One Final Thought on Whether Jesus Did or Did Not Lie

And now up dated with a third lie of Jesus!

Forget the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection for now!
Lets go straight to the facts as stated by Jesus himself!

To set the record straight as to whether or not Jesus (or the Gospels writers) used lies to get people to join Christianity: Are or are not the following two statements made by Jesus true and correct promises and claims (as simply stated with no apologetic excuses please)?

1. John 14: 13 -14:
“Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.”

2. Matt. 16: 28:
“Most certainly I tell you, there are some standing here who will in no way taste of death, until they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom."

3. Mark 13:2:
"Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone on another, which will not be thrown down." (Just what is the Wailing Wall then?! Duh!)

Finally, based on what Jesus promised people if they converted and what he claimed about the Devil (aka: Satan); who would you trust more: A used car salesman or Jesus?


In the end, my challenge (per John 8:44) remains: Based on the Hebrew text and it alone:

1. No one has yet proven to me Satan is a liar! (See my notes on Genesis!)

2. No one has yet proven to me Satan is murder! (See my notes on Job!)



38 comments:

jbudrdanl said...

This is just poor exegesis. To insist on explaining Jesus' meaning in a single passage without allowing for contextual interpretation (i.e., "apologetic excuses") is bad hermeneutics. No wonder people get confused. You are allowing yourself to live by a different set of standards exegetically than you allow Christians. These are both easily explained and understood in light of the complete biblical context.

universalheretic said...

Hell, Satan is the only trustworthy character in the whole Bible!

universalheretic said...

What is best, allowing Jesus' words to stand on their own, or using apologetics to "explain away" any word or phrase we may not like. Context of the passage and understanding of the culture is key in reading any ancient text, neither work to rectify these passages.

The only apologetic I've heard for Matt 16: 28 is that he did come, but it was a spiritual appearance. That explanation didn't work well for the Jehovah's Witness's when their date for the second coming didn't materialize and it doesn't work well for this passage. Either way, it would only point to Jesus being a poor communicator, no better than any politician at getting his message across.

Harry McCall said...

Jbubrdanlstated: “To insist on explaining Jesus' meaning in a single passage without allowing for contextual interpretation (i.e., "apologetic excuses") is bad hermeneutics.”

RE: That’s the same as justifying the reason an out-of-control child knocks over a store display was because it was the store fault for putting it in the way! Yet, over 1,000 other customers walked around it with not problem.

Christians apologetists like you are simply the equivalent of the faithful and loyal company PR lawyers and damage control individuals who rally around their employer to explain away a major claim of why their company’s product failed to work as promised!

The Bible is not an esoteric book of promises to a few certain people like the Roman Mystery Religions were, but a claim that the whole of humanity is lost with only Jesus leading the true way out.

Fact is, Christianity tries to claim that Original Sin means the world is some how stupid and only the eternal Biblical Word of God is smart. This opens it up for an object truth check: Go / No Go. Meaning NO GO!

In fact the late ETV’s Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood had more truth and love to get the world than the Bible ever had!

So just how do we know when Jesus is lying in the Gospels: When he opens his mouth!

Harry McCall said...

With no factual proof presented by any Christian who visits DC of why Jesus can make a point blank statement that is not true such as in my post now, just why should anyone believe he ever gave any Plan of Salvation, especially when I’ve found NO GOSPEL TRACT that can create one out of all Jesus sayings in the Synoptic Gospels. Plus, these same tracts are very hard pressed to use the very high Christological Gospel of John to get anywhere with Jesus and salvation such we as we find in the use of this dogma as found in Paul’s letter to the Romans.

Salvation comes from Paul and not Jesus!

Harry McCall said...

It’s so typical of Christians and Christianity to argue theology only as in the case of Marlene Winell’s post "The "free gift" of salvation not so free"

However, when one catches Jesus (or the creators of the Gospels) in a flat out lie where Jesus is caught with his logical and historical pants down, no one seems to want to discuss this embarrassment of God Incarnate.

How many times have I hear Christian prayers ended with the sentence: “For we ask it in Jesus’ name and for His sake. Amen and yet no one is phased when John 13: 13 -14 fails to happen as requested in the prayer!

But (god forbid) let me say: Well, one can’t have true salvation unless one not only believes in Jesus and one does this…”.


Now every Christian layman out there is a professional theologian. Just look at Marlene Winell’s post and every Christian has their 2 cents of soteriology; one which every Christian commenting on her post knows for sure is God’s revealed truth to him or her!

This proves that Christianity is nothing but a moral metal exercise based on augmentation. COME ONE; COME ALL!!!

Corky said...

Preterism is the only Christian answer to the whole theme of the NT about the soon return of Christ. And, the soon return of Jesus to set up and reign over an earthly kingdom of God is the whole theme of the NT.

Most of the Christian world does not believe what Jesus said in Mark 13, Matt. 24 and Luke 21 about "this generation" of his time being when the end would come.

Therefore, either Jesus and the apostles were all liars or it did happen and the Preterists are right.

