Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ZeitGeist
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 185 (429807)
10-21-2007 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Spektical
10-21-2007 8:36 PM


Re: JC Did Not Exist!
Have you ever heard of the Naga Hammadi scrolls NJ? If you haven't look it up its very interesting.
Yes, I have the complete Nag Hammadi series in my favorites folder.
Its true that the bible is a compilation of writings, but at the same time there were many writings that were excluded from it. What is the reason for this?
In the early years when Christianity was a fledgling religion, many sources eager to write about Jesus began to, themselves, write about things they weren't acquainted with. This was beginning to confuse the laymen. So their was a convening body of scholars to who looked at the facts and determined and canonized what was actual and what was heretical.
Here is the transcripts of the Council of Trent, as well as the Nicene Council

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Spektical, posted 10-21-2007 8:36 PM Spektical has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-22-2007 8:20 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 122 of 185 (429810)
10-21-2007 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Hyroglyphx
10-21-2007 8:30 PM


Re: JC Did Not Exist!
Crash, the gospel is a compilation of people testifying about Jesus.
Oh, really? What people? The people that wrote the Bible weren't even alive during Jesus's ministry.
How can a text written as much as a century later possibly be "testimony"?
And then there are the extra-biblical sources which only further corroborate his existence.
What sources? What do they corroborate?
As I said, you can find James Bond's birth certificate. That doesn't mean that Casino Royale is a true story.
There was no such thing as the Bible in their day.
Indeed - during their day and for a whole century afterwards. The earliest parts of the New Testament weren't written for 100 years (about) after Jesus had supposedly died.
Here is a copy and paste of some data I compiled about two years ago:
Apologies, but I don't see the relevance. The people who wrote the New Testament were surely aware of the prophecies from the Old. Obviously, when it was decided that the person of Jesus should be made to be the Messiah, they fabricated the stories that fulfilled Old Testament prophecy.
So what? You really wasted your time on all that, I have to say. You spent so much time proving that the last part of the Bible was written to "fulfill" the first part that you, apparently, didn't realize that just proves how fraudulent the whole thing is.
Given the headlines on the news, we are perhaps right on the very cusp of this reality. Food for thought.
Funny, where have I heard that before? Oh, right - for the past 2000 years, every year, from Christians. You all have been predicting the End Times for millenia.
Funny, of course, that you never mention the most abject failure of prophecy in the Bible, which it repeats at least three times:
quote:
So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.
32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.
This generation; that is, the generation of the people he was speaking to. Since the world didn't end 2000 years ago, it's safe to say that's unfulfilled prophecy. (I'm sure you have some kind of sophistry about what "this generation" is supposed to be retrodacted to mean. That's the trick with prophecy, you can interpret it to mean anything if you want to believe in it.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-21-2007 8:30 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-21-2007 9:32 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 185 (429811)
10-21-2007 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by crashfrog
10-21-2007 6:08 PM


Re: JC Did Not Exist!
Actual infinites do exist, such as the set of all real numbers.
Numbers are not actual infinities. They are concepts, which was explained in the article I presented.
"In mathematics, actual infinity is the notion that all (natural, real etc) numbers can be enumerated in some sense sufficiently definite for them to form a set. Hence, in the philosophy of mathematics, the abstraction of actual infinity involves the acceptance of infinite entities, such as the set of all natural numbers or an arbitrary sequence of rational numbers, as given objects.
The mathematical meaning of the term actual in actual infinity is synonymous with definite, not to be mistaken for physically existing. The question of whether natural or real numbers form definite sets is therefore independent of the question of whether infinite things exist physically in nature."

