Christianity a lie according to Jesus? Discuss.

Nowhere in the bible does it quote Jesus as saying that he should be worshipped. However, he is quoted as saying “Many in the future shall come in his name, but believe them not, for they are liars.” So by the very words of Jesus himself, the Christian religion is a lie.

I’m thinking of using this as my standard response when next I am confronted with Christian fundies, but I am not that familiar with how Christians themselves have dealt with this fact. It’s probably ignored like everything else deemed distasteful in Christianity. Before taking this stand, I’d like a debate to discuss and thereby improving my stance and understanding of this.

So I invite your thoughts for discussion.

Jack

**NiceGuyJack wrote:

Nowhere in the bible does it quote Jesus as saying that he should be worshipped. However, he is quoted as saying “Many in the future shall come in his name, but believe them not, for they are liars.” So by the very words of Jesus himself, the Christian religion is a lie.**

How about the context in which these two sentences are used? Pulling such statements out of context and then labelling all of Christianity with them looks like you’re setting up a strawman.

That’s a bit Seinfeldian, isn’t it? Jesus refering to himself in the third person? I’ve never seen that alleged quotation. Cite chapter and verse. Then maybe we’ll talk.

The passage you mention appears in three places:
Matthew 24:

Mark 5:

and Luke 21:

So he seems to be saying don’t follow other people claiming to be the Christ, he doesn’t seem to be saying anything one way or the other here in regard to people worshiping him.

Sure, I can find no direct instruction from Jesus that people should worship him, but I can’t find any direct instruction forbidding it either, although he didn’t seem to have a problem with behaviour that I would describe as ‘worship’ here in Luke 7:

If you’re looking for ammo against fundies, there would be better choices than this IMHO.

“God is spirit. Worship him in spirit and in truth… I and the Father are one.” —Jesus

And don’t forget that “I AM” thing. You know, before Abraham was?

Oh come on Lib, you can do better than that! I’d counter with the following:

“I go unto the Father, for my Father is greater than I.”-Jesus

“But of that day and that hour knows no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the son, but the Father.”-Jesus

Not to mention that the John verse you quoted from is, IMHO, taken out of context a bit as Jesus later goes on to pray that God and the disciples be one as well (and the Greek uses the same word hen in both instances). And while we are still in the book of John, when asked if Jesus claimed to be God, his response “Is it not written in your law, ‘I have said you are gods’?”. The verse is found in Psalm 82 where the Bible refers to judges who teach God’s divine law as gods. They are called this because they were teachers of divine law, not because they were actually God in any way. You can find this in Exodus where Moses is called a god because he was God’s representative to Pharaoh.

I still don’t think (re the OP) that there’s a case to answer here.

Yeah, I guess I can. Of course you are God. That’s the whole point of this existence, isn’t it? To act out, each of us, our moral play? And how could you do that if you were not like God, i.e., a free moral agent knowing good and evil?

These “god” concepts of Materialists are delightfully primative. No wonder you don’t believe. Neither would I! Why must God be here or there or this one or that one?

I see a differnce between being a created moral free agent and being the creator of a moral free agent. I do not claim to be any type of supreme being, even though I believe I have certain qualities given to me by such. I do not aspire to become the creator, but I am appreciative of His creation and thus do my best to follow certain guidlines I believe He has set for us to make our lives better. I do not want anyone to worship me. While people may have added to and subtracted to those rules through out the ages, I believe we are all given the basics to choose good over evil, regardless of a belief (or non-belief) in a diety or man’s constructs of a diety.

But I digress, back to the OP.

He asked if Jesus wanted to be worshipped. If he claimed to be God, then perhaps he wanted worship. If he refuted that he was God, then worshipping of him would be blasphemous. I think the spirit of the OP is that and the purpose of using Biblical verses is to counter fundamentalist arguements. Countering fundamentalism with scripture makes it harder for them to argue with than your examples of Libertarianology. I’m sure Lib that you won’t get many fundamentalists agreeing with many of the constructs you hold. IMHO, that is a good thing :slight_smile:

If you’re God, you must be able to create a universe out of nothing.

If God is everywhere, then a miracle would be finding a place where He doesn’t exist.

Well, back in the spirit of the OP, you’re not making a very good argument, IMHO. I think you’re interpreting things much, much too literally - admittedly, an argument that fundies might be able to understand, but still, not good debating style. I can think of verses telling us to follow Jesus.

I’m not even going to bother quoting John 3:16, which tells us to believe in Jesus. But there are many other verses where Jesus himself says to believe in him.

In John 29:15, Jesus asks Peter if he loves him.

There’s also a verse concerning Peter (that I couldn’t find just now) where Peter is set up as the Rock that the Church is to be built on. Regardless of whether or not you think this implies papal infallibility or anything like that, you do have to wonder why Jesus would bother setting up a church if he didn’t want to be worshipped.

So, in short, I think you’re just getting stuck by looking at verses out of context, and by looking for a very specific word that you’re not finding. Yes, it might be interesting to question people on that, but I wouldn’t expect too much of an effect.

