Repsonse to " Why Jesus could not be the messiah of the Old Testament"

I have been engaged in some apologetics discussion on Twitter of late. I've been challenge by OlderMusicGeek who says that Jesus does not fulfill Old Testament prophecy for the Messiah. I asked him to provide a prophecy that Jesus did not fulfill and he sent me this link to
Why Jesus could not be the messiah of the Old Testament By and large this article is inferior to the one I refuted in yesterday's post. So since I answered almost everyone of these yesterday, I will savbe my comments to the end and reiterate the most important points.

Christians are fond of claiming that Jesus fulfilled Old Testament messianic prophecies. But as we mentioned above in Argument # 3, the writers of the New Testament books often twisted verses from the Old Testament that had nothing to do with messianic prophecies, to try to make them fit into Jesus’ story. (In my opinion, that was very disrespectful to the Old Testament writers.) It was as though the Gospel advocates of the New Testament were desperate to look for anything in the Old Testament to try to fit their concept of Jesus as the messiah into it. In effect, it was a sort of “forced sequel.” Anyone who merely looks at the alleged Old Testament prophecies can see this. It’s quite obvious.

However, not only does Jesus not fit the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament scriptures, but what most Christians don’t know and are never told, is that Jesus also did not fulfill the actual intended messianic prophecies of the Old Testament and Torah! You see, Old Testament prophesized a messiah (or “moshiach” as modern Jews like to call it) who would re-establish the national kingdom of Israel as a nation, making it the powerful center of the world. This leader would live and thrive in the world, not die on the cross for our sins. That was never part of the plan! On the other hand, the concept of a messiah as savior and redeemer of the world is a Christian concept. This is explained by a section from a Judaism website:

http://www.jewfaq.org/moshiach.htm

“The word "moshiach" does not mean "savior." The notion of an innocent, divine or semi-divine being who will sacrifice himself to save us from the consequences of our own sins is a purely Christian concept that has no basis in Jewish thought. Unfortunately, this Christian concept has become so deeply ingrained in the English word "messiah" that this English word can no longer be used to refer to the Jewish concept. The word "moshiach" will be used throughout this page.”

In that same site, the prophecies about what the “moshiach” will do are explained:

“The moshiach will be a great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5). The moshiach is often referred to as "moshiach ben David" (moshiach, son of David). He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments. (Isaiah 11:2-5) He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15). But above all, he will be a human being, not a god, demi-god or other supernatural being………….

The moshiach will bring about the political and spiritual redemption of the Jewish people by bringing us back to Israel and restoring Jerusalem (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5). He will establish a government in Israel that will be the center of all world government, both for Jews and gentiles (Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:10; 42:1). He will rebuild the Temple and re-establish its worship (Jeremiah 33:18). He will restore the religious court system of Israel and establish Jewish law as the law of the land (Jeremiah 33:15).”

And according to that site on Jewish tradition, here is what this “moshiach” will bring to the world when he arrives:

“Olam Ha-Ba: The Messianic Age

The world after the messiah comes is often referred to in Jewish literature as Olam Ha-Ba (oh-LAHM hah-BAH), the World to Come. This term can cause some confusion, because it is also used to refer to a spiritual afterlife. In English, we commonly use the term "messianic age" to refer specifically to the time of the messiah.

Olam Ha-Ba will be characterized by the peaceful co-existence of all people. (Isaiah 2:4) Hatred, intolerance and war will cease to exist. Some authorities suggest that the laws of nature will change, so that predatory beasts will no longer seek prey and agriculture will bring forth supernatural abundance (Isaiah 11:6-11:9). Others, however, say that these statements are merely an allegory for peace and prosperity.

All of the Jewish people will return from their exile among the nations to their home in Israel (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5). The law of the Jubilee will be reinstated.

In the Olam Ha-Ba, the whole world will recognize the Jewish G-d as the only true G-d, and the Jewish religion as the only true religion (Isaiah 2:3; 11:10; Micah 4:2-3; Zechariah 14:9). There will be no murder, robbery, competition or jealousy. There will be no sin (Zephaniah 3:13). Sacrifices will continue to be brought in the Temple, but these will be limited to thanksgiving offerings, because there will be no further need for expiatory offerings.”

Obviously the Jesus of Christianity did not fulfill these requirements, contrary to what the church teaches. Instead, what the Christians do is take the prophecies that Jesus didn’t fulfill and try to claim that he will fulfill them in his future Second Coming. Nice try, but no cigar. The Judaism site addresses Jesus:

“What About Jesus?

Jews do not believe that Jesus was the moshiach. Assuming that he existed, and assuming that the Christian scriptures are accurate in describing him (both matters that are debatable), he simply did not fulfill the mission of the moshiach as it is described in the biblical passages cited above. Jesus did not do any of the things that the scriptures said the messiah would do.

On the contrary, another Jew born about a century later came far closer to fulfilling the messianic ideal than Jesus did. His name was Shimeon ben Kosiba, known as Bar Kochba (son of a star), and he was a charismatic, brilliant, but brutal warlord. Rabbi Akiba, one of the greatest scholars in Jewish history, believed that Bar Kochba was the moshiach. Bar Kochba fought a war against the Roman Empire, catching the Tenth Legion by surprise and retaking Jerusalem. He resumed sacrifices at the site of the Temple and made plans to rebuild the Temple. He established a provisional government and began to issue coins in its name. This is what the Jewish people were looking for in a moshiach; Jesus clearly does not fit into this mold. Ultimately, however, the Roman Empire crushed his revolt and killed Bar Kochba. After his death, all acknowledged that he was not the moshiach.”

For more detailed answers, another Jewish site entitled Jews for Judaism (http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/) provides explanations for the real Jewish messiah and why Jesus didn’t match the criteria. In this section of the site the “Second Coming” theory to try to reconcile the messianic prophecies is refuted:

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/general-messiah-jewishresponse.html

“9) The claim that Jesus will fulfill the Messianic prophesies when he returns does not give him any credibility for his “first” coming. The Bible never speaks about the Messiah returning after an initial appearance. The “second coming” theory is a desperate attempt to explain away Jesus’ failure. The Biblical passages which Christians are forced to regard as second coming (#5 above) don’t speak of someone returning, they have a “first coming” perspective.”