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by crashfrog, posted 10-21-2007 6:08 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by crashfrog, posted 10-21-2007 9:28 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 124 of 185 (429814)
10-21-2007 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Hyroglyphx
10-21-2007 8:59 PM


Re: JC Did Not Exist!
They are concepts, which was explained in the article I presented.
It was from your article that I got the example. Did you even read it? Here's the part that proves you completely wrong:
quote:
The mathematical meaning of the term actual in actual infinity is synonymous with definite, not to be mistaken for physically existing.
"Actual infinity" doesn't mean physically existing, it never has. It means infinities that are conceptually real. The set of all real numbers is an actual infinity, and real numbers do exist.
They just don't exist physically. Of course, space and time aren't physical, either, just the things that are inside them.
I really do wonder if you even bother to read things, NJ.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-21-2007 8:59 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-21-2007 9:48 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 185 (429815)
10-21-2007 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by crashfrog
10-21-2007 8:55 PM


Re: JC Did Not Exist!
Oh, really? What people? The people that wrote the Bible weren't even alive during Jesus's ministry.
The people that wrote specifically about Him, were all alive during His ministry. Matthew was one of His disciples, so was John, so was Peter, Luke and Mark were probably very young at the time, but alive nonetheless, James is His own brother, Paul was alive during this time, but was best known as Saul the Pharisee.
What do you mean they weren't alive?
How can a text written as much as a century later possibly be "testimony"?
If veterans of the Afghanistan war decided to write a book 40 years later, are you saying their testimony is invalid?
What sources?
All the one's I posted which go in to detail about who Jesus was and how His followers dealt with life.
What do they corroborate?
That Jesus is in fact was an actual figure in human history, not some myth that sprang out of thin air, as Spektical seems to believe by faith.
As I said, you can find James Bond's birth certificate. That doesn't mean that Casino Royale is a true story.
.... Wow, that seals the deal for me...
The earliest parts of the New Testament weren't written for 100 years (about) after Jesus had supposedly died.
All or most of the Nag Hammadi were much later editions. The average span for anything in the NT is about 30-70 years.
Apologies, but I don't see the relevance.
You stated that prophecy is vague. I gave very specific references, like Daniel's prophecies. That's what makes it relevant. With how quickly you responded, I'm guessing that you didn't even bother to read it, which is precisely why I save these things to avoid having to write them out over and over again.
The people who wrote the New Testament were surely aware of the prophecies from the Old.
Oh, right... So they had the Romans destroy their city and Temple? Or they conspired thousands of years after their death to get the Jews to repatriate Israel...? Or Jesus could help where he was born, how he was born, etc, etc...?
Obviously, when it was decided that the person of Jesus should be made to be the Messiah, they fabricated the stories that fulfilled Old Testament prophecy.
Crash, even supposing they did fabricate even most of it, some things were completely beyond their control. Secondly, why invent a story out of thin air that got them all killed in a horrific way, unless there was at least some measure of truth to it? Really let that sink in for a minute. Are you alleging that no such person as Jesus existed and that controversy sprang out of a turnip field?
You really wasted your time on all that, I have to say.
Since it was saved to my computer, thankfully I didn't. But noted... I won't every go in to that great of detail with you again.
You spent so much time proving that the last part of the Bible was written to "fulfill" the first part that you, apparently, didn't realize that just proves how fraudulent the whole thing is.
I'm of the opinion that its coming very soon. If after you read it, if and when it happens in your lifetime, I'm hoping that it will cause you come back to Him.
Funny, where have I heard that before? Oh, right - for the past 2000 years, every year, from Christians. You all have been predicting the End Times for millenia.
“scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, ”Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.’ For this, they willfully forget: that by the Word of God, the heavens were of old... beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all come to repentance.” -2nd Peter 3:3-9
quote:
: So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.
This generation; that is, the generation of the people he was speaking to. Since the world didn't end 2000 years ago, it's safe to say that's unfulfilled prophecy. (I'm sure you have some kind of sophistry about what "this generation" is supposed to be retrodacted to mean.
During the time of the Gentiles (I already wrote in detail about all of this) we are in the parenthesis of Daniel's 69th and 70th week. Therefore, this generation truly will not pass away until all things have been accomplished.

