Mexi-Melt... Dar helps a fundie with his Bible
Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:28 am
I have been having an extensive exchange with an evangelical Christian over on Phil's Skeptic Money for several weeks now. This fellow popped in with some standard Christian material and I decided to give it a good unpack. My posts are 15,200 words so far. It's a little muddled the way his pages work over there and a bunch of the earlier posts seem to be gone (I have backup copies). I don't like that.
I see now that everything before January 31 isn't there or can't be found (actually, I see that after doing another post, the earlier ones are visible again).
Anyway, this exchange includes a lot of data, and good information about the Bible so I am going to cross post all of my responses to him, from the beginning, over here on our bullet proof, works every goddamn time, site. He calls himself "Mexseiko" but I call him "MEX" for shorthand. I've invited him over here.
From: "Johnny Depp’s New Xmas Song Makes Fun Of Jesus – “jesus Stag Night Club” (although these exchanges have nothing to do with the topic of the post)
***
I think Mex needs a little instruction. I'll abide.
MEX: "Now, Christianity,... founders are inspired and quote material mostly written 400, 500, and 700 BC.">>
Christianity is a Jewish heresy, just like Mormons and countless other sects borrow from Christianity as it suits them. Standard religion recycling. Christianity now has about 30,000 divisions. This is what religions do.
MEX: "Jesus story is full of facts that were foretold in these quoted material known as the Old Testament.">>
There are no references to Jesus or prophecies of him in the Hebrew Scriptures. These are made up by zealous Christians who can't read their Bibles right and are lied to by fundie preachers. These prophecy claims are not taken seriously by Jews or Bible scholars (including Christian ones). We do know however that these NT writers had the Hebrew Scriptures before them and tried to write their Jesus story to fulfill certain things. But since they made mistakes (examples upon request), we know they were fudging it, repeatedly.
MEX: "The Bible uses prophesy or foretelling mostly as proof of it coming from God">>
There are no supernaturally fulfilled Bible prophecies, not one (there are however many false and failed prophecies). None of your examples can withstand examination. Present them in our forum, or here, and I'll roast them, as time allows.
index.php
MEX: "Jesus fulfills around 300 Messianic references.">>
Rubbish, he fulfilled none. Funny how Jews, (who wrote your book from beginning to end), think he fulfilled zero.
MEX: "A calculation of probabilities to meet just 2 of those prophesies is astronomical">>
Even if you could verify a fulfilled prophecy, and you can't, there are no astronomical odds when the people spinning your Jesus story have access to data mine the Hebrew Scriptures. Your problem is there is not a single contemporary testimony from anyone outside your anonymous, hearsay gospels stories written expressly for the purpose that "you might believe." That's not a fulfilled prophecy, that's cooking the books.
MEX: "The description in Isaiah 53 alone is met by only one person, Jesus.">>
Your understanding of Is. 53 is based upon your untenable fundamentalist misreading of scripture. Try that one and I'll rip it to shreds.
MEX: "nowhere in any of the books considered part of the Bible is the date of Jesus’ birth explicitly revealed.">>
Oh it's far worse than that. Not only do you not know the day, month, year he was born, you don't even know the decade (or should I say century?).
MEX: "There is internal information that has been used to reach to an October 10th">>
Pure nonsense.
MEX: "December 25th may’ve been a later development, perhaps to drawn pagan...">>
Of course it was. Son god on solstice, how quaint. And predictable.
MEX: "The Bible was written by 40 men in a span of 1,600 years.">>
All of the authors are unknown except for Paul, and he never met Jesus, except in a dream and dreams don't count.
MEX: "All the books are knit together with references that tie it all together.">>
It's called editing, and we know the different sources and how they stitched it all together (See "Who Wrote the Bible" by Richard Elliot Friedman for an excellent introduction to this). It was nice of them to leave all of those contradictions in there. Reveals its purely human origin. I would think a God might have been able to get his story straight. The Bible doesn't.
MEX: "Compare Scripture with Scripture.">>
That actually is my specialty. When I compare scripture to scripture, I find contradictions. I even wrote a book about it. Let me know if you would like some examples.
collector of fine Bible errors and contradictions,
Darrel
***
MEX: "Isaiah 53 not only prophesies Jesus, but the perspective is one of Jewish repentance for their rejection of the true Messiah.">>
You can demonstrate no supernaturally fulfilled prophecies because you can confirm not a single event of Jesus' life outside of the anonymous, second hand, hearsay gospels. So you can't get any fulfillment off the ground. That these unknown gospel writers, who admittedly never met Jesus, were writing their stories to echo stories they read in the Hebrew Scriptures is certain (Matt. was especially fond of this). This is known as Jewish midrash. The Bible is filled with rewriting, midrash, of earlier stories and legends. Learn about midrash here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash
For years our skeptic group the Fayetteville Freethinkers have offered a challenge for someone to establish an example of a supernaturally fulfilled Bible prophecy. You can read about this here:
http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/bible ... ward.shtml
MEX: "Isaiah 53, written in the 700s, prophesies Jesus while at the same time shows that the Jews will eventually acknowledge Him">>
Which the Jews obviously didn't. Nor do they acknowledge that this verse is fulfilled by Jesus. They know that The "servant" of Isaiah 53 is the same figure presented in terms of "suffering and glorification" throughout Isaiah 40-55: and that is... Israel.
MEX: "Ezekiel 37 was fulfilled in 1948 with the reconstitution of the Jewish state of Israel.">>
As wiki notes, with reference: "Jewish scholars maintain that these passages are not messianic prophecies and are based on mistranslations/misunderstanding of the Hebrew texts."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_ ... te_note-38
And this is simply cherrypicking, data mining. Is Israel to rise again? The Bible say yes:
Virgin Israel is to rise again:
Again I will build thee, and thou shalt be built, O
virgin of Israel: thou shalt again be adorned with thy
tabrets, and shalt go forth in the dances of them that
make merry. Jer. 31:4
Oh wait, the Bible also says no:
The virgin Israel is to rise no more.
Hear ye this word which I take up against you, even
a lamentation, O house of Israel. The virgin of Israel
is fallen; she shall no more rise: she is forsaken upon
her land; there is none to raise her up. Amos. 5:1, 2
Note how:
a) one of these prophecies must be fulfilled.
b) one of them also must be a false prophecy.
What are the odds of you happening to pick the one that fits your agenda?
MEX: "Ezekiel 38 is as real as it gets... This prophesy required the existence of Israel,...">>
Which reminds me of another problem, they picked the wrong name. As my Jewish friend who grew up in Israel, taught English there and was a Christian missionary (now atheist) once explained:
***
"Christians are always bringing up the Israel prophecy, but here is just part of where the prophecy failed.
For prophecy fulfillment, the modern Jewish state should have been called
Judah, NOT Israel. The prestate Zionist council considered Judah and
rejected it for Israel. Solomon's royal line, ruled Judah, NOT
Israel. And I can off the top of my head think of a few prophecies
concerning Judah, which messianics are fond of quoting. Messianics are fond
of using the two interchangeably, but they are not. The Jewish kingdom of
Israel was short-lived, but Judah lasted longer than Israel as a sovereign
state, and it was Judah which was exiled to Babylon and reestablished. If
the modern state of Israel was formed by God's own hand and shows prophecy
fulfillment- why didn't God lead the Nation's founders to name the state
Judah?"
***
MEX: "Not one prophesy fulfilled?">>
That's right. You can't demonstrate one. See the straightforward common sense rules here: http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/bible ... ward.shtml
MEX: "Daniel (500 BC) described world political events all the way through this day.">>
Wrong, you are way off. The Oxford Companion to the Bible, which represents standard mainstream Christian scholarship notes:
"The book of Daniel is one of the few books of the Bible that can be dated with precision. That dating makes it the latest of all the books of the Hebrew Bible..." "...the book reached its present canonical form approximately in the middle of 164 BCE." (pg. 151)
MEX: "There are several movements towards rebuilding the Temple:... A lot of research has gone into it.">>
That's nice. Hal Lindsey has made a mint selling a new scary prophecy book to gullible Christians about twice a decade since the 70's. Then the Left Behind series picked it up and kept it going. The one thing we know for certain is the Christians have been falsely prophesying since day one that Jesus is coming soon, and they have been 100% wrong for 1,900 years.
MEX: "You can do a real study of Scripture instead of following this...">>
I was memorizing verses in the 1960's. If you would like to go into detail in defending one of your assertions about fulfilled prophecy, make your case with something beyond mere assertion. I can also bury you in specific examples of failed Bible prophecies.
D.
***
MEX: "Foxes Book of Martyrs records the deaths of many Christians">>
Fox's book is entirely unscholarly, but it hardly matters anyway, people die for false beliefs all the time. A person dying for something they believe in, but is false, is a favorite pastime of humans. Note:
"As to martyrdom, it is rather easier to die for a false idea
than the apologists argue. Peregrinus, in the account of his
life by Lucian, got arrested as a Christian, and wished to
pay the ultimate penalty. His death wish was frustrated by
the Roman magistrate, who recognized the selfish desire
for attention by Peregrinus, and freed his prisoner instead.
Martyrdom is the ultimate narcissism.
In Lucian's story, Peregrinus finally dies by flinging himself
in a pagan god's fire, seeking immortality, with narration
of his glory supplied by one of his bootlicking followers." --Jeff L.
"As late as about 240/250 AD, Origen in Contra Celsum Book 3 Chapter 8
admits that the number of Christian marytrs was 'few' and 'easily
numbered'. This is after more than 2 centuries of persecution.
'For in order to remind others, that by seeing a few engaged in a
struggle for their religion, they also might be better fitted to
despise death, some, on special occasions, and these individuals who
can be easily numbered, have endured death for the sake of Christianity..."
As Schweitzer pointed out: "Martyrdom has always been a proof of the intensity, never the correctness, of a belief." --Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965) theologian
These fellows, if they existed, were relying upon stories they heard. Just like you are, except your stories are 2,000 years old. Yet you still believe them and perhaps would die for them. Thousands of Jehovah's Witnesses died for their beliefs in WWII, does that suggest that the Jehovah's Witness religion is true? No. This is just evidence of the gullibility of humans, not the truth of the stories people that people happen to be able to convince themselves to die for. But again, with few exceptions, the stories of martyrdom that Christians pass around are almost without exception, bogus, legends, myths. One reason we know this is because we have multiple stories of the sam
MEX: "you make a sport out of your nonsensical debate of such precious faith.">>
Faith isn't "precious" it's just a bad habit of believing something without good reason. That's what the word "faith," when applied to religion, means.
