I've seen Niccolo, here, who appears to a market Anarchist who invokes Christianity. While I feel greatly inspired by the Christian Anarchism of Leo Tolstoy, Christian Anarchism is untenable because the Bible explicitly mentions the authority of governments, specifically their authority to collect taxes:
First, on taxation:
Matthew 22:15-22:
Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?" But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?" "Caesar's," they replied. Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.
On the authority of governments:
Romans 13:1-3
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.
Your signature, Niccolo, is a non-Biblical assertion that directly contradicts the second passage above.
That last part is further substantiated by the Biblical figure, Joseph. In the Torah, Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers (something that shouldn't be possible, according to some people here). After being made a slave, he didn't feel any anger for his brothers nor did he develop any contempt for his owners. Instead he served his masters well and God rewarded him for that.
Now, I admit this sounds rather perverse: I'm not endorsing this position. I'm simply pointing out that the authors of the Bible did not seem to object to slavery at all. On the contrary, being a "rebellious slave," was seen as a sin.
"Austrian economics and freedom are not synonymous." -JAlanKatz
I am not a Christian either, but the passage in Romans says governing authorities, not government. For the Christian, especially under the Roman Empire, the idea that the Roman Empire was a moral entity approved by a god that they (the Romans) didn't even acknowledge is silly. More likely he was talking about the early church. If they (the Roman Empire) were approved by god, ALL the early Christians were rebeling against god, since it says an authority established by god would "commend" them, not feed them to lions.
Jesus also didn't say "Pay your taxes" he said, "you ain't gonna trap me". Render (voluntarily give) to Cesar what belongs to him. Big difference between that and taxation.
reidbump:...and that Christian Anarchism is paradoxical.
Allthough I'm not Christian I would say that it depends entirely on one's definition of God. If God could be seen simply as some primal force that runs the entire existance then I'd say that the God's Will has no difference from the Natural Law.
One night I dreamed of chewing up my debetcard - there simply is nothing like hard cash in your pocket!
Inquisitor:The meaning of the verse 'Render unto Caesar what is his" is controversial to begin with. You are going to have to do better than this. I'm not a Christian, and I'm sure Niccolo will have a grand time dispelling your misconceptions.
IrishOutlaw: I am not a Christian either, but the passage in Romans says governing authorities, not government. For the Christian, especially under the Roman Empire, the idea that the Roman Empire was a moral entity approved by a god that they (the Romans) didn't even acknowledge is silly. More likely he was talking about the early church. If they (the Roman Empire) were approved by god, ALL the early Christians were rebeling against god, since it says an authority established by god would "commend" them, not feed them to lions.
What is the difference between "politicians" and "governing authorities"? Please note it says people should obey ALL governing authorities, because ALL governing authorities are put in place by God.
IrishOutlaw:Jesus also didn't say "Pay your taxes" he said, "you ain't gonna trap me". Render (voluntarily give) to Cesar what belongs to him. Big difference between that and taxation.
reidbump:I think that Nathyn has a good point, but I refer to other supporting facts, namely that God Himself has a government. From the New Testament we know that God sent Christ, who called Apostles and Seventies to run his Church. God delegates to Christ and Christ delegates to prophets, teachers, priests, etc. In the Old Testament, God always had a prophet or judges. He delegated to these men to run His temporal affairs. Moses, under God's instructions, created a government to govern the Israelites, etc. While God gives all men free will and the right to act voluntarily by making their own decisions between right and wrong, He does not leave us without an organized structure to understand what His will is for us. Thus, I also am of the opinion that Christianity recognizes the necessity of government and that Christian Anarchism is paradoxical.
Exactly. God is referred to in the Bible hundreds if not thousands of times as king, lord, etc..Also, on an interesting side-note: In the Talmud (Judaism's holy text, aside from the Old Testament), Satan is considered part of God's "council of angels."In divine court cases, Satan plays the role of prosecutor, while another angel plays the role of defendant, and God is the judge.In no way does Christianity value "voluntariness." Throughout the Bible, God regularly tells people what to do and if he doesn't, he engages in petty violence against them.
Don Roberto:Allthough I'm not Christian I would say that it depends entirely on one's definition of God. If God could be seen simply as some primal force that runs the entire existance then I'd say that the God's Will has no difference from the Natural Law.
Your view on what Romans 13 describes is blatantly wrong. Romans 13:1, which exhorts the Christian to submit himself to the governing authorities, is followed by verses explaining why one submits himself to the government, and in verse 6, it explains that "this is also why you pay taxes". It's the government.
Romans 13:1-7, that section, does not say that God approves of the governing authorities, but that he has established or appointed them. In referencing that governing authorities "bear the sword", the section references Genesis 9:6, where God institutes justice by the sword. The text describes God's institution of government, that it functions to punish the wrongdoer, commend the good, and that Christians should not rebel against it.
It does not say that government is infallible or always performs its functions properly. As we observe governments not in line with Romans 13, we are only observing that man is fallen and imperfect. As far as Christianity is concerned, governing officials are no more perfect than the masses, and also require the saving grace provided by the death of Jesus Christ upon the cross.
Market anarchy the idea of social organization itself - as it is put forward with courts, justice agencies, and all - isn't necessarily untenable for a Christian, I think. The untenability of anarchism is the view of the government as illegitimate, the drive toward secession from the government, the desire to create the market anarchy, the value placed upon it, etc. It's just another social organization.
Jared:Your view on what Romans 13 describes is blatantly wrong. Romans 13:1, which exhorts the Christian to submit himself to the governing authorities, is followed by verses explaining why one submits himself to the government, and in verse 6, it explains that "this is also why you pay taxes". It's the government.Romans 13:1-7, that section, does not say that God approves of the governing authorities, but that he has established or appointed them. In referencing that governing authorities "bear the sword", the section references Genesis 9:6, where God institutes justice by the sword. The text describes God's institution of government, that it functions to punish the wrongdoer, commend the good, and that Christians should not rebel against it.It does not say that government is infallible or always performs its functions properly. As we observe governments not in line with Romans 13, we are only observing that man is fallen and imperfect. As far as Christianity is concerned, governing officials are no more perfect than the masses, and also require the saving grace provided by the death of Jesus Christ upon the cross.Market anarchy the idea of social organization itself - as it is put forward with courts, justice agencies, and all - isn't necessarily untenable for a Christian, I think. The untenability of anarchism is the view of the government as illegitimate, the drive toward secession from the government, the desire to create the market anarchy, the value placed upon it, etc. It's just another social organization.
Jared, it doesn't say, "You should support ONLY the governing authorities put in place by God."
