Jesus: The Misunderstood Messiah

[Left Coast]

And your proof that every single Jew who ever lived in the Old Testament time period had totally different expectations regarding Messianic prophecy is what? You saying so?

Again, you are attempting to shift the burden of proof. We have no way of knowing what "every single Jew who ever lived" thought. What I asked you is if we have any evidence that any Jews interpreted the text the way you do, prior to Jesus? If so, what is it? This stalling tells me you likely don't have anything, but I'll wait to be happily surprised.

How does you merely saying I am trying to shift the burden of proof actually proves I am trying to shift the burden of proof?

You making a claim, and then saddling me with proving the opposite, is the definition of shifting the burden of proof.

I’m not the one who is claiming Jesus didn’t fulfill any Messianic prophecy. Again, you did not state that it is just your belief that Jesus didn’t fulfill any Messianic prophecy. That means you are claiming fact. In order to validate a claim of fact you need to prove it BECAUSE that’s what makes a fact a fact. PROOF.

I clarified this. I shouldn't have made an absolute statement. Jesus met a few basic criteria, and lacks a large number of others. Basically the entire prophecy you quoted from Zechariah 13, for example.

Also, how does just saying that Jesus revealed mysteries to his disciples who didn’t receive those revelations before means specifically that none of his disciples received any revelation regarding Messianic prophecy?

...that isn't what I said. Jesus told his disciples he was revealing mysteries to them in his teachings that hadn't been revealed before. This supports the notion that Jews before Jesus didn't expect the Messiah to fulfill Messianic prophecy the way Christians say Jesus did.

Also, what difference does preconceived notions make? Just because one had a different preconceived notion doesn’t mean their preconceived notion was correct. If a teacher didn’t understand a subject and taught misinformation to the class does not mean that the misinformation has become correct just because everybody in the class learned differently.

Yes, I understand you think you're correct and the Jews are wrong. No one is disputing that. What I said is that the Christian interpretation of the texts was novel. This is evidenced by what I've already said, not the least of which is the text of the Gospels themselves, wherein Jesus' own disciples expected the Messiah to fulfill the prophecies differently than Jesus.

Again, if you claim there were Jews prior to Jesus who believed someone like Jesus would come along and partially, spiritually fulfill some prophecies but then die and resurrect and come back later to fulfill the rest...show me the evidence for that. It would be fascinating if such people existed. If you have no evidence of such a thing, then we have no justification for believing it's true.

 

[Nivek001]

Again, you are attempting to shift the burden of proof. We have no way of knowing what "every single Jew who ever lived" thought. What I asked you is if we have any evidence that any Jews interpreted the text the way you do, prior to Jesus? If so, what is it? This stalling tells me you likely don't have anything, but I'll wait to be happily surprised.



You making a claim, and then saddling me with proving the opposite, is the definition of shifting the burden of proof.



I clarified this. I shouldn't have made an absolute statement. Jesus met a few basic criteria, and lacks a large number of others. Basically the entire prophecy you quoted from Zechariah 13, for example.



...that isn't what I said. Jesus told his disciples he was revealing mysteries to them in his teachings that hadn't been revealed before. This supports the notion that Jews before Jesus didn't expect the Messiah to fulfill Messianic prophecy the way Christians say Jesus did.



Yes, I understand you think you're correct and the Jews are wrong. No one is disputing that. What I said is that the Christian interpretation of the texts was novel. This is evidenced by what I've already said, not the least of which is the text of the Gospels themselves, wherein Jesus' own disciples expected the Messiah to fulfill the prophecies differently than Jesus.

Again, if you claim there were Jews prior to Jesus who believed someone like Jesus would come along and partially, spiritually fulfill some prophecies but then die and resurrect and come back later to fulfill the rest...show me the evidence for that. It would be fascinating if such people existed. If you have no evidence of such a thing, then we have no justification for believing it's true.

Again, HOW does your saying that I am trying to shift the burden of proof actually proves I am trying to shift the burden of proof? Do you figure if you insist it enough somehow magically makes it the case and so you don’t need to explain yourself?

If you don’t know what every single Jew thought why did you claim that all the Jews in The Old Testament had different expectation of the messianic prophecies I posted? Speculation does not equal fact.

Why wouldn’t any Jew from the Old Testament period interpret the scriptures differently than what was said? Just because you think not every Jew in The Old Testament period did thought the same way as what is viewed by those same verses today doesn’t mean that no Jew from that period thought differently.

