UGGGGGG,

Drich you are why I hate arguing the "history" of that comic book.

Take that comic book, read it cover to cover, every time you run into the word God or Lord, replace it with Frank. Every time you run into the word Jesus, replace it with Harry Potter. Every time you run into the word Mary, replace it with Xena. Then ask yourself if it still makes sense.

You won't do that because you are so deeply delusional.

You do not want to face the truth that it is a book of myth. Other people of other religions quote their comic books too.

There has never been any invisible sky daddy of any kind, just like the sun was never a god. There are simply humans inventing them.

(September 19, 2013 at 9:00 am)Drich Wrote: They did, she was a virgin, they checked, life moved on.

"They" seem to have reacted pretty casually to the realization that a virgin woman was with child!

Quote:In order to accuractly make that statement, you have to account for all of the written records of that day. Something you can not do, because the complete written record simply does not exist anymore.

I am speaking of the account recorded in the book of Matthew. The account itself is written awkwardly and inconsistently, as I have explained. Telling me that I can't know for sure because the documents that may give more detail don't exist (and may never have) is neither relevant nor sensible.

Quote:Because he knew he did not father that child.

My point being that either Mary withheld the information from him, or she told him and he did not believe her. The wording of the passage makes it seem as if she did not tell him. If that is the case, he can only have assumed fornication on her part.

Quote: so your abandoning your 'baby bump' theory now in favor of this?

I'm pointing out that the part about her being "found to be pregnant" is problematic. If her pregnancy was obvious, there is one set of issues. If it was not, then there is another set of issues. I have discussed those in my previous posts.

Quote:This happened 2000 years ago and all we have left is the law and what is know of the culture to make any determination as to how society would have reacted.

The gospels contain plenty of stories of how people reacted to miraculous occurrences. We can assume that if a young woman was pregnant yet had not had sexual relations, there would at the least be quite an uproar. Or maybe they were just that mellow?

Quote:If a literal angel told me my fiance' was carring the Son of God and I was to marry her and name the boy Jesus, then I would marry her and name the boy Jesus.

That's a good point. But it implies that Joseph took action not to protect Mary, but to protect... god? Again, the secrecy just strikes me as weird.

Quote:Ah, no. all anyone could discern by looking at her is that she was prego. The divine revelations given to people by the angels was to inform that Mary did nothing wrong.

But if this is the case, we're back to my original questions. Why check a pregnant woman for virginity? And it also makes me wonder why god would not want to let everyone know. Wouldn't that have cleared everything up? Why do things in such a hush-hush manner?

(September 19, 2013 at 9:25 am)Tonus Wrote: Why check a pregnant woman for virginity?

I've answered this a dozen times.

Mary was to marry Joseph

Joseph knew he did not Father a child with Marry

That meant to joseph, that Mary while bethrothed to him she had sex with someone else.

With me so far?

Now couple that with what the Law say in Deu 22:
23 “A man might meet a virgin girl engaged to another man. He might have sexual relations with her. If this happens in the city, 24 you must bring them both out to the public place near the gate of that city, and you must kill them with stones. You must kill the man, because he used another man’s wife for sexual sin. And you must kill the girl, because she was in the city but did not call for help. You must remove this evil from your people.

So to be pregnant by another man while bethrothed to joseph would have meant a death sentence for Mary.

Then the question becomes why didn't joseph Claim the child as his own? Because that puts Him in a lot of hot water.

Solution? Tell the truth. Mary did not have sex with anyone. With such a claim comes full accountability for her words. Meaning death if her claim could not be verified.

Quote: And it also makes me wonder why god would not want to let everyone know. Wouldn't that have cleared everything up? Why do things in such a hush-hush manner?

What did Herod do when he did find out?

Not even WLC would try to rationally/historically defend the virgin birth he would just say he believes it as a Christian.

(September 19, 2013 at 9:59 am)Drich Wrote: I've answered this a dozen times.

Mary was to marry Joseph

Joseph knew he did not Father a child with Marry

That meant to joseph, that Mary while bethrothed to him she had sex with someone else.

THEN. WHY. CHECK. HER. FOR. VIRGINITY???

How can this be difficult to understand? She was pregnant. Up until this point, it's reasonable to conclude that the number of women who became pregnant without having sex was ZERO. Had she insisted that she was pure in spite of the growing baby in her belly, they may as well have started grabbing stones.