MEX: "Even to this day, people continue to suffer just for being Christians in China, the Middle-East, and India.">>
And this proves nothing except people are convinced of their religious beliefs. This doesn't suggest in any way that those beliefs are true.
MEX: "Here in America, find ourselves more frequently in court defending our right to be Christians.">>
More often people are in court defending their right to not have Christians use the government to push their beliefs on everyone else.
MEX: "I will only respond to a respectful posting.">>
I will roast you with great respect.
D.
--------------
"In any case, both the Jewish and Christian disapproval of suicide
dates from the fourth century AD, late in the development of both
religions, and does not derive directly from scripture. Ironically,
the Christian Church, encouraged by the arguments of St Augustine,
adopted a strict prohibition against suicide precisely because it had
become so popular among Christians. A vogue for martyrdom, and even
collective suicide, had by then begun to threaten the Church. Any
religion which preaches that life on earth is a vale of tears, a mere
prelude to a better after-life, would seem to be inviting its
adherents to kill themselves, unless it can offer a good reason for
them to delay their departure for paradise. Declaring suicide a mortal
sin was the Church's solution. Islam took the same path, forbidding it
outright. Other religions, such as Buddhism and Hinduism, are less
condemnatory." -- editorial in 10/17/99 Economist magazine, "Let death be my dominion,"
***
MEX: " Isaiah 53 not only prophesies Jesus, but...">>
Ah, found it. A debate exchange I read almost nine years ago which completely and utterly *demolishes* the notion that Isaiah 40-53 has anything whatsoever to do with Jesus.
Very scholarly, well referenced. Read it if you have the courage to consider whether your claim is true:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showt ... aiah-40-55
D.
***
MEX: "To say that the guiltless man of Isaiah 53 personifies the collective nation of Israel is delusional at best.">>
Mere assertion. The only people fooled by this prophecy ruse are fundamentalist Xtians who don't know how to read their Bible. Mainstream standard Christian Bible scholarship understands there is no prophecy here.
As even the introductory wiki blurb on this points out:
"Citing a number of Biblical verses that refer to Israel as the "servant", many of them from the Book of Isaiah such as 49:3 He said to me, "You are My servant, Israel, in whom I will display My splendor."[14]
Jewish scholars, and several Christian scholarly books, like Revised Standard Version Oxford Study Edition Bible, The Revised Standard Version tell us that Isaiah 53 is about national Israel and the New English Bible echo this analysis.[15] Judaism, teaches that the "servant" in question is actually the nation of Israel.[1] These scholars also argue that verse 10 cannot be describing Jesus. The verse states:
"10 he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days"
Taken literally, this description, is inconsistent with the short, childless life of Jesus.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_53
Etc. There are no end of problems with your prophecy claim and the extensive article I've given you details them nicely. You've responded to none of it.
Your biggest problem is you can confirm not a single act of Jesus outside of your anonymous gospels, so you can show no confirmed prophecy.
MEX: "God says He’s up to His Eyeballs with the blood of sacrifices for sins.">>
Then maybe he should have known better than to come up with the barbaric requirement of blood sacrifices. It was his idea.
MEX: "I... understand the Jewish people not accepting Jesus...">>
Which flattens your prophecy.
MEX: "The parallelism between this this passage and the Passion of Jesus are clear.">>
Then you should be able to defend them and substantiate your prophecy. When are you going to begin? All standard Bible scholarship is against you. And all of the Jews of course. But what would Jews know about their own book and language without Fundamentalist Christians coming along and explaining to them what it really means?
MEX: "Jesus is the One the Jews will collectively acknowledge,...">>
Ah, promises promises. How many more millenia are you and yours going to bow and scrape waiting for that one? Probably several. Pitiful. Jesus ain't coming back. It was a ruse. You got took.
MEX: "Isaiah was a prophet and he foretold...">>
For him to be a successful prophet he would need to have landed some successful prophecies. And you can't demonstrate any of those without begging questions and assuming the Bible is true, and we know it isn't.
MEX: "Israel’s... repentance of having prosecuted and innocent man.">>
What makes you think he was innocent? We know he was a liar. Just like his Papa:
"And if the prophet be deceived when he hath
spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that
prophet..." Ezekiel 14:9
"Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a
lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and
the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee."
1 Kings 22:23 also 2 Chron. 18:22
"...Ah, Lord God! surely thou hast greatly
deceived this people and Jerusalem..." Jer. 4:10
"O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived..." Jer 20:7
"...God shall send them strong delusion, that they
should believe a lie..." 2 Thess. 2:11
Since your God is an admitted liar Mr. Mex, why should anyone believe him?
Jesus was liar too:
During his hearing before the high priest, Jesus says, "I spoke openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where the Jews always meet, and in secret I have said nothing" (John 18:20 (NKJ)). Here Jesus is shown making two claims:
(a) Jesus always taught in the synagogues and in the temple, and
(b) Jesus shared all of his teachings with his public audiences; he never kept important parts of his teachings a secret.
Are the claims (a) and (b), true? Of course not. Jesus taught in lots of other places and he had scores of secret teachings that he taught... in secret.
How can we believe these guys, and their book, when we know they are liars?
***
Darrel says:
January 25, 2012 at 2:04 AM
Hey Mex, a link is not an argument. If you think you can provide an example of a prophecy that can hold up, let’s see you attempt to make a case for it. So far you’ve got nothing, and this has been very easy to show.
And you forgot to answer my question. Why should anyone believe these Gods in your book when your very book says they are liars? I understand why this would be an uncomfortable question for you.
I know you like to pretend that the end is near, but as this list below shows, this is a childs game of false prophecy Christians have been peddling for about 2,000 years. You guys really aren’t in a position to be talking about fulfilled prophecy:
The END was nigh:
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Matt. 16:28
But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God. Luke 9:27
But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; 1 Cor. 7:29
Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand. Phil. 4:5
For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven… Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds… 1 Thess. 4:15-16
God…Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son… Heb. 1:1-2
For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Heb. 9:26
For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry. Heb. 10:37
Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord… stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh…behold, the judge standeth before the door. James 5:7-9
But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer. 1 Peter 4:7
Christ…was manifest in these last times for you,… 1 Peter 1:19-20
Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 1 John 2:18
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass;… Rev. 1:1
Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand. Rev. 1:3
Behold, I come quickly. Rev. 3:11
And he said unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand… He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. Rev. 22:10, 20.
But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come. Matt 10:23
Etc.
***
Darrel says:
January 25, 2012 at 12:05 PM
MEX: “Isaiah 53… you have to shut down your brain to overlook the parallelism with Jesus.”>>
There is nothing to do with Jesus in Isaiah or the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures. That’s just Xtians data mining and showing they have an active imaginations. And again, you can confirm nothing of Jesus life beyond the assertion that he may have, probably, existed.
MEX: “Antiochus Epiphanes… enters the Holy of Hollies and defiles it by offering a pig fulfilling prophesy. But the prophecy remains unfulfilled because that desecration did not cause desolation.”>>
Gibberish. When you have a few thousand pages of Hebrew Scriptures, it’s easy to data mine things and pretend they align with later events. For prophecy, you need to know something in *advance,* not cherry pick post hoc and try to make things fit. That’s easy and demonstrates nothing.
MEX: “it doesn’t deny the fact that Isaiah is heavily messianic,”>>
Actually, that’s controversial.
MEX: “speaking about the Virgin Birth,”>>
A Christian distortion. The reference is to a young woman, not a virgin and has nothing to do with anything in the NT whatsoever. And Paul didn’t even believe in the virgin birth claim anyway.
MEX: “Jesus as King,”>>
Jesus was never a king.
MEX: “No scholar can erase the extreme parallels with Jesus.”>>
No scholar would be fooled by lame fundie attempts take literally the attempts by Matthew et al, to make Jesus jump through the hoops necessary to make it look like he fulfilled things. You can demonstrate no fulfilled prophecies. Not one.
We know these guys were fudging their stories because the writer of Matthew made mistakes like adding and extra donkey to his story so he could try and fulfill what he thought was a prophecy in Zechariah 9:9. But he goofed and didn’t his verse straight, and he flatly contradicts the versions in Mark and Luke which have one animal. Etc.
MEX: “Either way you’re arguing a point you don’t even believe. You’re not a Christian,”>>
One hardly needs to be a Christian to point out your errors.
MEX: “You’re just trying to win an argument by cutting and pasting stuff you don’t believe.”>>
No, I am winning an argument by knowing what I am talking about.
MEX: “someday the world will reconcile with itself that Jews are are the apple of God’s Eye and that one day…”>>
Your “someday” might have been interesting 1,900 years ago. Now it it’s boring.
MEX: “final judgment because there will be no peace until Jesus establishes His Millennial Kingdom.”>>
Jesus died 1,980 years ago. He may have been a nice guy (except for that lying bit and a few other errors he made) but he’s not coming back. You guys really need to get some therapy and get over this.
D.
————-
“[The gospel accounts] are a poetic rendering of a devout wish but certainly not an authentic record… since the Crucifixion was conducted by Roman soldiers,… Jesus’ body was most likely left on the Cross or tossed into a shallow grave to be eaten by scavenger dogs, crows or other wild beasts. As for Jesus’ family and followers, depicted in the Bible as conducting a decent burial of the body according to Jewish law, “as far as I can see, they ran. They lost their nerve, though not their faith.” –TIME mag., 4/10/95, pg. 70, Bible scholars Robert W. Funk and Dominic Crossan.
“If the resurrection of Jesus cannot be believed except by assenting to the fantastic descriptions included in the Gospels, then Christianity is doomed. For that view of resurrection is not believable, and if that is all there is, then Christianity, which depends upon the truth and authenticity of Jesus’ resurrection, also is not believable. If that were the requirement of belief as a Christian, then I would sadly leave my house of faith. With me in that exodus from the Christian church, however, would be **every ranking New Testament scholar in the world–Catholic and Protestant alike**: E. C. Hoskyns, C. H. Dodd, Rudolf Bultmann, Reginald Fuller, Joseph Fitzmyer, W. E. Albright, Ray-mond Brown, Paul Minear, R. H. Lightfoot, Herman Hendrickx, Edward Schillebeeckx, Hans Kung, Karl Rahner, Phyllis Trible, Jane Schaberg, D. H. Nineham, Maurice Goguel, and countless others.”
–Bishop John Shelby Spong, John Shelby Spong, Resurrection: Myth or Reality? (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1994), p. 238.
Modern Christianity doesn’t believe in your resurrection anymore.