Also from the Jews for Judaism site, is a great handbook for dealing with and responding to Christian missionaries who try to convert them. You can read the handbook online at:

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/handbook/s_messiah.html

In it, the criteria for the true Jewish messiah are given:

“THE CRITERIA TO BE FULFILLED BY THE JEWISH MESSIAH

In an accurate translation of the Jewish Scriptures, the word "Moshiach" is never translated as "Messiah," but as "anointed."¹Nevertheless, Judaism has always maintained a fundamental belief in a Messianic figure. Since the concept of a Messiah is one that was given by G-d to the Jews, Jewish tradition is best qualified to describe and recognize the expected Messiah. This tradition has its foundation in numerous biblical references, many of which are cited below. Judaism understands the Messiah to be a human being (with no connotation of deity or divinity) who will bring about certain changes in the world and who must fulfill certain specific criteria before being acknowledged as the Messiah.

These specific criteria are as follows:

1) He must be Jewish. (Deuteronomy 17:15, Numbers 24:17)

2) He must be a member of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10) and a direct male descendent of both King David (I Chronicles 17:11, Psalm 89:29-38, Jeremiah 33:17, II Samuel 7:12-16) and King Solomon. (I Chronicles 22:10, II Chronicles 7:18)

3) He must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel. (Isaiah 27:12-13, Isaiah 11:12)

4) He must rebuild the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. (Micah 4:1)

5) He must bring world peace. (Isaiah 2:4, Isaiah 11:6, Micah 4:3)

6) He must influence the entire world to acknowledge and serve one G-d. (Isaiah 11:9, Isaiah 40:5, Zephaniah 3:9)

All of these criteria for the Messiah are best stated in the book of Ezekiel chapter 37:24-28:

"And My servant David will be a king over them, and they will all have one shepherd, and they will walk in My ordinances, and keep My statutes, and observe them, and they shall live on the land that I gave to Jacob My servant...and I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant and I will set my sanctuary in their midst forever and My dwelling place shall be with them, and I will be their G-d and they will be My people. And the nations will know that I am the Lord who sanctifies Israel, when My sanctuary is in their midst forever."

If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, he cannot be the Messiah.”

Finally, in the next section of the handbook, a funny story is given that illustrates how the New Testament writers created Jesus’ fulfilled prophecies.

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/handbook/s_refuting.html

“While traveling through a forest, a person noticed a circle marked on a tree with an arrow shot perfectly into the center. A few yards away he noticed several more targets, each with arrows in the center. Later, he met the talented archer and he asked him, "How did you become such an expert that you always get your arrows into the center of the bull's-eye?" "It's not difficult," responded the archer, "First I shoot the arrow and then I draw the circle."”

Jesus did fulfill the "suffering servant" messianic prophecies of the Old Testament. Pure and Simple. And the ones about King and Lord, restoring Israel, and all the triumphant political and natural victories will see their fulfillment in the second coming. This artictle picks at the prophecies yet to be fulfilled and doesn't touch on the more than 200 prophecies that Jesus has already fulfilled. Prophecies that in no way one person could fulfill them all by coincidence. One such prophecy is that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. Was Bar Kochban born in Bethtlehem? I can find nothing that says he was. Jesus was! How can the one who this article is waiting for going to fulfill Isaiah 523 and Psalm 22? I mean the Messiah has to fulfill all of them!

Here is my list of links
http://www.konig.org/messianic.htm
http://www.bprc.org/topics/fulfill.html

Why You Should Be A Christian. Response to Richard Carrier Pt 2/6

A well-written essay is on the internet called, "Why I am Not Christian" by Richard Carrier (on the left). It's long, respectful, and well written. It compels a response. His criticisms of Christians are well founded but his charges against God are mistaken and unfounded. The essay was written in 2006 and is divided into six parts. I'm going to interact with his responses and divide my essay also into six parts. His words will be in black and mine will be red. His Top four reasons for rejecting Christianity are: 1. God is Silent. 2. God is inert. 3. Inadequate evidence for God. 4. Christianity predicts a different universe. Here is my refutation of point 1.

1. God is Silent

If God wants something from me, he would tell me. He wouldn't leave someone else to do this, as if an infinite being were short on time. And he would certainly not leave fallible, sinful humans to deliver an endless plethora of confused and contradictory messages. God would deliver the message himself, directly, to each and every one of us, and with such clarity as the most brilliant being in the universe could accomplish. We would all hear him out and shout "Eureka!" So obvious and well-demonstrated would his message be. It would be spoken to each of us in exactly those terms we would understand. And we would all agree on what that message was. Even if we rejected it, we would all at least admit to each other, "Yes, that's what this God fellow told me."[2]

God does tells us what He wants. It's in the Bible. The problem is not that the messages are contradictory or garbled it's that people do reject it and substitute their own ideas. The Bible does make sense if you read it. If I have a thought or idealology that conflicts with something that the Bible plainly says, then I have to make a choice. Am I going to accept the Word of God, or am I going to go by what I think. Sometimes people do what they think.

Excuses don't fly. The Christian proposes that a supremely powerful being exists who wants us to set things right, and therefore doesn't want us to get things even more wrong. This is an intelligible hypothesis, which predicts there should be no more confusion about which religion or doctrine is true than there is about the fundamentals of medicine, engineering, physics, chemistry, or even meteorology. It should be indisputably clear what God wants us to do, and what he doesn't want us to do. Any disputes that might still arise about that would be as easily and decisively resolved as any dispute between two doctors, chemists, or engineers as to the right course to follow in curing a patient, identifying a chemical, or designing a bridge. Yet this is not what we observe. Instead, we observe exactly the opposite: unresolvable disagreement and confusion. That is clearly a failed prediction. A failed prediction means a false theory. Therefore, Christianity is false.

The assertion that a "failed prediction means a false theory" is true. And I clearly agree that the prediction Carrier makes is false. The problem is that prediction is not based on the Bible, therefore it is not what Christians believe. Carrier suggest that God's purpose is for human being to set things right and not mess things up any further. God tells us in His Word that only He can set things right. All we can do is mess things up. Why would He leave it in our hands. Jeremiah 17:9, 10 says:

⁹ The heart is deceitful above all things
and beyond cure.
Who can understand it?

¹⁰ "I the LORD search the heart
and examine the mind,
to reward a man according to his conduct,
according to what his deeds deserve."

In John 3:16-21, Jesus Says

¹⁶"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,^f]">[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. ¹⁷For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. ¹⁸Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.^g]">[g] ¹⁹This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. ²⁰Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. ²¹But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."^h]">[h]

Jesus is clear. It's not that people don't have enough evidence. They reject what they have.

