(March 25, 2014 at 12:39 am)Thunder Cunt Wrote: Objections against the validity of the virgin birth are based mostly on preconceived notions - in the main, that the miraculous is impossible. There is no reason, other than pre-conceived notions, to reject it as historical; and to be fair, no reason other than ones own perceptions to accept it as such.

No point in arguing what you can't prove, and no, the early Church Father's and no significant communion of early Christians believed the Virgin Birth as is clearly defined in the Bible, was a mistranslation.

*As if* you can prove ONE thing about your deity. LOL. You of all people should not be talking about "arguing what you can't prove".

1. Asserting something about anything with no reference is crap, and YOU have provided NOT ONE external historical reference for anything you have claimed. What they "believed" it totally irrelevant.

2. The early "Church Fathers" were liars, and they admitted it.
Admitted, purposeful deception in the early Christian Church by "Church Fathers"
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...rly-church

(March 25, 2014 at 12:48 am)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(March 25, 2014 at 12:39 am)Thunder Cunt Wrote: Objections against the validity of the virgin birth are based mostly on preconceived notions - in the main, that the miraculous is impossible. There is no reason, other than pre-conceived notions, to reject it as historical; and to be fair, no reason other than ones own perceptions to accept it as such.

No point in arguing what you can't prove, and no, the early Church Father's and no significant communion of early Christians believed the Virgin Birth as is clearly defined in the Bible, was a mistranslation.

*As if* you can prove ONE thing about your deity. LOL. You of all people should not be talking about "arguing what you can't prove".

1. Asserting something about anything with no reference is crap, and YOU have provided NOT ONE external historical reference for anything you have claimed. What they "believed" it totally irrelevant.

2. The early "Church Fathers" were liars, and they admitted it.
Admitted, purposeful deception in the early Christian Church by "Church Fathers"
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...rly-church

The virgin birth of Jesus is the belief that Jesus was conceived in the womb of his mother Mary by the Holy Spirit and born while Mary was yet a virgin.[1] The New Testament references are Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-38.

The virgin birth was universally accepted in the Christian church by the 2nd century, was enshrined in the Apostles’ Creed, and, except for several minor sects, was not seriously challenged until the 18th century, and remains a basic article of belief in the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and most Protestant churches. Muslims also accept the virgin birth of Jesus.


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


THat is right I cannot prove the Virginal birth. I already told you that.

NOw which of the Church Fathers said the VIrgin Birth was a mistranslation and which significant communion of Christians or Church believed the Virgin Birth to be a mistranslation?

THe weak claim that because the Pauline letters do not mention the Virgin birth is proof that the Gospel of Luke is Bullshit...Is Bullshit!

Quote:Daniel and other Prophets did indeed tell the future.

Horseshit.

Every "prediction" prior to 167 BC "came true." Every "prediction" after 167 BC did not.

This tells us that this trash was written in 167 BC.

(March 25, 2014 at 1:28 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Daniel and other Prophets did indeed tell the future.

Horseshit.

Every "prediction" prior to 167 BC "came true." Every "prediction" after 167 BC did not.

This tells us that this trash was written in 167 BC.

THe prediction at Fatima Portugal came true:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_F%C3%A1tima

(March 25, 2014 at 12:01 am)Bucky Ball Wrote: No Marian cunt I won't. The words in the gospel were INVENTED to make it appear that a "pesher" had been "fulfilled". In fact Mary was not a "virgin" and Jebus did NOTHING to fulfill the predictions of what a "messiah" was to do. The Kingdom of David was NEVER re-established. IN fact the Romans utterly destroyed the temple, and it has NEVER been rebuilt. No reasonable person can claim Jebus did ANYTHING a messiah was to do. Jebus never existed.

Oh please, barely anything you said has support from any critical historians, let alone modern Christian scholarship.

Let me break it down: 1. the words in the gospel were invented: this is well outside scholarly thought, thus to make such an assertion you need to provide evidence. You also need to tell us who invented it and why. 2. The virgin birth is in both Matthew and Luke and their accounts differ to the point that it's clear that they are recording separate accounts. 3. You're not qualified to tell us what the OT scriptures say. 4. Jesus correctly prophecies the fall of Jerusalem not once, but twice and it's recorded multiple times - this is very important and I'll explain why.