***
MEX: "that web page listed prophesy after prophesy">>
If you think you can defend one, give it a try. I am not interested in piles of vapid assertions. I am well aware Christians pretend they have a few thousand examples of fulfilled prophecy. I am also aware that not one of them holds up to examination.
MEX: "you will probably... that non of the apostles existed,">>
Some of them probably did, but because the Bible can't get it's story straight and has several contradictory lists of them, we really have no idea who was who. And curiously, they wrote nothing about their Jesus.
MEX: "[you will probably claim] there were no Christian churches in the first century,">>
Lots of religions have "churches." It doesn't mean that the claims in those building are true. In fact, usually they aren't.
MEX: "Christian Entertainment in the Colosseum onley happened in movies,">>
I am well aware that some lions were fed with Christians. As the to impropriety of such an action, I'm, like those Christians, torn.
MEX: "don’t expect a thick paragraph of cut and paste from me.">>
What I expect, should you rise to have the courage to defend your extraordinary religious assertions, is an argument presenting your case. You haven't done that yet.
D.
---------------
Virgin birth:
"The Old Testament says nothing about Mary. Isaiah 7:14 speaks of a
young woman of the time the "a young woman shall conceive" statement was
made. In Hebrew it simply says that a young woman shall become/is
pregnant and will give birth to a child. One need not quibble over the
meaning of 'almah/bethulah in order to point out that it happens every
day. Many young women become pregnant. They are virgins before (some of
them) but not after. The OT says nothing about the young woman being a
virgin at the time of giving birth. And of course the quote was lifted
out of context and applied to Jesus. That is why Jews do not and never have read it as
having anything to do with a "virgin birth."
As to whether the Mother of Jesus was a virgin or not, we really have no
evidence at all. Both birth stories in the gospels appear to be later
additions tacked onto the basic story that begins at the baptism of
Jesus. Two gospels say nothing of a virgin birth. Paul says nothing of
a virgin birth--in fact he speaks of Jesus being of the "seed of David"
according to the flesh, meaning a descendant of David. If we accept the
genealogies in the NT (which of course we should not), then Joseph is the
genetic descendant of David--and of course he is supposed not to have had
any physical part in the birth of Christ at all."
--David C.
***
MEX: "I don’t have to prove anything.">>
Oh yes you do. You have the burden of supporting your extraordinary claims with extraordinary evidence. Your problem is, you don't even have ordinary evidence.
MEX: "each prophecy referenced in the NT on Jesus reinforces the other 100, 200 whatever...">>
But you need to start with having one established before you can count your number. And you don't have one. Which is rather pitiful really.
MEX: "the complexity of the “apostolic conspiracy” to create a bogus religion is so immense">>
It's not immense at all. Jesus had some followers and they were sad when he died. Then they told some others about it, they added to the stories, and decades to a century later they started writing this nonsense down. Now fools like you, 1,900 years later, actually believe this crap. It's embarrassing. You are an intellectual embarrassment to humanity.
MEX: "to pull this kind of historic prank, at least without any kind of benefit.">>
All religions are founded upon this method. The benefit is you get to pretend to believe that you will live after you die, and the bad people will be punished by your spook. But there is no reason to believe that beyond wishful thinking.
MEX: "Not even Constantine needed to pull it,">>
Why would he need to use it when it is much more advantageous to use your religion for political means? You believers have been getting yanked around since day one.
MEX: "4 coincidences is one too many. The odds are astronomical.">>
What are the odds that fellows reading old religious literature could appeal to information in it and incorporate some of the vague poetry to fit the new story they are spinning about a guy their heard about but no one wrote a word about during his life? The odds are 100%. That's pretty good odds.
MEX: "I don’t think is worth it to continue paying this game.">>
I understand perfectly.
MEX: "Not a game for me. Go back to your Nintendo.">>
I have a Playstation 3 actually, but none of my games can compete with how fun it is to wipe the floor with biblical fundamentalists. And I have some really good games.
***
Mex has a few more points. Let's give them a poke:
MEX: "you come up with a laughable little scenario about grown men concocting an elaborate story which turned into the biggest religion...">>
Wrong. No need to appeal to dishonesty. All religions are founded upon similar hand-me-down, typically anonymous, unverifiable, stories. People make mistakes and misapprehend nature all the time. Eyewitness testimony is *notoriously* inaccurate, and we don't even have that with the Jesus stories.
A religious leader, Sai Baba (died last April) was claimed to have magical powers and to be born of a virgin etc.,. When he held a birthday party over one million people showed up. How many followers did your Jesus assemble? According to the Gospels, Jesus raised the dead, fed 5,000, walked on water, preached for 3 years, there were earthquakes, eclipses and saints being raised when he died, and there were 120 believers by the time of Acts 1:15. Not very effective, was he? If we are to pretend that the size of a religion or how fast it grows has anything to do with it being true (which is absurd), then there no end of examples of religions that kick Christianity's behind.
MEX: "What are you, 11 years old?">>
I'm 45 actually.
MEX: "How childish can anyone be?">>
You are the one that believes in a book that has talking animals in it, so you tell us.
MEX: "You actually think that you can put Christianity on trial and prove it’s false on a mere speculation?">>
Christianity's case is so weak it wouldn't make it past the hearing stage. If you were to attempt to make a case for it you would quickly find how easy it is to demolish your assertions, as you are observing now. Also, it is not anyone's responsibility to prove your outlandish claims false. It's your burden to support your own claims with good evidence. As you have shown in this thread, you can't do that.
MEX: "The gospels are written by eye witnesses.">>
Thank you for revealing just how deep your biblical ignorance is. Had you taken the time to read your holy book carefully you would have noticed that your own gospels openly admit they are *not* eyewitness reports but rather hearsay. What you have is second hand hearsay evidence that wouldn't be allowed in Judge Judy's courtroom to confirm a broken window. Yet you want to use it to confirm the existence of mass resurrections, zombies, etc.
MEX: "In the case of Luke, he investigated the claims he heard and read about, and eventually joined the movement himself.
Right, Luke wasn't buying the other stories either. Luke never claims to be an eyewitness to anything. As my Bible scholar friend once put it:
"Please read the first four verses of the Gospel of Luke. The author says that there are various gospel stories floating around, but he doesn't care for any of them, so he's going to tell us what really happened. He dismisses the gospels of Mark, Matthew, and many others, which had already been written, as unreliable. One of Luke's "eyewitnesses" is Paul. Read all about it in chapters 9 and 22 of Luke's continuing narrative, the Acts of the Apostles. But Paul had never met Jesus in the flesh; he saw him only in visions afer he (Jesus) was dead.
Now please read what Paul, the earliest writer in the entire New Testament, says: " The gospel you heard me preach is no human invention, I did not take it over from any man; no man taught it to me; I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ" (Galatians 1:11-12).
So the only "eyewitness" record we have of Jesus comes from a man who did not see him in the flesh, but only in visions after he was dead. And Paul doesn't tell us a single detail about the life of Jesus, only that he was crucified, buried, and "risen again" (1 Cor. 15:3-4). Paul disappears from history around the year 62, when he was a prisoner in Rome.
The author of Luke/Acts had never met either Jesus or Paul personally; neither had any other gospel writer. So the Gospel according to Luke, which was supposed to be more correct than all other gospels, is itself based on nothing but hearsay and dreams." --Ralph N.
MEX: "You’ll have to do better than that.">>
I just did. You have no eyewitness reports. The only NT author that can be confirmed is Paul, and he never met Jesus except in a dream, and dreams don't count.
MEX: "Your accusation of a conspiracy or imaginary events is without any merit.">>
I don't need to appeal to a conspiracy, but that would be far more likely than that these events actually happened. You have second hand hearsay anonymous accounts written decades later and your stories are filled with extraordinary miraculous claims. You reject this when other religions make such claims, but you blindly accept your religious traditions because you have been programmed to believe them. You have no evidence to support your claims as has been easy to show.
MEX: "Speculations prove nothing.">>
Right. So let us know when you have something beyond speculation in support of your faith based religious claims.
MEX: "Even if there were a few errors on the writings, the narrative, chronology, doctrinal content, even the doctrinal connection to Judaism is consistent.">>
The Bible is filled with contradictions and errors both minor and major. That it has much in common with Judaism is to be expected since Christianity is a Jewish heresy (sect).
MEX: "the plethora of OT parallels to Jesus life narrative, too many to ignore.">>
See Jewish midrash. This is what Jews do. They take old stories and re-write them with new characters. It's called recycling. See: "Gospel Fictions"
http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Fictions-R ... 283&sr=8-1
And "Who Wrote the Bible"
http://www.amazon.com/Wrote-Bible-Richa ... 350&sr=8-1
MEX: "The Christian religion is based on a promise...">>
Talk is cheap and that promise, which was to be fulfilled "soon" is now 1,900 years old.
MEX: "backed by openly witnessed demonstrations of the power to deliver on the promise.">>
You have no witnesses, not one. The only power that has been demonstrated is the lack of power to deliver on the promise.
MEX: "What was witnessed? Signs, miracles, and the Resurrection.">>
None of the people supposedly claimed to have witnessed these things wrote a single word. If they did, your all powerful God didn't see fit to have it preserved. Sorry about that.
MEX: "Without the witnessed resurrection of Jesus there wouldn’t be any Christianity.">>
I'll get over it.
MEX: "the NT declares the fulfillment of all the Messianic prophecies,">>
a) you don't have a single example that can withstand examination.
b) you can't confirm a single action of Jesus life beyond what some unknowns, who never met him, say he did (while at the same time they were looking to the OT for guidance to write their story).
MEX: "the restoration Israel which wasn’t even on the map">>
When Israel was destroyed in 587 BCE, the twelve tribes were scattered to the winds, never to be gathered together again. The present occupiers who are borrowing the name can trace no lineage to any one. The use of the name is purely window dressing. There is no connection to the biblical Israel except these loosely based religious descendants who happen to share a similar religion. That someone someday would come along and name a certain area the same name it had long ago, is rather mundane and to be expected. It also run contrary to Bible prophecy which says Israel is to rise no more:
"Hear ye this word which I take up against you, even
a lamentation, O house of Israel. The virgin of Israel
is fallen; she shall no more rise: she is forsaken upon
her land; there is none to raise her up." Amos. 5:1, 2
MEX: "They say the Ark is in a system of tunnels under the Temple platform.">>
Now you are just being silly.
MEX: "I personally believe the rebuilding of the Temple will from a negotiation...">>
No one is interested in what you are able to "personally believe." Your claims are based upon wishful thinking and extreme naivety.