Typically, Christians try to make excuses for God that protect our free will. Either the human will is more powerful than the will of God, and therefore can actually block his words from being heard despite all his best and mighty efforts, or God cares more about our free choice not to hear him than about saving our souls, and so God himself "chooses" to be silent. Of course, there is no independent evidence of either this remarkable human power to thwart God, or this peculiar desire in God, and so this is a completely "ad hoc" theory: something just "made up" out of thin air in order to rescue the actual theory that continually fails to fit the evidence. But for reasons I'll explore later, such "added elements" are never worthy of belief unless independently confirmed: you have to know they are true. You can't just "claim" they are true. Truth is not invented. It can only be discovered. Otherwise, Christianity is just a hypothesis that has yet to find sufficient confirmation in actual evidence.

Carrier is right here. I disagree that human free will should be protected. It makes no sense. We can't block God or stop God from doing what He wants to do. God does not care about our free will more than saving our souls. No one can truly say he/she understand why God just doesn't force everyone to do what He desires and do no evil. I don't have answer for that. But God is not silent on the issue.

¹⁴What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! ¹⁵For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."^f]">[f] ¹⁶It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. ¹⁷For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."^g]">[g] ¹⁸Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

¹⁹One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" ²⁰But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "^h]">[h] ²¹Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

²²What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? ²³What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— ²⁴even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? - Romans 9:14-21

God tells us in the Bible that there are things that we are not just going to understand (see Isaiah 55: 6-11

⁶ Seek the LORD while he may be found;
call on him while he is near.

⁷ Let the wicked forsake his way
and the evil man his thoughts.
Let him turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on him,
and to our God, for he will freely pardon.

⁸ "For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,"
declares the LORD.

⁹ "As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

¹⁰ As the rain and the snow
come down from heaven,
and do not return to it
without watering the earth
and making it bud and flourish,
so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,

¹¹ so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

And see Deuteronomy 29:29:

The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.

Be that as it may. Though "maybe, therefore probably" is not a logical way to arrive at any belief, let's assume the Christian can somehow "prove" (with objective evidence everyone can agree is relevant and true) that we have this power or God has this desire. Even on that presumption, there are unsolvable problems with this "additional" hypothesis. Right from the start, it fails to explain why believers disagree. The fact that believers can't agree on the content of God's message or desires also refutes the theory that he wants us to be clear on these things. This failed prediction cannot be explained away by any appeal to free will--for these people have chosen to hear God, and not only to hear him, but to accept Jesus Christ as the shepherd of their very soul. So no one can claim these people chose not to hear God. Therefore, either God is telling them different things, or there is no God. Even if there is a God, but he is deliberately sowing confusion, this contradicts what Christianity predicts to be God's desire, which entails Christianity is the wrong religion. Either way, Christianity is false.

God is not the author of confusion so the problem is not with the message. The issue is with the people receiving the message. We use our own predilections and bias and force them on scripture. So much so that people choose to stop listening to God. They would rather lean on their understanding rather than do the extra work of study and honest prayer.

So this theory doesn't work. It fails to predict what we actually observe. But even considering atheists like me, this "ad hoc" excuse still fails to save Christianity from the evidence. When I doubted the Big Bang theory, I voiced the reasons for my doubts but continued to pursue the evidence, frequently speaking with several physicists who were "believers." Eventually, they presented all the logic and evidence in terms I understood, and I realized I was wrong: the Big Bang theory is well-supported by the evidence and is at present the best explanation of all the facts by far. Did these physicists violate my free will? Certainly not. I chose to pursue the truth and hear them out. So, too, I and countless others have chosen to give God a fair hearing--if only he would speak. I would listen to him even now, at this very moment. Yet he remains silent. Therefore, it cannot be claimed that I am "choosing" not to hear him. And therefore, the fact that he still does not speak refutes the hypothesis. Nothing about free will can save the theory here.

Christianity has nothing to do with free will. It's not about us. It's about God and what he wants to do. If you have not studied the Bible and checked it out, then you haven't given God a fair hearing.

Even when we might actually credit free will with resisting God's voice--like the occasional irrational atheist, or the stubbornly mistaken theist--the Christian theory is still not compatible with the premise that God would not or could not overcome this resistance. Essential to the Christian hypothesis, as C.S. Lewis says, is the proposition that God is "quite definitely good" and "loves love and hates hatred." Unless these statements are literally meaningless, they entail that God would behave like anyone else who is "quite definitely good" and "loves love and hates hatred." And such people don't give up on someone until their resistance becomes intolerable--until then, they will readily violate someone's free will to save them, because they know darned well it is the right thing to do. God would do the same. He would not let the choice of a fallible, imperfect being thwart his own good will.

I don't like this analogy. It assumes that because God is good He is obligated to save everyone. He is not obligated to save anyone. We all deserve to go to Hell and be eternally separated from God. It is because God's grace we get mercy! Neither grace nor mercy can be extorted or demanded. They can only be received. God's definition of "good" does not match the world's definition.

I know this for a fact. Back in my days as a flight-deck firefighter, when our ship's helicopter was on rescue missions, we had to stand around in our gear in case of a crash. There was usually very little to do, so we told stories. One I heard was about a rescue swimmer. She had to pull a family out of the water from a capsized boat, but by the time the chopper got there, it appeared everyone had drowned except the mother, who was for that reason shedding her life vest and trying to drown herself. The swimmer dove in to rescue her, but she kicked and screamed and yelled to let her die. She even gave the swimmer a whopping black eye. But the swimmer said to hell with that, I'm bringing you in! And she did, enduring her curses and blows all the way.

Later, it turned out that one of the victim's children, her daughter, had survived. She had drifted pretty far from the wreck, but the rescue team pulled her out, and the woman who had beaten the crap out of her rescuer apologized and thanked her for saving her against her will. Everyone in my group agreed the rescue swimmer had done the right thing, and we all would have done the same--because that is what a loving, caring being does. It follows that if God is a loving being, he will do no less for us. In the real world, kind people don't act like some stubborn, pouting God who abandons the drowning simply because they don't want to be helped. They act like this rescue swimmer. They act like us.

God does change our will when he saves us. He replaces a heart of stone with a heart of flesh so that we can choose to follow him. The analogy is faulty. Jesus is like the rescue worker saving people who are drowning and don't know that they are drowning. God does not pout over those who are lost because they did not stop Him from saving them. He chooses and selects. All those He chooses to save will be saved.

