351. Comment #15024 by BillySands on December 28, 2006 at 9:32 am

Hi Mark,

Seems like there has been a lot of activity here recently. Sorry for the short response, but I don't think your arguement about the eagle cuts it. Prophecy should be clear, or it is open to so much interpretation. A clear example woyuld be Isaiah 45. There is definately no confusion there (pobably written by the persians though. If I am going to be interpretive I could make a case that it is about the Germans. Fly like an eagle, eagle stantard, move rappidly, (blitzkrieg). Exiled from homeland (anywhere thwey were living) and sent to Egypt (concentration camps) where they were sold as slaves but no one wanted to buy then (forced labour) They were also starved here and in the ghettos.
Deut 28 is probably more a set of threats to propogate the continuation of jewish monotheism and probably referrs to no future events

I'm affraid that Daniel (probably more concerned with antiochus IV) is actually full of historical inaccuracies, and this is why many think it was written about 167BCE. This is an introduction to this, and there are other problems:http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/daniel.html

Other Comments by BillySands

352. Comment #15116 by BillySands on December 29, 2006 at 2:49 am

Hi Mark,
I just realised that your main objection to the chapter being about Babylon (their language) is refuted by the bible "He was to teach them [jewish captives] the language and literature of the Babylonians."
The language was clearly different enough that they had to learn it

Other Comments by BillySands

353. Comment #15197 by Theo on December 29, 2006 at 12:59 pm

Hi Guys,
Sorry for this delayed reply, but i've been busy for the holidays.

NoLongerHaveBelief,

I do not believe that your disagreement with the death penalty nor your nationality has anything to do with the issue. There are other people with different cultures, different nationalities and different opinions, these are your opinions and I respect them.

Mat 15:4- refers to Exodus 21:17, a curse is a pronouncement of contempt and is just the opposite of blessing. A curse therefore should not be confused with simple foul or obscene language or a mere wish. A good example of a curse is found in Genesis 3: 14-19 -

The LORD God said to the serpent,
Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; on your belly you will go, and dust you will eat all the days of your life;
15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel."
16 To the woman He said,
"I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you will bring forth children; yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
17 Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it';
Cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you will eat of it All the days of your life. 18 "Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field; 19 By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return."
(NASU).

Num 5:21-22
(then the priest shall have the woman swear with the oath of the curse, and the priest shall say to the woman), "the LORD make you a curse and an oath among your people by the LORD'S making your thigh waste away and your abdomen swell; 22 and this water that brings a curse shall go into your stomach, and make your abdomen swell and your thigh waste away." And the woman shall say, "Amen. Amen."
(NASU)

Many more examples of curses can be provided, but these examples should suffice in providing some understanding of the relative complexity of a curse. In the bible when someone says they have pronounced a curse it means that they have pronounced ill natured events to befall a particular individual. This is why there is no instance of children blessing or cursing anyone or anything in the bible. Anyone mature enough to curse his parents is mature enough to take the punishment.

If you disagree with this, it does not mean that God does not exist; it just means that you do not agree with His ways.

D_U,

As for the bible not having hard originals, I think you missed the point. The point is there are other historical documents that are NOT ORIGINALS YET ACCEPTED.

Oral tradition as a way of transmitting history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_tradition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

Not my "bible no doubt"

"As for Cornelius Tacitus (AD 55-120), and Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas (secretary to Emperor Hadrian (AD 117-138)

Please use your commen sense and read when they were alive, then think of how old Jesus was when he died......I will say no more on that!"

D_U, historians use secondary sources for a significant quantity of their information. As I said before, the most common instances where those secondary sources are questioned is when their content is not in accordance with the beliefs of the examiners.

BillySands,

The scholarly world is divided over the mentioned passage, some, observing that it was written in Josephus's style deem it authentic. However, I followed your link and found that the current consensus of the matter is," It seems clear that, whatever the current fashion of scholarship, no conclusive evidence exists to allow a final closure of this question."

This discussion over the reliability of the bible is fruitless because the premise advanced by some is:
1. the bible contains miracles
2. miracles do not exist
3. therefore the bible is false

Thus if God does not exist to a person, the bible, whether it is reliable or not, would not really matter. If by some stretch of the imagination the bible is proven false, then it does not mean that God does not exist, it means he did not write it. Then I would hold the Deist position.

Other Comments by Theo

354. Comment #15229 by down_under on December 29, 2006 at 7:08 pm

OK THEISTS LISTEN UP!!!!!!!

I find alot of Theists are IGNORING NLHB's comments about how evil the bible is!!!

why?!?!

Maybe because you have no answer to defend the filththatr is in the bible.



ALSO THEISTS!!!

You have ALL ignored mine and Billys points about ancient Gods that have a story identical to Jesus (ALL that predate Jesus)
I wonder why??
Perhaps bacause you cant answer???
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Other Comments by down_under

355. Comment #15230 by down_under on December 29, 2006 at 7:10 pm

Sorry to sound upset but im FED UP wit theists who simply ignore what they cannot answer!!
you all do it!!!
the whole point of this forum is so theists can question their belifes (and atheists to) but the athiests are always willing to question
the theists just seem to ignore what they cant explain....which is alot!!! (of their belifes!!!!)

GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER THEISTS!!!!

Other Comments by down_under

356. Comment #15231 by down_under on December 29, 2006 at 7:13 pm

Theo -


No offence mat, but who ever educated you is a retard.....im sorry but iv had enough of being polite to idiots like you
i cant belive what you just said and frankly i think you livein the southern US as its the only place left on Earth where anyonewould belvie what you just said

Other Comments by down_under

357. Comment #15232 by down_under on December 29, 2006 at 7:14 pm

Theo!!!

you said

"As for the bible not having hard originals, I think you missed the point. The point is there are other historical documents that are NOT ORIGINALS YET ACCEPTED."