MEX: "as the US weakens, Iran is embolden,">>
The US has a GDP 35x that of Iran. Iran has the GDP of Georgia.
MEX: "Bush and Obama allowed the Persian nuke program to reach almost completion stages.">>
Let's ask someone who knows what they are talking about:
"Panetta: Iran cannot develop nukes"
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57 ... ck-strait/
D.
***
Dear Mexseiko, I am sorry you are so misinformed about your own religion. I hope you have learned a bit about it in this exchange. I have been studying these issues for decades and I don't hold views about the Bible that are not supported by mainstream, peer-reviewed, Christian, Bible scholarship taught in every non-fundie university and seminary in the land. Twenty years ago I wrote the following book about the doctrine of biblical inerrancy:
http://fayfreethinkers.com/ourbooks/mirrorsample.shtml
M: "What you call “notoriously inaccurate” is a detailed and consistent account of events.">>
The Biblical accounts are notoriously inaccurate and inconsistent. That's why we have 30,000 divisions of Christianity. See the examples given in that sample of my book. The Bible has been heavily edited of course, so this explains the degree to which it is "consistent." This has been known for centuries.
MEX: "John and Matthew walked and talked with Jesus for about 3 years.">>
The writer of Matthew never refers to themselves in the first person and in fact refers to Matthew in the third person. At no time do they claim to have walked or talked with Jesus. This would be easy for you refute, simply give me chapter and verse showing I am wrong. Course, even if the writer did make this claim, it wouldn't follow that it is true. We know the book of Matthew was written decades after Paul (he had no knowledge of any gospels), and we know that the names were added about a century later for convenience and to add prestige.
MEX: "They got busy with the gospel and eventually wrote their gospels.">>
Where does the Bible say this?
MEX: "They saw Jesus die on the cross and later had fish with Him.">>
No one who met Jesus wrote a single word of the New Testament. Get informed and stop making such a fool of yourself.
MEX: "You site Sai Baba’s success as Jesus failure,...>>
I cite Sai Baba as an example of how gullible humans are and to make the point that just because a religion grows large or fast, it doesn't follow that it is true. You can simply look to any religion other than your own, including sects of your own, to see that this is true. People are extraordinarily gullible so there are no shortage of examples.
MEX: "it is Sai Baba and his followers who failed.">>
Sai Baba and Jesus are both equally dead and gone. Both have followers, but this doesn't prove anything other than that there are lots of gullible people.
MEX: "Christians and Jews died for our faiths.">>
Millions die for false beliefs. It's rather common and quite popular.
MEX: "you have a very youthful spirit, cause you can sound very childish.">>
Pointing out that it is childish to believe a book that has talking animals in it is not childish, it's just common sense.
MEX: "You’re great at googling, cutting&pasting.">>
I wrote my book about the Bible before the internet existed (started it in 1990). I am used to getting my knowledge the old fashioned way, going to the library and studying books. If you don't have a library card, I recommend you get one.
MEX: "cutting&pasting Atheist propaganda without actual personal study and research?">>
My book and beliefs about the Bible have nothing to do with atheism. Again, my beliefs and claims about the Bible are supported by mainstream, peer-reviewed, Christian, Bible scholarship and taught in every non-fundamentalist university and seminary in the land. You don't know what you are talking about.
MEX: "Matthew and John are commonly accepted as the wwriters of, well, Matthew and John.">>
No they aren't. From the "Oxford Companion to the Bible," Metzger and Coogan eds., Oxford
1993:
Mark, The Gospel According to. The ascription of the gospel of Mark goes
back to at least Papias...who in about 130 CE reported that he had been told
that it was written by Mark "the interpreter of Peter"... (page 493)
Matthew, The Gospel According to. It is commonly held that Matthew was
written in about 85, or 90 CE by an unknown Christian...the apostle
Matthew...is unlikely...the story's author. On the contrary, the author
exhibits a theological outlook, command of Greek, and rabbinic training that
suggests he was a Jewish Christian of the second rather than the first
generation...(of Antioch). (Page 502)
Luke, The Gospel According to. ...the third gospel is anonymous, as are the
other gospels. Ancient church tradiciton attributed...(it)...to Luke who
appears in Philemon 24 as Paul's "fellow worker" and is called the
"beloved physician" in Collossians 4:14....Most modern commentators on the
Lucan gospel, however, are skeptical about the validity of this traditional
attribution. (page 470)
John, The Gospel According to. ...the work may be regarded as apostolic in
character, even though it did not in the end come (as some would argue) from
the hand of John the apostle himself....written at the very latest by the
beginning of the second century CE... (page 375)
Also: From "Who Wrote the New Testament?" Burton Mack, 1995, Harper Collins.
The Gospel of Mark. As for the author, we know only that we do not know who
he was. The Mark to whom the gospel was attributed is a legendary figure of
the second century. Papias...(ca. 130), named Mark as the author of the
gospel... (page 153)
The Gospel of Matthew. I will refer to the author of this gospel as Matthew,
in keeping with the gospel's later attribution to one of the named disciples.
In fact, however, all we know about the person who wrote this gospel is that
he thought of himself as a "scribe trained for the kingdom" (Matt 13:52).
(page 162)
The Gospel According to Luke. ...around the year 120
C.E....[Luke]...appeared.... As with the other narrative gospels, we do not
know anything about the author except what can be inferred form the writing
itself. Later in the second century, the work was attributed to Luke...just
as other anonymous literature from earlier times was attributed to either the
apostles or their companions in order to validate their truth. It has become
customary to refer to the author as Luke, even though the Luke mentioned by
Paul cannot have been the one who wrote this work." (page 167)
Every encyclopedia, every standard mainstream scholarly, non-fundie, reference will say the same. The gospels are anonymous, the names were added later. We know this because church fathers had these works in front of them almost 100 years after Jesus didn't know who wrote them. The names were added later.
continued...
MEX: "These were eye witnesses of Jesus miraculous deeds, His death, and His resurrection.">>
No one who wrote a word of the NT met Jesus or witnessed anything. No one in Matt. Mark, or Luke even claims to be an eyewitness. Get informed, learn the difference between an eyewitness report, and hearsay.
MEX: "The Canon demands that for a book to be included in the Bible it must be by an eye witness, or someone who knew an eye witness.">>
Which means, someone who claimed to have known someone who claimed to have been an eyewitness. This is second hand hearsay that Judge Judy throws out of court every day over a $50 claim. Worthless. And your hearsay is 1,900 years old, anonymous, and filled with whoppers, contradictions and extraordinary claims.
MEX: "Paul, not an eye witnesses?">>
Hallucinations don't count. Paul clearly had a hallucination because he saw and heard things those with him did not (according to one contradictory version of the story).
MEX: "a vision that ended in his conversion.">>
People convert to religions for lots of bizarre and false reasons.
MEX: "Well, Paul’s vision was real...">>
Why should anyone believe that? People in mental institutions have visions that are real to them, all the time.
MEX: "Peter, James, and John were eye witnesses of Jesus transfiguration...">>
Let's check your claim:
PETER:
"In The New Jerusalem Bible, an excellent British Catholic translation, the notes to 2 Peter point out that the epistle refers to events that are clearly later than could have been known by Peter, the vocabulary is notably different from that of 1 Peter,the whole of ch. 2 is obviously a free repetition of Jude, and there is no assurance that the letter was accepted at all until the 3rd cent., and some, according to Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome, refused to accept it. Most critics nowadays also reject the Petrine authorship. It is what we would call a forgery,..."
First and Second Peter, the epistles allegedly written by the great apostle, are recognized forgeries. According to Burton L. Mack (*Who Wrote the New Testament*, pages 207-213) both epistles bear the unmistakable marks of second century authorship and erudition. Mack points out that these epistles fit well with other Christian literature of the mid-second century, and scholars have traditionally assigned them a date of between 124 CE and 150 CE. Peter is believed to have died about 67 CE (*Encyclopaedia Britannica*). --Louis Cable
JAMES
"Of authorship and date not much is known. The tradition that it was written by James the brother of the Lord has little support from ancient times. The indication of the letter itself--its excellent Greek with vivid metaphor and facile use of idiom, its apparent knowledge of 1 Peter and of certain letters of Paul--suggest a Hellenistic Christian as its autoer and a date toward the end of the first century." -New Oxford Annotated RSV (pg. 1469)
The works attributed to John came later and are also, anonymous.
MEX: "the NT is specifically a testimony of Jesus.">>
No, not only do we not have any testimony or writing from Jesus, we don't have testimony or writing from anyone who met Jesus in the flesh.
MEX: "The main purpose of it being written is as a testimony.">>
Then it failed, because there is no first hand testimony in the anonymous NT.
MEX: "No eye witnesses?">>
Correct, none, not one. Get informed. Your minister has been lying to you. Hence the emphasis on the importance of "faith."
MEX: "You mean, they [Jews] died in Nazi camps for nothing? Wow!">>
People die for false beliefs all the time. Over 5,000 Jehovah's Witnesses died for their specific religious beliefs in the Nazi camps. Does this make the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses correct? No. It just means people have strong beliefs.
MEX: "[Panetta is] Obama puppet.">>
Leon Panetta is the Secretary of defense. I have reason to believe that he has greater understanding and knowledge of what is going on in Iran, than you. Sorry.
MEX: This is my last reply... Go ahead with your little celebration. Declare yourself the winner.">>
There is no need for victory dances or to declare the winner. I am confident that those have read this exchange are quite aware of the situation.
I'll leave you with an article by a minister who refers to why you are so confused about your Bible and basic scholarship.
D.
--------------------
"The Sin of Silence
There is a sin among a large segment of the Christian clergy that I find despicable. It is the sin of omission, the sin of silence. It is the sin of promoting falsehoods in order to hold your job. It is the sin of not sharing with a congregation what you know to be true about the bible and Christianity.
Those graduating in religious studies from every major university in America, as well as every major theological seminary that is independent of Christian financial pressure, know certain facts to be true. They know that:
1. The entire bible is saturated with common mythological themes, from the creation and flood myth to virgin birth and resurrected hero mythology.
2. The stories of the patriarchs in the Old Testament are known as 'temple legends' to enhance the history of the Hebrew people and are mostly fictional.
3. The gospels were not written by anyone who knew Jesus personally.
4. The 'Christ' myths and formulas are direct copies of Zoroastrian myths adopted by the Jesus sect.
5. These facts, with others, have been known for years, and taught by internationally respected scholars from major universities world wide.
Religiously educated clergy, through the sin of omission and silence, continue to promote superstition."
