Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Lobstrosity · 03-13-2003, 10:35 AM

Umm, now do we actually have any evidence that Jesus' mother was a virgin when she had him. Maybe Mary *gasp* lied about being a virgin to help fulfill those very prophesies. Maybe Mary was having an adulterous affair and she was lucky enough to have the most gullible husband on Earth.

Also, am I missing something or is it a bit strange that one of your prophesies says Jesus would be named Immanuel? Wouldn't this be an indication that your prophesy is crap?

Magus55 · 03-13-2003, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gooch's dad
DAMNIT, Magus, didn't you understand? The stories were written to add those details IN!!!

In other words, you can't actually show that Jesus had his side pierced. You can't show he was born in Bethlehem. You can't show anything about those claims, because you have stories that give every appearance of having been written to ADD those details. Got it?

The fact that Matthew has Jesus riding into Jerusalem on TWO donkeys is a smoking gun, that the writer simply didn't understand the supposed prophecy he was shoehorning into his story. The OT passage about a "donkey, and a foal of a donkey" was using a common Hebrew double description of a single event or thing. So the writer of Matthew (whoever that was) had Jesus telling his disciples to get TWO animals, they put their cloaks on BOTH animals, and Jesus got on THEM. Smoking gun. Guilty as charged, the writer was making stuff up.

Ok, so why are there historical accounts from Rome of Jesus' crucifixion? I just told you, Shakespeare couldn't have written the Bible without it being true, you seriously think puny, uneducated fisherman could have?!?!?

Magus55 · 03-13-2003, 10:48 AM

http://www.carm.org/bible/extrabiblical_accounts.htm

Outside Biblical accounts of Jesus, the sun eclipsing, and the crucifiction.

Since there are non biblical accounts of Jesus' crucifixtion, the gospels didn't make it up.

Legends also take many years to establish, yet 20 years after Jesus' death, Christianity had flourished and would soon become the religion of all of Rome. Not even Rome could deny it, and they were quite the skeptics.

The fact that you think a few dumb uneducated fisherman could make all this up is disturbing.

Gooch, If the Gospels were written many years later by roman christians who were never even there, how did they know about so many things that happened at the time? Archaeology didn't exist in 100 AD. So he just made up all the key people, places, and historical events, that match exactly to what archaeologists and historians today found in the area?

Jack the Bodiless · 03-13-2003, 10:49 AM

Not only were the gospel stories written to make Jesus APPEAR to have fulfilled prophecies, but many of the Old Testament quotes since linked with Jesus were NOT messianic propecies at all.

Nagus, this time I suggest you READ the SAB's False Prophecies section. Maybe then you won't make ludicrous assertions like "There is no possible way they could have made all of the Bible up with such historical accuracy and getting every single prophecy from 1000 years earlier correct". THEY DIDN'T.

There is NO PROPHECY that Jesus would be born of a virgin, AND no evidence that he actually WAS.

There is NO PROPHECY that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem, AND no evidence that he actually WAS, AND evidence that he WASN'T.

There is NO EVIDENCE that various Psalms referred to Jesus, AND evidence that they did NOT (they mostly refer to DAVID).

The gospels were NOT written by "ignorant fishermen". They were NOT written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. The ONLY New Testament writings whose authorship is not doubted by historians are those of Paul, who NEVER MET Jesus and was NOT an eyewitness to the events.

There are NO historical accounts from Rome of the crucifixion of a man positively identified as Jesus. Even if there were, this would only indicate that Jesus was a MAN who got crucified.

Jack the Bodiless · 03-13-2003, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Since there are non biblical accounts of Jesus' crucifixtion, the gospels didn't make it up.

There ARE non-Biblical accounts of CHRISTIANS. There are non-Biblical accounts stating that CHRISTIANS believed in the resurrection. There are NO definite non-Biblical accounts of the CRUCIFIXION, and certainly NO non-Biblical accounts of the RESURRECTION.

Quote:

Legends also take many years to establish, yet 20 years after Jesus' death, Christianity had flourished and would soon become the religion of all of Rome. Not even Rome could deny it, and they were quite the skeptics.

How could the Romans possibly be in a position to confirm OR deny it? Secondhand tales of events in a distant land. How could they possibly KNOW if they were true or false?

They couldn't.

Quote:

The fact that you think a few dumb uneducated fisherman could make all this up is disturbing.

Gooch, If the Gospels were written many years later by roman christians who were never even there, how did they know about so many things that happened at the time? Archaeology didn't exist in 100 AD. So he just made up all the key people, places, and historical events, that match exactly to what archaeologists and historians today found in the area?

The fact that you think this is at all convincing is disturbing. Why should the ANONYMOUS authors of the gospels NOT mention people and places well-known at the time???

Magus55 · 03-13-2003, 11:01 AM

Jack, SAB is a very very poor attempt at disproving the Bible, they just pick statements they think are false and slap em on the website. They are clueless when it comes to understanding them. Iv'e shown the error in a few of there "supposed condractions" and false prophecies before.

Kinda funny how extremely famous writers and novelists like Shakespeare, Sophocles, etc. never wrote anything that even comes close to the complexity and accuracy of the Bible, yet some no name roman christians made up the most influencial book in history. Lol.

