Giant thread of convince-me-not-to-be-a-theist

by DS211 243 Replies latest jw friends

  • Comatose

    good info. After this I suggest look up ice cores on Wikipedia.

  • DS211

    How about the 10,000 year old cultic te found? thats older than the 6,000 year lineage of humans according to the Bible.....

  • adamah

    TEC said- An angel (spirit being) is not vulnerable to pathogens or genetic diseases. That vessel (spirit body) does not get sick and die, as it does not have sin and death in it. Our vessel (physical body, as it is now) does have sin and death in it... otherwise we would NOT get sick and we would not die.

    Heh, I didn't see that one.

    TEC, you REALLY believe that humans get sick from diseases like leprosy and they're caused by sin? What year is it? 2013? REALLY?

    So how asking Jesus for a list of diseases which are caused by sin, and which aren't? THAT would be helpful to doctors, indeed!

    BTW, the early Xian gnostics believed that everyone's spirit was trapped within their physical body (AKA 'their vessel', supposedly a container designed to hold material; in their case, they believed the fleshly body was the vessel that contained a person's soul). Even animals' souls wre trapped in their body, in their blood: that's why animals had to be bled properly, to allow their soul (Hebrew word is 'nephesh') to escape their dying body (and also why eating strangled animals was forbidden: the soul wasn't allowed to escape properly, since the blood had to be pumping when they died).

    But this 'spirit vessel' concept is interesting: what exactly does the 'spirit vessel' contain inside of it? Lemme guess: is there a soul within a soul?

    I just loves me some o dat' time-wastin' woo-woo nonsense!

    TEC, your inner voice clearly hasn't read the NT or understood the Bible's explanation of Jesus' power to heal being solely based on the concept of Jesus being authorized by God to forgive sins, where God's 'Holy Spirit' effects the cure. It wasn't some power Jesus had "inside of him", or even faith in HIM, but rather, faith in God's grace and ability (via Holy Spirit) which actually effected the cure. Jesus was the mediator, the messiah, often referred to as the high priest (who also was able to forgive sins on behalf of God), but the POWER was from God.

    TEC said- Yes, of course the power was from God. What does anything you wrote above have to do with anything that I said?

    Here's the claim TEC (channeling for Jesus) made, which you've seemingly already forgotten:

    Via TEC, "Jesus" said- Every single incident regarding healing had to do with FAITH to BE healed, and the power that Christ had TO heal those of faith.

    As I showed, that claim is incorrect on both clauses: "every single incident regarding healing" did NOT involve the cured or healed person to possess faith in order to be healed (see my last post for NT examples which prove it to be false).

    The second clause is incorrect too, since the cured (or healed, or even resurrected, since death is the ultimate outcome of sin) didn't have to believe in the power of Christ, since Jesus even healed non-believers to demonstrate that he had the authority of God to perform miracles.

    TEC, you're always carry on about how you're 'only pointing TO Jesus', when you've seemingly forgotten that Jesus spent all of HIS time pointing to, and acting in the name of, His Father, Jehovah!

    So by glorifying Jesus instead of God, you've completely missed the point that Jesus claimed that God (acting via Holy Spirit) IS the actual source of power for the many miracles which Jesus performed.

    In that manner, you're revealing (yet again) that you don't really understand the ancient Hebrew societal role of the 'redeemer' (Hebrew word, go'el), a common concept appearing in the Tanakh, and obviously a concept which the NT also relies, since Jesus claimed to be the Jewish Messiah, the one who claimed the power of a redeemer of the Chosen Ones (Xians typically broaden that role to Jesus being the redeemer of all mankind, paying for their sins with his blood).

    In the NT, Jesus is repeatedly referred to as the 'redeemer' of the Jews (the Chosen Ones), but the concept emerges from messianic prophecies found the OT; the reference to a redeemer was well-known to all Hebrews, since the redeemer was typically a title given to a male family member who was authorized to act on behalf of a familial patriarch and his 'clan' in certain situations. The most obvious example is in the case of bloodshed of one of the family members: the responsibility for seeking vengeance for the relative's murder was handed to a 'blood avenger', typically a young male who was selected and required to chase after the killer, so as to avenge his relative's spilled blood. And why didn't the family patriarch personally carry out the chore? He could serve in the role, but usually the responsibility was passed to a young male (i.e. one of his sons), since the physical stress of giving chase called for a younger person, and it was too disruptive to the family business for the patriarch to drop everything to chase after a killer (not to mention risky, since the killer could fight back for their lives, and often killed their supposed 'avenger')!