It doesn't say government is infallible, but it does say all rulers are put in place by God himself. Those rulers themselves may be sinners, but they are still put in place by God, just as the Phaoraoh was put in place by God to give justification for the Jews' exodus out of Egypt.
As Christians commonly say, "It's all part of God's plan." This includes government.
I'm having trouble deciding between two dichotomies related to this thread. Either,
a) You're stupid enough to think that Niccolo hasn't actually read the bible,
or
b) You're stupid enough to think we don't know you're just trolling?
In either case, there is little point to this thread. Which is it?
Where did I mention anything about supporting government put in place by God? That doesn't follow.
Of course sin is part of God's plan, which he works out through all creation, but that doesn't have to do with whether rulers are just or moral from our perspective.
Somebody else mentioned something. I tend to agree. You really are a troll.
Grant:I'm having trouble deciding between two dichotomies related to this thread. Either,a) You're stupid enough to think that Niccolo hasn't actually read the bible,orb) You're stupid enough to think we don't know you're just trolling?In either case, there is little point to this thread. Which is it?
Jared:Where did I mention anything about supporting government put in place by God? That doesn't follow.Of course sin is part of God's plan, which he works out through all creation, but that doesn't have to do with whether rulers are just or moral from our perspective.Somebody else mentioned something. I tend to agree. You really are a troll.
For there is no authority except that which God has established.
How does that follow? You are a troll.
Jared:How does that follow? You are a troll.
The inability to follow an argument doesn't demonstrate an argument's invalidity. Read more carefully or ask for clarification and I'll provide it.
Nathyn:What is the difference between "politicians" and "governing authorities"? Please note it says people should obey ALL governing authorities, because ALL governing authorities are put in place by God.
Politicians derive their authority from an earthly kingdom and governing authorities of the church derive their authority from the kingdom of god. I would think it is fairly obvious that gods people have always seperated themselves from the government. The only rulers they had are the line of David, surely appointed by god. Jesus said his people are no part of this world. Satan took Jesus on a mountain and offered to give him all the kingdoms of the world for one act of worship. Jesus didn't say, "You can't do that, they are all there because god appointed them." I would say that is pretty good proof that the kingdoms belonged to Satan. Instead Jesus said, "Have no other gods" or something like that. Paul was a Roman soldier named Saul until he got converted. Then he ended up in jail because he wouldn't follow the orders of the Romans. That doesn't sound like being in subjection to the government. I hear tell that Paul was chosen because he was a Roman and couldn't be put to death for disobeying the government.
Nathyn:That's a possible explanation, but it suggests then, that Jesus was often very misleading when he spoke -- something I agree with, but not something Christians are willing to accept.
Why wouldn't christians accept that? There is a difference between lieing and saying, "Ceasars picture is on that, it belongs to him" and saying, "Hell yeah, paying taxes is exactly the thing we should be doing."
I'm a Christian anarchist, and I think you're wrong. That's not to say its not controversial. Definitely is. I'm still working out my theory of Biblical Christian anarchism. If you are right, than I cannot be an anarchist anymore. However, I think there are good reasons to believe you are NOT correct.
Nathyn:Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?" But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?" "Caesar's," they replied. Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.
This is an easy passage to refute what you are saying. Do you honestly think Jesus was saying that there are some spheres of life where God is not...well, God? That's essentially what you are saying you believe this passage to say. If you interpret this verse as you are, it means that Jesus was saying "well, God has no authority in the areas of the state, but on other things we are to do everything to the glory of God." This would contradict verses like I Kings 18:21, and Matthew 6:24 that state you cannot serve two masters. This means that there is no area of life where God is not authoritative. The way you interpret this verse, it proves too much. He doesn't say what is God's and what is Caesar's. The rest of the Bible clearly states that EVERYTHING, government, personal life, EVERYTHING is God's.
As for Matthew 13, well, I think this one is easy to refute too. Ok, first one of Biblical interpretation: You interpret the Bible by the Bible,ie you cannot isolate passages, disregard the entire rest of the Bible, and expect to be taken seriously. First, let's talk about government. Can government be reconciled with "Thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not steal"? Absolutely not. Was there civil government in the Garden of Eden? No. During Israel's time under patriarchy, there was no civil government. It was family centered clans. Judges interpreted God's law. They didn't legislate their own laws. God saved the Israelites from the statism of Egypt, and delivered them to a rule under him, as their king. Eventually, they grew tired of this, and demanded a king, like the Assyrians, which God had predicted in Deuteronomy 17:14. God said the move towards centralization was a rejection of him in 1 Samuel 8:7. The desire to be like the other ungodly nations surrounding Israel was a rejection of God's command to be "set apart" (1 Samuel 8:5,20). God explained what would happen to them under a King in 1 Samuel 11. Can that be Christian? And yet, its HOW states must rule. God describes the state perfectly in that passage.
Okay, now that we have established fairly clearly that the state was not God's way for Israel, lets return to Romans. How can that be reconciled with the events of early Israel? Take, for instance, Proverbs 16:4. God works all things, even evil things, too good. Note that clearly...God works ALL things. Thats simply one verse to establish that God predestines everything, and has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future- there are plenty more, but just run with this. In Romans 13:4, the state is said be God's "servants", translated as deaconeo, to serve (or, in other words, the state is God's "deacon"). Ok, we know that God establishes everything...everything...meaning, even evil, which he works out to His good. We know due to 1 Samuel 11 that the state CANNOT serve God in the way God commands Christians too. They break just about every command simply by existing. So, we have to conclude that what Romans 13 means is not that he SANCTIONS them, or approves of them, but that he USES them. Romans 13 simply cannot be construed to mean that God actually says the state is a good thing. God uses Assyria to punish Israel, but he doesn't think Assyria is a GOOD thing (isaiah 10:5). So we have to conclude that God uses the state, but he doesn't approve of them. Search the Bible Nathyn, ask yourself at every possible turn, "does God tell people to establish the state?" You'll find the answer is emphaticaly never.
I'll deal with slavery at a later date, but while we're on the subject of civil disobedience, in Exodus 1:17-21, God rewards the Midwives to rebel against the government. So, I don't think you can say God doesn't approve of civil disobedience. The fact that Joseph remained a slave simply points to the fact that that where God had him, and to trust God.
A couple of other quick notes. The early Christians living in Rome were VERY anti-state. They refused to fight in the military, resisted drafts, and refused to acknowledge the Roman government as something higher than God. They often worked counter to the government, setting up their own churches and meetings when they weren't supposed to.
The last thing is that Jesus commands us to be anarchists. In Mark 10: 42-45,
"Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:"
The Greek word "to rule" is archein, where the word anarchy is derived from. It says we are to NOT be archists. We must be servants.
sam72: I'm a Christian anarchist, and I think you're wrong. That's not to say its not controversial. Definitely is. I'm still working out my theory of Biblical Christian anarchism. If you are right, than I cannot be an anarchist anymore. However, I think there are good reasons to believe you are NOT correct.