Personally, I think both are wrong. I think that it was a misinterpretation of the Jewish Scriptures at fault.

The futurists, adventists, pre-millennialists and historicists have to be wrong - because two thousand years is too long a time period to reconcile the "soon", "these last days", "quickly", "this generation", "at hand" and "shortly" type passages in the NT with any hope of it yet to happen in some future time.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Harry,

How about this one:

John 15:7 ~ "7-If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you"That little word "abide" (gk Meno) is telling...ie: Jesus is certainly not "magic" and covenenat isn't extended to non abiders no matter how bad they want the blessing WITHOUT the blesser...or how about this one to provide multiple attestation of the same concept:

James 4:3~"3-Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts."And yes, even though it's a touchy situation, USING God's word to ask him to do something for others with no BELIEF that God exists in the first place is equivalent to "consuming upon your lusts"Here we go:

Heb. 11:6~"6-But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."Mt. 21:22~"22-And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

So as with any COVENANT there are agreements and representations on each side. Just as many prayers as you can say that you've prayed or someone prayed that went unanswered, I can render those that have been answered in my life. God's not a candystore for you to use when convenient...and YES...the author of anything can do what he want to do with it. it's called soveriegnty. That's the aspect of God you and most god haters don't like, is that he doesn't have to apologize to you for anything...

Let me tell you this though. One day even YOU and every other god hater and denier will have your opportunity to tell God EXACTLY how you feel without reservation. Take good mental notes and be prepared to lambast him as much as you can. The outcome will be the same in every event:

Is. 45:21-24~"21-Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. 22-Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. 23-I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.24-Surely, shall one say, in the LORD have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed."

NT Ref: Rom. 14:11-12~"11-For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. 12-So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.The only reason I answer this with the bible is because you make a biblical absurdity of the passages you quote and no attempt to bring out meaning of anything. You are a FUNDAMENTALIST and a LITERALIST and the bible is mean to be contextualized. That's exactly what Jbudrdanl was saying and I TOTALLY agree.

Thyen there's this...If your god Ehrman is correct, the only way we can REALLY know what Jesus said is by paying attention to repetition of certain material. When we find a pattern we can safely assume that the saying was more than likely close to the saying that was repeated the most. I offered multiple instances where there are CONDITIONS on asking and receiving, you offer ONE scripture saying it should work like that

So far as your preterist argument...PLEASSSSE!

later Harry.

Jeff said...

"So just how do we know when Jesus is lying in the Gospels: When he opens his mouth!"

Your hyperbole is hurting my eyes.

Seriously, I agree that the point is valid - if Jesus didn't tell the truth, then he likely isn't the all-knowing God. But exaggeration like this only hurts your argument. You point out two examples where Jesus was lying, and now suddenly he is lying every time he opens his mouth?

goprairie said...

It amuses me when the one lottery winner says the winning is an answer to their prayer. Proof of god's promise to answer prayer. Lots of attention to that one anwered prayer. But no attention to the hundreds of thousands that entered that same lottery and prayed just as fervently and LOST. If the one win counts as a god success, a god promise answered, the rest MUST count as god FAILURES and god promises BROKEN.
and harvey, one more lame 'you will be sorry in the end' is just very very tiresome. do you think we are scared by that? there is no god to answer to. never will be. what are YOU going to do when the volcano god and zeus and all those pharoh gods and the sun god ask you why you did not pay tribute to THEM??? oh, did i scare you with that question?

Brad Haggard said...

Harry, let me take back up Genesis 3 and Job 1, 2 here.

Did you seriously send me to AIG to look at the "day" controversy? Barr may be credible, but what was cited there was a letter, not even an article. Augustine was suspicious of that literalist interpretation, along with many others, thousands of years before that letter.

But that isn't even the point of "yom" that we are talking about. Do you really think that there would be that type of internal inconsistency in the text? It's obviously a figurative usage, or are you going to suggest that the Hebrew writer intended the serpent to be the hero of the account? Find me one Hebrew scholar who affirms that. Adam and Eve died spiritually that day and were doomed to death physically. It's not allegory, not even harmonization. It's the clear reading of the text, just read on to the curses a few verses later.

BTW, the scholar I cited, Sarna, is Jewish.

And as for Job, you still haven't shown why the article is important. "Ha-" is used numerous times for God's titles, and each time they are referring to YHWH. It is a big red-herring. And I still can't see how you think this accuser is anything but an antagonist in the account. He is opposed to humanity, that is the point. Just because God is in ultimate control doesn't absolve him from his actions.

That is the twisting I am referring to, you are taking the obvious antagonist in these two passages and re-casting him as either neutral or even benevolent.

Scott said...

Harvey,

So if a child dies of cancer despite his or her parent's prayers to be healed, it's actually their fault for not believing enough?

This is the kind of apologetic nonsense that shackles and destroys the very human spirit which it supposably saves.