Quote:What did Herod do when he did find out?

Ah, so that's why. God feared for his life if too many people found out.

Quote:What did Herod do when he did find out?

Nothing. It's a thinly-disguised rip off of shit from the exodus story in the OT.

(September 18, 2013 at 10:56 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Show me the facts that convinces the scholars then.

Four times as many authors mention Jesus within the first 150 years of his life than mention Caesar Tiberius, that’s overwhelming support for Jesus’ existence- unless of course you do not believe Tiberius existed either (which at this point wouldn’t really surprise me).

Quote: EDIT TO ADD: And nice dodge, by the way. I think we both know why.

Yes, we both know it was the fallacy of the red herring. There is no reason to compare a scientific theory to historical facts. Secondly, I do not reject evolution because of any “lack of evidence”, I reject it because of evidence to the contrary. You have provided no such evidence proving Jesus never existed, so you are unjustified in your denial of the accepted position.

Quote:Maybe someday we'll live in a truly rational world where referring to religious mythology as "historical documents" will get you laughed out of the room.

Actually in today’s rational world referring to historical documents as religious mythology will get you laughed out of any room full of historians. I find much joy in knowing that we do not take holocaust deniers seriously.

Quote: Do historians like Ehrman also consider the Iliad to be a historical document or are Christian myths being given special treatment?

The Iliad never claims to be historically accurate, is written by one author, and is not well attested to at all (earliest manuscripts we have date to 500 years after the original and we have fewer than 700 of them, compared with over 24,000 of the NT). Got anything else you’d like to toss out and see if it sticks?

Quote:The problem is not one of association. The problem is one of the nature of the source material. Mythology isn't history.

Stop with the question-begging epithets, we’re not talking about mythology. It’s obvious what this comes down to is, “DP doesn’t like the claims of the NT; therefore the NT is not historically accurate.” That is irrational and not how we do scholarship. Bart Ehrman does not like the claims of the NT either, but he still views it as the best attested work of antiquity we have.

Quote:I'm not concerned who is laughing at whom. I'm concerned with the facts. Show me the facts and I will believe.

You’ve already been shown the facts. There’s a reason he laughs at people like you, you do not care about the facts.

Quote:What you believe about me or don't believe is not important. What can you prove?

When dealing with someone as biased as you are it’s not about what I can prove, it’s about what proof you’ll arbitrarily reject.

Quote:Richard Dawkins can believe whatever he wants. If he wants to convince others, he needs to provide reasons.

He doesn’t need to convince others, everyone else agrees with him. You can always find a small minority of the population who will deny historical facts like the moon landing, holocaust, and the existence of Jesus. No amount of proof will ever convince them because they’re not rational people.

Quote: I don't believe in evolution because Richard Dawkins says so. I accept evolution because of the evidence.

You’re knowledgeable of all of the evidence in regards to common descent? I doubt that. You’re still relying upon the testimony of experts. You merely approve of what the experts claim in regards to evolution.

Quote:No, it's not and I've already explained why.

You’ve never directly seen any of this evidence, you’re relying upon the testimony of experts that any of it even exists.

Quote:What manuscripts?

You seriously do not know which manuscripts support the existence of Jesus?

(September 19, 2013 at 12:06 am)Minimalist Wrote: They grew up hearing that "all scholars" believe in jesus - obviously, only in the West. Then it becomes, "all reputable scholars" which, by definition means that anyone who questions their happy horseshit can't be "reputable."

Blowing smoke as usual I see. Name some scholars with advanced degrees in the appropriate field who claim Jesus never existed…..

(September 19, 2013 at 6:19 am)Zone Wrote: Only two of the gospels mention the virgin birth so apparently there wasn't a consensus on this or it wasn't considered a big enough deal to mention.

Your logic doesn’t follow there.

Quote: The original Hebrew prophecy refers a "young woman" rather than specifying her as a virgin.

Young Jewish women were virgins. The readers would have understood this.

Quote: And also virgin births of various great historical figures in the ancient world and the odd god were apparently quite common.

That’s actually a myth perpetuated by the internet. They were not common at all.

(September 19, 2013 at 10:00 am)Zone Wrote: Not even WLC would try to rationally/historically defend the virgin birth he would just say he believes it as a Christian.