You are the one who figures possibility of different interpretation matters. That means the burden of proof is on you to show how that possibility matters by proving that none of those Jews interpreted those scriptures the same way as we see them today and that previous interpretation even matters as to whether or not Jesus fulfilled the prophecies I posted.

It’s possible that least some of those Jews who saw the interpretation of those scriptures as being the same as we do today. And your claim that it’s a fact that Jesus fulfilled no Messianic prophecy is unfounded.

So, unless you make an alteration to your claim that it’s just your belief that Jesus fulfilled no Messianic prophesy then the burden of proof is upon you to prove it’s a fact that Jesus didn’t fulfill any Messianic prophecy.

Fact = proof
Belief = no proof

“...mysteries to them in his teachings that hadn't been revealed before. This supports the notion that Jews before Jesus didn't expect the Messiah to fulfill Messianic prophecy the way Christians say Jesus did.”

HOW? You saying that Jesus revealed teachings that were not revealed before does not mean that it includes the subject of fulfillment of the prophecies I posted. That is your assumption.

 

[Nivek001]

Again, HOW does your saying that U am trying to shift the burden of proof actually proves I am trying to shift the burden of proof? Do you figure if you insist it enough somehow magically makes it the case and so you don’t need to explain yourself?

If you don’t know what every single Jew thought why did you claim that all the Jews in The Old Testament had different expectation of the messianic prophecies I posted? Speculation does not equal fact.

Why wouldn’t any Jew from the Old Testament period interpret the scriptures differently than what was said? Just because you think not every Jew in The Old Testament period did thought the same way as what is viewed by those same verses today doesn’t mean that no Jew from that period thought differently.

You are the one who figures possibility of different interpretation matters. That means the burden of proof is on you to show how that possibility matters by proving that none of those Jews interpreted those scriptures the same way as we see them today and that previous interpretation even matters as to whether or not Jesus fulfilled the prophecies I posted.

It’s possible that least some of those Jews who saw the interpretation of those scriptures as being the same as we do today. And your claim that it’s a fact that Jesus fulfilled no Messianic prophecy is unfounded.

So, unless you make an alteration to your claim that it’s just your belief that Jesus fulfilled no Messianic prophesy then the burden of proof is upon you to prove it’s a fact that Jesus didn’t fulfill any Messianic prophecy.

Fact = proof
Belief = no proof

 

[Left Coast]

Again, HOW does your saying that U am trying to shift the burden of proof actually proves I am trying to shift the burden of proof? Do you figure if you insist it enough somehow magically makes it the case and so you don’t need to explain yourself?

As a person who takes the claims of the Bible seriously, I don't think you really have grounds to chide anyone else for endorsing magic.

If you don’t know what every single Jew thought why did you claim that all the Jews in The Old Testament had different expectation of the messianic prophecies I posted? Speculation does not equal fact.

The time to believe something is when you have evidence for it, not merely when you can't absolutely rule it out. Do you have any evidence for the view that Jews before the 1st century believed what you do about Messianic prophecy?

You are the one who figures possibility of different interpretation matters. That means the burden of proof is on you to show how that possibility matters by proving that none of those Jews interpreted those scriptures the same way as we see them today and that previous interpretation even matters as to whether or not Jesus fulfilled the prophecies I posted.

We have no evidence that anyone prior to Jesus interpreted them the way you do. If you think we do, show it to us.

The problem with Biblical prophecies of all kinds is that they aren't terribly specific, so there is latitude among both Jews and Christians in how they get interpreted.

It’s possible that least some of those Jews who saw the interpretation of those scriptures as being the same as we do today. And your claim that it’s a fact that Jesus fulfilled no Messianic prophecy is unfounded.

It's possible some Jew in 1,000 BC understood the finer points of Quantum Mechanics, as well. But until we have evidence of such, we have no rational basis for believing it's so.

So, unless you make an alteration to your claim that it’s just your belief that Jesus fulfilled no Messianic prophesy then the burden of proof is upon you to prove it’s a fact that Jesus didn’t fulfill any Messianic prophecy.

I already conceded this. Twice. Why do you keep just ignoring what I say?

How did/will Jesus fulfill Zechariah 13?

 

[Nivek001]

As a person who takes the claims of the Bible seriously, I don't think you really have grounds to chide anyone else for endorsing magic.



The time to believe something is when you have evidence for it, not merely when you can't absolutely rule it out. Do you have any evidence for the view that Jews before the 1st century believed what you do about Messianic prophecy?



We have no evidence that anyone prior to Jesus interpreted them the way you do. If you think we do, show it to us.