Apparently, the ratio of true believers and non-believers just happen to match statistical chance.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Jeff,

Your about one of the most reasonable persons I've met on this board. I appreciate your observations and find them to be fair.

goprarie,
"one more lame 'you will be sorry in the end' is just very very tiresome.

I didn't say that. I said you'll have the opportunity to thoroughly express yourself, so take good notes and be prepared. I didn't say you'll be sorry...although YOU WILL!-LOL

You also said: do you think we are scared by that? there is no god to answer to."In spite of the overwhelming evidence, keep tellin' yourself that because maybe you can create a new reality with the power of your mind like Eckhart Tolle...nevertheless, knock yourself out.

Scott,
I guess I forgot to quote this one for your hypothetical situation that you present.

1 John 5: 14-15~"14-And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will,he heareth us: 15-And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him."HE has a will for our lives even though our lives our touched and tainted by sin. It's like this, his will is for us to live, sin is a sentence of death, now that sin is here it can only be accounted for in this continuum.

This life is not the only reality that we experience, but it's what we have and we make the best of it and hold on to it as tightly as we can, BUT in the Christian worldview we trust him that this isn't the end. Just as Jesus demonstrated his power over death through resurrection we hold to the same premise on his promise.

You know how I believe, but please explain this, I don't know what the metaphysical naturalist such as yourself believes, especially since energy is neither created nor destroyed...where does your consciousness go? Is there somehow a violation of the natural laws you hold dear at death? Does your "energy" simply vanish into oblivion??? Will your consciousness become one with the universe? Are youy a pantheistic atheist? If so, what does your life mean? Please tell me.

Ryan said...

You’re OP has the following logic:

1. If Satan was/is a liar or murderer, then we’d be able to find an instance of Satan lying or murdering in the 66 books of scripture.

2. We cannot find any such instances.

3. Therefore, Satan is not a liar or murderer.

The logic is a valid instance of modus tollens, so the only question is whether the premises are true. You’re challenging Christians to show premise (2) is false. You're claim is that if Christians cannot show premise (2) false, then Jesus is a pathological liar.

You're demand for something to negate only premise (2) assumes that premise (1) is true. But I don’t see any reason at all to think that “if Satan was/is a liar or murder” that we must be able to find an instance of such lying or murdering in scripture. Do you?

goprairie said...

"overwhelming evidence"? only of people silly enough to dedicate their entire life to a myth. you know the old saying: one man's overwhelming is another woman's non-existant.

Harry McCall said...

Jeff, apart from geography as recorded in the Gosples, please prove to me that anything Jesus ever said is true.

You stated: “But exaggeration like this only hurts your argument. You point out two examples where Jesus was lying, and now suddenly he is lying every time he opens his mouth?” then prove otherwise!I’m calling you out on this one. You made the above statement, now back it up!

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

goprarie,

just answer the questions sich you've dedicated your life to so much "better" things, let me rephrase the question I asked earlier:

Since you are supposedly a higher form of sentient being and if it is natural law that energy is neither created nor destroyed, when you die where does your consciousness go? Is there somehow a violation of the natural laws you hold dear at death causing your "energy" simply vanish into oblivion??? Will your consciousness become one with the universe? Are you a pantheistic atheist? If so, what does your life mean? Please tell me.Give me a good atheistic answer to that mr. grand life dedication?

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Harry,

How about this one:

Mt.15:19~"For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:" and this one:

Mk. 7:21-23~"21-For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22-Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: 23-All these evil things come from within, and defile the man."If they don't come from where Jesus said they do, where do they come from...our genes? So mr. naturalist where does our immaterial faults etc. come from and how are they measured?

Are these things simply learned within the culture? If Jesus was wrong about this, I guarantee you can't prove it.

goprairie said...

dshb - i don't hold discussions with people who start from a postiion of mocking me with labels like that. even if i answered your questions, you would not understand or absorb the answers and would continue to mock and bait. you are not in this to learn but to desparately make a case for the thing that you have dedicated your life to. you are not really open to discussion or respectful debate. i base this in part by the fact that you did not apparently understand the words of my comment that resulted in your question.

Harry McCall said...

Harvey you state two Bible verses with Jesus giving a lecture on theology (sin, LIKE THE WORLD TODAY CARES WHAT SIN IS!) and claim this as a fact:

"If they don't come from where Jesus said they do, where do they come from...our genes? So mr. naturalist where does our immaterial faults etc. come from and how are they measured?'

First, the heart is not the brain, so the whole premise is wrong as to where these “sins” are to be found.

Secondly, Mr. Bible man states: “out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22-Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: 23. All these evil things come from within, and defile the man."

This entire rant by Jesus is nothing but his subjective theology which has a Gnostic ring to it.! These are all thing Jesus modified from Judaism, which even the Jews like the Pharisees rejected Jesus on as being wrong!

Harvey, all the points Jesus was making here is simply theology!

What is murder? Abortion? (it’s legal in most all countries in the world, even Islamic.) Carrying a gun and going to war? (it is according to Quakers and Jehovah Witnesses.) What is lust? The natural sex drive in humanity (but, of course, Jesus would not know since he had no sex drive!) And why reproduce if one believed his lie that the world would end soon any.