Since when did rationality presuppose naturalism and why?

(September 19, 2013 at 9:59 am)Drich Wrote:

(September 19, 2013 at 9:25 am)Tonus Wrote: Why check a pregnant woman for virginity?

I've answered this a dozen times.

Mary was to marry Joseph

Joseph knew he did not Father a child with Marry

That meant to joseph, that Mary while bethrothed to him she had sex with someone else.

With me so far?

Now couple that with what the Law say in Deu 22:
23 “A man might meet a virgin girl engaged to another man. He might have sexual relations with her. If this happens in the city, 24 you must bring them both out to the public place near the gate of that city, and you must kill them with stones. You must kill the man, because he used another man’s wife for sexual sin. And you must kill the girl, because she was in the city but did not call for help. You must remove this evil from your people.

So to be pregnant by another man while bethrothed to joseph would have meant a death sentence for Mary.

Then the question becomes why didn't joseph Claim the child as his own? Because that puts Him in a lot of hot water.

Solution? Tell the truth. Mary did not have sex with anyone. With such a claim comes full accountability for her words. Meaning death if her claim could not be verified.

Quote: And it also makes me wonder why god would not want to let everyone know. Wouldn't that have cleared everything up? Why do things in such a hush-hush manner?

What did Herod do when he did find out?

Its not really my place to argue this but as I understand it there is no record of Mary being checked for her virginal status.

The reason for this is that Joseph didn't need to - he was visited by the Angel of the Lord in a dream and told why she was pregnant and what he had to do.

The testing is an invention on your part.

I have had long discussions with fervent Christians who belaboured this point to me many times.

In fact, of course, the definition of a virgin was the Hymen being in tact in those times (and still today in many parts of the world). This actually doesn't prove that sexual intercourse has not happened. There are cases where women have to have their hymen's surgically cut as it doesn't brake during intercourse.

Its not common of course, but it does happen, and it is a lot more common that virgin birth.

I have no idea why I am making this argument.

Mythicism, since you obviously know as little about it as everything else in your life, goes back to the mid 18th - or - to put it another way - to shortly after scumbags like you lost the ability to burn people at the stake for disputing your holy horseshit.

Quote:Although many people may not be aware of the long-term and voluminous studies involved in what is called "mythicism," the questioning of the Bible as representing mythology goes back several centuries. Much of the major work in this field has occurred in Europe, especially in France and Germany. In France, at the end of the 18th century appeared the multi-volume work of Professor Charles François Dupuis (1742-1809), who put together a massive amount of evidence showing that many of the ancient gods and goddesses were solar in nature and that biblical characters such as Jesus shared numerous aspects in common with these deities. Dupuis was followed by Count Volney (1757-1820), both of whom tutored French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, who himself is reported as having stated that it was a "big question" whether or not Jesus Christ really existed.

Dr. David Friedrich Strauss

In the 19th century, these French scholars were followed by Dr. F.C. Baur of the Tübingen School in Germany, along with his pupil Dr. David F. Strauss, who was attacked and lost his occupation for writing a "Life of Jesus" asserting that much of the gospel story was mythical. Strauss practically defined "mythicism" for a time, but was followed famously by Dr. Bruno Bauer (1809-1882), who likewise cast doubt on the Bible as "history."

This is not "news" to the rest of us and xtian fools who want to bury their heads in the sand can pretend it is a modern phenomena all they want. You are wrong about everything else. Why not this?

(September 19, 2013 at 5:49 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Mythicism, …. goes back to the mid 18th

You’re absolutely right! The Jesus Myth hypothesis does not appear until over 1700 years after Christ’s life. No contemporary or even early historical source questions the existence of Jesus, secular or religious. The Jesus Myth hypothesis then falls out of favor in the late 19th Century and dies in the early 20th Century with the discovery of early manuscripts of John’s gospel (which was erroneously believed to be a late 2nd Century document prior to that). It does not appear again until the late 20th and early 21st Century being popularized by the internet where there is no standardization or verification of facts or references. The hypothesis requires this in order to survive because when its primary sources are examined it dies a swift death. Like all such fringe ideas, it will die soon. Fortunately even secular scholars like Ehrman realize just how much allowing such an absurd idea to linger actually detracts from their other positions and are therefore doing their best to kill the lunacy.