The problem with Biblical prophecies of all kinds is that they aren't terribly specific, so there is latitude among both Jews and Christians in how they get interpreted.



It's possible some Jew in 1,000 BC understood the finer points of Quantum Mechanics, as well. But until we have evidence of such, we have no rational basis for believing it's so.



I already conceded this. Twice. Why do you keep just ignoring what I say?

How did/will Jesus fulfill Zechariah 13?

Where do you get that the time to believe something is when there is evidence for it? That does not make any sense. If you have evidence you don’t have knowledge gained from belief and acting on faith. You would have knowledge based on fact not belief.

Where did I chide anyone for using magic?

Just because you assume that one does not gain knowledge from belief does not prove that is the case, which is rather ironic since you figure one does not gain knowledge without evidence but you presented no evidence to support that is the case.

You are the one who is speculating that there is total misinterpretation by Old Testament Jews and you figure it’s up to me to prove that what you speculate is not fact as though it’s your speculation?

You have no evidence to prove that no Jew from 1,000 BC understood the finer points of Quantum Mechanics and yet you have no problem jumping to conclusions that no Jew understood. That means you have no problem making a conclusion based on your own perceived belief and yet you figure that my position has to require more proof? Why? You relied on zero evidence before.

Why would that even matter to begin with since validity of a scripture is not depended on popular survey. It’s depended on actual fulfillment.

You didn’t concede at all. If you.did why would you be still stressing that evidence is needed in order to believe?
Evidence doesn’t = belief
Evidence = factual knowledge

 

[Left Coast]

Where do you get that the time to believe something is when there is evidence for it?

Basic common sense. Do you believe there are invisible fairies floating around my head? If not, why not?

That does not make any sense.

No, believing something in the absence of evidence is what does not make sense. Think through it for two seconds. That's literally what blind faith is.

If you have evidence you don’t have knowledge gained from belief and acting on faith. You would have knowledge based on fact not belief.

Knowledge isn't gained from belief. Beliefs are just things you think are true, whether you're correct or not. You'd need evidence to obtain knowledge in any reasonable sense.

Where did I chide anyone for using magic?

I literally quoted you:

Do you figure if you insist it enough somehow magically makes it the case and so you don’t need to explain yourself?

Just because you assume that one does not gain knowledge from belief does not prove that is the case, which is rather ironic since you figure one does not gain knowledge without evidence but you presented no evidence to support that is the case.

How would I gain knowledge about something simply by believing something about it, without any evidence for whether my belief is correct? That makes no sense.

You are the one who is speculating that there is total misinterpretation by Old Testament Jews and you figure it’s up to me to prove that what you speculate is not fact as though it’s your speculation?

I did not speculate. I said there is no evidence pre-Christian Jews interpreted the Messianic prophecies the way you do. If you had any, you wouldn't be going on this merry-go-round and you'd have just shown the evidence already. So can we simply agree you don't have any evidence for it?

You have no evidence to prove that no Jew from 1,000 BC understood the finer points of Quantum Mechanics and yet you have no problem jumping to conclusions that no Jew understood. That means you have no problem making a conclusion based on your own perceived belief and yet you figure that my position has to require more proof? Why? You relied on zero evidence before.

Incorrect. You are deeply confused. I conceded, multiple times now, that there is no possible way to know what every Jew in history has thought. That doesn't mean we should assume they did think this or that without any evidence that's the case.

That seems quite a reasonable position to me. Why would I believe something without any evidence for it?

Why would that even matter to begin with since validity of a scripture is not depended on popular survey. It’s depended on actual fulfillment.

That's true, which I also conceded previously. I explained that Biblical prophecies are squishy, thus one can claim a thing has been fulfilled "spiritually" or only "partially" and that other parts will be fulfilled some day.

You didn’t concede at all. If you.did why would you be still stressing that evidence is needed in order to believe?
Evidence doesn’t = belief
Evidence = factual knowledge

Again, you seem quite confused here. I conceded that Jesus meets a few basic Messianic criteria like millions of other people: he was a Jewish dude.

Why did you ignore my question about Zechariah 13?

 

[blü 2]

Examining His life, I have often encountered the claim that because Jesus of Nazareth doesn’t fulfill certain prophecies, He’s not the Messiah.

My response? From one perspective, that’s true. He was certainly a different kind of figure than people were hoping for. You would be right.

Yet, I do think that because of His Claim to be a different kind of messianic person: a saviour kind of figure, a king who governed the hearts of people, not one who aspired to earthly rule, both Jewish people and those of us who are non-Jews (yes, even Christians) have tended to not give His Teachings a open-hearted look otherwise.

