There was nothing in that passage about discarding, disregarding or breaking the already standing covenant he had with the Jews. I think they would have noticed something like, “I will bring you a New Covenant…so all those signs I told you watch for that foretold a messiah? I changed my mind.”
you’ll note that it says - in Hebrews (post Christ) that the 'days come when" - how are we to know when that is/was to be? is that similar to the “before the last of you die I will return” promise that happened 2000 years ago?
Actually, there is. The verse right before notes “For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second,” and the chapter ends with “A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.” That’s a primary theme of the Book of Hebrews: why Christ was a preacher and not a military leader.
Hebrews, or more properly “The Epistle to the Hebrews”, put forth that Jesus fulfilled certain temporary and provisional institutions, therefore abolishing them. The term for this is Supersessionism-the belief that the Christian Church has replaced the Israelites as God’s chosen people and that the Mosaic covenant has been replaced or superseded by the New Covenant.
Of course, seeing as how The Epistle to the Hebrews is from the New Testament, and a majority of Jews believe that the Torah was given to the Jewish people as an eternal covenant, you can see how supersessionism might be a sticking point.
Mostly yes (albeit Romans tends to become a sticking point there), but also there is emphasis on reading of Scripture as a whole rather than cherry picking verses and acknowledging the context of the writings (divine inspiration doesn’t free the writers from cultural and epochal bias - well unless you are fundamentalist, I guess - though even there some shift is appearing). Multiple prong approach - the idea that God may not change, but we do, and God meets us where we are in a very slow, laborious process (this is something that even John Calvin believed, but plenty of folks who consider themselves “Calvinist” today cannot stomach it).
So all the times God called the old covenant “everlasting” or the equivalent, he was just kidding?
Tell me, is there ANYTHING that can falsify Christian belief? It’s clear that the sometimes horrific actions of Christians, even when ordained by the Pope (or his analogs in other denominations), won’t do it. It’s clear that scientific or historic absurdities, or even direct contradictions, won’t do it. It’s clear that all the failed prophecies and broken promises won’t do it. It’s clear that Christians, even in this thread, feel free to say that “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them” is taken out of context. It’s clear that Jesus Christ himself can say that heaven and earth will pass away before the smallest part of the Law of Moses becomes invalid, and Christians will still feel free to ignore it. It’s clear that God or his prophets ordering the rape and murder of innocent people, even babies, won’t do it.
Seriously, you can save me a lot of time. Is there anything at all that could make you change your minds?
Not in the guise of any arguments you have made, no.
Most (if not all) Christians on this thread and in the world have experienced doubt, and even extreme and lengthy periods of doubt. Sometimes the doubt will overwhelm faith and, in your words, our minds will be changed, or we work through our doubt to grow in our faith and gain a greater appreciation for it. If you are attempting to change our minds, you aren’t necessarily going about it in the best way (I’m sure I can speak for most Christians here in saying that).
Yes, the bones of Jesus Christ. Or alternatively, enough early to mid first century documents that conclusively falsify the Gospels and show that they were a conspiracy. Or else (as in that James Blish novel, A Case of Conscience) a morally perfect society that had no need of Jesus Christ. Or a second messiah who performed the same (or better) miracles as Jesus, but taught an entirely different set of doctrines. Any of those would neatly disprove a central claim of Christianity.
I look at the post above yours, and I seriously have my doubts.
No, I’m not attempting to change your mind; I’m attempting to understand how intelligent, educated Christians can be so impermeable to logic and reason. Straw men upthread aside, I don’t think it’s because they are “stooooooooooooopid.” I know (personally) many devout Christians who are highly intelligent and educated, and I know about many others who are off the charts.
Wm F. Buckley, for one, often claimed that Christianity could be proved true by reason alone, without resorting to faith. I couldn’t wait to see him lay that out, so I eagerly bought his book (Nearer My God) when it came out, since it was said to describe his intellectual journey to Catholicism.
To my disappointment, but not surprise, the book made it pretty clear that the only alternative he ever considered was some form of Protestantism. Unless I missed it, there was no indication he ever considered being a non-Christian.
It’s been a mystery to me for nearly 50 years, and it’s more mysterious now than ever. At least when I was a youngster in the Army, talking to very unsophisticated Christians, it was clear that they would have flunked a Bible quiz, or even a Gospels quiz, and that they believed simply because they were raised to believe. They really didn’t know what was in the Bible, except for the popular versions of a few very famous stories. So they were pretty easy to understand.
It’s the sophisticated Christians I can’t understand. They know about the contradictions, they know that most of the Messianic prophecies quoted by Matthew are misquoted/misapplied/twisted, they know that the quality of the science, geography, and history is exactly what you would expect from uninspired Bronze Age writers, and they even admit that the morality dictated by God is in many instances barbaric. And they don’t care.
I haven’t had any takers on my question about the promises of Jesus. He promised believers would have eternal life. He promised that believers would get whatever they asked for in prayer, even if it was to move a mountain. If either of those promises is supposed to be metaphorical, it would seem to be the one about eternal life — I can think of all kinds of meanings for that, but I can only think of one meaning for “You’ll get whatever you ask for.” Yet, Christians blithely ignore the fact that the testable promise fails every time (except for occasional remissions that occur with the same frequency in Christians, Muslims, and atheists).
It simply makes no sense to me, and I keep trying to understand it. But as in this thread, most of what I get in response is outrage at being called stupid (when I’ve never called anyone stupid for their religion; if I thought believers were stupid, that would answer my question), or woo about higher truths.
