Why do Christians claim to get their morals from the bible?

[Grave_n_idle]

The basis for our 'basic moral code' actually predates the bible, and can be found in ancient Greece and the Roman Republic/Empire.

No, that's the basis of our legal and political codes.

Our cultural 'moral code' can be traced back largely to Babylon.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

If you read the bible then you will clearly see that if people actually got thair morals from it....

Well to put it simply the world would be more fu*ked up than it already is.

I'd like to hear what all of you have to say on this topic.

Because people actually DO get there morals from the bible...?

[New Azura]

The basis for our 'basic moral code' actually predates the bible, and can be found in ancient Greece and the Roman Republic/Empire.

No, that's the basis of our legal and political codes.

Our cultural 'moral code' can be traced back largely to Babylon.

Was it Nebuchadnezzar's son who was the last ruler of Babylon prior to the Medo-Persian Empire's takeover, or was it his grandson?

[Grave_n_idle]

The basis for our 'basic moral code' actually predates the bible, and can be found in ancient Greece and the Roman Republic/Empire.

No, that's the basis of our legal and political codes.

Our cultural 'moral code' can be traced back largely to Babylon.

Was it Nebuchadnezzar's son who was the last ruler of Babylon prior to the Medo-Persian Empire's takeover, or was it his grandson?

Off the top of my head, I'd say it has to be his grandson, at the least, because the fall of Babylon was something like three-quarters of a century after Nebuchadnezzar took the throne.

[Muravyets]

witch burning by puritans in Salem, NJ? that sounds like widow burning in India on a much smaller scale.

Ignorance of facts = fail.

The Salem witch trials did not accuse and kill only women. Men were victims, too. Further, the accusations had nothing to do with femaleness, and everything to do with social paranoia plus interpersonal conflicts between the accused and their accusers. In addition, nobody got burned in Salem. The victims were hanged, and one was pressed to death while being tortured in interrogation. Finally, the Salem victims were not simply taken and killed by their families or a community. They were accused and tried in a court of law. Tragically, it was a corrupt court (there was a profit motive involved in the judge and sheriff taking a share of the confiscated properties of all the accused), but still there were trials and convictions -- at least until complaints to the colonial government in Boston led to a panel of judges coming out to audit the trials and immediately shutting them down when they sussed what was going on.

One detail you left out Mura is that he got another fact wrong...
The infamous Salem witch trials occurred in Salem Massachusetts, not New Jersey...

You're right. My eyes skipped right over that one. Well fuck then, I must be wrong. I must have forgotten that notorious incident in which some godless asshats in New Jersey burned some widows just to be pricks because they have no religion, just like in India. I mean, that sort of thing goes on all the time in the Garden State, we may assume.

[Farnhamia]

The basis for our 'basic moral code' actually predates the bible, and can be found in ancient Greece and the Roman Republic/Empire.

No, that's the basis of our legal and political codes.

Our cultural 'moral code' can be traced back largely to Babylon.

Was it Nebuchadnezzar's son who was the last ruler of Babylon prior to the Medo-Persian Empire's takeover, or was it his grandson?

Off the top of my head, I'd say it has to be his grandson, at the least, because the fall of Babylon was something like three-quarters of a century after Nebuchadnezzar took the throne.

Nebuchadnezzar II died in 562 BCE and Cyrus captiured Babylon in 539, so less than 30 years. There were three kings in quick succession after Nebuchadnezzar, then Nabonidus for 23 years before the coming of the Persians. Brought to you courtesy of the Wiki's article on the Babylonian King List.

But I think GnI is thinking of Hammurabi, who lived many centuries before Nebuchadnezzar.

[Farnhamia]

witch burning by puritans in Salem, NJ? that sounds like widow burning in India on a much smaller scale.

Ignorance of facts = fail.