Why on earth would you base your beliefs about freedom on religion?
It's not a "make or break" deal. A lot of Christians seem to make the horrible assumption that if you don't assume the Bible is true, then you have to automatically be an amoral, relativistic, atheistic criminal.
Nathyn:I've seen Niccolo, here, who appears to a market Anarchist who invokes Christianity. While I feel greatly inspired by the Christian Anarchism of Leo Tolstoy, Christian Anarchism is untenable because the Bible explicitly mentions the authority of governments, specifically their authority to collect taxes:
The bible is not the alpha and omega, God is. The bible is a fundamental book in the Christian religion, but it does not monopolize the following of Christianity any more than any other dogma in the Church.
Nathyn:First, on taxation:Matthew 22:15-22:
Again with this regurgitation of "give unto Caesar?" Come on, think farther than a wikipedia quote.
A. "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me?"This directly suggests that Christ knew of a plan attempting to put Him in a troublesome position.
B. Paying attention to the context first find you will find that the entirety of 22 is spoken in parable:Mat, 22:1 "Jesus again in reply spoke to them in parables, saying,"
C. The purpose of 22 was to establish Christ's ability to outwit and answer His opponents in kind so that they would not be capable of retorting without looking foolish.
Mat, 22: 41-46"41 25 26 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus questioned them,
Nathyn:On the authority of governments: Romans 13:1-3
Sigh...
The passage does not mean obligation to obey governments of the state; the passage is an appeal to obligation to obey the Church.
Rom 13:1-4
" 1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil."
The implication here is that a ruler exists to do good as a servant of God, however, if the ruler does not carry out the Law of the Lord, then that ruler possesses no authority as he has no authority from God. The administration that does good is from God, sent to do what God deems as good.What you're misunderstand here is what Paul defines as "authority." For Paul, authority does not mean claim to it, but it means establishment by God. Essentially Paul is making a tautology, as he countless numbers of times resisted authority of states, he must mean something different than what you suggest.
Furthermore, along the lines of servants established to do good, does God deem extortion to be good?
Nathyn:Your signature, Niccolo, is a non-Biblical assertion that directly contradicts the second passage above.
It actually doesn't. If a governing authority were to embody the symbol of Christ and follow the Law of the Lord, then yes one would have complete obligation to it. However, this is not the situation with a state, as it possesses no authority because it acts contrary to the Law of the Lord.
As for my signature, it is a direct reference to the false worship of idols.
Nathyn:That last part is further substantiated by the Biblical figure, Joseph. In the Torah, Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers (something that shouldn't be possible, according to some people here). After being made a slave, he didn't feel any anger for his brothers nor did he develop any contempt for his owners. Instead he served his masters well and God rewarded him for that.Now, I admit this sounds rather perverse: I'm not endorsing this position. I'm simply pointing out that the authors of the Bible did not seem to object to slavery at all. On the contrary, being a "rebellious slave," was seen as a sin.
The bible actually never approves nor disapproves of slavery, it merely establishes slavery as an existing entity of action, and gives guidelines for how God wishes for people to interact given the existence of the institution. Moreover, it almost always goes back to the principle of serving Christ first,
"5 Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ, 6 not only when being watched, as currying favor, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, 7 willingly serving the Lord and not human beings, 8 knowing that each will be requited from the Lord for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free."
Eph. 6:5-8 Furthermore, the institution of slavery during this time was more of a debt to a person, not something you were born into like one would think of in the modern contexts. Slavery back then more or less embodied and employee-employer contract.
Nathyn, I've requested before and I'll request it again. Your purpose here is obvious, it is to raise as much hell as you deem enjoyable. I would appreciate it if you did take into consideration the option of leaving the boards, as you are obviously not here to discuss civily, but merely to stir up trouble.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Niccolò: Nathyn:I've seen Niccolo, here, who appears to a market Anarchist who invokes Christianity. While I feel greatly inspired by the Christian Anarchism of Leo Tolstoy, Christian Anarchism is untenable because the Bible explicitly mentions the authority of governments, specifically their authority to collect taxes: The bible is not the alpha and omega, God is.
The bible is not the alpha and omega, God is.
OK, yes, Niccolo. You aren't even worth addressing. If you're going to begin by appealing to "God's beliefs" apart from what's laid out in the Bible, nothing I say will change your mind.
You aren't God and neither am I. Aside from that, God doesn't exist, so claiming "God's on my side," is just silly.
The rest of your argument that follows is clear sophistry, although I do appreciate the good faith effort you made to lay out your subjective beliefs in detail.
One comment, though:
Niccolò:As for my signature, it is a direct reference to the false worship of idols.
The specific definition of idolatry in the Torah is to refer to anything specific "on land, sea, or air" is God. By that definition, Trinitarianism as a whole is idolatrous, which is why Orthodox Jews I've spoken with have said that their religious law allows them to walk into Islamic mosques, but not Christian churches.
Nathyn:OK, yes, Niccolo. You aren't even worth addressing. If you're going to begin by appealing to "God's beliefs" apart from what's laid out in the Bible, nothing I say will change your mind.
Nathyn:You aren't God and neither am I. Aside from that, God doesn't exist, so claiming "God's on my side," is just silly.
God exists:
Nathyn:The rest of your argument that follows is clear sophistry, although I do appreciate the good faith effort you made to lay out your subjective beliefs in detail.
I didn't intend to deceive you with complexities and ingenious tricks.
It's commonly agreed upon that Christ purposefully worded the statement "give unto Caesar" in order to both avoid trouble and the politicalization of God.
It's also commonly agreed upon that Paul was referring to the Church as the governing authority established by the Lord as a servant for God's work. If God's establishment of states was what Paul meant, then he would have no reason to establish the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Your arguments just don't follow, sorry. They're shallow and ill-informed. I was, at one point, seriously considering a life in the clergy, so I do understand and know an awful lot about Christianity and the tenants of Catechism.
Nathyn:It's important to note that a lot of Jews and Muslims consider Christianity itself to be an idolatrous religion.
I've not heard of these ones. Usually they just consider it to be wrong, as they worship the same Lord.
Nathyn:Look at Catholicism, with all of its saints
Look at Catholicism, with all of its saints
Except we don't worship Saints, we pray to them to pray for us, but we do not worship them.
Nathyn:(so many of which were previously Pagan Gods).
(so many of which were previously Pagan Gods).
This was kind of refuted in 1675 when Pope Benedict XIV wrote De Servorum Dei Beatificatione et Beatorum Canonizatione.