    More often, though, the redeemer served a role of one who intervened on behalf of another family member who'd fallen into debt, and was expected to pay it off by becoming the slave of another Hebrew. However, their patriarch could "redeem" them out of their obligation by paying off their debts and obligations on their behalf. Remember, there were no payday loans in ancient Isreal, since NO ONE ELSE in Hebrew society was allowed to lend them money, since Hebrew society had strict rules against usury (but without rules against making loans to Gentiles).

    In either case, think of the redeemer as having limited "powers of attorney" to act on behalf of the partiarch (in Jesus' case, his heavenly Father) or the one in debt (i.e. his fellow Jews, who were in debt for Adamic sin, at least under Xianity's later interpretation of Genesis).

    So Jesus was claiming his ability to heal injuries and cure disease came from acting as the one apointed by God, since he had the power to forgive the sins of humans by acting as an agent of, and on behalf of, his Heavenly Father; in general, he claimed the authority to act on the behalf of God, but the POWER and AUTHORITY was DELEGATED to him BY God (where priests ALSO claimed the same authority to mediate on behalf of the sinners who repented and offered sacrifices to Jehovah: obviously that's the entire POINT of the sacrificial system! Why bother doing it, if a sinner couldn't atone for his sins and be forgiven and blessed by God?).

    Jesus claimed in essence to be God's deputy, just as Noah was also appointed by God to enforce the new "no bloodshed" law, given to mankind as a blessing, after the Flood (Genesis 9:5-6) and AS the solution to the Flood (as I discussed in the article on the Flood, on my blog).

    TEC said- They, the pharisees, were placing 'sacrifice over mercy'... the opposite of what God wants. So that they, the pharisees, condemned the innocent. Christ asked, "Which is lawful on the sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?"

    Oh, I dunno: seems like the Pharisees were only following explicit orders supposedly handed down by Jehovah to Moses, which were given in the Torah! I mean, why didn't Jesus take the opportunity to condemn the Jewish male stoned to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, a punishment which, besides the many orders that appear in Exodus to respect the Sabbath (for cryin' out loud! It's one of the 10 commandments!), the account clearly says that Jehovah personally ordered the stoning? The Pharisees should be blamed, for NOT being a bit concerned to please the Divine One?

    And note that Jesus didn't speak out against the account, never saying, "Ya' know what, folks? We should probably just 'ixnay on the Abbathsay toningsay' bit! It's not worth dying or killing over!", LOL! Far from it: he said he didn't come change the Tanakh (Torah = Laws), but to fulfill the prophecies (Nevi'im)" Jesus was down with it, and talked out of both sides of his mouth, saying what you quoted above re: his Sabbath platform, but also saying he was a "law and order" guy (as I pointed out, above).

    Jesus was a flip-flopper, and Cofty, that's (yet) actually ANOTHER example of how Jesus contradicted the basic principles found in the Torah.

    In fact, there are MANY instances where the "patient" didn't possess or demonstrate faith in Jesus' ability to heal, since the restriction was that the person seeking healing, even on behalf of another person, had to possess faith that Jesus could effect a cure (and if the 'cure' failed, the requestor could be blamed for the treatment's failure, due to their "lack of faith"). And even that is an overstatement, since there are Biblical examples where NO faith in JEsus' ability was demonstrated, or could be demonstrated.

    TEC said- I did not say the patient, did I?

    And it's time-wasting and energy-sapping frivolous flak like that which makes it so painful to engage with you, since that's a classic example of a 'distinction without a difference' (AKA quibbling, a sign that you really couldn't come up with anything substantive, but you felt compelled to respond). Would it really make you feel sooo much better if I had instead used a lengthier phrase, eg, "the person who Jesus claimed to heal"?