So we can be certain God would make sure he told everyone, directly, what his message was. Everyone would then know what God had told them. They can still reject it all they want, and God can leave them alone. But there would never be, in any possible Christian universe, any confusion or doubt as to what God's message was. And if we had questions, God himself would answer them--just like the Big Bang physicists who were so patient with me. Indeed, the very fact that God gave the same message and answers to everyone would be nearly insurmountable proof that Christianity was true. Provided we had no reason to suspect God of lying to all of us, Christianity would be as certain as the law of gravity or the color of the sky. That is what the Christian hypothesis entails we should observe--for it is what a good and loving God would do, who wanted us all to set right what has gone wrong. And since this is not what we observe, but in fact the exact opposite, the evidence quite soundly refutes Christianity.

How do you know that God tells everyone all of the message and all at the same time? He doesn't. Assuming that because He doesn't is He doesn't say anything is false. Why assume that this is what a "good and loving" god would do? The Bible states that none of us has all of the message.

¹¹When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. ¹²Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

¹³And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. - 1 Corinthians 13:11-13

Despite this conclusion, Christians still try to hold on to their faith with this nonsense about free will--but they haven't thought it through. Meteorologists can disagree about the weather forecast, but they all agree how weather is made and the conditions that are required for each kind of weather to arise. And they agree about this because the scientific evidence is so vast and secure that it resolves these questions, often decisively. It can't be claimed that God has violated the free will of meteorologists by providing them with all this evidence. And yet how much more important is salvation than the physics of weather! If God wants what Christianity says he wants, he would not violate our free will to educate us on the trivial and then refuse to do the same for the most important subject of all. Likewise, if a doctor wants a patient to get well, he is not vague about how he must do this, but as clear as can be. He explains what is needed in terms the patient can understand. He even answers the patient's questions, and whenever asked will present all the evidence for and against the effectiveness of the treatment. He won't hold anything back and declare, "I'm not going to tell you, because that would violate your free will!" Nor would any patient accept such an excuse--to the contrary, he would respond, "But I choose to hear you," leaving the doctor no such excuse.

God has clearly stated what the problem is: Sin. Complaining about how He has chosen to deliver the message of salvation and the remedy is silly. We have to trust God. He does tell us regardless of our free will. The Gospel will go out over the whole world and continue.

There can't be any excuse for God, either. There are always disagreements, and there are always people who don't follow what they are told or what they know to be true. But that doesn't matter. Chemists all agree on the fundamental facts of chemistry. Doctors all agree on the fundamental facts of medicine. Engineers all agree on the fundamental facts of engineering. So why can't all humans agree on the fundamental facts of salvation? There is no more reason that they should be confused or in the dark about this than that chemists, doctors, and engineers should be confused or in the dark.

Engineers and scientist do not agree on conclusions and facts. They argue constantly. There are plenty of confusions. Just because people claiming to be Christians don't agree on the message or how to live does not matter. Some of us are wrong about somethings and some of us are right on somethings.

¹³Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. ¹⁴As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food^b]">[b] is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. ¹⁵If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. ¹⁶Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. ¹⁷For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, ¹⁸because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

¹⁹Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. ²⁰Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. ²¹It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

²²So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. ²³But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin. - Romans 14:13-23

The logically inevitable fact is, if the Christian God existed, we would all hear from God himself the same message of salvation, and we would all hear, straight from God, all the same answers to all the same questions. The Chinese would have heard it. The Native Americans would have heard it. Everyone today, everywhere on Earth, would be hearing it, and their records would show everyone else in history had heard it, too. Sure, maybe some of us would still balk or reject that message. But we would still have the information. Because the only way to make an informed choice is to have the required information. So a God who wanted us to make an informed choice would give us all the information we needed, and not entrust fallible, sinful, contradictory agents to convey a confused mess of ambiguous, poorly supported claims. Therefore, the fact that God hasn't spoken to us directly, and hasn't given us all the same, clear message, and the same, clear answers, is enough to prove Christianity false.

God has spoken to the whole human race and puts us where we need to be so that we can best find him. I don't know how He does that for everyone but He certainly did it for me.

²⁴"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. ²⁵And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. ²⁶From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. ²⁷God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. ²⁸'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' - Act 17:24-28

Just look at what Christians are saying. They routinely claim that God is your father and best friend. Yet if that were true, we would observe all the same behaviors from God that we observe from our fathers and friends. But we don't observe this. Therefore, there is no God who is our father or our friend. The logic of this is truly unassailable, and no "free will" excuse can escape it. For my father and friends aren't violating my free will when they speak to me, help me, give me advice, and answer my questions. Therefore, God would not violate my free will if he did so. He must be able to do at least as much as they do, even if for some reason he couldn't do more. But God doesn't do anything at all. He doesn't talk to, teach, help, or comfort us, unlike my real father and my real friends. God doesn't tell us when we hold a mistaken belief that shall hurt us. But my father does, and my friends do. Therefore, no God exists who is even remotely like my father or my friends, or anyone at all who loves me. Therefore, Christianity is false.

No, God does deal with us as the perfect father. Don't forget that the Bible reveals that without Christ you have no will that is even remotely free. We are enslaved to sin and incapable of being sinless. Charist came and lived the perfect life in our place. When we go to heaven its not because of us, its about who Jesus is and what He did. We ride his coat-tails.

The conclusion is inescapable. If Christianity were true, then the Gospel would have been preached to each and every one of us directly, and correctly, by God--just as it supposedly was to the disciples who walked and talked and dined with God Himself, or to the Apostle Paul, who claimed to have had actual conversations with God, and to have heard the Gospel directly from God Himself. Was their free will violated? Of course not. Nor would ours be. Thus, if Christianity were really true, there would be no dispute as to what the Gospel is. There would only be our free and informed choice to accept or reject it. At the same time, all our sincere questions would be answered by God, kindly and clearly, and when we compared notes, we would find that the Voice of God gave consistent answers and messages to everyone all over the world, all the time. So if Christianity were true, there would be no point in "choosing" whether God exists anymore than there is a choice whether gravity exists or whether all those other people exist whom we love or hate or help or hurt. We would not face any choice to believe on insufficient and ambiguous evidence, but would know the facts, and face only the choice whether to love and accept the God that does exist. That this is not the reality, yet it would be the reality if Christianity were true, is proof positive that Christianity is false.