The Salem witch trials did not accuse and kill only women. Men were victims, too. Further, the accusations had nothing to do with femaleness, and everything to do with social paranoia plus interpersonal conflicts between the accused and their accusers. In addition, nobody got burned in Salem. The victims were hanged, and one was pressed to death while being tortured in interrogation. Finally, the Salem victims were not simply taken and killed by their families or a community. They were accused and tried in a court of law. Tragically, it was a corrupt court (there was a profit motive involved in the judge and sheriff taking a share of the confiscated properties of all the accused), but still there were trials and convictions -- at least until complaints to the colonial government in Boston led to a panel of judges coming out to audit the trials and immediately shutting them down when they sussed what was going on.

One detail you left out Mura is that he got another fact wrong...
The infamous Salem witch trials occurred in Salem Massachusetts, not New Jersey...

You're right. My eyes skipped right over that one. Well fuck then, I must be wrong. I must have forgotten that notorious incident in which some godless asshats in New Jersey burned some widows just to be pricks because they have no religion, just like in India. I mean, that sort of thing goes on all the time in the Garden State, we may assume.

And you got a problem wit' dat? Just be glad they ain't buildin' any new stadiums in de Meadowlands, girly.

[Muravyets]

And this is just what Muryavets was decrying over in the "Genesis" thread, the cheery defense of belief in the face of evidence. Or was it here? I got so confused by mid-week.

It was in the Genesis thread, but it is the same pattern, in this case arguably even more extreme. In this case, the fact being ignored is the actual content of the Bible so that the believer can continue to make claims about what's in the Bible and call his opponent ignorant. It's getting to be like something out of Lewis Carroll.

The devolution of the believer's argument into preaching instead of discussion, followed by an abrupt exit from the debate (at least with that one person) is also true to pattern.

I have to say, these patterns feed my more cynical interpretations of behaviors. There is so much I don't say in response to posts like these, but you might notice that after dancing around for a while with posters like these, there comes a time when I stop giving credence or response to just about anything they say about anything.

[Muravyets]

The basis for our 'basic moral code' actually predates the bible, and can be found in ancient Greece and the Roman Republic/Empire.

If I recall correctly, way back at the beginning of this mess, it was argued by a couple of people that morality is a social construct, moral codes arise from social units, religion is a social construct that supports social units (the people who follow the religion), therefore it is to be expected that religions will generate moral codes for their members/followers, and that said members/followers will claim to get their morals from their religions. Exactly the same way that members/followers of other social units/constructs will claim to get their morals from those sources. That is an argument I agreed with.

The relative value of any group/unit/construct's moral code is an entirely different question, one which I typically avoid engaging because it is so highly subjective.

The point is, it can be argued that Christian moral codes actually stem from pre-Christian Rome -- looking at Roman society, I'm not sure that's really accurate, but whatever -- but inasmuch as the Bible is the source in use among Christians today, it is perfectly legitimate for Christians to say they get their morals from the Bible, if in fact they do (as a matter of the reality of each individual Christian's life).

[Muravyets]

That's fine, but what about the view of our Founding Fathers? Even so, large portions match from your source to mine. We believe that the Word is our guide, given to us by God, therefore that's why we draw our morals from the Bible. By all means, people of unbelief or non-beliefs can hold onto moral values, as such.

A) What about the founding fathers?

B) You do realize that this forum is international, right? Therefore, whatever you think the view of "our" founding fathers was, it has little or no relevance to the general discussion of the source of Christian morality, because...

C) Christianity is a global religion, not just an American one, which you also realize, right?

D) And you further realize that the founders of the USA were not religious leaders, nor are they any kind of saint or religious example now, either, right?

[Grave_n_idle]

Nebuchadnezzar II died in 562 BCE and Cyrus captiured Babylon in 539, so less than 30 years. There were three kings in quick succession after Nebuchadnezzar, then Nabonidus for 23 years before the coming of the Persians. Brought to you courtesy of the Wiki's article on the Babylonian King List.

But I think GnI is thinking of Hammurabi, who lived many centuries before Nebuchadnezzar.

