Christian questions

[Vympel]

"Heaven," of course. Are you really so uninformed?

Thank you for proving my point so eloquently. Your argument for the truth of the Bible can just as easily be applied to proving the beliefs of the Heaven's Gate cult as 'true'. Or any other bunch of crazies. Christianity does not hold the monopoly on martyrdom.

[Coyote]

Surely you can do better than this. ... A website trying to convince people to convert to Christianity says that Christianity didn't rip off of Mithraism, and we're going to accept it, even though it flies in the face of historical record and objective anthropological evidence?

Would this be the historical record and objective anthropological evidence that you yourself have personally witnessed in the field, investigated with your own hands, and verified as irrefutably and undeniably true by logical, scientific means with your own pure and unbiased reasoning abilities?

Gee, you're right-- since few of us have actually been to an archaeologuical site to dig up Mithran temples, then the whole thing is bunk and we should blindly accept the answer of someone who clearly has no bias or agenda whatsoever.

But wait, there's more! I actually have gathered evidence in the field, namely Israeli archaeological expeditions from Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, and wouldn't you know it, I was in a class called "Biblical Archaeology".

And guess what? While Hebrew and pagan sites can be found easily, very few Christian sites have any verification at all. The Manger? Not there. The Via de laRosa? A patchwork of guesses, no actual verifiable evidence. The sermon on the Mount? A possible hillsite chosen, but again no evidence.

I know about Paul's prison in Caesariyya, and the governor's palace with the inscription "Pilatus" on it; it only proves that a religious agitator was jailed there. And the Boat from Galilee proves only that boats sailed on the "Sea of Galilee", a fact not disputed but it doesn't prove Jesus was there. And yes, the osstuary is interesting but again, we don't doubt that a guy names "Yeshu" existed -- again, a fact not contested here-- but that doesn't make him God.

Remember-- there are some truths in the Bible, even the NT, but that doesn't mean that everthing in it is therefore true as well.

Or is it the historical record and objective anthropological evidence that some stranger with a lab coat told you all about?

As opposed to the "knowledge" given to you by some guy from a Seminary that never studied any real, objective history? What a priest told you?

Be careful when trying to exploit the concept that "Mithras worship wasn't popular in the West". It may be so, but we are concerned with the Roman Empire of the Eastern territories; who cares what went on in the West? Mithranism was known as far as the Anatolian penninsula (Turkey, "Galatia" back then), and it was not going to suddenly change itself to suit an upstart religion splintered from the Jews-- and that the Jews themselves disavowed.

That's like saying that Christianity is going to completely re-align itself with a new image in order to attract the Mormons. Or the B'Hai. Think that'll happen?

[Coyote]

Gricksigger, I'd like to remind you of some questions I posted awhile back, just to see if you remember them... and of course the Apologist or CreationistAllTheWay is welcome to join in, or even Zap81 if he's interested...

...What matters is that all books in the Bible were written by authors when they were filled with the Holy Spirit that made their work inded the Word of God, inerrant, infallible, etc.

Okay, so the Bible is entirely infallible. So explain to me a few things, please...

... for example, the prophet Elisha performed miracles, like pouring a vast amount of oil from a tiny vial (Kings II; 4:1-7), he also revived the dead (Mark 5:35-43) and ascended into heaven alive (Kings II; 2:9-14). Yet the Torah never claimed Elisha to be the Messiah or God, in fact it warns against the coming of false prophets who will perform real miracles and warns the Jews not to follow anyone who tries to lead them from the Torah's teachings (Deuteronomy; 13: 2-6).

Jesus's Davidic lineage, another claim to Messiah status, came under scrutiny. Here I was pointed to the work Rabbi Lawrence Kelemen, a personal acquaintance of mine, who has done his own research in comparing the New Testament to the Torah. He found some discrepancies between Matthew and Luke-- Matthew 1:6-16 said that twenty-eight generations seperated Jesus from King David, whereas Luke 3:23-38 shows forty-three generations of seperation. Even if one geneology is for Mary, and one for Joseph, well, that's still a lot of mismatch. It was even pointed out that the two apostles did not even agree on Jesus's paternal grandfather.