YES but not many!!! ost historical records are hard originals!! The bible isnt!!
So YOU missed the point!!!
Retard

Other Comments by down_under

358. Comment #15233 by down_under on December 29, 2006 at 7:17 pm

Theo

you alo said

"D_U, historians use secondary sources for a significant quantity of their information. As I said before, the most common instances where those secondary sources are questioned is when their content is not in accordance with the beliefs of the examiners."


this is all false info

who told you this???

You are brainwashed!!

To be honest ivehad enough of arguing with brainwashed idiots like this


BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS!!!!!!



You do have a point but all info is checked and re-checked and bias anyway!!!!
The Bible is just a book regardless!!!

im pulling my hair out here!!!

Other Comments by down_under

359. Comment #15234 by down_under on December 29, 2006 at 7:22 pm

TO ALL THEISTS:

I cant argue with child like minds as youself anymore so im not even going to try

if you want to continue to live in a fairy land with a magical almighty being and talking snakes and unicorns all fuled by fear of death and wanting for eternal life thats up too you
personally i think its stupid

plus how can anyone enjoy heaven knowing that other human beings are burning in hell?? for petit crimes (such as not beliving!!)
how heartless are you?!?!?!?!

goodbye everyone, i can no longer handle the immature minds of theists

Other Comments by down_under

360. Comment #15299 by down_under on December 30, 2006 at 8:05 am

Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Other Comments by down_under

361. Comment #15308 by NoLongerHaveBelief on December 30, 2006 at 9:28 am

Theo Said:

>>Anyone mature enough to curse his parents is mature enough to take the punishment.<<

You CANNOT be serious?! You would have adults put to death, because Jesus okay-s it?! What is wrong with the mindset of a believer?

Is the Death penalty okay or is it wrong? You seem to agree with me - that it is wrong - but you conveniently forget the 10 commandments, which are in direct conflict with

Matthew 15:4: "He that curseth thy Father or Mother shall die the death".

This directly conflicts with

"Thou Shalt Not kill." One of the most important and well-remembered commandments (we'll forget the nonesense about not working on the Sabbath, eh? - or putting men to death for collecting sticks on Sunday).

Furthermore, we now live in the 21st Century. Many of us, do not agree with the death penalty. I don't, for starters. Would you concede Theo, that my Morals are perhaps higher than your God, you so lovingly worhship?

What was wrong with Jesus when he stated that - by your words - adults are allowed to be put to death - if they curse their parents? Complete lunacy.

I can't believe you actually believe your own words. Indeed, I'd say that you are a nice person, deluded into belief. I used to be deluded too. Now I am looking for reality.

It's not in the Bible. I can see no correlation between the Bible and reality. None whatsoever. Defending the obvious contradictions in the Bible is no recourse for belief.

Sure, their could be a supernatural creator. I find the idea preposterous - but he/she/it could exist. Is such a being needed though?

In The God Delusion - which I'm happy to say, is a fine work - Professor Dawkins states many of the reasons I no longer believe. I have little room for God in my life - and absolutely no room for an unrealistic book named the Bible. I'm right with Professor Dawkins on his 'scale' of belief - I'm a 6. That God is a most unlikely possibility.

Theo mate, you are going to have to come up with something better than the Bible to prove a supernatural deity. It's quite evil. It's gay-hating, woman-hating, racist-inciting rubbish. I'd say the Bible the is worst work of fiction/ mythology and outright lies ever written by mankind!

Mind. The Bible says, beating slaves and owning slaves is okay. Hmmm. I need a slave. I'm sick of washing-up. Maybe I should re-convert, eh?

Other Comments by NoLongerHaveBelief

362. Comment #15422 by down_under on December 31, 2006 at 7:13 am

NLHB

I really hope someone attempts to answer your comments this time!!

you have pointed out the evilness of the bible a few times now only to be ignored, annoying I bet!

Also I have come up with an answer to everyone who uses the (apparant) accuracues of bible prophecies and my answer is simply a name

"Jules Verne"

He predicted the future far more accuratly than the bible, without it being criptic and in a far more recent book
Perhaps we should worship him as a God and have 20,000 leagues under the sea as our Bible?

Other Comments by down_under

363. Comment #15425 by Theo on December 31, 2006 at 7:36 am

What is D_U talking about? I've tried to answer all the quetions that were directed to me. As you all know, I started late into the thread, I then left it for a little while due to circumstances and when I came back the dicussion had gone a long way...I mean the least I should do is start with the questions directed to me.

NLHB and Billy if I have ignored any of your questions please let me know (sigh!)...I'll reply to the latest comments later. bye.

Other Comments by Theo

364. Comment #15532 by down_under on January 1, 2007 at 5:32 am

Theo:

NLHB comments on the filth, and downright evilness that is in the bible and is waiting for an explanation as to how any loving person can possibly accept this book as a guidline for life

Me and Billy commented on all the ancient man-gods

Horus
Osiris
Mithras
Deoysinis
Baal
etc etc

and how their stories are almost identical to Jesus but actually predate jesus (some by several thousand years)
and ask how you can rule out these ancient Gods as mythology yet so openly belive jesus is real



these are the issues you have (frequently) ignored

i await your reponse

Other Comments by down_under

365. Comment #15533 by down_under on January 1, 2007 at 5:58 am

Furthermore

Not only is the bible incredibally evil and simply recycled from other ancient stories
but it is also simply ridiculous!!

Theo, as a sane person can you honestly tell me that.

You belive Angels crossbred with humans to make giants??

Gen 6:4

That UNICORNS actually existed??

Job 39:9

that animals could talk???