If you can prove to me that the prophecy that Jesus made as to the fall of Jerusalem is not an original part of the gospels, or that the synoptic gospels were written after 70AD then you have proof that you're right. However, here's my evidence - and it's very strong:

1. Luke-Acts is written by the same author this is the consensus view among all groups of NT scholars including critical scholars.
   
2. Here is the prophecy, made not just once but twice:
   
   1. Luke 19:41-44: And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”
   2. Luke 21:5-6: And while some were speaking of the temple, how it was adorned with noble stones and offerings, he said, 6 “As for these things that you see, the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”
3. Half of Acts attests to the author's eyewitness account (this is also consensus even among critical scholars), and the account ends c. 60-61AD (agreed upon by a clear majority of scholars).
   
4. No mention is ever made in Luke-Acts or the other gospels of the siege having taken place.
   
5. There are three possible explanations: 1. genuine prophecy, 2. textual corruption (ie prophecy inserted into text later) and 3. that the text was written after the siege of Jerusalem had taken place. Thus, critical scholars (ie sceptics) are forced to believe option 2 or 3.
   
6. There is no credible evidence that these passages are not original to the text of Luke and the other Gospels, and thus most critical scholars do not claim it is from textual corruption.
   
7. I've just given you clear evidence that Luke-Acts was completed well before 70AD, however critical scholars generally believe it was written after 70AD, their evidence being that the prophecy is too specific to be coincidence (circular logic). If this is really the case then why don't any of the Gospels or for that matter Acts mention the siege of Jerusalem taking place? Why doesn't Paul mention it? Critical scholars will agree that Paul wrote his epistles up to the 60's AD, and the only reason they have for dating the synoptic gospels and Acts to after 70AD is that it contains a prophecy to the fall of Jerusalem!

(March 25, 2014 at 1:42 am)Thunder Cunt Wrote:

(March 25, 2014 at 1:28 am)Minimalist Wrote: Horseshit.

Every "prediction" prior to 167 BC "came true." Every "prediction" after 167 BC did not.

This tells us that this trash was written in 167 BC.

THe prediction at Fatima Portugal came true:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_F%C3%A1tima

Sure it did sweetie. Sure it did. Whatever you say.
Now tell the nurse you're ready for your pills.

(March 25, 2014 at 3:33 am)Aractus Wrote:

(March 25, 2014 at 12:01 am)Bucky Ball Wrote: No Marian cunt I won't. The words in the gospel were INVENTED to make it appear that a "pesher" had been "fulfilled". In fact Mary was not a "virgin" and Jebus did NOTHING to fulfill the predictions of what a "messiah" was to do. The Kingdom of David was NEVER re-established. IN fact the Romans utterly destroyed the temple, and it has NEVER been rebuilt. No reasonable person can claim Jebus did ANYTHING a messiah was to do. Jebus never existed.

Oh please, barely anything you said has support from any critical historians, let alone modern Christian scholarship.

Let me break it down: 1. the words in the gospel were invented: this is well outside scholarly thought, thus to make such an assertion you need to provide evidence. You also need to tell us who invented it and why. 2. The virgin birth is in both Matthew and Luke and their accounts differ to the point that it's clear that they are recording separate accounts. 3. You're not qualified to tell us what the OT scriptures say. 4. Jesus correctly prophecies the fall of Jerusalem not once, but twice and it's recorded multiple times - this is very important and I'll explain why.

If you can prove to me that the prophecy that Jesus made as to the fall of Jerusalem is not an original part of the gospels, or that the synoptic gospels were written after 70AD then you have proof that you're right. However, here's my evidence - and it's very strong:

1. Luke-Acts is written by the same author this is the consensus view among all groups of NT scholars including critical scholars.
   
2. Here is the prophecy, made not just once but twice:
   
   1. Luke 19:41-44: And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”
   2. Luke 21:5-6: And while some were speaking of the temple, how it was adorned with noble stones and offerings, he said, 6 “As for these things that you see, the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”
3. Half of Acts attests to the author's eyewitness account (this is also consensus even among critical scholars), and the account ends c. 60-61AD (agreed upon by a clear majority of scholars).
   
