"The Old Testament Doesn't Count!"

[GuardianAngel44]

Just a question - Where in scripture does it say that you should kill your children if they disobey you?  

[Fushigi na Butterfly]

GuardianAngel44

wahmbulance SPAM ALERT!!!!!!! wahmbulance


PANIC! AT THE MUFFINS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHA (don't ban me for this. just delete the post and I'll get the message)

Seriously, don't do this again. stare Kinda unnecessary and there are people in here who enjoy an uninterrupted intelligent discussion. So, yeah, no more spam. 3nodding  

[GuardianAngel44]

Fushigi na Butterfly

GuardianAngel44

wahmbulance SPAM ALERT!!!!!!! wahmbulance


PANIC! AT THE MUFFINS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHA (don't ban me for this. just delete the post and I'll get the message)

Seriously, don't do this again. stare Kinda unnecessary and there are people in here who enjoy an uninterrupted intelligent discussion. So, yeah, no more spam. 3nodding

Ok, just delete the post. Sorry, I was pretty bored.  

[Priestley]

Lethkhar

Priestley

Lekthar

For simplicity, I have a compiled a list of scripture to prove this point.

First of all. let it be known what exactly Jesus is referring to when He refers to "the law":
“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19)

“For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17).


So yes, Jesus is referring to the Old Testament.

1. “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)

1. This states the commandments to be the standards by which positions in heaven will assigned. Note no mention here of punishment in hell for breaking a commandment.

1. No, but it is quite clear that the law should be followed.

Lead the way, brother.

Lekthar

Priestley

Lekthar

4. "Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)

5. “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)

Note: #4 and #5 are accounts of Jesus defending himself for not washing his hands by telling the Pharisees that they should kill their children like the Old Testament tells them to.

4. The Pharisees judged and challenged him for not washing his hands before he ate, which is a minor commandment regarding sanitation. Jesus pointed out that they were unfit to judge him by having cursed their father/mother, which is a major commandment listed in the ten.

5. He was not telling the Pharisees to kill their children. Rather, he was saying that the Pharisees themselves should die for cursing their fathers/mothers.

When did the Pharisees curse their mothers and fathers? confused

I'll ask Jesus when I get to heaven, unless you'd like to do the honours now.  

[Lethkhar]

Priestley

Lethkhar

Priestley

Lekthar

For simplicity, I have a compiled a list of scripture to prove this point.

First of all. let it be known what exactly Jesus is referring to when He refers to "the law":
“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19)

“For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17).


So yes, Jesus is referring to the Old Testament.

1. “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)

1. This states the commandments to be the standards by which positions in heaven will assigned. Note no mention here of punishment in hell for breaking a commandment.

1. No, but it is quite clear that the law should be followed.

Lead the way, brother.

Lekthar

Priestley

Lekthar

4. "Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)

5. “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)

Note: #4 and #5 are accounts of Jesus defending himself for not washing his hands by telling the Pharisees that they should kill their children like the Old Testament tells them to.

4. The Pharisees judged and challenged him for not washing his hands before he ate, which is a minor commandment regarding sanitation. Jesus pointed out that they were unfit to judge him by having cursed their father/mother, which is a major commandment listed in the ten.

5. He was not telling the Pharisees to kill their children. Rather, he was saying that the Pharisees themselves should die for cursing their fathers/mothers.

When did the Pharisees curse their mothers and fathers? confused

I'll ask Jesus when I get to heaven, unless you'd like to do the honours now.

I take it that you concede?  

[Priestley]

Lethkhar

Priestley

Lethkhar

Priestley

Lekthar

For simplicity, I have a compiled a list of scripture to prove this point.

First of all. let it be known what exactly Jesus is referring to when He refers to "the law":
“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19)

“For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17).


So yes, Jesus is referring to the Old Testament.

1. “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)

1. This states the commandments to be the standards by which positions in heaven will assigned. Note no mention here of punishment in hell for breaking a commandment.

1. No, but it is quite clear that the law should be followed.

Lead the way, brother.

Lekthar

Priestley

Lekthar

4. "Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)

5. “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)

Note: #4 and #5 are accounts of Jesus defending himself for not washing his hands by telling the Pharisees that they should kill their children like the Old Testament tells them to.

4. The Pharisees judged and challenged him for not washing his hands before he ate, which is a minor commandment regarding sanitation. Jesus pointed out that they were unfit to judge him by having cursed their father/mother, which is a major commandment listed in the ten.

