man, can do so in carrying out Jehovah’s will.—Ex 3:2; Ps 78:44-49.
It ain't enough to say "it's possible" - ya oughta be able to show it's truth.
I challenge claimants, not their sacred texts.Certainly the scientist is not superseding or going beyond physical laws when he applies more heat or cold, or more oxygen, and so forth, to speed up or slow down a chemical process. Nevertheless, skeptics challenge the Bible miracles, including the “miracle” of creation. These challengers are asserting, in effect, that they are familiar with all conditions and processes that ever took place. They are insisting that the operations of the Creator must be limited by the narrow confines of their understanding of the laws governing physical things.
Though I note I'd just as well expect their texts to take up talking before I get me any truth out of them claimants.
So it should be easy to show God did all that.This weakness on the part of scientists is acknowledged by a Swedish professor of plasma physics, who pointed out: “No one questions the obedience of the earth’s atmosphere to the laws of mechanics and atomic physics. All the same, it may be extremely difficult for us to determine how these laws operate with respect to any given situation involving atmospheric phenomena.” (Worlds-Antiworlds, by H. Alfvén, 1966, p. 5) The professor applied this thought to the origin of the universe. God established the physical laws governing the earth, sun, and moon, and within their framework men have been able to do marvelous things.
Go ahead, show us.
Surely he could.Surely God could bring the laws to play so as to produce a result unexpected by humans; it would present no problem for him to split the Red Sea so that “the waters were a wall” on each side. (Ex 14:22) Though, to man, walking on water is an astounding feat, with what ease it could be accomplished in the power of “the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell.” Further, God is described as creating, and having control of, all the things in the heavens, and it is said that “due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them is missing."
...
Can anyone show he has?
Wishing and dreaming ain't proving and truthing.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- POI
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3286
- Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
- Has thanked: 1554 times
- Been thanked: 1051 times
Re: The Jesus to whom atheists and others often refer
Post #8Not sure if this is addressed to me? I would assume it might be; at least in part. I have addressed the issues. But when I do, you ignore them.
Seems your agenda here is not so much to debate?.?.?
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: The Jesus to whom atheists and others often refer
Post #9I'm reminded of when the pretty thing gets so mad at me she don't even wanna talk to me, she just has to tell me how much it is she don't.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- POI
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3286
- Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
- Has thanked: 1554 times
- Been thanked: 1051 times
Re: The Jesus to whom atheists and others often refer
Post #10Same here..JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 4:35 pmI'm reminded of when the pretty thing gets so mad at me she don't even wanna talk to me, she just has to tell me how much it is she don't.
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."