God did not choose to talk to us today the way he did to the disciples. But it's still the complete message. Jesus said in John 20:29-31

²⁹Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

³⁰Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. ³¹But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

So although we did not walk, talk, and see Jesus personally, we are blessed today because have more of the full picture than they did. We have the entirety of the Bible. If you wanna know what God wants you to know all you gotta do is read it.

Response to "Why is Jesus not the Messiah for Jews?"

I have been engaged in some apologetics discussion on Twitter of late. I've been challenge by OlderMusicGeek who says that Jesus does not fulfill Old Testament prophecy for the Messiah. I asked him to provide a prophecy that Jesus did not fulfill and he sent me this link to Why is Jesus not the Messiah for Jews? The interesting thing to note is that Jesus defended His claims to be Messiah during His earthly ministry. Paul and the other apostles did the same. It is from these sources I will respond.

Question
I attend a Pentecostal church and my pastor spoke about how Jews rejected Jesus as their messiah. Why do Jews not accept Jesus as God? I just wanted a Jewish perspective.

Here the answer given with my comments in red.


It is important to understand the biblical-historical context of Judaism. Rather than using the term that Jews “reject” Jesus as our messiah. It is better to state that Jews “do not accept” Jesus as our messiah.

Jesus was a Jewish Pharisaic rabbi who kept Shabbat, was circumcised, and observed Pesach. His ideas were carried by his followers and canonized in the Christian Bible.

Many Jews no longer believe in a personal messiah, and now believe in a Messianic Era which involves all of us perfecting the world through tikkun olam (“reparation of the world”).

While it is conceivable that some of today's Jews may now reject the idea of a personal messiah, no one can argue that the first century Jews held that view. They were looking for a personal Messiah to come. Changing the definition now, does not make sense and the author gives no valid proof for change in view. It seems much the same way that many people no longer believe in a personal god either. Looks like "New Age" thinking has permeated Judaism as it has everything else. Moses believed in a person coming.

¹⁴ The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the LORD your God has not permitted you to do so. ¹⁵ The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him. ¹⁶ For this is what you asked of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, "Let us not hear the voice of the LORD our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die." Deuteronomy 18-14-16

In the first century of the common era so did the Jewish leaders. They expected that the one whom Moses spoke of and the Messiah were the same person.


Christians accept Jesus as God incarnate and as the sacrifice for their sins. According to Judaism, the messiah is a human and is not God. Also, human sacrifice was prohibited by God at the binding of Isaac; therefore, Jesus cannot be a human sacrifice. A polemic question often posed by Jews and non-Jews is, “How God can die?”

Ok, if the Messiah human, then that mean the Messiah is personal. This knocks down the discussion above this paragraph because the author conflicts with himself. The question of" how God can die"can best be answered in more full detail in another post. This essay concentrated on Jesus' claim to being messiah so i I will do the same.

Jews believe that we must observe the commandments, behave righteously, and atone through ourselves for our own transgressions and not make those transgressions again. We do not require an intermediary to provide atonement.

What? Judaism does not require an intermediary to provide atonement? That's not what God said through Moses.

"If a person sins and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD's commands, even though he does not know it, he is guilty and will be held responsible. ¹⁸ He is to bring to the priest as a guilt offering a ram from the flock, one without defect and of the proper value. In this way the priest will make atonement for him for the wrong he has committed unintentionally, and he will be forgiven. ¹⁹ It is a guilt offering; he has been guilty of wrongdoing against the LORD." - Leviticus 5:17-19

And this is not the only place that the Torah recognizes that people are unable to keep the Law themselves and be righteous at the level God demands. Of course we need a mediator between us and God. That was Moses role. That is what he did for the people. Moses was a picture of what the Messiah would be.



The Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) establishes and enumerates criteria that the messiah must fulfill, which we have determined that Jesus does not qualify. I do not present these to disparage your Christian beliefs, but I do this to clarify the Jewish position. Jews believe that non-Jews are just as righteous as Jews, and are only obligated to fulfill the seven Noahide laws.

Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah because:

1) Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.
2) Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.
3) Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations.
4) Jewish belief is based on national revelation.

At the end of this article, we will examine these additional topics:

5) Christianity contradicts Jewish theology
6) Jews and Gentiles
7) Bringing the Messiah

Fair enough. Let's look at each of these point in turn.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) JESUS DID NOT FULFILL THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES

What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:
A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

The historical fact is that Jesus fulfilled none of these messianic prophecies.

Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming, but Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright, and no concept of a second coming exists.

I'm glad he said that no Jewish sources confirm a second coming, but I would like to ask "what about all the messianic prophecies about the messiah dying - being betrayed, tortured, and vindicated?" Those Jews who hold that the Messiah must fulfill those scriptures outright also believe that the Messiah must fulfill scriptures like Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 outright also? If the Messiah must also fulfil these, then when will he do that...before or after he fulfills: Ezekiel 37:26-28,Isaiah 43:5-6,Isaiah 2:4, and Zechariah 14:9? Now unless you wanna argue that there are two Messiahs, then you have to ask are we waiting for two or for one? S0, can't have it both ways, unless we agree that there is one Messiah and He fulfills all these scriptures at different times.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

2) JESUS DID NOT EMBODY THE PERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF MESSIAH

A. MESSIAH AS PROPHET

Jesus was not a prophet. Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry. During the time of Ezra (circa 300 BCE), when the majority of Jews refused to move from Babylon to Israel, prophecy ended upon the death of the last prophets -- Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.
Jesus appeared on the scene approximately 350 years after prophecy had ended.

First, where does the Hebrew Bible say "Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry."? From Ezekiel and Jeremiah through Malachi there was prophecy and the land was not mostly inhabited by Jews. Jesus prophesied the destruction of the 2nd Temple. He made the prophecy before 33 AD and Rome destroyed the Temple and Jerusalem about 70 AD.

¹As he was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!" ²"Do you see all these great buildings?" replied Jesus. "Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down. - Mark 13:1,2

There are other example of Jesus telling the Future. He told Peter that Peter would deny Jesus before the rooster crows and Peter did.

