• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Are you sure there is no God ? [W: 352]

Are you sure there is no God ?

  • Total voters
    76
Logicman said:
Listen, one of your great rabbis - Maimonides (Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon) - said about the Messiah in Daniel chapter 9: "Daniel has elucidated to us the knowledge of the end times. However, since they are secret, the wise [rabbis] have barred the calculation of the days of Messiah’s coming so that the untutored populace will not be led astray when they see that the End Times have already come but there is no sign of the Messiah" (Igeret Teiman, Chapter 3 p.24.)"

That's right. First the Messiah is 'cut off' (killed, and matches Isaiah 53:8 - "For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was punished..."), AND THEN, AFTER THE MESSIAH IS KILLED, the following is written: "The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed."

Does that sound like a Messiah who ushers in world peace when he first appears on the scene? No, it doesn't.

So, here's the order from Daniel 9:

Jerusalem will be rebuilt.
The Messiah will appear.
The Messiah will be cut off / killed.
War will continue until the end.

It fits the Jewish Messiah Jesus perfectly, but not the Jewish Messiah who will appear and immediately bring peace to the world. You guys have it out of order. Which is why you had to create two Messiah's (Messiah ben Joseph and Messiah ben David) to try to explain things.

Remember, one of your great Rabbis understood Daniel 9 spoke about the Messiah.
Click to expand...

Well, it is believed by many to be messianic, but not about Jesus. It also was written in about 162 bce, and was to inspire Jews at that time when they were under the yoke of Antiochus.

DANIEL, BOOK OF - JewishEncyclopedia.com
https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/daniel-9-a-true-biblical-interpretation/

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/daniel-9-a-true-biblical-interpretation/

Even in Christian translations the word Moshiach is translated 99% of the time as “anointed.” The only exception is twice in Daniel 9 verses 25 and 26. This inconsistency is even more blatant since Christian translators translate the word (משיח ~ Moshiach) as “anointed” one verse earlier when it is used in Daniel 9:24. In this instance, it is referring to anointing the innermost chamber of the Holy Temple known as the “Holy of Holies,” (קדשים קדש ~ Kodesh Kedoshim). It is incorrect to translate this, as some missionaries do, to mean the “most holy one” in an attempt to have this refer to the Messiah rather than a place.

Therefore, in Daniel, the passages should be correctly translated as:

Daniel 9:24 “Until an anointed prince” and not as “Until Messiah he prince.”

Daniel 9:25. “an anointed one will be cut off” and not as “the Messiah will be cut off.”

Additionally, in verse 25 there is no definite article (Hey ~ ה) before the word (משיח ~ Moshiach), and it is incorrect to translate this as “the Messiah” or “the anointed one” as if it were speaking about one exclusive individual. When translating correctly as an “anointed individual,7” the passages could be referring any one of a number of different individuals or objects that were anointed and not necessarily “the Messiah.”

A careful examination of Daniel 9 will lead to a clear understand of exactly to whom and what this chapter is referring.

An additional mistake made by Christians is the translation of 7 and 62 weeks as one undivided unity of 69 weeks. The Christian version makes it sound as if the arrival and “cutting off” of the “Messiah” will take place sixty-nine weeks (483 years) after a decree to restore Jerusalem. They add the 7 and 62 weeks together and have one person (the Messiah) and two events occurring towards the end of the 69th week.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Logicman said:
Listen, one of your great rabbis - Maimonides (Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon) - said about the Messiah in Daniel chapter 9: "Daniel has elucidated to us the knowledge of the end times. However, since they are secret, the wise [rabbis] have barred the calculation of the days of Messiah’s coming so that the untutored populace will not be led astray when they see that the End Times have already come but there is no sign of the Messiah" (Igeret Teiman, Chapter 3 p.24.)"

That's right. First the Messiah is 'cut off' (killed, and matches Isaiah 53:8 - "For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was punished..."), AND THEN, AFTER THE MESSIAH IS KILLED, the following is written: "War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed."

Does that sound like a Messiah who ushers in world peace when he first appears on the scene? No, it doesn't.

So, here's the order from Daniel 9:

Jerusalem will be rebuilt.
The Messiah will appear.
The Messiah will be cut off / killed.
After that, war will continue until the end.

It fits the Jewish Messiah Jesus perfectly, but not the Jewish Messiah who will appear and immediately bring peace to the world. You guys have it out of order. Which is why you had to create two Messiah's (Messiah ben Joseph and Messiah ben David) to try to explain things.

Remember, one of your great Rabbis understood Daniel 9 spoke about the Messiah, and he wasn't the only one.
Click to expand...