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by crashfrog, posted 10-21-2007 8:55 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by crashfrog, posted 10-21-2007 10:00 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 185 (429816)
10-21-2007 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by crashfrog
10-21-2007 9:28 PM


Re: JC Did Not Exist!
"Actual infinity" doesn't mean physically existing, it never has. It means infinities that are conceptually real. The set of all real numbers is an actual infinity, and real numbers do exist.
They just don't exist physically. Of course, space and time aren't physical, either, just the things that are inside them.
"In mathematics, actual infinity is the notion that all (natural, real etc.) numbers can be enumerated in some sense sufficiently definite for them to form a set. Hence, in the philosophy of mathematics, the abstraction of actual infinity involves the acceptance of infinite entities, such as the set of all natural numbers or an arbitrary sequence of rational numbers, as given objects.
The mathematical meaning of the term actual in actual infinity is synonymous with definite, not to be mistaken for physically existing. The question of whether natural or real numbers form definite sets is therefore independent of the question of whether infinite things exist physically in nature.
Here's the paraphrase: In mathematics, numbers are representative of actual physical properties. (representative being the operative word) When using mathematical expressions, it is represented as if it were an actual possibility, but should not be confused with actual physical properties, hence the differentiation between the infinite (which mathematically possible) versus "actual infinity" which deals with tangible objects (which has never been known to be demonstrably possible in the material)
I really do wonder if you even bother to read things, NJ.
I wonder the same of you
But really all of it is quite intuitive. There are no actual infinites in the known universe. To believe there does also means one must implicitly deny the big bang.

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by crashfrog, posted 10-21-2007 9:28 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by crashfrog, posted 10-21-2007 10:07 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 130 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-21-2007 10:18 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 127 of 185 (429819)
10-21-2007 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Hyroglyphx
10-21-2007 9:32 PM


Re: JC Did Not Exist!
Matthew was one of His disciples, so was John, so was Peter, Luke and Mark were probably very young at the time, but alive nonetheless, James is His own brother, Paul was alive during this time, but was best known as Saul the Pharisee.
It's always astounding to meet someone who is honestly completely ignorant of the fact that the gospels aren't named after their authors. Why do Christians always know so little about their own Bible?
Wherever did you get the idea that they were, NJ? How could they be? The earliest gospel wasn't written till 100 years after Jesus had died. All of the disciples were dead by the time the first one was written. How could they have written any of the gospels?
The epistles are different; but the thing is, the epistles were written by people who never knew the person of Jesus. They'd all learned Christianity from the Gospels.
What do you mean they weren't alive?
I mean they were dead. Kaput. No longer among the living. Pining for the fjords.
If veterans of the Afghanistan war decided to write a book 40 years later, are you saying their testimony is invalid?
Yes. I'd be very suspicious of the accuracy of any account given after so long a time. And in the case of the gospels it's more like 80 years later.
Memory is absurdly unreliable.
All the one's I posted which go in to detail about who Jesus was and how His followers dealt with life.
Which sources?
That Jesus is in fact was an actual figure in human history
Except that you still haven't presented anything that corroborates that. Where's Jesus's birth certificate? Where's the execution order? Where is any single contemporary document that lists the guy?
.... Wow, that seals the deal for me..
Do you understand the example? I'm not sure how I'm not getting through to you. Even if there was a real person called "Jesus", if he never did any of the things recorded in the Bible in what sense, exactly, is he Jesus the Christ?
For the record, I think there was a man called Jesus, just like there was a man called Arthur Pendragon. Jesus Christ is as mythical a figure as James Bond.
You stated that prophecy is vague. I gave very specific references, like Daniel's prophecies.
They were vague. What's the relevance?
With how quickly you responded, I'm guessing that you didn't even bother to read it
NJ, your cut and paste never addressed the central issue. Why would I have spent time on an irrelevancy?
Oh, right... So they had the Romans destroy their city and Temple?
The destruction of Jerusalem had already happened in David's time. How is it a prophecy to write down history? It doesn't say "Romans" in David, does it?
Or they conspired thousands of years after their death to get the Jews to repatriate Israel...?
Oh, for God's sake, NJ, the Jews were always going to do that. Plus they were helped by people who wanted the prophecy to be true. How is it prophecy when people who know about the prophecy and want to make it happen make it happen?
If I predict your death in a crystal ball, and then I find you and shoot you, am I a prophet? No, of course not.
If after you read it, if and when it happens in your lifetime, I'm hoping that it will cause you come back to Him.
Oh, for god's sake. Jesus is never coming back for you, NJ. It's all a fairy tale that wouldn't convince a child if adults didn't make them believe it. I don't hold out any hope that you'll be convinced, of course. Honestly, though, the prophecy stuff is really stupid.
During the time of the Gentiles (I already wrote in detail about all of this) we are in the parenthesis of Daniel's 69th and 70th week.
A 2000-year-long week? Please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-21-2007 9:32 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-21-2007 10:42 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 128 of 185 (429820)
10-21-2007 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Hyroglyphx
10-21-2007 9:48 PM