Nebuchadnezzar reigned from about 605BC. It was about 30 years between the end of the reign , and the fall to Cyrus - but about 70-ish years from taking the throne - which was the basis of my estimation of grandson or more.

But, yes - I was thinking more in terms of Hammurabi's code of laws - a thousand years earlier.

[New Azura]

That's fine, but what about the view of our Founding Fathers? Even so, large portions match from your source to mine. We believe that the Word is our guide, given to us by God, therefore that's why we draw our morals from the Bible. By all means, people of unbelief or non-beliefs can hold onto moral values, as such.

A) What about the founding fathers?

B) You do realize that this forum is international, right? Therefore, whatever you think the view of "our" founding fathers was, it has little or no relevance to the general discussion of the source of Christian morality, because...

C) Christianity is a global religion, not just an American one, which you also realize, right?

D) And you further realize that the founders of the USA were not religious leaders, nor are they any kind of saint or religious example now, either, right?

The founders of the United States actually used religion to propagate their ideals and beliefs during the eighteenth century, yet were mostly against the concept in secret. They felt as though they'd stand a better chance if they obtained the support of the colonial religious sects. Benjamin Franklin was a member of a Hellfire Club in... England, wasn't it? So yeah, there was kind of a unique story behind them.

I do realize that Christianity is a global religion. I also realize that Christianity was a dominant political apparatus in Western and Central Europe from the age of the late Roman Empire to the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century. Major continental and pan-continental wars were waged under the "auspices" of Christianity during that lengthy period as well. It would be imprudent to say that Christianity didn't play a role in the formation of the major European powers during the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance. It was a (forced) major part of life under Catholic domination, and spurned fairly major disturbances up until the end of the seventeenth century. Several indigenous tribes from various corners of the world were converted to Christianity, and in-roads were made in various places here and there, yet it was in Europe (and, by extension, into the Americas during the Age of Exploration) that Christianity had its greatest influence.

[Muravyets]

That's fine, but what about the view of our Founding Fathers? Even so, large portions match from your source to mine. We believe that the Word is our guide, given to us by God, therefore that's why we draw our morals from the Bible. By all means, people of unbelief or non-beliefs can hold onto moral values, as such.

A) What about the founding fathers?

B) You do realize that this forum is international, right? Therefore, whatever you think the view of "our" founding fathers was, it has little or no relevance to the general discussion of the source of Christian morality, because...

C) Christianity is a global religion, not just an American one, which you also realize, right?

D) And you further realize that the founders of the USA were not religious leaders, nor are they any kind of saint or religious example now, either, right?

The founders of the United States actually used religion to propagate their ideals and beliefs during the eighteenth century, yet were mostly against the concept in secret. They felt as though they'd stand a better chance if they obtained the support of the colonial religious sects. Benjamin Franklin was a member of a Hellfire Club in... England, wasn't it? So yeah, there was kind of a unique story behind them.

That claim makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, which probably explains why it also fails to answer my question.

I do realize that Christianity is a global religion. I also realize that Christianity was a dominant political apparatus in Western and Central Europe from the age of the late Roman Empire to the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century. Major continental and pan-continental wars were waged under the "auspices" of Christianity during that lengthy period as well. It would be imprudent to say that Christianity didn't play a role in the formation of the major European powers during the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance. It was a (forced) major part of life under Catholic domination, and spurned fairly major disturbances up until the end of the seventeenth century. Several indigenous tribes from various corners of the world were converted to Christianity, and in-roads were made in various places here and there, yet it was in Europe (and, by extension, into the Americas during the Age of Exploration) that Christianity had its greatest influence.

The rest of your post has no bearing on my questions, either.

[New Azura]

That's fine, but what about the view of our Founding Fathers? Even so, large portions match from your source to mine. We believe that the Word is our guide, given to us by God, therefore that's why we draw our morals from the Bible. By all means, people of unbelief or non-beliefs can hold onto moral values, as such.

A) What about the founding fathers?

