Why is the virgin birth of Messiah a necessity?

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix If the devil was Jesus the bible would look exactly the same as if it was not.

These quotes don't prove anything, they neither strengthen nor retract from it.

It is possible you will burn in hell for all eternity for following Jesus.

Why should you side with Jesus so readily, when you don't know if he is the deceiver, and you are the fool?

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix If the devil was Jesus the bible would look exactly the same as if it was not.

These quotes don't prove anything, they neither strengthen nor retract from it.

It is possible you will burn in hell for all eternity for following Jesus.

Why should you side with Jesus so readily, when you don't know if he is the deceiver, and you are the deceived?

Grafix

, why don't you just go out and purchase a tape recorder and put it on auto replay?  It will save you a lot of time and work.  As a result, I am left with this inevitable impression of you ....



Meanwhile, my personal reaction is this ...

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix ; You will burn in hell for all eternity if you are wrong and Jesus was the Devil in disguise!

Grafix

Straight back at you.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix How do you know you are not wrong though?

Grafix

Happy_Killbot

 Quoting: Grafix

4:42AM 

Ummm ....Satan  vilifying himself in his own Biblical texts, which you contend could be the work of Satan, and that vilification of Satan appearing in persistent repetition, always extremely damning of him in every instance, is "playing the part very well"??  It is???  It would demonstrate the work of a lunatic gone stark, raving barking mad.

I've confronted the question head on with quotes proving the above sentence.  What have you quoted to support your fabled dichotomy?  Zilch, nada, nuttin', zero.  Case closed.

I know which is true by virtue of the two previous paragraphs.  Case closed again. 

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix Don't you see how that doesn't answer the question though?

Hitler pretended to be  liberal to get into power, and once he was only then did he reveal his true colors. He demonized the very same policies he would eventually support.

If Hitler could do it, then why not someone much more insidious?

The point is, you don't know. You might claim knowledge, but it is ultimately empty and completely without substance. You know nothing. No one does.

Grafix

So you agree Satan is much more insidious than Hitler.  That's a start.  It also vindicates the Biblical description of Satan, then doesn't it?  Thanks for agreeing.

I know by virtue of the descriptions of Satan himself in the Biblical texts, which you seem to have a penchant for denying and agreeing with in the same breath.  Gobsmacking  !!!

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix I don't think that Satan exists, I am tailoring my questions to your beliefs because you will never consider mine.

This theory, would not apply to the whole bible, just the new testament. Everything in the old testament would still be valid, and everything in the new testament would be accounts of the Devil pretending to be Jesus, and succeeding.

You know that it is possible, then why not take the next logical step? How can you be sure, what test can you do?

Let me give an example: Lets say I have a cook book which tells me how to make a cake. If I want to know if the recipe can make a cake, I just follow the recipe and viola! I have cake. If for some reason following the recipe makes brownies, then I know that the recipe is not a cake recipe, and no matter how long the recipe sits on my shelf, be it days or millennia I can always follow it to make cake unless it makes brownies instead in which case I know how to make brownies.

What test can be done to verify that Satan wasn't Jesus?

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - I fully understand that you don't think Satan exists, but the premise you propose is still ridiculous for these reasons:

1.  No-one disputes the existence of Christ or that he had 12 disciples.

2.  Given that, then many will read the Gospels.

3.  The Gospels and Christ's teachings invoke many texts from the Old Testament, including the primary text - the story of Moses and the Ten Commandments, the law any who accepts the truth of the Bible are bound to follow, if they wish to call themselves a Chrisitian.

4.  You cannot separate from the New Testament the history of Christ's ancestry, Moses Covenant with God, namely the Ten Commandments because Christ endorsed and invoked both.

5.  Christ also taught that the only way to life after Judgement is through Him and that requires striving to live by the example He set, which according to Him, necessitates coming to know and understand God and that requires studying the WHOLE Biblical text, which Christ described as God's Word.

6.  So as these things are written in the New Testament, then those supposedly being tricked by Satan, will also read the Old Testament and learn even more diabolical things about Satan.

7.  Further, all of the quotes I gave you earlier, describing Satan, are all from the New Testament and not from the Old Testament, except for the Genesis damnation of Satan.

So, that leaves us with the question, that if Satan, Jesus and the Bible are accepted as real, then how could the Bible be the work of Satan?.  The very persistent and damning descriptions within it prove one of two things either that the Bible is God's Word and Satan is the evil charlatan the Biblical texts paint OR if Satan wrote the Bible then Satan is stark, raving barking mad, by exposes himself in his own text as an insidious deceiver. 

The next step, using that dichotomy, is what would a reader's reaction be then to the Bible, if he didn't know that Satan wrote it or even if he did?  To laugh at Satan for exposing himself as a monstrous deceiver, while still having the reverse effect that Satan intended, i.e., the failure to win hearts and minds, still pushing the reader away from Satan and towards Satan's arch nemesis, God.  That's why your dichotomy falls on its head.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix You apologetic don't answer the question, consider the fact that every single one of these things you write could be true and it could still be that the devil was Jesus.

These things are not tests, they do not test anything. I don't care about words said by other people, I want to know what thing anyone can do today to verify that it is or is not true.

Just looking in the bible or at history doesn't satisfy a test, especially if it is all arguably made up by Satan to take the money of gullible people the way televangelists undeniably do.

I need to know if there is a test that can be done, and if you can't think of one that's okay, it just means that you need to be more careful about what you believe.

Grafix

, just accept the logic of this, if you can ...

When people are told by a source they trust that something or someone is diabolically evil and not to be trusted, that that identity is branded with the reputation of "Keep away or I will befoul you", then they are not going to be readily or naturally drawn to that evil person or thing.  That leaves Satan on the back foot, as God intended.  Therefore Satan is left with the unenviable lot of employing deception to trick us into defying God, by using subterfuge, disguises, treats and shallow temporal temptations to win us over.  That's the lot of Satan, given the descriptions of him left on the lips of all those who read the Biblical texts.  There is no getting around that fact, no matter WHO wrote the Bible. No other conclusion can be drawn from the Bible. 