5. He was not telling the Pharisees to kill their children. Rather, he was saying that the Pharisees themselves should die for cursing their fathers/mothers.

When did the Pharisees curse their mothers and fathers? confused

I'll ask Jesus when I get to heaven, unless you'd like to do the honours now.

I take it that you concede?

Nope, I stand by what I say.

This isn't a simple case of one clever man debating with another clever man. Jesus was quoting one of the Ten Commandments to those who knew (or were supposed to know) and practiced the law back to front. Specifically, Jesus condemns the Pharisees for robbing their parents of their honour (cursing) by doing everything as a gift devoted to God. A child is brought up with teachings mainly from their parents. If a child turns out well, speaking and acting justly and loving God and righteousness, it is a testament to his parents. Jesus honoured God by being perfectly begotten.

I think it is self evident that the Pharisees were unfit to judge and condemn Jesus unjustly for a minor law when they themselves were guilty of a major law upon which minor laws were based, don't you?  

[Lethkhar]

Priestley

Lethkhar

Priestley

Lethkhar

Priestley

1. This states the commandments to be the standards by which positions in heaven will assigned. Note no mention here of punishment in hell for breaking a commandment.

1. No, but it is quite clear that the law should be followed.

Lead the way, brother.

Lekthar

Priestley

4. The Pharisees judged and challenged him for not washing his hands before he ate, which is a minor commandment regarding sanitation. Jesus pointed out that they were unfit to judge him by having cursed their father/mother, which is a major commandment listed in the ten.

5. He was not telling the Pharisees to kill their children. Rather, he was saying that the Pharisees themselves should die for cursing their fathers/mothers.

When did the Pharisees curse their mothers and fathers? confused

I'll ask Jesus when I get to heaven, unless you'd like to do the honours now.

I take it that you concede?

Nope, I stand by what I say.

This isn't a simple case of one clever man debating with another clever man. Jesus was quoting one of the Ten Commandments to those who knew (or were supposed to know) and practiced the law back to front. Specifically, Jesus condemns the Pharisees for robbing their parents of their honour (cursing) by doing everything as a gift devoted to God. A child is brought up with teachings mainly from their parents. If a child turns out well, speaking and acting justly and loving God and righteousness, it is a testament to his parents. Jesus honoured God by being perfectly begotten.

I think it is self evident that the Pharisees were unfit to judge and condemn Jesus unjustly for a minor law when they themselves were guilty of a major law upon which minor laws were based, don't you?

But you have yet to prove that the Pharisees broke any laws. When I asked you to do so, you said you'd ask Jesus when you got to Heaven unless I wanted to "do the honors".  

[Priestley]

Lethkhar

Priestley

Lethkhar

Priestley

Lethkhar

1. No, but it is quite clear that the law should be followed.

Lead the way, brother.

Lekthar

When did the Pharisees curse their mothers and fathers? confused

I'll ask Jesus when I get to heaven, unless you'd like to do the honours now.

I take it that you concede?

Nope, I stand by what I say.

This isn't a simple case of one clever man debating with another clever man. Jesus was quoting one of the Ten Commandments to those who knew (or were supposed to know) and practiced the law back to front. Specifically, Jesus condemns the Pharisees for robbing their parents of their honour (cursing) by doing everything as a gift devoted to God. A child is brought up with teachings mainly from their parents. If a child turns out well, speaking and acting justly and loving God and righteousness, it is a testament to his parents. Jesus honoured God by being perfectly begotten.

I think it is self evident that the Pharisees were unfit to judge and condemn Jesus unjustly for a minor law when they themselves were guilty of a major law upon which minor laws were based, don't you?

But you have yet to prove that the Pharisees broke any laws. When I asked you to do so, you said you'd ask Jesus when you got to Heaven unless I wanted to "do the honors".

I was hoping you would ask him yourself, or at least try to find out for yourself. Guess I was wrong. sad

Time for the lesson.

Matthew 15:4-7 NIV in context (Matthew 15:1-7 NIV, emphasis added)

1Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2"Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"
3Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' 5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' 6he is not to 'honor his father' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8"'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.'"

You put Matthew 15:4-7 in parentheses after your quote, and yet you chose to quote only Matthew 15:4. I would have expected better from you.

Mark 7:10 NIV in context (Mark 7:1-13 NIV, emphasis added)

1The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and 2saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were "unclean," that is, unwashed. 3(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)
5So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands?"

6He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
"'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.' 8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."

9And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! 10For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' 11But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God), 12then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. 13Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."

