A Challenge to Our Intelligence.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ben_Masada
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
How do you explain (other than by screaming: “It’s a lie!!”) that the attorney Tertullus, representing the Jewish Council in front the governor Felix, said at one point:“He’s a ringleader of the Nazarene sect” and that Paul never took the pain of refuting that point? Yet, the Acts of the Apostles were written by Paul’s companion in evangelization, Luke, so if he were to be found dissociate from the Nazarenes, there was the opportunity. Paul didn’t refute it!
Neither Paul nor Luke were ever associated with the Nazarenes. The Attorney Tertullus assumed or didn’t care to connect Paul to the Nazarenes as a ringleader because 14 years before, when Paul was in Jerusalem being chased by the local Jews to be brought to trial, James and the Elders of the Nazarenes helped him escape to Tarsus. And all in consideration for Barnabas who was an old friend of Paul’s and an authority among the Nazarenes.(Acts 9:19,30)
 
…] And how many people do you personally know who don’t lack at least some knowledge? As Paul said: “He would thinks he is wise, or he who thinks he is “somebody” let him become foolish to acquire wisdom”…
Paul’s quote sounds a lot like Socrates’, “All I know is that I know nothing.”
I think Paul was influenced heavily by his studies and they affected his valuation of the Law. He later convinces people that circumcision is unnecessary and sows discord among the people. Paul never really ever admitted to any wrongdoing for persecuting the congregation and when he became a teacher he used his power to silence and subject women. He professes to be a master of law but he does not understand his own sin or that his view of the Law is a sacrifice of it instead of the merciful application that Christ endorsed. Since Ben is a Jew asking about Christianity I will share that I believe that circumcision is endorsed by Christ in that it is a form of maiming that will ensure life and also make us like Christ, as He is circumcised as well. But, my main advice is that the circumcision be done on the day of preparation if the eighth day happens to fall on a sabbath (i.e., “It is better to enter into life maimed than to have all your members and be thrown into hell. (paraphrase)”)

Ben, can you point out the errors in Paul’s “iron & clay (i.e., law and philosophy)” logic in this excerpt?:

Romans 11:
1: I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2: God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
3: Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4: But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
5: Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
6: And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
7: What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
8: (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear; ) unto this day.
9: And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumbling block, and a recompence unto them:
10: Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back always.
11: I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
12: Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fullness?
13: For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
14: If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.
15: For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
16: For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
17: And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
18: Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
19: Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
20: Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22: Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23: And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
24: For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?
25: For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.
26: And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28: As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.
29: For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
30: For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31: Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
32: For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
33: O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
34: For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counseller?
35: Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
36: For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.
 
Hello Ben Masada, please address post #67. For some reason you choose to skip over that one.

I’m not Bible savvy but the idea one can survive a brutal torture session and crucifixion is difficult to buy into as you claim, and then to go on and say Jesus could fully recover within 40 days time, I don’t buy that as well. People barely recover from major body trauma now with so much ground breaking medicine and technology taking the shortest time 2 months or so, I don’t believe it for one second that Jesus could recover during that (40 days) time period or even recover at all, even if he did survive he would have succumbed to his injuries within hours of being taken down still making it possible for him to resurrect as the Gospels claim.

Consider open wounds, sanitation, internal bleeding, head trauma, dehydration, organ damage as FatTire said. I can see where your coming from, your Jewish and you don’t believe in Jesus so you will reach at anything and desperately try to disprove him, but I’m not a Christian but even I can see that your claims are unfounded or at the least very weak and unbelievable.

By the way I am considering to become a Catholic and you are playing devil’s advocate, which is good to question, but I have to tell you, reading your arguements and claims are actually drawing me closer to Jesus and to acknowledge that the resurrection is a real event and that Jesus is who he said he was.

Funny, a Jew helps a non-believer find faith in Jesus Christ. I’m still laughing at that one.

After you’ve tackled post # 67, if you’d like try to address issues I’ve proposed as well, if any.

