Am I right to assume, that theists cannot prove that I am not god?

[Foxaèr]

It is easy enough to prove something does not exist by the absence of evidence.

When the evidence provides itself, then we can change our minds toward one of belief.

[Aliza]

That's not proof at all because you think that Jesus is god, yet the NT records that he sinned. Let's keep in mind that Jesus was a Jew following Jewish law. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you don't actually know anything about the religion that Jesus followed. The sins he committed both intentionally, and by failing to take proper action were quite numerous.

 Jesus couldn't have sinned, if He had He would not needed to go to the cross. You need to provide those scriptures you speak of. Jesus told the Pharisees that He is the Lord of the Sabbath and the proceeded to ask them why the did necessary work on the Sabbath, why did they?  

GC

---

It just so happens that on a different forum, the idea of transubstantiation was brought up, so I happened to look up the NT verse to better understand what they were talking about and this is what I found:

“And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body.’ Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins’ ”
 
Looking strictly at the food consumed, if this is taken figuratively, then it’s not a sin to eat wheat or wine. If it’s taken literally, then Jesus committed a few sins here. Jews cannot eat human flesh. It’s not kosher. Also, Jews cannot drink any blood from any animal. Humans qualify as land dwelling beings, so we fall under the animal category. We just don’t happen to be kosher animals. Consuming blood is strictly forbidden.

Leviticus 7:26 And you shall not eat any blood in any of your dwelling places, whether from birds or from animals. 27. Any person who eats any blood, that soul shall be cut off from its people.

Those Christians who view this as a literal transubstantiation thing must also accept that Jesus committed the sin of drinking blood and eating flesh of a non-kosher animal. There’s an added sin for Jesus because he was the group leader and he encouraged 12 other Jews to commit sins. I’m not sure if that’s 12 individual counts of encouraging 12 Jews to sin, is it 24 sins for encouraging 12 Jews to break 2 sins each, or if it’s all just covered under one single count of encouraging a group of Jews to sin.

To understand more about tempting Jews to sin, read Deuteronomy 13. Jesus was said to be a dreamer of dreams (a prophet), yet his prophecies did not come true and he told the Jews to follow a different way. That’s a massive sin right there. The only question I have is how many sins does it count as.

But maybe you think that Jesus didn’t eat and drink human flesh and blood. –Except he did. How do I know that Jesus himself drank the wine and ate the bread? It’s right there in the text. If Jesus made the blessing, but didn’t eat the bread and drink the wine, then he’s guilty of 2 counts of taking the Lord’s name in vain, as the name of G-d is used in both of those blessings.

Exodus 12:7 You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain, for the Lord will not hold blameless anyone who takes His name in vain. (Judaica Press)

It clearly says that Jesus blessed the bread and he gave thanks for the wine so if he didn’t follow through and make use of G-d’s name by having taken action for which he called upon the Lord by name, then according to Jewish law, he would be guilty of having committed 2 counts of the sin of taking G-d’s name in vain.

-Just as a side-note, the word “blessing” should be used to describe both the Ha’Motzi (words uttered before eating bread), and the Kiddish (words uttered before drinking wine). I’m not going to split hairs on this, but it kind of stands out to me as being oddly worded… as if the writers of the NT have no firsthand knowledge of Judaism. Jews give thanks after we eat, not before.
 
But wait! Jesus gave what to his merry men to substitute for his body? Bread?! HUGE FUCKING SIN! That’s such a big sin, that according to Jewish law, if you break this sin, you’re cut off from the Jewish people spiritually.  YOU DO NOT EAT BREAD ON PASSOVER!
 
Exodus 12:18 "In the first month [i.e. Nissan] from the fourteenth day of the month at evening, you shall eat unleavened bread until the twenty-first day of the month at evening."  (Judaica Press)

Matzah is what he should have been eating, not "bread." It’s a different word entirely.  Challah is the word for bread. Matzah is the word for unleavened bread. In English, the distinction between challah and matzah is made by adding the modifier “unleavened” to the word "bread."