Of course, whether you take Jesus' word for it is up to you. smile  

[Lethkhar]

Priestley

Lethkhar

Priestley

Lethkhar

Priestley

Lead the way, brother.

I'll ask Jesus when I get to heaven, unless you'd like to do the honours now.

I take it that you concede?

Nope, I stand by what I say.

This isn't a simple case of one clever man debating with another clever man. Jesus was quoting one of the Ten Commandments to those who knew (or were supposed to know) and practiced the law back to front. Specifically, Jesus condemns the Pharisees for robbing their parents of their honour (cursing) by doing everything as a gift devoted to God. A child is brought up with teachings mainly from their parents. If a child turns out well, speaking and acting justly and loving God and righteousness, it is a testament to his parents. Jesus honoured God by being perfectly begotten.

I think it is self evident that the Pharisees were unfit to judge and condemn Jesus unjustly for a minor law when they themselves were guilty of a major law upon which minor laws were based, don't you?

But you have yet to prove that the Pharisees broke any laws. When I asked you to do so, you said you'd ask Jesus when you got to Heaven unless I wanted to "do the honors".

I was hoping you would ask him yourself, or at least try to find out for yourself. Guess I was wrong. sad

Time for the lesson.

Matthew 15:4-7 NIV in context (Matthew 15:1-7 NIV, emphasis added)

1Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2"Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"
3Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' 5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' 6he is not to 'honor his father' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8"'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.'"

You put Matthew 15:4-7 in parentheses after your quote, and yet you chose to quote only Matthew 15:4. I would have expected better from you.

Mark 7:10 NIV in context (Mark 7:1-13 NIV, emphasis added)

1The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and 2saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were "unclean," that is, unwashed. 3(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)
5So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands?"

6He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
"'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.' 8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."

9And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! 10For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' 11But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God), 12then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. 13Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."

Of course, whether you take Jesus' word for it is up to you. smile

I don't see how that shows that the Pharisees broke their own laws. Jesus accuses them of saying something that is not mentioned in any other part of the Bible (except for other apsotles' accounts of the same accusation, of course).  

[Priestley]

Lethkhar

I don't see how that shows that the Pharisees broke their own laws. Jesus accuses them of saying something that is not mentioned in any other part of the Bible (except for other apsotles' accounts of the same accusation, of course).

Exodus 21:17 NIV

Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.

Leviticus 20:9 NIV

If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.

Proverbs 20:20 NIV

If a man curses his father or mother, his lamp will be snuffed out in pitch darkness.

Cursing one's parents is the opposite of honouring one's parents.

Exodus 20:12 NIV

Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.

Deuteronomy 5:16 NIV

Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God has commanded you, so that you may live long and that it may go well with you in the land the LORD your God is giving you.

And this is Jesus uniting the two.

Matthew 15:3-9 NIV

3 Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?
4 For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'
5 But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,'
6 he is not to 'honor his father' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8" 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.' "

Mark 7:5-13 NIV

5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands?"
6He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: " 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
7 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'
8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."
9 And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!
10 For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'
11 But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God),
12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother.
13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."

I know you're having trouble with this and I'm trying my best to explain it to you.

The Pharisees were considered by others and considered themselves to be righteous according to their practice of the Laws, which prompted them to challenge Jesus about this particular law. Jesus quoted from Isaiah to show that, while they openly praise God and seek to be righteous by the Law, they do not recognise the Spirit of their own God in Jesus because their hearts are not righteous. Jesus goes on to say that they are breaking one of the Ten Commandments because they think honouring God with worldly righteousness is more important.

I don't know how I could put it simpler than that.

Going by a previous post in another thread, you consider Jesus either a madman or a liar, thus you discredit his word and dismiss it as valid evidence.

It simply comes down to whether or not you believe the evidence, which happens to be Jesus and his testimony. As you do not, there is only one avenue left for you. Got a spare time machine laying around? I don't suppose you have, otherwise you would have gone back in time and witnessed it for yourself. Funnily enough, I don't have a time machine either, so it looks like you're out of luck.

I think this is what Fushigi meant by us presenting what evidence we have to you and you dismissing it. Even if I could perform wondrous miracles like Jesus, would that be proof enough or would you expect me to prove to you that it's God's power?  

[Lethkhar]

Priestley

Lethkhar

I don't see how that shows that the Pharisees broke their own laws. Jesus accuses them of saying something that is not mentioned in any other part of the Bible (except for other apsotles' accounts of the same accusation, of course).

Exodus 21:17 NIV

Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.

