Author Topic: Question  (Read 12820 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline whatchamean?

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Darwins +2/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #58 on: October 17, 2011, 10:04:43 AM »
Quote
curiousgirl stated
Again, red herring. This is not about Hannibal. Prove that God exists.
I already admitted there is no way to show the evidence you require for the existence of God. I just wanted to prove your hypocrisy....and I did.

Offline curiousgirl

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
  • Darwins +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Inquisitive agnostic atheist
Re: Question
« Reply #59 on: October 17, 2011, 10:09:31 AM »
No hypocrisy. I asked questions; I did not make positive claims. This is a pathetic attempt on your part to save face because you cannot prove your claim.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Question
« Reply #60 on: October 17, 2011, 10:10:11 AM »
You do believe Hannibal existed...based solely on the testimony of those who never met him...don't you?

No.  There is quite a bit of other evidence (such as archaeological evidence) that Hannibal existed.  The same is true for most of the other red herrings that religionists like to use in this regard.  However, it is not true for Jesus.  All we have in his case are a few anonymous documents that are not corroborated by any of the writers or historians of the period and which are not supported by any other kind of evidence.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Finntroll

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • Darwins +1/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #61 on: October 17, 2011, 10:10:41 AM »
Perhaps it is not possible to prove the total nonexistence of god, but I think there is a way to prove that what you say is God, does not exist. Please read my previous post and check my links.

Offline Samuelxcs

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 669
  • Darwins +6/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • The oldest and strongest emotion of humans is fear
    • Fallen Angels
Re: Question
« Reply #62 on: October 17, 2011, 10:22:56 AM »
If Jesus is the son of God and religions say Jesus IS God, maybe God is his own son and father? I don't know how that is possible, there are a few wrong religions, just have to chose the right position and the real truth.
"The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naïve forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget."
-Thomas Szasz

Online Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2116
  • Darwins +135/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: Question
« Reply #63 on: October 17, 2011, 10:37:24 AM »
If Jesus is the son of God and religions say Jesus IS God, maybe God is his own son and father? I don't know how that is possible, there are a few wrong religions, just have to chose the right position and the real truth.

Do you even read the threads on this forum?  :P
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline Samuelxcs

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 669
  • Darwins +6/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • The oldest and strongest emotion of humans is fear
    • Fallen Angels
Re: Question
« Reply #64 on: October 17, 2011, 10:47:10 AM »
Do you even read the threads on this forum?  :P

Sometimes I do, sometimes i'm too lazy :)

Violatedsmurf80 typed:
Quote
So my question about this was always, how could this be if jesus was the son of GoD why would he have to be in favor with GoD?

That is why I typed what I thought of that question.
"The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naïve forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget."
-Thomas Szasz

Online Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2116
  • Darwins +135/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: Question
« Reply #65 on: October 17, 2011, 10:55:48 AM »
I playfully asked that question because believing that God is both father and son is a basic tenet of Christianity.
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline Samuelxcs

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 669
  • Darwins +6/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • The oldest and strongest emotion of humans is fear
    • Fallen Angels
Re: Question
« Reply #66 on: October 17, 2011, 11:03:15 AM »
I know that.
"The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naïve forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget."
-Thomas Szasz

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12565
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Question
« Reply #67 on: October 17, 2011, 12:40:24 PM »
Quote
curiousgirl stated
Again, red herring. This is not about Hannibal. Prove that God exists.
I already admitted there is no way to show the evidence you require for the existence of God. I just wanted to prove your hypocrisy....and I did.

I hope your point is more than to point out what you see as hypocrisy.  If not, then throw in the towel because curiousgirl's hypocrisy has zero bearing on whether gods are really existant beings, as advertised. 

It seems to me that what you are saying is any ancient source is as good as any other, yes?  That the veracity of any evidence indicating there was a military commander from north africa around the turn of the 3rd century BCE is on equal ground with evidence indicating yhwh, the god of the hebrews actually exists. 

But if you are going that route, then you are kind of in a pickle.  Because then that means the evidence for Zeus, Vishnu, Amaterasu and Amun Ra are also equally valid.  And if that's the case, well, why aren't you prostrate before them?

Let me ask you a question relating to Hannibal though.  If Hannibal actually did not exist, do you think that impacts our lives or how we live them in any significant way?  Can you say the same about yhwh or jesus H?

I am skeptical about your claims to be a skeptic.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline whatchamean?