My friend Rabbi Kelemen also found an essay by Catholic theologian John P. Meier, which was endorsed by the Archbishop of Milan, who admits that the geneologies "are of questionable historicity". The essay was "Jesus of History: Origins and Ministry" by John P. Meier, in the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, 1319.

There are some fascinating things one can find when one looks around. Most notable are these contradictions. Also, bear in mind that the Messiah is is to arrive in Jerusalem on the back of a white donkey (literally, "hamor levan," in Hebrew, a "white ass") led by the Prophet Elisha. The arrival of the Messiah will also usher in a thousand-year reign of Peace, which clearly has not happened yet.

So, what exactly are you claiming to be "infallible"? The Christian validation for Jesus rests on Hebrew prophesy from the Old Testament, and according to the OT... you're on thin ice.

"'az, tagid'lanu ha'tchuvah, bevakeshah."

[Slartibartfast]

I'd just like to step in for amoment and ask... What's an apologist? And what's a fundamentalist? I'd just like to know teh exact definitions, thanks.

A fundamentalist is an idiot who thinks that the Bible is completely, literally, word-for-word true. Among his beliefs are:

1. We supposedly have "souls" but animals don't.
2. The Earth is less than 10,000 years old.
3. If you don't worship him, God will mercilessly torture you for all eternity in Hell with no chance for reprieve ... but he loves you (normal Christians like to refer to these guys as "fire and brimstone" types).
4. Scientists are all engaged in a global conspiracy of silence and lies.
5. Secular = evil.
6. Muslim = evil.
7. Buddhist = evil.
8. Taoist = evil.
9. Shintoist = evil.
10. Hare Krishna = evil.
11. Catholics = evil (their Bible is altered).
12. Moderate Christians = evil.
13. Liberal Christians = even more evil.
14. Gays = evil.
15. Lesbians = evil.
16. Atheists = evil
17. Humanists = evil.
18. Hindus = evil.
19. Pagans = evil.
20. Wiccans = evil.
21. Earth-mother religions = evil.
22. Native spirit religions = evil.
23. Harry Potter = evil (witchcraft).
24. Sexual freedom/experimentation/enjoyment = evil.
25. Foul language = evil (but violence = OK).
26. Nudity = evil.
27. Feminism = evil.

Hm role-playing = evil
Mythology = evil

[neoolong]

I think the easiest way to break it down is this:

fundie=good
everything else=evil

[Slartibartfast]

I think the easiest way to break it down is this:

fundie=good
everything else=evil

of course, silly me

[Evil Sadistic Bastard]

Nice summary.

[Vympel]

Wonder if they'll come back...

[InnerBrat]

I think the easiest way to break it down is this:

fundie=good
everything else=evil

Oh no, don't forget Judaism=good

Because not even fundies want to seem anti-sematic. (I'm not being anti-sematic myself, just pointing out how much good a massive holocaust can do the public opinion of a group of people 50 years later)

[Spoonist]

I think the easiest way to break it down is this:

fundie=good
everything else=evil

Oh no, don't forget Judaism=good

Because not even fundies want to seem anti-sematic. (I'm not being anti-sematic myself, just pointing out how much good a massive holocaust can do the public opinion of a group of people 50 years later)

You are missing the point that jews in the holy land is vital for the second coming of christ. Hence a fundie thinks that:
No jews=bad (no second coming)
Some jews=good (possible second coming)
Too many jews =bad (lost souls)

[Durandal]

Would this be the historical record and objective anthropological evidence that you yourself have personally witnessed in the field, investigated with your own hands, and verified as irrefutably and undeniably true by logical, scientific means with your own pure and unbiased reasoning abilities?

False dilemma, and were we to adopt this ludicrous standard for evidence, it would dismiss the Bible in its entirety, anyway. How about this? Would you rely only on what some old book tells you, or what you have investigated with your own hands?

Or is it the historical record and objective anthropological evidence that some stranger with a lab coat told you all about?