Leviticus 20:9 NIV

If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.

Proverbs 20:20 NIV

If a man curses his father or mother, his lamp will be snuffed out in pitch darkness.

Cursing one's parents is the opposite of honouring one's parents.

Exodus 20:12 NIV

Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.

Deuteronomy 5:16 NIV

Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God has commanded you, so that you may live long and that it may go well with you in the land the LORD your God is giving you.

And this is Jesus uniting the two.

I got all this. I understand that dishonoring your mother and father is bad.

Now show me that the Pharisees did such a thing.

Quote:

Matthew 15:3-9 NIV

3 Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?
4 For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'
5 But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,'
6 he is not to 'honor his father' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8" 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.' "

Mark 7:5-13 NIV

5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands?"
6He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: " 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
7 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'
8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."
9 And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!
10 For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'
11 But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God),
12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother.
13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."

I know you're having trouble with this and I'm trying my best to explain it to you.

The Pharisees were considered by others and considered themselves to be righteous according to their practice of the Laws, which prompted them to challenge Jesus about this particular law. Jesus quoted from Isaiah to show that, while they openly praise God and seek to be righteous by the Law, they do not recognise the Spirit of their own God in Jesus because their hearts are not righteous. Jesus goes on to say that they are breaking one of the Ten Commandments because they think honouring God with worldly righteousness is more important.

I don't know how I could put it simpler than that.

Going by a previous post in another thread, you consider Jesus either a madman or a liar, thus you discredit his word and dismiss it as valid evidence.

It simply comes down to whether or not you believe the evidence, which happens to be Jesus and his testimony.

That's exactly it.

I'm not saying that Jesus was a madman or a liar. But imagine this in a courtroom. Would one man saying that the Pharisees broke the law prove that they broke the law and should be punished? No. That's ridiculous. You need at least a few more witnesses, and all the witnesses in the world won't help you if you don't have any physical evidence.

If I say that you're a secret KKK member and go out shooting black people on Fridays, does that mean you do?

Quote:

As you do not, there is only one avenue left for you. Got a spare time machine laying around? I don't suppose you have, otherwise you would have gone back in time and witnessed it for yourself. Funnily enough, I don't have a time machine either, so it looks like you're out of luck.

Well, yes. I would've loved to have seen Jesus. Unfortunately, he chose a time without mass communication nor recording techniques, which never really made sense to me.

But really, it's you who are out of luck. You made the claim; therefore the burden of proof is on you.

I'm not even asking you to provide evidence outside of the Bible (Though I would love to have some). I'm asking for quotes from the Bible that were not given by one of Jesus's cultists that shows that the Pharisees were breaking God's law. If Jesus accusing the Pharisees of breaking the law is all you have, then I'm afraid we cannot discuss this any further since it's all a matter of speculation, and there is nothing either of us can say in defense of our stance.

Quote:

I think this is what Fushigi meant by us presenting what evidence we have to you and you dismissing it. Even if I could perform wondrous miracles like Jesus, would that be proof enough or would you expect me to prove to you that it's God's power?

Naw, I'd probably be satisfied.

I don't ignore evidence; I ignore scripture that talks about a subjective circumstance and gives no definitive argument for either side.  

[Priestley]

Lethkhar

I'm not saying that Jesus was a madman or a liar

Whoah, whoah, whoah! What's all this? Going back on your word?

As you have such a good memory for what you have said, I'd like you to remember that you have claimed in a different thread that Jesus didn't tell the truth, therefore he must be either a madman or a liar.

First of all, you did not provide proof for this claim, therefore the burden of proof still sits squarely on your shoulders. Until you can prove Jesus was a madman or a liar, you cannot discount the possibility that he was telling the truth. When you can prove Jesus was a madman or a liar, I might feel the need to prove otherwise.

Second of all, if you are going to say in a Christian forum that Jesus is either a madman or a liar, say so and stick by it. Be direct. At least then we can see what you represent.  

[Lethkhar]

Priestley

Lethkhar

I'm not saying that Jesus was a madman or a liar

Whoah, whoah, whoah! What's all this? Going back on your word?

As you have such a good memory for what you have said, I'd like you to remember that you have claimed in a different thread that Jesus didn't tell the truth, therefore he must be either a madman or a liar.

First of all, you did not provide proof for this claim, therefore the burden of proof still sits squarely on your shoulders. Until you can prove Jesus was a madman or a liar, you cannot discount the possibility that he was telling the truth. When you can prove Jesus was a madman or a liar, I might feel the need to prove otherwise.