If you've done recent research and archaelogical fact finding to refute the commonly held position in the academic world that Catholicism holds little pagan influence outside of ethnic traditions, then I'd be happy to se it.
Nathyn: Even if you walk into a Protestant church, though, 90% of the time you see a massive statue at the front of the church which everyone faces during sermons, and which couples stand before when they are married.
Even if you walk into a Protestant church, though, 90% of the time you see a massive statue at the front of the church which everyone faces during sermons, and which couples stand before when they are married.
It's called the Crucifix. It serves as a reminder and symbol for our intent and as a point to propose humility in all situations.
Nathyn:The specific definition of idolatry in the Torah is to refer to anything specific "on land, sea, or air" is God. By that definition, Trinitarianism as a whole is idolatrous, which is why Orthodox Jews I've spoken with have said that their religious law allows them to walk into Islamic mosques, but not Christian churches.
Niccolò: Nathyn:OK, yes, Niccolo. You aren't even worth addressing. If you're going to begin by appealing to "God's beliefs" apart from what's laid out in the Bible, nothing I say will change your mind.You should have realized that I'm a ROMAN CATHOLIC and thus don't believe that the Bible contains all revealed truths of God. Though the bible is the word of God, it does not follow that it is the be all and end all of Christianity. Much more goes into the Christian faith than just the bible, though it is a fundamental aspect of our religion. Nathyn:You aren't God and neither am I. Aside from that, God doesn't exist, so claiming "God's on my side," is just silly. God exists: Nathyn:The rest of your argument that follows is clear sophistry, although I do appreciate the good faith effort you made to lay out your subjective beliefs in detail. I didn't intend to deceive you with complexities and ingenious tricks.It's commonly agreed upon that Christ purposefully worded the statement "give unto Caesar" in order to both avoid trouble and the politicalization of God. It's also commonly agreed upon that Paul was referring to the Church as the governing authority established by the Lord as a servant for God's work. If God's establishment of states was what Paul meant, then he would have no reason to establish the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Your arguments just don't follow, sorry. They're shallow and ill-informed. I was, at one point, seriously considering a life in the clergy, so I do understand and know an awful lot about Christianity and the tenants of Catechism.
1. God exists.
2. ??????
3. Profit!
I'm not going to bother addressing such blatant sophistry, for the reasons noted above. I could go on and on about how Catholicism is just as silly as Protestantism. I don't think it would do any good. I mean, your beliefs are interlaced with both political, economic, and religious presuppositions. Debating the point would be like trying to discuss evolution with a creationist. I refuse, because I know the result.
Nathyn:1. God exists.2. ??????3. Profit! I'm not going to bother addressing such blatant sophistry, for the reasons noted above. I could go on and on about how Catholicism is just as silly as Protestantism. I don't think it would do any good. I mean, your beliefs are interlaced with both political, economic, and religious presuppositions. Debating the point would be like trying to discuss evolution with a creationist. I refuse, because I know the result.
At least you can express your thoughts coherently.
Nathyn:Why on earth would you base your beliefs about freedom on religion? It's not a "make or break" deal. A lot of Christians seem to make the horrible assumption that if you don't assume the Bible is true, then you have to automatically be an amoral, relativistic, atheistic criminal.
Look, ultimately, you base everything you believe in on something, some ultimate presupposition through which all of reality is interpreted. I base mine on the Bible, and Christian theism (or do I repeat myself?...yes, I do). You base your concepts of "freedom" on religion too, rather you acknowledge it or not.
If you don't believe the Bible, how on earth can you say Christians are wrong to make that "horrible assumption"? Obviously, to you its not a make or break deal, because you don't believe the Bible. You cannot accept that the Bible is true, and so make the assertion that accepting the Bible as truth is an odd thing. I believe NOT accepting the Bible as total truth an odd thing as well.
And I don't know one Christian who believes atheists are criminals, or "amoral". You can't be amoral. Relativistic is another matter. I'd say philosophically, all non-Christian religions or belief-systems are ultimately relativistic, or self-contradictory. Everyone is relativistic sometimes.
I'd say philosophically, all non-Christian religions or belief-systems are ultimately relativistic, or self-contradictory. Everyone is relativistic sometimes.
Well this is one point that I think is fallacious. It does not logically follow that if I do not follow your particular claim to objective morality, that I am a moral subjectivist or relativist. There is such thing as secular objective morality that does not fall back on any arguement from authority appealing to either deities or governments and politics. Ethical objectivism is not a specifically religious or Christian notion, it is a philosophical framework. But in either case, I have always been bothered by the pervasive assumption made by many religionists that in the absence of their particular religion or diety, hedonism or nihilism or relativism are the only options. It strikes me as an attempt to claim a monopoly on ethics.
Rothbard's own conception of natural rights and natural law, while I openly concede that it is partially influenced from religious sources such as Thomas Aquinas (who, mind you, technically took an "agnostic" or "ignostic" position about the process of discovering natural law in that he proclaimed that the existance or non-existance of a diety is irrelevant to the existance, discovery or practise of the natural law), is secular at its root and dates back to Aristotle. And while there are certainly flaws in her system of ethics, Ayn Rand took a pretty good shot at providing an objective secular morality. I openly concede to being influenced by her, and think that the logical result of applying her own philosophy to politics was anarchism, which unfortunately she did not conclude herself.
That being said, in response to the OP, I don't think that Christian anarchism is "untenable" or impossible. I do think that it involves cognitive dissonance though in the sense that I see internal conflict within holding onto both the notion that we don't need a human authority to rule over us yet we need a cosmic, religious authority to rule over us lest the world would allegedly not make sense and devolve into chaos. Of course, I also see cognitive dissonance in the reverse: rejecting the need for and existance of a diety to rule over us while putting forth that there is a need for human rulers. At least etymologially I do see atheism and anarchism as quite compatible. Of course, I'm not going to proclaim that "you can't be an anarchist and not be an atheist". That would be ridiculous.