Re: JC Did Not Exist!
Here's the paraphrase
NJ, do you have a reading problem? Like, a learning disability? Your paraphrase bears absolutely no relationship to the paragraphs you've quoted. Look, it says as plain as day:
quote:
"In mathematics, actual infinity is the notion that all (natural, real etc.) numbers can be enumerated in some sense sufficiently definite for them to form a set.
You highlighted "natural", and that maybe makes me think that the presence of that word is confusing you. "Natural numbers" is simply a subset of the reals - all integers greater than 0.
It has nothing to do with "nature" or the physical world or anything like that. It's just a set of numbers defined as all integers greater than 0.
not to be mistaken for physically existing.
Right. Not to be mistaken for physically existing. "Actual infinity" as a mathematical concept has nothing to do with physical objects, it's a statement about certain classes of numbers.
In mathematics, numbers are representative of actual physical properties.
NJ, that's not what it says at all.
There's the paraphrase - actual infinity is the idea that some infinite sets can be defined in such a way that you can tell, definitely, which numbers are a member and which aren't. Some of those sets include the natural numbers, the real numbers, the integers, etc. These are all classes of numbers which can be defined.
There are no actual infinites in the known universe.
NJ, the article you quoted gives both the natural numbers and the real numbers as examples of actual infinities. How can you say they don't exist when the article itself is telling you precisely that some do?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-21-2007 9:48 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-22-2007 12:00 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 129 of 185 (429821)
10-21-2007 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Hyroglyphx
10-21-2007 1:06 PM


Re: JC Did Not Exist!
Since we don't have any evidence to the contrary, I hardly see how its not a legitimate question.
I didn't say that the question was illigitimate.
But the answer you're implying, yes, that's rubbish.
What was "snide" about it? I was just illustrating a point.
By cherry-picking one atheist saying something stupid and pretending that that's the basis for all atheism.
Which is, indeed, snide.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-21-2007 1:06 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-22-2007 12:04 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 130 of 185 (429822)
10-21-2007 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Hyroglyphx
10-21-2007 9:48 PM


Infinity
You may recall that I am, by profession, a mathematician.
Are you also familiar with the phrase "bitch-slapping"? 'Cos that could happen to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-21-2007 9:48 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-22-2007 12:06 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 131 of 185 (429823)
10-21-2007 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Hyroglyphx
10-21-2007 1:39 PM