Only those who wilfully seek to deny God, could twist the truth of this observation into the pretzel that you are attempting.  Why can't you see the logic of this?  It sticks out like dogs' balls.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix What? I don't follow what you are saying, this isn't a test, I need to see a test.

Remember, there is always propaganda in war that demonizes the opposing party, even if they were the ones who started the war. The bible is no more evidence of gods existence than Harry potter books are evidence that Hogwarts exists. If we can not do a test to prove that Hogwarts is real, then why should we assume that it does?

What test can be done to verify the bible is true, or do we just have to accept it as being true?

Grafix

????

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix The logic is weak, let me demonstrate:

"When people are told by The Russian government they trust that The USA is diabolically evil and not to be trusted, that that identity is branded with the reputation of "Keep away I will befoul you", then they are not going to be readily or naturally drawn to that evil person or thing.  That leaves The USA on the back foot, as The Russians intended.  Therefore  The USA is left with the unenviable lot of having to employ deception to trick us into defying Russia, by using subterfuge, disguises, evil treats of self-gratification, appealing to our pride and vanities and shallow temporal temptations to win us over.  That's the lot of The Americans, given the descriptions of him left on the lips of all those who read the Russian propaganda.  There is no getting around that fact, no matter WHO wrote the  Russian propaganda. No other conclusion can be drawn from the  Russian propaganda. 

Only those who willfully seek to deny The Russian government, could twist the truth of this observation into the pretzel that you are attempting. "

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

Just because someone or something is demonized by something else doesn't mean that the person doing the demonizing isn't also making immoral actions, and it doesn't prove that either side is right or true. It could be that all the Russian anti-US propaganda is all false. It could be that it is partially true.

What we need is a test to see which is right and which is wrong. What tests can you devise that would do this for your beliefs, to show that they are right?

Grafix

The test is obvious and is what is taught in Christian faiths, at least some.  Satan tests our fidelity to God, tests our faithfulness and truthfulness to God, testing our Will to keep His Ten Commandments.  It ain't easy because Satan makes damned sure that it ain't.  That's his job. 

God doesn't want a bunch of easy-life, fickle, swinging voters, who persistently choose the low road.  He wants those who prove themselves worthy of his Kingdom, but he rejects none who are listening, no matter how sinful they may be or how hard they find the road.  He is patient as long as we are striving with sincerity, no matter how many times we fail.

MayCaesar

@Grafix

The most obvious way for Satan to deceive people is to call itself God, and to call the God Satan. What @Happy_Killbot is asking is this: how can you tell that this is not the case, for example? How can you tell that everything you believe in has not been made up by the Satan in order to deceive you?

The next step to this question is the one I asked earlier, the one you ignored: how can you tell that it is not humans who wrote all this in order to deceive you, and in reality there are no gods, satans and other fantastic creatures?

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix I don't think you understand what I am asking,

What is this test?

Suppose someone has no idea who Jesus is, has never head of the bible, and has never seen a church or talked to a priest.

What could this person do independently that would cause them to draw the same conclusions about god that you have, and not say, conclude that the devil was Jesus or that Muhammad is the one true prophet, or make up their own beliefs?

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - If you believe politics is honest, even your own politicians, then you really do have a problem, meaning they are not to be confused with "trusted".  This is where a key word in the teachings of Christ and God's Word is central.  That word is called "discernment" and God does not give it to those who do not trust the Word of God.  End of story.  

It follows then that those who do not trust God, fall easy prey to those who cannot be trusted.  How do we practise discernment in politics?  Always go to the source of reports and not to reports which NEVER provide the source, including at least four other sources all independent from the other.  That's why media from the CESS pool of the Reuters/Assoc. Press owned by the Rothschild dynasty, which owns what is commonly known as the "news pool" in media circles and from which ALL of the corporate mainstream media source their news are not identified as "independent' news sources.  

That means to get the facts we must check other sources and check them against other sources outside of that MSM, (mainstream media) news bubble.  It's called discernment and easy to do.  The truth is that there is possibly more propaganda in the MSM than there is in Russian news.  The MSM is owned by the same corporate interests as Reuters and Assoc. Press are.  They are all tarred with the same brush - a will to deceive the people for political gain.  All of the crony-capitalist interests behind the MSM seek the same political Agenda and it is not in the interests of we the people.  That requires discernment again.  

Sure, I agree.  Demons are in the business of demonizing that which is good as evil and presenting that which is evil is good.  That is also discussed in the Bible.  You really should read it.  It is a book of untold wisdom and is your best bet for never being deceived, never being led astray, never being tricked and seeing the world with your eyes wide open.  The understanding of EVERYTHING which it provides is unsurpassed.   The moral of the story is trust in God and you can't go wrong.  Defy God and you will wreak your own destruction.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix I would not and do not trust politicians in general, why would you trust Jesus then?

Doesn't it follow, that if either the devil invented Jesus, or if Jesus never existed and was invented by man, that you are the prey?

Does going outside the mainstream news automatically verify accuracy? If the mainstream can lie, then why cant the little guy?

I have read the bible and the quran in their entirety. The problem is, that how do we verify it's accuracy? What test can we do to say that it is true?

You have yet to answer this question, and please don't plead ignorance now that MayCaesar has further clarified.

MayCaesar

@Grafix ;

You are again answering this with circular reasoning. "Jesus is God and not Satan, because the Bible says so". All of your arguments fundamentally are based on "because the Bible says so".

What if the Bible itself was written by Satan in order to deceive people? Of course Satan is a smart guy and would write the Bible so it contains untold wisdom and makes a compelling case, so you, a mere mortal, would not be able to tell that that is so even upon a very close examination.
Then your whole argument falls apart.

Grafix

But we know that Jesus DID  exist.  That's the point.  We know that he used his Supernatural powers to do ONLY good works.  You are pissing up against the wall, mate.  The wisdom you seek is all in the good Book.  It will protect you.

