What if there is no abrahamic god?

According to the New Testament anyone can become a prophet if he wants to.

 

Good catch. I change my statement/post to the following:

 

Ask yourself why you make up your own.

 

1- The fact that Moses didn't want to be a prophet is one of those little things that make the Bible all the more fascinating, as it blows out of the water the hollywood version of Moses being some god-like Chuck Heston figure..
Also, the fact that Moses (and Jeremiah's and Jonah's) reluctance hasn't been edited out of the Bible speaks volumes for the Bibles integrity, because no translators over thousands of years has ever said "Let's cut those bits out because it makes them look weak"

2- The fact that Jeremiah was a priest's son didn't affect his decision to try to talk his way out of being offered the job of prophet-
“Alas, Sovereign Lord,” I said, “I do not know how to speak; I am too young.” (Jer 1:4-6)

In fact many sons of the clergy even today grow up to be atheists because they let themselves be put off Jesus by organised religion, you yourself were a church organist weren't you?..

 

Yes
But IF THERE IS AN ABRAHAMIC GOD
Then the jews are the chosen people and god gave them israel
But there is some chance that there is no abrahamic god
Which means the bible is as relevant as homers odyssey
It does not mater what the bible says about gays, or about being entitled to israel
And
This is different than saying there is no god
I am granting thAt god exists.
But i see no reason to conclude that god is the abrahamic god

 

Yes, the word "prophet" can also mean "preacher" or teacher"

 

Who me? Like many of us I've seen the odd light in the sky or had the odd weird dream, but never would I positively claim they're close encounters of any kind..

 

So you agree these people didn't have short lives?

The integrity of the Bible has been questioned time and again with impossiblities, errors and exaggerations. The more we learn the more the Bible will be questioned. The more people study the background on which the Bible was written the more the Bible will be questioned. And it is happening NOW. The Church no longer has the authority to tell its people 'This is what you must believe because we tell you'. People are now educated, have modern means of studying. I started decades ago with books. Now we have the Internet. Study is easy provided you look at both 'sides' of discussions.

History indicates that the story of Abraham, Moses and the Exodus are merely stories. History and background knowledge shows us the impossibilities of numbers of soldiers in armies and events recorded.

Your

merely shows they questioned their ability.

 

Well, yes, even as self-proclaimed non-religious, I am happy to admit non-traditional god concepts. I am a theological noncognitivist, which is the pretentious way of saying I withhold judgement of any god at least until I know what is meant by it. By that logic, I reject most things like the Abrahamic god but I am not opposed to, for instance, redefining "God" to refer to some creation mechanism of the universe.

While that technically leaves me open to theism, in practice, it basically boils down to atheism or agnosticism.

 

1- Some prophets lived longer than others.
2- No modern Christian takes stories like the talking serpent in Eden, or Noah's Ark seriously, rather they're regarded as analogies/metaphors with an underlying message.
3- I've never let any church tell me what to believe because we don't need them to do our thinking for us, (although millions do)..
4- Jesus saves, not the Old T, so studying the Old T won't save anybody..

 

The OT does not mean to save anyone. It makes it clear that man is responsible for his own sin. The NT is made of adapted OT Scriptures Studying the OT against the NT this is quite clear. To justify the birth of a 'Messiah' quotes are lifted out of context and applied to Jesus. And Luke ignores the rules for Roman censuses to get Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem while Matthew has him already there.

Integrity?

Do you believe in Abraham, Moses and the Exodus despite what history tells us? Do you really believe 2.5+m Hebrews left Egypt (nearly half the population) and nothing said by anyone? A nation bereft of its 'slaves' and servants and whose economy must have been affected. Do you believe that Joshua and the Israelites destroyed Jericho. Or Ai (destroyed by the Egyptians 1000 years before and never rebuilt). Or a million man Ethiopian army marching a 1000 miles and being defeated by 40,000 Israelites. Or 500,000 Judean soldiers fighting 800,000 Israeli soldiers - probably more than the whole population of Palestine of the time. 2 small states have this many soldiers when eben the mighty Assyrian and Babylonian empires did not have armies a fraction of that size. Why did Solomon have his main stables at Megiddo - far away from Jerusalem? Archaeology places them 200 years later in Ahabs time. And near Ahab's capital. The Bible is claimed to be Gods Word. If it is not where is its integrity.

And why should not the stories of Jesus be analogies? Why should not a Jewish man/preacher have been elevated to divinity by his followers?

 

Well said. Imo

The point that i am getting at is that there have been many discussions about the "necessary " existence of a creator we call god. But i have never seen a discussion of how we could know that the abrahamic bible is an artifact of that creator god

Which seems to me an even more difficult contention to prove

then, if the Bible is not holy, how can we make sense of it?
It seems to me that then the Bible becomes (among other things). A transparent attempt to justify crimes of aggression and genocide as being the will of god.
And of course every nation commits crimes and justifies those crimes
But it does make the book seem much less holy if one looks at it in this manner
And, there is essenty zero moral authority to reference the Bible to judge homosexuals or abortions

 

You're right, Jesus believed in the Old Testament and it didn't save him.