Re: JC Did Not Exist!
I was saying that if I answer the question below, you can simply rely on your incredulity concerning the accuracy of the Bible. If I give you scripture that backs up Jesus claiming to be God, you may attempt to rely on this. So, again, will it really matter either way for me to provide a scriptural basis?
This still doesn't make any sense to me. Could you try replying to my posts as though I mean what I say, rather than as if I'm some fantasy strawman who you made up in your head?
The trinitarian concept (3=1):
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.
He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God” 13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."
-John 1:1-14
"I and the Father are one." The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." -John 10:30-33
"They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied, "You are right in saying I AM." Then they said, "Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips." -Luke 22:70-71
"I am he," Jesus said. And Judas the traitor was standing there with them. When Jesus said, "I am he," they drew back and fell to the ground." -John 18:5
"God said to Moses, "I am who I am . This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'" -Exodus 3:14
“Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bondservant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on the cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the Name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” -Philippians 2:5-11
God is Jesus, Jesus is God.
Which is consistent with the prophecies concerning the messiah:
“But you Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth are from old, from everlasting.” -Micah 5:2
“For unto us, a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His Name will be called, ”Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.’ Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and over His Kingdom, to order it and establish it with judgment and justice from that time forward, even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.” -Isaiah 9:6-7
So, to summarise, at no point in the Gospels, ever, does Jesus claim to be God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-21-2007 1:39 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-22-2007 12:13 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 185 (429826)
10-21-2007 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by crashfrog
10-21-2007 10:00 PM


Re: JC Did Not Exist!
The earliest gospel wasn't written till 100 years after Jesus had died.
No, you are confusing the canonization of the first Bible, not the individual documents.
Marks gospel: 15-30 years
Matthew's gospel: 1-50 years
Luke's gospel: 10-40 years
John's gospel: 10-90 years
All of Paul's, Peter's, and James epistles: 1-65 years
All of the disciples were dead by the time the first one was written.
What is your indisputable evidence that they were all dead?
How could they have written any of the gospels?
With a quill, ink, and papyrus.
The epistles are different; but the thing is, the epistles were written by people who never knew the person of Jesus. They'd all learned Christianity from the Gospels.
So James, Jesus' brother, never met Jesus? Peter never met Jesus? Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus.
I'd be very suspicious of the accuracy of any account given after so long a time.
Well, then I guess world war II and Vietnam vets should not write about their personal experiences.
Which sources?
Josephus, the Talmud, etc...
Except that you still haven't presented anything that corroborates that. Where's Jesus's birth certificate? Where's the execution order? Where is any single contemporary document that lists the guy?
Crash, there is far more evidence that Jesus existed than almost any other human from antiquity, which only proves your bias. Its amazing that anything has lasted the test of time, let alone, numerous documents talking about the same man.
Even if there was a real person called "Jesus", if he never did any of the things recorded in the Bible in what sense, exactly, is he Jesus the Christ?
How do you know that he never did any of the things in the Bible? What would multiple people lie about no one at all, which got them all murdered for? For posterities sake, you have to at least admit that something grand in those days took place. Whether Jesus was a magician or whatever, something happened which all of them wholeheartedly believed.
For the record, I think there was a man called Jesus, just like there was a man called Arthur Pendragon. Jesus Christ is as mythical a figure as James Bond.
Fine. That's at least a start. I already stated that questioning his deity is one thing, but his personhood is another thing altogether. How do you suppose a story like that could have taken off? What do you think precipitated it?
NJ, your cut and paste never addressed the central issue. Why would I have spent time on an irrelevancy?
Its relevant to corroborating who he was and how he went on proving he was exactly what he said he was.
The destruction of Jerusalem had already happened in David's time.
The Temple has been destroyed in two separate times in history. The second Temple, Solomon's Temple, was destroyed in 70 AD.
How is it a prophecy to write down history? It doesn't say "Romans" in David, does it?
You are thinking about when the Babylonians, under Nebucahdnezzar, destroyed the first Temple in 587 BC. It was rebuilt and then destroyed a second time by the Romans in 70 AD.
Oh, for God's sake, NJ, the Jews were always going to do that.
And how, pray tell, were they going to do that when almost all of them were slaughtered at the time when they were repatriated?
Plus they were helped by people who wanted the prophecy to be true. How is it prophecy when people who know about the prophecy and want to make it happen make it happen?
Who wanted it to be true? The English? The Turks? You forget that they had many, many displaced Jews. They tried to find them a home in many places other than Israel, but no one wanted that many people-- including America.
Oh, for god's sake. Jesus is never coming back for you, NJ.
Yeah, we'll just see what see, now won't we? Won't matter to me if I'm wrong. I'll just die with no more consciousness, according to prevailing secular thought. Its of no consequence to me either way. Can't say the same for you, unfortunately. I either win big or lose nothing.
I don't hold out any hope that you'll be convinced, of course. Honestly, though, the prophecy stuff is really stupid.
And if this all starts happening within your lifetime? It won't be so stupid, now will it?
A 2000-year-long week? Please.
No, its between the week, and the week is representative of years.