Gen 3
Which would also make your all loving god a liar! and rather stupid for
a) putting that tree there in the 1st place
b) putting that snake there

that the entire universe was created in 6 DAYS!!! and that your almighty powerful omnipitant god
GOT TIRED AND NEEDED A REST???

That dinosaurs roamed side by side with biblical people(and giants apparantly) despite all fossil evidence stating otherwise!!!

That the ENTIRE PLANET was flooded despite no other civilisations aronud at the time recording any such flood
surley the egyptian pharoes would have noticed a few submerged pyramids but apparantly not!

That 2 of EVERY ANIMAL!! (now trust me thats ALOT!! there are several species of Wallaby alone!) all fit on 1 boat then somehow managed to redistribute themselves to their respective habitats!!!
Koalas going back to Australia, Polar bears to the arctic, etc etc


That ALL languages originated from the Tower of Babel rather than evolving through time which has been prooved

(Why does the Bible have NO mention of Aboriginies,who have existed for 60,000 years, older than the biblical earth!! and NO mention of native amercans??)

Ca you tell me as a sane human being yu belive all of that??
If not twen how can you be sure the rest of the bible is true??

Other Comments by down_under

366. Comment #15534 by down_under on January 1, 2007 at 6:02 am

Also some people are so sure that the great flood killed the dinosaurs (despite noah being told toget 2 of EVERY animal) but if so

then what killed all the flying and swimming dinosaurs???

please please please please answer these questions because noone else seems to want to

Other Comments by down_under

367. Comment #15537 by down_under on January 1, 2007 at 6:26 am

another question all thesists(tho not yourself theo........yet) have ignored is this

You say the univese could not have come from nothing so it must be god
yet to belive the universe came from nothing all you have to do is accept that a few tiny atoms came into existance.....we dont know how.....but just because we dont know doesnt mean it was an almighty being!

but answer this

where does your creator come from??
an intelligent almighty being would be FAR more complex than a few atoms forming the big bang, so by your own logic he couldnt come from nothing?
so what created the creator? then what created that?

Thank you in advance for answering all my questions to a satifcatory level.
PS: Where are you from? I really hope it is the southern US, it would be a hilarious stereotype!!

Other Comments by down_under

368. Comment #15539 by Dylan Dog on January 1, 2007 at 6:50 am

"Ah yes, so you all believe that everything came from nothing....by accident! Now that's faith I admire."

Errr and you believe(I presume) that the world started 6000 odd years ago with a talking snake based on a primitive bronze age creation myth. Or perhaps you are and IDer or creationism lite.

Evolution of the cell...http://www.endo.mpg.de/pdfdat/Wissenschaft/lecture_eichele.pdf

Evolution of the eye...http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

Evolution of the brain...http://www.primatesociety.com/Into/survival/timeline/textEvol.html

Definition of scientific law/theory...http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

"I notice also there seems to be an awful lot of derogatory personal comment in this thread, which in my experience usually happens in a debate when someone has no sound evidence to present....!"

Errr no, it is because the world scientific community is being called liars by a bunch of bone-head wah wah fundmentalists who believe that the world is only 6000 years old and started with a talking snake! and cannot present one piece of credible, verifiable, peer reviewed evidence to back up their claims. The reason is that their ideas are not based on science, nor evidence but the literal interpreation of a primitive bronze age creation myth.

Other Comments by Dylan Dog

369. Comment #15579 by down_under on January 1, 2007 at 12:10 pm

Good points Dylan, couldnt've said it better myself!

Other Comments by down_under

370. Comment #15628 by Mark Taunton on January 1, 2007 at 5:33 pm

Back on-line again. Brief responses following, to various people who have commented since I was away:

NLHB (500): I'll try to respond to your points sometime soon.

Peter Hearty (501):
I've only just joined this thread, so apologies if I'm misreading you, but the Deut 28, 49-57 could refer to anyone.

Then I think you have misread me: please check out my post (490 on page 10) again, where in answer to Billy I give specific reasons, based on the details of the text, as to why it can refer only to the Romans. If you think I've made a mistake in some respect, please give details of what you think my mistake is, and I will consider the issue again. I am genuinely open to correction - as I demonstrated to Billy in that same post...

JohnC (502):
One verse, that's all. Text and alleged interpretation. Let's get down to the nuts and bolts of this delusion. Unless of course you are uncomfortable at moving beyond the level of untestable generalities. (Sorry your wife won't let you play.)

It was actually nine verses, which makes quite a difference, because of all the specific details that are brought together with respect to the particular nation God declares he would bring against Israel, and what it would do to them. Also, the summary descriptions I gave are pretty much direct (bar translation into English) from the text of Deuteronomy: I am unclear what "alleged interpretation" you mean. Please can you identify in which details I'm putting an "interpretation" on it? The closest I can think of is the eagle bit (since that is introduced as a simile), but then, as I pointed out, that has a direct correspondence to the Roman army's own symbology, in any case.

(BTW My wife's expected crossness was specific only to the circumstances of my last post – I was supposed to be packing to leave, hence my going "off-line".)

(503):
The situation with Deut 28. is worse even than that, since the text is clearly not intended as "prophetic" at all, but as a warning to enforce obedience. A warning takes the form of:
IF you do x, THEN y will happen.
A prophecy is of the form:
You WILL do x, AND y will happen.