    TEC said- And this example from your 'let us reason' site is not entirely correct; well at least not in the way that you are applying it:

    Lk.17:11-19 Jesus healed all 10 lepers but only one obeyed showing that he was the only one to possess true saving faith.

    All ten lepers demonstrated faith by going to Christ to begin with... only one of them praised God and gave glory to God for what God had done; showing love as well.

    Yeah, you're wrong, but take it up with the guy who wrote that page, as I'm not a believer (you have the link to his site).

    TEC said- As for those raised who were dead, like Lazarus, first off, Lazarus belonged to Christ, had complete faith IN Christ to begin with, and that would not have changed upon his death.

    R u 4 realz?

    So much wrong in that, I don't want to get into it... PASS!

    TEC said- The only incident that I recall where faith is not mentioned or implied one way or the other... is the servant whose ear Peter sliced.

    Well, sure, there's THAT ONE (AND the others I mentioned, too).

    BTW, perhaps you should clarify which claims come from TEC (and can be pinned on your misunderstanding), and those claims which Jesus made, perhaps using a special color? That would help avoid confusion, and considerably facilitate the debunking efforts.


  • tec

    Heh, I didn't see that one.

    You don't see a lot of things, Adamah... which is how you thought elsewhere that I believed Adam was killed in the first day because I have used the "a thousand years = a day" reasoning (something I never used); and in the same thread you said I backpeddled from the whole 24 hour literal days of creation... but i never said they were 24 hour days to begin with, so how could I backpeddle.

    You still have not addressed the simple statement that you made... that Christ healed by forgiving sins. There is not one account that states such a thing. If there is, then please show me this. You ignored that entire post on the last page, and as far as I can tell, you ignored it because you cannot prove it wrong.

    Sometiems you also state one thing... then seem to do a complete reversal and state what I have been stating all along, as though I have been arguing that same thing. LOL. I am not sure how that breakdown occurs. Either you are not reading my posts carefully, or I am not reading your posts carefully. But I find it very hard to keep track of your point when it seems to do a reverse. In any case, if you want to continue this conversation, I suggest that we do so elsewhere. Start another thread if you like and I'll meet you there.

    Peace to you,


  • jgnat

    4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, "Why are you thinking evil in your hearts? 5 "Which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, and walk '? 6 "But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins "-- then He said to the paralytic, "Get up, pick up your bed and go home." Matthew 9 (NASB)

  • zound

    edit: beat me to it.

  • zound

    Now the man who had been healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had withdrawn, as there was a crowd in the place. Afterward Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, “See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse may happen to you.” The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had healed him.

  • jgnat

    great minds, zound. Heh, heh, heh.

  • zound

    Another point to add - the command from Jesus "Sin no more" is ridiculous. He is talking to an imperfect human who will no doubt sin again in some capacity before the day is through.

  • adamah

    TEC Said-

    You still have not addressed the simple statement that you made... that Christ healed by forgiving sins.

    Holy Hades, TEC: read the post above, where I EXPLAINED (yet again) the entire basis under which Jesus claimed the power to heal, based on the well-known role in ancient Hebrew society of the redeemer (go'el), which in Xian beliefs evolved into the concept of overcoming death based on Adamic sin AND forgiving non-Adamic sins (for diseases like leprosy).

    Here is the relevant excerpt, if you get bogged down (and I edited this one, to aid conciseness):

    Jesus claimed his ability to heal injuries and cure disease came from acting as the agent appointed by God, since he claimed Divine authorization to forgive the sins of humans by acting as an agent of, and on behalf of, his Heavenly Father.

    However, the POWER of causing the cure remained God's, since the healing itself was performed BY God's Holy Spirit (where priests ALSO claimed the same authority to mediate on behalf of the sinners who repented and offered sacrifices to Jehovah: obviously that's the entire POINT of the sacrificial system! Why bother doing it, if a sinner couldn't atone for his sins, AND be forgiven and blessed by God?).

    In a nutshell, Jesus forgave sins (at least, for those conditions like leprosy, which were believed to be caused by sins of the person or their parents), BUT the Holy Spirit (God's active force) caused the cure/healing to occur. Faith generally fits in, since the person has to believe that Jesus has the authority to act on behalf of God (AKA placebo effect).


Share this