4. No mention is ever made in Luke-Acts or the other gospels of the siege having taken place.
   
5. There are three possible explanations: 1. genuine prophecy, 2. textual corruption (ie prophecy inserted into text later) and 3. that the text was written after the siege of Jerusalem had taken place. Thus, critical scholars (ie sceptics) are forced to believe option 2 or 3.
   
6. There is no credible evidence that these passages are not original to the text of Luke and the other Gospels, and thus most critical scholars do not claim it is from textual corruption.
   
7. I've just given you clear evidence that Luke-Acts was completed well before 70AD, however critical scholars generally believe it was written after 70AD, their evidence being that the prophecy is too specific to be coincidence (circular logic). If this is really the case then why don't any of the Gospels or for that matter Acts mention the siege of Jerusalem taking place? Why doesn't Paul mention it? Critical scholars will agree that Paul wrote his epistles up to the 60's AD, and the only reason they have for dating the synoptic gospels and Acts to after 70AD is that it contains a prophecy to the fall of Jerusalem!

Amen! Preach it brother! Much better than I could have done!

May God reward you for fighting the good fight in defense of the Gospel!

---

(March 25, 2014 at 3:35 am)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(March 25, 2014 at 1:42 am)Thunder Cunt Wrote:

Sure it did sweetie. Sure it did. Whatever you say.
Now tell the nurse you're ready for your pills.

Tell that to the thousands of people, many of them communists and freemasons (anti-religous) who published the articles about what they saw.

You do realize I have more evidence for this than you have for saying the Gospel of Luke is full of shit?

Looks like you need to take your pills

(March 25, 2014 at 12:53 am)Thunder Cunt Wrote:

(March 25, 2014 at 12:48 am)Bucky Ball Wrote: *As if* you can prove ONE thing about your deity. LOL. You of all people should not be talking about "arguing what you can't prove".

1. Asserting something about anything with no reference is crap, and YOU have provided NOT ONE external historical reference for anything you have claimed. What they "believed" it totally irrelevant.

2. The early "Church Fathers" were liars, and they admitted it.
Admitted, purposeful deception in the early Christian Church by "Church Fathers"
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...rly-church

The virgin birth of Jesus is the belief that Jesus was conceived in the womb of his mother Mary by the Holy Spirit and born while Mary was yet a virgin.[1] The New Testament references are Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-38.

The virgin birth was universally accepted in the Christian church by the 2nd century, was enshrined in the Apostles’ Creed, and, except for several minor sects, was not seriously challenged until the 18th century, and remains a basic article of belief in the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and most Protestant churches. Muslims also accept the virgin birth of Jesus.


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


THat is right I cannot prove the Virginal birth. I already told you that.

NOw which of the Church Fathers said the VIrgin Birth was a mistranslation and which significant communion of Christians or Church believed the Virgin Birth to be a mistranslation?

THe weak claim that because the Pauline letters do not mention the Virgin birth is proof that the Gospel of Luke is Bullshit...Is Bullshit!

What people believe or not about the virgin birth, and when they cooked up the notion, (virgin-born deities were quite the fad there for a while), is totally IRRELEVANT. By your logic the fact that most people once believed the world was flat means it must BE flat. Maybe you should consider actually taking a CLASS on the Babble. One of the FIRST things main-line schools teach, (to FRESHMEN Bible students), (including Catholic ones), is that this IS a mistranslation. It also doesn't matter which Church Father said this was a mistranslation. If they admitted they LIED in general, then NOTHING they said is reliable. They were ALL deluded liars. Maybe along with a Babble class you might consider a LOGIC class. The Gospel of Luke IS bullshit. There are irreconcilable factual ERRORS in it. It was based on the Q document. I am willing to bet you never have even HEARD of "Q". You haven't, have you ?

Why is it rank beginner non-scholars, actually THINK they can go spout their shit on the internet, and that it has ANY credibility ?

(March 25, 2014 at 9:44 am)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(March 25, 2014 at 12:53 am)Thunder Cunt Wrote: The virgin birth of Jesus is the belief that Jesus was conceived in the womb of his mother Mary by the Holy Spirit and born while Mary was yet a virgin.[1] The New Testament references are Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-38.