Best,

Matthew
Ben, I know your busy, it’s hard when you’re loosing control and your argument is dead in the water or it’s spiraling out of control, maybe you need to call in reinforcements from a Jewish website, but when you get the chance address the posts made by FatTire, the ones I think are easy to understand because they’re not scripture oriented (I’m not so scripture savvy like you or everyone else).

But I would like to know how you address the arguements posted by FatTire and the new ones I pointed out, all you have to do is show how someone can physically survive such deadly trauma as a crucifixion in a time when open wounds and infections would lead to almost certain death. Thanks.
 
Also Ben, do a search on what myrrh and aloes, the so-called “medicine” you claim that Nicodemus brought, what there uses are for.

Myrrh was used for embalming or anointing of the dead. As for medicinal purposes it was used to clean wounds, but mainly to treat bad breath, sore throats, and gum disease, its still used in toothpaste and mouthwash today.

As for aloes, better known as aloe vera, it’s used for: blisters, insect bites, rashes, sores, herpes, urticaria, athlete’s foot, fungus, vaginal infections, conjunctivitis, sties, allergic reactions, and dry skin.

I hardly believe that even a million pounds of this stuff would have done Jesus any good.
Here is the second part of my post, Ben.
 
wow … this is :confused:

A challenge to our intelligence = all religion:eek:
Is that your poor attempt to be clever? Claiming that their is no source or origin for all life and creation is an insult to our intelligence.

No offense, but agnostics are cowardly atheists, at least atheists,foolishly may I add, commit to a side. And going around not clearly choosing a side is an insult to indecision.
 
Is that your poor attempt to be clever? Claiming that their is no source or origin for all life and creation is an insult to our intelligence.

No offense, but agnostics are cowardly atheists, at least atheists,foolishly may I add, commit to a side. And going around not clearly choosing a side is an insult to indecision.
didn’t say all that (false dichotomy) … just inferred religion is silly
 
didn’t say all that (false dichotomy) … just inferred religion is silly
No, you didn’t. I did, so what’s your point? I feel being indecisive about such a life altering topic is silly. I think there is another place for this discussion, this thread is about Ben Massada’s claims which he doesn’t do a good job at supporting.
 
I have looked for this book and cannot find it nor can I find any reference to the author.
I too looked this up and you want to know where the only matches I got on it were? From Ben Massada posts. Ha Ha Ha
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

I checked UCLA’s database and catalog, nothing. Are you even now resorting to making up fake references too, Ben?

You crack me up Ben, I’m sharing this story with people at work. I’m claiming that you make sense and that your arguements have some sort of intelligence to them. Here is my reference:

The Myth of the Pax Romana" by Prof. Erick Hinnerman.

Good luck finding it. Perhaps you can mail us a copy?
 
I feel being indecisive about such a life altering topic is silly.
you’re right. Self delusion is much more logical 🙂
I think there is another place for this discussion, this thread is about Ben Massada’s claims which he doesn’t do a good job at supporting.
you’re probably right … I’ll stop spooking this thread
 
you’re right. Self delusion is much more logical 🙂
You claim its self-delusion, so why not grow a pair a label yourself an atheist? I myself am only now beginning to study religion, more specifically Christianity. You have these bs one liners and you think you can just simply write off religion with them. I tried being ignorant and indecisive like you. Actually not, I wasn’t that stupid, I’m a Theist, I at least have taken a position.
you’re probably right … I’ll stop spooking this thread
Thank you, go try impressing someone else with your emoticons and stupid one liners.
 