Grafix

Your question re checking news veracity is in my answer - G O   T O   T H E   S O U R C E.  Ignore reports which do not.  Simple.  Check against at least four other sources for the original source.  Simple.

MayCaesar

@Grafix

We are not asking you about the source. We are asking you about independent way one can verify that Jesus is god and not Satan, and that either even exists. If without your book a proof is impossible to obtain, then the proof is non-existent. The world does not depend on how you study it; it is what it is. It is impossible to write a book that would be a hard requirement for understanding something about the world.

Grafix

@MayCaesar - The Bible answers that readily.  It vilifies Satan.  

Grafix

@MayCaesar - Isn't Jesus the source?  Then go to the source - Go to His own words. Go to His own actions.  Go to His own demonstration of Himself living up to his own words.  Jesus did nothing evil.  Everything he did, including the use of His supernatural powers, was to do only good works.  Show me a single evil thing that Jesus said or did.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix Go to the source then? Alright, lets check sources then:

The Bible - says Jesus is god
The Torah - doesn't include Jesus
The Quran - says Jesus was a prophet but not god
The Vedas - doesn't include Jesus

So that is it then- Jesus isn't holy according to two of the top sources of religious "truth" and is only a prophet according to the only other major one that does.

How do you know that the other texts that do not include Jesus are not the right ones and the bible is the wrong one?

What test can you do to determine which if any belief is true?

Grafix

@MayCaesar - It is Killbot who is using circular reasoning, in refusing to accept the logic against his own argument.  No matter WHO wrote the Bible, it still vilifies Satan and not Jesus.  There is only good which comes from the teachings of Jesus in the Bible.  The embodiment of Satan, whether we believe he is an actual spirit or not is irrelevant, because either way, anything which represents evil is taught to be the embodiment of Satan, so there is no separating the word "Satan" from evil.  Satan is the definition of evil, be his spirit real or symbolic of evil.  It doesn't matter.  It still serves the same purpose in the teachings,that Satan can do no good and Christ no evil.  Christ has lived up to his teachings, with no evil act recorded against Jesus, only good works, so how could Jesus be Satan, when we know that Jesus really existed?. 

MayCaesar

@Grafix

Of course it does: if Satan calls himself God and calls God Satan, it only makes sense for him to vilify the one he calls Satan.

Jesus is only a source of his words. He is no a source for truthfulness of his words, which is what the discussion is all about.

Allow me to rephrase @Happy_Killbot's question in terms of an analogy. Suppose I am a Berber, living in a secluded tribe in Africa that has never contacted with the outside world. I do not know anything about the Bible or Jesus. What can I do - aside, obviously, from going out in the world and obtaining a copy of the Bible - to confirm that God exists and he is not impersonated by Satan?

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix Yes, exactly, it is circular reasoning to say that "The devil was Jesus and we know because of the bible" the same as it is to say "Jesus is god and we know because of the bible"

Both arguments are circular, the only argument that stands to reason is "We don't know if Jesus was who he said he was, or the devil, or if he was real at all" 

Unless, we can prove that one of these is true by eliminating all other possibilities.

Which is what I am asking for- a test to do just this that would prove Jesus was who he said he was.

What is this test, if you can think of one, or is it not possible to make one at all?

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - You wrote:

Go to the source then? Alright, lets check sources then:
The Bible - says Jesus is god
The Torah - doesn't include Jesus
The Quran - says Jesus was a prophet but not god
The Vedas - doesn't include Jesus
So that is it then- Jesus isn't holy according to two of the top sources of religious "truth" and is only a prophet according to the only other major one that does.
How do you know that the other texts that do not include Jesus are not the right ones and the bible is the wrong one?
What test can you do to determine which if any belief is true?

So you think the Torah is a good source of Judgement of who Jesus was?  It was written by the Jewish HIgh Priests, the Sanhedrin, the same people who denied Christ's divinity and crucified Him.  You think they had no vested interest in vilifying Him to justify their own illegal action of murdering an innocent man?  Even Pilate in his missive to the Roman Emperor stated he did not believe that Jesus was guilty of any wrong doing.  So why did Pilot allow the crucifixion?  As he explained, the mood of the "mob" was so terrible, he thought if he refused them, that it might cause civil unrest, if not an insurrection.

Then we have proof of the High Priests' own perfidy.  They bribed the Roman soldiers who guarded Christ's tomb to testify that the Apostles had removed Christ's corpse from the tomb, because the priests knew if it got out that Christ had resurrected Himself back to life, had got up and walked out of his own tomb, a tomb sealed with a great whacking stone that was taller than the tallest of men and a foot thick, which took three men to roll back to open the entrance of the tomb, then how did Christ roll it back alone?  How did he come back to life? All of that would prove Christ's divinity and prove that they had indeed murdered an innocent man, who proved he was God by His very own resurrection and ascension, so they hoped to spread a rumour which would convince the people that his corpse had been stolen.

Problem for them was, that even though the Centurions accepted the bribe, according to Pilate's missive to Rome, they were so afraid of Jesus by now and his obvious Supernatural powers, that they told exactly what they had seen - Jesus standing outside his own tomb and that they had not rolled back the stone. The Jewish High Priests, who had mounted the ill-sentiment against Christ had egg all over their faces and tried to hide their error.  You call THEM a "trusted" source?  I don't think so.  Jesus is shown in the Gospels to have continually rebuked them for their false teachings and disingenuous hypocrisy, particularly the Pharisees.  In any event, thousands of Jews are now accepting Christ as the Son of God, as the Christian Biblical text records in its prophecies that they would before Judgement Day.

The Quran is quite simply not the original source. Arabs are not pro-Jesus.  They are anti-Christs.  They only accept the Old Testament, not the New Testament and even then bastardise it, according to Christ's teachings.  His teachings reject Islam in so many ways on so many fronts.  The Arabs hate the sight of a crucifix.  Burn our Christian churches down.  They build their temples on our Christian holy sites and desecrate every possible vestige of Christianity that they can.  What they have done is a travesty and for no other reason than hatred and bigotry.  You forget.  They call Christians "infidels" and practise Jihad against us and you think they and their Quran is a "trusted" source?  Don't make me laugh.  

