Decypher

What the fuck was that about? Please read what I say before you reply.

mdarus

Bob, your refutation of Christianity is based on premise 2.1 and 2.2 being true. It does not automatically refute Christianity if your premise 2.1 and 2.2 are false. You can't have it both ways automatically. If premise 2.1 and 2.2 are false, it does not follow that Christ's death was not necessary. Jesus can still be the way even if the content of what is believed does not necessarily have to be an understanding of the incarnation and the atonement. These are two separate issues.

It can still be necessary for Jesus to die for sins without it being necessary for all people at all times to profess a belief in Jesus as the incarnate Son of God and to believe his message in order to recieve salvation. In Christian theology, this is the difference between objective soteriology (the way salvation is provided through Christ's atonement) and subjecive soteriology (how salvation is apporpriated through faith and what the content of this faith must be based on the information available). Premises 2.1 and 2.2 are false because they conclude that subjective soteriology has always had the same content. This is not affirmed by Christianity. A succesful faith in the Old Testament has a different content than a successful faith in the New Testament. The common thread is a belief that God provides the solution.

buckshot23

I'm not sure who your target is for this argument but there is nothing here that should convince a christian that christianity is false. The chior would be a more appropriate target but of course they don't need this argument in the first place.

John A. Broussard

Could you cite one or more bible verses that state this unequivocally?

Thanks.

Bobinius

That was about your fucking emotionalism: if you don't like that God can burn
babies or innocent people whom he did not made aware of his Son's message,
that does not make it false. Build an argument if you are able to.

Bobinius

Ok, a little logic could help you. You are only asserting things, but you are never giving any support for them: Argument from Assertion.

Let

J = faith that the living Jesus who was crucified was the Christ Lord and his message was true in order to be saved

SBC = saved before Christ lived and his message was communicated

[] = necessary; ~[]=not necessary
<> = possible; ~<>=not possible (impossible)

v = or; ^ =and.

P1: [] J v ~[] J (Law of Excluded Middle)

=> P1.1 If [] J, then people who do not fulfill J are not saved and are condemned.

=> P1.2 If ~[] J, then it was not necessary for Jesus to be born, die and speak his message for people to be saved.

Christianity argues for P1.1. See another verse below. If you want to say otherwise, this means that Jesus' life was futile and useless P1.2. And also you have to explain all these words of Jesus where he sustaines P1.1.

P2: <> SBC v ~<> SBC

=> P2.1 If it is possible to be saved before Christ, then it was not necessary for Jesus to be born, die and speak his message for us to be saved. This contradicts P1.1. Therefore:

=> P2.2 ~<>SBC is true. It was not possible to be saved before Jesus was born, died for us and spoke his message.

Christianity says that [] J for salvation. I already provided the verses spoken by Jesus to support this. One more:

John 5

23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

24 I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

Now, what my premises in question say is:

[2.1] All the people that lived before Jesus Christ did not believe in Jesus Christ as God and in his message.

[2.2] All the people who lived before Jesus Christ were not saved and suffer eternal tornment.

a. You did not show that these premises were false. I showed above how they follow logically from what Jesus said.

b. In order to show they were false you need to show how it is possible for someone to believe that a fact that did not happen, already happened. This means you need to explain how can one believe that the Jesus who died on the cross was the Christ and Son of God, before he actually died. You need to explain how is it possible for someone to believe in a message that was not spoken yet, to believe in a message that did not exist, that no one was aware of. Because unlike you, Jesus is not talking about an abstract faith in a coming messiah. He talks about the faith in HIM, in this particular human that lived and was crucified, the faith that HE is the SON OF GOD. Not in faith that the messiah will come someday. His contemporary Jews had that faith in a coming messiah, but were not saved because they did not believe He was the Messiah.

c. Even if you manage successfully to argue that this is possible, you are actually sustaining P2.1, which actually refutes the christian doctrine in P1.1.

Any support? Arguing from assertion. I have shown above it is impossible. Jesus becomes unnecessary. Refer to the demonstration above, don't just deny this.

I have supported my premises with a lot of biblical verses, with what JESUS said. Quote him and explain how come he was talking falsely in my verses. Bring me the evidence that this subjective theology is not a theological invention in a desperate attempt to save the faith from its logical consequences. Show me where Jesus talked about these alternative ways. Or maybe Christianity is not based on what Jesus said.

God has to provide some solution, when logic shows that Christianity is incoherent. This is faith rescuing faith. Irrational.

John 7

28 Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"

29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

35 And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.

36 But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe.

37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.

40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.�

Jesus is very clear. Only through him you can get everlasting life. And this 'through him' means to believe that the man who died on the cross was the Son of God. To identify him, the historical person, the actual person, with God. The work is the belief.

Alf

Moses was a murderer and killed at least one man. Why do you think he was roaming around in the desert all by himself? Looking for girls? Well, he did find a burning bush but that was not why he fled out to the desert. He fled because he was on the run from the authorities - the bible itself tells us as much.

So, if the bible is true he is most likely roasting in hell as we speak.

Or maybe, because he met god and all that he suddenly became holy and the killing was forgiven? Did the father, mother, brother etc of the victim ever have a say in this? Did they forgive him? What gives god the right to forgive a man from murdering someone?

Alf

Alf

This problem is a result of the mixing of the jewish belief in Messiah who is supposedly of David's bloodline and a greek/egyptian/babylonian Christ figure who were supposedly of virgin birth. The christian christ figure is an attempt to be both at the same time - hence the contradiction.

Alf

Clarice O'C

But some of us don't want to be saved by Jesus. So all we have to do is not 'believeth in him.' Not a problem.

Clarice O'C

----------------------
Many people who lived before Jesus were already saved without him by other saviors.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...56#post2914156

Jesus didn't offer anything new so why should they give up their already given salvation? Why take the chance.