Atheos

Okay, let's check this out:

Okay, I'll grant It's talking about Ishmael. According to that myth Ishmael was a bastard son of an ancient slaveowner named Abraham. Why do you think Ishmael was "the original muslim?" Where is the implication that this statement, which clearly identified one individual about whom it was made, has any reference to anyone who would come after Ishmael? There is absolutely no reason to surmise that this "prophecy" was about the ongoing hostility between certain Moslems and certain Jews. When studying to be a preacher I was told (regarding interpreting prophecy) "When the literal sense makes good sense be careful not to make nonsense". It's also worth noting that there are peaceful Moslems and peaceful Jews. Peaceful Moslems will often argue that war-like Moslems are not true Moslems. Just like peaceful christians will argue that Torquemada didn't represent their 'take' on christianity. This verse, which was likely written hundreds of years after Ishmael was dead (assuming any of these characters were actually real in the first place) proves nothing. Maybe you're impressed with it for some reason. I can't for the life of me see why.

Which is exactly my point. The temple prophecies were not written down by anyone until after the temple was destroyed ("Mark"). I'm tired of repeating this.

Regarding the "massacre of the innocents" you defend the myth with the following:Nice try, but don't forget that Josephus, the Jewish historian chronicled a great deal about the reign of Herod and Josephus didn't like Herod. If Herod had actually had a bunch of Jewish babies massacred Josephus wouldn't have hesitated to include that nugget of propaganda in his histories. Also I'd encourage you to read your own myth rather than relying on apologetics you've googled up:
It would appear to me that this massacre would have involved a lot more area and children than you suggest.

Finally, the book of Ezra is actually an older book, maybe among the oldest in Jewish scripture. Maybe, just maybe in the hundreds of years between when Ezra was written and when these events allegedly took place the population of Bethlehem might have changed somewhat. I'm just guessing.

Yet another "proof" of this event that comes from hundreds of years after the event allegedly took place. You're grasping at straws here, can't you see it?

Regarding Herod vs Quirinius you wrote:I can only assume you really hate taking time to read your own myth. Here:

• Matthew 2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
• Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

Herod died in 4 BC. Quirinius (or Cyrenius) became governor of Syria in 6 AD. Google it.

Regarding the myriad of contradictions in the four resurrection accounts you wrote:Just how much do you hate reading this Bible you hold so important? You don't know where the four resurrection accounts are? You can't read them for yourself? *Sigh* Go read Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24 and John 20. Check out Acts 1:1-12 as well. The contradictions exist. Only by assuming it's your fault and you're just not interpreting it right can you ignore this simple fact. And assuming it's your fault is begging the question. You've made declarations about how the bible is so much better than all the other religious books out there. I'm just trying to show you that perhaps you were a bit hasty in your assessment.

So you've got the good taste to recognize a book with "substance". So where is this "Garden of Eden" of which it speaks? It should be easy to find with that flaming sword turning every way to bar entrance to it. Also I'd be interested in knowing the location of that "exceeding high mount" Satan took Jesus to so he could look at all kingdoms of the earth at the same time. Maybe the earth was flatter back in those days. Let's see some of those dragons, unicorns, leviathans and cockatrices the bible mentions. Heck, I'd like to see a Nephilium (son of Anak) -- that would be pretty cool. They were pretty tough to have been around both before the flood and after the flood, being as none of them were on the ark.

*sigh*

• Numbers 31:17 - Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
• Exodus 32:27-28 - And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour. And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

Plenty more where that came from.

Finally I just can't let this go unchallenged:First of all there's something unique about every one of those myths, otherwise they'd be the exact same myth. Duh.

You say the unique thing about christ is that he sacrificed himself of his own free will? What about Hercules who made the choice to die for his friends? He had a choice. Hercules didn't even know Zeus was going to raise him back up, unlike Jesus. Seems to me like Hercules was making a bigger sacrifice than your favorite hero god.

You say Jesus was "God's first and only son". Your bible doesn't mention many other "Sons of God" in places like Genesis 6? I know, it's not really a contradiction, we just don't understand the mysterious ways of God. We're back to begging the question again.

Jesus was both sinless and at the same time subjected himself to the same temptations we all live by today? Okay, did he ever experience lust? If so he sinned according to his own criteria (Matthew 5:8). If he didn't, then he wasn't "Tempted in all points like we are" (Heb 4:15). Did he ever tell a lie? Sure sounds like it to me (John 7:8-10). The fact is you're begging the question by accepting an assertion that "Jesus lived a sinless life". You don't know this to be the case anymore than you know that I was abducted by a space alien and subjected to an anal probe.

