[net.religion] Christ the AntiChrist

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