No other religion has the testimony, evidence, facts and eye-witness accounts of their God, other than Christianity.  Allah never came upon the earth.  The Jewish religion is not Christianity so does not accept Christ as their God.  Their God, Yahweh, although the same as our God, has never come down to earth to give testimony to them.  Only Christ has done that out of every religion on the face of the earth.  Christianity is the only religion that can boast this.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix Maybe the Jewish priests crucified Jesus because they knew his secret- that he was actually the devil. After all, he would be undermining their establishment and that would result in many people going to hell. When they failed by making Jesus a martyr, they accidentally finished the Devil's plan. Jesus never "rose from the dead" Satan just pretended to die. It all works out perfectly.

See how I can effortlessly make up things that you can't disprove? We can keep going all day, or forever if you please.

Unless of course, you have finally thought of a test to prove your god beliefs.

P.S. The Muslim's actually view Jesus quite positively, as did Gandhi and a lot of non-Christian philosophers. They do not however, believe his claims to divinity because there is no evidence, and no test has been done to verify this, which is what I am still waiting on.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot and @MayCaesar  -  There it is again.  The same old fallacy of pretence.  There is no end of "maybes" that anyone can make up and that is exactly what you have been doing throughout.  I have not and have instead provided the necessary evidence to rebut your claims.  There is no way to prove that a negative is wrong or right, I agree, but Christ is not a negative, so quit trying to pretend that he is.  H E   E X I S T E D.  We discussed this before, i.e., that you are flying in the face of a whole bunch of positives to try to spin a fabled dichotomy and then expect without a jot of evidence advanced, that everyone should accept that your dichotomy cannot be disproved.  It can be and I DID disprove it by virtue of the very nature of the descriptions of Satan himself in the Biblical texts.  I even went through how your dumb dichotomy falls on its head and why.  Just because you choose to ignore it, does not mean it has not been disproved.  It has been.  This is just one of the many posts where I do so ...

I fully understand that you don't think Satan exists, but the premise you propose is still ridiculous for these reasons:

1.  No-one disputes the existence of Christ or that he had 12 disciples.
2.  Given that, then many will read the Gospels.
3.  The Gospels and Christ's teachings invoke many texts from the Old Testament, including the primary text - the story of Moses and the Ten Commandments, the law and which any who accepts the truth of the Bible is bound to follow, before they can claim to be Christians.
4.  You cannot separate from the New Testament the history of Christ's ancestry, Moses Covenant with God, namely the Ten Commandments because Christ endorsed and invoked both.
5.  Christ also taught that the only way to life after Judgement is through Him and that requires striving to live by the example He set, which according to Him, necessitates coming to know and understand God and that requires studying the WHOLE Biblical text, which Christ described as God's Word.
6.  So as these things are written in the New Testament, then those supposedly being tricked by Satan, will also read the Old Testament and learn even more diabolical things about Satan.
7.  Further, all of the quotes I gave you earlier, describing Satan, are all from the New Testament and not from the Old Testament, except for the Genesis damnation of Satan.

So, that leaves us with the question, that if Satan, Jesus and the Bible are accepted as real, then how could the Bible be the work of Satan?.  The very persistent and damning descriptions within it prove one of two things - either that the Bible is God's Word and Satan is the evil charlatan the Biblical texts paint OR if Satan wrote the Bible then Satan is stark, raving barking mad, by exposes himself in his own text as an insidious deceiver. 

The next step, using that dichotomy, is what would a reader's reaction be then to the Bible, if he didn't know that Satan wrote it or even if he did?  To laugh at Satan for exposing himself as a monstrous deceiver, while still having the reverse effect that Satan intended, i.e., the failure to win hearts and minds, still pushing the reader away from Satan and towards Satan's arch nemesis, God.  That's why your dichotomy falls on its head.

I also rebutted your argument in this way in my reply to : @MayCaesar 

@MayCaesar - It is Killbot who is using circular reasoning, in refusing to accept the logic against his own argument.  No matter WHO wrote the Bible, it still vilifies Satan and not Jesus.  There is only good which comes from the teachings of Jesus in the Bible.  Whether we believe Satan is an actual spirit or not is irrelevant, because either way, anything which represents evil is taught to be the embodiment of Satan, so there is no separating the word "Satan" from evil.  Satan is the definition of evil, be his spirit real or symbolic of evil.  It doesn't matter.  It still serves the same purpose in the teachings,that Satan can do no good and Christ no evil.  Christ has lived up to his teachings, with no evil act recorded against Jesus, only good works, so how could Jesus be Satan, when we know that Jesus really existed?. 

We already have evidence of Christ's existence, evidence of his trial and of his resurrection on the record penned by the Roman Governor of Palestine himself - Pontius Pilate.  This evidence of Christ is the critical factor against your fabled dichotomy.  Christ is the  S O U R C E, and even if the whole thing were a heist, what did the Biblical text achieve?  The exact opposite to what Satan would intend if he had written it, because it drives people away from Satan, rather than to him.  If Satan wrote the Bible then he failed in his objective, because Satan loses the many souls who diligently study the Bible, no matter WHO wrote the book.  That failure is proof that Satan didn't write the Bible and it also proves that Jesus is who he says he is because the historical record authenticates who he is through the writings of Pilot, Tacitus and Josephus Flavius.  

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix If Jesus existed, he still could have been Satan in disguise. If true, the bible would be exactly as it is written, and the more someone knows about the bible the more they would belong to it.

Evidence, either for or against his existence is irrelevant to the question I ask:

How do we know which beliefs if any are right? How can we test a religion to see if it is true or not, the way we can test anything else?

ZeusAres42

Happy_Killbot said:

@Grafix

@Happy_Killbot Just think how much money you could actually make hosting a religious-based website but as an Atheist? No one needs to know you're an Atheist. I mean you don't even need to say anything factually correct in regards to religion; all you need is an audience that is willing to believe anything you say so long as it is about their religion and it sounds good.