Second of all, if you are going to say in a Christian forum that Jesus is either a madman or a liar, say so and stick by it. Be direct. At least then we can see what you represent.

I'm going to need a quote in which I outright stated that "Jesus is a madman/liar" before I prove anything to you.

Might I remind you that as a weak atheist I, by definition, consider the possibility that Jesus was right? So the fact is that I think you're going to find it very difficult to find a quote of me saying anything of the sort with complete certainty in my judgement. In fact, I'm pretty sure you'll find it impossible. I have never been a strong atheist in my life.

Now, as to the burden of proof, you are quite wrong. I do not need to invalidate Jesus's statements. They are mere claims. The Pharisees are innocent until proven guilty, and one man saying that they are guilty is not proof of anything. Jesus could very well be right, but by the same token he could very well be a madman or a liar. Because logic shows that you cannot assume either, your "proof" is flawed.

What you are doing is called an "argumentum ad ignorantiam", an argument from ignorance, and it is a logical fallacy. You claim that because we do not know if Jesus was telling the truth or not, then we must assume that he was telling the truth. This is incorrect. The fact is that we do not know if Jesus was telling the truth or not, and must therefore be left to conclude that his claims alone cannot be taken as absolute evidence of anything. You could be right, and I could be right. However, due to our ignorance we cannot conclude anything absolutely.

And because the Pharisees are assumed innocent until proven guilty, we must therefore be left to conclude that the Pharisees are innocent.  

[Priestley]

Lethkhar

Priestley

Lethkhar

I'm not saying that Jesus was a madman or a liar

Whoah, whoah, whoah! What's all this? Going back on your word?

As you have such a good memory for what you have said, I'd like you to remember that you have claimed in a different thread that Jesus didn't tell the truth, therefore he must be either a madman or a liar.

First of all, you did not provide proof for this claim, therefore the burden of proof still sits squarely on your shoulders. Until you can prove Jesus was a madman or a liar, you cannot discount the possibility that he was telling the truth. When you can prove Jesus was a madman or a liar, I might feel the need to prove otherwise.

Second of all, if you are going to say in a Christian forum that Jesus is either a madman or a liar, say so and stick by it. Be direct. At least then we can see what you represent.

I'm going to need a quote in which I outright stated that "Jesus is a madman/liar" before I prove anything to you.

When I have the time needed to find it, I'll find it and edit this part of my post. I'm pretty sure I read that you did not believe Jesus told the truth and deducted logically that he was either mad or lying. If I'm wrong in this, I'll gladly apologise.

Lethkhar

Might I remind you that as a weak atheist I, by definition, consider the possibility that Jesus was right? So the fact is that I think you're going to find it very difficult to find a quote of me saying anything of the sort with complete certainty in my judgement. In fact, I'm pretty sure you'll find it impossible. I have never been a strong atheist in my life.

If you consider the possibility that Jesus was right in everything he said, then you must also consider the possibility that the claims Jesus made about him having God's Spirit are true. If you were atheist, you would regard him as a human who was talking nonsense or lying. At the very least, you are agnostic.

Lethkhar

Now, as to the burden of proof, you are quite wrong. I do not need to invalidate Jesus's statements. They are mere claims. The Pharisees are innocent until proven guilty, and one man saying that they are guilty is not proof of anything. Jesus could very well be right, but by the same token he could very well be a madman or a liar. Because logic shows that you cannot assume either, your "proof" is flawed.

Regarding the burden of proof I mentioned, I was speaking about your previous claim against Jesus' credibility (which has yet to be resolved). When I read said claim, I did not see anywhere in the post your evidence for your claim, which is why I asked you to provide proof for that claim. I do not see why I should have to prove that Jesus was right about the Pharisees if you can make baseless claims about Jesus being a madman or a liar. Again, the issue of Jesus' credibility must be resolved as it is important to my argument. I agree that it is up to me to provide proof of your accusation before we continue our discussion about Jesus and the Pharisees. Would you agree to postponing said discussion until then?

Lethkhar

What you are doing is called an "argumentum ad ignorantiam", an argument from ignorance, and it is a logical fallacy. You claim that because we do not know if Jesus was telling the truth or not, then we must assume that he was telling the truth. This is incorrect. The fact is that we do not know if Jesus was telling the truth or not, and must therefore be left to conclude that his claims alone cannot be taken as absolute evidence of anything. You could be right, and I could be right. However, due to our ignorance we cannot conclude anything absolutely.

