Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

but dude, Jesus was a prophet, he was the Son of God, The Messenger of God, but people worship him as a god, which is written in the ten commandments, in fact... hold on, letme find that thing that has the Whole Ten Commandments, not just the basic Snipits that are normally seen on little Charts at a Sunday School.

_________________

COLA, you're not listening. The reason we worship Jesus is because he is God.

_________________

1. Exodus 20:1-3, 23:13, 22:20
Then God spoke all these words. He said, 'I am Yahweh your God. You shall have no other gods before me. Do not mention the name of any other god -- let none ever be heard from your lips. Anyone who sacrifices to other gods must be destroyed.'

2.Exodus 20:4
'You shall not make yourself a carved image or any likeness of anything in heaven above or on earth beneath or in the waters under the earth.'

3. Exodus 20:7
'You shall not misuse the name of Yahweh your God, for Yahweh will not leave unpunished anyone who misuses his name.'

4. Exodus 20:8, 31:15
'Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. You shall do no work that day, neither your son nor your daughter, nor your slaves, men or women, nor your animals. Anyone who works on the Sabbath day must be put to death.'

5.Exodus 20:12, 21:15,17
'Honour your father and your mother. Anyone who strikes father or mother will be put to death. Anyone who curses father or mother will be put to death.'

6.Exodus 20:13, 21:12
'You shall not kill. Anyone who by violence causes a death must be put to death.'

7. Exodus 20:14, 22:15-16
'You shall not commit adultery. If a man seduces a virgin who is engaged to be married, he will pay the bride-price and make her his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to let him have her, he will pay a sum equivalent to the bride-price of a virgin.'

8.Exodus 20:15, 22:1-2
'You shall not steal. If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck a mortal blow, his blood may not be avenged. But if it happens after sunrise, his blood may be avenged.'

9. Exodus 20:16, 23:1
'You shall not give false evidence against your neighbor. You will not spread false rumors.'

10.Exodus 20:17
'You shall not set your heart on your neighbor's house. You shall not set your heart on your neighbor's wife, or slave, man or woman, or ox, or donkey, or any of your neighbor's posessions.'

you see, i am listening, but i dont belive that Jesus is god, i belive that Jesus is a Prophet of god.

_________________

I agree that it's a stupid thing to do. But I'm an atheist. Come on! Anyone who's taken five seconds to look at all the scientific evidence knows he didn't exist. But still, taking it to court? Jeez, this guy has way too much time on his hands.

_________________
So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain. Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? A smile from a veil? Do you think you can tell?

i don't have anything invested in the existence or non-existence of Jesus, but i wonder what you mean when you mention "all the scientific evidence" that proves he didn't exist?

OK, maybe not Jesus, but God definitely. It's quite obvious. Any self-respecting scientist will tell you that. Or at least be an agnostic.

_________________
So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain. Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? A smile from a veil? Do you think you can tell?

The only thing I could see as "evidence" against Christ's existence is that there isn't any "independantly verified" proof that he did exist. In science, sometimes, although it's usually bad science to do do, you can say that "no evidence of something is evidence against that thing". So I can see where Einoo's coming from..
I don't agree, but I see where Einoo's coming from, and, if I weren't Christian, I would probably feel the same..

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

i entirely disagree. give me some examples. eight hundred years ago, the Rambam, one of the most famous and brilliant rabbis and biblical scholars of all time said "when science and religion disagree, it's because you're misinterpreting the Bible." the conflict between science and religion is totally artificial; i think most science posits the non-existence of God as an a priori premise, rather than attempting to actually test whether such a thing is possible or not.

i'm not Christian, and i still don't agree. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as they say. i don't think there's any "independently verified" proof that he existed, and in fact i think the odds are about 50/50 as to whether he existed or not, but the fact that there's no evidence supporting his existence doesn't mean that he wasn't real, either. he was a fairly minor figure at the time he was alive, if he was alive.

ya know, isnt it nearly impossible to track down a persons exhistance(sic) from that day and age?