You are correct that chapter 28 is in the first form (actually two instances of it: IF Israel obey THEN they will be blessed BUT IF they disobey THEN they will be cursed). However, please carry on reading – at chapter 30, verse 1, Moses says to Israel:

"And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call them to mind among all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath driven thee … "

Now, we DO have the second form, i.e. from what is said here, chapter 28 is indeed a prophecy: Moses says that BOTH sets of possibilities WILL happen and Israel WILL experience both blessing AND cursing. Moreover, as we can plainly see in history - long after the words were written - the prophecy has come true.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

371. Comment #15686 by BillySands on January 2, 2007 at 4:03 am

Theo
"The scholarly world is divided over the mentioned passage, some, observing that it was written in Josephus's style deem it authentic. However, I followed your link and found that the current consensus of the matter is," It seems clear that, whatever the current fashion of scholarship, no conclusive evidence exists to allow a final closure of this question."

The only people who think the verse is authentic are those who want it to be. Any impartial person can clearly see it has bee stuck in between two paragraphs and disrupts the flow. Again, as for the style, no committed jew would refer to jesus as the christ.




"This discussion over the reliability of the bible is fruitless because the premise advanced by some is:
1. the bible contains miracles
2. miracles do not exist
3. therefore the bible is false

Thus if God does not exist to a person, the bible, whether it is reliable or not, would not really matter. If by some stretch of the imagination the bible is proven false, then it does not mean that God does not exist, it means he did not write it. Then I would hold the Deist position."

I think you miss the point here, the bible is the christians evidence of there god. Show it to be false, you show their god is false. Why would you hold a deist position? Why not jump to islam, or better still atheism? You obviously think there must be some god. Why?

Mark
Sorry, I forgot to say, this is Daniel 1:4:
"He was to teach them [jewish captives] the language and literature of the Babylonians."

It just makes so much more sense that this was written some time after Babylon.

Down_Under
The whole man god thing is fatal to christianity. Their whole religion is pagan. There is nothing new about it, and it is just a collection of recycled myths, and the life of jesus is based on OT non prophecies that are not about jesus, but are claimed to be so by the gospel writers.

Other Comments by BillySands

372. Comment #15709 by Theo on January 2, 2007 at 7:10 am

D_U,

Ok, I will start from comment #15232 come down.

Good, I see that you understand that historical documents do not have to be original to be approved, once you understand that, there is nothing more to say.

D_U, historians use secondary sources for a significant quantity of their information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_source

NLHB (comment # 15308),

The death penalty may be against the law in the U.K. but in other countries of the world, it is accepted. You may not agree with the death penalty, but others will. This does not mean you have higher moral values than they, but just that you have a different opinion, what you will describe as evil may be described as good by someone else (the same goes for corporal punishment). Also, the law that contained that punishment was written to govern the nation of Israel over 3000 years ago. That law was replaced by the new law nearly 2000 years ago, that is why you will not find Christians stoning someone to death outside the church building for breaking any crime in the O.T.

Therefore in a country where capital punishment is employed (e.g. USA), it would be ridiculous to say that anyone can murder, in fact murder is an offence that, in some cases, can be punished by death. If this can be exercised and accepted by countless modern nations, then I cannot see the problem for ancient Israel.

Slaves in the O.T. were supposed to be treated well and released after the 7th year:

Lev 25:42-43
For they are My servants whom I brought out from the land of Egypt; they are not to be sold in a slave sale. 43' You shall not rule over him with severity, but are to revere your God.
NASU

Lev 25:46
...but in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.
NASU

Ex 21:2

2 "If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment.
NASU

Therefore corporal (not capital) punishment was used only when the slaves committed serious breaches.

In fact, so good was the treatment that provisions were made if a slave wanted to remain a slave after the seventh year!

Ex 21:5-6
5 "But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,' 6 then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently.
NASU

In conclusion we see that capital punishment cannot be described as evil or good (if you are atheist), that the O.T. laws are cancelled and modern believers are governed by the N.T., and that the slavery of Judaism was not the cruel system of Greece, Rome, and later nations.

To be continued...

Other Comments by Theo

373. Comment #15713 by NoLongerHaveBelief on January 2, 2007 at 8:01 am

Hi Theo.

Thanks for that. Again, though I admire your belief, you fail to see the contradictions that are within the Bible. A common cop-out for Believers, is that the Old Testament doesn't apply. This is not so. Jesus quite clearly stated that the old laws - hence the OT - still applied, which is sad, because as Professor Dawkins has stated, Jesus was a big improvement upon the Old Testament!

I can understand why you believe. Indeed, I went running today for the first time in 7 years. Although I've built a lot of muscle, I want to cut my fat. It was hard! LOL! I didn't last long!

But the view was glorious up in those hills! I stood there, in the rain and the wind (which I love - I'm not a summer person) - and the beauty of nature is truly breathtaking! Again, I can see why you believe.

Please understand Theo, that I would NOT say you are wrong. For myself, I'm convinced that Jesus lived, (I know there is an argument against this, but it seems to illogical to know so much about a man, who was said not to exist!) and I'm convinced he was a good man.

Indeed, Jesus himself said "Why callst me Lord?" Stating infact, that he was just a man. I can accept and understand some of his teachings. I can't subscribe to miracles. This pushes things too far and I've no doubt that many of the 'miracles' are either myth or can be logically explained. Is it a coincidence that the Egyptians supposedly had the Argha Noa festival (i.e. Noah's Ark?). Methinks the Bible is a combinations of truths, lies, myths, legends and borrowings from other religions.

It is said that if one arrives at a contradiction in thinking, then the result is an illogical error and faulty thinking.

God is said to have made us in his/ our image. Thus homosexuals are made in his image too. HOW can God create homosexuals, yet have them so condemned in the Bible? That is illogical and makes no sense.

As an Atheist, the only difference between you and I, is that you still subscribe to the Abrahamic God - whereas you'd laugh at Zeus, Thor, Wotan, Baal, Vishnu or any of the plethora of Gods that have been worshipped. As Professor D has stated - we just go one God further!