I will grant that the deists don't really run into the same cognitive dissonance because their conception of the diety or creator is one that does not play an active role in the universe once it has already been created. I would also tend to argue that polytheism seems more decentralized in nature then monotheism in that, to use an analogy, it's akin to proclaiming that there can be multiple governments while monotheism is akin to proclaiming that there must be a world (or universal) government. I also question wether religious conceptions of morality can truly be "objective" in that they often deny the use of reason as a means to discovering morality. They usually fall back on either revelation or an appeal to authority. Thinkers like Aquinas are a rare acception.
sam72: Nathyn:Why on earth would you base your beliefs about freedom on religion? It's not a "make or break" deal. A lot of Christians seem to make the horrible assumption that if you don't assume the Bible is true, then you have to automatically be an amoral, relativistic, atheistic criminal. Look, ultimately, you base everything you believe in on something, some ultimate presupposition through which all of reality is interpreted. I base mine on the Bible, and Christian theism (or do I repeat myself?...yes, I do). You base your concepts of "freedom" on religion too, rather you acknowledge it or not.If you don't believe the Bible, how on earth can you say Christians are wrong to make that "horrible assumption"? Obviously, to you its not a make or break deal, because you don't believe the Bible. You cannot accept that the Bible is true, and so make the assertion that accepting the Bible as truth is an odd thing. I believe NOT accepting the Bible as total truth an odd thing as well. And I don't know one Christian who believes atheists are criminals, or "amoral". You can't be amoral. Relativistic is another matter. I'd say philosophically, all non-Christian religions or belief-systems are ultimately relativistic, or self-contradictory. Everyone is relativistic sometimes.
I admit that my criticism of others is egoistic foolishness. The only important debates in the world go on within the individual human mind -- from my perspective, mine and from your perspective, yours. Criticizing others is always a gamble because we are fallible and, even with good intentions, run the risk of naively supporting the misery and oppression of others out of our own ignorance.
This fact, however, does little to disprove my assertions and I think my own assumptions about things are reasonable.
To demonstrate, though, why I rarely address "religious" arguments, especially if I think the person isn't going to be making honest arguments, check out this thread on another forum:
http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=96482
Look at the absurd rebuttals made: Grammar doesn't matter, truth isn't determined by reality, etc.. It's sheer nonsense.
There is God. The proof: Look around you. This lays the argument out pretty well:
http://godisimaginary.com/
Brainpolice:I'd say philosophically, all non-Christian religions or belief-systems are ultimately relativistic, or self-contradictory. Everyone is relativistic sometimes. Well this is one point that I think is fallacious.
Well this is one point that I think is fallacious.
That's the only way they can defend their beliefs. Again, see the thread in the Christian forum I linked above, where you'll see me arguing against some Christians and the absolutely absurd arguments they make.
reidbump:I refer to other supporting facts, namely that God Himself has a government. From the New Testament we know that God sent Christ, who called Apostles and Seventies to run his Church. God delegates to Christ and Christ delegates to prophets, teachers, priests, etc. In the Old Testament, God always had a prophet or judges. He delegated to these men to run His temporal affairs. Moses, under God's instructions, created a government to govern the Israelites, etc. While God gives all men free will and the right to act voluntarily by making their own decisions between right and wrong, He does not leave us without an organized structure to understand what His will is for us. Thus, I also am of the opinion that Christianity recognizes the necessity of government and that Christian Anarchism is paradoxical.
It's interesting to note that with the exception of Christianity and some schools of Buddhism, every other major world religion were created as a means for the ruling regime to justify its grip on power as an expression of divine will. The divine hierarchy of the Old Testament's angelic pantheon reflects and perpetuates the rigid social hierarchy of the ruling elite of its society. The god of the Old Testament demands taxes (sacrifices) accepts no competition (he murders over two million unbelievers) or critical questioning of the law, and presents a façade of voluntary submission (convert or face annihilation).
The New Testament on the other hand, was written before Christianity transformed to an institution of theocratic dictatorship. It presents a personal rather than collective choice (submit or you will burn in hell, as opposed to your tribe/descendants.) This subtle distinction may be responsible for the success of Western civilization, as secular rulers did not feel personally threatened when reason eroded the power of the church. (Of course, that did not stop the church itself from butchering secularists for as long as it could.) This is still not possible in the Islamic and Confucian world, where the secular and divine authority is united in a single institution. The attempt to introduce Aristotelian philosophy by Ibn-Rushd in particular, was wildly successful in the West, but because rational questioning was a threat to current regime, it was snuffed out by the institutionalization of doctrines such as the taqleed.
Nathyn:To demonstrate, though, why I rarely address "religious" arguments, especially if I think the person isn't going to be making honest arguments, check out this thread on another forum:http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=96482Look at the absurd rebuttals made: Grammar doesn't matter, truth isn't determined by reality, etc.. It's sheer nonsense.There is God. The proof: Look around you. This lays the argument out pretty well:
I don't blame you for not engaging in religious arguments. I use to debate atheists all the time, and believe me, I've heard some pretty silly atheistic arguments before, some of them found in that link you gave me. "proof 36" is ridiculous. I was raised a Christian, but went through a period of about a year and half where I considered myself an agnostic, maybe an atheist. Admittedly, arguments from most mainstream Christians didn't convince me, and affirmed that mainstream Christianity is wacko. But arguments like "if there is a child starving, and God is all loving, and doesn't save him, God must not exist." I didn't buy that crap even when I didn't believe Christianity. Its so easily disprovable from simply reading the Bible that I'm surprised people still use arguments like that. I looked through all that stuff during my "time" as an agnostic. Most of those arguments on that site are easily disprovable. I'm much more concerned with the philosophical problems, like metaphysics, and epistemology, which is where I don't think other philosophies hold up.
Nathyn:That's the only way they can defend their beliefs. Again, see the thread in the Christian forum I linked above, where you'll see me arguing against some Christians and the absolutely absurd arguments they make.
Hopefully you realize I wasn't making an argument. I was making an assertion, which is to say, stating my opinion.
HeroicLife:It's interesting to note that with the exception of Christianity and some schools of Buddhism, every other major world religion were created as a means for the ruling regime to justify its grip on power as an expression of divine will.
Also, about major world religions: You forgot Taoism.Not trying to nitpick -- just saying. The Tao Te Ching (57) says:
If you want to be a great leader,you must learn to follow the Tao.Stop trying to control.Let go of fixed plans and concepts,and the world will govern itself.The more prohibitions you have,the less virtuous people will be.The more weapons you have,the less secure people will be.The more subsidies you have,the less self-reliant people will be.
Ahimsa had a profound influence on Vedic philosophy, such as on the views of Gandhi.
Warning: my thoughts on this subject will probably be very offensive to most Christians.
I don't think we can necessarily say that they were created for that purpose, just that they were used that way. The earliest of religions, as it seem to me, seem to just be "bad philosophies" (primitive understanding of science, mixed with superstition) if not outright cults.
I've concluded that the earliest religions were based on family-worshop or ancestor-worshop. They would literally ritually slaughter an elder and cannibalistically eat them as a diefication ritual. This is what the communion ritual, as well as the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur, is symbolic of. Many of these early cult religions also had very similar traits to the Jesus story, with virgin birth in cave and dieing for your salvation and ressurection and everything, so the Christian religion is hardly unique in its archetypes. See the book "Pagan Christs" for a more detailed analysis of this.