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Darwins +2/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #68 on: October 17, 2011, 12:56:49 PM »
Quote
Zankuu stated
This is just getting silly...
I agree. To apply a set of standards to one person but not to anyone one else is nothing but silly.

Offline whatchamean?

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Darwins +2/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #69 on: October 17, 2011, 01:01:40 PM »
Quote
Eaten by Bears stated
I am interested in how the prophesies have been verified. Could you please provide some sources to back up this claim?
For the prophecies themselves, I'm mainly using the the Old and New Testaments, which appear to be the only ancient writings atheists feel have no value.

Offline whatchamean?

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Darwins +2/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #70 on: October 17, 2011, 01:07:44 PM »
Quote
Finntrol stated

Wrong.
There are no prophecies about Jesus in the Old Testament. You would see that if you actually read the claimed texts in their totality, not just the verses NT writers quoted. Please read this article too:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/fabulous-prophecies.html

What happened is that the gospel writers wanted to present Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, and then used scripture quite disonestly. Some of it is messianic profecy, but doesn´t fit Jesus. Some of it is not profecy at all, they just played with the wording of totally unrelated texts.

You can only get around that by claiming that the gospels are "The Word of God", and thefore their  interpretation of OT is correct. But when written, they were not considered "The Word of God". They were just letters written by some men.

And the Old Testament?
It is far from being historically accurate.
Read this, about the archaeology of Israel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed
If you disagree, surely Jesus or the Holy Ghost can show you where the missing evidence is hidden? Problems? Excuses?

The stories about the biblical God are not true.
Therefore that God does not exist as such.
Thank you for the links Finntrol. I will examine them, but you should know that it is important to me to also test the source of the information being given to try to determine if any ulterior motives influenced the findings and websites such as infidels and wiki might have problems in that area.

Offline Eaten by Bears

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 91
  • Darwins +6/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #71 on: October 17, 2011, 01:20:17 PM »
Quote
Eaten by Bears stated
I am interested in how the prophesies have been verified. Could you please provide some sources to back up this claim?
For the prophecies themselves, I'm mainly using the the Old and New Testaments, which appear to be the only ancient writings atheists feel have no value.

I'll be back in a minute. I'm just going after that circular logic which is rolling down the hill.

Offline Finntroll

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • Darwins +1/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #72 on: October 17, 2011, 01:34:30 PM »
Watchamean:
The source of my stuff about the prophecies (which you present as the main proof for your religion over other religions) is the Bible itself. Read those claimed Jesus-prophecies yourself. I have. Like I said, the only way you can cope is that to decide to believe that the much later NT gospels and their interpretation of scripture is God´s Word. The jews don't think so and they know the Torah. (Note that I´m not defending the Torah/OT either, I'm just saying that NT writings don't fit to the prophecies) And your "proof" is only something you believe. Actually it means you want it to be so. And that is no more proof than a Muslim believes and wants that his holy book is actually based on the Hebrew religion and and adds to it more "divine knowledge".

The history part is well accepted among historians and non-committed theologians. Not even christian archaeologists have found the missing proof, and they have been busiest there. So again, if you disagree, find the missing evidence. It is not a proof that you WANT that your beliefs of history are true.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2011, 02:03:29 PM by Finntroll »

Offline Historicity

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +80/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • (Rama, avatar of Vishnu)
Re: Question
« Reply #73 on: October 17, 2011, 02:56:24 PM »

Offline whatchamean?

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Darwins +2/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #74 on: October 18, 2011, 12:08:17 AM »
Finntrol,
The site you provided on faked prophecies had a very impressive prologue, but after that I was pretty disappointed by Mr. Jim Lippard. After my dissolusionment, I looked for some background info on Mr. Lippard and wasn't surprised to find that he's an atheist with an agenda.

The way he presented his material, I couldn't take him seriously after the first page. For instance, he says that in Isaiah 7, a son will be born to a virgin and they'll call him Immanuel. He argues that Mary never called Jesus Immanuel and further states that the prophecy was taken out of context because it was fulfilled in Is.8 by a child named Mahershalalhashbaz....who is also never called Immanuel. Lippard argued that Mary never called Jesus Immanuel, as though Mary could have lent credence to this prophecy, yet seemed oblivious to the fact that Mary called herself a virgin. I'll take a look at the other site on archaeology. I really hope it's better.

Offline whatchamean?