B) You do realize that this forum is international, right? Therefore, whatever you think the view of "our" founding fathers was, it has little or no relevance to the general discussion of the source of Christian morality, because...

C) Christianity is a global religion, not just an American one, which you also realize, right?

D) And you further realize that the founders of the USA were not religious leaders, nor are they any kind of saint or religious example now, either, right?

The founders of the United States actually used religion to propagate their ideals and beliefs during the eighteenth century, yet were mostly against the concept in secret. They felt as though they'd stand a better chance if they obtained the support of the colonial religious sects. Benjamin Franklin was a member of a Hellfire Club in... England, wasn't it? So yeah, there was kind of a unique story behind them.

That claim makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, which probably explains why it also fails to answer my question.

I do realize that Christianity is a global religion. I also realize that Christianity was a dominant political apparatus in Western and Central Europe from the age of the late Roman Empire to the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century. Major continental and pan-continental wars were waged under the "auspices" of Christianity during that lengthy period as well. It would be imprudent to say that Christianity didn't play a role in the formation of the major European powers during the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance. It was a (forced) major part of life under Catholic domination, and spurned fairly major disturbances up until the end of the seventeenth century. Several indigenous tribes from various corners of the world were converted to Christianity, and in-roads were made in various places here and there, yet it was in Europe (and, by extension, into the Americas during the Age of Exploration) that Christianity had its greatest influence.

The rest of your post has no bearing on my questions, either.

A) What about the founding fathers?
I wrote: The founders of the United States actually used religion to propagate their ideals and beliefs during the eighteenth century, yet were mostly against the concept in secret. They felt as though they'd stand a better chance if they obtained the support of the colonial religious sects. Benjamin Franklin was a member of a Hellfire Club in... England, wasn't it? So yeah, there was kind of a unique story behind them.

Allow me to add to this: Thomas Jefferson, writer of the Declaration of Independence and who claims that "all men are endowed by their Creator...", also said this: "The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained." He also challenged Americans to question boldly, even the existence of "a God". Not "the God", or "God", but "a God.

Yet Jefferson also is quoted as having said the following: "God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."

Benjamin Franklin said this: "As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble."

Here was Franklin's quote to the Constitutional Convention, June 28th, 1787: "We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that 'except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel."

And another Franklin quote: "History will also afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion...and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."

And James Madison, framer of the U.S. Constitution: "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

Yet here is James Madison speaking a different tune: "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

As I stated, the founding fathers (and there are many more references to others out there for your own examination) used Christianity as a defense and a base structure for the moral reaches of the American governance, while not living up to or believing the same principles during times of reflection. I mostly clarify here the actual contradictions that the men believed in.

B) You do realize that this forum is international, right? Therefore, whatever you think the view of "our" founding fathers was, it has little or no relevance to the general discussion of the source of Christian morality, because...

I wrote: I do realize that Christianity is a global religion. I also realize that Christianity was a dominant political apparatus in Western and Central Europe from the age of the late Roman Empire to the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century. Major continental and pan-continental wars were waged under the "auspices" of Christianity during that lengthy period as well. It would be imprudent to say that Christianity didn't play a role in the formation of the major European powers during the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance. It was a (forced) major part of life under Catholic domination, and spurned fairly major disturbances up until the end of the seventeenth century. Several indigenous tribes from various corners of the world were converted to Christianity, and in-roads were made in various places here and there, yet it was in Europe (and, by extension, into the Americas during the Age of Exploration) that Christianity had its greatest influence.

The reference to the Founding Forefathers of America is used as an example for my broader point: that Christianity has been used to devise the moralistic reaches of a political apparatus in the context of Western Civilization following the Protestant Reformation (see: America, United States, 1776 or 1789 - Present)I use the reference to America's founding forefathers because of my knowledge of American History. Being an American, the American example is a central tenant to my own personal life, and was thus the easiest example I could use at the time to clarify my position. Upon doing more research into the religious institutions of Middle Ages Europe, or the missionary work done in Africa, Australia, and the Americas, I could display a wider range of examples for those who are not American. Forgive me, I'm one man, and the number of Christians who even attempt to explain their positions [On NationStates] is quite low. Forgive me if I fail to adequately provide sufficient evidence for all here, as I am just as fallible as the next. But I did recognize and confirm your assertion that Christianity was a global religion. I was more intent on examining the European-American focus of Christianity, for it is where the most clear-cut examples that I can make come from.