 

1- As I've said before, atheists seem to be obsessed with the Old T, that's why Paul had to remind people-
"I'm worried lest you be led astray from the simplicity of Christ" (2 Cor 11:3)
And even Jesus had to tell them- "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life." (John 5:39/40)
And people quickly cottoned on- "Through Jesus we are saved,and not through Moses" (Acts 13:39)
As for historians, they all have different views on the Old T, so take your pick who to believe! For example a Brit TV science documentary some 10 (?) years ago analysed the 10 Plagues and the Exodus and concluded that they may well have happened....

2- Why on earth do you think Jesus's followers would want to make up stuff about him? Look, they weren't in it for money or power-
"Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them, not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:2-3)

 

He wasn't looking to be saved, he knew the snooty priests were gunning for him, but he still went ahead-
"..he took the Twelve aside and said to them “We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified” (Matt 20:17)

 

As I've said before, atheists seem to be obsessed with the Old T, that's why Paul had to remind people-
"I'm worried lest you be led astray from the simplicity of Christ" (2 Cor 11:3)

Only by studying the OT and it's history and background can we compare the two. Something the church, down the centuries, tried to avoid.

Jesus believed the OT because he had been brought up to believe. The idea of being the Messiah would not have entered his mind. It did not agree with what he had been taught. He might accept that he was called to be another prophet. Something that was needed in Israel at the time. Other prophets had come and gone throughout their short history and the ordinary Jews could accept he might be another prophet.

Jesus in the NT 'I am come in my Fathers Name' . 'Moses' Sh'ma Yisra'eil Adonai Eloheinu Adonai echad. Hear, Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.


So the OT tells us that Jesus 'Gods Son' is forecast?

The Brit TV Science documentary. does not conclude anything other than the plagues certainly could happen - except the death of the firstborn. These plagues could easily be natural events down through Egyptian history. One following another other as would happen if the waters of the Nile dried up. There's no reason to believe that a plague was used as anything but the background to a story, as often happens in the OT.

The problem with Acts 13, and many references to the Psalms, is the interpretation of the OT and particularly the Psalms by Paul and other writers. Over a millenium 'ideas' had changed.
Acts 31.36-41 The quote Paul uses is clearly taken out of context just to suit Pauls purpose. A Jew following the Law of Moses was certainly right with God - God had declared this.

2 Chronicles 7:14- If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.

Only the transformation of the OT in Jesus could alter this. And this was done by the Gospel writers. .

Why did some early Christians actually provoke the authorities so they could be martyred?. Rather like fanatical Muslims today. Fear kept the faithful in the church for centuries. Ask Tomas de Torquemada.

At least today we are free to question and doubt.

 

I nearly kicked my tank gunner out of my online wargame tank yesterday as I drove it around, because he wouldn't keep the gun pointed in the frontal arc, but was swinging it left and right and even behind like a crackhead, and I had to keep screaming at him "FACE FRONT OR I'LL KICK YOU OUT OF MY FRIGGIN TANK!"
No offence, but you Bible studiers remind me of him, you're constantly swinging about all over the Bible instead of staying focussed on Jesus!
People realised what to do..-
"Let us fix our eyes on Jesus,the author and finisher of our faith" (Hebrews 12:2)

 

But what Jesus? All we have are misqouted OT references to establish the identity of a Jew named Jesus. And writings of people of people who are mainly anonymous. People who attribute miracle and supernatural to a Jewish preacher. There is little evidence of a Jew named Jesus, let alone a Messiah. All you do is quote references of things you want to believe.

I've been on the Internet on various Sites and asked the same question to Christians 'Why should I accept the miraculous birth of Jesus when all the 'evidence' that shows PROOF of his identity are quotes from Jewish scripture taken completely out of context'. Because I have to believe what I am told?

Understanding the OT gives a clue to the real meaning of the NT. If the OT had never been written there would be no Christianity. No way of elevating a Jewish preacher's birth to a miracle of a 'virgin' birth or references to prophecies supposedly referring to him. He might have been well known amongst his own as a prophet because much of his teaching was Jewish in nature, as were his actions. The Jewish preacher might never have been heard of again. Miracles have been added by Christianity, and a resurrection.

You remind me of one of my son's. He used to spend half his leisure time on video and computer games. He even built his own gaming computer and fought wars, raced round tracks in F1 cars etc. It took a girlfriend to drag him into reality.

To believe in a supernatural being because of a book is not reality, any more than controlling or destroying a computor simulated tank.