My question for Jews, Christians, and others: Whether or not you believe that Jesus is the Messiah, is there anything you find of worth or value to Jesus or His Teachings?

As you say, he was different to a messiah.

The title 'messiah' means 'anointed one' and the anointing is done by the leading Jewish priesthood. 'Christ' is from the translation into Greek of 'messiah', so Jesus' right to the title is asserted from earliest Christianity.

Jesus was never a civil, military or religious leader of the Jews. He was never anointed by the Jewish priesthood. Christianity was adopted by very few Jews; most early Christians were ex-pagans. Jesus was never the savior of the Jews ─ on the exact contrary, antisemitism starts early with Christianity ─ there are clear signs of antagonism to the Jews in John's gospel ─ and continues in a variety of forms throughout European history. It's still out there.

So whatever 'Christ' means to Christians, it does not mean 'messiah' in any sense found in the Tanakh.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Examining His life, I have often encountered the claim that because Jesus of Nazareth doesn’t fulfill certain prophecies, He’s not the Messiah.

My response? From one perspective, that’s true. He was certainly a different kind of figure than people were hoping for. You would be right.

Yet, I do think that because of His Claim to be a different kind of messianic person: a saviour kind of figure, a king who governed the hearts of people, not one who aspired to earthly rule, both Jewish people and those of us who are non-Jews (yes, even Christians) have tended to not give His Teachings a open-hearted look otherwise.

My question for Jews, Christians, and others: Whether or not you believe that Jesus is the Messiah, is there anything you find of worth or value to Jesus or His Teachings?

I believe that Jesus was rejected as He didn’t meet the ‘interpretations’ of the high priests, not that He didn’t actually fulfil the prophecies.

I think the second question is answered like this. Whenever a Manifestation, Messenger or Great Teacher is sent to the world by God, He releases spiritual forces which advance civilisation. With regards to Christ, it was He Who renewed civilisation.

Role of Christianity in civilization - Wikipedia

Know thou that when the Son of Man yielded up His breath to God, the whole creation wept with a great weeping. By sacrificing Himself, however, a fresh capacity was infused into all created things. Its evidences, as witnessed in all the peoples of the earth, are now manifest before thee. The deepest wisdom which the sages have uttered, the profoundest learning which any mind hath unfolded, the arts which the ablest hands have produced, the influence exerted by the most potent of rulers, are but manifestations of the quickening power released by His transcendent, His all-pervasive, and resplendent Spirit.

(Baha’u’llah)

 

[Nivek001]

Basic common sense. Do you believe there are invisible fairies floating around my head? If not, why not?



No, believing something in the absence of evidence is what does not make sense. Think through it for two seconds. That's literally what blind faith is.



Knowledge isn't gained from belief. Beliefs are just things you think are true, whether you're correct or not. You'd need evidence to obtain knowledge in any reasonable sense.



I literally quoted you:





How would I gain knowledge about something simply by believing something about it, without any evidence for whether my belief is correct? That makes no sense.



I did not speculate. I said there is no evidence pre-Christian Jews interpreted the Messianic prophecies the way you do. If you had any, you wouldn't be going on this merry-go-round and you'd have just shown the evidence already. So can we simply agree you don't have any evidence for it?



Incorrect. You are deeply confused. I conceded, multiple times now, that there is no possible way to know what every Jew in history has thought. That doesn't mean we should assume they did think this or that without any evidence that's the case.

That seems quite a reasonable position to me. Why would I believe something without any evidence for it?


How do you gain knowledge of what happiness is if you never experienced any sorrow? How do you come to know what salt takes like if you never tasted salt before?

The only way to know those things is to experience them and if you haven’t experienced them before the only way to experience those things is to take leap of faith and try those things out. You cannot know those things prior to personally experiencing them.

That's true, which I also conceded previously. I explained that Biblical prophecies are squishy, thus one can claim a thing has been fulfilled "spiritually" or only "partially" and that other parts will be fulfilled some day.



Again, you seem quite confused here. I conceded that Jesus meets a few basic Messianic criteria like millions of other people: he was a JewishI dude.

Why did you ignore my question about Zechariah 13?

So where do you get that the believing criteria for a God who wants us to rely on faith instead of relying on established evidence would be the same as invisible fairies? It’s common sense to realize that not everything is the same and operate under the same criteria. To insist that one belief criteria fits all is not being rational.

How is it reasonable to figure a lack of evidence for the world to see is a good way to conclude there is no God when it’s just as possible that the reason why there is a lack of evidence is due to a God withholding such evidence on purpose?

