Jesus is God Incarnate; irrefutable - Political Forum

Santa_Claus · 04-08-2008, 08:22 PM

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" John 1:1

"...the Word WAS MADE FLESH, and dwelt among us..." John 1:14

"I and my Father are one." John 10:30

"Jesus saith...he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?" John 14:9

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD was manifest in the FLESH, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, BELIEVED ON in the world, RECEIVED UP into glory." Timothy 3:16

"Hereby perceive we the love of GOD, because he LAID DOWN HIS LIFE for us..." 1 John 3:16

"And they stoned Stephen, calling upon GOD, and saying, LORD JESUS, receive my spirit." Acts 7:59

"For unto us A CHILD IS BORN, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, THE MIGHTY GOD, THE EVERLASTING FATHER, The Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:6

"...CHRIST, who is the IMAGE OF GOD..." II Corinthians 4:4

"...glory of GOD in the FACE OF JESUS CHRIST." II Corinthians 4:6

"GOD...hath in these last days spoken unto us by his SON...who being the brightness of his glory, and the EXPRESS IMAGE OF HIS PERSON..." Hebrews 1:1-3

"For in [Jesus] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Colossians 2:9

"...they shall call his name EMMANUEL, which being interpreted is, GOD WITH US." Matthew 1:23

"The voice of him [John the Baptist] that crieth in the wilderness, PREPARE ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway FOR OUR GOD." Isaiah 40:3

Caltex · 04-08-2008, 08:27 PM

One can refute the divinity of the bible. Doesn't that kind of kill any argument supported by the bible?

Santa_Claus · 04-08-2008, 08:43 PM

The Bible is without any contradictions. I have yet to find any honest contradictions in the Bible at all. Only a person born of the spirit will be able to understand the Bible.
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14

Caltex · 04-08-2008, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Santa_Claus

The Bible is without any contradictions. I have yet to find any honest contradictions in the Bible at all. Only a person born of the spirit will be able to understand the Bible.
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14

I'll point out several for you, 398 of them to be exact, and refer you to a great essay on the contradictions in the bible about the Christmas Story. In the link, it describes in plain English the contradiction, and if you click on it it shows the bible text.

SAB Contradictions

The bible contradicts itself quite often. That alone refutes its divinity.

Quote:

THE CASE OF THE BIRTH STORIES:

Any historian working with early Christianity faces many problems: There are no truly contemporary sources still in existence that deal with Jesus or his death from either the Christian or non-Christian point of view. The earliest that we do possess were written only decades later, at a time when the historical situation had changed drastically. The best sources that we do have, the four canonical gospels that make up much of the New Testament, exhibit serious flaws. And the later pro-Christian sources are not balanced by material from the other side, since vast majority of anti-Christian writings from the ancient world have disappeared, due either to the “thinning” of all souces that accompanied the decline of the Greco-Roman world or censorship on the part of the triumphant Christian movement. As a result, all that can ever be known of the life of Jesus is very tentative.

A good example of the problems a historian must confront when using the gospels as historical sources can be seen in an episode familiar to all, “the Christmas story.” In fact, the Christmas story is really a composite of two quite different accounts, one from the Gospel of Matthew; the other from Luke.

Matthews account is as follows: A woman named Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit. Joseph, who was engaged to Mary, had just about decided to break off the marriage when the Holy Spirit appeared to him in a dream, explaining his bride's pregnancy. Although still a virgin, Mary gave birth to a son in the town of Bethlehem and named him Joshua (or Jesus).

The birth took place in the reign of Herod the Great, the prototype of a tyrant in Jewish history, who ruled Palestine for the Romans during the first century B.C. According to Matthew, astrologers or “wise men” from the east saw a star which they believed to be a sign that a king of the Jews' had been born. As a result, they journeyed westward to pay tribute to him. King Herod pretended to help them in order to get information about the boy whom he hoped to eliminate, as he had eliminated everyone whom he considered a threat to his power, including much of his family. He asked the wise men to return from Bethlehem and tell him what they had found.

At Joseph's house in Bethlehem, they found the child. They gave him their gifts, but having been warned in another dream, they skipped the return visit to Herod and returned to the east by another route. Still determined to get rid of the boy, Herod simply massacred all children in Bethlehem under two years of age. However, Joseph had been warned of what would happen in still another dream, and had fled with his family into Egypt where he remained until the death of Herod. Joseph then returned to Israel, but instead of going home to Bethlehem, he moved north to Nazareth in the region of Galilee for greater safety from Herod’s descendants who still ruled. At this point, Matthew's account ends.