Your prescription for working through your doubts until you grow in faith is the same way I was taught to study the Bible as a child. And I must admit it’s effective — if you just assume that it’s a lack of understanding on your own part, and that with enough prayer and study, understanding will come, then you will never lose your faith.
The only problem is, the same approach would keep you from losing your faith in the Quran, or Dianetics, or the Book of Mormon. So it all comes back to how you were raised — or, in the unlikely event that you truly were raised in a religion-free environment, the chances of your picking the One True Religion from the getgo.
I’m pretty sure we don’t have a DNA sample to compare them with, so not even I would believe a claim that his bones were found.
At least one of Matthew and Luke have been conclusively falsified in this very thread, and all that generated was, “So what? They weren’t journalists.”
Yeah, right. Read this and see how much belief in Jesus contributes to a morally perfect society:
You need to brush up on your Gospels. Jesus himself (Mat 24:24) warned against just such false Messiahs. If it ever happened, rather than disproving the Gospels, it would be one of the few things they got right.
Horseshit. IMO none of them (except the ridiculously impossible perfect society) are as strong as some of the examples in this thread, which haven’t made the slightest impression on the faithful.
How would the first two be proved? Say we had a set of bones; how do we know they’re those of Jesus? We don’t have anyone to test them against. We’d be reliant on tomb markers, and they seem necessarily inconclusive. The documents claim seems tricky, too. What would be “enough” and what would prove a conspiracy? Is there such a possibility?
They’re the ones I do understand. They’re the ones who are wise enough to say, “It’s a matter of personal faith.” They don’t care about the contradictions, because they’re sophisticated enough to accept the Bible as largely metaphorical.
They believe, in many cases, because it is of personal comfort to them. Credo consolans. Noted skeptic Martin Gardner practiced that brand of faith. He decided that he was happier with faith sustaining him in times of sorrow, and to celebrate in good times.
These are the people I am least threatened by, and whom I would want the least to threaten. They aren’t going to try to pass laws against the rest of us. They’re (usually) “live and let live” Christians. Some are even the kind who literally would give you the shirt off their back.
A very dear friend of mine was a “Universal Salvationist” – he believed that everyone gets into heaven, because God is just that perfect. Maybe the very worst of us need a whiff of hell, but no more than ten seconds ought to bring anyone around. Most folks are guilty of nothing worse than some very minor sins in life. My friend picked up this theological view from a Congregationalist minister, so it isn’t totally heretical, just very little espoused (more’s the pity.)
I’d a million times rather have a friendly, loving, somewhat sappy Christian like this for a friend than one of the “God hates fags” crowd.
I was raised in an atheist family, and had more Hindus than Christians in my extended family (though there were some of both).
As for proving contradictions between Luke and Matthew, no you haven’t done so. You’ve made a good argument that each of the authors leaves out surprising details. I don’t know why Luke failed to mention the flight into Egypt, or why Matthew failed to mention the visit to the temple. But, you know, historical writers fail to mention particular details all the time. I don’t see anything inherently contradictory in a harmonization of the accounts: Jesus was brought to the temple eight days after birth and then 80 days or so later, he was then visited by the magi at some undefined time in the next year or two, his family fled into Egypt, returned at the death of Herod, heard that Archelaus was in charge, went to Judea, and then went to Galilee with periodic visits to the Temple.
I don’t know, actually. Discovering that the first followers of Jesus, sometime between 30 and 70 AD, believed that he had died and been buried, or that he was conclusively not divine, or that other core Christian claims were false, would certainly shake my faith. I don’t know if it would succeed in convincing me that Christianity was false, though: after all, it’s possible the first Christians got it wrong.
I don’t really know how my faith would respond, so maybe it is in effect unfalsifiable, except with a time machine.
Jesus (and John) certainly prophecied that the antichrist would perform miracles, but it doesn’t follow they would be the same kind. Most of the miracles of Jesus were miracles of healing, that demonstrated His love in addition to His power. If someone showed up giving sight to the blind, and so forth, I would probably concede that it was the real thing, God incarnate. And if he then contradicted the core claims of Christianity (which I think is extremely doubtful) I would have a conundrum to deal with. I’m not sure how I would respond.
Sticking point? Quite literally true during the Inquisition.
My wife’s eye surgeon gave some sight to her blind eye. So much for that miracle.
I missed the survey you conducted to reach the conclusion we don’t care. Care to send me a link so I can add my feedback? 
Though the bible is supposed to be the word of God it was written by men, who are by nature fallible and allow their experiences and feelings color how they tell a story. If they weren’t, there wouldn’t have been a need to gather varying voices to tell the story. So, considering the varying authors of course there are contradictions just like when people witness the same crime.
And no, we don’t all “not care” that there are things in it we don’t like - I for one don’t feel the need to put gay people to death or visit the menstrual hut one week a month. A dearth of female contributions to the Bible probably contributes greatly to the “obey your husband” type stuff shoe-horned in there too. Plus morality changes and I understand that the bible is a work that was completed hundreds of years ago so it can’t adapt.
Someone upthread said that anyone with an ounce of common sense isn’t bothered by the contradictions. At any rate, for my purposes I am defining “sophisticated Christians” as those who don’t care about them. If you care, then I’m not talking about you.
There is no “of course” about it. You should hold the Bible to a higher standard than the litigants on Judge Judy, unless you renounce all claim to divine inspiration, in which case there is absolutely no reason to believe any of the claims the Bible makes about the afterlife, or to suppose it has any more moral authority than other writings from thousands of years ago.
And if you do that, then we are in complete agreement.