--William Edelen. An active ordained Presbyterian and Congregational minister for 30 years. Adjunct professor of Religious Studies and Anthropology, University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington
http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article723.html
***
cont...
I see now that everything before January 31 isn't there or can't be found (actually, I see that after doing another post, the earlier ones are visible again).
Anyway, this exchange includes a lot of data, and good information about the Bible so I am going to cross post all of my responses to him, from the beginning, over here on our bullet proof, works every goddamn time, site. He calls himself "Mexseiko" but I call him "MEX" for shorthand. I've invited him over here.
From: "Johnny Depp’s New Xmas Song Makes Fun Of Jesus – “jesus Stag Night Club” (although these exchanges have nothing to do with the topic of the post)
***
I think Mex needs a little instruction. I'll abide.
MEX: "Now, Christianity,... founders are inspired and quote material mostly written 400, 500, and 700 BC.">>
Christianity is a Jewish heresy, just like Mormons and countless other sects borrow from Christianity as it suits them. Standard religion recycling. Christianity now has about 30,000 divisions. This is what religions do.
MEX: "Jesus story is full of facts that were foretold in these quoted material known as the Old Testament.">>
There are no references to Jesus or prophecies of him in the Hebrew Scriptures. These are made up by zealous Christians who can't read their Bibles right and are lied to by fundie preachers. These prophecy claims are not taken seriously by Jews or Bible scholars (including Christian ones). We do know however that these NT writers had the Hebrew Scriptures before them and tried to write their Jesus story to fulfill certain things. But since they made mistakes (examples upon request), we know they were fudging it, repeatedly.
MEX: "The Bible uses prophesy or foretelling mostly as proof of it coming from God">>
There are no supernaturally fulfilled Bible prophecies, not one (there are however many false and failed prophecies). None of your examples can withstand examination. Present them in our forum, or here, and I'll roast them, as time allows.
index.php
MEX: "Jesus fulfills around 300 Messianic references.">>
Rubbish, he fulfilled none. Funny how Jews, (who wrote your book from beginning to end), think he fulfilled zero.
MEX: "A calculation of probabilities to meet just 2 of those prophesies is astronomical">>
Even if you could verify a fulfilled prophecy, and you can't, there are no astronomical odds when the people spinning your Jesus story have access to data mine the Hebrew Scriptures. Your problem is there is not a single contemporary testimony from anyone outside your anonymous, hearsay gospels stories written expressly for the purpose that "you might believe." That's not a fulfilled prophecy, that's cooking the books.
MEX: "The description in Isaiah 53 alone is met by only one person, Jesus.">>
Your understanding of Is. 53 is based upon your untenable fundamentalist misreading of scripture. Try that one and I'll rip it to shreds.
MEX: "nowhere in any of the books considered part of the Bible is the date of Jesus’ birth explicitly revealed.">>
Oh it's far worse than that. Not only do you not know the day, month, year he was born, you don't even know the decade (or should I say century?).
MEX: "There is internal information that has been used to reach to an October 10th">>
Pure nonsense.
MEX: "December 25th may’ve been a later development, perhaps to drawn pagan...">>
Of course it was. Son god on solstice, how quaint. And predictable.
MEX: "The Bible was written by 40 men in a span of 1,600 years.">>
All of the authors are unknown except for Paul, and he never met Jesus, except in a dream and dreams don't count.
MEX: "All the books are knit together with references that tie it all together.">>
It's called editing, and we know the different sources and how they stitched it all together (See "Who Wrote the Bible" by Richard Elliot Friedman for an excellent introduction to this). It was nice of them to leave all of those contradictions in there. Reveals its purely human origin. I would think a God might have been able to get his story straight. The Bible doesn't.
MEX: "Compare Scripture with Scripture.">>
That actually is my specialty. When I compare scripture to scripture, I find contradictions. I even wrote a book about it. Let me know if you would like some examples.
collector of fine Bible errors and contradictions,
Darrel
***
MEX: "Isaiah 53 not only prophesies Jesus, but the perspective is one of Jewish repentance for their rejection of the true Messiah.">>
You can demonstrate no supernaturally fulfilled prophecies because you can confirm not a single event of Jesus' life outside of the anonymous, second hand, hearsay gospels. So you can't get any fulfillment off the ground. That these unknown gospel writers, who admittedly never met Jesus, were writing their stories to echo stories they read in the Hebrew Scriptures is certain (Matt. was especially fond of this). This is known as Jewish midrash. The Bible is filled with rewriting, midrash, of earlier stories and legends. Learn about midrash here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash
For years our skeptic group the Fayetteville Freethinkers have offered a challenge for someone to establish an example of a supernaturally fulfilled Bible prophecy. You can read about this here:
http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/bible ... ward.shtml
MEX: "Isaiah 53, written in the 700s, prophesies Jesus while at the same time shows that the Jews will eventually acknowledge Him">>
Which the Jews obviously didn't. Nor do they acknowledge that this verse is fulfilled by Jesus. They know that The "servant" of Isaiah 53 is the same figure presented in terms of "suffering and glorification" throughout Isaiah 40-55: and that is... Israel.
MEX: "Ezekiel 37 was fulfilled in 1948 with the reconstitution of the Jewish state of Israel.">>
As wiki notes, with reference: "Jewish scholars maintain that these passages are not messianic prophecies and are based on mistranslations/misunderstanding of the Hebrew texts."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_ ... te_note-38
And this is simply cherrypicking, data mining. Is Israel to rise again? The Bible say yes:
Virgin Israel is to rise again:
Again I will build thee, and thou shalt be built, O
virgin of Israel: thou shalt again be adorned with thy
tabrets, and shalt go forth in the dances of them that
make merry. Jer. 31:4
Oh wait, the Bible also says no:
The virgin Israel is to rise no more.
Hear ye this word which I take up against you, even
a lamentation, O house of Israel. The virgin of Israel
is fallen; she shall no more rise: she is forsaken upon
her land; there is none to raise her up. Amos. 5:1, 2
Note how:
a) one of these prophecies must be fulfilled.
b) one of them also must be a false prophecy.
What are the odds of you happening to pick the one that fits your agenda?
MEX: "Ezekiel 38 is as real as it gets... This prophesy required the existence of Israel,...">>
Which reminds me of another problem, they picked the wrong name. As my Jewish friend who grew up in Israel, taught English there and was a Christian missionary (now atheist) once explained:
***
"Christians are always bringing up the Israel prophecy, but here is just part of where the prophecy failed.
For prophecy fulfillment, the modern Jewish state should have been called
Judah, NOT Israel. The prestate Zionist council considered Judah and
rejected it for Israel. Solomon's royal line, ruled Judah, NOT
Israel. And I can off the top of my head think of a few prophecies
concerning Judah, which messianics are fond of quoting. Messianics are fond
of using the two interchangeably, but they are not. The Jewish kingdom of
Israel was short-lived, but Judah lasted longer than Israel as a sovereign
state, and it was Judah which was exiled to Babylon and reestablished. If
the modern state of Israel was formed by God's own hand and shows prophecy
fulfillment- why didn't God lead the Nation's founders to name the state
Judah?"
***
MEX: "Not one prophesy fulfilled?">>
That's right. You can't demonstrate one. See the straightforward common sense rules here: http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/bible ... ward.shtml
MEX: "Daniel (500 BC) described world political events all the way through this day.">>
Wrong, you are way off. The Oxford Companion to the Bible, which represents standard mainstream Christian scholarship notes:
"The book of Daniel is one of the few books of the Bible that can be dated with precision. That dating makes it the latest of all the books of the Hebrew Bible..." "...the book reached its present canonical form approximately in the middle of 164 BCE." (pg. 151)
MEX: "There are several movements towards rebuilding the Temple:... A lot of research has gone into it.">>
That's nice. Hal Lindsey has made a mint selling a new scary prophecy book to gullible Christians about twice a decade since the 70's. Then the Left Behind series picked it up and kept it going. The one thing we know for certain is the Christians have been falsely prophesying since day one that Jesus is coming soon, and they have been 100% wrong for 1,900 years.
MEX: "You can do a real study of Scripture instead of following this...">>
I was memorizing verses in the 1960's. If you would like to go into detail in defending one of your assertions about fulfilled prophecy, make your case with something beyond mere assertion. I can also bury you in specific examples of failed Bible prophecies.
D.
***
MEX: "Foxes Book of Martyrs records the deaths of many Christians">>
Fox's book is entirely unscholarly, but it hardly matters anyway, people die for false beliefs all the time. A person dying for something they believe in, but is false, is a favorite pastime of humans. Note:
"As to martyrdom, it is rather easier to die for a false idea
than the apologists argue. Peregrinus, in the account of his
life by Lucian, got arrested as a Christian, and wished to
pay the ultimate penalty. His death wish was frustrated by
the Roman magistrate, who recognized the selfish desire
for attention by Peregrinus, and freed his prisoner instead.
Martyrdom is the ultimate narcissism.
In Lucian's story, Peregrinus finally dies by flinging himself
in a pagan god's fire, seeking immortality, with narration
of his glory supplied by one of his bootlicking followers." --Jeff L.
"As late as about 240/250 AD, Origen in Contra Celsum Book 3 Chapter 8
admits that the number of Christian marytrs was 'few' and 'easily
numbered'. This is after more than 2 centuries of persecution.
'For in order to remind others, that by seeing a few engaged in a
struggle for their religion, they also might be better fitted to
despise death, some, on special occasions, and these individuals who
can be easily numbered, have endured death for the sake of Christianity..."
As Schweitzer pointed out: "Martyrdom has always been a proof of the intensity, never the correctness, of a belief." --Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965) theologian
These fellows, if they existed, were relying upon stories they heard. Just like you are, except your stories are 2,000 years old. Yet you still believe them and perhaps would die for them. Thousands of Jehovah's Witnesses died for their beliefs in WWII, does that suggest that the Jehovah's Witness religion is true? No. This is just evidence of the gullibility of humans, not the truth of the stories people that people happen to be able to convince themselves to die for. But again, with few exceptions, the stories of martyrdom that Christians pass around are almost without exception, bogus, legends, myths. One reason we know this is because we have multiple stories of the sam
MEX: "you make a sport out of your nonsensical debate of such precious faith.">>
Faith isn't "precious" it's just a bad habit of believing something without good reason. That's what the word "faith," when applied to religion, means.
MEX: "Even to this day, people continue to suffer just for being Christians in China, the Middle-East, and India.">>
And this proves nothing except people are convinced of their religious beliefs. This doesn't suggest in any way that those beliefs are true.
