Gay marriage is not a Christian topic but Satans deception is...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But there is no actual evidence to support the idea of Jesus being anything more than a human like the rest of us.

What manner of evidence would that be?

[ippy]

What manner of evidence would that be?

I see you're asking for N P F again Vlad, you already know the answer to that, if you don't, you might as well shoot yourself.

ippy

[Sassy]

Obviously you read about as well as you write, i.e. incredibly badly:
Except that plenty of people disagree with you, such as the aforementioned groups within Judaism.

Do you realise how boring your answers become when you have nothing to address but the writing?
Do you realise how silly you look when you say people disagree with you and yet you do not practice judaism or know people that do.
Where as I post and I know people who are practicing Jews.

So not about agreeing or disagreeing simply about knowing more than you do.

It is boring and not clever to make the debate about who is right or wrong.
When it is genuinely just about keeping uptodate with old and new. Knowing that modern day does not take away from the commandments of the words of God.

[Sassy]

Messianic Jews are Jews converted to Christianity = Christians. In fact they are Christians who want to hang on to bits of their culture that they like. Not unusual for converts from other traditions & Christianity has been broad enough to accommodate.

Observant Jews do not recognise Messianic Jews as Jews.Because they're not any more,.their parents were.

When Jesus walked the earth Jews had several different beliefs about what constituted the Messiah.
Some believed the Persian king Cyrus was the Moshiach.

Anyone can research this for themselves.
Maimonides is worth looking at.

I do not know if you are doing it deliberately but Christianity was started by Jews for Jews.
It is a Jewish religion it is the Jewish promise of the Messiah Fulfilled.
I actually know the promises of the Messiah fulfilled because the Messiah is Jewish.
It would be impossible for Cyrus to be the Messiah as he was not Jewish and he had to be a descendant of David.


I think you are confusing the use of the word Messiah with the Jewish Messiah and definition regarding Yeshua.

[Sassy]

Well that's cleared up something about your pal President Trump.

Seems you are more prejudice than most against believers.
Trump just trying to save people what's your excuse for your bias against believers?

[Sassy]

Surely if Jesus WAS The Messiah there wouldn't be any Jews in the world ??!?!?

Whatcha mean there still are ...??

When the full number of Gentiles called then the rest of the Jews will have their eyes and ears opened.
You need to read the bible. Christians are Jews they are those added and grafted in to the Jewish faith in Christ.
Causes a lot of disagreements when you atheists do not know what the believers believe.

[Sassy]

As far as my Jewish friends are concerned, Jesus did NOT fulfill all the Messiah criteria such as ridding them of the Roman 'occupation'.

Well the obvious answer to that is who knew the criteria better,. the Jews 2,000 years ago or the Jews today.
No competition the Jews 2,000 years ago knew he did fulfill the criteria.

[Sassy]

Any more than you do!

You only "understand" the bits that fit into your twisted and bigotted version of Christianity, just as every other versionof Christianity holds its own "understanding" of scripture.

The world has changed in 2,000 years, not always for the better I grant you; one of the ways it has not changed for the better is the attachment to the load of old cobblers revered by Christians like you and Sassy!

For someone who doesn't believe in God how could anything be twisted?

Why not search and ask God to show you?  I guess you are in no position to accuse anyone.

[Sassy]

ad-O
Have you never seen the Jewish criteria for Messiahship ?

One was that the Messiah was to rescue them from the Romans. Jesus was executed for, basically, sh#t stirring.

#

You telling us that the Romans are written about in the books of the Torah by Moses?
Not helping really, are you?

[Shaker]

Do you realise how boring your answers become when you have nothing to address but the writing?

Addressing what's written is the main point of an internet forum.

Do you realise how silly you look when you say people disagree with you and yet you do not practice judaism or know people that do.

I know plenty that do, as a matter of fact.

Where as I post and I know people who are practicing Jews.

So do I.

So not about agreeing or disagreeing simply about knowing more than you do.

Not enough to realise that you're wrong about Judaism and same-sex marriage though, unfortunately.

It is boring and not clever to make the debate about who is right or wrong.

I don't think so - showing people to be wrong is one of life's greater pleasures.

When it is genuinely just about keeping uptodate with old and new. Knowing that modern day does not take away from the commandments of the words of God.

If you genuinely were up to date you wouldn't have made such a stupidly ill-informed and easy to refute assertion about Judaism and same-sex marriage.

[trippymonkey]

When the full number of Gentiles called then the rest of the Jews will have their eyes and ears opened.
You need to read the bible. Christians are Jews they are those added and grafted in to the Jewish faith in Christ.
Causes a lot of disagreements when you atheists do not know what the believers believe.

Firstly I'm NOT an atheist. An enlightening comment you've made there which says so much about YOUR attitude to people who disagree with you !!!