I can conceive that in the future, science will answer this question finally. We'll either discover God, hiding in some corner of the Galaxy, or we'll finally have the mystery of life uncovered. This doesn't make me agnostic. Not at all. I have a tiny room in my thinking that allows for the slight possibility of God existing.

I doubt seriously if he does. And further, the question we should all ask is, do we need him? Haven't we all just achieved certain goals on our own merit without his Godly intervention?

I would also add, that in the Bible, Atheists are classed as fools. Whilst I wouldn't class myself any where near the elite scientists who don't believe, I'm certainly not stupid! Now logic and common sense must surely tell us that if God were to exist after all, I doubt he'd condemn good, honest Atheists, for not believing! Surely, an omnipotent God would be more interested in the life one has led? I couldn't imagine a good God condemning a man/ woman/ unicorn (!) for that 'crime'.

That makes no sense either. Have a great 2007 Theo - and keep those Bible quotes coming, though they make no sense to non-believers, they are interesting!

Other Comments by NoLongerHaveBelief

374. Comment #15721 by down_under on January 2, 2007 at 9:13 am

Theo:

"Good, I see that you understand that historical documents do not have to be original to be approved, once you understand that, there is nothing more to say."

I mayagree to a certain extent with that statement, however the point i was trying to make is that historical references are still far more creditable than the Bible, for various reasons but the primary reason being the bible is just a religious artifact,nothing more than stories with no exact dates recorded by people hundreds of years after the events were meant to have happened

Surely any-one with half a brain must realise that this makes the bible incredibaly unreliable and by no means a source of historical reference



Also have you found any answers for any other questions yet? i find it interesting to see what a theist may think on these issues as they are usually ignored

Other Comments by down_under

375. Comment #15722 by down_under on January 2, 2007 at 9:21 am

Theo:

You said to NLHB

"Also, the law that contained that punishment was written to govern the nation of Israel over 3000 years ago. That law was replaced by the new law nearly 2000 years ago, that is why you will not find Christians stoning someone to death outside the church building for breaking any crime in the O.T."

Does this not proove that the Bible is nothing more than a book written on the values and belifes of people at the time and nothing to do with an almighty being?

And are you seriously sayingthat death and slavery is OK because it says so in the bible?
Killing the 1st borns of Egypt, destroying a city, flooding the earth.....all fine because all loving God did it?

Are you saying Death is an appropriate punishment for arguing with your father, stealing an apple or worshipping another God? because it says so in the bible?

Isnt it a nice co-incidence that you were convineantly Born into the correct religion aswell!! I feel sorry for all those people born in places like Iraq and India, who will burn in hell jsut for being born in the wrong country!! man what a fair and loving God you worship!

Other Comments by down_under

376. Comment #15723 by down_under on January 2, 2007 at 9:27 am

Also Theo you have defended death in the bible.......which says alot about your morals i may add.......but you have ignored to comment on all the other evil goings on that are justified in the bible

Slavery, Gay hating, child beating and woman being 2nd class citizens....all fine in the bible

please explain how you can honestly accept this as a moral person


Billy:

You said:

"The whole man god thing is fatal to christianity"

Maybe this is why they all refuse to comment on it? he he

Other Comments by down_under

377. Comment #15847 by Theo on January 3, 2007 at 10:27 am

Comment # 15532

D_U, you said," Me and Billy commented on all the ancient man-gods

Horus
Osiris
Mithras
Deoysinis
Baal
etc etc

and how their stories are almost identical to Jesus but actually predate jesus (some by several thousand years)
and ask how you can rule out these ancient Gods as mythology yet so openly belive jesus is real"

The fact is," Most scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee, who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on orders of the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate under the accusation of sedition against the Roman Empire. A very small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ). However even though some of you guys fall into the later category, I understand that being in the scholarly minority does not mean that one is in error and thus I will continue this discussion with you all. (I wish the same courtesy was shown to the minority of scientists who do not believe in evolution).

Horus, Osiris, Dionysus and Baal all have such superficial similarities to Christianity that they are not worthy of any significant attention. Mithras on the other hand is a different story. I searched wikipedia and found the parallels to Christianity under the descriptive heading," The Neutrality of This Article Is Disputed." It has a striking resemblance to Christianity that, if true, would totally destroy it.

Mithraism had its roots in a time when the Hindus and the Persians were one people. Mithra is first mentioned in the Hindu Vedas and the Persian Avesta. This religion was then incorporated by the Romans who maintained strict secrecy about their practices thus Roman Mithraism is shrouded in much mystery. Whatever we do know of it are its by-the-way mentionings of the church "fathers" and platonic philosophers who wanted to find support in Mithraism for there own philosophical ideas, not from actual mithraic devotees: (http://www.well.com/user/davidu/mithras.html).

Understanding that all we know of Roman Mithraism are 2nd century documents (by that time the Christian N.T. had been in widespread circulation) there is no evidence that the mithraic ideas that seem to correspond to Christianity were ever taught before the 2nd century. A comparison of the Indo-Iranian Mithraism with what is known about Roman Mithraism shows that Mithraism has changed drastically from its Persian roots. Scholars Beard, North and Price agree stating, "The form of the cult most familiar to us, the initiatory cult, does not seem to derive from Persia at all. It is found first in the west, has no significant resemblance to its supposed Persian 'origins', and seems largely to be a western construct." (Beard, Mary, John North and Simon Price. Religions of Rome Volume I., Cambridge University Press. New York NY. 1998 p.279)
And all we have of this western construct of Mithraism are those 2nd century documents, way too late to be borrowed from Christianity, in fact, it seems that it's the other way around. If anything was borrowed from Mithraism, it was art, and that was from 3rd to 4th century Christianity, not biblical Christianity.