Happy_Killbot

@ZeusAres42

There are maybe 3 US politicians that I am convinced are religious. The rest pretend, yet atheists and agnostics are thoroughly unelectable.

Grafix

 @MayCaesar - You wrote:

Of course it does: if Satan calls himself God and calls God Satan, it only makes sense for him to vilify the one he calls Satan.

Jesus is only a source of his words. He is no a source for truthfulness of his words, which is what the discussion is all about.

Allow me to rephrase @Happy_Killbot's question in terms of an analogy. Suppose I am a Berber, living in a secluded tribe in Africa that has never contacted with the outside world. I do not know anything about the Bible or Jesus. What can I do - aside, obviously, from going out in the world and obtaining a copy of the Bible - to confirm that God exists and he is not impersonated by Satan?

Your analogy of the Berber changes nothing.  Ignorance is not an argument.  It is the problem.  Yours and Killbot's. The Berber would need to do what you and Killbot refuse to do.  Go to the source, as I previously have written - study the works of Jesus in His lifetime, not only look to the Bible for confirmation.  There is a plethora of confirmation from everything historical to everything spiritual, with unexplained events too, which provide necessary knowledge to unwrap the rich tapestry of God and Christ, before one can begin to understands the evidence.  Ignorance destroys societies and has.

Christ's historical record is one of consistent love, compassion, healing and wisdom.  The outstanding factor is NONE of these are  ever  attributed to Satan.  Why not?  Because that is not his identity.  Satan's identity is that he is incapable of those attributes, according to all possible known knowledge.  If you have any knowledge to the contrary, please enlighten me. Any appearance of Satan doing good always comes with a deception, is always temporal, shallow and never enduring, promising the OPPOSITE of what is ultimately delivered.  ALWAYS !   The identity of the Christian and Hebraic God is enduring, now known on the records for 11,000 years.  You can't pull it down with a wild unsupported claim with not a scratch of evidence.  The arrogance of it is breathtaking, the stupidity of it gobsmacking.

If we followed what you two are proposing here, then by logical progression, we would also need to abandon half of the historical record, be forced to accept that it can no longer be believed, simply because we were not there to witness it ourselves.  Approx. 70% of history is accepted on the word of sources, of eye-witnesses accounts from the past, archaeological evidence, written evidence, official records, or empirical evidence, stele, monuments, place names, accounts of wars, leaders, etc..  We have all of these which testify to Jesus' existence, his ancestry and his life story of consistently good deeds, of his teachings, to his living up to all that he taught, living it through to the letter, the model of perfection itself. 

Conversely, the identity we know as Satan, be it in spirit only, metaphorical, figurative or simply a literary device, has only ever been the embodiment of evil and representing the nemesis of Christ, so historically, literally and symbolically, the two cannot be one and the same, unless we turn all previous standards of record-keeping on their head, yet you two think it is intelligent to abandon all previous standards and propose God/Christ and Satan are collaborators in a grand heist.  You would need to provide some substantive evidence to support that claim before anyone is going to buy that.  You both seem oblivious to that fact..  Where's your evidence?  Without it, anyone can make the wildest of claims.  Claim away, but no-one is listening.

A major point to ponder, as an aside, is the endurance of the Judeo-Christian God with now evidence of monotheist Hebrews in towns which existed almost 11,000 years ago, i.e., 8,000 BC,  There is no other God of any other faith that has endured for so long.  NONE.  Also, the Bible is still the annual top selling book in the best seller list and has been for more than two centuries.  Eat your heart out Satan.  LOL!

RickeyD

@Grafix ; You have great patience and thank you for standing for righteousness. The atheists that swamp this debate forum have made their choice and have been given-over to internalize a debased mind and unfortunately, many will die in their sin and die in Hell (Romans 1:18-32; Matthew 7:13-14). With that said, you've made a concerted effort to intercede, thank you.

The woman in Genesis 3:15 is ultimately Mary and she's done nothing to battle Lucifer but to remain faithful to God the Father and bear the child Jesus who is the blessing to the whole Earth promised Abraham by God (Genesis 12:3). The struggle mentioned is solely between the seed of the woman (the virgin Mary birthing Jesus who is God) and Lucifer; this struggle climaxed at the Crucifixion and foreshadowed the temptation of Messiah at the initiation of His ministry (Matthew 4:1-11) though that battle (between Yeshua and Lucifer) rages on in Time...It is visible today in the struggle between Yeshua/Israel v. Allah/Islam...this is the primary reason Jesus entered Time, to defeat the works of the Devil (1 John 3:8).

Clearly, the Hebrew designates the seed of the Woman will do battle with Lucifer, not the woman. https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/3-15.htm  ; "her seed" = Hebrew (zeh'-rah)
Definition: a sowing, seed, offspring

The Latin Vulgate version of the Old Testament has an unfortunate translation in Genesis 3:15. It changes the pronoun from the masculine his to the feminine. This unfortunate translation gave wrongful support for the claims concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary. The idea that Mary was the seed of the woman has no basis in fact in the Scripture.

 

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix Actually, there are Hindu sects which have been around longer than the Hebrew faith by far.
https://theculturetrip.com/asia/articles/the-8-oldest-religions-in-the-world/

Also, a question can not be considered an ignorant argument because by definition, it is not an argument. So far you are just dodging the question, almost as if you have something to hide.

There is no amount of evidence that will answer this question and none is needed, because we are asking for a set of actions not a set of principals.

If centuries ago someone lifted a rock and recorded what was there before setting it down again, and we want to know what is under the rock, we can look at the records and see what was written, but in order to be sure that the records are accurate and/or nothing has changed (i.e. roots rotting away, insects dying, maybe a mouse or ants made a nest) we have to pick up the rock and see for ourselves.

What I am asking is, how do we lift up the rock to know that Jesus was who he said he was?

Grafix

@ZeusAres42 ; You wrote:

@Happy_Killbot Just think how much money you could actually make hosting a religious-based website but as an Atheist? No one needs to know you're an Atheist. I mean you don't even need to say anything factually correct in regards to religion; all you need is an audience that is willing to believe anything you say so long as it is about their religion and it sounds good.