And what the hell is the “evil eye”?! A religious curse on some body? Give me a break!

Finally:
A. Jesus is wrong on where they come from. It’s not the heart, but the brain.B. Jesus is a none sexual who tells everyone that if you even look on a women with lust, you commit adultery and if you even hate some in your “heart” you commit murder.

Take section B into any legal system and you’d be laughed out of the court room!

So, based on the facts as modern society know the law today, JESUS Is WRONG!

Harry McCall said...

Ryan states: You're demand for something to negate only premise (2) assumes that premise (1) is true. But I don’t see any reason at all to think that “if Satan was/is a liar or murder” that we must be able to find an instance of such lying or murdering in scripture. Do you?

My reply to Ryan: Your problem here is trying to use logic to understand theology.

Try your logic with the Incarnation: 100% God and 100% man. Now see how logical your are here! (Put that in your logical pipe and smoke it!)

Thomas Aquinas tried this using Scholastic Logic to prove God which is rejected today because he assumed to much.

Here’s the point! Jesus (as the eternal Word of God and Truth) said in John 8:44 that Satan lied and murdered. I took Jesus at his word and called on the Hebrew text as my witness to expose Jesus’ lie and I did!

Harry McCall said...

Harvey said: “Jeff, Your about one of the most reasonable persons I've met on this board. I appreciate your observations and find them to be fair.”

What’s so odd about our so-called atheist, Jeff, is the he appears to be a Christian under the disguise of atheism.

When I said Jesus’ character named Satan did not occur in Job, Jeff had a duck fit about Jesus being wrong.

When I said Jesus lied every time he open his mouth, Jeff’s reaction was that of the average Christian believer in his outrage at me!

So Harvey, you just may have made a new Christian friend here after all!

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Harry,

You said "LIKE THE WORLD TODAY CARES WHAT SIN IS!)

Ok the world doesn't care what sin is??? First did Jesus say sin? or did he pronounce actions and equate them with defilement of corruption? Aside from that you mean to tell me that you don't care about any of these acts:

evil thoughts
murders
adulteries
fornications
thefts
false witness (aka: Liars...What's your post topic about again?) Does that make you a liar too?blasphemies (you- probably not)
covetousness
wickedness
deceit
lasciviousness
an evil eye (jealously)
pride
foolishness

So you think that nobody cares about these things today??? Yea right! Laws and written and unwritten codes exist centering around all of these actions in workplaces, schools and in law libraries. You're out of touch.

Then you said: "First, the heart is not the brain, so the whole premise is wrong as to where these “sins” are to be foundSo are you saying that SINS are only in the brain??? OK...

Here you go Harry:

What is murder? Abortion? (it’s legal in most all countries in the world, even Islamic.)But would your murder be legal? (just to illustrate the point my friend)

Carrying a gun and going to war? (it is according to Quakers and Jehovah Witnesses.)These is such a thing as self defense and if you don't fight back you can't blame God, blame your own inaction.

What is lust? The natural sex drive in humanity (but, of course, Jesus would not know since he had no sex drive!)Not exactly true. Lust is inappropriate desire. What one considers "lust" for a spouse isn't the same. In fact my desire for my spuse is honorable at all times whereas my desire for the girl next door (and believe me there is none) is dishonorable. In addition a single person can have a desire for a spouse even a particular person without it being lust...

Me thinks that your understandings of these basic tenets is why ye struggled within your Christian walk and are now an atheist...

So based on the FACTS given to modern society as there is no immaterial measuring stick and these things simply DON'T COME FROM THE BRAIN, Jesus is right and you haven't proved one thing to suggest that he's wrong...other than he's wrong because HARRY thinks so...

Take that to court Harry...

Harry McCall said...

Brad, I have Barr’s Ethel Wood Lecture given at the University of London: Biblical Chronology: Fact or Fiction.

He addresses the same point in his late 1970's book Fundamentalism.

Please prove to me anywhere the world YOM in the Hebrew Bible does not mean one sun up to sun down day of what we call 24 hours…prove it!

As for as Augustine goes, the Gnostics where just more allegorical as was Philo and so was the whole Alexandrian Egyptian view of the Bible.

As to your second point, you Christians seem hell bent to get Original Sin out of the story. God is so screwed up here he thought the serpent had legs (even though he created him) and cursed him to eat dust (Genesis 3: 14).

So, God is a liar in that Snakes don’t eat dust (never did, never will) and that the same Hebrew word for snake (Hebrew: NAHAS= Serpent) is used pre 3:14 for a legless animal.

Brad, please prove to me one thing the serpent stated that was a lie?! The only lies that were told were by God himself.

As for as Original Sin goes, this is an entire creation of Paul! The Jews NEVER believe this was ever in the Genesis story!

Brad demands: “Find me one Hebrew scholar who affirms that. Adam and Eve died spiritually that day and were doomed to death physically. It's not allegory, not even harmonization. It's the clear reading of the text, just read on to the curses a few verses later.”