The virgin birth was universally accepted in the Christian church by the 2nd century, was enshrined in the Apostles’ Creed, and, except for several minor sects, was not seriously challenged until the 18th century, and remains a basic article of belief in the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and most Protestant churches. Muslims also accept the virgin birth of Jesus.


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


THat is right I cannot prove the Virginal birth. I already told you that.

NOw which of the Church Fathers said the VIrgin Birth was a mistranslation and which significant communion of Christians or Church believed the Virgin Birth to be a mistranslation?

THe weak claim that because the Pauline letters do not mention the Virgin birth is proof that the Gospel of Luke is Bullshit...Is Bullshit!

What people believe or not about the virgin birth, and when they cooked up the notion, (virgin-born deities were quite the fad there for a while), is totally IRRELEVANT. By your logic the fact that most people once believed the world was flat means it must BE flat. Maybe you should consider actually taking a CLASS on the Babble. One of the FIRST things main-line schools teach, (to FRESHMEN Bible students), (including Catholic ones), is that this IS a mistranslation. It also doesn't matter which Church Father said this was a mistranslation. If they admitted they LIED in general, then NOTHING they said is reliable. They were ALL deluded liars. Maybe along with a Babble class you might consider a LOGIC class. The Gospel of Luke IS bullshit. There are irreconcilable factual ERRORS in it. It was based on the Q document. I am willing to bet you never have even HEARD of "Q". You haven't, have you ?

Why is it rank beginner non-scholars, actually THINK they can go spout their shit on the internet, and that it has ANY credibility ?

Each can be classified in one of three ways:

The pagan god is not born of a virgin mother.
The birth of the pagan god is the result of a sexual encounter.
The parallel exists, but the Christian tradition antedates the pagan mythology.

Some of the claimed “virgin births” are not births at all; at least not in the normal way a woman delivers a child. A closer investigation into the mythology regarding the birth of many pagan gods will reveal some other miraculous creation that neither involves a virgin woman (This alone is enough to disqualify it as a parallel to the birth of Jesus) or a goddess. In other cases there may not have been sexual intercourse, but the woman or goddess simply was not a virgin before conception.

One example is the Roman god, Mithras. The “virgin birth” claim is often encountered in this regard, much to the dismay of those like Bucky Ball who either have never taken the time to research modern scholarship on it or fail to understand what is written. Mithras falls under this classification because, according to the myth, he was not born of a woman at all.

Manfred Clauss, professor of ancient history at the Free University of Berlin, explains, “The sequence of images from the mythical account of Mithras’ life and exploits begins, so far as we can make out, with the god’s birth. The literary sources here are few but unmistakable: Mithras was known as the rock-born god” (cf. The Roman Cult of Mithras, pg 62). This is nothing at all like the birth of Christ, yet the claim is made again and again by those who are uneducated and whose brains cannot comprehend what they read.

We can talk about Krishna and some of the other Pagan god Krishna who is often used as an example.

(March 25, 2014 at 3:33 am)Aractus Wrote: Oh please, barely anything you said has support from any critical historians, let alone modern Christian scholarship.

I could care less what "modern Christian" scholarship says about anything. I ONLY care what "scholarship" says, and YOU have referenced NOTHING with even ONE scholar. Only made assertions. That is utterly worthless crap.

The words in the gospels were invented/chosen by SOMEONE, (a human) or they wouldn't BE there. How ELSE did they get there ? The gospels are proclamations of BELIEF, for believers, to remind themselves what they already believed. They are IN NO WAY, "factual". YOU are the one that "needs to provide evidence" that even ONE thing in them is "factual". You can't even provide ONE piece of evidence that Jesus even existed. IF the gospels can't even agree on the day or time he died, the day or time of his trial, whether he gave a speech or was silent at the trial, states that the temple curtain was "torn" (but can't agree on the day it happened), and NOT ONE Jewish historian (who were KNOWN to be IN Jerusalem at the time), EVER ONCE mentioned that fact, and the FACT that the Sanhedrin was NEVER ONCE in all of history called into session on Passover weekend, that there was a zombie invasion (in Matthew) of Jerusalem, and NOT ONE JEW or Roman even mentions that "fact".. it's ALL a pile of horse shit.

I AM qualified to translate the OT. I am a Harvard grad student in Ancient Near Eastern Languages and Cultures. Who is NOT qualified here, is YOU.
So there's that. YOU, and everyone else here has NOT debunked the link about the translation I provided.