I also see religion as historically being tied to politics due to the familial connection. The earliest rulers were either worshopped as literal gods or were thought of as the ancestors of gods. Early monarchs tried to justify their rule by bloodlines that they claimed to be divine. The official union of church and state as a means of justifying political rule did not come until later. In either case, I see both religion and politics as stemming from the cult of the family and/or ancestor worshop. I see all dieties as either being made up or being the glorification of some past ancestor, often one who was ritualistically sacrificed.
I admit I don't think Jesus himself was pro-government -- he said what he did because he was afraid of the Romans. The Romans were suspicious that he was anti-Roman (hence the reason the High Priests tried to trick Jesus into cursing Caesar). It's no coincidence, then, that the passage supporting the authority of government is in the book, THE BOOK OF ROMANS. There were zealots in his day that were anti-Roman, Jesus apparently hung out with a lot of them because several of his apostles were zealots. I suspect he may have secretly supported the anti-Roman underground resistance movement based on him telling his followers to "get some swords" in Luke 22, or at least "passive resistance" to government (assuming Jesus ever existed historically -- I don't believe that). In either case, though, based on scripture, he was a hypocrite -- either openly supporting government or only opposing it secretly while telling people to pay their taxes and obey the law.
Whatever Jesus actually thought, or regaurdless of wether or not he ever existed, I cannot help but see the Christian religion, at its root, as an attempt by the Roman State to unify everyone into one political unit. This is particularly true when it comes to Constantine the sun cultist, who used this budding new religion of Christianity, then little more then a decentralized dispersal of cults, or the purposes of practical politics. Heroic is technically correct though that the scriptures were written before any kind of theocracy was implemented. One could argue that this was an exploitation of the scriptures for political purposes.
But in either case, the actual foundation of the official Christian religion (which the scriptures predate by far) is based in Roman politics in my understanding. Before then, the Christian religion was an entirely different thing with a multitude of sects that have long since been usurped. Most of the scriptures were excluded from the bible and the bible is by no means the earliest Christian text. Arguably, the Koptics and Egyptian Church are the closest to genuine early Christianity then any other currently existing sect. Modern Christianity, by and large, has little to no resemblance to what the original followers of Jesus actually believed and practised.
Brainpolice:Well this is one point that I think is fallacious. It does not logically follow that if I do not follow your particular claim to objective morality, that I am a moral subjectivist or relativist. There is such thing as secular objective morality that does not fall back on any arguement from authority appealing to either deities or governments and politics. Ethical objectivism is not a specifically religious or Christian notion, it is a philosophical framework. But in either case, I have always been bothered by the pervasive assumption made by many religionists that in the absence of their particular religion or diety, hedonism or nihilism or relativism are the only options. It strikes me as an attempt to claim a monopoly on ethics.
It is claiming a monopoly on ethics. There is no neutrality when it comes to claims of ultimate reality. Every belief system (acknowledged or not) makes fundemental claims about reality. There is no escaping this. This idea that you can start off from a neutral point of view, and reason your way to truth without realizing the underlying ultimate beliefs about reality is simply not true. And no, you are right that it does not logically follow that if you don't accept my claim to objective morality you are a moral subjectivist or relativist. However, it may follow that if you don't accept my claim to objective reality your claim to objective morality may be self-contradictory or relativist. Thats what I meant. And thats obviously where philosophy and debate comes into play.
Brainpolice: I also question wether religious conceptions of morality can truly be "objective" in that they often deny the use of reason as a means to discovering morality. They usually fall back on either revelation or an appeal to authority. Thinkers like Aquinas are a rare acception.
This brings us back to the fact that no matter what, every belief system has a starting point upon which all other facts and experience is interpreted. Neutrality and objectivity, in the sense you are using them, are impossible, I think. Who says that "reason" is to be the final authority on matters of reality? As I see it, the Bible and God are my final authorities, through which all facts and experience are to be interpreted. Reason, of course, is a tool used to gain truth, but ultimately the Bible is the final authority. Undoubtedly, this will sound very unreasonable too you. It would have sounded the same to me a few years ago. But, honestly, is what you are doing any different? Rather you accept it or not, you follow some ultimate standard as much as any Christian. Everyone does. Too you, reason is the final authority. God must be validated by reason (which would make God no final authority at all). I say, reason is a tool, but that final authority is in God. If reason had to be validated by some other source, then it would not be the final authority. My belief is that reason should not be the final authority. Reason, is your God.
sam72: Nathyn:To demonstrate, though, why I rarely address "religious" arguments, especially if I think the person isn't going to be making honest arguments, check out this thread on another forum:http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=96482Look at the absurd rebuttals made: Grammar doesn't matter, truth isn't determined by reality, etc.. It's sheer nonsense.There is God. The proof: Look around you. This lays the argument out pretty well: I don't blame you for not engaging in religious arguments. I use to debate atheists all the time, and believe me, I've heard some pretty silly atheistic arguments before, some of them found in that link you gave me. "proof 36" is ridiculous. I was raised a Christian, but went through a period of about a year and half where I considered myself an agnostic, maybe an atheist. Admittedly, arguments from most mainstream Christians didn't convince me, and affirmed that mainstream Christianity is wacko. But arguments like "if there is a child starving, and God is all loving, and doesn't save him, God must not exist." I didn't buy that crap even when I didn't believe Christianity. Its so easily disprovable from simply reading the Bible that I'm surprised people still use arguments like that. I looked through all that stuff during my "time" as an agnostic. Most of those arguments on that site are easily disprovable. I'm much more concerned with the philosophical problems, like metaphysics, and epistemology, which is where I don't think other philosophies hold up. Nathyn:That's the only way they can defend their beliefs. Again, see the thread in the Christian forum I linked above, where you'll see me arguing against some Christians and the absolutely absurd arguments they make. Hopefully you realize I wasn't making an argument. I was making an assertion, which is to say, stating my opinion.
Sam, are you a fan of Soren Kierkegaard?I find his analysis to be specifically interesting and I like his idea of the knight of faith capable of transcending the knight of infinite resignation.
P.S. I'm still working on the tax stuff. I have a large paper due today, so I can get back on that with you after it's done.
---
I, too, am a proud Catholic Anarchist and I want to expand personally on the concept of accepting religion.
Warning: my thoughts on this subject will probably be very offensive to most Christians and agnostics alike.
I am not ashamed to say that I take a lot of my faith for granted. I believe God exists because I prefer it and I was raised that way.
The following may come as a bit of an intellectual shocker: I am not ashamed to say that I believe in the super-natural or call it "magic" if you want. I believe in magic. Also, I believe that gravity and electricity and magnetism and light are all forms of magic which glues the natural world together. Physical scientists can spend their time trying to explain those natural phenomena all they want. I do not feel any need to explain them for myself.