_________________

If science is being done correctly, it assumes nothing a priori. The scientfic method is to make observations, make a hypothesis about why things behave the way they appear to, and then test your hypothesis. If you think you've figured out why things behave in a certain way, you can turn it into a theory. Nothing about this method requires any assumptions to be made prior to the inital observations. In fact it's bad form to assume anything, because then you might take data out of context to try to fit your assumption.
And how could one possibly test for the existence of a deity?

_________________

well, that's not quite true...but it's kind of my whole point. science isn't being done correctly if and when the non-existence of God is taken as a premise (in cases where it might be relevant )



well, i don't know. maybe science should try to come up with some way. otherwise, how could it have proven that He doesn't exist?

I don't mean to come off as arguing with you, Cobalt, but Non-existence is the "correct" scientific starting point. The only other is that God does exist. Either will probably produce a bias in any analysis, but I think the null, "doesn't exist" hypothesis is the better of the two to start with.
I do honestly believe that God does exist. I do not have scientific evidence of it, nor do I require any proof. I just "know"..
I don't expect anyone to understand this, because, even I don't completely understand it. Perhaps it is not meant to be understood.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

maybe i didn't express myself well enough. i meant that science often takes as a priori that God doesn't exist, and then goes on to say that it has "proven" God's non-existence by scientific means. but their premise already assumes the conclusion. science shouldn't make assumptions like that in the first place, it should let the evidence speak for itself.



everything is meant to be understood. i don't believe anything without sufficient evidence and logical reasons to back it up. and i do believe in God; not just because i have some feeling that He exists, but because i have gathered enough evidence and arguments to convince myself that He does.

Choco, you might want to pay a little closer attention to what Jesus actually said about himself.

In Matthew 25, Jesus says that he will be the one to judge the world. He says that, on that day, people will call him "Lord." (kurios in the Greek, but directly related to the divine name, YHWH). Furthermore, if you compare Matthew 25 to Ezekiel 34, you might notice that Jesus is in fact claiming to be YHWH.

Throughout his ministry, Jesus often referred to himself as "egw eimi," literally translated, "I Am" (Matt 14:27, Mark 14:62, Luke 22:70, 24:29, John 4:26, 6:35, 8:12, 8:24, 8:58, 11:25, 13:19, 14:6, Acts 9:6, 18:10). His critics understood his meaning very well; they tried to stone him when he said that. Why? Because by calling himself, "egw eime," he was claiming to be YHWH. Notice, too, in the vast majority of passages I cited, he is also claiming to be a unique person in divine history, in short, the only way to access the divine Father. Why? Because he himself was the divine God Incarnate.

When the disciples worshipped him as God, Jesus did not correct them. If he were truly a prophet (assuming he was not YHWH), then he should have refused their worship and rebuked them for false worship. He did not. He accepted their worship and even commended them for finally believing (John 20:28ff).

Jesus also claimed to be the Lord of the Sabbath (Matt 12:8, Mark 2:28, Luke 6:5). The Ten Commandments make it very clear that the Sabbath was supposed to be a Day of Rest dedicated to YHWH. By claiming to be the Lord of the Sabbath, Jesus is essentially saying, "I'm the one to whom the Sabbath belongs. I'm the one who gave it to you to start with." Only YHWH can claim to be Lord of the Sabbath, but that was what Jesus was claiming for himself. Conclusion: either Jesus is a madman, or he is in fact YHWH.

I know you cited many passages in which God commands that only the true God should be worshipped. But I must again point out that these passages apply IF AND ONLY IF Jesus is not God Incarnate. If Jesus is in fact God Incarnate, then there is nothing wrong with worshipping him. On the contrary, it is only meet, right, and salutary that we should do so.

To summarize:
1. If Jesus is God Incarnate (as Christians believe), then it is right and proper that we should worship him. (His crucifixion, death, resurrection, and ascension would seem to justify this).