You claim its self-delusion, so why not grow a pair a label yourself an atheist?
because I don’t delude myself either way. IMO the weight of evidence sufficiently debunks “religion” … but it doesn’t shed sufficient light on the origins of the universe either (although I’m also fairly convinced biological evolution occurred through random selection, there’s still the question of abiogenesis).
I myself am only now beginning to study religion, more specifically Christianity. You have these bs one liners and you think you can just simply write off religion with them.
I have a litany of great arguments, I was just respecting your request to stay out of this thread.
I tried being ignorant and indecisive like you. Actually not, I wasn’t that stupid, I’m a Theist, I at least have taken a position.
and you really think taking a dogmatic position without any real evidence is logical? Have you ever studied ancient mythology, and noticed all the parallels between it and Judeo-Christianity? Do you think they were coincidences, accidents, or god talking to men who confused his message as enumerating a pagan religious system?

Don’t you find it interesting that science continues to debunk religious myth. Now even most Christians acknowledge a literal translation of the bible isn’t possible in light of scientific developments in areas like evolution, human migratory patterns, etc.

Your religion grew up in a primitive superstitious world where rain meant favor from the gods, earthquakes and droughts meant the gods were angry. A tribe drifts away from Mesopotamian civilization and creates an offshoot religion, a monotheistic hybrid that slowly evolves through generations of folklore and blend in from other regional mythological systems.

Debunking religion isn’t rocket science. It a few notable characteristics, but none of it is true.
Thank you, go try impressing someone else with your emoticons and stupid one liners.
no problem, I like to help :rolleyes:
 
don’t you find it odd that after being imprisoned, beaten up, beheaded, crucified, stoned, not one apostle or disciple ever came out and admitted that the resurrection was all a hoax?

if in their hearts and in their minds they knew it was a lie, and if the were not filled with the Holy Spirit, truly at least one of them would have admitted to the Romans it was all a lie and it would have been recorded by the Romans and all the Christians would have been purged completely and the hoax would have been declared throughout the empire so that they would not gain any more members?

i came from a third world country where police brutality is common and its so easy to make anyone confess to any crime after a few beatings. i wonder why the more brutal Romans never got any apostle to admit that it was all a hoax.

unless of course it was true and they were filled with the Holy Spirit just as Jesus promised them during His ascension into heaven
 
don’t you find it odd that after being imprisoned, beaten up, beheaded, crucified, stoned, not one apostle or disciple ever came out and admitted that the resurrection was all a hoax?

if in their hearts and in their minds they knew it was a lie, and if the were not filled with the Holy Spirit, truly at least one of them would have admitted to the Romans it was all a lie and it would have been recorded by the Romans and all the Christians would have been purged completely and the hoax would have been declared throughout the empire so that they would not gain any more members?

i came from a third world country where police brutality is common and its so easy to make anyone confess to any crime after a few beatings. i wonder why the more brutal Romans never got any apostle to admit that it was all a hoax.

unless of course it was true and they were filled with the Holy Spirit just as Jesus promised them during His ascension into heaven
**Listen Choy, do you believe that Muhammad ascended to heaven from the Temple Mount in Jerusalem? Neither do I. Did you know that Muslims go to their deaths to uphold that belief? Yes, they do. Does it mean they have a monopoly on the Truth? I didn’t think so. Neither does the Church based on the alleged stories of how the Apostles died. This to die for a religious ideal is no proof that the ideal is true. Scriptures Choy, “Sola Scriptura.” **
 
I have looked for this book and cannot find it nor can I find any reference to the author.
Try “The Interview” by Joseph Mendson. I am sure you will find that one. If he is not the same author, he wrote about the same subject.
 