C) Christianity is a global religion, not just an American one, which you also realize, right?

Point addressed above.

D) And you further realize that the founders of the USA were not religious leaders, nor are they any kind of saint or religious example now, either, right?

I repeat for clarity: I never claimed that they were. I mentioned their "views". I have "views" just as "you" have views. That makes neither of us any kind of saint. Yet these men were placed in a great position of power (framing what would become the American governance), and they themselves admit to using the Bible and God as a cornerstone for the American political condition. Therefore, I can point to the United States of America as evidence to support my claim that the Bible has played a role in the development of the moral reach of political apparatuses in Western Civilization. One of many points, but a point nonetheless. Forgive me if I made the United States out to be the only example of this. Given more than five minutes, I could also point out the Christian influence on Greek culture as well.

Edit #1: Had to fix a broken tab, and added an apology at the very end if I inadvertently made this faulty assumption.

[Kalakda]

What? That doesn't make any sense, about as much sense as the Koran not supporting Jihad. Have you even read the Bible??

Literally hundreds of times.

There are no prophecies about Jesus - if you read back through the thread (or at least my posts) you'll see why.

There are prophecies about Jesus. Even if the prophecies were written after the prophets died, they still prophesied that the Messiah was coming. Here are some lines from Matthew, which depict Jesus' time on Earth before he departed for the Heavens.

"All of this took place to bring about what the Lord said through the prophet, "The virgin is going to have a baby. She will give birth to a son. And he will be called "Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14) Immanuel means "God with us""

Micah prophesied about the Messiah being born in the town of Bethlehem, his father (his earthly one that is) would be descended from David, the great King of Israel. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, he was born in a manger, and his earthly father, Joseph, was a descendant of King David, a very appropriate bloodline for Jesus to be born into.

[Kalakda]

Murayets, the Founding Fathers built the USA around the teachings of God and Jesus Christ. They were inspired by the example of Athens to found a Democracy, but they also put the ideas of Christianity and God into the system and built a great nation founded on the principles of one of the greatest religions in World History. And look where how far we have gotten, our nation has done so well and it's freer than any other nation on Earth, it's almost perfect, and it was based on the principle of God.

[Deus Malum]

What? That doesn't make any sense, about as much sense as the Koran not supporting Jihad. Have you even read the Bible??

Literally hundreds of times.

There are no prophecies about Jesus - if you read back through the thread (or at least my posts) you'll see why.

There are prophecies about Jesus. Even if the prophecies were written after the prophets died, they still prophesied that the Messiah was coming. Here are some lines from Matthew, which depict Jesus' time on Earth before he departed for the Heavens.

"All of this took place to bring about what the Lord said through the prophet, "The virgin is going to have a baby. She will give birth to a son. And he will be called "Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14) Immanuel means "God with us""

Micah prophesied about the Messiah being born in the town of Bethlehem, his father (his earthly one that is) would be descended from David, the great King of Israel. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, he was born in a manger, and his earthly father, Joseph, was a descendant of King David, a very appropriate bloodline for Jesus to be born into.

Except that Joseph wasn't his father. God was.

[Grave_n_idle]

There are prophecies about Jesus. ...they still prophesied that the Messiah was coming.

There are prophecies about Messiah. Not about Jesus.

"All of this took place to bring about what the Lord said through the prophet, "The virgin is going to have a baby. She will give birth to a son. And he will be called "Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14) Immanuel means "God with us""

Isaiah wasn't making a prophecy about messiah - go back and read the context.