After all, you didn’t proclaim that the fairies floating around in your head have a plan for us to achieve a state eternal happiness that involves reliance on faith in those floating fairies.

It’s also ironic as well considering that you would choose to reject my belief that rejection of my belief is not based on any evidence that proves what I believe in is false but rather on simply nothing at all.

Think through it. Do you actually rely on no faith when you vote for one of two candidates for office when neither one has served in that office before? There are times when we have to rely on faith by trusting in others whether it’s a leader, a teacher, or a friend.

One doesn’t have to always take giant leaps of faith here. One can just start exercising a little bit of faith by being open minded enough to say listening to a hymn, or providing some services to others if you never have done that before. One can try those things out and see if they do help one’s sense of happiness. If that is achieved then one can try to apply something else from the Gospel and see if the results are good.

You did speculate BECAUSE I posted some Old Testament Messianic prophecies that were fulfilled in Jesus’s mortal life and ministry. Those scriptures were available and if those Jews could read or listen to those verses they would have interpreted those prophecies quite well.

However, you simply speculated that it’s possible they may have interpreted them differently. There was no evidence presented from you proving any plausibility that they understood those scriptures differently. All you did was say it’s possible. Just because you say it’s possible does not mean that it’s plausible that they did understand them completely differently then from us.

You made that claim without any evidence to back up that claim, which is also not only ironic but hypocritical as well because despite the point that you are relying on no evidence proving that those Jews understood all of those scriptures complete different than from us you are insisting that I have to prove your speculation to be false otherwise your speculation must be true.

Truth and fact are not established by any default you made up. What you did was you chose to BELIEVE all Jews from antiquity interpreted those scriptures differently.

You could have just as easily chose to conclude that those Jews from antiquity did interpret those scriptures the same way as we do since there was no evidence that proves all of those Jews interpreted all of those same scriptures differently, but you didn’t do that.

What’s so confusing about you posting that one cannot believe in something unless there is proof. If you really conceded that Jesus did meet a few Messianic criteria why are you insisting that I have to prove that the Jews from prior to Jesus’s birth had to interpret those scriptures I posted in the same way as we do today?

There is no point for you to request that proof from me if you really concede that those scriptures show that Jesus did meet some of the Messianic criteria.

6 And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.
Zechariah 13:6 KJV

A prophesy regarding when the Jews finally receive their Messiah. They will come up to him and notice the wounds in his hands and wonder why their Messiah has those wounds in his hands and the Messiah will reply that those wounds were from his friends. That being the Messiah (Jesus The Christ) having received those wounds on his hands from when he was crucified when those Jews who were asked by Pilate who should be saved between Jesus and the insurrectionist and thief Barabbas and they cried to save Barrabas and to crucify Jesus.

 

[Left Coast]

So where do you get that the believing criteria for a God who wants us to rely on faith instead of relying on established evidence would be the same as invisible fairies? It’s common sense to realize that not everything is the same and operate under the same criteria. To insist that one belief criteria fits all is is not being rational.

Okay then. That's the show, folks.

You're literally defending the idea that we should believe things without any evidence for them. If you don't understand why that's irrational and absurd, I really can't help you. There's nowhere to go in the conversation from there.

Have a good one.

 

[Nivek001]

Okay then. That's the show, folks.

You're literally defending the idea that we should believe things without any evidence for them. If you don't understand why that's irrational and absurd, I really can't help you. There's nowhere to go in the conversation from there.

Have a good one.

You mean just like you figure that what I believe should be rejected without any evidence to support that rejection ***mod edit***?

It’s irrational to claim it only works for others to prove their conclusion but you are exempt from proving your conclusion just like you insist that the burden of proof is on me because you say the. burden if proof is on me and that’s all there is to it.

It’s irrational for you to ignore what I addressed that you don’t need to prove a claim of belief because it’s a belief in what is true not a fact.

You ignoring all of that and insisting that I have the burden of proof just because you say so does not make my points about claims of belief vs. claims of fact go away.

Also I didn’t say we should just believe in “things” without evidence. Not all things are alike. Because not all things are alike one should not use the exact same criteria when it comes to accepting the existence of just anything.

If a lack of evidence is a good point to consider when determining there isn’t a God who withholds evidence of divinity intentionally so that we could rely on faith you need to prove HOW a lack of evidence shows that there is no such God.

It’s irrational to just insist that a lack of evidence matters and means there could not be such a God without proving how it is unlikely that the reason why there is a lack of evidence for the world to see is due to that God withholding proof of divinity from us on purpose.