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Darwins +2/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #75 on: October 18, 2011, 12:18:15 AM »
And you know Finntrol, I'm aware that Jews today claim the prophecy in Is.7 has nothing to do with a virgin or the messiah and they further assert that it never was thought of that way by Jews. Do you see the problem here? If Jews never believed this passage was about the messiah (and I have found no reason to doubt their claim), why did the Jews who wrote the NT ascribe it to him? If the Apostles wanted to promote Jesus as messiah, why invent a story about a virgin birth that none of their rabbis even knew of? 

Offline Finntroll

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • Darwins +1/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #76 on: October 18, 2011, 05:33:46 AM »
Well, I too think that the child in  Isaiah 7 was born in Isaiah 8. But OK, he was not called Immanuel, but nor was Jesus.

Anyway the child in Isaiah 7 doesn't sound like Jesus at all:
"
(This is from NIV, as a Finn I don´t know which english translation is which)

13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you[c] a sign: The virgin[d] will conceive and give birth to a son, and[e] will call him Immanuel.[f] 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria.”

It is set in the time of Isaiah. Kings and warfare of that era. When Jesus was born even Assyria was long gone. Far too vaque to be Jesus.
But i guess biblical fundamentalist invent some symbolism or time leap or secret meaning in there. But that would be not in the Bible and it would be extrabiblical. Fundamentalists don't really respect the Bible like scholars do .

And why would the evangelists claim that Jesus was born from a virgin? In that time in the Roman/Hellenic world it was important to say that remarkable men were  born from a virgin and were fathered by some  god. So was said of  many of the Roman Emperors too. Those times that increased the credibility of the story! Linking Isaiah there is an attempt to prove this to the jews too. But mistaking that "almah" means a virgin! The only link to Jesus is that the child in the profecy is remarkable. Nothing about the life of Jesus.

The Jews did not accept Jesus partly because in the jewish faith and writings the Messiah would be a man, not son of God. Claiming to be the son of God was pagan polyteism and a good reason for execution.

I don't know Jim Lippard but he talks sense. That is more honest than taking some religion like yours as base facts.

As for the archaeology part, I hope you are not just going to dismiss it because your faith says that the Bible is true. The evidence contradicts that and and the same time provides physical evidence for a different kind of history. This is not an evil hoax. The fundamentalists are free to dig there too.

« Last Edit: October 18, 2011, 07:37:11 AM by Finntroll »

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12565
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Question
« Reply #77 on: October 18, 2011, 07:54:11 AM »
If Jews never believed this passage was about the messiah (and I have found no reason to doubt their claim), why did the Jews who wrote the NT ascribe it to him?

emotional investment. 

Or, they weren't jews.  Remember, a lot of the early xians were gentiles who knew squat about judaism, their culture or their traditions.  Much like modern xians.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline whatchamean?

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Darwins +2/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #78 on: October 18, 2011, 09:20:16 PM »
Quote
And why would the evangelists claim that Jesus was born from a virgin? In that time in the Roman/Hellenic world it was important to say that remarkable men were  born from a virgin and were fathered by some  god. So was said of  many of the Roman Emperors too. Those times that increased the credibility of the story! Linking Isaiah there is an attempt to prove this to the jews too. But mistaking that "almah" means a virgin! The only link to Jesus is that the child in the profecy is remarkable. Nothing about the life of Jesus.
Finn, the Jews didn't care about the false gods of the Romans or what the Romans thought of them. They didn't even like the Romans. They wouldn't have tried to make Jesus the Son of God just to impress the gentiles.

Quote
The Jews did not accept Jesus partly because in the jewish faith and writings the Messiah would be a man, not son of God. Claiming to be the son of God was pagan polyteism and a good reason for execution.
I agree, so what compelled the Apostles to persist in a belief that could cost them their lives? Were they insane? Were they on drugs? Were they just deluded? It's possible. It's aslo possible that Jesus did what they said he did.

Quote
I don't know Mr. Jim Lippard but he talks sense. That is more honest than taking some religion like yours as base facts.
I don't know him either, but I honestly felt his arguments were not well thought out.

There are also claims  Mr. Lippard makes such as how Jews never saw other prophecies as messianic and those assertions can be disproven by the Talmud.

Quote
As for the archaeology part, I hope you are not just going to dismiss it because your faith says that the Bible is true. The evidence contradicts that and and the same time provides physical evidence for a different kind of history. This is not an evil hoax. The fundamentalists are free to dig there too.
Finn, I don't dismiss something just because the Bible seems to say so. I've learned things from people of other religions as well as my own and from atheists, but I'm not going to dismiss my faith just because someone does a surface skim of the Bible and things don't seem to line up or because someone bagan their search with a preconceived idea and "low and behold... I was right!" I will look at the site objectively, but I'm already aware that archaeology proves nothing either for or against religion.