Don't be ridiculous, you fucking moron. Am I supposed to run off, buy a high-powered laser and telescope just to confirm that Einstein wasn't lying when he said gravity bends light, even though those claims have already been independently verified numerous times? Should I drop a ball every day just to confirm that the value of g hasn't changed?

On the same token, what historical record do you go off of? The one full of allegorical nonsense, talking of men living for 600 years, a flat Earth, stars forming after planets and human beings spawning from dust? That's simply absurd.

I trust the scientific community because they have objective standards of evidence and are consistent in their reasoning methods. If my anthropological evidence is somehow inadmissible, then the Bible certainly doesn't qualify, either, you fucking retard. Get a goddamn clue.

[InnerBrat]

You are missing the point that jews in the holy land is vital for the second coming of christ. Hence a fundie thinks that:
No jews=bad (no second coming)
Some jews=good (possible second coming)
Too many jews =bad (lost souls)

OK, Thank you.

[Coyote]

I think the easiest way to break it down is this:

fundie=good
everything else=evil

Oh no, don't forget Judaism=good

Well, we're only "good" because either we'll convert en masse to become good Fundamentalists so they can usher in their Thousand-Year Christmas, or we're all to be ground into paste in a final war against the forces of evil. So my usefulness to Fundies is only as a future convert or cannon fodder; needless to say I'm unimpressed by either of these options.

Oh yeah, if I die as cannon fodder, I'm supposed to go to Hell, too.

Feel the Love!

[Gricksigger]

1: Mary's name is nowhere to be found in Luke's genealogy. Everybody's name is mentioned but hers. Imagine a genealogy in which every name is mentioned but that of the person whose lineage is being traced!

Sure, since geneaological records of women were rarely kept/written down.

2: There is no genealogical record of any woman in the entire Bible. Are we to believe Mary is an exception?

Yeah, sort of because she had a son who was the Messiah. Sorta important.

3: Joseph's name is mentioned in Luke's genealogy so one can reasonably conclude that it's his lineage, not Mary's.

Wow. His name is mentioned.
"He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,..."

4: According to OT prophecy, the Messiah would be a physical descendant of David. Mary appears to have been from the house of Levi, not David, since her cousin, Elizabeth (Luke 1:36) was a daughter of Aaron (Luke 1:5), i.e., from the house of Levi. If Mary was from the house of Aaron, how could either genealogy be hers since they relate David's lineage? On the other hand, Luke 1:27 and 2:4 show Joseph was of Davidic descent.

Levi was a descendant of David.

[Gricksigger]

They can't think logically. Tell me, in Zecharia did the King have two animals with him?

No. Why do you assume Matthew thinks he did?

And what part of the fact that they were trying to accomplish something - specifially, to promote Christianity - do you not understand?

So you, it appears, think that the Evangelists were deliberate decievers? So they died to fool a buncha people?

Heaven's Gate? The cult that killed themselves?

Great example. They're really just like the Evangelists were.

... for example, the prophet Elisha performed miracles, like pouring a vast amount of oil from a tiny vial (Kings II; 4:1-7), he also revived the dead (Mark 5:35-43) and ascended into heaven alive (Kings II; 2:9-14). Yet the Torah never claimed Elisha to be the Messiah or God, in fact it warns against the coming of false prophets who will perform real miracles and warns the Jews not to follow anyone who tries to lead them from the Torah's teachings (Deuteronomy; 13: 2-6).

He wasn't the Messiah or God. It should be obvious to a true God-follower whether a prophet is inspired or false, and this is why the "warning" has any purpose at all. It if were impossible to ascertain whether a prophet were inspired or false, why would they be warned?

Jesus's Davidic lineage, another claim to Messiah status, came under scrutiny. Here I was pointed to the work Rabbi Lawrence Kelemen, a personal acquaintance of mine, who has done his own research in comparing the New Testament to the Torah. He found some discrepancies between Matthew and Luke-- Matthew 1:6-16 said that twenty-eight generations seperated Jesus from King David, whereas Luke 3:23-38 shows forty-three generations of seperation. Even if one geneology is for Mary, and one for Joseph, well, that's still a lot of mismatch. It was even pointed out that the two apostles did not even agree on Jesus's paternal grandfather.