After all, we could not act on faith if the evidence of divinity the world can see was presented.to us.

 

[Audie]

You mean just like you figure that what I believe should be rejected without any evidence to support that rejection hypocrite?

It’s irrational to claim it only works for others to prove their conclusion but you are exempt from proving your conclusion just like you insist that the burden of proof is on me because you say the. burden if proof is on me and that’s all there is to it.

It’s irrational for you to ignore what I addressed that you don’t need to prove a claim of belief because it’s a belief in what is true not a fact.

You ignoring all of that and insisting that I have the burden of proof just because you say so does not make my points about claims of belief vs. claims of fact go away.

Also I didn’t say we should just believe in “things” without evidence. Not all things are alike. Because not all things are alike one should not use the exact same criteria when it comes to accepting the existence of just anything.

If a lack of evidence is a good point to consider when determining there isn’t a God who withholds evidence of divinity intentionally so that we could rely on faith you need to prove HOW a lack of evidence shows that there is no such God.

It’s irrational to just insist that a lack of evidence matters and means there could not be such a God without proving how it is unlikely that the reason why there is a lack of evidence for the world to see is due to that God withholding proof of divinity from us on purpose.

After all, we could not act on faith if the evidence of divinity the world can see was presented.to us.

I cannot conclude there isn't a god.
If you conclude there is, well, go for it.
I don't think that way.
Neither pov can be proved true.

The conclusion that " god" deliberately
withholds is a too clever by one half
explanation for why no evidence at all
exists -imo and all- but worth you consideration.

Likewise the way that "faith" is a necessity
elevated to a highest virtue.

The absence of evidence / evidence of
absence, the cliché is overly broadly applied.

If there is an absence of evidence that
there's a herd of dinosaurs in your sitting room,
well, all sane persons will take that as, yes, conclusive
evidence of absence.

The concoction of a being far greater than this,
even all multiverses, out of thin air is rather
outlandish, and withal intellectually unsupportable.

You guys wanna claim there's dinosaurs
or a supernatural monster who carries on
as per Bible then yeah, its on you to come up
with something besides " evidence of absence"
and " faith" if you care to appear credible to
anyone but the alresdy- indoctrinated.

 

[Left Coast]

You mean just like you figure that what I believe should be rejected without any evidence to support that rejection hypocrite?

It’s irrational to claim it only works for others to prove their conclusion but you are exempt from proving your conclusion just like you insist that the burden of proof is on me because you say the. burden if proof is on me and that’s all there is to it.

It’s irrational for you to ignore what I addressed that you don’t need to prove a claim of belief because it’s a belief in what is true not a fact.

You ignoring all of that and insisting that I have the burden of proof just because you say so does not make my points about claims of belief vs. claims of fact go away.

Also I didn’t say we should just believe in “things” without evidence. Not all things are alike. Because not all things are alike one should not use the exact same criteria when it comes to accepting the existence of just anything.

If a lack of evidence is a good point to consider when determining there isn’t a God who withholds evidence of divinity intentionally so that we could rely on faith you need to prove HOW a lack of evidence shows that there is no such God.

It’s irrational to just insist that a lack of evidence matters and means there could not be such a God without proving how it is unlikely that the reason why there is a lack of evidence for the world to see is due to that God withholding proof of divinity from us on purpose.

After all, we could not act on faith if the evidence of divinity the world can see was presented.to us.

You seem upset. Take a breath.

If we have no evidence for our beliefs, there is no rational reason to hold them. That's just a basic axiom of reasonableness. If you don't buy that idea, there's really nowhere for the conversation to go. If we abandon that concept, we can literally rationalize belief in anything.

I didn't claim there's no God. I don't even know why you brought that up. Similarly, I don't claim no Jew before Christianity interpreted Messianic prophecy the way you do. I claim there's no evidence for such Jews. If you have any evidence for them, cut to the chase and show it.

It's really that simple.

So again, if you want to have a conversation on evidence, let me know. If you simply want to double down that it's a good idea to believe things sans evidence, that's a non-starter for any reasonable conversation.

 

[Nivek001]

I cannot conclude there isn't a god.
If you conclude there is, well, go for it.
I don't think that way.
Neither pov can be proved true.

The conclusion that " god" deliberately
withholds is a too clever by one half
explanation for why no evidence at all
exists -imo and all- but worth you consideration.

Likewise the way that "faith" is a necessity
elevated to a highest virtue.

The absence of evidence / evidence of
absence, the cliché is overly broadly applied.