 

Offline whatchamean?

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Darwins +2/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #79 on: October 18, 2011, 09:28:27 PM »
Quote
screwtape stated
Or, they weren't jews.  Remember, a lot of the early xians were gentiles who knew squat about judaism, their culture or their traditions.  Much like modern xians.
You might be right because if I was going to pick a messiah, I wouldn't pick one who told me to pay Roman taxes. Very strange.

Offline Brakeman

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1243
  • Darwins +47/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question
« Reply #80 on: October 19, 2011, 05:53:59 AM »
Quote
The Jews did not accept Jesus partly because in the jewish faith and writings the Messiah would be a man, not son of God. Claiming to be the son of God was pagan polyteism and a good reason for execution.
I agree, so what compelled the Apostles to persist in a belief that could cost them their lives? Were they insane? Were they on drugs? Were they just deluded? ..
If they existed as described, yes, they were stupid and / or insane, just like the David Koresh followers, the Jim Jones followers, the Mormons, the muslims, and the Hare Krishna. Yep, pure A** stupid as they say down in the south..
Help find the cure for FUNDAMENTIA !

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12565
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Question
« Reply #81 on: October 19, 2011, 08:08:33 AM »
Quote
screwtape stated
Or, they weren't jews.  Remember, a lot of the early xians were gentiles who knew squat about judaism, their culture or their traditions.  Much like modern xians.
You might be right because if I was going to pick a messiah, I wouldn't pick one who told me to pay Roman taxes. Very strange.

Why not?  If you were an oppressed minority who was labeled as an atheist[1], then it was pretty good advice to not make more trouble for yourself.  Even mohammed said similar things early on in his career, when he was on the outside looking in.  Once he had power though, he went all Queen of Hearts - "off with their heads!".  Given human nature, it is a pretty safe bet that had Paul been around when xianity became the Official Religion of the Roman Empire, all that Lamb of God shit would have been out the window and xianity would have been more like wahabist islam.  If you doubt me, just look at the extended xian revenge fantasy called "the Book of Revelation".  It is all about putting a hurting on their enemies.


 1. the Romans saw the xians as atheists because they did not pay tribute to the Roman gods, which was seen as civic duty
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Finntroll

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • Darwins +1/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #82 on: October 19, 2011, 10:16:53 AM »
Quote
And why would the evangelists claim that Jesus was born from a virgin? In that time in the Roman/Hellenic world it was important to say that remarkable men were  born from a virgin and were fathered by some  god. So was said of  many of the Roman Emperors too. Those times that increased the credibility of the story! Linking Isaiah there is an attempt to prove this to the jews too. But mistaking that "almah" means a virgin! The only link to Jesus is that the child in the profecy is remarkable. Nothing about the life of Jesus.
Finn, the Jews didn't care about the false gods of the Romans or what the Romans thought of them. They didn't even like the Romans. They wouldn't have tried to make Jesus the Son of God just to impress the gentiles.
.
.
Only Luke and Matthew mention the virgin birth.
According to most theologians (including the fundamentalists) Luke wrote for the gentiles. So it would be understandable if he wanted to explain Jesus in a way that fitted the pagan mindset.
Matthew on the other hand is considered to have been through and through jewish and writing to the jews. So you got me there :D Mark and John make no such claim. Nor is Jesus himself reported saying he was born without sexual intercourse.

And if these miracles of the nativity stories really happened, why Mary and Josef did not readily understand what the 12 year old Jesus was doing in the Temple and later tried to call Jesus home because they thought he had gone crazy? If eastern magi really brought gifts to baby Jesus, why didnt the whole of Judea talk about it?
(btw the nativity stories of Luke and Matthew can't be harmonized, but that's another issue)

But maybe Jesus really did say that he was the Son of God? And that was the final proof to execute him. Actually quite justly according to jewish law! But even being a or the son of God should not necessarily mean he was physically inseminated by God. Sounds like a primitive explanation of primitive minds to me. The confusion is shown when the gospels include Joseph to their versions of the Jesus genealogy.

 And early on there was unsubstantiated rumors that Jesus was an illegitimate child of a Roman soldier. I don't take that very seriously, but that would be a natural explanation. And a root to his identity crisis.