MEX: "Here in America, find ourselves more frequently in court defending our right to be Christians.">>
More often people are in court defending their right to not have Christians use the government to push their beliefs on everyone else.
MEX: "I will only respond to a respectful posting.">>
I will roast you with great respect.
D.
--------------
"In any case, both the Jewish and Christian disapproval of suicide
dates from the fourth century AD, late in the development of both
religions, and does not derive directly from scripture. Ironically,
the Christian Church, encouraged by the arguments of St Augustine,
adopted a strict prohibition against suicide precisely because it had
become so popular among Christians. A vogue for martyrdom, and even
collective suicide, had by then begun to threaten the Church. Any
religion which preaches that life on earth is a vale of tears, a mere
prelude to a better after-life, would seem to be inviting its
adherents to kill themselves, unless it can offer a good reason for
them to delay their departure for paradise. Declaring suicide a mortal
sin was the Church's solution. Islam took the same path, forbidding it
outright. Other religions, such as Buddhism and Hinduism, are less
condemnatory." -- editorial in 10/17/99 Economist magazine, "Let death be my dominion,"
***
MEX: " Isaiah 53 not only prophesies Jesus, but...">>
Ah, found it. A debate exchange I read almost nine years ago which completely and utterly *demolishes* the notion that Isaiah 40-53 has anything whatsoever to do with Jesus.
Very scholarly, well referenced. Read it if you have the courage to consider whether your claim is true:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showt ... aiah-40-55
D.
***
MEX: "To say that the guiltless man of Isaiah 53 personifies the collective nation of Israel is delusional at best.">>
Mere assertion. The only people fooled by this prophecy ruse are fundamentalist Xtians who don't know how to read their Bible. Mainstream standard Christian Bible scholarship understands there is no prophecy here.
As even the introductory wiki blurb on this points out:
"Citing a number of Biblical verses that refer to Israel as the "servant", many of them from the Book of Isaiah such as 49:3 He said to me, "You are My servant, Israel, in whom I will display My splendor."[14]
Jewish scholars, and several Christian scholarly books, like Revised Standard Version Oxford Study Edition Bible, The Revised Standard Version tell us that Isaiah 53 is about national Israel and the New English Bible echo this analysis.[15] Judaism, teaches that the "servant" in question is actually the nation of Israel.[1] These scholars also argue that verse 10 cannot be describing Jesus. The verse states:
"10 he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days"
Taken literally, this description, is inconsistent with the short, childless life of Jesus.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_53
Etc. There are no end of problems with your prophecy claim and the extensive article I've given you details them nicely. You've responded to none of it.
Your biggest problem is you can confirm not a single act of Jesus outside of your anonymous gospels, so you can show no confirmed prophecy.
MEX: "God says He’s up to His Eyeballs with the blood of sacrifices for sins.">>
Then maybe he should have known better than to come up with the barbaric requirement of blood sacrifices. It was his idea.
MEX: "I... understand the Jewish people not accepting Jesus...">>
Which flattens your prophecy.
MEX: "The parallelism between this this passage and the Passion of Jesus are clear.">>
Then you should be able to defend them and substantiate your prophecy. When are you going to begin? All standard Bible scholarship is against you. And all of the Jews of course. But what would Jews know about their own book and language without Fundamentalist Christians coming along and explaining to them what it really means?
MEX: "Jesus is the One the Jews will collectively acknowledge,...">>
Ah, promises promises. How many more millenia are you and yours going to bow and scrape waiting for that one? Probably several. Pitiful. Jesus ain't coming back. It was a ruse. You got took.
MEX: "Isaiah was a prophet and he foretold...">>
For him to be a successful prophet he would need to have landed some successful prophecies. And you can't demonstrate any of those without begging questions and assuming the Bible is true, and we know it isn't.
MEX: "Israel’s... repentance of having prosecuted and innocent man.">>
What makes you think he was innocent? We know he was a liar. Just like his Papa:
"And if the prophet be deceived when he hath
spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that
prophet..." Ezekiel 14:9
"Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a
lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and
the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee."
1 Kings 22:23 also 2 Chron. 18:22
"...Ah, Lord God! surely thou hast greatly
deceived this people and Jerusalem..." Jer. 4:10
"O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived..." Jer 20:7
"...God shall send them strong delusion, that they
should believe a lie..." 2 Thess. 2:11
Since your God is an admitted liar Mr. Mex, why should anyone believe him?
Jesus was liar too:
During his hearing before the high priest, Jesus says, "I spoke openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where the Jews always meet, and in secret I have said nothing" (John 18:20 (NKJ)). Here Jesus is shown making two claims:
(a) Jesus always taught in the synagogues and in the temple, and
(b) Jesus shared all of his teachings with his public audiences; he never kept important parts of his teachings a secret.
Are the claims (a) and (b), true? Of course not. Jesus taught in lots of other places and he had scores of secret teachings that he taught... in secret.
How can we believe these guys, and their book, when we know they are liars?
***
Darrel says:
January 25, 2012 at 2:04 AM
Hey Mex, a link is not an argument. If you think you can provide an example of a prophecy that can hold up, let’s see you attempt to make a case for it. So far you’ve got nothing, and this has been very easy to show.
And you forgot to answer my question. Why should anyone believe these Gods in your book when your very book says they are liars? I understand why this would be an uncomfortable question for you.
I know you like to pretend that the end is near, but as this list below shows, this is a childs game of false prophecy Christians have been peddling for about 2,000 years. You guys really aren’t in a position to be talking about fulfilled prophecy:
The END was nigh:
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Matt. 16:28
But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God. Luke 9:27
But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; 1 Cor. 7:29
Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand. Phil. 4:5
For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven… Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds… 1 Thess. 4:15-16
God…Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son… Heb. 1:1-2
For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Heb. 9:26
For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry. Heb. 10:37
Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord… stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh…behold, the judge standeth before the door. James 5:7-9
But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer. 1 Peter 4:7
Christ…was manifest in these last times for you,… 1 Peter 1:19-20
Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 1 John 2:18
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass;… Rev. 1:1
Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand. Rev. 1:3
Behold, I come quickly. Rev. 3:11
And he said unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand… He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. Rev. 22:10, 20.
But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come. Matt 10:23
Etc.
***
Darrel says:
January 25, 2012 at 12:05 PM
MEX: “Isaiah 53… you have to shut down your brain to overlook the parallelism with Jesus.”>>
There is nothing to do with Jesus in Isaiah or the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures. That’s just Xtians data mining and showing they have an active imaginations. And again, you can confirm nothing of Jesus life beyond the assertion that he may have, probably, existed.
MEX: “Antiochus Epiphanes… enters the Holy of Hollies and defiles it by offering a pig fulfilling prophesy. But the prophecy remains unfulfilled because that desecration did not cause desolation.”>>
Gibberish. When you have a few thousand pages of Hebrew Scriptures, it’s easy to data mine things and pretend they align with later events. For prophecy, you need to know something in *advance,* not cherry pick post hoc and try to make things fit. That’s easy and demonstrates nothing.
MEX: “it doesn’t deny the fact that Isaiah is heavily messianic,”>>
Actually, that’s controversial.
MEX: “speaking about the Virgin Birth,”>>
A Christian distortion. The reference is to a young woman, not a virgin and has nothing to do with anything in the NT whatsoever. And Paul didn’t even believe in the virgin birth claim anyway.
MEX: “Jesus as King,”>>
Jesus was never a king.
MEX: “No scholar can erase the extreme parallels with Jesus.”>>
No scholar would be fooled by lame fundie attempts take literally the attempts by Matthew et al, to make Jesus jump through the hoops necessary to make it look like he fulfilled things. You can demonstrate no fulfilled prophecies. Not one.
We know these guys were fudging their stories because the writer of Matthew made mistakes like adding and extra donkey to his story so he could try and fulfill what he thought was a prophecy in Zechariah 9:9. But he goofed and didn’t his verse straight, and he flatly contradicts the versions in Mark and Luke which have one animal. Etc.
MEX: “Either way you’re arguing a point you don’t even believe. You’re not a Christian,”>>
One hardly needs to be a Christian to point out your errors.
MEX: “You’re just trying to win an argument by cutting and pasting stuff you don’t believe.”>>
No, I am winning an argument by knowing what I am talking about.
MEX: “someday the world will reconcile with itself that Jews are are the apple of God’s Eye and that one day…”>>
Your “someday” might have been interesting 1,900 years ago. Now it it’s boring.
MEX: “final judgment because there will be no peace until Jesus establishes His Millennial Kingdom.”>>
Jesus died 1,980 years ago. He may have been a nice guy (except for that lying bit and a few other errors he made) but he’s not coming back. You guys really need to get some therapy and get over this.
D.
————-
“[The gospel accounts] are a poetic rendering of a devout wish but certainly not an authentic record… since the Crucifixion was conducted by Roman soldiers,… Jesus’ body was most likely left on the Cross or tossed into a shallow grave to be eaten by scavenger dogs, crows or other wild beasts. As for Jesus’ family and followers, depicted in the Bible as conducting a decent burial of the body according to Jewish law, “as far as I can see, they ran. They lost their nerve, though not their faith.” –TIME mag., 4/10/95, pg. 70, Bible scholars Robert W. Funk and Dominic Crossan.
“If the resurrection of Jesus cannot be believed except by assenting to the fantastic descriptions included in the Gospels, then Christianity is doomed. For that view of resurrection is not believable, and if that is all there is, then Christianity, which depends upon the truth and authenticity of Jesus’ resurrection, also is not believable. If that were the requirement of belief as a Christian, then I would sadly leave my house of faith. With me in that exodus from the Christian church, however, would be **every ranking New Testament scholar in the world–Catholic and Protestant alike**: E. C. Hoskyns, C. H. Dodd, Rudolf Bultmann, Reginald Fuller, Joseph Fitzmyer, W. E. Albright, Ray-mond Brown, Paul Minear, R. H. Lightfoot, Herman Hendrickx, Edward Schillebeeckx, Hans Kung, Karl Rahner, Phyllis Trible, Jane Schaberg, D. H. Nineham, Maurice Goguel, and countless others.”
–Bishop John Shelby Spong, John Shelby Spong, Resurrection: Myth or Reality? (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1994), p. 238.
Modern Christianity doesn’t believe in your resurrection anymore.
***
MEX: "that web page listed prophesy after prophesy">>
If you think you can defend one, give it a try. I am not interested in piles of vapid assertions. I am well aware Christians pretend they have a few thousand examples of fulfilled prophecy. I am also aware that not one of them holds up to examination.