2. If Jesus is not God Incarnate, then the entire Christian world is mistaken in believing him to be anyone significant at all. In fact, his claims to be "egw eimi" and "Lord of the Sabbath" are the rantings of a madman.

And just as a note of caution: Jehovah's Witnesses do not have a proper understanding of New Testament Greek. Do not heed their attempts to reinterpret the language.

_________________

Whereas the last thing I want to do is disrupt a discussion that makes people think, I thought I'd point out that the guy is probably just making this case to get publicity for his book. Or become well known for something. Or both.

...maybe.

_________________
You're a moron if you think I'm not.

Actually, there are records that Jesus did, infact, exist. Whether he was who he said he was (The Son of God) is purely faith.

_________________

...when you think about the miracles he did, it makes sense to believe he was the son of God (it still takes some faith though).

_________________

Nobody really knows that he performed those miracles, though, so it's still purely faith. You may think he did to the point where you "know", but there's no absolute proof.

_________________

But the records we have that Ace mentioned don't actually prove anything but suggest evidence, and many of those contain Jesus' miracles.

_________________

Too true. He was a real guy, mentioned in many non-Christian texts, including Roman historical texts mentioning his crucifixtion.

Whether or not he was the Son of God, a prophet or just some crazy liar ... well, that's up to the believers (or non-beleivers) to decide. I, personally, have nothing against Jesus, his teachings were fab.

_________________
The Mu is NOT dead!

no, it still doesn't make sense. plenty of people did miracles. Moses did miracles, and even Pharaoh's magicians did them. all the prophets did miracles. the Torah even says that God will send people who do miracles and make prophecies and then say that we should go off and worship other gods, and that's how we know that they're false prophets sent to test us. Jesus can do as many miracles as he wants, it doesn't mean a thing.

Yeah, what if Jesus was just a jewish Magician? And what if he never meant "my father" directly, but speaking as in "Our father"?

_________________
CLOCK

Well, none of those guys were ever crucified and then raised from the dead a couple days later.

_________________

Err, so? That's just one particular miracle. For all we know reports of his death were greatly exagerrated.

_________________
CLOCK

I know that; you can't prove/disporve any of it. I just don't like it when people pick and choose which parts they wanna believe.
BTW, we do have four good accounts of his death, and all of them were either first or second-hand, and I don't think that all four would screw the story up the same way.

_________________

Um, everyone does that. I can guarantee you that you do it too. That's why "religious" homopobia annoys me.

Were these 4 reports all from the bible, by any chance?

_________________
CLOCK

The man took a spear through the heart. You don't recover naturally from that in 3 days.

As for whether Jesus was using "Father" in a generalized sense or claiming to be truly divine: there's that whole thing about going into a synagogue and healing on the Sabbath, then claiming to be the Lord of the Sabbath. Only someone claiming to be YHWH would ever say such a thing.

Furthermore, you might want to compare Matthew 25 with Ezekiel 34. Jesus is pretty much claiming to be the Good Shepherd of Israel who will judge his flock, i.e., Lord YHWH.

It is fairly clear from the way Jesus spoke of himself that he was indeed claiming to be God incarnate, and not just a run-of-the-mill prophet.

And what about the water-walking incident? Job 9:8 clearly states that only YHWH can command the winds and walk on the waves of the sea.

While there may be plenty of false prophets who can perform minor miracles or magic tricks, surely there must be a limit to what they can actually do without truly divine power at work. (and even Moses didn't do anything apart from the power of YHWH). Dying and rising from the dead like that is something which only the Lord of Life himself could accomplish.

_________________

Jesus can die and come back to life as many times as he wants to, it doesn't make him the messiah or God or anything. i'm sure it didn't happen anyway, but even if it did, it still proves nothing. it's a neat trick, but it doesn't make him God.

Oh? Really? Prove it.

Oops, forgot, you can't prove a negative.

Try again, Skippy.