Are you saying that The Messiah was NOT meant to rescue the Jews from the Roman 'occupation' either? Please refresh us as to why Jesus was executed???

Could you please put here the criteria for Messiahship or give us all a link to somewhere reliable.

Nick

[Robbie]

Sassy - It would be impossible for Cyrus to be the Messiah as he was not Jewish and he had to be a descendant of David.

That is what the majority of Jews believed but not all, some did believe Cyrus was the Moshiach. Jews always were & still are divided in their beliefs.

[Sebastian Toe]

Sassy - It would be impossible for Cyrus to be the Messiah as he was not Jewish and he had to be a descendant of David.

That is what the majority of Jews believed but not all, some did believe Cyrus was the Moshiach. Jews always were & still are divided in their beliefs.

We must remember though that those Jews who believed in the way that Sassy says, were all RIGHT and all of the others were all WRONG.
That is a full on, caps-lock FACT.
If you dare to disagree then you might even be PROVED WRONG by a full force onslaught using the final arguement, caps-lock BOLD. When that happens you might as well sit in the corner and cry.
 

[Rhiannon]

Seb, you forgot the gratuitous insult.

[Robbie]

We must remember though that those Jews who believed in the way that Sassy says, were all RIGHT and all of the others were all WRONG.
That is a full on, caps-lock FACT.
If you dare to disagree then you might even be PROVED WRONG by a full force onslaught using the final arguement, caps-lock BOLD. When that happens you might as well sit in the corner and cry.
 

I Get It Seb but I have considerably more than 2 O levels and wot i say is RIGHT

[bluehillside Retd.]

ipster,

I see you're asking for N P F again Vlad, you already know the answer to that, if you don't, you might as well shoot yourself.

That in essence is Vlad’s problem. On the one hand he insists that his “God” is objectively real in sense of existing outside his imagination, but on the other the very idea “evidence” ordinarily used to validate claims of objective truths is itself naturalistic, so could not address conjectures about the (supposed) supernatural.

Even if we let that pass though, the term “evidence” has to mean something if it isn’t to be just “whatever I say it is”. And the problem with that is that, absent a Godoscope or some such to do the job, poor Vlad must lower the bar so far (generally to logical fallacy) that it will let in any other conjecture too.     

Ah well.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

ipster,

That in essence is Vlad’s problem. On the one hand he insists that his “God” is objectively real in sense of existing outside his imagination, but on the other the very idea “evidence” ordinarily used to validate claims of objective truths is itself naturalistic, so could not address conjectures about the (supposed) supernatural.

Even if we let that pass though, the term “evidence” has to mean something if it isn’t to be just “whatever I say it is”. And the problem with that is that, absent a Godoscope or some such to do the job, poor Vlad must lower the bar so far (generally to logical fallacy) that it will let in any other conjecture too.     

Ah well.

The test for the supernatural is if it is something is not adequately described naturalistically. You have always had problems with adequacy here.
Conjectures about the supernatural thing in question are another matter. Another category roger by you.

[Shaker]

The test for the supernatural is if it is something is not adequately described naturalistically.

... which people with adequate cognitive capacities call the negative proof fallacy (or argumentum ad ignorantiam).

[floo]

As science progresses natural explanations may be discovered for things some would like to attribute to the 'supernatural' at in this moment in time. For instance, at one time people thought those suffering from epilepsy were possessed by demons, until medical science proved otherwise. A full blown seizure can be extremely scary, my husband has had several since his brain haemorrhage in 2006.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

... which people with adequate cognitive capacities call the negative proof fallacy (or argumentum ad ignorantiam).

That my dear Shaker betrays the intellectual slovenliness of your New Atheist since you have a job to equate experience of something not adequately explained by your naturalism...with stating that something is because there is no proof it isn't.

[Shaker]

That my dear Shaker betrays the intellectual slovenliness of your New Atheist since you have a job to equate experience of something not adequately explained by your naturalism...with stating that something is because there is no proof it isn't.

Try again in comprehensible.

[floo]

Try again in comprehensible.

Now, now that isn't fair Shaker, the poor dear finds the concept of comprehensible hard to comprehend!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Now, now that isn't fair Shaker, the poor dear finds the concept of comprehensible hard to comprehend!

I'm not sure he's speaking to you since you blew one of his arguments.

[Shaker]

I'm not sure he's speaking to you since you blew one of his arguments.

Did I? Which one? When?

[wigginhall]

The test for the supernatural is if it is something is not adequately described naturalistically. You have always had problems with adequacy here.
Conjectures about the supernatural thing in question are another matter. Another category roger by you.

But there are loads of things which are not well described, or were not historically.   You can't really argue that thunder was supernatural because it could not be described, and then was no longer supernatural, when it was.   Or the obvious example today is gravity, whose effects are being described, but not its  mechanism.