RE: Try the Anchor Bible on Genesis or read anything by the great Semitic scholars C.H Gordon or G.W. Lambert or try Brills’ Dictionary on Demons and Deities in the Bible (try “Serpent” by R. H Hendel pp. 744- 747!)

Your reading of the Genesis account is simple Christianizing ofthe text to get orthodox theology out of it!

Brad states: “And as for Job, you still haven't shown why the article is important. "Ha-" is used numerous times for God's titles, and each time they are referring to YHWH. It is a big red-herring. And I still can't see how you think this accuser is anything but an antagonist in the account. He is opposed to humanity, that is the point. Just because God is in ultimate control doesn't absolve him from his actions.

That is the twisting I am referring to, you are taking the obvious antagonist in these two passages and re-casting him as either neutral or even benevolent.
"


Bard, I’ve got the weight of modern scholarship backing me! Until you can show how John Day: Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan and Marvin Pope's Anchor Bible Commentary on Job are in error on this, you are the one with a Red Herring” around your neck!

All you’ve got is late New Testament theology forced on to an old Semitic wisdom tale!

Jesus (aka: the Gospel creators) demonize the serpent to get theology. Period!

Brad Haggard said...

Harry, why are you still holding on to this argument?

I'd hate to start name-dropping in the rest of the thread, but you've never addressed Sarna's interpretation of those passages. And you can complain that my theology is based on the Gospels (big surprise!), but Sarna is Jewish. And I'm not sure where you got original sin out of my post, I don't even subscribe to it.

Day (Yom): Isaiah 4:2, is God's branch only going to flourish for 24 hours?

There's lots more like that in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc.

I haven't heard a peep about why the article is so important in Job when it's used for titles of God all over the Torah.

But the worst part is your contention that Jesus somehow "demonizes" the serpent. You're trying to use technicalities, but the clear meaning of the passage puts the serpent as an antagonist, the same in Job. You've got to let the text speak for itself.

I feel like, with all these technicalities, you're saying that God can't be all-powerful because He can't make a rock so big that He can't lift it.

Jeff said...

Lol Harry, I find you an interesting character. When I don't agree with you, you accuse me of being Christian?

Well, for the record, I'm not. I just think that atheists need to be kept honest sometimes. I think that the ability to have a calm, reasonable discussion is one of the hallmarks of civilized society, and when people start exaggerating, the ability to have such a discussion diminishes. I don't care whether it's Christians, atheists, Buddhists, or Muslims who exaggerate - I'll call 'em all out on it. Now, mind you, perhaps I tend to see you as exaggerating simply because you use a lot of exclamation marks. This tends to give me the impression that you're on the other end of the computer frantically waving your hands and shouting. This is probably completely wrong of me to do so, but it's the impression I get nonetheless.

Anyway, to answer your question, I think much of what Jesus said was untrue, but I'd have a hard time calling it a "lie" per se. I mean, mostly he talks about the Kingdom of God. Certainly I don't believe there is a God, so therefore no kingdom of his, but if you set that aside, I wouldn't say he was "lying" - if the kingdom of God did exist, how could we even determine if he was accurately describing it? Much of what he said (at least in the gospels) deals either with theology or morality, things which don't lend themselves well to being referred to as "lies" or "truth". Thus, at least from his framework (or worldview, if you will), Jesus would have been telling the truth. I just think that he was wrong. But I can't prove that the kingdom of God is not like a mustard seed.

Hopefully that makes sense to you.

And Harvey, thanks for the compliment. As far as your question about consciousness is concerned, I would say that consciousness is a state of brain function - it's a complex firing of neural networks, neurons communicating with each other. When you really come down to it, it's electricity firing in your brain. So, when you die, that electricity stops. The energy that still resides in your body gets taken in by the decomposers that devour your body, or else it gets released in other ways. There's absolutely no problem reconciling this with the idea that matter/energy cannot be created nor destroyed. All it does is gets transformed into a different form and passed on to other organisms.

Jeff said...

Sorry for the double post, but please note Harry that I offer my comments as constructive criticism. I naturally look for the holes in people's arguments, and I often play devil's advocate. I do this for the purpose of strengthening arguments - if I can find a flaw in it, then perhaps the hole can be sealed up! There's no need to get defensive over what I say, except for the purpose of clarifying your original argument to address what I've said.

At any rate, after thinking about it during my walk home from work, it occurred to me that one thing Jesus said that came true was his whole talk about being "betrayed" and such. Certainly I don't really think that he actually predicted these things, but if we are going solely from the text (which you mention in your post as what you are trying to do - "Lets go straight to the facts as stated by Jesus himself!"), then that is an example of a place where Jesus did not lie. I'm not trying to say that he never lied, but only that your exaggeration is unfounded.

Harry McCall said...

Jeff,
If Jesus went up to Jerusalem to suffer and die, “You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man will be delivered up to be crucified." Matt. 26: 2, then why blame Judas? (The Son of man goes indeed, according as it is written concerning him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is delivered up; it were good for that man if he had not been born. Matt 26:4).