B. DESCENDENT OF DAVID

The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father -- and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father's side from King David!
What about his Mother's? Mary was also a descendant of Kind David. Not just Joseph. By the way, thanks for accepting the virgin birth.
C. TORAH OBSERVANCE

The Messiah will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all mitzvot remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4)
Throughout the New Testament, Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. (see John 1:45 and 9:16, Acts 3:22 and 7:37)

I think the first reference may be a typo, but let's look at the second. In the context of John 9:16, the Jewish Leaders were angry with Jesus because they said He broke the sabbath. Look at the text. How did Jesus break the sabbath in their opinion? What crime did Jesus commit? Jesus healed a Blind man who had been blind from birth! Jesus did not break the sabbath, only the man-made rules that people put up around the sabbath. I challenge anyone to tell me how healing someone on the sabbath is breaking the Torah. As for Acts 3:22 and 7:37 These are Peter and Steven equating the Prophet Moses spoke of with Jesus. How does this help the author's argument?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

3) MISTRANSLATED VERSES "REFERRING" TO JESUS

Biblical verses can only be understood by studying the original Hebrew text -- which reveals many discrepancies in the Christian translation.

A. VIRGIN BIRTH

The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 7:14 describing an "alma" as giving birth. The word "alma" has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as "virgin." This accords Jesus' birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by gods.
Look at the verse in question: Isaiah 7:14

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

This is a bad argument. "Virgin" was used by the Jewish translators of the Old Testament into Greek - the Septuagint. This is the bible that the Jews and the first Christians Used. Y'know...before and while the New Testament was being written. So Why is "virign" the correct translation? Every where alma is used, "virigin" can be used without qualification. Also in the verse the word translated "sign" always refers to special and distinctive actions. Therefore a virgin birth of Christ is in reference here. Also in context this will be a special child. "Immanuel" means "God with us"! God incarnated and dwelling among His people!

B. CRUCIFIXION

The verse in Psalms 22:17 reads: "Like a lion, they are at my hands and feet." The Hebrew word ki-ari (like a lion) is grammatically similar to the word "gouged." Thus Christianity reads the verse as a reference to crucifixion: "They pierced my hands and feet."

I'm thinking that the author's argument that Jesus' crucifixion excludes Him from being Messiah, but I don't understand why. Psalm 22 is about the Messiah and attributed to King David.

C. SUFFERING SERVANT

Christianity claims that Isaiah chapter 53 refers to Jesus, as the "suffering servant."
In actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews ("Israel") are regarded as one unit. The Torah is filled with examples of the Jewish nation referred to with a singular pronoun.
Ironically, Isaiah's prophecies of persecution refer in part to the 11th century when Jews were tortured and killed by Crusaders who acted in the name of Jesus.
From where did these mistranslations stem? St. Gregory, 4th century Bishop of Nanianzus, wrote: "A little jargon is all that is necessary to impose on the people. The less they comprehend, the more they admire."
I disagree. How does Isaiah 53 refer to Israel and not the Messiah? I don't see how any of the prophecy could possibly refer to Israel. For example, when have the people of Israel ever fit this picture?

¹⁰ Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes span his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

¹¹ After the suffering of his soul,
he will see the light of life and be satisfied ;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.

Fits Jesus really well though - 700 years before His Birth. The whole chapter fits him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

4) JEWISH BELIEF IS BASED SOLELY ON NATIONAL REVELATION

Of the 15,000 religions in human history, only Judaism bases its belief on national revelation -- i.e. God speaking to the entire nation. If God is going to start a religion, it makes sense He'll tell everyone, not just one person.
Judaism, unique among all of the world's major religions, does not rely on "claims of miracles" as the basis for its religion. In fact, the Bible says that God sometimes grants the power of "miracles" to charlatans, in order to test Jewish loyalty to the Torah (Deut. 13:4).
Maimonides states (Foundations of Torah, ch. 8):
The Jews did not believe in Moses, our teacher, because of the miracles he performed. Whenever anyone's belief is based on seeing miracles, he has lingering doubts, because it is possible the miracles were performed through magic or sorcery. All of the miracles performed by Moses in the desert were because they were necessary, and not as proof of his prophecy.
What then was the basis of [Jewish] belief? The Revelation at Mount Sinai, which we saw with our own eyes and heard with our own ears, not dependent on the testimony of others... as it says, "Face to face, God spoke with you..." The Torah also states: "God did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us -- who are all here alive today." (Deut. 5:3)
Judaism is not miracles. It is the personal eyewitness experience of every man, woman and child, standing at Mount Sinai 3,300 years ago.
Amen. The same is said about Jesus. We believe Moses and Jesus through relationship. The Torah is based on Relationship. We now have better. We can have a closer and deeper relationship than they did at the foot of Mt Sinai. Through Jesus, you can come to God's very throne. Justified in Jesus' righteousness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----

5) CHRISTIANITY CONTRADICTS JEWISH THEOLOGY

The following theological points apply primarily to the Roman Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination, and the one most familiar to the Western world.


A. GOD AS THREE?

The Catholic idea of Trinity breaks God into three separate beings: The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19).
Contrast this to the Shema, the basis of Jewish belief: "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is ONE" (Deut. 6:4). Jews declare the Shema every day, while writing it on doorposts (Mezuzah), and binding it to the hand and head (Tefillin). This statement of God's One-ness is the first words a Jewish child is taught to say, and the last words uttered before a Jew dies.
In Jewish law, worship of a three-part god is considered idolatry -- one of the three cardinal sins that a Jew should rather give up his life than transgress. This explains why during the Inquisitions and throughout history, Jews gave up their lives rather than convert.

Fundamental misunderstanding of the Trinity. I don't have the time to give the full treatment this deserves, so instead I will state the doctrine correctly. God is one in being and essense. Three in person. From a human stand point sing being equal single personhood. However, God is not not bound by this. We agree with the Shema. "The Lord, our God, the Lord is ONE". Now the question is "One what?" One being? One person? What? We believe God is "One what?" - Being. And "Three Whos" - Father, Son. and Holy Spirit.

B. MAN AS GOD?

Christians believe that God came down to earth in human form, as Jesus said: "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30).
Maimonides devotes most of the "Guide for the Perplexed" to the fundamental idea that God is incorporeal, meaning that He assumes no physical form. God is Eternal, above time. He is Infinite, beyond space. He cannot be born, and cannot die. Saying that God assumes human form makes God small, diminishing both His unity and His divinity. As the Torah says: "God is not a mortal" (Numbers 23:19).
Judaism says that the Messiah will be born of human parents, and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, and will not possess supernatural qualities. In fact, an individual is alive in every generation with the capacity to step into the role of the Messiah. (see Maimonides - Laws of Kings 11:3)

Not to disparage Maimonides but Abraham and Moses said different. Look at Genesis 18. The best explanation I have heard for this is in the form of a song called Theophanies.