The whole bible is taken outta context,always. It is writen to be ambiguous! If you wanna manipulate people just start quoting the bible. You can find every possible behavior justified somewhere or another.

As far as Jesus implying that HE is the only one…Remember that these were people that were looking for a Messiah. Obviously the prophesies didn’t do enough to “prove” jesus (otherwise there wouldn’t be ANY jews…they’d all believe in Jesus). Therefore it was important for any religion to self-authorize itself by saying, in effect, “Don’t believe anything before me, nor after me. I got it all right here!”

The prudent thing to do is realize the SOURCE of these writings…scared sheep herders. When you realize the source of these “sacred writings” all you have to do is RELAX and say, “Ahhh, Myth!” And the rest takes care of itself!

Well, the Bible records Jesus as having said “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”. (John 14:6) Now, the extent to which the gospels actually represent an accurate record of the life and teachings of the historical Jesus of Nazareth can be questioned and debated on a number of points. But, if you’re just going to take “the Bible” (meaning the collection of writings accepted as canonical Scripture by Christians, in the form they have come to be in), there is ample textual evidence that the accepted text of the New Testament part of “the Bible” represents Jesus of Nazareth to be the “Son of God” and as the object of faith which brings salvation.

Libertarian wrote:

Cool! What super-powers do I get? And can I put it on my resume?

A man was run over by an elephant. His guru went to the hospital and found the man in very bad shape, but able to talk.

“You are hurt very bad. Why did you not get out of the way of the elephant?” asked the guru.

“Sir, according to your teaching, God is everywhere and therefore in that elephant. I knew that God would not let me get hurt without warning me, so I stood there.”

“Then why didn’t you listen to God, sitting on top of the elephant yelling for you to get out of the way?” replied the guru.

The answer to your question is that you wouldn’t put it on your resume, because it would not impress God (the one reading the resume). And you get the same super-powers that we all have.

I do not necessarily believe the above, but you asked and that is the answer.

Thanks everyone for contributing to this thread. It has been very informative.
Although the discussions were coming from different point of views, I think the conclusion is the same, using scripture to prove Christianity false will invariably fail unless you have verbatim knowledge of the bible. Something I confess I lack.
The fact that just about any position can be backed through one verse or another clearly proves that this approach to arguing is bound to fail by the very contradiction, which the bible is full of. I think this was clearly shown by Libertarian through real use, from Mangetout, Mayor Quimby, Spiratu, and MEBuckner with some great examples, and I felt dierson summed it up quite nicely.
It was sort of a shot in the dark, and from this I can only conclude that for me to pursue this approach, I would have to be well versed in the bible, something I have absolutely no desire to do. I had my fill of bible studies when they tried to indoctrinate me as a kid.
I think Ifll stick to my current approach, which is to point out the misery and atrocities attributed to Christianity in the past 2000 years. (Although this always seem to fall on deaf ears, especially with fundies.)

Thanks every one.

Jack

It isn’t in the words, it’s in the interpretation. There are a plethora of apologetics on every supposed contradiction in the Bible. Whether or not you believe one arguement over another is up to you.

Even if you knew the Bible (apparently you know enough to claim it’s one contradiction after another :rolleyes: ), it won’t help much in confrontations with fundamentalists due to how they interpret the words they read. I read potato, they read Jesus kind of thing.

As for your old plan, I don’t see that working either. It doesn’t fall on deaf ears, it’s just not a very good arguement. It doesn’t take faith in Christianity to commit atrocities. While many bad things have happened in the name of religion (and that is any religion, most recently Islam due to 9/11), just as many have happened because of nationalism or politics or ethnicity or …

I agree with Lib that Jesus and God are one same being.
It does say so in the bible.
God didn’t “create” Jesus or have sex with Mary to make him either.
YMMV.

Vanilla:

You got any actual cites for your anti-Mormon tirades? Sheesh. You couldn’t even let this thread go without a dig at the LDS.

Look, if that faith’s not for you…THEN JUST DON’T BELIEVE IT.

Actually, what I’m noticing here is that you are a very good candidate for proving one of gobear’s assertions.

Interestingly enough I think this is the very thing that the OP hinted upon. Jesus would not be happy with “fundies.” Does anyone really think “what Jesus would do” is the same thing that Jerry Falwell does? I think not. So all of the atrocities in history are actually perfect examples of what the actual Jesus was talking about. I don’t recall a verse saying “convert the world and all will be well.” Jesus’ teachings were contrary to the Crusades and to the bible thumping fundies of today. If people actually acted like Jesus we wouldn’t have “fundies” we wouldn’t have separation, and we wouldn’t have the whole “bible contradiction” stuff being slapped around.

Christ-ian is supposed to mean a person who follows, thus behaves and thinks like, Christ (the assumption being that Jesus is the Christ/Messiah). There is a stereotype about a typical “Christian” that does not fit the definition of how Christ, who created Christianity, defined it. However, there are such things as actual Christians who lead Christ-like lives, but it’s in their nature not to make waves or headlines.