"that no more was a repeated blood sacrifice necesssary for temporary forgiveness of sins. "

How about keeping kosher? How about keeping the Sabbath? How about putting no gods infront of the one true god?

And where did god or prophet ever speak of a pre messianic era new deal? seems like he might have devulged that....

besides, there is another passage that has Jesus praying to the Father. Now if Jesus was God, would he really need to pray? what, is he praying to himself?

Let me find the verse...

"God loves the Jews as his special people, but gave others a chance to be grafted in to that tree. "

Funny how he can love me, but send me to hell for keeping his original commandments, dont you think mujus?

I also love how God made his original "Deal" by revealing his covenant to the whole jewish people, but made his all important "New Deal" by letting 12 apostles in on a secret and allowing them to telephone the rest...

I found something better:

Mark 15:34
And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).

Does that sound like something a God would say ?

all signs point to Jesus = man of God, not God himself. rest my case

blind faith, if that's not emotional, I don't know what is

In keeping with the teachings of OUR Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, I pray that OUR Lord, Jesus Christ, will remove the hardness from SantaClausoheeb's heart, so that he may be converted to Christianity. Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to salvation.

Amen.

did you save that from last time you used it? It seems almost verbatim

@ roller: In those days the scriptures weren't numbered, but were referred to by their first line or so. Jesus was quoting the first verse of Psalm 22, a well-known messianic prophecy. And... did you think that payment for our sins would entail only physical pain? Imagine God himself ripped apart out of love for us. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vmY2ztb5xc&feature=related

My faith isn't blind--but I submit that blind rejection is just as bad as blind faith.

I know all about your religion, its obvious by the mistakes you have consistently made you know nothing about mine. So many contradictions here, yet like all christian evangelicals you just bulldoze right through them, ie. blind faith.

Hey Clausohook-nose.

Still waiting for the Messiah?

Try not to kill him this time. lol.

@semck,

"Well, what evidence do I have that it won't, is a better question, and none, is the answer." Why is this a better question? Does one have to be 100.00% sure of something before acting?

"The problem is, order is LESS reasonable to expect than disorder."
Really? Based on what? Seems to me we see plenty of both. It is unreasonable, in my opinion, to look at what is... what is all around us... and say that it can't or shouldn't exist. Clearly it does.

"Why would it be reasonable to expect order? Because it's always been that way?"
Yes. That is not to say that it is impossible that it order would turn to disorder. One cannot readily prove a negative. But, yes, it is quite reasonable to expect (as in anticipate and act based on the anticipation) order never the less.

"You may ask why I say it's less reasonable to expect order than disorder. Simple: there are many, many (possible) universes which act ordered up to tomorrow and then misbehave in all kinds of crazy ways. Infinitely many, actually. There is only one that keeps acting ordered up through tomorrow. (This is not quite true, of course, but it works modulo some unimportant details)."
Really? How are these "possible" universes arrived at? I see only one universe... to discuss "possible" universes from the perspective of our one seems problematic at best... and just because we can imagine something does not make it possible. At this point we truly don't know if other universes are possible. All we know is that ours, is.

"As for managing by exception -- sure, if you ASSUME the universe will be regular tomorrow, then managing by exception is a poor idea. But it does remain an assumption, an a completely unjustified one."
Not at all "completely unjustified". Just because we have limited information does not mean we have no information. Justified does not mean 100.00% sureness or clarity... it only means that there is reasonable, sufficient and appropriate support for your position - which clearly there is. There is far more reasonable support for acting on the assumption that the universe will continue to be regular tomorrow than there is for acting otherwise. I have (considerable) evidence *and* I have the lack of contrary evidence in my favor - you only have the lack of contrary evidence in yours. The fact that I cannot prove you wrong does not mean that our positions are on equal ground.

@semck, "you only have the lack of contrary evidence in yours" should read: "you only have the lack of *proof to the contrary in yours"

@Santa - Jesus preached the "new deal" as you put it to all who would listen. He brought us a new commandment that wrapped all the law and the prophets into one. Love they neighbor as thyself. This was to all and if you think it was just taught to his disciples, even if that were true, they numbered in the hundreds and even thousands. He had 12 apostles from amongst his disciples, but the apostles were not the only disciples.

dexter,
Actually, I'm not saying that just because you don't have 100% certainty of something, you can't believe it. I'm saying you have 0% certainty of something.

Frankly, you don't seem that interested in understanding and engaging Hume's argument, so I'm probably not going to continue much longer, but here's one more whirl. You ask how I'm defining "possible universes," and complain that I can't know that all my various universes (that are not regular tomorrow) are really possible. Well, right back atcha' -- you don't know that the universe that IS regular for one more day is possible, either. We are in ignorance about which universes are possible, including the one that stays ordered. You say we see THIS one. Well, yes, but we don't know whether THIS one is ordered tomorrow, or just up through today. Period.

So the best we can do is list all the possibilities and assign them equal weight.

And when I say "possible universes," I really mean "possible futures for this one universe." If talking of more than one universe offends you, think of it as futures, then. But again -- you can't say that we've seen ANY of the futures, so while it's true that I can't know that any of the disordered possibilities is true, neither can you the ordered one. To turn around an old atheist saw, "You reject the liklihood of all infinitely many possible futures. I just reject one more."

The reason order is less reasonable to expect than disorder is because we can't give any reason to expect any particular outcome, and there are far, far more disordered possible outcomes than ordered ones.

"Justified does not mean 100.00% sureness or clarity... it only means that there is reasonable, sufficient and appropriate support for your position - which clearly there is."

No, there is not. There is ZERO reason to believe that the universe will stay ordered tomorrow. And please don't think this is a novel argument. It's not. Hume popularized it, and it has never been refuted.

"I have (considerable) evidence *and* I have the lack of contrary evidence in my favor.

Yeah, but you're citing evidence for the proposition that evidence is reliable. See how that's circular?

Regards.

dexter, pardon my snippiness at the start of that last post. I've had a not-great evening, but that's not your problem. It was uncalled for.

@ maple - Jesus was killed by your sins and mine. He freely gave himself for them. The instrument was a Roman (European) instrument of death, crucifixion, which the Jews did not do. Did the Jewish leaders want Jesus killed? Definitely. But Pontius Pilate was the one who ordered his death, over the objections of his wife, for the crime of being "King of the Jews," as was stated on the sign attached to the cross.