C. INTERMEDIARY FOR PRAYER?

The Catholic belief is that prayer must be directed through an intermediary -- i.e. confessing one's sins to a priest. Jesus himself is an intermediary, as Jesus said: "No man cometh unto the Father but by me."
In Judaism, prayer is a totally private matter, between each individual and God. As the Bible says: "God is near to all who call unto Him" (Psalms 145:18). Further, the Ten Commandments state: "You shall have no other gods BEFORE ME," meaning that it is forbidden to set up a mediator between God and man. (see Maimonides - Laws of Idolatry ch. 1)
Most Protestant Denominations agree with the author of this article on this point. I know I do.

D. INVOLVEMENT IN THE PHYSICAL WORLD

Catholic doctrine often treats the physical world as an evil to be avoided. Mary, the holiest woman, is portrayed as a virgin. Priests and nuns are celibate. And monasteries are in remote, secluded locations.
By contrast, Judaism believes that God created the physical world not to frustrate us, but for our pleasure. Jewish spirituality comes through grappling with the mundane world in a way that uplifts and elevates. Sex in the proper context is one of the holiest acts we can perform.
The Talmud says if a person has the opportunity to taste a new fruit and refuses to do so, he will have to account for that in the World to Come. Jewish rabbinical schools teach how to live amidst the bustle of commercial activity. Jews don't retreat from life, we elevate it.

Again this is where not all Chrisitians would like to be lumped in with Roman Catholicism. I don't agree with them but with you..except for refusing to taste new fruit being a sin. ...but i get the point being made and I agree.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

6) JEWS AND GENTILES

Judaism does not demand that everyone convert to the religion. The Torah of Moses is a truth for all humanity, whether Jewish or not. King Solomon asked God to heed the prayers of non-Jews who come to the Holy Temple (Kings I 8:41-43). The prophet Isaiah refers to the Temple as a "House for all nations."
The Temple service during Sukkot featured 70 bull offerings, corresponding to the 70 nations of the world. The Talmud says that if the Romans would have realized how much benefit they were getting from the Temple, they'd never have destroyed it.
Jews have never actively sought converts to Judaism because the Torah prescribes a righteous path for gentiles to follow, known as the "Seven Laws of Noah." Maimonides explains that any human being who faithfully observes these basic moral laws earns a proper place in heaven.

For further study of the Seven Laws of Noah, see:

Bnei Noah of Fort Worth
http://www.fastlane.net/~bneinoah/

The above link does not work

Path of the Righteous Gentile
http://www.chabad.org/gopher/outlook/7laws/index.html
Hey, these laws being referred to are based on the same laws in the Torah and I agree with everyone of them. If we apply the same rules such as break one of them (even in thought) is tantamount to breaking them all, we are back in the same place. Dead in sin and cut off from God without remedy. This is why Jesus came. Galations 2:16 says:

know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----

7) BRINGING THE MESSIAH

Maimonides states that the popularity of Christianity (and Islam) is part of God's plan to spread the ideals of Torah throughout the world. This moves society closer to a perfected state of morality and toward a greater understanding of God. All this is in preparation for the Messianic age.
Indeed, the world is in desperate need of Messianic redemption. War and pollution threaten our planet; ego and confusion erode family life. To the extent we are aware of the problems of society, is the extent we will yearn for redemption. As the Talmud says, one of the first questions a Jew is asked on Judgment Day is: "Did you yearn for the arrival of the Messiah?"
How can we hasten the coming of the Messiah? The best way is to love all humanity generously, to keep the mitzvot of the Torah (as best we can), and to encourage others to do so as well.

Despite the gloom, the world does seem headed toward redemption. One apparent sign is that the Jewish people have returned to the Land of Israel and made it bloom again. Additionally, a major movement is afoot of young Jews returning to Torah tradition.

The Messiah can come at any moment, and it all depends on our actions. God is ready when we are. For as King David says: "Redemption will come today -- if you hearken to His voice."

This was a great article despite it's problems. The thing is the Messiah is coming back soon. We all agree with this - Jew and Christian. We Christians agree that the Messiah will get rid of all war and establish an outward Kingdom to which everyone will submit. Judgement Day is coming. The thing is that Messiah is Jesus. And for those Jews that don't accept Jesus as Messiah when they are asked "Did you yearn for the arrival of the Messiah?", they will have to answer "No".

What Hollywood Believes - Jack Nicholson

Nicholson once said,

"I don't believe in God now. But I can still work up an envy for someone who has faith. I can see how that could be a deeply soothing experience."

The quote does not say what robbed Jack of his faith but I feel sorry for him. It is by faith that we walk with God. Without it life has got to be empty.

Mary Jo Sharp vs. Ehteshaam Gulam Debate: Did Jesus Die on the Cross? MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315

I just found out about a great post on Apologetics 315. It's a debate between Mary Jo Sharp (on the right) and Muslim apologist Ehteshaam Gulam on the topic: Did Jesus Die on the Cross? It's a good to see a woman taking an active role in Apologetics. I have seen few women in the field and I think she can reach some people that men cannot reach. I liked the Debate. Sharp is articulate knowledgeable and explains the material really well. I've hared her arguments before but that doesn't make them any less true. There is a consensus of quite a few scholars of which is one. As for her opponent. Gulam, made me wonder what planet he is from. Instead talking about if the Tomb was empty, they seemed to focus a lot more on the question about where or not Jesus was alive after the crucifixion and did not die. I can't believe that. I think Sharp proved the fact the Jesus was dead. All the modern tools of forensics brought to bear on the texts and history show that Jesus really died - "grave-yard dead". Not knad a dead. Given what crucifixion was and what they did to you...He was dead. Don't forget that He was beaten and whipped before Jesus even touched the cross. I'm glad Gulam rejected the "substitution theory" but he seems to favor the "swoon theory" and can't seem to read what the gospels really say. I mean come'on. Sharp did a great job not loosing her cool.

You can find the audio at the following link
Mary Jo Sharp vs. Ehteshaam Gulam Debate: Did Jesus Die on the Cross? MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315

There is even a link to Mary Jo's blog, Confident Christianity, that contains a video. The video is a the following link:

Mary Jo Sharp vs. Ehteshaam Gulam "Did Jesus Die on the Cross?"

Confident Christianity also provides a great, 44-slide presentation that gives evidence for Jesus' resurrection.

MJ_s_Evidence_for_the_Resurrection

Uploaded on authorSTREAM by mmcelhaney | Upload your own presentation

No Whining!