Precisely and is what we are witnessing here.  Trying to fly the kite that a wild supposition, defied by all historical, spiritual and empirical records and knowledge, could be accepted as plausible academic enquiry is too ludicrous for words.  If we followed that course, we would have to toss out about 70& of our historical records for the singular reason that our generations were not eye witnesses to any of it.  That's what is being peddled here.

Ignorance has destroyed many societies.

Hoseah  -  4:6  My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; for thou hast rejected knowledge, therefore I will reject thee ..., 

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix He's talking about the televangelist type who fly private jets and live in mansions all so they can tell people about something they already accept because it makes them think their miserable lives have a purpose.

Happy_Killbot

@RickeyD ;

Grafix is a Catholic, just so you know.

Grafix

@RickeyD - Yes, I went right back to the 1587 version, (I think that was the year, or thereabouts), when the very first English text was ever put to print and you are right about the seed of Mary being referred to as those who would crush the head of the serpent, but it doesn't say male or female.  It says "it" referencing her "offspring".  There seems be enormous confusion over these pronouns with "it", "her" and "his" all being used, but the oldest I could find says "it" obviously referencing Mary's collective offspring across generations, for I doubt very much any Biblical translator would refer to Jesus using the impersonal pronoun "it".

The other interpretation regarding the context around the word "heel" was quite enlightening and even that slightly different from my first explanation in my reply to you.  I later edited it to how it appears most common in the earliest translations and read all of the footnotes to arrive at that explanation in the edit.  It is the ultimate put down of Satan in beautiful metaphor.  I couldn't stop smiling.  It still reads "lie in wait for her heel", but the footnotes say that this denotes not only Mary but her offspring down through the generations, she the source of them, clearly including Christ, Satan's Nemesis. This explanation relies on the fact that Mary, as prophesied in Isaiah, is the one person, alone, who could fulfil the prophesy, which ultimately enables the crushing of the serpent's head, through the New Testament and the faithful who accept that Testament, through Christ.  

Did you know that King David was also born in Bethlehem and so were both Mary and Joseph?  Just an interesting addition to the fact that all through the Old Testament it speaks of God's covenant with the Patriarchs that the Messiah would be brought forth through the House of David..  These little known facts in the Biblical history always confirm even more so, the "pointiness" of God's message.  There is so much in it which is not highlighted.  You can read it 20 times and always observe something new. 

An observation I have made is that wherever the number seven appears, God's hand is always right there firmly upon that number.  It is so significant.  The seven branches of the Menorah.  The Seven Churches in Asia in St. John's letters in Revelation.  The Seven year famine in Egypt.  The Seven deadly sins.  The seven veils.  The seven hills of Rome.  The seven cities. The seven plagues.  The seven angels.  The seven trumpets.  It just goes on and on.  So many "sevens" and I don't yet know the significance of half of them. 

Thanks for the great topic.  It certainly brought the Satanists out, screaming and kicking.  LOL!

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - You don't have a clue what denomination I am.  You're a Philistine, though.  I have never said and will never tell the likes of you or Dee, knowing full well that whatever denomination I profess, you will use it against me, because that is exactly what Satan does, deliberately drives wedges of hatred, resentment, bigotry, prejudice and division between God's people, wherever and whenever he can.  

Congratulations, you are his foot soldier, but just happen to be ignorant of what I am.  It should not matter. Your ilk crow and crow about how they hold the moral high ground, pointing to their ridiculous SJWs, all the while tearing down the very foundations of everything that is moral.  They are a joke, buying into deception themselves.

He's talking about the televangelist type who fly private jets and live in mansions all so they can tell people about something they already accept because it makes them think their miserable lives have a purpose.

Methinks thou dost run from the truth.  He is talking about you.

MayCaesar

Grafix said:

Your analogy of the Berber changes nothing.  Ignorance is not an argument.  It is the problem.  Yours and Killbot's. The Berber would need to do what you and Killbot refuse to do.  Go to the source, as I previously have written - study the works of Jesus in His lifetime, not only look to the Bible for confirmation.  There is a plethora of confirmation from everything historical to everything spiritual, with unexplained events too, which provide necessary knowledge to unwrap the rich tapestry of God and Christ, before one can begin to understands the evidence.  Ignorance destroys societies and has.

Christ's historical record is one of consistent love, compassion, healing and wisdom.  The outstanding factor is NONE of these are  ever  attributed to Satan.  Why not?  Because that is not his identity.  Satan's identity is that he is incapable of those attributes, according to all possible known knowledge.  If you have any knowledge to the contrary, please enlighten me. Any appearance of Satan doing good always comes with a deception, is always temporal, shallow and never enduring, promising the OPPOSITE of what is ultimately delivered.  ALWAYS !   The identity of the Christian and Hebraic God is enduring, now known on the records for 11,000 years.  You can't pull it down with a wild unsupported claim with not a scratch of evidence.  The arrogance of it is breathtaking, the stupidity of it gobsmacking.

If we followed what you two are proposing here, then by logical progression, we would also need to abandon half of the historical record, be forced to accept that it can no longer be believed, simply because we were not there to witness it ourselves.  Approx. 70% of history is accepted on the word of sources, of eye-witnesses accounts from the past, archaeological evidence, written evidence, official records, or empirical evidence, stele, monuments, place names, accounts of wars, leaders, etc..  We have all of these which testify to Jesus' existence, his ancestry and his life story of consistently good deeds, of his teachings, to his living up to all that he taught, living it through to the letter, the model of perfection itself. 

Conversely, the identity we know as Satan, be it in spirit only, metaphorical, figurative or simply a literary device, has only ever been the embodiment of evil and representing the nemesis of Christ, so historically, literally and symbolically, the two cannot be one and the same, unless we turn all previous standards of record-keeping on their head, yet you two think it is intelligent to abandon all previous standards and propose God/Christ and Satan are collaborators in a grand heist.  You would need to provide some substantive evidence to support that claim before anyone is going to buy that.  You both seem oblivious to that fact..  Where's your evidence?  Without it, anyone can make the wildest of claims.  Claim away, but no-one is listening.