MEX: "you will probably... that non of the apostles existed,">>
Some of them probably did, but because the Bible can't get it's story straight and has several contradictory lists of them, we really have no idea who was who. And curiously, they wrote nothing about their Jesus.
MEX: "[you will probably claim] there were no Christian churches in the first century,">>
Lots of religions have "churches." It doesn't mean that the claims in those building are true. In fact, usually they aren't.
MEX: "Christian Entertainment in the Colosseum onley happened in movies,">>
I am well aware that some lions were fed with Christians. As the to impropriety of such an action, I'm, like those Christians, torn.
MEX: "don’t expect a thick paragraph of cut and paste from me.">>
What I expect, should you rise to have the courage to defend your extraordinary religious assertions, is an argument presenting your case. You haven't done that yet.
D.
---------------
Virgin birth:
"The Old Testament says nothing about Mary. Isaiah 7:14 speaks of a
young woman of the time the "a young woman shall conceive" statement was
made. In Hebrew it simply says that a young woman shall become/is
pregnant and will give birth to a child. One need not quibble over the
meaning of 'almah/bethulah in order to point out that it happens every
day. Many young women become pregnant. They are virgins before (some of
them) but not after. The OT says nothing about the young woman being a
virgin at the time of giving birth. And of course the quote was lifted
out of context and applied to Jesus. That is why Jews do not and never have read it as
having anything to do with a "virgin birth."
As to whether the Mother of Jesus was a virgin or not, we really have no
evidence at all. Both birth stories in the gospels appear to be later
additions tacked onto the basic story that begins at the baptism of
Jesus. Two gospels say nothing of a virgin birth. Paul says nothing of
a virgin birth--in fact he speaks of Jesus being of the "seed of David"
according to the flesh, meaning a descendant of David. If we accept the
genealogies in the NT (which of course we should not), then Joseph is the
genetic descendant of David--and of course he is supposed not to have had
any physical part in the birth of Christ at all."
--David C.
***
MEX: "I don’t have to prove anything.">>
Oh yes you do. You have the burden of supporting your extraordinary claims with extraordinary evidence. Your problem is, you don't even have ordinary evidence.
MEX: "each prophecy referenced in the NT on Jesus reinforces the other 100, 200 whatever...">>
But you need to start with having one established before you can count your number. And you don't have one. Which is rather pitiful really.
MEX: "the complexity of the “apostolic conspiracy” to create a bogus religion is so immense">>
It's not immense at all. Jesus had some followers and they were sad when he died. Then they told some others about it, they added to the stories, and decades to a century later they started writing this nonsense down. Now fools like you, 1,900 years later, actually believe this crap. It's embarrassing. You are an intellectual embarrassment to humanity.
MEX: "to pull this kind of historic prank, at least without any kind of benefit.">>
All religions are founded upon this method. The benefit is you get to pretend to believe that you will live after you die, and the bad people will be punished by your spook. But there is no reason to believe that beyond wishful thinking.
MEX: "Not even Constantine needed to pull it,">>
Why would he need to use it when it is much more advantageous to use your religion for political means? You believers have been getting yanked around since day one.
MEX: "4 coincidences is one too many. The odds are astronomical.">>
What are the odds that fellows reading old religious literature could appeal to information in it and incorporate some of the vague poetry to fit the new story they are spinning about a guy their heard about but no one wrote a word about during his life? The odds are 100%. That's pretty good odds.
MEX: "I don’t think is worth it to continue paying this game.">>
I understand perfectly.
MEX: "Not a game for me. Go back to your Nintendo.">>
I have a Playstation 3 actually, but none of my games can compete with how fun it is to wipe the floor with biblical fundamentalists. And I have some really good games.
***
Mex has a few more points. Let's give them a poke:
MEX: "you come up with a laughable little scenario about grown men concocting an elaborate story which turned into the biggest religion...">>
Wrong. No need to appeal to dishonesty. All religions are founded upon similar hand-me-down, typically anonymous, unverifiable, stories. People make mistakes and misapprehend nature all the time. Eyewitness testimony is *notoriously* inaccurate, and we don't even have that with the Jesus stories.
A religious leader, Sai Baba (died last April) was claimed to have magical powers and to be born of a virgin etc.,. When he held a birthday party over one million people showed up. How many followers did your Jesus assemble? According to the Gospels, Jesus raised the dead, fed 5,000, walked on water, preached for 3 years, there were earthquakes, eclipses and saints being raised when he died, and there were 120 believers by the time of Acts 1:15. Not very effective, was he? If we are to pretend that the size of a religion or how fast it grows has anything to do with it being true (which is absurd), then there no end of examples of religions that kick Christianity's behind.
MEX: "What are you, 11 years old?">>
I'm 45 actually.
MEX: "How childish can anyone be?">>
You are the one that believes in a book that has talking animals in it, so you tell us.
MEX: "You actually think that you can put Christianity on trial and prove it’s false on a mere speculation?">>
Christianity's case is so weak it wouldn't make it past the hearing stage. If you were to attempt to make a case for it you would quickly find how easy it is to demolish your assertions, as you are observing now. Also, it is not anyone's responsibility to prove your outlandish claims false. It's your burden to support your own claims with good evidence. As you have shown in this thread, you can't do that.
MEX: "The gospels are written by eye witnesses.">>
Thank you for revealing just how deep your biblical ignorance is. Had you taken the time to read your holy book carefully you would have noticed that your own gospels openly admit they are *not* eyewitness reports but rather hearsay. What you have is second hand hearsay evidence that wouldn't be allowed in Judge Judy's courtroom to confirm a broken window. Yet you want to use it to confirm the existence of mass resurrections, zombies, etc.
MEX: "In the case of Luke, he investigated the claims he heard and read about, and eventually joined the movement himself.
Right, Luke wasn't buying the other stories either. Luke never claims to be an eyewitness to anything. As my Bible scholar friend once put it:
"Please read the first four verses of the Gospel of Luke. The author says that there are various gospel stories floating around, but he doesn't care for any of them, so he's going to tell us what really happened. He dismisses the gospels of Mark, Matthew, and many others, which had already been written, as unreliable. One of Luke's "eyewitnesses" is Paul. Read all about it in chapters 9 and 22 of Luke's continuing narrative, the Acts of the Apostles. But Paul had never met Jesus in the flesh; he saw him only in visions afer he (Jesus) was dead.
Now please read what Paul, the earliest writer in the entire New Testament, says: " The gospel you heard me preach is no human invention, I did not take it over from any man; no man taught it to me; I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ" (Galatians 1:11-12).
So the only "eyewitness" record we have of Jesus comes from a man who did not see him in the flesh, but only in visions after he was dead. And Paul doesn't tell us a single detail about the life of Jesus, only that he was crucified, buried, and "risen again" (1 Cor. 15:3-4). Paul disappears from history around the year 62, when he was a prisoner in Rome.
The author of Luke/Acts had never met either Jesus or Paul personally; neither had any other gospel writer. So the Gospel according to Luke, which was supposed to be more correct than all other gospels, is itself based on nothing but hearsay and dreams." --Ralph N.
MEX: "You’ll have to do better than that.">>
I just did. You have no eyewitness reports. The only NT author that can be confirmed is Paul, and he never met Jesus except in a dream, and dreams don't count.
MEX: "Your accusation of a conspiracy or imaginary events is without any merit.">>
I don't need to appeal to a conspiracy, but that would be far more likely than that these events actually happened. You have second hand hearsay anonymous accounts written decades later and your stories are filled with extraordinary miraculous claims. You reject this when other religions make such claims, but you blindly accept your religious traditions because you have been programmed to believe them. You have no evidence to support your claims as has been easy to show.
MEX: "Speculations prove nothing.">>
Right. So let us know when you have something beyond speculation in support of your faith based religious claims.
MEX: "Even if there were a few errors on the writings, the narrative, chronology, doctrinal content, even the doctrinal connection to Judaism is consistent.">>
The Bible is filled with contradictions and errors both minor and major. That it has much in common with Judaism is to be expected since Christianity is a Jewish heresy (sect).
MEX: "the plethora of OT parallels to Jesus life narrative, too many to ignore.">>
See Jewish midrash. This is what Jews do. They take old stories and re-write them with new characters. It's called recycling. See: "Gospel Fictions"
http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Fictions-R ... 283&sr=8-1
And "Who Wrote the Bible"
http://www.amazon.com/Wrote-Bible-Richa ... 350&sr=8-1
MEX: "The Christian religion is based on a promise...">>
Talk is cheap and that promise, which was to be fulfilled "soon" is now 1,900 years old.
MEX: "backed by openly witnessed demonstrations of the power to deliver on the promise.">>
You have no witnesses, not one. The only power that has been demonstrated is the lack of power to deliver on the promise.
MEX: "What was witnessed? Signs, miracles, and the Resurrection.">>
None of the people supposedly claimed to have witnessed these things wrote a single word. If they did, your all powerful God didn't see fit to have it preserved. Sorry about that.
MEX: "Without the witnessed resurrection of Jesus there wouldn’t be any Christianity.">>
I'll get over it.
MEX: "the NT declares the fulfillment of all the Messianic prophecies,">>
a) you don't have a single example that can withstand examination.
b) you can't confirm a single action of Jesus life beyond what some unknowns, who never met him, say he did (while at the same time they were looking to the OT for guidance to write their story).
MEX: "the restoration Israel which wasn’t even on the map">>
When Israel was destroyed in 587 BCE, the twelve tribes were scattered to the winds, never to be gathered together again. The present occupiers who are borrowing the name can trace no lineage to any one. The use of the name is purely window dressing. There is no connection to the biblical Israel except these loosely based religious descendants who happen to share a similar religion. That someone someday would come along and name a certain area the same name it had long ago, is rather mundane and to be expected. It also run contrary to Bible prophecy which says Israel is to rise no more:
"Hear ye this word which I take up against you, even
a lamentation, O house of Israel. The virgin of Israel
is fallen; she shall no more rise: she is forsaken upon
her land; there is none to raise her up." Amos. 5:1, 2
MEX: "They say the Ark is in a system of tunnels under the Temple platform.">>
Now you are just being silly.
MEX: "I personally believe the rebuilding of the Temple will from a negotiation...">>
No one is interested in what you are able to "personally believe." Your claims are based upon wishful thinking and extreme naivety.
MEX: "as the US weakens, Iran is embolden,">>
The US has a GDP 35x that of Iran. Iran has the GDP of Georgia.