Fact is, the recently found Gospel of Judas shows a grateful Jesus telling the other Apostles that only Judas knew what Jesus wanted.

The fact that the proper noun Judas (Ἰούδας) is derived from he noun Jews (Ἰουδαῖοι) is the Gospel’s way to blame, not the Romans, but the Jews for Jesus’ death and is a known anti-Semitic lie.

So, can we trust the betrayal as a fact; no. It’s just theology made into history and to shift the blame from the Romans to the Jews!For the History of Salvation, the worst thing would have been for Jesus to have died of old age and of natural causes.

Harry McCall said...

Brad: here’s my point again plain and simple: Jesus told lies as presented in the Gospels and I have just today added an third lie of Jesus (see post).

Do we understand that Genesis 3 CAN NOT be use to support Jesus’ lie in John 8:44, if not, then just where is the word SATAN in this chapter?

Job: Even if we allow Jesus’ false statement in John 8:44 to applied to Job 1-2 and 42, you would be hard oppressed to prove that either the Accuser or Satan did anything to hurt Job.

Both Job and his friends point the finger of blame at God himself. The text is clear on this.

Brad, let’s cut though the chase and please answer the three statements of lies Jesus makes at the top of this post.

Your use of Genesis 3 and Job are just Red Herrings to me.

Jeff said...

Harry, you're shifting things around here. You're bringing in irrelevant information. You originally stated that you were trying to use "the facts" (even though I think we both know that the Gospels have plenty of non-factual information) by going straight to the words of Jesus. In other words, you were saying that you would read the text in a straight-forward manner, not using later theology and so forth.

Now you're saying that the biblical text is not true and it's just theology. While I agree with you on this (to a certain extent...not ALL of it is made up), the fact is that your argumentation is shifting around. If your intention is to read the text literally, then your statements about Judas and the Gospel of Judas are completely irrelevant. If we're just reading things as they're written, then Jesus did say something truthful when he said he was going to be betrayed. We read him saying that, and then we read it happening to him. So Mr. Storybook Jesus told the truth at least once.

However, if you want to argue for a non-literal interpretation of the text, go right ahead - just remember that then that throws your entire argument out the window. If we can bring in that aspect and say that maybe Jesus never said this or that, then maybe Jesus never said those passages that you're pointing out in your original post.

Again, I am not trying to destroy your entire argument. I'm just trying to get you to clarify your initial premises. You can't start off saying that we're going to use the literal text, and then start talking about a non-literal interpretation. Pick one or the other, and stick with it, or I'm going to keep hounding you :P

Harry McCall said...

Jeff,

Let me give you the three verse at the top of this post. Are or are they not correct?

The Bible is theology, it is not philosophical logic. Christians bank their entire life on Jesus' promises; that they are true and accurate.

So if Jesus is the all knowing eternal word of God (The logos of John 1), then either he knowingly made a false statement or he’s just the average John Doe who has no more insight into the future than you or I.

My challenge is addressed to Christian as this is DC and not what did the Gospel writers make Jesus say and predict.


So what about the three verses at the top of my post?

As to Mark 13:2:
Jews pray daily at the Wailing Wall, but Jesus said no stone would be left one on another, but yet the Wailing Wall is the very wall of the Temple in Jesus’ day…still standing one stone upon another!


As to Matt. 16: 28:
And the other verses, Jesus NEVER came back and all are death just as the Epistle of 2 Peter 3: 4 knows: “and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." So if anyone tries to say it happen already, they must deal with 2 Peter!

As to John 14: 13 -14:
Jesus said he would grant anything asked in his name…good or bad!
So why does not Jesus openly answer request in his name? People die / children die daily crying out to God in the name of jesus!

Are these lies from an all knowing God man or just the empty promises of a failed religion?

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Harry,

I don't know how much more silly you can be...I am utterly amazed at your insistence on lying and manipulating things for your audience. They've got to know that you're mad....

You refrence Mk. 13:2 and you said "Jews pray daily at the Wailing Wall, but Jesus said no stone would be left one on another, but yet the Wailing Wall is the very wall of the Temple in Jesus’ day…still standing one stone upon another!"Almost everyone and their grandma knows that the outer wall WASN'T part of the Temple...It was a retaining wall..."When Rome destroyed the Second Temple in 70 C.E., only one outer wall remained standing. The Romans probably would have destroyed that wall also, but it must have seemed too insignificant to them; it was not even part of the Temple itself, just an outer wall surrounding the Temple Mount." You'll find that HERE. Prophecy stands as Jesus said: "seest thou these great BUILDINGS?" NOT WALLS...The buildings or TEMPLE was destroyed and no stone left on the other...CASE CLOSED!

Your preterist argument is weak and I've already addressed the faith and prayer issue in my prior posting.

You're outta there buddy...Done like a holiday duck.

Jeff said...