A major point to ponder, as an aside, is the endurance of the Judeo-Christian God with now evidence of monotheist Hebrews in towns which existed almost 11,000 years ago, i.e., 8,000 BC,  There is no other God of any other faith that has endured for so long.  NONE.  Also, the Bible is still the annual top selling book in the best seller list and has been for more than two centuries.  Eat your heart out Satan.  LOL!

You have not answered my question. If reading a single book is the only way to obtain some knowledge about the world, then that knowledge is fallacious. The world does not depend on what is written in books, it has its inherent structure that must be cognisable. If it is not and if there is no way to obtain knowledge via scientific experimentation, then that knowledge is not related to the world and is irrelevant.

Suppose we burn all the Bibles in the world. Will the god magically disappear from the Universe, because there is no way left to learn about him? This is what your logic suggests, and this makes absolutely zero sense.

For that matter, 5,000 years ago the Bible did not exist, and Jesus of Nazareth had not yet been born yet. Does it mean that 5,000 years ago god did not exist?

You also failed to make a compelling argument in support of the claim that the Bible was not written by Satan. If it was, then it being the best seller is a victory for Satan, and you are literally partaking in Satanism by celebrating it.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - You wrote:

Actually, there are Hindu sects which have been around longer than the Hebrew faith by far.
https://theculturetrip.com/asia/articles/the-8-oldest-religions-in-the-world/

As the article says, they have no cohesive worship of the same Gods.  Hinduism is like a revolving door with different Gods having evolved over the many millennia, which makes it more of a culture than a steadfast, single doctrine of a single faith, with a single deity. That is not an endurance of the original over time.  Only the name "Hundu" endures.

Also, a question can not be considered an ignorant argument because by definition, it is not an argument. So far you are just dodging the question, almost as if you have something to hide.

Are you going to pretend that you have not within that question all throughout this forum put forward a proposition.  Of course you have.  I ridicule the proposition.  So shoot me.  It is unintelligent, ignorant drivel, which I have not ignored, but resoundingly prove it to be.  You just ignore the evidence presented.  Meanwhile, you rebut nothing, just parrot squawk like a drunken sailor, persistently returning to the same refrain..

There is no amount of evidence that will answer this question and none is needed, because we are asking for a set of actions not a set of principals.

Claimed in ignorance, which is my point, because it is so heinously bereft of knowledge and understanding of the very subject matter, but we can forget arguing about your ignorance on that score, for we only need to look at what you tried to do.  By ignoring the procedure of historical record-keeping, you expect to turn it on its head, just to accommodate an outlandishly foolish proposition, which ignores how we record knowledge and history, simply because you don't like this particular record in our history.  That is not an argument.  That is cognitive dissonance, ignorance, bigotry, prejudice and hatred all rolled up into one hell of a sick, psycho mentality.

If centuries ago someone lifted a rock and recorded what was there before setting it down again, and we want to know what is under the rock, we can look at the records and see what was written, but in order to be sure that the records are accurate and/or nothing has changed (i.e. roots rotting away, insects dying, maybe a mouse or ants made a nest) we have to pick up the rock and see for ourselves.

So your claim is that every piece of history ever recorded had a little original rock, a hard piece of material evidence, with first-hand eye witness proof, to go back to thousands of years ago, before it could be recorded as accepted and accredited history.  Yeah right.  That's where you trip up every time and that's exactly why you are so wrong., but the funny thing is, we have our rock in Jesus himself.  He did exist.  HA.  HA.  HA..  It is precisely why i wrote as follows::

@ZeusAres42 - Trying to fly the kite that a wild supposition, defied by all historical, spiritual and empirical records and knowledge, could be accepted as plausible academic enquiry is too ludicrous for words.  If we followed that course, we would have to toss out about 70& of our historical records for the singular reason that our generations were not eye witnesses to any of it.  That's what is being peddled here.

You now claim that your question was simply this ....:

What I am asking is, how do we lift up the rock to know that Jesus was who he said he was?

It wasn't simply that, at all.  It was embellished with claims that Jesus is Satan with a request for proof that he was not.  I've given you historical proof pointing you to the historical records of Pontius Pilate, Tacitus and Josephus Flavius, but you just ignore these, including the soldiers' testimony, attesting to the evidence of Christ's divinity in His resurrection, His empty tomb, rolling the stone aside.  Then there is His ascension.  I don't know how many guys you see daily, pushing aside one tonne stones, walking up out of their graves and ascending up into the clouds.  Gee.  I must be missing something here.  Clot !!

Plus we have the vast number of miracles attested to by eye witness accounts also Jesus' purity in a moral and model lifestyle, also attested to by eye witness accounts, historical records and the Biblical account.  The Bible is a record of history.  You might not want to admit that, but that does not mean it isn't, just because you say so.  History has no place for unbalanced psycho neediness which denies what we don't like to hear.   I T   I S   
 A C C E P T E D   B Y   S C H O L A R S   as an extremely reliable  historical record.    G E T    U S E D   T O   IT.  Only weak mentalities deny facts, making them impossible to have a rational discussion with.. 

WHEN YOU CAN WALK ON WATER, GIVE A MAN HIS LEGS, HEAL THE SICK, GIVE A MAN HIS SIGHT, HEAL LEPROSY, CALM THE OCEANS, FEED 5,000 WITH A FEW LOAVES AND FISHES, RAISE THE DEAD, TURN WATER INTO WINE, MOVE A ONE TONNE STONE ALL BY YOUR LONESOME, WALK UP OUT OF YOUR GRAVE, TAKE OFF INTO THE CLOUDS IN A GLORY OF LIGHT AFTER YOU DIED, GIVE ME A CALL, GUNGHO. 

Grafix

@MayCaesar - You wrote:

You have not answered my question. If reading a single book is the only way to obtain some knowledge about the world, then that knowledge is fallacious. The world does not depend on what is written in books, it has its inherent structure that must be cognisable. If it is not and if there is no way to obtain knowledge via scientific experimentation, then that knowledge is not related to the world and is irrelevant.