If there is an absence of evidence that
there's a herd of dinosaurs in your sitting room,
well, all sane persons will take that as, yes, conclusive
evidence of absence.

The concoction of a being far greater than this,
even all multiverses, out of thin air is rather
outlandish, and withal intellectually unsupportable.

You guys wanna claim there's dinosaurs
or a supernatural monster who carries on
as per Bible then yeah, its on you to come up
with something besides " evidence of absence"
and " faith" if you care to appear credible to
anyone but the alresdy- indoctrinated.

“The conclusion that " god" deliberately
withholds is a too clever by one half
explanation for why no evidence at all
exists -imo and all- but worth you consideration.”

HOW does that statement make any sense? HOW is it a too clever by one half explanation? Is that statement based on fact or is that statement based on your opinion?

The point of explaining why there is a lack of evidence could be due to God withholding evidence on purpose simply shows how looking at only a lack of evidence is not be necessarily a reliable point to base a conclusion on. Just because you figure the saying that absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence is broadly applied does not prove that saying does not apply in this specific case.

Just because you can make the argument that the absence of evidence regarding dinosaurs in the living room means it’s likely there were no dinosaurs there does NOT mean the absence of evidence argument is applicable to everything. After all, you did not go on about that it’s believed that there are dinosaurs in the living room who have a plan for our eternal state of happiness that involves withholding their presence in the living room on purpose so that we would have to rely on faith that those dinosaurs are somehow actually in the living room.

Yet if that was what the belief entails then if one were to reasonably dismiss that belief just based on a lack of evidence that person would still have to show how a lack of evidence takes that aspect of belief into consideration.

You may find that belief regarding dinosaurs ridiculous anyway, and so would I, but just because you and I would find that belief to be ridiculous, does not mean that such a belief has been proven to be false, nor has that belief been proven unlikely to be true.

Truth is truth despite what one’s personal perception or popular perception may be. Just because you think absence of evidence matters in determining what is true regarding everything does NOT prove evidence matters in determining what is true regarding everything.

Your position to refute the belief in a God who wants us to rely on faith in him instead of relying on established evidence simply due to there being a lack of evidence proving there is such a God is based on nothing more than your own baseless beliefs and nothing more.

And just because you insist that I have to convince you with evidence in order for that belief to be true does NOT mean that it’s reasonable OF you to insist that the burden of proof is on me since you haven’t established that a lack of evidence really matters in determining whether or not there is a God who wants us to rely on faith in him instead of relying on established evidence.

 

[Audie]

“The conclusion that " god" deliberately
withholds is a too clever by one half
explanation for why no evidence at all
exists -imo and all- but worth you consideration.”

HOW does that statement make any sense? HOW is it a too clever by one half explanation? Is that statement based on fact or is that statement based on your opinion?

The point of explaining why there is a lack of evidence could be due to God withholding evidence on purpose simply shows how looking at only a lack of evidence is not be necessarily a reliable point to base a conclusion on. Just because you figure the saying that absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence is broadly applied does not prove that saying does not apply in this specific case.

Just because you can make the argument that the absence of evidence regarding dinosaurs in the living room means it’s likely there were no dinosaurs there does NOT mean the absence of evidence argument is applicable to everything. After all, you did not go on about that it’s believed that there are dinosaurs in the living room who have a plan for our eternal state of happiness that involves withholding their presence in the living room on purpose so that we would have to rely on faith that those dinosaurs are somehow actually in the living room.

Yet if that was what the belief entails then if one were to reasonably dismiss that belief just based on a lack of evidence that person would still have to show how a lack of evidence takes that aspect of belief into consideration.

You may find that belief regarding dinosaurs ridiculous anyway, and so would I, but just because you and I would find that belief to be ridiculous, does not mean that such a belief has been proven to be false, nor has that belief been proven unlikely to be true.

Truth is truth despite what one’s personal perception or popular perception may be. Just because you think absence of evidence matters in determining what is true regarding everything does NOT prove evidence matters in determining what is true regarding everything.

Your position to refute the belief in a God who wants us to rely on faith in him instead of relying on established evidence simply due to there being a lack of evidence proving there is such a God is based on nothing more than your own baseless beliefs and nothing more.

And just because you insist that I have to convince you with evidence in order for that belief to be true does NOT mean that it’s reasonable OF you to insist that the burden of proof is on me since you haven’t established that a lack of evidence really matters in determining whether or not there is a God who wants us to rely on faith in him instead of relying on established evidence.

What-evs

 

[Nivek001]

You seem upset. Take a breath.