So the question then comes up, do Christians understand the difference between leavened and unleavened bread? Could this just be a misinterpretation on my part?  It’s no misinterpretation. Christians definitely understand that Jesus should have been serving unleavened bread (matzah) at his Seder because their own bible (I’ll use KJV) specifies that on Passover, Jews eat unleavened bread.

Exodus 12:18 King James Version (KJV) In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even.

So…. Why was Jesus serving bread at his Seder? (The answer is that the writers of the NT weren’t Jewish and didn’t understand Jewish law.) But, going by what the NT says, that’s a sin for Jesus for eating leavened bread, it’s another sin for owning leavened bread and it’s however many sins he picks up for encouraging each Jew at the table to break Torah law. 

Okay, food sins are done. Let’s move onto human sacrifices. Are human sacrifices accepted in Judaism?

No. Never. In fact, that is the single most abhorrent thing to Jews. The Jewish people spend their entire history leading up to the story of Jesus combating. The suggestion that Jews would sit there and listen to Jesus say that he would be their sacrifice, and that they would support this idea? It would be like every Jew during WW2 getting behind Adolph Hitler’s Final Solution. It’s ridiculous to even suggest. 

Human sacrifice is worse than eating blood, human flesh, saying the lord’s name in vain, and eating bread of Passover. It’s worse than all of those things combined, but to be fair, Jesus isn't committing human sacrifice in this passage. He's only discussing it, and discussing it isn't a sin. But I must point out that in this passage, Jesus is trying to change the sacrificial and atonement system. He’s taking away from the existing Jewish law, and he’s adding his own rules. 

Is that kosher? No.

Deuteronomy 4:2 Do not add onto what I am commanding to you, and do not detract from it...
 
Deuteronomy 13:1 Everything I command you that you shall be careful to do it. You shall neither add to it, nor subtract from it. 

Two more sins for Jesus. One for detracting, and one for adding to the Torah. 

This is just what I found this morning when I arbitrarily glanced at one paragraph in the NT. The sins were so numerous that I can't even be bothered to count them. Clearly, one paragraph generates evidence of at least one sin. So to respond to your statement that you can determine that a person isn't a deity because they do or don't sin, then I'd point out that you clearly can't distinguish sin from a hole in the ground and that you think Jesus is god even though he committed some of the most egregious sins of them all in just one paragraph.

[Vast Vision]

1. You have no proof that I sin do you. Inb4 you say "all humans sin by definition". But I am no human.

2. No proof that your definition of a god is right. Apart from that, I created all the holy books to fool people, just because it made fun to do so. Things in your book you see as a historical or scientific proof for its accuracy, was just me putting my knowledge into the book to convince you of this false message. Why would I do that anyway? Because I can, alright. It's not up to humans to judge me, god.

Can you prove me wrong? Because it's not like i need to prove my point.

[Harry Nevis]

 It's all the proof that's needed, I'm sure if I took the time I could mention other things that disqualifies Vast Vision. I'm to busy to do that especially since i've already show the disqualification.

GC

Small minds are satisfied with small things.

[Godscreated]

I can prove you're not God, you sin. The God who gave use the scriptures says it's not possible for Him to sin.

GC

PS. sorry to end this thread so soon.

Sorry can't let this one go.

So, GC, how do you know that she sins? What sin(s) did she commit? Being born a faulty creation of god? Are you god? Or do you just make judgments for god. The throw the first stone thing comes to mind. 

Next, god says to kill is a sin, yet god has killed. Maybe god gets to kill but his creations? Does this make god not a god or is god just a flip flop liar? Wait, lying is a sin also right?

You saying that someone has sinned is not proof.

 Vast Vision is not a believer, that is sinful. To be an unbeliever means one can't be doing God's will, also a sin. I need to go no further to prove my point. I'm not judging either, I'm pointing out a fact shown by the scriptures. The scriptures also say, "Everyone has sinned and fallen short of God's will."

GC

---

 It's all the proof that's needed, I'm sure if I took the time I could mention other things that disqualifies Vast Vision. I'm to busy to do that especially since i've already show the disqualification.

GC

Small minds are satisfied with small things.

