There was an article I had come across posted by Angel Lawin but not written by him. Let us deal with the claims made on the website War_On_Error.
"ebruary 8, 2010
(debate) Did Jesus Worship Satan?
I like debating weird hypothetical arguments. One gets tired of the same old normal arguments that (while necessary, culturally) get really really boring after a while. I’ve recently tested out my “Does God Lie?” argument in a public debate with some success.
I’m brainstorming ideas for how to argue the case that if we accept the scenario of Jesus being tempted in the desert by Satan, the balance of evidence seems to be in favor of Jesus giving in.
It would have to be possible for Jesus to fail in the desert for it to be a real temptation. If it was impossible for Jesus to sin, then it would only be a meaningless taunting. A show.
The evidence indicates that he did fail and decide to worship Satan.
Presumably God the Father would abandon the earthly Jesus in that event."
It is possible to be tempted by someone and yet stand your ground and never give into temptation. If the Bible is good enough to prove this persons point, it's good enough to disprove his point entirely.
Hebrew 4:15 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven,[f] Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin. 16 Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.
Considering the fact that Jesus is God, though he is not the Father in heaven, he could easily resist temptation whereas for us we need his grace to do so. Lest this individual appeals to James 1:13, It doesn't refute Jesus being God, James simply makes that point that God cannot be tempted though man can try to tempt him. Even in the book of Job, Satan attempts to tempt God, as do the people of Israel in the Torah when they test his anger.
Sam Shamoun in one of his articles regarding this passage states:
"James is not denying the fact that God can be tempted in some sense. In order to know what James exactly meant we quote the immediate context:
"Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death." James 1:13-15
James is referring to evil inclinations, sinful desires, that causes a person to be tempted and sin. Since God has no evil inclinations, no lustful feelings or sinful desires, it is not possible for God to be tempted to sin. God is completely good and holy. What James is basically saying is that only God has no desire to do anything that is sinful. Yet, this doesn't mean that fallen creatures cannot tempt God, since the Holy Scriptures clearly teach that many have tried to tempt God, and failed miserably."
Let's move on.
"Jesus was a failed prophet who predicted he would return shortly. He didn’t. (It’s been a LONG time, too) Perhaps he knew this was how it was supposed to be, but God the Father was no longer with him."
He said he would come soon, he didn't say he would come shortly. Soon doesn't mean imminent. How does the author know that Father is not with Jesus, he is merely asserting it.
"The NT promises that the Church would be accompanied by the Holy Spirit to lead them in all truth. Today the Church is splintered into hundreds and thousands of denominations. It would seem God has abandoned the Church."
Jesus promises the true church they will be guided into all truth, but the context is specifically referring to the apostles AFTER Jesus returns to heaven. Furthermore the same Jesus in Matthew 24 makes it clear MANY will fall away and in Matthew 7:21-23 makes it clear that not every Christian who professes him as Lord will enter the kingdom. If you want to quote the NT, please quote it
"The NT promises there would be miracles to accompany the gospel message. This is not the case. God is not on their team."
There where miracles recorded in the NT that this individual is quoting, Acts and the Gospels alone contain a plethora a miracles.
"Jesus seems to start to lose it near the end of his ministry, becoming angry and overturning tables in the Temple."
He didn't "lose it", He was showing righteous anger because his Father's house was DEFILED by profiteering. READ THE CONTEXT:
Matthew 21:12 Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 13 “It is written,” he said to them, “‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’[e] but you are making it ‘a den of robbers.’[f]”
14 The blind and the lame came to him at the temple, and he healed them. 15 But when the chief priests and the teachers of the law saw the wonderful things he did and the children shouting in the temple courts, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” they were indignant.
16 “Do you hear what these children are saying?” they asked him.
“Yes,” replied Jesus, “have you never read,
“‘From the lips of children and infants
you, Lord, have called forth your praise’[g]?”
17 And he left them and went out of the city to Bethany, where he spent the night.
There is nothing unbiblical about getting angry for the right cause and Jesus had zeal for his Father's house.
"He is overly slanderous towards his opponents, the Pharisees, indicating he’d lost patience with his earthly ministry."