MEX: "Bush and Obama allowed the Persian nuke program to reach almost completion stages.">>
Let's ask someone who knows what they are talking about:
"Panetta: Iran cannot develop nukes"
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57 ... ck-strait/
D.
***
Dear Mexseiko, I am sorry you are so misinformed about your own religion. I hope you have learned a bit about it in this exchange. I have been studying these issues for decades and I don't hold views about the Bible that are not supported by mainstream, peer-reviewed, Christian, Bible scholarship taught in every non-fundie university and seminary in the land. Twenty years ago I wrote the following book about the doctrine of biblical inerrancy:
http://fayfreethinkers.com/ourbooks/mirrorsample.shtml
M: "What you call “notoriously inaccurate” is a detailed and consistent account of events.">>
The Biblical accounts are notoriously inaccurate and inconsistent. That's why we have 30,000 divisions of Christianity. See the examples given in that sample of my book. The Bible has been heavily edited of course, so this explains the degree to which it is "consistent." This has been known for centuries.
MEX: "John and Matthew walked and talked with Jesus for about 3 years.">>
The writer of Matthew never refers to themselves in the first person and in fact refers to Matthew in the third person. At no time do they claim to have walked or talked with Jesus. This would be easy for you refute, simply give me chapter and verse showing I am wrong. Course, even if the writer did make this claim, it wouldn't follow that it is true. We know the book of Matthew was written decades after Paul (he had no knowledge of any gospels), and we know that the names were added about a century later for convenience and to add prestige.
MEX: "They got busy with the gospel and eventually wrote their gospels.">>
Where does the Bible say this?
MEX: "They saw Jesus die on the cross and later had fish with Him.">>
No one who met Jesus wrote a single word of the New Testament. Get informed and stop making such a fool of yourself.
MEX: "You site Sai Baba’s success as Jesus failure,...>>
I cite Sai Baba as an example of how gullible humans are and to make the point that just because a religion grows large or fast, it doesn't follow that it is true. You can simply look to any religion other than your own, including sects of your own, to see that this is true. People are extraordinarily gullible so there are no shortage of examples.
MEX: "it is Sai Baba and his followers who failed.">>
Sai Baba and Jesus are both equally dead and gone. Both have followers, but this doesn't prove anything other than that there are lots of gullible people.
MEX: "Christians and Jews died for our faiths.">>
Millions die for false beliefs. It's rather common and quite popular.
MEX: "you have a very youthful spirit, cause you can sound very childish.">>
Pointing out that it is childish to believe a book that has talking animals in it is not childish, it's just common sense.
MEX: "You’re great at googling, cutting&pasting.">>
I wrote my book about the Bible before the internet existed (started it in 1990). I am used to getting my knowledge the old fashioned way, going to the library and studying books. If you don't have a library card, I recommend you get one.
MEX: "cutting&pasting Atheist propaganda without actual personal study and research?">>
My book and beliefs about the Bible have nothing to do with atheism. Again, my beliefs and claims about the Bible are supported by mainstream, peer-reviewed, Christian, Bible scholarship and taught in every non-fundamentalist university and seminary in the land. You don't know what you are talking about.
MEX: "Matthew and John are commonly accepted as the wwriters of, well, Matthew and John.">>
No they aren't. From the "Oxford Companion to the Bible," Metzger and Coogan eds., Oxford
1993:
Mark, The Gospel According to. The ascription of the gospel of Mark goes
back to at least Papias...who in about 130 CE reported that he had been told
that it was written by Mark "the interpreter of Peter"... (page 493)
Matthew, The Gospel According to. It is commonly held that Matthew was
written in about 85, or 90 CE by an unknown Christian...the apostle
Matthew...is unlikely...the story's author. On the contrary, the author
exhibits a theological outlook, command of Greek, and rabbinic training that
suggests he was a Jewish Christian of the second rather than the first
generation...(of Antioch). (Page 502)
Luke, The Gospel According to. ...the third gospel is anonymous, as are the
other gospels. Ancient church tradiciton attributed...(it)...to Luke who
appears in Philemon 24 as Paul's "fellow worker" and is called the
"beloved physician" in Collossians 4:14....Most modern commentators on the
Lucan gospel, however, are skeptical about the validity of this traditional
attribution. (page 470)
John, The Gospel According to. ...the work may be regarded as apostolic in
character, even though it did not in the end come (as some would argue) from
the hand of John the apostle himself....written at the very latest by the
beginning of the second century CE... (page 375)
Also: From "Who Wrote the New Testament?" Burton Mack, 1995, Harper Collins.
The Gospel of Mark. As for the author, we know only that we do not know who
he was. The Mark to whom the gospel was attributed is a legendary figure of
the second century. Papias...(ca. 130), named Mark as the author of the
gospel... (page 153)
The Gospel of Matthew. I will refer to the author of this gospel as Matthew,
in keeping with the gospel's later attribution to one of the named disciples.
In fact, however, all we know about the person who wrote this gospel is that
he thought of himself as a "scribe trained for the kingdom" (Matt 13:52).
(page 162)
The Gospel According to Luke. ...around the year 120
C.E....[Luke]...appeared.... As with the other narrative gospels, we do not
know anything about the author except what can be inferred form the writing
itself. Later in the second century, the work was attributed to Luke...just
as other anonymous literature from earlier times was attributed to either the
apostles or their companions in order to validate their truth. It has become
customary to refer to the author as Luke, even though the Luke mentioned by
Paul cannot have been the one who wrote this work." (page 167)
Every encyclopedia, every standard mainstream scholarly, non-fundie, reference will say the same. The gospels are anonymous, the names were added later. We know this because church fathers had these works in front of them almost 100 years after Jesus didn't know who wrote them. The names were added later.
continued...
MEX: "These were eye witnesses of Jesus miraculous deeds, His death, and His resurrection.">>
No one who wrote a word of the NT met Jesus or witnessed anything. No one in Matt. Mark, or Luke even claims to be an eyewitness. Get informed, learn the difference between an eyewitness report, and hearsay.
MEX: "The Canon demands that for a book to be included in the Bible it must be by an eye witness, or someone who knew an eye witness.">>
Which means, someone who claimed to have known someone who claimed to have been an eyewitness. This is second hand hearsay that Judge Judy throws out of court every day over a $50 claim. Worthless. And your hearsay is 1,900 years old, anonymous, and filled with whoppers, contradictions and extraordinary claims.
MEX: "Paul, not an eye witnesses?">>
Hallucinations don't count. Paul clearly had a hallucination because he saw and heard things those with him did not (according to one contradictory version of the story).
MEX: "a vision that ended in his conversion.">>
People convert to religions for lots of bizarre and false reasons.
MEX: "Well, Paul’s vision was real...">>
Why should anyone believe that? People in mental institutions have visions that are real to them, all the time.
MEX: "Peter, James, and John were eye witnesses of Jesus transfiguration...">>
Let's check your claim:
PETER:
"In The New Jerusalem Bible, an excellent British Catholic translation, the notes to 2 Peter point out that the epistle refers to events that are clearly later than could have been known by Peter, the vocabulary is notably different from that of 1 Peter,the whole of ch. 2 is obviously a free repetition of Jude, and there is no assurance that the letter was accepted at all until the 3rd cent., and some, according to Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome, refused to accept it. Most critics nowadays also reject the Petrine authorship. It is what we would call a forgery,..."
First and Second Peter, the epistles allegedly written by the great apostle, are recognized forgeries. According to Burton L. Mack (*Who Wrote the New Testament*, pages 207-213) both epistles bear the unmistakable marks of second century authorship and erudition. Mack points out that these epistles fit well with other Christian literature of the mid-second century, and scholars have traditionally assigned them a date of between 124 CE and 150 CE. Peter is believed to have died about 67 CE (*Encyclopaedia Britannica*). --Louis Cable
JAMES
"Of authorship and date not much is known. The tradition that it was written by James the brother of the Lord has little support from ancient times. The indication of the letter itself--its excellent Greek with vivid metaphor and facile use of idiom, its apparent knowledge of 1 Peter and of certain letters of Paul--suggest a Hellenistic Christian as its autoer and a date toward the end of the first century." -New Oxford Annotated RSV (pg. 1469)
The works attributed to John came later and are also, anonymous.
MEX: "the NT is specifically a testimony of Jesus.">>
No, not only do we not have any testimony or writing from Jesus, we don't have testimony or writing from anyone who met Jesus in the flesh.
MEX: "The main purpose of it being written is as a testimony.">>
Then it failed, because there is no first hand testimony in the anonymous NT.
MEX: "No eye witnesses?">>
Correct, none, not one. Get informed. Your minister has been lying to you. Hence the emphasis on the importance of "faith."
MEX: "You mean, they [Jews] died in Nazi camps for nothing? Wow!">>
People die for false beliefs all the time. Over 5,000 Jehovah's Witnesses died for their specific religious beliefs in the Nazi camps. Does this make the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses correct? No. It just means people have strong beliefs.
MEX: "[Panetta is] Obama puppet.">>
Leon Panetta is the Secretary of defense. I have reason to believe that he has greater understanding and knowledge of what is going on in Iran, than you. Sorry.
MEX: This is my last reply... Go ahead with your little celebration. Declare yourself the winner.">>
There is no need for victory dances or to declare the winner. I am confident that those have read this exchange are quite aware of the situation.
I'll leave you with an article by a minister who refers to why you are so confused about your Bible and basic scholarship.
D.
--------------------
"The Sin of Silence
There is a sin among a large segment of the Christian clergy that I find despicable. It is the sin of omission, the sin of silence. It is the sin of promoting falsehoods in order to hold your job. It is the sin of not sharing with a congregation what you know to be true about the bible and Christianity.
Those graduating in religious studies from every major university in America, as well as every major theological seminary that is independent of Christian financial pressure, know certain facts to be true. They know that:
1. The entire bible is saturated with common mythological themes, from the creation and flood myth to virgin birth and resurrected hero mythology.
2. The stories of the patriarchs in the Old Testament are known as 'temple legends' to enhance the history of the Hebrew people and are mostly fictional.
3. The gospels were not written by anyone who knew Jesus personally.
4. The 'Christ' myths and formulas are direct copies of Zoroastrian myths adopted by the Jesus sect.
5. These facts, with others, have been known for years, and taught by internationally respected scholars from major universities world wide.
Religiously educated clergy, through the sin of omission and silence, continue to promote superstition."
--William Edelen. An active ordained Presbyterian and Congregational minister for 30 years. Adjunct professor of Religious Studies and Anthropology, University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington
http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article723.html
***
cont...