But the virginity-issue is a totally separate thing to the point we are discussing. That the prophecies about Jesus in the OT  would prove that Bible is true and trerefore Christianity is superior to other religions. The point is that when honestly read by anyone, not just by that Jim Lippard, those prophecies dont fit to Jesus! The NT writers twisted their original meaning. A pious fraud, but a fraud still. You ought to be get out of the mindset that the Bible has a coherent story and is somehow a holy book. In fact it is a collection of books that condradict each other both historically and theologically. Modern theologians know this,have known for a hundred years. (I myself have never studied theology, I studied first biology, then history at the Helsinki university, then worked as an internet geek and now I think I am a farmer or a landowner :D )

You ought to be get out of the mindset that the Bible has a coherent story and is somehow a holy book. In fact it is a collection of books that contradict each other both historically and theologically. Modern theologians know this, have known for a hundred years. Paradoxically if one really respects the Bible, one respects the purpose and circumstances of each text and that leads to admitting that there never was a coherent story and purpose in the book we call the Bible. "Fundamentalist" sects claim to know that there is, and to each of them it is different. Some lie that the Holy Ghost tells them the right interpretation, and that "knowledge" differs too from sect to sect. That all is completely dishonest, in effect claiming to be the all-knowing God yourself.   

Quote
The Jews did not accept Jesus partly because in the jewish faith and writings the Messiah would be a man, not son of God. Claiming to be the son of God was pagan polyteism and a good reason for execution.
I agree, so what compelled the Apostles to persist in a belief that could cost them their lives? Were they insane? Were they on drugs? Were they just deluded? It's possible. It's aslo possible that Jesus did what they said he did.
Well, Hindus have suffered martyr deaths willingly. Many mormons died for their faith, which originated when some nutcase made stuff up in a tent. Pastor Jim Jones convinced a a lot of people to kill themselves. UFO-cultists made a mass Suicide believing an UFO is coming to get them behind the comet Hale-Bopp. Terrorists flew aeroplanes into skyscrapers in the name of Allah. So this must prove to you that their faith is the true faith? That kind of thing was far easier in the first century, people were much more gullible then. They were not necessarily mentally ill, just gullible and uneducated. In our time we should know better.

Quote
I don't know Mr. Jim Lippard but he talks sense. That is more honest than taking some religion like yours as base facts.
I don't know him either, but I honestly felt his arguments were not well thought out.

There are also claims  Mr. Lippard makes such as how Jews never saw other prophecies as messianic and those assertions can be disproven by the Talmud.
I once tried to read the Talmud, and to me it seemed like endless blurred discussions in which no solid meaning is found. But then, I'm not a Jew, maybe I just don't get it.

That Jim Lippard page was just a quick way to show something from the Internet. I have though those profecies long before that. The only thing that I personally could suspect to be a propechy about Jesus, is psalm 22. But the translation about piercing hand and feet is disputed by the jews (even in the Finnish translation that bit is about lions) , Jesus ate notoriously well so his bones were not showing, theologically it don´t fit because the guy in the psalm wants to get out of there and anyway it is not said to be a propechy, just a suffering man. Jesus could very well have quoted the psalm or the evangelist written like he did even if he didn´t.

The rest is rubbish as Jesus-prophecies. Even Isaiah 53 fits to anyone who is suffering unjustly. I´m sure it was an inspiration to many people, including Jesus. But Jesus is not mentioned to have been ugly. Even more so with "sick" in some translations. Nor was Jesus despised by all, according to the Bible he had lots of followers when he was alive. Nor does "Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong" really sound like God's Only Son who has been given all the power in  heaven and earth.just somebody suffering and getting compensated at the end. And surely an inspiration for Jesus to go and suffer for others. He was not the first or the last messiah-claimant to do that and suffer a cruel end.

And Jesus knew that the Messiah was supposed to ride a donkey to Jerusalem. So he borrowed a donkey. Even I could do that.

I think Jesus could have neen an ordinary man or a mad cult leader or an enlightened sage, or even some divine creature. But he was not the Jewish messiah.
 
Quote
As for the archaeology part, I hope you are not just going to dismiss it because your faith says that the Bible is true. The evidence contradicts that and and the same time provides physical evidence for a different kind of history. This is not an evil hoax. The fundamentalists are free to dig there too.
Finn, I don't dismiss something just because the Bible seems to say so. I've learned things from people of other religions as well as my own and from atheists, but I'm not going to dismiss my faith just because someone does a surface skim of the Bible and things don't seem to line up or because someone bagan their search with a preconceived idea and "low and behold... I was right!" I will look at the site objectively, but I'm already aware that archaeology proves nothing either for or against religion.
The archaelology link I showed was of course just about one book. But it was the best summary I could find. I understand that there is dispute on details such as was Solomo's kingdom totally insignificant or could he still have had a medium-size state for that period. But there is wide agreement in history research and among non-fundamentalist real university theologians that the Exodus never happened, it is a myth, made-up official history by later Hebrew kings. There goes a lot of the OT!