Remember how recently Sarah Palin has decried the way the media has been dealing with covering her and her family. I agree that it sucks. It's not right. It's interesting to hear her comments regarding Hilary Clinton when she made much the same comments complaining about the media.





And for fun: Hitler Finds Out Sarah Palin Resigns

Why You Should Be A Christian. Response to Richard Carrier Pt 1/6

A well-written essay is on the internet called, "Why I am Not Christian" by Richard Carrier (on the left). It's long, respectful, and well written. It compels a response. His criticisms of Christians are well founded but his charges against God are mistaken and unfounded. The essay was written in 2006 and is divided into six parts. I'm going to interact with his responses and divide my essay also into six parts. His words will be in black and mine will be red. His Top four reasons for rejecting Christianity are: 1. God is Silent. 2. God is inert. 3. Inadequate evidence for God. 4. Christianity predicts a different universe.

Introduction

A fellow freethinker by the name of John Ransom engaged me to compose a statement of why I am not a Christian. I should summarize my case, he said, simply and clearly so everyone can understand where I'm coming from. John was especially frustrated by Christians who routinely come up with implausible excuses to defend their faith, which they don't really examine--as if defending the faith with any excuse mattered more than having a genuinely good reason to believe in the first place. Discussing our experiences, we realized we'd both encountered many Christians like this, who color their entire perception of reality with the assumption that they have to be right, and therefore the evidence must somehow fit. So they think they can make anything up on the spur of the moment and be "sure" it's true. This is the exact opposite of what we do. We start with the evidence and then figure out what the best explanation of it all really is, regardless of where this quest for truth takes us.

I would like to know who these Christians are that Carrier has been interacting with. They aren't like many Christians I know. Of course we should follow the evidence and act and believe the truth. Not all Christians accept ideas and then look for evidence to support them.This is the wrong way to honor God. God expects us to act in truth.

¹ LORD, who may dwell in your sanctuary?
Who may live on your holy hill?

² He whose walk is blameless
and who does what is righteous,
who speaks the truth from his heart

³ and has no slander on his tongue,
who does his neighbor no wrong
and casts no slur on his fellowman, - Psalms 15:1-3

John and I also shared the same experiences in another respect: when their dogmatism meets our empiricism, slander is not far behind. I have increasingly encountered Christians who accuse me to my face of being a liar, of being wicked, of not wanting to talk to God, of willfully ignoring evidence--because that is the only way they can explain my existence. I cannot be an honest, well-informed pursuer of the truth who came to a fair and reasonable decision after a thorough examination of the evidence, because no such person can exist in the Christian worldview, who does not come to Christ. Therefore, I must be a wicked liar, I must be so deluded by sin that I am all but clinically insane, an irrational madman suffering some evil psychosis.

It was wrong to assume that Carrier is knowingly being evil. We cannot look down on him as a dishonest person suppressing evidence. The Bible says that we all, before coming to Christ, suppress the knowledge that God has made known to us. We were all deluded by sin, and we can only be made free by trusting in Jesus.

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. - Romans 1:18 -25

There is nothing I can do for such people. Nothing I ever show or say to them will ever convince them otherwise--it can't, because they start with the assumption that their belief in Christ has to be true, therefore right from the start everything I say or do is always going to be a lie or the product of some delusion. They don't need any evidence of this, because to their thinking it must be true. Such people are trapped in their own hall of mirrors, and for them there is no escape. They will never know they are wrong even if they are. No evidence, no logic, no reason will ever get through to them. When we combine this troubling fact with the observation that their religion, like every other, appears tailor-made to justify their own culture-bound desires and personal vanities--as if every God is made in man's image, not the other way around--then we already have grounds for suspicion. The fact that even the Christian idea of God has constantly changed to suit our cultural and historical circumstances, and is often constructed to be impervious to logic or doubt, is reason enough to step back and ask ourselves whether we're on the wrong track with the Christian worldview.

Carrier correctly describes the errors of the Church. His charges against Christians who trust in blind faith without thinking about the implications and why they should believe are true. Some Christians have tried to use their religion to substantiate "culture-bound desires and personal vanities" such as mysognistic oppression of women and chattle slavery. No argument. But you can't use the Bible to prove that this is correct. The church has changed its ideas about God, but that does not mean that God changed. Niethert has the Bible. The Bible says the same thing as it has since 90 AD. Unforunately, many people have perverted the Gospel of Christ, while stating they are servants of Christ.

This essay will never convince Christians who have locked themselves inside a box of blind faith like this. But for other Christians out there who actually have an open mind, a good summary of my reasons for rejecting Christianity will help show why I am not a deluded liar, but an honest and reasonable man coming to an honest and reasonable decision. What follows is not meant to be a thorough exploration of every nuance and problem, nor an exhaustive account of all the arguments and evidence. Rather, it's a mere summary of the four most important reasons I am not a Christian. This is only the beginning of the story, not the whole of it.[1] That's what John asked for: a simple but well-written explanation of why I am not a Christian.

I don't think that Carrier is a deluded liar...just locked in his own "box of blind faith". I hope that my responses to his issues will show where his misunderstands are and show that there is a God and that the Bible deserves a better look as to what it says.

I shall assume here that C.S. Lewis was correct when he said "mere Christianity" consisted in the belief that "there is one God" who "is quite definitely good or righteous," "who takes sides, who loves love and hates hatred, who wants us to behave in one way and not in another," and who "invented and made the universe." But this God also "thinks that a great many things have gone wrong" with the world and thus "insists, and insists very loudly, on our putting them right again," and to this end arranged the death and resurrection of "His only Son," Jesus Christ, who is or embodies or represents the Creator, and can alone "save" us from "eternal death" if we now ask this Jesus to forgive our sins. That's as quoted and paraphrased from his aptly titled Mere Christianity.

I will accept C.S. Lewis' definition of Christianity as Carrier has defined it.

If this is what Christianity is (and most Christians appear to believe so), there are four major reasons why I do not believe a word of it. And all four would have to be answered with a clear preponderance of evidence and reason before I would ever change my mind. I'm serious about this, too. If all four points are ever refuted with solid, objective evidence, then any other quibbles I have beyond these four would not stop me from declaring faith in Christ. For surely any other problem I or anyone might find with the Christian worldview could easily be solved from within the faith itself--if it weren't for the following four facts.

In part 2, Carrier argues that God is silent. I disagree. I will provide evidence and reasons why we can believe and understand that God is not silent.