D_U,
I already dealt with slavery, capital and corporal punishment (comment #15709)
The bible condemns homosexuality, its clear as day. But because these things contradict your beliefs does not mean they are evil (unless your opinion is the standard for right and wrong)
NLHB,

"It's quite evil. It's gay-hating, woman-hating, racist-inciting rubbish. I'd say the Bible is worst work of fiction/ mythology and outright lies ever written by mankind!"

Woman-hating?

Eph 5:25-33:
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. 28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30 because we are members of His body. 31 FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. 32 This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.
NASU

Unless it is believed that a wife being subject to her own husband who loves her as himself or not publicly speaking in the congregation is "woman hating"

Racist-inciting?

God commanded the Israelites to not mix with other nations for religious reasons, not racist. In the history of the O.T. every time mixing occurred, it caused problems where pagan religion started to be practiced. A good illustration is that of a parent not wanting his or her child to be with bad company. Its not racist, its wisdom.

Other Comments by Theo

378. Comment #15867 by BillySands on January 3, 2007 at 12:02 pm

Theo, concerning the wikipedia article, did it ever occur to you that some fundie may question the neutrality simply because it does not agree with them.
How can you dismiss the other gods who are saviours, been resurrected and born of virgins as insignificant. There are also coins and documents that date to about 200BCE that comemmorate the ascent of Mithras to heaven. Ifanyone was faking it, it was the christians who forged the testimony of josephus.
Concerning women in the bible
Eve also gets all the blame for the original sin (1Tim. 2:12-14), and women are the property of men and were created for men, because we are superior. They must be silent in church and never hold authority over men, or even teach a man (1Cor. 11:8-9, 14:34-35, Eph. 5:21, Col. 3:18, 1Tim.2:11-14). All however is not lost, as a woman can be saved through childbirth (1Tim. 2:15). The only problem is that God would rather men didn't get married (1Cor. 7:8), and for those lucky enough to get a man, child birth will be incredibly painful (Gen.3:16). Yep, God hates women!
on slavery
he doesn't mind you beating them, as long as you don't kill them (Ex. 21:22-24). God likes slavery so much; he even sets different laws for their welfare to those of their Israelite masters. If an owner knocks out a slaves eye, he must set the slave free (Ex. 21:26). If he did it to another Israelite, the law requires the loss of his eye too (Ex. 21:22-24). I like Gandhi's observation (pardon the pun) that an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. Should the master kill the slave, the punishment is not defined (Ex. 20:21) here, but If he kills an Israelite, he too must be killed (Ex. 21:12). God also likes perfectly formed people too. Any one deformed may not approach him (Lev. 21:16-23). He must love having someone to hate, because the bible tells us that he knits people together in the womb (Ps. 139:13-15). So I guess every now and then, he uses his special magic god powers of righteous justice to decide exactly who to make deformed, just so he can hate them. The almighty loving God is also partial to accepting the occasional human sacrifice (Num. 31:40, Jud. 11:29-40) In the second example, a girl (Jephthah's daughter) was sacrificed to God because of her fathers' vows. Of course, if you question God on the subject, he denies accepting human sacrifice at all, claiming the whole idea to be abhorrent to him (Jer. 19:4-6). Nice lie your holiness!

Other Comments by BillySands

379. Comment #15880 by down_under on January 3, 2007 at 1:35 pm

Theo

I was going to answer you there but I see Billy has pretty much stated all (and more) of what I was going to say!!
Thanks Billy! youve made my life easier he he

Still a few questions to get through Theo....and dare I say it you seem to be struggeling....the ones you have not yet answered are actually the simplest! (The man-God ones being the more complicated ones)
If its so hard to answer such simple questions with a belife like yours then i would re-consider what you belive in! Belifes that cant answer simple questions are often hiding something!

Other Comments by down_under

380. Comment #15884 by down_under on January 3, 2007 at 1:52 pm

And errr Theo.....no Racism in the Bible did yu say???

What about the Canaanites??
Jesus himself was racist towards them!

And in reference to Gays- I dont exactly agree with what they do but they certainly have the right to do it

And did you know that another "crime" in the bible is SHAVING YOUR BEARD!!!yup God loves beards and your banned from geting rid of it!!

Lev 19:27

Hope you have a long fluffy one!!

Other Comments by down_under

381. Comment #15888 by down_under on January 3, 2007 at 2:00 pm

and in you arguments you can quote all the loving friendly bible passages u like

quoting the nice ones wont erase the evil ones..........or the stupid ones

Other Comments by down_under

382. Comment #15986 by BillySands on January 4, 2007 at 5:13 am

Hi Down_Under,

I cant believe people claim the bible is not racist.
Theo,
lets not forget that no ammonite or Moabite may enter the congregation of god Nehemiah 13:1 (oops, Jesus had a moabite ancestor (Ruth))
No stranger, foreigner, or uncircumcised person can eat the Passover.Ex 12:43, 45, 48
God favors Israelites "above all people." Ex 19:5
If a priest's daughter marries "a stranger" she can't eat any holy things. lev 22:12
If a priest's daughter marries "a stranger" she can't eat any holy things. Deut 22:12
If your brother, son, daughter, wife, or friend tries to get you to worship another god, "thou shalt surely kill him, thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death." Deut 13:6-10
God commands the Israelites to "blot out the rembrance of Amalek from under heaven." (looks like he failed since the bible remembers them) A few hundred years later God orders Saul to kill of the Amalekites "both man and woman, infant and suckling." (1 Sam.15:2-3) Deut 25:19
Had enough? there are plenty more and Jesus thought of the gentiles as second class citizens
Jesus initially refuses to cast out a devil from a Syrophoenician woman's daughter, calling the woman a "dog". After much pleading, he finally agrees to cast out the devil. Mark 7:27
Jesus tells his disciples to keep away from the Gentiles and Samaritans, and go only to the Israelites. Matt 10:5-6.