Not only that - the 'she' in question was a 'young woman', not a 'virgin' (read it in Hebrew), and was a person present at the time the prophecy was made.

Micah prophesied about the Messiah being born in the town of Bethlehem, his father (his earthly one that is) would be descended from David, the great King of Israel. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, he was born in a manger, and his earthly father, Joseph, was a descendant of King David, a very appropriate bloodline for Jesus to be born into.

There are several problems with the Micah reference - not the least being that Bethlehem-Ephrathah can be immediately identified as referring to a person called Bethlehem, descended from Ephrathah. Also, of course, I'm sure you're aware that there is strong contention that only the first three chapters of Micah are actually the work of the prophet, and that the remainder of the book was added later by another author?

Most importantly - the context of Micah 5 strongly suggests that this is not a prohecy of THE messiah, merely an anointed king.

As for the connection to David - this has already been addressed. Jesus is not eligible for the bloodline of David. He is not related to the bloodline through his father, because he has no father, and he is not eligible through his mother through the curse of Jeconiah.

[New Azura]

Murayets, the Founding Fathers built the USA around the teachings of God and Jesus Christ. They were inspired by the example of Athens to found a Democracy, but they also put the ideas of Christianity and God into the system and built a great nation founded on the principles of one of the greatest religions in World History. And look where how far we have gotten, our nation has done so well and it's freer than any other nation on Earth, it's almost perfect, and it was based on the principle of God.

I add, in support of the evidence of Christianity's influence on Western Civilization, one of the most important documents of the Middle Ages: the Magna Carta. Witness the first two sections, and how the first attempt of English subjects to circumvent the King's authority parlayed the importance of God in their judgments:

John, by the grace of God, king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and count of Anjou, to the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justiciars, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his bailiffs and faithful subjects, greeting. Know that we, out of reverence for God and for the salvation of our soul and those of all our ancestors and heirs, for the honor of God and the exaltation of holy church, and for the reform of our realm, on the advice of our venerable fathers, Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England and cardinal of the holy Roman church, Henry archbishop of Dublin, William of London, Peter of Winchester, Jocelyn of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh of Lincoln, Walter of Worcester, William of Conventry and Benedict of Rochester, bishops, of master Pandulf, subdeacon and member of the household of the lord pope, of brother Aymeric, master of the order of Knights Templar in England... and others, our faithful subjects:

In the first place have granted to God, and by this our present charter confirmed for us and our heirs for ever that the English church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished and its liberties unimpaired; and it is our will that it be thus observed; which is evident from the fact that, before the quarrel between us and our barons began, we willingly and spontaneously granted and by our charter confirmed the freedom of elections which is reckoned most important and very essential to the English church, and obtained confirmation of it from the lord pope Innocent III; the which we will observe and we wish our heirs to observe it in good faith for ever. We have also granted to all free men of our kingdom, for ourselves and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written below, to be had and held by them and their heirs of us and our heirs.

If you wish to argue that the Magna Carta was in no way influential, feel free. I can continue to extrapolate on the Greek condition prior to the arrival of Paul in the first century A.D./C.E. if you wish, or we can acknowledge that Christianity has held a degree of importance in shaping Western Civilization, morally and politically.

[Dyakovo]

What? That doesn't make any sense, about as much sense as the Koran not supporting Jihad. Have you even read the Bible??

Literally hundreds of times.

There are no prophecies about Jesus - if you read back through the thread (or at least my posts) you'll see why.

There are prophecies about Jesus. Even if the prophecies were written after the prophets died, they still prophesied that the Messiah was coming. Here are some lines from Matthew, which depict Jesus' time on Earth before he departed for the Heavens.

"All of this took place to bring about what the Lord said through the prophet, "The virgin is going to have a baby. She will give birth to a son. And he will be called "Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14) Immanuel means "God with us""

Micah prophesied about the Messiah being born in the town of Bethlehem, his father (his earthly one that is) would be descended from David, the great King of Israel. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, he was born in a manger, and his earthly father, Joseph, was a descendant of King David, a very appropriate bloodline for Jesus to be born into.

