sher@rochester.UUCP (06/06/83)
From: David.Sher I first must explain this message to minimize the damage. This message is a response (somewhat heated) to Larry Bickford's challenge to refute the ressurection. I will not refute it but will explain it. I do not want anyone whose faith might be weak and who wishes to retain his faith to be hurt by this article (Except Larry Bickford deserves whatever results are propogated from his actions). Anyway I start. The adversary whose purpose is to oppose God's plan in anyway that does not involve directly breaking God's laws (he can not since he is an angel) chose to try and prevent the spread of Judaism to the four corners of the earth. To do this he chose to establish a religion close enough to Judaism to woo followers away. So he established a pregnancy in a woman and instantiated himself as her child. This was viewed (quite rightly) as a miracle. The adversary being an angel began to preach. While what he preached was correct in the case at hand it was such that it would allow easy ways out for those Jews who were of weak constitution. In other words it made it easy rationalize away their sins. Of course he was clearly angellic and uninterested in sex. He soon gathered a following, whom began, subtlely, to corrupt. One of these grew sufficiently corrupt to sell him out to the authorities. They crucified him. But of course an angel can not be killed by ordinary means. So the adversary, as a final artistic touch, feigned death and then appeared to come back to life telling his adherents to start a new religion. This religion came into being. Being a construct of the adversary it was of course corrupt and eventually became involved in Roman politics. Of course one of its main goals was the elimination of Judaism. Yet as it spread amid the corruption some good was spread. The ten commandments and much of Judaism was accepted by people who did not have the strength to be Jewish. And so amid the evil good was done. This is a true miracle. OK Larry, disprove this. I have now explained the true origins of Christianity. If you don't believe me then you are going to have to disprove the substance (not merely some details) of this account. Note that this letters do not necessarily describe anyone's views. It has nothing to do with the Jewish religion. Nevertheless it should be answered. (It is rather convincing.) -David Sher (ofttimes AI project)
pmd@cbscd5.UUCP (06/08/83)
From: David.Sher I first must explain this message to minimize the damage. This message is a response (somewhat heated) to Larry Bickford's challenge to refute the ressurection. I will not refute it but will explain it. I do not want anyone whose faith might be weak and who wishes to retain his faith to be hurt by this article (Except Larry Bickford deserves whatever results are propogated from his actions). Anyway I start. I surmise from this article that you are of the Jewish faith and that you propose that Christ may actually be the Devil. Forgive me for responding to a challenge that you have directed at Larry, but I feel that this accusation (if that is what it is) is a very serious one. If you really believe this, (I assume that you do because of your statement that you "have explained the true origin of Christianity") I hope you are very sure of yourself. If Christ actually is who he claimed to be, this amounts to blasphemy. Since your evidence concerning the character of Jesus Christ can only be obtained from an examination of the Bible, your claims can only be refuted (or supported) with biblical argument. The adversary whose purpose is to oppose God's plan in anyway that does not involve directly breaking God's laws (he can not since he is an angel) chose to try and prevent the spread of Judaism to the four corners of the earth. By "the adversary" I assume you mean the Devil. Where do you get the idea that an angel cannot directly break Gods laws? Which laws are you talking about? According to Scripture, the Devil is a fallen angel (Lucifer). Why did God expel him from heaven if he hadn't broken Gods laws? If he didn't directly break them, then what indirect means did he use? To do this he chose to establish a religion close enough to Judaism to woo followers away. So he established a pregnancy in a woman and instantiated himself as her child. This was viewed (quite rightly) as a miracle. Isaiah prophesied that this miracle would happen (Is 7:14). In fact, all of the prophecy concerning the Messiah in the Old Testament can be shown to have been fulfilled by Jesus Christ. What other credentials must the Messiah live up to in order to be accepted as genuine? Is there some criteria outside of Scripture that he must meet? If so, how do you know that these criteria are not just the expectations of men? Why should the Messiah be made to live up to those? The adversary being an angel began to preach. While what he preached was correct in the case at hand it was such that it would allow easy ways out for those Jews who were of weak constitution. In other words it made it easy rationalize away their sins. It is easy to say that those who don't believe in your religion are of "weak constitution". Jesus' teaching in Matthew 5 does not support the contention that he was offering a way to circumvent the Law. He said he came to fulfill the Law and strict punishment comes to those who don't obey all of it (vv. 17-19). He said that in order to enter heaven your righteousness must exceed the form of righteousness practiced by the professors of the Law (Pharisees). The point of the whole chapter is that it is easy to *look* good. Jesus said you had to *be* good. It wasn't enough just to avoid committing adultery, lust was also a sin. It is possible for man to obey any religious code of ethics you care to write. But if the man's character does not correspond to his actions, wouldn't you say he was a hypocrite? Because there is nothing a man can do to change his basic nature, it is easier for him to adopt a set of rules to obey so he can feel secure and call himself righteous. It is the concept of God's grace that you call a justification for sin. Much of Christianity has adopted this attitude toward grace in teaching and practice, but Christ did not teach this kind of grace. You see, although man doesn't have the power to make himself a good person, (he can only do "good" things) God does. And the fact that he is willing to do this, without any obligation to do so, is grace. Of coarse, grace, being a gift, is voluntary on the part of the receiver. You may be able to change your thinking somewhat through doctrine and rules for living, but only God changes hearts. Of course he was clearly angellic and uninterested in sex. He soon gathered a following, whom began, subtlely, to corrupt. One of these grew sufficiently corrupt to sell him out to the authorities. They crucified him. But of course an angel can not be killed by ordinary means. So the adversary, as a final artistic touch, feigned death and then appeared to come back to life telling his adherents to start a new religion. This religion came into being. Being a construct of the adversary it was of course corrupt and eventually became involved in Roman politics. Of course one of its main goals was the elimination of Judaism. Yet as it spread amid the corruption some good was spread. The ten commandments and much of Judaism was accepted by people who did not have the strength to be Jewish. And so amid the evil good was done. This is a true miracle. If Jesus was so concerned about as leading as many followers as possible away from Judaism, why did he let thousands of them walk away in John 6? Why was he content with not even a handful of faithful disciples at his death? What advantage did this provide? OK Larry, disprove this. I have now explained the true origins of Christianity. If you don't believe me then you are going to have to disprove the substance (not merely some details) of this account. I admit that I failed to see anything of substance in this account. Note that this letters do not necessarily describe anyone's views. It has nothing to do with the Jewish religion. Nevertheless it should be answered. (It is rather convincing.) Convincing to whom? Paul Dubuc