Freethought & Rationalism Archive

crawford · 07-24-2002, 01:33 PM

Why is it that the biblical scholars cannot get the facts right, when reading their bible. The fact that they use the prophecy in Isiah 13 as the forerunner for jesus is utter rubbish. This
saviour was born +- 735 b.c. He was born as a sign that a certain war would not take place, and indeed, it did not take place, prophecy fulfiled. end of story. In the book of Matthew it says with the birth of jesus that he will be called out of
Egypt, so that the scriptures could be fulfilled.
But it was the nation Israel, in the book of ,Exodus that was called (as Gods son). Revelations makes sense when you change the beast to jesus and you will see that everything has taken place. The crucifiction in Matthew is so
similar to the story of Krishna, wich happened
2000+ years b.c. that you cannot but believe it is the same story. The whole Bible is so full of
contradictions, that if it was evidence in a murder trial you have to declare a miss trial.
These stories and sagas is what kept these people
busy around their campfires at night, similar to us following a soapie on tv, and their way of thinking has no place in a fast cyber society of
today. All you bible punchers out there give me your best shot!

GunnerJ · 07-24-2002, 03:11 PM

This would find a better home in Biblical Criticism and Archeology. A word of advice, though: learn to format paragraphs properly.

Moving right along...

FunkyRes · 07-24-2002, 03:18 PM

crawford-

ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, we _aren't_ the ones with the reading problem?

Peter Kirby · 07-24-2002, 04:54 PM

crawford writes: The crucifiction in Matthew is so similar to the story of Krishna, wich happened 2000+ years b.c. that you cannot but believe it is the same story.

I am no Bible puncher.

But I am not aware of any evidence that dates to the first century CE or earlier that states that Krishna was crucified. Do you have any such evidence - such as, perhaps, in the Bhagavad Gita?

(And are you claiming that a Krishna story was in existence as long as 4000 years ago?)

best,
Peter Kirby

CX · 07-25-2002, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by crawford:
<strong>Why is it that the biblical scholars cannot get the facts right, when reading their bible. The fact that they use the prophecy in Isiah 13 as the forerunner for jesus is utter rubbish. This
saviour was born +- 735 b.c. He was born as a sign that a certain war would not take place, and indeed, it did not take place, prophecy fulfiled. end of story. In the book of Matthew it says with the birth of jesus that he will be called out of
Egypt, so that the scriptures could be fulfilled.
But it was the nation Israel, in the book of ,Exodus that was called (as Gods son). Revelations makes sense when you change the beast to jesus and you will see that everything has taken place. The crucifiction in Matthew is so
similar to the story of Krishna, wich happened
2000+ years b.c. that you cannot but believe it is the same story. The whole Bible is so full of
contradictions, that if it was evidence in a murder trial you have to declare a miss trial.
These stories and sagas is what kept these people
busy around their campfires at night, similar to us following a soapie on tv, and their way of thinking has no place in a fast cyber society of
today. All you bible punchers out there give me your best shot!</strong>

Which "biblical scholars" give this analysis? Further which prophecy in Isaiah 13 are you referring to. I see nothing that can even conceiveably apply to Jesus. We have a prophecy about Babylon, some apocalyptic about judgement day, and a prophecy about Babylon falling to the Medes. None of these is messianic. Incidentally Is 13:16 is one of my faves what with Yahweh dashing the little ones to pieces, plundering houses and ravishing wives and all. Its better than Hellraiser.

Are you referring to Is 7:14? Do Xians really still use that as a messianic prophecy about Jesus? I thought they were mostly hung up on the suffering servant stuff.

Incidentally, try to be a bit less flippant. You'll get a much more reasonable response. BTW just what the heck is a "bible puncher"?

Peter Kirby · 07-25-2002, 09:54 PM

CX writes: BTW just what the heck is a "bible puncher"?

Hmmm... a boxer who stuffs his punching bag with Gideon's Bibles?

best,
Peter Kirby

Michael Ledo · 07-26-2002, 05:43 PM

You are correct. If saying something is the color Blue would create a Bible contradiction, all the Bible thumpers would all claim it was really the color Red, in spite of evidence otherwise, just to prevent a contradiction. They call the "scholarship" and only "true Christians" and "true science" agree that blue is actually red.

07-24-2002, 01:33 PM	#1
crawford Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: port shepstone south africa Posts: 5	Why cant they read their bible correctly? Why is it that the biblical scholars cannot get the facts right, when reading their bible. The fact that they use the prophecy in Isiah 13 as the forerunner for jesus is utter rubbish. This saviour was born +- 735 b.c. He was born as a sign that a certain war would not take place, and indeed, it did not take place, prophecy fulfiled. end of story. In the book of Matthew it says with the birth of jesus that he will be called out of Egypt, so that the scriptures could be fulfilled. But it was the nation Israel, in the book of ,Exodus that was called (as Gods son). Revelations makes sense when you change the beast to jesus and you will see that everything has taken place. The crucifiction in Matthew is so similar to the story of Krishna, wich happened 2000+ years b.c. that you cannot but believe it is the same story. The whole Bible is so full of contradictions, that if it was evidence in a murder trial you have to declare a miss trial. These stories and sagas is what kept these people busy around their campfires at night, similar to us following a soapie on tv, and their way of thinking has no place in a fast cyber society of today. All you bible punchers out there give me your best shot!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-24-2002, 03:11 PM	#2
GunnerJ Banned Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: a place where i can list whatever location i want Posts: 4,871	This would find a better home in Biblical Criticism and Archeology. A word of advice, though: learn to format paragraphs properly. Moving right along...

07-24-2002, 03:18 PM	#3
FunkyRes Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Antioch, CA Posts: 173	crawford- ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, we _aren't_ the ones with the reading problem?

07-24-2002, 04:54 PM	#4
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	crawford writes: The crucifiction in Matthew is so similar to the story of Krishna, wich happened 2000+ years b.c. that you cannot but believe it is the same story. I am no Bible puncher. But I am not aware of any evidence that dates to the first century CE or earlier that states that Krishna was crucified. Do you have any such evidence - such as, perhaps, in the Bhagavad Gita? (And are you claiming that a Krishna story was in existence as long as 4000 years ago?) best, Peter Kirby

07-25-2002, 09:54 PM	#6
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	CX writes: BTW just what the heck is a "bible puncher"? Hmmm... a boxer who stuffs his punching bag with Gideon's Bibles? best, Peter Kirby

07-26-2002, 05:43 PM	#7
Michael Ledo Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: SC Posts: 49	You are correct. If saying something is the color Blue would create a Bible contradiction, all the Bible thumpers would all claim it was really the color Red, in spite of evidence otherwise, just to prevent a contradiction. They call the "scholarship" and only "true Christians" and "true science" agree that blue is actually red.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.