Okay, I will return to you on this.

My friend Rabbi Kelemen also found an essay by Catholic theologian John P. Meier, which was endorsed by the Archbishop of Milan, who admits that the geneologies "are of questionable historicity". The essay was "Jesus of History: Origins and Ministry" by John P. Meier, in the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, 1319.

I'm not Catholic. Do I frankly care what this guy says?

There are some fascinating things one can find when one looks around. Most notable are these contradictions. Also, bear in mind that the Messiah is is to arrive in Jerusalem on the back of a white donkey (literally, "hamor levan," in Hebrew, a "white ass") led by the Prophet Elisha. The arrival of the Messiah will also usher in a thousand-year reign of Peace, which clearly has not happened yet.

White donkey? Elisha? Where?
The second arrival of the Messiah will usher in 1000 years of peace.

So, what exactly are you claiming to be "infallible"? The Christian validation for Jesus rests on Hebrew prophesy from the Old Testament, and according to the OT... you're on thin ice.

Why?

[Vympel]

Sure, since geneaological records of women were rarely kept/written down.

Ah of course, so it is perfectly logical to think that it was meant to be something of which there is no textual evidence whatsoever. There's apologist logic for you.

Yeah, sort of because she had a son who was the Messiah. Sorta important.

LOL. You think when Luke was writing this genealogy he woulda mentioned this awesome new unconventional way of writing a genealogy.

Wow. His name is mentioned.
"He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,..."

Stop being an idiot. His fucking name is IN the genealogy and you prefer to think that it's a genealogy of someone who ISN'T MENTIONED. Right. Is anyone at home in there?

Levi was a descendant of David.

Do you have any support for this retarded statement? You do know there's a difference between the House of Levi and the House of David don't you?

[Vympel]

They can't think logically. Tell me, in Zecharia did the King have two animals with him?

No. Why do you assume Matthew thinks he did?

Duh, because he applied the same reasoning in Jesus' triumphal entry.

So you, it appears, think that the Evangelists were deliberate decievers? So they died to fool a buncha people?

Heaven's Gate? The cult that killed themselves?

Great example. They're really just like the Evangelists were.

Your outrage that the figures of your religion could be equated to a cult is not an argument.

I would love to see you show any difference between the Heaven's Gate cult and the evangelists- they both supposedly died for what they believed didn't they? If anything, by your non-reasoning, the Heaven's Gate cult is actually more 'true' because they killed themsleves, rather than being killed against their will by others.

I repeat, your religion does not have a monopoly on martyrdom. By your standards, I can also refer to the 9/11 hijackers as proof that Islam is 'true'.

He wasn't the Messiah or God. It should be obvious to a true God-follower whether a prophet is inspired or false, and this is why the "warning" has any purpose at all. It if were impossible to ascertain whether a prophet were inspired or false, why would they be warned?

But Jesus was eh?

I'm not Catholic. Do I frankly care what this guy says?

Ad hominem. Whether or not he is the same denomination as you means precisely nothing as to the validity of his argument. Concession accepted.

The second arrival of the Messiah will usher in 1000 years of peace.

*snort* according to you.

So, what exactly are you claiming to be "infallible"? The Christian validation for Jesus rests on Hebrew prophesy from the Old Testament, and according to the OT... you're on thin ice.

Why?[/quote]

You don't see it do you?

[Coyote]

Heaven's Gate? The cult that killed themselves?

Great example. They're really just like the Evangelists were.

A pack of belief-motivated martyrs. So, ummm.... yes. Remember, Christianity was one a minor cult, too, and its adherents crazy. So at what point does a cult become a respected religion?

... for example, the prophet Elisha performed miracles...Yet the Torah never claimed Elisha to be the Messiah or God, in fact it warns against the coming of false prophets who will perform real miracles and warns the Jews not to follow anyone who tries to lead them from the Torah's teachings (Deuteronomy; 13: 2-6).