Perhaps a little more study of the OT, it's background and Judaism would not come amiss instead of concentrating just on the NT. Knowing the history/background for the origin of anything is helpful. That's why History is taught in schools. That's why other subjects start with backgounds and basics.

I hope your tank commander got back on track.

 

To say Jesus never existed is a conspiracy theory that's as far-fetched as saying the Apollo moon landings were faked..
Jesus was TOO BIG to have been a myth, he was seen by thousands including the Roman garrison.
For example BBC TV broadcaster Jeremy Bowen is "non-religious" and "skeptical" but even he acknowledges Jesus existed in his 2001 three-part TV series 'Son of God'..-
Wiki- "Bowen visits Jerusalem, where he calls Jesus's death "one of the best attested facts in ancient history"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_God_(TV_series)

[video=youtube;QRMinw2FZKo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRMinw2FZKo[/video]

 

I notice you omit to say there was criticism about the programme.

In the last 2 millenia so much has been speculated and attributed to the history of Jerusalem it's no surprise that he 'finds' evidence. Such a shame he didn't visit 2 millenia ago. He may not be a believer but he knows the story. I wonder what he would find if he had no knowledge of what had been written. It's easy to look for evidence when you know when you 'know' what you're looking for.

Of course he will find places mentioned in the Bible but he will find no miracles. He will find churches such as the one b uilt by Constantines wife, supposed to be Jesus' birth place in Bethlehem, but that was 300 years later. It took 300 years before a Roman decided Jesus was important enough to recognise him. Of course we don't know for sure Jesus was born in Bethlehem Ephratah (except for a quote used from the OT). Matthew says Jesus was born there. Luke has to get him there there misusing Roman Laws. My choice for the Preachers birth would be tiny Bethlehem in Zebulon - close to Josephs home in Nazareth. There was no need to go to Bethlehem Ephratah. So either Matthew got it wrong or Luke got it wrong.
The Churches will contain Crosses as we have today. But the shape of the cross was only decided long after the death of Jesus. The Romans used 5 different types of cross. No-one actually knows which was used in Jesus case.

The ruins of Ai and Jericho were found by Archaeology. So Christians immediately confirm the Exodus and Joshuas story. But then it's found that the ruions of Ai were a thousand years old, and no proof that Jericho was destroyed by Joshua. It has been destroyed by armies and earthquakes several times in its 9000 year history. If the Bible had not mentioned these places the idea would never have occurred to anyone.

Throughout the series 'speculation' is a word that keeps coming up. He uses secondhand quotes, some dubious, as 'evidence'. If you want to accept everything as fact, that's your privilege. I prefer to consider both sides of the argument.

Nearly forgot The Major Oak is a large English oak (Quercus robur) near the village of Edwinstowe in the midst of Sherwood Forest, Nottinghamshire, England. According to local folklore, it was Robin Hood's shelter where he and his ... The Major Oak may be several trees that fused together as sapling. So Robin Hood did exist.

 

Well, of course, if we don't believe in the Bible as perfect, then the information in it is in doubt. This is no weirder than how people look at books from religions other than their own.

That being said, there can still be much to be gained from it. Much information about history can be distilled from the words even if we don't believe the fundamental arguments. Depends on what angle you're taking.

 

because people enjoy the spotlight if even for a few seconds.

Just as thousands have claimed they saw elvis after his autopsy and burial.

People love a good conspiracy theory

 

Yes it is obviously great literature
And much to be gain d from it
Although it seems like these days the best ok is most people often used
As validation for arritudes like homophobia
The history found in the. Bible is generally unreliable
In so far as one trusts archeology

 

Of course there were kneejerk atheistic critics, it's what they do..
Even I criticised one aspect of the programme, I wrote a letter to Bowen at the time and told him-
"I liked the show, but I think you overdid the notion that Jesus was acting on his own authority, for example when you said "Jesus was planning his next move".
In fact Jesus made it quite clear that he wasn't acting off his own bat-
"For I have not spoken on my own authority; but the Father who sent me gave me a command, what I should say and what I should speak" (John 12:49)"
Bowen wrote a warm letter back to me thanking me for pointing it out.

PS- incidentally I also wrote to the BBC's reporter Martin Bell (the bloke in the trademark white suit) some years ago after hearing he was researching the Peniel Pentecostal Church and I told him- "They're just a bunch of sad crackpots dressing up as bishops and stuff to 'play at' religion"
He wrote back saying "Haha thanks, that's the impression I got of them too"

The moral of my Bowen/Bell anecdotes is that they demonstrate I'm a lover of the truth as much as anybody else, and as yet nobody has ever come up with anything to convince me that Jesus never existed, ..

 

Hey wait a minute mister smartypants! Elvis was actually spotted on google street view only a few years ago rocking in St. Marychurch Rd, Torquay, England, how on earth do you explain that?..