because I don’t delude myself either way. IMO the weight of evidence sufficiently debunks “religion” … but it doesn’t shed sufficient light on the origins of the universe either (although I’m also fairly convinced biological evolution occurred through random selection, there’s still the question of abiogenesis).
Perhaps you don’t delude yourself in coming to what you believe about reality…perhaps you come to your conclusions based on an honest assessment of available data as far as you see it. However, similarly to Ben, you delude yourself in thinking that people who disagree with you are somehow irrational or deluding themselves. That is where your self delusion comes in: Your implied opinion that those who believe in an existing religion are all deluding themselves and arbitrarily choosing to believe in what (in your opinion) science has “debunked”.
I have a litany of great arguments, I was just respecting your request to stay out of this thread.
I must say, what Ben is (unsuccessfully) trying to argue is the only argument that can debunk Christianity. If a man named Jesus was in fact the Messiah and vindicated those claims by rising from the dead, it proves everything that defines Christianity at its basic core, and by extension it validates at least the rationability of Catholicism. I have failed to see one person, Ben, an atheist, agnostic, or otherwise “debunk” the resurrection.
and you really think taking a dogmatic position without any real evidence is logical? Have you ever studied ancient mythology, and noticed all the parallels between it and Judeo-Christianity? Do you think they were coincidences, accidents, or god talking to men who confused his message as enumerating a pagan religious system?
Any of those explanations are possible, actually, your possible sarcasm notwithstanding. It is true that there are things we do not know, and can only speculate in order to explain, and those similarities constitute one of those things. I do know however, that something unusual happened concerning Jesus of Nazareth around 2000 years ago, and the only explanation of that “something” that doesn’t seem overly contrived to me–whatever the case may be for you–is that He rose from the dead of His own volition, something that has never occurred before or since outside of myths that no historically supportable person ever claimed to actually witness, unlike the case with Christ. It is most reasonable to believe–not disputed even by early historians who hated Christianity–that Jesus was a real historical person, and it is equally reasonable to believe–again, in the absence of denial by those early historians who would have loved to deny it–that his disciples and others, who we have good reason to observe would have known whether or not He did in fact rise, as they claimed to have seen Him after the fact, were willing to die for the belief that He did. For me, the least contrived explanation is that He truly did rise.

Therefore, to say that we believe “without any real evidence” is a serious and inaccurate accusation; let us remember, evidence need only persuade, it need not prove beyond the shadow of a doubt. And I, for one, am persuaded by the evidence that the Resurrection happened. I would actually be lying, to others and to myself, if I said I found any other explanation of the evidence to be more plausible. Perhaps you are of a different opinion on what is and isn’t more plausible, but we are talking about debunking religion, not disagreeing with it; a differing opinion does not succeed in debunking anything.
Don’t you find it interesting that science continues to debunk religious myth. Now even most Christians acknowledge a literal translation of the bible isn’t possible in light of scientific developments in areas like evolution, human migratory patterns, etc.
I have yet to see science debunk anything dogmatically central to Christianity, anything without which Christianity’s dogmatic claims fall apart; it may debunk things that were traditionally quite popular to believe within Christianity, but nothing dogmatic. I have yet to see science even come close. Most importantly, science has not debunked the Resurrection. Scientists may say “It’s impossible because it defies physics, etc.” but in this case they totally miss the point of the word “miracle,” something that a great deal of non-theists do, although I do not know whether or not you yourself are one of the sort who do so.
Your religion grew up in a primitive superstitious world where rain meant favor from the gods, earthquakes and droughts meant the gods were angry. A tribe drifts away from Mesopotamian civilization and creates an offshoot religion, a monotheistic hybrid that slowly evolves through generations of folklore and blend in from other regional mythological systems.
It is possible, in light of the Resurrection and what we learn from it–for it is Christ’s resurrection and that alone which compels me, intellectually speaking, to believe in the Judeo-Christian God–that a tribe drifts away from Mesopotamian civilization and slowly but surely learns more and more of the real and only God, Who possibly hadn’t been worshiped or known for ages upon ages. It is possible that this same tribe, while reworking some already existing folklore in a way which made it seem that the Earth is far younger than it actually is, was doing so to make this folklore fit–as best as possible with their limited understanding–with the reality, God, that they had discovered via His self-revelation, rather than that reality being false.
Debunking religion isn’t rocket science.
Well, that for one is absolutely true…rocket science, for all its proverbial difficulty, can be done and has been done. I have no reason to think that debunking religion, specifically Christianity, either can or has been done.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top