Surprise, surprise in the book written after Yeshua died they have recorded prophecies that for which he fits the bill...
This means nothing, I could write prophecies showing Richard Nixon to be the second coming of christ.
GnI's point is that Yeshua is (according to christians) supposed to be the messiah prophesized in the OT, but he does not meet the requirements.

[Grave_n_idle]

What? That doesn't make any sense, about as much sense as the Koran not supporting Jihad. Have you even read the Bible??

Literally hundreds of times.

There are no prophecies about Jesus - if you read back through the thread (or at least my posts) you'll see why.

There are prophecies about Jesus. Even if the prophecies were written after the prophets died, they still prophesied that the Messiah was coming. Here are some lines from Matthew, which depict Jesus' time on Earth before he departed for the Heavens.

"All of this took place to bring about what the Lord said through the prophet, "The virgin is going to have a baby. She will give birth to a son. And he will be called "Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14) Immanuel means "God with us""

Micah prophesied about the Messiah being born in the town of Bethlehem, his father (his earthly one that is) would be descended from David, the great King of Israel. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, he was born in a manger, and his earthly father, Joseph, was a descendant of King David, a very appropriate bloodline for Jesus to be born into.

Surprise, surprise in the book written after Yeshua died they have recorded prophecies that for which he fits the bill...
This means nothing, I could write prophecies showing Richard Nixon to be the second coming of christ.
GnI's point is that Yeshua is (according to christians) supposed to be the messiah prophesized in the OT, but he does not meet the requirements.

It's typically circular - Jesus meets the requirements, because it says in Matthew that he meets the requirements, and those MUST be the prophecies of messiah, because Jesus meets them...

Like I've said before - people should have to get 'qualified' in the hebrew scripture before they are even allowed to read the Greek scripture.

[New Azura]

What? That doesn't make any sense, about as much sense as the Koran not supporting Jihad. Have you even read the Bible??

Literally hundreds of times.

There are no prophecies about Jesus - if you read back through the thread (or at least my posts) you'll see why.

There are prophecies about Jesus. Even if the prophecies were written after the prophets died, they still prophesied that the Messiah was coming. Here are some lines from Matthew, which depict Jesus' time on Earth before he departed for the Heavens.

"All of this took place to bring about what the Lord said through the prophet, "The virgin is going to have a baby. She will give birth to a son. And he will be called "Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14) Immanuel means "God with us""

Micah prophesied about the Messiah being born in the town of Bethlehem, his father (his earthly one that is) would be descended from David, the great King of Israel. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, he was born in a manger, and his earthly father, Joseph, was a descendant of King David, a very appropriate bloodline for Jesus to be born into.

Surprise, surprise in the book written after Yeshua died they have recorded prophecies that for which he fits the bill...
This means nothing, I could write prophecies showing Richard Nixon to be the second coming of christ.
GnI's point is that Yeshua is (according to christians) supposed to be the messiah prophesized in the OT, but he does not meet the requirements.

Sounds similar to those guys who used Darwin's theories to extrapolate a multilateral theory of the origin of life on the planet, adding to the premise to suit the needs of the theory. But no, I'm sure the Theory of Evolution is on the moral high ground and stuff... We would argue that Christ fulfills Messianic prophecy, you would argue that he does not. We've been around the block on this one; you have your interpretation, we have ours. You've challenged us, we've answered, you've challenged those answers, we've defended those answers, wash, rinse, repeat.

Note: By the way, on the evolution debate, I believe in the absolute legitimacy of microevolution. The Bible even gives validity to this, referring to the growing "variances within" species in Genesis. It is the overall concept of macroevolution which forms the basis of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis that I disagree with. Yet we've already done that argument in another thread three times now it seems, so can we pick a new subject to discuss, perhaps?

[Kalakda]

There are prophecies about Jesus. ...they still prophesied that the Messiah was coming.

There are prophecies about Messiah. Not about Jesus.