The account in Luke shows striking differences. To begin with, it ties in the birth of John the Baptist with that of Jesus, a connection not drawn by Matthew. Luke recounts a meeting between two women, one of them Mary, the other named Elizabeth and identified as the mother of John the Baptist. The two, both of whom are pregnant, are said to be related. It is also Luke and not Matthew who tells of the annunciation—the visit of an angel to Mary, informing her that it was the lord's will she bear a son, despite being a virgin. Here, there is no mention of a message being given to Joseph to explain the situation.

According to Luke, there was a “registration” or census to be taken throughout the Roman world. It occurred when Augustus was emperor and a man named Cyrenius (or Quirinius) served as governor of Syria. Although Joseph lived in Nazareth, as a member of the House of David, he had to journey to Bethlehem in order to be registered.

Upon arrival, there was no room at the inn; therefore, the couple had to stay in a stable; where Jesus was born and laid in a manger. The angels tell shepherds in the field of the birth of a messiah and they visit the stable. According to custom, on the eighth day, Jesus is circumcised. After a short period of ritual purification, the family journeyed to Jerusalem to give thanks in the temple, after which the couple and their son returned north again the home in Galilee.

Over the centuries, most Christians have treated the birth accounts by simply combining elements of both into a single consistent story. However, there are serious problems with this procedure. To begin with, it glosses over the fact that the stories are so different.

Matthew does not mention the critical elements from Luke: the census; the journey to Bethlehem; the connection between Jesus and John the Baptist; the birth in a stable; the visit by shepherds; the journey to Jerusalem, followed by the return north. On the other hand, Luke does not mention the critical elements from Matthew: the family home in Bethlehem; the astrologers and their star; the role of Herod the Great; the massacre of the children; the flight into Egypt, the family’s move to Nazareth .

Such massive descrepancies in two descriptions of the same event should automatically make a historian suspicious. But even more so when one considers that the tales actually contradict one another at various points. For example, one outright contradiction has to do with Joseph's permanent residence. In Matthews' account, he is a resident of Bethlehem and moves north to Nazareth only well after the birth, to escape the threat of Herod’s successors. In Luke, he is a resident of Nazareth who only visits Bethlehem for the census. Matthew informs us that Jesus was born in Joseph's home; Luke says he was born in a stable. According to Matthew, after the birth, the family fled into Egypt where it remained until Herod’s death, after which it moved north to Nazareth. According to Luke, the family journeyed first to Bethlehem, then almost immediately went up to Jerusalem, the center of Herod’s power, and after a short and uneventful visit, returned home to Nazareth.

These are contradictions within the gospels; nobody who reads with any care can escape seeing them. It is precisely this type of internal discrepancy that weakens their vaule as historical sources.

In addition, there is another serious contradiction between the two gospel accounts—one that is not seen by just reading them. As a means of cross-checking several accounts of a single event, especially accounts which show as many discrepancies as Luke and Matthew, the historian looks for outside sources which might shed added light. There are, fact, several things mentioned in the two stories that might be crosscheckable.

For example, there is general agreement that the events occurred when Augustus Caesar, was the emperor of Rome. From other sources, we know that his reign lasted from 27 B. C. and 14 a. D. And there are other things mentioned in the Gospels that might be clarified by reference to outside sources. The date of Herod's death, when Cyrenius was governor of Syria, when there was an empire-wide census, when the children of Bethlehem were massacred when a delegation of prominent astrologers made a visit to Palestine, or perhaps even when a particularly bright star appeared in the evening sky. Any of these might have been caught the attention of an ancient writer and therefore appeared in some source other than the Bible?

Can any of them be found outside the Gospels? To begin with, there is no known mention of the astrologers or the massacre of the children. There are some fascinating theories concerning the star, but even the best is not firm enough to do any more than speculate. However, about of the facts mentioned above, we do know something solid. Matthew tells us that the events took place late in the reign of Herod the Great, about whom we know a good deal from such sources as Josephus. Herod died in 4 B. C. So, if we accept Matthew, Jesus must have been born sometime before 4 B. C., perhaps as early as 6 B.C. (though that seems to be speculation based on the unsubstantiated story that the tyrant killed all children two years old or younger.)