Harry, I was specifically arguing against your hyperbole when you said "So just how do we know when Jesus is lying in the Gospels: When he opens his mouth!" I don't disagree that the verses you point out show that Jesus lied - or at least I would say that they are theologically problematic for those who believe Jesus is all-knowing. I'm only trying to say that exaggerating your point beyond that only hurts your argument.

Nevertheless, I appreciate that you didn't bring in any irrelevant arguments this time. Much better :D

Harry McCall said...

Harvey,

Jesus made a flat out statement that no temple building stone would be left one upon another. Now, you come up with the excuse from another website:
“The Romans probably would have destroyed that wall also, but it must have seemed too insignificant to them; it was not even part of the Temple itself, just an outer wall surrounding the Temple Mount. For the Jews, however, this remnant of what was the most sacred building in the Jewish world quickly became the holiest spot in Jewish life.”

Fact is this IS part of the Temple just as an above ground foundation is part of a church. Without a foundation, even Jesus knew a building would not stand:

“He is like a man building a house, who dug and went deep, and laid a foundation on the rock. When a flood arose, the stream broke against that house, and could not shake it, because it was founded on the rock. But he who hears, and doesn't do, is like a man who built a house on the earth without a foundation, against which the stream broke, and immediately it fell, and the ruin of that house was great." Luke 6:48 -49.

Now you hedge the absolute statement of Jesus with: Well, Jesus really did not mean everything would be torn down. Come on Harvey!

Hey Harvey, Jesus did not say “pretty much every stone would be knocked down”, but he went out of his way to state that NOT ONE STONE WOULD BE LEFT UPON ANOTHER! Is that clear or did Jesus leave something out?!

And if the wall foundation of the mount was not really important, then just why does Jesus use the word foundation 8 times in the Gospels to demand one needs to have this very important support to stand on God’s word with? Plus, Jesus NEVER talks about the upper symbolisms of the buildings themselves because the FOUNDATION is the most important part of any building.

Then Paul and the rest of the New Testament uses the word FOUNDATION 75 more times to teach the importance of a firm built faith.

So Harvey, if you can’t really believe Jesus when he said “no stone will be left upon another” on the Temple Mount, just how can you now get Jesus to have promised Christians salvation when even the Gospel Tracts themselves can not teach Christian Salvation out of the Synoptics and have one will have one hell of a time trying to teach it out of John?!

As to you buddy Andrew, this is John’s Blog and I commit here only as a guest. John’s policy here is that Andrew is not allowed to leave commits and, thus he (not I) deletes them.

But as to Andrew’s belief that “Hitler never murdered anyone either”; Hitler was the Nazi leader of the Third Riche and we have audio, video, written documentation where he demanded all “undesirables” be eliminated (Jews, Jehovah Witnesses, mentally restarted and so forth).

Though Hitler seems to have never “murdered anyone himself”, he was leader the Nazi Party which did, plus we have documented facts of him ordering the “Final Solution” especially with the Jews.

Tell your buddy Andrew to go to the Holocaust Memorial in Israel and tell the Jewish people that “there is NO proof that Hitler murdered anyone” and watch how far that misguided line will go. He might escape with his life!

Plus, Andrew stayed clear on the issue of Satan as a ‘liar and the father of all lies“. Even he is not stupid enough to take in this lie of Jesus!

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Harry,

I told you you're off the deep end along with your friend Sconnor...

Look the retaining wall WAS NOT the Temple and Jesus referred to "BUILDINGS" not walls around the buildings.

You're the one who insistently says, read and believe what we read, yet here you want to make the retaining wall the :buildings' that Jesus was referring to...DOESN'T WORK HARRY...It just ain't so.

What's more is that you should have known that as every Christian I know is already familiar with that argument years ago. It's blind hate, rage and atheist dogma that got you all in a tailspin as your theory is proven wrong by the first words uttered...

End of story Harry...NEXT POST!

Harry McCall said...

Harvey,

I'll assume all 82 references to FOUNDATION in the new Testament are just useless referrals to nothing as you seem to think Jesus and Paul had no idea of what they were talking about.

And, finally, since when is a wall not part of a building. It's like a valley and a mountain; where does the valley end and the mountain begin? However, you see to know it all, especially when Jesus gets caught with his morals pants down.

I’ll accept your defeat on this one!

Andre P. Llewellyn said...

Harry,

As I said I would treat the weightier issues you raised in your earlier post 'Was Jesus a Pathological Liar?' under this post.

Mk. 13:2
Firstly, if we are to assume that His predictions refer to the grim ostentatious destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, the fact that Wailing Wall still remains (when viewed against His “not one stone here will be left on another” statement in Mk. 13:2) still doesn’t prove he is a liar. This is because:

a.It could be that Jesus’ prophesy has not been fulfilled as yet.

b.Jesus’ statement is a prophetic one that typically reflects hyperbolic language effectively aimed at stressing a point (here Jesus intends to stress the calamitous nature of the Temple’s destruction). This is not an uncommon device found in His parabolic or apocalyptic statements (Matt. 24:21). It is also apparent in the “hate not his father…cannot be my disciple” in Lk.14:26.