So now we're basically at the same place we started: You've got assertions but no substance on which to base your claim that the Bible is somehow better than the Quran, the Hindu Vedas or the book of Mormon.

funinspace

I think it is often too easy to overstate the case for either side quite often. I don't know how it can be argued that Mark was written after the destruction of the temple any more than it can be said that it was written before the destruction of the temple. I think the typical estimated range is 60-75 AD by the vast majority of scholars. But it is just an estimated range. It seams that opinion gets ahead of facts on this quite often.

Now above, DLB states it in a fairly reasonable way, with the implication that we don't know if it was prophetic or not, since we can't say whether any of the Gospels were penned before the destruction of the temple. Where as before he implied that his Gosples preceeded the desctruction of the temple, and therefore were prophetic. Unless of course he just wasn't clear in the above post; and still is positing that at least 1 Gospel was definitely written before the destruction of the temple.

A minor clarification on DLB's dating, from what I have read: The vast majority of scholars include the range for: (1) Paul - 48 to 60AD (2) everything else - 60 - 120 AD.

Atheos

You're right, of course, about the ambiguity of the evidence regarding the dating of GMark (and other books). But to say that a pre-temple-destruction date and a post-temple-destruction date is equally probable is not sensible in my opinion.

If I produce a piece of paper on which I wrote down the winning powerball numbers from last Saturday and claim I wrote that down two weeks ago, is it equally probable that I'm telling the truth? C'mon.

All other factors being equal (and they pretty much are) there's no reason to go for the "extrordinary" option (that GMark was written before the events it described or that I wrote the winning Powerball numbers before they were drawn.

All that is irrelevant. My argument is not about when "Mark" was written. It's about the quality of the evidence being presented to advocate that the Bible is a supernatural book inspired by some god, and that in that way it is different from the Quran, the Book of Mormon and the Hindu Vedas. Mark could have been (and very likely was) written after the destruction of the temple. Period. Because of this the fact that it contains language describing the temple destruction is completely unimpressive.

It's the same with all the evidence that has been presented so far. None of it is impressive. There's no reason to believe the Bible is any better than the Quran. Or the book of Mormon. Or the Hindu Vedas.

funinspace

I wasn't trying to place probability either way. I agree that there is little reason to posit an early date is more or equally valid, beyond the religious desire to have a valid prophecy. I pointed this out, simply because it is in ones own argument'ss self interest to be objective on the facts, so the Christian can't so easily quible on trivialities.

I generally agree. Personally I think the history of the LDS is a perfect example of how religions get manufactured. Place Joseph Smith back into the fog of history, say 1,800 years ago in India, and I would suggest it would be just as blured and ambiguous as atypical Christianity history.

Kharakov

Actually, I think anyone can agree that Feist's pantheon is far more accurate than any of those.

dr lazer blast

Even the muslims consider ishmel to be the original muslim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael

Its not like I read that scripture and came to the conclusion of "Hey they're talking about the original muslim" I asked muslims, jews, did some research on my own. It seems that both Jews and muslims are in agreement that Ishmael was the original muslim, while Issac was the original Jew.

That is not correct. There are a wide range of dates that date mark from being written anywhere at 60 AD to 75 AD, and there were also some scholors that said the dead sea scrolls that were found were found with a piece of the gospel of mark, the evidence is inconclusive at best, so you saying 'the temple prophecies were not written until the temple was destroyed' has no more evidence to back it up then me syaing 'the temple prophecies were written before the temple was destroyed'

The lack of evidence for the massacure of babies is an argument from silence at best. You would have a point if King herod was not portrayed to be a paranoid king that was constantly worried about being usurped, however since history suggests that he was exactly that, the massacure of innoncents is well within the realm of possibility. If someone were to say hitler ordered the deaths of a bunch of jewish babies one night, would that honestly raise up a red flag of pure disbelief?, no, people would be more than inclined to say 'its possible' likewise with Herod. The only reason there is so much pressure for evidence (or lack there of) is because it is written in the bible, if the same thing was said about anyone else (hitler for example) it would be a different story.