From this point of view, it is not difficult for me to take a further step and believe that God exists. I accept that I can not prove why my vision of God is correct and I am comfortable with that. If I was born a Muslim, I would probably be a fanatical Muslim. If I was born a Jew, I would probably think that Christians were an insult to my faith. If I was born a thousand years ago, I would probably believe that the Earth was flat too. I just happened to be born Christian just like for the better half of my young life, I just happened to be born in a culture that takes The State for granted as if it was a divine authority. Similarly, my parents just happened to be born in a communist country whereby everybody believed worshipping dictators was our moral duty -- they themselves did not believe it but they had comarades who did. Et cetera.
We all take things for granted.
Nathyn:I admit I don't think Jesus himself was pro-government -- he said what he did because he was afraid of the Romans.
Jesus was hardly afraid of the Romans. He willingly endured an excruciating death, a death He did NOT have to endure.
"Do you refuse to speak to me?" Pilate said. "Don't you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?"
Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above."
"For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from me, but I lay it down on my own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from my Father. "
"The best way to bail out the economy is with liberty, not with federal reserve notes." - pairunoyd
"The vision of the Austrian must be greater than the blindness of the sheeple." - pairunoyd
Brainpolice:Warning: my thoughts on this subject will probably be very offensive to most Christians. I don't think we can necessarily say that they were created for that purpose, just that they were used that way. The earliest of religions, as it seem to me, seem to just be "bad philosophies" (primitive understanding of science, mixed with superstition) if not outright cults.I've concluded that the earliest religions were based on family-worshop or ancestor-worshop. They would literally ritually slaughter an elder and cannibalistically eat them as a diefication ritual. This is what the communion ritual, as well as the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur, is symbolic of. Many of these early cult religions also had very similar traits to the Jesus story, with virgin birth in cave and dieing for your salvation and ressurection and everything, so the Christian religion is hardly unique in its archetypes. See the book "Pagan Christs" for a more detailed analysis of this.I also see religion as historically being tied to politics due to the familial connection. The earliest rulers were either worshopped as literal gods or were thought of as the ancestors of gods. Early monarchs tried to justify their rule by bloodlines that they claimed to be divine. The official union of church and state as a means of justifying political rule did not come until later. In either case, I see both religion and politics as stemming from the cult of the family and/or ancestor worshop. I see all dieties as either being made up or being the glorification of some past ancestor, often one who was ritualistically sacrificed.
Brainpolice:I admit I don't think Jesus himself was pro-government -- he said what he did because he was afraid of the Romans. The Romans were suspicious that he was anti-Roman (hence the reason the High Priests tried to trick Jesus into cursing Caesar). It's no coincidence, then, that the passage supporting the authority of government is in the book, THE BOOK OF ROMANS. There were zealots in his day that were anti-Roman, Jesus apparently hung out with a lot of them because several of his apostles were zealots. I suspect he may have secretly supported the anti-Roman underground resistance movement based on him telling his followers to "get some swords" in Luke 22, or at least "passive resistance" to government (assuming Jesus ever existed historically -- I don't believe that). In either case, though, based on scripture, he was a hypocrite -- either openly supporting government or only opposing it secretly while telling people to pay their taxes and obey the law.Whatever Jesus actually thought, or regaurdless of wether or not he ever existed, I cannot help but see the Christian religion, at its root, as an attempt by the Roman State to unify everyone into one political unit. This is particularly true when it comes to Constantine the sun cultist, who used this budding new religion of Christianity, then little more then a decentralized dispersal of cults, or the purposes of practical politics. Heroic is technically correct though that the scriptures were written before any kind of theocracy was implemented. One could argue that this was an exploitation of the scriptures for political purposes.
Brainpolice:But in either case, the actual foundation of the official Christian religion (which the scriptures predate by far) is based in Roman politics in my understanding. Before then, the Christian religion was an entirely different thing with a multitude of sects that have long since been usurped. Most of the scriptures were excluded from the bible and the bible is by no means the earliest Christian text. Arguably, the Koptics and Egyptian Church are the closest to genuine early Christianity then any other currently existing sect. Modern Christianity, by and large, has little to no resemblance to what the original followers of Jesus actually believed and practised.
sam72:There is no neutrality when it comes to claims of ultimate reality.
pairunoyd: Nathyn:I admit I don't think Jesus himself was pro-government -- he said what he did because he was afraid of the Romans.Jesus was hardly afraid of the Romans. He willingly endured an excruciating death, a death He did NOT have to endure.
Nathyn:*slap*
Excuse me if I sound naive, but huh?
Niccolò:Sam, are you a fan of Soren Kierkegaard?I find his analysis to be specifically interesting and I like his idea of the knight of faith capable of transcending the knight of infinite resignation.
Admittedly, I've only read bits and pieces of his writings. I had meant to get a book or two of his a few months ago, but that didn't happen. I'll look into him more, though.
Niccolò:P.S. I'm still working on the tax stuff. I have a large paper due today, so I can get back on that with you after it's done.
Sweet! Take your time. And thanks!
Nathyn: pairunoyd: Nathyn:I admit I don't think Jesus himself was pro-government -- he said what he did because he was afraid of the Romans.Jesus was hardly afraid of the Romans. He willingly endured an excruciating death, a death He did NOT have to endure.They why did he tell his followers to get swords in Luke 22?Also, please tell me: In Luke 22, Jesus heals a slave's ear right in front of the Jewish High priests. It doesn't make any sense, then, for why they'd arrest him -- see him perform a miracle -- then shortly after that, in court, say, "Give us a sign!" He already allegedly did.Lastly, I think his blasphemous cries demonstrate it wasn't "voluntary." He had no choice because he was just a man (if he existed), who never conjured up any miracles, and certainly couldn't to save his own life.