 Such a small reply, you must be speaking about yourself, good to see some people will admit their faults.

GC

[vorlon13]

 Jesus couldn't have sinned, if He had He would not needed to go to the cross. You need to provide those scriptures you speak of. Jesus told the Pharisees that He is the Lord of the Sabbath and the proceeded to ask them why the did necessary work on the Sabbath, why did they?  

GC

---

It just so happens that on a different forum, the idea of transubstantiation was brought up, so I happened to look up the NT verse to better understand what they were talking about and this is what I found:

“And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body.’ Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins’ ”
 
Looking strictly at the food consumed, if this is taken figuratively, then it’s not a sin to eat wheat or wine. If it’s taken literally, then Jesus committed a few sins here. Jews cannot eat human flesh. It’s not kosher. Also, Jews cannot drink any blood from any animal. Humans qualify as land dwelling beings, so we fall under the animal category. We just don’t happen to be kosher animals. Consuming blood is strictly forbidden.

Leviticus 7:26 And you shall not eat any blood in any of your dwelling places, whether from birds or from animals. 27. Any person who eats any blood, that soul shall be cut off from its people.

Those Christians who view this as a literal transubstantiation thing must also accept that Jesus committed the sin of drinking blood and eating flesh of a non-kosher animal. There’s an added sin for Jesus because he was the group leader and he encouraged 12 other Jews to commit sins. I’m not sure if that’s 12 individual counts of encouraging 12 Jews to sin, is it 24 sins for encouraging 12 Jews to break 2 sins each, or if it’s all just covered under one single count of encouraging a group of Jews to sin.

To understand more about tempting Jews to sin, read Deuteronomy 13. Jesus was said to be a dreamer of dreams (a prophet), yet his prophecies did not come true and he told the Jews to follow a different way. That’s a massive sin right there. The only question I have is how many sins does it count as.

But maybe you think that Jesus didn’t eat and drink human flesh and blood. –Except he did. How do I know that Jesus himself drank the wine and ate the bread? It’s right there in the text. If Jesus made the blessing, but didn’t eat the bread and drink the wine, then he’s guilty of 2 counts of taking the Lord’s name in vain, as the name of G-d is used in both of those blessings.

Exodus 12:7 You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain, for the Lord will not hold blameless anyone who takes His name in vain. (Judaica Press)

It clearly says that Jesus blessed the bread and he gave thanks for the wine so if he didn’t follow through and make use of G-d’s name by having taken action for which he called upon the Lord by name, then according to Jewish law, he would be guilty of having committed 2 counts of the sin of taking G-d’s name in vain.

-Just as a side-note, the word “blessing” should be used to describe both the Ha’Motzi (words uttered before eating bread), and the Kiddish (words uttered before drinking wine). I’m not going to split hairs on this, but it kind of stands out to me as being oddly worded… as if the writers of the NT have no firsthand knowledge of Judaism. Jews give thanks after we eat, not before.
 
But wait! Jesus gave what to his merry men to substitute for his body? Bread?! HUGE FUCKING SIN! That’s such a big sin, that according to Jewish law, if you break this sin, you’re cut off from the Jewish people spiritually.  YOU DO NOT EAT BREAD ON PASSOVER!
 
Exodus 12:18 "In the first month [i.e. Nissan] from the fourteenth day of the month at evening, you shall eat unleavened bread until the twenty-first day of the month at evening."  (Judaica Press)

Matzah is what he should have been eating, not "bread." It’s a different word entirely.  Challah is the word for bread. Matzah is the word for unleavened bread. In English, the distinction between challah and matzah is made by adding the modifier “unleavened” to the word "bread."

So the question then comes up, do Christians understand the difference between leavened and unleavened bread? Could this just be a misinterpretation on my part?  It’s no misinterpretation. Christians definitely understand that Jesus should have been serving unleavened bread (matzah) at his Seder because their own bible (I’ll use KJV) specifies that on Passover, Jews eat unleavened bread.

Exodus 12:18 King James Version (KJV) In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even.