When a point like the above is made you typically resort to an “if you can’t really believe Jesus when he said…then how can you…?” rhetoric. But Harry people are not saying they don’t believe what Jesus said in the discussed passages, they are saying that the context in which the statements were made suggests that their meaning is not derived from a Hyper-literistic or letteristic interpretive approach.

So, Does Jesus’ use of hyperbole to stress the extent of an event mean we really can’t believe what He said or anything he says? Of course not! When a weather woman says “it will be raining cats and dogs at 6pm this evening” our weather ‘precautionary measures’ are not commensurate with the literal interpretation of her statements. Plus if the evening went with much rain but without the occurrence of such a meteorological anomaly (cats and dogs falling from the sky) we wouldn’t say her forecast was wrong. I find your point unconvincing.

Jn. 14:13-14
Suggesting that Jesus meant that he would grant whatever/every good or bad request that is made of him is impractical and incongruous in view of a. the reality of contingencies or conditions as a typical feature of predictions/prophecies/promises (which is the case of Jn. 14:13-14) and b. what the Law, Prophets, and Apostles (and the historical Jewish & Christian community) assumed and taught about that character of God i.e. He is good and his desires are good (Ps.118:1).

Considering the former (a), Jesus’ promises should be taken as premised on already established conditions found in scripture or those he explicitly states. One such condition is that requests must be in harmony with God’s will (Mk. 14:36; Mt. 6:9-10; 1 Jn. 5:14-15). Another condition, more apparent in Jn. 14:13-14, is that the assurance of this promise will be determined by allegiance to his divine authority – thus the statement “in my name”. Scripture reveals other biblically established conditions surrounding the granting of prayer requests. With this said, one may still suffer chronic lower back pain despite prayer not because Jesus lied, but because they haven’t met certain conditions necessary to receive healing or because healing (at that time, or at anytime) is simply not God’s will for that person.

I hardly believe that God would grant someone’s request if it is antithetical to His character. Additionally, I don’t think a reasonable God (reasonableness as a property of his omniscience though not as a binding principle of rationalization) would really answer whatever we want because our requests, by virtue of our finitude, lack of foresight, etc, may not lead to our (& others) the best end. In the same way, we would consider a parent unreasonable if s/he grants his/her child’s every request because children unwittingly and unknowingly (sometimes deliberately) make requests that are dangerous to their physical and emotional health and debilitating to their formation as responsible and unselfish individuals within community. Again, even after evaluating this passage and your comments, I see no real reason to accept your judgment that Jesus is a liar.

Andre P. Llewellyn said...

This is a continuation of the previous post.

Mt. 16:28
Honestly, I find this to be one of the most challenging passages in the gospels; one in I could only offer an untidy solution that is not worth posting here. Simply, I do not understand the FULL meaning and scope of what Jesus was saying. However, in my own thinking, I don’t believe that my non-comprehension is a reasonable basis to suggest that Jesus was lying. But what about your assertion that he was lying isn’t that a basis? Well it lacks the necessary hermeneutic to be a sufficient one.

For you to even begin to convince me that these three passages prove Jesus lied or is a liar then you will need to present solid argumentation that:

a. Reveals careful analysis and interpretation of the grammatical-historical-contextual nature of the three passages (a process that would, among other things, consider the meaning and relationship of words and the basic points I have raised in my analysis).

b. Treats the general and specific contingencies surrounding the promise made in Jn. 14:13-14 and/or provide reasons for us to disregard these conditions (if you deem them immaterial).

c. Provides reasons for one to disregard claims that there are event(s) throughout history (after Jesus made the statement) that would qualify as a fulfilment of Jesus’ predictions in Matthew 16:28, and/or that the prediction will never be fulfilled in the future.

Murders done by God – Joshua 6-7
The fact that God called the Israelites to annihilate the people in Canaan is personally discomforting and emotionally unsettling to me, but when I clear the air of its harsh reality and consider the state and actions of the people in contrast to God’s standards of righteousness as the law Giver, I don’t believe His actions are unjustified.

Your statements make an unstated assumption that God murdered these people without a cause; in the third paragraph (a very short one) you use the word ‘innocent’ three times. But were they really innocent? If by innocent you mean by the standard of God, then the answer is no. “This is what the Bible says of them: "It is not for your righteousness or for the uprightness of your heart that you are going to possess their land, but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD your God is driving them out before you, in order to confirm the oath which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. (Dt 9:5; 12:31)

Additionally, God has the right to do certain things that would be immoral for a human person to do on his own initiative. For example, while it is morally reprehensible for me to kill someone, God, as the author and giver of life, is in His right if He carries out the task.

Finally, the ‘point’ you are trying to make by your comparison between the murder toll of God and that of Satan, and your statements such as “Yahweh can feast on the smoke…”, “Yahweh greed is for the material metal wealth…” and “cultic magical elements flow full and free in Joshua 6 – 7” are not reflective of serious textual consideration and scarcely require refutation.

Walk Good!
Andre