NationStates Jolt Archive

I have heard many people say on this forum many times with regards to religious debate that

"There is no evidence for God's existance"

Which is not true. There is plenty of evidence. You can find such evidence in the Bible (for Christianity, and I am a Christian myself so I am going to be refering to the Christian God when I say God) and many peoples personal experiances. However, I think what people should actually be saying when they say

"There is no evidence for God's existance"

Is something more along the lines of

"God's existance cannot be proven to a level of certainty"

There is plenty of evidence, and please feel free to scrutinise, debate and discuss the worthyness of this evidence, but to say there is no evidence displays a lack of understanding of theological debate.

Why have you moved onto nation number 3?

You're right. In fact there is evidence for the existence of the following gods:
Manoutou
Quetzalcoatl and Huitzilopochtli
Zeus, Hera, Athena and the rest
Vishnu and Brahma
and several others.

I don't know either why people deny the existence of these gods, when clearly there's evidence that all of them exist.

Just because something's written down doesn't mean it's true.
See: Harry Potter.
Edit: Also, any newspaper.

You're right. In fact there is evidence for the existence of the following gods:
Manoutou
Quetzalcoatl and Huitzilopochtli
Zeus, Hera, Athena and the rest
Vishnu and Brahma
and several others.

I don't know either why people deny the existence of these gods, when clearly there's evidence that all of them exist.

Don't forget dragons and dwarves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niebelungenlied).

Just because something's written down doesn't mean it's true.
See: Harry Potter.

I think what he is saying is, because it is written down, it is evidence. It might not have any backing, but its evidence nonetheless. Personally I think he is just arguing semantics here.

I have heard many people say on this forum many times with regards to religious debate that

"There is no evidence for God's existance"

Which is not true. There is plenty of evidence. You can find such evidence in the Bible (for Christianity, and I am a Christian myself so I am going to be refering to the Christian God when I say God) and many peoples personal experiances. However, I think what people should actually be saying when they say

"There is no evidence for God's existance"

Is something more along the lines of

"God's existance cannot be proven to a level of certainty"

There is plenty of evidence, and please feel free to scrutinise, debate and discuss the worthyness of this evidence, but to say there is no evidence displays a lack of understanding of theological debate.

You're correct to point out that people dismiss things like the Bible and personal experience as evidence. Technically, yes, they are evidence. The real question should be "are these things strong evidence."

The Bible is evidence for God as much as the Koran is evidence for Genies. And personal experiences of Jesus are evidence for Jesus as much as Bedouin experiences of Genies.

Generally when people say that there is no evidence, they mean that there is no scientific evidence. Or no empirical evidence. We have equal evidence of other types for all religions and myths - such as texts and personal experiences.

I think what he is saying is, because it is written down, it is evidence. It might not have any backing, but its evidence nonetheless. Personally I think he is just arguing semantics here.

Right, it really is a sematical argument. It technically is evidence, but not evidence that counts for much.

You're correct to point out that people dismiss things like the Bible and personal experience as evidence. Technically, yes, they are evidence. The real question should be "are these things strong evidence."

The Bible is evidence for God as much as the Koran is evidence for Genies. And personal experiences of Jesus are evidence for Jesus as much as Bedouin experiences of Genies.

Generally when people say that there is no evidence, they mean that there is no scientific evidence. Or no empirical evidence. We have equal evidence of other types for all religions and myths - such as texts and personal experiences.

In fairness, the evidence of the type the Bible provides is historical. All history is built on the back of written accounts.

You're right. In fact there is evidence for the existence of the following gods:
Manoutou
Quetzalcoatl and Huitzilopochtli
Zeus, Hera, Athena and the rest
Vishnu and Brahma
and several others.

I don't know either why people deny the existence of these gods, when clearly there's evidence that all of them exist.

Like I said, evidence is not a conclusion unto itself. There is evidence that God exists, what there is not is evidcence that creates a certianity in our minds.

You all have made the mistake in assuming that I am saying

"Because there is evidence, God exists"

What I am doing is correcting people who say there is no evidence, and am opening up for more rational discussion of the evidence there is, rather than having continual denial of the fact that evidence exists at all. That is countor productive for debate.

In fairness, the evidence of the type the Bible provides is historical. All history is built on the back of written accounts.

Actually, this is the fallacy of post hoc, ergo proter hoc. The Bible doesn't provide historical evidence, we have historical evidence that supports some parts of the Bible. Never is the Bible consulted as source for history without other backing. Nor is a single supernatural part of the Bible ever cited as history. Including the existence of God.

Right, it really is a sematical argument. It technically is evidence, but not evidence that counts for much.

Well then you have to look at the evidence and see. I think that the prophetic evidence from the OT and the historical accounts of the NT are amplle starting material.

That's true, but what has been written down can be re written later..History is full of these alarming inconsistencies..And I, for one, am not sure the bible is any exeption..Doubt Jesus would even recognize it as what he was preaching back then..That is to say if those are his teachings at all.

I should also point out that the above post seems to be leading toward a guilt by association fallacy. This would be the claim that because some parts of the Bible are true (i.e. historical facts contained within) that other parts are true or even likely to be true. That simply isn't the case, and would be a fallacious argument were someone to make it.

For example, although we can confirm the existence of a Temple, we can't confirm the existence of God who was worshipped in that Temple.

I have heard many people say on this forum many times with regards to religious debate that

"There is no evidence for God's existance"

Which is not true. There is plenty of evidence. You can find such evidence in the Bible (for Christianity, and I am a Christian myself so I am going to be refering to the Christian God when I say God) and many peoples personal experiances. However, I think what people should actually be saying when they say

"There is no evidence for God's existance"

Is something more along the lines of

"God's existance cannot be proven to a level of certainty"

There is plenty of evidence, and please feel free to scrutinise, debate and discuss the worthyness of this evidence, but to say there is no evidence displays a lack of understanding of theological debate.

well, if you're going by that logic, everything has evidence. except snorpuffels, cause i just made them up. oh wait a minute; snorpuffels exist. there, now there's evidence of the existence of snorpuffels.

I have heard many people say on this forum many times with regards to religious debate that

"There is no evidence for God's existance"

Which is not true. There is plenty of evidence. You can find such evidence in the Bible (for Christianity, and I am a Christian myself so I am going to be refering to the Christian God when I say God) and many peoples personal experiances. However, I think what people should actually be saying when they say

"There is no evidence for God's existance"

Is something more along the lines of

"God's existance cannot be proven to a level of certainty"

There is plenty of evidence, and please feel free to scrutinise, debate and discuss the worthyness of this evidence, but to say there is no evidence displays a lack of understanding of theological debate.

Actually, it is impossible for us to interpret that evidence as leading towards the existence of a God, without first assuming that there is a God.

Actually, this is the fallacy of post hoc, ergo proter hoc. The Bible doesn't provide historical evidence, we have historical evidence that supports some parts of the Bible. Never is the Bible consulted as source for history without other backing. Nor is a single supernatural part of the Bible ever cited as history. Including the existence of God.

Fine, now give me a reason why.

It is no diffrent from any other historical doccument. Remember that it was not written as intended to be a holy text. The OT is written as the Chronicles (historical accounts) of the people of Israel in many cases (it also contains more artisitic areas such as Pslams and Songs of Solomon). The NT is written as accounts of the life of Jesus and of letters between the founders of the early church. None of them were intended to be "holy texts"

Stop Taking My Name In Vain...i Do Exist But Am On Holiday At The Moment So Stop With The Bowing And Praying.....just Chill Out Smoke A Phat One And Talk About Something Important Like How I Invented Boobs And Hot Women...
Ta Ra
God

Well then you have to look at the evidence and see. I think that the prophetic evidence from the OT and the historical accounts of the NT are amplle starting material.

Well, lets see, I'm a religious Jew and I have a degree in religious studies. I have looked at it and seen. And I will be the first to tell you that the Bible provides no substantial evidence for God. Rather, the only legitimate belief is one based on faith alone.

Most "prophetic evidence" is circular. That is, later fulfillments were written in or interpreted to be fulfillments, or the original prophecy is too ambiguous to demonstrate a fulfillment. Any prophecy that could be duplicated can't be said to be a fulfilled prophecy.

For example, Jesus riding a donkey into town is no more a fulfilled prophecy than every Jewish male in history riding a donkey into town. And most prophecies cited by Christians were never prophecy to begin with. When we have world peace, every Jew follows the Law, etc. then we can use prophecy as evidence.

Alma Chapter 30

40 And now what evidence have ye that there is no God, or that Christ cometh not? I say unto you that ye have none, save it be your word only.
41 But, behold, I have all things as a testimony that these things are true; and ye also have all things as a testimony unto you that they are true; and will ye deny them? Believest thou that these things are true? ....
43 And now Korihor said unto Alma: If thou wilt show me a sign, that I may be convinced that there is a God, yea, show unto me that he hath power, and then will I be convinced of the truth of thy words.
44 But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and call things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.
45 And yet do ye go about, leading away the hearts of this people, testifying unto them there is no God? And yet will ye deny against all these awitnesses? And he said: Yea, I will deny, except ye shall show me a sign.

Fine, now give me a reason why.

Because history must be validated with empirical evidence. A claim in a religious text that can't be verified does not fit historical criteria. In addition, objective, naturalistic history did not exist then. Faith and belief was used as an explanation for history, not something actually observed.

It is no diffrent from any other historical doccument. Remember that it was not written as intended to be a holy text. The OT is written as the Chronicles (historical accounts) of the people of Israel in many cases (it also contains more artisitic areas such as Pslams and Songs of Solomon). The NT is written as accounts of the life of Jesus and of letters between the founders of the early church. None of them were intended to be "holy texts"

See above. "Histories" in the sense that we have today did not exist yet. While historical facts were recorded, they were explained by reason of supernatural events. A war is won, then "God did it", etc. The Tanach is divided into three parts, only one of which is considered "history" - the writings, or kethuvim. The Torah and Neviim were not written as histories, but were inteded as holy text.

The Gospels, in similiar fashon, were written strictly as holy text. They were written by anonymous authors, not by first hand witnesses, in the late first century and utilized the style and technique of other pseudopedigraphic writing in other pagan religions.

I think a higher power within the cosmos exists. I just find religious interpretations of god to be bogus.

Actually, it is impossible for us to interpret that evidence as leading towards the existence of a God, without first assuming that there is a God.

I disagree

For example we can look at the prophetic evidence of the OT and see how much it lines up with our evidence of Jesus from the NT and other sources. We could also look at the prophetic evidence from within the OT about future events of that time (IE the predicition of King Cyrus's actions). We could also look at the accuracy of the history surrounding the resurection.

ok use ur head for a bit get all ur stuff from a "the Bible" ok thats a bit one sided i think god wins
now lets take a look at this...
y am i even trying ok
do u belive in
1 aliens
2 starwars
3 stargate
4 final fantasy

if u do...people dont post here its not worth it
if u dont... i will go on

1 brother hood years old protecting a secret and people (from whom disend from christ) have got it wrong all these years

2 people long ago were sceared wat will hapern if they die so they started tell them selves there children and evry body the was life after death and it catched on so on so on

i cant be botherd to rite let me just tell u this...
2 twins in my school started a good groupe our whole school went once twice three times went home laughing

well, if you're going by that logic, everything has evidence. except snorpuffels, cause i just made them up. oh wait a minute; snorpuffels exist. there, now there's evidence of the existence of snorpuffels.

You're right. And I don't mean to sound smug on your behalf, but that reductio ad absurdum has clearly shot a hole in Adriatica's argument. Unless we want to believe that your testimony is evidence for snorpuffels, we can't use the same criteria (testimony) as evidence for other similiar figures.

For example we can look at the prophetic evidence of the OT and see how much it lines up with our evidence of Jesus from the NT and other sources. We could also look at the prophetic evidence from within the OT about future events of that time (IE the predicition of King Cyrus's actions). We could also look at the accuracy of the history surrounding the resurection.

There is no accuracy of the history surrounding the resurrection. You wont be able to provide one peer-reviewed work that advocates the resurrection as history.

In the same respect, you wont find one peer-reviewed work that advocates Biblical prophecy as evidence for history. The only people that claim these things are historical, and make such arguments, are adherents to the religions themselves. Even intelligent scholars in these fields do not attempt to publish such things as facts, and those that do go outside the realm of scholarship to do so and can't get published seriously.

Alma Chapter 30

40 And now what evidence have ye that there is no God, or that Christ cometh not? I say unto you that ye have none, save it be your word only.
41 But, behold, I have all things as a testimony that these things are true; and ye also have all things as a testimony unto you that they are true; and will ye deny them? Believest thou that these things are true? ....
43 And now Korihor said unto Alma: If thou wilt show me a sign, that I may be convinced that there is a God, yea, show unto me that he hath power, and then will I be convinced of the truth of thy words.
44 But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and call things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.
45 And yet do ye go about, leading away the hearts of this people, testifying unto them there is no God? And yet will ye deny against all these awitnesses? And he said: Yea, I will deny, except ye shall show me a sign.


ALL things witness God.

ALL things witness God.

Well damn, its written right there in Alma 30. I'm sure every skeptic on this thread is going to convert now. Way to go.

For example, Jesus riding a donkey into town is no more a fulfilled prophecy than every Jewish male in history riding a donkey into town. And most prophecies cited by Christians were never prophecy to begin with. When we have world peace, every Jew follows the Law, etc. then we can use prophecy as evidence.

That prediction was made in the OT but if you look, Jesus also very specificly tells them about the donkey and its whereabouts. Something that he could not have known.

There is no accuracy of the history surrounding the resurrection. You wont be able to provide one peer-reviewed work that advocates the resurrection as history.

In the same respect, you wont find one peer-reviewed work that advocates Biblical prophecy as evidence for history. The only people that claim these things are historical, and make such arguments, are adherents to the religions themselves. Even intelligent scholars in these fields do not attempt to publish such things as facts, and those that do go outside the realm of scholarship to do so and can't get published seriously.

You only deny the Resurrection because no one had ever done it before Him and you've never seen anyone resurrected. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it's false. Have you ever been to Antarctica? Yet you seem to be pretty sure it's there. Have you been to Pluto, let alone seen it in person? Yet it's there. Stop denying thing just because you don't see them. You've never seen me- yet I exist.

That prediction was made in the OT but if you look, Jesus also very specificly tells them about the donkey and its whereabouts. Something that he could not have known.

Actually, there is no prophecy about the messiah riding a donkey in the Tanach. This is just one of many proof-texts Christians have invented and misinterpreted to support Jesus. And claiming what Jesus said about the donkey is true because the NT claims it is a fallacy called circular reasoning.

Now its interesting you would cite prophecy as an evidence. It would be one thing to cite a prophecy and then be able to point to an actual historical event when it was fulfilled. But you're citing prophecies that aren't even historically viewed as prophecies to fulfill circular events in the New Testament.

That prediction was made in the OT but if you look, Jesus also very specificly tells them about the donkey and its whereabouts. Something that he could not have known.

Unless He was God (which He was... and IS)

Actually, there is no prophecy about the messiah riding a donkey in the Tanach. This is just one of many proof-texts Christians have invented and misinterpreted to support Jesus. And claiming what Jesus said about the donkey is true because the NT claims it is a fallacy called circular reasoning.

Now its interesting you would cite prophecy as an evidence. It would be one thing to cite a prophecy and then be able to point to an actual historical event when it was fulfilled. But you're citing prophecies that aren't even historically viewed as prophecies to fulfill circular events in the New Testament.

You are a Jew who doesn't know his Torah very well. *pat's you on the head*. Now go and play with the little kiddies.

You only deny the Resurrection because no one had ever done it before Him and you've never seen anyone resurrected. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it's false. Have you ever been to Antarctica? Yet you seem to be pretty sure it's there. Have you been to Pluto, let alone seen it in person? Yet it's there. Stop denying thing just because you don't see them. You've never seen me- yet I exist.

No, I deny the resurrection because the story of the resurrection is borrowed from pagan mythology, and this is the scholarly concensus today, and it is no more logical to believe in the borrowed resurrection in the Jesus story than the original stories of Tammuz, Mithras, Dionysus, or Osiris.

I also deny the resurrection because it is historically inaccurate. Crucifixion victims were not buried in tombs but were left out for wild animals. Seals were not put on tombs nor were guards sent to tombs. In fact, more crucifixion victims existed than Roman soldiers in Judea.

I also deny the resurrection because it is inconsistent with the Jewish texts that preceded it, yet it claims to be based upon. There are numerous reasons that I, and modern scholarship, deny the resurrection. But "not seeing it" isn't one of them.

I have heard many people say on this forum many times with regards to religious debate that

"There is no evidence for God's existance"

Which is not true. There is plenty of evidence. You can find such evidence in the Bible (for Christianity, and I am a Christian myself so I am going to be refering to the Christian God when I say God) and many peoples personal experiances. However, I think what people should actually be saying when they say

"There is no evidence for God's existance"

Is something more along the lines of

"God's existance cannot be proven to a level of certainty"

There is plenty of evidence, and please feel free to scrutinise, debate and discuss the worthyness of this evidence, but to say there is no evidence displays a lack of understanding of theological debate.

Semantics. The fact that the Earth seems to be flat from where I'm standing is evidence of a kind for a flat Earth. You can find evidence for any idea or belief, it just isn't usually very good evidence. Because of this when we say "there is no evidence for X" we mean "there is no good evidence for X".

Good grief..Guys I'm thinking these threads are a waste of time..The Pro Christ (aka bible thumpers) people never listen to anything that might make them change their view, while conversely their own arguments are too weak to move most of us..

We are at a impasse, it seems.

Alma Chapter 30

40 And now what evidence have ye that there is no God, or that Christ cometh not? I say unto you that ye have none, save it be your word only.
41 But, behold, I have all things as a testimony that these things are true; and ye also have all things as a testimony unto you that they are true; and will ye deny them? Believest thou that these things are true? ....
43 And now Korihor said unto Alma: If thou wilt show me a sign, that I may be convinced that there is a God, yea, show unto me that he hath power, and then will I be convinced of the truth of thy words.
44 But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and call things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.
45 And yet do ye go about, leading away the hearts of this people, testifying unto them there is no God? And yet will ye deny against all these awitnesses? And he said: Yea, I will deny, except ye shall show me a sign.


Typing in colour isn't convincing and it isn't clever. By a startling coincidence neither are you.

Good grief..Guys I'm thinking these threads are a waste of time..The Pro Christ (aka bible thumpers) people never listen to anything that might make them change their view, while conversely their own arguments are too weak to move most of us..

We are at a impasse, it seems.

Some theists have made very good arguments in the past. Speaking as an atheist I feel it is you who is being close-minded in this instance my friend.

That prediction was made in the OT but if you look, Jesus also very specificly tells them about the donkey and its whereabouts. Something that he could not have known.
The trouble is, you're starting from the assumption that God exists and the Bible is history. For you, therefore, the evidence is plain to see. Others of us have not made that leap of faith, and so we have a bit more trouble accepting that same evidence.