He wasn't the Messiah or God. It should be obvious to a true God-follower whether a prophet is inspired or false,...

How? Is there a warning label? A aura? How about the fact that the majority of the Jews who were given this warning did not accept Jesus, and the nascent Church had top turn to the conversion of Pagans to grow to any significant numbers (beyond minor cult status, btw).

My friend Rabbi Kelemen also found an essay by Catholic theologian John P. Meier, which was endorsed by the Archbishop of Milan, who admits that the geneologies "are of questionable historicity"...

I'm not Catholic. Do I frankly care what this guy says?

Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, Hugenot, Calvinist... are you saying that you don't use the same Bible? The same New Testament? The Catholic Church was around back then, and had first dibs on all the records-- their information is good, regardless of whether you agree with their later ideological additions or decrees. If you and I are both in America, we both agree about the words of the Constitution, if not all the meaning, even though we're of different backgrounds...

White donkey? Elisha? Where?
The second arrival of the Messiah will usher in 1000 years of peace.

Midrash. And the "second coming of the messiah brings peace"... was that added when the Christuians realized that Jesus was not going to bring the peace that had been promised? Wait for Act II, perhaps?

So, what exactly are you claiming to be "infallible"? The Christian validation for Jesus rests on Hebrew prophesy from the Old Testament, and according to the OT... you're on thin ice.

Why?

Ummm.... because I just pointed ot a lot of discrepancies that you really didn't have any answers to? Because NT validity rests on OT prophesy, and the two aren't matching up? Because in the NT itself you have two guys who were supposedly eyewitnesses and knew Jesus well but they can't even agree on a MAJOR difference between geneologies and generational matchups...?

[InnerBrat]

So at what point does a cult become a respected religion?

Whe it buys out the Cult Investigations Committee (or whatever its called)

[Gricksigger]

Duh, because he applied the same reasoning in Jesus' triumphal entry.

Where? How?

But Jesus was eh?

Was what?

Ad hominem. Whether or not he is the same denomination as you means precisely nothing as to the validity of his argument. Concession accepted.

Concession? You can twist my words however you want, but that won't really matter if I didn't say that, will it? There was no argument there. Just a conclusion, which is only part of an argument. Where's his evidence/proof?

You don't see it do you?

See what?



I did answer the OT objections in a previous post. Look back, I think, to th last page of posts.


The disciples didn't kill themselves. They allowed themselves to be killed. I don't think we should accept self-killing as evidence. However, lives spent willingly (I don't mean martyrs, but those who used a great portion of their time or great effor on earth to convince others of the truth of their religion) is evidence. Moreover, the disciples and the Christian community were well-known for honesty, sharing, etc.

[data_link]

God, you are stupid aren't you?

You really think that because people spend a great portion of their time trying to convince others of something that that means anything at all in relation to the truth or falsity of that something?

Consider this: every major religion has had millions of people who willingly went out and tried to convince others of its truth. What makes yours so special?

[Durandal]

The disciples didn't kill themselves. They allowed themselves to be killed. I don't think we should accept self-killing as evidence. However, lives spent willingly (I don't mean martyrs, but those who used a great portion of their time or great effor on earth to convince others of the truth of their religion) is evidence. Moreover, the disciples and the Christian community were well-known for honesty, sharing, etc.

Time to name this new logical fallacy. How about "appeal to matyrdom"? The fact that people die for a belief does not affect the logical validity of that belief, no matter how many people give their lives for it.

[The Apologist]

And now, Durandal, please stand up and explain to everyone the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning.

[Colonel Olrik]

And now, Durandal, please stand up and explain to everyone the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning.

Instead of being an idiot explain the flaw in his argument.

I see you still insist in playing word games and going around in circles with logic. Don't be shy. Pick a SPECIFIC theme, one that can actually be backed up/invalidated with facts, and defend it.

Come on, ther must be something in the branches of scientific knowledge you disagree with.

[SeebianWurm]

You don't see it do you?

See what?

Consider that point proven.