Yes you're right, its ALL a big conspiracy!

Jack the Bodiless · 03-13-2003, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Kinda funny how extremely famous writers and novelists like Shakespeare, Sophocles, etc. never wrote anything that even comes close to the complexity and accuracy of the Bible, yet some no name roman christians made up the most influencial book in history. Lol.

The Bible is written by many authors, so expecting any ONE author to write a book of the Bible's "complexity" is hardly fair.

But the Bible is NOT accurate. To put it bluntly, Magus, you have been fed a pack of lies.

We are still waiting for you to give us ONE fulfilled Biblical prophecy. Or ONE account of a historical event or fact that could NOT have been known by those living at the time the Bible was written.

If you can't even give us ONE example, then why claim that the Bible is "accurate"?

Because that's what you have been trained to believe.

Sr. Zonules · 03-13-2003, 11:17 AM

Back to the origional question, which I think was kind of thrown out of the window a little.

First of all, I would like to agree with the cosmological agruement that Violent Messiah posted:

Quote:

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

Other way around, why would you think that it's ridiculous to believe in a God that created the universe but find it so easy to believe that the Universe sprang itself into existence?

However, I agree with him in a different kind of way:
It is silly and stupid for BOTH theists AND non-theists to say that something came from nothing. It is that precise element that rational, enlightened people argue with. In some ways, it kind fo makes me mad that some people like to agrue that their "something came from nothing" is better than someone else's "something came from nothing".

Foney-bologna!

Magus55 · 03-13-2003, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Because that's what you have been trained to believe.

Who trained me? I don't have a religious family, and am Jewish so didn't learn about Christianity till my teens.

Jack the Bodiless · 03-13-2003, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Jack, SAB is a very very poor attempt at disproving the Bible, they just pick statements they think are false and slap em on the website. They are clueless when it comes to understanding them. Iv'e shown the error in a few of there "supposed condractions" and false prophecies before.

Then why are you still claiming that Jesus was born of a virgin and born in Bethlehem, when these prophecies do not exist in the Bible at all?

Quite apart from the fallacy of ASSUMING they were fulfilled, of course...

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

03-13-2003, 10:35 AM	#31
Lobstrosity Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: San Diego, California Posts: 719	Umm, now do we actually have any evidence that Jesus' mother was a virgin when she had him. Maybe Mary gasp lied about being a virgin to help fulfill those very prophesies. Maybe Mary was having an adulterous affair and she was lucky enough to have the most gullible husband on Earth. Also, am I missing something or is it a bit strange that one of your prophesies says Jesus would be named Immanuel? Wouldn't this be an indication that your prophesy is crap?

03-13-2003, 10:48 AM	#33
Magus55 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: USA Posts: 7,204	http://www.carm.org/bible/extrabiblical_accounts.htm Outside Biblical accounts of Jesus, the sun eclipsing, and the crucifiction. Since there are non biblical accounts of Jesus' crucifixtion, the gospels didn't make it up. Legends also take many years to establish, yet 20 years after Jesus' death, Christianity had flourished and would soon become the religion of all of Rome. Not even Rome could deny it, and they were quite the skeptics. The fact that you think a few dumb uneducated fisherman could make all this up is disturbing. Gooch, If the Gospels were written many years later by roman christians who were never even there, how did they know about so many things that happened at the time? Archaeology didn't exist in 100 AD. So he just made up all the key people, places, and historical events, that match exactly to what archaeologists and historians today found in the area?

03-13-2003, 10:49 AM	#34
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	Not only were the gospel stories written to make Jesus APPEAR to have fulfilled prophecies, but many of the Old Testament quotes since linked with Jesus were NOT messianic propecies at all. Nagus, this time I suggest you READ the SAB's False Prophecies section. Maybe then you won't make ludicrous assertions like "There is no possible way they could have made all of the Bible up with such historical accuracy and getting every single prophecy from 1000 years earlier correct". THEY DIDN'T. There is NO PROPHECY that Jesus would be born of a virgin, AND no evidence that he actually WAS. There is NO PROPHECY that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem, AND no evidence that he actually WAS, AND evidence that he WASN'T. There is NO EVIDENCE that various Psalms referred to Jesus, AND evidence that they did NOT (they mostly refer to DAVID). The gospels were NOT written by "ignorant fishermen". They were NOT written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. The ONLY New Testament writings whose authorship is not doubted by historians are those of Paul, who NEVER MET Jesus and was NOT an eyewitness to the events. There are NO historical accounts from Rome of the crucifixion of a man positively identified as Jesus. Even if there were, this would only indicate that Jesus was a MAN who got crucified.

03-13-2003, 11:01 AM	#36
Magus55 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: USA Posts: 7,204	Jack, SAB is a very very poor attempt at disproving the Bible, they just pick statements they think are false and slap em on the website. They are clueless when it comes to understanding them. Iv'e shown the error in a few of there "supposed condractions" and false prophecies before. Kinda funny how extremely famous writers and novelists like Shakespeare, Sophocles, etc. never wrote anything that even comes close to the complexity and accuracy of the Bible, yet some no name roman christians made up the most influencial book in history. Lol. Yes you're right, its ALL a big conspiracy!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.