If we have no evidence for our beliefs, there is no rational reason to hold them. That's just a basic axiom of reasonableness. If you don't buy that idea, there's really nowhere for the conversation to go. If we abandon that concept, we can literally rationalize belief in anything.

I didn't claim there's no God. I don't even know why you brought that up. Similarly, I don't claim no Jew before Christianity interpreted Messianic prophecy the way you do. I claim there's no evidence for such Jews. If you have any evidence for them, cut to the chase and show it.

It's really that simple.

So again, if you want to have a conversation on evidence, let me know. If you simply want to double down that it's a good idea to believe things sans evidence, that's a non-starter for any reasonable conversation.

So if you didn’t claim there is no God why did you. say that if there is no evidence to support our belief there is no rational reason to hold those beliefs? My belief is that there is a God who wants us to rely on faith in him instead of relying on established evidence. If you figure it’s reasonable to drop that belief due to a lack of evidence then you are claiming that there is no God who wants us to rely on faith in him instead of relying on established evidence.

HOW can you sincerely say that if there is no evidence to support our belief there is no rational reason to hold them when you have no problem holding on to your belief that my belief in a God who taught reliance on faith in him instead of relying on established evidence as not being reliable when you haven’t shown how a lack of evidence makes that belief unreliable?

How does the scriptures I posted regarding prophecies about the Messiah that were shown to have been fulfilled in Jesus’s mortal ministry have no evidence of Jews who interpreted they would be done by the Messiah? Those prophecies were written by Jews and other Israelites. There has been no evidence to show that those Jews and other Israelites who wrote down those prophecies did not have Jesus of Nazareth in mind when they are written.

So if there has been no such evidence one way or the other why are you picking a side to not accept those prophecies as being prophecies of Jesus of Nazareth? You are deciding to hold on to a belief that has no evidence to support it.

 

[Nivek001]

What-evs

Well at least now you are showing your baseless prejudices.

 

[Audie]

Well at least now you are showing your baseless prejudices.

Lying about people you don't know = godly, does it?

 

[Nivek001]

Lying about people you don't know = godly, does it?

How was pointing out that your insistence that evidence matters when you didn’t prove or explain how but you just don’t care and you insist that I have to prove to you anyways otherwise my belief is not valid mean I was lying about people I don’t know?

 

[Left Coast]

So if you didn’t claim there is no God why did you. say that if there is no evidence to support our belief there is no rational reason to hold those beliefs? My belief is that there is a God who wants us to rely on faith in him instead of relying on established evidence. If you figure it’s reasonable to drop that belief due to a lack of evidence then you are claiming that there is no God who wants us to rely on faith in him instead of relying on established evidence.

I see no evidence of such a God. Such a God may exist, but I have no idea how you'd demonstrate her/his/its/their existence or how you determined what criteria such a God wants us to use to come to conclusions about things.

HOW can you sincerely say that if there is no evidence to support our belief there is no rational reason to hold them when you have no problem holding on to your belief that my belief in a God who taught reliance on faith in him instead of relying on established evidence as not being reliable when you haven’t shown how a lack of evidence makes that belief unreliable?

Again, the notion that evidence is needed for reasonable belief is axiomatic. How would you distinguish reasonable from unreasonable beliefs if you think that beliefs with no evidence to support them are just as reasonable as beliefs with lots of evidence to support them? It's incoherent.

How does the scriptures I posted regarding prophecies about the Messiah that were shown to have been fulfilled in Jesus’s mortal ministry have no evidence of Jews who interpreted they would be done by the Messiah? Those prophecies were written by Jews and other Israelites. There has been no evidence to show that those Jews and other Israelites who wrote down those prophecies did not have Jesus of Nazareth in mind when they are written.

We've been over this. The time to believe something is when there's evidence for it, not simply when it can't be ruled out.

So if there has been no such evidence one way or the other why are you picking a side to not accept those prophecies as being prophecies of Jesus of Nazareth? You are deciding to hold on to a belief that has no evidence to support it.

Incorrect. If there's no evidence one way or the other, the reasonable position is to refrain from believing. Which means not believing there were any such Jews, until such time as it's demonstrated there were. There may have been, but we have no reason to think so until such time as we see evidence. I've now explained this multiple times to you.

It's like you're straining to avoid how obvious the point I'm making is.

Again, you've made it abundantly clear that your beliefs are predicated on blind faith, not evidence, and that you think your God wants it that way. If that's the case, there's nothing else to say. Discussing evidence at that point becomes irrelevant.

I'll let you have the last word, if you'd like it. Take care.