This paragraph is written under the assumption that you thought I said the burden of proof for my claim rested on you. You are incorrect in that assumption - see my paragraph above.

Neither of us can conclusively prove from his claims alone that he was telling the truth or not. Unfortunately, Jesus deals in absolutes. Either Jesus is right or you are right, and that is the reality.

Lethkhar

And because the Pharisees are assumed innocent until proven guilty, we must therefore be left to conclude that the Pharisees are innocent.

You can advocate for the Pharisees on judgment day if you like.  

[Lethkhar]

Priestley

Lethkhar

Priestley

Lethkhar

I'm not saying that Jesus was a madman or a liar

Whoah, whoah, whoah! What's all this? Going back on your word?

As you have such a good memory for what you have said, I'd like you to remember that you have claimed in a different thread that Jesus didn't tell the truth, therefore he must be either a madman or a liar.

First of all, you did not provide proof for this claim, therefore the burden of proof still sits squarely on your shoulders. Until you can prove Jesus was a madman or a liar, you cannot discount the possibility that he was telling the truth. When you can prove Jesus was a madman or a liar, I might feel the need to prove otherwise.

Second of all, if you are going to say in a Christian forum that Jesus is either a madman or a liar, say so and stick by it. Be direct. At least then we can see what you represent.

I'm going to need a quote in which I outright stated that "Jesus is a madman/liar" before I prove anything to you.

When I have the time needed to find it, I'll find it and edit this part of my post. I'm pretty sure I read that you did not believe Jesus told the truth and deducted logically that he was either mad or lying. If I'm wrong in this, I'll gladly apologise.

Lethkhar

Might I remind you that as a weak atheist I, by definition, consider the possibility that Jesus was right? So the fact is that I think you're going to find it very difficult to find a quote of me saying anything of the sort with complete certainty in my judgement. In fact, I'm pretty sure you'll find it impossible. I have never been a strong atheist in my life.

If you consider the possibility that Jesus was right in everything he said, then you must also consider the possibility that the claims Jesus made about him having God's Spirit are true. If you were atheist, you would regard him as a human who was talking nonsense or lying. At the very least, you are agnostic.

No, I am a weak atheist. I severely doubt Jesus's claims about "him having God's Spirit", but I do not discard the possibility entirely. That would require me to take a leap of faith in trusting my senses, and you know enough about me to know that I won't do that.

Quote:

Lethkhar

Now, as to the burden of proof, you are quite wrong. I do not need to invalidate Jesus's statements. They are mere claims. The Pharisees are innocent until proven guilty, and one man saying that they are guilty is not proof of anything. Jesus could very well be right, but by the same token he could very well be a madman or a liar. Because logic shows that you cannot assume either, your "proof" is flawed.

Regarding the burden of proof I mentioned, I was speaking about your previous claim against Jesus' credibility (which has yet to be resolved). When I read said claim, I did not see anywhere in the post your evidence for your claim, which is why I asked you to provide proof for that claim. I do not see why I should have to prove that Jesus was right about the Pharisees if you can make baseless claims about Jesus being a madman or a liar. Again, the issue of Jesus' credibility must be resolved as it is important to my argument. I agree that it is up to me to provide proof of your accusation before we continue our discussion about Jesus and the Pharisees. Would you agree to postponing said discussion until then?

Lethkhar

What you are doing is called an "argumentum ad ignorantiam", an argument from ignorance, and it is a logical fallacy. You claim that because we do not know if Jesus was telling the truth or not, then we must assume that he was telling the truth. This is incorrect. The fact is that we do not know if Jesus was telling the truth or not, and must therefore be left to conclude that his claims alone cannot be taken as absolute evidence of anything. You could be right, and I could be right. However, due to our ignorance we cannot conclude anything absolutely.

This paragraph is written under the assumption that you thought I said the burden of proof for my claim rested on you. You are incorrect in that assumption - see my paragraph above.

Neither of us can conclusively prove from his claims alone that he was telling the truth or not. Unfortunately, Jesus deals in absolutes. Either Jesus is right or you are right, and that is the reality.

Then we are at an impass, and you have failed to prove to me that the Pharisees broke a law. They might have, but it has not been shown conclusively.

I agree to postpone the argument, though.

Quote:

Lethkhar

And because the Pharisees are assumed innocent until proven guilty, we must therefore be left to conclude that the Pharisees are innocent.

You can advocate for the Pharisees on judgment day if you like.

I suppose I will, along with all the other innocent people...

Hell, I'd go to Hell by myself to save them all.