"All of this took place to bring about what the Lord said through the prophet, "The virgin is going to have a baby. She will give birth to a son. And he will be called "Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14) Immanuel means "God with us""

Isaiah wasn't making a prophecy about messiah - go back and read the context.

Not only that - the 'she' in question was a 'young woman', not a 'virgin' (read it in Hebrew), and was a person present at the time the prophecy was made.

Micah prophesied about the Messiah being born in the town of Bethlehem, his father (his earthly one that is) would be descended from David, the great King of Israel. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, he was born in a manger, and his earthly father, Joseph, was a descendant of King David, a very appropriate bloodline for Jesus to be born into.

There are several problems with the Micah reference - not the least being that Bethlehem-Ephrathah can be immediately identified as referring to a person called Bethlehem, descended from Ephrathah. Also, of course, I'm sure you're aware that there is strong contention that only the first three chapters of Micah are actually the work of the prophet, and that the remainder of the book was added later by another author?

Most importantly - the context of Micah 5 strongly suggests that this is not a prohecy of THE messiah, merely an anointed king.

As for the connection to David - this has already been addressed. Jesus is not eligible for the bloodline of David. He is not related to the bloodline through his father, because he has no father, and he is not eligible through his mother through the curse of Jeconiah.

Fail, my Bible has the words, 'A Ruler Will Come From Bethlehem', and about that 'young woman' thing, are you sure it's not a politically correct edition which has erased reference to Mary as a virgin to appease the Femi-Nazis. I have a New International Reader's Edition, with no PC spin here. And he does have a father, God is his spiritual father, and Joseph is his physical form's earthly father. And Mary was a virgin when she became pregnant with Jesus, she became pregnant with the spirit of God, meaning she still remained a virgin, because if she was impregnated by Joseph, she would've lost her virginity. Plus, David was born in Bethlehem, Joseph was a descendant of David, he was born in Bethlehem, and finally, Jesus was born in Bethlehem, you make the connection. And besides, Jesus is figuratively the King of Men, he is the spiritual son of God.

[Dyakovo]

Surprise, surprise in the book written after Yeshua died they have recorded prophecies that for which he fits the bill...
This means nothing, I could write prophecies showing Richard Nixon to be the second coming of christ.
GnI's point is that Yeshua is (according to christians) supposed to be the messiah prophesized in the OT, but he does not meet the requirements.

Sounds similar to those guys who used Darwin's theories to extrapolate a multilateral theory of the origin of life on the planet, adding to the premise to suit the needs of the theory. But no, I'm sure the Theory of Evolution is on the moral high ground and stuff... We would argue that Christ fulfills Messianic prophecy, you would argue that he does not. We've been around the block on this one; you have your interpretation, we have ours. You've challenged us, we've answered, you've challenged those answers, we've defended those answers, wash, rinse, repeat.

Except you haven't defended it, you have done nothing to show that GnI is wrong. The only "defense" that has been mounted is essentially "But in the NT it says he is despite the fact that he doesn't meet any of the requirements in the OT.

[]

Note: By the way, on the evolution debate, I believe in the absolute legitimacy of microevolution. The Bible even gives validity to this, referring to the growing "variances within" species in Genesis. It is the overall concept of macroevolution which forms the basis of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis that I disagree with. Yet we've already done that argument in another thread three times now it seems, so can we pick a new subject to discuss, perhaps?

The only difference between mirco-evolution and macro-evolution is the time scale involved. Deal with it, evolution is a fact. The only question is the method, i.e. is it by natural selection or not.

[/]

[Muravyets]

<snip dissertation>

Leaving aside the vast potential for argument on your rather fanciful notions of the meaning and significance of all those quotes and references, it still has not one single thing to do with the question of why Christians say they get their morals from the Bible.

Not only does all your talk not address that question at all, I would also remind you that the thread is not about where American Christians get their morals.

So the founding fathers have nothing to do with the question.

AND the question has nothing to do with the founding fathers.