It was foretold 1000's of years before His coming that He would die. He told the disciples He was going to die. If He knew a thousand years ago He would be our sacrifice, I think he'd have not only the ability to avoid it but to save Himself in the midst of it.
pairunoyd: Nathyn: pairunoyd: Nathyn:I admit I don't think Jesus himself was pro-government -- he said what he did because he was afraid of the Romans.Jesus was hardly afraid of the Romans. He willingly endured an excruciating death, a death He did NOT have to endure.They why did he tell his followers to get swords in Luke 22?Also, please tell me: In Luke 22, Jesus heals a slave's ear right in front of the Jewish High priests. It doesn't make any sense, then, for why they'd arrest him -- see him perform a miracle -- then shortly after that, in court, say, "Give us a sign!" He already allegedly did.Lastly, I think his blasphemous cries demonstrate it wasn't "voluntary." He had no choice because he was just a man (if he existed), who never conjured up any miracles, and certainly couldn't to save his own life. It was foretold 1000's of years before His coming that He would die. He told the disciples He was going to die. If He knew a thousand years ago He would be our sacrifice, I think he'd have not only the ability to avoid it but to save Himself in the midst of it. Messianic Prophecies This is a chart of the messianic prophecies from Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22. The promise, prophecy, and fulfillment for each prophecy are shown on this chart. Isaiah was written 700-750 years prior to the birth of Christ. Psalms was written about 1020 years prior to Jesus' birth. Since Jesus died in A.D. 30 or 33, the prophecies concerning his death were between 800 and 1050 years old when they were fulfilled. Messianic Prophecies from Isaiah 53 Promise Prophecy Fulfillment Who has believed our report? Isaiah 53:1 John 12:37-38, Romans 10:16 Despised and rejected Isaiah 53:3 Mark 9:12, Luke 17:25, John 1:10-11, 1 Peter 2:4 He has borne our infirmities Isaiah 53:4 Matthew 8:16-17 Considered smitten by God Isaiah 53:4 Galatians 3:13, Matthew 27:38-44, Luke 23:35 Wounded for our transgressions Isaiah 53:5 Romans 4:25 We are healed by his stripes Isaiah 53:5 1 Peter 2:24 Jesus was flogged Isaiah 53:5 Mark 15:15, Luke 22:63-65, John 19:1 Silent before His accusers Isaiah 53:7 Matthew 26:62-63, 27:12-14, Mark 14:60-61, 15:3-15, John 19:9, Acts 8:32-35 Christ died for our sins Isaiah 53:8 1 Corinthians 15:3 Died with the wicked Isaiah 53:9 Matthew 27:38, Mark 15:27-28, Luke 23:32-33 Buried with the rich Isaiah 53:9 Matthew 27:57-60, Mark 15:43-46, Luke 23:50-53, John 19:38-42 Lived a sinless life Isaiah 53:9 1 Peter 2:22 Jesus was an offering for sin Isaiah 53:10 1 Corinthians 15:3, Hebrews 10:12-14 He would justify many Isaiah 53:11 Acts 13:38-39, Romans 5:17-19 He will be great Isaiah 53:12 Matthew 28:18, Luke 24:27 Numbered with transgressors Isaiah 53:12 Matthew 27:38, Mark 15:27-28, Luke 23:32-33 Made intercession for sinners Isaiah 53:12 Luke 23:34, 39-43, Romans 8:34Messianic Prophecies from Psalm 22 Promise Prophecy Fulfillment The forsaken Christ Psalm 22:1 Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34 Verbally abused by men Psalm 22:6-7 Matthew 26:67-68, 27:27-31 Trust in God ridiculed Psalm 22:8 Matthew 27:39-44, Mark 15:29-32, Luke 23:35, 39 Surrounded by enemies Psalm 22:12 Matthew 27:27-31, Mark 15:16-20 Physically weakened Psalm 22:14-15 Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21, Luke 23:26 Thirsty Psalm 22:15 John 19:28 Surrounded by enemies Psalm 22:16 Matthew 27:39-44 Hands and feet pierced Psalm 22:16 John 20:20, 25 Bones not broken Psalm 22:17 John 19:31-36 Stared at by the people Psalm 22:17 Matthew 27:55-56, Luke 23:35, 48-49, John 19:20 Lots cast for His clothing Psalm 22:18 Matthew 27:35, Mark 15:24, Luke 23:34, John 19:23-24 God heard His prayers Psalm 22:21, 24 Hebrews 5:7-8
Pairunoyd, nearly all of those aren't Messianic prophecies and weren't regarded that way until Christ came along. Christ had a habit of trying to act in such a way so as to make prophecies fit. One example is his quoting Psalms 22 by saying, "God, why have you forsaken me?!" when Psalms was partially about the Jews' groaning in the Torah and that same pattern of behavior in figures such as King David. And it's regarded as subtle blasphemy since as Psalms says:
Psalms 22:1 (NAS):
My God, my God, why have You forsaken me? Far from my deliverance are the words of my groaning.
How did Christians deal with this problem? By translating the truth out of their Bibles. Most translations inaccurately translate the above passage, to remove the fact that accusing God of forsaking you is blasphemy. Anyone who can either read Hebrew or has at least read literal translations (like YLT) knows that this is a mistranslation, where it's been distorted to be posed as a question rather than a blasphemous accusation against God.
Psalms 22:1 (KJV):
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?
Psalms 22:1 (NLT):
My God, my God! Why have you forsaken me? Why do you remain so distant? Why do you ignore my cries for help?
Psalms 22:1 (NIV):
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning?
Psalms 22:1 (NRS):
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from helping me, from the words of my groaning?
In every case, this is a mistranslation. The word "why" isn't in the original and it isn't posed as a question. You see this in the original American Standard translation:
Psalms 22:1 (ASV):
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? [Why art thou so] far from helping me, [and from] the words of my groaning?
The passages notes that the accusation is blasphemy.
Christians have regularly tried to distort scripture to make the prophecies fit. And Jesus did this himself. The most ridiculous example of this was when he hatched a scheme to convince people he was the Messiah by riding around sideways -- on two donkeys or a horse and a donkey (depending on how you translate it) -- in Matthew 21.
Matthew 21:1-12
When they had approached Jerusalem and had come to Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, "Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied there and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to Me. "If anyone says anything to you, you shall say, `The Lord has need of them,' and immediately he will send them." This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet: "SAY TO THE DAUGHTER OF ZION, `BEHOLD YOUR KING IS COMING TO YOU, GENTLE, AND MOUNTED ON A DONKEY, EVEN ON A COLT, THE FOAL OF A BEAST OF BURDEN.' " The disciples went and did just as Jesus had instructed them, and brought the donkey and the colt, and laid their coats on them; and He sat on the coats. Most of the crowd spread their coats in the road, and others were cutting branches from the trees and spreading them in the road. The crowds going ahead of Him, and those who followed, were shouting, "Hosanna to the Son of David; BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD; Hosanna in the highest!" When He had entered Jerusalem, all the city was stirred, saying, "Who is this?" And the crowds were saying, "This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee."
What blatant fraud!
Nathyn:The Greek religion had many gods and if he adhered to it, he couldn't have that much authority.
Nathyn:
The Greek religion had many gods and if he adhered to it, he couldn't have that much authority.
You do realize that Gaius Julius Caesar and Gaius Julius Caesar Octavians were both deified, right?
Niccolò: Nathyn:The Greek religion had many gods and if he adhered to it, he couldn't have that much authority.Wow... You're really bad at history too. You do realize that Gaius Julius Caesar and Gaius Julius Caesar Octavians were both deified, right?