So…. Why was Jesus serving bread at his Seder? (The answer is that the writers of the NT weren’t Jewish and didn’t understand Jewish law.) But, going by what the NT says, that’s a sin for Jesus for eating leavened bread, it’s another sin for owning leavened bread and it’s however many sins he picks up for encouraging each Jew at the table to break Torah law. 

Okay, food sins are done. Let’s move onto human sacrifices. Are human sacrifices accepted in Judaism?

No. Never. In fact, that is the single most abhorrent thing to Jews. The Jewish people spend their entire history leading up to the story of Jesus combating. The suggestion that Jews would sit there and listen to Jesus say that he would be their sacrifice, and that they would support this idea? It would be like every Jew during WW2 getting behind Adolph Hitler’s Final Solution. It’s ridiculous to even suggest. 

Human sacrifice is worse than eating blood, human flesh, saying the lord’s name in vain, and eating bread of Passover. It’s worse than all of those things combined, but to be fair, Jesus isn't committing human sacrifice in this passage. He's only discussing it, and discussing it isn't a sin. But I must point out that in this passage, Jesus is trying to change the sacrificial and atonement system. He’s taking away from the existing Jewish law, and he’s adding his own rules. 

Is that kosher? No.

Deuteronomy 4:2 Do not add onto what I am commanding to you, and do not detract from it...
 
Deuteronomy 13:1 Everything I command you that you shall be careful to do it. You shall neither add to it, nor subtract from it. 

Two more sins for Jesus. One for detracting, and one for adding to the Torah. 

This is just what I found this morning when I arbitrarily glanced at one paragraph in the NT. The sins were so numerous that I can't even be bothered to count them. Clearly, one paragraph generates evidence of at least one sin. So to respond to your statement that you can determine that a person isn't a deity because they do or don't sin, then I'd point out that you clearly can't distinguish sin from a hole in the ground and that you think Jesus is god even though he committed some of the most egregious sins of them all in just one paragraph.

Just because Jesus Himself wasn't doing it right doesn't mean I'm going to excuse His current era followers from their frequent lapses.  Far from it.

[vorlon13]

[Godscreated]

1. You have no proof that I sin do you. Inb4 you say "all humans sin by definition". But I am no human.

2. No proof that your definition of a god is right. Apart from that, I created all the holy books to fool people, just because it made fun to do so. Things in your book you see as a historical or scientific proof for its accuracy, was just me putting my knowledge into the book to convince you of this false message. Why would I do that anyway? Because I can, alright. It's not up to humans to judge me, god.

Can you prove me wrong? Because it's not like i need to prove my point.

 Your religious view says atheist, meaning you believe in NO gods, so you can't even believe your a god. Just another reason you are not a god only a faulty human like myself and all of humanity.

GC

[JackRussell]

1. You have no proof that I sin do you. Inb4 you say "all humans sin by definition". But I am no human.

2. No proof that your definition of a god is right. Apart from that, I created all the holy books to fool people, just because it made fun to do so. Things in your book you see as a historical or scientific proof for its accuracy, was just me putting my knowledge into the book to convince you of this false message. Why would I do that anyway? Because I can, alright. It's not up to humans to judge me, god.

Can you prove me wrong? Because it's not like i need to prove my point.

 Your religious view says atheist, meaning you believe in NO gods, so you can't even believe your a god. Just another reason you are not a god only a faulty human like myself and all of humanity.

GC

Well, well humans are more god like than any gods, because we actually do stuff in reality. It can be good or bad, but their is strong evidence that clever apes have an effect upon this planet. Their is zero evidence of an uber-human super monkey though.

EDIT: to add, we don't say their are no gods, we say that no good evidence is provided for that positive claim. The uber-monkey would certainly know how to do that!

[Vast Vision]

Your religious view says atheist, meaning you believe in NO gods, so you can't even believe your a god. Just another reason you are not a god only a faulty human like myself and all of humanity.

GC

Atheism is the absence of belief in supernatural things. But what you as a mortal consider supernatural things is perfectly natural for me. Should you find something inconsistent though, then it is you either not comprehending it since I am not bound to logic or me just fooling you. You just can't prove me wrong can you.