Matthew and Mark probably are based on eyewitness accounts; John I'm not sure about; Luke definitely not. Of the letters, several of St. Paul's are accepted as written by him, the others I'm not sure of. And indeed, if it had not been for Paul, Christianity would have been re-absorbed into Judaism probably within 100 years. If we heard of it at all, it would have been in the footnotes to some scholarly work. Paul made Christianity accessible to non-Jewish people and that allowed it to grow.

just face it Adriatica III the pourcentage of people who are not religous is 52%. that leaves 48% for all the religons of the world and i think IF ANY are rite its the Aztec's they manged to prodict the year month week and day that the spainish would arive of corse it was Quatezula or watever they thougt would arrive (but they did think it was his servants who came and the king/queen of spain at the time was as short temperd as a serpant)

You're right. And I don't mean to sound smug on your behalf, but that reductio ad absurdum has clearly shot a hole in Adriatica's argument. Unless we want to believe that your testimony is evidence for snorpuffels, we can't use the same criteria (testimony) as evidence for other similiar figures.

The problem with that is that we do use testimopny, and in particular, documentary testimony, to provide us with evidence for past events. By rejecting unsupported documentary evidence as evidence, you are denying the existence of Socrates for example. We have nothing more than some texts referring to this character, on which to base our uynderstanding that he really existed.

Now this does not mean that I comnsider the bible to be evidence for God's existence, just that your argument against this does not work.

Why is it that we take Plato's word as proof of the reality of Socrates, but we do not do the same with the old testament and God? Well Plato tells us of a man that is in no way supernatural. Everything he describes falls within the scope of our ordinary, everyday experience. i.e. the documentary evidence is not contradictory to our personal experience. The old testament however, fails this test, in the same way that Lord of the Rings fails this test. The old testament tells us of events and circumstances that are outside of our everyday experience. As such we need something more than a writren description to make these events believable. The new testament does the same. For the most part, the events described in the bible are mundane, ordinary everyday ocurrences. Person A chastises person B. Person C is the father of person D etc. These events we can take as being historical without too much concern. It is the supernatural events that we can not take as being historical simply because they are supernatural. We need more evidence than a description to hold as historical fact that the Red Sea really parted, or thet Jesus walked on water, etc.

Actually, there is no prophecy about the messiah riding a donkey in the Tanach. This is just one of many proof-texts Christians have invented and misinterpreted to support Jesus. And claiming what Jesus said about the donkey is true because the NT claims it is a fallacy called circular reasoning.

I draw your attention to Zechariah 9:9.

Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he <i>is</i> just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Now, it's possible that text has been misinterpreted as relating to the Messiah when it actually meant some other king. I don't know, I've not reached Zechariah yet. But I think the actual actions prophecised/reported therein can't really be misinterpreted. And I don't think it was created by Christians, although again I don't really know for sure.

Some theists have made very good arguments in the past. Speaking as an atheist I feel it is you who is being close-minded in this instance my friend.
Pardon? Please explain to me how I am a close minded person in this case? And how you could read that from a total of two posts, please..And please, do not say you were saying that just to insult. I do not find that amusing, not in the least.

I disagree

For example we can look at the prophetic evidence of the OT and see how much it lines up with our evidence of Jesus from the NT and other sources. We could also look at the prophetic evidence from within the OT about future events of that time (IE the predicition of King Cyrus's actions). We could also look at the accuracy of the history surrounding the resurection.

And then how do we use that as evidence for God?

Pardon? Please explain to me how I am a close minded person in this case? And how you could read that from a total of two posts, please..And please, do not say you were saying that just to insult. I do not find that amusing, not in the least.

Well let's see; in the post I quoted you refered to Christians as 'Bible thumpers', accused them of ignoring all counter arguments, and finally claimed that all of their arguments are weak. That seems pretty close minded to me...

Matthew and Mark probably are based on eyewitness accounts; John I'm not sure about; Luke definitely not. Of the letters, several of St. Paul's are accepted as written by him, the others I'm not sure of. And indeed, if it had not been for Paul, Christianity would have been re-absorbed into Judaism probably within 100 years. If we heard of it at all, it would have been in the footnotes to some scholarly work. Paul made Christianity accessible to non-Jewish people and that allowed it to grow.

Except that current scholarly concensus (or at least the view of the vast majority) is the two-source hypothesis , which states that Matt and Luke are based on Mark. That leaves only Mark open with the possibility of being an eyewitness account. But, it is important to remember that every gospel is pseudoepigraphic. Because they were written anonymously, and the authors name occurs nowhere within the texts, its quite a leap to assume that they were eyewitness accounts.

Plus, many of the gospels are written from a strict third-person. That is, they describe private events where no eyewitness was. Such as the private discourse between Jesus and Pilate. Its like watching a movie or reading a story, its nothing like reading a legitimate first-hand account of events.

The problem with that is that we do use testimopny, and in particular, documentary testimony, to provide us with evidence for past events. By rejecting unsupported documentary evidence as evidence, you are denying the existence of Socrates for example. We have nothing more than some texts referring to this character, on which to base our uynderstanding that he really existed.

Now this does not mean that I comnsider the bible to be evidence for God's existence, just that your argument against this does not work.

Why is it that we take Plato's word as proof of the reality of Socrates, but we do not do the same with the old testament and God? Well Plato tells us of a man that is in no way supernatural. Everything he describes falls within the scope of our ordinary, everyday experience. i.e. the documentary evidence is not contradictory to our personal experience. The old testament however, fails this test, in the same way that Lord of the Rings fails this test. The old testament tells us of events and circumstances that are outside of our everyday experience. As such we need something more than a writren description to make these events believable. The new testament does the same. For the most part, the events described in the bible are mundane, ordinary everyday ocurrences. Person A chastises person B. Person C is the father of person D etc. These events we can take as being historical without too much concern. It is the supernatural events that we can not take as being historical simply because they are supernatural. We need more evidence than a description to hold as historical fact that the Red Sea really parted, or thet Jesus walked on water, etc.

You are missing the point.

Socrates COULD be entirely an invention... it doesn't really matter. If ALL the evidence we have is testimonial, then our collective evidence is as reliable as testimony can be.

If we have a LOT of testimony, from people who are both contemporary to the event, AND independent... then we can place a little more faith in it.

So - Socrates MIGHT be real, just because lots of different people of his time, talked about him. Then again - he might NOT be real... because he might be the ancient equivalent of Batman... acharacter so prevalent in storytelling of the time, that he has an entire existence mapped out, despite his lack of 'reality'.

And - that is the measure we SHOULD employ for EVERY historical figure... no text should EVER be taken at face value as bald truth.

The problem with Jesus, by this reckoning... is that there are no New Testament accounts that are independent... they are ALL written by people connected to the story. They aren't ESPECIALLY contemporary, either.. being written a generation after the 'facts' they are assumed to describe.

And, the first 'independent' evidence, is far from contemporary... Jospehus wasn't likely even born during the alleged lives of any of the disciples.

Except that current scholarly concensus (or at least the view of the vast majority) is the two-source hypothesis , which states that Matt and Luke are based on Mark. That leaves only Mark open with the possibility of being an eyewitness account. But, it is important to remember that every gospel is pseudoepigraphic. Because they were written anonymously, and the authors name occurs nowhere within the texts, its quite a leap to assume that they were eyewitness accounts.

Plus, many of the gospels are written from a strict third-person. That is, they describe private events where no eyewitness was. Such as the private discourse between Jesus and Pilate. Its like watching a movie or reading a story, its nothing like reading a legitimate first-hand account of events.

There seems to be a prevalent thinking that even Mark, is based on an older text, also... the "Q" scripture.

The problem with that is that we do use testimopny, and in particular, documentary testimony, to provide us with evidence for past events. By rejecting unsupported documentary evidence as evidence, you are denying the existence of Socrates for example. We have nothing more than some texts referring to this character, on which to base our uynderstanding that he really existed.

We have archaeological evidence that Socrates existed. We even know what the man looked like, due to various busts of him that have survived. In addition, we have multiple contemporary writings of Socrates, in contrast to someone like Jesus.

I'll just stop there, since the documentary evidence of Socrates is quite different and supported by archaeology, in contrast to the documentary evidence we find of characters like Jesus.

There seems to be a prevalent thinking that even Mark, is based on an older text, also... the "Q" scripture.

Thats actually what the two-source hypothesis states. That the two-sources are Mark and a quelle source, and that Mark is partially based on this quelle source.

You are a Jew who doesn't know his Torah very well. *pat's you on the head*. Now go and play with the little kiddies.

Big words, that... I note... you singularly failed to support.

Run along now... or provide some scholarly evidence that your understanding of Torah is more accurate.

Here's an interesting example of evidence:

They have also another sacred bird called the phoenix which I myself have never seen, except in pictures. Indeed it is a great rarity, even in Egypt, only coming there (according to the accounts of the people of Heliopolis) once in five hundred years, when the old phoenix dies. Its size and appearance, if it is like the pictures, are as follow:- The plumage is partly red, partly golden, while the general make and size are almost exactly that of the eagle. They tell a story of what this bird does, which does not seem to me to be credible: that he comes all the way from Arabia, and brings the parent bird, all plastered over with myrrh, to the temple of the Sun, and there buries the body. In order to bring him, they say, he first forms a ball of myrrh as big as he finds that he can carry; then he hollows out the ball, and puts his parent inside, after which he covers over the opening with fresh myrrh, and the ball is then of exactly the same weight as at first; so he brings it to Egypt, plastered over as I have said, and deposits it in the temple of the Sun. Such is the story they tell of the doings of this bird.

I went once to a certain place in Arabia, almost exactly opposite the city of Buto, to make inquiries concerning the winged serpents. On my arrival I saw the back-bones and ribs of serpents in such numbers as it is impossible to describe: of the ribs there were a multitude of heaps, some great, some small, some middle-sized. The place where the bones lie is at the entrance of a narrow gorge between steep mountains, which there open upon a spacious plain communicating with the great plain of Egypt. The story goes that with the spring the winged snakes come flying from Arabia towards Egypt, but are met in this gorge by the birds called ibises, who forbid their entrance and destroy them all. The Arabians assert, and the Egyptians also admit, that it is on account of the service th

It seems to me that the testimony he is presenting is at least as well supported as the ressurection accounts. We know who wrote the source (Herodotus) and when it was written (440BCE) and it references numerous eye-witness accounts. What's more, what it describes isn't actually impossible and it contains no real supernatural elements.

My question is: does this give us sufficient evidence to believe in the pheonix and winged serpents as they are described?

I was not referring to all Christians there. Was mostly referring to the people that keep looking for a answer in the bible, which, imo, is shaky, historically, at best.

I mean, seriosly..Do we know that the things written down in the bible right now are the same words, albeit translated, as were written down originally? No, we don't. So, I ask you, what are we to belive?

Oh and for the record: My opinion on religion:What a person belives in is a personal matter. It is not for me, or indeed anyone, to choose for him, or her. At most I have the right to tell said person my own view, and he'll decide what he thinks of it, himself.

Sorry if I ruffled feathers back there..Because of rl events recently I'm beign less diplomatic than usual..(dont ask..its a long, sad, story)

We have archaeological evidence that Socrates existed. We even know what the man looked like, due to various busts of him that have survived. In addition, we have multiple contemporary writings of Socrates, in contrast to someone like Jesus.

I'll just stop there, since the documentary evidence of Socrates is quite different and supported by archaeology, in contrast to the documentary evidence we find of characters like Jesus.

The commonly accepted image of Jesus is based on 'archeological' evidence, also.

Unfortunately... it is the evidence of 'Serapis', I believe...

Thats actually what the two-source hypothesis states. That the two-sources are Mark and a quelle source, and that Mark is partially based on this quelle source.

Ah... I was trying to 'elucidate'. :)

I wasn't sure what you meant by the 'two-source' term - so I was reinforcing the derivative nature of even 'Mark' as scripture.

Sorry if I ruffled feathers back there..Because of rl events recently I'm beign less diplomatic than usual..(dont ask..its a long, sad, story)

In that case I too apologise. I was being a little over-reactionary and if you are experiencing personal problems then my criticism was undeserved.

I draw your attention to Zechariah 9:9.

Now, it's possible that text has been misinterpreted as relating to the Messiah when it actually meant some other king. I don't know, I've not reached Zechariah yet. But I think the actual actions prophecised/reported therein can't really be misinterpreted. And I don't think it was created by Christians, although again I don't really know for sure.

Well, Zechariah 9:9 is an interesting example. Many texts that Christians believe to be about the Messiah are essentially fabricated by them. They were never viewed as prophecy and were reinterpreted outside of their historical context after the fact, just to squeeze Jesus in. They did the same with other false messiahs, like Simon bar Kochba and Shabbetai Zevi. Its been quite common.

Zechariah 9 contains a prophecy, but it isn't 9:9. Rather, 9:9 only refers to riding a donkey. If this were a prophecy, any Jewish male who has ever rode a donkey into Jerusalem would have fulfilled it.

Rather, the prophecy begins in 9:10, when it states "the warrior's bow shall be banished, he shall call on nations to surrender." And so forth. It is one of the many messianic prophecies in the Tanach that is about world peace. The fact that Jesus didn't bring world peace, and that no one has, would demonstrate that the prophecy hasn't been fulfilled. Even if we assume that riding the donkey is part of the prophecy, nowhere in the Tanach is a partial prophecy considered fulfilled. Likewise, when Christians claim he'll do all the hard stuff (like world peace) when he gets back, that is a claim that occurs nowhere in the Tanach as well.

In short, Christian "prophecy" for Jesus is fabricated and spurious at best. Its virtually all based on misinterpretation and games, such as reading half of a text, or ignoring full prophecies.

I have heard many people say on this forum many times with regards to religious debate that

"There is no evidence for God's existance"

Which is not true. There is plenty of evidence. You can find such evidence in the Bible (for Christianity, and I am a Christian myself so I am going to be refering to the Christian God when I say God) and many peoples personal experiances. However, I think what people should actually be saying when they say

"There is no evidence for God's existance"

Is something more along the lines of

"God's existance cannot be proven to a level of certainty"

There is plenty of evidence, and please feel free to scrutinise, debate and discuss the worthyness of this evidence, but to say there is no evidence displays a lack of understanding of theological debate.

There is no REAL evidence. There is testimony, which is as flawed as whoever writes it... and, colelctively... there is a great deal of contradiction and confusion.

As 'evidence' goes... it isn't really much good.

No harm done, mate. You had no way of knowing. I'll just bow out of this thread, as I have said what I came to say..Whether or not any of you take any notice of what I said..It's up to you. Good day.

We have archaeological evidence that Socrates existed. We even know what the man looked like, due to various busts of him that have survived. In addition, we have multiple contemporary writings of Socrates, in contrast to someone like Jesus.

I'll just stop there, since the documentary evidence of Socrates is quite different and supported by archaeology, in contrast to the documentary evidence we find of characters like Jesus.
Mmm, I'm not sure about archaeological evidence, unless someone's dug up something very recently. Plato isn't the only person who wrote about Socrates, however, which I think is more to the point. There's Xenophon, a contemporary of Plato and like him a direct student of Socrates. Aristotle, too, who was a student of Plato's. But even better, we have the Clouds and the Birds of Aristophanes, two comedies that satirize Socrates and his philosophical discussions and teachings. Socrates and Aristophanes were contemporaries. There's mention of Socrates in several other plays by other writers, of which we have just scraps.

You are missing the point.

Socrates COULD be entirely an invention... it doesn't really matter. If ALL the evidence we have is testimonial, then our collective evidence is as reliable as testimony can be.

If we have a LOT of testimony, from people who are both contemporary to the event, AND independent... then we can place a little more faith in it.

So - Socrates MIGHT be real, just because lots of different people of his time, talked about him. Then again - he might NOT be real... because he might be the ancient equivalent of Batman... acharacter so prevalent in storytelling of the time, that he has an entire existence mapped out, despite his lack of 'reality'.

And - that is the measure we SHOULD employ for EVERY historical figure... no text should EVER be taken at face value as bald truth.

The problem with Jesus, by this reckoning... is that there are no New Testament accounts that are independent... they are ALL written by people connected to the story. They aren't ESPECIALLY contemporary, either.. being written a generation after the 'facts' they are assumed to describe.

And, the first 'independent' evidence, is far from contemporary... Jospehus wasn't likely even born during the alleged lives of any of the disciples.


I plead ignorance with respect to the contemporary or otherwise nature of the Gospels. - I am not religious and have paid little attention to the details of the Bible in that sense. The point I was making was a more general one, and is not specific to the Bible. It is that unsupported written testimony is only likely to be accepted as evidence of any kind at all if the nature of the events so testified are such that we are likely to believe them to be true to start with.

Yes Socrates could be an invention of Plato, but even if there were no other evidence for his existence, the nature of the accounts of him given by Plato is such that we are prone to believe the accounts to be true given that the author claims them to be true. If Jane Austen had claimed that Pride and Prejudice were based on true events, we would be prone to believe this, and lacking any contrary evidence, we could take her account to be a historical, if embellished, description. (She doesn't, and so we do not, but we do take certain aspects of her writing as historical evidence for social behaviour of the time etc.)

My issue here is with textual evidence in isolation, not with the Bible specifically. If there is other evidence that places the veridacity of the Bible in question, then it is not in isolation and other factors apply.

The commonly accepted image of Jesus is based on 'archeological' evidence, also.

Unfortunately... it is the evidence of 'Serapis', I believe...

Ha, yes. Most of the early artistic depictions of Jesus are based on Greco-Roman art. Serapis occurs in some, Aesclapius is a favorite too. In contrast to the busts of Socrates, some of which were most likely modeled from the living man.

Mmm, I'm not sure about archaeological evidence, unless someone's dug up something very recently. Plato isn't the only person who wrote about Socrates, however, which I think is more to the point. There's Xenophon, a contemporary of Plato and like him a direct student of Socrates. Aristotle, too, who was a student of Plato's. But even better, we have the Clouds and the Birds of Aristophanes, two comedies that satirize Socrates and his philosophical discussions and teachings. Socrates and Aristophanes were contemporaries. There's mention of Socrates in several other plays by other writers, of which we have just scraps.

Right, I think I mentioned that. The nature of the documentation regarding Socrates is quite different from the nature of the documentation regarding someone like Jesus. The fact that the writings aren't anonymous (like the Gospels), and that they are contemporary to Socrates make a world of difference.

Well, Zechariah 9:9 is an interesting example. Many texts that Christians believe to be about the Messiah are essentially fabricated by them. They were never viewed as prophecy and were reinterpreted outside of their historical context after the fact, just to squeeze Jesus in. They did the same with other false messiahs, like Simon bar Kochba and Shabbetai Zevi. Its been quite common.

Zechariah 9 contains a prophecy, but it isn't 9:9. Rather, 9:9 only refers to riding a donkey. If this were a prophecy, any Jewish male who has ever rode a donkey into Jerusalem would have fulfilled it.

Rather, the prophecy begins in 9:10, when it states "the warrior's bow shall be banished, he shall call on nations to surrender." And so forth. It is one of the many messianic prophecies in the Tanach that is about world peace. The fact that Jesus didn't bring world peace, and that no one has, would demonstrate that the prophecy hasn't been fulfilled. Even if we assume that riding the donkey is part of the prophecy, nowhere in the Tanach is a partial prophecy considered fulfilled. Likewise, when Christians claim he'll do all the hard stuff (like world peace) when he gets back, that is a claim that occurs nowhere in the Tanach as well.

In short, Christian "prophecy" for Jesus is fabricated and spurious at best. Its virtually all based on misinterpretation and games, such as reading half of a text, or ignoring full prophecies.

It attempts to shape the 'prophecy' to match the event....

It is surprising how easily prophecy is fulfilled, when you define fulfillment AFTER the fact...

Which is not true. There is plenty of evidence. You can find such evidence in the Bible (for Christianity, and I am a Christian myself so I am going to be refering to the Christian God when I say God) and many peoples personal experiances. However, I think what people should actually be saying when they say


But the thing is, when I try to lift myself by my own boot strings, it just doesn't work.......

I plead ignorance with respect to the contemporary or otherwise nature of the Gospels. - I am not religious and have paid little attention to the details of the Bible in that sense. The point I was making was a more general one, and is not specific to the Bible. It is that unsupported written testimony is only likely to be accepted as evidence of any kind at all if the nature of the events so testified are such that we are likely to believe them to be true to start with.

Yes Socrates could be an invention of Plato, but even if there were no other evidence for his existence, the nature of the accounts of him given by Plato is such that we are prone to believe the accounts to be true given that the author claims them to be true. If Jane Austen had claimed that Pride and Prejudice were based on true events, we would be prone to believe this, and lacking any contrary evidence, we could take her account to be a historical, if embellished, description. (She doesn't, and so we do not, but we do take certain aspects of her writing as historical evidence for social behaviour of the time etc.)

My issue here is with textual evidence in isolation, not with the Bible specifically. If there is other evidence that places the veridacity of the Bible in question, then it is not in isolation and other factors apply.

Well... Pride and Prejudice does deal with real things. Real locations, a real 'time' in history. It sets the context. Even if the story that takes place IN that setting is a flight of fancy, it gains a SENSE of realism from the setting.

Unfortunately... that is the case with the Bible... but, the simple fact that there WAS a Pharaoh (or more...) is taken by some, as validation of the supernatural elements.

Evidence in one detail is assumed to be evidence of the whole... which is, obviously, flawed logic.


But - as I said - even if a history DOES claim to be literal and true (as a matter of interest, have you read the Lemony Snickett books? They have the same 'internal truth' claims that the Bible has...) it should STILL be taken as being entirely as valid as it is corroborated.

And - that's the kick for the New Testament. Apparently, god walked on the earth. Unfortunately for this story... apparently, no one else noticed.

There is no evidence about god.

There is evidence. Then some people make a leap in assuming that "This shows there is a God". There's always other explanations for the phenomenon described.

Using the same logic showed in these evidence, I could tell that rain brings me luck because it was raining the last time I checked a winning lottery ticket.

And don't get me started on using the bible to try to show evidence of the Christian god. It simply doesn't work. If I don't believe in your god, I will find your holy text to be fiction. No matter how many times you quote it. Find some other way to convince me.

And don't get me started on using the bible to try to show evidence of the Christian god. It simply doesn't work. If I don't believe in your god, I will find your holy text to be fiction. No matter how many times you quote it. Find some other way to convince me.

How about Jesus in a tortilla (http://www.jesusoftheweek.com/jesii/358/index.html)?

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy"
-Benjamin Franklin-

You're right. In fact there is evidence for the existence of the following gods:
Manoutou
Quetzalcoatl and Huitzilopochtli
Zeus, Hera, Athena and the rest
Vishnu and Brahma
and several others.

I don't know either why people deny the existence of these gods, when clearly there's evidence that all of them exist.


Lets go the other direction: Look around you, all around you. Look at creation, and the ORDER of it. Measure the proof the world has in the exsistence of a Creator, then produce MORE HARD, FACTUAL data proving that I, you, them, nature, seasons, the animals, all came to a certain ORDER from disorder. I want someone to PROVE to me that there IS NO Living GOD.

How about Jesus in a tortilla (http://www.jesusoftheweek.com/jesii/358/index.html)?
Could be a depiction of any long-haired-bearded individual. Could be a fluke of randomness. Could be a hoax.

Definitively NOT the evidence of "Jesus is the son of god and the Christians are right".

Lets go the other direction: Look around you, all around you. Look at creation, and the ORDER of it. Measure the proof the world has in the exsistence of a Creator, then produce MORE HARD, FACTUAL data proving that I, you, them, nature, seasons, the animals, all came to a certain ORDER from disorder. I want someone to PROVE to me that there IS NO Living GOD.I want you to prove to me you're not my sister. :)

Could be a depiction of any long-haired-bearded individual. Could be a fluke of randomness. Could be a hoax.

Definitively NOT the evidence of "Jesus is the son of god and the Christians are right".

And what's wrong with Jesus liking tortillas?

Could be a depiction of any long-haired-bearded individual. Could be a fluke of randomness. Could be a hoax.

Definitively NOT the evidence of "Jesus is the son of god and the Christians are right".

OMG no, its Jesus in a tortilla! Repent sinner!

On a serious note, what you just said and what Grave said earlier reminded me of something. In the earliest depictions of Jesus have him with short hair, based off of previous pagan deities like Aesculapius. A young man with short hair and the traditional Greco-Roman figure.

During the Italian renaissance, many pictures of Jesus (and many of our common perceptions today) were based off of Cesare Borgia. Thus we get the white, long-haired Jesus. Like this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesare_Borgia#Popular_culture) on wikipedia.

And if we look at pictures of Jesus in Ethiopia, that are as early as the 5th century CE, we get a black Jesus looking like this (http://www.arcworld.org/databases/Jesus.jpg) and this (http://www.stnersess.edu/images/uploads/ethiopiared.jpg).

I want you to prove to me you're not my sister. :)

As you have one sister, and I am that sister, and he is not my puppet - He is not your sister. (Proved on the basis of lots of false claims and assumptions.) :p

If Jesus is real, Santa is real.

If Jesus is real, Santa is real.
Actually, that does follow. Think about it.

If Jesus is real, Santa is real.
False. Jesus is real. In fact, it's one of the most common name in latin america.

Now a Jesus who lived around 0 A.D., who could perofrm miracles and is the son of god, on the other hand...

I have heard many people say on this forum many times with regards to religious debate that

"There is no evidence for God's existance"

Which is not true.
No, it's quite true. There is no evidence at all for god--any god.

Look, if I say that there is a magic elf who lives in my house, and the evidence is that it rains because the magic elf makes it rain, does the fact that it rains constitute evidence of the magic elf?

NO!

Similarly, just because your wholly babble or some other silly book says there is a god DOES NOT MAKE IT EVIDENCE. Nor does "personal experience" for evidence make because you are presuming the thing exists which you must demonstrate!

When someone says "there is evidence for god" they are either being dishonest or they are duped. Which are you?

False. Jesus is real. In fact, it's one of the most common name in latin america.

Now a Jesus who lived around 0 A.D., who could perofrm miracles and is the son of god, on the other hand...

I believe Jesus is real. I also believe Santa is real. Either they're the same person, or Santa works for Jesus.

Laugh all you want- I BELIEVE!!!

There is no evidence about god.

There is evidence. Then some people make a leap in assuming that "This shows there is a God". There's always other explanations for the phenomenon described.

Using the same logic showed in these evidence, I could tell that rain brings me luck because it was raining the last time I checked a winning lottery ticket.

And don't get me started on using the bible to try to show evidence of the Christian god. It simply doesn't work. If I don't believe in your god, I will find your holy text to be fiction. No matter how many times you quote it. Find some other way to convince me.


Go Here...
http://www.wayofthemaster.com/
Listen to the Intro, then go through all three claims. If you do all three, it will provide you with a lot of "food for thought", so to speak. If you don't, then that shows you refuse to take into account all the information... and how will you learn anything like that?

and though you don't believe in Him, Jesus believes in you. ;)

Go Here...
http://www.wayofthemaster.com/
Ray, Todd, and Kirk--like most apologists--have just one line: believe or burn. They won't admit as much, but that's all they have.

Ray and Todd have been on The Infidelguy's show, and one of my friends has been on the WotM show. If they are the best that apologists have, then they have much to apologize for.

He implied that he was arguing sematics to cover his ass basically. Anyway, there is no "backing evidence" that supports God. That is on the basic foundation of almost every religion... that you believe in what you cannot prove to be true. As for the Bible, you cannot say that the Bible is "backing evidence" unless you can prove that the Bible is infalliable. In of it's self, the Bible in it's genearl sence has to be falliable because there are so many different variations of it, who knows how mush has been changed around and/or lost in translation in 2000 years. That is of course, assuming that the Bible wasn't bull in the first place, which it very well could have been. I hate when people try to argue the Bible as being proof of God's existance, when the Bible was said to be written by those that followed Christ who claimed he was God, but how do they know if he was really God or not, or how do we know that any of that really ever happened, and that it was not all just some elaborate fairy tale that got blown way out of preportion? We don't. I am fairly sure that Jesus existed... but as a man, and nothing more. A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. It says in the Bible it's self, don't build a castle on a shelf of sand (or something to that effect), it means that it doesn't matter how grand something is, if one part of it fails, the central part, the roots, then the rest has to fall and is rendered irrelivant. It holds true for the Bible as well. If you cannot prove that God wanted the Bible written, and it was written correctly, and that it is EXACTLY the same as it is today, then it's nothing more than a book. Cool war stories in it, but none the less, still a book.

The Bible isn't evidence of God.
Evoulotion is.

I have heard many people say on this forum many times with regards to religious debate that

"There is no evidence for God's existance"

Which is not true. There is plenty of evidence. You can find such evidence in the Bible (for Christianity, and I am a Christian myself so I am going to be refering to the Christian God when I say God) and many peoples personal experiances. However, I think what people should actually be saying when they say

"There is no evidence for God's existance"

Is something more along the lines of

"God's existance cannot be proven to a level of certainty"

There is plenty of evidence, and please feel free to scrutinise, debate and discuss the worthyness of this evidence, but to say there is no evidence displays a lack of understanding of theological debate.

Well said :) Well said indeed.

Go Here...
http://www.wayofthemaster.com/
Listen to the Intro, then go through all three claims. If you do all three, it will provide you with a lot of "food for thought", so to speak. If you don't, then that shows you refuse to take into account all the information... and how will you learn anything like that?

and though you don't believe in Him, Jesus believes in you. ;)
Been there, done that, didn't bother to order the t-shirt.

They have failed to show me that a god exist, let alone their version of a divine being.

The Bible isn't evidence of God.
Evoulotion is.
How so?

I disagree

For example we can look at the prophetic evidence of the OT and see how much it lines up with our evidence of Jesus from the NT and other sources. We could also look at the prophetic evidence from within the OT about future events of that time (IE the predicition of King Cyrus's actions). We could also look at the accuracy of the history surrounding the resurection.

the accuracy the history surrounding the resurection??

In all fairness..how do you know the Bible says EXACTLY what happened?? Were you there? No! So how do you know? You don't!

There is plenty of evidence, and please feel free to scrutinise, debate and discuss the worthyness of this evidence, but to say there is no evidence displays a lack of understanding of theological debate.
Right up there with "jumbo olives" and "military intelligence" :rolleyes:

Look, if I say that there is a magic elf who lives in my house, and the evidence is that it rains because the magic elf makes it rain, does the fact that it rains constitute evidence of the magic elf?

Similarly, just because your wholly babble or some other silly book says there is a god DOES NOT MAKE IT EVIDENCE. Nor does "personal experience" for evidence make because you are presuming the thing exists which you must demonstrate!

When someone says "there is evidence for god" they are either being dishonest or they are duped. Which are you?

Not simmilarly at all. Prophetic evidence completely fails to fit in your idea. For instance, the prediction by Isaiah of King Cyrus returning the Jews to their land. This happened a good number of centuries later. If you could predict with accuracy a specific mass wave of immigration allowed by a specific dictator in the 2400's, I think that would qualifiy as miraculous evidence if it were to come true.

Then there is the accounts of the life of Jesus. I would like please an explaination from you of how he could do the things he did without resorting to the old "They are lies/wrong" line because I can show you that they are contemporary accounts of Jesus that survived due to the fact that they were promalgated to other people who saw Jesus and when they heard it and his message they believed it because they had seen him

the accuracy the history surrounding the resurection??

In all fairness..how do you know the Bible says EXACTLY what happened?? Were you there? No! So how do you know? You don't!

Now you make another mistake

You presume that the Bible somehow requires more skepticicism than other historical documents

The Gospels are accounts. All history is based upon accounts. So no I wasnt there. But I also wasnt there when the French revolution happened but I know it happened because of the historical accounts we have.

why are we debating this? it all BS thats been done time and time again, no ones changing anyones opinion.. its pointless:headbang:

Now you make another mistake

You presume that the Bible somehow requires more skepticicism than other historical documents

The Gospels are accounts. All history is based upon accounts. So no I wasnt there. But I also wasnt there when the French revolution happened but I know it happened because of the historical accounts we have.
But, when considering historical documentary evidence, you have to consider the motivation of the author and compiler/publisher. The Bible was written, compiled and published by those wishing to boost Christianity, so a hefty degree of skeptism is indeed in order when considering it as evidence.

But, when considering historical documentary evidence, you have to consider the motivation of the author and compiler/publisher. The Bible was written, compiled and published by those wishing to boost Christianity, so a hefty degree of skeptism is indeed in order when considering it as evidence.

Now you make another mistake

The Bible was not written by those who wished to give a "Boost" as it were to Chrisitianity. While it is true that the letters by Paul and the others in the NT were encouragements, the Gospels were written to tell people about Jesus.

You would then say "Yes of course, to tell people about Jesus and to get more people to listen they exagerated" but then you have to ask yourself "What motive do they have for that?". After all, almost all the disciples who died were killed because of what they believed. Now I know what your thinking but the diffrence between those who die for what they believe now and the disciples is that the disciples had actually seen Jesus. Do you think they would die over an exagerated series of accounts they wrote, from writing which they had nothing to gain?

Not simmilarly at all. Prophetic evidence completely fails to fit in your idea. For instance, the prediction by Isaiah of King Cyrus returning the Jews to their land. This happened a good number of centuries later. If you could predict with accuracy a specific mass wave of immigration allowed by a specific dictator in the 2400's, I think that would qualifiy as miraculous evidence if it were to come true.

Someday, the US will get their comeuppance!
There! When the US finally collapse, you can all quote me as a prophet.

The same applies to your examples.



Then there is the accounts of the life of Jesus. I would like please an explaination from you of how he could do the things he did without resorting to the old "They are lies/wrong" line because I can show you that they are contemporary accounts of Jesus that survived due to the fact that they were promalgated to other people who saw Jesus and when they heard it and his message they believed it because they had seen him
Then show them. A link will do nicely.

But, when considering historical documentary evidence, you have to consider the motivation of the author and compiler/publisher. The Bible was written, compiled and published by those wishing to boost Christianity, so a hefty degree of skeptism is indeed in order when considering it as evidence.

Now you make another mistake

The Bible was not written by those who wished to give a "Boost" as it were to Chrisitianity. While it is true that the letters by Paul and the others in the NT were encouragements, the Gospels were written to tell people about Jesus.

You would then say "Yes of course, to tell people about Jesus and to get more people to listen they exagerated" but then you have to ask yourself "What motive do they have for that?". After all, almost all the disciples who died were killed because of what they believed. Now I know what your thinking but the diffrence between those who die for what they believe now and the disciples is that the disciples had actually seen Jesus. Do you think they would die over an exagerated series of accounts they wrote, from writing which they had nothing to gain?

I love Biblical Prophacy. I just bought a book about it.

Someday, the US will get their comeuppance!
There! When the US finally collapse, you can all quote me as a prophet.

The same applies to your examples.

Fine, now name the presidnet under which it will happen. Bear in mind the event you are predicting must happen several centuries in advance

No it is not at all like my examples. My example was of Isiah's prophecy regarding King Cyrus and his returning Israel to the Jews. King Cyrus didnt exist untill 300-400 years after Isaiah died.

Also predict the precise number of years to when it will happen and who will bring it about. After all, Daniel sucsessfully predicted the number of years, months and days to Christ's birth from when he was around.

Kindly refrain from pointless childish points. If you cannot make a valid comparison or do not know of the example I give then just say so.


Then show them. A link will do nicely.

Gladly

http://www.carm.org/questions/written_after.htm

There are several other linked articles from that.

I also suggest you look on Amazon for "Who moved the stone"

Now you make another mistake

You presume that the Bible somehow requires more skepticicism than other historical documents

The Gospels are accounts. All history is based upon accounts. So no I wasnt there. But I also wasnt there when the French revolution happened but I know it happened because of the historical accounts we have.

If you wanted to know facts about the history of communism in Russia, would you rely on accounts of Lenin, Stalin, Cruschov and Brezhnev alone? Or would you read them more critically than you would read an account by, say, a Scandinavian author?

If you wanted to know facts about the history of communism in Russia, would you rely on accounts of Lenin, Stalin, Cruschov and Brezhnev alone? Or would you read them more critically than you would read an account by, say, a Scandinavian author?

Indeed, hence the many extrabiblical sources we have

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

Now you make another mistake

You presume that the Bible somehow requires more skepticicism than other historical documents

The Gospels are accounts. All history is based upon accounts. So no I wasnt there. But I also wasnt there when the French revolution happened but I know it happened because of the historical accounts we have.

Actually, Biblical exegesis does require a different approach than the exegesis of historical texts. The reason is because we don't view Biblical texts as histories, at best they are grouped into the classification of lives
writings. Objective, naturalistic histories really did not exist yet, and that historical fact must be factored into context when examining Biblical texts.

Your analogy to the French revolution is a fallacious one, because by that time in history natuarlism and objective histories had become the standard. You'd be better off with an analogy to Tacitus, who recorded as "history" all sorts of supernatural pagan events, just like the Bible records of supernatural events. We take both with equal skepticism.

Fine, now name the presidnet under which it will happen. Bear in mind the event you are predicting must happen several centuries in advance

No it is not at all like my examples. My example was of Isiah's prophecy regarding King Cyrus and his returning Israel to the Jews. King Cyrus didnt exist untill 300-400 years after Isaiah died.

Also predict the precise number of years to when it will happen and who will bring it about. After all, Daniel sucsessfully predicted the number of years, months and days to Christ's birth from when he was around.

Kindly refrain from pointless childish points. If you cannot make a valid comparison or do not know of the example I give then just say so.
Maybe he made fifty of those prediction and this one happened to be right. Also, a Jew saying the Jew will get back to their homeland is hardly surprising.

Now consider all the false prophet who made all kinds of allegations. It's no surprising that one of those people got it right. It's the "thousand monkeys" effect.

And even if that were true and that Isiah did indeed predict correctly the future; the explanation as to why are as varied as the races of the world as thy how that could happen.



Gladly

http://www.carm.org/questions/written_after.htm

There are several other linked articles from that.

I also suggest you look on Amazon for "Who moved the stone"
Thank you. Will look into this.

EDIT: Upon further review, I find this link wanting. The author presupose some conjecture and think he knows how the writers of the time would have acted. He bases his whole argument on the bible and nothing else. He tries to explain how the bible could have been written before 100 AD and yet his main argument is "well the author would have written about that." Not good enough a proof for me. Sorry.

That leaves your book. Next time I go to a library or Barnes & Nobles, I'll look into it.

The Bible was not written by those who wished to give a "Boost" as it were to Chrisitianity. While it is true that the letters by Paul and the others in the NT were encouragements, the Gospels were written to tell people about Jesus.

You would then say "Yes of course, to tell people about Jesus and to get more people to listen they exagerated" but then you have to ask yourself "What motive do they have for that?". After all, almost all the disciples who died were killed because of what they believed. Now I know what your thinking but the diffrence between those who die for what they believe now and the disciples is that the disciples had actually seen Jesus. Do you think they would die over an exagerated series of accounts they wrote, from writing which they had nothing to gain?

The agenda of the Gospel authors is a topic that is acknowledged in every serious discussion regarding Gospel authorship. They are not regarded as first-hand accounts by modern scholarship. They are not regarded as accounts at all, testimony, or histories by modern scholarship. Its true that the Gospels were written to tell people about Jesus, which leads into the next question - why were they written to tell people about Jesus? Because they wanted to gain converts. Simple as that. Thus, the agenda that must be taken into account is that they are attempting to tell the Jesus story from a pro-Christian point of view in an attempt to win people into this new religion.

The Gospels are pseudoepigraphic. They were not written by apostles. The names attributed to them were a result of Church tradition. They occur nowhere in the texts themselves. They were written in select Christian communities, and the benefits of writing pseudoepigraphicia in such communities was to enlarge them. Christian persecution was relatively minor compared to other groups, such as that of the Jews, and this whole "but they were persecuted" argument is just one used by apologists to play down the fact that they had a lot to gain from spreading their religion. Such as power, influence, and money.

Maybe he made fifty of those prediction and this one happened to be right. Also, a Jew saying the Jew will get back to their homeland is hardly surprising.

Isiah made alot of predictions and so far they have all come true with some still yet to occur.

Isiah made alot of predictions and so far they have all come true with some still yet to occur.
oh? Is there a recorded version of all the prediction he made or did people just remember those who were successfull? Did he write some vague reference? If so, "any male riding a donkey into a town would have fulfilled the prophecy" like Tropical Sand likes to say.

Isiah made alot of predictions and so far they have all come true with some still yet to occur.

And are we talking about real prophecies in Isaiah, or pseudo-prophecies? Because often people interpret non-prophetic verses to be prophecy. I mean, we can't have a fulfilled prophecy if it isn't actually a prophecy to begin with.

oh? Is there a recorded version of all the prediction he made or did people just remember those who were successfull? Did he write some vague reference? If so, "any male riding a donkey into a town would have fulfilled the prophecy" like Tropical Sand likes to say.

They are all written in the Book of Isiah. Even Ezekial made prophecies especially in chapters 38 and 39 of the Book of Ezekial. In fact about 30% of the Bible deals with prophecy.

And are we talking about real prophecies in Isaiah, or pseudo-prophecies? Because often people interpret non-prophetic verses to be prophecy. I mean, we can't have a fulfilled prophecy if it isn't actually a prophecy to begin with.

About 30% of the Bible is prophecy. So far, they have come true. Others have not yet occured but they will occur in due time.

About 30% of the Bible is prophecy. So far, they have come true. Others have not yet occured but they will occur in due time.

I don't think 30% of it is. As an article of faith, I believe that prophecies have come true as well. But I usually don't agree on what those prophecies are, and it would seem that the major ones that could actually be used for evidence havn't.

Just for discussion, can you throw a prophecy out that has come true?

I don't think 30% of it is. As an article of faith, I believe that prophecies have come true as well. But I usually don't agree on what those prophecies are, and it would seem that the major ones that could actually be used for evidence havn't.

Just for discussion, can you throw a prophecy out that has come true?

The Birth of the Messiah.

The Birth of the Messiah.

There is no such prophecy in Isaiah. That would be one of those pseudo-prophecies I was talking about. Christians interpret a verse that refers to something that would occur during the time of king Ahab to be about Jesus. The timeline is way, way off.

Now you make another mistake
Another? I'll have you know it was my first! (Ever.)

The Bible was not written by those who wished to give a "Boost" as it were to Chrisitianity. While it is true that the letters by Paul and the others in the NT were encouragements, the Gospels were written to tell people about Jesus.
I sincerely doubt that the Gospels were written by people who did not want to boost Christianity. I would also point out that there were also a larger number of contemporary gospels written by others who wanted to boost their version of Christianity, but were edited out of the authorised Bible.

And I am absolutely certain that the editors and promulgators of the authorised version of the Bible, ie Iranaeus et al, were boosters for Christianity.

You would then say "Yes of course, to tell people about Jesus and to get more people to listen they exagerated"
No I wouldn't.

Well, I might, but I would also add they could have been honestly mistaken.

but then you have to ask yourself "What motive do they have for that?".
Not necessarily, given my addendum above, and my belief in people's capacity for self-delusion.

After all, almost all the disciples who died were killed because of what they believed.
What, the majority of Christians have been killed for their belief? *Runs off to warn his family to get to the catacombs.*

Oh, you mean the disciples that wrote the Bible. OK, maybe. Out of curiosity, do you have proof of that?

Now I know what your thinking
No you don't. I was wondering whether I should reply now or after lunch.

but the diffrence between those who die for what they believe now and the disciples is that the disciples had actually seen Jesus.
Unlike, probably, those disciples who wrote the Gospels. Again, others, who were as likely to have seen Jesus, wote different accounts, and were as likely to die for their beliefs. And their followers were even more likely to die, once Roman Catholicism became established.

Do you think they would die over an exagerated series of accounts they wrote, from writing which they had nothing to gain?
It's happened before and since. The testimony of matyrs is enormously powerful, but unreliable evidence imho.

There is no such prophecy in Isaiah. That would be one of those pseudo-prophecies I was talking about. Christians interpret a verse that refers to something that would occur during the time of king Ahab to be about Jesus. The timeline is way, way off.

Goes to show you need to study more for Isiah did say that a messiah will be coming. As did Daniel and other old testiment prophets.

Goes to show you need to study more for Isiah did say that a messiah will be coming. As did Daniel and other old testiment prophets.

Christians say this a lot when it gets pointed out to them. Lets go over the verse you're talking about, that you claim is a prophecy of the birth of Jesus. Oh wait, I've already written an article about it on my website, I'll just post that up here for you:

Isaiah 7 - Immanuel (http://shemaantimissionary.tripod.com/id7.html)

Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, "Ask the LORD your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights." But Ahaz said, "I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the test." Then Isaiah said, "Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. But 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. 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." (Isaiah 7:10-17)

Christians often claim that Isaiah 7:14 (listed above, in context) is a prophecy about Jesus' virgin birth. Please read the excerpt above very carefully. Context is critical with this proof-text, as it alone disproves the notion that this is a prophecy about Jesus, as we shall see below.

First, this was an event that would happen during the life of Ahaz; it was to be a sign for Ahaz. This was to happen long before Jesus may have existed.

Second, Jesus was never named Immanuel. Christians developed this doctrine via circular reasoning: “We believe that Jesus is God, therefore Jesus is Immanuel because Immanuel means “God with us.”” Aside from the fallacy, it is important to note that Hebrew names don't work like this - many Hebrew names contain "God" somewhere in them, but don't mean that the person named is divine.

Third, this states that the child would eat curds and honey when he knows to reject the wrong and choose the right. This doesn’t match the idea of a sinless Jesus, who supposedly always knew right form wrong, nor is there any account of a diet of curds and honey in the gospels.

Finally, it makes reference to the two kings that Ahaz dreads being laid to waste before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. That’s conclusive proof that this event happened during the reign of Ahaz, and not some future event.

One more thing about the virign birth - the word "virgin" never occurs here. In Hebrew, we have almah, which simply means a young woman. There is a specific word for virgin in Hebrew that isn’t used here, bethulah. Considering that properly translated it says young woman rather than virgin, there is no reason to assume that it corresponds to any virgin birth myth.

So you see, a close examination of the verse, in context, demonstrates that it was a prophecy for Ahaz, that would occur during the time of Ahaz, not about the Messiah or a distant future event. The timeframe outlined simply doesn't allow it. Christians, however, do not read it in context. They take one verse, that of a virgin birth (which doesn't actually say virgin, in Hebrew), and then ignore the rest. If we do that, we can make the Bible a "prophecy" about anything. Even a chicken:

Chassidic Rabbi Makes a Discovery (http://www.messiahpage.com/htmldocs/chassidicrooster.html)

My name is Moshe and I am a Chassidic Jew who has, from my youth, learned the words of our Holy Prophets, and has been puzzled by their meaning.
Then, on the day before Yom Kippur, I contemplated the solemnity of the day and was made aware of the amazing meaning of G-d's words. I recognized the fulfillment of 42 Messianic prophecies of the Tenach, and they changed my life forever.

1. Early in the morning I went to get my rooster to fulfill the ancient custom. There in the light I looked into his eyes and saw fulfilled the words, 'I am the rooster* who has seen affliction.' (Lam. 3:1)

2. I took him and swung him around my head as the verse says, 'And he circled his head**.' (Lam 3:5)

3. I moved my hands as I swirled him, as it says, 'Only against me did he turn his hand.' (Lam 3:3)

4. With this he leaped from my hand and started to run.

As it says, 'They have run away without seeing good.' (Job 9:25)

5. I cried a short pray to HaShem as it says, 'My words I say out of the bitterness of my soul.' (Job 10:1)

6. He ran from me, fulfilling the verse, 'To me they showed their back and not their face.' (Jer. 32:33)

7/8. I borrowed a cane from a man near me so as to catch him with the rounded edge, as the verse says, 'And Moshe took the stick.' (Ex. 4:20, Num 20:8)

9/10. I tried to catch him with the hook, but only the blows of the cane hit his back as it says, 'Afflicted by the rod of his anger.' (Lam. 3:1 and it also says, 'I struck you with the blows of an enemy.' (Jer. 30:12)

11. He turned to me and I got him right on the cheek fulfilling the verse, 'I have offered my cheek to the one who strikes me.' (Lam. 3:30)

12. He ran from me into a dark corner and I followed after him, as the verse says, 'He has led me and driven me into the darkness and not light.'
(Lam. 3:2)

13. I had him there in the corner as it says; 'All her pursuers overtook her in the small place.' (Lam. 1:3)

14. He stood there silent, as he had been to this time in fulfillment of the words of the prophet, 'He was persecuted and afflicted, be he did not open his mouth.' (Is. 53:7)

15. In that corner there was just nowhere for him to hide from me as the verse says, 'Can a person hide in a concealed place, and I should not see him?' (Jer. 23:25)

16. He was now trapped as the verse says, 'He has walled me in so I cannot escape.' (Lam. 3:7)

17. In his eyes I could see him praying silently to HaShem, 'My G-d my G-d why have you forsaken me?' (Psalm 22:1)

18. Clearly it was fulfilled for him, 'The mighty ones of Bashan encircle me.' (Psalm 22:13)

19. I grabbed him and he started to call out to HaShem.
As the verse says, 'My G-d, I call to you by day and you do not answer and by night and there is no respite.' (Psalm 22:3)

20. But there was no answer as it says, 'Though I would scream out and plead he shut out my prayer.' (Lam. 3:8)

21. It was clearly the end. I grabbed him and took my place in the line waiting to give my rooster to the shochet (ritual slaughterer.) He was silent, 'Like a sheep being led to the slaughter or a ewe to her sharers he did not open his mouth.' (Is. 53:7)

22. The shochet took him by the neck as it says; 'He grasped me by the neck.' (Job 16:12)

23. With that he screamed out, 'Be not far from me because distress is near and there is none to help me.' (Psalm 22:12)

24. He also said, 'Save my soul from the sword.' (Psalm 22:21)

25. He slaughtered him fulfilling 'He was removed from the living land.' (Is. 53:8)

26. He let the blood fall on the floor, as it says, 'I am poured out like water.' (Psalm 22:15)

27. I took the dead chicken and gazed at it as the prophet says, 'They have looked upon me whom they have pierced.' (Zech 12:10)

28/29. I took it to be made kosher. We separated it into pieces snapping it's bones as the verses say, 'All my bones became disjointed.' (Psalm 22:15) 'He has broken my bones.' (Lam 3:4)

30. Then I took him home to cook. My wife removed the skin as it says, 'He has worn away my flesh and skin.' (Lam. 3:4)

31. She placed him in a pot with water, as it says, 'For the waters have reached unto my soul.' (Psalm 69:2)

32. She added many spices as it says, 'And she gave ...many spices.' (1 Kings 10:10)

33. She covered up the pot so it could cook as it says; 'He has placed me in darkness.' (Lam 3:6)

4. The smell of it filled the room as it says, 'That the spices may flow out.' (Song 4:16)

35. After that it was served on the table and we gazed upon it as the verse says, 'I count my bones and they gaze and look upon me.' (Psalm 22:18)

36. He was divided among the members of my family, as it says, 'Therefore I will divide him among the many.' (Is. 53:12)

37/38. We rejoiced and sang as we ate him, as it says, 'I have become a thing of laughter for my people, they sing all day long.' (Lam. 3:14) 'In him our hearts were joyful.' (Psalm 33:21)

39/40/41. After which we were full and praised G-d as it says, 'You shall eat and be satisfied and praise HaShem your G-d.' (Deut. 6:11,8:10,11:15).
42. We truly saw the goodness of G-d as it say, 'You should taste and see that HaShem is good.' (Psalm 34:9)

There were many more messianic prophecies that I could have added that applied to my messianic rooster. Many more he will fulfill when he comes back.

In all seriousness the above example is no different then the lists claiming 200/300/400 prophecies fulfilled by Jesus. They claim the odds against a single person fulfilling them are astronomical. Or of their claims that passages like Psalms 22, or Isaiah 53 are about their messiah/god. Consider this well when you see or hear the claims made by missionaries or just simple Christians who you may meet. If not there may be a prophecy that does really apply: 'They are a people bereft of council and they don't have understanding.'

For more information contact Moshe Shulman

* In Hebrew the word 'gever' means both 'man' and 'rooster'berew
** In Hebrew the word is resh aleph shin, which can be read as 'rosh' head'

(c) Moshe Shulman, 2000

I guess you forgot about Isiah 9.

I guess you forgot about Isiah 9.

Not at all. I just assumed you were talking about Isaiah 7, since its the most common one I encounter (virgin birth and all). I've written an article for Isaiah 9 on my website, as well.

Not Jesus, but Hezekiah (http://shemaantimissionary.tripod.com/id5.html)

“For a child has been born to us, a son has been given us. And authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named “The Mighty God is planning grace; The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler” – In token of abundant authority and of peace without limit upon David’s throne and kingdom, that it may be firmly established in justice and in equity now and evermore. The zeal of the Lord of Hosts shall bring this to pass.” (JPS)

Christians cite Isaiah 9:5-6 (above) as being a Messianic text and a prophecy about Jesus. With a cursory reading, Jesus may even seem to fit. However, when it is taken it its linguistic, historical, and cultural context it becomes another story entirely.

One problem occurs in the translation of Christian Bibles that render this verse differently, “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.” (KJV)

Note how the phrase yats gibbor El is translated to “The Mighty God is planning grace” in the JPS while the KJV translates it to, “Counsellor, the Mighty God.” There are no commas in Hebrew or any breaks in this phrase to designate such a thing, so why does the KJV translate it as such? To make this appear to be a string of Godly and Messianic titles.

Note how the same thing is done to the phrase marbeh misrah shalom qets kiche David mamlakh. The JPS translates this to “In token of abundant authority and peace without limit upon David’s throne and kingdom” while the KJV translates this to, “Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom.” The insertion of nonexistent commas to break up the sentence in the KJV renders this in a way that it attempts to distinguish between “the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end” and “upon the throne of David.” The JPS leaves it in tact, making the statement that the increase of government and peace shall be no end on the throne of David. Why does this matter? Because Christians claim that Jesus kingdom is “not of this world”, yet here it distinctly gives an increase of peace among a worldly kingdom – David’s throne!

The most important translation issue to look at may be the tenses. The JPS renders the phrase yeled yalad ben nathan misrah shekem as, “For a child has been born to us, a son has been given us. And authority has settled on his shoulders.” whereas the KJV translates it as, “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder.” The KJV renders this to be in the future tense, so as to make it seem like a future prophecy about Jesus. The JPS translation, however, is correct. This should be in the past tense, as an event that already happened. The syntax of the Hebrew as well as the surrounding context requires it to be in the past tense.

Now, since it is in past tense (an event that already happened) this should be enough to discourage the belief that it is a prophecy about Jesus. But alas, some may still be clinging to the belief that it is or not convinced by the evidence, so here are some other reasons it can’t be about Jesus:

For one, it is about King Hezekiah. You might cry out in protest, “Wait a minute! This can’t possibly be calling a man, Hezekiah, things like ‘Mighty God’, ‘Prince of Peace’, or ‘Eternal Father’!” Well, this is when the cultural context comes into play. This was a throne name, or a royal title. It is not saying that Hezekiah was the God of Abraham, but rather that Hezekiah represented God as a King on Earth. In fact, this practice existed up until the 1980s in other Semitic kingdoms like Ethiopia, where the Emperor was called “Lord of Lords, King of Kings, etc.”

So how do we know this is about Hezekiah specifically? For one, it is a play on Hezekiah’s name which means God strengthens when Mighty God occurs. Secondly, as covered earlier, it is in the past tense and thus must refer to a recent king in the past. Third, this was exactly who this passage of Jewish scripture was always understood to be about by Jews. This is its historical context. Here are a few examples:

“Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end. R. Tanhum said: Bar Kappara expounded in Sepphoris, Why is every mem in the middle of a word open, whilst this is closed? — The Holy One, blessed be He, wished to appoint Hezekiah as the Messiah, and Sennacherib as Gog and Magog; whereupon the Attribute of Justice said before the Holy One, blessed be He: 'Sovereign of the Universe! If Thou didst not make David the Messiah, who uttered so many hymns and psalms before Thee, wilt Thou appoint Hezekiah as such, who did not hymn Thee in spite of all these miracles which Thou wroughtest for him?' Therefore it [sc. the mem] was closed.” (Sanh. 94)

“The Holy One, blessed be He, said: Let Hezekiah, who hath eight [shemoneh] names, come and mete out punishment to Sennacherib, who hath [likewise] eight. Hezekiah, as it is written, For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty, Judge, Everlasting, Father, Prince, and Peace.” (Sanh. 94)

“R. Johanan said: Since the days of Hezekiah, for it is said, Of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with judgement and with righteousness for henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts shall perform this.” (Shab. 55)

Another example is what this King would do. He would be a “peaceable ruler.” But Jesus said in Matthew 10:34, “"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." (NIV) It’s clear how the two goals and verses are inconsistent with one another. And as mentioned earlier, this king was a distinctly earthly king who would bring peace to David’s throne while Jesus was a supposedly heavenly king, whose heaven was “not of this world”, who had no interaction with David’s throne.

Finally, the most obvious might be that Jesus never held these exact titles. Christians may have attributed them to him in part, or similar titles when he was deified later during the Council of Nicea, but not once is Jesus recorded in the NT as holding these exact titles. Nor does the NT attempt to link Jesus with this text.

So what have we discovered? This is a verse that refers to past events, specifically the birth and reign of Hezekiah. In addition, Jesus cannot fit this verse because Jesus came neither to rule an earthly kingdom nor to bring peace to the world. The context of this verse – linguistic, historical, and cultural – simply doesn’t allow it to be a prophecy of Jesus.

Not at all. I just assumed you were talking about Isaiah 7, since its the most common one I encounter (virgin birth and all). I've written an article for Isaiah 9 on my website, as well.

Not Jesus, but Hezekiah (http://shemaantimissionary.tripod.com/id5.html)

And now this is where I will call you a false teacher for it is this kind of crap that will lead people astray. I am so lucky to know that the Lord Savior Jesus fullfilled the prophecy mentioned in the Old Testiment.

You are nothing more than a false teacher and to be rebuked and ignored. Your paper has no effect on me for I am saved by the Blood of the Lamb. I know the truth and I will spread that truth. You sir can move along now for you have been exposed as a false teacher that you are.

And now this is where I will call you a false teacher for it is this kind of crap that will lead people astray. I am so lucky to know that the Lord Savior Jesus fullfilled the prophecy mentioned in the Old Testiment.

You are nothing more than a false teacher and to be rebuked and ignored. Your paper has no effect on me for I am saved by the Blood of the Lamb. I know the truth and I will spread that truth. You sir can move along now for you have been exposed as a false teacher that you are.If that's the case, then why don't you prove TS wrong? It ought to be a trivial matter for a scholar such as yourself.

And now this is where I will call you a false teacher for it is this kind of crap that will lead people astray. I am so lucky to know that the Lord Savior Jesus fullfilled the prophecy mentioned in the Old Testiment.

You are nothing more than a false teacher and to be rebuked and ignored. Your paper has no effect on me for I am saved by the Blood of the Lamb. I know the truth and I will spread that truth. You sir can move along now for you have been exposed as a false teacher that you are.

I read that article, and espite knowing little about the Bible it made a lot of sense. How about you actually refute his accusations, instead of just frothing at the mouth and shouting that he's a false teacher?.

If that's the case, then why don't you prove TS wrong? It ought to be a trivial matter for a scholar such as yourself.

Just because I recognize a truth does not mean that I am a scholar. If Hezekiah was indeed the Messiah then what precisely were his miracles? I know Hezekiah was an actual king of Israel who feared God but that did not save Judah from being conquered by Nebuchadnezzar. By 722 B.C., Israel ceased to exist.

I read that article, and espite knowing little about the Bible it made a lot of sense. How about you actually refute his accusations, instead of just frothing at the mouth and shouting that he's a false teacher?.

It is obvious that he wasn't for nothing was really attributed to him whereas Jesus performed miracles and fulfilled the Bible Prophacy of the Messiah. Hezekiah did not.

It is obvious that he wasn't for nothing was really attributed to him whereas Jesus performed miracles and fulfilled the Bible Prophacy of the Messiah. Hezekiah did not.
Apparantly Jesus didn't fullfill the prophesy of the messiah.

I'm not an expert on it, but the messiah was supposed to accomplish everything in one lifetime, he wasn't supposed to have to come back.

It is obvious that he wasn't for nothing was really attributed to him whereas Jesus performed miracles and fulfilled the Bible Prophacy of the Messiah. Hezekiah did not.

Well, you said that Jesus "fulfilled the Bible prophecy" previously. But as I've pointed out, these in general are not prophecies that even have to do with a messiah (such as Isaiah 7). You're using a circular reasoning fallacy when you claim Jesus fulfilled prophecies that were essentially invented due to the reinterpretation of Christians.

Likewise, it was pointed out that Jesus does not fulfill the criteria outlined in Isaiah 9. You say he fulfilled it, but alas, he didn't. Things like bringing peace to the world, you see.

You also may be confused about the term "Messiah." By definition, every Hebrew king was a messiah. In Hebrew, this is mosiach, and it literally means 'anointed.' In Exodus 30 it outlines the process by which someone is anointed. And Jesus simply was never anointed. No anointment, no mosiach.

Thus, when the Talmud explains that Isaiah 9 is about Hezekiah, and that God intended to make Hezekiah the messiah, it is due to the fact that because he was anointed as outlined in Exodus 30, he was a messiah, and it was possible that he would be the messiah. Unlike Jesus, who not only fails to fit the criteria outlined in Isaiah 9, but was also never anointed as Exodus 30 requires for the messiah.

Apparantly Jesus didn't fullfill the prophesy of the messiah.

I'm not an expert on it, but the messiah was supposed to accomplish everything in one lifetime, he wasn't supposed to have to come back.

Again that is wrong for even Jesus himself said he will return as has the prophets in the old testiment.

And now this is where I will call you a false teacher for it is this kind of crap that will lead people astray. I am so lucky to know that the Lord Savior Jesus fullfilled the prophecy mentioned in the Old Testiment.

You are nothing more than a false teacher and to be rebuked and ignored. Your paper has no effect on me for I am saved by the Blood of the Lamb. I know the truth and I will spread that truth. You sir can move along now for you have been exposed as a false teacher that you are.
Uh.... no, it really looks like he knows what he's talking about and you're just in denial.

Again that is wrong for even Jesus himself said he will return as has the prophets in the old testiment.
Uh... maybe Tropical Sands can back me up here, but I'm pretty sure in the old testament prophesies, the messiah was supposed to fullfill all the prophesies in one lifetime with no need to return.

Apparantly Jesus didn't fullfill the prophesy of the messiah.

I'm not an expert on it, but the messiah was supposed to accomplish everything in one lifetime, he wasn't supposed to have to come back.

Quite correct. There is no mention of a second coming in the Neviim (Prophets) anywhere. This was a Christian invention used to explain why Jesus did not fulfill the prophecies for the messiah.

A bit of history puts it into perspective as well. The Gospels, all written in the middle of the 1st century, refer to a 1st century eschatology. Early Christians believed that Jesus would fulfill every prophecy within their lifetimes. Once that first generation of Christians began to die out is when we see the big switch from an early Jewish cult movement to a non-Jewish religion. This is due in part to the fact that early Jewish believers recognized that Jesus was not the messiah, whereas non-Jews who were less familiar with what the Tanach teaches about the messiah were unaware or ignored the Tanach completely.

Again that is wrong for even Jesus himself said he will return as has the prophets in the old testiment.

Jesus actually stated that everything would occur during the first century, in that generation (Matt 23:36, Matt 24:33). In addition, there are no Prophets in the Tanach that state anything about a second coming. If Jesus said it, he lied. It simply doesn't occur anywhere.

Prove, incontrovertibly, that God exists.

Well, you said that Jesus "fulfilled the Bible prophecy" previously. But as I've pointed out, these in general are not prophecies that even have to do with a messiah (such as Isaiah 7). You're using a circular reasoning fallacy when you claim Jesus fulfilled prophecies that were essentially invented due to the reinterpretation of Christians.

Shall we also look Isiah 53 which talks about Christ being rejected by his own people? How about is trial and condemnation? He being silent before his accusers? Or how about suffering with criminals and praying for his enemies? Or how about Micah where it is written that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem? Shall look at Exodus 12 in regards to His bones not being broken? I could quote Zechariah and Deuteronomy but that would be wasting my breath.

Likewise, it was pointed out that Jesus does not fulfill the criteria outlined in Isaiah 9. You say he fulfilled it, but alas, he didn't. Things like bringing peace to the world, you see.

You do understand that when Christ Returns he will be bringing peace to the World. Yep I thought you forgot that little detail.

You also may be confused about the term "Messiah." By definition, every Hebrew king was a messiah. In Hebrew, this is mosiach, and it literally means 'anointed.' In Exodus 30 it outlines the process by which someone is anointed. And Jesus simply was never anointed. No anointment, no mosiach.

Oh contrar TS. I guess you forgot the part where Christ was actually annoited before he was crucified? Yep thought so.

Thus, when the Talmud explains that Isaiah 9 is about Hezekiah, and that God intended to make Hezekiah the messiah, it is due to the fact that because he was anointed as outlined in Exodus 30, he was a messiah, and it was possible that he would be the messiah. Unlike Jesus, who not only fails to fit the criteria outlined in Isaiah 9, but was also never anointed as Exodus 30 requires for the messiah.

1) Hezekiah was not crucified.
2) He was not mocked nor insulted.
3) He did not rise from the dead.
4) He did not die as a sacrifice for sin
5) He was not betrayed by one of his followers.
6) He was not born of a virgin.

These are just 6 prophecies I can come up with off the top of my head that Hezekiah did not fulfill. You see. Hezekiah is not the Messiah. So be gone false teacher.

Jesus actually stated that everything would occur during the first century, in that generation (Matt 23:36, Matt 24:33). In addition, there are no Prophets in the Tanach that state anything about a second coming. If Jesus said it, he lied. It simply doesn't occur anywhere.

Actually no he didn't. Its a nice little fallacy by those who do not recognize Jesus as the messiah. I already know that the Jews rejected Jesus as the messiah so it comes as no surprise that you do not understand the Prophacy of the Lord nor of the Prophacy of his 2nd coming.

Quite correct. There is no mention of a second coming in the Neviim (Prophets) anywhere. This was a Christian invention used to explain why Jesus did not fulfill the prophecies for the messiah.

I suggest you go back and check out Ezekial. You know...one of the prophets? Even Isiah talked about the 2nd coming of Christ as well. As did Daniel.

A bit of history puts it into perspective as well. The Gospels, all written in the middle of the 1st century, refer to a 1st century eschatology. Early Christians believed that Jesus would fulfill every prophecy within their lifetimes.

Which was a mistake but then again...we are only human and we all make mistakes.

Once that first generation of Christians began to die out is when we see the big switch from an early Jewish cult movement to a non-Jewish religion. This is due in part to the fact that early Jewish believers recognized that Jesus was not the messiah, whereas non-Jews who were less familiar with what the Tanach teaches about the messiah were unaware or ignored the Tanach completely.

I like how you keep saying Tanach like its gospel. Guess what? The Jews missed the arrival of the messiah but you still have a chance to recognize him both now and through the Tribulation upto His 2nd Coming. Do not wait to long to recognize that the Messiah is returning.

Shall we also look Isiah 53 which talks about Christ being rejected by his own people? How about is trial and condemnation? He being silent before his accusers? Or how about suffering with criminals and praying for his enemies? Or how about Micah where it is written that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem? Shall look at Exodus 12 in regards to His bones not being broken? I could quote Zechariah and Deuteronomy but that would be wasting my breath.

Isaiah 53 is about Israel. In fact, it states that the 'suffering servant' is about Israel by name. Again, I've written on this issue. Here is the article for you:

Isaiah 52 & 53 - Israel (http://shemaantimissionary.tripod.com/id3.html)

There are two ways to interpret Isaiah 52 & 53. Both exclude Jesus as being the fulfillment of prophecy or scripture. One way is to interpret it as being non-messianic and an allegory about the nation of Israel. There is a strong basis for this because Isaiah does in fact identify the servant in question as being Israel - by name.

The other way is to interpret it as being messianic, in which case we would have to review if Jesus fulfilled all of the criteria listed within. He didn't, as we will see below.

The non-Messianic Route: Isaiah 52 & 53 are About Israel.

Isaiah 52:13 reads, "Indeed, my servant shall prosper, be exalted and raised to great heights."
-Now, this is crucial! Isaiah identifies the servant multiple times as being Israel (See: Who Is the Suffering Servant?). For those who want to go sola scriptura, this should be enough to clearly demonstrate who the servant is.


Isaiah 41:8, "But you, Israel, My servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, seed of Abraham my friend"
Isaiah 44:1 "But hear, now, O Jacob My servant, Israel whom I have chosen!"
Isaiah 44:21 "Remember these things, O Jacob for you, O Israel, are My servant"
Isaiah 49:3 "And he said to me, "You are My servant, Israel in whom I glory.""

- Because Isaiah identifies the servant previously as Israel we know that references to the servant (such as those found in Isaiah 52 & 53) are not references to Jesus.

The Messianic Route: Why Jesus Doesn't Fit.

Isaiah 52:14 states, “So marred was his appearance, unlike that of a man, his form, beyond human semblance”

-Even though Jesus was whipped and crucified, his form was not marred beyond human semblance. He still resembled a human being, and his form was still like that of a man. Jesus doesn't fit.


Isaiah 53:4 states, “Yet it was our sickness that he was bearing, our suffering that he endured, we accounted him plagued, smitten and affected by God.”

Isaiah 53:3 contains, “A man of suffering, familiar with disease.”

Isaiah 53:10 states, “But the Lord chose to crush him by disease”

-Now, these passages tell us that the suffering servant being described was not only familiar with disease, but also afflicted with it, and crushed by it. It may be argued that Jesus was familiar with disease; however, he was not crushed by disease.

And no, disease does not mean sin or any other metaphorical interpretation. The historical context confirms this, early Jewish sources confirm this - it refers to leprosy.
"The Rabbis said: His name is 'the leper scholar,' as it is written, Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted." (Sanh. 98b)
Jesus was no leper. He wasn't smitten, afflicted, plagued, crushed by disease. Jesus doesn't fit.


Isaiah 53:10 also states, “That, if he made himself an offering for guilt, he might see offspring and have long life”

-Jesus made a guilt offering? This is recorded nowhere. He had offspring? The gospels don't mention this, rather Christian tradition teaches that he had no wife or children. He had a long life? He lived to his mid-30s. Jesus just doesn't fit.

Allegory or Literal?

Allegory : the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence; also : an instance (as in a story or painting) of such expression. (Merriam-Webster)

-I know, the next thing Christians will argue is "Wait! Offspring isn't literal! Its a metaphor for followers of Jesus!" or "Disease isn't literal! Its a metaphor for sin!" (Even though ancient Jewish sources say otherwise about their own Jewish scriptures, see above). Lets see why Christian allegorical interpretation of Isaiah 52 and 53 doesn't work:


-To start with, if the chapters are about Israel (as the Isaiah said it was), then it is allegorical by definition. Calling Israel a servant is an allegorical tactic and therefore we know the content surrounding it is going to be allegorical. If it is about a real, literal person (like Jesus), then there is no basis to draw any allegorical interpretation.


-Further, Christians demonstrate a lack of consistency when giving their metaphorical interpretations. It just happens to become metaphor and allegory whenever Jesus doesn't fit! Here is an example:

Isaiah 53:7 "He was maltreated, yet he was submissive, he did not open his mouth; like a sheep being led to slaughter."
Oh yes! This is definitely literal! Jesus fits perfectly, its all about his trial. No metaphor or allegory here.

Isaiah 53:10 also states, “That, if he made himself an offering for guilt, he might see offspring and have long life”
This is metaphor and allegory! This doesn't refer to a guilt offering as outlined in the Torah, but rather his crucifixion as a guilt offering. And it doesn't refer to literal offspring, but rather to spiritual offspring. And his long life refers to his eternal life


-See how that works? With this type of inconsistent and sloppy exegesis, we can make the chapters say anything and be about anything we want. In fact, a Chassidic Rabbi does exactly this by demonstrating how a rooster fulfills messianic prophecy.

When it really all comes down to it the only valid allegorical interpretation is one based on the allegory given by Isaiah - Israel as the servant. Jesus didn't fulfill any prophecies; rather Christians draw correlations between verses and fill in the gaps by crying "metaphor!", "allegory!", and "it doesn't mean what it says!" So no matter which route you take with Isaiah 52 & 53, if it is about Israel or the coming messiah, Jesus is excluded as being a valid option.

So, in short, you can keep bringing up all of the proof-texts you like. I've gone over each extensively, and you wont be able to present any to me that Jesus actually fulfilled.

You do understand that when Christ Returns he will be bringing peace to the World. Yep I thought you forgot that little detail.


Nowhere in the Tanach does it state anything about a second coming. This is a Christian fabrication. Any person can say "I'll do it when I resurrect, lol." But, again, it occurs nowhere in Biblical prophecy outside of Christian claims.

Oh contrar TS. I guess you forgot the part where Christ was actually annoited before he was crucified? Yep thought so.

He wasn't, actually. Not according to Exodus 30. There are two accounts of Jesus being smeared with oil and spikenard. But that isn't anointment, as required in Exodus 30.

1) Hezekiah was not crucified.
2) He was not mocked nor insulted.
3) He did not rise from the dead.
4) He did not die as a sacrifice for sin
5) He was not betrayed by one of his followers.
6) He was not born of a virgin.

These are just 6 prophecies I can come up with off the top of my head that Hezekiah did not fulfill. You see. Hezekiah is not the Messiah. So be gone false teacher.

Well, lets see. Nowhere in the Tanach are there prophecies about the Messiah being crucified, mocked, rising from the dead, dying for sin, being betrayed, or being born of a virgin. Those are Christian pseudo-prophecies. I think we've already covered the virgin birth one in Isaiah 7, and how the text doesn't even say virgin (Christian mistranslation).

Isaiah 9 also says nothing about anything on the above list.

Again that is wrong for even Jesus himself said he will return as has the prophets in the old testiment.

Ever heard of historiography?

Jesus actually stated that everything would occur during the first century, in that generation (Matt 23:36, Matt 24:33). In addition, there are no Prophets in the Tanach that state anything about a second coming. If Jesus said it, he lied. It simply doesn't occur anywhere.Actually no he didn't. Its a nice little fallacy by those who do not recognize Jesus as the messiah. I already know that the Jews rejected Jesus as the messiah so it comes as no surprise that you do not understand the Prophacy of the Lord nor of the Prophacy of his 2nd coming.

Matthew 24:39-35, "Immediately after the distress of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'

"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away."

Matthew 23:36, "I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation."

I'm afraid it did, as we see from the text. The Gospels give a distinctly first-century eschatology. None of the above occured during that generation.

1. The sun wasn't darkened.
2. The moon continued to give its light
3. The stars didn't fall from the sky
4. The Son of Man didn't appear in the sky
5. All nations of the Earth didn't mourn
6. Angels didn't gather up all of the elect from the Earth
7. Heaven and Earth did not pass away

All things that Jesus said would occur during that generation.

Go ahead and reject prophacy TS. It isn't my soul that is at stake by doing so.

The Lord Savior fullfills all the biblical prophacy of the Messiah despite what what the Tanak says. The prophets also talk about his 2nd coming as well despite what you are trying to convince me of. I am not buying it for it flies in the opposite direction of the Truth.

As the Lord Savior himself said, "Except a man be born again, he cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven." I suggest you actually look at prophacy and you will see for a fact that Jesus actually fullfills all of it. But then again, Jews have rejected the Messiah for he was not what they were looking for in a messiah. They rejected him and crucified him on the Cross.

Sorry but I am not buying it and I know it isn't "psuedo-Christian" prophacy for it is in the Torah, and written by the Prophets whom they also rejected.

Prepare ye the Way of the Lord for he will be returning soon. Do not be caught on the wrong side of the war for it is your soul that will not survive it unless it is protected by the Blood of the Lamb.

I suggest you go back and check out Ezekial. You know...one of the prophets? Even Isiah talked about the 2nd coming of Christ as well. As did Daniel.

Oh? Show me a scripture that you claim talks about the second coming.

I like how you keep saying Tanach like its gospel. Guess what? The Jews missed the arrival of the messiah but you still have a chance to recognize him both now and through the Tribulation upto His 2nd Coming. Do not wait to long to recognize that the Messiah is returning.

The Tanach is more valuable than the Christian Gospels. It explictly states that God gave the Torah to Moses. Yet, it says nowhere that the Gospels are from God. 2 Timothy makes a reference to scripture, but during that time period the only thing considered scripture was the Tanach. You're rejecting the Torah, which at least claims to be directly from God to Moses, over anonymous Gospels that nowhere claim to be the word of God.

Ever heard of historiography?

Duh. Of course I have. I am after all, a History major.

Go ahead and reject prophacy TS. It isn't my soul that is at stake by doing so.

Think not? It could just as easily be argued that you will have no place in the Olam haBa due to the fact that you worship Jesus. You might be interested in reading Deut 13:2 or Hosea 4:15 which explains what happens to those worship false deities. Or Deut 18:22, which states what happens to those who follow false prophets.

The Lord Savior fullfills all the biblical prophacy of the Messiah despite what what the Tanak says. The prophets also talk about his 2nd coming as well despite what you are trying to convince me of. I am not buying it for it flies in the opposite direction of the Truth.

I'm starting to think you don't know what the Tanach is. Its what Christians call the "Old Testament." Its just the actual name of it.

Sorry but I am not buying it and I know it isn't "psuedo-Christian" prophacy for it is in the Torah, and written by the Prophets whom they also rejected.

You've yet to show anything in the Torah that is prophecy for Jesus. It is Christian pseudo-prophecy, because what Christians did was go back and claim verses were prophetic that never were. Much like the Rooster example I posted up. If we do what Christians do, we can make anything a "Messiah." But none fit the actual prophecies, including Jesus.

Go ahead and reject prophacy TS. It isn't my soul that is at stake by doing so.


My word, you should be in a circus. Prophecy is rarely designed for the purposes it is now employed. Revelation is, primarily, an uplifting primer of sorts for an embattled cult, not a "sneak preview" of a divinely ordianed plan.

The Lord Savior fullfills all the biblical prophacy of the Messiah despite what what the Tanak says. The prophets also talk about his 2nd coming as well despite what you are trying to convince me of. I am not buying it for it flies in the opposite direction of the Truth.

You do, I note, predicate an argument upon the notion that a copy of a text two millenia old at least, and thus liable to original error, misinterpretation, distortion and mistranslation, is correct. How very intelligent. Have you actually read the hebrew and hellenestic originals? If not, you are indoctrinated by the translations of an individual with no small degree of bias.

However, the "prophets", apocryphal though they are, and disabused of their original intentions, fail to mention "Jesus" in name, beyind a tenuous semantic association.

As the Lord Savior himself said, "Except a man be born again, he cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven." I suggest you actually look at prophacy and you will see for a fact that Jesus actually fullfills all of it. But then again, Jews have rejected the Messiah for he was not what they were looking for in a messiah. They rejected him and crucified him on the Cross.

Once more, predicated upon the notion that Jesus surpassed a merely dissidential rabbi, which contemporary chronicles signally fail to note.

Sorry but I am not buying it and I know it isn't "psuedo-Christian" prophacy for it is in the Torah, and written by the Prophets whom they also rejected.

Oddly, the old testament is an integral component of judaism....

Prepare ye the Way of the Lord for he will be returning soon. Do not be caught on the wrong side of the war for it is your soul that will not survive it unless it is protected by the Blood of the Lamb.

Hmmm........ The Brain is open, the mouth moves, but Nr.Brain has long since departed....

Oh? Show me a scripture that you claim talks about the second coming.

Ok for starters, I'll invoke Ezekial 38 and 39 for it is prophacy of Israel being saved by God himself from Israel's enemies as one of the signs of his imminent return.

The Tanach is more valuable than the Christian Gospels.

Says you.

It explictly states that God gave the Torah to Moses.

Which no one will dispute.

Yet, it says nowhere that the Gospels are from God. 2 Timothy makes a reference to scripture, but during that time period the only thing considered scripture was the Tanach. You're rejecting the Torah, which at least claims to be directly from God to Moses, over anonymous Gospels that nowhere claim to be the word of God.

Where have I rejected the Torah? You forgot that the Torah (the FIVE BOOKS OF MOSES) are also the 1st five books of the Bible. I do not reject the Torah but I am rejecting your teachings in regards to Jesus and his eventual return.

Duh. Of course I have. I am after all, a History major.

Oh my dear lord. Not from a university of any repute I assume?

So, in light of such a capacity to analyse the reliability of evidence, and its purposes, you endorse a two millenia old fabrication and translation?

Duh. Of course I have. I am after all, a History major.
Is that before or after you majored in architecture, political science and a slew of other you claimed throughout your history on NS?


But as much as I like to see Corneliu be thouroughly thrashed again, I'd refer you to the original subject: is there evidence of god?

Ok for starters, I'll invoke Ezekial 38 and 39 for it is prophacy of Israel being saved by God himself from Israel's enemies as one of the signs of his imminent return.

Great. And when did Jesus fulfill Ezekial 38? It states that God would destroy every nation that was Israel's enemy. The fact that Egypt, Jordan, Iran, etc. still exist demonstrates that Ezekiel 38 hasn't been fulfilled. Just one more example of how Jesus didn't actually fulfill any real prophecies.

Says you.

Well, says the Torah. It states that the Torah was given to Moses by God. Nowhere does it state that the Gospels are from God.

Where have I rejected the Torah? You forgot that the Torah (the FIVE BOOKS OF MOSES) are also the 1st five books of the Bible. I do not reject the Torah but I am rejecting your teachings in regards to Jesus and his eventual return.

When you stated this: "The Lord Savior fullfills all the biblical prophacy of the Messiah despite what what the Tanak says."

Think not? It could just as easily be argued that you will have no place in the Olam haBa due to the fact that you worship Jesus. You might be interested in reading Deut 13:2 or Hosea 4:15 which explains what happens to those worship false deities. Or Deut 18:22, which states what happens to those who follow false prophets.

You should remember that for it is not I who thinks that Hezekiah was the Messiah but you who thinks Hezekiah was the Messiah. I know that Jesus was the Messiah and because of that, I have accepted him as my Lord and Savior and will be with him when I die.

I'm starting to think you don't know what the Tanach is. Its what Christians call the "Old Testament." Its just the actual name of it.

You are indeed correct that it is the old testiment. I've actually read it. It is you who have apparently failed to read it for if you did, you would recognize prophacy when it hit you in the face. I take both Testiments seriously and I am carefully studying both books. However, I will not deny the truth that Jesus was the Promised Messiah.

You've yet to show anything in the Torah that is prophecy for Jesus. It is Christian pseudo-prophecy, because what Christians did was go back and claim verses were prophetic that never were. Much like the Rooster example I posted up. If we do what Christians do, we can make anything a "Messiah." But none fit the actual prophecies, including Jesus.

You may continue to believe that but I will stick with the Truth.

Is that before or after you majored in architecture, political science and a slew of other you claimed throughout your history on NS?

I have never studied architecture but I have studied economics, meteorology, and am also majoring in Political Science.

But as much as I like to see Corneliu be thouroughly thrashed again, I'd refer you to the original subject: is there evidence of god?

And in answer, that answer is yes.

You should remember that for it is not I who thinks that Hezekiah was the Messiah but you who thinks Hezekiah was the Messiah. I know that Jesus was the Messiah and because of that, I have accepted him as my Lord and Savior and will be with him when I die.

No one said that Hezekiah was the Messiah. Rather, in my article I pointed out that Isaiah 9 was about Hezekiah. I also pointed out that the Talmud states that God intended to make Hezekiah the Messiah, but did not. Perhaps you should reread it, instead of making knee-jerk responses.

I have never studied architecture but I have studied economics, meteorology, and am also majoring in Political Science.



And in answer, that answer is yes.

The evidence being quite what?

Great. And when did Jesus fulfill Ezekial 38? It states that God would destroy every nation that was Israel's enemy. The fact that Egypt, Jordan, Iran, etc. still exist demonstrates that Ezekiel 38 hasn't been fulfilled. Just one more example of how Jesus didn't actually fulfill any real prophecies.

I also pointed out that it is one of the end times events described by the Bible in regards to the 2nd coming of Jesus. When you are dealing with Bible Prophacy, you have to connect the dots.

Well, says the Torah. It states that the Torah was given to Moses by God. Nowhere does it state that the Gospels are from God.

What's your point? That Jesus never said anything that is written in the New Testiment despite the fact that in the gospel are his words?

When you stated this: "The Lord Savior fullfills all the biblical prophacy of the Messiah despite what what the Tanak says."

And prophacy of the Messiah was in the Tanak that you have rejected.

The evidence being quite what?

Oh, I think we're going to go in a big circle with him. Someone asked for evidence a few pages back, he said prophecy was evidence, then I asked him to show me some prophecies, and then we got onto this debate about prophecy that we're currently on. :p

Look, if I say that there is a magic elf who lives in my house, and the evidence is that it rains because the magic elf makes it rain, does the fact that it rains constitute evidence of the magic elf?

Similarly, just because your wholly babble or some other silly book says there is a god DOES NOT MAKE IT EVIDENCE. Nor does "personal experience" for evidence make because you are presuming the thing exists which you must demonstrate!

When someone says "there is evidence for god" they are either being dishonest or they are duped. Which are you?
Not simmilarly at all. Prophetic evidence
Does not exist.


completely fails to fit in your idea. For instance, the prediction by Isaiah of King Cyrus returning the Jews to their land.
That's the same Isaiah who prophesied of a child who would be born (Is 7:14, who was later born in Is 8:3) as a sign to Ahaz that he would be victorious over Pekah and Rezin. However, in 2 Chron, we learn that Ahaz was defeated.

So much for Isaiah's prophetic prowess.

It's also very easy to make prophecies come true when they are either written after-the-fact or in such Jean Dixon-like ambiguity that you can make anything fit it.


Then there is the accounts of the life of Jesus.
You mean the ones which contradict each other and AREN'T contemporary accounts. There are no contemporary or eyewitness accounts for jesus. None. Zip. Zero. Anyone who tells you differently is lying to you.

No one said that Hezekiah was the Messiah. Rather, in my article I pointed out that Isaiah 9 was about Hezekiah. I also pointed out that the Talmud states that God intended to make Hezekiah the Messiah, but did not. Perhaps you should reread it, instead of making knee-jerk responses.

If that is the case then we have only a misunderstanding here. However, that does not negate the fact that you do not believe that Jesus was the messiah.

Oh, I think we're going to go in a big circle with him. Someone asked for evidence a few pages back, he said prophecy was evidence, then I asked him to show me some prophecies, and then we got onto this debate about prophecy that we're currently on. :p

He's just ignoring me now:D

Ho hum, at least he doesn't bother with white text anymore.

Isiah made alot of predictions and so far they have all come true with some still yet to occur.
Oh really?

He predicted that Ahaz would not be defeated in battle against Pekah and Rezin. 2 Chron shows that he was defeated by them.

I also pointed out that it is one of the end times events described by the Bible in regards to the 2nd coming of Jesus. When you are dealing with Bible Prophacy, you have to connect the dots.

It doesn't say anything about a second coming. Nothing in the Tanach does. Your version of "connect the dots" is a form of circular reasoning. Ezekial 38 states that when the Messiah comes every enemy nation of Israel's will be destroyed. Enemy nations still exist. Thus, the Messiah has not come. That much is a logical fact, and we can prove it with a syllogism if you like.

What's your point? That Jesus never said anything that is written in the New Testiment despite the fact that in the gospel are his words?

Who said the Gospels are Jesus' words? That doesn't occur anywhere in the New Testament, either.

And now this is where I will call you a false teacher for it is this kind of crap that will lead people astray. I am so lucky to know that the Lord Savior Jesus fullfilled the prophecy mentioned in the Old Testiment.
IOW: you spit on the jews, just as the xers have been doing for over a millenium and a half. You're also pissed because your beliefs have been shredded before your eyes and you're in denial about it. Get over yourself.

IOW: you spit on the jews, just as the xers have been doing for over a millenium and a half. You're also pissed because your beliefs have been shredded before your eyes and you're in denial about it. Get over yourself.

He would have to trip over his stack of "majors, duh" though.....:D

Shall we also look Isiah 53 which talks about Christ
WRONG!

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq005.html

Question: Who is the suffering servant of the Lord?

Answer: The fact is that the identity of the servant has already been established by Isaiah in previously stated passages. In Isaiah 41 :8-9; 44:1-2, 21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3 the prophet identifies Israel as the servant.

Moreover, the history of Israel, down through the ages shows that the servant is, none other than Israel personified. Chapter 53 reiterates this fact by providing an historic overview of the tragedies and triumphs of the servant, Israel, throughout its history. Who would believe that this exiled nation, this humiliated loathsome Jewish people would be fated to survive the vicissitudes of its historical sufferings to once more have a future entailing prominence, hope, and joy

Oh really?

He predicted that Ahaz would not be defeated in battle against Pekah and Rezin. 2 Chron shows that he was defeated by them.

I really hate to burst this thought but 2nd Chronicals comes before Isiah. :rolleyes:

Also, in Isiah 8:3, it states that he slept with her and she became pregnant whereas the virgin has not slept with anyone and became pregnant.

Go ahead and reject prophacy TS. It isn't my soul that is at stake by doing so.
There is no such thing as a "soul", and you've now lost the argument by worming in an argument from (presumed) bad consequences fallacy.

*snipo*

Sure....

Go ahead and use a jewish website for proof. Sorry but that just destroys your own arguement.

I really hate to burst this thought but 2nd Chronicals comes before Isiah. :rolleyes:

Also, in Isiah 8:3, it states that he slept with her and she became pregnant whereas the virgin has not slept with anyone and became pregnant.

Didn't we already point out that there is no virgin in Isaiah at all? It refers to a young woman giving birth, but it nowhere refers to a virgin. Christian translations still put "virgin" due to their agenda, but if you read it in Hebrew (which has been listed for you already) then you will see that virgin occurs nowhere.

Sure....

Go ahead and use a jewish website for proof. Sorry but that just destroys your own arguement.

As opposed to using a Christian document to augment yours?

Inspired.

I really hate to burst this thought but 2nd Chronicals comes before Isiah. :rolleyes:
I really hate to burst this, but Job was written first. That doesn't mean anything, either.


Also, in Isiah 8:3, it states that he slept with her and she became pregnant whereas the virgin has not slept with anyone and became pregnant.
What virgin? Ha-almah means "young woman". "Bet'ulah" means "virgin". And it is "ha-almah" which is used in Is 7:14.

Looks like you need to refresh your knowledge of Hebrew.

Leave it to an atheist to correct an xer.

Sure....

Go ahead and use a jewish website for proof. Sorry but that just destroys your own arguement.
Sorry, but it doesn't, Herr Hitler.

IOW: you spit on the jews, just as the xers have been doing for over a millenium and a half. You're also pissed because your beliefs have been shredded before your eyes and you're in denial about it. Get over yourself.

I do not spit on them. I respect them and their beliefs. I disagree with their views on the Messiah but I do respect their religion for Christianity sprang from the Jewish faith.

I do not spit on them.
Then why did you just say that my use of a Jewish website destroys my argument? Why do you mock the jewish claims for their own messiah?

Sure....

Go ahead and use a jewish website for proof. Sorry but that just destroys your own arguement.

Actually this is a fallacy called poisoning the well. Its also blatently anti-Semitic.

You should be evaluating the argument based on its merits, not on if it came from a Jewish source. You've also never complained about a Jewish source being Jewish when it defends Israel on those other Israeli threads. Double standard time!

Didn't we already point out that there is no virgin in Isaiah at all? It refers to a young woman giving birth, but it nowhere refers to a virgin. Christian translations still put "virgin" due to their agenda, but if you read it in Hebrew (which has been listed for you already) then you will see that virgin occurs nowhere.

Virgin also means young woman TS. I'm surprised you did not know that.

Actually this is a fallacy called poisoning the well. Its also blatently anti-Semitic.

You should be evaluating the argument based on its merits, not on if it came from a Jewish source. You've also never complained about a Jewish source being Jewish when it defends Israel on those other Israeli threads. Double standard time!

Watch out below! I see the last shreds of credibility falling away....

I really hate to burst this, but Job was written first. That doesn't mean anything, either.



What virgin? Ha-almah means "young woman". "Bet'ulah" means "virgin". And it is "ha-almah" which is used in Is 7:14.

Looks like you need to refresh your knowledge of Hebrew.

Leave it to an atheist to correct an xer.

I know full well what it means BAAWAKnights. I do not need to be reminded.

Virgin also means young woman TS.
Oddly enough, the Hebrew word for virgin (bet'ulah) is used thrice in Isaiah, as I recally. But not in Is 7:14.

Seems to me that if AoIsaiah wanted to use the word for virgin, he would have, given that it appears thrice.

Sorry, but it doesn't, Herr Hitler.

:rolleyes:

Virgin also means young woman TS. I'm surprised you did not know that.

No, it doesn't. Again, this was explained to you in my previous article and in what BAAWAKnights just posted. I'll go ahead and show you what he posted again:

"Ha-almah means "young woman". "Bet'ulah" means "virgin". And it is "ha-almah" which is used in Is 7:14."

I know full well what it means BAAWAKnights. I do not need to be reminded.
You most certainly DO need to be reminded, since you keep forgetting!

Then why did you just say that my use of a Jewish website destroys my argument? Why do you mock the jewish claims for their own messiah?

If I was mocking them, I would be doing something other than pointing out why they are wrong. I am not mocking them but pointing out fact that Jesus fullfills the prophacy of the Messiah.

You do realize of course that the Jews are still waiting for their Messiah to come right?

Oddly enough, the Hebrew word for virgin (bet'ulah) is used thrice in Isaiah, as I recally. But not in Is 7:14.

Seems to me that if AoIsaiah wanted to use the word for virgin, he would have, given that it appears thrice.

Good exegesis there. The fact that it is bethulah is used three other times but not in that instance does lend strong exegetical support to the fact that almah does not refer to a virgin in Isaiah 7.

If I was mocking them, I would be doing something other than pointing out why they are wrong. I am not mocking them but pointing out fact that Jesus fullfills the prophacy of the Messiah.

You do realize of course that the Jews are still waiting for their Messiah to come right?

Whereas you claim a dissidential rabbi as yours. Shockingly, Judaism holds a greater allure.

Actually this is a fallacy called poisoning the well. Its also blatently anti-Semitic.

You should be evaluating the argument based on its merits, not on if it came from a Jewish source. You've also never complained about a Jewish source being Jewish when it defends Israel on those other Israeli threads. Double standard time!
That is patently false. As much as I disagree with Coneliu, expressing doubt on a jewish source that claims that Jews are right and Christian are wrong is no more anti-semite as expressing doubt on a christian source that claims that Christian are right and Jews are wrong like you keep doing in this thread.

The Jewsih source can have been as manipulated as the Christian source. For the same reasons.

That is not an anti-semitic act, no matter how much you want it to be.

Actually this is a fallacy called poisoning the well. Its also blatently anti-Semitic.

If you're going to call me that then why the hell am I a big supporter of the State of Israel? Why would I have Jewish friends? Hell, even my gf's father side of the family is Jewish and i cannot wait to meet them over labor day weekend.

You should be evaluating the argument based on its merits, not on if it came from a Jewish source. You've also never complained about a Jewish source being Jewish when it defends Israel on those other Israeli threads. Double standard time!

Sorry but there is a big difference between supporting a nation's right to exist and pointing out that they are still waiting for the Messiah even though he already came and was crucified and has risen from the dead.

If I was mocking them, I would be doing something other than pointing out why they are wrong.
But you're not doing that. You're ignoring them and just going on in your bloody-minded attempt to co-opt judaism for your own death-cult's purposes.

You do realize that the jewish (davidic) savior is NOT a world savior. He doesn't die and rise again. He doesn't save souls. He is a great military and political leader who will unite the diaspora, usher in the age of peace and knowledge, and will do this the FIRST TIME.

If I was mocking them, I would be doing something other than pointing out why they are wrong. I am not mocking them but pointing out fact that Jesus fullfills the prophacy of the Messiah.

Well lets see, so far we've covered Isaiah 7, which refers to an event in the time of Ahaz. Kind of off for Jesus. We covered Isaiah 9, which is about king Hezekiah. Isaiah 53, which is about Israel. Ezekial 33, which states that every enemy nation of Israel would be destroyed (hasn't happened yet). Each of these you've claimed is a fulfilled prophecy by Jesus. If that isn't absurd to the point of mockery, I don't know what is.

If you're going to call me that then why the hell am I a big supporter of the State of Israel?
So's Pat Robertson, but that's only because he wants "armageddon" to happen, and it can't w/o Israel.

If you're going to call me that then why the hell am I a big supporter of the State of Israel? Why would I have Jewish friends? Hell, even my gf's father side of the family is Jewish and i cannot wait to meet them over labor day weekend.

You're a supporter of Israel due to the reason that all Christians are. You feel as if you have some sort of link to the Jewish people. Its based on religion.

Sorry but there is a big difference between supporting a nation's right to exist and pointing out that they are still waiting for the Messiah even though he already came and was crucified and has risen from the dead.

Yes, there is. But there is no difference when evaluating sources. You accept Jewish sources when they support your agenda, but when they don't support your agenda it turns into "OMG, they're Jewish, no way." I don't reject Christian sources because they are Christian. Half of my professors were Christian, I don't think I would have made it through school if I rejected their information based on that fact. Then again, they virtually all confirmed everything I've said on these threads too.

So's Pat Robertson, but that's only because he wants "armageddon" to happen, and it can't w/o Israel.

And I don't even listen to Pat Robertson.

You're a supporter of Israel due to the reason that all Christians are. You feel as if you have some sort of link to the Jewish people. Its based on religion.

However, mine isn't based on religion and to tell me that my support is based on religion is false.

And I don't even listen to Pat Robertson.
Didn't say that you did. However, your reasons for supporting Israel are quite suspect, given your penchant and proclivity for spitting on their beliefs.

Didn't say that you did. However, your reasons for supporting Israel are quite suspect, given your penchant and proclivity for spitting on their beliefs.

I do not spit on there beliefs.

How so?
Evolution revolvs around the fact that a creature adapts to live in new conditions by "mutations", new characteristics of a new generation never before seen in thier parents. What starts this? The creature's body? Do we just wake up one morning and say, "oh I'm too hot, i'll just create a umblella ontop of my head for shade"? No,....or mabye we just do unconiously? Do really believe a single cell organism can do that unconiously? And what even makes us want to live? To try so hard to live and then have the disapontment of dying? And remember this will to live is all creatures.

I do not spit on there beliefs.

Granted they augment your own?

I do not spit on there beliefs.

*enters the English Nazi*

THEIR, THE CORRECT USAGE IS THEIR

BAD CORNY BAD!!!!!!

*SMACK, SMACK, SMACK*

Granted they augment your own?

All I can do is spread the Word of the Lord. They can believe whatever they want.

I do not spit on there beliefs.

Christianity in general does, and always has. The New Testament is to the Tanach what the Book of Mormon is to the New Testament. If you had a religion, with texts, and then suddenly some crazy cult came along and told you that you were wrong about your own texts and persecuted you for 1000 years by pogroms and ghettos, what would you call it? Spitting on beliefs is a nice way of putting it.

The fact is, Christianity cannot justify itself in the context of Judaism. When a new cult is made up, attempts to rip off another group's text, and then interpret it outside of its cultural and historical context, it can't be justified in the light of scholarship either. Every time a Christian makes up some radical new interpretation, like they have done with Isaiah 7, 9, 53, Psalm 22, Genesis 3, etc. they are working outside of the original context, and outside of a scholarly approach. They are also implictly telling Jews that not only did the "miss the messiah" (something that can't occur, according to Jeremiah 31), but that they were so stupid that they didn't even realize these things were messianic prophecies. Its arrogant and insulting, but it's completely absurd as well when viewed from a scholarly light.

Evolution revolvs around the fact that a creature adapts to live in new conditions by "mutations", new characteristics of a new generation never before seen in thier parents. What starts this? The creature's body? Do we just wake up one morning and say, "oh I'm too hot, i'll just create a umblella ontop of my head for shade"? No,....or mabye we just do unconiously? Do really believe a single cell organism can do that unconiously? And what even makes us want to live? To try so hard to live and then have the disapontment of dying? And remember this will to live is all creatures.
Evolution revolves around the fact that each generation brings in more adapted genes. Also, mutation occurs quite randomly. Bad mutation are doomed to die as their bearer are less adept at surviving and reproducing.

Apart from a very skewed view of evolution, do you have any way to link your assumption to god instead of, say, a pan-dimentional supra-intelligent shade of the color purple?

Evolution revolvs around the fact that a creature adapts to live in new conditions by "mutations", new characteristics of a new generation never before seen in thier parents. What starts this? The creature's body? Do we just wake up one morning and say, "oh I'm too hot, i'll just create a umblella ontop of my head for shade"? No,....or mabye we just do unconiously? Do really believe a single cell organism can do that unconiously? And what even makes us want to live? To try so hard to live and then have the disapontment of dying? And remember this will to live is all creatures.

Most mutations are caused by chemical reactions of some sort. Next to that, mutations are caused by non-chemical energy sources (like the constant assault of radiation from space and the sun). It isn't conscious, or intended. Its a random natural event.

i think the big mistake people make between evidence and God is that they forget that it is God they are talking about.

people will say things like "lets assume God does exist, even if he does exist how did he flood the world and how did he get an old man to build a massive ship"

as i see it, if you assume that God does exist you also have to take in everything he has already done. he created life, he created a planet, he is in control. but they dont think he is capable of flooding the world? or influencing a man to build a ship?

when people tend to say "lets assume god does exist" they ussually forget that they are summing a God exist. they tend to just give him human charecteristics. kind of like they are talking about santa claus.

Most mutations are caused by chemical reactions of some sort. Next to that, mutations are caused by non-chemical energy sources (like the constant assault of radiation from space and the sun). It isn't conscious, or intended. Its a random natural event.
But what makes the organism want to live?

But what makes the organism want to live?
nothing?

Biological urges to reproduces and continue the race?

His noodly appendage?

Many reasons possible. Where is the evidence of GOD?

I agree with the position that "the burden of proof lies on the one who postulates the existence of something"(in this case god)

Since otherwise we're gonna have people, who claim that invisible, all powerful, pink unicorns exist, just because it cant be conclusively proved that they dont.

Here's something that will be quite interesting in the scope of this coinversation/argument.

----
Kissing Hank's Ass
author:"reverend Jim Huber"

This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:

John: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."

Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."

Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His ass?"

John: "If you kiss Hank's ass, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the shit out of you."

Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"

John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever He wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss His ass."

Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."

Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?"

Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."

John: "Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."

Me: "Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"

Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."

Me: "And has He given you a million dollars?"

John: "Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town."

Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"

Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the shit out of you."

Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the million dollars?"

John: "My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."

Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"

John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."

Me: "So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"

Mary: "Well, He gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street."

Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?"

John: "Hank has certain 'connections.'"

Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."

John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass He'll kick the shit out of you."

Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from Him..."

Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."

Me: "Then how do you kiss His ass?"

John: "Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His ass. Other times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on."

Me: "Who's Karl?"

Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."

Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His ass, and that Hank would reward you?"

John: "Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."

From the Desk of Karl
Kiss Hank's ass and He'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.
Use alcohol in moderation.
Kick the shit out of people who aren't like you.
Eat right.
Hank dictated this list Himself.
The moon is made of green cheese.
Everything Hank says is right.
Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
Don't use alcohol.
Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
Kiss Hank's ass or He'll kick the shit out of you.

Me: "This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead."

Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."

Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."

John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."

Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"

Mary: "Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people."

Me: "I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the shit out of people just because they're different?"

Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."

Me: "How do you figure that?"

Mary: "Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!"

Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."

John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."

Me: "But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."

John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."

Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."

Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."

Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon was somehow 'captured' by the Earth has been discounted*. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."

John: "Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"

Me: "We do?"

Mary: "Of course we do, Item 7 says so."

Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"

John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking."

Me: "But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"

Mary: She blushes.

John: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong."

Me: "What if I don't have a bun?"

John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."

Me: "No relish? No Mustard?"

Mary: She looks positively stricken.

John: He's shouting. "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"

Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?"

Mary: Sticks her fingers in her ears."I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la."

John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..."

Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time."

Mary: She faints.

John: He catches Mary. "Well, if I'd known you were one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the shit out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."

With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.

But what makes the organism want to live?

Depends on the organism. Most organisms don't have a want or a desire in the sense that humans do and other intelligent animals might. Rather, organisms that acted in ways that achieved survival and reproduction were naturally selected for while those that didn't were not.

Depends on the organism. Most organisms don't have a want or a desire in the sense that humans do and other intelligent animals might. Rather, organisms that acted in ways that achieved survival and reproduction were naturally selected for while those that didn't were not.

All organisms want to HAVE SEX. It is the point of all existance (however the hell you spell that, spell check be damned). And what will come of all this SEX HAVING? Is there some sort of ultimate design that all this rampant SEX HAVING will achieve? Is humanity the ultimate goal? The driving force?

Or is there a greater achievement yet to be attained by organisms? And if not, why are we here?

Well, Zechariah 9:9 is an interesting example. Many texts that Christians believe to be about the Messiah are essentially fabricated by them. They were never viewed as prophecy and were reinterpreted outside of their historical context after the fact, just to squeeze Jesus in. They did the same with other false messiahs, like Simon bar Kochba and Shabbetai Zevi. Its been quite common.

Zechariah 9 contains a prophecy, but it isn't 9:9. Rather, 9:9 only refers to riding a donkey. If this were a prophecy, any Jewish male who has ever rode a donkey into Jerusalem would have fulfilled it.

Rather, the prophecy begins in 9:10, when it states "the warrior's bow shall be banished, he shall call on nations to surrender." And so forth. It is one of the many messianic prophecies in the Tanach that is about world peace. The fact that Jesus didn't bring world peace, and that no one has, would demonstrate that the prophecy hasn't been fulfilled. Even if we assume that riding the donkey is part of the prophecy, nowhere in the Tanach is a partial prophecy considered fulfilled. Likewise, when Christians claim he'll do all the hard stuff (like world peace) when he gets back, that is a claim that occurs nowhere in the Tanach as well.

In short, Christian "prophecy" for Jesus is fabricated and spurious at best. Its virtually all based on misinterpretation and games, such as reading half of a text, or ignoring full prophecies.

Okay, I'll accept that. I've heard the point that Christianity tends to take historical statements and/or near-future prophecies relating to specific people as evidence of Jesus as the Messiah before, and I personally try not to. This doesn't mean I'm going to instantly believe your interpretation as correct, or indeed as the only interpretation (don't know if this is the same in Judaism, but from my perspective, it seems like most things in the Bible have multiple meanings or purposes - there's no reason a discussion of history couldn't also be a prophecy, I'd say), because as I think I mentioned, I've not read through Zechariah yet. In this particular instance, I checked the footnotes in one of the gospels (Luke, I think) and found that reference. Tried to read the rest of the chapter to put it in context, but I was tired by then, so I just put it in on the offchance that it was one you'd forgotten.

On a slightly-related note, can I just applaud you here for making much more comprehensive arguments in this situation than the Christian representatives are doing? I've just read through the whole thing, and I can only recall two or three actual scripture citations from them (other than mine, obviously), which really isn't the best way to make an argument. Yelling 'He did fulfill the prophecies!' isn't the best way to make yourself understood, at all.

... oh, all right. Going back to the Zechariah question: in the KJV, at least, there's a paragraph mark at the beginning of 9:9 ('Rejoice greatly' etc) and another at the beginning of 9:12 ('Turn you out to the strong hold, ye prisoners of hope'). Seeing as you stated 9:10 to be prophecy, and seeing as (KJV again) that verse begins 'And I will cut off the chariot...', it seems to me that, in the KJV at least, interpreting those three verses as a single prophecy isn't much of a stretch. 'course, not knowing whether that 'and' and the paragraph marks were inserted during the translation, I can't really say for certain.

Oh, and going off on a tangent here: when Zechariah says 'Ephraim' in this chapter, who's being refered to? In 9:13 ('When I have bent Judah for me, filled the bow with Ephraim, and raised up thy sons, O Zion...') it's juxtaposed with Judah, which seems to imply that it's being used to refer to the northern tribes as a whole (where elsewhere, as in 2 Chronicles, it's called Israel). Is that right? Or is it being used specifically of the tribe of Ephraim alone?

You should remember that for it is not I who thinks that Hezekiah was the Messiah but you who thinks Hezekiah was the Messiah.
Did you routinely fail reading comprehension tests as a child? TS didn't say that Hezekiah was the messiah, he said that one bit of the old testament used by christians as a messiah prophesy is actually talking about Hezekiah and not a prophesy at all. While he did mention that Hezekiah was a messiah, he also pointed out that all the rulers were.

I know that Jesus was the Messiah and because of that, I have accepted him as my Lord and Savior and will be with him when I die.
No, you think this, you believe this, but that doesn't mean it will happen.

You are indeed correct that it is the old testiment. I've actually read it. It is you who have apparently failed to read it for if you did, you would recognize prophacy when it hit you in the face. I take both Testiments seriously and I am carefully studying both books. However, I will not deny the truth that Jesus was the Promised Messiah.
I really get the impression that you haven't read them at all.

You may continue to believe that but I will stick with the Truth.
...or your version of it while you plug your ears and in a sing-song manner say "lalalalala I can't hear you!"

Depends on the organism. Most organisms don't have a want or a desire in the sense that humans do and other intelligent animals might. Rather, organisms that acted in ways that achieved survival and reproduction were naturally selected for while those that didn't were not.
I know this is going to annoying to you and I'm sorry for that but do think that was coincidence? That the animals who wanted to lived were reproduced and have existed for Xnumber of years. That they figured out the equation of " i am living now, if i kill life i will live some more, but me, my family, and every thing will die" just because of a gradual growth in the brain that created self-conscious and awarness of the world?

...or your version of it while you plug your ears and in a sing-song manner say "lalalalala I can't hear you!"It's in threads like these your D. Adams sig really shines.
By the way, Corney, if you're gonna try to sound sophisticated by throwing in a couple of French words, you should really note this down (Because I know I've told you before):
It's not spelled "Oh Contrar". It's "Au contraire".

Virgin also means young woman TS. I'm surprised you did not know that.
Since when?

Since when?Since never, I think. Virgins may be young women, but if they are, they're chaste young women.

I know this is going to annoying to you and I'm sorry for that but do think that was coincidence? That the animals who wanted to lived were reproduced and have existed for Xnumber of years. That they figured out the equation of " i am living now, if i kill life i will live some more, but me, my family, and every thing will die" just because of a gradual growth in the brain that created self-conscious and awarness of the world?
No I don't think that was coincidence.

Many organism lived. Some developped the will to reproduce. Some didn't. Those who id survived. We talk about them. This who didn't died out. Case close. We don't speak of them because they never made it.

So will to live was critical in the early stages. Who's to say it wasn't the 714th time that a single cell organism developped that it finally had a will to reproduce. From there, life was created. Everything else is evolution.

And EVEN if it was not a coincidence. Who's to say what orchestrated that feat? Could be pan-dimensionnal monkeys for all we know.

... oh, all right. Going back to the Zechariah question: in the KJV, at least, there's a paragraph mark at the beginning of 9:9 ('Rejoice greatly' etc) and another at the beginning of 9:12 ('Turn you out to the strong hold, ye prisoners of hope'). Seeing as you stated 9:10 to be prophecy, and seeing as (KJV again) that verse begins 'And I will cut off the chariot...', it seems to me that, in the KJV at least, interpreting those three verses as a single prophecy isn't much of a stretch. 'course, not knowing whether that 'and' and the paragraph marks were inserted during the translation, I can't really say for certain.

Right, its all part of one prophecy. I didn't mean to single out 9:9 and say it wasn't prophecy at all, but rather that riding a donkey into Jerusalem wasn't the point of it. The essential message behind this prophecy is an end to war.

Oh, and going off on a tangent here: when Zechariah says 'Ephraim' in this chapter, who's being refered to? In 9:13 ('When I have bent Judah for me, filled the bow with Ephraim, and raised up thy sons, O Zion...') it's juxtaposed with Judah, which seems to imply that it's being used to refer to the northern tribes as a whole (where elsewhere, as in 2 Chronicles, it's called Israel). Is that right? Or is it being used specifically of the tribe of Ephraim alone?

Good question. I can't say for sure that I know if it is a reference specifically to Ephraim or if it is a reference to Israel as a whole. However, Ephraim is probably singled out here due to having the reputation as a military stronghold and having military prowess. The overall message of the prophecy is that war will cease throughout the world, as it states, "He shall call on the nations to surrender, and his rule shall extend from sea to sea and from ocean to land's end." So the continued references to Ephraim are used to demonstrate that even the most military-oriented will put down there weapons. As a modern analogy, it would be similiar to a reference to Washington DC or the Pentagon.

All organisms want to HAVE SEX. It is the point of all existance (however the hell you spell that, spell check be damned). And what will come of all this SEX HAVING? Is there some sort of ultimate design that all this rampant SEX HAVING will achieve? Is humanity the ultimate goal? The driving force?

Or is there a greater achievement yet to be attained by organisms? And if not, why are we here?

Well, the grand question of "why are we here" is a philosophical one, not a biological one. Biology tells us how; we evolved. I can't give the same type of explanation for some grand scheme or ultimate goal. In fact, there may not be any reason, and there may not be any ultimate goal. It could all be a result of random chance events.

Since never, I think. Virgins may be young women, but if they are, they're chaste young women.
I know, I mean, I'm a young woman but I'm not a virgin and I'm sure that there are a number of older women out there who are virgins.

I know this is going to annoying to you and I'm sorry for that but do think that was coincidence? That the animals who wanted to lived were reproduced and have existed for Xnumber of years. That they figured out the equation of " i am living now, if i kill life i will live some more, but me, my family, and every thing will die" just because of a gradual growth in the brain that created self-conscious and awarness of the world?

I would say for the most part it is instinct, a nature-driven force. Animals, especially in less complex organisms, didn't sit down and reason something out. They just do what they have adapted themselves to do. And it isn't coincidence, but the fact that their biology has adapted them in such a way to survive. However, random mutations that cause adaptations to environments basically are coincidence. Its sheer luck and randomness that mutations occur that are beneficial. Far more mutations occur that are harmful.

Its sheer luck and randomness that mutations occur that are beneficial. Far more mutations occur that are harmful.
Actually, most mutations are neutral, neither good or bad. Bad ones occur about as often as good ones if memory serves.

Actually, most mutations are neutral, neither good or bad. Bad ones occur about as often as good ones if memory serves.

Ah, you're right. That actually entered my mind after I posted it. Most mutations don't do anything important at all.

The agenda of the Gospel authors is a topic that is acknowledged in every serious discussion regarding Gospel authorship. They are not regarded as first-hand accounts by modern scholarship. They are not regarded as accounts at all, testimony, or histories by modern scholarship. Its true that the Gospels were written to tell people about Jesus, which leads into the next question - why were they written to tell people about Jesus? Because they wanted to gain converts. Simple as that. Thus, the agenda that must be taken into account is that they are attempting to tell the Jesus story from a pro-Christian point of view in an attempt to win people into this new religion.

The Gospels are pseudoepigraphic. They were not written by apostles. The names attributed to them were a result of Church tradition. They occur nowhere in the texts themselves. They were written in select Christian communities, and the benefits of writing pseudoepigraphicia in such communities was to enlarge them. Christian persecution was relatively minor compared to other groups, such as that of the Jews, and this whole "but they were persecuted" argument is just one used by apologists to play down the fact that they had a lot to gain from spreading their religion. Such as power, influence, and money.

1. You make lots of refrences to "Modern scolarship". You assume that modern scolarship is some kind of homogenous entity. It isn't. There are modern scholars who are of a the opinion that the Gospels are as you describe them and there are modern scolars who do not agree with you. Kindly therefore refrain from assuming that scolars all disagree with me.

2. The Gospels were indeed written to tell people about Jesus to bring people to Christ. Now look at the motives for bringing people to Christ. Almost all the apostles were martyred, so if they were lying about what they had seen why not recount it to survive? As for your argument "Power, influence and money" I see no evidence of that untill much later on when Christianity became the religion of the Roman empire. Certainly there was no motive for that in the Gospel authors

3. Your word "pseudoepigraphic" does not appear in the Oxford English dictionary so I will have to ask you to define it.

4. Here are several links into who wrote the Gospels and the motives behind it

http://www.bigissueground.com/atheistground/minich-gospels.shtml

http://www.probe.org/content/view/841/77/

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/mqx.html

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/stil09.html

I know, I mean, I'm a young woman but I'm not a virgin and I'm sure that there are a number of older women out there who are virgins.
I think he was talking about virgin in the context of "an unmarried girl or woman", which in a society where women must get married would pretty much limit it to young ones.

1. You make lots of refrences to "Modern scolarship". You assume that modern scolarship is some kind of homogenous entity. It isn't. There are modern scholars who are of a the opinion that the Gospels are as you describe them and there are modern scolars who do not agree with you. Kindly therefore refrain from assuming that scolars all disagree with me.

No, it isn't some homogenous entity. But there is scholarly concensus on quite a bit, and in general most Christian apologetics work outside of that concensus. Scholarly concensus does hold that the Gospels are as I describe them. Now, we have spurious people who hold degrees that claim otherwise, but they aren't part of modern scholarship on the issue. The fact that there are no peer-reviewed works that assert things to the contrary demonstrates that much.

2. The Gospels were indeed written to tell people about Jesus to bring people to Christ. Now look at the motives for bringing people to Christ. Almost all the apostles were martyred, so if they were lying about what they had seen why not recount it to survive? As for your argument "Power, influence and money" I see no evidence of that untill much later on when Christianity became the religion of the Roman empire. Certainly there was no motive for that in the Gospel authors

The apostles didn't write the Gospels. They are only associated with them through Church tradition. Power, influence, and money are the motives for explicitly listed by Michael White in From Jesus to Christianity for part of the reason why it took off. You have to keep in mind the historical context. All new religions, all leaders of new religions, were more powerful than the leaders of new religions today. This is due to the fact that people had more of a supernatural worldview than they do today. Think L Ron Hubbard without pesky things like science to get in his way. That is the climate, and the type of people, that lead the early Christian church.

3. Your word "pseudoepigraphic" does not appear in the Oxford English dictionary so I will have to ask you to define it.

It means false authorship. Nowhere in the Gospels does it state who wrote them. The names were attributed to them as a result of Church tradition. Pseudoepigraphic literature was extremely common, and the favored form, among religious literature of this nature.

4. Here are several links into who wrote the Gospels and the motives behind it

In general, you've given me apologist links that express opinions outside of the opinion of most scholars on the issue. If I wanted that, I could pick up a Strobel book. And I have, I've read it. I've read everything on the Christian think-tank site up and down. I've emailed CARM and never got responses, etc. When they do things like claim Josephus was witness of Jesus, when Josephus wasn't even born for a few decades after Jesus' recorded death date, it kinda shoots holes in their boat of credibility.

I think he was talking about virgin in the context of "an unmarried girl or woman", which in a society where women must get married would pretty much limit it to young ones.
I don't think that women were required to get married then. I mean, I'm sure there were women at the time who would have been undesirable to get married to for whatever reason and they would wind up as lonely spinsters.

When they do things like claim Josephus was witness of Jesus, when Josephus wasn't even born for a few decades after Jesus' recorded death date, it kinda shoots holes in their boat of credibility.
Who points to the Josehpus passages about Jesus anymore? Weren't they dismissed as forgeries a couple years ago?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
http://gallery.chambana.net/albums/bostonsuperrally/screaming_zach.jpg
http://www.traumaflintstone.com/Images/Gallery/Ziggurat-screaming.jpg
http://thesimpsons.wz.cz/stranky/data/Galerie/Wallpapery/screaming.jpg
http://bybeautydamned.net/mt/archives/screaming%20eyes-thumb.jpg

And that is all I have to say on this topic.

ok- I'm not much good at keeping up with threads, so I'm just gonna put in my two cents for you all to use as support (one way or another).

Once you all are done proving 'God's existance, don't forget the Torah, the Quiran, and the Book of Mormon. And then look into Wicca, shamanism, Shintoism. THEN go to the dark side of the spectrum with Satanism and Necromancing (the assorted dark arts).

My point is- you can argue about religion all you want. The fact is that there is SOMETHING out there, and many people interpret it differently.

Personally, I think the whole practice is silly. Religion divides people- it's been seen throughout all human history. Belief in something unites them. Here's a quote I live by- It applies here, as well as to many people's lives.

"Religion is for those who have never had a spiritual experience." -Alduos Huxley

Why don't we all just drop our religions and just agree that we know there's some unidentified deity in control (or just watching and laughing)? Well? Why don't we?

Finally- Evolution is something I believe in. It's been proved by scientific studies- you can't argue with science. An animal stays alive because it lacks the capacity to want to die. It also has a built in motor for food, sleep, and sex. A human takes things a step higher, because of our highly evolved intelligence. We created and shared complex thought and poetic dreams about life after death. We delve deep into all emotions we're capable of, and try to make sense of them all. You all prove that by just posting creative thoughts on this thread. THere are three things that separate humans from animals (in general):
1. Humans craft thier own tools
2. Humans do not eat thier own young
3. Humans have written, standardized languages

Despite all our intelligence, we lack common sense (as a species). For all we know, a colony of army ants could have developed nuclear technology. But they knew it's destructive power and destroyed all the evidence and just went back to normal as if nothing happened.

http://www.traumaflintstone.com/Images/Gallery/Ziggurat-screaming.jpg
That one looks more like singing.

Who points to the Josehpus passages about Jesus anymore? Weren't they dismissed as forgeries a couple years ago?

Virtually every Christian apologist still relies on Josephus as a proof for a historical Jesus. And yeah, the historicracy of the Josephus passages has long been questioned. They are totally rejected by some and regarded as highly suspect by many.

What gets me is when these internet apologists do crazy things with Josephus. Its like he is some sort of Christian hero and just throwing his name out means you win an argument. Like the christian think-tank website that claimed Josephus was an eyewitness of Jesus. He wasn't even born yet!

That one looks more like singing.
Well, you kinda do have to use your imagination with that one.

I do not spit on there beliefs.
If you don't, then why do you claim that you have the messiah, when clearly the messiah of the OT isn't jesus! Your entire death-cult spits on judaism.

Right, its all part of one prophecy. I didn't mean to single out 9:9 and say it wasn't prophecy at all, but rather that riding a donkey into Jerusalem wasn't the point of it. The essential message behind this prophecy is an end to war.

Ah, right, I misunderstood you. So yes, the King will ride around on donkeys, but unless your average donkey-rider then proceeds to bring about world peace, he hasn't fulfilled anything. Which is a very reasonable take on it. No more questions.

Good question. I can't say for sure that I know if it is a reference specifically to Ephraim or if it is a reference to Israel as a whole. However, Ephraim is probably singled out here due to having the reputation as a military stronghold and having military prowess. The overall message of the prophecy is that war will cease throughout the world, as it states, "He shall call on the nations to surrender, and his rule shall extend from sea to sea and from ocean to land's end." So the continued references to Ephraim are used to demonstrate that even the most military-oriented will put down there weapons. As a modern analogy, it would be similiar to a reference to Washington DC or the Pentagon.

I see. So is it then being used literally, in that even Ephraim (or Israel as led by Ephraim) will lay down their weapons, or is it Zechariah using symbolism appropriate to his audience to say 'look, everyone's going to do it, no matter how military they are'? I guess the real question there is: can this occur any time, or does it need the lost tribes to return and (presumably) reestablish the northern kingdom first?

2. The Gospels were indeed written to tell people about Jesus to bring people to Christ.
Not really.


Now look at the motives for bringing people to Christ. Almost all the apostles were martyred, so if they were lying about what they had seen why not recount it to survive?
Why didn't the people in Jim Jones' cult not drink the kool-aid? Why did all the Branch Davidians (save a couple) burn to death?

Here's something for your edification: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com

In general, you've given me apologist links that express opinions outside of the opinion of most scholars on the issue. If I wanted that, I could pick up a Strobel book. And I have, I've read it. I've read everything on the Christian think-tank site up and down. I've emailed CARM and never got responses, etc. When they do things like claim Josephus was witness of Jesus, when Josephus wasn't even born for a few decades after Jesus' recorded death date, it kinda shoots holes in their boat of credibility.
Actually, Josephus was born in 37CE, IIRC, which would be ~4 years after jesus supposed death. However, he still wouldn't have been an eyewitness.

And as for CARM--good luck in getting anything from them, ever. Apologists never admit that they are wrong.

I see. So is it then being used literally, in that even Ephraim (or Israel as led by Ephraim) will lay down their weapons, or is it Zechariah using symbolism appropriate to his audience to say 'look, everyone's going to do it, no matter how military they are'? I guess the real question there is: can this occur any time, or does it need the lost tribes to return and (presumably) reestablish the northern kingdom first?

I think it can occur at any time, although another messianic prophecy refers to gathering up the lost tribes as well. But I think you've got it when you say it is symbolism that means "look, everyone is going to do it, no matter how military they are."

If you don't, then why do you claim that you have the messiah, when clearly the messiah of the OT isn't jesus! Your entire death-cult spits on judaism.
How is Christianity a death-cult?

But I think you've got it when you say it is symbolism that means "look, everyone is going to do it, no matter how military they are."

Fantastic. That means I can keep using my argument about... er... I've kinda forgotten. But it was one of those things where I decided the usage was symbolic, but whoever I was talking to insisted it was literal. Probably something to do with numbers... ah, well.

Anyway, that's enough from me, I'm not here to get into the debate proper.

How is Christianity a death-cult?

I think in the sense that the religion is based on reverence of a death, specifically the supposed execution

I think in the sense that the religion is based on reverence of a death, specifically the supposed execution
Which somewhat glosses over all the miracles, message peace and love from Jesus and many more things.

Someone might take offense. It's like he spits on a religion in the same post where he objects to people spitting on his.

Interesting irony.

And now this is where I will call you a false teacher for it is this kind of crap that will lead people astray. I am so lucky to know that the Lord Savior Jesus fullfilled the prophecy mentioned in the Old Testiment.

You are nothing more than a false teacher and to be rebuked and ignored. Your paper has no effect on me for I am saved by the Blood of the Lamb. I know the truth and I will spread that truth. You sir can move along now for you have been exposed as a false teacher that you are.

How have you exposed anything?

You cited an example - he showed you why you were wrong... you have no answer, so you call him a liar?

How is that good debate?

If you believe his interpretation to be wrong (which would be interesting to see, since the context IS given)... PROVE it... don't just assert it as false with no evidence.

Again that is wrong for even Jesus himself said he will return as has the prophets in the old testiment.

Again - show verses, provide evidence.

Your argument seems to consist of "Well, I don't like it..."

Actually no he didn't. Its a nice little fallacy by those who do not recognize Jesus as the messiah. I already know that the Jews rejected Jesus as the messiah so it comes as no surprise that you do not understand the Prophacy of the Lord nor of the Prophacy of his 2nd coming.

You don't find it at all ironic, that the ONLY group of people who HAD prophecy of 'messiah', insist that he still hasn't come?

The only group 'trained' to recognise messiah, say that STILL no one has matched the requirements?

You are trying to force your religion into the mould of an earlier one... and then trying to convince those who FOLLOW the older one, that they were wrong all along.


Which leads me to an interesting question...

If the Jews can be wrong about Messiah... why accept their prophecy?

Go ahead and reject prophacy TS. It isn't my soul that is at stake by doing so.

The Lord Savior fullfills all the biblical prophacy of the Messiah despite what what the Tanak says. The prophets also talk about his 2nd coming as well despite what you are trying to convince me of. I am not buying it for it flies in the opposite direction of the Truth.

As the Lord Savior himself said, "Except a man be born again, he cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven." I suggest you actually look at prophacy and you will see for a fact that Jesus actually fullfills all of it. But then again, Jews have rejected the Messiah for he was not what they were looking for in a messiah. They rejected him and crucified him on the Cross.

Sorry but I am not buying it and I know it isn't "psuedo-Christian" prophacy for it is in the Torah, and written by the Prophets whom they also rejected.

Prepare ye the Way of the Lord for he will be returning soon. Do not be caught on the wrong side of the war for it is your soul that will not survive it unless it is protected by the Blood of the Lamb.


Wow... you gave up on debate, completely... and decided to just preach instead?

Best plan, really... preachers don't expect debate, and don't have to asnwer it...

You should remember that for it is not I who thinks that Hezekiah was the Messiah but you who thinks Hezekiah was the Messiah.


Totally misunderstood. The prophecy was about Hezekiah, not Messiah. You are confused... you assume it MUST be a 'messianic' prophecy, because you believe it is about Jesus... but that is reading the material backwards.


I know that Jesus was the Messiah and because of that, I have accepted him as my Lord and Savior and will be with him when I die.


Knock yourself out on that. The text says he's not a messiah (he's a very naughty boy)... so you are trying to hang your coat on a cloud...


You are indeed correct that it is the old testiment. I've actually read it. It is you who have apparently failed to read it for if you did, you would recognize prophacy when it hit you in the face.


Ironic - since you claim as prophecy, things that are not written as prophecy.


I take both Testiments seriously and I am carefully studying both books. However, I will not deny the truth that Jesus was the Promised Messiah.


No. You are studying the New Testament, and you are reading the Tanakh in the context OF that text.

The irony of being a Christian, is that one MUST read the Old Testament FIRST, to have an idea of what it would MEAN for Messiah to come, and then read the New Testament to decide if messiah HAD come.

But - of course, Christians START with the assumption of 'christ'... so they can NEVER objectively read the older scripture.


You may continue to believe that but I will stick with the Truth.

Giving it a capital "t" does nothing to increase that 'truth'. If the evidence is against it, it doesn't matter HOW big you make the 't'.

It has to be said also... this kind of zeal, in the face of contradictory evidence, is likely to scare more people AWAY from Christianity, than attract them towards it.

You are effectively witnessing AGAINST Christ...

If that is the case then we have only a misunderstanding here. However, that does not negate the fact that you do not believe that Jesus was the messiah.

Many people do not believe that Jesus was the Tanakh's 'messiah'. It is because he fails to qualify.

It's not some kind of evil conspiracy to be mean to Jesus.

I do not spit on them. I respect them and their beliefs. I disagree with their views on the Messiah but I do respect their religion for Christianity sprang from the Jewish faith.

The word you are looking for is 'stole'... not 'sprang'...

Virgin also means young woman TS. I'm surprised you did not know that.

Actually - until I had sexual intercourse... I was a virgin.

Does that mean I was a young woman?

No - we have two different words... as did the Hebrew scripture... and we use the ones that are appropriate.

The Gospel writers were reading a Greek translation of the Hebrew, and the Greek translation incorrectly translated the phrase as 'virgin'.

The original text mentioned NOTHING about virgins.

It means false authorship. Nowhere in the Gospels does it state who wrote them. The names were attributed to them as a result of Church tradition. Pseudoepigraphic literature was extremely common, and the favored form, among religious literature of this nature.

I think it's 'pseudepigraphic'.

How is Christianity a death-cult?

Because it centres on the eventual destruction of the world as we know it, and the death and eternal torture of most of the human race?

You know... little details like that...

Because it centres on the eventual destruction of the world as we know it, and the death and eternal torture of most of the human race?
They also worship a zombie! :eek:

Because it centres on the eventual destruction of the world as we know it, and the death and eternal torture of most of the human race?

You know... little details like that...
It doesn't and it is disingenious to say so. Some sect of the big Christian family does that, indeed but the majority do not.

Come to think of it, which religions doesn't explain death and what happens after? Was the greek religion a death cult (hades)?

It doesn't and it is disingenious to say so. Some sect of the big Christian family does that, indeed but the majority do not.

Come to think of it, which religions doesn't explain death and what happens after? Was the greek religion a death cult (hades)?

Now, that is disingenuous.

Unless you are seriously arguing that most Christians ignore Revelation?

Christianity, by & large, has a set of beliefs that pretty much makes it a death cult par excellence.

They believe in heaven & hell.
They believe they're born sinners.
They believe they must repent all their days, or face eternal torment.
Suicide is a sin - quite possibly because Christians would otherwise hack their heads off after Sunday's seance with preacher boy.
Toddlers get special dispensation from the hell thing, until they're old enough to repent on their own.
It's a sin to murder people - quite possibly because all responsible Christian parents would otherwise kill their infants, so they won't end up in hell.
They worship a god who commited assisted suicide.
They symbolicly drink the last life blood of their mutilated deity.
They worship their mangled undead deity's undeath.

What part of christianity doesn't scream Death Cult to high heaven?! Is it the bits that scream Insane SM Cult perhaps?

Now, that is disingenuous.

Unless you are seriously arguing that most Christians ignore Revelation?
It is definitively not the central point of their faith.

Now, that is disingenuous.

Unless you are seriously arguing that most Christians ignore Revelation?

Ironically, the Bible doesn't say that the Earth will be destroyed. Not in the literal sense of the word destroyed anyway. A deeper understanding of Revelations will show that.

It is definitively not the central point of their faith.

I disagree. You show me a Christian that doesn't believe the whole second coming thing.