"Catholics and Christians"

Post Reply New Topic

But yeah, the bottom like is that people see what they want to see on both sides but, if Christians are right, then atheists would have a lot more to lose, than Christians would lose if atheists were right. So thats the reason to be a Christian.

yere, i have no problem with the idea that God exists.
I am not atheist. I am agnostic.
I don't dictate to God who he is or how he is.

I don't do good acts etc. out of fear but cause I believe it to be righteous, just, honest, kind etc.
Being nasty to people I don't enjoy.

I think the world is better when people are all working together for each others benefit.
Life is richer as an experience when people share their love etc.

Are you Jewish or are you atheist?

In any case, to address Jewish objection, the issue is that there is a different prophecy, in Daniel, that puts a time frame of when Messiah would come, and it calculates to the 1-st century. So since in 1-st century nobody else fulfilled Messianic prophecies either, not just Jesus, that justifies a search for various loopholes. One such loophole is that "one of the people that were alive in 1-st century" would come a second time some time later. Now, the only person in the 1-st century who claimed he would do it is Jesus.

The other thing to point out is that, if you read the Old Testament, they don't say "here is the list of the qualifications of the Messiah". Rather, Moses Maimonides, in the 12-th century, made the list of those qualifications. Now, he pulled it from the Old Testament, yes. But Old Testament wasn't listing them in the same place, and Bible is a lot longer than that short list he came up with. So he was clearly influenced by his own preconceptions when he did that. Well, the circumstances in which he did it was in 12-th century when Jews already decided Jesus is not the Messiah and they were trying to oppose Christian pressures to convert them. So this might have influenced him to specifically focus on the things Jesus didn't fulfill.

Here is something else along those same lines. One big disagreement between Jews and Christians is the interpretation of Isaiah 53. Christians claim that Isaiah 53 is about Messiah and was fulfilled by Jesus. Jews, on the other hand, claim that Isaiah 53 is about Jewish people as a whole, and has nothing to do with either Jesus or the Messiah. However, if you look at the writings of the rabbis *before* Jesus came, then a lot of them DID think that Isaiah 53 was about Messiah. But, after Jesus came, they re-interpretted that passage to say that it is about the Jewish people as a whole.

I also read about other claims made by rabbis that reject Jesus that happen to confirm him. For example, some rabbis noted that, while temple was destroyed in 70 AD, some sort of yearly miracle that was supposed to happen in the temple have stopped in 30-something AD, and they were speculating why that happened. Also, I read some rabbis that said that when the temple was destroyed the first time, it was because of idolatry. But when it was destroyed the second time, it was no longer idolatry so it was more puzzling why it was destroyed. And they speculated that the reason for its distraction was the injustice against the innocent. Of course they didn't say that the innocent was Jesus. But its interesting how it matches Christian claim quite closely when Christians say it was destroyed because of killing of Jesus.

The problem with this story is that Christians were still persecutted at the time of Paul. In fact Christians were fed to lions even in the 90 AD. Paul didn't suffer as much as some others did, but he was still imprisoned for his faith.

However, I would agree with this narrative being applicable to some of the church fathers, since they lived a lot later. Thats why I am Protestant rather than Catholic.

By the way, ask yourself this question: why would Christians be willing to be burned as human torches and be fed to lions, just for the fairy tale? So maybe they saw something that convinced them of its truth, such as Jesus' resurrection.

I would note that is the definition of Trinitarian Christianity, not Christianity period. Non-Trinitarian sects do/have historically existed nearly as far back as the beginning of Christianity. Funny enough, the term 'Christian' was coined by non-believers to describe believers of that particular faith.

Well, if Christians are right, then believing that God exists isn't enough to be saved. You would have to believe in Jesus, his death and resurrection, to be saved. So that is the reason to believe in it. If its true, and you don't believe in it, you lose a lot. If its false, and you believe in it, you don't lose nearly as much.

Grasping at straws would be if that phrase on the surface reads as something else and I say "no it instead means that other thing". But I don't see how it is the case. I mean how does that phrase read to you when you see it?

I guess the only way in which it would be twisting is that it reads as if it talks about some mysteries and I was saying it talked about political events. But if we make an assumption that God oftentimes prefers to carry out His supernatural ideas in the natural, then I can ask the following question: how can that particular prophecy be carried out in the natural? I think the scenario of various cults coming to the surface because they are no longer suppressed by the government, would be one of the most obvious options.

Some people argue that Jesus, Apostles, and the rest of 1-st century Christians were non-trinitarian, and the doctrine of trinity came around much later (maybe in 2-nd century, or maybe even as late as the council of Nicea).

Of course, that would be the claim only non-trinitarians would make. On the other hand, trinitarian Christians would believe Jesus and Apostles were trinitarian.

So that again goes back to the fact that the way you understand church history is based on your own faith. Everyone believes that their faith is the oldest.

I'm not accusing you of twisting, just stretching.

I'm not sure that something that doesn't actually exist can have preferences over how does it exert it's non-influence, but this is why we can't conceive of each other's positions.

The Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church used to dominate what qualified as 'correct doctrine', with the other major sects all splitting off over some sort of theological disagreement. After those two split from each other and the Protestant Reformation occurred it's been inevitable that further splits would occur, including over issues that were once considered settled as Protestant Christianity splinters further and further.

This is how schools of thought usually evolve, it would have happened whether or not the God of those faiths is true because it happens with secular ideas too. It's not so much a prophecy as an observation.