The chronological problem arises when one compares this to Luke. Luke is very specific when informing us that the birth took place in the year of the Augustan census when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. From other ancient sources, we can pinpoint that date at the year 7 A. D. Here, we have a discrepancy of at least eleven and as much as thirteen years.

In short, careful analysis of the Christmas Story illustrates the hazards which a historian encounters when trying to use the gospels as historical sources.

by: Dr. Andrew Villalon
University of Texas at Austin

Future Leader · 04-08-2008, 10:13 PM

well one contradiction i can think of is in the story of creation, when after the 7 days of creating the world god rests. well why world an all powerful god with all of his infinate power need to rest? i mean it can't be that much of a strain to the infinite power that god has to create the world.

and also in the 10 commandments does it say "thou shall not worship any god before me, for i am a jelous god"? why would god be envious (1 of the 7 deadly sins) of other gods?

Havoc Wreaker · 04-08-2008, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Santa_Claus

The Bible is without any contradictions.

The Bible contains many inaccuracies and stories of impossibilities such as a talking donkey:

Numbers 22:28-30, NAS
28 And the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?” 29 Then Balaam said to the donkey, “Because you have made a mockery of me! If there had been a sword in my hand, I would have killed you by now.” 30 And the donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your donkey on which you have ridden all your life to this day? Have I ever been accustomed to do so to you?” And he said, “No.”

Have you ever seen a talking donkey? No, you haven't. No one has. They don't exist, and never have.

Organized religion is a tool used to control people. All the religions are an attempt to explain God, but they ultimately place power in the hands of religious leaders instead of teaching true spirituality.

Quote:

I have yet to find any honest contradictions in the Bible at all.

Then you aren't really looking.

Quote:

Only a person born of the spirit will be able to understand the Bible.
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14

And thus you clear the way to ignore the words of anyone who disagrees with you by claiming "Oh they weren't born of the spirit, therefore they can't be right." That isn't rational.

Havoc Wreaker · 04-08-2008, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Santa_Claus

"...CHRIST, who is the IMAGE OF GOD..." II Corinthians 4:4

"...glory of GOD in the FACE OF JESUS CHRIST." II Corinthians 4:6

It's very easy to prove the Christian "God" is a fiction. If a father in your neighborhood said he was going to roast all of his children in fire because they were disobedient, what would our legal system do to him? They'd lock him up and throw away the key, because the man is obviously insane. He doesn't love his children. You can't love someone and torture them, even if they reject you. Yet, this is what the fictional Christian God claims to do. He claims to love everyone, but if we dare reject him, we must burn in fire forever and ever. The Christian God is immoral and unethical, certainly not good and pious, and quite violent and insane. Only an insane, evil person would roast children he alleges to love in fire.

LiveUninhibited · 04-09-2008, 06:52 AM

I admit I like the "love your enemy" stuff, which obviously few "christians" follow, but honestly: Why would an all-powerful being send himself/son to be tortured and killed in order to change his own rules, as if allowing himself to be killed somehow exonerates people who believed in it from all sin? That's totally illogical. If I commit a crime (it is not equal to all other crimes in its immensity, btw, stupid infinite sinning against infinite being bullshit) some innocent person cannot come and take the punishment for me.

Another small point, the Eve coming from Adam stuff just reveals the patriarchical ideals of the authors of the Bible, as females are the biological blueprint, not males. Just another example of arrogant biblical authors trying to explain things they know nothing about.

Kazikli Bey · 04-09-2008, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Future Leader

well one contradiction i can think of is in the story of creation, when after the 7 days of creating the world god rests. well why world an all powerful god with all of his infinate power need to rest? i mean it can't be that much of a strain to the infinite power that god has to create the world.

Depends on how you take it. Some may take God 'resting' as God no longer taking control over what his creation does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Future Leader

and also in the 10 commandments does it say "thou shall not worship any god before me, for i am a jelous god"? why would god be envious (1 of the 7 deadly sins) of other gods?

Where does it day 'thou shall not worship any god before me, for i am a jealous god', in the Bible it says 'I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; You shall have no other Gods before me'.

God doesn't say you can't worship other Gods, He says you cannot worship them above him. But then He also says that you can't bow down to them and worship them. There is a reason for this, anything that exhibits divine power would most probably be evil.

emptypepsi · 04-09-2008, 08:22 AM

Wow, this kinda makes me want to go read a lot of those Tolkein Middle Earth history books and post random quotes on the history of the earth, then say "This vast history of our world is irrefutable". There's just as much proof for it's validity.