Jesus "prophesied" nothing. The words were (much later as a literary device) "placed in his mouth" to make it LOOK like he "prophesied" ... and even IF I grant you that he did, YOU must agree he then also said "THIS generation shall not pass away until all these things are accomplished". DID NOT HAPPEN. Yeshua ben Josef accomplished NONE of the things the Jewish messiah was to have accomplished.

They invented everything to promote their new cult. They admitted they were liars. They lied a lot. "Pious fraud" was the name of the game, as my link above proved.

You prove to me Jebus ever existed, and THEN we'll start to talk details.
List all your "scholars" and list the POLLS of ALL said scholars that PROVES what you claim is "consensus" is true. PROVE to me that ONE thing in any gospel that "Jesis said" was actually said by him, and demonstrate how they would have kept a record of that for at least 100 years with NO recording tools.

Acts "attests" to NOTHING except what believers wanted to make it "attest" to. You actually THINK they would have something (like the Gospel of Thomas, or Judas or Mary Magdalene) in the canon that contradicted their "beliefs" ? Of COURSE it "attests" to what they wanted it to "attest" to. Acts also "attests" to the fact that when Peter was talking to the Jewish authorities, they HAD NO CLUE what he was talking about when he told them they killed Jebus. IF the Jews and Romans went to ALL that trouble to kill him, why would they not go try to re-arrest him, or even look for him, IF he posed such a threat ? Cuz he never existed. He was a figment. YOU cannot determine a difference between this Jebus and the Jesus of Philo or Jesus of Gemala, or Simon of Perea. All messiahs. All died. All said to have risen in 3 days.

In the end there are 4 gospels now because Eseubius and the Roman emperor said there were too many, and he wanted them cut down. Was the "criteria" *revelation* ? No. It was "Well there are 4 winds, and 4 pillars on which the Earth stands". Real nice.

Saying "most critical" scholars is crap YOU must name them, or STFU.

from my : http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...other-Look
"In 1952, a team was set in place by the world-famous, preeminent scholar, archaeologist and pioneer discoverer of Holy Land historical sites and documents, Dr. William Foxwell Albright, the professor of Semitic languages at the Johns Hopkins University. Their job was to write criticisms and scholarly work concerning all biblical texts. The team was composed of the most respected biblical scholars in the US and Europe, including Dr. John W. Bailey, Professor Emeritus, New Testament, Berkley Baptist Divinity School, Dr Albert E. Barnett, Professor, Candler School of Theology, Emory University, Dr. Walter Russell Bowel, Professor, The Protestant Episcopal Seminary, Virginia, Dr. John Bright, Professor, Union Seminary and many others.

The team of 124 clergymen and scholars came mostly from conservative, mainline universities and churches for the most part, the likes of whom will never be seen again in one place, whose names evoke the utmost and deepest respect, even if one completely disagrees with their religious views. They wrote the huge 13 volume set, now considered a valuable rare book, called "The Interpreters Bible". Today it is usually kept under lock and key in seminaries and libraries. This set includes an introduction to scholarship and looks at every single verse and word in the Bible, discusses their origins and possible meanings from various points of view. It has been updated in the 1990's, but the original scholarship is still the central fundamental summary of knowledge, which summarized scholarship from the Medieval period to the 1850's -1950's, and is therefore considered to be an interesting historical snapshot. It is also an assurance that these absolutely respected leading intellectuals from the 20th Century scholarship, of whom most were religious, have agreed to have each others names associated with their own and that they felt comfortable with what each other were saying in an academic setting and commanded world-wide respect as conservative, careful, and sincere, life-long teachers, academics and scholars.

On page 15 of "The Interpreters Bible", Dr. Herbert F. Farmer, Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University wrote about the indispensability of the texts, their importance and how the "truth" of them should be approached, after an exposition of the traditional conservative Christian view of person-hood, sin and the salvific actions of Jesus (aka Yeshua ben Josef), known as "the Christ" in human history.

"The reason has to do with the evidence afforded by the texts themselves, and calls for fuller treatment. Scholarly research into the texts themselves, has convincingly shown that they cannot be accepted in detail as they stand."