Its only a contradiction if 2 statements cannot both be true, and I've heard this one before, and the answer to it is, Look at the history Quirinus he served the roman army, found favor with the empror at the time. It is entirly possible that he became governor twice as well. There was even an inscription about it.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...l#LapisVenetus



WOW, c'mon as a formor paster with a B.A you should already know that it is pointless to bring up the 'contradictions' of the ressurection accounts, there just isn't any base toward it. I asked this question so many times before I became a christian and it really has no base. There are so many different explanations for this that if I put down one explanation then it would start an entire discussion of its own. For arguements sake I am going to say that different people viewing one event are going to see different things. Not to mention they don't contradict each other, like I said earlier its only a contradiction if 2 statements cannot both be true.


It would be a contradiction if Matthew said only Mary Madalene and the other Mary went to see the sepulchre. Then you would have a point and a valid contradiction, however it is entirly possible that Mary magdalene, the other Mary (which could be Mary mother of James) and Salome, had brought sweet spices.

If I had 10 one dollar bills in my pocket and someone said "do you have a dollar" I'd say yes, and if someone said "do you have 5 dollars" I'd say yes, and if someone said "do you have 10 dollars" I'd say yes, which is a perfect example of 3 different people getting 3 different things out of an event.

the garden of eden was washed away in the flood like everything else. Dragons? unicorns? cockatrices? what? those never were taken to be literal interpretations of anything, all of that is symbolic.


So I don't understand how this equates to Moses murdering AFTER He discovered God, both of those verses was a command from God so what is your point, you're taking that out of context. Numbers 31 was about saying "take vengance on the midianites" and Exodus was a command from God as well...

As a former pastor with a B.A. (I am highly starting to doubt that not) one would think you would know the context of scripture.

The combination of all that I said made Christ unique.

Its quite obvoius what context that is in.

There is no tempation of lust? so according to you if there is a porno playing and I am tempted to watch it, that is lust?. He was tempted to sin but did not sin, so he was tempted to lust but did not lust, saying "did he ever experience lust" is a loaded question, you're already saying he lusted. Thats like saying did he ever experience murder? if He did then he sinned on his own criteria. Loaded questions.

And once again that goes back to reasonable doubt. Do I have a reason to doubt that Jesus led a sinless life? are any reliable sources saying He sinned? are there even any sources at all? even in the Koran there is no mention of Him sinning. Considering I don't have a time machine I am making an educated decision based upon the information at hand.

Deus Ex

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/Quirinius.html

Here is a little reading for you about Quirinius. No way was he governor twice. I expect that no matter what, you will rationalize away all of your 'Holy Book's' contradictions, but for people lurking this thread, they can see where the evidence points.

The Bible was written by fallible men, and is not inerrant.

dr lazer blast

What kind of argument is that? "I expect that no matter what you will rationalize away all of your Holy Books contradictions?" I can easily say "I expect that no matter what you will rationalize that my Holy Book has contradictoins" that is ridicuolous, presumptious, and baised.
I have no problem admitting if I am wrong, or if shown with evidence that the bible is wrong. I even admitted to atheos bringing up a good point about Egypt, however all anyone has shown me on this site is mis understandings about scripture, common 'contradiction' arguments that are revealed to be not contradictions at all, arguments from silence, and other things that have no substance, and I am not speaking about atheos specifically but about everyone that feels they have some sort of logical reason to attack christianity. I am an honest guy, but I refuse to just cave and 'take peoples word for it' in regards to religion.

Deus Ex

Emphasis mine
You have been repeatedly been shown evidence, but you keep your head planted firmly in the sand. You are just another theist who believes that you and your church hold Absolute Truth. It is a total waste of time arguing with you, except to show others lurking these threads what the evidence reveals about the errancy of the Bible.

Nothing will change your mind, and frankly, I don't care what silly superstitions that you believe.

dr lazer blast

You think I should fold at the sight of a contradiction instead of do research and find out its not a contradiction? what kind of thought process is that?

"The bible contradicts itself"
"show me"
*presents contradiction*
"thats not a contradiction, a contradiction is when 2 statements cannot both be true, all you've shown me is differening information, if I take all these statements they can still be true when I put them together"
"but I showed you the evidence of the contradiction"
"what you showed me was evidence of differing information"

According to Dues Ex I should just immediatly not believe instead of doing research, I mean if a scientist had a theory and someone presented something that seemed like it contradicted his theory, instead of doing the research he should just accept it.

Seriously, is this what passes for intellecualism these days? upon the first challenge to our ideas and beliefs we must immediatly fold? thats absurd