Other Comments by BillySands

383. Comment #15997 by gimlibengloin on January 4, 2007 at 5:56 am

Billy Sands (532)

In regard to the accusation that Christians forged the testimony of Josephus I think you should be more honest about the speculative nature of that. There exists no solid evidence of forgery and the world renowned Dead Sea Scrolls scholar and expert in Second temple period Judaism Geza Vermes has said it is genuine

Other Comments by gimlibengloin

384. Comment #16003 by BillySands on January 4, 2007 at 6:15 am

gimlibengloin,
I'm going to assume that you hve not read my comment no 437 and repost some of it again for you to read

The antiqities 18:3:2-4 2. "But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews (8) were not pleased with what had been done about this water; and many ten thousands of the people got together, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do. So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition.

3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

4. About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder....."

Verse 4 makes no sense. What other sad calamity? was the christ coming a sad calamity? take out the jesus verse and it makes sense
"2. But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews (8) were not pleased with what had been done about this water; and many ten thousands of the people got together, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do. So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition.

4. About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder....."

It is obviously an insertion.
Full text here if you are interested http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-18.htm

Perhaps you could explain away this problem and the lack of early reference to this text and the why a jew would call jesus the christ?
Theists need to learn to think for themselves and not accept so called authority. present your evidence if you have any

Other Comments by BillySands

385. Comment #16007 by gimlibengloin on January 4, 2007 at 6:29 am

Billy Sands

Tried the link you suggested but it didn't work. However, I do have a copy of josephus anyway. My point was simply that scholars do not agree over the status of the text you cited and furthermore that there are even major league scholars eg Vermes (a non-christian) who regard it as genuine. Therefore the accusation of forgery is unwarrented. Nothing you've provided suggests otherwise as, at best, it merely makes it an insertion not a "forgery" which was your original accusation. You should not make charges of forgery against people unless you can provide strong evidence which so far you havn't

Other Comments by gimlibengloin

386. Comment #16008 by gimlibengloin on January 4, 2007 at 6:32 am

Billy Sands

"Present your evidence if you have any".
Already have as it is there in Josephus. It is your obligation to demonstrate it is a forgery (or even an interpolation) which you havn't done)

Other Comments by gimlibengloin

387. Comment #16014 by BillySands on January 4, 2007 at 6:53 am

gimlibengloin
Am I to assume that you are one of those who would require to see someone like eusebius forge it with your own eyes because it doesn't suit you. People get convicted of crimes (that no one saw them commit) all the time on the basis of evidence. If you are a theist, then you seem to accept some pretty bizzare and unsubstantiated claims from your holy book as fact. You incidentally have provided no evidence of your own.
Do you accept that the passage was an insertion? Do you not think the paragraph above and below make perfect sence with out it? Surely josepus would have rewritten it so that it flowed?
The passage is never quoted by Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, or Origen, despite its enormous apologetic value. Origen certainly quotes the reference to jesus' brother around 200CE

Other Comments by BillySands

388. Comment #16016 by J.C. Samuelson on January 4, 2007 at 7:01 am

@ gimblibengloin

With regard to the passage in question, even Christian biblical scholars reject the passage as wholly authentic. In other words, majority opinion among biblical scholars (Christian and non-) is that this passage has been, at the very least, tampered with by later Christian interpolators.

There is another passage in Josephus that is generally accepted as authentic, with only a few dissenters. That passage is found in Book 20, Chapter 9 of the Antiquities and refers to James, deemed here to be the brother of Jesus.

In any event, at best the writings of Josephus suggest that there was a man named Jesus whose followers attracted the attention of some authorities. In other words, it does very little to confirm the biblical account of Jesus' life and/or ministry.

Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson

389. Comment #16017 by BillySands on January 4, 2007 at 7:04 am

"Already have as it is there in Josephus. It is your obligation to demonstrate it is a forgery (or even an interpolation) which you havn't done)"

I have challenged it, you have failed to defend it. Prove it is not a forgery. A forged interpolation is by far the most reasonable explanation

Can you prove to me that brahmin does not exist? It's amazing how theists change their tune concerning their own beliefs

Other Comments by BillySands

390. Comment #16018 by rydrum2112 on January 4, 2007 at 7:05 am

Shaunyboy

You want a paper on the evolution of the eye- read Climbing Mount Improbable. Even better why don't you watch the talk that Ken Miller made that was posted on this site, he goes through how the blood clotting process evolved as well ass the flagellum.

How is it that the vast majority of the scientific world finds evolution of those things "convincing" but you do not, are you a biologist with some superiour expertise that no one else has?

Other Comments by rydrum2112

391. Comment #16020 by BillySands on January 4, 2007 at 7:07 am

"In any event, at best the writings of Josephus suggest that there was a man named Jesus whose followers attracted the attention of some authorities. In other words, it does very little to confirm the biblical account of Jesus' life and/or ministry."

And like many (if not all) the gospel writers josephus was not an eye witness to the life of jesus anyway

Other Comments by BillySands

392. Comment #16022 by BillySands on January 4, 2007 at 7:09 am

Hi rydrum2112
Do you have the link to that site?

cheers

Billy

Other Comments by BillySands

393. Comment #16026 by gimlibengloin on January 4, 2007 at 7:49 am

J C Samuelson.
"It does very little to confirm the biblical account of Jesus.."

Possibly so but then you have to wonder why sceptics are so keen to dismiss it. In either case I wasn't discussing its apologetic worth but rather whether the accusation of "forgery" was a reasonable one.