(Better so, the God depicted there is a mass-murdering monster. Why do you wish he exists? Are you a fan of slaughtering women and children?)

And of course archaeology can prove against religion. And so can science. The Bible makes natural and historical claims that can be examined just like all ancient legends. It is you who has the preconceived idea that your favorite myth is true. In my neck of woods most people have not taken the Bible more literally than our national Kalevala for a long time. If the stories of the Biblical God are not true, then that God does not exist as such. Unless you can keep some kind of dishonest doublethink-mode, which is sadly typical for religious people.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2011, 10:33:43 AM by Finntroll »

Offline whatchamean?

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Darwins +2/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #83 on: October 21, 2011, 04:27:34 PM »
Quote
Screwtape stated
Why not?
Because the Jews didn't like being in subjection to foreign authority and believed when their Messiah appeared, he would crush their enemies. Instead, Jesus told them to render to Ceasar.

Quote
If you were an oppressed minority who was labeled as an atheist[1], then it was pretty good advice to not make more trouble for yourself.
That's true. You wouldn't want to put yourself in a situation where you might get crucified.
 
Quote
Even mohammed said similar things early on in his career, when he was on the outside looking in.  Once he had power though, he went all Queen of Hearts - "off with their heads!".  Given human nature, it is a pretty safe bet that had Paul been around when xianity became the Official Religion of the Roman Empire, all that Lamb of God shit would have been out the window and xianity would have been more like wahabist islam.
I think if Paul had been around when Christianity became the official religion, he would have been executed by the church.

Quote
If you doubt me, just look at the extended xian revenge fantasy called "the Book of Revelation".  It is all about putting a hurting on their enemies.
The Book of Revelation is about alot of things, but I can understand why you think it's only about revenge.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3950
  • Darwins +265/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Question
« Reply #84 on: October 21, 2011, 04:40:26 PM »
Quote
curiousgirl stated
We get theists like you all the time, preaching the Bible rather than providing logical arguments and scientific evidence.
There's nothing scientific about fulfilled prophecy because it's supernatural. The prophecies concerning Jesus are clear and easily verified, yet it seems now that you can't back up your claim of the God of the Bible being like any other god, your curiosity has disappeared.

Clear and easily verified????????? You are aware Jews exist, right?
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7288
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Question
« Reply #85 on: October 21, 2011, 05:20:12 PM »

The Book of Revelation is about alot of things, but I can understand why you think it's only about revenge.

Ha! I LOL'd at this reply.  Perhaps you can start a new thread that helps us all understand exactly what Revelation is about?  That would be lots of fun!

I have read it more than once, even very recently, and I can say with great certainty that Revelation was written during a drug binge that woul make Charles Manson sound like an adorable young Cub scout.

Offline whatchamean?

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Darwins +2/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #86 on: October 21, 2011, 07:11:14 PM »
Quote
Finntrol stated
Only Luke and Matthew mention the virgin birth.
And, according to Matthew...Isaiah.  :)

According to most theologians (including the fundamentalists) Luke wrote for the gentiles. So it would be understandable if he wanted to explain Jesus in a way that fitted the pagan mindset.
Matthew on the other hand is considered to have been through and through jewish and writing to the jews. So you got me there Mark and John make no such claim. Nor is Jesus himself reported saying he was born without sexual intercourse.[/quote
You're right, but Mark and John refer to Jesus as the Son of God in such a way (only begotten) which suggests the Spirit impregnated Mary. “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?”  And Jesus said, “I am..." Mk.14:61 

Quote
And if these miracles of the nativity stories really happened, why Mary and Josef did not readily understand what the 12 year old Jesus was doing in the Temple
We have no idea to begin with how Mary and Joseph perceived Jesus as He was growing up. 

Quote
and later tried to call Jesus home because they thought he had gone crazy?
Don't know what you mean here.

Quote
If eastern magi really brought gifts to baby Jesus, why didnt the whole of Judea talk about it?
What do you mean? It was an event that happened and then passed. Matthews gospel says Jerusalem did talk about it.

Quote
(btw the nativity stories of Luke and Matthew can't be harmonized...
You gonna leave me hangin bro? Gotta get some sleep.