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by crashfrog, posted 10-21-2007 10:00 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by crashfrog, posted 10-21-2007 11:18 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 133 of 185 (429827)
10-21-2007 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Spektical
10-20-2007 11:32 AM


Re: The burden of proof is on the claimant
Here's something I found about Crucifixion:
http://www.joezias.com/CrucifixionAntiquity.html
Crucifixion was certainly NOT a Roman invention.
"egypt" is mentioned once, and "according to one source." i can find the source on jstor, but i can't log in from home. i'll check at school.
I also looked up the Egyptian book of the dead and its amazing the similarities between it and the Bible.
i'm really not sure where this idea comes from? the book of the dead is funerary rites. there are 42 "negative confessions" a few of which match the ten commandments, yes. but that's hardly amazing, nor does it make the book similar to the bible. the two are vastly different content.
I'm going to do more research about the other guys...Attis/Dionysus/Mithra.
please do. i've reposted attis and krishna below, from posts i made months ago on another forum.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Spektical, posted 10-20-2007 11:32 AM Spektical has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 134 of 185 (429828)
10-21-2007 10:47 PM


attis
ok, spektical asked for more. here's the break down of the slide about attis.
  1. greece - 1200 bc
    oh, catching them early this time, are we? attis became a solar diety in the second century ad -- after christ. and "greece" would be the wrong country at this time. attis is from phrygia, which was only establishing itself in 1200 bc. while some overlap and osmosis is likely, it wasn't until persia took over that "greece" and "phrygia" fell under one roof. but we're likely looking at roman mythology here.
  2. born of a virgin
    only sort of. his father was the castrated genitals of the hermaphroditic demon agdistis, his mother was impregnated by doing something with the fruit of tree that grew from the castrated genitals. it's bizare, but it's rather commonplace for greek myths to have rather unique origin stories for gods. some not even involving women at all.
  3. dec 25th
    i cannot find any credible (ie: impartial) sources that give a date for attis's birth. even so, supposing it is dec 25th, it would make sense as one of the practices of the solar cult that arose around him. in the second century ad.
  4. crucified
    attis died from the result of cutting off his own genitals at his wedding, due to being driven crazy by his mother/secret lover, cybele -- not the "virgin," the demon that resulted from agdistis losing his male genitals. similarly, the father of the bride cut off his genitals as well. what is it with these people and cutting off genitals? anyways, it certainly wasn't crucifixion.
  5. placed in a tomb, dead for 3 days
    unspecified by the myth. but his body was not allowed to rot, by special miracle of zeus.
  6. resurrected
    as a pine tree.


  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 135 of 185 (429829)
10-21-2007 10:48 PM


krishna
  • born of a virgn
    krishna was the seventh child. do i need to say more here?
  • star in the east
    actually, the hindus were quite astronomically adept. you won't find a mysterious, badly-phrased reference to "a star." you will find rather precise charts of the heavens. and they point to a birthday in july. at least they didn't claim "dec 25th!" here again.
  • performed miracles (with disciples)
    i don't know about that. the only "disciple" of krishna i've ever heard of is arjuna, and technically arjuna was the master and krishna just drove the chariot. no references to miracles that i'm aware of.
  • resurrected
    ok, what a silly claim about hinduism, which believes in reincarnation. for, um, everyone. and as for krishna being reincarnated, don't be silly. krishna was only an incarnation of the god vishnu to begin with.


Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by RCS, posted 07-08-2009 2:15 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024