Christianity Concluded

Thanks again for the continuation of this debate. 1.Pro said; "Christianity, as we all know, is based directly on Judaism with the original extension of the wide-ranging teachings of Christ. These teachings were quite unorthodox and so not at all based on Judaism," That is a double negative, how can it be "based" yet "not at all be based". That is also misinformation, minus Jesus 31 unique parables spread out between the books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, all of his teachings were paraphrased from the OT. Sparing no one including Jesus of having an outer influence. As for a prophecy he hasn't fulfilled which is why the Jews did not accept him. Many Jewish people, to whom the revelation from God was given in the first place, believe that the prophets foresaw a different kind of Messiah. They see prophets pointing to a coming Deliverer who would rescue Israel from her enemies and establish Jerusalem as the capital of a world government (Isa. 2:1-3). Did Jesus Fulfill that prophecy? Now on to the topic at hand. I will address the numerous assumptions you have made throughout your statement, so to clear things up a little. Quoting an authority is not evidence, Quoting a majority opinion is not evidence any statement that begins with "According to" and "what the majority believes" is not evidence. Authorities and Majorities have the ability of misinterpreting and have misinterpreted since the beginning of time. This being a common knowledge I feel no need to "out-list" you as it is also off topic. I have chosen to re-post your statements partially just as your sources have made the mistake of doing. 1. You said ; "All of them were fulfilled by Jesus as he is recorded in the Bible (see http://www.bibleprobe.com......... and http://www.godandscience.org......... for lists)." Which is contradictory in itself as well as subjective. Prophecy is a prediction uttered under divine inspiration. If that is the accepted definition, it clearly reveals that the absence of prediction renders it non-prophetic logically. a) What passage predicted Jesus? surely not Gen 3:15 "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel." That is God Talking to Adam & Eve not predicting a Messiah. Gen 3:15 is directly subsequent to Adam & Eve eating the fruit from the "tree which is in the midst of the garden" and has nothing to do with Jesus in any way or form as is with ALL of the other so-called prophecies you cited. Did you even read the poor excuses for a prophecy the pages you cited used? Your rebuttal makes no point at-all. b) I challenge my opponent to show me a Prophecy that fits a Prophecies definition, then I will take the challenge of proving it was not fulfilled. Your argument must prove first that there is a prediction uttered under divine inspiration that preceded Jesus, not a statement directed at a whole different set of people that doesn't correlate in the least bit. My point still stands until TRUE evidence proves otherwise. c)"Thus the question becomes, is the Bible a reliable source?" That is not this question, but basically a recant of the statement I made on topic (2.) Since there are 365 alleged "prophecies" on the pages you cited, I will not have enough space to address each. Pick your strength and get back at me. At this current junction of time you have shown nothing solid and I would be better off to overlook any comment you made as uneducated assumption. My point stands (1) jesus did not fulfill the prophecy from masoretic texts. 2. Coincidence: an event that might have been arranged although it was really accidental. I stated Rome as an example of one of the primary arrangers of the christianity hoax, and apologize as there are many more influences. Since you chose to use the word "coincidence" as the grounds for your argument I will address it, and we can see who will "out-list" on this topic. a)"Queen Olympias herself credited Zeus with impregnating her. parallels the virgin birth right?" http://www.suite101.com...... b)""In the resurrection of Osiris the Egyptians saw the pledge of a life everlasting for themselves beyond the grave." Just like gentiles get through jesus. http://www.suite101.com...... c)Khrishna of India. Thammuz of Syria. Esus of the Celtic Druids. Mithra of Persia. Quexalcoati of Mexico. All were crucified gods, and all met their fates hundreds of years before Jesus appeared on the scene. d)Still to this very day in age the Pharisees and Sadducee's have not accepted Jesus the Greek name for Yehshua as the savior. e)Paul of Tarsus went on to write thirteen epistles in the NT. Hence my original statement, "The Romans incorporated themselves into the teachings of christianity" Paul of Tarsus the self-proclaimed "Apostle to the Gentiles"was a roman citizen, and was also rejected by JAMES THE JUST, JESUS BROTHER. http://en.wikipedia.org...... I could have went all the way to z)... twice over, but I believe these are grounds enough to show influence beyond natural coincidence. My point prevails.(2) 3. I contest my statement as being assertion. I do not question whether you are RIGHT or WRONG in coming to a belief and just as you stated "In my view, if people want to believe in things I think are false, that's their choice". I only show to prove that they are false in a logical nature. If anything rather than an assertion it is a conclusion and therefore justifiable by the course of our other arguments and not in need of its own section. But I still motion to the readers that the statement "Christianity COULD in theory be true" is not a grounds for disputing my so-called assertion or discrediting it. If that's your best argument then, I concede "the flying spaghetti monster is god" has just as much bearing on the truth. Just because my cousins, aunts, uncles wife believes in god doesn't make it credible. My point stands. Christianity is a false belief system. false defined as; based on mistaken, erroneous, or inconsistent impressions, ideas, or facts: http://dictionary.reference.com...... 4. I love to see this "eyewitness" statement made, I enjoy the comedy. No one saw jesus resurrect, I repeat no human being with their own eyes saw Jesus resurrect and this is fact. They only witnessed an empty tomb. How can I accept that as evidence? The alleged eye-witnesses engaged in assertion. Understandably as they held their friend and family member in such high regard. I once too was an eye-witness as a child. When my grandfather died at home I wasn't there. When I got there he was gone. I was told that he had flew to heaven, The next time I saw him it was in a dream and days later I felt like I saw a ghost like form of him. So what I ask of you is, Did he resurrect? The answer is no, but if I was not made aware of his cremation when I was old enough to understand, under your logic, if I stated he RESURRECTED I would be eyewitness to this fact. Correct? Then you ask why didn't Rome retrieve the body, I counter, They had more to gain by the body's disposal, The roman catholic church to this day is the worlds largest christian church. Catholic or the Greek latter Katholikos means UNIVERSAL. The Roman Universal Church. Christianity is and was Rome's chance to unite, by faith, all those who opposed Israel. Hebrews posed a threat to their rule. It worked. Christianity has never been a threat to roman society and even after the fall of their empire is a help to keep their society alive. Thank You for debating this topic with me and i await something solid