Neither the Rambam, nor Isaiah, are talking about the Moshiach being killed. Remove that point and your entire argument falls apart.
 
Sherman123 said:
Neither the Rambam, nor Isaiah, are talking about the Moshiach being killed. Remove that point and your entire argument falls apart.
Click to expand...

So the Messiah you believe in is immortal? How does your Messiah die, since he's just a man? Got a scripture on that?
 
RAMOSS said:
That's why I can give entitlement sources, and you , well do not.
Click to expand...

I don't give you a lot of things because it's a waste of time with you.

"The person without the Spirit cannot accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they're spiritually discerned." 1 Cor. 2:14
 
Last edited:
If you say you're certain there is no God, then you fall into the same trap as the religious. They have faith that there's a God without any proof. I don't like faith. I like facts.

I can say that I don't believe in a God and find it highly improbable. I can even say that it's foolish to believe there is one. But I won't proclaim there's not one, because I can't prove it.
 
Brewdog said:
If you say you're certain there is no God, then you fall into the same trap as the religious. They have faith that there's a God without any proof. I don't like faith. I like facts.

I can say that I don't believe in a God and find it highly improbable. I can even say that it's foolish to believe there is one. But I won't proclaim there's not one, because I can't prove it.
Click to expand...

I will proclaim that god is only a concept created by man's imagination.
 
Brewdog said:
Just like Christians know there's a God?
Click to expand...

No, they have faith there is a god. It's completely different. The concept of god doesn't have any special rules when it come to knowledge. You either know it is a concept or you believe the concept is literally true and has an existence outside of your mind. If you do believe, you are denying it is only a concept and "exists" only as an idea.
 
devildavid said:
No, they have faith there is a god. It's completely different.
Click to expand...
There's no difference. They believe there's a God but can't prove it. You believe there's no God, but you can't prove it. Yet, you both KNOW that your position is right.

That's faith. And faith without proof is for zealots and retards.
 
Brewdog said:
There's no difference. They believe there's a God but can't prove it. You believe there's no God, but you can't prove it. Yet, you both KNOW that your position is right.

That's faith. And faith without proof is for zealots and retards.
Click to expand...

Proof is only for alcohol and mathematics. All else is 'preponderance of evidence'. Before examining the evidence , either for or against, we have to make a definition.

What is God?? Can you define God in something OTHER than actions attributed to God, that are not terms that can be shown to be other than purely conceptual?
 
RAMOSS said:
Proof is only for alcohol and mathematics. All else is 'preponderance of evidence'.
Click to expand...

Not true at all. A court doesn't even convict a person for stealing a candy bar with mere preponderance of the evidence. That's a very weak amount of evidence, and if that's the only evidence you require, then you must surely have faith in a lot of quacky things.
 
Brewdog said:
Not true at all. A court doesn't even convict a person for stealing a candy bar with mere preponderance of the evidence. That's a very weak amount of evidence, and if that's the only evidence you require, then you must surely have faith in a lot of quacky things.
Click to expand...

Quite often , it is 'beyond all reasonable doubt.' There are also different standards for law for convicting someone, and for how to live ones life.
 
RAMOSS said:
Quite often , it is 'beyond all reasonable doubt.' There are also different standards for law for convicting someone, and for how to live ones life.
Click to expand...

Yet you have complete faith and "knowledge" about a subject with a mere preponderance of the evidence. If you claim to KNOW something as FACT, then it seems you would claim to have 100% of the evidence to prove it. But no, you just know because you do. And somehow that's not mere faith. Ok.
 
Brewdog said:
There's no difference. They believe there's a God but can't prove it. You believe there's no God, but you can't prove it. Yet, you both KNOW that your position is right.

That's faith. And faith without proof is for zealots and retards.
Click to expand...

You have misstated my position. I know that god is merely conceptual. There is nothing special about the concept of god that exempts it from us having knowledge about it.
 
Brewdog said:
Yet you have complete faith and "knowledge" about a subject with a mere preponderance of the evidence. If you claim to KNOW something as FACT, then it seems you would claim to have 100% of the evidence to prove it. But no, you just know because you do. And somehow that's not mere faith. Ok.
Click to expand...

You are doing the logical fallacy known as 'equivocation'. There is a difference between preponderance of evidence and no evidence what so ever. SO, no, it's not 'mere faith'. It is quite the red herring as a matter of fact.
 
Brewdog said:
There's no difference. They believe there's a God but can't prove it. You believe there's no God, but you can't prove it. Yet, you both KNOW that your position is right.

That's faith. And faith without proof is for zealots and retards.
Click to expand...

You confuse belief with knowledge. One cannot actually know something without some objective rational basis. Lots of people misuse the term though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom