NationStates Jolt Archive

Brothers and sisters, hear my words and know the truth!

Evolution and creationism go hand in hand! God did not create the world in 7 days, no he created the world in 7 billion years. You see people... one day to god is a billion years to us all. On the final day he rested, and it is still that 7th day to god, ahmen. And one day when our god wakes up, hung over, and next to something ugly he will see his world, and he will see the destruction and corruption we as a people have wrought! And he will bring fire down upon us all, forever and amen!

What the hell?

all im going to say is God created the earth in 7 days plain and simple. the original Greek version of the Bible uses the word yom for day. yom translates as 24 hours, not alot of room to say 7 billion years.
and dude show me in the Bible where it says God is still resting or a day is like a billion years

all im going to say is God created the earth in 7 days plain and simple. the original Greek version of the Bible uses the word yom for day. yom translates as 24 hours, not alot of room to say 7 billion years

No, it's a misprint that's been handed down over the generations. The original reads 'yum' - the scribe had just eaten a tasty sandwich.

*sigh* i said yom

*sigh* i said yom

And I said yum.

all im going to say is God created the earth in 7 days plain and simple. the original Greek version of the Bible uses the word yom for day. yom translates as 24 hours, not alot of room to say 7 billion years

Why do people put fish in barrels? Do they really want them shot?

1) 6 Days.

2) Hebrew.

3) Torah

4) "a period of time"

5) "One day is as a thousand years"

6) "a thousand", in Biblical text, is about equivalent to saying "infinite", or "beyond number"

This crap did not needs it's own thread. And someone who knows more about it than me can correct Sumguy about yom translating to "24 hours".

Grave an Idle plz show me the Scripture references:cool:
and dude these forums are fast

Why do people put fish in barrels? Do they really want them shot?

1) 6 Days.

2) Hebrew.

3) Torah

4) "a period of time"

5) "One day is as a thousand years"

6) "a thousand", in Biblical text, is about equivalent to saying "infinite", or "beyond number"

I am HONESTLY convinced you sit around at your computer, with this forum open, just lurking until you see someone make the "yom" statement.

Rock on.

Well if this means that we will have 6 billion years of work and then 1 billion years of rest than some might take issue with it.

I am HONESTLY convinced you sit around at your computer, with this forum open, just lurking until you see someone make the "yom" statement.

Rock on.

Actually - I've only been online about 5 or ten minutes a day this week, if that. I just have the good fortune(?) to be here when people decide to barrel fish. :)

Actually - I've only been online about 5 or ten minutes a day this week, if that. I just have the good fortune(?) to be here when people decide to barrel fish. :)

That is some luck. Well then, carry on. *nods*

quite frankly, my out look on this whole consept is does it really matter? :confused: i am a devout beliver in both science and im also an orthodox christian. you can belive in both, its not impossible. what really matters is how you spend your time on the earth, not how it was made in the first place :rolleyes:

quite frankly, my out look on this whole consept is does it really matter? :confused: i am a devout beliver in both science and im also an orthodox christian. you can belive in both, its not impossible. what really matters is how you spend your time on the earth, not how it was made in the first place :rolleyes:

I'm curious: do you mean Orthodox as in (Greek/Russian/etc.) Orthodox?

No offense meant (Though I'd imagine you'd be hard-pressed to derive insult from it) but I'm genuinely curious.

Grave an Idle plz show me the Scripture references:cool:
and dude these forums are fast

Genesis 1:14 'elohiym 'amar ma'owr raqiya shamayim badal yowm layil 'owth mow'ed yowm shaneh

(Yes, that is Hebrew. And, being Hebrew, it was in Torah long before it was translated into any other language to make up a version of 'the bible).

Literal translation, word-for-word:

'elohiym: rulers, judges, angels, gods, godlike being, works or special possessions of (a) god(s) - later, attributed as a name ofthe triumvirate god of Christianity.

'amar: to say, to answer, to say in one's heart, to think, to command, to promise, to intend. (Imperfect tense).

ma'owr: light lights, luminary.

raqiya: extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament, expanse (flat as base, support), firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above), considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above.

shamayim: heaven, heavens, sky, visible heavens, sky, as abode of the stars, as the visible universe, the sky, atmosphere, Heaven (as the abode of God).

badal: to divide, separate, to divide, separate, sever, to separate, set apart, to make a distinction, difference, to divide into parts. (Infinitive form).

yowm: day, time, year, day (as opposed to night), day (24 hour period), as a division of time, a working day, a day's journey, days, lifetime (pl.), time, period (general), year, temporal references, today, yesterday, tomorrow.

It is worth noticing - the Hebrew scripture contains uses of 'day' similar to our own common usage, e.g. 'in my day, we did things differently'. They did the same with the term 'generation' - using it both accurately and symbolically.

layil: night, night (as opposed to day), of gloom, protective shadow (figurative).

'owth: sign, signal, a distinguishing mark, banner, remembrance, miraculous sign, omen, warning, token, ensign, standard, miracle, proof. (Implication from etymology, is that the term refers to 'something appearing' as a sign.).

mow'ed: appointed place, appointed time, meeting, appointed time, appointed time (general), sacred season, set feast, appointed season, appointed meeting, appointed place, appointed sign or signal, tent of meeting.

yowm: as above.

shaneh: year, as division of time, as measure of time, as indication of age, a lifetime (of years of life). (again, shaneh is used both literally and figuratively).

I am HONESTLY convinced you sit around at your computer, with this forum open, just lurking until you see someone make the "yom" statement.

Rock on.
"Yom Yom!" :D
Actually - I've only been online about 5 or ten minutes a day this week, if that. I just have the good fortune(?) to be here when people decide to barrel fish. :)
some like sushi, others like sashimi. :p

who is this god person anyway?

some like sushi, others like sashimi. :p

And some would prefer gyūdon, and are getting a bit sick of the constant 'barreled fish' diet. :)

who is this god person anyway?

A magical deity that is the supreme ruler of the Universe and who made the entire Universe.

who is this god person anyway?

Some believe that he created the universe. I guess they think we are beholden to him or something.

Quite odd.

who is this god person anyway?

Reality's Admin.

Good one.

So how many years ya think before that seventh day is over?

Good one.

So how many years ya think before that seventh day is over?

I dunno, but there is no way I'll be keeping his "days" for the work six days and rest on the seventh... :D

I dunno, but there is no way I'll be keeping his "days" for the work six days and rest on the seventh... :D

I've just assumed I'm in my seventh day right now.

There's some enormous fallacies in the argument which states the Greek bible is the original translation.

1. The greek language didn't really exist until about 1300 BC, with the mycenean empire.

2. According to biblical scholars, Creation occured about 4000 years before Christ. A great deal of excitement, including many of the books of the old testament, should presumably have been written before the Greek language actually existed.

3. If these books of the bible were written before the Greek language actually existed, then these books could not have been written in Greek. Ergo, the Greek bible is not the original translation, but was translated from an earlier version of the bible written in another language.

The argument of religion has gone on for centuries. I believe there is a good. I am a christian. I believe the bible is true and I have two questions for anyone to answer:

1.) Name a religion that has sent there "god" to earth to save the world, other than Christianity.

2.) Name something that clearly disproves Christianity. No evolution, that is full of flaws.

Ergo, the Greek bible is not the original translation, but was translated from an earlier version of the bible written in another language.

That would make it the original translation then. Original translation doesnt mean it was the first copy of the bible. It would have to be the second would it not?

Please tell me where i'm being stupid because i'm sure its in there somewhere

There's some enormous fallacies in the argument which states the Greek bible is the original translation.

1. The greek language didn't really exist until about 1300 BC, with the mycenean empire.

2. According to biblical scholars, Creation occured about 4000 years before Christ. A great deal of excitement, including many of the books of the old testament, should presumably have been written before the Greek language actually existed.

3. If these books of the bible were written before the Greek language actually existed, then these books could not have been written in Greek. Ergo, the Greek bible is not the original translation, but was translated from an earlier version of the bible written in another language.

The bible, and this has been established already, was compused of Hebrew (Old Testament) and the New Testament (Greek.) The current Bible was composed during the time of Rome.

The argument of religion has gone on for centuries. I believe there is a good. I am a christian. I believe the bible is true and I have two questions for anyone to answer:

1.) Name a religion that has sent there "god" to earth to save the world, other than Christianity.

2.) Name something that clearly disproves Christianity. No evolution, that is full of flaws.

1) Why does that prove Christianity is correct
2) As is Christianity

1) Why does that prove Christianity is correct
2) As is Christianity

I believe Christianity is true, but my point is not to prove it's existance because it is true. I am merely trying to get everyone to think.

I also believe that Christianity is not full of flaws, but has not been totally revealed to us. We will never be able to understand the Bible 100%. The Bible does not say when the earth was created, I cannot tell you when it was created.

Just off the top of my head...


1.) Name a religion that has sent there "god" to earth to save the world, other than Christianity.


Odin, leaps instantly to mind. Sacrificed by hanging on The World Tree (Yggdrasill), pierced by his own javelin.


2.) Name something that clearly disproves Christianity. No evolution, that is full of flaws.

The simple fact that 'Christ' is assumed to be equivalent to 'Messiah', but the 'messiah' of the Hebrew texts is just a man, not god or god-incarnate?

I have no idea what you are talking about so here is a pancake with a bunny on its head.

Wait, where did I put that pic?

I believe Christianity is true, but my point is not to prove it's existance because it is true. I am merely trying to get everyone to think.

I also believe that Christianity is not full of flaws, but has not been totally revealed to us. We will never be able to understand the Bible 100%. The Bible does not say when the earth was created, I cannot tell you when it was created.

What were you trying to get them to think with the first question?

Its hard to argue against religion when you pit known facts against faith

A magical deity that is the supreme ruler of the Universe and who made the entire Universe.

Some believe that he created the universe. I guess they think we are beholden to him or something.

Quite odd.

Reality's Admin.

hmmmmmmm

but what did he make the universe out of?

and, 7 billion years is a hella long time, shouldnt he be dead by now?

The argument of religion has gone on for centuries. I believe there is a good. I am a christian. I believe the bible is true and I have two questions for anyone to answer:

1.) Name a religion that has sent there "god" to earth to save the world, other than Christianity.

2.) Name something that clearly disproves Christianity. No evolution, that is full of flaws.

1) name another religion that NEEDS to send its god to earth to save the world. (im pretty sure that someone else will name several)

2) the story of jesus' birth is total bullshit. no census, no star, no wise men, no slaughter of innocents. all made up.

Like I said though, I people will never be able to agree on religion. It is something that has been happening and will happen continually in the future.

Like I said though, I people will never be able to agree on religion. It is something that has been happening and will happen continually in the future.

Fair enough but what was the point of your first question?

We will never be able to understand the Bible 100%. The Bible does not say when the earth was created, I cannot tell you when it was created.


Indeed. We will never be able to read the mids of some random long-dead greek scribes.

2) the story of jesus' birth is total bullshit. no census, no star, no wise men, no slaughter of innocents. all made up.

prove it

Fair enough but what was the point of your first question?

I was interested in everyone's responses.

I was interested in everyone's responses.

No offence but it came across that you were trying to say that your religion was the best one because your god cared more for us.

No offence but it came across that you were trying to say that your religion was the best one because your god cared more for us.

Oh. I am terribly sorry. That was not my aim or goal at all.

The argument of religion has gone on for centuries. I believe there is a good. I am a christian. I believe the bible is true and I have two questions for anyone to answer:

1.) Name a religion that has sent there "god" to earth to save the world, other than Christianity.

2.) Name something that clearly disproves Christianity. No evolution, that is full of flaws.

1.) I'm pretty sure that Mithraism has something similar. Even if nothing meets this point exactly, there are plenty of other similarities between pagan religions and stories from the Bible. It can not be denied.

2.) Why are we to disprove Christianity when you can't prove it yourself? One can not prove he exists but we have plenty of scientific evidence of evolution. What exactly do you have but a book full of inaccuracies, fallacies and contradictions?

The bible has many accuracies. It does not contradict itself for one. Many archelogical discoveries confirm that it exists. You mean to tell me that the entire world was an accient? Look at the eye of a human and tell me that is an accident or look at the world. So complex, that a "huge bang" occured and everything was so. I do not think so. Not possible.

Oh. I am terribly sorry. That was not my aim or goal at all.

What responses did you expect may I ask?

The argument of religion has gone on for centuries. I believe there is a good. I am a christian. I believe the bible is true and I have two questions for anyone to answer:

1.) Name a religion that has sent there "god" to earth to save the world, other than Christianity.

2.) Name something that clearly disproves Christianity. No evolution, that is full of flaws.

1) Off the top of my head?
Hinduism.

So complex, that a "huge bang" occured and everything was so. I do not think so. Not possible.

You're simplifying the big bang a hell of a lot with that section

prove it

the romans never did a census of the whole world. there WAS a census of the area at one point but it was at the wrong time for jesus' birth

the ancients were big on astronomy. if there was an unusual star (or a comet that returned at the proper time) it would have been mentioned. no mention outside of the bible means it didnt happen

same with the "wise men". if they were big time astronomers following a "star" (you might notice that celestial objects dont stop over any particular spot on the earth) (you cant follow a star) they would have written about their adventures in the eastern reaches of the roman empire.

same with slaughter of the innocents. there is no record of herod killing baby boys at that time. and he was famous enough that if he had done it, it would have been jotted down by someone.

I am interested in your sources. Do tell.

You mean to tell me that the entire world was an accient? Look at the eye of a human and tell me that is an accident or look at the world. So complex, that a "huge bang" occured and everything was so. I do not think so. Not possible.

many people find that a convincing arguement. i dont but i can see why others do.

but how does it imply anything whatsoever about the identity of this creator?

many people find that a convincing arguement. i dont but i can see why others do.

but how does it imply anything whatsoever about the identity of this creator?

This proves that this does exist.

This proves that this does exist.

Suggests would be a better word

I am interested in your sources. Do tell.

the source of nothingness?

let me just suggest to you that if there were a roman census, you would have studied it in school or in church, if there were stories outside of the bible about a star, wisemen or slaughter of boy babies, you would be telling ME what the source is.

This proves that this does exist.

uhhh....

do you mean that it proves that there must have been a creator? its an ambiguous sentence.

but WHAT does it prove (or suggest as dundee said) about a creator?

I have no idea what you are talking about so here is a pancake with a bunny on its head.

Wait, where did I put that pic?

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y107/TP4CCCC/pancake20bunny.jpg


1.) I'm pretty sure that Mithraism has something similar. Even if nothing meets this point exactly, there are plenty of other similarities between pagan religions and stories from the Bible. It can not be denied.
As far as I remember the problem with Mithraism is that though it predates Christianity it was a secret religion, and all the evidence there is about what they believed comes from after Christ, so whether there was any pollination of ideas, and which way it might have been is unknown.

If I remember rightly at the time of the resurrection the gospels claim that people (might have been saints) rose from the grave and went wandering around the streets, strange no-one else spotted them.

2.) Why are we to disprove Christianity when you can't prove it yourself? One can not prove he exists but we have plenty of scientific evidence of evolution. What exactly do you have but a book full of inaccuracies, fallacies and contradictions?
rofl i dont have time for this.....

i can prove it myself. i look outside my window each day and say to myself "How, with all that beauty, can there not be a God?" i can also prove it by what He has done in my life and in others i know.
and the Bible is 100% accurate, it has never been proven wrong once

rofl i dont have time for this.....

i can prove it myself. i look outside my window each day and say to myself "How, with all that beauty, can there not be a God?" i can also prove it by what He has done in my life and in others i know.
and the Bible is 100% accurate, it has never been proven wrong once

You have faith not proof

i have proof of what He has done in my life

i have proof of what He has done in my life

No thats still faith

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y107/TP4CCCC/pancake20bunny.jpg

No. That's not it. That's not what I'm looking for.

rofl i dont have time for this.....

i can prove it myself. i look outside my window each day and say to myself "How, with all that beauty, can there not be a God?" i can also prove it by what He has done in my life and in others i know.
and the Bible is 100% accurate, it has never been proven wrong once


That's not proof. That's not even nearly approaching the vague possibility of almost being a rough approximation of severely flawed proof.

Burden of proof is on those making the affirmative claim.

Through small research I have discovered a very interesting Q and A. Read this:

Is Luke Wrong About the Time of Jesus' Birth?
Hello,

I wonder if you could clarify something that has me puzzled. According to the gospels of Matthew and Luke, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great. But Luke also wrote that Joseph and Mary had to go to Bethlehem for a census by Quirinius while she was still pregnant, and this event has been dated at 6 A.D., or ten years after Herod the Great died in 4 B.C. There have been no historical records to indicate that any Roman census was held prior to 6 A.D.

I've done some research into this apparent discrepancy and have wondered if, perhaps, it was not actually Herod the Great, but one of his heirs apparent that was King at the time of Jesus' birth. But another thing that I discovered in my research is that the well-known historian, Josephus, never documented the slaughter of the innocents, even though he had written quite extensively about Herod the Great. It would seem that Josephus would write something about the mass slaughter of children.

I must be missing some important issue and am sure hoping you can clear this up for me.

Thank you,
Cheryl

Hi Cheryl,

Thanks so much for writing. This apparent mistake in Luke's timeline has been raised many times over the years as proof of the fallibility of the Biblical accounts. I think upon closer examination, you will find that it really doesn't hold up. It is important to go over all the historic facts we have first so one can understand what is known, what is stated and what is assumed.

Listing the Facts
Let's look at the Biblical passage in question and then we'll take it apart to see what specific historical claims are made.

"Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. And everyone was on his way to register for the census, each to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, in order to register along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and was with child. While they were there, the days were completed for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her firstborn son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn."(NASB)

In the Biblical account, we know these facts are presented:

Caesar Augustus ordered a census
Quirinius was governing Syria (hegemoneuontos tes Syrias Kyreniou)
Each family must register at their familial city of origin
Further, Matthew chapter 2 reports that Herod the Great ordered the slaughter "all the male children who were in Bethlehem and all its vicinity, from two years old and under"(Matt 2:16). We know that Herod died 4-2 B.C., so Jesus birth had to have been before his death - most likely by two or more years. Given these facts, scholars generally date Jesus' birth anywhere between 6 B.C. to 4 B.C.

Now, let's turn our attention to the Josephus passage. In 17.13.5 of The Antiquity of the Jews, Josephus writes:

"So Archelaus' country was laid to the province of Syria; and Cyrenius, one that had been consul, was sent by Caesar to take account of people's effects in Syria, and to sell the house of Archelaus."1

From the Josephus account we derive the following facts:

Caesar ordered a census
Cyrenius (Quirinius) was sent to account for Syria and sell the house of Archelaus
Cyrenius (Quirinius) "had been consul"
We also know from other historical records that Herod Archelaus was deposed in 6 A.D., so this census must be about 6 or 7 A.D. So, the question goes, if Herod the Great died in 4 B.C. and Josephus tells us Quirinius' census wasn't until 6 A.D., then isn't this a contradiction?

More than One Census
Although on its face we seem to have a difficulty here, there are several pieces that we must consider before jumping to the conclusion that Luke and Josephus were speaking about the same event. Indeed, it seems that Caesar Augustus was the type of leader who ordered many censuses in his day. Records exist to show that Roman-controlled Egypt had begun a census as early as 10 B.C. and it was repeated every 14 years. And Augustus himself notes in his Res Gestae (The Deeds of Augustus) that he ordered three wide-spread censuses of Roman citizens, one in 28B.C., one in 8 B.C. and one in 14 A.D.2 In between there are several other censuses that happened locally across Rome. Luke's account corroborates the idea of multiple censuses for Judea when he writes "This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria." Certainly, the word "first" implies that where was more than one census happened.

On another occasion, an enrollment of all the people of the empire happened to swear an oath of allegiance to Caesar. In Chapter 34 of Res Gestae Augustus also notes, "When I administered my thirteenth consulate (2 B.C.E.), the senate and Equestrian order and Roman people all called me father of the country, and voted that the same be inscribed in the vestibule of my temple".3 Josephus also mentions a time "When all good people gave assurance of their good will to Caesar".4 These types of tributes would also require an enrollment of individuals from across the empire. Orosius, a fifth century Christian, links this registration with the birth of Jesus saying that "all of the peoples of the great nations were to take an oath".5

Taking all of this together, we have at least three censuses in the area of Judea - one in 8 B.C., one starting around 2 B.C. and one in 6 A.D. The only point that is really in question, then, is whether Luke was mistaken in ascribing this census to the time when Quirinius was in the role of Syrian Governor. Since Quirinius wasn't governor of the Syrian province until after Archelaus was deposed, critics claim Luke misidentified the census as the smaller one, which happened some 8-10 years after Herod died. Either Luke is wrong on his dating of Jesus' birth or Matthew made up the story of Herod the Great and the killing of the infants. Is this an accurate objection?

The Governorship of Quirinius
In studying this problem, there are two main solutions that Christian scholars offer, and each has some good merit. The first point is the terminology Luke uses when writing about Quirinius' governorship over Syria. In stating that Quirinius controlled the Syrian area, Luke doesn't use the official political title of "Governor" ("legatus"), but the broader term "hegemon" which is a ruling officer or procurator. This means that Quirinius may not have been the official governor of Judea, but he was in charge of the census because he was a more capable and trusted servant of Rome than the more inept Saturninus.

Justin Martyr's Apology supports this view, writing that Quirinius was a "procurator", not a governor of the area of Judea.6 As Gleason Archer writes, "In order to secure efficiency and dispatch, it may well have been that Augustus put Quirinius in charge of the census-enrollment in Syria between the close of Saturninus's administration and the beginning of Varus's term of service in 7 B.C. It was doubtless because of his competent handling of the 7 B.C. census that Augustus later put him in charge of the 7 A.D. census."7 Archer also says that Roman history records Quirinius leading the effort to quell rebels in that area at exactly that time, so such a political arrangement is not a stretch.

If Quirinius did hold such a position, then we have no contradiction. The first census was taken during the time of Jesus birth, but Josephus' census would have come later. This option seems to me to be entirely reasonable.

Herod's Slaughter of the Babies
Your second question is quite different in its format. You ask why, if Herod committed such an atrocity as killing all the male babies "two years old and under" as Matthew recounts, how could historians such as Josephus completely ignore it? Well, let's think about this for a moment. Bethlehem at the time of Jesus' birth was a very small city with no more than a few thousand people. The total number of infants who would have been murdered under Herod's edict could be pretty low. As James Patrick Holding writes "How many boys aged two and under could there have been in and around the tiny city of Bethlehem? Five? Ten? Matthew does not give a number. Josephus says that Herod murdered a vast number of people, and was so cruel to those he didn't kill that the living considered the dead to be fortunate. Thus, indirectly, Josephus tells us that there were many atrocities that Herod committed that he does not mention in his histories - and it is probable that authorizing the killing of the presumably few male infants in the vicinity of Bethlehem was a minuscule blot of the blackness that was the reign of Herod. Being that the events of the reign of Herod involved practically one atrocity after another - it is observed by one writer, with a minimum of hyperbole, that hardly a day in his 36-year reign passed when someone wasn't sentenced to death - why should any one event in particular have touched off a rebellion, when others in particular, including those recorded by Josephus, did not?"8

I hope these discussions have helped you further your understanding of the difficulties historians face when trying to piece together events from the limited records of the past. There is certainly no slam-dunk evidence that the Biblical accounts are wrong here. In fact, one must also remember that the Biblical accounts are themselves historic documentation and therefore have historic merit in themselves. The fact that we have outside corroboration of the possibility of multiple censuses strengthens Luke's report of the events as he has written them. To say that this is an error would be premature. God bless you as you seek Him.

References

2. Res Gestae Divi Avgvsti Chapter 22 (The Deeds of Divine Augustus) translated by Thomas Bushnell, BSG Available online at http://classics.mit.edu/Augustus/deeds.html#71

3. Ibid

4. Josephus, op cit p. 453

5. Orosius, Adv. Pag. VI.22.7, VII.2.16 as quoted from "Yet another Eclipse for Herod" by John P. Pratt http://www.griffithobs.org/IPSPlanPlatt.html#Fn12

6. Justin Martyr "The First Apology Of Justin" Chapter 34 (accessed online at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html)

7. Archer, Gleason L. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties
Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI © 1982 p.366

8. Holding, James Patrick Is the Account of the Slaughter of the Innocents Historical?
Accessed 12/2/05 at http://www.tektonics.org/qt/slaughtinn.html

Copyright ©2007 Come Reason Ministries. All Rights Reserved.

URL: http://www./comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con100.asp

rofl i dont have time for this.....

i can prove it myself. i look outside my window each day and say to myself "How, with all that beauty, can there not be a God?" i can also prove it by what He has done in my life and in others i know.
and the Bible is 100% accurate, it has never been proven wrong once

I don't see any proof there. Unless the definition of proof has backslid the last time I checked.

*sigh* id continue on but i dont have the time or dont feel like debating (ive done so much of that latley) let me just leave with Jesus loves you all :)

No. That's not it. That's not what I'm looking for.

How many different ways can a pancake be on a bunny's head?

One of the (many) laws of physics says something along the lines of energy cannot be destroyed because it turns into another kind (kinetic, potential, etc., etc.); the "nothing comes from nothing" line, if you like.

If we take this as a starting point, it suggests (to me, anyway) the existence of something before the "Big Bang" - the potential energy that turned into the Big Bang came from somewhere, after all!

And it is rare enough right now for explosions to cause themselves with no outside influence, so why should it be any different millions of years ago?

To me that suggests the possibility of a creator of some kind, but I can see why others think differently.

*sigh* id continue on but i dont have the time or dont feel like debating (ive done so much of that latley) let me just leave with Jesus loves you all :)

Or doesn't. Because, maybe - he's not real. That's the funny thing.

The argument of religion has gone on for centuries. I believe there is a good. I am a christian. I believe the bible is true and I have two questions for anyone to answer:

1.) Name a religion that has sent there "god" to earth to save the world, other than Christianity.

2.) Name something that clearly disproves Christianity. No evolution, that is full of flaws.

*GAFAW* i like to spell it like that. First off you spelled the wrong 'there' it should be 'their' And if anyone payed attention in their ancient greek histroy and such things, you would remember that it was belived that the gods appeared on earth as avartars (a person or ceature inhabited by a god)

and to answer your second question, considering the fact that christianity itself is unproveable and therefore undefinable, any arguement that someone comes up with can be easily shot down. Just because you say it is proveable doesn't make it so. We call that a faulty syllogism. For anyone who is interested quantum physics also offers an atlernative, which seems really nice, and should fulfill everyone's quest for immortallity. Good stuff, if you can get it in its condensed form without all the bits about quarks and such.

SLUDGE GUN TIME!!!:gundge:

One of the (many) laws of physics says something along the lines of energy cannot be destroyed because it turns into another kind (kinetic, potential, etc., etc.); the "nothing comes from nothing" line, if you like.

If we take this as a starting point, it suggests (to me, anyway) the existence of something before the "Big Bang" - the potential energy that turned into the Big Bang came from somewhere, after all!

And it is rare enough right now for explosions to cause themselves with no outside influence, so why should it be any different millions of years ago?

To me that suggests the possibility of a creator of some kind, but I can see why others think differently.

You can subscribe to the big heartbeat theory, which effectively suggests that the big bang was preceded by a big crunch and that this is a regular occurrence. Where (of if) it ever started is still undefined I think.

1.) Name a religion that has sent there "god" to earth to save the world, other than Christianity.


Kind of different but I thought about Prometheus

If I remember rightly at the time of the resurrection the gospels claim that people (might have been saints) rose from the grave and went wandering around the streets, strange no-one else spotted them.

ya ya! the great unremarked upon zombie invasion of jerusalem.

maybe the zombies ate anyone who had a pencil.

How many different ways can a pancake be on a bunny's head?

So this shows you think I asked for a pic of a pancake on a bunny's head. That is not the case. I am talking about a pic of a bunny on a pancake's head.

Kind of different but I thought about Prometheus

na na, prometheus didnt really try to save man, just advance them with the whole fire thing, but i see what you mean

So this shows you think I asked for a pic of a pancake on a bunny's head. That is not the case. I am talking about a pic of a bunny on a pancake's head.

Eh, reality appears to agree with you, but that never bothered me before:p

How many different ways can a pancake be on a bunny's head?

you realized that now you just condemmed one bunny to be experimented on by the pancake habadashers as they try to answer that question...

So this shows you think I asked for a pic of a pancake on a bunny's head. That is not the case. I am talking about a pic of a bunny on a pancake's head.
YO! DARKNOVAE!!! GRAB YOUR CAMERA!!!
:D :D

Good one.

So how many years ya think before that seventh day is over?

500,000,000 years.. give or take a few million.

Look guys, this is all a joke... I figured they can post a reliogion based on cheese I can try and post something that sounds semi realistic. At least mine is based on something that could be considered factual...

YO! DARKNOVAE!!! GRAB YOUR CAMERA!!!
:D :DBut I don't have a bunny...

Would a kitty work? :p

And I said yum.

ROTFLMFAO

you realized that now you just condemmed one bunny to be experimented on by the pancake habadashers as they try to answer that question...

It's for the greater good I feel.

Through small research I have discovered a very interesting Q and A. Read this:


the more i read it, the more it seems to me to show that the stories of jesus birth are wrong.

the only thing that MIGHT have been a census of the whole world was that loyalty oath thing. it doesnt sound like a census to me but i certainly cant claim to know it wasnt. we'll take it as true. and as having happened in 2 bc, a time that doesnt fit the story because of the death of herod.

so herod freaks out when wise men from the east drop by to talk about a king, kills a bunch of babies and the wise men drop off the face of the earth never to be heard about again. all that way and they never told anyone about their journey to see the king of the jews that wicked cool star that stopped right over the place where he was.

i have no real problem accepting that herod would have kept quiet about the whole thing and that he did kill so many people that a few babies might not have made a splash but where did matthew hear about it? jesus' parents were in egypt when the slaughter happened. seems pretty made up to me.

you still have the moving star and the great, unremarked, zombie invasion of jerusalem to get past.

plus the unexpected unremarked darkness at noon and earthquake so severe that it opened graves.

Man, the Creationists these days don't have any stamina. They barely made it past two pages.

interesting....

as i was reading up on the wise men...

matthew 2:23
He went and dwelt in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, "He shall be called a Nazorean."


according to the notes in my online catholic bible

[23] Nazareth . . . he shall be called a Nazorean: the tradition of Jesus' residence in Nazareth was firmly established, and Matthew sees it as being in accordance with the foreannounced plan of God. The town of Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, and no such prophecy can be found there. The vague expression "through the prophets" may be due to Matthew's seeing a connection between Nazareth and certain texts in which there are words with a remote similarity to the name of that town. Some such Old Testament texts are Isaiah 11:1 where the Davidic king of the future is called "a bud" (neser) that shall blossom from the roots of Jesse, and Judges 13:5, 7 where Samson, the future deliverer of Israel from the Philistines, is called one who shall be consecrated (a nazir) to God.

But I don't have a bunny...

Would a kitty work? :p

hmm... let's test it...

"I don't know what's going on... so heres a pic of a Kitty on a Pancake's head"


...



could work... :p

It's for the greater good I feel.

for who... the people with shares in Pancake mixes... or the Haberdasher industry... :p

hmm... let's test it...

"I don't know what's going on... so heres a pic of a Kitty on a Pancake's head"


...



could work... :p

New meme! :D

Now I could get off that bunny's head!

the "nothing comes from nothing" line, if you like.


(It's Ex nihilo nihil fit)

hmm... let's test it...

"I don't know what's going on... so heres a pic of a Kitty on a Pancake's head"


...



could work... :p
Nice thread jack. From complete religions BS to kitties and bunnies and pancakes. Truly an amazing thread jack.

all im going to say is God created the earth in 7 days plain and simple. the original Greek version of the Bible uses the word yom for day. yom translates as 24 hours, not alot of room to say 7 billion years.
and dude show me in the Bible where it says God is still resting or a day is like a billion years

Wrong, plain and simple.

First, it's not greek, but a Hebrew language that Genesis was written in. Your first mistake.

Second, although "yom" literally translates to day, there are several ways to use it in a phrase that changes it's meaning, depending on the phrase used.

There are two common phrases, and depending on how you translate(This is important) it could either mean a 24-hour celestial day, or "an indefinate period of time"(In meaning, here, as it is literally translated there is no noticeable difference between the two, however there is a great deal of difference when you translate for meaning). Guess which phrase is used. I'll give you a hint: It isn't the one the means "24 hours".

So, ignorance can no longer be your excuse.

1) name another religion that NEEDS to send its god to earth to save the world. (im pretty sure that someone else will name several)

2) the story of jesus' birth is total bullshit. no census, no star, no wise men, no slaughter of innocents. all made up.

Eh, for number two, it's gets a bit... difficult to understand.

For instance, the "Star" was likely actually the appearance of Jupiter in... I think Ares? Which was the zodiacal symbol associated with Bethlehem, I do believe. An actual "star" as commonly thought did not occur, and even the Bible alludes to this in that the King(I believe Herod) asks what was seen in the sky to signal the Christ's birth. This would lead you to believe that the "star" was not actually something that could be readily apparent to the untrained eye.

As for the wise men, they were astrologers, more than likely more than three of them.

As for the slaughter of the innocents, well, it was more likely only a handful of children if it even did happen. Probably no more than ten or twenty-ish.

Not saying this proves anything, but I love finding common misconceptions that people have about their own religion, and figured I'd point this out.

Oh, and before I leave, his name wasn't Jesus, for god's sake. It was Yeshua(Or another form there-of). Jesus wasn't even a name back then. Just a fun note for people.

Eh, for number two, it's gets a bit... difficult to understand.

For instance, the "Star" was likely actually the appearance of Jupiter in... I think Ares? Which was the zodiacal symbol associated with Bethlehem, I do believe. An actual "star" as commonly thought did not occur, and even the Bible alludes to this in that the King(I believe Herod) asks what was seen in the sky to signal the Christ's birth. This would lead you to believe that the "star" was not actually something that could be readily apparent to the untrained eye.

As for the wise men, they were astrologers, more than likely more than three of them.

As for the slaughter of the innocents, well, it was more likely only a handful of children if it even did happen. Probably no more than ten or twenty-ish.

Not saying this proves anything, but I love finding common misconceptions that people have about their own religion, and figured I'd point this out.

Oh, and before I leave, his name wasn't Jesus, for god's sake. It was Yeshua(Or another form there-of). Jesus wasn't even a name back then. Just a fun note for people.

ya but the STAR came to a halt over the place where jesus was. it wasnt a star, it wasnt jupiter, it was some kind of helicopter! celestial objects cant stop over a certain spot on the earth.

ya but the STAR came to a halt over the place where jesus was. it wasnt a star, it wasnt jupiter, it was some kind of helicopter! celestial objects cant stop over a certain spot on the earth.

Eh, it's easy to see how some might see a planet as a star. Most people couldn't understand the difference, even today, when looking at them with the naked eye(Hell, most people back then didn't know the difference). The star went into Ares, which was interpreted as the rise of a new king(As Jupiter was the star of Kings, in a sense). The star didn't stop over Bethlehem, but instead in the constellation Ares.

Not supporting religion, here, just showing how common misconception of religion vary widely, even among the religious.

The argument of religion has gone on for centuries. I believe there is a good. I am a christian. I believe the bible is true and I have two questions for anyone to answer:

1.) Name a religion that has sent there "god" to earth to save the world, other than Christianity.


Matsya, Koorma, Varaha, Narasimha, Vamana, Parashurama, Rama, Krishna, Buddha - and that's eleven and that's just ONE deity.

Beat that Christianity.:cool:

2.) Name something that clearly disproves Christianity. No evolution, that is full of flaws.

Original sin.

Matsya, Koorma, Varaha, Narasimha, Vamana, Parashurama, Rama, Krishna, Buddha - and that's eleven and that's just ONE deity.

Beat that Christianity.:cool: Did all these gods die for the sins of humanity?

Original sin.How does that "clearly" disprove Christianity?

2.) Name something that clearly disproves Christianity. No evolution, that is full of flaws.

The Babel Fish. Because God needs belief, not proof, he could therefore not exist with proof of his existence. However, there is no way the Babel Fish could have evolved on its own, therefore it must haave been an act of God. This proves that God exists, but he cannot exist without proof of his existence.

BAM! No God!

Evolution and creationism go hand in hand! God did not create the world in 7 days, no he created the world in 7 billion years.

And in the wrong order. The Bible after all tells us the earth and fruit bearing trees already existed well before the sun was made.

Not to mention the oddity of the earth being the first thing created in this universe, but being nowhere near the center of our own galaxy, let alone the universe itself...

And in the wrong order. The Bible after all tells us the earth and fruit bearing trees already existed well before the sun was made.

Not to mention the oddity of the earth being the first thing created in this universe, but being nowhere near the center of our own galaxy, let alone the universe itself...For one thing if you believe that Genesis supports evolution your not gonna take its creation story literally.

For one thing if you believe that Genesis supports evolution your not gonna take its creation story literally.

How is one supposed to take it then ? It tells us a timeperiod, an order of creation and strongly implies that earth has a central position in the universe, since all the stars and planets were created around us. All of these things do not seem to fit the actual facts.

So what value does the story have besides being entertaining if you can take none of it literally ?

How is one supposed to take it then ? It tells us a timeperiod, an order of creation and strongly implies that earth has a central position in the universe, since all the stars and planets were created around us. All of these things do not seem to fit the actual facts.

So what value does the story have besides being entertaining if you can take none of it literally ?Take it however you like it. The post you quoted stated he believed the universe was formed over billions of years. Obviously he's gonna view the creation story more as an allegory and not as an actual encyclopedic description of creation.

Take it however you like it. The post you quoted stated he believed the universe was formed over billions of years. Obviously he's gonna view the creation story more as an allegory and not as an actual encyclopedic description of creation.

That doesn't answer what the value of the allegory is...

Wrong, plain and simple.

First, it's not greek, but a Hebrew language that Genesis was written in. Your first mistake.
...
Which account of Genesis predates the Septuagint?

2.) Name something that clearly disproves Christianity. No evolution, that is full of flaws.


Uhmmm, care to point 'em out for us?

Uhmmm, care to point 'em out for us?

And more importantly, can the person in question describe what kind of things they would accept as evidence that Christianity - or some of his/her interpretation of it - is wrong ? It is so easy to get stuck in circular reasoning like "yes, but your evidence claiming my faith is wrong is wrong because it contradicts my faith".

7 days, or 7 full earth rotations, doesn't make sense when the universe itself hasn't been created yet.

Yummy, yummy.

7 days, or 7 full earth rotations, doesn't make sense when the universe itself hasn't been created yet.Earth rotations don't make sense in a flat-earth 'universe', anyways.

1. The greek language didn't really exist until about 1300 BC, with the mycenean empire.What empire? You mean the Pelasgoi/Pelastoi all around the eastern Mediterranean?

2. According to biblical scholars, Creation occured about 4000 years before Christ. A great deal of excitement, including many of the books of the old testament, should presumably have been written before the Greek language actually existed.Who says they were written before the Greek language existed? And you realize that the Greek alphabet has nothing to do with the Greek language as such?

3. If these books of the bible were written before the Greek language actually existed, then these books could not have been written in Greek. Ergo, the Greek bible is not the original translation, but was translated from an earlier version of the bible written in another language.What earlier version? The Septuagint is the first version, and it was written in Greek.

But I don't have a bunny...

Would a kitty work? :p

Well, I can always find another pancake...

Eh, it's easy to see how some might see a planet as a star. Most people couldn't understand the difference, even today, when looking at them with the naked eye(Hell, most people back then didn't know the difference). The star went into Ares, which was interpreted as the rise of a new king(As Jupiter was the star of Kings, in a sense). The star didn't stop over Bethlehem, but instead in the constellation Ares.

Not supporting religion, here, just showing how common misconception of religion vary widely, even among the religious.

no no, i got the part where it might be a planet. thats obvious.

"After their audience with the king they set out. And behold, the star that they had seen at its rising preceded them, until it came and stopped over the place where the child was"

celestial objects dont do that.

no no, i got the part where it might be a planet. thats obvious.

"After their audience with the king they set out. And behold, the star that they had seen at its rising preceded them, until it came and stopped over the place where the child was"

celestial objects dont do that.So it was a UFO? :eek:

no no, i got the part where it might be a planet. thats obvious.

"After their audience with the king they set out. And behold, the star that they had seen at its rising preceded them, until it came and stopped over the place where the child was"

celestial objects dont do that.

Well, it can be interpreted as Jupiter appearing in the constellation Ares. It didn't stop, in the sense that it hung in one place, but instead stayed in the constellation for a while. Really quite odd how people got the whole star hanging above Bethlehem, when that obviously didn't happen.

Infact, this answer is more likely than any other explanation, as no supernova occurred at the time. And given that astrologers were in heavy practice back then, well, you get the point.

Earth rotations don't make sense in a flat-earth 'universe', anyways.

Which is okay, because the text only refers to periods of light and dark (which can be metaphorical, also...)

So - even if you do buy the flat earth that the text suggests (it rests on pillars, and you can sea all of it from a tall enough mountain), you can still have periods of light and dark. Ask Rincewind.

Which is okay, because the text only refers to periods of light and dark (which can be metaphorical, also...)

So - even if you do buy the flat earth that the text suggests (it rests on pillars, and you can sea all of it from a tall enough mountain), you can still have periods of light and dark. Ask Rincewind.You and your metaphorical interpretations...
And are you drawing any connexion between Rincewind and biblical authors?

Did all these gods die for the sins of humanity?

Silly question. You do not even know that all the avatars are of the same deity. Try reading about other world views.

How does that "clearly" disprove Christianity?

I cannot have a sin that I did not committ. If I have sinned just for being born a human, in which I personally did not have any say, then that sin is actually God's.

The whole thing is very absurd.

Why would I need somebody to "save" me from something that I did not committ in the first place ?

Well, it can be interpreted as Jupiter appearing in the constellation Ares. It didn't stop, in the sense that it hung in one place, but instead stayed in the constellation for a while. Really quite odd how people got the whole star hanging above Bethlehem, when that obviously didn't happen.

Infact, this answer is more likely than any other explanation, as no supernova occurred at the time. And given that astrologers were in heavy practice back then, well, you get the point.

you do have a reasonable interpretation.

it doesnt stop the bible from being wrong though. same as joshua stopping the sun at the battle of jericho. (is that where the sun stopping thing happened?)

So it was a UFO? :eek:

how else could it possibly work? in order to hang over a house, it has to be inside the atmosphere. they didnt have airships of any kind back then so its an unidentified flying object.

or matthew made up a stupid story that is false on the face of it.

Through small research I have discovered a very interesting Q and A. Read this:

It's not very interesting to be honest, just the same tired old apologetics.

On another occasion, an enrollment of all the people of the empire happened to swear an oath of allegiance to Caesar. In Chapter 34 of Res Gestae Augustus also notes, "When I administered my thirteenth consulate (2 B.C.E.), the senate and Equestrian order and Roman people all called me father of the country, and voted that the same be inscribed in the vestibule of my temple".3 Josephus also mentions a time "When all good people gave assurance of their good will to Caesar".4 These types of tributes would also require an enrollment of individuals from across the empire. Orosius, a fifth century Christian, links this registration with the birth of Jesus saying that "all of the peoples of the great nations were to take an oath".5

1. Oath-taking =/= Enrollment.
2. Nobody had to go back to their place of birth to swear an oath.

The Governorship of Quirinius
In studying this problem, there are two main solutions that Christian scholars offer, and each has some good merit. The first point is the terminology Luke uses when writing about Quirinius' governorship over Syria. In stating that Quirinius controlled the Syrian area, Luke doesn't use the official political title of "Governor" ("legatus"), but the broader term "hegemon" which is a ruling officer or procurator. This means that Quirinius may not have been the official governor of Judea, but he was in charge of the census because he was a more capable and trusted servant of Rome than the more inept Saturninus.

1. Archelaus controlled Judea until 6CE; the Romans left him alone for the most part, Quirinius certainly didn't hold any position in the region until that point.

2. The Greek grammar says that he was '[ruling officer] of Syria. This means that he can't have been a commander in Syria.

Justin Martyr's Apology supports this view, writing that Quirinius was a "procurator", not a governor of the area of Judea.

Quirinius would never have been a procurator. The role of procurator was regarded as a lowly one by the Romans (even though procurators often reported directly to the emporor). No high-born Roman like Quirinius would ever have consented to such a menial role; it'd be like a member of the Royal Family working as a burger flipper in MacDonalds.

If Quirinius did hold such a position, then we have no contradiction.

1. He would never have held that position.
2. It's still an oath-taking, not a census.

Herod's Slaughter of the Babies
Your second question is quite different in its format. You ask why, if Herod committed such an atrocity as killing all the male babies "two years old and under" as Matthew recounts, how could historians such as Josephus completely ignore it? Well, let's think about this for a moment. Bethlehem at the time of Jesus' birth was a very small city with no more than a few thousand people. The total number of infants who would have been murdered under Herod's edict could be pretty low. As James Patrick Holding writes "How many boys aged two and under could there have been in and around the tiny city of Bethlehem? Five? Ten? Matthew does not give a number. Josephus says that Herod murdered a vast number of people, and was so cruel to those he didn't kill that the living considered the dead to be fortunate. Thus, indirectly, Josephus tells us that there were many atrocities that Herod committed that he does not mention in his histories - and it is probable that authorizing the killing of the presumably few male infants in the vicinity of Bethlehem was a minuscule blot of the blackness that was the reign of Herod. Being that the events of the reign of Herod involved practically one atrocity after another - it is observed by one writer, with a minimum of hyperbole, that hardly a day in his 36-year reign passed when someone wasn't sentenced to death - why should any one event in particular have touched off a rebellion, when others in particular, including those recorded by Josephus, did not?"8

I take it you've never read Josephus? If you did, you'd know that his writing style is often similar to that of a tabloid newspaper or gossip-magazine. His account of the siege of Jerusalem revels in describing in gory detail how a starving mother ate her own baby. Josephus was writing for a Roman audience who loved bloody tales and hated the Jews: the massacre of the innocents would have fulfilled both of these criteria so we would expect him to report it if it really happened.

There is certainly no slam-dunk evidence that the Biblical accounts are wrong here.

Yes there is. Matthew puts Jesus' birth at before 4BCE, Luke puts it at after 6CE. No ammount of pedantry can change that.

In fact, one must also remember that the Biblical accounts are themselves historic documentation and therefore have historic merit in themselves.

They have historical merit in telling us what early Christians believed but not much beyond that. Matthew seems to have lifted significant parts of his 'history' from the story of Moses:

Moses
1. Pharoah orders all Hebrew boys to be killed at birth.
2. Moses flees out of Egypt to avoid retribution after killing a man.
3. Preaches a new set of laws to the Twelve tribes from the side of a mountain.

Jesus (as portrayed in Matthew)
1. Herod orders all boys under the age of two to be killed.
2. Flees into Egypt to avoid being killed.
3. Preaches a new set of laws to the twelve disciples from the side of a mountain.

I could go on, there are many more parallels which suggest that much of the Gospel of Matthew was ripped directly from the Tanach (or more likely the Septuagint).

or matthew made up a stupid story that is false on the face of it.

I don't think he was intentionally lying, I suspect his though process was more along the lines of:

1. Great people are born under a rare and unusual star formation/eclipse/other weird astrological stuff.
2. Jesus was great!
3. Therefore he was born under a rare and unusual star formation/eclipse/other weird astrological stuff.
4. He was mega-great, so a regular star won't do, it must have been a travelling star which hovered over the place where he was born.
5. Astronomers must have noticed this star, so they probably came to visit.

etc.

I could go on, there are many more parallels which suggest that much of the Gospel of Matthew was ripped directly from the Tanach (or more likely the Septuagint).

Which in turn was ripped from other religions. Remember Osiris - the small boy in a woven basket on the river ? Who was later killed and rose again after a few days ;) ?

Silly question. You do not even know that all the avatars are of the same deity. Try reading about other world views.Perhaps I could learn if you told whether or not they died for the sins of the world.

Which in turn was ripped from other religions. Remember Osiris - the small boy in a woven basket on the river ? Who was later killed and rose again after a few days ;) ?

I'm not familiar with Egyptian mythology but I'll take your word for it. :)

I don't think he was intentionally lying, I suspect his though process was more along the lines of:

1. Great people are born under a rare and unusual star formation/eclipse/other weird astrological stuff.
2. Jesus was great!
3. Therefore he was born under a rare and unusual star formation/eclipse/other weird astrological stuff.
4. He was mega-great, so a regular star won't do, it must have been a travelling star which hovered over the place where he was born.
5. Astronomers must have noticed this star, so they probably came to visit.

etc.

agreed.

my point being that if matthew made stuff up as he obviously did, why would the rest of what he said be "true". are we supposed to pick and choose the correct parts of the bible and ignore the rest as inconvenient fabrications?

I cannot have a sin that I did not committ. If I have sinned just for being born a human, in which I personally did not have any say, then that sin is actually God's.

The whole thing is very absurd.

Why would I need somebody to "save" me from something that I did not committ in the first place ?We all inherit a sinful nature at birth. It's pretty easy to see. As soon as little kids learn to talk they start lying and stealing. As you grow older it only gets worse. So yes you are a sinner and yes you do need saving.

It's not very interesting to be honest, just the same tired old apologetics.


nicely done. i was hoping someone else would come along and rip it to shreds. im not enough of a scholar to do more than point out that the timeline still doesnt work.

you do have a reasonable interpretation.

it doesnt stop the bible from being wrong though. same as joshua stopping the sun at the battle of jericho. (is that where the sun stopping thing happened?)

That could be possibly chalked up to an early morning eclipse. If it occurred as the sun was rising it would have made it appear as if the sun took longer than normal to rise.

Perhaps I could learn if you told whether or not they died for the sins of the world.

Red herring. Saving humanity does not by definition require dying for the sins of humanity. It does in the Christian perspective, but yours isn't by default the true perspective.

That could be possibly chalked up to an early morning eclipse. If it occurred as the sun was rising it would have made it appear as if the sun took longer than normal to rise.So when did an early morning eclipse happen at Jericho?

2) the story of jesus' birth is total bullshit. no census, no star, no wise men, no slaughter of innocents. all made up.No census? Josephus places Quirinius' census 37 years after the Battle of Actium which took place in BC 31. That would place the census at AD 6.

So when did an early morning eclipse happen at Jericho?

Hell if I know. I'm an optical physics undergrad, not an astrophysicist.
Or a historian.

And I haven't even read that portion of the Bible (or much else of it to be honest).

I'm just throwing ideas out.

agreed.

my point being that if matthew made stuff up as he obviously did, why would the rest of what he said be "true". are we supposed to pick and choose the correct parts of the bible and ignore the rest as inconvenient fabrications?

This is the problem I've always had with liberal Christianity. If the Gospel message is so important then why did God allow it to be contaminated with hearsay and later invention?

Red herring. Saving humanity does not by definition require dying for the sins of humanity. It does in the Christian perspective, but yours isn't by default the true perspective.I never said it did. I honestly don't know if these other gods died to save humanity. I suppose they could save humanity Luke Skywalker style.

Hell if I know. I'm an optical physics undergrad, not an astrophysicist.
Or a historian.

And I haven't even read that portion of the Bible (or much else of it to be honest).

I'm just throwing ideas out.Well, since such astronomical phenomena can be calculated, such ideas are indeed testable. I'm doing that right now... ;)

No census? Josephus places Quirinius' census 37 years after the Battle of Actium which took place in BC 31. That would place the census at AD 6.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe it was common practice for everyone to return to their place of birth to register: the Romans wanted to know where the population lived so they could be taxed, so why not just survey them in their home towns or villages? The story only makes sense if Joseph had property in Bethlehem, and this doesn't really work if he was only a poor carpenter. Luke wanted Jesus to be born in the city of David and the census gave him a literary plot device to justify the move.

Oddly enough, I think this contrived journey is one of the best arguments for the historicity of Jesus: if he was a later invention rather than a real man then the Gospels could've just had him growing up in Bethlehem. The crude attempt to crowbar in a prophecy fulfillment suggests to me that Luke was loosely basing his account on a genuine person living in Nazareth at the time.

nicely done. i was hoping someone else would come along and rip it to shreds. im not enough of a scholar to do more than point out that the timeline still doesnt work.

Thanks. I'm no scholar either so I might have got some details wrong, hopefully it wasn't anything important if I did. :)

I never said it did. I honestly don't know if these other gods died to save humanity. I suppose they could save humanity Luke Skywalker style.

Prometheus died repeatedly so that man might have fire.

Which creation story are we talking about? 1 or 2?

That could be possibly chalked up to an early morning eclipse. If it occurred as the sun was rising it would have made it appear as if the sun took longer than normal to rise.

idont think thats the way it worked in the story. (i guess i should look it up) and full eclipses occur at noon.

**EDIT** i looked it up


9 And when Joshua made his surprise attack upon them after an all-night march from Gilgal,
10 the LORD threw them into disorder before him. The Israelites inflicted a great slaughter on them at Gibeon and pursued them down the Beth-horon slope, harrassing them as far as Azekah and Makkedah.
11 While they fled before Israel along the descent from Beth-horon, the LORD hurled great stones from the sky above them all the way to Azekah, killing many. More died from these hailstones than the Israelites slew with the sword.
12 On this day, when the LORD delivered up the Amorites to the Israelites,
Joshua prayed to the LORD,
and said in the presence of Israel:
Stand still, O sun, at Gibeon,
O moon, in the valley of Aijalon!
13 And the sun stood still,
and the moon stayed,
while the nation took vengeance on its foes.
Is this not recorded in the Book of Jashar? The sun halted in the middle of the sky; not for a whole day did it resume its swift course

jericho was the one where they marched around the city for 6 days, blew horns on the 7th and the walls came tumblin' down.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe it was common practice for everyone to return to their place of birth to register: the Romans wanted to know where the population lived so they could be taxed, so why not just survey them in their home towns or villages? The story only makes sense if Joseph had property in Bethlehem, and this doesn't really work if he was only a poor carpenter. Luke wanted Jesus to be born in the city of David and the census gave him a literary plot device to justify the move.

Oddly enough, I think this contrived journey is one of the best arguments for the historicity of Jesus: if he was a later invention rather than a real man then the Gospels could've just had him growing up in Bethlehem. The crude attempt to crowbar in a prophecy fulfillment suggests to me that Luke was loosely basing his account on a genuine person living in Nazareth at the time.I'm not sure about that either way there was a census. You gotta also remember that Luke didn't have exclusive rights to the story of Jesus' birth Matthew also places his birth to have taken place in Bethlehem. Luke was also a Greek so it wasn't as important to him show the fulfillment of prophecies.

Prometheus died repeatedly so that man might have fire.Its has been awhile since I've had my Greek mythology so when I think of Prometheus I think of the Batman villain. :D

No census? Josephus places Quirinius' census 37 years after the Battle of Actium which took place in BC 31. That would place the census at AD 6.

yes there may have been a local census at that time (not the whole world as stated in the bible)

unfortunately herod was many years dead by the time of that census.

I'm not sure about that either way there was a census.

Agreed (although it's ten years after Herod's death which leaves Matthew looking a bit silly).

You gotta also remember that Luke didn't have exclusive rights to the story of Jesus' birth Matthew also places his birth to have taken place in Bethlehem.

Naturally. The prophcies are quite specific when they say that the heir of David (the Messiah) must be born in the city of David (Bethlehem). Having Jesus born anywhere else would have been theological suicide.

Luke was also a Greek so it wasn't as important to him show the fulfillment of prophecies.

I'm not so sure about that. For somebody who doesn't care about OT prophecy, Luke is remarkably keen to trace Jesus' line back to David (although he fluffs it up by having Jesus descended from David via Nathan rather than Solomon IIRC). Luke is certainly familiar with the Jewish scriptures, and I don't see any indication in the text that he regards prophecy as unimportant.

Its has been awhile since I've had my Greek mythology so when I think of Prometheus I think of the Batman villain. :D

Close enough. :p

I'm not so sure about that. For somebody who doesn't care about OT prophecy, Luke is remarkably keen to trace Jesus' line back to David (although he fluffs it up by having Jesus descended from David via Nathan rather than Solomon IIRC). Luke is certainly familiar with the Jewish scriptures, and I don't see any indication in the text that he regards prophecy as unimportant.What I was trying to get across was that Luke was writing to a completely different audience than Matthew. Luke's audience was the average Gentile reader while Matthews audience was the average Jewish reader. Obviously Matthew is going to a) care more about including fulfilled prophecies and b) simply have a better knowledge of OT prophecies.

Also a side note Luke traces Jesus' genealogy through Mary while Matthew traces it through Joseph.

Also a side note Luke traces Jesus' genealogy through Mary while Matthew traces it through Joseph.

Which makes Matthew a tad bit silly, since Jesus is not supposed to be Josephs son.

What I was trying to get across was that Luke was writing to a completely different audience than Matthew. Luke's audience was the average Gentile reader while Matthews audience was the average Jewish reader. Obviously Matthew is going to a) care more about including fulfilled prophecies and b) simply have a better knowledge of OT prophecies.

Fair enough.

Also a side note Luke traces Jesus' genealogy through Mary while Matthew traces it through Joseph.

Do you have any evidence for that? Luke 3:23 (NIV) reads:

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli

Not only does it use Joseph's name, it implies that Joseph wasn't really the father. This might make sense for Joseph if you believe in the virgin birth, but it makes no sense if it's refering to Mary as she was fairly obviously the mother.

What I was trying to get across was that Luke was writing to a completely different audience than Matthew. Luke's audience was the average Gentile reader while Matthews audience was the average Jewish reader. Obviously Matthew is going to a) care more about including fulfilled prophecies and b) simply have a better knowledge of OT prophecies.

Also a side note Luke traces Jesus' genealogy through Mary while Matthew traces it through Joseph.

SIDE NOTE

there were no average readers in the ancient world. literacy was very rare.

what they did was get together as a community and have a literate person read outloud the one copy they had of whatever gospel was the one they were using. sometimes if the community had a person who could write (meaning copy letter for letter) they would make a copy for another community who needed one. they tended to be riddle with copy errors.


luke traces geneology through joseph also. see luke3.

Perhaps I could learn if you told whether or not they died for the sins of the world.

Perhaps you could start by avoiding looking at other religions through the prism of Christianity.

As explained in another post, Hindus don't think that we inherit sins of our fathers, especially not that of our alleged great great great great^great^great^gazillion^bazillion great grand father.

So, there is NO ISSUE of somebody, least of all God, "DYING" for my sin that I did not even committ.

We all inherit a sinful nature at birth.

No we don't. You don't inherit your father's personal debt.

It's pretty easy to see. As soon as little kids learn to talk they start lying and stealing. As you grow older it only gets worse. So yes you are a sinner and yes you do need saving.

No, it is NOT pretty easy to see. It is rather easy to see how absurd the theological constructs of Christianity is.

Lying and stealing is different from the original sin that we supposedly inherit.

Let's take a hypothetical scenario.

A baby is born and dies after just one breath outside of the mother.

Where does the baby's soul go according to Christianity?

Hell?

Why? the baby did no sin. All it did was to just come out of it's mother's body - and nowhere in the whole process of conception and delivery did the baby's sould make any decision. So why should it go to hell for no decision of its own?


Heaven?

Why? What did it do to deserve heaven other than just being born (again, in the whole process, it did nothing to deserve heaven)? Why should that baby go to heaven when it did not accept Jesus as its saviour? Why not Gandhi who did so much good for his fellow humans? According to Christian theology, Gandhi is going to hell because he was not a Christian, but a new born baby goes to heaven (you know the "ETERNAL PARADISE FOR ALL ETERNITY") just like that.

Individual Christian beliefs apart, Christian theology is deeply flawed and a basic vedantist can pick it apart with no effort.


Added Later:

And if the baby is indeed going to heaven, then is it not a Christian's duty to kill all babies before they have a chance to committ sin? Hey, you are SAVING the baby and sending it to heaven.

Does anybody think about our children....:(

Fair enough.

Do you have any evidence for that? Luke 3:23 (NIV) reads:

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli

Not only does it use Joseph's name, it implies that Joseph wasn't really the father. This might make sense for Joseph if you believe in the virgin birth, but it makes no sense if it's refering to Mary as she was fairly obviously the mother.First let me address the differences between Luke and Matthew's genealogy. Matthews genealogy starts with obviously Abraham while Luke starts in reverse order and traces Jesus' heritage all the way back to Adam. From Abraham to David the genealogies are identical, but from David on they are very different. The reason is that Matthew traces his heritage through his legal father Joseph, while Luke emphasizes the heritage of Mary. Sure it was unusual for someone at that time to trace a genealogy through the Mother's side, but the virgin birth was exactly an everyday thing. Luke's statement explanation that Jesus was the supposed son of Joseph, brings to mind the explicit statement of the virgin birth and thus reaffirms Mary's importance in Jesus' genealogy.

Anywho that's my take hope it didn't bore you to tears.

First let me address the differences between Luke and Matthew's genealogy. Matthews genealogy starts with obviously Abraham while Luke starts in reverse order and traces Jesus' heritage all the way back to Adam. From Abraham to David the genealogies are identical, but from David on they are very different. The reason is that Matthew traces his heritage through his legal father Joseph, while Luke emphasizes the heritage of Mary. Sure it was unusual for someone at that time to trace a genealogy through the Mother's side, but the virgin birth was exactly an everyday thing. Luke's statement explanation that Jesus was the supposed son of Joseph, brings to mind the explicit statement of the virgin birth and thus reaffirms Mary's importance in Jesus' genealogy.

Anywho that's my take hope it didn't bore you to tears.

As I recall, Judaism is, even today, a matrilineal society. You are Jewish if your mother is Jewish.

So it seems likely that the difference stems in a difference in the societal contexts both of them were writing in. The Greeks were, after all, a patrilineal society.

First let me address the differences between Luke and Matthew's genealogy. Matthews genealogy starts with obviously Abraham while Luke starts in reverse order and traces Jesus' heritage all the way back to Adam. From Abraham to David the genealogies are identical, but from David on they are very different. The reason is that Matthew traces his heritage through his legal father Joseph, while Luke emphasizes the heritage of Mary. Sure it was unusual for someone at that time to trace a genealogy through the Mother's side, but the virgin birth was exactly an everyday thing. Luke's statement explanation that Jesus was the supposed son of Joseph, brings to mind the explicit statement of the virgin birth and thus reaffirms Mary's importance in Jesus' genealogy.

Anywho that's my take hope it didn't bore you to tears.

but mary isnt mentioned in the luke geneology. its all "son of son of son of" from joseph back to adam, youll have to point out where mary comes into it.

but mary isnt mentioned in the luke geneology. its all "son of son of son of" from joseph back to adam, youll have to point out where mary comes into it.As I said the reason I believe there is a difference in the two genealogies is because Matthew emphasizes Josephs genealogy while Luke emphasizes Marys. You can see that in that in his statement that Jesus was the supposed son of Joseph and in the emphasis of the virgin birth announcement in Luke 1:34-35.

As I said the reason I believe there is a difference in the two genealogies is because Matthew emphasizes Josephs genealogy while Luke emphasizes Marys. You can see that in that in his statement that Jesus was the supposed son of Joseph and in the emphasis of the virgin birth announcement in Luke 1:34-35.But Luke does not recount Mary's genealogy.

Perhaps you could start by avoiding looking at other religions through the prism of Christianity.

As explained in another post, Hindus don't think that we inherit sins of our fathers, especially not that of our alleged great great great great^great^great^gazillion^bazillion great grand father.

So, there is NO ISSUE of somebody, least of all God, "DYING" for my sin that I did not even commit.

No we don't. You don't inherit your father's personal debt.

No, it is NOT pretty easy to see. It is rather easy to see how absurd the theological constructs of Christianity is.

Lying and stealing is different from the original sin that we supposedly inherit.
You could start by not assuming I am.

I can't really discuss this with you until you understand how (some) Christians view original sin. Original sin doesn't mean we inherit Adam's sin it means we inherent his sinful nature that in turn causes us to sin and be guilty of breaking god's holy and just law. We are in essence slaves to sin and unrighteousness seeking to only serve ourselves.

You could start by not assuming I am.

I can't really discuss this with you until you understand how (some) Christians view original sin. Original sin doesn't mean we inherit Adam's sin it means we inherent his sinful nature that in turn causes us to sin and be guilty of breaking god's holy and just law. We are in essence slaves to sin and unrighteousness seeking to only serve ourselves.

Then what purpose did Jesus crucifixion serve ? Are we now no longer slaves ?

You could start by not assuming I am.

I can't really discuss this with you until you understand how (some) Christians view original sin. Original sin doesn't mean we inherit Adam's sin it means we inherent his sinful nature that in turn causes us to sin and be guilty of breaking god's holy and just law. We are in essence slaves to sin and unrighteousness seeking to only serve ourselves.

Which is something that those Christians subscribe to, and is not something that is necessarily true.

But Luke does not recount Mary's genealogy.I believe it does and that it is why the differences are there.

Then what purpose did Jesus crucifixion serve ? Are we now no longer slaves ?Good question. My answer is no, we are no longer slaves to our sins. Christ received the punishment for our sins on the cross so instead of the wrath of God being poured out on to Christians it was poured on to Jesus.

As I said the reason I believe there is a difference in the two genealogies is because Matthew emphasizes Josephs genealogy while Luke emphasizes Marys. You can see that in that in his statement that Jesus was the supposed son of Joseph and in the emphasis of the virgin birth announcement in Luke 1:34-35.

you can believe anything you want but where is it in LUKE that he's talking about anyone but joseph in the geneology?

Good question. My answer is no, we are no longer slaves to our sins. Christ received the punishment for our sins on the cross so instead of the wrath of God being poured out on to Christians it was poured on to Jesus.

but our sinful nature has not changed from the time of adam and eve. do our sins just not count now?

5) "One day is as a thousand years"

The amusing thing about that is the very next phrase is "And a thousand years like a day." :D

The amusing thing about that is the very next phrase is "And a thousand years like a day." :D

which means that about a day later god sent the flood and a couple days after that he decided that he needed to take things in hand himself and fix it for good.

You could start by not assuming I am.

I can't really discuss this with you until you understand how (some) Christians view original sin. Original sin doesn't mean we inherit Adam's sin it means we inherent his sinful nature that in turn causes us to sin and be guilty of breaking god's holy and just law. We are in essence slaves to sin and unrighteousness seeking to only serve ourselves.

I'm not sure a child who's just trying to enjoy life can be considered evil...

No census? Josephus places Quirinius' census 37 years after the Battle of Actium which took place in BC 31. That would place the census at AD 6.

Which would be ten years after King Herod died, and around twelve after Yeshua ben Yosef would have been born.

1.) Name a religion that has sent there "god" to earth to save the world, other than Christianity.
Mithraism. Hinduism. The cult of Dionysus.

2.) Name something that clearly disproves Christianity. No evolution, that is full of flaws.
For starters, there was never a man named Yeshua ben Yosef who was crucified in 27 CE.

For starters, there was never a man named Yeshua ben Yosef who was crucified in 27 CE.

1) Never seen this argument before...
2) Anywhere I could get a copy of the Romans' list of crucification victims to verify?

Actually it is very possible. Some scientists claim that there were infact many big bangs before our one but they were not strong enough. The debree from the explosion imploded before life could develop and another big bang occured, stronger than the last. They say this went on and on until it reached the power level sufficient enough to sustain life.

Plus if you look at it by odds. There is a very small chance yes, but if you also consider the sheer size of the universe 1 planet at least was bound to develop life. We caught the lucky break and I can bet you somewhere out there there is life also, we are not as special and unique as peoples narcissistic tendancies would have them believe.

Then (and I know this is probably irrelevant) you look at other odds. By odds alone no-one should have won the lottery yet, they are that small, yet people win the lottery every week. If you increase the number of trials by having millions of people playing it and by repeating the process on a weekly basis, it would be quite surprising if no one ever won the lottery.
The people playing the lottery could be equivalent to planets in the universe, one was bound to develop life eventually just as people win the lottery all the time.
Basically, taking into account the vast size of the universe as well as the sheer age of it, it would be even more surprising if the universe was lifeless.


All that "We are no accident" malrachy is just your own narcissistic tendancies playing up and telling you you are more special than you actually are. I also believe the Bible is full of contradictions. There is a reported case of hundreds of prophets rising from the dead in one of the books, yet it is not reported anywhere else ever! Strange dont you think?

Then you look at things the bible claims, like omniscience and free will. Both cannot exist. You might say a god does not follow logic, but we do and therefore we must obey the laws. Omnipotence and the world are CLEAR contradictions. An omnipotent being does not create worlds because a creation results in a need, want or mistake. All 3 things not present in an omnipotent being.

So I am sorry but I do not agree with that claim.

1) Never seen this argument before...
2) Anywhere I could get a copy of the Romans' list of crucification victims to verify?

1337 Albatross Avenue. It's where the Roman Department of Crucifixion and Other Playtime Activities is located.

Anywhere I could get a copy of the Romans' list of crucification victims to verify?
Presumably at a museum. No records so far have ever mentioned a man by that name being crucified around that time period. Hell, Yeshua ben Yosef isn't mentioned anywhere until at least 60 CE. There's no reason to assume that he ever existed.

I'm not sure a child who's just trying to enjoy life can be considered evil...

Oh, it is possible. If one should worship a being that thinks it is is another matter.

1) Never seen this argument before...

Really ? The doubtful historicity of Jesus is a quite common argument...

Really ? The doubtful historicity of Jesus is a quite common argument...

Erm, I meant I never saw it on NSG. Sorry about the confusion...

Oh, it is possible. If one should worship a being that thinks it is is another matter.

Perhaps possible was the wrong word (since, technically since we don't truly know impossibility, anything CAN happen).

Erm, I meant I never saw it on NSG. Sorry about the confusion...

its come up. its just not often appropriate.

its come up. its just not often appropriate.

Well, I musta missed it then. Oh well.

Well, I musta missed it then. Oh well.

is it a topic youre interested in? i cant see it being popular on christian forums so this might be one of the few places you can discuss it and get a good conversation going.

is it a topic you're interested in? i cant see it being popular on Christian forums so this might be one of the few places you can discuss it and get a good conversation going.

It would definitely be more convincing than the worn-out angles used here...

Presumably at a museum. No records so far have ever mentioned a man by that name being crucified around that time period. Hell, Yeshua ben Yosef isn't mentioned anywhere until at least 60 CE. There's no reason to assume that he ever existed.I wasn't aware that the Romans kept records of criminals they crucified. Crucification was a fairly common practice so I wouldn't think they would bother. The New Testament and other early Christian writings are pretty good evidence that Jesus existed. Josephus mentions Jesus, as well several other non-Christian writers such as Tactius, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, and I believe the Talmud also mentions Jesus. He's a very well documented historical figure.

It would definitely be more convincing than the worn-out angles used here...

To re-adress an earlier question of mine in this topic: can an argument that would convince a true believer actually exist in theory ? The believer after all believes. He does not adhere strictly to observational evidence without assumptions.

but our sinful nature has not changed from the time of adam and eve. do our sins just not count now?Your right our sinful nature hasn't changed since Adam. If your a Christian, however, your sins are covered by Christ's imputed righteousness so that God no longer recognizes those sins.

To re-adress an earlier question of mine in this topic: can an argument that would convince a true believer actually exist in theory ? The believer after all believes. He does not adhere strictly to observational evidence without assumptions.

A believer perhaps, but not really a Believer... not even God could convince them that their belief is wrong.

Of course, if we include 'reeducation'... *pulls out electroshock device*... then sure there is... :D

I wasn't aware that the Romans kept records of criminals they crucified. Crucification was a fairly common practice so I wouldn't think they would bother. The New Testament and other early Christian writings are pretty good evidence that Jesus existed. Josephus mentions Jesus, as well several other non-Christian writers such as Tactius, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, and I believe the Talmud also mentions Jesus. He's a very well documented historical figure.

the christian movement is well documented but the only discussions of the life of jesus come from well after his death and are taken from reports of his believers. its kinda like me reporting on the life of joseph smith after talking to a few mormons. its interesting but proof of nothing.

The New Testament and other early Christian writings are pretty good evidence that Jesus existed.

Nope, they aren't. Biased and/or written by people that never met the man himself.

Josephus mentions Jesus, as well several other non-Christian writers such as Tactius, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, and I believe the Talmud also mentions Jesus. He's a very well documented historical figure.
You will find that those sources are all either from a time when Jesus supposedly had already been dead for quite a while, do not state that Jesus existed but that Christians believe he did or speak of *a* man called Jesus OR carrying the honorific Christ without specifying which one. Jesus was after all a reasonably common name, and at any given time there were at least a few hundred Christs.

There exist no documents that conclusively indicated whether or not the man existed. Believing he did is a matter of faith - nothing more, nothing less.

A believer perhaps, but not really a Believer... not even God could convince them that their belief is wrong.

Well, He probably could, being omnipotent and all ;)
But seriously - could it be done ? One for instance sees many Christians attacking the theory of evolution for being "flawed", while accepting Genesis as truth - while by the same standard they use to attack evolution Genesis is vastly inferior. Very few Christians however perceive this as doublethink.

the christian movement is well documented but the only discussions of the life of jesus come from well after his death and are taken from reports of his believers. its kinda like me reporting on the life of joseph smith after talking to a few mormons. its interesting but proof of nothing.This is from the Talmud.

On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. Forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried: "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.Sounds a lot like the crucifixion story to me.

Well, He probably could, being omnipotent and all ;)
But seriously - could it be done ? One for instance sees many Christians attacking the theory of evolution for being "flawed", while accepting Genesis as truth - while by the same standard they use to attack evolution Genesis is vastly inferior. Very few Christians however perceive this as doublethink.

Of course not. "

By using doublethink one commits a falsification, but by a fresh act of doublethink they forgets the falsification occurred"

Or something like that...

This is from the Talmud.

Sounds a lot like the crucifixion story to me.

sure does

when was it written?

Nope, they aren't. Biased and/or written by people that never met the man himself.

You will find that those sources are all either from a time when Jesus supposedly had already been dead for quite a while, do not state that Jesus existed but that Christians believe he did or speak of *a* man called Jesus OR carrying the honorific Christ without specifying which one. Jesus was after all a reasonably common name, and at any given time there were at least a few hundred Christs.

There exist no documents that conclusively indicated whether or not the man existed. Believing he did is a matter of faith - nothing more, nothing less.60 years isn't exactly a long time. Clearly Josephus is referring to the Jesus of the Bible here.

About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease [to follow him], for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.

Tactius also referred to Jesus about 80 years after his death.


Nero fastened the guilt [of starting the blaze] and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius [14-37] at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

sure does

when was it written?This part of the Talmud was written from 70-200 AD.

This part of the Talmud was written from 70-200 AD.

And since this was a generation after Yeshua's death it means jack.

60 years isn't exactly a long time. Clearly Josephus is referring to the Jesus of the Bible here.


yeah.
unfortunately its a forgery added by some other guy later on.



Tactius also referred to Jesus about 80 years after his death.

no he refers to christus.

This part of the Talmud was written from 70-200 AD.

well after the death of jesus and "inaccurate" in its details.

not a great proof.

yeah.
unfortunately its a forgery added by some other guy later on.




no he refers to christus.There's no proof that the entire passage is a forgery. Some parts were added on but we have no idea what those parts were.

Christus is the Latinized Greek word for the Messiah. This passage clearly mirrors the Biblical account.

well after the death of jesus and "inaccurate" in its details.

not a great proof.How is it inaccurate?

And since this was a generation after Yeshua's death it means jack.Hundreds of writings on historical characters weren't written until well after their death yet no one denies that they existed. I've provided the sources and so far the only reason they aren't true is something to the effect of "it was written a generation after he died." Well why does that change the historicity of Jesus? Tell me what difference does 50-100 years really make?

Hundreds of writings on historical characters weren't written until well after their death yet no one denies that they existed.
We have bodies.

We have bodies.Heh, nice one.

How is it inaccurate?

did you read what you posted?

"On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. Forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried: "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover."

jesus wasnt hanged, there werent 40 days between conviction and execution, there was no herald sent out for supporters.

Hundreds of writings on historical characters weren't written until well after their death yet no one denies that they existed. I've provided the sources and so far the only reason they aren't true is something to the effect of "it was written a generation after he died." Well why does that change the historicity of Jesus? Tell me what difference does 50-100 years really make?

of course no single source can be trusted. sometimes certain things that the ancients took for truth seem rather unlikely now--for example alexander probably wasnt the son of a god. its the preponderance of evidence both written at the time, in the years following and the archaeological record that allow us to believe many of the stories about alexander.

most of the people we know about from antiquity are either super famous or writers whose life isnt important to us.

now, with a figure like jesus who was neither a writer nor super famous in his day its not unexpected that no one felt the need to jot down "another messiah rode the streets of jerusalem today, bet he'll be crucified before the end of the week". you cant really go by the lack of record to "prove" that jesus didnt exist.

most of the people we know about from antiquity are either super famous or writers whose life isnt important to us.

Or alleged halfgod sons. Like Hercules, son of Zeus. Who - just like Jesus- had quite special powers.
Do we believe in him ? Plenty of stories were written about his life after all...

The bible has many accuracies. It does not contradict itself for one. Many archelogical discoveries confirm that it exists. You mean to tell me that the entire world was an accient? Look at the eye of a human and tell me that is an accident or look at the world. So complex, that a "huge bang" occured and everything was so. I do not think so. Not possible.

Well at least now I know that I can discount most everything you say as wrong

The bible has many accuracies. It does not contradict itself for one.even if it indeed did not contradict itself (which it in fact does), every other source from ancient times contradicts most of the bible. especially when it comes what folks in ancient times really did believe.

Many archelogical discoveries confirm that it exists.?? it's far easier to go to the next book store to find out that bible exists.

Look guys, this is all a joke... I figured they can post a reliogion based on cheese I can try and post something that sounds semi realistic. At least mine is based on something that could be considered factual...

LOOK, up above.. this was a joke! Yikes.. when I did this at a stand-up gig I got a laugh.. here I start a 500 page religious debate! Why can't I post a fake religion whenI see people posting one thats based around the worship of for all things on this earth CHEESE?!

First let me address the differences between Luke and Matthew's genealogy. Matthews genealogy starts with obviously Abraham while Luke starts in reverse order and traces Jesus' heritage all the way back to Adam. From Abraham to David the genealogies are identical, but from David on they are very different. The reason is that Matthew traces his heritage through his legal father Joseph, while Luke emphasizes the heritage of Mary. Sure it was unusual for someone at that time to trace a genealogy through the Mother's side, but the virgin birth was exactly an everyday thing. Luke's statement explanation that Jesus was the supposed son of Joseph, brings to mind the explicit statement of the virgin birth and thus reaffirms Mary's importance in Jesus' genealogy.

Anywho that's my take hope it didn't bore you to tears.

Try comparing the lineages... and actually think about it.

Both lineages share some names - but they disagree on others. Now - it doesn't matter if you follow the line back from Mary or Joseph... if you get back 6 steps and find a common ancestor... it can't REALLY be possible that they then list different father's for that person, can it?

There's no proof that the entire passage is a forgery. Some parts were added on but we have no idea what those parts were.


Actually - we have a pretty good idea which parts were added later. There are different 'versions' of Josephus, and we can just compare what is present in some of the oldest versions we have, with some of the other versions we have. Text that is likely to have been in an 'original' version, should be common to both versions.

Almost all of the 'christ' stuff fails to turn up in corresponding passages of compared texts.

LOOK, up above.. this was a joke! Yikes.. when I did this at a stand-up gig I got a laugh.. here I start a 500 page religious debate! Why can't I post a fake religion whenI see people posting one thats based around the worship of for all things on this earth CHEESE?!

Because the text you posted is very close to the actual interpretation of the Bible of quite a few Christians ?

Or alleged halfgod sons. Like Hercules, son of Zeus. Who - just like Jesus- had quite special powers.
Do we believe in him ? Plenty of stories were written about his life after all...

exactly. many "people" were written about with great fervor who never existed at all. many were written about with great fervor with important details of their lives made up whole cloth.

its certainly quite possible that in this ancient time jesus was entirely or mostly made up. its something they did back then.

If people are talking original Hebrew text here, it's important to note "God" was translated from the plural word "elohim" meaning "those who came from the sky". See www.rael.org

If people are talking original Hebrew text here, it's important to note "God" was translated from the plural word "elohim" meaning "those who came from the sky". See www.rael.org

no thanks. id sooner believe in jesus than in a guy who is receiving messages from space aliens.

LOOK, up above.. this was a joke! Yikes.. when I did this at a stand-up gig I got a laugh.. here I start a 500 page religious debate! Why can't I post a fake religion whenI see people posting one thats based around the worship of for all things on this earth CHEESE?!
Because this is NSG, and you're just lucky that you didn't put in anything about views on abortion or guns, because you might as well have just knifed yourself in the foot.

The argument of religion has gone on for centuries. I believe there is a good. I am a christian. I believe the bible is true and I have two questions for anyone to answer:

1.) Name a religion that has sent there "god" to earth to save the world, other than Christianity.

2.) Name something that clearly disproves Christianity. No evolution, that is full of flaws.


Although Christian myself I have to say, as has been said already, the first question really doesn't prove anything, and since none of us were there to see it first hand, Christianity has it's own holes. I mean, for one (and I'm sure I am going to over exaggerate here) but since we know the Romans actually held a council to edit the Bible (am I right?) we can't take the present day version word for word. Then you have to think, "Well sheesh, if Rome did that, could anyone else have done a similar thing?" I am in no way attempting to disprove Christianity, but I don't personally see why anyone picks a sect to follow, because it all seems based off of a book, edited to satisfy an ancient Rome. I just live my life as best I can, helping others when possible, trying as best I can to not judge people before I know them, and other stuff. I respect other people's beliefs, and I always try to listen to other points of view. Aside from that, what else can a human do anyways?


*Note: I don't mean to say that the Bible is 100% wrong. There are things that it mentions (such as dates etc.) that wouldn't have been subject to much changing. I still believe they took, if nothing else then to pay my respect to them.

Dunno. Don't care. Find out when I die. ( or not! )

Dunno. Don't care. Find out when I die. ( or not! )

Basically. Thanks for not contributing to the discussion :rolleyes:

If people are talking original Hebrew text here, it's important to note "God" was translated from the plural word "elohim" meaning "those who came from the sky". See www.rael.org

It does not mean that. Elohim means "gods", plain and simple.

was translated from the plural word "elohim"

Which is consistently conjugated as a singular.

Edit: That is, the verbs are conjugated as if it were a singular.