Jesus is exposing the Pharisee's wickedness and hypocrisy when he calls them a brood of vipers. He is not engaging in ad homenim tactics. Funnily enough the Pharisees acted in this manner.
"He doesn’t seem to have access to all knowledge, indicating God was no longer with him."
Verse please? Can you show where this is in the Bible? Even Mark 13:32 and Matthew 24:36 do not teach what this individual teaches.
Jesus' knowledge was limited while on earth, however, there were cases where the disicples understood that Jesus knew all things. Also, by Tovia's logic, the Father and the Spirit are not God, because in Revelation 19:12, the rider called Faithful and True (Which is Jesus) has a name that no one knows but himself. Does this mean the Father and the Spirit are not God? Of course not. There are details that are only known to a certain member of the Godhead at certain times. That's one possible answer.
The other answer is that Jesus is speaking of the end times in the context of a ancient Jewish marriage, where only the Father knew when the marriage takes place. This video by InspiringPhilosophy explains this point better than I: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfdozI26lQQ
Him not knowing certain details is not because of God not being present with him, It is due to the reasons I have given above.
"It seems Jesus was unable to accept failure, and continued on, getting himself executed in a pompous rivalry with earthly authorities. On the cross, Jesus says, “Oh God, why have you forsaken me?” seeming to admit they had parted ways."
Jesus was quoting from Psalm 22, a Psalm of David.
David is crying out to God for his vindication from the false accusations of his enemies and Jesus on the cross is calling out to the Father. It is recognized also as Messianic in Nature by Christians because of Jesus' application of it to himself. Furthermore, When he said it, The judgement he bore for our sake was over. There was no complaining at all nor was there an indicator that he and the Father "parted ways". In fact in the context of John, Jesus even says, it is finished, indicating he had been successful in his atoning work on the cross and of course in Luke, he says "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit" which shows that the Father was receiving Christ after the mission had been finished. After he died, Jesus went to Sheol and three days later, took the saints in Abraham's bosom to heaven. The link below takes you to the crucifixion if you want the context of Jesus' words on the cross.
"Hence it would make sense that God didn’t raise him from the dead. Presumably the body went missing for whatever reason, and his followers moved along with a false conception of events via hallucination and group think, and started their own religion. In their writings they tried to smooth things over as best they could.
Perhaps the success of Christianity despite God’s withdrawn investment was because God had prepared the way ahead of time in terms of what would have happened in history.
It would seem salvation for humanity is not available after all."
A hallucination would only prove the point that Jesus was dead, it would not prove he was alive. Furthermore in the NT again, the apostles were able to touch him, something you wouldn't be able to do with a mere ghost or hallucination. For that matter, for what reason would the apostles "smooth things over"? They wouldn't have a reason to because they earnestly believed what happened.
Yes I am aware that men can die for truth or a lie and believe either one wholeheartedly, but one who knows he is a liar would make a poor martyr. The idea that the apostles would all be willingly to go to their death for something THEY KNEW to be a lie, is absurd and out of the question.
Additionally, The resurrection, if it happened, would only prove Christ's claims to be true, rather than falsify his claims. Lest any individual try and say for ANY reason "Even if he rose from the dead and showed me he was alive, I would not believe", I have written on this subject of the resurrection proving Christ's claims which can be found here:
"All I’ve tried to do here is take the basic Christian supernatural premises for granted and make a better s****y argument than a Christian. The moral of the story is that if we open the Pandora’s box of religious epistemology, anything goes. And anything an apologist can contrive to support a laundry list of unverifiable doctrines and supernatural propositions is really them talking out of their hindquarters.
Eventually I’ll be sure to look up all the relevant verses and go searching for the apologetic responses to them in order to familiarize myself with the curve balls which would be coming my way (and to make sure my arguments actually work of course). This is just my rough outline. I’m not really even sure if I’d bother using this argument for anything other than practice in public debate since it’s really just a mental exercise in lateral thinking.
Or in this case of this individual, accuse apologists of making excuses while twisting the Bible to his own destruction. It is very obvious that this individual is not interested in seeking truth and to be honest to dialogue with this individual would a pointless exercise.