You can't debate honestly, can you?  Just like your partner in crime, Mr. Killjoy himself.  What do the following two extracts from my post say ....

Go to the source, as I previously have written - study the works of Jesus in His lifetime, not only look to the Bible for confirmation.  There is a plethora of confirmation from everything historical to everything spiritual, with unexplained events too, which provide necessary knowledge to unwrap the rich tapestry of God and Christ, before one can begin to understands the evidence.

history is accepted on the word of sources, of eye-witnesses accounts from the past, archaeological evidence, written evidence, official records, or empirical evidence, stele, monuments, place names, accounts of wars, leaders, etc..  We have all of these which testify to Jesus' existence, his ancestry and his life story of consistently good deeds, of his teachings, to his living up to all that he taught, living it through to the letter, the model of perfection itself. 

There is a plethora of ancient evidence outside of the Biblical text which supports its accuracy as a reliable historical record.  Just because you don't like what it records, doesn't mean it isn't a reliable historical account,  just because you say so.  Scholars respect it highly for its historicity.  I have pointed you to Pilate's written record, attesting to Christ's resurrection and trial, to the soldiers' testimony of His resurrection too, the rolling of the one tonne stone aside.  Also to Tacitus and Josephus' records.  Are these all "one book"?  I don't think so.  Then there is the archaeological evidence as well, plus official records in Rome and Jerusalem.  I guess you just wanna sweep that lot under the mat too. 

This "one book" of history is like no other "one book" because it spans more than 3,000 years of history.  Suddenly that's not O.K.?  Why?  If you don't like the convenience of 3.000 years + of history bound in "one book", then download it from EPub or Ebooks and bind up each section separately to your little heart's desire.  Problem fixed. Honestly, your  "one book" argument is sooo lame. You should be grateful you can find 3,000 years of history in "one book".  It's a lot cheaper than buying 100 over the same period in general history.

Suppose we burn all the Bibles in the world. Will the god magically disappear from the Universe, because there is no way left to learn about him? This is what your logic suggests, and this makes absolutely zero sense.

And that is what this is really all about isn't it?  Satan's little army would just love to have licence to go back to the era of book burnings..  Sorry. Won't happen. No-one will oblige your hateful and unbridled bigotry.  We are more civilised than that now.  Have moved on from the Dark Ages.  If you burnt any history of any era, of any civilisation or peoples, of course it would disappear.  So what's your point, Sunshine?  Don't like the history in this particular book?  Tuff titty.  Get used to it.

For that matter, 5,000 years ago the Bible did not exist, and Jesus of Nazareth had not yet been born yet. Does it mean that 5,000 years ago god did not exist?

Wrong again.  We have history of monotheistic Hebraic peoples in cities going back to 8,000 BC on Sumerian tablets.  It means that the historical inheritance by Christ of this enduring belief system goes back many millennia, with Christ's very own appearance prophesied and covenanted as far back as Abraham, that no other religion has such a record of enduring endurance, compelling history or ancient written record.  Yeah I know Satan hates that very fact and has been trying to destroy it since its beginning, just like you would love to, too.  We do get it.  These Sumerian tablets are signed by Adam through to Joshua and are the first hand accounts which Moses used to compile the first five Books of the Bible.

You also failed to make a compelling argument in support of the claim that the Bible was not written by Satan.

I didn't make a compelling argument?  OK.  Well this is your argument: Satan writes a book which thoroughly discredits himself, compelling every reader to run from him askance and rush into the arms of Christ, who has a compelling historical record, which has endured for 2,000 years with eye-witness accounts and other historical records, attesting to the fact that He is the very antithesis of all that Satan represents.  The same book also documents that Christ is Satan's Nemesis.  Nevertheless, Satan wrote this very book with the objective of winning hearts, minds and souls over to his side and stealing them from Christ.  This requires us to also accept therefore that Christ and Satan are really collaborators, if not one and the same identity, in a massive propaganda heist to swindle the people.  It further requires the reader to dismiss everything on the historical record, concerning Christ's life, eye-witness accounts, official records, His impeccable record for purity, spiritual godliness and holiness, hundreds of miracles of compassion, kindness, love and sharing and instead accept he is Satan's best mate or Satan himself. Yeah right.  Pigs fly by every day wearing pink tutus and satin ballet shoes.  Good one.
.  
P.S.  Applauding the enduring endurance of a remarkable and holy book, is what we should all be doing, rather than attempting to desecrate and defile it, as you are doing - a sacrilegious travesty, yet you have the brassy balls to berate me?  Your slip is showing.

Grafix

LOL!  I think Debra Al Analytics has given up the ghost. Tied, Tied, Tied, Tied, Tied..  LOL!

MayCaesar

@Grafix

You keep coming back to the hard evidence behind Jesus' existence. Yes, he very much likely existed; no, there is no archaeological evidence to suggest that he was "god".
There is no hard evidence behind Jesus' resurrection, and a few alleged oral accounts is not evidence. There were similar oral accounts in Ancient Greece on some of the gods such as Zeus walking Earth, yet even Ancient Greek were logical enough to not give it much thought. Something more is required for something to be considered a fact than a few verbal testimonies by people who all knew each other.

I was not suggesting burning books; I was offering it as a mental experiment. Suppose there were no Bibles in this world; would the god disappear from the world, since there would be no more way of knowing of his existence, according to you?

Okay, so you are admitting that the Bible is not the original source, and the Sumerian tablets were used to write them down. Are those tablets the original source then? Same question applies: if these tablets had not existed, what would be the evidence behind god's existence?

I do not really care about things like "sacrilege". If your poor religion cannot handle criticism, then it does not deserve to exist. For all I know, Christians are as likely to be Satanists as not to be ones, and the fact that they cannot offer anything in support of the claim that they are not says a lot.
The more you defend the Bible with weak arguments that do not really contradict my theory on Satan having written it, the more it is clear that Satan was very successful in doing so.