Billy Sands.
The fact is that the text is there so we regard it as genuine unless solid reason exists to dismiss it. If you look at the context it is all about Jewish sedition and controversies with Pilate eg 18:3:1 and 18:3:2 "an end was put to this sedition" and 18:3:4 "About the same time also another sad calamity put the jews into disorder". It is clear that the text about Jesus fits into this context.
The wording is similar as well eg 18:2:4 "About this time.." 18:2:5 "At this time.." 18:3:3 Now, there was about this time Jesus.." and 18:3:4 "About the same time.."

Other Comments by gimlibengloin

394. Comment #16042 by patrick1649 on January 4, 2007 at 8:44 am

"Another interesting question.
How did monotheism come to dominate the west and the middle east?"

There is an interesting cover story in the 22 December 2006 editon of "Der Spiegel" (in German only I'm afraid) that argues that the origin of monotheism lies in Egypt; specifically with Pharoh Amenophis IV (ca. 1350 BC), who banned all other gods in favour of Aton (a sun god). The article makes a link between Amenophis and the figure of Moses in explaining the adoption of monotheism by the Jewish tribes.

Other Comments by patrick1649

395. Comment #16050 by down_under on January 4, 2007 at 9:28 am

gimlibengloin:

"The fact is that the text is there so we regard it as genuine unless solid reason exists to dismiss it"

Isnt tha a rather dangerous (and mind numbingly stupid) train of thought?

By that logic then ALL other religious stories, including those of Thor, Ra, Zeus, Ganesh, allah, Mohammad, Joseph Smith, Galactic Lord Xenu....even non-religous stories such as Lord of the Rings, Narnia and Harry Potter!!! should be ragarded as true

Can you PROVE to me that they don't exist??

Other Comments by down_under

396. Comment #16051 by down_under on January 4, 2007 at 9:31 am

Billy :

"It's amazing how theists change their tune concerning their own beliefs"

Notonly is it amazing but extreamly irritating, the theist mind is like that of a child not willing to let go of Santa Claus even after catching their parents putting the presents under the tree

Other Comments by down_under

397. Comment #16058 by J.C. Samuelson on January 4, 2007 at 10:26 am

@ gimlibengloin # 547,

Possibly so but then you have to wonder why sceptics are so keen to dismiss it. In either case I wasn't discussing its apologetic worth but rather whether the accusation of "forgery" was a reasonable one.

There's no need to wonder at all. Josephus does not constitute a direct, extra-biblical witness to either Jesus' existence or the events surrounding him as reported by the Bible. It might be used to argue for Jesus' historicity, but it is only reasonable to do so if one is also willing to grant that Josephus isn't likely to have written so favorably of him.

This also speaks to your second point, in that the charge of "forgery" was never made with regard to the entire passage. If you search the page, you are the first (and only) one to mention forgery. The contention is simply that the passage was the victim of Christian interpolators well after the original was penned. An interpolation is a forged amendment to an existing text, which means that it is probable that Josephus wrote something of Jesus or his movement, but not necessarily the portions in dispute. It is these portions that nearly all biblical scholars, faithful or not, agree are not authentic.

This passage is often misused by apologetics writers and even some skeptics. Apologetics writers often use it in a way that implies the literal truth of the Gospel account. Skeptics sometimes use it to cast doubt on the entirety - even the existence - of extra-biblical documentation that might lend weight to Jesus' historicity. Both of these positions commit the fallacy of the excluded middle, in which Josephus can be said to have written something about Jesus or his movement, which means at the very least that 1st century Christians or Jews with whom he spoke (and from whom his information was likely obtained) believed in an actual rather than a metaphorical or spiritual Jesus. It is a weak, second, third, fourth, or more hand witness, but it is a witness to that movement and its founder all the same.

In any case, your argument that Josephus is a valid extra-biblical witness to Jesus' historicity might be worth considering, but has no importance with regard to validating your faith or your Bible. Many of the skeptics I know would be willing to concede that a man named Jesus actually lived and founded the Christian religion as a subsect of Judaism, but even were we to trace every step, document every detail down to the exact color of each and every mole and location of every hair follicle, even knowing what his breath smelled like, it would not in any way confirm any of the miraculous and magical events that the Bible surrounds him with.

Put another way, apologists such as Strobel and McDowell make much ado about nothing when it comes to Josephus.

Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson

398. Comment #16063 by down_under on January 4, 2007 at 11:35 am

Heres an intersting website

http://www.evilbible.com

It basically disects the bible and states everything evil, sexist, contradictory, racist, innacurate and ridiculous

really quite interesting.....and eye-opening!

Other Comments by down_under

399. Comment #16066 by gimlibengloin on January 4, 2007 at 11:51 am

down_under (549)
"By that logic then ALL other religious stories....even non-religious such as Lord of the Rings....should be regarded as true"

HOW DARE YOU. ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT GANDALF AND FRODO ARE NOT HISTORICAL PERSONAGES??? THATS OUTRAGEOUS.

Seriously though I don't think your following the thread closely. We were not referring to a religious story but the testimony of the 2nd Temple period Jewish historian Josephus who's writings are regarded by scholars and historians as valid. Billy Sands kindly provided a quote from his prior to mine which you should look at.

J C Samuelson (551)
"you are the first one...to mention forgery".

Uh, no. See Billy Sands (532) "it was the christians who forged the testimony of josephus"

"Josephus has no importance with regard to validating your faith or your Bible"

Well, he does mention Jesus, his death under Pilate, his alleged resurection, "wise" teaching, and remarkable acts but other than that I agree with you. A christian shouldn't base his faith on Josephus.

Other Comments by gimlibengloin

400. Comment #16067 by gimlibengloin on January 4, 2007 at 11:53 am

Oh no, theres three SIXES in my comment number.
AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Other Comments by gimlibengloin